Editing Direct democracy

{{Short description|Form of democracy}}
{{other uses}}
[[Image:Landsgemeinde Glarus 2006.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|A ''[[Landsgemeinde]]'', "cantonal assembly", in the [[canton of Glarus]] on 7 May 2006, [[Switzerland]]. ''Landsgemeinden'' are public voting gatherings, and are one of the oldest examples of direct democracy.]] 
{{Direct Democracy}}
{{Democracy}}
'''Direct democracy''' or '''pure democracy''' is a form of [[democracy]] in which the [[Election#Electorate|electorate]] directly decides on policy [[initiatives]], without [[legislator|elected representatives]] as proxies, as opposed to the [[representative democracy]] model which occurs in the majority of established democracies. The theory and practice of direct democracy and participation as its common characteristic constituted the core of the work of many theorists, philosophers, politicians, and social critics, among whom the most important are [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], [[John Stuart Mill]], and [[G. D. H. Cole|G.D.H. Cole]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Encyclopedia of the City|last=Caves|first=R. W.|publisher=Routledge|year=2004|pages=181}}</ref>

==Overview==
In direct democracy the people decide on policies without any intermediary or representative, whereas in a [[representative democracy]] people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives.<ref>{{cite book|author-last= Budge |author-first= Ian |chapter= Direct democracy |editor= Clarke, Paul A.B. |editor2= Foweraker, Joe |title= Encyclopedia of Political Thought |publisher= Taylor & Francis |year= 2001 |isbn= 9780415193962 |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=srzDCqnZkfUC&pg=PA224}}</ref>  Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of [[sortition]], making [[law]]s, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting [[trial]]s. Two leading forms of direct democracy are [[participatory democracy]] and [[deliberative democracy]]. Semi-direct democracies, in which representatives administer day-to-day governance, but the citizens remain the sovereign, allow for three forms of popular action: [[referendum]] (plebiscite), [[Popular initiative|initiative]], and [[recall election|recall]]. The first two forms—referendums and initiatives—are examples of direct legislation.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |title = Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design) |url = https://archive.org/details/democraticinnova00smit |url-access = limited |last = Smith |first = Graham |publisher = Cambridge University Press |year = 2009 | location = Cambridge |pages = [https://archive.org/details/democraticinnova00smit/page/n123 112]}}</ref> {{As of|2019}}, thirty countries allowed for referendums initiated by the population on the national level.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.direct-democracy-navigator.org/democratic_instruments/popular-or-citizens-initiative/legal_designs|title=Popular or citizens initiative: Legal Designs - Navigator|website=www.direct-democracy-navigator.org}}</ref>

A compulsory referendum subjects the legislation drafted by political elites to a binding popular vote. This is the most common form of direct legislation. A [[popular referendum]] empowers citizens to make a petition that calls existing legislation to a vote by the citizens. Institutions specify the timeframe for a valid petition and the number of signatures required and may require signatures from diverse communities to protect minority interests.<ref name=":0" /> This form of direct democracy effectively grants the voting public a [[veto]] on laws adopted by the elected legislature, as in [[Switzerland]].{{sfnp|Hirschbühl |2011a}}{{sfnp| Hirschbühl|2011b}}{{sfnp| Hirschbühl|2011c}}{{sfnp| Hirschbühl|2011d}}

A citizen-initiated referendum, also called an [[Popular initiative|initiative]], empowers members of the general public to propose, by petition, specific statutory measures or constitutional reforms to the government and, as with other referendums, the vote may be binding or simply advisory. Initiatives may be direct or indirect: with the direct initiative, a successful proposition is placed directly on the ballot to be subject to vote (as exemplified by California's system).<ref name=":0" /> With an indirect initiative, a successful proposition is first presented to the legislature for their consideration; however, if no acceptable action is taken after a designated period of time, the proposition moves to direct popular vote. [[Swiss Federal Constitution|Constitutional amendments in Switzerland]], Liechtenstein or Uruguay goes through such a form of indirect initiative.<ref name=":0" />

A [[deliberative referendum]] is a referendum that increases public deliberation through purposeful institutional design. Power of recall gives the public the power to remove elected officials from office before the end of their designated standard term of office.<ref name="FishkinCh2&3">{{Harvnb|Fishkin|2011|loc= Chapters 2 & 3. }}</ref>

Mandatory [[referendum]]s correspond to [[majority rule]] while optional referendums and [[popular initiatives]] correspond to [[consensus democracy]] (e.g. Switzerland).<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007137026336 | doi=10.1023/A:1007137026336 | date=2000 | last1=Vatter | first1=Adrian | title=Consensus and direct democracy:Conceptual and empirical linkages | journal=European Journal of Political Research | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=171–192 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Popular assembly|Popular assemblies]] are another form of direct democracy, consisting of an assembly open to everyone within a local area or entity. Their roles and functioning have varied throughout time. [[Athenian democracy]] featured one such assembly as its highest decision-making body. A few places have long traditions of making decisions through an open assembly, such as the ''[[Landsgemeinde]]n'' of [[Switzerland]] and [[town meeting]]s of [[New England]].<ref name="GSmith"/> They have arisen in times of revolutionary turmoil<ref name="akcali"/> as well as more recent initiatives such as [[participatory budgeting]].<ref name="GSmith">{{cite book|last=Smith |first=Graham |title=Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation |series= |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/democratic-innovations/popular-assemblies-from-new-england-town-meetings-to-participatory-budgeting/FD97AABE994B34470B5987F6F2FF6874 |pages=30–31 |chapter=Popular assemblies: from New England town meetings to participatory budgeting |isbn=978-1-13-479335-8}}</ref> They are not generally seen as viable above a local level, as it is impossible to gather all the citizens of a modern state into an assembly.<ref name="akcali">{{cite journal |last1=Akçalı |first1=Emel |title=Do Popular Assemblies Contribute to Genuine Political Change? Lessons from the Park Forums in Istanbul |journal=South European Society & Politics |date=Sep 2018 |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=323–340 |doi=10.1080/13608746.2018.1437007 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13608746.2018.1437007}}</ref>

