Among other charges, he had illegally dissolved a public fund, FONAVI, to pay the debt. A strong social movement then mobilized to organize a referendum to return the funds to Peruvian citizens. Initially cancelled by the National Elections Commission, it was finally validated by the Constitutional Council and received two thirds of the votes cast, with a turnout of 84%. It should be noted that prior to this, several attempts to launch legislative citizen initiatives had failed following a cancellation decision from the National Elections Commission. More recently, a legislative citizen initiative was successful in Ecuador (see section 6). In short, in these countries, referendums are still largely a tool in the hands of presidents or largely unused – as in the case of Costa Rica.

Our global mapping of legislative citizen initiative ends with the last three Constitutions allowing for such direct democratic devices. In Togo and Uganda such schemes exist but have never been used. This lack of appeal is explained by the fact that no legislation has been passed specifying the procedures through which citizens can propose and vote an ordinary law. In Taiwan, on the other hand, the institution has been largely used since the December 2017 reform that lowered the signature threshold from 5% to 1.5%, leading 10 proposals to be put to a referendum in 2018. It should be noted that a 25% approval quorum is required to validate the results of the popular vote. This quorum has not proved particularly demanding as, out of the referendums held since then, none were invalidated on such grounds. Nevertheless, the mechanism remains only legislative, and restrictions of the Taiwanese legislative citizen initiative exist on fiscal and budgetary matters.

This overview shows that current legislative citizen initiative institutions tend to suffer from fundamental flaws. **Because between high signature thresholds, inaccessible quorums and limitations in policy fields, few legislative citizen initiatives succeed in being launched and a handful of proposals are validated when they obtain the support of a large majority of voters.**

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Best practices in legislative citizen initiatives</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Legislative citizen initiative</td><td>Threshold of signatures</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1,000 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Slovenia</td><td>Accessible</td><td>40,000 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>San Marino</td><td>Accessible</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Taiwan</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1,5%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Ecuador</td><td>Moderately accessible</td><td>1%</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.3. Plebiscites

Section 2 introduced a distinction between plebiscites initiated by the opposition (minority plebiscites) and those initiated by incumbents (government plebiscites). In the former case, plebiscites empower opposing forces, while in the latter, it concentrates power in the hands of the executive. This crucial difference is visible in the countries that use each of these institutions.

**Minority plebiscites are developed in many countries where the rejective referendum is also allowed.** These include many of the small island states of Oceania, Southern European and Latin-American countries. Denmark is the only country we found with minority plebiscite and without rejective referendum. It is hardly used, but it can indirectly contribute to a more consensual parliamentary activity. A more common minority plebiscite is allowed by presidents in parliamentary regimes. However, they become government plebiscites when the president plays a leading role in the government, which is the case in many semi-presidential regimes such as France.

**The government plebiscite, on the other hand, is also used in authoritarian states or flawed democracies.** It is the most common form of popular vote, but also the one that gives the people the least rights – as discussed in section 6.
### 3.3. Plebiscites

Section 2 introduced a distinction between plebiscites initiated by the opposition (minority plebiscites) and those initiated by incumbents (government plebiscites). In the former case, plebiscites empower opposing forces, while in the latter, it concentrates power in the hands of the executive. This crucial difference is visible in the countries that use each of these institutions.

**Minority plebiscites are developed in many countries where the rejective referendum is also allowed.** These include many of the small island states of Oceania, Southern European and Latin-American countries. Denmark is the only country we found with minority plebiscite and without rejective referendum. It is hardly used, but it can indirectly contribute to a more consensual parliamentary activity. A more common minority plebiscite is allowed by presidents in parliamentary regimes. However, they become government plebiscites when the president plays a leading role in the government, which is the case in many semi-presidential regimes such as France.

**The government plebiscite, on the other hand, is also used in authoritarian states or flawed democracies.** It is the most common form of popular vote, but also the one that gives the people the least rights – as discussed in section 6.
# 4. POPULAR VOTES IN PERSPECTIVE: RECENT TRENDS IN VOTING ACTIVITY

In 2023, the Centre for Research on Direct Democracy (C2D) and Ballotpedia have **recorded 121 referendums**, a little more than **two referendums per week**. However, these referendums were not distributed equally across countries. While popular votes occur frequently in some, well-documented countries – such as Switzerland Liechtenstein or Micronesia–, they are unknown to many others. This section puts 2023 into historical perspective by **analyzing the evolution of popular votes over time and space in the last five years**. This short timeframe provides a good sense of recent trends in a context where direct democracy institutions and practices are fast evolving (see section 6 for an overview of the developments to follow in 2024). This section hence complements other studies providing a long-term analysis of the practice referendums across the globe (Brüggemann, Gut, Serdült et al 2023) or focusing on an older sample of cases (Altman 2010, Matsusaka 2020). We start our journey into the recent history of popular votes by presenting the evolution of the number of national votes over time, followed by an analysis by country and then by institution types.

## 4.1. 2023: a bad year for popular votes?

When comparing referendum occurrence over time, **2023 does not stand out as very dynamic year for popular votes.** Figure 4.1 below shows the evolution of popular votes over the last five years and their distribution into national and subnational votes.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.1 – Evolution of the number of votes (all countries, 2019-2023). Source: C2D and Ballotpedia</figcaption></figure>
# 4. POPULAR VOTES IN PERSPECTIVE: RECENT TRENDS IN VOTING ACTIVITY

In 2023, the Centre for Research on Direct Democracy (C2D) and Ballotpedia have **recorded 121 referendums**, a little more than **two referendums per week**. However, these referendums were not distributed equally across countries. While popular votes occur frequently in some, well-documented countries – such as Switzerland Liechtenstein or Micronesia–, they are unknown to many others. This section puts 2023 into historical perspective by **analyzing the evolution of popular votes over time and space in the last five years**. This short timeframe provides a good sense of recent trends in a context where direct democracy institutions and practices are fast evolving (see section 6 for an overview of the developments to follow in 2024). This section hence complements other studies providing a long-term analysis of the practice referendums across the globe (Brüggemann, Gut, Serdült et al 2023) or focusing on an older sample of cases (Altman 2010, Matsusaka 2020). We start our journey into the recent history of popular votes by presenting the evolution of the number of national votes over time, followed by an analysis by country and then by institution types.

## 4.1. 2023: a bad year for popular votes?

When comparing referendum occurrence over time, **2023 does not stand out as very dynamic year for popular votes.** Figure 4.1 below shows the evolution of popular votes over the last five years and their distribution into national and subnational votes.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.1 – Evolution of the number of votes (all countries, 2019-2023). Source: C2D and Ballotpedia</figcaption></figure>
Two findings stand out. First, in 2023 and following two years where the pandemic halted democratic processes, **popular votes have not returned to their pre-COVID-19 level.** On the contrary, their number fell by **72%** compared to 2019. Interestingly though, the impact of the pandemic is more marked for 2021 and 2022, while votes scheduled in 2020 were held according to the proposed schedule. This may reflect the fact that parliamentary debates and political campaigning were negatively affected by the pandemic leading to delays in the organizing of votes (for an analysis of the European case, see Egger, Magni-Berton and de Saint Phalle 2024). As discussed in the following section, some votes held in 2023 were scheduled for a long time and postponed due to the restrictions introduced by pandemic containment policies.

Second, the evolution of popular votes is mostly **driven by subnational patterns.** Subnational votes account for most of the votes yearly held. This is explained by the fact that while some countries have provisions for direct democracy at the subnational level (Germany, the United States), they don't provide for such tools at national level of government. **The evolution of national votes is more uneven than that of sub-national votes.** The strongest decrease in subnational votes is experienced between 2020 and 2021 (-48% of votes held) while, in the case of national votes, their number nearly doubled between 2019 and 2020 (+84%) and between 2021 and 2022 (+92%). Note however, that evolution rates are boosted by the lowest number of national votes.

Figure 4.1 also hides the fact that subnational votes are not of equal importance across countries. In most instances, subnational votes are restricted to specific policy areas and more legally constrained than national ones. Important restrictions include the fact that votes can't be held on budgetary, constitutional or international matters. Notable exceptions to this rule include Switzerland and the United States where the practice of direct democracy is frequent and includes constitutional issues (although at the state level in the US).

## 4.2. Where did people vote the most over the last five years?

Quite intuitively, the geographic distribution of popular votes is very uneven.
Two findings stand out. First, in 2023 and following two years where the pandemic halted democratic processes, **popular votes have not returned to their pre-COVID-19 level.** On the contrary, their number fell by 72% compared to 2019. Interestingly though, the impact of the pandemic is more marked for 2021 and 2022, while votes scheduled in 2020 were held according to the proposed schedule. This may reflect the fact that parliamentary debates and political campaigning were negatively affected by the pandemic leading to delays in the organizing of votes (for an analysis of the European case, see Egger, Magni-Berton and de Saint Phalle 2024). As discussed in the following section, some votes held in 2023 were scheduled for a long time and postponed due to the restrictions introduced by pandemic containment policies.

Second, the evolution of popular votes is mostly **driven by subnational patterns.** Subnational votes account for most of the votes yearly held. This is explained by the fact that while some countries have provisions for direct democracy at the subnational level (Germany, the United States), they don't provide for such tools at national level of government. **The evolution of national votes is more uneven than that of sub-national votes.** The strongest decrease in subnational votes is experienced between 2020 and 2021 (-48% of votes held) while, in the case of national votes, their number nearly doubled between 2019 and 2020 (+84%) and between 2021 and 2022 (+92%). Note however, that evolution rates are boosted by the lowest number of national votes.

Figure 4.1 also hides the fact that subnational votes are not of equal importance across countries. In most instances, subnational votes are restricted to specific policy areas and more legally constrained than national ones. Important restrictions include the fact that votes can't be held on budgetary, constitutional or international matters. Notable exceptions to this rule include Switzerland and the United States where the practice of direct democracy is frequent and includes constitutional issues (although at the state level in the US).

## 4.2. Where did people vote the most over the last five years?

Quite intuitively, the geographic distribution of popular votes is very uneven.
Figure 4.2 displays the number of all referendums (hence, both national and subnational) per country for the ten countries that voted the most over the last five years. Two world leaders stand out: **Switzerland and the United States**. In the latter case however, votes are only held at the subnational level and driven by the 26 states providing for citizen initiatives and referendums (16 of them for constitutional amendments). In the former country however, votes are taking place both at the national and subnational levels. The other countries hosted a comparable and more limited number of referendums.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.2: Countries recording highest number of referendums (all levels, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

When taking a more comprehensive look at the data provided by the C2D and excluding Switzerland and the United States as outliers, 48 countries in the world recorded at least one referendum over 2019-2023. They are displayed in Figure 4.3 below.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.3 – Distribution of referendums across countries (2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>
Figure 4.2 displays the number of all referendums (hence, both national and subnational) per country for the ten countries that voted the most over the last five years. Two world leaders stand out: **Switzerland and the United States**. In the latter case however, votes are only held at the subnational level and driven by the 26 states providing for citizen initiatives and referendums (16 of them for constitutional amendments). In the former country however, votes are taking place both at the national and subnational levels. The other countries hosted a comparable and more limited number of referendums.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.2: Countries recording highest number of referendums (all levels, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

When taking a more comprehensive look at the data provided by the C2D and excluding Switzerland and the United States as outliers, 48 countries in the world recorded at least one referendum over 2019-2023. They are displayed in Figure 4.3 below.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.3 – Distribution of referendums across countries (2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>
These figures could convey however a **false sense of the popularity and diffusion of referendums**. In half of the countries displayed in Figure 4.3, popular vote was held in a one-off fashion, most of the time following a plebiscitary procedure. To better reflect the importance of these votes for the daily life of citizens, Figure 4.4 displays the top 10 countries that held the highest number of national referendums over our study period. This figure shows that, to the notable exception of the US and Switzerland, **countries recording the highest number of referendums mainly hold such votes at the national level**. Yet only a handful of countries did so regularly over the last five years. The Swiss and Liechtensteiners voted on a yearly basis over 2019-2023 (four out of five years in the latter case).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.4: Countries with highest numbers of referendums (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

In contrast, voters in the American Samoa, Ecuador, Liberia, Marshall Islands and Hungary voted only once but over multiple issues.

## 4.3. Direct democracy institutions activated

In this last part, we build on the typology developed in section 2 to detail the different direct democracy institutions activated in the last five years. Figure 4.5. below displays this information at the aggregated level.. Three types of institutions prevail: mandatory referendums, government plebiscite and rejective referendums. The geographical distribution of these institutions however varies a lot. Government plebiscites are recorded in 23 countries, including many non-democratic (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Tunisia) or backsliding regimes (Hungary and Poland).
These figures could convey however a **false sense of the popularity and diffusion of referendums**. In half of the countries displayed in Figure 4.3, popular vote was held in a one-off fashion, most of the time following a plebiscitary procedure. To better reflect the importance of these votes for the daily life of citizens, Figure 4.4 displays the top 10 countries that held the highest number of national referendums over our study period. This figure shows that, to the notable exception of the US and Switzerland, **countries recording the highest number of referendums mainly hold such votes at the national level**. Yet only a handful of countries did so regularly over the last five years. The Swiss and Liechtensteiners voted on a yearly basis over 2019-2023 (four out of five years in the latter case).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.4: Countries with highest numbers of referendums (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

In contrast, voters in the American Samoa, Ecuador, Liberia, Marshall Islands and Hungary voted only once but over multiple issues.

## 4.3. Direct democracy institutions activated

In this last part, we build on the typology developed in section 2 to detail the different direct democracy institutions activated in the last five years. Figure 4.5. below displays this information at the aggregated level.. Three types of institutions prevail: mandatory referendums, government plebiscite and rejective referendums. The geographical distribution of these institutions however varies a lot. Government plebiscites are recorded in 23 countries, including many non-democratic (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan or Tunisia) or backsliding regimes (Hungary and Poland).
Mandatory referendums were organized in 12 countries over our study period. Ecuador, with its partly mandatory referendums could be added to this list and the votes held are detailed in the following section. In contrast, a fewer group of countries provide for rejective referendums. Most of these are recorded in Switzerland, followed by Italy and Liechtenstein. Three countries hosted the 20 citizen-initiated constitutional amendment recorded. Most of them were organized in Switzerland (including a vote on a counterproposal to a citizen initiative), followed by Liechtenstein and Lithuania.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5: Direct democracy institutions triggered (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

Other institutions appear to be used in a much rarer fashion. Ecuador, San Marino, Slovakia, Taiwan are the only four countries where citizen initiated a legislative proposal. A minority plebiscite was initiated in Mexico, Moldova and Venezuela. Yet, in the last case, the plebiscite was deemed illegal by the ruling authorities and is reported as such in Figure 4.5 above. Italy and San Marino experienced a constitutional rejective initiative while only one recall referendum was organized in Mexico.

