ADRIAN BRÄNDLI is Head of Research, Science and Innovation at the Istituto Svizzero in Rome. Holding a DPhil in Ancient History from the University of Oxford, he conducted research into the history of late antiquity and early Christianity with a particular emphasis on the social dynamics of religious conflicts. GIANGIACOMO VALE is researcher in Political Philosophy at the Faculty of Political Science of the Niccolò Cusano University of Rome. He obtained his PhD in Political Philosophy at the University of Insubria and the Diplôme d‘Études Approfondies in Philosophy at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. His research is mainly concerned with European identity, federalist theory and the relationship between literature, aesthetics and politics.
www.schwabe.ch
B I B L I O T H E C A H E LV E T I C A R O M A N A
37
GOING DIGITAL ?
Do new technologies act as a game changer ? This question stood at the outset of a project on modern direct democracy, which resulted in the conference “Past, Present and Future of Direct Democracy” (19 –20 October 2018 ) as part of the Istituto Svizzero’s DISPUTE series. The initiative was designed as an exchange between two neighbouring countries with similar, yet different political cultures. In fact, Switzerland is often regarded as an exemplary case of modern direct democracy, while in Italy there has been a heated debate in recent years about its representative institutions. The resulting volume highlights not only the diversity of opinions and approaches, but also common goals and shared viewpoints. Above all, however, the collected contributions bear testimony to a joint understanding of the culture of democratic deliberation.
BHR 37
ADRIAN BRÄNDLI / GIANGIACOMO VALE ( EDS.)
GOING DIGITAL?
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND THE FUTURE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
BRÄNDLI / VALE ( EDS.)
Istituto Svizzero | www.istitutosvizzero.it
Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana
Herausgegeben von Joëlle Comé und Adrian Brändli
Band 37
Adrian Brändli, Giangiacomo Vale (Eds.)
Going Digital? Citizen Participation and the Future of Direct Democracy
Schwabe Verlag
Published in collaboration with the Istituto Svizzero, with the support of the Embassy of Switzerland in Italy.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Schwabe Verlag, Schwabe Verlagsgruppe AG, Basel, Schweiz This work is protected by copyright. No part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or translated, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Cover illustration: © Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA – Presence Switzerland Copy-editing: Pietro Di Giorgio, Rome Cover design: icona basel gmbh, Basel Graphic design: icona basel gmbh, Basel Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Print: CPI books GmbH, Leck Printed in Germany ISBN Print 978-3-7965-4181-0 ISBN eBook (PDF) 978-3-7965-4204-6 DOI 10.24894/978-3-7965-4204-6 The ebook has identical page numbers to the print edition (first printing) and supports full-text search. Furthermore, the table of contents is linked to the headings. rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabe.ch
Indice Generale
Saluti introduttivi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Introduction
Giangiacomo Vale: Digital revolution, the crisis of representation and the future of democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Direct Democratic Traditions
Paul Cartledge: Digital Democracy: Ancient and Modern – or Ancient versus Modern? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Giovanni Giorgini: The Problems of Democracy According to Plato and Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Georg Kreis: The Development, Degeneration and Defence of Direct Democracy in Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
Direct versus Representative?
Fabrizio Sciacca: Direct vs. Representative Democracy. A Formal or Substantive Distinction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Paolo Bellini: Mito, ideologia e prassi della democrazia diretta. Un’indagine esplorativa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Antimo Cesaro: Capacità ermeneutica e processi decisionali della democrazia diretta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
Alina Scudieri: Teorizzazioni contemporanee della democrazia diretta negli Stati Uniti: il pensiero di Cass Sunstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6
Indice Generale
Francis Cheneval: An Essay Concerning Direct Voting by Citizens in the Aftermath of the Brexit Plebiscite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Ingrid Salvatore: Direct Democracy in a Populist Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Digital Media and Political Mobilisation
Damiano Palano: Il pubblico e lo sciame: la democrazia diretta e la Bubble Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Giuliana Parotto: Il corpo mediale tra democrazia diretta e rappresentativa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Natascia Mattucci: Rivoluzione digitale e immediatezza in politica . . . . 185 Fiammetta Ricci: Luoghi e non luoghi di partecipazione politica nell’agorà digitale: simulacri e virtualità delle istituzioni . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 E-Government and Citizen Participation
Angelo Sturni: Le riforme in materia di democrazia diretta e partecipata nel nuovo Statuto di Roma Capitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Ardita Driza Maurer: European Legal Standards on E-voting . . . . . . . . 233 Nicolas Zahn and Maximilian Stern: Democracy in the Digital Age: Digital Know-how Against Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Alexander Barclay: Reimagining Citizen Participation in the Digital Era: Considerations for a Swiss Canton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Conclusion
Bruno Kaufmann: Modern Direct Democracy – Global Challenges, Italian Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Saluti introduttivi