While local governments often hold consultative meetings in modern times, they do not typically have binding power. Graham Smith argues:
{{blockquote|[S]uch public meetings are a poor imitation of Athenian practice: self-selection leads to unequal participation; participants exercise minimal popular control; there is little time for citizens to develop considered judgements, and so on.<ref name="GSmith">{{cite book|last=Smith |first=Graham |title=Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation |series= |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2010 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/democratic-innovations/popular-assemblies-from-new-england-town-meetings-to-participatory-budgeting/FD97AABE994B34470B5987F6F2FF6874 |pages=30–31 |chapter=Popular assemblies: from New England town meetings to participatory budgeting |isbn=978-1-13-479335-8}}</ref>}}

==History==
{{See also|History of democracy}}

=== Antiquity ===
One strand of thought sees direct democracy as common and widespread in pre-state societies.<ref>
{{cite book
 | last1 = Cherkaoui
 | first1 = Mohamed
 | chapter = Islam and Democracy: Comparative Analysis of Individual and Collective Preferences
 | title = Essay on Islamization: Changes in Religious Practice in Muslim Societies
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=38y8DwAAQBAJ
 | series = Youth in a Globalizing World - Volume 10
 | date = 29 October 2019
 | location = Leiden
 | publisher = Brill
 | publication-date = 2019
 | page = 201
 | isbn = 9789004415034
 | access-date = 27 June 2021
 | quote = [...] individuals, Muslims and non-Muslims, Greeks, Arabs, Berbers, Africans and Amerindians, have lived according to the principles of a type of direct democracy in their societies. [...] In the West, since the great revolutions, from the English in the 17th century, the American and French of the end of the 18th century, elites and then all the people have gradually experimented with a liberal democracy whose principles are indisputably different from those of tribal democracy.
}}
</ref><ref>
Compare:
{{cite book
 | last1 = Glassman
 | first1 = Ronald M.
 | chapter = The Emergence of Democracy in Bands and Tribes
 | title = The Origins of Democracy in Tribes, City-States and Nation-States
 | date = 19 June 2017
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=GNgoDwAAQBAJ
 | volume = 1
 | location = Cham, Switzerland
 | publisher = Springer
 | publication-date = 2017
 | page = 4
 | isbn = 9783319516950
 | access-date = 27 June 2021
}}
</ref>

The earliest well-documented direct democracy is said to be the [[Athenian democracy]] of the 5th century BC. The main bodies in the Athenian democracy were the [[Athenian Assembly|assembly]], composed of male citizens; the [[boule (ancient Greece)|boulê]], composed of 500 citizens; and the law courts, composed of a massive number of jurors chosen by lot, with no judges. Ancient [[Attica]] had only about 30,000 male citizens, but several thousand of them were politically active in each year and many of them quite regularly for years on end. The Athenian democracy was ''direct'' not only in the sense that the assembled people made decisions, but also in the sense that the people – through the assembly, boulê, and law courts – controlled the entire political process, and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in public affairs.<ref name="Raaflaub5">{{Harvnb|Raaflaub|Ober|Wallace|2007|p= 5}}</ref> Most modern democracies, being representative, not direct, do not resemble the Athenian system.  Moreover, the Athenian democracy was exclusive.  For example, in Athens in the middle of the 4th century there were about 100,000 citizens (Athenian citizenship was limited to men and women whose parents had also been Athenian citizens), about 10,000 metoikoi, or “resident foreigners,” and 150,000 slaves. Out of all those people, only male citizens who were older than 18 were a part of the demos, meaning only about 40,000 people could participate in the democratic process.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/ancient-greece-democracy#section_1 | title=Ancient Greek Democracy ‑ Athenian, Definition, Modern | date=5 June 2023 }}</ref>