Let's now zoom into how the use of such institutions varies over time. Figure 4.6 only focuses on the main institutions identified in Figure 4.5 for readability purposes. Between 2019 and 2023, both the use of mandatory referendum and plebiscites has, overall, increased in frequency. Rejective referendums follow a similar pattern between 2019 and 2022 with a steady increase. Yet, their number dropped in 2023. When it comes to citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, 2021 stands out as a particularly dynamic year.
Mandatory referendums were organized in 12 countries over our study period. Ecuador, with its partly mandatory referendums could be added to this list and the votes held are detailed in the following section. In contrast, a fewer group of countries provide for rejective referendums. Most of these are recorded in Switzerland, followed by Italy and Liechtenstein. Three countries hosted the 20 citizen-initiated constitutional amendment recorded. Most of them were organized in Switzerland (including a vote on a counterproposal to a citizen initiative), followed by Liechtenstein and Lithuania.

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5: Direct democracy institutions triggered (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

Other institutions appear to be used in a much rarer fashion. Ecuador, San Marino, Slovakia, Taiwan are the only four countries where citizen initiated a legislative proposal. A minority plebiscite was initiated in Mexico, Moldova and Venezuela. Yet, in the last case, the plebiscite was deemed illegal by the ruling authorities and is reported as such in Figure 4.5 above. Italy and San Marino experienced a constitutional rejective initiative while only one recall referendum was organized in Mexico.

Let's now zoom into how the use of such institutions varies over time. Figure 4.6 only focuses on the main institutions identified in Figure 4.5 for readability purposes. Between 2019 and 2023, both the use of mandatory referendum and plebiscites has, overall, increased in frequency. Rejective referendums follow a similar pattern between 2019 and 2022 with a steady increase. Yet, their number dropped in 2023. When it comes to citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, 2021 stands out as a particularly dynamic year.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5: Evolution of main direct democracy institutions triggered (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

## References

Altman, D. (2010). Direct democracy worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

Brüggemann, Salim, Robin Gut, Uwe Serdült, and Jonas Wüthrich (2023) “The World of Referendums: 2023 edition.” Studienberichte des Zentrums für Demokratie Aarau, 24. Aarau: Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau (ZDA), July 1, 2023. report.rdb.Vote.

Egger C., Magni-Berton, R., de Saint Phalle E (2024). Covid-19 Policies in Europe, London : Palgrave
Matsusaka J.G. (2020) Let the people rule: How direct democracy can meet the populist challenge,
Princeton : Princeton University Press.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5: Evolution of main direct democracy institutions triggered (national level, 2019-2023)</figcaption></figure>

## References

Altman, D. (2010). Direct democracy worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

Brüggemann, Salim, Robin Gut, Uwe Serdült, and Jonas Wüthrich (2023) “The World of Referendums: 2023 edition.” Studienberichte des Zentrums für Demokratie Aarau, 24. Aarau: Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau (ZDA), July 1, 2023. report.rdb.Vote.

Egger C., Magni-Berton, R., de Saint Phalle E (2024). Covid-19 Policies in Europe, London : Palgrave
Matsusaka J.G. (2020) Let the people rule: How direct democracy can meet the populist challenge,
Princeton : Princeton University Press.
5. POPULAR VOTES IN 2023

This section zooms into the 37 votes organized in 11 countries at the national level. Figure 5.1 below displays where such votes have been held. While some countries – such as Liechtenstein, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia or Switzerland – are often used as typical cases of direct democracy institutions, in others – such as the Central African Republic, Mali or Uzbekistan – popular votes are much rarer. Note that, as discussed in the conclusion, C2D data does not record some important votes that were held in 2023, such as the Chilean constitutional referendum and the plebiscite in Venezuela.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.1: Geographical distribution of national referendums held in 2023</figcaption></figure>

For each of the vote, we discuss the legal design activated and provide contextual information about the nature and stakes of the votes for the people living in these countries. As covering 37 votes would be a daunting and necessarily incomplete task, the presentation of the votes is organized along thematic and country-specific lines.
5. POPULAR VOTES IN 2023

This section zooms into the 37 votes organized in 11 countries at the national level. Figure 5.1 below displays where such votes have been held. While some countries – such as Liechtenstein, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia or Switzerland – are often used as typical cases of direct democracy institutions, in others – such as the Central African Republic, Mali or Uzbekistan – popular votes are much rarer. Note that, as discussed in the conclusion, C2D data does not record some important votes that were held in 2023, such as the Chilean constitutional referendum and the plebiscite in Venezuela.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.1: Geographical distribution of national referendums held in 2023</figcaption></figure>

For each of the vote, we discuss the legal design activated and provide contextual information about the nature and stakes of the votes for the people living in these countries. As covering 37 votes would be a daunting and necessarily incomplete task, the presentation of the votes is organized along thematic and country-specific lines.
## 5.1. Legitimizing presidential power grabs with referendums: Central African Republic, Mali and Uzbekistan

In 2023, citizens from three countries installed a new constitution through a referendum: Central African Republic (hereafter: CAR), Mali and Uzbekistan. In these three countries – characterized by low levels of democratic quality – plebiscites were initiated by the President, pursuing different strategic motives. We group these cases together as they exemplify how plebiscites can be manipulated to legitimize autocratic decisions in non-democratic regimes.

In Uzbekistan, the referendum held on April 30th 2023 aimed at allowing the current President of the country, Shavkat Mirziyoyev to seek a third term in 2026. Under the Uzbek constitution, presidents face a limit of two terms of five years each. Interestingly however, the new constitutional law does not only alter the article specifying presidential term limit but introduces a much larger set of constitutional changes, including an extension of the duration of the presidential term to seven years as well as the formal recognition of a series of socio-economic rights. One of the most contentious issues surrounding the organizing of the plebiscite was the announcement that constitutional changes would include rescinding Karakalpakstan's right to vote on whether to secede. This announcement triggered protests in this semi-autonomous region that led to postponing the vote with 18 deaths reported in violent clashes with the police in the Karakalpak capital, Nukus. The new constitution retains the Karakalpakstan secession right (Euronews 2023, Putz 2023). Note that in proposing a full revision of the constitution, President Mirziyoyev followed the procedure specified in the constitution by having the referendum first validated by the National Parliament.

Power grab was also a central motive behind the constitutional revision submitted to plebiscite by CAR's president Faustin-Archange Touadéra. The new constitutional law scraps the two-term limit and extends the presidential mandate from five to seven years. Other changes include banning politicians with dual citizenship from running for president unless they renounce the other, changes in the composition of the constitutional court increasing the number of members
## 5.1. Legitimizing presidential power grabs with referendums: Central African Republic, Mali and Uzbekistan

In 2023, citizens from three countries installed a new constitution through a referendum: Central African Republic (hereafter: CAR), Mali and Uzbekistan. In these three countries – characterized by low levels of democratic quality – plebiscites were initiated by the President, pursuing different strategic motives. We group these cases together as they exemplify how plebiscites can be manipulated to legitimize autocratic decisions in non-democratic regimes.

In Uzbekistan, the referendum held on April 30th 2023 aimed at allowing the current President of the country, Shavkat Mirziyoyev to seek a third term in 2026. Under the Uzbek constitution, presidents face a limit of two terms of five years each. Interestingly however, the new constitutional law does not only alter the article specifying presidential term limit but introduces a much larger set of constitutional changes, including an extension of the duration of the presidential term to seven years as well as the formal recognition of a series of socio-economic rights. One of the most contentious issues surrounding the organizing of the plebiscite was the announcement that constitutional changes would include rescinding Karakalpakstan's right to vote on whether to secede. This announcement triggered protests in this semi-autonomous region that led to postponing the vote with 18 deaths reported in violent clashes with the police in the Karakalpak capital, Nukus. The new constitution retains the Karakalpakstan secession right (Euronews 2023, Putz 2023). Note that in proposing a full revision of the constitution, President Mirziyoyev followed the procedure specified in the constitution by having the referendum first validated by the National Parliament.

Power grab was also a central motive behind the constitutional revision submitted to plebiscite by CAR's president Faustin-Archange Touadéra. The new constitutional law scraps the two-term limit and extends the presidential mandate from five to seven years. Other changes include banning politicians with dual citizenship from running for president unless they renounce the other, changes in the composition of the constitutional court increasing the number of members
appointed by the president as well suppressing the control of the Parliament over mining contracts now falling under the exclusive competence of the President. The plebiscite was criticized by human rights organizations as well as political opposition denouncing a so-called "constitutional coup" (Booty & Akinpelu 2023). The plebiscite took place as CAR experiences a civil war opposing governmental forces to rebels from the Seleka coalitions and anti-Balaka militias. The constitutional amendment was made public on July 10th 2023, 20 days before the holding of the plebiscite. This short delay prevented opposition parties and citizens from being fully informed of the proposed changes.

**A similar pattern characterizes the constitutional plebiscite held in Mali on June 18th 2023 whose aim was to legitimize the 2021 military coup.** For a long time, the scheduling of the referendum has been uncertain with the vote being postponed several times. Although the previous constitution planned for the referendum to be initially approved by the National Assembly, the 2023 vote was organized without such an approval. The new constitution considerably expands the powers of the President and creates new regions to settle the conflict with the Tuareg communities of the North of the country. The plebiscite occurred in a context of heightened tension with the former colonial power, France and used as a way of legitimizing the decision of the President, Assimi Goïta, to expel United Nations and French troops from the country. The new constitution no longer recognizes French as one of the official languages in Mali.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.2. Polling station in Mali (Credit: AFP)</figcaption></figure>
appointed by the president as well suppressing the control of the Parliament over mining contracts now falling under the exclusive competence of the President. The plebiscite was criticized by human rights organizations as well as political opposition denouncing a so-called "constitutional coup" (Booty & Akinpelu 2023). The plebiscite took place as CAR experiences a civil war opposing governmental forces to rebels from the Seleka coalitions and anti-Balaka militias. The constitutional amendment was made public on July 10th 2023, 20 days before the holding of the plebiscite. This short delay prevented opposition parties and citizens from being fully informed of the proposed changes.

**A similar pattern characterizes the constitutional plebiscite held in Mali on June 18th 2023 whose aim was to legitimize the 2021 military coup.** For a long time, the scheduling of the referendum has been uncertain with the vote being postponed several times. Although the previous constitution planned for the referendum to be initially approved by the National Assembly, the 2023 vote was organized without such an approval. The new constitution considerably expands the powers of the President and creates new regions to settle the conflict with the Tuareg communities of the North of the country. The plebiscite occurred in a context of heightened tension with the former colonial power, France and used as a way of legitimizing the decision of the President, Assimi Goïta, to expel United Nations and French troops from the country. The new constitution no longer recognizes French as one of the official languages in Mali.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.2. Polling station in Mali (Credit: AFP)</figcaption></figure>
All in all, these cases show that the democratic value of plebiscites lies in their design and the institutional rules in which they are embedded. Plebiscites can also serve as a way for autocratic leaders to legitimize their power grabs ambitions. In other cases – covered in the section below - constitutional referendums, especially when they are mandatory or citizen-initiated, are more difficult to instrumentalize by the political elites.

## 5.2. Voting on constitutional changes through mandatory referendums

In 2023, the citizens in six countries voted on a series of constitutional amendments. In some cases – such as Micronesia or Switzerland -, constitutional amendments are a routine matter, and multiple referendums were held on different proposals. In others, however, they are rarer and only one proposal was put to the ballot in Australia. In these three countries, the result of the referendum is binding, and elected officials have no choice but to get the consent of their citizenry to change the national constitution. In what follows, we briefly present the design of the referendum, context as well as the outcomes of each of these votes.

### The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

The 2023 Australian referendum – held on October 14th - is the one that has attracted most attention in the past year. The proposed constitutional amendment aimed at creating a new constitutional body - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (also called The Voice) – strengthening the representation rights of the Australian Indigenous People. The body would, according to the constitutional law, "make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". The Australian mandatory referendum requires a double majority: for the amendment to be adopted, the proposal needs to be supported by a majority of Australian voters as well as a majority of the states and territories. The proposal originated from a 2017 petition to the people of Australia, written and endorsed by the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders selected as delegates to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention.
All in all, these cases show that the democratic value of plebiscites lies in their design and the institutional rules in which they are embedded. Plebiscites can also serve as a way for autocratic leaders to legitimize their power grabs ambitions. In other cases – covered in the section below - constitutional referendums, especially when they are mandatory or citizen-initiated, are more difficult to instrumentalize by the political elites.

## 5.2. Voting on constitutional changes through mandatory referendums

In 2023, the citizens in six countries voted on a series of constitutional amendments. In some cases – such as Micronesia or Switzerland -, constitutional amendments are a routine matter, and multiple referendums were held on different proposals. In others, however, they are rarer and only one proposal was put to the ballot in Australia. In these three countries, the result of the referendum is binding, and elected officials have no choice but to get the consent of their citizenry to change the national constitution. In what follows, we briefly present the design of the referendum, context as well as the outcomes of each of these votes.

### The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

The 2023 Australian referendum – held on October 14th - is the one that has attracted most attention in the past year. The proposed constitutional amendment aimed at creating a new constitutional body - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (also called The Voice) – strengthening the representation rights of the Australian Indigenous People. The body would, according to the constitutional law, "make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". The Australian mandatory referendum requires a double majority: for the amendment to be adopted, the proposal needs to be supported by a majority of Australian voters as well as a majority of the states and territories. The proposal originated from a 2017 petition to the people of Australia, written and endorsed by the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders selected as delegates to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention.
The petition – entitled Uluru Statement from the Heart – aimed at addressing the structural lack of power of Australian indigenous people through the set-up of two commissions: a constitutionally protected First Nations Voice – mimicking an institution already in place in neighboring New Zealand – and a Makarrata Commission to oversee agreement-making and truth-telling between governments and First Nations (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). Then rejected by the then Liberal–National Coalition, the proposal was endorsed by the leader of the Labor Party Anthony Albanese in his victory speech of May 21st 2022. The referendum – characterized by a high turnout of close to 90% due to compulsory voting – saw the victory of the no camp with 60% of support from the voters. The pre-referendum campaign was highly polarized and heated with concerns raised about the quality of the public debate due to the spread of disinformation as well as the prevalence of racist arguments. The No-camp included a large range of far right and conservative groups as well as some progressive and indigenous movements considering that the proposal was not radical enough to produce a long-lasting change on the low level of political representation of indigenous groups in Australia. Nonetheless, regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.3. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined yes vote supporters at Sydney Opera House, August 22, 2023. Credit: Dion Georgopoulos/Sydney Morning Herald/Getty Images</figcaption></figure>
The petition – entitled Uluru Statement from the Heart – aimed at addressing the structural lack of power of Australian indigenous people through the set-up of two commissions: a constitutionally protected First Nations Voice – mimicking an institution already in place in neighboring New Zealand – and a Makarrata Commission to oversee agreement-making and truth-telling between governments and First Nations (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). Then rejected by the then Liberal–National Coalition, the proposal was endorsed by the leader of the Labor Party Anthony Albanese in his victory speech of May 21st 2022. The referendum – characterized by a high turnout of close to 90% due to compulsory voting – saw the victory of the no camp with 60% of support from the voters. The pre-referendum campaign was highly polarized and heated with concerns raised about the quality of the public debate due to the spread of disinformation as well as the prevalence of racist arguments. The No-camp included a large range of far right and conservative groups as well as some progressive and indigenous movements considering that the proposal was not radical enough to produce a long-lasting change on the low level of political representation of indigenous groups in Australia. Nonetheless, regions with a high proportion of Indigenous Australians overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.3. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined yes vote supporters at Sydney Opera House, August 22, 2023. Credit: Dion Georgopoulos/Sydney Morning Herald/Getty Images</figcaption></figure>
Micronesia

**The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia provide for a constitutional referendum to take place at least every ten years.** This can be seen as a way of ensuring that constitutional norms enjoy a high level of support and are constantly updated. **On July 4th, 2023, a package of nine reforms was put to the ballot.** Eight of these were proposed by the Constitutional Convention elected by citizens on November 4th 2019 while one originated from the Congress (Clark 2023). All amendments were supported by a majority of voters, with very ample margins. As discussed below, some constitutional amendments echo the proposals made in the Marshall Islands, especially regarding citizenship rules; legal decisions on land issues as well as strengthening the transparency of public life.

One of the most interesting amendments in the context of this report is the **reform of the supermajority requirement for mandatory referendums.** For a mandatory referendum to be valid in Micronesia, the proposal needed – before the adoption of the reform- to be supported by three-quarters of the votes in three-quarters of the states. As of 2023, the supermajority is now set at two-thirds of the votes in three-quarters of the states. This demanding requirement explains why, since 1991, not a single constitutional amendment has been adopted by voters. The decision to relax the supermajority – adopted in an historical referendum which saw all proposals adopted by the voters - is expected to make the adoption of constitutional amendments slightly easier, but the impact of the reform would need to be monitored in the coming years (see section 7).

Other institutional reforms covered in the package includes a contrary trend to the Marshall Islands with a decision to relax the constraints on accession to Micronesian citizenship. The ban on dual citizenship is, as of 2023, removed after having failed to pass in previous referendums in 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2017. While always supported by a majority of voters, this reform did not meet the high approval quorum in place. Allowing dual citizenship is an important implication of the adoption of the Compact of Free Association between Micronesia and the United States of America which has led many Micronesian-American to live in the United States and be eligible for US citizenship (Ordonio 2023). This relaxing was however coupled with more stringent rule to be eligible for office.
Micronesia

**The Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia provide for a constitutional referendum to take place at least every ten years.** This can be seen as a way of ensuring that constitutional norms enjoy a high level of support and are constantly updated. **On July 4th, 2023, a package of nine reforms was put to the ballot.** Eight of these were proposed by the Constitutional Convention elected by citizens on November 4th 2019 while one originated from the Congress (Clark 2023). All amendments were supported by a majority of voters, with very ample margins. As discussed below, some constitutional amendments echo the proposals made in the Marshall Islands, especially regarding citizenship rules; legal decisions on land issues as well as strengthening the transparency of public life.

One of the most interesting amendments in the context of this report is the **reform of the supermajority requirement for mandatory referendums.** For a mandatory referendum to be valid in Micronesia, the proposal needed – before the adoption of the reform- to be supported by three-quarters of the votes in three-quarters of the states. As of 2023, the supermajority is now set at two-thirds of the votes in three-quarters of the states. This demanding requirement explains why, since 1991, not a single constitutional amendment has been adopted by voters. The decision to relax the supermajority – adopted in an historical referendum which saw all proposals adopted by the voters - is expected to make the adoption of constitutional amendments slightly easier, but the impact of the reform would need to be monitored in the coming years (see section 7).

Other institutional reforms covered in the package includes a contrary trend to the Marshall Islands with a decision to relax the constraints on accession to Micronesian citizenship. The ban on dual citizenship is, as of 2023, removed after having failed to pass in previous referendums in 2005, 2007, 2011, and 2017. While always supported by a majority of voters, this reform did not meet the high approval quorum in place. Allowing dual citizenship is an important implication of the adoption of the Compact of Free Association between Micronesia and the United States of America which has led many Micronesian-American to live in the United States and be eligible for US citizenship (Ordonio 2023). This relaxing was however coupled with more stringent rule to be eligible for office.
The adopted constitutional amendment foresees the following cumulative conditions: i. be a citizen by birth (instead of having been for at least fifteen years); ii. having had residence in the country as a whole for at least five years prior to running for office (instead of in the state they run), iii. be at least 30 years of age, and be a domiciliary of the state the person is representing (the latter of which has no time requirement, instead of for at least five years previously). Other reforms – echoing the situation in the Marshall Islands – clarify that state courts – instead of the Supreme Court – have exclusive jurisdiction over cases concerning land issues as well as establish an office of the independent prosecutor, in charge of investigating and prosecuting alleged cases of corruption by public officials. The last institutional reform increases the power of the executive vis-à-vis the legislative branch by increasing the number of parliamentary votes needed to override a presidential veto.

Beside institutional issues, amendments were adopted on economic matters, including the proposal to transfer half of the revenues from fishing licenses to states (instead of the national government) and ensuring that half of the total annual sum of the net revenue derived from seabed mining is made available to states, shall the country engage in such activities – which remain prohibited for the time being.

The last amendment proposed by the Congress includes the recognition of a right to a healthy environment in the national constitution.

## Switzerland

The last stop in our tour of mandatory referendum is the poster child of direct democracy, **Switzerland**. Only one mandatory referendum took place in the country in 2023, concerning the **implementation of a directive by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) / G20 on the taxation of large groups**. The proposal aimed at limiting fiscal competition between high-income countries by implementing a 15% minimum profit tax on large groups. Large groups are defined by groups declaring an annual turnover of more than €750 million. The vote was made necessary by the fact that the new tax would require the federal government to encroach on the tax sovereignty of the cantons. In particular, the new tax would
The adopted constitutional amendment foresees the following cumulative conditions: i. be a citizen by birth (instead of having been for at least fifteen years); ii. having had residence in the country as a whole for at least five years prior to running for office (instead of in the state they run), iii. be at least 30 years of age, and be a domiciliary of the state the person is representing (the latter of which has no time requirement, instead of for at least five years previously). Other reforms – echoing the situation in the Marshall Islands – clarify that state courts – instead of the Supreme Court – have exclusive jurisdiction over cases concerning land issues as well as establish an office of the independent prosecutor, in charge of investigating and prosecuting alleged cases of corruption by public officials. The last institutional reform increases the power of the executive vis-à-vis the legislative branch by increasing the number of parliamentary votes needed to override a presidential veto.

Beside institutional issues, amendments were adopted on economic matters, including the proposal to transfer half of the revenues from fishing licenses to states (instead of the national government) and ensuring that half of the total annual sum of the net revenue derived from seabed mining is made available to states, shall the country engage in such activities – which remain prohibited for the time being.

The last amendment proposed by the Congress includes the recognition of a right to a healthy environment in the national constitution.

## Switzerland

The last stop in our tour of mandatory referendum is the poster child of direct democracy, **Switzerland**. Only one mandatory referendum took place in the country in 2023, concerning the **implementation of a directive by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) / G20 on the taxation of large groups**. The proposal aimed at limiting fiscal competition between high-income countries by implementing a 15% minimum profit tax on large groups. Large groups are defined by groups declaring an annual turnover of more than €750 million. The vote was made necessary by the fact that the new tax would require the federal government to encroach on the tax sovereignty of the cantons. In particular, the new tax would
create an additional fiscal burden on 21 cantons whose corporate taxation is much lower than the 15% threshold introduced by the OECD/G20 policy.

Nonetheless, the federal government, the parliament and canton authorities supported the introduction of the tax arguing that approx. 2000 companies will be affected (compared to the 600,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and that this evolution is both desirable and unavoidable, considering the negative effects of fiscal competition. The major bone of contention around the measure concerns the way this additional revenue will be distributed between the cantons and the federal government. The bill proposes that 75% of the tax revenue goes to the cantons. This led many left-wing parties to campaign against the bill, claiming that the revenue should go to federal level to avoid tax competition among cantons and ensure it is spent on projects benefiting Swiss people (Rigendinger 2023). Ultimately, Swiss voters supported the introduction of this minimum tax with an ample support of 78.5 % and a participation rate of 42,5%.

### 5.3. Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Switzerland: citizen-initiated referendums in 2023

Referendums were initiated by citizens in four countries in 2023. While such practices are more routine matter in Liechtenstein, they are more exceptional in Ecuador and Slovakia.

Ecuadorians voted on no less than nine proposals in 2023, eight of those being plebiscites (see part 5.4 below) on a series of presidential reforms aiming to consolidate the power of the Executive faced with a tense socio-political context. Some of these tensions crystalized around indigenous communities' rights in the Amazon and a **project of oil extraction in the Yasuní National Park**.

The referendum was initiated at the request of members of the indigenous community, the Waorani of Pastaza, supported by the environmental coalition Yasunidos after a **decade of legal struggles**. Extraction started in block 43 of Tiputini and Tambococha 2016 after the government of then-Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa failed to persuade the international community to pay former OPEC member Ecuador US$3.6 billion not to exploit the ITT block to protect the Amazon and help curb climate change.
create an additional fiscal burden on 21 cantons whose corporate taxation is much lower than the 15% threshold introduced by the OECD/G20 policy.

Nonetheless, the federal government, the parliament and canton authorities supported the introduction of the tax arguing that approx. 2000 companies will be affected (compared to the 600,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and that this evolution is both desirable and unavoidable, considering the negative effects of fiscal competition. The major bone of contention around the measure concerns the way this additional revenue will be distributed between the cantons and the federal government. The bill proposes that 75% of the tax revenue goes to the cantons. This led many left-wing parties to campaign against the bill, claiming that the revenue should go to federal level to avoid tax competition among cantons and ensure it is spent on projects benefiting Swiss people (Rigendinger 2023). Ultimately, Swiss voters supported the introduction of this minimum tax with an ample support of 78.5 % and a participation rate of 42,5%.

### 5.3. Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Switzerland: citizen-initiated referendums in 2023

Referendums were initiated by citizens in four countries in 2023. While such practices are more routine matter in Liechtenstein, they are more exceptional in Ecuador and Slovakia.

Ecuadorians voted on no less than nine proposals in 2023, eight of those being plebiscites (see part 5.4 below) on a series of presidential reforms aiming to consolidate the power of the Executive faced with a tense socio-political context. Some of these tensions crystalized around indigenous communities' rights in the Amazon and a **project of oil extraction in the Yasuní National Park**.

**The referendum was initiated at the request of members of the indigenous community, the Waorani of Pastaza, supported by the environmental coalition Yasunidos after a decade of legal struggles.** Extraction started in block 43 of Tiputini and Tambococha 2016 after the government of then-Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa failed to persuade the international community to pay former OPEC member Ecuador US$3.6 billion not to exploit the ITT block to protect the Amazon and help curb climate change.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.4. Ballot used in 2023 YASUNÍ oil extraction referendum</figcaption></figure>

Since then, indigenous groups living in the area have called for a referendum on oil extraction that the Ecuadorian constitutional court finally approved in May 2023. The referendum divided the Waorani community with many of its members acknowledging the contribution of the oil industry to employment and the provision of social services in the region. 54.11% of the voters approved a ban on oil extraction in the region. The Ecuadorian government is required to halt the operations and dismantle infrastructure within one year, as well as carry out remediation and reforestation (Collyns 2023). The outcome was interpreted as a serious blow against the President Lasso.

**Similar political tensions characterized the situation in Slovakia.** On January 21st, 2023, Slovaks were called to the ballot to allow the National Council of the Slovak Republic or citizens (through a referendum) to organize snap elections. The Slovak constitution allow snap elections if a the referendum fulfill participation quorum and majority requirements. The referendum was initiated by three opposition parties - Slovak Social Democracy (SMER), Voice - Social Democracy (HLAS), the Slovak National Party (SNS), and Socialisti.sk - already at the beginning of 2021 following the victory of the anti-corruption party - Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OL’aNO) party – in the 2020 parliamentary elections. OL’aNO’s leader, Igor Matovič, headed a coalition government with We Are Family (SR), Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), and For the People (ZL’).
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.4. Ballot used in 2023 YASUNÍ oil extraction referendum</figcaption></figure>

Since then, indigenous groups living in the area have called for a referendum on oil extraction that the Ecuadorian constitutional court finally approved in May 2023. The referendum divided the Waorani community with many of its members acknowledging the contribution of the oil industry to employment and the provision of social services in the region. 54.11% of the voters approved a ban on oil extraction in the region. The Ecuadorian government is required to halt the operations and dismantle infrastructure within one year, as well as carry out remediation and reforestation (Collyns 2023). The outcome was interpreted as a serious blow against the President Lasso.