La democrazia diretta è stata il tema della seconda edizione del convegno “Dispute”, iniziativa congiunta dell’Ambasciata di Svizzera in Italia e dell’Istituto Svizzero di Roma. Grazie agli interventi di varie personalità del mondo politico, accademico e culturale si è discusso della storia, dei modelli, delle sfide e delle prospettive future connesse con la partecipazione dei cittadini alla vita pubblica. La democrazia diretta è una delle peculiarità del sistema politico svizzero e la presenza all’evento dell’allora presidente del Consiglio nazionale, Dominique de Buman, ne dimostra l’importanza per il mio Paese. Ancor prima della fondazione della Svizzera moderna e della promulgazione della costituzione federale nel 1848, già diversi cantoni avevano introdotto i propri diritti popolari. Si è quindi assistito a un fenomeno venuto dal basso, difficilmente riproducibile oggi. In seguito, i diritti popolari sono stati gradualmente perfezionati, modernizzati e ampliati a livello nazionale. Il referendum a livello federale fu introdotto nel 1874 come strumento di controllo delle leggi parlamentari; il diritto alle iniziative costituzionali da parte del popolo fu integrato solo più tardi, nel 1891. Nel corso del XX secolo furono poi aggiunti ulteriori strumenti, come il referendum in materia di trattati internazionali. Il tratto più importante del processo di iniziativa popolare è – a mio giudizio – la sua capacità di influenzare l’agenda politica del Paese. In Svizzera un’iniziativa popolare nazionale propone infatti una modifica costituzionale. Delle 478 iniziative popolari depositate durante la storia svizzera, 215 sono state sottoposte a votazione popolare federale e 22 sono state approvate dalla maggioranza del popolo e dei cantoni. Anche se la percentuale delle iniziative approvate può sembrare a prima vista irrisoria, non bisogna sottovalutare l’impatto che queste hanno avuto e continuano ad avere in Svizzera: anche se non approvate, esse rappresentano
8
Saluti introduttivi
un barometro della volontà popolare e obbligano così parlamento e popolazione ad affrontare in modo approfondito determinate tematiche. Nel 1994, per esempio, è stata approvata l’Iniziativa delle Alpi, mirante a trasferire il traffico merci dalla strada alla ferrovia. Anche se non tutti gli obiettivi sono stati finora raggiunti, il principio del passaggio dalla gomma alla rotaia è ormai ampiamente accettato ed è stato applicato anche nel quadro della politica infrastrutturale, attraverso la costruzione dei grandi trafori ferroviari alpini del Gottardo, del Lötschberg e del Monte Ceneri. Ciò ha permesso un’importante diminuzione del numero di mezzi pesanti che ogni anno attraversano le Alpi. Nel 2002, sempre grazie ad un’iniziativa popolare, la Svizzera ha aderito alle Nazioni Unite: una decisione importante per il nostro Paese, considerando che nel 1986 una prima proposta di adesione venne bocciata da oltre il 75 % dei votanti. Oggi, in media, l’elettore svizzero è chiamato alle urne quattro volte l’anno. Oltre alle tematiche nazionali, un cittadino svizzero ha anche diritto di votare a livello locale e regionale dove, a seconda del luogo di residenza, gode di ampi diritti di iniziativa e di referendum. I temi su cui si vota con maggior frequenza sono il sistema di governo, l’integrazione europea, i trasporti, i servizi sociali, le tematiche ambientali e la migrazione. La democrazia diretta permette di affrontare i problemi, di discuterne e renderne consapevole l’opinione pubblica. Allo stesso tempo, essa rappresenta però una sfida in relazione alla rapidità con cui si sviluppano gli eventi. Dovendo dare grande peso alle opinioni dei cittadini e delle parti coinvolte, in Svizzera certe decisioni vengono prese meno velocemente che in altri paesi, ma proprio per questo le scelte fatte godono generalmente di un ampio consenso. O come scrisse Goethe: “La democrazia non corre, ma arriva sicura alla meta”. Rita Adam Ambasciatore di Svizzera in Italia, Malta e San Marino
Preface
Do new technologies act as a game-changer? This question stood at the outset of a project about modern direct democracy that resulted in the DISPUTE conference “Past, Present, and Future of Direct Democracy”, which took place at the Istituto Svizzero in Rome on 19–20 October 2018. The event was purposely designed as an exchange between Switzerland and Italy, putting up for discussion two neighbouring states with their individual political cultures as case studies. While the former country has often been held up as an exemplary case of modern direct democracy, the latter has in recent years hotly debated its representative institutions. This, then, provided the fertile ground for an international exchange across cultural, linguistic, and disciplinary boundaries. The digital revolution fundamentally changes the ways governments, political parties, and voters interact with one another. Changing strategies of campaigning and political mobilisation offer citizens new opportunities to engage in the political debate and to participate in popular votes and elections. Modern information technologies provide novel means of shaping the political discourse, giving previously voiceless masses a way to express opinions and political interest groups immediate access to their target audience. Likewise, electronic tools of government emerge by promising a more direct, transparent and efficient interaction between citizens and governmental bodies. These developments have a major impact on the processes of democratic decision-making – on how consensus can be reached and how conflicts are being negotiated. Technology seems to endorse the direct democratic model, whereas the digitalisation calls into question participatory processes of representative democracy, prompting a reflection about the history, ideas and institutions linked to direct and representative democracy, and of course also about the challenges and perspectives ahead for tomorrow’s democracies. The present
10
Preface