Also relevant to the history of direct democracy is the history of [[Ancient Rome]], specifically during the [[Roman Republic]], traditionally founded around 509&nbsp;BC.<ref name=cary67>{{Harvnb|Cary|Scullard|1967}}</ref> Rome displayed many aspects of democracy, both direct and indirect, from the era of [[Roman Kingdom|Roman monarchy]] all the way to the collapse of the [[Roman Empire]]. While the Roman senate was the main body with historical longevity, lasting from the Roman kingdom until after the collapse of the [[Western Roman Empire]] in 476 AD, it did not embody a purely democratic approach, being made up – during the late republic – of former elected officials,<ref>{{cite book|last1= Abbott|first1= Frank Frost|title= A History and Descriptions of Roman Political Institutions|date=1963|publisher=Noble Offset Printers Inc|location=New York|pages=157–165|edition=3|orig-year=1901}}</ref> providing advice rather than creating law.<ref name="lintott">{{cite book|last1=Lintott|first1=Andrew|title=The Constitution of the Roman Republic|date= 2003|publisher= Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=0-19-926108-3|page=3}}</ref> The democratic aspect of the constitution resided in the Roman [[Legislative assemblies of the Roman Republic|popular assemblies]], where the people organized into ''[[centuria]]e'' or into [[Roman tribe|tribe]]s – depending on the assembly – and cast votes on various matters, including elections and laws, proposed before them by their elected magistrates.{{sfn|Lintott|2003|p= 43}} Some classicists have argued that the Roman republic deserves the label of "democracy", with universal suffrage for adult male citizens, popular sovereignty, and transparent deliberation of public affairs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gruen |first1=Erich S. |title=Review of The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic |journal=Classical Philology |date=2000 |volume=95 |issue=2 |pages=236–240 |doi=10.1086/449494 |jstor=270466 }}</ref>
Many historians mark the end of the Republic with the ''[[lex Titia]]'', passed on 27 November 43 BC, which eliminated many oversight provisions.<ref name=cary67/>

=== Modern era ===

Modern-era citizen-lawmaking occurs in the cantons of [[Switzerland]] from the 13th century. In 1848 the Swiss added the "statute referendum" to their national constitution, requiring the public to vote on if a constitutional change should occur.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wagschal |first=Uwe |date=1997 |title=Direct Democracy and Public Policymaking |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4007611 |journal=Journal of Public Policy |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=223–245 |doi=10.1017/S0143814X0000355X |jstor=4007611 |issn=0143-814X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> They soon discovered that merely having the power to veto Parliament's laws was not enough. In 1891 they added the "constitutional amendment initiative". Swiss politics since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience-base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative.<ref name="Kobach1993">{{Harvnb|Kobach|1993}}</ref> In the past 120 years, more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendums. Most popular initiatives are discussed and approved by the Parliament before the referendum. Out of the remaining initiatives that go to the referendum, only about 10% are approved by voters; in addition, voters often opt for a version of the initiative rewritten by the government. (See [[#Switzerland|"Direct democracy in Switzerland"]] below.){{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011a}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011b}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011c}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011d}}

Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of a direct democracy using the [[Internet]] and other communications technologies are dealt with in the article on [[e-democracy]] and below under the heading [[#Electronic direct democracy|''Electronic direct democracy'']]. More concisely, the concept of [[open-source governance]] applies principles of the [[free software movement]] to the governance of people, allowing the entire populace to participate in government directly, as much or as little as they please.<ref>
{{Cite book|title = Open Source Democracy|last = Rushkoff|first = Douglas|publisher = Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing|year = 2004|location = Project Gutenburg|url = http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10753/pg10753.txt}}
</ref>

==Examples==
{{Further|Referendums by country}}

===Early Athens===
{{Main|Athenian democracy}}
Athenian democracy developed in the [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[city-state]] of [[Classical Athens|Athens]], comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of [[Attica]], around 600 BC. Athens was one of the [[History of democracy#Athens|first known democracies]]. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or well-documented as that of Athens. In the direct democracy of Athens, the citizens did not nominate representatives to vote on legislation and executive bills on their behalf (as in the United States) but instead voted as individuals. The [[public opinion]] of voters was influenced by the [[political satire]] of the [[Ancient Greek comedy|comic poets]] in the [[Ancient Greek theatre|theatres]].<ref>Henderson, J. (1996) ''Comic Hero versus Political Elite'' pp. 307–19 in {{Cite book|editor=Sommerstein, A.H. |editor2=S. Halliwell |editor3=J. Henderson |editor4=B. Zimmerman |title=Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis |year=1993 |publisher=Levante Editori |location=Bari}}</ref>

[[Solon]] (594 BC), [[Cleisthenes]] (508–507 BCE), and [[Ephialtes]] (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Historians differ on which of them was responsible for which institution, and which of them most represented a truly democratic movement. It is most usual to date Athenian democracy from Cleisthenes since Solon's constitution fell and was replaced by the tyranny of [[Peisistratos|Peisistratus]], whereas Ephialtes revised Cleisthenes' constitution relatively peacefully.
[[Hipparchus (son of Pisistratus)|Hipparchus]], the brother of the tyrant [[Hippias (son of Pisistratus)|Hippias]], was killed by [[Harmodius and Aristogeiton]], who were subsequently honored by the Athenians for their alleged restoration of Athenian freedom.