**Similar political tensions characterized the situation in Slovakia.** On January 21st, 2023, Slovaks were called to the ballot to allow the National Council of the Slovak Republic or citizens (through a referendum) to organize snap elections. The Slovak constitution allow snap elections if a the referendum fulfill participation quorum and majority requirements. The referendum was initiated by three opposition parties - Slovak Social Democracy (SMER), Voice - Social Democracy (HLAS), the Slovak National Party (SNS), and Socialisti.sk - already at the beginning of 2021 following the victory of the anti-corruption party - Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OL’aNO) party – in the 2020 parliamentary elections. OL’aNO’s leader, Igor Matovič, headed a coalition government with We Are Family (SR), Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), and For the People (ZL’).
The management of the Covid-19 pandemic attracted a lot of criticisms following Matovič's decision to purchase Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccines without the approval of his coalition partners. He was then forced to step down as prime minister and replaced by Eduard Heger. The coalition however collapsed in September 2022 when SaS decided to withdraw his support to the government due to diverging views on economic matters. Political tensions culminated with a no-confidence motion that Heger's government successfully passed in December 2022. The initial request for a referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Slovak constitutional court as the proposed referendum would amend the constitution. A new collection of signatures was organized in August 2022. This time, the petitioners proposed two projects, one that would ask for the National Council to call a snap election and the other that would ask for the resignation of Heger's government. The second project was deemed unconstitutional by the Slovak Constitutional Court whereas the first was approved by Slovak President Čaputová. While the proposal received a large support in the poll – with 98.44% of the voters approving the possibility of snap elections –, the 50% participation quorum required for a referendum to be validated was not met. As a result, the outcome of the referendum was declared invalid as only 27% of the electorate turned out to vote. Nonetheless, a few days after the referendum, the National Council amended the constitution to allow for snap elections if approved by a three-fifths majority in the council.

**Swiss citizens voted on climate-related issues on June 18th 2023 in a facultative referendum on the Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security.** The new climate law aimed at cut net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 in the context of the Paris Agreement. The bill proposed to scale down the use of fossil fuels in Switzerland and to reduce its dependency on energy imports. Proposed measures include energy consumption reduction targets as well as supporting companies that shift to climate-friendly technologies. The bill is an indirect counterproposal to the Glacier Initiative launched in 2019. Unlike that initiative, the proposed bill does not aim to ban fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel, heating oil and gas. The supporters of the initiative conditionally retracted their proposal, considering that the counterproposal is an important step to make substantial progress in climate policies.
The management of the Covid-19 pandemic attracted a lot of criticisms following Matovič's decision to purchase Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccines without the approval of his coalition partners. He was then forced to step down as prime minister and replaced by Eduard Heger. The coalition however collapsed in September 2022 when SaS decided to withdraw his support to the government due to diverging views on economic matters. Political tensions culminated with a no-confidence motion that Heger's government successfully passed in December 2022. The initial request for a referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Slovak constitutional court as the proposed referendum would amend the constitution. A new collection of signatures was organized in August 2022. This time, the petitioners proposed two projects, one that would ask for the National Council to call a snap election and the other that would ask for the resignation of Heger's government. The second project was deemed unconstitutional by the Slovak Constitutional Court whereas the first was approved by Slovak President Čaputová. While the proposal received a large support in the poll – with 98.44% of the voters approving the possibility of snap elections –, the 50% participation quorum required for a referendum to be validated was not met. As a result, the outcome of the referendum was declared invalid as only 27% of the electorate turned out to vote. Nonetheless, a few days after the referendum, the National Council amended the constitution to allow for snap elections if approved by a three-fifths majority in the council.

**Swiss citizens voted on climate-related issues on June 18th 2023 in a facultative referendum on the Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security.** The new climate law aimed at cut net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 in the context of the Paris Agreement. The bill proposed to scale down the use of fossil fuels in Switzerland and to reduce its dependency on energy imports. Proposed measures include energy consumption reduction targets as well as supporting companies that shift to climate-friendly technologies. The bill is an indirect counterproposal to the Glacier Initiative launched in 2019. Unlike that initiative, the proposed bill does not aim to ban fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel, heating oil and gas. The supporters of the initiative conditionally retracted their proposal, considering that the counterproposal is an important step to make substantial progress in climate policies.
While the Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security received the support of political parties across the board, the right-wing Swiss People's Party – the largest party at the national level – did not agree with the new climate law and successfully launched a referendum. The arguments against the new bill – called an “electricity guzzler” – included the negative impacts of the proposed measures on the household bills in the midst of an energy crisis (Jorio 2023). Swiss voters however rejected these arguments and approved the bill by 59% (with a participation rate of 42,5%), paving the way for the energy transition in the country. Support for the Act particularly skyrocketed in large cities.

**Another crisis – the COVID-19 – was put to the ballot in Switzerland.** With their Liechtensteiner neighbors, Swiss citizens were the not only the rare ones able to vote on their national pandemic containment strategy but did so three times over a few years. In 2023, an amendment of 16 December 2022 to the Covid 19 Act was put to the ballot by the “Mesures NON” collective gathering two main associations opposed to Covid-19 measures, Mass-Voll and Amis de la Constitution. These organizations also initiated the other votes on Covid-19 measures. The amendment aimed at extending until mid-2024 the period of application for the legal provisions on certain measures such as COVID certificates, the imports of medicines for severe COVID-19 related diseases, the rules governing foreigners and cross-border employees during border closures, regulations protecting vulnerable individuals. The petitioners considered the measures to be useless as the pandemic is official over. They also criticized the disproportionated, discriminatory and undemocratic nature of the provisions. The supporters of the law, among which the government and the parliament, deemed the extension of the Covid-19 law necessary to provide the Confederation with a legal basis for resurrecting tried-and-tested measures in the event of a new wave of the pandemic. The amendment would in their view enable the authorities to act quickly to protect vulnerable people and the healthcare system (Romy 2023). As with the two other referendums, Swiss voters approved the proposed Covid-19 legislation with 61.9% supporting it (at a participation rate of 42.5%).
While the Federal Act on Climate Protection Targets, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security received the support of political parties across the board, the right-wing Swiss People's Party – the largest party at the national level – did not agree with the new climate law and successfully launched a referendum. The arguments against the new bill – called an “electricity guzzler” – included the negative impacts of the proposed measures on the household bills in the midst of an energy crisis (Jorio 2023). Swiss voters however rejected these arguments and approved the bill by 59% (with a participation rate of 42,5%), paving the way for the energy transition in the country. Support for the Act particularly skyrocketed in large cities.

**Another crisis – the COVID-19 – was put to the ballot in Switzerland.** With their Liechtensteiner neighbors, Swiss citizens were the not only the rare ones able to vote on their national pandemic containment strategy but did so three times over a few years. In 2023, an amendment of 16 December 2022 to the Covid 19 Act was put to the ballot by the “Mesures NON” collective gathering two main associations opposed to Covid-19 measures, Mass-Voll and Amis de la Constitution. These organizations also initiated the other votes on Covid-19 measures. The amendment aimed at extending until mid-2024 the period of application for the legal provisions on certain measures such as COVID certificates, the imports of medicines for severe COVID-19 related diseases, the rules governing foreigners and cross-border employees during border closures, regulations protecting vulnerable individuals. The petitioners considered the measures to be useless as the pandemic is official over. They also criticized the disproportionated, discriminatory and undemocratic nature of the provisions. The supporters of the law, among which the government and the parliament, deemed the extension of the Covid-19 law necessary to provide the Confederation with a legal basis for resurrecting tried-and-tested measures in the event of a new wave of the pandemic. The amendment would in their view enable the authorities to act quickly to protect vulnerable people and the healthcare system (Romy 2023). As with the two other referendums, Swiss voters approved the proposed Covid-19 legislation with 61.9% supporting it (at a participation rate of 42.5%).
In Liechtenstein, the referendum was initiated by the citizen group - IG VolksMeinung – who expressed concerns about gambling addiction and the impact of the increased implementation of casinos in the country – after their authorization in 2010 – on the reputation of the country. Both the Prince and the governments advocated against such a ban, being wary about the negative impacts the decision – which would lead to the ban of all casinos by 2028 - could have on the economy of the country. After a heated and polarized campaign, 73% of the voters voted against such a ban.

Overall, the comparative analysis of citizen-initiated referendums in 2023 reveals that the use of direct democracy is determined by its institutional design. In Slovakia, direct democracy tools are captured by party politics, as reflected by the low interest of citizens in the decisions put to the ballot. In Ecuador, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, referendums held in 2023 appear as a central role to debate governmental policies.

## 5.4. Plebiscites in Ecuador and Poland

Our global tour of the popular votes held in 2023 ends with Ecuador and Poland, two countries which respectively hosted eight and four plebiscites in 2023.

### Voting on a package of eight constitutional reforms in Ecuador

On 5 February 2023, Ecuadorian citizens were called to the ballot to approve a package of eight constitutional reforms. The plebiscite took place alongside local elections. The proposals were crafted by President Guillermo Lasso on a heated socio-political context. Lasso's party – CREO for Creando Oportunidades (Creating Opportunities) did not secure a majority in the Parliament leading to the formation of a minority government and an inability to secure parliamentary support for many of its proposed reforms. Moreover, the government had to face a protest movement from indigenous groups against poverty, mining activities and expropriation in their ancestral lands. These groups managed to get the support of one percent of the electorate and of the National Electoral Council to organize a citizen-initiated referendum in the Yasuní National Park (see section below). The eight referendum questions focused on a series of judicial, institutional and environmental issues (EFE 2022).
In Liechtenstein, the referendum was initiated by the citizen group - IG VolksMeinung – who expressed concerns about gambling addiction and the impact of the increased implementation of casinos in the country – after their authorization in 2010 – on the reputation of the country. Both the Prince and the governments advocated against such a ban, being wary about the negative impacts the decision – which would lead to the ban of all casinos by 2028 - could have on the economy of the country. After a heated and polarized campaign, 73% of the voters voted against such a ban.

Overall, the comparative analysis of citizen-initiated referendums in 2023 reveals that the use of direct democracy is determined by its institutional design. In Slovakia, direct democracy tools are captured by party politics, as reflected by the low interest of citizens in the decisions put to the ballot. In Ecuador, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, referendums held in 2023 appear as a central role to debate governmental policies.

## 5.4. Plebiscites in Ecuador and Poland

Our global tour of the popular votes held in 2023 ends with Ecuador and Poland, two countries which respectively hosted eight and four plebiscites in 2023.

### Voting on a package of eight constitutional reforms in Ecuador

On 5 February 2023, Ecuadorian citizens were called to the ballot to approve a package of eight constitutional reforms. The plebiscite took place alongside local elections. The proposals were crafted by President Guillermo Lasso on a heated socio-political context. Lasso's party – CREO for Creando Oportunidades (Creating Opportunities) did not secure a majority in the Parliament leading to the formation of a minority government and an inability to secure parliamentary support for many of its proposed reforms. Moreover, the government had to face a protest movement from indigenous groups against poverty, mining activities and expropriation in their ancestral lands. These groups managed to get the support of one percent of the electorate and of the National Electoral Council to organize a citizen-initiated referendum in the Yasuní National Park (see section below). The eight referendum questions focused on a series of judicial, institutional and environmental issues (EFE 2022).
Regarding judicial matters, the first constitutional proposal – also the most controversial – aimed at allowing the extradition of individuals demanded by other countries for the crimes related to international organized crime, including drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking and migrant smuggling in a context of increased violence. The second proposal aimed at transferring some of the competences of the Judicial Council on matters related to the appointment, training and evaluation of prosecutors to the Attorney General, supported by a fiscal council.

Institutional reforms mostly aimed at limiting the number of checks and balances in Ecuador in a declared attempt to limit the instability of the political system. It included a third proposal aiming at capping the number of seats of the National Assembly to 100 (against 137), a fourth proposal conditioning the possibility for a political party to take part in the elections to having as registered members at least 1,5% of the total number of registered voters in districts where it intends to compete. A fifth and sixth proposal focuses on the reform of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control, created in 2008 to strengthen the transparency of the public life in Ecuador.

Proposals include (1) changing the mode of appointment of members of the Council from direct elections to indirect suffrage hold by National Assembly members and (2) transferring the nomination powers of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control to the National Assembly with the development of a new framework of public policies guaranteeing citizen participation, meritocracy and citizen control. Third, environmental reforms included the creation of a water protection agency within the National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador as well as compensating individuals, communities, and indigenous peoples for environmental damages.

Although opinion polls consistently predicted a large level of supports for all constitutional proposals with ample margins, voters largely mobilized to the polling station (with a turnout of 81,7 %) to reject all proposals (Financial Times, 2023). The declaration of results sparked a controversy about the possibility of electoral fraud, after the electoral authority claims a lot of counterfeit ballots were submitted with "no".

## Plebiscites as a support to party politics in Poland

In Poland, plebiscites do not grant additional power to citizens but are a tool in the hands of the Executive to legitimize its policies and engage in party politics.
Regarding judicial matters, the first constitutional proposal – also the most controversial – aimed at allowing the extradition of individuals demanded by other countries for the crimes related to international organized crime, including drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking and migrant smuggling in a context of increased violence. The second proposal aimed at transferring some of the competences of the Judicial Council on matters related to the appointment, training and evaluation of prosecutors to the Attorney General, supported by a fiscal council.

Institutional reforms mostly aimed at limiting the number of checks and balances in Ecuador in a declared attempt to limit the instability of the political system. It included a third proposal aiming at capping the number of seats of the National Assembly to 100 (against 137), a fourth proposal conditioning the possibility for a political party to take part in the elections to having as registered members at least 1,5% of the total number of registered voters in districts where it intends to compete. A fifth and sixth proposal focuses on the reform of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control, created in 2008 to strengthen the transparency of the public life in Ecuador.

Proposals include (1) changing the mode of appointment of members of the Council from direct elections to indirect suffrage hold by National Assembly members and (2) transferring the nomination powers of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control to the National Assembly with the development of a new framework of public policies guaranteeing citizen participation, meritocracy and citizen control. Third, environmental reforms included the creation of a water protection agency within the National System of Protected Areas in Ecuador as well as compensating individuals, communities, and indigenous peoples for environmental damages.

Although opinion polls consistently predicted a large level of supports for all constitutional proposals with ample margins, voters largely mobilized to the polling station (with a turnout of 81,7 %) to reject all proposals (Financial Times, 2023). The declaration of results sparked a controversy about the possibility of electoral fraud, after the electoral authority claims a lot of counterfeit ballots were submitted with "no".

## Plebiscites as a support to party politics in Poland

In Poland, plebiscites do not grant additional power to citizens but are a tool in the hands of the Executive to legitimize its policies and engage in party politics.
The framing of the questions submitted to Polish citizens by the ruling right-wing party, Law and Justice, reflects a caricatural use of referendums.

