Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T11:01:17.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Deliberative Potential of Facultative Referendums

Procedure and Substance in Direct Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Alice el-Wakil
Alice el-Wakil*
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
*
alice.el-wakil@zda.uzh.ch
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Deliberative democracy theorists have long dismissed direct democratic mechanisms, suspecting them of fundamentally contradicting the deliberative ideal. One reason for this dismissal is that, as aggregative devices, all direct democratic institutions would implement a purely procedural view of democracy deemed undesirable. In this article, I contest this objection to all direct democratic procedures by showing that one of them, namely, the facultative referendum, corresponds to Joshua Cohen’s definition of substantive democracy. Moreover, because it introduces uncertainty in the democratic system and replaces hypothetical with actual acceptance of reasons, the facultative referendum gives political actors strong incentives to think in terms of acceptable justifications and can screen outcomes that fit the three principles of Cohen’s deliberative ideal. These findings should encourage deliberative democracy theorists to further develop tools to inform the design and assessment of the growing number of popular votes around the world and ultimately enhance their democratic quality.

Keywords

contestationdemocratic legitimacyinstitutional designparticipatory politicspopular voteveto power

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , June 2017, pp. 59 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2009. “Democracy: Instrumental vs. Non-instrumental Value.” Pp. 213–227 in Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, ed. Thomas, Christiano and Christman, John. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, André, Simon, Niemeyer, Michael, Neblo, Marco R., Steenbergen, and Jürg, Steiner. 2010. “Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 32–63.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel, and Jack, Knight. 2014. “Legitimacy.” Pp. 2079–2090 in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, ed. Michael, Gibbons, Diana, Coole, Elisabeth, Ellis and Kennan, Ferguson. London: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, Richard. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511490187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1998. “Contract or Conversation? Theoretical Lessons from the Canadian Constitutional Crisis.” Politics & Society 26 (1): 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory 37 (2): 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2010. “Theories of Political Justification.” Philosophy Compass 5 (11): 893–903.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00344.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2003a. “Introduction.” Pp. 3–16 in Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology, ed. Thomas, Christiano. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195136593.003.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” Pp. 17–34 in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Alan, Hamlin and Philip, Pettit. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1997. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 407–437 in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. James, Bohman and William, Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, and Charles, Sabel. 1997. “Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy.” European Law Journal 3 (4): 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, Nicole, and , Marit Böker. 2016. “Linking Mini-Publics to the Deliberative System: A Research Agenda.” Policy Sciences 49 (2): 173–190.10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2016. “Symposium Commentary: Reflections on the Theory of Deliberative Systems.” Critical Policy Studies 10 (2): 209–215.10.1080/19460171.2016.1170620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elstub, Stephen, and , Jean-Paul Gagnon. 2015. “A Genealogy of Deliberative Democracy.” Democratic Theory 3 (2): 100–117.Google Scholar
Elstub, Stephen, Selen, Ercan, and Ricardo Fabrino, Mendonça. 2016. “The Fourth Generation of Deliberative Democracy.” Critical Policy Studies 10 (2): 139–151.10.1080/19460171.2016.1175956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felicetti, Andrea, Simon, Niemeyer, and Nicole, Curato. 2016. “Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems.” European Political Science Review 8 (3): 427–448.10.1017/S1755773915000119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, and Robert, Richards. 2013. “Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies.” Politics & Society 41 (2): 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John, Robert, Richards, and Katherine, Knobloch. 2014. “Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections.” International Journal of Communication 8 (January.: 62–89.Google Scholar