volume is meant as a synthesis of the presented viewpoints and lively debates that have marked this Roman encounter. In the spirit of democratic debate, the DISPUTE served as a forum in which thoughts and opinions could be voiced and controversial subjects be discussed in dialogue with expert panels, consisting of politicians, historians, political scientists, philosophers, and representatives of governmental administration and political activist groups. The forum’s discussions provided not only the starting point for a deeper reflection about how citizen participation and democratic deliberation may look like in the future, but they also attempted to bridge different modes of thought and argumentation, embodying the idiosyncrasies of two neighbouring political systems – which in our imagination seem to be very close, and yet oftentimes tend to be far from one another. An important point that resulted from the debates concerns deviating viewpoints with regard to the nature of democracy. While some argued for the incongruency, or at least sharp distinction of ‘direct’ and ‘representative’ models, others offered a less conflictive view that considers political institutions as part of one and the same continuum, allowing for democratic processes to be either more or less direct. A second major concern, then, delved into the role of cities in processes of democratisation. The rise of the city-state, as has been highlighted during the conference, marks the emergence of a significant power capable of shaping democratic procedures and instruments, which point toward the future of a largely digitalised society. In this regard, tailor-made solutions and bottom-up initiatives seem to lead the way to tackle the challenges ahead. From these considerations, democracy – either digital or analogue – emerges as a learning system that drives on civic criticism, and in this capacity showcases an inherent ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Along these lines, the DISPUTE on modern direct democracy prominently underlined the foundations on which democratic processes and values are built – in the sense of providing a platform of debate and criticism for everybody to join in. Adrian Brändli Head of Research, Science & Innovation, Istituto Svizzero
Introduction
Digital revolution, the crisis of representation and the future of democracy Giangiacomo Vale
Since the end of the 20th century, the digital revolution has profoundly changed the world of information and communication, social relationships and all spheres of our individual and collective life. As has happened in the past with the invention of writing or printing, radio or television, the rise of new media has brought about the development of new languages and new forms and methods of interaction and communication. Vertical, one-way communication, which was typical of the age of television or radio, is rapidly giving way to digital communication, which is horizontal, plural and interactive. In the world of social media, information is no longer transmitted from a central source to an undetermined number of passive readers or viewers. Nevertheless, traditional media have not disappeared, there is still a complementary and interdependent relationship between them, despite the fact that the monopoly formerly held by ‘old’ media in the representation of public opinion has been destroyed. Today, everyone can access websites, social networks, forums, blogs, platforms, where anyone can produce, reproduce or modify content and enter into contact with others. The digitalisation and virtualisation of the world is also causing profound transformations on the political level. The development and diffusion of the Internet and digital media has, in fact, substantially changed how governments, parties, leaders, voters and all the political players act and interact with each other. Politics as a whole has had to deal with new rules and new ways of expressing itself and operating, which have generated great changes in the electoral strategies of political leaders and parties, the mechanisms of political mobilisation of citizens, political language, and other modes of expression and communication. Thanks to social networks, for the first time, political leaders can have a direct relationship with voters, with almost no need for mediation by political parties. Elections are thus increasingly taking on the contours of plebiscites, in which people rather than programmes are
14
Giangiacomo Vale
discussed. In this respect, although the process of the personalisation and spectacularisation of politics in contemporary democracies began with the rise of traditional mass media, the digital revolution has accelerated this process and led to extreme consequences. New technology has also led to the redefinition of the relationship between citizens and power. Digital media represents a great opportunity for the masses, who until a few years ago were excluded from the political stage. By contrast, today they can interact immediately and directly with politicians, express their opinions and claims and be protagonists in the public sphere. Furthermore, as many examples around the world have shown, the Internet and social networks are now an essential tool for the foundation and organisation of political movements born out of instances of democratisation from below. Ultimately, the Internet and new digital media have influenced not only the premises, processes and tools of democracy, but the very idea of democracy which we have had for the past two centuries. We are facing an indisputable turning point and the future is very difficult to predict. The most optimistic think that it will lead to greater equality and freedom; others, more sceptical, fear the weakening of democracy; still others, even more pessimistic, fear the development of techno-democracy with dystopian connotations, in which technology and mass media will dominate human beings. In particular, the spread of the Internet, digital communications and socialisation channels have stimulated the debate on the possibility of a form of democracy that is directly exercised by voters in front of a screen, without the need for parliamentary mediation. The mere fact that direct digital democracy is a technically feasible possibility (in some cases already in operation) has provoked much more serious reflection in numerous scholars, experts and intellectuals in recent years. This volume fits into this debate, with the aim of contributing to the discussion about the challenges, opportunities and potential risks of direct democracy in the digital era. Journalists, political scientists, philosophers, historians, but also politicians, civic activists and administrators, question and discuss the political impact of the technological and digital revolution, with special emphasis on the issues of democratic participation, decision-making processes and tools, political communication and information, propaganda and mobilisation. The history, theories and models of direct democracy are equally taken into account, as are the existing traditions and expected reforms, notably in the era of populism and
