Search results
- On the national level, procedures and usage are most frequent in Europe and Latin America, whereas in Africa, Asia, and North America their number is small. Switzerland traditionally has the most elaborated system of direct democracy at the national, cantonal, and municipal levels.
www.britannica.com › topic › direct-democracy
People also ask
Which countries have the most direct democracy?
How many democracies are there in the world?
Which countries are considered full democracies?
How many people live in a democratic country?
Two dozen countries around the world, including Canada (8.88), Germany (8.8), Australia (8.71), and the United Kingdom (8.28.) More than four dozen countries are ranked as flawed democracies. These include the United States, with a score of 7.85, which suffers from low scores in the functioning of government and political culture.
- Overview
- History and theoretical context
- Forms of direct democracy
direct democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy. Direct democracies may operate through an assembly of citizens or by means of referenda and initiatives in which citizens vote on issues instead of for candidates or parties. The term is also sometimes used...
The most important historical reference of direct democracy is to assembly democracy in ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where decisions were taken by an Assembly (Ecclesia) of some 1,000 male citizens. Later, people’s assemblies were used in many Swiss cantons and towns as well as in town meetings in some American colonies and states. Early U.S. states also started using procedures in which constitutions or constitutional amendments were ratified by referenda, which later became common in the country. Popular sovereignty, proclaimed in the French Revolution (1787–99), had rather been distorted, however, in Napoleon’s autocratic plebiscites. Switzerland and many U.S. states incorporated direct democracy in their constitutions during the 19th century, while Germany and few other countries adopted some elements after World War I. In a more general perspective, the ensuing introduction or practical use of direct-democratic institutions originated from three major types of developments:
1.Social class conflict to curb the political power of a dominating oligarchy (e.g., Switzerland, U.S. states).
2.Processes toward political or territorial autonomy or independence for legitimizing and integrating the new state unit (beginning after World War I).
3.Processes of democratic transformation from authoritarian rule (e.g., Germany’s regional states after 1945, some Latin American countries).
Modern democracy most often developed not from the starting point of assembly democracy but, under absolutist or feudal conditions, from people gradually claiming a larger share of political representation and extension of representative voting rights. Constitutions, civil rights, and universal suffrage, which had been achieved in European and many other countries (generally by the end of World War I), were usually identified with “democracy” on the normative basis of the principles of popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality. Thus, in many countries and theories, these principles have been tied to and absorbed by a narrow notion of representative democracy rather than being used to support a more comprehensive concept of democracy.
Normative theory of direct democracy still rests basically on popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the outstanding theorist of unanimous consent of the people for a free republican constitution and subsequent forms of participation. During the 19th century, these principles were increasingly challenged, or they were deprived of their substance beyond representative institutions. So, in many countries, direct-democratic institutions have not been established or implemented since representative elites developed a strong interest in monopolizing power. In addition, pragmatic theories contended that direct democracy could not work under space and time conditions of large modern states.
Direct democracy comes in a variety of institutional forms, with the common feature of procedures focusing on popular votes on political issues. Their main forms can be distinguished by the actors who start the procedure. Mandatory referenda have to be held when a referendum vote is required by law (e.g., a constitution) for deciding a specific subject. Referenda of governmental authorities take place when a president, cabinet, or legislature decides, under preregulated conditions or ad hoc, to call a popular vote on a particular issue. Sometimes, a minority of a legislature also is entitled to demand such a vote. Citizens’ initiatives that are supported by a required number of signatures allow the electorate to vote on political measures proposed by a group, on bills approved by a legislature but not yet in force, or on existing laws (citizen-demanded referenda). A popular vote may be binding according to the simple or specific majority or turnout requirements for a valid vote or may be defined as only consultative or advisory.
Students save 67%! Learn more about our special academic rate today.
Learn More
Some jurisdictions provide an agenda initiative that allows citizens with the support of a minimum number of signatures to place a particular issue on the agenda of a government or legislative authority. Such proposals have to be considered by the authority addressed, but they do not lead to a referendum vote.
There are some ambiguity and controversy as to whether procedures with a focus on directly electing or recalling holders of public office (executive positions, legislators) may be meaningfully included in the concept of direct democracy. These procedures refer, in fact, to the institutional system of representative democracy and its typical processes and, therefore, are not at the core of debates on direct democracy. However, there may be some differences in the degree to which voters have a direct influence on the final outcome of an electoral procedure (e.g., fixed or flexible list of candidates, direct vote, or vote for members of an intermediate body). In recall procedures, interrupting routine patterns of fixed office terms may stress the aspect of citizens reclaiming control of office functions. In practice, recall options of executive office holders are much more common than of members of legislative bodies or of complete legislatures.
Procedural types of direct democracy should be distinguished according to the main initiating actor of a procedure because they typically show different features regarding the agenda setter, the contents and wording of the proposal, the function of the ballot vote in terms of legitimation, innovation, and so on.
- Theo Schiller
Most western countries have representative systems. Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy.
Country Rankings. This year, we have included annual global rankings of country performance for each of the categories of democratic performance—Representation, Rights, Rule of Law, and Participation— rather than classifying regimes on an overall basis.
Feb 2, 2022 · Examples of Direct Democracy: Athens and Switzerland . Perhaps the best example of direct democracy existed in ancient Athens, Greece. While it excluded many groups including women, enslaved people, and immigrants from voting, Athenian direct democracy required men over the age of 20 to vote on all major issues of government.
The world has become much more democratic over the last two centuries. Many more countries have become democracies over the last two hundred years. The chart shows — based on data from Regimes of the World (RoW) — that a much larger share of countries are now democracies.
