Peter Spáč Direct democracy —The original type of democracy — —Direct vs. representative democracy — —All citizens entitled to participate on all political decisions — —Examples: —Ancient Athens —Parish meetings in England —J. J. Rousseau – the renaissance of direct democracy —Landsgemeinde in Switzerland Direct democracy —Shift from direct to representative democracy: —Effectiveness —Politics as permanent occupation —More complicated issues — —Result: —Direct democracy now only as a supplementary tool —Dominance of representative democracy — — — Landsgemeinde, Glarus (SWI), 2019 Image result for landsgemeinde glarus 2019 Referendum —The main tool of direct democracy in presence — —Origin in Switzerland in 13th century — —Mechanism which allows citizens to express their attitude on a specific question mostly by either a „yes“ or a „no“ vote — —Similar attributes as elections – universal suffrage, secret vote, equal weight of votes etc. — Referendum - types —Obligatory – must be held —Facultative – may be held — —Binding – results bind the elected representatives —Consultative – results only as a recommendation — —Preliminary – held before the actual decision —Subsequent – held after the actual decision Positives of referendum —Higher legitimacy of decisions — —Inclusion of citizens into decision-making process — —Encouragement of public discussion — —Indicator of public opinion — — Negatives of referendum —Polarization of society — —Limitation of expression - nothing between „yes“ and „no“ option — —Ability of citizens to handle more complicated and technical issues — —Referendum as a demonstration of power used by non-democratic regimes Tradition of referendum? —1st Czechoslovak Republic (1918-1938): —Constitution – the government may call a referendum if the parliament declined its law proposal —The implementing law was never adopted — —Other periods – no mention of referendum — —Split of ČSFR – a constitutionally stated referendum was not used — —Result – no nationwide referendum held until 1993 Referendum in Slovakia since 1993 Formal aspects —All main attributes defined in Constitution — —Obligatory: —Confirmation of a constitutional law on entering into or withdrawing from an alliance with other states — —Facultative: —About „important issues of public interest“ —Excluded issues – basic rights and liberties, taxes, state budget Formal aspects —Initiation: —Petition of at least 350 000 citizens —Resolution of the parliament — —President calls the referendum: —Not within 90 days before parliamentary elections —But it may be held on the day of parliamentary elections Formal aspects —A referendum is valid if: —The turnout reaches at least 50 % and —A decision is endorsed by at least 50 % of those who participated — —Effect: —The result is promulgated by the parliament as a law —For the next 3 years neither the parliament may modify this result nor another referendum on the same issue may be held What will we track? —Who initiated the referendums — — —What were the official and real motives of these subjects — — —What were the results and their impact — — Part I – Referendum as a part of election campaign Referendum 1994 —High impacts of economic transformation in Slovakia since 1989 (inflation, unemployment) — —Slovak ex-communists (SDL) resigned to be a protest party due to their intellectual profile — —Secession of radical leftist ZRS (Association of Slovak Workers) in 1994 only a few months before election — —Referendum as a part of their electoral campaign how to mobilize protest voters — — — Referendum 1994 —Topic – reveal of property used in privatization and auctions (against „the rich“) — —ZRS started a petition but eventually the idea of referendum was supported in parliament — —Referendum was held only one month after elections à ZRS could lead both campaigns at once — — Referendum 1994 Votes % Total 773 624 19,96 Out of it Yes 724 448 93,64 No 30 733 3,97 —Question – Would you agree to adopt a law about reveal the origin of finances used for privatization and auctions? — Elections 1994 Party Votes (in %) Seats Seats (in %) HZDS 34,96 61 40,67 SV 10,41 18 12 Hungarians 10,18 17 11,33 KDH 10,08 17 11,33 DÚ 8,57 15 10 ZRS 7,34 13 8,67 SNS 5,4 9 6 Others 13,06 0 0 Referendum 1994 —Initiator: —Official – the parliament —Real – ZRS and its leader Ján Ľupták — —Motives: —Official – reveal of property from privatization —Real – mobilize protest voters and raise the chances of ZRS in parliamentary elections — —Results: —Referendum was not valid —ZRS entered parliament — Referendum 1998 —In 1998 Mečiar’s HZDS faced: —A decline of public support since elections 1994 —A risk that it will be in opposition after elections 1998 — —Referendum as a tool how to: —Mobilize supporters of HZDS —Potentially harm the next government if created by opposition parties — —Topic – ban of privatization of strategic companies (nationalist sentiments) — Referendum 1998 —Petition: —Started in summer 1998 (two months before elections) —Even the employees of civil service (controlled by HZDS) were assigned to help with the petition! — —Referendum joined with parliamentary election to secure its maximum mobilizing effect — Referendum 1998 Votes % Total 1 772 