Chapter 3 Section 2 Part.6 PDF

Preview

Summary

Consitutional Law Chapter 3 Section 2 Part.6...

Description

Sec ecti ti tion on 2 2:: tthe he d dem em emo ocr cra atic pri prin nci ciple ple ple(Pa (Pa (Parrt.6) a) The v value alue o off semi semi-dire -dire -direct ct demo democracy cracy cracy..

It is the value of a representative democracy with direct democracy procedures. It is a great classic question in constitutional law, we will make 2 observations. 1. One goes in the direction of the democracy 2. The people are unable to decide alone Then one doubts democracy itself, to reject democracy one relies on the principle of the national sovereignty, the Nation does not have a concrete existence, it is simply represented by the rulers and it is thus the rulers who must have the monopoly of the decisions. One can put forward the principle of national sovereignty to contest the referendum, one then relies on a metaphysical explanation, a theory which was imposed for historical questions and then maintained by habit. One does not see serious objections to the referendum in Montesquieu's analysis or in the theory of national sovereignty. If we reject the referendum it is for other reasons, the real reasons are elsewhere, and even more precisely the real reasons are not avowable. There are 4 reasons why the referendum is not practiced, even if it is foreseen in the constitution: - There is a professionalization of the political life, that is to say that our democratic life is monopolized by professionals that are the elected representatives, in the parliament or president of the republic. And these elected officials jealously guard their power. They do not want to share the power with the people, why would they trust the people when they can decide themselves? - The political parties that structure our democratic life, the political parties are hostile to the referendum for a good and simple reason that the discussion escapes them. The political party can suggest its views in the elections, impose them while it has much less control over the opinion. - In our democratic political life there are interest groups, lobbies of pharmaceutical companies, tobacco manufacturers, which can be found in all fields and have more pressure on the elected representatives than on the citizens. It is something that in the media has been brought to our attention there are articles created by the lobbies, then voted by the parliamentarians. While these same lobbies have no power over the citizens who vote in the secrecy of the voting booths.

- The referendum is deemed conservative in the results that give. The solutions of the vote are often conservative solutions. That is to say in clear that the referendum plays especially to the profit o f the right to see even extreme right that the left, example: in Switzerland the women voted only in 1971 however the land of the democracy. These are the 4 reasons why in reality the place of the referendum is limited in the current democracies and why all the legislative work is done in the parliament. In Russia the referendum is inconceivable in the same way. Secondly, one could say that if we do not have referendums then we are in a pure, integral representative regime, which means that the voters only choose their elected representatives who, once in office, act as they wish. But in reality we are not in this pure representative regime, the reality is more nuanced. More and more a certain number of institutions are developing and these institutions are a substitute, a backdoor to semi-direct democracy. - First of all, the duration of electoral mandates is gett ing shorter, which makes sense for democracy. It means that the elected representative comes back to the voters more quickly and therefore he will remain closer to the will of these voters. The mandate of the senators has been reduced from 9 to 6 years, that of the president of the republic from 7 to 5 years. This means that the elected representative takes less independence from his voters. The voters make their will known at earlier dates. - There is also another procedure in this sense, the dissolution of the lower house by decision of the executive. The executive considers that, for example, the policy must change, evolve, so this executive will be able to take a decision that will force t he deputies to resign collectively, and the deputies will have to go back to the voters for a new mandate. This is what is practiced a lot in the UK, it allows in a way to readjust the national representation on the will of the voters. It is much rarer in France, Jacques Chirac in 1997 tried it and it did not go well for him because the French people came to vote against his will and he lost his majority. In conclusion on the semi-direct democracy: The opposition between representative democracy and semi-direct democracy is rather theoretical. Why? Because there are many elements that will complicate the relationship between elected officials and voters. The real democratic life is wider because it includes the polls, the media, it also includes the political parties and these are the elements that push to the permanent discussion

between the elected and the voters in fact the democracy is a system of communication between all these elements. That's why we can't say that we have an election every 5 years, the only expression of our democracy, but that once the election is over, the elected people do what they want, no, there is a dialogue imposed by the parties, the media, the polls, so the elected person systematically comes back in contact with the public opinion.* A.

The distortions of semi-direct and semi-representative democracy

Reality often distorts theories, they are not useless, they allow us to understand, but there is a tendency for theory to distort reality. The result is that rulers have a natural tendency to use the law to maintain their power. 1.

The distortions of representative democracy

The representative regime rests on a series of fiction, the main, basic fiction is that of government by the people, that is to say, the identification between the governors and the governed. What the governors want corresponds to what the governed want, this presentation is abstract, fictitious, it is a dream, an ideal, in reality there is a representative absolutism. Elected officials allow themselves not to respect their program, to do as they please. The loss of confidence in elected officials in the minds of voters comes from this phenomenon of professionalization of political life. The rights of elected officials have been blown out of proportion. We need 3 things to temper this: - The shortening of mandates and local elections - A real separation of powers - A limit to political parties Representative democracy? How is it approximate? The identification between the rulers and the ruled can be an illusion because once elected, the rulers can act as they please and thus reduce the rights of the citizens and strengthen the power. It is necessary that the representative regime can function in a democratic way. 3 points on this subject....