Two questions were particularly loaded and aimed at leading citizens to reject the proposed policies, connected with the implementation of European Union rules at the national level. A first question concerns the privatization of state-owned enterprises ("Do you support the selling off of state assets to foreign entities, leading to the loss of Poles' control over strategic sectors of the economy?") while a second relates to migration policies ("Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, in accordance with the forced relocation mechanism imposed by the European bureaucracy?"). The two other questions concern the reform of the retirement age ("Do you support an increase in the retirement age, including the restoration of the increased retirement age to 67 for men and women?") as well as the border between Poland and Belarus ("Do you support the removal of the barrier on the border between Poland and Belarus?"). Beside the framing of the question, the organizing of the referendum was flawed, leading to its boycott by opposition parties. More especially, the law had been changed shortly before the announcement of the referendum to allow it to be held on the same day as the parliamentary election. This has been criticized as a way of skirting past electoral campaign budget limits by the incumbent Law and Justice party under the false pretense of referendum funding (Tilles 2023). Polish voters read clearly the strategic and manipulative motives of the ruling party and echoed calls to boycott of the plebiscite. While 70% of the electorate turn out to parliamentary elections, only 40% did cast a vote in the proposed referendum. As a result of not exceeding the minimum validity threshold of 50% turnout, the results are not legally binding.

### 5.5. Other prominent votes in 2023: Chile and Venezuela

Some prominent plebiscites that were held in 2023 are however not recorded in the C2D database. In concluding this section, we highlight the outcomes of two of them. **In Chile, the constituent process which started in October 2020 after- 2019 large-scale protests still hasn't allowed the adoption of a new constitution.**
The framing of the questions submitted to Polish citizens by the ruling right-wing party, Law and Justice, reflects a caricatural use of referendums.

Two questions were particularly loaded and aimed at leading citizens to reject the proposed policies, connected with the implementation of European Union rules at the national level. A first question concerns the privatization of state-owned enterprises ("Do you support the selling off of state assets to foreign entities, leading to the loss of Poles' control over strategic sectors of the economy?") while a second relates to migration policies ("Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, in accordance with the forced relocation mechanism imposed by the European bureaucracy?"). The two other questions concern the reform of the retirement age ("Do you support an increase in the retirement age, including the restoration of the increased retirement age to 67 for men and women?") as well as the border between Poland and Belarus ("Do you support the removal of the barrier on the border between Poland and Belarus?"). Beside the framing of the question, the organizing of the referendum was flawed, leading to its boycott by opposition parties. More especially, the law had been changed shortly before the announcement of the referendum to allow it to be held on the same day as the parliamentary election. This has been criticized as a way of skirting past electoral campaign budget limits by the incumbent Law and Justice party under the false pretense of referendum funding (Tilles 2023). Polish voters read clearly the strategic and manipulative motives of the ruling party and echoed calls to boycott of the plebiscite. While 70% of the electorate turn out to parliamentary elections, only 40% did cast a vote in the proposed referendum. As a result of not exceeding the minimum validity threshold of 50% turnout, the results are not legally binding.

### 5.5. Other prominent votes in 2023: Chile and Venezuela

Some prominent plebiscites that were held in 2023 are however not recorded in the C2D database. In concluding this section, we highlight the outcomes of two of them. **In Chile, the constituent process which started in October 2020 after- 2019 large-scale protests still hasn't allowed the adoption of a new constitution.**
Two referendums have so far taken place. The first, held on 4 September 2022, led to the rejection of a new constitution drafted by a constituent assembly including citizens from various social backgrounds as well as elected officials. This first draft introduced a fundamental revision of Chile's constitutional principles following a maximalist approach recognizing a large number of new rights – such as the right to health, to education, to social welfare and the much-commented right to abortion. The draft text was one of the longest in the world, with 387 articles divided into 11 chapters. While the constituent process did not foresee any contingency plan shall the constitution be rejected, a committee of experts was appointed in ad hoc manner to draft a new proposal. The agreement reached in December 2022 stated 50 directly-elected constitutional advisors will draft the constitution based on a preliminary draft prepared by a commission of 24 experts appointed by Congress. Additionally, a 14-member body appointed by Congress will ensure that the proposed text aligns with the 12 institutional and fundamental principles outlined in the agreement. The proposal more conservative than the first one was put to a popular vote on 17 December 2023. 55.76% of the voters rejected the new Constitution that did not receive the support of the progressive segments of Chilean society. The turnout was just under 85%. The future of Chile's constitutional revision process is more uncertain than ever, with President Boric stating that he would not seek a third plebiscite or constitutional convention.

Citizens from another Latin American country went to the polls in December 2023. **In Venezuela, President Maduro organized a consultative plebiscite on Guayana Esequiba, a territory disputed with, and controlled by, neighboring Guyana.** In a similar vein than what happened in Poland, the four questions submitted to citizens were framed in a very loaded and manipulative manner and contributed to fuel the tensions with Guyana, leading Brazil to strengthen its military presence at the border. According to Venezuelan authorities, 95% of the voters supported Venezuela's stance on the dispute. Yet, critics claim that the government may have falsified the results in the context of a relatively low turnout (51%).
Two referendums have so far taken place. The first, held on 4 September 2022, led to the rejection of a new constitution drafted by a constituent assembly including citizens from various social backgrounds as well as elected officials. This first draft introduced a fundamental revision of Chile's constitutional principles following a maximalist approach recognizing a large number of new rights – such as the right to health, to education, to social welfare and the much-commented right to abortion. The draft text was one of the longest in the world, with 387 articles divided into 11 chapters. While the constituent process did not foresee any contingency plan shall the constitution be rejected, a committee of experts was appointed in ad hoc manner to draft a new proposal. The agreement reached in December 2022 stated 50 directly-elected constitutional advisors will draft the constitution based on a preliminary draft prepared by a commission of 24 experts appointed by Congress. Additionally, a 14-member body appointed by Congress will ensure that the proposed text aligns with the 12 institutional and fundamental principles outlined in the agreement. The proposal more conservative than the first one was put to a popular vote on 17 December 2023. 55.76% of the voters rejected the new Constitution that did not receive the support of the progressive segments of Chilean society. The turnout was just under 85%. The future of Chile's constitutional revision process is more uncertain than ever, with President Boric stating that he would not seek a third plebiscite or constitutional convention.

Citizens from another Latin American country went to the polls in December 2023. **In Venezuela, President Maduro organized a consultative plebiscite on Guayana Esequiba, a territory disputed with, and controlled by, neighboring Guyana.** In a similar vein than what happened in Poland, the four questions submitted to citizens were framed in a very loaded and manipulative manner and contributed to fuel the tensions with Guyana, leading Brazil to strengthen its military presence at the border. According to Venezuelan authorities, 95% of the voters supported Venezuela's stance on the dispute. Yet, critics claim that the government may have falsified the results in the context of a relatively low turnout (51%).
## References

Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d.), The Uluru Statement from the Heart, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/uluru-statement-heart, Accessed on 16 April 2024.

Booty N. & Akinpelu Y. (2023), “Central African Republic President Touadéra wins referendum with Wagner help”, BBC.com, August 7th 2023 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66428935, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Clark, R. (2023). "All Nine Proposed Amendments to the FSM Constitution for the July 2023 Referendum" FSM National Government, 28 March 2023, Accessed on April 16th 2024, https://gov.fm/index.php/component/content/article/35-pio-articles/news-and-updates/715-all-nine-proposed-amendments-to-the-fsm-constitution-for-the-july-2023-referendum?Itemid=177

Collyns, D. (2023), “Ecuadorians vote to halt oil drilling in biodiverse Amazonian national park”, The Guardian, Monday 21 August 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/ecuador-votes-to-halt-oil-drilling-in-amazonian-biodiversity-hotspot, Accessed on 6 May 2024

EFE (2022), “Lasso llama a Ecuador a referéndum sobre seguridad, instituciones y ambiente”, 30 November 2022, Swissinfo.ch, https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/lasso-llama-a-ecuador-a-refer%c3%a9ndum-sobre-seguridad-instituciones-y-ambiente/48096882, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Euronews (2023), “Uzbekistan's referendum could see the president staying in power until 2040”, Euronews, May 1st 2023, https://www.euronews.com/2023/05/01/uzbekistans-referendum-could-see-the-president-staying-in-power-until-2040, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Financial Times (2023) "Referendum gamble backfires for Ecuador's centre-right leader". Financial Times, 7 February 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/3f9391bc-05d6-4701-85a0-b0efe14d5f84, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Jorio L. (2023). “Swiss voters to decide on country's energy transition”, Swissinfo.ch, 13 April 2023, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/swiss-voters-to-decide-on-country-s-energy-transition/48419100, Accessed on April 16th 2024.
## References

Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d.), The Uluru Statement from the Heart, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/publications/uluru-statement-heart, Accessed on 16 April 2024.

Booty N. & Akinpelu Y. (2023), “Central African Republic President Touadéra wins referendum with Wagner help”, BBC.com, August 7th 2023 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66428935, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Clark, R. (2023). "All Nine Proposed Amendments to the FSM Constitution for the July 2023 Referendum" FSM National Government, 28 March 2023, Accessed on April 16th 2024, https://gov.fm/index.php/component/content/article/35-pio-articles/news-and-updates/715-all-nine-proposed-amendments-to-the-fsm-constitution-for-the-july-2023-referendum?Itemid=177

Collyns, D. (2023), “Ecuadorians vote to halt oil drilling in biodiverse Amazonian national park”, The Guardian, Monday 21 August 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/ecuador-votes-to-halt-oil-drilling-in-amazonian-biodiversity-hotspot, Accessed on 6 May 2024

EFE (2022), “Lasso llama a Ecuador a referéndum sobre seguridad, instituciones y ambiente”, 30 November 2022, Swissinfo.ch, https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/lasso-llama-a-ecuador-a-refer%c3%a9ndum-sobre-seguridad-instituciones-y-ambiente/48096882, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Euronews (2023), “Uzbekistan's referendum could see the president staying in power until 2040”, Euronews, May 1st 2023, https://www.euronews.com/2023/05/01/uzbekistans-referendum-could-see-the-president-staying-in-power-until-2040, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Financial Times (2023) "Referendum gamble backfires for Ecuador's centre-right leader". Financial Times, 7 February 2023, https://www.ft.com/content/3f9391bc-05d6-4701-85a0-b0efe14d5f84, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Jorio L. (2023). “Swiss voters to decide on country's energy transition”, Swissinfo.ch, 13 April 2023, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/swiss-voters-to-decide-on-country-s-energy-transition/48419100, Accessed on April 16th 2024.
Ordonio, C. (2023). "Proposed amendment could grant dual citizenship to US residents with roots in Micronesia". Hawai'i Public Radio, 30 May 2023, https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/local-news/2023-05-30/proposed-amendment-could-grant-dual-citizenship-to-us-residents-with-roots-in-micronesia, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Putz C. (2023), “Final Draft of Constitutional Amendments Reportedly Ready in Uzbekistan”, The Diplomat, March 9th 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/final-draft-of-constitutional-amendments-reportedly-ready-in-uzbekistan/, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (2018), Referendum (constitutional amendment) Act 2018, https://rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2018/2018-0069/ReferendumConstitutionalAmendmentAct2018_1.pdf

Rigendinger B. (2023), “Explainer : the OECD minimum tax vote”, Swissinfo.ch, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/explainer-the-oecd-minimal-tax-vote/48418916, 18 April 2023, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Romy, K. (2023), “Explainer: Why is Switzerland voting (again) on the Covid-19 law?”, Swissinfo.ch, 3 May 2023, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/explainer-switzerland-votes-a-third-time-on-covid-19-law/48479812, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Tilles, D. (2023). "Polish ruling party submits bill to allow EU migration referendum on election day". Notes From Poland, 3 July 2023, https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/07/03/polish-ruling-party-submits-bill-to-allow-eu-migration-referendum-on-election-day/, Accessed on April 16th 2024.
Ordonio, C. (2023). "Proposed amendment could grant dual citizenship to US residents with roots in Micronesia". Hawai'i Public Radio, 30 May 2023, https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/local-news/2023-05-30/proposed-amendment-could-grant-dual-citizenship-to-us-residents-with-roots-in-micronesia, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Putz C. (2023), “Final Draft of Constitutional Amendments Reportedly Ready in Uzbekistan”, The Diplomat, March 9th 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/final-draft-of-constitutional-amendments-reportedly-ready-in-uzbekistan/, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Republic of the Marshall Islands (2018), Referendum (constitutional amendment) Act 2018, https://rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2018/2018-0069/ReferendumConstitutionalAmendmentAct2018_1.pdf

Rigendinger B. (2023), “Explainer : the OECD minimum tax vote”, Swissinfo.ch, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/explainer-the-oecd-minimal-tax-vote/48418916, 18 April 2023, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Romy, K. (2023), “Explainer: Why is Switzerland voting (again) on the Covid-19 law?”, Swissinfo.ch, 3 May 2023, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/explainer-switzerland-votes-a-third-time-on-covid-19-law/48479812, Accessed on April 16th 2024.

Tilles, D. (2023). "Polish ruling party submits bill to allow EU migration referendum on election day". Notes From Poland, 3 July 2023, https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/07/03/polish-ruling-party-submits-bill-to-allow-eu-migration-referendum-on-election-day/, Accessed on April 16th 2024.
6. LATEST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH

Following the development of direct democracy institutions around the world, **scholarly research has increasingly been concerned about assessing their impacts on policies, politics and citizens.** Traditionally, empirical research has focused on two countries: Switzerland and the United States. In Switzerland, direct democracy is implemented not only at the federal level, but also at the cantonal and municipal levels, so there is a wealth of information on how it works. Moreover, as the legal design of direct democracy institutions varies from one canton to the next, this set up allows evaluating how different procedures shape how citizen rights affect politics and society. The recent **Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics (Emmenegger, Fossati, Häusermann et al 2023)** documents the **impact of direct democracy in that country.** The United States is not covered in this report because it does not have direct democracy at the federal level. Yet, it also allows such a quasi-experimental investigation as 18 states provide for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments while they are directly submitted to a referendum in 16 of them. In four states (California, Colorado, North Dakota, and Oregon), constitutional initiatives are particularly accessible, with citizens voting on citizen initiatives almost every year. In existing scholarship, these two cases are still predominant, although recent studies on direct democracy has been extended to other countries, either at the local level (especially in Germany) or at the national level. By presenting what has been published in English in 2023, this report aims to **update our knowledge on direct democracy and analyze which are the most important debates and the most discussed cases.** The following section is structured around the key themes addressed.

