Direct Democracy and Theories of Participatory Democracy—some observations

Abstract

In democratic theory and practice, direct democracy always marks a basic contrast to representative democracy, offering citizens greater opportunities for participation and “more democracy”. Both in theory and practice, major justifications for direct democracy are derived from deficits in representative systems and from the theoretical limitations of liberal democracy. The more general attempts at criticizing liberal-representative democracy have been provided by authors who developed theories of participatory democracy (Pateman 1970; Bachrach dt. 1970). When the debate on expanding democratic participation began in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many contributions to the theory of participatory democracy did not elaborate on direct democracy as a form of extended participation. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that theories of participatory democracy, in which the main general normative justifications which also apply to direct democracy have been put forward, should be the natural ‘home base’ of direct democracy. It is not, however, the purpose of this paper to repeat these patterns of justifications, which are well known (summaries in Butler/Ranney 1994: 11 ff.; Schmidt 2000: 358 ff.). Neither will the literature with a primary focus on direct democracy be discussed here (overviews of the subject: Möckli 1994; Schiller 2002). I will, rather, look at more general theories of participatory democracy and ask how they deal with direct democracy. Do we find considerations of functions, institutional structures and models of direct democracy as instruments of participation? And what can be learnt about qualitative aspects and in relation to possible designs of qualified institutions of direct democracy? It will not be possible to present a full picture of these aspects, but rather some representative observations, including attempts to explain why approaches to democratic participation are surprisingly hesitant about direct democracy. One general reason may be that direct democracy is often perceived only as a mechanism for a popular decisive vote with a majoritarian character. We will examine whether, on the other hand, direct democracy is or can be also viewed in a broader perspective as an institution covering a complete decision-making process, from setting the agenda for an issue to the final referendum vote. In the paper, some basic conceptual elements of participatory democracy will first be recalled. Secondly, we will look at the principles of democracy in the version of Robert Dahl and James Fishkin. A third section will give a short account of Barber’s “strong democracy”. Section four looks into different segments of theory deriving from the concept of participatory democracy, in particular the deliberative democracy approach, leading to some conclusions about the relations and distances of such theories to direct democracy as a participatory institution.