223 44,25 Out of it Yes 1 432 845 80,48 No 266 991 14,99 —Question – Do you favor that National Council adopts a constitutional law to ban privatization of selected strategic companies? — Referendum 1998 —Initiator: —HZDS – the party of that time Prime Minister Mečiar — —Motives: —Official – to secure the property of strategic companies —Real – to increase chances of HZDS in parliamentary election — —Results: —Referendum was not valid —HZDS won the election but ended in opposition — Referendum 2010 —Very similar to referendum 1994 — —In 2008 a civic association Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) started a petition against unfair media fees — —In November 2008 SaS emerged as a political party — —In 2009 the original petition was widened and was aimed to call for a referendum —Reducing the MPs immunity —Limits on prices of cars used by government officials etc. Referendum 2010 —SaS wanted to join the referendum with elections 2010 — — —President Gašparovič effectively prevented this effort — — —SaS compensated this by gathering signatures until the date of parliamentary elections — Referendum 2010 —1. Repeal of the duty to pay a fee for services provided to public by Slovak television and radio — —2. Extension of the possibility to hear a performance of a National Council’s member as a misdemeanour — —3. 100 instead of 150 MPs — —4. Price of governmental vehicles only up to 40K EUR — —5. Parliamentary and European elections on Internet — —6. Ban of the right of reply for public officers in press — Referendum 2010 Votes % Total 998 142 22,84 1 Yes 870 864 87,24 No 90 058 9,02 2 Yes 952 281 95,4 No 17 333 1,73 3 Yes 925 888 92,76 No 38 450 3,85 4 Yes 886 767 88,84 No 61 532 6,16 5 Yes 703 336 70,46 No 221 847 22,22 6 Yes 747 983 74,93 No 134 163 13,44 Elections 2010 Party Votes (in %) Seats Seats (in %) Smer 34,79 62 41,33 SDKÚ 15,42 28 18,67 SaS 12,14 22 14,67 KDH 8,52 15 10 Most 8,12 14 9,33 SNS 5,07 9 6 Others 13,06 0 0 Referendum 2010 —Initiator: —Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) — —Motives: —Official – solving several public topics —Real – mobilize voters and raise chances of SaS in election — —Results: —Referendum was not valid —SaS entered parliament and also the government — Part II – Referendum as a way how to challenge the elections Referendum 2000 —Government of M. Dzurinda formed after 1998: —Negative economic impact of previous era —Decline of public support — —Non-cooperative parliamentary opposition: —Mečiar’s HZDS and nationalist SNS —Newly created populist party SMER (Direction) led by Robert Fico Referendum 2000 —In 2000 HZDS and SNS started a petition for referendum about early elections — —Official motive – the inability of government to solve economic problems — —Party SMER originally refused the idea but eventually supported it — —The question whether an early elections may be called based on referendum results — — — Referendum 2000 Votes % Total 816 254 20,03 Out of it Yes 759 124 92,74 No 39 363 4,80 —Question – Do you favor that National Council agrees on early elections up to 150 days after the referendum? — Referendum 2000 —Initiator: —HZDS and SNS – that time opposition parties — —Motives: —Official – inability of the government to solve economic problems of Slovakia —Real – aim of the Dzurinda’s government to investigate scandals of Mečiar’s government? — —Results: —Referendum was not valid — Referendum 2004 —Second government led by M. Dzurinda: —Vast liberal economic reforms – taxes, healthcare —High frustration of voters — —Opposition: —Since 2002 SMER became the main opposition party —SMER shifted to social democracy and launched harsh criticism of governmental reforms Referendum 2004 —In November 2003 the trade unions started petition for referendum about early elections — —Opposition parties: —Supported the petition —Some of them actively gathered the signatures —SMER even made a financial contribution — —Government logically opposed the idea and advised its voters to ignore the referendum — — Referendum 2004 Votes % Total 1 503 784 35,86 Out of it Yes 1 305 023 86,78 No 179 524 11,93 —Question – Do you favor that National Council agrees on early elections in 2004? — Referendum 2004 —Initiator: —Trade unions backed by opposition parties (mostly SMER) — —Motives: —Early elections and mobilization of citizens aimed against the government — —Results: —Referendum was not valid —Party SMER tested its electoral potential — Part III – Referendum as a way how to solve (or create) problems Referendum 1997 —The era of Vladimír Mečiar: —Decline of quality of democracy —High polarization of society and domestic politics — —Risk of inability to elect the new president in parliament à opposition parties started petition for a referendum about direct presidential elections — —After 350 000 signatures were acquired the government reacted by proposing a referendum about integration to NATO — — — — Referendum 1997 —Two initiatives at the same time: —Direct elections of president —Integration to NATO (3 separate questions) — —President called a joint referendum with 4 questions — —Mečiar’s government announced that president broke the Constitution — —Ministry of interior published