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was [[Pericles]]; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by an oligarchic revolution towards the end of the [[Peloponnesian War]]. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under [[Eucleides]]; the most detailed accounts are of this 4th-century modification rather than of the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the [[Macedonia (ancient kingdom)|Macedonians]] in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable.<ref>{{Harvnb|Elster|1998|pp=1–3}}</ref>

Sociologist [[Max Weber]] believed that every [[mass democracy]] went in a [[Caesarism|Caesarist]] direction. Professor of law Gerhard Casper writes, "Weber employed the term to stress, [[inter alia]], the [[Plebeian Council|plebiscitary]] character of elections, disdain for parliament, the non-toleration of autonomous powers within the government and a failure to attract or suffer independent political minds."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.stanford.edu/publications/caesarism-in-democratic-politics-reflections-on-max-weber/ |title=Caesarism in Democratic Politics: Reflections on Max Weber}}</ref>

===Liechtenstein===
Direct democracy is considered to be an engrained element of [[Politics of Liechtenstein|Liechtensteiner politics]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/lgt-private-banking-asia-pacific/2022/06/01/the-princely-house-of-liechtenstein-900-years-of-history/|title=The Princely House Of Liechtenstein: 900 Years Of History}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/liechtensteins-referendum-on-covid-19-measures-fails/|title=Liechtenstein's referendum on COVID-19 measures fails}}</ref>

If called for by at least 1,000 citizens, a referendum on any law can be initiated. Referendums can suspend [[Parliament of Liechtenstein|parliament]] or change the [[Constitution of Liechtenstein|constitution]], but at least 1,500 citizens must vote affirmative, so referendums to suspend parliament or change the constitution fail if they have low turnout even if the required percentage of total voters is met.

===Switzerland===
[[File: Swiss voting material.jpg|thumb|In [[Voting in Switzerland|Switzerland]], with no need to register, every citizen receives the [[ballot papers]] and information brochure for each vote and election and can return it by post. Switzerland has various directly democratic instruments; votes are organized about four times a year. Here, the papers received by every citizen of [[Bern#Politics|Berne]] in November 2008 about five national, two cantonal, four municipal referendums, and two elections (government and parliament of the City of Berne) of 23 competing parties to take care of at the same time.]]
{{Main|Politics of Switzerland|Voting in Switzerland}}
{{Further|Landsgemeinde|Federal popular initiative}}

The pure form of direct democracy exists only in the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]] of [[Appenzell Innerrhoden]] and [[Canton of Glarus|Glarus]].<ref name=Golay/> The [[Swiss Confederation]] is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy).<ref name=Golay/> The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its federal governmental structures (in [[German language|German]] also called the [[:de:Subsidiaritätsprinzip<!-- please note that the English WP article about Subsidiarity does not (yet) reflect/discuss the political/governmental nature in a satisfiying quality, therefore referring to the German Article here -->|Subsidiaritätsprinzip]]).{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011a}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011b}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011c}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011d}}

Most western countries have representative systems.<ref name=Golay>Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, ''Swiss political institutions'', Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008. {{ISBN|978-2-606-01295-3}}.</ref> [[Switzerland]] is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]], and [[Politics of Switzerland|federal state]]). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution ([[Popular initiative (Switzerland)|popular initiative]]) or ask for an [[optional referendum]] to be held on any law voted by the [[Federal Assembly (Switzerland)|federal]], [[cantonal]] parliament and/or [[Municipalities of Switzerland|municipal]] legislative body.<ref name=refdum>{{cite web |url=https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/referendums/mandatory-and-optional-referendums/ |title=Referendums |publisher=Swiss Confederation |website=ch.ch – A service of the Confederation, cantons and communes |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2017-01-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170110092314/https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/referendums/mandatory-and-optional-referendums/ |archive-date=2017-01-10 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The list for [[mandatory referendum|mandatory]] or optional referendums on each political level are generally much longer in Switzerland than in any other country; for example, any amendment to the constitution must automatically be voted on by the Swiss electorate and cantons, on cantonal/communal levels often any financial decision of a certain substantial amount decreed by legislative and/or executive bodies as well.<ref name=refdum/>

Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level—such as financial approvals of a schoolhouse or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland—four times a year.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/checks-and-balances_the-swiss-vote-more-than-any-other-country/36286970 |title=The Swiss vote more than any other country |author=Julia Slater |publisher=swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation |date=28 June 2013 |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2015-07-27 |archive-date=2017-07-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713231924/http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/checks-and-balances_the-swiss-vote-more-than-any-other-country/36286970 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/explore-600-national-votes_how-direct-democracy-has-grown-over-the-decades/41481992 |title=How direct democracy has grown over the decades |author=Duc-Quang Nguyen |publisher=swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation |date=17 June 2015 |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2015-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921071817/http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/explore-600-national-votes_how-direct-democracy-has-grown-over-the-decades/41481992 |archive-date=21 September 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref> During the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums.<ref name=Golay/>

In [[Switzerland]], simple majorities are sufficient at the municipal and [[cantons of Switzerland|cantonal]] level, at the federal level [[Double majority|double majorities]] are required on constitutional issues.<ref name="Kobach1993" />

A double majority requires approval by a majority of individuals voting, and also by a majority of cantons. Thus, in Switzerland, a citizen-proposed amendment to the federal constitution (i.e. [[Popular initiative (Switzerland)|popular initiative]]) cannot be passed at the federal level if a majority of the people approve but a majority of the cantons disapprove.<ref name="Kobach1993" /> For referendums or propositions in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), a majority of those voting is sufficient (Swiss Constitution, 2005).