Gledhill, James. 2015. “The Ideal and Reality of Epistemic Proceduralism.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy online first: 1–22.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1996. “Institutionalizing the Public Interest: The Defense of Deadlock and Beyond.” The American Political Science Review 90 (2): 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis, Thompson. 1999. “Democratic Disagreement.” Pp. 243–279 in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Stephen, Macedo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis, Thompson. 2009. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research.” Communication Theory 16 (4): 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2008. “Some Thoughts about Referendums, Representative Democracy, and Separation of Powers.” Constitutional Political Economy 20 (3–4): 251–266.10.1007/s10602-008-9065-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack. 1999. “Constitutionalism and Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 159–169 in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Stephen, Macedo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195131918.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack, and James, Johnson. 1994. “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy.” Political Theory 22 (2): 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leemann, Lucas, and Fabio, Wasserfallen. 2016. “The Democratic Effect of Direct Democracy.” American Political Science Review 110 (4): 750–762.10.1017/S0003055416000307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leib, Ethan J. 2006. “Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?” Buffalo Law Review 54 (October.: 903–925.Google Scholar
Leuenberger, Moritz. 2014. “Schafft sich die Demokratie selber ab?” Paper presented at the Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau (ZDA), 6 December. http://www.zdaarau.ch/dokumente/de/news/Referat_Leuenberger.pdf (accessed May 4 2016).Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Trans. Elly, Stein and Jane, Mansbridge. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, James, Bohman, Simone, Chambers, Thomas, Christiano, Archon, Fung, John, Parkinson, Dennis, Thompson, and Mark E., Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 1–26 in Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, ed. John, Parkinson and Jane, Mansbridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martí Mármol, José Luis. 2005. “The Sources of Legitimacy of Political Decisions: Between Procedure and Substance.” Pp. 259–281 in The Theory and Practice of Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence, ed. Luc J., Wintgens. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Masmejan, Denis. 2013. “C’est un pas dans le sens du respect de la volonté populaire.” LeTemps.ch, 22 May. http://www.letemps.ch/suisse/2013/05/22/c-un-sens-respect-volonte-populaire (accessed September 20 2016).Google Scholar
Owen, David, and Graham, Smith. 2015. “Survey Article: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Systemic Turn.” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (2): 213–234.10.1111/jopp.12054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, John. 2009. “Beyond ‘Technique’: The Role of Referendums in the Deliberative System.” Paper presented to the Referendums and Deliberative Democracy Workshop, 8 May. University of Edinburgh. http://ow.ly/i4V2309H1lQ (accessed August 3 2016).Google Scholar
Parkinson, John. 2012. “Democratizing Deliberative Systems.” Pp. 151–172 in Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, ed. John, Parkinson and Jane, Mansbridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, Fabienne. 2014. “Political Legitimacy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N., Zalta. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/legitimacy/.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1999. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198296428.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2004. “Depoliticizing Democracy.” Ratio Juris 17 (1): 52–65.10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00254.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2001a. “Making Democratic Connections: Political Equality, Deliberation and Direct Democracy.” Acta Politica 36 (4): 361–379.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2001b. “Reconstructing Democracy: Current Thinking and New Directions.” Government and Opposition 36 (4): 599–581.10.1111/1477-7053.00081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarini, Pascal, and Alexandre H., Trechsel. 1996. “Démocratie directe en Suisse: L’élite politique victime des droits populaires.” Swiss Political Science Review 2 (2): 1–35.10.1002/j.1662-6370.1996.tb00180.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 2004. “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (4): 315–356. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, Maija. 2006. “On the Problems of Responsibility and Accountability in Referendums.” European Journal of Political Research, June. 699–721.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00630.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco. 2009. “Deliberative Politics in Switzerland.” Pp. 283–301 in Demokratie als Leidenschaft: Planung, Entscheidung und Vollzug in der schweizerischen Demokratie, ed. Adrian, Vatter, Frédéric, Varone, and Fritz, Sager. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
Stojanovic, Nenad. 2009. “Afraid of Direct Democracy? A Reply to Critics.” Pp. 357–360 in Is Democracy Viable without a Unified Public Opinion? The Swiss Experience and the Belgian Case, ed. Dave, Sinardet and Marc, Hooghe. Brussels: Re-Bel e-books.Google Scholar
Trechsel, Alexander H. 2010. “Reflexive Accountability and Direct Democracy.” West European Politics 33 (5): 1050–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Mark E., Warren. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, IrisMarion, . 2001. “Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought.” Pp. 205–228 in Judgment, Imagination, and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt, ed. Ronald, Beiner and Jennifer, Nedelsky. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar