Supremasi Hukum dan Demokrasi

The government administration laid upon the principle of people's sovereignty is absolutely in need of the enforcement of law supremacy as well as the clear democracy mechanism. The enforcement of law supremacy itself depends on the visibility and the accuracy of the regulation of law and legislation for government, representative, and judicial institutions, and the assurance of law protection for individuals (citizens) against the behavior of authorityandsocialaction which contradict with the norms of law as well. In undertaking the enforcement of law supremacy dan democracy, the cultural aspect must be put in line with the quality of substance one. This effort is greatly needed in arranging conflicts so that the maturation of democracy through law enforcement can be consistent and fair

Representative democracy and the implementation of majority-preferred alternatives

In this paper, we contrast direct and representative democracy. In a direct democracy, individuals have the opportunity to vote over the alternatives in every choice problem the population faces. In a representative democracy, the population commits to a candidate ex ante who will then make choices on its behalf. While direct democracy is normatively appealing, representative democracy is the far more common institution because of its practical advantages. The key question, then, is whether representative democracy succeeds in implementing the choices that the group would make under direct democracy. We find that, in general, it does not. We analyze the theoretical setting in which the two methods are most likely to lead to the same choices, minimizing potential sources of distortion. We model a population as a distribution of voters with strict preferences over a finite set of alternatives and a candidate as an ordering of those alternatives that serves as a binding, contingent plan of action. We focus on the case where the direct democracy choices of the population are consistent with an ordering of the alternatives. We show that even in this case, where the normative recommendation of direct democracy is clear, representative democracy may not elect the candidate with this ordering

The Quest for Legitimacy: A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Origin and Role of Direct Democracy in Switzerland, California, and New Zealand

This thesis is a comparative constitutional study of the origin and role of direct democracy in Switzerland, California, and New Zealand. It reveals that the direct democracy systems in these jurisdictions came into being as a consequence of sustained periods of economic turmoil which coincided with widespread disillusionment with the performance of elected representatives. Constitutional reformers in these jurisdictions embraced direct democracy as a means of improving, not displacing, representative democracy. Their aim was to restore the legitimacy of their constitutional systems. The study also demonstrates that the majoritarian potential of the direct democracy devices in Switzerland, California, and New Zealand is limited. It is limited to the extent that is consistent with the constitutional principles underlying representative democracy in these jurisdictions, particularly those designed to protect minority rights. This reconciles the competing philosophical traditions on which most of the arguments for and against direct democracy are based. Provided minority rights are protected sufficiently, Jeffersonian-inspired advocates of direct democracy should not offend adherents of representative democracy, whether Burkeian or Madisonian in its conception. This thesis concludes that the direct democracy systems in Switzerland, California, and New Zealand are not the same, nor could be, given the unique forces that contributed to the formation and practice of constitutional law in these jurisdictions. They are different primarily because direct and representative democracy coalesced differently in Switzerland, California, and New Zealand due to variations in the constitutional principles underlying representative democracy in these jurisdictions. These principles vary because constitutional law in each jurisdiction is a unique and intricate confluence of law, politics, history, economics, and cultural expectations. This study also fills a void in the literature on direct democracy, primarily by documenting the origin of New Zealand's direct democracy system, analysing its possible role, and comparing it to the origin and role of the systems in Switzerland and California. In doing so, it provides a detailed examination of the origin and role of direct democracy in Switzerland and California, topics that have previously escaped comprehensive treatment

Linking democratic preferences and political participation: evidence from Germany

An extensive body of literature discusses the disaffection of citizens with representative democracy and highlights increasing citizens’ preferences for political decision-makers beyond elected politicians. But so far, little research has been conducted to analyse the relations between citizens’ respective preferences and their political behaviour. To address this void in the literature, our article investigates the extent to which citizens’ preferences for certain political decision-makers (politicians, citizens or expert) have an impact on their retrospective and prospective political participation. Our analysis draws on data from a survey conducted in autumn of 2014 on a probability representative sample in Germany. Results indicate that respondents favouring politicians as decision-makers focus mainly on voting. Those who favour citizens as decision-makers are more willing to get involved in participatory procedures, while those inclined towards expert decision-making show mixed participation

