Suksi states in his outstanding book that: “Modern democracy is mainly based on the hypothesis that voting in elections for representative bodies fulfils the ideal of popular codetermination. The people lend their decision making rights for a certain period of time to an assembly which in principle ought to reflect the opinions of the people. These assumptions have been challenged. It has been questioned whether democracy can be implemented simply by exercising the right to vote in periodic elections....Representative government constitutes the dominant mechanism of national decision making. However, from time to time, this form of government seems to be in difficulties. In this regard, the direct participation of the people, most notably through the referendum has been proposed as a remedy” (Markku Suksi, Bringing in the People: A Comparison of Constitutional Forms and Practices of the Referendum, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, p.1). As an instrument of direct democracy, referendum is one of the significant topics of constitutional law literature and comprehensive studies have been carried out on this issue. From the historical perspective, direct democracy could be tracked back to ancient Greek and Roman societies. With the continuous development in democracy movements, many countries begin to utilize referendum as a legitimate constituent in their constitutional systems. Referendums are most commonly used form of direct democracy today. In a referendum, citizens may vote to approve or reject policy, legislation or constitutional amendments that have already been passed or proposed by the legislature or government. It is believed that democratic regimes rely on the consent of citizens rather than on the coercive power of governments to ensure the rule of law. Referendum is accepted in almost all democracies as a legitimate democratic device. Schuck & Vreese emphasizes the impact of referendum on legitimacy as: “...referendums increase the legitimacy of political institutions and are seen as crucial instruments to form a greater sense of political efficacy and to engage citizens. Stimulating citizen participation in political decision making is seen as an effective way to prevent the rise of antidemocratic movements” (Andreas R., T. Schuck & Claes H. De Vreese, "Public Support for Referendums: The Role of the Media", West European Politics, Vol. 34, No.2, March 2011, p.181). Referendum appears to be the most democratic means of filtering public opinion into public policy, however, several arguments are advanced in opposition to referendums. First off all, since the referendum requires the majority of votes to affirm a political decision, the referendum process is mostly seen as the tyranny of majority. The fundamental criticism of majority tyranny focus on that referendum’s principle of majority approval puts the right of minority groups in jeopardy. Opponents of referendums also argue that, referendum weakens representative democracy by undermining the role and importance of elected representatives and voters do not always have the knowledge, experience, education and the capacity or information to make informed decisions about the issue at stake. Another criticism against referendum is that the part of the public that understands the issue is forced to vote yes or no, when its usual position is neither. There is no place for comment. Media monopoly has also been considered as a threat in the referendum process on the ground that it could manipulate the public opinion and referendum results. Indeed, especially when the media is government-controlled, it may be the case that the media simply follows the government line during the referendum process. In this study, the pros and cons of referendum will be analyzed in detail in order to describe the scope and the functioning of the institution.
Keywords: Constitutional law, Direct democracy, Referendum, Legitimacy, Political efficacy
|
