The importance of theory in the practice of democracy

Today, there is a very intense academic and public debate about the introduction of participatory and deliberative democratic innovations: while on the one hand we hear that these instruments threaten human rights and contribute to the erosion of democracy in the hands of populist, authoritarian political forces, on the other hand many emphasise the role of these institutions in renewing (liberal) democracy and strengthening democratic trust. Whichever approach is taken, the relevance of non-representative democratic institutions is growing. Thus, it is worth to examine the reasons behind their outcomes: both of the successes, and of the dysfunctionality and failure. The central thesis of this paper is that the perception of democracy by the legislative determines the functioning of these institutions. Thus, the political institutions (like initiatives and referendums) introduced to create or expand participatory democracy will be dysfunctional if they are conceived and regulated whithin the paradigm of representative democracy by the legislators, interpreting these participatory institutions as challengers or limits to representative power. The paper illustrates this through two examples. The first is the institutionalization and failed practice of direct democracy in Hungary (1989-2022), and the second is the introduction of the European Citizens' Initiative and its first ten years (2011-2021). In both cases, we see that democracy is essentially understood in a representative paradigm, where the main task of the electorate is to choose between the alternatives offered by political parties, a kind of reactive (not a proactive) role. In both cases, the introduction of participatory institutions were motivated by criticisms of the political system in question (democratic deficit, the need to bring the institution closer to the citizens, the need to give citizens the opportunity to participate directly in public affairs), but the regulation of participatory institutions were dominated by a different logic. This is to ensure the supremacy of representative democracy and to minimise the risk of a substantive challenge to representation from participatory institutions. In both cases, this resulted in creating non-representative democratic institutions that are incapable of fulfilling their original function, neither of meaningful participation, nor of expressing the opinion of the people, nor of making public decisions based on that opinion. This qualitative analysis may be relevant for three reasons. First, it helps us to understand why one of the most important democratic reforms in the EU has been an almost total failure. Secondly, the analysis shows how the elitist understanding and practice of direct democracy can lead to the emptying of the institution and the diminishing of the possibilities to protest against authoritarian power. Thirdly, these two examples show how clearly the theoretical debates about democracy are reflected in institutions: that there is a close correlation between identifying democracy primarily with representation, participation or deliberation. Our approach of democracy underpins the very basis of the whole institutional system, therefore the functioning and efficacy of the latter strongly depends on the former.