Political Constitutionalism and Referendums: The Case of Brexit

The UK's political constitution rests on the checking and balancing operations of a representative system in which parliament is sovereign. By contrast, referendums are often considered instances of popular sovereignty. Critics condemn them as populist appeals to a singular will of the people that risk majority tyranny, supporters believe they allow citizens to check and balance the elitism of politicians. Such arguments lay behind the criticism and praise of the Brexit referendum. This article argues that while the criticism is justified when referendums form an alternative to representative democracy, they can usefully supplement such a system provided they are embedded within and constrained by it. So conceived, the Brexit referendum can be regarded as consistent with political constitutionalism. Yet, this conception challenges claims that it represented the sovereign will of the people. The result remained subject to ratification by a sovereign parliament and could be legitimately overturned by that body

Having a say: ‘access to justice’ as democratic participation

Despite the pervasiveness of civil law in Western societies and the impact of its judicial creation and administration, citizens are too often bystanders in litigation; they are either represented by lawyers, and/or increasingly required to resolve these problems themselves without the assistance of legal representation. In terms of access to justice policy and initiatives, the response to this critical problem represents one of the most contested issues on the law-and-society agenda and there have been continuing debates over the meaning of access, its objectives, and its success. The question that arises in this regard is pertinent – can access to justice initiatives empower individuals to meaningfully participate in the legal decisions and processes that affect their lives and by extension, the democratic process? This paper critically examines whether, given the structure of the civil justice system, participation by self-represented litigants is a legitimate or viable foundation for access to justice initiatives

The EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina: Democracy promotion within the limits of the "ethnic conflict" paradigm

Seeking to contribute to the emerging debate about the substance of EU democracy promotion policies, this paper takes as its focus Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the EU‟s current democracy promotion efforts are primarily focused on reform of the country‟s constitution. Bosnia‟s current constitution, established by the 1995 Dayton Agreement, provides for consociational power-sharing and extensive territorial decentralisation. While EU officials have stressed the inadequacies of the present constitutional arrangements, over time the reforms demanded have become more limited in scope. As such, I suggest that the outcome of any successful constitutional reform negotiations will be technical fixes to the present constitution, allowing the country to meet the obligations of future EU membership, rather than its wholesale redesign. Rather than promoting liberal democracy as it has elsewhere, then, in Bosnia the EU supports the perpetuation of consociational structures, which EU officials regard as the most realistic option given the country‟s post-conflict political context. Faced with the lack of a constitutional norm within the Union, let alone a consociational one, EU policy-makers have instead chosen to refer to a particular reading of the history of the European integration project itself in order to lend support to their approach in Bosnia, which continues to privilege group over individual rights. I highlight how notions of a „union of diversity‟ or a „union of minorities‟ are used to legitimise an approach to democracy promotion that is predicated on a view of Bosnia as composed of a patchwork of ethnic groups with discrete and discernable interests and identities

Direct democracy and subjective regime legitimacy in Europe

While much research focuses on the causes and consequences of direct democracy and regime legitimacy, little attention has been paid to the potential relationship between them. In an attempt to fill this void, this paper focuses on the legal provisions for direct democracy and its use. The key argument is that possibilities for the public’s direct involvement reflect high importance given to citizens, openness of the regime towards different modes of decision-making, and ways to avoid unpopular institutions. Consequently, citizens are likely to accept and support the regime, improving or maintaining its legitimacy. The cross-national analysis includes 38 European countries ranging from transition countries to established democracies. It uses bivariate statistical analysis and country-level data collected from legislation, secondary sources, and aggregate surveys