Zero-Sum Democracy? The Effects of Direct Democracy on Representative Participation

Abstract

Direct democracy has received increasing attention in the past decades, from both the academic and political spheres. Moreover, institutions of direct democracy have also been introduced more frequently throughout the world, often with the aim of improving the democratic process. However, the impact of direct democracy on the behaviour of the citizenry in representative democracy is not yet clear. This study therefore focuses on the relationship between the institutions of direct democracy and turnout in representative elections. I expect that when institutions of direct democracy fulfil a task that is traditionally part of representative democracy, electoral participation declines (zero-sum proposition). Conversely, institutions where citizens are free to add new issues to the political arena (initiatives) would positively affect turnout (positive-sum proposition). I test my argument for a panel of democracies between 1980 and 2005, and find that some institutions of direct democracy compete with representative democracy while others complement it.

Disentangling Referendums and Direct Democracy: A Defence of the Systemic Approach to Popular Vote Processes

“…elections(Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen 2010;Peters 2016), and increase the legitimacy and stability of strongly binding decisions(Chambers 2001;Parkinson 2009).What distinguishes the DSA most clearly from the DDA is that it abandons the models-thinking that has shaped much research about popular vote processes. The recent systemic turn in democratic theory criticizes models for reducing democracy to one specific practice and 'over-simplify[ing] the complexity of democratic practice'(Owen and Smith 2015, 231).…”

Can the Recall Improve Electoral Representation?

“…This question is also very uncertain, but we have some empirical indications to draw on. First, from what we know about the practice of recall in the US, it seems that it reinforces trust in the electoral representative system, as expressed by levels of turnout (Qvortrup, 2011, p. 168), contrary to what has sometimes been found about citizen initiatives and referendums (Dyck, 2009;Bauer and Fatke, 2014;Peters, 2016). This result should be tested in other institutional contexts, but I see some reasons to expect a positive effect on this specific kind of trust as well.…”

EU referendums in context: What can we learn from the Swiss case?

“…However, empirical research on more long-standing direct democracies challenges these automatic positive effects (Bühlmann and Sager 2009;Trechsel 2010;Stadelmann-Steffen and Vatter 2012). Moreover, several studies emphasize that direct democracy effects do not materialize in a vacuum but are contingent on and interact with elements of representative democracy, for example, the role of parties and the political elite (Trechsel and Sciarini 1998;Fatke 2014) or participation and elections (Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen 2010;Peters 2016). This latter argument also demonstrates that direct democracy is not, in reality, something opposed to or separated from representative democracy.…”