Democracy, Direct

History and Theoretical Context

The most important historical reference of direct democracy is to assembly democracy in ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where decisions were taken by people's assemblies of some 1,000 male citizens. Later, people's assemblies were used in many Swiss cantons and towns, as well as in town meetings in some American colonies and states. Early U.S. states also started using procedures in which constitutions or constitutional amendments were ratified by referendums, which later became common in the United States. Popular sovereignty, proclaimed in the French Revolution, had rather been distorted, however, in Napoleon's autocratic plebiscites. Switzerland and many U.S. states incorporated direct democracy in their constitutions during the 19th century, while Germany and few other countries adopted some elements after World War I. In a more general perspective, the ensuing introduction or practical use of direct-democratic institutions originated from three major types of developments:

• 1.
  social class conflict to curb the political power of a dominating oligarchy (e.g., Switzerland, U.S. states);
• 2.
  processes toward political/territorial autonomy or independence for legitimizing and integrating the new state unit (beginning after World War I); and
• 3.
  processes of democratic transformation from authoritarian rule (e.g., Germany's regional states after 1945, some Latin American countries).

Some countries show gradual reform developments (e.g., Uruguay).

Modern democracy most often developed not from the starting point of assembly democracy but, under absolutist or feudal conditions, from people gradually claiming a larger share of political representation and extension of representative voting rights. Constitutions, civil rights, and universal suffrage, which had been achieved in European and many other countries (generally by the end of World War I), were usually identified with “democracy” on the normative basis of the principles of popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality. Thus, in many countries and theories, these principles have been tied to and absorbed by a narrow notion of representative democracy rather than [Page 560]being used to support a more comprehensive concept of democracy.

Normative theory of direct democracy still rests basically on popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality, with Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the outstanding theorist of unanimous consent of the people for a free republican constitution and subsequent forms of participation. During the 19th century, these principles were increasingly challenged, or they were deprived of their substance beyond representative institutions. So, in many countries, direct-democracy institutions have not been established or implemented since representative elites developed a strong interest in monopolizing power. In addition, pragmatic theories contended that direct democracy could not work under space and time conditions of large modern states.

...