In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss adopted the idea of double majorities from the [[United States Congress]], in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the [[U.S. state|states]].<ref name="Kobach1993" /> According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. [[Kris Kobach]], former Kansas elected official, claims that Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations. Kobach states at the end of his book, "Too often, observers deem Switzerland an oddity among political systems. It is more appropriate to regard it as a pioneer." Finally, the Swiss political system, including its direct democratic devices in a [[multi-level governance]] context, becomes increasingly interesting for scholars of [[European Union]] integration.<ref>Trechsel (2005)</ref>

===United States===
{{Main|History of direct democracy in the United States|Initiatives and referendums in the United States}}

In the [[New England]] region of the United States, [[New England town|towns]] in states such as [[Vermont]] decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the [[town meeting]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2A35hJAR7u0C&pg=PR7|title=Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works|first=Frank M.|last=Bryan|date=15 March 2010|publisher=University of Chicago Press|access-date=27 April 2017|via=Google Books|isbn=9780226077987}}</ref> This is the oldest form of direct democracy in the United States and predates the founding of the country by at least a century.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the [[United States Constitution]] envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in [[tyranny of the majority]]. As a result, they advocated a [[representative democracy]] in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, [[James Madison]], in [[Federalist No. 10]], advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says,

{{blockquote|Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[...]

[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.<ref>[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm The Federalist No. 10&nbsp;– The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)&nbsp;– Daily Advertiser&nbsp;– November 22, 1787&nbsp;– James Madison]. Retrieved 2007-09-07.</ref>}}

Other framers spoke against pure democracy. [[John Witherspoon]], one of the signers of the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], said: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state&nbsp;– it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." At the New York Ratifying Convention, [[Alexander Hamilton]] was quoted saying "that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is falser than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."<ref>{{Harvnb|Zagarri|2010|p=97}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hamilton |first1=Alexander |last2=Childs |first2=Francis |title=New York Ratifying Convention, First Speech of June 21 |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0011 |website=National Archives |access-date=30 April 2024 |date=21 June 1788}}</ref>

Despite the framers' intentions at the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal [[case law]], from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components (Magleby, 1984, and Zimmerman, 1999). The first [[United States Supreme Court]] ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in ''[[Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon]]'', 223 U.S. 118 in 1912 (Zimmerman, December 1999). [[President of the United States|President]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]], in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the [[Ohio Constitutional Convention (1912)]], stated: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."<ref>{{Harvnb|Watts|2010|p=75}}</ref>

In various states, referendums through which the people rule include:
* ''Referrals'' by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only [[Delaware]]&nbsp;– Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
* ''Referrals'' by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states&nbsp;– Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
* ''Constitutional amendment initiative'' is a constitutionally defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law", which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority and sovereignty, over representative government (Magelby, 1984). It is utilized at the state level in nineteen states: [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Florida]], [[Illinois]], [[Louisiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Michigan]], [[Mississippi]], [[Missouri]], [[Montana]], [[Nebraska]], [[Nevada]], [[North Dakota]], [[Ohio]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Oregon]] and [[South Dakota]] (Cronin, 1989). Among these states, there are three main types of the constitutional amendment initiative, with different degrees of involvement of the state legislature distinguishing between the types (Zimmerman, December 1999).
* ''Statute law initiative'' is a constitutionally defined, citizen-initiated petition process of "proposed statute law", which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state's statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states: [[Alaska]], Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, [[Utah]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[Wyoming]] (Cronin, 1989). In Utah, there is no constitutional provision for citizen lawmaking. All of Utah's I&R law is in the state statutes (Zimmerman, December 1999). In most states, there is no special protection for citizen-made statutes; the legislature can begin to amend them immediately.
* ''Statute law referendum'' is a constitutionally defined, citizen-initiated petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law", which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, [[Kentucky]], Maine, [[Maryland]], Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, [[New Mexico]], North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989).
* The ''[[recall election]]'' is a citizen-initiated process which, if successful, removes an elected official from office and replaces him or her. The first recall device in the United States was adopted in [[Los Angeles]] in 1903. Typically, the process involves the collection of citizen petitions for the recall of an elected official; if a sufficient number of valid signatures are collected and verified, a recall election is triggered. There have been four gubernatorial recall elections in U.S. history (two of which resulted in the recall of the governor) and 38 recall elections for state legislators (55% of which succeeded). Nineteen states and the [[District of Columbia]] have a recall function for state officials. Additional states have recall functions for local jurisdictions. Some states require specific grounds for a recall petition campaign.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials.aspx Recall of State Officials], National Conference of State Legislatures (March 8, 2016).</ref>
* ''Statute law affirmation'' is available in Nevada. It allows the voters to collect signatures to place on the ballot a question asking the state citizens to affirm a standing state law. Should the law get affirmed by a majority of state citizens, the state legislature will be barred from ever amending the law, and it can be amended or repealed only if approved by a majority of state citizens in a direct vote.<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Statute_affirmation Statute affirmation], Ballotpedia</ref>

=== Direct democracy by country ===
{{Main|Referendums by country}}
The strength of direct democracy in individual countries can be quantitatively compared by the Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index in [[V-Dem Democracy indices]].<ref name="v-dem">[http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066654 Sigman, Rachel, and Staffan I. Lindberg. "Neopatrimonialism and democracy: An empirical investigation of Africa's political regimes." V-Dem Working Paper 56 (2017).]</ref> A higher index indicates more direct democracy popular initiatives and referendums, shown below for individual countries. Only countries with index above 0 are shown.
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
! Country !! Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index for 2021<ref name="v-dem"/>
|-
| {{flaglist| Albania }}  || 0.077
|-
| {{flaglist| Bolivia }}  || 0.078
|-
| {{flaglist| Bulgaria }}  || 0.292
|-
| {{flaglist| Cape Verde }}  || 0.072
|-
| {{flaglist| Colombia }}  || 0.041
|-
| {{flaglist| Costa Rica }}  || 0.087
|-
| {{flaglist| Croatia }}  || 0.262
|-
| {{flaglist| Ecuador }}  || 0.073
|-
| {{flaglist| Georgia }}  || 0.054
|-
| {{flaglist| Hungary }}  || 0.242
|-
| {{flaglist| Italy }}  || 0.409
|-
| {{flaglist| Kazakhstan }}  || 0.032
|-
| {{flaglist| Kenya }}  || 0.042
|-
| {{flaglist| Kyrgyzstan }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Latvia }}  || 0.155
|-
| {{flaglist| Lithuania }}  || 0.191
|-
| {{flaglist| Luxembourg }}  || 0.038
|-
| {{flaglist| Malta }}  || 0.374
|-
| {{flaglist| Mexico }}  || 0.091
|-
| {{flaglist| Moldova }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Montenegro }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| New Zealand }}  || 0.178
|-
| {{flaglist| North Macedonia }}  || 0.133
|-
| {{flaglist| Peru }}  || 0.249
|-
| {{flaglist| Philippines }}  || 0.094
|-
| {{flaglist| Romania }}  || 0.416
|-
| {{flaglist| Serbia }}  || 0.099
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovakia }}  || 0.334
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovenia }}  || 0.444
|-
| {{flaglist| Switzerland }}  || 0.841
|-
| {{flaglist| Taiwan }}  || 0.445
|-
| {{flaglist| Togo }}  || 0.037
|-
| {{flaglist| Uganda }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| Ukraine }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| Uruguay }}  || 0.766
|}

==Democratic reform trilemma==
Democratic theorists have identified a [[trilemma]] due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once.  These three characteristics are ''participation'' – widespread participation in the decision-making process by the people affected; ''deliberation'' – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and ''equality'' – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. [[Empirical evidence]] from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making.<ref name="Ross 2011 loc= Chapter 3">{{Harvnb|Ross|2011|loc= Chapter 3 }}</ref><ref name=Stokes1998>{{Harvnb|Stokes|1998}}</ref><ref>Even Susan Strokes in her critical essay ''Pathologies of Deliberation'' concedes that a majority of academics in the field agree with this view.</ref> The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jarinovska |first1=Kristine |title=Popular initiatives as means of altering the core of the Republic of Latvia |journal=Juridica International |volume=20 |year=2013 |page=152 |url=https://juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2013_1_152.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140718002731/http://www.juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2013_1_152.pdf |archive-date=2014-07-18 |url-status=live }}</ref>

For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either ''everyone'' needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as [[James S. Fishkin|James Fishkin]], [[deliberative democracy]] is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. [[Participatory democracy]], by Fishkin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality, because if widespread participation is allowed, sufficient resources rarely will be available to compensate people who sacrifice their time to participate in the deliberation. Therefore, participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided and often will not therefore be representative of the overall population.<ref>Fishkin suggests they may even have been directly mobilized by interest groups or be largely composed of people who have fallen for political propaganda and so have inflamed and distorted opinions.</ref> Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.<ref name="FishkinCh2&3" /><ref name="Ross 2011 loc= Chapter 3"/>

Fishkin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system were to be integrated into mainstream politics.

==Relation to other movements==
[[File: Nuit Debout - Place Commune, 2016.05.14 (2).jpg|thumb|Practicing direct democracy – voting on Nuit Debout, Place de la République, Paris]]
{{Main list|List of direct democracy parties
}}

=== In schools ===
{{Main|Democratic school}}

[[Democratic schools]] modeled on [[Summerhill School]] resolve conflicts and make school policy decisions through full school meetings in which the votes of students and staff are weighted equally.<ref name="Burgh2006">{{cite book |last=Burgh |first=Gilbert |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yBiAYHPX5zwC&pg=PA98 |title=Ethics and the Community of Inquiry: Education for Deliberative Democracy |publisher=Cengage Learning Australia |year=2006 |isbn=0-17-012219-0 |page=98}}</ref>

==Criticism==
{{Expand section|date=November 2024}}
The core criticism of direct democracy coincides with democracy's overall criticism. Critics have historically expressed doubts of the populace's capacity of participation, both in terms of numbers and ability, deeming its advocates utopian.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} Despite this, instances of direct democracy – such as the [[Petrograd Soviet]] – lack documented incidents involving participation deficits or [[mobocracy]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

From the [[Liberal democracy|liberal democratic]] standpoint, restraining popular influence stonewalls the [[state of nature]], protecting [[Property rights (economics)|property rights]]. Adversaries of greater democratization cast doubt on [[human nature]], painting a narrative of misinformation and impulsivity.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} [[MAREZ]], utilizing [[sortition]], had managed itself successfully prior to being overrun by drug cartels, as did [[FEJUVE]] remaining tranquil with self-managed organizations.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

