This post is from the same book from last week, the book with the title above. Now the summary is from Part III, with the title of, "Citizen Participation and Democracy." It was published
Since 1978 a growing number of Latin America's countries have adopted mechanisms for direct citizen participation. Often referred to as institutions of direct democracy, these mechanisms are a means of political participation through direct and universal suffrage. Their aim is to involve citizens directly in the decision-making process rather than having elected representatives make all of their decisions for them. As a ideal, direct democracy has appeal, but do such mechanisms function well in practice? History shows that in early Greece and some medieval urban communes, experiments in direct democracy were short-lived and incomplete. However, experiments in Italy, The U.S. (at the subnational level) and specially Switzerland demonstrate the potential of direct democracy as a mechanism for giving expression to the popular will. Consultations have become increasingly common across Europe, with such mechanism having been introduced recently in Denmark, France, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden. However these experiences do not necessarily provide insights into how similar institutions operate in Latin america. Segments of the electorate view direct democracy mechanisms as valid for improving the quality and depth of political representation, boosting participation, and strengthening the letitimacy of democratic institutions. As a result, a debate has opened with respect to the potential benefits and risks of these institutions. Critics suggest that D.D. may undermine institutions of representative democracy, and that they may be used by an authoritarian president to circumvent snd thereby weaken the legislature and political parties. Defenders of D.D. contend, however, that institutions of D.D. can enhance the legitimacy of the political process and lead to greater social integration. In addition, they point out that there is not a contradiction between D.D. and representative democracy. There is no reason, why D.D. can not complement, rather than supplant or weaken representative democracy. Several countries allow citizens to propose legislative initiatives, provided a certain percentage of the population backs the petition. The constitutions of some countries, including Brazil, also stipulate that if the legislature rejects a bill introduced by popular initiative, a certain percentage of the citizens may request that it be put to a referendum. Civil society's use of D.D. has centered on efforts to control and restrain rather than to create and innovate. In part this distinction reflects the fact that, despite provision for implementing these mechanisms, initiatives are not easy to carry out. They require the convergence of political will around a relevant, motivating issue and the development of a social movement to carry the process forward. There is no clear evidence that the use of D.D. has either improved ot damaged the performance of political systems around the world. In most Latin America countries both the use and impact of D.D. has been limited. These mechanisms have been used for a variety of reasons, ranging from demagogic manipulation to the defense of traditionalists interests and the implementation of reforms sought by voters. Their results have been mixed and, at times, unanticipated. An assessment of the impact of D.D. in the region should take into account how recently they have been adopted. With the exception of Uruguay, D.D. are a relatively new feature of Latin America democracy. Hence, more time is needed to evaluate their effects and their scope of application. In general, democracy will be strengthened to the extent that use of D.D. is rooted in and contributes to strenthening citizenship. This is possible only when efforts to reinforce democracy include civic education to support the development of values associated with the exercise of political participation beyond its electoral form. In societies such as those of Latin America, where poverty is persistently high, the use of D.D. may help offset the worrisome trend towards delegitimization of the political system. Because D.D. institutions provide an additional means for political expression, they can be a valuable way for people to signal their frustations to those in power. At the same time, it is important to avoid the danger of these mechanisms being used for demagogic purposes, hence clear limits should be established regarding the types of issues that they may be used to address. While the exercise of D.D. can strengthen political legitimacy and open channels of participationthat bring together citizens and their representatives, the primary institutions for articulating and aggregating citizens preferences remain political parties and congress. These institutions themselves need to be strengthened in order to improve the quality and legitimacy od democratic representation. Finally, it is important to recognize that whatever their impact, D.D. mechanisms are likely to remain part of the democratic system. Our main concern, therefore, should be to determine how and when to use them and for what purpose.
