Direct Democracy Devices

“There can be no doubt, that if power is granted to a body of men, called

Representatives, they, like any other men, will use their power not for the advantage
of the community but for their own advantage, if they can.”— James Mill

Direct Democracy / Pure Democracy– direct participation of citizens in democratic decision

making, in contrast to representative or indirect democracy.

In essence, all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people
themselves, rather than by the elected representatives. In a true direct democracy, all laws,
bills and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens.

Thus, direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but
in modern times it most often consists of specific decision-making institutions within a
broader system of representative democracy.

Generally, the term ‘Referendum’ is often used to refer to any proposal where people
directly participate in the process of decision making – which could be a recall of
representative, an initiative or even a plebiscite. While this term is used widely as a catchall
term, following instruments of direct democracy are popular in various countries and this
note attempts to differentiate amongst them by the purpose and use of the instrument
(Note that the terms may have a different connotation in different countries):

1. Right to Recall
2. Referendum
3. Initiative
4. Plebiscite

1. Right to Recall
It means the right of the registered voters in a constituency to de-elect (i.e. remove) their
elected representative on the ground of non-performance. The legal systems of Switzerland,
United Kingdom, Argentina, Uruguay, some states of USA & local self-government levels in
India (for example,Panchayats/Municipalities in Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Chattisgarh, Rajasthan etc.)provide for such a right for their citizens. Under this system,
after the completion of a certain period of the term of the House/Panchayat/Municipality
(usually, about half of the term, but is lesser at times) to which the representative has been
elected, if not less than certain percentage (usually 10-25%) of the registeredvoters give in
writing expressing their desire to recall the elected representative, then a poll shall be
organized within a stipulated time period. In the polls, if a majority of the valid votes polled
(usually 50-75%) are in favor of the proposal for recall, then the representative
automatically loses the membership of the House to which he has been
elected.Subsequently, a bye-election is held to full up the vacancy.

June 2020 Page 1 of 5

1.1 Advantages
a. It makes the elected representative truly a representative of the people who elected
her/him to the parliament. It empowers the citizens vis-à-vis their representative.
b. It will make the elected representative continuously accountable to the people, instead
of being periodically accountable.
c. The political parties will be forced to nominate clean candidates to contest election
because of the fear of recall of their members.

1.2 Issues and Concerns

The system of popular election in India is First Past the Post System, wherein it has been
largely observed that almost all the representatives are elected with less than 50% votes of
their constituencies polled in their favour. A recall condition of 50% + 1 vote would mean
almost all the representatives will be recalled. Some major issues are as follows:

a. It may lead to frequent elections being held in a constituencyandin the country as a

whole. This may lead to policy paralysis on the part of the govt., as the govt. would be
facing continuouselection in the country. It will empower the people but at the same
time, it will weaken the govt.
b. In a country like India, witha voter turnout of around 67% in a general election,
frequent elections may further alienate the people of India from the election process.
c. It may lead to political instability in the country & govt. may fall because of the erosion
in its membership.
d. For the system to succeed, the people shall display a measure of politicalmaturity while
voting to elect andremove their representatives.
e. It may be misused by opposition parties to destabilise the elected representative by
launching a signature campaign.
f. It maycauseincreased circulation of black money, corruption & violence in the country.
g. It may be too impractical to be followed in a vastcountry like India with a high number
of registered voters & diversity among the population.

Election Commission of India is not in support of this instrument to be introduce in the Lok
Sabha and Assembly elections in India. It is of the view that it is not practically possible to
hold bye-elections so frequently.

1.3 Further References

a. https://www.thestatesman.com/supplements/law/right-recall-truer-reflection-popular-
will-1502755736.html
b. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/right-to-recall-
representatives-a-must-for-people-varun-gandhi/articleshow/61596751.cms
c. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/right-to-recall-a-dangerous-
idea/article20351844.ece1
d. https://web.archive.org/web/20180726071205/https://www.livelaw.in/critical-take-
right-recall/

June 2020 Page 2 of 5

2. Referendum
It is an electoral process by which the govt. can refer any issue of public importance
(including an amendment to the Constitution) to the people for approval of popular vote.
The outcome of a referendum is legally binding on the govt. unless the law of the country
states otherwise. Almost all the countries of European Union, Switzerland, Columbia, Japan,
Thailand, etc. contain provisions for holding referendums. The India Against Corruption
movement(which led to the formation of AamAadmi Party) had demanded the introduction
of provisions for holding referendums& for establishing a Referendum Commission along
the lines of Election Commission to hold referendums in India.

2.1 Advantages
a. It is regarded as the purest form of popular governance. It extends a platform to the
people to directly express their voice on importantnational issues. It is one of the most
effective ways of empowering citizens vis-à-vis the govt.
b. It helps to resolve most ‘difficult-to-decide’ issues amicably.
c. It confers legitimacy to the decisions taken by the people.
d. It can also help to check any motivated decisions that the govt. may take.