Although [[Revolutionary Catalonia]] had demonstrated the feasibility of non-liberal democracy, critics have continued to deride its presumed mobocratic nature, although there are no recorded instances of [[tyranny of the majority]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} It is of note that direct democracy's critics have emerged from Hobbesian and liberal philosophy.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

== See also ==
{{Portal|Politics}}
* [[Anarcho-communism]]
* [[Citizens' assembly]]
* [[Deliberative democracy]]
* [[Libertarian socialism]]
* [[Liquid democracy]]
* [[Participatory democracy]]
* [[Participatory economics]]
* [[Populism]]
* [[Sociocracy]]
* [[Sortition]]
* [[Workers' councils]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
{{refbegin|40em}}
* {{cite book |author1-last=Cary |author1-first=M. |author2-last=Scullard |author2-first=H. H. |author2-link=Howard Hayes Scullard |year=1967 |title=A History Of Rome: Down To The Reign Of Constantine |location=New York |publisher=St. Martin's Press |edition=2nd }}
* {{cite book |author1-last=Benedikter |author1-first=Thomas E. |year=2021 |title=When Citizens Decide by Themselves: An Introduction to Direct Democracy |location=Bozen |publisher=POLITiS |ref =CITEREFBenedikterThomas2021}}
* {{cite book |author1-last=Cronin |author1-first=Thomas E.|year=1989 |title=Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Harvard University Press |ref =CITEREFCroninThomas1989}}
* {{cite book |author-last=Elster |author-first=Jon |chapter=Introduction |chapter-url=http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139175005&cid=CBO9781139175005A007&tabName=Chapter |chapter-url-access=subscription |author-link=Jon Elster |year=1998 |title=Deliberative Democracy |editor-last=Elster |editor-first=Jon |series=Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=9780521592963 |doi=10.1017/CBO9781139175005 |access-date=2014-04-09 |archive-date=2016-03-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328155550/http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139175005&cid=CBO9781139175005A007&tabName=Chapter |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite book | last=Fishkin |first=James S. |author-link=James S. Fishkin |year=2011 |title= When the People Speak |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780199604432 }}
* {{cite book |author1-last=Golay |author1-first=Vincent |year=2008 |title=Swiss Political Institutions |others=Illustrated by Mix & Remix |location=Le Mont-sur-Lausanne |publisher=Éditions loisirs et pédagogie |isbn=9782606012953}}
* {{cite book |author1-last=Gutmann |author1-first=Amy |author-link1=Amy Gutmann |author2-last=Thompson |author2-first=Dennis F. |author2-link=Dennis Frank Thompson |year=2004 |title=Why Deliberative Democracy? |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=9780691120188  |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OmlrGo1fZdMC |access-date=8 April 2014}}
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/SUXkX4U1Ir8 Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160114144327/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUXkX4U1Ir8 Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation |last=Hirschbühl |first=Tina |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUXkX4U1Ir8 |title=The Swiss Government Report 1 |publisher=Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Presence Switzerland |date=2011a  |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/9QJORezLAaw Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160114144327/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QJORezLAaw Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation |last=Hirschbühl |first=Tina |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QJORezLAaw |title=The Swiss Government Report 2 |publisher=Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Presence Switzerland |date=2011b  |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/V9Ei50c2c1I Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20140519202627/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Ei50c2c1I&gl=US&hl=en Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation |last=Hirschbühl |first=Tina |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Ei50c2c1I |title=How Direct Democracy Works In Switzerland – Report 3 |publisher=Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Presence Switzerland |date=2011c  |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/Fp48yJT4Cy4 Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160114144327/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp48yJT4Cy4 Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation |last=Hirschbühl |first=Tina |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp48yJT4Cy4 |title=How People in Switzerland Vote – Report 4 |publisher=Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Presence Switzerland |date=2011d  |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/pp66RSP8gAQ Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20160114144327/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp66RSP8gAQ Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Citation |last=Hirschbühl |first=Tina |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp66RSP8gAQ |title=Switzerland & the EU: The Bilateral Agreements – Report 5 |publisher=Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, Presence Switzerland |date=2011e  |via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}
* {{Cite book |last=Kobach |first=Kris W. |year=1993 |title=The Referendum: Direct Democracy In Switzerland |publisher=Dartmouth Publishing Company |isbn=9781855213975 }}
* Marabello, Thomas Quinn. (2023) "The Origins of Democracy in Switzerland", ''Swiss American Historical Society Review'', Vol. 59: No. 1,  Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol59/iss1/4
* {{cite book |author1-last=Raaflaub |author1-first=Kurt A. |author-link1=Kurt Raaflaub |author2-last=Ober |author2-first=Josiah |author3-last=Wallace |author3-first=Robert W. |year=2007 |title=Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=9780520932173 }}
* Razsa, Maple. (2015)  ''Bastards of Utopia: Living Radical Politics After Socialism''.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
* {{cite book |last=Ross |first=Carne |author-link=Carne Ross |year=2011 |title=The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century |location=London |publisher= Simon & Schuster |isbn=9781847375346 }}