**6.1. Direct democracy and politics**

The first issue addressed concerns the **financing of direct democracy campaigns,** which is particularly salient in the United States. A signature campaign has become more and more expensive, so much so that it is likely to transform direct democracy into a tool in the hands of interest groups. In particular, Keith Osentoski (2023) shows that in California in 2020, special interests spent more than $785 million on 12 ballot measures.
6. LATEST SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH

Following the development of direct democracy institutions around the world, **scholarly research has increasingly been concerned about assessing their impacts on policies, politics and citizens.** Traditionally, empirical research has focused on two countries: Switzerland and the United States. In Switzerland, direct democracy is implemented not only at the federal level, but also at the cantonal and municipal levels, so there is a wealth of information on how it works. Moreover, as the legal design of direct democracy institutions varies from one canton to the next, this set up allows evaluating how different procedures shape how citizen rights affect politics and society. The recent **Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics (Emmenegger, Fossati, Häusermann et al 2023)** documents the **impact of direct democracy in that country.** The United States is not covered in this report because it does not have direct democracy at the federal level. Yet, it also allows such a quasi-experimental investigation as 18 states provide for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments while they are directly submitted to a referendum in 16 of them. In four states (California, Colorado, North Dakota, and Oregon), constitutional initiatives are particularly accessible, with citizens voting on citizen initiatives almost every year. In existing scholarship, these two cases are still predominant, although recent studies on direct democracy has been extended to other countries, either at the local level (especially in Germany) or at the national level. By presenting what has been published in English in 2023, this report aims to **update our knowledge on direct democracy and analyze which are the most important debates and the most discussed cases.** The following section is structured around the key themes addressed.

**6.1. Direct democracy and politics**

The first issue addressed concerns the **financing of direct democracy campaigns**, which is particularly salient in the United States. A signature campaign has become more and more expensive, so much so that it is likely to transform direct democracy into a tool in the hands of interest groups. In particular, Keith Osentoski (2023) shows that in California in 2020, special interests spent more than $785 million on 12 ballot measures.
Of these, Proposition 22 became the most expensive initiative in California history, costing more than $224 million. The influence of special interest groups in promoting citizen initiatives is clear. They are better organized and can spend more than ordinary people, so their influence on initiatives is greater. This undeniable fact raises the question of the influence of business interests on politics in direct democracy, as also discussed by Kate Andrias (2023). However, by analyzing state level initiatives in the United States from 1904 to 2021, Matsusaka (2023) shows that anti-business initiatives were more common than pro-business initiatives. Further analysis of recent California ballot measures (which reach high spending levels) also shows that business groups oppose initiatives more often than they support them and benefit more from failed initiatives than from successful ones. This effect is less true when ballot measures are proposed by the legislature.

Second, recent studies investigated the **role of political parties in direct democracy**. Since parties are less powerful, we might expect them to be less attractive. However, citizens are more empowered and might be more interested in engaging in partisan activities. Wen-Chun Chang (2023) provides evidence for the second explanation. This evidence is complemented by analyses of the role of political parties in direct democracy. Antia and Vairo (2023) study how direct democracy is used by or against political parties in Uruguay. They find that under center-right governments, initiatives are likely to be promoted by social organizations and target economic issues, while when the left governs, initiatives come from opposing parties or individual politicians on socio-cultural issues. Also, the probability of winning the referendum largely depends on the popularity of the incumbent and his opposition. This confirms that direct democracy is a tool that reinforces the power of non-ruling parties.

The third issue concerns the impact of direct democracy on **checks and balances**. Two contrasting views can be summarized as follows: either direct democracy reduces the role of countervailing powers - such as local governments, the judiciary or the administration - by increasing popular control over them, or, on the contrary, direct democracy reduces the influence of the government on countervailing institutions, thereby increasing their independence. Indeed, a large literature has already documented that citizen initiatives, especially in the United States, are sometimes not implemented by legislators or judges, thus demonstrating their independence.
Of these, Proposition 22 became the most expensive initiative in California history, costing more than $224 million. The influence of special interest groups in promoting citizen initiatives is clear. They are better organized and can spend more than ordinary people, so their influence on initiatives is greater. This undeniable fact raises the question of the influence of business interests on politics in direct democracy, as also discussed by Kate Andrias (2023). However, by analyzing state level initiatives in the United States from 1904 to 2021, Matsusaka (2023) shows that anti-business initiatives were more common than pro-business initiatives. Further analysis of recent California ballot measures (which reach high spending levels) also shows that business groups oppose initiatives more often than they support them and benefit more from failed initiatives than from successful ones. This effect is less true when ballot measures are proposed by the legislature.

Second, recent studies investigated the **role of political parties in direct democracy**. Since parties are less powerful, we might expect them to be less attractive. However, citizens are more empowered and might be more interested in engaging in partisan activities. Wen-Chun Chang (2023) provides evidence for the second explanation. This evidence is complemented by analyses of the role of political parties in direct democracy. Antia and Vairo (2023) study how direct democracy is used by or against political parties in Uruguay. They find that under center-right governments, initiatives are likely to be promoted by social organizations and target economic issues, while when the left governs, initiatives come from opposing parties or individual politicians on socio-cultural issues. Also, the probability of winning the referendum largely depends on the popularity of the incumbent and his opposition. This confirms that direct democracy is a tool that reinforces the power of non-ruling parties.

The third issue concerns the impact of direct democracy on **checks and balances**. Two contrasting views can be summarized as follows: either direct democracy reduces the role of countervailing powers - such as local governments, the judiciary or the administration - by increasing popular control over them, or, on the contrary, direct democracy reduces the influence of the government on countervailing institutions, thereby increasing their independence. Indeed, a large literature has already documented that citizen initiatives, especially in the United States, are sometimes not implemented by legislators or judges, thus demonstrating their independence.
Quinn Yeargain (2023) argues that voters in American states have agreed to an implicit trade: their power to elect regulators for a new power to propose their own laws and constitutional amendments. As part of this trade, however, many state legislatures have sought to impose new restrictions on the initiative and referendum process, and at the same time, the strict application of subject matter restrictions, such as single-subject requirements, by state courts has disproportionately targeted administrative reforms. To better understand the circumstances under which state governments limit the impact of citizen initiatives, Kathleen Ferraiolo (2023) systematically examines legislative attempts to amend or repeal ballot measures between 2010 and 2018 in all initiative states in two areas. Interestingly, she finds that three factors increase the likelihood of legislative interference: (1) looser rules governing legislative behavior after passage, (2) narrower vote margins, and the (3) abundance of prior legislation. With respect to local governments, Matthew Uttermark (2023) examines nearly a thousand citizen initiatives in the United States and finds neither centralizing nor decentralizing trends, while looking at votes in referenda, centralizing initiatives are on average more supported. More broadly, Jelle But (2023) and his colleagues analyze the relationship between the Democracy Index score developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which captures the quality of a liberal democracy, and the existence of (legislative or constitutional) citizens' initiative and veto rights. They find a significant and positive statistical relationship. However, this result does not hold for the sample of EU countries studied.

## 6.2 Direct democracy and public policy

Another set of issues addressed by studies published in 2023 concern the impact of direct democracy on **public policy and economic performance**. Recently, much attention has been paid to equality by Brigitte Geißel and her colleagues. While Madison believed that direct democracy gave the poor too much power over the rich (translated into over-redistributive policies), more recent literature has shown that the results of referendums tend to be conservative, or at least not particularly redistributive. Based on European referendums, Geißel et al. (2023) do not detect any specific trend in this regard.
Quinn Yeargain (2023) argues that voters in American states have agreed to an implicit trade: their power to elect regulators for a new power to propose their own laws and constitutional amendments. As part of this trade, however, many state legislatures have sought to impose new restrictions on the initiative and referendum process, and at the same time, the strict application of subject matter restrictions, such as single-subject requirements, by state courts has disproportionately targeted administrative reforms. To better understand the circumstances under which state governments limit the impact of citizen initiatives, Kathleen Ferraiolo (2023) systematically examines legislative attempts to amend or repeal ballot measures between 2010 and 2018 in all initiative states in two areas. Interestingly, she finds that three factors increase the likelihood of legislative interference: (1) looser rules governing legislative behavior after passage, (2) narrower vote margins, and the (3) abundance of prior legislation. With respect to local governments, Matthew Uttermark (2023) examines nearly a thousand citizen initiatives in the United States and finds neither centralizing nor decentralizing trends, while looking at votes in referenda, centralizing initiatives are on average more supported. More broadly, Jelle But (2023) and his colleagues analyze the relationship between the Democracy Index score developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which captures the quality of a liberal democracy, and the existence of (legislative or constitutional) citizens' initiative and veto rights. They find a significant and positive statistical relationship. However, this result does not hold for the sample of EU countries studied.

## 6.2 Direct democracy and public policy

Another set of issues addressed by studies published in 2023 concern the impact of direct democracy on **public policy and economic performance**. Recently, much attention has been paid to equality by Brigitte Geißel and her colleagues. While Madison believed that direct democracy gave the poor too much power over the rich (translated into over-redistributive policies), more recent literature has shown that the results of referendums tend to be conservative, or at least not particularly redistributive. Based on European referendums, Geißel et al. (2023) do not detect any specific trend in this regard.
When the attention is shifted towards Global South countries and Oceania, Anna Krämling and her colleagues (2023) find that there are more pro-equality referendums and that these pro-equality referendums are more likely to be approved by citizens than anti-equality referendums. Beyond the way people vote, referendums themselves can affect the economy. Their outcomes are hard to predict, and could increase uncertainty, but on the other hand they create stable norms that are not easily changed. Bruce Morley (2023) assesses the evolution of the Swiss/US exchange rate from 2004 to 2021 and the way in which the Swiss federal referendum affected it. The analysis provides evidence of a positive effect of the referendum on market returns and a negative effect on volatility, confirming that direct democracy has a positive impact on the economy.

## 6.3. Direct democracy and citizen attitudes

The **popularity of direct democracy** has triggered scholarly interest in 2023. Support is high on average, but it can be affected by events. For example, Nils D. Steiner and Claudia Landwehr (2023) show that in Germany, supporters of European integration, especially those with high levels of political engagement, became more skeptical about the introduction of referendums after the Brexit referendum. Beyond specific events, the literature analyzes individual correlates of this support and the links between support for direct democracy and populism. Manès Weisskircher (2023) finds that, especially after Brexit, the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany became the only political party to increase its support for direct democracy. Broadly speaking, two factors compete to explain such a support: (1) it is either considered as a reaction to mistrust in democracy or (2) it is a consequence of an increased interest in politics. Pierre Philippe Balestrini's (2023) contribution argues that support for direct democracy provides some evidence in favor of the second explanation: support for direct democracy is more strongly associated with citizens' political interest than with negative evaluations of the performance of the political regime. Using representative samples of voters in Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands, Emilien Paulis and Sacha Rangoni (2023) find that support for direct democracy is associated with left-wing economic positions as well as right-wing cultural positions and radicalism. Using a more sophisticated measure, Henrik Serup Christensen and Maija Setälä (2023) use a Finnish survey to analyze support for citizens' (agenda) initiatives.
When the attention is shifted towards Global South countries and Oceania, Anna Krämling and her colleagues (2023) find that there are more pro-equality referendums and that these pro-equality referendums are more likely to be approved by citizens than anti-equality referendums. Beyond the way people vote, referendums themselves can affect the economy. Their outcomes are hard to predict, and could increase uncertainty, but on the other hand they create stable norms that are not easily changed. Bruce Morley (2023) assesses the evolution of the Swiss/US exchange rate from 2004 to 2021 and the way in which the Swiss federal referendum affected it. The analysis provides evidence of a positive effect of the referendum on market returns and a negative effect on volatility, confirming that direct democracy has a positive impact on the economy.

### 6.3. Direct democracy and citizen attitudes

The **popularity of direct democracy** has triggered scholarly interest in 2023. Support is high on average, but it can be affected by events. For example, Nils D. Steiner and Claudia Landwehr (2023) show that in Germany, supporters of European integration, especially those with high levels of political engagement, became more skeptical about the introduction of referendums after the Brexit referendum. Beyond specific events, the literature analyzes individual correlates of this support and the links between support for direct democracy and populism. Manès Weisskircher (2023) finds that, especially after Brexit, the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany became the only political party to increase its support for direct democracy. Broadly speaking, two factors compete to explain such a support: (1) it is either considered as a reaction to mistrust in democracy or (2) it is a consequence of an increased interest in politics. Pierre Philippe Balestrini's (2023) contribution argues that support for direct democracy provides some evidence in favor of the second explanation: support for direct democracy is more strongly associated with citizens' political interest than with negative evaluations of the performance of the political regime. Using representative samples of voters in Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands, Emilien Paulis and Sacha Rangoni (2023) find that support for direct democracy is associated with left-wing economic positions as well as right-wing cultural positions and radicalism. Using a more sophisticated measure, Henrik Serup Christensen and Maija Setälä (2023) use a Finnish survey to analyze support for citizens' (agenda) initiatives.
Populist attitudes are less or not at all associated with citizens' initiatives. Thus, while populist attitudes are sometimes positively associated with support for referendums, this is not the case for citizens' initiatives. On the other hand, Kathrin Ackermann and her colleagues (2023) use German survey data in contexts where direct democracy is used to show that practicing direct democracy does not make people more populist or more supportive of the political system. These findings are consistent to what is observed at party level. Gherghina and his colleagues (2023) analyze the manifestos of 38 populist parties in 21 European democracies in national elections between 2016 and 2023. They find that while referendums are often mentioned, the type of direct democratic institution supported is rarely specified and only policy-specific referendums are explicitly supported. These findings are complemented by François Debras' (2023) study, who finds that while right-wing populist parties present themselves as agents of democratic renewal, they do not promote direct democracy as a solution. This negative finding is however different in Latin America. Saskia Ruth-Lovella and Yanina Welp (2023) find that the expansion of direct democracy in this continent is more likely to occur under populist presidents and that this association is conditioned by the degree of presidential approval.