Digital revolution
plebiscite democracy. However, the key issue running more or less explicitly through all the essays in the volume is the relationship between direct and representative democracy and the possibility of overcoming the latter in favour of a type of direct democracy exercised through digital tools. Although the assessments concerning the role that digital media could play for the future of representative democracy are very different, all the authors agree on it being currently in crisis. Growing electoral abstention in most contemporary democracies is making evident the existence of a lack of interest or the existence of a sense of distrust by citizens towards politics. Institutions seem increasingly distant and deaf, while political parties no longer seem able to interpret the needs of the population or to reflect their ideals. Politicians have therefore often been presented as less and less attentive to the common good and increasingly unprepared in dealing with the major problems affecting citizens today. All this contributes to explain the current crisis of legitimacy in Western democracies that is, in particular, the crisis of the political relationship based on the trust between voters and leaders. This relationship should legitimise the mechanism of delegation that underpins the very idea of representative democracy, which is based on the idea that, since politics is a very demanding and complex activity, it must be delegated to representatives who have the competence to deal with it in the name of the people. The need to entrust the management of public affairs to representatives went hand in hand with the great territorial expansion and the growing complexity of modern states, and with the consequent need to deal competently with increasingly complex issues. This coincided with the birth of political parties and professional politicians, who are asked to make the machinery of government work by collecting and representing the requests of the people within the institutions. Nevertheless, in recent decades, the relationship between the governed and the government has been showing signs of strain and representative democracy is now threatened by the emergence of new financial or technocratic oligarchies, which act outside of institutions, take power away from politics and drain the traditional seats of sovereignty. Born to counter monarchic or oligarchic power, contemporary democracies are increasingly succumbing to the needs and rules of financial markets or multinational economic empires, which invalidate the actions of institutions in many areas, while sovereignty is being transferred to individuals and bodies who act independently of the
15
16
Giangiacomo Vale
democratic will. It is from within this context that we have witnessed the growing attraction towards populist movements and parties which, in the name of anti-politics, promise to defend the people and satisfy their every request. Given the current crisis of representative democracy, in recent years we have been witnessing a rising call for wider and more direct political participation. In many western countries, new political movements have appeared, asking for a reform of democracy with the aim of implementing or strengthening the tools of direct democracy, such as popular initiatives or referenda, some of which even go so far as to envisage direct voters’ intervention in legislation. These claims are strongly connected to the rapid spread of new technological means of information, communication and socialisation, which many see as an opportunity for the revitalisation and implementation of increasingly accomplished forms of direct democracy. Indeed, the Internet not only technically enables a wider and more direct citizens’ presence and participation on the political stage, but it has introduced into the world of information and communication a much greater degree than ever before of freedom of expression and information, allowing the formation of new virtual spaces of participation and dialogue and, along with them, new collective languages and intelligences. New media enables us to find, produce and process information autonomously and immediately, without intermediate bodies affecting public opinion. Likewise, they enable us to freely participate in a hypothetical virtual assembly where one can discuss issues and make decisions independently, overcoming the technical difficulty of frequently and quickly consulting the popular will, and allowing each citizen to express themselves electronically on each legislative project, enabling them to contribute to amend, promote or reject it. Thus, the dream of a large-scale direct and computer-based democracy and of a new way of thinking and doing politics, without the mediation of political parties and representatives, seems to be possible. The people, who are the true holders of sovereignty, would thereby face a historic opportunity to become the true protagonist of any political decision. Of course, the image of direct democracy exercised through a virtual assembly that would be extended to the participation of millions of voters relates back to the ideals of ancient Athenian democracy, which was founded on the idea that the people could and should make decisions independently on issues concerning them.
