On 10 March, the Albert Hirschman Center on Democracy hosted a webinar discussing the benefits and risks of referendums and initiatives with two recognized scholars in the field of democracy: Susan Stokes, Director of the Chicago Center on Democracy at the University of Chicago and Uwe Serdült, Principal Researcher at the Center for Democracy Studies in Aarau, Switzerland.
The conversation focused on discussing the findings of book The Devil is in the Details. Referendum and Political Power in Latin America, co-edited by AHCD Research Fellow Yanina Welp, from a broader perspective. While the book focuses on Latin America, the discussion identified more general ongoing trends. As the webinar took place just a few days after a national vote in Switzerland approved the introduction of a clause to outlaw face coverings, including the Islamic burka and niqab, in public spaces, the issue was taken into account. Even if Switzerland is not the first European country in doing so (France and Austria already did it), it is the only one approving the rule by referendum, thus reopening the debate on referendums and human rights and minorities protection.
Uwe Serdült offered an assessment of this experience by noting that three bills had been voted on the previous weekend: one about faces covering, as well as another about electronic identification and a third on the free trade agreement with Indonesia. These three completely different topics were addressed on the same day, something which happens quite frequently in Switzerland. Even more, the campaign for the new call, to take place in June, already started. Serdült also explained the particularity of the Swiss institutional design of mechanisms of direct democracy, which is only activated by law and by signatures collection. This differentiates this case from Latin American trends (commonly activated by the executives). Finally, Serdült provided a complete picture of institutional performance and its role at the core of Swiss democracy, noting "it is just part of Swiss policies", as well as the current challenges it poses, for instance because of the lack of judicial review. "Where are the boundaries? We need safeguards", he said.
Susan Stokes recommended the reading of the book not only for people interested in the mechanisms of direct democracy in Latin America, but also for people interested in electoral politics and institutions as in the recent history of some countries such as Panama. Stokes reflected on the difficult relationship between referendums and legitimacy by asking why the problem of legitimacy exists: "Because the governments do bad things", she suggested. Pointing to examples from Latin America and the US, such as California, she asked whether "citizens view decisions that arrive through these mechanisms as more legitimate than the ones promoted by representative institutions?" The answer is not an easy one, she said after presenting competing arguments. The example of the Colombian Peace plebiscite, which was defeated, was used to exemplify procedures and challenges.
The conversation then tackled many other different axes related to democracy and referendums, including the role of digital media, providing a great overview of theoretical discussion and empirical illustrations of the current uses of referendums and initiatives.
READ MORE in an interview on the book with co-editor Yanina Welp.