A short presentation at the FES’s int.seminar on

1. The quality of a referendum process depends from it’s designIn order to create a dynamic relation between citizens and the political system (Direct) Democracy (DD) has to become interactive ! A short presentation at the FES’s int.seminar on Civil Society, Participative Democracy and Politics Lisbon , March 13th , 2008 by Andreas Gross (Switzerland) Director of the Scient. Inst. for Direct Democracy in St. Ursanne, University lect., Swiss MP & Chairman of the socialdem.Group in the Parl. Assembly of the Council of Europe www.andigross.ch info@andigross.ch

2. We should overcome the banalisation of the terms Freedom and Democracy Democracy is more then a choice; it enables us to be free. Freedom means, to act together on our common life (« Life is not a destiny ») Democracy constitutes the rules, rights and procedures in order to prevent conflicts to be solved violently

3. Representative democracy is an essential part of Democracy.But it should not have the monopole of Democracy ! Indirect Democracy (ID) enables you to vote your representatives; Direct Democracy (DD) enables you to vote on important issues you don’t want to leave to your Representatives; The citizens should be able to decide, when they want to decide themselves.

4. The democratization of Democracy is an ongoing, never ending process:Every democracy is unfinished,DD is a little bit less unfinished than ID ! Democracy was reduced to represent. Democracy in a time, where most people couldn’t read or write and were enable to make political judgments ! Today modern citizens know often as much about politics as MP’s: They feel frustrated that ID excludes them and reduces them to objects instead of the subjects of politics. A society in which citizens feel excluded looses a enormous amount of creative potentials, misses collective learning options and undervalues itself !

5. A bit more Direct Democracy means that you share more power with the citizens, the only source of legitimate political power Nobody should have so much power, that he or she has the “privilege” not to have to learn... Sharing the political power, that means, giving 2 % of the citizens the power to ask for a Referendum on a law voted in the Parliament or a legisl.change they propose to the society, means: everybody has to listen more everybody tries to convince and to discuss Politics become softer, more inclusive and more communicative !

6. In order to avoid a alienation between the civil society and it’s political system , Direct Democracy has to be carefully designed ! No quick fix: Everybody (Citizens, MP’s, administ., society) needs and gets the time they need : A Referendum is a process over 2 - 4 years: 1 year for the citizens, 1 year for Gov+Parl., 1/2 a year for the Public debate and campaign ! In order to share the power and not to be exclusive and make the system responsive you should ask more than 1% of the electorates signatures for a Referendum and not more than 2% for a popular proposition (“Initiative”) No quorums: They kill communication !

7. In a carefully designed DD you have to understand real change as a collective learning process Everybody has the right to propose where and how he or she thinks changes are needed (Open Agenda Setting and Attention providing) More public debates and private discussions (the soul of DD) create a much better informed society The invitation to decide, creates a sense of belonging (Integration) The right to participate, reduces distances and increases identifications (“Democratic patriotism”) After you participated in the decision making, you are best qualified to implement the decision

8. What Portugal 1998 tried to realize in 3 weeks, needed in Switzerland 31 years ! ... and 4 popular initiatives (2 pro and 2 against abortion)... ....and 2 popular referendums... ...that means 5 popular votes of all Swiss citizens within 31 years (1971-2002) !

9. One of the classical DD-change-processes by collective learning, which modernized the Swiss society: 1971: Swiss women got the right to vote - and immediately launched a radical popular initiative for free abortion rights ! 1971-1976: Official CH started to discuss, reflect and made intermediate proposals 1976-1978: Radical women retired first initiative, laun-ched a second more moderate one: 1978 this again as well as the parliam. Compromise were rejected in a popular vote 1980’s: 2 cons.”Pro Life” Initiatives were launched and rejected in popular votes 1992-2002: A broad based parliam.Initiative - free within 12 months - was elaborated and past in a popular vote !

10. What you may learn from the Swiss/Portgugese abortion-referenda comparison: Dont be afraid from the people What concerns the people most, have to be decided by themselves Design clear rules (every Ref. is binding, Parliament may propose counter-proposals) Let the people also propose Referenda Understand Propositions - from where ever they come - as a invitation to think and discuss Take this as a process Give the time the time it needs ! Do not hurry in public debates

11. Direct Democracy makes politics more communicative Citizens will try to convince each other In order to be convincing they have to listen and to speak with each other Public Discourses get more substance People see, hear and learn more A learning society may solve problems quicker and more in the interest of the people.

12. DD on local and regional level is a way to restore confidence in democracy in order to constituteDD on the national, the European and global level DD reduces apathy and cynism DD restores trust in yourself and others DD reduces the personalization of politics and opens the public sphere to the essential and hidden questions of the society and our times

13. The quality of the design of the process determines the quality of DD, the outcome and the quality of the side - effects The design of the process is essential for the « usefulness » of DD for any community. Each level (local, regional,national, transnational) requires a specific design