Digital revolution
In this respect, the presence of a public, common space was crucial, the agora, which was the political and symbolic centre of public life and the true heart of the politeia. Here, all the citizens of Athens could discuss and engage in political issues, so that the law was no longer decided from above, but became the result of a dialectical confrontation. The latter played a fundamental role in making the citizen an active subject in political life. Furthermore, isonomia (“equality before the law”) and isegoria (“equal opportunity to speak”) were the ideological foundations of direct democracy, while the assembly and courts were the tools that allowed the direct access of citizens to public offices and the formation of laws. Finally, since it was essential that all participants were aware of the topics under discussion and could develop a free opinion, civic education was a basic pillar of Athenian society. Besides being a political regime, Athenian democracy was a system of values, founded on an underlying anthropological ideal: the belief that all citizens (free, adult males) were capable of judging political issues and contributing to the administration of the city and the common good. However, this was not the belief of many intellectuals at the time, who highlighted how the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of an uncontrolled multitude without the necessary political skills and competences, could lead to degeneration in a demagogic sense. Socrates, for example, argued that the affairs of the State could not be entrusted to people who were randomly chosen and did not have a grounding in politics and political attitudes. For Plato, ordinary citizens do not make the best decisions, because they are not wise and are easily seduced by the rhetorical strategies of demagogues, thus public discussion is not only useless but dangerous. Therefore, he prefers the solitary decisions of philosophers to collective decisions taken in city squares. So, for Plato democracy is the regime whereby one part of the city, the demos, rules over another, the aristoi, and whereby the overextension of equality and freedom fatally leads to tyranny. Even for Aristotle, democracy is the government of one portion of the population (the poor) acting in its best interests against another (the rich), and in this respect, it is the degeneration of politeia, in which the “government of the majority” (the middle class) acts for the common good and in which the rule of law matters more than the decrees of the assembly. Athenian democracy embodies a historically and politically isolated experience, which was no longer practised in the following centuries. None-
17
18
Giangiacomo Vale
theless, it has remained a role model that has been repeatedly evoked by supporters of direct democracy. Yet, far from being a perfect regime, Athenian democracy was actually an elitist and exclusive one, as the principle of equality was not extended to the whole of society; slaves, women and foreigners did not participate in political life and the assembly shared its powers with magistrates who were elected or drawn by lot. After the Athenian experience – which is nevertheless inconceivable without the particular intellectual, religious and political milieu in which it developed – the concept of democracy was eclipsed for centuries, and it only reappeared in modern times, alongside the great revolutions of the 18th century and the establishment of the principle of popular sovereignty. Yet, the first modern democracies were founded on the principle of representation, that is on the ideal that sovereignty belongs to the people, who exert it through a body of elected representatives, who hold democratic control through periodic, free and competitive elections. This does not prevent the risk that elites end up with uncontrolled power. It is precisely this concern that a privileged body with interests other than those of the community would hold power that prompted Rousseau to reject delegation and political representation and to affirm that a true democracy always needs direct participation. Thus, according to the advocates of direct democracy – the heirs to Rousseau’s ideal – the people must always decide, since sovereignty, like the will of the people, cannot, by its very nature, be yielded or delegated, without the threat of a loss of freedom: “the moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free” (Rousseau). This formula has its roots in the Rousseauian ideal of power which, in turn, presupposes the existence of a general will whereby the people take on the symbolic features of an individual who is able to express himor herself clearly and unambiguously. The topic of the relationship between direct and representative democracy runs through all the contributions in this volume. Some authors believe that the difference between them is not just formal, but also substantial, and that the direct and representative forms are two mutually exclusive models of democracy, which correspond to two contrasting ideals of society and politics. Others consider them compatible, even complementary, or, at the very least, two different forms of the same thing. Still others see direct democracy as an ideal, compared to which representative democracy is only a rough accommodation, rendered necessary by the practical inconveniences of the