* {{cite book|last=Stokes|first=Susan C.|chapter=Pathologies of Deliberation|chapter-url=http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139175005&cid=CBO9781139175005A012&tabName=Chapter|title=Deliberative Democracy|year=1998|editor-last=Elster|editor-first=Jon|series=Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy|publisher=Cambridge University Press|chapter-url-access=subscription|author-link=Susan Stokes|isbn=9780521592963|doi=10.1017/CBO9781139175005|access-date=2014-04-09|archive-date=2016-03-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328155558/http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139175005&cid=CBO9781139175005A012&tabName=Chapter|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite book |last=Watts |first=Duncan |year=2010 |title=Dictionary of American Government and Politics |url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryameric00watt |url-access=limited |publisher=Edinburgh University |page=[https://archive.org/details/dictionaryameric00watt/page/n85 75] |isbn=9780748635016 }}
* {{cite book |last=Zagarri |first=Rosemarie |year=2010 |title=The Politics of Size: Representation in the United States, 1776–1850 |publisher=Cornell University |isbn=9780801476396 }}
{{refend}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin|40em}}
* Arnon, Harel (January 2008). "A Theory of Direct Legislation" (LFB Scholarly)
* Cronin, Thomas E. (1989). ''Direct Democracy: The Politics Of Initiative, Referendum, And Recall.'' Harvard University Press.
* De Vos et al (2014) South African Constitutional Law – In Context: Oxford University Press
* Finley, M.I. (1973). ''Democracy Ancient And Modern''. Rutgers University Press.
* [[Takis Fotopoulos|Fotopoulos, Takis]], ''Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project'' (London & NY: Cassell, 1997).
* [[Takis Fotopoulos|Fotopoulos, Takis]], ''The Multidimensional Crisis and [[Inclusive Democracy]]''. (Athens: Gordios, 2005). ([http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/english/brbooks/multi_crisis_id/multi_crisis_id.htm English translation] of the book with the same title published in Greek).
* [[Takis Fotopoulos|Fotopoulos, Takis]], [http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no2_Takis_liberal_socialist.htm "Liberal and Socialist 'Democracies' versus Inclusive Democracy"], ''The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY'', vol.2, no.2, (January 2006).
* Fuller, Roslyn, 2015, "Beasts and Gods: How Democracy Changed Its Meaning and Lost its Purpose." Zed Books.
* Gerber, Elisabeth R. (1999). ''The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence And The Promise Of Direct Legislation''. Princeton University Press.
* [[Mogens Herman Hansen|Hansen, Mogens Herman]] (1999). ''The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology''. University of Oklahoma, Norman (orig. 1991).
* [[Hans Köchler|Köchler, Hans]] (1995). [http://hanskoechler.com/DEM-CON.HTM ''A Theoretical Examination of the Dichotomy between Democratic Constitutions and Political Reality'']. University Center Luxemburg.
* Magleby, David B. (1984). ''Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in The United States''. Johns Hopkins University Press.
* Matsusaka, John G. (2004). For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy, Chicago Press.
* Matsusaka, John G. (2020).  Let The People Rule: How Direct Democracy Can Meet the Populist Challenge, Princeton University Press.
* National Conference of State Legislatures (2004). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20041009181106/http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/recallprovision.htm Recall of State Officials]".
* Nissani, M., (2023), "Eight Billion Cheers for Direct Democracy: Direct Democracy is Humankind’s Last, Best, and Only Hope." Dying of the Light Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367379858_Eight_Billion_Cheers_for_Direct_Democracy_Direct_Democracy_is_Humanity's_Last_Best_and_Only_Hope/references. E-book free download.
* [[Akiva Orr|Orr Akiva]] e-books, Free download: Politics without politicians&nbsp;– Big Business, Big Government or Direct Democracy.
* Pimbert, Michel (2010). Reclaiming citizenship: empowering civil society in policy-making. In: Towards Food Sovereignty. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02612.pdf?  e-book. Free download.
* [[Polybius]] (c.150 BC). ''The Histories''. Oxford University, The Great Histories Series, Ed., Hugh R. Trevor-Roper, and E. Badian. Translated by Mortimer Chambers. Washington Square Press, Inc (1966).
* {{cite web |last1=Reich |first1=Johannes |title=An Interactional Model of Direct Democracy - Lessons from the Swiss Experience |journal= |date=5 June 2008 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.1154019 |ssrn=1154019 |url=https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/85318/1/Reich_SSRN_2008.pdf }}
* Serdült, Uwe (2014) Referendums in Switzerland, in Qvortrup, Matt (Ed.) Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 65–121.
* Verhulst Jos en Nijeboer Arjen [http://www.democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html Direct Democracy] e-book in 8 languages. Free download.
* Zimmerman, Joseph F. (March 1999). [https://www.questia.com/library/book/the-new-england-town-meeting-democracy-in-action-by-joseph-f-zimmerman.jsp ''The New England Town Meeting: Democracy In Action''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111123155020/http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-new-england-town-meeting-democracy-in-action-by-joseph-f-zimmerman.jsp |date=2011-11-23 }}. Praeger Publishers.
* Zimmerman, Joseph F. (December 1999). ''The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making''. Praeger Publishers.
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Commons category|Direct democracy}}
* [http://www.iniref.org INIREF Campaign for Direct Democracy GB]
* "[https://www.yoopery.com/2021/05/What-are-the-main-features-of-democracy.html What are the main features of democracy]" - yoopery

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Direct Democracy}}
[[Category:Direct democracy| ]]
[[Category:Society of ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Autonomy]]
[[Category:Direct action]]
[[Category:Popular sovereignty]]
[[Category:Referendums]]