About this Research Topic
Since the 2000s, protest movements claiming more political rights for citizens have targeted established democracies all over the world. In Taiwan, the 2014 Sunflower Student Movement quickly demanded more civic and political rights. Four years later, France has experienced the largest social movement since May 1968, the Yellow Vests, which crystallized on an agenda of democratic reforms. In 2019, Chileans joined the street to demand a new constitution while at the same time Lebanese mobilized to request a removal of the corrupt political class. Despite their diversity, these movements have in common to focus on strategies to grant citizens more control over democratic processes and more power on the formulating of public policies. Among protesters, direct democracy institutions emerged as privileged democratic tools to achieve such objectives in a context where public support for direct democracy has been rising since 2010 and now exceeds 70% in OECD countries. How can this appetite for direct democracy be explained? What are the effects of direct democracy on public policies, political institutions, and citizens?
Yet, in public debates, it is the question of "effects" that is largely covered. Is there a risk for fundamental rights? For minorities? Are the decisions conservative? Does it reinforce mistrust or increase confidence? Does it increase stability or produce instability? The effects of direct democratic institutions have been empirically studied for at least 40 years, with many peer-reviewed articles coming out every year in the last decade. However, most of them are based on the longstanding experience of direct democracy in Switzerland and in the United States. Only in recent years, academic research has begun to push the empirical analysis further, taking advantage of the fact that more and more countries around the world are implementing direct democracy tools.
Today, the term “direct democracy” refers primarily to contemporary forms of direct legislation by citizens, which include citizens-initiated referenda and mandatory referenda. In the first case, citizens have the right to initiate and vote on laws, thereby gaining the same rights as parliamentarians, and thus competing with them. In the second case, citizens, through a referendum, become a veto player for several decisions, including constitutional ones.
Beyond the definition and variants of direct legislation, this Research Topic gives an important place to the question of its effects. If such legislation were to be adopted, what would be the effects on public policy, the economy, or the behavior and attitudes of citizens and elected officials? Given the abundant empirical literature on these questions, we wish to update what is known, what is less certain, and what remains in the shadows. Two categories of effects are covered: direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are those that emerge directly from initiatives and referendums. Indirect effects, on the other hand, relate to areas affected by the fact that the risk of an initiative or referendum is possible.
Yet, in public debates, it is the question of "effects" that is largely covered. Is there a risk for fundamental rights? For minorities? Are the decisions conservative? Does it reinforce mistrust or increase confidence? Does it increase stability or produce instability? The effects of direct democratic institutions have been empirically studied for at least 40 years, with many peer-reviewed articles coming out every year in the last decade. However, most of them are based on the longstanding experience of direct democracy in Switzerland and in the United States. Only in recent years, academic research has begun to push the empirical analysis further, taking advantage of the fact that more and more countries around the world are implementing direct democracy tools.
Today, the term “direct democracy” refers primarily to contemporary forms of direct legislation by citizens, which include citizens-initiated referenda and mandatory referenda. In the first case, citizens have the right to initiate and vote on laws, thereby gaining the same rights as parliamentarians, and thus competing with them. In the second case, citizens, through a referendum, become a veto player for several decisions, including constitutional ones.
Beyond the definition and variants of direct legislation, this Research Topic gives an important place to the question of its effects. If such legislation were to be adopted, what would be the effects on public policy, the economy, or the behavior and attitudes of citizens and elected officials? Given the abundant empirical literature on these questions, we wish to update what is known, what is less certain, and what remains in the shadows. Two categories of effects are covered: direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are those that emerge directly from initiatives and referendums. Indirect effects, on the other hand, relate to areas affected by the fact that the risk of an initiative or referendum is possible.
Keywords: direct democracy, democratic processes, public policies, referendum
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
