Connecting Deliberative and Direct Democracy: Novel Insights from Citizens’ Initiative Review Processes

Abstract

The panel explores the question of how direct democracy – by which we mean the use of referendums and citizens’ initiatives to trigger popular votes – can be improved in order to provide better opportunities for high-quality deliberation and become more deliberation-friendly. The focus lies on Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), a specific procedure involving a minipublic which conclusions are sent to all voters ahead of a popular vote. The CIR was invented in Oregon in 2006/2008 and has been tested in various US states as well as in Finland and in a number of Swiss municipalities and cantons. The papers composing the panel will present novel theoretical and conceptual insights, as well as original empirical data and analyses, allowing to better grasp the democratic potential of CIR in polities already using the instruments of direct democracy. The general background of the panel is that, generally speaking, theorists of deliberative democracy have viewed direct democracy – also called "popular vote processes" (el-Wakil & Cheneval 2018) – with suspicion, due to its allegedly poor deliberative features (see Bächtiger 2016). With regard to four ideal conditions of deliberative democracy put forward by Joshua Cohen (1998) – i.e., (1) open participation; (2) communicative competence, (3) equality of resources, status and respect among participants, and (4) making decisions by consensus –, critics have argued that direct democracy cannot fulfil any of them (Parkinson 2001). This said, direct democracy has many features considered positive for the quality of democracy (e.g., it enhances legitimacy of the polity, provides incentives for compromise within the Parliament, and promotes a participatory political culture). Hence, it is worth exploring to what extent a democratic innovation such as CIR can address the deliberative critique of direct democracy and, eventually, improve the direct democratic procedures. References Bächtiger, A. 2016. Warum die Schweiz mehr Deliberation gut brauchen könnte. In D. Brühlmeier & P. Mastronardi (eds), Demokratie in der Krise? Chronos, pp. 29-41. Cohen, J. 1998. Democracy and liberty. In J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge UP, pp. 185-231. el-Wakil, A. & Cheneval, F. 2018. Designing Popular Votes Processes to Enhance Democratic Systems. Swiss Political Science Review 24(3): 348-358. Parkinson, J. R. 2001. Deliberative democracy and referendums. In K. Dowding et al. (eds), Challenges to democracy. Palgrave, pp. 131-52.

Title	Details
Depolarizing democracy: the transformative effect of Citizens' Initiative Review	View Paper Details
Care to share? Public information-sharing behavior in response to the Citizens’ Initiative Review	View Paper Details
Unveiling the impact of a Citizens' Initiative Review statement: enhancing voter knowledge and truth-seeking behaviours	View Paper Details