**A classic question is still very much alive in 2023: do voters vote correctly?** Studying referendum campaign, Fritz Sager and his colleagues (2023) show that voters tend to prefer evaluation-based information and that the use of evaluation results increases trustworthiness. However, it is not related to the emotional appeal of an argument, which has an impact on how citizens vote. A systematic analysis of voting in the canton of Geneva, led by Andreas Goldberg and Pascal Sciarini (2023), also confirm that more important issues increase participation, while more complex ballot proposals decrease it. However, they did not confirm that campaign intensity increases turnout. This finding suggests that, at the level of participation, the proposal is more relevant than the campaign in deciding how to vote. However, complexity could be an obstacle for less sophisticated people to vote. Another issue is the impact of Internet on voters' opinions. Sina Blassnig and her colleagues (2023) collect the search terms on Google used by Swiss citizens and the results they visited during three national referenda in 2021. While the results are not robust, they suggest that the younger and more politically interested are more likely to search for ballot-related information.
Populist attitudes are less or not at all associated with citizens' initiatives. Thus, while populist attitudes are sometimes positively associated with support for referendums, this is not the case for citizens' initiatives. On the other hand, Kathrin Ackermann and her colleagues (2023) use German survey data in contexts where direct democracy is used to show that practicing direct democracy does not make people more populist or more supportive of the political system. These findings are consistent to what is observed at party level. Gherghina and his colleagues (2023) analyze the manifestos of 38 populist parties in 21 European democracies in national elections between 2016 and 2023. They find that while referendums are often mentioned, the type of direct democratic institution supported is rarely specified and only policy-specific referendums are explicitly supported. These findings are complemented by François Debras' (2023) study, who finds that while right-wing populist parties present themselves as agents of democratic renewal, they do not promote direct democracy as a solution. This negative finding is however different in Latin America. Saskia Ruth-Lovella and Yanina Welp (2023) find that the expansion of direct democracy in this continent is more likely to occur under populist presidents and that this association is conditioned by the degree of presidential approval.

**A classic question is still very much alive in 2023: do voters vote correctly?** Studying referendum campaign, Fritz Sager and his colleagues (2023) show that voters tend to prefer evaluation-based information and that the use of evaluation results increases trustworthiness. However, it is not related to the emotional appeal of an argument, which has an impact on how citizens vote. A systematic analysis of voting in the canton of Geneva, led by Andreas Goldberg and Pascal Sciarini (2023), also confirm that more important issues increase participation, while more complex ballot proposals decrease it. However, they did not confirm that campaign intensity increases turnout. This finding suggests that, at the level of participation, the proposal is more relevant than the campaign in deciding how to vote. However, complexity could be an obstacle for less sophisticated people to vote. Another issue is the impact of Internet on voters' opinions. Sina Blassnig and her colleagues (2023) collect the search terms on Google used by Swiss citizens and the results they visited during three national referenda in 2021. While the results are not robust, they suggest that the younger and more politically interested are more likely to search for ballot-related information.
## 6.4. Historical and normative accounts of direct democracy

Since a decade, information on the history of direct democracy, which is largely unknown, has also improved. **Direct democracy has a long tradition, but the contemporary version of it is very different from the ancient "Athenian" version.** How did this turn happen? And who supports it? Spencer McKay's (2023) contribution argues that the enthusiasm for ancient direct democracy is often associated with Rousseau, but the translation into a contemporary liberal system was developed by Condorcet, who offered the most compelling link between Rousseau's theory of popular sovereignty and contemporary referendums. This model was largely developed in the 19th century, and Richard Ellis (2023) explores the role of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) in the demand for contemporary direct legislation in the United States. This role is often forgotten because the People's Party led the reform that introduced direct democracy. However, socialists were particularly involved in this goal, first in Europe through the debates during the First International and the pioneering work of Moritz Rittinghausen, and then in the United States namely by Joseph R. Buchanan.

Finally, **philosophical approaches discuss the normative properties of direct democracy and the possible ways to improve it.** Alice el-Wakil (2023) analyzes the compatibility between direct democracy and the principle that legislators should be accountable. She argues that there is a shared responsibility between voters and legislators in both direct and representative democracies, and that in direct democracy the responsibility of legislators could be even greater because direct democracy helps citizens gather information about their legislators.

A particularly researched dimension is the possibility of **combining direct democracy (initiatives and referendums) with deliberative democracy (citizens' assemblies)** to improve the characteristics of both institutions. Frank Hendriks and Charlotte Wagenaar (2023) analyze three ways to link them without voting: a citizens' assembly can be created before a referendum (to initiate it), during a referendum (with an advisory role), or after a referendum (to study how to implement the decision). The advisory role - practiced in Oregon and used in Ireland in 2016 - is the most studied.
## 6.4. Historical and normative accounts of direct democracy

Since a decade, information on the history of direct democracy, which is largely unknown, has also improved. **Direct democracy has a long tradition, but the contemporary version of it is very different from the ancient "Athenian" version.** How did this turn happen? And who supports it? Spencer McKay's (2023) contribution argues that the enthusiasm for ancient direct democracy is often associated with Rousseau, but the translation into a contemporary liberal system was developed by Condorcet, who offered the most compelling link between Rousseau's theory of popular sovereignty and contemporary referendums. This model was largely developed in the 19th century, and Richard Ellis (2023) explores the role of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) in the demand for contemporary direct legislation in the United States. This role is often forgotten because the People's Party led the reform that introduced direct democracy. However, socialists were particularly involved in this goal, first in Europe through the debates during the First International and the pioneering work of Moritz Rittinghausen, and then in the United States namely by Joseph R. Buchanan.

Finally, **philosophical approaches discuss the normative properties of direct democracy and the possible ways to improve it.** Alice el-Wakil (2023) analyzes the compatibility between direct democracy and the principle that legislators should be accountable. She argues that there is a shared responsibility between voters and legislators in both direct and representative democracies, and that in direct democracy the responsibility of legislators could be even greater because direct democracy helps citizens gather information about their legislators.

A particularly researched dimension is the possibility of **combining direct democracy (initiatives and referendums) with deliberative democracy (citizens' assemblies)** to improve the characteristics of both institutions. Frank Hendriks and Charlotte Wagenaar (2023) analyze three ways to link them without voting: a citizens' assembly can be created before a referendum (to initiate it), during a referendum (with an advisory role), or after a referendum (to study how to implement the decision). The advisory role - practiced in Oregon and used in Ireland in 2016 - is the most studied.
Maija Setälä and her colleagues (2023) analyze its effects in Finland, in a local government referendum. Using a field experiment, they find that reading the jury's statement increases trust in the jury, factual knowledge, issue efficacy, and perspective taking. Using a similar methodology, but in a Swiss local government plebiscite, Nenad Stojanović (2023) finds that reading the jury's statement increased the likelihood of deciding to vote, even compared to reading the parliament's statement (although in this case the relationship is not significant). Despite these encouraging results, Irene Witting and her colleagues (2023) show, in their systematic literature review based on 55 publications, that, despite some promising positive effects, no effects are mainly observed. Finally, on a more normative note, Michael Müller and Joannes Campell (2023) develop a proposal to improve deliberation and simplified advisory information for voters. This is based on a three-tiered structure of public debates that provides a clear answer to two questions: What will change in the world as a result of the vote? And what concerns will be affected by those changes?

## References

Ackermann, K., Braun, D., Fatke, M., & Fawzi, N. (2023). Direct democracy, political support and populism–attitudinal patterns in the German Bundesländer. Regional & Federal Studies, 33(2), 139-162.

Andrias, K. (2023). The perils and promise of direct democracy: Labour ballot initiatives in the United States. King's Law Journal, 34(2), 260-284.

Antía, F., & Vairo, D. (2023). Direct Democracy in the Hands of the Opposition Under Alternating Ideological Coalitions in Uruguay (1985–2022). Journal of Politics in Latin America, 15(2), 192-216.

Balestrini, P. P. (2023). Interrogating the popularity of direct democracy among European national publics. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(5), 894-914.

Blassnig, S., Mitova, E., Pfiffner, N., & Reiss, M. V. (2023). Googling referendum campaigns: analyzing online search patterns regarding Swiss direct-democratic votes. Media and Communication, 11(1), 19-30.

But, J. J., Jongkind, D. K., & Voermans, W. J. M. (2023). Direct democracy in the constitution: good or bad for democracy?. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 11(1), 52-82.
Maija Setälä and her colleagues (2023) analyze its effects in Finland, in a local government referendum. Using a field experiment, they find that reading the jury's statement increases trust in the jury, factual knowledge, issue efficacy, and perspective taking. Using a similar methodology, but in a Swiss local government plebiscite, Nenad Stojanović (2023) finds that reading the jury's statement increased the likelihood of deciding to vote, even compared to reading the parliament's statement (although in this case the relationship is not significant). Despite these encouraging results, Irene Witting and her colleagues (2023) show, in their systematic literature review based on 55 publications, that, despite some promising positive effects, no effects are mainly observed. Finally, on a more normative note, Michael Müller and Joannes Campell (2023) develop a proposal to improve deliberation and simplified advisory information for voters. This is based on a three-tiered structure of public debates that provides a clear answer to two questions: What will change in the world as a result of the vote? And what concerns will be affected by those changes?

## References

Ackermann, K., Braun, D., Fatke, M., & Fawzi, N. (2023). Direct democracy, political support and populism–attitudinal patterns in the German Bundesländer. Regional & Federal Studies, 33(2), 139-162.

Andrias, K. (2023). The perils and promise of direct democracy: Labour ballot initiatives in the United States. King's Law Journal, 34(2), 260-284.

Antía, F., & Vairo, D. (2023). Direct Democracy in the Hands of the Opposition Under Alternating Ideological Coalitions in Uruguay (1985–2022). Journal of Politics in Latin America, 15(2), 192-216.

Balestrini, P. P. (2023). Interrogating the popularity of direct democracy among European national publics. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(5), 894-914.

Blassnig, S., Mitova, E., Pfiffner, N., & Reiss, M. V. (2023). Googling referendum campaigns: analyzing online search patterns regarding Swiss direct-democratic votes. Media and Communication, 11(1), 19-30.

But, J. J., Jongkind, D. K., & Voermans, W. J. M. (2023). Direct democracy in the constitution: good or bad for democracy?. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 11(1), 52-82.
Debras, F. (2023). Back to the future, recovering the past: a critical discourse analysis of the terms 'democracy' and 'direct democracy' in the speeches of the Rassemblement National and the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 31(2), 306-317.

Chang, W. C. (2023). Direct democracy and party membership: Testing the role of political efficacy. Political Studies Review, 21(1), 3-20.

Christensen, H. S., & Setälä, M. (2023). Do populists want direct democracy? Examining how thick and thin populist attitudes are associated with the Finnish Citizens' Initiative. Contemporary Politics, 1-19

el-Wakil, A. (2023). Referendums, Initiatives, and Voters' Accountability. Res Publica, 1-19.

Emmenegger, P., Fossati, F., Häusermann, S., Papadopoulos, Y., Sciarini, P., & Vatter, A. (Eds.). (2023). The Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics. Oxford University Press.

Ferraiolo, K. (2023). The intersection of direct democracy and representative government: State legislators' response to ballot measures. Polity, 55(2), 248-274.

Geißel, B., Krämling, A., & Paulus, L. (2023). Direct democracy and equality: context is the key. Acta Politica, 1-25.

Gherghina, S., Pilet, J. B., & Mitru, B. (2023). Big ideas, little detail: how populist parties talk about referendums in Europe. Contemporary Politics, 1-19.

Goldberg, A. C., & Sciarini, P. (2023). Voter turnout in direct democracy: A joint analysis of individual, referendum and community factors. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1), 25-46.

Hendriks, F., & Wagenaar, C. (2023). The Deliberative Referendum: An Idea Whose Time has Come?. Administration & Society, 55(3), 569-590.

Hyvärinen, M., Kurunmäki, J., Turunen, R., Teräs, K., Andrushchenko, M., & Peltonen, J. (2023). 'Democracy' and 'People's Power' in the Finnish parliament: the Struggle between Representative, Participatory and Direct Democracy. Redescriptions, 26(2).

Krämling, A., Geißel, B., Rinne, J. R., & Paulus, L. (2023). Direct democracy and equality: a global perspective. International Political Science Review, 44(4), 507-522.
Debras, F. (2023). Back to the future, recovering the past: a critical discourse analysis of the terms 'democracy' and 'direct democracy' in the speeches of the Rassemblement National and the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 31(2), 306-317.

Chang, W. C. (2023). Direct democracy and party membership: Testing the role of political efficacy. Political Studies Review, 21(1), 3-20.

Christensen, H. S., & Setälä, M. (2023). Do populists want direct democracy? Examining how thick and thin populist attitudes are associated with the Finnish Citizens' Initiative. Contemporary Politics, 1-19.

el-Wakil, A. (2023). Referendums, Initiatives, and Voters' Accountability. Res Publica, 1-19.

Emmenegger, P., Fossati, F., Häusermann, S., Papadopoulos, Y., Sciarini, P., & Vatter, A. (Eds.). (2023). The Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics. Oxford University Press.

Ferraiolo, K. (2023). The intersection of direct democracy and representative government: State legislators' response to ballot measures. Polity, 55(2), 248-274.

Geißel, B., Krämling, A., & Paulus, L. (2023). Direct democracy and equality: context is the key. Acta Politica, 1-25.

Gherghina, S., Pilet, J. B., & Mitru, B. (2023). Big ideas, little detail: how populist parties talk about referendums in Europe. Contemporary Politics, 1-19.

Goldberg, A. C., & Sciarini, P. (2023). Voter turnout in direct democracy: A joint analysis of individual, referendum and community factors. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1), 25-46.

Hendriks, F., & Wagenaar, C. (2023). The Deliberative Referendum: An Idea Whose Time has Come?. Administration & Society, 55(3), 569-590.

Hyvärinen, M., Kurunmäki, J., Turunen, R., Teräs, K., Andrushchenko, M., & Peltonen, J. (2023). 'Democracy' and 'People's Power' in the Finnish parliament: the Struggle between Representative, Participatory and Direct Democracy. Redescriptions, 26(2).

Krämling, A., Geißel, B., Rinne, J. R., & Paulus, L. (2023). Direct democracy and equality: a global perspective. International Political Science Review, 44(4), 507-522.
Matsusaka, John G. (2023) "Is Direct Democracy Good or Bad for Corporations and Unions?," Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 66: No. 1, Article 4.

McKay, S. (2023). Plebiscites, Referendums, and Ballot Initiatives as Institutions of Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's Influence on Competing Theories of Popular-Vote Processes. The Review of Politics, 85(1), 23-47.

Morley, B. (2023). The Effects of Direct Democracy on Stock Market Risk and Returns: An Event Study from Switzerland. Risks, 11(2), 22.

Müller, M. A., & Campbell, J. B. (2023). Arguing in Direct Democracy: An Argument Scheme for Proposing Reasons in Debates Surrounding Public Votes. Topoi, 42(2), 593-607.

Osentoski, K. (2023). The Antidemocratic Cost of California Direct Democracy. Loy. LAL Rev., 56, 679.

Paulis, E., & Rangoni, S. (2023). The Ideological Drivers Behind the Support for the Use of Direct Democracy among Voters and Parties of Benelux Countries. Politics of the Low Countries, 5(1).