2.2 Issues and Concerns

a. A referendum has limitations in terms of complexity of the questionsthat can be
placed before the people for vote. Every issue cannot be reduced to a simple Yes/No.
b. Not all citizens may be able to place the wider public/national interest above their
personal interest while voting in a referendum. Thus, the outcome of a referendum
may not always be rational and in the national interest.
c. The outcome of the referendum tends to reflect the point of view of the majority
community, ignoring the interest of minority communities. It is, thus, especially
unsuitable to a country having diversity in its population.
d. Voters maymake their decisions with relatively little information&relying on the
political messaging provided by the popular political leaders.
e. The legitimacy of a referendum is virtually lost if the margin of approval /disapproval
by the voters is very narrow. Instead of resolving an issue, it may result in complicating
the issue further.

A very popular example, in recent times, has been the Brexit Referendum (The United
Kingdom European Union Membership Referendum) held in 2016. The referendum was
enabled by an Act of Parliament of UK, and it saw a voter turnout of about 72%, of which
51.9% voted in favour of leaving the EU.

In 2014, Scottish Independence Referendum, legally arranged for by an Act of Scottish

Parliament,resulted in 55.3% voters rejecting the question of Scotland becoming an
independent country (and hence, to remain a part of the United Kingdom).

June 2020 Page 3 of 5

3. Initiative
In its truest meaning (direct Initiative), it’s a kind of referendum proposed by the electorate
& not by the govt. It is an electoral process by which a certain percentage of voters can
propose a legislation or an issue of public importance to the vote of the people. In a
variation of the process (indirect Initiative), firstly thelegislature shall consider the proposed
legislation/amendment& subsequently, the proposal is put to the vote ofpeople.

The outcome of an initiative is legally binding on the govt. The Constitutionsof Switzerland &
Uruguay confers the right to initiative on their citizens. The Treaty of Lisbon, which
amended the treaties that formed the constitutional basis of the European Union provides
for a right to limited indirect Initiative in the form of an European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI).
Under this, signatures of 1 Million European Nationals would give those citizens the right to
request the European Commission (i.e. Executive branch of EU) to submit a legislative
proposal to the European Council.

In 2004, the people of Uruguay through an initiative (with 65% voters’ support) secured a
clause in Uruguay’s Constitution which defines right to water as a fundamental human right.
This created a foundation for the publicmanagement of water resources based on principles
of social participation andsustainability. This has set an important international precedent
for an environmental right to be incorporated in the Constitution of a country though direct
democracy.

4. Plebiscite
The term ‘Plebiscite’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘Referendum’. However, in
the specific usage of the term, it is an instrument through which the people can exercise the
right to ‘Self Determination’.

4.1 Right to Self Determination

This right is embedded in Article 1 of:
a. The Charter of United Nations,
b. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
c. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
It is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a
people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic,
cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different
outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a State. In
practice, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by States,
claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to
self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome)
belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

June 2020 Page 4 of 5

Thus, Plebiscite is a kind of referendum held by the govt. on the strength of the right to self-
determination enjoyed by a section of the population. A Plebiscite, technically,is held only
on one issue, that is the right to self-determination. The outcome of a plebiscite may or may
not be binding on the govt. Though, since a plebiscite has the potential to endanger the
integrity of a country,most legal systems of the world do not explicitly confer the right to
self-determination to any section of its population.

4.2 India’s stand on Right to Self Determination

Neither the Constitution of India nor any statute expressly defines the right to self-
determination or explains position of India on right to self-determination.However,while
becoming party to thehuman rights covenants above, India made a declaration at UNGA:

the Government of the Republic of India declares that the words ‘the right of self-
determination’ appearing in [this Article] apply only to the peoples under foreign
domination and that these words do not apply to sovereign independent States
or to a section of a people or nation... which is the essence of national integrity.

This position, thus, clarifies that right to self-determination is confined to the specific
context of foreign domination, like colonialism, and is clearly against its application to post-
colonial and other situations.

India has also signed The Moscow Declaration, 1993, in Russia. The Declaration recognizes
the threatfaced by multi-religious, multi-ethnic & multi-linguistic States to their territorial
integrity from the forces of aggressive nationalism and religious fundamentalism. It,
therefore, states that if the Constitution of a country confers a set of fundamental rightsto
all sections of its population without any discrimination and if those rights are
constitutionally protected, then no section of population enjoys right to self-determination.

Another perspective refers to the view taken by Supreme Court of India in Re: Berubari
Unioncase. The Court clarified that acquisition and cession of territories is beyond the
Constitution and these aspects are in the realm of the sovereignty of a State. This view is
particularly germane to the demands forright to self-determination and secession of
territories. When it is a sovereign right to cede a part of the territory, it cannot be a crime to
demand that the Indian state cede a territory to a particular group of people living on Indian
territory. It is for the Indian government to decide whether to yield to that demand or
not.Thus, it is the political process that determines the success or failure of such demands.

5. Further Reading on Direct Democracy

1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/
2. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/8-principles-direct-democracy
3. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-direct-democracy-3322038
4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy/Countries-and-developmental-
background

June 2020 Page 5 of 5