宪法中的直接民主:对民主有利还是不利?

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW
J. But, D. Jongkind, W. Voermans
{"title":"宪法中的直接民主:对民主有利还是不利?","authors":"J. But, D. Jongkind, W. Voermans","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2022.2131150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Concerns about democratic decline and deficit have recently led to repeated calls for institutional changes that could enhance civil participation and direct voter participation in public decision-making (forms of direct democracy). An evergreen among the instruments proposed is the referendum, and in particular the constitutionally embedded referendum. This would grant a constitutional right to trigger a referendum and is something that is currently under consideration in the Netherlands. It is often assumed that constitutionally embedded referendums can correct systemic flaws in a representative democratic system, thus enhancing the overall democratic score of a country. This contribution considers these premises. By means of an empirical study, it examines whether the democracy index score of a country is related to constitutionally ratified rights to direct legislative influence of citizens, such as referendums and legislative initiatives by citizens. The initial results indicate that codifying referendum procedures as a constitutional right does indeed positively relate to the democratic scores of countries worldwide. This effect, however, does not hold true for the sample of EU countries studied.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct democracy in the constitution: good or bad for democracy?\",\"authors\":\"J. But, D. Jongkind, W. Voermans\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2022.2131150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Concerns about democratic decline and deficit have recently led to repeated calls for institutional changes that could enhance civil participation and direct voter participation in public decision-making (forms of direct democracy). An evergreen among the instruments proposed is the referendum, and in particular the constitutionally embedded referendum. This would grant a constitutional right to trigger a referendum and is something that is currently under consideration in the Netherlands. It is often assumed that constitutionally embedded referendums can correct systemic flaws in a representative democratic system, thus enhancing the overall democratic score of a country. This contribution considers these premises. By means of an empirical study, it examines whether the democracy index score of a country is related to constitutionally ratified rights to direct legislative influence of citizens, such as referendums and legislative initiatives by citizens. The initial results indicate that codifying referendum procedures as a constitutional right does indeed positively relate to the democratic scores of countries worldwide. This effect, however, does not hold true for the sample of EU countries studied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2131150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2131150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要对民主衰落和赤字的担忧最近导致人们一再呼吁进行体制改革,以加强公民参与和选民对公共决策的直接参与(直接民主的形式)。在提议的文书中,一个常青树是公民投票,特别是宪法规定的公民投票。这将赋予宪法赋予的引发公民投票的权利,这也是荷兰目前正在考虑的问题。人们通常认为,宪法规定的公民投票可以纠正代议制民主制度中的系统性缺陷,从而提高一个国家的总体民主得分。这一贡献考虑到了这些前提。通过实证研究,它考察了一个国家的民主指数得分是否与宪法批准的公民直接立法影响的权利有关,如公民投票和公民的立法倡议。初步结果表明,将公民投票程序编纂为一项宪法权利确实与世界各国的民主分数呈正相关。然而,这种影响并不适用于所研究的欧盟国家样本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Direct democracy in the constitution: good or bad for democracy?
ABSTRACT Concerns about democratic decline and deficit have recently led to repeated calls for institutional changes that could enhance civil participation and direct voter participation in public decision-making (forms of direct democracy). An evergreen among the instruments proposed is the referendum, and in particular the constitutionally embedded referendum. This would grant a constitutional right to trigger a referendum and is something that is currently under consideration in the Netherlands. It is often assumed that constitutionally embedded referendums can correct systemic flaws in a representative democratic system, thus enhancing the overall democratic score of a country. This contribution considers these premises. By means of an empirical study, it examines whether the democracy index score of a country is related to constitutionally ratified rights to direct legislative influence of citizens, such as referendums and legislative initiatives by citizens. The initial results indicate that codifying referendum procedures as a constitutional right does indeed positively relate to the democratic scores of countries worldwide. This effect, however, does not hold true for the sample of EU countries studied.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信