Richard J. Ellis Reimagining Democracy: The Socialist Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in the United States Published online by Cambridge University Press:22 May 2023

Rogers, H. (2023). Law Thrown Overboard: Direct Democracy and the Alaska Ocean Rangers. Alaska L. Rev., 40, 103.

Ruth-Lovell, S. P., & Welp, Y. (2023). Are Latin American populists more likely to introduce direct democracy?. Contemporary Politics, 1-17.

Sager, F., Schlaufer, C., & Stucki, I. (2023). Relevance of evaluation findings in direct democracy decisions. In Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation (pp. 253-265). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Setälä, M., Christensen, H. S., Leino, M., Strandberg, K., Bäck, M., & Jäske, M. (2023). Deliberative mini-publics facilitating voter knowledge and judgement: Experience from a Finnish local referendum. Representation, 59(1), 75-93.

Silagadze N. (2023) Special Issue: Referendums, Political Parties and Policies in Europe, Politics of the Low Countries, (5) 1
Matsusaka, John G. (2023) "Is Direct Democracy Good or Bad for Corporations and Unions?," Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 66: No. 1, Article 4.

McKay, S. (2023). Plebiscites, Referendums, and Ballot Initiatives as Institutions of Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's Influence on Competing Theories of Popular-Vote Processes. The Review of Politics, 85(1), 23-47.

Morley, B. (2023). The Effects of Direct Democracy on Stock Market Risk and Returns: An Event Study from Switzerland. Risks, 11(2), 22.

Müller, M. A., & Campbell, J. B. (2023). Arguing in Direct Democracy: An Argument Scheme for Proposing Reasons in Debates Surrounding Public Votes. Topoi, 42(2), 593-607.

Osentoski, K. (2023). The Antidemocratic Cost of California Direct Democracy. Loy. LAL Rev., 56, 679.

Paulis, E., & Rangoni, S. (2023). The Ideological Drivers Behind the Support for the Use of Direct Democracy among Voters and Parties of Benelux Countries. Politics of the Low Countries, 5(1).

Richard J. Ellis Reimagining Democracy: The Socialist Origins of the Initiative and Referendum in the United States Published online by Cambridge University Press:22 May 2023

Rogers, H. (2023). Law Thrown Overboard: Direct Democracy and the Alaska Ocean Rangers. Alaska L. Rev., 40, 103.

Ruth-Lovell, S. P., & Welp, Y. (2023). Are Latin American populists more likely to introduce direct democracy?. Contemporary Politics, 1-17.

Sager, F., Schlaufer, C., & Stucki, I. (2023). Relevance of evaluation findings in direct democracy decisions. In Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation (pp. 253-265). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Setälä, M., Christensen, H. S., Leino, M., Strandberg, K., Bäck, M., & Jäske, M. (2023). Deliberative mini-publics facilitating voter knowledge and judgement: Experience from a Finnish local referendum. Representation, 59(1), 75-93.

Silagadze N. (2023) Special Issue: Referendums, Political Parties and Policies in Europe, Politics of the Low Countries, (5) 1
Steiner, N. D., & Landwehr, C. (2023). Learning the Brexit lesson? Shifting support for direct democracy in Germany in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 757-765.

Stojanović, N. (2023). Citizens’ assemblies and direct democracy. De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens’ Assemblies, 1, 183.

Uttermark, M. J. (2023). The Consequences of Direct Democracy for the Balance of Power between State and Local Governments in the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 53(4), 536-565.

Yeargain, Q. (2023). Administrative Capacity in Direct Democracy. UC Davis L. Rev., 57, 1347.

Weisskircher, M. (2023). Direct Democracy and the Impact of the Alternative for Germany (AfD)?"Populist" Demand for Popular Sovereignty as Latent Political Conflict. In Sovereignty in Conflict: Political, Constitutional and Economic Dilemmas in the EU (pp. 143-164). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Steiner, N. D., & Landwehr, C. (2023). Learning the Brexit lesson? Shifting support for direct democracy in Germany in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 757-765.

Stojanović, N. (2023). Citizens' assemblies and direct democracy. De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, 1, 183.

Uttermark, M. J. (2023). The Consequences of Direct Democracy for the Balance of Power between State and Local Governments in the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 53(4), 536-565.

Yeargain, Q. (2023). Administrative Capacity in Direct Democracy. UC Davis L. Rev., 57, 1347.

Weisskircher, M. (2023). Direct Democracy and the Impact of the Alternative for Germany (AfD)?"Populist" Demand for Popular Sovereignty as Latent Political Conflict. In Sovereignty in Conflict: Political, Constitutional and Economic Dilemmas in the EU (pp. 143-164). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
# 7. DEVELOPMENTS TO FOLLOW IN 2024

While most of the chapters of the State of Direct Democracy Report took stock of the past developments in the design and use of direct democracy instruments, this chapter looks ahead. In this concluding chapter, we focus on a few countries to follow in 2024. The rationale for the selection of these countries is straightforward: based on the patterns identified in the report and the outcomes of popular decisions taken in 2023, we expect these countries to feature prominently in the next edition of the State of Direct Democracy Report. Developments include the introduction of new direct democracy instruments or the reform of existing mechanisms.

## 7.1. Chile: is the constituent process closed?

The failure of the constitutional referendum of December 2023 (see Chapter 5 for a presentation) raises uncertainty about the **future of the constitutional revision process in Chile**. At the time of writing these pages, in May 2024, the constituent process appears as a closed chapter. President Boric announced that he would not seek a third referendum or constitutional convention and political forces are more polarized than ever after two heated campaigns. All of them agree to return to the old political order for the time being. At the same time, Chileans hopes for a new constitution remain high and it is clear that the current Constitution, inherited from the Pinochet's areas does require changes, particular concerning the organizing of the political systems and the recognition of a series of fundamental rights. While it is highly unlikely that the constitutional process starts again in 2024, the 2025 general elections may open new opportunities. Predicting how the polarization of society will evolve is also difficult and one can not exclude that the current constitutional fatigue gives way to a new wave of protests calling for a change of political rules.

## 7.2. Will the rejective referendum come back to the Netherlands in 2024?

The need for democratic reform has been one of the central topics at the heart of the Dutch general elections of November 2023. The elections had been expected to be held in 2025 but a snap election was called after the fourth Rutte cabinet collapsed on 7 July 2023 due to immigration policy disagreements between the coalition parties.
# 7. DEVELOPMENTS TO FOLLOW IN 2024

While most of the chapters of the State of Direct Democracy Report took stock of the past developments in the design and use of direct democracy instruments, this chapter looks ahead. In this concluding chapter, we focus on a few countries to follow in 2024. The rationale for the selection of these countries is straightforward: based on the patterns identified in the report and the outcomes of popular decisions taken in 2023, we expect these countries to feature prominently in the next edition of the State of Direct Democracy Report. Developments include the introduction of new direct democracy instruments or the reform of existing mechanisms.

## 7.1. Chile: is the constituent process closed?

The failure of the constitutional referendum of December 2023 (see Chapter 5 for a presentation) raises uncertainty about the **future of the constitutional revision process in Chile**. At the time of writing these pages, in May 2024, the constituent process appears as a closed chapter. President Boric announced that he would not seek a third referendum or constitutional convention and political forces are more polarized than ever after two heated campaigns. All of them agree to return to the old political order for the time being. At the same time, Chileans hopes for a new constitution remain high and it is clear that the current Constitution, inherited from the Pinochet's areas does require changes, particular concerning the organizing of the political systems and the recognition of a series of fundamental rights. While it is highly unlikely that the constitutional process starts again in 2024, the 2025 general elections may open new opportunities. Predicting how the polarization of society will evolve is also difficult and one can not exclude that the current constitutional fatigue gives way to a new wave of protests calling for a change of political rules.

## 7.2. Will the rejective referendum come back to the Netherlands in 2024?

The need for democratic reform has been one of the central topics at the heart of the Dutch general elections of November 2023. The elections had been expected to be held in 2025 but a snap election was called after the fourth Rutte cabinet collapsed on 7 July 2023 due to immigration policy disagreements between the coalition parties.
The elections took place in a context of declining political trust driven by lasting Covid-19 measures, the aftershocks of the child benefit scandal and a large-scale protest movement farmer following the introduction of a bill aiming to limit the human impact on the nitrogen cycle. At the end of 2018, a report from the State Committee on the parliamentary System already provided some recommendations to make the Dutch parliamentary system more resilient. Introducing direct democracy instruments – in the form of a binding rejective referendum – featured prominently among the recommendations. A suspensive, nonbinding referendum was already in place in the Netherlands from July 1st 2015, until its repeal on February 18th 2018.

During the General Election campaign, most political parties agreed with re-introducing such direct democracy instrument in the Netherlands, this time in a binding fashion. To allow for such a change, a constitutional amendment is necessary. Constitutional amendments occur in a two-staged manner in the Netherlands according to article 137 of the Constitution. First, an Act of parliament need to be approved by the majority of MPs stating that an amendment to the Constitution in the form proposed shall be considered. After publication of the bill, the Lower House is dissolved, and new elections organized. Once the new Lower House is appointed, the two Houses of the States General shall consider, at second reading, the constitutional amendment which shall passed only if approved by at least two thirds of the votes. This specific procedure means that, in practice, most constitutional amendments are proposed before elections to avoid dissolving the Lower House.

Ahead of the general election, a constitutional amendment re-introducing the rejective referendum was proposed by two MPs from the Socialist Party and approved by the two parliamentary chambers. The proposed rejective referendum is of a binding nature and can not concern issues related to the monarchy, the ratification of international treaties as well as budgetary and tax matters. The wording of the proposal provides for the outcome of the referendum to be representative enough, without specifying any quorum. To be successfully introduced, the proposal now needs to secure the approval of the two-thirds of the newly elected Lower House.
The elections took place in a context of declining political trust driven by lasting Covid-19 measures, the aftershocks of the child benefit scandal and a large-scale protest movement farmer following the introduction of a bill aiming to limit the human impact on the nitrogen cycle. At the end of 2018, a report from the State Committee on the parliamentary System already provided some recommendations to make the Dutch parliamentary system more resilient. Introducing direct democracy instruments – in the form of a binding rejective referendum – featured prominently among the recommendations. A suspensive, nonbinding referendum was already in place in the Netherlands from July 1st 2015, until its repeal on February 18th 2018.

During the General Election campaign, most political parties agreed with re-introducing such direct democracy instrument in the Netherlands, this time in a binding fashion. To allow for such a change, a constitutional amendment is necessary. Constitutional amendments occur in a two-staged manner in the Netherlands according to article 137 of the Constitution. First, an Act of parliament need to be approved by the majority of MPs stating that an amendment to the Constitution in the form proposed shall be considered. After publication of the bill, the Lower House is dissolved, and new elections organized. Once the new Lower House is appointed, the two Houses of the States General shall consider, at second reading, the constitutional amendment which shall passed only if approved by at least two thirds of the votes. This specific procedure means that, in practice, most constitutional amendments are proposed before elections to avoid dissolving the Lower House.

Ahead of the general election, a constitutional amendment re-introducing the rejective referendum was proposed by two MPs from the Socialist Party and approved by the two parliamentary chambers. The proposed rejective referendum is of a binding nature and can not concern issues related to the monarchy, the ratification of international treaties as well as budgetary and tax matters. The wording of the proposal provides for the outcome of the referendum to be representative enough, without specifying any quorum. To be successfully introduced, the proposal now needs to secure the approval of the two-thirds of the newly elected Lower House.
## 7.3. Towards an increase of successful referendums in Micronesia?

The legal provisions governing democratic systems, and direct democracy institutions in particular, are known to be hard to change. As a result, any revision in the legal design of direct democracy tools is a rare event that can have important consequences for the practice of direct democracy in a country. As discussed in section 5, in 2023, **citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia approved a constitutional amendment lowering the supermajority requirement for mandatory referendums.** The supermajority requirement, coupled with a double majority requirement, has been, since 1991, the death knell of all attempts to revise the national constitution. It is hence likely that the new rule will make the adoption of constitutional amendments easier in the future.

## 7.4. A progressive constitutionalization of direct democracy in Taiwan?

Since the Sunflower Movement in 2014, Taiwan has moved toward direct democracy. Through the Referendum Act of 2017, a mandatory referendum was introduced for constitutional amendments. It also facilitated the citizen legislative initiative, giving Taiwanese citizens the opportunity to vote multiple times in 2018, 2021, and 2022. **While this citizen initiative does not allow for constitutional amendments, no institution is authorized to review the constitution.** Thus, the Initiative Review Committee, which was responsible for ensuring that the initiative did not violate the Constitution, has been abolished. It is difficult to know whether citizen can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum, as case law has not yet stabilized the practice. In 2022, the first constitutional referendum was held without being submitted to parliament. This could lead to either a higher power of the president or a higher power of the citizens, depending on the level of competitiveness of the constitutional initiative. The coming years will give us the answer.
## 7.3. Towards an increase of successful referendums in Micronesia?

The legal provisions governing democratic systems, and direct democracy institutions in particular, are known to be hard to change. As a result, any revision in the legal design of direct democracy tools is a rare event that can have important consequences for the practice of direct democracy in a country. As discussed in section 5, in 2023, **citizens from the Federated States of Micronesia approved a constitutional amendment lowering the supermajority requirement for mandatory referendums.** The supermajority requirement, coupled with a double majority requirement, has been, since 1991, the death knell of all attempts to revise the national constitution. It is hence likely that the new rule will make the adoption of constitutional amendments easier in the future.

## 7.4. A progressive constitutionalization of direct democracy in Taiwan?

Since the Sunflower Movement in 2014, Taiwan has moved toward direct democracy. Through the Referendum Act of 2017, a mandatory referendum was introduced for constitutional amendments. It also facilitated the citizen legislative initiative, giving Taiwanese citizens the opportunity to vote multiple times in 2018, 2021, and 2022. **While this citizen initiative does not allow for constitutional amendments, no institution is authorized to review the constitution.** Thus, the Initiative Review Committee, which was responsible for ensuring that the initiative did not violate the Constitution, has been abolished. It is difficult to know whether citizen can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum, as case law has not yet stabilized the practice. In 2022, the first constitutional referendum was held without being submitted to parliament. This could lead to either a higher power of the president or a higher power of the citizens, depending on the level of competitiveness of the constitutional initiative. The coming years will give us the answer.
# THE STATE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY REPORT

By Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

DIRECT DEMOCRACY NAVIGATOR
# THE STATE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY REPORT

By Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

DIRECT DEMOCRACY NAVIGATOR