Annotation: The paper focuses on direct democracy as a concept. It is divided into two relatively separate parts. The paper aims to acquaint the reader with the very concept of direct democracy, especially with the emphasis on forms of direct democracy prevailing in territorial conditions of countries with a democratic system of government.
INTRODUCTION
The topic of direct democracy has long been topical and often discussed in society. Nevertheless, many authors fail to pay enough attention to it in their work for several reasons. Thus, direct democracy remains a frequently mentioned topic, but in essence, it is still relatively unknown to the public. These are the main reasons why we address this topic in the paper.
The paper is conceived as a theoretical-analytical work and consists of coherent text divided into two relatively separate, consecutive parts.
The paper aims to acquaint the reader with the very concept of "direct democracy", especially with the emphasis on forms of direct democracy prevailing in countries' territorial conditions with a democratic system of government.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY AS A CONCEPT
The very concept of democracy is made up of two subordinate terms: direct and indirect (representative) democracy. This bipartite division of the concept emerged from theoretical and practical perspectives at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Direct democracy is applied in those situations in which the people, as the holders of power, participate in the administration of public affairs directly and personally. The opposite of direct democracy is then, in a logical sense, representative democracy. This form of democracy also prevails in the territorial conditions of the Slovak Republic. This conclusion is directly supported by Article 2 para. 1 of the Slovak Constitution, which states: "State power comes from citizens who exercise it through their elected representatives or directly."
Using deduction on that provision, we can conclude that in the legislation of the Slovak Republic, representative democracy is the superior concept and the one more widely used.
From a global perspective, however, the older historical form of government is direct democracy. It developed in the conditions of Greek city-states. Still, the democratic model at that time was based on different values and foundations than it is today. Nevertheless, we consider it important to address this topic more thoroughly in this paper. It is also important to note that when direct democracy emerged in the Greek polis, it involved relatively small groups of citizens directly participating in democratic processes.1
In order for the paper to meet its stated goal, we consider it important to determine which conditions the democratic system had to satisfy at the time direct democracy developed. According to Robert A. Dahl, these are the following six conditions:
(a) Citizens must share converging interests in order to work together and act according to the common good.
(b) The second requirement is a high degree of community homogeneity. Differences in economic resources, religion, culture, race, or language would lead to political disagreements and, consequently, to system dysfunction.
(c) The number of citizens participating in the process must be relatively low. This primarily relates to meeting the previously mentioned condition of citizen homogeneity. Secondly, however, smaller groups of citizens are better able to understand their contribution to the common good.
(d) Another condition was the ability of citizens to gather and make political decisions directly.
(e) Citizens' activity included not only attending meetings but also participating in governance.
(f) The last requirement was that the city-state had to remain autonomous, meaning each polis had to remain politically, militarily, and economically independent.2
Even from those requirements, it is clear that they contradict modern understandings of democracy. However, the core of the concept itself remains the same today: government is exercised by the people through the personal participation of citizens in making political decisions.
As already mentioned, today we are witnessing the dominance of representative democracy over direct democracy. There are several reasons why this change occurred throughout history. One of the most important is population growth, which makes it no longer possible for citizens to gather and make their own decisions personally. Another reason is that nation-states are far larger units than the Greek poleis were. Therefore, people today can no longer exercise their political power on their own, but rather through their elected representatives. By electing representatives, people automatically transfer the source of power to them. In this way, elected representatives subsequently obtain legitimacy to exercise power in the state.3
Representative democracy also addresses the generally low public interest in public affairs administration and helps solve the problem of political ignorance of the majority of the population.
Comprehensive direct democracy and related direct citizen decision-making on all significant matters is no longer feasible for the reasons stated above. In today's understanding, then, direct democracy cannot be understood as one comprehensive system, but only as a set of instruments through which citizens can implement it. These instruments then complement the decision-making process of representative democracy.
FORMS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
As already mentioned, indirect citizen participation in public affairs administration is complemented by measures and forms of direct democracy. This primarily serves to correct and address the shortcomings of representative democracy. These shortcomings include, above all, the emergence of conflict situations and differences of opinion in the population both inside and outside the political arena. Another shortcoming is the inability of representative bodies to reach compromise on certain issues in certain situations. It is for such cases that forms of direct democracy are also incorporated into representative democracy.4
In the modern sense of democracy, the two basic forms of direct democracy are the referendum and the plebiscite.
A referendum is the most commonly used form of direct democracy. It is a permanent constitutional institution initiated either by citizens or by their elected representatives. Through a referendum, citizens are presented with a serious social question to which they answer by direct vote.5
A plebiscite or popular vote is also an instrument of direct democracy. All citizens with the right to vote may vote on serious political issues concerning territorial arrangements, such as borders (state, municipal), territorial changes, and so on.
Unlike a referendum, a plebiscite is not announced in cases predetermined in the constitution but is held according to the needs or demands of citizens (a petition). In various countries, besides citizens' initiative, the head of state, government, or parliament can also initiate a plebiscite.6
CONCLUSION
The article dealt with the topic of direct democracy. It was divided into two relatively separate, consecutive parts. The first part deals with direct democracy, especially as a concept, and acquaints the reader with the basic elements of its historical origin and subsequent development. In the second chapter, the author presents the two most fundamental forms of direct democracy prevailing in countries with a democratic system of government. These are the referendum and the plebiscite. What these two concepts are and what the differences between them are were the basic questions that this part of the article was supposed to answer.
Concerning the prepared article, we can state that direct democracy has undergone significant changes in historical development and has transformed into its current form, which meets the needs of the public. However, direct democracy and its forms also have their shortcomings. Addressing this topic in full, however, would go beyond the scope of this paper.
The author based the article on several sources by well-known authors highly qualified in the field. Several scientific methods were used to prepare the article, particularly the methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, the historical method, and the descriptive method.
Author: JUDr. Samuel Csóka
External doctoral student – Katedra trestného práva a kriminológie, Právnická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave
REFERENCES
ALTMAN, D. Direct Democracy Worldwide. 2011. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107427099
DAHL, R.A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 397 p. ISBN 0-300-04938-2
GRYGOVÁ, E. 1990. Plebiscit a referendum v modernej demokracii. In Právny obzor. ISSN 0032-6984
MCGANN, A.: The logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2006. 243 p. ISBN 0-472-06949-7
SPÁČ, P. Priama a zastupiteľská demokracia na Slovensku. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury. 2010. 278 p. ISBN 978-80-7325-238-0
VERHULST, J., NIJEBOER, A. Direct Democracy - Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and Referendum. Democracy International Brussels 2007. Available at: https://www.democracy-international.org/sites/default/files/144ed1a868b3089fb6bd3a8db4e73b10
1 DAHL, R.A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press., p. 44
2 DAHL, R.A. 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press., p. 46
3 ALTMAN, D. Direct Democracy Worldwide. 2011. Cambridge University Press
4 MCGANN, A.: The logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2006., p. 141
5 VERHULST, J., NIJEBOER, A. Direct Democracy - Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and Referendum. Democracy International Brussels 2007.
6 GRYGOVÁ, E. 1990. Plebiscit a referendum v modernej demokracii. In Právny obzor. p. 24-27