Direct Democracy in Germany

Full Transcript:

Hello and welcome to Rules in Perspective, a new segment on the Rules of the Game channel. In this new segment I review and comment on my own podcast episodes. My name is Stephan Kyburz and I am the host of Rules of the Game – discussing democratic institutions.

I was wondering how I can make the podcast episodes more useful to listeners. By reflecting on the discussions I have with guests from around the world, I will point out the lessons I learnt, pick out some of the most insightful and striking matters in each episode, and share my opinions.

So this is the first edition of Rules in Perspective. Please let me know in the comments what you think about this new format. And if you like the video, give it some love by pressing the like button.

It is important to mention that these are my personal comments and do not necessarily reflect the views of my guests or the organizations they work for.

In episode 36 I talked to Jan Renner, and we discussed the current development of direct democracy in Germany. Jan is a young democracy activist and the Executive Director of the Mehr Demokratie – More Democracy – in Bavaria.

So these are my three takeaways from episode 36:

First, I wasn’t aware that Bavaria is the most direct democratic German state. According to Jan, roughly 40 percent of all direct democratic activity happens in Bavaria, mostly at the communal level. But direct democratic institutions exist in all of the 16 German states.

In Bavaria, the hurdles for direct democratic decision making at the state level still seem to be quite high though. That’s a reason for the few citizen initiated proposals that actually are implemented. So Jan and his colleagues at Mehr Demokratie work hard to make the process for the people’s participation easier.

The main direct democratic tool is called a popular initiative or literally translated a people’s demand. This is an option to force the government to deal with a specific political matter that is of importance to the people or even, and maybe more importantly, to propose a specific new law.

One of the most successful people’s demands was the “Save the Bees” campaign, which garnered 1.8 million signatures and led to the introduction of a new law to protect biodiversity.

Bavaria has a 3-step procedure for people’s initiatives to reach the stage of a popular vote. So a citizens’ proposal has to cross several hurdles until the citizens can actually decide at the ballot box:

The first step is the application for approval. With 25 ‘000 signatures citizens can apply for a people’s demand at the interior ministry. The interior ministry then checks whether the proposal is legally permissible.

The second step is the people’s demand: If the proposal was approved by the interior ministry, the citizens have to sign a list in the local town and city halls within 14 days. If within this two weeks 10% of the citizens go to the town halls and sign the people’s demand, then it becomes effective. If this is the case, then the state parliament decides whether to approve or reject the proposal. If parliament rejects it, then the citizens decide on it by popular vote.

The third step is the popular vote: So if parliament rejects the law, a popular vote is held within 3 months. The parliament may offer a counter proposal, that is also put on the ballot. Then the citizens’ proposal or the counter proposal is approved by a simple majority vote.

In the case of the “Save the Bees” initiative, the signal of 1.8 million signatures was so powerful that parliament introduced the new law directly, without it being approved by a popular vote.

What I ask myself here however, is why the people don’t have the final say in any case? If parliament thinks that a law makes sense, then they pass that law. But it might still be the case that a majority of the citizens would reject that same law, right? Bavaria doesn’t know the possibility of the referendum, hence the citizens couldn’t stop a law from being implemented by parliament, even if they wanted to.

In my second point, I’d like to make a few remarks on the relationship between citizen assemblies and direct democracy. I am aware that many people put great hopes in citizens’ assemblies these days. Especially people who are frustrated with representative democracy. I personally think that citizens’ assemblies may play a role in modern democracies, but I see them rather as a complement than a substitute of direct democracy.

I am convinced that significant decisions to change laws or the constitution should be subject to a referendum, so that the people can have a veto. What I mean by that is that the people should be sovereign and have the possibility to reject any law that is proposed by the parliament or government.

Of course, as we discuss in the episode, if citizens’ assemblies are a way to get more direct democracy, then they may still be useful. My worry is that politicians, governments, and political parties are glad to use citizens’ assemblies as an excuse not to give people more power. By including the citizens’ assemblies in the political process, they may use them as a pretext to not allow for direct democracy. So I’d be cautious not to put too much hope in them, because they may be a great tool for politicians not to change anything in the balance of political power. Direct democracy is the powerful tool that we need.

My third point is regarding the fact that Germany is the only EU country that has not yet had a popular vote at the national level. This may be surprising since Germany is otherwise known for its well-developed democracy. But there are historic reasons for this. There were two windows of opportunity to implement direct democracy, but the attempts failed.

So apparently, in contrast to what we discuss in the episode, scholars now believe that it was not the experiences with direct democracy in the Weimar Republic that had a big influence on Germany not adopting direct democracy at the national level, but rather the years after World War II.

It was in 1948, that the Socialist Unity Party of Germany started a petition for a referendum “for the German Unity”, as a strategy to include and unite all German States under the socialist Soviet model. The party succeeded in collecting some three million signatures in the Western Zones – that is approximately 7% of those entitled to vote. Yet, the lawfulness of the process was highly questioned. This happened during the occupation by the allied forces, and before the division into East and West Germany.

In the West, the initiative for unification initiated by the Socialist Unity Party was seen as a threat. The consequence of the unexpected popular support for the initiative was that direct democracy was off the table, at least until the West German States were consolidated politically. And it was likely the reason why the framers of the German Basic Law did not include direct democracy in the Basic Law of 1949.

The second window of opportunity was in the time of the reunification of Germany in the years 1990/91. Direct democracy was debated intensively by the Joint Constitutional Commission that was deliberating in 1991 any matters related to the German Reunification and changes in the Basic Law. Parties of the left submitted various proposals to introduce direct democracy, yet, the proposals failed to receive a ⅔ majority in parliament that was necessary for it to be included in the Basic Law. Also the use of a referendum to approve and adopt the new Basic Law was rejected.

If you’d like to read more about these cases, I link to an interesting paper below in the description.

That’s it for the first edition of Rules in Perspective. a review of my own podcast episodes. I hope you enjoyed it. Please leave your comments below, it would be great to hear your opinion and feedback on this new format. If you want to send me an email, you can reach me at [email protected]

Please also consider listening to my other episodes on direct democracy and citizen participation.

With Stefan Schlegel I discuss principles of direct democracies. I recommend this episode to anyone who is interested in some of the fundamental rules that we think direct democracy should follow. It is based on a blog post that we wrote together.

I further recommend the episodes with Roslyn Fuller on the question whether there can be too much democracy. Spoiler, we both agreed that it should be in the hands of us citizens to decide how much democracy we want.

With Ian O’Flynn I discuss deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies. While he definitely thinks that so-called mini-publics can play a useful role in democracy, he also has some cautious words regarding their implementation and limitations.

Finally, another episode I can recommend is my conversation with John Matsusaka who wrote a book on direct democracy in the United States, called Let the People Rule.

You find the links to all episodes in the description below.

So thank you very much for listening. And see you next time.