ballots only with the 3 NATO questions — — — — Referendum 1997 Referendum 1997 Votes % Total 319 727 9,53 Question 1 Yes 130 052 39,02 No 154 090 46,28 Question 2 Yes 29 628 8,87 No 232 197 69,8 Question 3 Yes 42 336 12,71 No 218 956 65,79 Referendum 1997 —Initiators: —Opposition – presidential elections —Government - NATO — —Motives: —Opposition – to enable the election of president, to mobilize voters and to avoid Mečiar to concentrate too much power —Government – to block the effort of the opposition — —Results: —Referendum was not valid (marred referendum) —For more than a year Slovakia had no president —Frustration of voters against the government — Referendum 2003 —The integration to the European Union — — —Facultative referendum as the others — — —A common effort of all relevant political parties to mobilize voters and ensure the needed 50 % turnout — — Referendum 2003 Votes % Total 2 176 990 52,15 Out of it Yes 2 012 870 92,46 No 135 031 6,20 —Question – Do you agree to the proposal that the Slovak Republic should become a member state of the European Union? — Referendum 2003 —Initiator: —Parliament (not relevant) — —Motives: —Integration to the EU — —Results: —Referendum was valid —Slovakia entered the EU — Referendum 2015 —Alliance for the Family — —The official aim to `protect the family in Slovakia` — —Expressed threats: —Same-sex marriages —Adoptions by homosexuals —Anti-family values in general — —Petition with more than 400 thousand signatures http://www.alianciazarodinu.sk/foto/page/54364a1f7b711.jpg Referendum 2015 —Original aim – four questions: —Special rights and protection given only to marriage (among all types of relationships) —Marriage only as a relationship of a man and a woman —Ban of adoptions by homosexuals —Parents` right to decide about the content of education (sexual behavior, euthanasia) — —President Kiska consulted the Constitutional court: —First question banned —The date of referendum postponed to February 2015 — http://www.alianciazarodinu.sk/foto/page/54364a1f7b711.jpg Referendum 2015 https://a-static.projektn.sk/2015/01/IMG_3426.jpg http://www.alianciazarodinu.sk/foto/page/54364a1f7b711.jpg Referendum 2015 —Most political parties remained fairly silent — —A fear from losing Catholic voters? — —Expressed views: —KDH and SNS favored the referendum —SaS rejected the idea and asked people to ignore it — —SMER, SDKU only advised people to participate without holding a side — Referendum 2015 Votes % Total 944 674 21,41 Only man – woman marriage Yes 892 719 94,50 No 39 088 4,13 No adoptions for homosexuals Yes 873 224 92,43 No 52 389 5,54 Parents` say in education Yes 853 241 90,32 No 69 349 7,34 Referendum 2015 —Initiator: —Alliance for the Family — —Motives: —Official – Protection of family —Real – Mostly banning rights of homosexuals —Official = real? — —Results: —Referendum was not valid — Referendums in Slovakia Year Topic Turnout Result 1 1994 Privatization 19,96 Not valid 2 1997 NATO / President 9,53 Not valid / marred 3 1998 Strategic companies 44,25 Not valid 4 2000 Early elections 20,03 Not valid 5 2003 EU 52,15 Valid – yes 6 2004 Early elections 35,86 Not valid 7 2010 Various 22,84 Not valid 8 2015 Family 21,41 Not valid Referendums that did not happen —Only several unsuccessful efforts to call for a referendum — —1993 – petition of HZDS: —Not enough signatures — —1999 – petition of HZDS and SNS: —Minority languages and strategic privatization —Against the Constitution Initiators —In almost all cases referendums were initiated by political parties — —Usage of both possible channels: —Petitions —Resolution of parliament — —Exceptions: —2004 – Trade unions —2015 – Alliance for the Family Motives —Two types of referendums: — —About issues: —1994 – reveal of property gained by privatization —1997 – presidential elections and NATO —1998 – ban of privatization of strategic companies —2010 – various topics – immunity, price of cars etc. —2015 – homosexual marriages, adoptions, education — —Without material issues: —2000 – early elections —2004 – early elections Referendums with issues — —Official motive only of secondary value (or not relevant at all) — —Primary concern aimed at different motives — —1994, 1998, 2010 – increasing chances of initiating parties (ZRS, HZDS, SaS) in parliamentary elections — —1997 – blocking the initiative of political opponents — —2015 – exception from this trend Referendums without issues — —The official motive equals the real motive — —An openly expressed aim of initiators to end the term of government and call for early elections — —Secondary aim to mobilize supporters (even in case the referendum is not valid) — — Results —7 out of 8 referendums were not valid — —Main reason – inability to reach the 50 % turnout — —One referendum was marred — —One referendum was valid yet – integration to the EU Legacy for the future —Based on experience the referendum in Slovakia may be used as a mobilizing tool: — —Quite easy to initiate it — —Cheap campaign (for the initiator) — —Low turnout may be explained by the stance of political opponents who advised their voters to stay at home — —Referendum may have a sense for its initiator even if it is not valid à official vs. real motives