The idea of direct democracy crops up again and again in the public debate, usually when Europe is on the agenda. It is worth taking a good, long look at it, in the hope of clarifying matters.
Political science distinguishes between representative democracy, participative democracy and direct democracy. The last of these is believed to have been practised in the Agora of Athens in the fifth century BC, bringing together all those who were fortunate enough to be citizens. In the process of the reversal of political legitimacy in the West from the 18th century onwards, popular sovereignty found its perfect a priori expression in direct democracy, as Rousseau and all others who distrusted any delegation of powers to intermediaries believed. But for obvious practical reasons, it was agreed that the expression of the will of the people would be brought about by the election of representatives and their legislative work. In liberal democracies, the political fight would shift to parliaments, whilst focusing on the legitimacy of these, until universal suffrage was obtained.
The concept of participative democracy came much later. It reflected the will to get the citizens involved in political orientations, such as elections, involving various associations and organisations, identified using the vague term of “civil society”. Social consultation was an important development. The creation of citizens’ panels, the organisation of major debates on a given theme and the creation of consultative assemblies of citizens selected by drawing lots are recent examples of participative democracy.
The Treaty on European Union refers only to representative democracy, but recognises the right of any citizen to participate in the democratic life of the EU. Representation is organised on two separate bases: that of the citizens, through the European Parliament, and that of the member states, through the European Council and Council of the EU (article 10 TEU). The constitutional treaty devoted a specific article to the ‘principles of participative democracy’ (article I-47). Its content is listed in article 11 TEU, but in Lisbon, the title was scrapped. The role of civil society is acknowledged and the European citizens’ initiative is anchored within this framework (see EUROPE 12159). The article also confirms what the Commission had already been doing for many years: broad consultations before using its right of initiative. People seem to forget this, but the constitutional treaty itself was the result of a largely participative process, making the final decision on the past and future methods taken into use for the drafting of treaties.
None of the EU treaties refers to direct democracy. The expression “direct election” of the European Parliament was used in its day, to highlight the break with a system of MEPs in the second degree, which was practised until 1979. The European elections unquestionably proceed, therefore, from representative democracy.
The holding of a referendum is a direct democracy event. It allows the citizens to take position without an intermediary, on a given political issue. All votes cast count equally, as is not the case in the European elections (see EUROPE 12186). However, the European Union is very much involved! Why? Because since 1972, 46 referendums have been held about it: 46, as against eight EP elections. For constitutional reasons, these referendums have not been an option in just six countries: Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy and Portugal. This means that they have concerned a sizeable majority of populations.
There have been 20 referendums on countries joining the EU, sounding out their own populations; the results were positive (on some occasions, by very sizeable majorities) in all cases but Norway, where ‘no’ won out twice (in 1972 and 1994). The only referendum on a different country joining (the first wave of enlargement) was held in 1972 in France (68.3% yes). Two referendums on leaving the EU have been held: Greenland (53% yes) and the United Kingdom (51.89% yes).
The ratification of treaties on subjects other than accession has been the subject of 17 referendums: four in Denmark, eight in Ireland, two in France and one each for the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Spain. Denmark went to the people twice about the Maastricht treaty; Ireland twice on Amsterdam and a further twice on Lisbon (see EUROPE 9991). The constitutional treaty was approved by the people of Spain (see EUROPE 8893) and Luxembourg (see EUROPE 8988), but rejected by those of France (see EUROPE 8957) and the Netherlands (see EUROPE 8960). Only the Irish were called upon to vote on the European budgetary treaty, which they did in 2012.
Two populations have been invited to take position on joining the euro: the result was negative in both Denmark (2000) and Sweden (2003). A consultation of this kind was ruled out for new joiners from 2004 onwards, as they undertook to adopt the single currency when they signed their accession treaties. Finally, there were four more referendums, each on a highly specific subject: joining the unified patent jurisdiction (Denmark, 2014), the draft agreement submitted by the ‘troika’ in the framework of the public debt crisis (Greece, 2015), EU/Ukraine association agreement (Netherlands, 2016) and an agreement on the relocation of migrants (Hungary, 2016; result invalidated).
This reminder forces us to conclude that most EU populations have used direct democracy, more than once in some cases, about the EU itself. Obviously, this invariably took place within a national framework (as there is no such thing as a referendum at European level) and by initiative of the national governments. These votes could be opportunities to express rejection, either of being a member of the EU (Greenland, Brexit), or to take position on a modification of the treaties, or on joining the Eurozone, etc... but with the sole exception of Norway, never on accession to the EU.
If we disregard the case of Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty (first vote no, second vote yes), there have been four referendums favourable to the European Union since 2004 (Spain, Luxembourg, Denmark and Ireland), but six were lost (France, Netherlands, Greece, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Hungary), with more than half of them of major importance. This should be all it takes for the senior echelons of the EU to be seriously leery of such exercises. It is also an argument against any inclination to negotiate a new treaty, given that some ratification processes are required to feature a popular vote; considerable pressure would, moreover, be brought to bear in France, where there is still a feeling that the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty flouted the ‘vox populi’ expressed in 2005 (see EUROPE 9598).
The idea that Europe has something to fear from the will of the people is an argument that has been overused by parties hostile to it, as we will no doubt see once more during the European election campaigns. In the mouths of nationalist leaders, the elections should, for want of anything better, be a true ‘referendum’ for or against the EU, for or against the powers that be. At the same time, the institutions of the EU, particularly the Commission and the Parliament, are scrambling to reconnect with the grassroots citizens, for instance plying them with projects they imagine will please them (limiting migration, Erasmus for all, European Solidarity Corps, Discover EU, putting an end to changing the clocks twice a year, etc…) – as they cannot consult them directly.
To complicate matters further, the digital era in which we are now living is hugely conducive to citizens’ direct expression. It is not just about the discussions, good or bad, which flourish on Facebook, but about the votes that people cast every day. Newspapers’ websites hold mini-referendums on topical issues, in which Internet users can vote and find out the results immediately. Taking position or sharing information on social networks triggers a cascade of responses, positive or negative, in a single click: what is a ‘like’ if not a vote?
Major political programmes on radio and TV are opportunities for citizens’ views to be broadcast in real time; they end with a quick survey to see whether the guest speakers managed to win over the audience. The entire social body is becoming saturated with this ‘real-time democracy’, in which people are excited about being part of a modern-day Agora ‘broadcast live’, whilst politicians are seen as prisoners of their own traditional methods. It is therefore not surprising if an important movement such as the ‘Yellow Jackets’ in France has invoked direct democracy and that Swiss practices of almost constant referendums have attracted increased interest. Any rejection of direct democracy fuels conspiracy theories, as it is tantamount to allowing the (symbiotically related) political and economic élites to continue their dark and evil works, on the back of the ordinary people.
Unlike conventional political parties, populist forces have truly got the measure of this phenomenon. It is no coincidence that at the European Parliament, the political family ‘Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy’ is made up of extreme Eurosceptics (including Nigel Farage’s infamous UKIP) who are all for making maximum use out of the referendum. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit