<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# The Global State of Direct Democracy 2024

Clara Egger, Raùl Magni-Berton

► To cite this version:

Clara Egger, Raùl Magni-Berton. The Global State of Direct Democracy 2024. Democracy International; Swiss Democracy Foundation. 2024. halshs-04597015

HAL Id: halshs-04597015

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04597015

Submitted on 1 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# The Global State of Direct Democracy 2024

Clara Egger, Raùl Magni-Berton

► To cite this version:

Clara Egger, Raùl Magni-Berton. The Global State of Direct Democracy 2024. Democracy International; Swiss Democracy Foundation. 2024. halshs-04597015

HAL Id: halshs-04597015

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04597015v1

Submitted on 1 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# THE GLOBAL STATE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY 2024

Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

DIRECT DEMOCRACY NAVIGATOR

SWISS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION SCHWEIZER DEMOKRATIE STIFTUNG

DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# THE GLOBAL STATE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY 2024

Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

DIRECT DEMOCRACY NAVIGATOR

SWISS DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION SCHWEIZER DEMOKRATIE STIFTUNG

DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL
**Clara Egger**

Department of Public Administration and
Sociology, Erasmus School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University
Rotterdam

**Raul Magni-Berton**

European School of Political and Social Sciences,
Catholic University of Lille

To cite this paper: Egger, Clara; Magni-Berton, Raul (2024), The State of Direct Democracy 2024, Cologne: Direct Democracy Navigator and Democracy International
**Clara Egger**

Department of Public Administration and
Sociology, Erasmus School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Erasmus University
Rotterdam

**Raul Magni-Berton**

European School of Political and Social Sciences,
Catholic University of Lille

To cite this paper: Egger, Clara; Magni-Berton, Raul (2024), The State of Direct Democracy 2024, Cologne: Direct Democracy Navigator and Democracy International
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword 6

1. Direct democracy: Measurements, databases, and glossary 8

1.1. Mapping institutions of direct democracy 8

1.2 Measuring the practice of direct democracy 11

1.3. Glossary of key terms used in the Global State of Direct Democracy Report 13

References 16

2. Direct democracy: from principles to practice 17

2.1. Underlying principles of direct democracy and basic institutions 17

2.2. Institutions of direct democracy subject to the rules of representation 21

2.3 Institutions that make citizens vote, without giving them initiative and veto rights 22

2.4. Accessibility of initiative and veto rights 25

Initiative 25

Veto 27

2.5 Summary of direct democracy institutions 29

3. Institutions of direct democracy and their development around the world 31

3.1. Citizen power over constitutional issues 31

Constitutional veto rights: mandatory referendums. 31

Rejective constitutional referendums 36

Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword 6

1. Direct democracy: Measurements, databases, and glossary 8

1.1. Mapping institutions of direct democracy 8

1.2 Measuring the practice of direct democracy 11

1.3. Glossary of key terms used in the Global State of Direct Democracy Report 13

References 16

2. Direct democracy: from principles to practice 17

2.1. Underlying principles of direct democracy and basic institutions 17

2.2. Institutions of direct democracy subject to the rules of representation 21

2.3 Institutions that make citizens vote, without giving them initiative and veto rights 22

2.4. Accessibility of initiative and veto rights 25

Initiative 25

Veto 27

2.5 Summary of direct democracy institutions 29

3. Institutions of direct democracy and their development around the world 31

3.1. Citizen power over constitutional issues 31

Constitutional veto rights: mandatory referendums. 31

Rejective constitutional referendums 36

Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2. Direct democracy institutions over non constitutional matters 40

Rejective referendums 40

Legislative citizen initiatives 43

3.3. Plebiscites 47

4. Popular votes in perspective: recent trends in voting activity 48

4.1. 2023: a bad year for popular votes? 49

4.2. Where did people vote the most over the last five years? 51

4.3. Direct democracy institutions activated 53

References 53

5. Popular votes in 2023 54

5.1. Legitimizing presidential power grabs with referendums: Central African Republic, Mali and Uzbekistan 55

5.2. Voting on constitutional changes through mandatory referendums 57

The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum 57

Micronesia 59

Switzerland 60

5.3. Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Switzerland: citizen-initiated referendums in 2023 61

5.4. Plebiscites in Ecuador and Poland 65

Voting on a package of eight constitutional reforms in Ecuador 65

Plebiscites as a support to party politics in Poland 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2. Direct democracy institutions over non constitutional matters 40

Rejective referendums 40

Legislative citizen initiatives 43

3.3. Plebiscites 47

4. Popular votes in perspective: recent trends in voting activity 48

4.1. 2023: a bad year for popular votes? 49

4.2. Where did people vote the most over the last five years? 51

4.3. Direct democracy institutions activated 53
References 53

5. Popular votes in 2023 54

5.1. Legitimizing presidential power grabs with referendums: Central African Republic, Mali and Uzbekistan 55

5.2. Voting on constitutional changes through mandatory referendums 57

The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum 57

Micronesia 59

Switzerland 60

5.3. Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Slovakia and Switzerland: citizen-initiated referendums in 2023 61

5.4. Plebiscites in Ecuador and Poland 65

Voting on a package of eight constitutional reforms in Ecuador 65

Plebiscites as a support to party politics in Poland 66
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.5. Other prominent votes in 2023: Chile and Venezuela 67
References 69

6. Latest scientific evidence on direct democracy published in English 71

6.1. Direct democracy and politics 71

6.2 Direct democracy and public policy 73

6.3. Direct democracy and citizen attitudes 74

6.4. Historical and normative accounts of direct democracy 76
References (studies published on direct democracy in 2023) 77

7. Developments to follow in 2024 81

7.1. Chile: is the constituent process closed? 81

7.2. Will the rejective referendum come back to the Netherlands in 2024? 81

7.3. Towards an increase of successful referendums in Micronesia? 83

7.4. A progressive constitutionalization of direct democracy in Taiwan? 83
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.5. Other prominent votes in 2023: Chile and Venezuela 67
References 69

6. Latest scientific evidence on direct democracy published in English 71

6.1. Direct democracy and politics 71

6.2 Direct democracy and public policy 73

6.3. Direct democracy and citizen attitudes 74

6.4. Historical and normative accounts of direct democracy 76
References (studies published on direct democracy in 2023) 77

7. Developments to follow in 2024 81

7.1. Chile: is the constituent process closed? 81

7.2. Will the rejective referendum come back to the Netherlands in 2024? 81

7.3. Towards an increase of successful referendums in Micronesia? 83

7.4. A progressive constitutionalization of direct democracy in Taiwan? 83
FOREWORD

Since 2010, the Direct Democracy Navigator has described and updated all legal provisions for direct democracy around the world. It is currently being developed to include a historical series to capture legal changes over time. It aims to help identify the best practices, the obstacles, or the origins of direct democratic institutions.

Following the involvement of the Liechtenstein Institute and as the new scientific directors of the Direct Democracy Navigator, we initiated the idea of a yearly report on the Global State of Direct Democracy. After all, reports on democratic quality and its evolution over time abound, but no report specifically focuses on direct democracy institutions and practices. Such a taking stock exercise appeared important to us for two reasons. First, direct democracy institutions have a long and dynamic history in many countries, but their experience rarely hit the headlines. Second, as civil society movements and activists over the world fight for introducing citizens rights to initiate and veto legislation at the local, regional and national level, it is more important than ever to identify best practices and learn from each other.

We are delighted to share with you the first edition of the Global State of Direct Democracy Report focusing on the year 2023. Legal provisions, referendums held, short-term trends in the use of direct democracy institutions, reforms and academic publications are gathered and commented to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of direct democracy globally.
FOREWORD

Since 2010, the Direct Democracy Navigator has described and updated all legal provisions for direct democracy around the world. It is currently being developed to include a historical series to capture legal changes over time. It aims to help identify the best practices, the obstacles, or the origins of direct democratic institutions.

Following the involvement of the Liechtenstein Institute and as the new scientific directors of the Direct Democracy Navigator, we initiated the idea of a yearly report on the Global State of Direct Democracy. After all, reports on democratic quality and its evolution over time abound, but no report specifically focuses on direct democracy institutions and practices. Such a taking stock exercise appeared important to us for two reasons. First, direct democracy institutions have a long and dynamic history in many countries, but their experience rarely hit the headlines. Second, as civil society movements and activists over the world fight for introducing citizens rights to initiate and veto legislation at the local, regional and national level, it is more important than ever to identify best practices and learn from each other.

We are delighted to share with you the first edition of the Global State of Direct Democracy Report focusing on the year 2023. Legal provisions, referendums held, short-term trends in the use of direct democracy institutions, reforms and academic publications are gathered and commented to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of direct democracy globally.
# FOREWORD

While the contours of direct democracy institutions are widely accepted, their respective importance is still debated. Switzerland is usually considered the best model of direct democracy, and this report follows that tradition. After Switzerland, however, scholars disagree on which countries are the best examples of direct democracy and which best practices should be followed.

The approach of this report is centered on the hierarchy between the legal norms enacted and voted on directly by the citizens and those enacted and voted on by their representatives. From this distinction, two main models of direct democracy are presented and detailed, focusing on their legal institutions and use in recent years, with a particular focus on 2023.

The Global State of Direct Democracy Report is aligned with the scholarly consensus arguing that details matter in the design of democratic institutions. In most databases, including the Direct Democracy Navigator, the coding scheme does not allow to fully capture important details, which are stressed out in this report. In doing so, this report calls for debates on direct democracy typologies and practices to contribute to a better understanding of this fascinating regime and its impact on the political life.

We hope you will enjoy the read and look forward to your feedback, that will allow us to prepare the 2024 edition.

Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton
FOREWORD

While the contours of direct democracy institutions are widely accepted, their respective importance is still debated. Switzerland is usually considered the best model of direct democracy, and this report follows that tradition. After Switzerland, however, scholars disagree on which countries are the best examples of direct democracy and which best practices should be followed.

The approach of this report is centered on the hierarchy between the legal norms enacted and voted on directly by the citizens and those enacted and voted on by their representatives. From this distinction, two main models of direct democracy are presented and detailed, focusing on their legal institutions and use in recent years, with a particular focus on 2023.

The Global State of Direct Democracy Report is aligned with the scholarly consensus arguing that details matter in the design of democratic institutions. In most databases, including the Direct Democracy Navigator, the coding scheme does not allow to fully capture important details, which are stressed out in this report. In doing so, this report calls for debates on direct democracy typologies and practices to contribute to a better understanding of this fascinating regime and its impact on the political life.

We hope you will enjoy the read and look forward to your feedback, that will allow us to prepare the 2024 edition.

Clara Egger and Raul Magni-Berton
# 1. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: MEASUREMENTS, DATABASES, AND GLOSSARY

This report offers a **global and comparative view of the state of direct democracy worldwide** by analyzing the legal designs of various direct democratic institutions and commenting on their recent practice. **The focus is only placed on direct democracy institutions at the national level of government in sovereign countries.** This leads to two important exclusions: (1) non-sovereign territories – such as, for example, Gibraltar, are not extensively covered in this paper – except in presenting the recent trends in the use of direct democracy (see section 5) - ; (2) while direct democracy institutions flourish and are regularly activated at local levels of governments - as in the United States and Germany - data in the other countries is often partial or incorrect. While we intend to cover this level in the future editions of the report, this first edition aims to **update existing data on national direct democracy institutions** and to **propose a new way of conceptualizing direct democracy** based on its impact on constitutional norms and on citizens' initiative and veto rights. This first chapter serves as an introduction to the world of direct democracy. It contrasts existing sources of data on the institutions and practice of direct democracy to specify the contours of direct democracy institutions covered in this report and present a glossary of the key terms that will be used in this report.

## 1.1. Mapping institutions of direct democracy

The Global State of Direct Democracy Report mostly draws upon the **Direct Democracy Navigator¹** (hereafter: the Navigator, see text box below) a database developed by Klaus Hoffman that details the different direct democracy institutions in use around the world. It includes **ten different types of procedures and three main institutions**: the initiative, the referendum and the plebiscite. Launched in 2010, the Direct Democracy Navigator was initially designed for civil society actors and the media but is now moving towards a more academic format to facilitate its use by scholars. The Navigator ambitions to **annually review the progress and challenges of direct democracy** around the world and to contribute to better analyze how direct democratic institutions work.
# 1. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: MEASUREMENTS, DATABASES, AND GLOSSARY

This report offers a **global and comparative view of the state of direct democracy worldwide** by analyzing the legal designs of various direct democratic institutions and commenting on their recent practice. **The focus is only placed on direct democracy institutions at the national level of government in sovereign countries.** This leads to two important exclusions: (1) non-sovereign territories – such as, for example, Gibraltar, are not extensively covered in this paper – except in presenting the recent trends in the use of direct democracy (see section 5) - ; (2) while direct democracy institutions flourish and are regularly activated at local levels of governments - as in the United States and Germany - data in the other countries is often partial or incorrect. While we intend to cover this level in the future editions of the report, this first edition aims to **update existing data on national direct democracy institutions** and to **propose a new way of conceptualizing direct democracy** based on its impact on constitutional norms and on citizens' initiative and veto rights. This first chapter serves as an introduction to the world of direct democracy. It contrasts existing sources of data on the institutions and practice of direct democracy to specify the contours of direct democracy institutions covered in this report and present a glossary of the key terms that will be used in this report.

## 1.1. Mapping institutions of direct democracy

The Global State of Direct Democracy Report mostly draws upon the **Direct Democracy Navigator¹** (hereafter: the Navigator, see text box below) a database developed by Klaus Hoffman that details the different direct democracy institutions in use around the world. It includes **ten different types of procedures and three main institutions**: the initiative, the referendum and the plebiscite. Launched in 2010, the Direct Democracy Navigator was initially designed for civil society actors and the media but is now moving towards a more academic format to facilitate its use by scholars. The Navigator ambitions to **annually review the progress and challenges of direct democracy** around the world and to contribute to better analyze how direct democratic institutions work.
The Direct Democracy Navigator is the world's largest online database for Direct Democracy currently documenting around **2 000 institutions of direct democracy in more than 100 countries** on the national, regional and local levels. Two criteria are used to classify the identified institutions : **initiation and authorship**. The database distinguishes five types of institutions of direct democracy: citizen initiative, facultative referendum, referendum, veto referendum and the mandatory referendum. The agenda initiative is a special case in the area of direct democracy, which is also included as it allows for direct bottom-up influence. The Navigator details the legal design of each of these institutions, including, among others, the signature threshold required as well as potential quorum and supermajority requirements.

Box 1.1 The Direct Democracy Navigator

The Navigator is not the only database on the state of direct democracy legislation. Other sources can be used, but none is precise enough to become the reference in this field. Indeed, while existing legislation is relatively easy to analyze from constitutional texts, many of the details concerning the concrete operation of these institutions are found in laws or implementing decrees, which are harder to find and change more frequently. In addition, constitutional texts are not always easy to interpret, so case law on the subject also needs to be identified and its evolution traced. Mapping these changes have led the Navigator team, at the time of writing these pages, to create an annual database that tracks changes in existing legislation over time. If successful, this project would make Navigator the first database of its kind.

Currently, the Navigator presents all direct-democratic institutions, updated annually at the national and local levels. The data used in this report is cross-referenced with those of other data initiatives and report that also collect – often partially – information on direct democracy institutions across the globe.

The first of such data initiatives comes from the **ACE project²**. Launched at the United Nations in 1998 by International IDEA, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), ACE was initially created as the Administration and Cost of Elections project. In 2006, the project expanded its scope to not only cover electoral processes but also mechanisms of political participation – including direct democracy legislation. **The ACE Encyclopaedia distinguishes between three main institutions associated with direct democracy: referendums, citizen initiatives, and recall.**
The Direct Democracy Navigator is the world's largest online database for Direct Democracy currently documenting around **2 000 institutions of direct democracy in more than 100 countries** on the national, regional and local levels. Two criteria are used to classify the identified institutions : **initiation and authorship**. The database distinguishes five types of institutions of direct democracy: citizen initiative, facultative referendum, referendum, veto referendum and the mandatory referendum. The agenda initiative is a special case in the area of direct democracy, which is also included as it allows for direct bottom-up influence. The Navigator details the legal design of each of these institutions, including, among others, the signature threshold required as well as potential quorum and supermajority requirements.

Box 1.1 The Direct Democracy Navigator

The Navigator is not the only database on the state of direct democracy legislation. Other sources can be used, but none is precise enough to become the reference in this field. Indeed, while existing legislation is relatively easy to analyze from constitutional texts, many of the details concerning the concrete operation of these institutions are found in laws or implementing decrees, which are harder to find and change more frequently. In addition, constitutional texts are not always easy to interpret, so case law on the subject also needs to be identified and its evolution traced. Mapping these changes have led the Navigator team, at the time of writing these pages, to create an annual database that tracks changes in existing legislation over time. If successful, this project would make Navigator the first database of its kind.

Currently, the Navigator presents all direct-democratic institutions, updated annually at the national and local levels. The data used in this report is cross-referenced with those of other data initiatives and report that also collect – often partially – information on direct democracy institutions across the globe.

The first of such data initiatives comes from the **ACE project²**. Launched at the United Nations in 1998 by International IDEA, the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), ACE was initially created as the Administration and Cost of Elections project. In 2006, the project expanded its scope to not only cover electoral processes but also mechanisms of political participation – including direct democracy legislation. **The ACE Encyclopaedia distinguishes between three main institutions associated with direct democracy: referendums, citizen initiatives, and recall.**
The second is curated by the **International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)**, an intergovernmental organization that aims to strengthen democratic institutions and processes by providing knowledge resources, expertise and a platform for debate on democracy issues. In 2008, it published a **Handbook on Direct Democracy, which covers four institutions: referendums, citizens' initiatives, agenda initiatives, and recall** (Beramendi, Ellis, Kaufman et al 2008). Both laws and practices are reported. In 2014, International IDEA published a new and updated report, authored by Elliot Bulmet (2014), that only targets referendums and initiatives. Conceptually, however, this report only provides examples of institutions, without attempting to systematically collect all existing legal frameworks in the world.
Third, since 2014, the V-Dem Institute has been collecting hundreds of indicators of democratic quality. Under the leadership of David Altman, V-Dem has begun to categorize and research direct democracy institutions. A policy brief, published by Tolga Tan and Anna Lührmann (2017), offers their definition of direct democracy, **which includes initiatives, referendums, and plebiscites, while explicitly excluding recall elections and deliberative assemblies**. The V-Dem provides 38 indicators of direct democracy defined as direct popular votes (therefore excluding agenda initiatives).

The fourth source used is the **Comparative Constitutions Project**, co-led by Zachary Elkins (University of Texas, Department of Government), Tom Ginsburg (University of Chicago, Law School), and James Melton³, releases English translations and comprehensive comparative data on the world's constitutions. This resource is particularly useful to access **direct democracy provisions in constitutional texts** but has not yet fueled the creation of a specific database on this topic.

Fifth, the **Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRI Europe)**, founded in 2001, is a European think tank dedicated to research and education on direct democracy procedures and practices. It published a guidebook in 2010, co-edited by Bruno Kaufmann, Rolf Büchi and Nadja Braun (2010), **which defines direct democracy as "the right of citizens to participate directly in political decision-making"**, i.e. initiatives and referendums. However, its scope is limited to a few representative countries. The same institute, focusing on the United States, provides extensive information on the institutions of direct democracy in the U.S. states⁴, as does **Ballotpedia⁵**, an online encyclopedia with accurate information on direct democracy in the United States.
The second is curated by the **International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)**, an intergovernmental organization that aims to strengthen democratic institutions and processes by providing knowledge resources, expertise and a platform for debate on democracy issues. In 2008, it published a **Handbook on Direct Democracy, which covers four institutions: referendums, citizens' initiatives, agenda initiatives, and recall** (Beramendi, Ellis, Kaufman et al 2008). Both laws and practices are reported. In 2014, International IDEA published a new and updated report, authored by Elliot Bulmet (2014), that only targets referendums and initiatives. Conceptually, however, this report only provides examples of institutions, without attempting to systematically collect all existing legal frameworks in the world.
Third, since 2014, the V-Dem Institute has been collecting hundreds of indicators of democratic quality. Under the leadership of David Altman, V-Dem has begun to categorize and research direct democracy institutions. A policy brief, published by Tolga Tan and Anna Lührmann (2017), offers their definition of direct democracy, **which includes initiatives, referendums, and plebiscites, while explicitly excluding recall elections and deliberative assemblies**. The V-Dem provides 38 indicators of direct democracy defined as direct popular votes (therefore excluding agenda initiatives).

The fourth source used is the **Comparative Constitutions Project**, co-led by Zachary Elkins (University of Texas, Department of Government), Tom Ginsburg (University of Chicago, Law School), and James Melton³, releases English translations and comprehensive comparative data on the world's constitutions. This resource is particularly useful to access **direct democracy provisions in constitutional texts** but has not yet fueled the creation of a specific database on this topic.

Fifth, the **Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRI Europe)**, founded in 2001, is a European think tank dedicated to research and education on direct democracy procedures and practices. It published a guidebook in 2010, co-edited by Bruno Kaufmann, Rolf Büchi and Nadja Braun (2010), **which defines direct democracy as "the right of citizens to participate directly in political decision-making"**, i.e. initiatives and referendums. However, its scope is limited to a few representative countries. The same institute, focusing on the United States, provides extensive information on the institutions of direct democracy in the U.S. states⁴, as does **Ballotpedia⁵**, an online encyclopedia with accurate information on direct democracy in the United States.
States. Similarly, the **Organization of American States (OAS)** published a report entitled "Observing Direct Democracy Mechanisms" (2022) to analyze and evaluate the practices of direct democracy in Latin America. **Direct democracy here includes plebiscites, referendums, and popular initiatives.**

Contrasting these sources reveal that, globally, **the contours of direct democracy institutions are relatively consensual.** Most databases include institutions such as various types of citizen initiatives, referendums and plebiscites (for a discussion of these key terms, see glossary in 1.3). The only institution that is not always included is the recall. While historically associated with the demand for direct democracy and formally like other institutions (using petitions and often referendums), the recall consists of the right of citizens to trigger anticipated elections but not to participate directly in decision-making (Welp and Whitehead 2020). Conceptually, although it provides citizen with a right to control the electoral schedule, the recall stays embedded in a representative logic. Citizens can simply decide when they want to change their representatives, but the recall does not allow direct legislation. In practice, while Swiss citizens enjoy considerable political rights, the recall does not exist at the federal level or in most cantons. However, it could be introduced directly by the citizens, who do seem to feel a need for it. The same pattern can also be found in the American states. Although a good proportion of them provide for a recall procedure, those having all other direct-democratic procedures make very little use of recall. On the contrary, recall is more common in states where access to the citizen initiative and referendum is difficult or non-existent. In some Latin American countries, most notably Peru, recall is widely used, probably because direct-democratic institutions are not easily accessible. So instead of expressing dissatisfaction through a proposed law, they use a recall process.

## 1.2 Measuring the practice of direct democracy

Beyond pure legislative analysis, understanding how direct democracy is practiced is important. Such practice is often captured through counting the occurrence of referendums and plebiscites. Complementary databases that focus more on this practical aspect have been used in this report, especially in chapters 4 and 5.
States. Similarly, the **Organization of American States (OAS)** published a report entitled "Observing Direct Democracy Mechanisms" (2022) to analyze and evaluate the practices of direct democracy in Latin America. **Direct democracy here includes plebiscites, referendums, and popular initiatives.**

Contrasting these sources reveal that, globally, **the contours of direct democracy institutions are relatively consensual.** Most databases include institutions such as various types of citizen initiatives, referendums and plebiscites (for a discussion of these key terms, see glossary in 1.3). The only institution that is not always included is the recall. While historically associated with the demand for direct democracy and formally like other institutions (using petitions and often referendums), the recall consists of the right of citizens to trigger anticipated elections but not to participate directly in decision-making (Welp and Whitehead 2020). Conceptually, although it provides citizen with a right to control the electoral schedule, the recall stays embedded in a representative logic. Citizens can simply decide when they want to change their representatives, but the recall does not allow direct legislation. In practice, while Swiss citizens enjoy considerable political rights, the recall does not exist at the federal level or in most cantons. However, it could be introduced directly by the citizens, who do seem to feel a need for it. The same pattern can also be found in the American states. Although a good proportion of them provide for a recall procedure, those having all other direct-democratic procedures make very little use of recall. On the contrary, recall is more common in states where access to the citizen initiative and referendum is difficult or non-existent. In some Latin American countries, most notably Peru, recall is widely used, probably because direct-democratic institutions are not easily accessible. So instead of expressing dissatisfaction through a proposed law, they use a recall process.

## 1.2 Measuring the practice of direct democracy

Beyond pure legislative analysis, understanding how direct democracy is practiced is important. Such practice is often captured through counting the occurrence of referendums and plebiscites. Complementary databases that focus more on this practical aspect have been used in this report, especially in chapters 4 and 5.
The most developed database is the **Referendum Database (C2D)**, hosted by the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau at the University of Zurich. Initiated in 1994, the Referendum Database published its first report in 2023, entitled *The World of Referendums*, by Salim Brüggemann, Robin Gut, Uwe Serdült, and Jonas Wüthrich (2023). **It provides detailed information on referendums around the world, including location, date, subject, type, results, turnout, and the regime under which they took place.** The report also identifies some long-term trends in the use of referendums in different regions.

Another comprehensive database, the **Historical Dataset of the Constitutional Referendum**, specifically collects constitutional referendums from 1797 to 2016 and has been released Alexander Hudson (2019). Other, more *ad hoc*, databases have been created by researchers such as Laurence Morel, Matt Qvortrup (2017) or John Matsusaka (2020). Yet, the data is not publicly available.

**Data on individual referendum can be found in many scattered places.** The **Political Data Yearbook** hosted by the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) covers election results, national referendums, changes of government, and institutional reforms for a number of countries, both inside and outside the EU. Ballotpedia is also very informative, but limited to the United States. Finally, Wikipedia is now a reliable source on the occurrence of referendums in specific countries, without being systematic.

<table><caption>Table 1.1. below provides a comparative overview of existing databases on direct democracy.</caption><thead><tr><th>Database</th><th>Institutions and coverage</th><th>Institutions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Direct Democracy Navigator</td><td>Direct democracy institutions at national and local levels.</td><td>Citizen Initiatives, referendums, plebiscites</td></tr><tr><td>ACE project</td><td>Direct democracy legislation at national levels.</td><td>Citizen Initiatives, referendums, recalls</td></tr><tr><td>V-Dem</td><td>Direct democracy typology at national levels.</td><td>Citizen initiatives, referendums, and plebiscites</td></tr><tr><td>Comparative Constitutions project</td><td>National constitutions</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Referendum Database (C2D)</td><td>National and local referendums</td><td>Referendums</td></tr><tr><td>Ballotpedia</td><td>Institutions, initiatives and ballots in the US</td><td>Citizen initiatives, referendums and recall (with US terminology and variants)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 1.1. Comparative overview of existing databases on direct democracy</caption>
The most developed database is the **Referendum Database (C2D)**, hosted by the Center for Democracy Studies Aarau at the University of Zurich. Initiated in 1994, the Referendum Database published its first report in 2023, entitled *The World of Referendums*, by Salim Brüggemann, Robin Gut, Uwe Serdült, and Jonas Wüthrich (2023). **It provides detailed information on referendums around the world, including location, date, subject, type, results, turnout, and the regime under which they took place.** The report also identifies some long-term trends in the use of referendums in different regions.

Another comprehensive database, the **Historical Dataset of the Constitutional Referendum**, specifically collects constitutional referendums from 1797 to 2016 and has been released Alexander Hudson (2019). Other, more *ad hoc*, databases have been created by researchers such as Laurence Morel, Matt Qvortrup (2017) or John Matsusaka (2020). Yet, the data is not publicly available.

**Data on individual referendum can be found in many scattered places.** The **Political Data Yearbook** hosted by the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) covers election results, national referendums, changes of government, and institutional reforms for a number of countries, both inside and outside the EU. Ballotpedia is also very informative, but limited to the United States. Finally, Wikipedia is now a reliable source on the occurrence of referendums in specific countries, without being systematic.

<table><caption>Table 1.1. below provides a comparative overview of existing databases on direct democracy.</caption><thead><tr><th>Database</th><th>Institutions and coverage</th><th>Institutions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Direct Democracy Navigator</td><td>Direct democracy institutions at national and local levels.</td><td>Citizen Initiatives, referendums, plebiscites</td></tr><tr><td>ACE project</td><td>Direct democracy legislation at national levels.</td><td>Citizen Initiatives, referendums, recalls</td></tr><tr><td>V-Dem</td><td>Direct democracy typology at national levels.</td><td>Citizen initiatives, referendums, and plebiscites</td></tr><tr><td>Comparative Constitutions project</td><td>National constitutions</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Referendum Database (C2D)</td><td>National and local referendums</td><td>Referendums</td></tr><tr><td>Ballotpedia</td><td>Institutions, initiatives and ballots in the US</td><td>Citizen initiatives, referendums and recall (with US terminology and variants)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 1.1. Comparative overview of existing databases on direct democracy</caption>
**1.3. Glossary of key terms used in the Global State of Direct Democracy Report**

This report follows the logic of the Direct Democracy Navigator. **Institutions covered include citizen initiatives, referendums and plebiscites, and exclude recalls.** The definitions of these terms are not yet settled, and **many competing typologies and understandings exist.** For example, what distinguishes referendums from plebiscites is still not clear either in actual political systems or in political science and legal scholarship.

We define **citizen initiative** as legal norms that allow extending the legislative initiative, i.e. the right to submit a law to the legislative power for approval, to all citizens provided that it receives sufficient support from other citizens. This includes four groups of institutions that we present from in decreasing order of relevance. This includes, firstly, the **agenda initiative**, which enables citizens to collect signatures to submit a legislative proposal to the parliament. An example of this is the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), which was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. A second type of citizen initiative is the **non-binding citizen-initiated referendum**, which is like the agenda initiative, but a sufficient number of signatures first triggers a consultative referendum before the parliament decides. New Zealand is the country where this institution has been used the most. Technically, these referendums are also used in Liechtenstein, because the Prince has a veto right. However, this veto is never used, mainly because, since 2003, the only constitutionally binding referendum has been the one on the abolition of the monarchy. The Reigning Prince therefore has a strong incentive to accept the results of referendums. The third type is the **legislative citizen initiative**, which allows citizens who collect enough signatures to trigger a binding referendum on their legislative proposal. The most successful example is Slovenia. Usually, the parliament cannot change the popular decision without citizens' consent, but parliamentary laws are not hierarchically inferior to citizen laws⁷. Finally, the **citizen-initiated constitutional amendment** (or popular initiative, in Swiss terminology) consists in the right of any citizen to submit a constitutional amendment to a binding referendum. The countries that have this institution, such as Switzerland or Uruguay, also provide for the mandatory referendum (see below) for all constitutional amendments.
## 1.3. Glossary of key terms used in the Global State of Direct Democracy Report

This report follows the logic of the Direct Democracy Navigator. Institutions covered include **citizen initiatives, referendums and plebiscites, and exclude recalls**. The definitions of these terms are not yet settled, and **many competing typologies and understandings exist**. For example, what distinguishes referendums from plebiscites is still not clear either in actual political systems or in political science and legal scholarship.

We define **citizen initiative** as legal norms that allow extending the legislative initiative, i.e. the right to submit a law to the legislative power for approval, to all citizens provided that it receives sufficient support from other citizens. This includes four groups of institutions that we present from in decreasing order of relevance. This includes, firstly, the **agenda initiative**, which enables citizens to collect signatures to submit a legislative proposal to the parliament. An example of this is the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), which was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. A second type of citizen initiative is the **non-binding citizen-initiated referendum**, which is like the agenda initiative, but a sufficient number of signatures first triggers a consultative referendum before the parliament decides. New Zealand is the country where this institution has been used the most. Technically, these referendums are also used in Liechtenstein, because the Prince has a veto right. However, this veto is never used, mainly because, since 2003, the only constitutionally binding referendum has been the one on the abolition of the monarchy. The Reigning Prince therefore has a strong incentive to accept the results of referendums. The third type is the **legislative citizen initiative**, which allows citizens who collect enough signatures to trigger a binding referendum on their legislative proposal. The most successful example is Slovenia. Usually, the parliament cannot change the popular decision without citizens' consent, but parliamentary laws are not hierarchically inferior to citizen laws⁷. Finally, the **citizen-initiated constitutional amendment** (or popular initiative, in Swiss terminology) consists in the right of any citizen to submit a constitutional amendment to a binding referendum. The countries that have this institution, such as Switzerland or Uruguay, also provide for the mandatory referendum (see below) for all constitutional amendments.
Therefore, the popular initiative itself is only the right to initiate a constitutional amendment after
collecting a set number of signatures. The proposal is automatically submitted to a binding
referendum because the referendum is mandatory to validate any constitutional amendment.

We define **referendums** as the extension of the veto right to the entire electorate, not just its
representatives. There are three types. First, the **suspensive referendum** (or facultative
referendum according to Swiss law) is the right of any citizen to collect enough signatures to force a
law adopted by the parliament to be submitted to a referendum before its implementation.

Switzerland and Uruguay possess such an institution. Second, the **abrogative referendum** (according to Italian law) allows citizens to repeal a law after its implementation. Collecting signatures is the main way to obtain this referendum. Suspensive and abrogative referendums are part of **rejective referendums**, which require a petition to repeal a law. Finally, the **mandatory referendum** is automatically required for some types of political decisions. It can also be described as a suspensive referendum, where the threshold of signatures to obtain it is 0%. The typical example is Ireland, where all constitutional amendments and international treaties having constitutional implications can't be validated or ratified unless approved by referendum.

Finally, we define **plebiscites** as citizen participation in the legislative process in which citizens have neither initiative nor veto rights. Specifically, citizens cannot initiate a legislative process because this initiative is limited to their representatives. Nor can they veto the decisions of their representatives, unless the representatives decide to do so. In this particular case, however, citizens can directly influence policy by voting. We distinguish three main types based on initiation procedures. First, the

**minority plebiscite** allows some representatives who are in the opposition to the ruling government to submit a law adopted by the parliament to a referendum. These deputies are a minority in the parliament. For example, in Denmark, one third of the members of parliament can call for a referendum to reject a law passed by the majority. Second, the **government plebiscite** allows the government to put to the ballot a bill that it has initiated. Often not provided for in constitutions, it is largely used in an *ad hoc* way, as, for example, the Brexit in the United Kingdom or the referendum in the Netherlands on the constitutional treaty for the European Union.

Finally, the **head of state plebiscite** is a referendum submitted by the head of state. If the head of state is also the head of government, this is identical to the previous one.
Therefore, the popular initiative itself is only the right to initiate a constitutional amendment after
collecting a set number of signatures. The proposal is automatically submitted to a binding
referendum because the referendum is mandatory to validate any constitutional amendment.

We define **referendums** as the extension of the veto right to the entire electorate, not just its
representatives. There are three types. First, the **suspensive referendum** (or facultative
referendum according to Swiss law) is the right of any citizen to collect enough signatures to force a
law adopted by the parliament to be submitted to a referendum before its implementation.

Switzerland and Uruguay possess such an institution. Second, the **abrogative referendum** (according to Italian law) allows citizens to repeal a law after its implementation. Collecting signatures is the main way to obtain this referendum. Suspensive and abrogative referendums are part of **rejective referendums**, which require a petition to repeal a law. Finally, the **mandatory referendum** is automatically required for some types of political decisions. It can also be described as a suspensive referendum, where the threshold of signatures to obtain it is 0%. The typical example is Ireland, where all constitutional amendments and international treaties having constitutional implications can't be validated or ratified unless approved by referendum.

Finally, we define **plebiscites** as citizen participation in the legislative process in which citizens have neither initiative nor veto rights. Specifically, citizens cannot initiate a legislative process because this initiative is limited to their representatives. Nor can they veto the decisions of their representatives, unless the representatives decide to do so. In this particular case, however, citizens can directly influence policy by voting. We distinguish three main types based on initiation procedures. First, the

**minority plebiscite** allows some representatives who are in the opposition to the ruling government to submit a law adopted by the parliament to a referendum. These deputies are a minority in the parliament. For example, in Denmark, one third of the members of parliament can call for a referendum to reject a law passed by the majority. Second, the **government plebiscite** allows the government to put to the ballot a bill that it has initiated. Often not provided for in constitutions, it is largely used in an *ad hoc* way, as, for example, the Brexit in the United Kingdom or the referendum in the Netherlands on the constitutional treaty for the European Union.

Finally, the **head of state plebiscite** is a referendum submitted by the head of state. If the head of state is also the head of government, this is identical to the previous one.
In many parliamentary systems, however, the head of state is an arbiter who guarantees the functioning of the institutions. He may be non-partisan or represents the opposition. In these cases, this referendum rather resembles to a minority plebiscite. France is a typical case of head of state plebiscite. Table 1.2 below summarizes the institutions covered in this report.

Note that, in describing direct democracy institutions, **we don't distinguish between democratic and non-democratic regimes.** The rationale for this choice is to discuss the relationship between the specific features of a direct democracy institution and the level of democratic quality in a country. This allows us to identify design features that play a key role in ensuring that direct democracy institutions contribute to strengthen democratic governance. We believe such a discussion is particularly important as examples of misuses of referendums – i.e. referendums use to legitimize autocratic decisions but not to allow citizens to influence policymaking - abound.

<table><caption>Table 1.2 – Institutions covered in the State of Democracy Report</caption><thead><tr><th>Right granted to citizens</th><th>Name</th><th>Class of institution</th><th>Typical country case</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Initiative</td><td>Agenda initiative</td><td rowspan="4">Citizen initiative</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binding citizen-initiated referendum</td><td>New Zealand</td></tr><tr><td>Legislative citizen initiative</td><td>Slovenia</td></tr><tr><td>Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment</td><td>Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Veto</td><td>Mandatory referendum</td><td rowspan="3">Referendum</td><td>Ireland</td></tr><tr><td>Suspensive referendum</td><td>Liechtenstein</td></tr><tr><td>Abrogative referendum</td><td>Italy</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">None</td><td>Minority plebiscite</td><td rowspan="3">Plebiscite</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Government plebiscite</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Head of state plebiscite</td><td>France</td></tr></tbody></table>
In many parliamentary systems, however, the head of state is an arbiter who guarantees the functioning of the institutions. He may be non-partisan or represents the opposition. In these cases, this referendum rather resembles to a minority plebiscite. France is a typical case of head of state plebiscite. Table 1.2 below summarizes the institutions covered in this report.

Note that, in describing direct democracy institutions, **we don't distinguish between democratic and non-democratic regimes.** The rationale for this choice is to discuss the relationship between the specific features of a direct democracy institution and the level of democratic quality in a country. This allows us to identify design features that play a key role in ensuring that direct democracy institutions contribute to strengthen democratic governance. We believe such a discussion is particularly important as examples of misuses of referendums – i.e. referendums use to legitimize autocratic decisions but not to allow citizens to influence policymaking - abound.

<table><caption>Table 1.2 – Institutions covered in the State of Democracy Report</caption><thead><tr><th>Right granted to citizens</th><th>Name</th><th>Class of institution</th><th>Typical country case</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Initiative</td><td>Agenda initiative</td><td rowspan="4">Citizen initiative</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binding citizen-initiated referendum</td><td>New Zealand</td></tr><tr><td>Legislative citizen initiative</td><td>Slovenia</td></tr><tr><td>Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment</td><td>Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Veto</td><td>Mandatory referendum</td><td rowspan="3">Referendum</td><td>Ireland</td></tr><tr><td>Suspensive referendum</td><td>Liechtenstein</td></tr><tr><td>Abrogative referendum</td><td>Italy</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">None</td><td>Minority plebiscite</td><td rowspan="3">Plebiscite</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Government plebiscite</td><td>?</td></tr><tr><td>Head of state plebiscite</td><td>France</td></tr></tbody></table>
References

Beramendi, V. ; Ellis A., Kaufman, B., et al (2008) Direct Democracy. The International IDEA Handbook, Stockholm : International IDEA.

Bulmet, E. W. (2014). Direct Democracy.Stockholm: International IDEA

Hudson, A. (2019) "An Historical Dataset of the Constitutional Referendum", https://doi.org/10.18738/T8/P2QKXC, Texas Data Repository, V1

Kaufman, B., Buechi R., Braun N. (2010), Guidebook to Direct Democracy – in Switzerland and beyond, IRI Europe, https://www.iri-europe.org/index.php/publications/guidebooks/guidebook-to-direct-democracy

Matsusaka, J. G. (2020). Let the people rule: How direct democracy can meet the populist challenge.
Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Morel, L., & Qvortrup, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook to referendums and direct democracy. Routledge.

Organization of the American States (2022), Observing Direct Democracy Mechanisms. A manual for
OAS electoral Observation Missions,
https://www.oas.org/es/sap/deco/Pubs/Manuales/OBSERVING-DIRECT-DEMOCRACY-MECHANISMS.pdf

Tan T., Lührmann A. (2017) The History and Current State of Direct Democracy in the World, V-Dem Policy Brief n.8, https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_policybrief_8_2017.pdf

Welp, Y., & Whitehead, L. (2020). The Politics of Recall Elections, Berlin : Springer International Publishing.
## References

Beramendi, V. ; Ellis A., Kaufman, B., et al (2008) Direct Democracy. The International IDEA Handbook, Stockholm : International IDEA.

Bulmet, E. W. (2014). Direct Democracy.Stockholm: International IDEA

Hudson, A. (2019) "An Historical Dataset of the Constitutional Referendum", https://doi.org/10.18738/T8/P2QKXC, Texas Data Repository, V1

Kaufman, B., Buechi R., Braun N. (2010), Guidebook to Direct Democracy – in Switzerland and beyond, IRI Europe, https://www.iri-europe.org/index.php/publications/guidebooks/guidebook-to-direct-democracy

Matsusaka, J. G. (2020). Let the people rule: How direct democracy can meet the populist challenge. Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Morel, L., & Qvortrup, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook to referendums and direct democracy. Routledge.

Organization of the American States (2022), Observing Direct Democracy Mechanisms. A manual for OAS electoral Observation Missions, https://www.oas.org/es/sap/deco/Pubs/Manuales/OBSERVING-DIRECT-DEMOCRACY-MECHANISMS.pdf

Tan T., Lührmann A. (2017) The History and Current State of Direct Democracy in the World, V-Dem Policy Brief n.8, https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/v-dem_policybrief_8_2017.pdf

Welp, Y., & Whitehead, L. (2020). The Politics of Recall Elections, Berlin : Springer International Publishing.
## 2. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICE

This second section introduces the **philosophical foundation of direct democracy institutions, namely the principle of popular sovereignty.** This principle – at the heart of many democratic regimes – implies that the most important decisions in a polity are taken by citizens. **This abstract principle translates into two types of political rights: the right to initiate and to veto legislation.** The first part presents how the exercise of such rights impact the nature of political regimes, making it either a direct democracy with representative institutions or a representative regime with direct democracy institutions. We then build on this distinction to classify existing direct democratic institutions across the globe. This conceptual distinction is then used to classify contemporary direct democracy institutions presented in section 3.

### 2.1. Underlying principles of direct democracy and basic institutions

Direct democracy is a very old system, having existed since ancient times. However, the idea of modern direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, is relatively new, as is representative democracy itself. In its early days, representative democracy was defined in relation to direct democracy. This debate can be found in the famous "Federalist No. 10," in which Madison argues against direct democracy ("pure democracy") on the grounds of the tyranny of the majority, preferring instead a representative regime (a republic).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. (...) A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
## 2. DIRECT DEMOCRACY: FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICE

This second section introduces the **philosophical foundation of direct democracy institutions, namely the principle of popular sovereignty.** This principle – at the heart of many democratic regimes – implies that the most important decisions in a polity are taken by citizens. **This abstract principle translates into two types of political rights: the right to initiate and to veto legislation.** The first part presents how the exercise of such rights impact the nature of political regimes, making it either a direct democracy with representative institutions or a representative regime with direct democracy institutions. We then build on this distinction to classify existing direct democratic institutions across the globe. This conceptual distinction is then used to classify contemporary direct democracy institutions presented in section 3.

### 2.1. Underlying principles of direct democracy and basic institutions

Direct democracy is a very old system, having existed since ancient times. However, the idea of modern direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, is relatively new, as is representative democracy itself. In its early days, representative democracy was defined in relation to direct democracy. This debate can be found in the famous "Federalist No. 10," in which Madison argues against direct democracy ("pure democracy") on the grounds of the tyranny of the majority, preferring instead a representative regime (a republic).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. (...) A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
This argument prevailed at the federal level, but not at the state level, where states such as California, Colorado, and Oregon, among others, subsequently opted for direct democracy. Moreover, this argument did not convince the first French opinion leaders after the Revolution of 1789. Condorcet, in particular, saw Madison's argument as a way of creating new masters:

“Men have become so accustomed to obeying other men, that freedom is, for most of them, the right to be subject only to masters chosen by themselves. That's as far as they go, and that's where their faint sense of independence ends. (...) Almost everywhere, this half-freedom is accompanied by storms; they are then attributed to the abuse of freedom, and we fail to see that they arise precisely from the fact that freedom is not complete; we seek to give it new chains, when we should be thinking, on the contrary, of breaking those that remain.”⁸

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

The Constitution of 1793, based on Condorcet's draft, thus introduced direct democracy. Revolutionary France could have become the first example of a large country governed by direct democracy had this constitution not been suspended during the Terror and then replaced by a less democratically progressive one shortly before the arrival of Napoleon. Thus, it was almost 100 years later that the first incarnation of direct democracy at the level of a sovereign state appeared in Switzerland. Its institutional framework was simpler and more efficient than that envisioned by Condorcet.

**Whatever the version, the underlying principle of direct democracy is popular sovereignty, which means that every citizen participates in the most important decisions of the country.** This does not mean that there are no representatives. On the contrary, the principle of representation remains fundamental to direct democracy, allowing citizens to organize the way society works. Police officers are representatives, as are teachers. Parliamentarians are no different. Yet, that principle also means that representatives do not have the power they have in a representative democracy, since citizens can always regain control of the law.
This argument prevailed at the federal level, but not at the state level, where states such as California, Colorado, and Oregon, among others, subsequently opted for direct democracy. Moreover, this argument did not convince the first French opinion leaders after the Revolution of 1789. Condorcet, in particular, saw Madison's argument as a way of creating new masters:

> "Men have become so accustomed to obeying other men, that freedom is, for most of them, the right to be subject only to masters chosen by themselves. That's as far as they go, and that's where their faint sense of independence ends. (...) Almost everywhere, this half-freedom is accompanied by storms; they are then attributed to the abuse of freedom, and we fail to see that they arise precisely from the fact that freedom is not complete; we seek to give it new chains, when we should be thinking, on the contrary, of breaking those that remain."⁸

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

The Constitution of 1793, based on Condorcet's draft, thus introduced direct democracy. Revolutionary France could have become the first example of a large country governed by direct democracy had this constitution not been suspended during the Terror and then replaced by a less democratically progressive one shortly before the arrival of Napoleon. Thus, it was almost 100 years later that the first incarnation of direct democracy at the level of a sovereign state appeared in Switzerland. Its institutional framework was simpler and more efficient than that envisioned by Condorcet.

**Whatever the version, the underlying principle of direct democracy is popular sovereignty, which means that every citizen participates in the most important decisions of the country.** This does not mean that there are no representatives. On the contrary, the principle of representation remains fundamental to direct democracy, allowing citizens to organize the way society works. Police officers are representatives, as are teachers. Parliamentarians are no different. Yet, that principle also means that representatives do not have the power they have in a representative democracy, since citizens can always regain control of the law.
In practice, this principle translates into the idea that decisions made directly by citizens take precedence over decisions made by their representatives.

In Switzerland, for example, the Constitution is entirely controlled by the people (through the popular initiative and the mandatory referendum). The parliament thus acts as a propositional body in that its laws only come into force if the citizens have given their consent. In particular, the sup referendum allows citizens to collect 50,000 signatures within 3 months of a law being passed by parliament in order to submit the law to a referendum. So, if most laws are not put to a vote, it is simply because most of them are not challenged by 50,000 citizens, who today account for about 1% of the voting population.

However, this "legislative censorship," as Condorcet used to call it, is not the core of the Swiss system or of direct democracy in general. **At its heart is the right of every citizen to initiate constitutional amendments (the popular initiative) and the obligation to submit any proposed constitutional amendment to a referendum (the mandatory referendum).** These two rights - the right to propose (the initiative) and the right to decide (the veto) - together constitute the control of collective decisions. By the simple fact that the Constitution is at the top of the hierarchy of norms, the one who controls the Constitution is the sovereign, i.e. the supreme authority, who can modify all decisions, but whose decisions cannot be modified by any other authority.

**Popular sovereignty is thus embodied in contemporary political systems by two institutions: citizen-initiated constitutional amendments and mandatory referendums.** In theory, a suspensive referendum is not necessary, since a constitutional amendment that contradicts a law automatically renders the latter null and void. All unpopular laws could therefore in principle be overturned by popular initiative. However, this would result in too many recurrent constitutional amendments, with laws regularly being repealed after they have come into force. In this respect, the facultative referendum is effective, and it is no coincidence that some form of rejective referendum exists wherever citizens control the Constitution. However, rejective (that include suspensive) referendums are most effective when citizens vouch for them through their control over constitutional norms.
In practice, this principle translates into the idea that decisions made directly by citizens take precedence over decisions made by their representatives.

In Switzerland, for example, the Constitution is entirely controlled by the people (through the popular initiative and the mandatory referendum). The parliament thus acts as a propositional body in that its laws only come into force if the citizens have given their consent. In particular, the sup referendum allows citizens to collect 50,000 signatures within 3 months of a law being passed by parliament in order to submit the law to a referendum. So, if most laws are not put to a vote, it is simply because most of them are not challenged by 50,000 citizens, who today account for about 1% of the voting population.

However, this "legislative censorship," as Condorcet used to call it, is not the core of the Swiss system or of direct democracy in general. **At its heart is the right of every citizen to initiate constitutional amendments (the popular initiative) and the obligation to submit any proposed constitutional amendment to a referendum (the mandatory referendum).** These two rights - the right to propose (the initiative) and the right to decide (the veto) - together constitute the control of collective decisions. By the simple fact that the Constitution is at the top of the hierarchy of norms, the one who controls the Constitution is the sovereign, i.e. the supreme authority, who can modify all decisions, but whose decisions cannot be modified by any other authority.

**Popular sovereignty is thus embodied in contemporary political systems by two institutions: citizen-initiated constitutional amendments and mandatory referendums.** In theory, a suspensive referendum is not necessary, since a constitutional amendment that contradicts a law automatically renders the latter null and void. All unpopular laws could therefore in principle be overturned by popular initiative. However, this would result in too many recurrent constitutional amendments, with laws regularly being repealed after they have come into force. In this respect, the facultative referendum is effective, and it is no coincidence that some form of rejective referendum exists wherever citizens control the Constitution. However, rejective (that include suspensive) referendums are most effective when citizens vouch for them through their control over constitutional norms.
Formulas similar to the Swiss facultative referendum exist in other countries - such as Italy - where the constitution is controlled by parliamentarians. In these countries, the institution is relatively ineffective and its limitations are numerous (see section 3). Conversely, where there is popular control of the constitution, the rejective referendum is widely used and its restrictions have been reduced over time. In Switzerland, for example, it was extended to international treaties by popular initiative in 1921, which are still not accessible to the Italian abrogative referendum.

**The question of the hierarchy between the legal norms enacted and voted on by citizens and those enacted and voted on by parliaments is the primary issue in defining a direct democracy.** We define a direct democracy (with representative institutions) as a system in which decisions made directly by citizens take precedence over decisions made by their representatives. It is distinguished from representative regimes (with direct-democratic institutions) in which parliamentary decisions take precedence.

Figure 2.1 briefly describes the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, based on the hierarchy of norms criteria. In both cases, the basic principle is that institutions can be described based on two parameters: (1) speed of decision-making and (2) inclusiveness in decision-making. These two parameters vary in opposite directions: the more inclusive a decision, the slower it takes. Inclusiveness is important to adopt legitimate and stable norms. Speed is useful to address urgent situations. As a result, the decision of the most inclusive body will always prevail over the decision of the least inclusive (and speeder) body. In direct democracy, the most inclusive decision is the one that includes all citizens and has constitutional value. In representative systems, both the constitution and the law are controlled by the parliament, but in the former case, decisions usually require super-majorities.

Between the two, are included regimes (1) where representatives initiate constitutional norms but, for them to be valid, a vote of all citizens is required, or, more rarely, (2) where citizens can initiate constitutional norms, but their approval is left to the parliament.
Formulas similar to the Swiss facultative referendum exist in other countries - such as Italy - where the constitution is controlled by parliamentarians. In these countries, the institution is relatively ineffective and its limitations are numerous (see section 3). Conversely, where there is popular control of the constitution, the rejective referendum is widely used and its restrictions have been reduced over time. In Switzerland, for example, it was extended to international treaties by popular initiative in 1921, which are still not accessible to the Italian abrogative referendum.

**The question of the hierarchy between the legal norms enacted and voted on by citizens and those enacted and voted on by parliaments is the primary issue in defining a direct democracy.** We define a direct democracy (with representative institutions) as a system in which decisions made directly by citizens take precedence over decisions made by their representatives. It is distinguished from representative regimes (with direct-democratic institutions) in which parliamentary decisions take precedence.

Figure 2.1 briefly describes the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, based on the hierarchy of norms criteria. In both cases, the basic principle is that institutions can be described based on two parameters: (1) speed of decision-making and (2) inclusiveness in decision-making. These two parameters vary in opposite directions: the more inclusive a decision, the slower it takes. Inclusiveness is important to adopt legitimate and stable norms. Speed is useful to address urgent situations. As a result, the decision of the most inclusive body will always prevail over the decision of the least inclusive (and speeder) body. In direct democracy, the most inclusive decision is the one that includes all citizens and has constitutional value. In representative systems, both the constitution and the law are controlled by the parliament, but in the former case, decisions usually require super-majorities.

Between the two, are included regimes (1) where representatives initiate constitutional norms but, for them to be valid, a vote of all citizens is required, or, more rarely, (2) where citizens can initiate constitutional norms, but their approval is left to the parliament.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.1. Direct democracy with representative institutions vs. representative regimes with direct democracy institutions</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Institutions of direct democracy subject to the rules of representation

Representative regimes are not simply defined by the presence of a freely elected parliament that votes on legislation. In Jordan, for example, elections are rather fair, and many parliamentarians lose their seats after a vote. However, the parliament does not have the final say, so the decisions of the elected representatives can be overruled by the executive. This is incompatible with the basic definition of a representative system, in which the parliament is sovereign. **The same logic can be used to categorize direct democratic institutions. If these institutions produce decisions that can be overruled by the parliament, the regime stays representative, no matter the types of direct democracy institutions available to citizens.**

In many countries, citizens can initiate ordinary legislation or prevent ordinary legislation from coming into force. Citizens then enjoy a right of legislative initiative and a right of legislative veto. These are useful rights, which nonetheless stay governed by constitutional rules guaranteed by the parliament (not by the citizens themselves). As a result, in most countries, important decisions are beyond citizens' reach, including fiscal, foreign policy or institutional issues.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.1. Direct democracy with representative institutions vs. representative regimes with direct democracy institutions</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Institutions of direct democracy subject to the rules of representation

Representative regimes are not simply defined by the presence of a freely elected parliament that votes on legislation. In Jordan, for example, elections are rather fair, and many parliamentarians lose their seats after a vote. However, the parliament does not have the final say, so the decisions of the elected representatives can be overruled by the executive. This is incompatible with the basic definition of a representative system, in which the parliament is sovereign. **The same logic can be used to categorize direct democratic institutions. If these institutions produce decisions that can be overruled by the parliament, the regime stays representative, no matter the types of direct democracy institutions available to citizens.**

In many countries, citizens can initiate ordinary legislation or prevent ordinary legislation from coming into force. Citizens then enjoy a right of legislative initiative and a right of legislative veto. These are useful rights, which nonetheless stay governed by constitutional rules guaranteed by the parliament (not by the citizens themselves). As a result, in most countries, important decisions are beyond citizens' reach, including fiscal, foreign policy or institutional issues.
Moreover, most of these institutions are not easily accessible, in the sense that it is difficult for citizens that oppose the government to win political battles through them. Thus, in most countries where such institutions formally exist, they are never actually used. In fact, parliamentarians have an incentive to reduce the influence of these institutions because their very existence reduce their freedom to legislate.

Neither a citizen right of legislative initiative nor a right of legislative veto prevent the parliament from overruling the result of a referendum. Since, from a legal point of view, the most recent laws replace the oldest, producing an ordinary law that contradicts (and therefore replaces) the old law approved by the people suffices to counteract citizen rights. Such a strategy is undeniably risky though as the parliamentary majority is likely to suffer electoral sanctions when using it. However, these sanctions can sometimes prove insufficient to protect a popular decision. For example, in 1993, in the wake of several corruption scandals, Italian citizens abolished public financing of political parties by a very large majority (90%) and with a high turnout (76%). In 1999, the parliament amended the law on the reimbursement of political parties so that the reimbursement is no longer linked to the expenses incurred by the party. This effectively reintroduced party financing. This example shows that when citizens vote on ordinary law, their vote is relatively easy to circumvent, even though it is forbidden to formally reintroduce a law that citizens have repealed. In principle, since citizens and members of parliament compete for the production of ordinary law, and since the parliament has the capacity to adopt legislation much more quickly, it will always have the upper hand. This argument also applies to representative systems. An executive with the ability to "correct" parliamentary decisions exert too much power for the system to be called a representative democracy. For the same reason, a parliament with the power to correct decisions made by the whole citizenry cannot be a direct democracy. It would be a representative democracy with a few direct-democratic institutions thrown in for good measure.

## 2.3 Institutions that make citizens vote, without giving them initiative and veto rights
Moreover, most of these institutions are not easily accessible, in the sense that it is difficult for citizens that oppose the government to win political battles through them. Thus, in most countries where such institutions formally exist, they are never actually used. In fact, parliamentarians have an incentive to reduce the influence of these institutions because their very existence reduce their freedom to legislate.

Neither a citizen right of legislative initiative nor a right of legislative veto prevent the parliament from overruling the result of a referendum. Since, from a legal point of view, the most recent laws replace the oldest, producing an ordinary law that contradicts (and therefore replaces) the old law approved by the people suffices to counteract citizen rights. Such a strategy is undeniably risky though as the parliamentary majority is likely to suffer electoral sanctions when using it. However, these sanctions can sometimes prove insufficient to protect a popular decision. For example, in 1993, in the wake of several corruption scandals, Italian citizens abolished public financing of political parties by a very large majority (90%) and with a high turnout (76%). In 1999, the parliament amended the law on the reimbursement of political parties so that the reimbursement is no longer linked to the expenses incurred by the party. This effectively reintroduced party financing. This example shows that when citizens vote on ordinary law, their vote is relatively easy to circumvent, even though it is forbidden to formally reintroduce a law that citizens have repealed. In principle, since citizens and members of parliament compete for the production of ordinary law, and since the parliament has the capacity to adopt legislation much more quickly, it will always have the upper hand. This argument also applies to representative systems. An executive with the ability to "correct" parliamentary decisions exert too much power for the system to be called a representative democracy. For the same reason, a parliament with the power to correct decisions made by the whole citizenry cannot be a direct democracy. It would be a representative democracy with a few direct-democratic institutions thrown in for good measure.

## 2.3 Institutions that make citizens vote, without giving them initiative and veto rights
The last group of institutions associated with direct democracy are referendums initiated by political authorities (hereafter: plebiscite). Although this type of institution allows citizens to directly vote on public policy, **it gives them neither initiative nor veto rights.** The right of initiative is reserved exclusively for representatives who, by being able to choose when to trigger a referendum, allow citizens to veto their decision only when they deem it acceptable. **As a result, these institutions are the furthest removed from direct democracy.** They give additional rights to representatives - the right to call for popular arbitration - rather than to citizens. These referendums, commonly referred to as top-down, follow quite different logics, depending on whether they are initiated by the opposition or by ruling officials.

When a minority is sufficient to call for popular arbitration, the plebiscite is usually initiated by the opposition to challenge the policies of the ruling majority. It is therefore an instrument of counter-power in the hands of the opposition. An example is the 1963 referendum in Denmark: a land law passed by parliament was put to a referendum by the right-wing opposition and rejected by the voters. This procedure encourages the government to take the opposition's opinion into account, especially when the law is likely to be rejected by most of the voters.

If the initiative requires the support from a parliamentary majority, this majority (or, more often, the government) submits a bill to a plebiscite. In this way, it can bypass a hostile parliament through a referendum and, conversely, a hostile electorate through a parliamentary vote. For example, the Brexit referendum was used by the government to call on popular arbitration about decision on which the conservative majority was divided.

Finally, a plebiscite can be initiated by the head of state. In this case, if the system is parliamentary and the head of state is in the opposition, it may look like a minority initiative. On the other hand, if the head of state is part of the parliamentary majority, the referendum will follow a majority dynamic. For example, the 2000 French referendum to shorten the presidential term was triggered by a minority president who opposed the parliamentary majority's reform. Conversely, the 1961 referendum on Algerian self-determination was launched by a majority president to unite his own camp, like the Brexit. In this case, the referendum looks like a governmental plebiscite.
The last group of institutions associated with direct democracy are referendums initiated by political authorities (hereafter: plebiscite). Although this type of institution allows citizens to directly vote on public policy, **it gives them neither initiative nor veto rights.** The right of initiative is reserved exclusively for representatives who, by being able to choose when to trigger a referendum, allow citizens to veto their decision only when they deem it acceptable. **As a result, these institutions are the furthest removed from direct democracy.** They give additional rights to representatives - the right to call for popular arbitration - rather than to citizens. These referendums, commonly referred to as top-down, follow quite different logics, depending on whether they are initiated by the opposition or by ruling officials.

When a minority is sufficient to call for popular arbitration, the plebiscite is usually initiated by the opposition to challenge the policies of the ruling majority. It is therefore an instrument of counter-power in the hands of the opposition. An example is the 1963 referendum in Denmark: a land law passed by parliament was put to a referendum by the right-wing opposition and rejected by the voters. This procedure encourages the government to take the opposition's opinion into account, especially when the law is likely to be rejected by most of the voters.

If the initiative requires the support from a parliamentary majority, this majority (or, more often, the government) submits a bill to a plebiscite. In this way, it can bypass a hostile parliament through a referendum and, conversely, a hostile electorate through a parliamentary vote. For example, the Brexit referendum was used by the government to call on popular arbitration about decision on which the conservative majority was divided.

Finally, a plebiscite can be initiated by the head of state. In this case, if the system is parliamentary and the head of state is in the opposition, it may look like a minority initiative. On the other hand, if the head of state is part of the parliamentary majority, the referendum will follow a majority dynamic. For example, the 2000 French referendum to shorten the presidential term was triggered by a minority president who opposed the parliamentary majority's reform. Conversely, the 1961 referendum on Algerian self-determination was launched by a majority president to unite his own camp, like the Brexit. In this case, the referendum looks like a governmental plebiscite.
In some respects, plebiscites initiated by the opposition (parliamentary or head of state) resemble what happens in a direct democracy. Indeed, in a direct democracy, the citizens who initiate a referendum usually disagree with the policies of the parliamentary majority and the government. This can be done directly, through a suspensive referendum aimed at preventing a law from coming into force (veto right), or through a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment aimed at establishing a norm that the majority opposes (initiative right). In both cases, the minority has the right to appeal to a popular arbitration against the parliamentarian majority. However, **in the case of direct-democratic institutions, each citizen is entitled to strong political rights (initiative and veto), whereas in the case of a minority-initiated plebiscite they have neither.** Therefore, they can only make decisions when there is a conflict between their representatives.

**Government plebiscites, on the other hand, are far removed from the institutions of direct democracy, both in terms of citizens' rights and of the balance of power.** For this reason, it is often disparagingly referred to as a plebiscite because it merely strengthens the executive without offering rights to minorities. This type of plebiscite is also special in form. Unlike citizen initiatives or minority plebiscites, most government plebiscites are not held to decide on a legislative text but propose a simple (and often leading) question. On the one hand, this gives the government considerable leeway in implementing the plebiscite decision. On the other hand, it allows the question to be formulated in the most advantageous way for the initiator. For example, at the end of 2023, Venezuelans will be asked to vote on a question formulated by their president as follows: "Do you agree to oppose by all legal means Guyana's claim to unilaterally dispose of a sea that has not yet been demarcated, illegally and in violation of international law?" (see section 5).

In this report, referendums that give citizens neither veto nor initiative rights (plebiscites) are included in the institutions we present, in line with the general definition of direct democracy, which is synonymous with referendum. However, **since they do not confer rights on citizens, we do not believe that they should be associated with direct democracy.** In particular, in non-democratic countries, government plebiscites are sometimes held on the basis of executive supremacy, which is almost never the case with opposition-initiated or citizen-initiated referendums.
In some respects, plebiscites initiated by the opposition (parliamentary or head of state) resemble what happens in a direct democracy. Indeed, in a direct democracy, the citizens who initiate a referendum usually disagree with the policies of the parliamentary majority and the government. This can be done directly, through a suspensive referendum aimed at preventing a law from coming into force (veto right), or through a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment aimed at establishing a norm that the majority opposes (initiative right). In both cases, the minority has the right to appeal to a popular arbitration against the parliamentarian majority. However, **in the case of direct-democratic institutions, each citizen is entitled to strong political rights (initiative and veto), whereas in the case of a minority-initiated plebiscite they have neither.** Therefore, they can only make decisions when there is a conflict between their representatives.

**Government plebiscites, on the other hand, are far removed from the institutions of direct democracy, both in terms of citizens' rights and of the balance of power.** For this reason, it is often disparagingly referred to as a plebiscite because it merely strengthens the executive without offering rights to minorities. This type of plebiscite is also special in form. Unlike citizen initiatives or minority plebiscites, most government plebiscites are not held to decide on a legislative text but propose a simple (and often leading) question. On the one hand, this gives the government considerable leeway in implementing the plebiscite decision. On the other hand, it allows the question to be formulated in the most advantageous way for the initiator. For example, at the end of 2023, Venezuelans will be asked to vote on a question formulated by their president as follows: "Do you agree to oppose by all legal means Guyana's claim to unilaterally dispose of a sea that has not yet been demarcated, illegally and in violation of international law?" (see section 5).

In this report, referendums that give citizens neither veto nor initiative rights (plebiscites) are included in the institutions we present, in line with the general definition of direct democracy, which is synonymous with referendum. However, **since they do not confer rights on citizens, we do not believe that they should be associated with direct democracy.** In particular, in non-democratic countries, government plebiscites are sometimes held on the basis of executive supremacy, which is almost never the case with opposition-initiated or citizen-initiated referendums.
## 2.4. Accessibility of initiative and veto rights

When citizens have initiative or veto rights, **an important question is the conditions under which they can exercise these rights.** This is the issue of accessibility. Sometimes accessibility is low, so the rights are rarely exercised. In other cases, citizens practice these rights regularly.

### Initiative

When the initiative for a referendum comes from the opposition, its accessibility is crucial. For example, a parliamentary minority may represent 1% or 49% of the members of parliament. In the first case, the rights of the opposition are very strong because many parliamentary minorities can challenge the policies of the majority by appealing to popular arbitration. In the second case however only a homogeneous, massively represented minority can challenge the policies of the majority.

The question of accessibility is particularly important when citizens formally hold initiative or veto rights. Regarding the right of initiative, the most important accessibility criterion is the **threshold of signatures** allowing an initiative to be considered. A high threshold - e.g. 10% of the electorate in Uruguay as compared to 2% in Switzerland - reduces the number of minorities who have access to this right. As a result, not only is the number of referendums drastically reduced, but so is the ability of minorities to make their demands heard through a (threat of) popular initiative. Beyond a certain threshold, the initiative may become unworkable, which means that citizens' initiative rights remain theoretical because they are virtually impossible to exercise.

Second, the threshold is accompanied by a **collection period**, i.e. a window of time during which signatures can be formally collected. If the deadline is too short in relation to the number of signatures required, the number of organizations capable of launching a referendum is significantly reduced. What's more, the organizations that can do so are those with the most resources, so the right of initiative is limited to a few powerful and wealthy organizations.

To begin with, and even before any referendum, it's useful to distinguish between mandatory and rejective referendums. The latter are triggered only if a certain number of citizens request them through a petition.
## 2.4. Accessibility of initiative and veto rights

When citizens have initiative or veto rights, **an important question is the conditions under which they can exercise these rights.** This is the issue of accessibility. Sometimes accessibility is low, so the rights are rarely exercised. In other cases, citizens practice these rights regularly.

### Initiative

When the initiative for a referendum comes from the opposition, its accessibility is crucial. For example, a parliamentary minority may represent 1% or 49% of the members of parliament. In the first case, the rights of the opposition are very strong because many parliamentary minorities can challenge the policies of the majority by appealing to popular arbitration. In the second case however only a homogeneous, massively represented minority can challenge the policies of the majority.

The question of accessibility is particularly important when citizens formally hold initiative or veto rights. Regarding the right of initiative, the most important accessibility criterion is the **threshold of signatures** allowing an initiative to be considered. A high threshold - e.g. 10% of the electorate in Uruguay as compared to 2% in Switzerland - reduces the number of minorities who have access to this right. As a result, not only is the number of referendums drastically reduced, but so is the ability of minorities to make their demands heard through a (threat of) popular initiative. Beyond a certain threshold, the initiative may become unworkable, which means that citizens' initiative rights remain theoretical because they are virtually impossible to exercise.

Second, the threshold is accompanied by a **collection period**, i.e. a window of time during which signatures can be formally collected. If the deadline is too short in relation to the number of signatures required, the number of organizations capable of launching a referendum is significantly reduced. What's more, the organizations that can do so are those with the most resources, so the right of initiative is limited to a few powerful and wealthy organizations.

To begin with, and even before any referendum, it's useful to distinguish between mandatory and rejective referendums. The latter are triggered only if a certain number of citizens request them through a petition.
From then on, the obstacles to the exercise of the veto are potentially the same as those we presented in relation to the initiative: the threshold, the collection period, the distribution of signatures, the signatures modalities and their validation. Mandatory referendums, on the other hand, are mandatory on certain subjects. Typically, constitutional amendments. So citizens don't have to worry about collecting signatures.

When a referendum is called, a supermajority is sometimes required, i.e. more than 50% of the voters plus one. For example, prior to 1992, Palau required the support of three quarters of the voters and states for a referendum to be valid. This condition means that only few constitutional amendments can accede to ratification. For example, the Compact of Free Trade with the United States (an international trade treaty), which was very popular with the public, was put to referendum no less than seven times in ten years. The consequence of this requirement is a status quo that is very difficult to challenge, and thus a lower risk for the parliamentary majority of losing control over the way it implements the Constitution.

Quorums form the other main types of restrictions. The most restrictive is the turnout quorum: in addition to a simple majority, a minimum turnout is required (the most common threshold is 50%). This restriction encourages those in favor of the status quo not to vote, thereby invalidating the referendum. Not only that, but it also encourages them to discuss the issue as little as possible, so that voters forget that a referendum is being held or don't develop an opinion about it. So not only does the quorum requirement reduce the likelihood of a veto, but it also reduces voter turnout and the quality of public debate by creating incentives to reduce the willingness of others to vote. In Italy, for example, all 24 referendums between 1995 and 2011 failed to reach the participation quorum. This perverse effect is less pronounced in the case of approval quorums, which require a certain percentage (e.g. 35% in Uruguay) of voters to be in favor, while high approval quorums (e.g. 50%+1 in Latvia) are rarely reached. Approval quorums also create an incentive for tenants of the status quo to ensure that citizens don't vote, and of course the higher the quorum, the harder it is to exercise the popular veto.

Third, the collection of signatures may require them to be territorially distributed, as in the state of Mississippi or in Ukraine. This is also an obstacle for certain groups, especially those who are geographically concentrated.
From then on, the obstacles to the exercise of the veto are potentially the same as those we presented in relation to the initiative: the threshold, the collection period, the distribution of signatures, the signatures modalities and their validation. Mandatory referendums, on the other hand, are mandatory on certain subjects. Typically, constitutional amendments. So citizens don't have to worry about collecting signatures.

When a referendum is called, a supermajority is sometimes required, i.e. more than 50% of the voters plus one. For example, prior to 1992, Palau required the support of three quarters of the voters and states for a referendum to be valid. This condition means that only few constitutional amendments can accede to ratification. For example, the Compact of Free Trade with the United States (an international trade treaty), which was very popular with the public, was put to referendum no less than seven times in ten years. The consequence of this requirement is a status quo that is very difficult to challenge, and thus a lower risk for the parliamentary majority of losing control over the way it implements the Constitution.

Quorums form the other main types of restrictions. The most restrictive is the turnout quorum: in addition to a simple majority, a minimum turnout is required (the most common threshold is 50%). This restriction encourages those in favor of the status quo not to vote, thereby invalidating the referendum. Not only that, but it also encourages them to discuss the issue as little as possible, so that voters forget that a referendum is being held or don't develop an opinion about it. So not only does the quorum requirement reduce the likelihood of a veto, but it also reduces voter turnout and the quality of public debate by creating incentives to reduce the willingness of others to vote. In Italy, for example, all 24 referendums between 1995 and 2011 failed to reach the participation quorum. This perverse effect is less pronounced in the case of approval quorums, which require a certain percentage (e.g. 35% in Uruguay) of voters to be in favor, while high approval quorums (e.g. 50%+1 in Latvia) are rarely reached. Approval quorums also create an incentive for tenants of the status quo to ensure that citizens don't vote, and of course the higher the quorum, the harder it is to exercise the popular veto.

Third, the collection of signatures may require them to be territorially distributed, as in the state of Mississippi or in Ukraine. This is also an obstacle for certain groups, especially those who are geographically concentrated.
This constraint largely prevents linguistic or territorial minorities, regardless of their size, from
having their demands heard.

Fourth, the **signature modalities** also have an impact on campaigning and accessibility of rights. The paper format makes it easy for petitioners to collect signatures on the street, while digital media can, depending on the context, ease or hinder the collection of signatures. It is very likely that digital media will become predominant in the future, but their ease of use also depends on the information required from signatories. If certain information - such as passwords, identifiers, or other information that people often don't know off the top of their heads - is difficult to obtain on the street, the petition campaign will be difficult, and so will the debates that may arise from that campaign.

Fifth, **procedures must be clear and complete**. For example, if there is no time limit for reviewing the admissibility of an initiative and validating signatures, the relevant institution may, in the event of disagreement with the initiative, hold an initiative indefinitely without reviewing it. Similarly, an overly stringent signature validation process may in practice force petitioners to collect many more signatures than necessary, thereby raising the signature threshold.

Finally, the number and type of issues that can be addressed by a citizen initiative can be small. This is not the case for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, but for a legislative initiative several restrictions usually exist, such as in fiscal, international or institutional matters. This not only limits the number of possible initiatives, but also subjects the initiative to a further control of its validity, which is sometimes open to interpretation.

## Veto

The citizens' right of veto is expressed through mandatory or rejective referendums. However, this veto right can also be accessible. If the conditions for a valid veto are not met, the veto becomes more difficult to implement and the threat of a popular veto less credible. In the most extreme case, a popular veto can become so unreachable that the right virtually does not exist. The most accessible version of the popular veto is a mandatory referendum based on a simple majority. Additional conditions reduce its accessibility.
This constraint largely prevents linguistic or territorial minorities, regardless of their size, from
having their demands heard.

Fourth, the **signature modalities** also have an impact on campaigning and accessibility of rights. The paper format makes it easy for petitioners to collect signatures on the street, while digital media can, depending on the context, ease or hinder the collection of signatures. It is very likely that digital media will become predominant in the future, but their ease of use also depends on the information required from signatories. If certain information - such as passwords, identifiers, or other information that people often don't know off the top of their heads - is difficult to obtain on the street, the petition campaign will be difficult, and so will the debates that may arise from that campaign.

Fifth, **procedures must be clear and complete**. For example, if there is no time limit for reviewing the admissibility of an initiative and validating signatures, the relevant institution may, in the event of disagreement with the initiative, hold an initiative indefinitely without reviewing it. Similarly, an overly stringent signature validation process may in practice force petitioners to collect many more signatures than necessary, thereby raising the signature threshold.

Finally, the number and type of issues that can be addressed by a citizen initiative can be small. This is not the case for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, but for a legislative initiative several restrictions usually exist, such as in fiscal, international or institutional matters. This not only limits the number of possible initiatives, but also subjects the initiative to a further control of its validity, which is sometimes open to interpretation.

## Veto

The citizens' right of veto is expressed through mandatory or rejective referendums. However, this veto right can also be accessible. If the conditions for a valid veto are not met, the veto becomes more difficult to implement and the threat of a popular veto less credible. In the most extreme case, a popular veto can become so unreachable that the right virtually does not exist. The most accessible version of the popular veto is a mandatory referendum based on a simple majority. Additional conditions reduce its accessibility.
To begin with, and even before any referendum, it's useful to distinguish between mandatory and
rejective referendums. The latter are triggered only if a certain number of citizens request them
through a petition. From then on, **the obstacles to the exercise of the right of veto are potentially the same as those we presented in relation to the initiative**: the threshold, the
collection period, the distribution of signatures, the signatures modalities and their validation.
Mandatory referendums, on the other hand, are mandatory on certain subjects. Typically,
constitutional amendments. So, citizens don't have to worry about collecting signatures.

When a referendum is called, a **supermajority** is sometimes required, i.e. more than 50% of the
voters plus one. For example, prior to 1992, Palau required the support of three quarters of the
voters and states for a referendum to be valid. This condition means that only few constitutional
amendments can accede to final adoption. For example, the Compact of Free Trade with the United
States (an international trade treaty), which was very popular among citizens, was put to
referendum no less than seven times in ten years before successfully reaching a new and less
demanding supermajority. The consequence of this requirement is a status quo that is very difficult
to challenge, and thus a lower risk for the parliamentary majority of losing control over the way it
implies the Constitution.

**Quorums** form the other main types of restrictions. The most restrictive is the **turnout quorum**: in addition to a simple majority, a minimum turnout is required (the most common threshold is 50%). This restriction encourages those in favor of the status quo not to vote, thereby invalidating the referendum. It also encourages them to discuss the issue as little as possible, so that voters forget that a referendum is being held or don't develop an opinion about it. **So not only does the quorum requirement reduce the likelihood of a veto, but it also reduces voter turnout and the quality of public debate** by creating incentives to reduce the willingness of others to vote. In Italy, for example, all 24 referendums held between 1995 and 2011 failed to reach the participation quorum. This perverse effect is less pronounced in the case of **approval quorums**, which require a certain percentage (e.g. 35% in Uruguay) of voters to be in favor of a proposed change, while high approval quorums (e.g. 50%+1 in Latvia) are rarely reached. Approval quorums also create an incentive for tenants of the status quo to ensure that citizens don't vote, and of course the higher the quorum, the harder it is to exercise the right of popular veto.
To begin with, and even before any referendum, it's useful to distinguish between mandatory and
rejective referendums. The latter are triggered only if a certain number of citizens request them
through a petition. From then on, **the obstacles to the exercise of the right of veto are potentially the same as those we presented in relation to the initiative**: the threshold, the
collection period, the distribution of signatures, the signatures modalities and their validation.
Mandatory referendums, on the other hand, are mandatory on certain subjects. Typically,
constitutional amendments. So, citizens don't have to worry about collecting signatures.

When a referendum is called, a **supermajority** is sometimes required, i.e. more than 50% of the
voters plus one. For example, prior to 1992, Palau required the support of three quarters of the
voters and states for a referendum to be valid. This condition means that only few constitutional
amendments can accede to final adoption. For example, the Compact of Free Trade with the United
States (an international trade treaty), which was very popular among citizens, was put to
referendum no less than seven times in ten years before successfully reaching a new and less
demanding supermajority. The consequence of this requirement is a status quo that is very difficult
to challenge, and thus a lower risk for the parliamentary majority of losing control over the way it
implement the Constitution.

**Quorums** form the other main types of restrictions. The most restrictive is the **turnout quorum**: in addition to a simple majority, a minimum turnout is required (the most common threshold is 50%). This restriction encourages those in favor of the status quo not to vote, thereby invalidating the referendum. It also encourages them to discuss the issue as little as possible, so that voters forget that a referendum is being held or don't develop an opinion about it. **So not only does the quorum requirement reduce the likelihood of a veto, but it also reduces voter turnout and the quality of public debate** by creating incentives to reduce the willingness of others to vote. In Italy, for example, all 24 referendums held between 1995 and 2011 failed to reach the participation quorum. This perverse effect is less pronounced in the case of **approval quorums**, which require a certain percentage (e.g. 35% in Uruguay) of voters to be in favor of a proposed change, while high approval quorums (e.g. 50%+1 in Latvia) are rarely reached. Approval quorums also create an incentive for tenants of the status quo to ensure that citizens don't vote, and of course the higher the quorum, the harder it is to exercise the right of popular veto.
A final constraint that can weigh on the veto is the **double majority** principle, which consists of adding to the simple majority the requirement that this majority must also represent the majority of a set types of territorial units in a country. This requirement is often introduced to protect the rural population from the dominance of a more populous urban population. In Switzerland, the double majority does not seem to limit the accessibility of the veto much, since out of 481 popular initiatives, only two have been annulled despite a simple majority of voters in favor (in 1955 and 2020). However, its impact is higher in Australia, where 5 out of 45 constitutional referendums have been invalidated despite a simple majority of voters in favor (in 1937, 1946, 1977 and 1984). This could be explained by the small and paired number of states in Australia. With 6 states, the simple majority corresponds to a 2/3 majority. In contrast, in Switzerland, with 26 cantons, the probability of a mismatch between the two majorities is much lower.

**2.5 Summary of direct democracy institutions**

We have so far distinguished between three **main groups of direct democratic institutions**.

**Hard initiative and veto.** The first group gives every citizen the right to initiate constitutional amendments and the right to veto them. Decisions made through direct democracy take precedence over those made by parliament. This group includes citizen-initiated constitutional amendments and mandatory or rejective constitutional referendums. If only one of these institutions is used, the impact is much smaller, but they remain important institutions in the functioning of the state.

**Soft initiative and veto.** The second group gives every citizen the right to initiate and veto ordinary legislation. Decisions made by parliamentarians take precedence over those made by citizens. The functioning is therefore mainly representative, but citizens can have a say over public policy. These rights are implemented through agenda, legislative citizen initiatives and rejective referendums. Note, however, that these institutions can coexist with hard initiative and veto rights, so that in this case they reinforce the impact of these rights.

**No initiative and no veto.** The third group gives citizens neither initiative nor veto rights, but allows them to vote directly on policies. This includes all the plebiscites, that can be initiated by the opposition (minority referendums and referendums for the head of state, if the head of state is not a
A final constraint that can weigh on the veto is the **double majority** principle, which consists of adding to the simple majority the requirement that this majority must also represent the majority of a set types of territorial units in a country. This requirement is often introduced to protect the rural population from the dominance of a more populous urban population. In Switzerland, the double majority does not seem to limit the accessibility of the veto much, since out of 481 popular initiatives, only two have been annulled despite a simple majority of voters in favor (in 1955 and 2020). However, its impact is higher in Australia, where 5 out of 45 constitutional referendums have been invalidated despite a simple majority of voters in favor (in 1937, 1946, 1977 and 1984). This could be explained by the small and paired number of states in Australia. With 6 states, the simple majority corresponds to a 2/3 majority. In contrast, in Switzerland, with 26 cantons, the probability of a mismatch between the two majorities is much lower.

**2.5 Summary of direct democracy institutions**

We have so far distinguished between three **main groups of direct democratic institutions**.

**Hard initiative and veto.** The first group gives every citizen the right to initiate constitutional amendments and the right to veto them. Decisions made through direct democracy take precedence over those made by parliament. This group includes citizen-initiated constitutional amendments and mandatory or rejective constitutional referendums. If only one of these institutions is used, the impact is much smaller, but they remain important institutions in the functioning of the state.

**Soft initiative and veto.** The second group gives every citizen the right to initiate and veto ordinary legislation. Decisions made by parliamentarians take precedence over those made by citizens. The functioning is therefore mainly representative, but citizens can have a say over public policy. These rights are implemented through agenda, legislative citizen initiatives and rejective referendums. Note, however, that these institutions can coexist with hard initiative and veto rights, so that in this case they reinforce the impact of these rights.

**No initiative and no veto.** The third group gives citizens neither initiative nor veto rights, but allows them to vote directly on policies. This includes all the plebiscites, that can be initiated by the opposition (minority referendums and referendums for the head of state, if the head of state is not a
member of the government and is not chosen by the government or the majority in parliament), or
by the government (government and head of state referendums, if the head of state and the
governments belong to the same coalition).

Each of these groups can be categorized by the **degree of accessibility to opposition or minority groups**. There is no exhaustive measure of accessibility, but the closest attempt has been made by David Altman with his Index of Direct Democracy Practice Potential (DDPP 2017), which aggregates the number of signatures required, the time limits for collecting signatures, the additional requirements to majority rule to approve a measure in a referendum (supermajority, quorums, and double majorities), and the fact that the referendum is binding. However, this index does not take plebiscites, the hard/soft distinction, and other restrictions listed above into account.

For example, binding referendums may be difficult to access if they cover only a small number of decisions. In Austria, for example, the referendum is mandatory only for a general amendment of the constitution, i.e. when its basic principles are to be changed. This is almost inaccessible in the sense that it is very unlikely that this referendum will be needed. Similarly, in the case of plebiscite, the number and identity of the representatives required to submit a referendum also define the accessibility of such referendums.

In this report, the level of accessibility of each direct democratic institution is discussed and assessed
in a qualitative way (see section 3), but we do not provide a new index.
member of the government and is not chosen by the government or the majority in parliament), or
by the government (government and head of state referendums, if the head of state and the
governments belong to the same coalition).

Each of these groups can be categorized by the **degree of accessibility to opposition or minority groups**. There is no exhaustive measure of accessibility, but the closest attempt has been made by David Altman with his Index of Direct Democracy Practice Potential (DDPP 2017), which aggregates the number of signatures required, the time limits for collecting signatures, the additional requirements to majority rule to approve a measure in a referendum (supermajority, quorums, and double majorities), and the fact that the referendum is binding. However, this index does not take plebiscites, the hard/soft distinction, and other restrictions listed above into account.

For example, binding referendums may be difficult to access if they cover only a small number of decisions. In Austria, for example, the referendum is mandatory only for a general amendment of the constitution, i.e. when its basic principles are to be changed. This is almost inaccessible in the sense that it is very unlikely that this referendum will be needed. Similarly, in the case of plebiscite, the number and identity of the representatives required to submit a referendum also define the accessibility of such referendums.

In this report, the level of accessibility of each direct democratic institution is discussed and assessed
in a qualitative way (see section 3), but we do not provide a new index.
## 3. INSTITUTIONS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD

Following the conceptual approach presented in section 2, this section provides information on what type of direct democratic institutions are used worldwide. Based mainly on the Direct Democracy Navigator, our mapping only considers national institutions in sovereign states. While we are not the first one to provide such a review, we offer some additional details here, with a particularly detailed section on citizen control over national constitutions.

### 3.1. Citizen power over constitutional issues

#### Constitutional veto rights: mandatory referendums.

This part zooms into the countries where citizens enjoy constitutional rights. A first aspect of these rights is to allow citizens to accept or reject a constitutional amendment. This is usually embodied in a mandatory referendum, meaning that no constitutional change can be accepted without a vote. Figure 3.1 below displays in red the countries providing for a mandatory referendum on constitutional amendment. The Direct Democracy Navigator counts 71 sovereign states where a mandatory referendum exists. International IDEA finds even more legal provisions for mandatory referendums at the national level (109 countries). However, these provisions do not always mean that a constitutional referendum is mandatory for every constitutional amendment.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.1: Mandatory referendums as per the Direct Democracy Navigator</figcaption></figure>
# 3. INSTITUTIONS OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD

Following the conceptual approach presented in section 2, this section provides information on what type of direct democratic institutions are used worldwide. Based mainly on the Direct Democracy Navigator, our mapping only considers national institutions in sovereign states. While we are not the first one to provide such a review, we offer some additional details here, with a particularly detailed section on citizen control over national constitutions.

## 3.1. Citizen power over constitutional issues

### Constitutional veto rights: mandatory referendums.

This part zooms into the countries where citizens enjoy constitutional rights. A first aspect of these rights is to allow citizens to accept or reject a constitutional amendment. This is usually embodied in a mandatory referendum, meaning that no constitutional change can be accepted without a vote. Figure 3.1 below displays in red the countries providing for a mandatory referendum on constitutional amendment. The Direct Democracy Navigator counts 71 sovereign states where a mandatory referendum exists. International IDEA finds even more legal provisions for mandatory referendums at the national level (109 countries). However, these provisions do not always mean that a constitutional referendum is mandatory for every constitutional amendment.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.1: Mandatory referendums as per the Direct Democracy Navigator</figcaption></figure>
**In most countries, the referendum is mandatory only under certain conditions specified in the constitution.** The V-Dem database distinguish between cases in which any constitutional amendment must be directly approved by the citizenry and those in which a mandatory referendum is required only for changing some parts of the national constitution. For example, the Austrian constitution requires a mandatory referendum only when significant changes are proposed. Since its creation in 1920 and its reinstatement in 1945, this constitution has been amended 76 times, and only one amendment (on European Union membership in 1994) was considered fundamental enough by the Constitutional Court to trigger a referendum. Therefore, despite the existence of a provision for a mandatory referendum, it has concretely affected 1.3% of constitutional amendments. In Czechia, a referendum is mandatory only for membership in the European Union, so only one has been held, in 2003, and no other mandatory referendums can legally be held again. In Slovakia, a constitutional referendum is also mandatory only for joining a union with other states or secede from such a union, fundamental rights and other "crucial issues". Finally, only membership in the European Union has been validated by referendum, while 12 constitutional amendments have been validated only by the parliament. A similar story can be told in the Baltic and Balkan states, in some South American states, and in many microstates.

**A second type of mandatory referendum is defined by a specific procedure that makes the referendum mandatory, while another competing procedure exists to pass constitutional amendment without holding a referendum.** A typical example is France, where the referendum is mandatory only if the initiative of the constitutional amendment comes from the parliament. If the government initiates such a change, the president can decide to replace the referendum by the approval of the three-fifths of the parliament. As a result, all 23 constitutional amendments made in France were government initiatives, and only one (4% of adopted changes) was submitted to a referendum. Many former French colonies have a similar procedure, including Algeria, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and Tunisia. In Latin America, there are alternative procedures for amending the constitution without a referendum. This is the case of Peru, where two-third of the deputies can enact a constitutional amendment without a referendum.
**In most countries, the referendum is mandatory only under certain conditions specified in the constitution.** The V-Dem database distinguish between cases in which any constitutional amendment must be directly approved by the citizenry and those in which a mandatory referendum is required only for changing some parts of the national constitution. For example, the Austrian constitution requires a mandatory referendum only when significant changes are proposed. Since its creation in 1920 and its reinstatement in 1945, this constitution has been amended 76 times, and only one amendment (on European Union membership in 1994) was considered fundamental enough by the Constitutional Court to trigger a referendum. Therefore, despite the existence of a provision for a mandatory referendum, it has concretely affected 1.3% of constitutional amendments. In Czechia, a referendum is mandatory only for membership in the European Union, so only one has been held, in 2003, and no other mandatory referendums can legally be held again. In Slovakia, a constitutional referendum is also mandatory only for joining a union with other states or secede from such a union, fundamental rights and other "crucial issues". Finally, only membership in the European Union has been validated by referendum, while 12 constitutional amendments have been validated only by the parliament. A similar story can be told in the Baltic and Balkan states, in some South American states, and in many microstates.

**A second type of mandatory referendum is defined by a specific procedure that makes the referendum mandatory, while another competing procedure exists to pass constitutional amendment without holding a referendum.** A typical example is France, where the referendum is mandatory only if the initiative of the constitutional amendment comes from the parliament. If the government initiates such a change, the president can decide to replace the referendum by the approval of the three-fifths of the parliament. As a result, all 23 constitutional amendments made in France were government initiatives, and only one (4% of adopted changes) was submitted to a referendum. Many former French colonies have a similar procedure, including Algeria, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and Tunisia. In Latin America, there are alternative procedures for amending the constitution without a referendum. This is the case of Peru, where two-third of the deputies can enact a constitutional amendment without a referendum.
Since the implementation of the current constitution in 1993, only one constitutional referendum has been held out of 12 constitutional amendments. Paraguay has a similar procedure, but a referendum remains mandatory for some minor types of constitutional amendments. Since 1992, only one constitutional amendment has been adopted in a referendum held in 2011. Finally, the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador places that country in this group. The amendment process offers two ways to approve a constitutional amendment. The first requires the president to define a set of questions and call for a referendum, while the second is mainly a parliamentary process.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.2 Strict constitutional mandatory referendums</figcaption></figure>

Figure 3.2 displays in red the sovereign countries where the entire constitution cannot be changed without a referendum. The number of sovereign countries is limited to 17. These "pure" mandatory referendums can be distinguished into three categories. First, in many of them, additional requirements need to be made to trigger a referendum. These are so demanding that it is difficult to put a constitutional amendment to the ballot. This is typical of Asian democracies. In Japan, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the members of each house before it can be put to a referendum. As a result, the 1946 constitution is the oldest unamended constitution in the world. The South Korean and Filipino constitutions of 1987 have the same requirement and have not been amended since their installment. In Taiwan, the referendum for constitutional amendments has only been mandatory since the Referendum Act of 2017. Prior to that, however, the amendment had to be approved by a supermajority of 75 percent of the members
Since the implementation of the current constitution in 1993, only one constitutional referendum has been held out of 12 constitutional amendments. Paraguay has a similar procedure, but a referendum remains mandatory for some minor types of constitutional amendments. Since 1992, only one constitutional amendment has been adopted in a referendum held in 2011. Finally, the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador places that country in this group. The amendment process offers two ways to approve a constitutional amendment. The first requires the president to define a set of questions and call for a referendum, while the second is mainly a parliamentary process.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.2 Strict constitutional mandatory referendums</figcaption></figure>

Figure 3.2 displays in red the sovereign countries where the entire constitution cannot be changed without a referendum. The number of sovereign countries is limited to 17. These "pure" mandatory referendums can be distinguished into three categories. First, in many of them, additional requirements need to be made to trigger a referendum. These are so demanding that it is difficult to put a constitutional amendment to the ballot. This is typical of Asian democracies. In Japan, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the members of each house before it can be put to a referendum. As a result, the 1946 constitution is the oldest unamended constitution in the world. The South Korean and Filipino constitutions of 1987 have the same requirement and have not been amended since their installment. In Taiwan, the referendum for constitutional amendments has only been mandatory since the Referendum Act of 2017. Prior to that, however, the amendment had to be approved by a supermajority of 75 percent of the members
of the legislature present (and they had to be 75 percent to be present). The first constitutional amendment was voted on in 2022, without parliamentary approval, but the approval quorum of 50%+1 voter was not reached.

A similar pattern can be observed in the Small Islands of Oceania. In Fiji, a constitutional amendment must be approved not only by three-quarters of the MPs, but also by three-quarters of the voters. Not surprisingly, there have never been any constitutional amendments. Prior to 1992, Palau had a similar system. However, its current constitution requires a simple majority in the national referendum, but also in three-quarters of the states. This reform is the only constitutional amendment validated in the country. The Federated States of Micronesia also had the same rule until 2023, when a constitutional amendment reduced but did not eliminate the supermajority requirement (see section 5). In the Marshall Islands, a supermajority of two-thirds of the voters is required. The only constitutional amendment was in 1995.

Outside of Asia, some countries condition the occurrence of mandatory referendums upon the support of demanding supermajority in parliament. In Madagascar, the 2010 constitution requires the support of three-fourths of the members of the National Assembly and Senate before being submitted to a referendum. This rule almost prevents any changes to the constitution. In Liberia, two-thirds of the parliament and registered voters are required. Mali's new constitution (2023) requires a vote on the amendment by two-thirds of the total membership of each of the two houses of parliament, followed by approval by referendum. The same rule exists in Guatemala and Romania, which only experimented one constitutional amendment, approved by referendum in 1999 and 2003, respectively. In Western Europe, Andorra requires 2/3 of the parliament and a referendum to enact a constitutional amendment. Its 1993 constitution has never been amended. Finally, Denmark is partly in this group because constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass (as in the other Northern European countries) and the referendum is the last step of the process. That is why no constitutional changes have been adopted in 68 years. However, the Danish people have voted many times, especially on issues related to the European Union and international treaties, because the referendum is almost mandatory for international issues (unless the fifth-sixths of the MPs support it).
of the legislature present (and they had to be 75 percent to be present). The first constitutional amendment was voted on in 2022, without parliamentary approval, but the approval quorum of 50%+1 voter was not reached.

A similar pattern can be observed in the Small Islands of Oceania. In Fiji, a constitutional amendment must be approved not only by three-quarters of the MPs, but also by three-quarters of the voters. Not surprisingly, there have never been any constitutional amendments. Prior to 1992, Palau had a similar system. However, its current constitution requires a simple majority in the national referendum, but also in three-quarters of the states. This reform is the only constitutional amendment validated in the country. The Federated States of Micronesia also had the same rule until 2023, when a constitutional amendment reduced but did not eliminate the supermajority requirement (see section 5). In the Marshall Islands, a supermajority of two-thirds of the voters is required. The only constitutional amendment was in 1995.

Outside of Asia, some countries condition the occurrence of mandatory referendums upon the support of demanding supermajority in parliament. In Madagascar, the 2010 constitution requires the support of three-fourths of the members of the National Assembly and Senate before being submitted to a referendum. This rule almost prevents any changes to the constitution. In Liberia, two-thirds of the parliament and registered voters are required. Mali's new constitution (2023) requires a vote on the amendment by two-thirds of the total membership of each of the two houses of parliament, followed by approval by referendum. The same rule exists in Guatemala and Romania, which only experimented one constitutional amendment, approved by referendum in 1999 and 2003, respectively. In Western Europe, Andorra requires 2/3 of the parliament and a referendum to enact a constitutional amendment. Its 1993 constitution has never been amended. Finally, Denmark is partly in this group because constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass (as in the other Northern European countries) and the referendum is the last step of the process. That is why no constitutional changes have been adopted in 68 years. However, the Danish people have voted many times, especially on issues related to the European Union and international treaties, because the referendum is almost mandatory for international issues (unless the fifth-sixths of the MPs support it).
**The second group includes countries where constitutional change requires the support of both parliament and citizens, but without a large supermajority.** Australia's constitution is the oldest in this respect. A constitutional amendment must be passed by both houses as a simple bill and then submitted to a referendum. The mandatory referendum is an additional veto point that distinguishes a constitutional amendment from ordinary legislation. The amendment is validated by a double majority: a majority of voters at the federal level and a majority of voters in a majority of states. Ireland has the same institutional framework, but a simple majority of voters is enough to validate a constitutional amendment. In that country, for 84 years, all 23 constitutional amendments and international treaties with constitutional consequences have been voted on by all voters.

**The last group includes countries in which the referendum is not only mandatory for all constitutional issues, but the citizenry is the only body that can accept or reject constitutional amendments** – the parliament having no veto power on such issues. The most extensive case is Switzerland, where the parliament or 100,000 citizens (about 2%) can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. On average, the constitution is amended almost once a year. Similarly, in Uruguay, the president with a minority of the parliament (two-fifths of its members), or the majority of the parliament or citizens (10%) can submit a constitutional amendment to a popular vote. Given the higher threshold, the number of constitutional amendments is much lower than in Switzerland (4 amendments in 36 years). Uruguay also requires a majority of 35% of registered voters to validate the results of a referendum.

To sum up, the analysis of mandatory referendums allows us to identify **three groups of countries** where the referendum is mandatory for all aspects of the constitution. In the first group, parliamentary supermajorities are the main filter for constitutional amendments (15 countries). In the second group, the referendum is the main filter for adopting constitutional amendments, but a parliamentary majority is also required (Australia and Ireland). In the third group, the referendum is the only mandatory filter for constitutional amendments (Switzerland and Uruguay). This allows us to rank the top five countries that give a high place to the mandatory referendum. The results are shown in Table 3.1, below.
**The second group includes countries where constitutional change requires the support of both parliament and citizens, but without a large supermajority.** Australia's constitution is the oldest in this respect. A constitutional amendment must be passed by both houses as a simple bill and then submitted to a referendum. The mandatory referendum is an additional veto point that distinguishes a constitutional amendment from ordinary legislation. The amendment is validated by a double majority: a majority of voters at the federal level and a majority of voters in a majority of states. Ireland has the same institutional framework, but a simple majority of voters is enough to validate a constitutional amendment. In that country, for 84 years, all 23 constitutional amendments and international treaties with constitutional consequences have been voted on by all voters.

**The last group includes countries in which the referendum is not only mandatory for all constitutional issues, but the citizenry is the only body that can accept or reject constitutional amendments** – the parliament having no veto power on such issues. The most extensive case is Switzerland, where the parliament or 100,000 citizens (about 2%) can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. On average, the constitution is amended almost once a year. Similarly, in Uruguay, the president with a minority of the parliament (two-fifths of its members), or the majority of the parliament or citizens (10%) can submit a constitutional amendment to a popular vote. Given the higher threshold, the number of constitutional amendments is much lower than in Switzerland (4 amendments in 36 years). Uruguay also requires a majority of 35% of registered voters to validate the results of a referendum.

To sum up, the analysis of mandatory referendums allows us to identify **three groups of countries** where the referendum is mandatory for all aspects of the constitution. In the first group, parliamentary supermajorities are the main filter for constitutional amendments (15 countries). In the second group, the referendum is the main filter for adopting constitutional amendments, but a parliamentary majority is also required (Australia and Ireland). In the third group, the referendum is the only mandatory filter for constitutional amendments (Switzerland and Uruguay). This allows us to rank the top five countries that give a high place to the mandatory referendum. The results are shown in Table 3.1, below.
<table><caption>Table 3.1. Best practices in mandatory referendum</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Mandatory referendum</td><td>Quorum, supermajority and double majorities</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Predominant</td><td>Double majority</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Predominant</td><td>Approval quorum 35%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ireland</td><td>Important place</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Australia</td><td>Important place</td><td>Double majority</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Part of the process</td><td>None</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Rejective constitutional referendums

Sometimes **the right to veto constitutional amendments** is not designed as a mandatory referendum but **requires the support of number of citizens (through signatures) to trigger a constitutional referendum**. This rare procedure only concerns three countries in the world.

In Liechtenstein, 1500 citizens (about 8% of the registered voters) can decide to submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. As noted in section 1, this constitutional referendum is technically non-binding, but we can consider it binding because the Prince has never vetoed the result of a referendum. With 35 amendments in 100 years, most of them approved directly by the citizens, Liechtensteiners are very active in constitutional matters.

In Italy, conditions are more restrictive. If a constitutional amendment is not approved by two thirds of the members of each chamber, 500,000 citizens (about 1%, or representing minorities) have three months to submit a referendum request. If they succeed, the referendum is held and validated by a simple majority of voters. In practice, only 4 out of 44 constitutional amendments were submitted to a referendum. But in some cases, this system allowed to reject some constitutional amendments adopted by the Parliament.

A similar design exists in Luxembourg, where after a vote of two-thirds of the members of each chamber of deputies, 25,000 citizens (about 9%, or a parliamentary minority) have two months to submit the amendment to a referendum. Only two amendments out of 23 have been voted by the citizens.

These three examples show that while the **rejective constitutional referendum** sometimes plays a more important role than the **mandatory referendum** in citizens' control over their constitutions, its impact on constitutional reform depends on its design.
<table><caption>Table 3.1. Best practices in mandatory referendum</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Mandatory referendum</td><td>Quorum, supermajority and double majorities</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Predominant</td><td>Double majority</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Predominant</td><td>Approval quorum 35%</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Ireland</td><td>Important place</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Australia</td><td>Important place</td><td>Double majority</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Denmark</td><td>Part of the process</td><td>None</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Rejective constitutional referendums

Sometimes **the right to veto constitutional amendments** is not designed as a mandatory referendum but **requires the support of number of citizens (through signatures) to trigger a constitutional referendum**. This rare procedure only concerns three countries in the world.

In Liechtenstein, 1500 citizens (about 8% of the registered voters) can decide to submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. As noted in section 1, this constitutional referendum is technically non-binding, but we can consider it binding because the Prince has never vetoed the result of a referendum. With 35 amendments in 100 years, most of them approved directly by the citizens, Liechtensteiners are very active in constitutional matters.

In Italy, conditions are more restrictive. If a constitutional amendment is not approved by two thirds of the members of each chamber, 500,000 citizens (about 1%, or representing minorities) have three months to submit a referendum request. If they succeed, the referendum is held and validated by a simple majority of voters. In practice, only 4 out of 44 constitutional amendments were submitted to a referendum. But in some cases, this system allowed to reject some constitutional amendments adopted by the Parliament.

A similar design exists in Luxembourg, where after a vote of two-thirds of the members of each chamber of deputies, 25,000 citizens (about 9%, or a parliamentary minority) have two months to submit the amendment to a referendum. Only two amendments out of 23 have been voted by the citizens.

These three examples show that while the **rejective constitutional referendum** sometimes plays a more important role than the **mandatory referendum** in citizens' control over their constitutions, its impact on constitutional reform depends on its design.
## Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment

Most of the available databases don't distinguish between the right for citizens to initiate constitutional amendments and simple legislative bills. The Direct Democracy Navigator is quite unique in mentioning this aspect and identifies only ten countries in the world allow their citizens to initiate a constitutional amendment: Bolivia, Federated States of Micronesia, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Philippines, Uruguay, Serbia and Switzerland. This right can however also be found in other countries in Latin America (such as Ecuador or Venezuela), in Oceania (Palau) or in Eastern Europe (Croatia and Latvia). Latvia has one of the oldest constitutions that allows citizens to propose constitutional amendments. It was introduced in 1922, suspended during the communist period and reinstated in 1991. The case of Taiwan is also interesting to specifically discuss.

The constitutions of these countries mention the possibility for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, but many of them cannot be said to have it. **To be operational, citizen-initiated constitutional amendments requires two important aspects.** The first is the right of any citizen to initiate a bill. The second is the right of any citizen to call for popular arbitration.

Some countries have some form of initiative, but do not recognize the right to initiate legislation. The initiative simply consists of calling a constitutional convention to decide how to amend the constitution. In the Marshall Islands, for example, 25% of the eligible voters can initiate a referendum for a constitutional convention. Bolivia is another example: 20% of the citizens can call for a referendum to establish a Constituent Assembly. This assembly will propose constitutional amendments, which will then be submitted to another referendum.

In other countries, citizens cannot directly adopt a law through a referendum. In Serbia, 150,000 voters (about 2.5% of the electorate) can propose a constitutional amendment, but the parliament decides whether to submit it or not to a referendum. Similarly, in some South American countries (Ecuador and Venezuela), the parliament plays a filtering role between the citizens' initiative and the referendum. In New Zealand, 10% of the electorate can directly submit a bill to a referendum, but the result of this referendum is consultative, and the parliament decides whether and how to implement it.
## Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment

Most of the available databases don't distinguish between the right for citizens to initiate constitutional amendments and simple legislative bills. The Direct Democracy Navigator is quite unique in mentioning this aspect and identifies only ten countries in the world allow their citizens to initiate a constitutional amendment: Bolivia, Federated States of Micronesia, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Philippines, Uruguay, Serbia and Switzerland. This right can however also be found in other countries in Latin America (such as Ecuador or Venezuela), in Oceania (Palau) or in Eastern Europe (Croatia and Latvia). Latvia has one of the oldest constitutions that allows citizens to propose constitutional amendments. It was introduced in 1922, suspended during the communist period and reinstated in 1991. The case of Taiwan is also interesting to specifically discuss.

The constitutions of these countries mention the possibility for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, but many of them cannot be said to have it. **To be operational, citizen-initiated constitutional amendments requires two important aspects.** The first is the right of any citizen to initiate a bill. The second is the right of any citizen to call for popular arbitration.

Some countries have some form of initiative, but do not recognize the right to initiate legislation. The initiative simply consists of calling a constitutional convention to decide how to amend the constitution. In the Marshall Islands, for example, 25% of the eligible voters can initiate a referendum for a constitutional convention. Bolivia is another example: 20% of the citizens can call for a referendum to establish a Constituent Assembly. This assembly will propose constitutional amendments, which will then be submitted to another referendum.

In other countries, citizens cannot directly adopt a law through a referendum. In Serbia, 150,000 voters (about 2.5% of the electorate) can propose a constitutional amendment, but the parliament decides whether to submit it or not to a referendum. Similarly, in some South American countries (Ecuador and Venezuela), the parliament plays a filtering role between the citizens' initiative and the referendum. In New Zealand, 10% of the electorate can directly submit a bill to a referendum, but the result of this referendum is consultative, and the parliament decides whether and how to implement it.
Beyond these cases, which cannot be properly identified as fully-fledged citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, **other procedures also reduce the impact of citizens initiatives in two different and important ways.**

First, some systems have designed a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, but **the referendum is not mandatory**. This means that there are two ways of adopting a constitutional amendment, either by initiative and referendum or through a parliamentary procedure. When citizens and their representatives agree to make constitutional changes, members of parliament are usually faster and more effective, so that the citizens' initiative becomes marginal in the functioning of the political system. This is the case in Latvia: with the exception of six articles of the Constitution, the Parliament can amend the Constitution with a supermajority of two-thirds of its members. However, 10% of the electorate may submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum, which requires a high approval quorum (50% of registered voters must approve the amendment) to be valid. As a result, out of the 14 constitutional amendments adopted since 1991, none has been initiated by citizens. A similar system, with identical consequences, is in place in Lithuania, where 300,000 (12%) voters can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. In Croatia, where parallel to the parliamentary procedure (Art. 137), 10% of citizens can call for a constitutional referendum (Art. 87), no quorum is required to validate a constitutional referendum. Therefore, of the five constitutional amendments adopted in this country, one has been adopted through a citizen initiated process. Outside of Europe, this kind of design is implemented in Kenya, where a popular initiative procedure (one million citizens is required) coexists with a purely parliamentary procedure for constitutional amendments. Both procedures are quite demanding and no constitutional change has been made since the new constitution came into force (2010).

Second, **some political systems provide for both a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment and a mandatory referendum, but these procedures are hardly accessible.** In Palau, 25% of registered citizens are required for the initiative and, as noted above, the referendum must receive a majority of votes in three-quarters of the states. In Micronesia, 10% of the citizens can call for a referendum, but the signatures must be collected in each of the four states. Until 2023 (see section 5), the amendment needed to be approved by three-quarters of the votes are in three-quarters of the states. Because Micronesia is a small island state, this very high supermajority has
Beyond these cases, which cannot be properly identified as fully-fledged citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, **other procedures also reduce the impact of citizens initiatives in two different and important ways.**

First, some systems have designed a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, but **the referendum is not mandatory**. This means that there are two ways of adopting a constitutional amendment, either by initiative and referendum or through a parliamentary procedure. When citizens and their representatives agree to make constitutional changes, members of parliament are usually faster and more effective, so that the citizens' initiative becomes marginal in the functioning of the political system. This is the case in Latvia: with the exception of six articles of the Constitution, the Parliament can amend the Constitution with a supermajority of two-thirds of its members. However, 10% of the electorate may submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum, which requires a high approval quorum (50% of registered voters must approve the amendment) to be valid. As a result, out of the 14 constitutional amendments adopted since 1991, none has been initiated by citizens. A similar system, with identical consequences, is in place in Lithuania, where 300,000 (12%) voters can submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. In Croatia, where parallel to the parliamentary procedure (Art. 137), 10% of citizens can call for a constitutional referendum (Art. 87), no quorum is required to validate a constitutional referendum. Therefore, of the five constitutional amendments adopted in this country, one has been adopted through a citizen initiated process. Outside of Europe, this kind of design is implemented in Kenya, where a popular initiative procedure (one million citizens is required) coexists with a purely parliamentary procedure for constitutional amendments. Both procedures are quite demanding and no constitutional change has been made since the new constitution came into force (2010).

Second, **some political systems provide for both a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment and a mandatory referendum, but these procedures are hardly accessible.** In Palau, 25% of registered citizens are required for the initiative and, as noted above, the referendum must receive a majority of votes in three-quarters of the states. In Micronesia, 10% of the citizens can call for a referendum, but the signatures must be collected in each of the four states. Until 2023 (see section 5), the amendment needed to be approved by three-quarters of the votes are in three-quarters of the states. Because Micronesia is a small island state, this very high supermajority has
not been met since 1991. Finally, in the Philippines, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment must be supported by 12% of the registered voters, and each legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. Since there are 253 legislative districts, the initiative is almost impossible.

Finally, the last group of countries offers an accessible citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. Switzerland allows 100,000 citizens (about 2%) to submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. To be approved, a double majority of the votes of the cantons is required. Since 2002, there have been 19 constitutional amendments, 12 of which came from citizens' initiatives (63%). In Liechtenstein, a citizens' constitutional initiative requires 1500 signatures (about 8%), and a simple majority is required to amend the Constitution. Although the constitutional referendum is not mandatory, its rejective nature allows us to place Liechtenstein in this category. In Uruguay, the signature threshold is higher (10%) and adoption requires a 35% approval quorum. Only four constitutional amendments have been approved, but three of them came from citizens' initiatives. Finally, Taiwan is a puzzling case. Traditionally, its mandatory referendum required a supermajority in parliament, as in other East Asian democracies. However, a 2017 amendment to the Referendum Law abolished the Initiative Review Committee, making rejection almost impossible, even if the initiatives may violate the constitution. This means that citizen-initiated referendums could take on constitutional value, and Taiwan could be strongly shaped by its new direct democracy in the coming years. The 2022 referendum was the first to adopt a constitutional amendment by referendum without parliamentary approval. While the initiative came from the president, this event may open the possibility for constitutional change through citizen initiative.

These different devices also provide an opportunity to identify best practices in the accessibility and impact of citizen initiative for constitutional change. Since the law in Taiwan is still uncertain, this country is not included in the ranking. Table 3.2 provides this information

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Best practices in citizen-initiated constitutional amendments</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment</td><td>Threshold of signatures</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Important</td><td>100,000 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Important</td><td>1,500 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Important</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Palau</td><td>Marginal</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Micronesia</td><td>Marginal</td><td>10%</td></tr></tbody></table>
not been met since 1991. Finally, in the Philippines, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment must be supported by 12% of the registered voters, and each legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. Since there are 253 legislative districts, the initiative is almost impossible.

Finally, the last group of countries offers an accessible citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. Switzerland allows 100,000 citizens (about 2%) to submit a constitutional amendment to a referendum. To be approved, a double majority of the votes of the cantons is required. Since 2002, there have been 19 constitutional amendments, 12 of which came from citizens' initiatives (63%). In Liechtenstein, a citizens' constitutional initiative requires 1500 signatures (about 8%), and a simple majority is required to amend the Constitution. Although the constitutional referendum is not mandatory, its rejective nature allows us to place Liechtenstein in this category. In Uruguay, the signature threshold is higher (10%) and adoption requires a 35% approval quorum. Only four constitutional amendments have been approved, but three of them came from citizens' initiatives. Finally, Taiwan is a puzzling case. Traditionally, its mandatory referendum required a supermajority in parliament, as in other East Asian democracies. However, a 2017 amendment to the Referendum Law abolished the Initiative Review Committee, making rejection almost impossible, even if the initiatives may violate the constitution. This means that citizen-initiated referendums could take on constitutional value, and Taiwan could be strongly shaped by its new direct democracy in the coming years. The 2022 referendum was the first to adopt a constitutional amendment by referendum without parliamentary approval. While the initiative came from the president, this event may open the possibility for constitutional change through citizen initiative.

These different devices also provide an opportunity to identify best practices in the accessibility and impact of citizen initiative for constitutional change. Since the law in Taiwan is still uncertain, this country is not included in the ranking. Table 3.2 provides this information

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Best practices in citizen-initiated constitutional amendments</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Citizen-initiated constitutional amendment</td><td>Threshold of signatures</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Important</td><td>100,000 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Important</td><td>1,500 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Important</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Palau</td><td>Marginal</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Micronesia</td><td>Marginal</td><td>10%</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.2 Direct democracy institutions over non constitutional matters

In what follows, we focus on direct democracy institutions targeting non constitutional matters. We start with citizen veto right over ordinary law proposal (rejective referendums) and then discuss initiative rights (through legislative citizen initiative).

### Rejective referendums

Rejective referendums allow citizens to repeal (or abrogate) an act of parliament. **Citizens do not have the right to initiate legislation but can veto it.** Rejective referendums can either be used to abrogate a law already in force or suspend the adoption of a newly passed law. In what follows, we refer to abrogative referendums in the first case and to suspensive ones in the second. Nine countries open the possibility to repeal a national law to their citizens. In countries where an accessible citizen-initiated constitutional amendment is available (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Uruguay) a specific procedure for repealing a law is also available. **The landmark cases of abrogative referendums are those of Italy and Uruguay, respectively introduced in 1946 and 1966.**

In Italy, the introduction of direct democratic institutions belongs to a larger package of measures taken after Mussolini's fascist rule to protect the newly reborn democracy. Direct law making by citizens is however limited. Italians can't engage in constitutional law making, nor abrogate laws related to taxation, budgetary processes, amnesty, commutation or remission of sentences and the ratification of international treaties. Taken together, these are significant restrictions. Moreover, since only ordinary laws can be repealed, they can get back to the agenda through parliamentary channels even when abrogated by citizens. Although the Italian Constitutional Court ruled in 1997 that enacting a law previously abrogated by referendum was not allowed, it is still possible to integrate elements of the abrogated law in other legal texts. Regarding its modalities, the threshold of signatures required in the Italian abrogative referendum is 500,000 voters, which in 1946 represented almost 2% of the electorate and today accounts for 1%. While the threshold for signatures is very low, it is associated to a high "participation quorum", requiring that 50% of the electorate takes part in the vote. The first referendums were held in the 1970s, after a law detailing the procedure to be used was passed in 1970.
## 3.2 Direct democracy institutions over non constitutional matters

In what follows, we focus on direct democracy institutions targeting non constitutional matters. We start with citizen veto right over ordinary law proposal (rejective referendums) and then discuss initiative rights (through legislative citizen initiative).

### Rejective referendums

Rejective referendums allow citizens to repeal (or abrogate) an act of parliament. **Citizens do not have the right to initiate legislation but can veto it.** Rejective referendums can either be used to abrogate a law already in force or suspend the adoption of a newly passed law. In what follows, we refer to abrogative referendums in the first case and to suspensive ones in the second. Nine countries open the possibility to repeal a national law to their citizens. In countries where an accessible citizen-initiated constitutional amendment is available (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Uruguay) a specific procedure for repealing a law is also available. **The landmark cases of abrogative referendums are those of Italy and Uruguay, respectively introduced in 1946 and 1966.**

In Italy, the introduction of direct democratic institutions belongs to a larger package of measures taken after Mussolini's fascist rule to protect the newly reborn democracy. Direct law making by citizens is however limited. Italians can't engage in constitutional law making, nor abrogate laws related to taxation, budgetary processes, amnesty, commutation or remission of sentences and the ratification of international treaties. Taken together, these are significant restrictions. Moreover, since only ordinary laws can be repealed, they can get back to the agenda through parliamentary channels even when abrogated by citizens. Although the Italian Constitutional Court ruled in 1997 that enacting a law previously abrogated by referendum was not allowed, it is still possible to integrate elements of the abrogated law in other legal texts. Regarding its modalities, the threshold of signatures required in the Italian abrogative referendum is 500,000 voters, which in 1946 represented almost 2% of the electorate and today accounts for 1%. While the threshold for signatures is very low, it is associated to a high "participation quorum", requiring that 50% of the electorate takes part in the vote. The first referendums were held in the 1970s, after a law detailing the procedure to be used was passed in 1970.
While the first referendum was - on the wave of enthusiasm and scarcity - easily achieved the required quorum, the Italian participation quorum proved particularly demanding as the years went by. Referendum practices however increased in the 1990s and 2000s, a trend continuing today. This has reduced their exceptional character and, therefore, the motivation to cast a ballot. Moreover, while Italians went voting regardless of their position until the early 1990s, the situation gradually evolved leading those opposing the proposal to avoid voting in order to reduce the likelihood of achieving the quorum. For the same reason, political parties supporting the "no" vote did not engage in campaigning about the issue to be voted upon. Until now, the key challenge for the "yes" supporters has been to meet the participation quorum, since the percentage of "yes" votes regularly reaches 90%. This quorum, therefore, has not only reduced participation, by invalidating most of referendums, but has also negatively affected the quality of public debates on the issues put to a vote. In addition, it should be noted that non-constitutional referendums are subject to numerous constitutionality checks and are likely to be restricted in several ways. As a result, out of 100 referendums proposed, one third have been cancelled due to formal flaws.

The Italian abrogative referendum is therefore characterized by a low signature threshold, a demanding participation quorum, and a series of issues excluded from citizen's grasp, the most important of which being budgetary matters and international issues. It has nonetheless served as a model for Italy's neighboring countries such as Albania, Malta, San Marino and Slovenia. In Albania, a similar design was introduced in 1998 but with a relaxed quorum, which is no longer a turnout quorum, but an approval quorum, according to which the number of favorable votes must be at least equal to one third of the electorate. This type of quorum partly avoids the perverse effect on public deliberation and turnout observed in the case of participation quorums. Despite this slight improvement, Albania did not experience, at the time of writing these pages, a single referendum. The last time Albanians voted in a referendum was in 1998 to validate the Constitution that introduced the possibility for citizens to abrogate a law. Malta introduced the "Italian" model in its Constitution in 1964, with the same restrictions and type of quorum. Nevertheless, the Maltese rejective referendum has a higher threshold of signatures requiring 10% of the electorate - which corresponds to 35,000 voters - for a citizen proposal to be put to a referendum.
While the first referendum was - on the wave of enthusiasm and scarcity - easily achieved the required quorum, the Italian participation quorum proved particularly demanding as the years went by. Referendum practices however increased in the 1990s and 2000s, a trend continuing today. This has reduced their exceptional character and, therefore, the motivation to cast a ballot. Moreover, while Italians went voting regardless of their position until the early 1990s, the situation gradually evolved leading those opposing the proposal to avoid voting in order to reduce the likelihood of achieving the quorum. For the same reason, political parties supporting the "no" vote did not engage in campaigning about the issue to be voted upon. Until now, the key challenge for the "yes" supporters has been to meet the participation quorum, since the percentage of "yes" votes regularly reaches 90%. This quorum, therefore, has not only reduced participation, by invalidating most of referendums, but has also negatively affected the quality of public debates on the issues put to a vote. In addition, it should be noted that non-constitutional referendums are subject to numerous constitutionality checks and are likely to be restricted in several ways. As a result, out of 100 referendums proposed, one third have been cancelled due to formal flaws.

The Italian abrogative referendum is therefore characterized by a low signature threshold, a demanding participation quorum, and a series of issues excluded from citizen's grasp, the most important of which being budgetary matters and international issues. It has nonetheless served as a model for Italy's neighboring countries such as Albania, Malta, San Marino and Slovenia. In Albania, a similar design was introduced in 1998 but with a relaxed quorum, which is no longer a turnout quorum, but an approval quorum, according to which the number of favorable votes must be at least equal to one third of the electorate. This type of quorum partly avoids the perverse effect on public deliberation and turnout observed in the case of participation quorums. Despite this slight improvement, Albania did not experience, at the time of writing these pages, a single referendum. The last time Albanians voted in a referendum was in 1998 to validate the Constitution that introduced the possibility for citizens to abrogate a law. Malta introduced the "Italian" model in its Constitution in 1964, with the same restrictions and type of quorum. Nevertheless, the Maltese rejective referendum has a higher threshold of signatures requiring 10% of the electorate - which corresponds to 35,000 voters - for a citizen proposal to be put to a referendum.
To date, only two rejective referendums have been held in the country. San Marino has also introduced a scheme similar to the Italian one, albeit with improvements. The quorum has been abolished and citizens have also been granted the possibility to proposal an ordinary law, provided an approval quorum is met. 22 referendums have been held since 1982. Finally, an abrogative citizen-initiated referendum has been introduced in Slovenia in 1991, with a less stringent participation quorum, set at 20% of registered voters. Since the first referendum of 1996, sixteen referendums have been held in the country.

The similarities between what can be labelled as a “Southern European model” of rejective referendum are striking. First, they all limit citizen power on some specific policy fields - the most common limitations being on fiscal and international issues -, only give abrogative power to citizens (except in San Marino) and have low signature thresholds (to the exception of Malta). It should be noted that almost all of the studied countries, although inspired by the Italian model, have nevertheless changed the quorum formula either by lowering it, abolishing it or changing its nature. The negative effects of the Italian quorum were already known by then. Yet, as we shall see, this type of quorum is still widely used throughout the world. Only two other countries in Europe have an older and different rejective referendums that are not abrogative, but suspensive. The Latvian rejective referendum has high signature threshold (10% in 10 days). Beyond that, it has many restrictions and a heavy participation quorum (the turnout must be at least equal to that of the last parliamentary elections). In contrast, in Switzerland the threshold is very low (50,000 that is 1% in 3 months), there are almost no restrictions, and a simple majority is enough to repeal a law.

Beyond Europe, another country, Uruguay, has served as a precursor in Latin America. Although the restrictions are similar to those in Europe (mainly on taxation and foreign policy), the procedure citizens should follow to abrogate a law differs. The signatures are collected in a very singular way, following a two-staged process. First, a petition must gather the support of 2% of the electorate (0.5% priori to 2000). If the petition is validated, the State proceeds to a pre-referendum to make the petition known by the largest possible number of citizens. If in this process, 25% of the registered citizens call for referendum, the referendum is launched. Also, a simple majority is enough to validate the outcome of the referendum. The consequence of the pre-referendum practice is that very few rejective referendums have been launched in Uruguay (5) but most of them (3) all ended up being approved.
To date, only two rejective referendums have been held in the country. San Marino has also introduced a scheme similar to the Italian one, albeit with improvements. The quorum has been abolished and citizens have also been granted the possibility to proposal an ordinary law, provided an approval quorum is met. 22 referendums have been held since 1982. Finally, an abrogative citizen-initiated referendum has been introduced in Slovenia in 1991, with a less stringent participation quorum, set at 20% of registered voters. Since the first referendum of 1996, sixteen referendums have been held in the country.

The similarities between what can be labelled as a “Southern European model” of rejective referendum are striking. First, they all limit citizen power on some specific policy fields - the most common limitations being on fiscal and international issues -, only give abrogative power to citizens (except in San Marino) and have low signature thresholds (to the exception of Malta). It should be noted that almost all of the studied countries, although inspired by the Italian model, have nevertheless changed the quorum formula either by lowering it, abolishing it or changing its nature. The negative effects of the Italian quorum were already known by then. Yet, as we shall see, this type of quorum is still widely used throughout the world. Only two other countries in Europe have an older and different rejective referendums that are not abrogative, but suspensive. The Latvian rejective referendum has high signature threshold (10% in 10 days). Beyond that, it has many restrictions and a heavy participation quorum (the turnout must be at least equal to that of the last parliamentary elections). In contrast, in Switzerland the threshold is very low (50,000 that is 1% in 3 months), there are almost no restrictions, and a simple majority is enough to repeal a law.

Beyond Europe, another country, Uruguay, has served as a precursor in Latin America. Although the restrictions are similar to those in Europe (mainly on taxation and foreign policy), the procedure citizens should follow to abrogate a law differs. The signatures are collected in a very singular way, following a two-staged process. First, a petition must gather the support of 2% of the electorate (0.5% priori to 2000). If the petition is validated, the State proceeds to a pre-referendum to make the petition known by the largest possible number of citizens. If in this process, 25% of the registered citizens call for referendum, the referendum is launched. Also, a simple majority is enough to validate the outcome of the referendum. The consequence of the pre-referendum practice is that very few rejective referendums have been launched in Uruguay (5) but most of them (3) all ended up being approved.
The Uruguayan model has not really been transferred to other neighboring countries, although Colombia and Venezuela have drawn inspiration from it. The same fiscal and international policy restrictions apply. In both cases, a signature threshold of 10% is required. In the case of Venezuela, 5% of the electorate can also initiate the repeal of a presidential decree. But unlike in Uruguay, participation quorums have been introduced. In Colombia, voter turnout must be at least 25% and in Venezuela 40%. In both cases, no abrogative initiative has taken place to date, for the same reasons as those cited in the previous paragraph. In particular, in Colombia, there is no law specifying who is in charge of verifying the validity of signatures and of organizing a referendum after their collection. From then on, the constitutional article has remained a dead letter.

This overview allows to draw several conclusions. **Switzerland remains the only country where the signature threshold is very low, no quorum is required and any type of law (including international treaty) can be repealed, except for constitutional laws for which another procedure is in place (mandatory referendum). All the other country models are characterized by significant restrictions**, particularly on budgetary, fiscal and international issues.

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Best practices in reactive referendums</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Reactive referendum</td><td>Threshold of signatures</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Very accessible</td><td>50,000 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1,000 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1%, then 25%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Slovenia</td><td>Accessible</td><td>40,000 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Italy</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1%</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Legislative citizen initiatives

In Liechtenstein, where citizens can initiate a constitutional amendment, they can also propose ordinary laws. When offered these two options, voters however predominantly opt for the constitutional route, probably to protect the outcome of their decision from possible amendments by their representatives. As mentioned earlier, the reason for such a decision is that citizen-initiated constitutional amendment does not allow representatives to modify the Constitution without calling for a popular vote. As a result, although the initiative of constitutional changes is competitive, only citizens hold a veto right over the proposals.
The Uruguayan model has not really been transferred to other neighboring countries, although Colombia and Venezuela have drawn inspiration from it. The same fiscal and international policy restrictions apply. In both cases, a signature threshold of 10% is required. In the case of Venezuela, 5% of the electorate can also initiate the repeal of a presidential decree. But unlike in Uruguay, participation quorums have been introduced. In Colombia, voter turnout must be at least 25% and in Venezuela 40%. In both cases, no abrogative initiative has taken place to date, for the same reasons as those cited in the previous paragraph. In particular, in Colombia, there is no law specifying who is in charge of verifying the validity of signatures and of organizing a referendum after their collection. From then on, the constitutional article has remained a dead letter.

This overview allows to draw several conclusions. **Switzerland remains the only country where the signature threshold is very low, no quorum is required and any type of law (including international treaty) can be repealed, except for constitutional laws for which another procedure is in place (mandatory referendum). All the other country models are characterized by significant restrictions**, particularly on budgetary, fiscal and international issues.

<table><caption>Table 3.1: Best practices in reactive referendums</caption><thead><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Country</td><td>Reactive referendum</td><td>Threshold of signatures</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Switzerland</td><td>Very accessible</td><td>50,000 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Liechtenstein</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1,000 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Uruguay</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1%, then 25%</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Slovenia</td><td>Accessible</td><td>40,000 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Italy</td><td>Accessible</td><td>1%</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Legislative citizen initiatives

In Liechtenstein, where citizens can initiate a constitutional amendment, they can also propose ordinary laws. When offered these two options, voters however predominantly opt for the constitutional route, probably to protect the outcome of their decision from possible amendments by their representatives. As mentioned earlier, the reason for such a decision is that citizen-initiated constitutional amendment does not allow representatives to modify the Constitution without calling for a popular vote. As a result, although the initiative of constitutional changes is competitive, only citizens hold a veto right over the proposals.
The following section exclusively focuses on legislative citizen initiatives aiming at proposing ordinary (as opposed to constitutional) legislation.

Countries providing for such procedures, but not for a possibility of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, are always characterized by the presence of constitutional clauses that explicitly specify which issues are beyond citizens' reach. Legislative citizen initiatives are a defining feature of many former USSR countries (such as Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine) as well as of five former communist countries of Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia).

In almost all of these countries, three main restrictions are mentioned in the constitution:

1) on fiscal or budgetary matters (except Georgia);

2) to alter / ratify international treaties and on certain foreign policy issues and

3) on issues affecting the structure and organizing of public authorities particularly concerning the roles and responsibilities of elected representatives and civil servants, and the question of amnesties.

Regarding their modalities, all of them required an absolute number of signatures for a referendum to be organized. Thresholds however vary. The lowest thresholds – representing around 1.5 to 2 % of the electorate – can be found in Hungary, Russia and Serbia. Note, however, that in Russia the threshold is quite difficult to reach, since two million signatures are needed, distributed across the different regions of the federation. A similar constraint exists in Belarus and Ukraine. The highest signature thresholds are around 10% of the electorate and are found in Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. Despite these relatively low thresholds on average, not a single referendum has been held in former USSR countries as well as in Serbia and Macedonia at the time of writing these pages. Irrespective of the thresholds, these countries are experiencing a rather bumpy democratization process and a low level of protection for civil and political rights. As a result, the only referendums held have been organized on the initiative of the President. On the other hand, in Eastern Europe, Hungary has experienced 6 legislative CIRs, Bulgaria 5, while 13 have been organized in Slovakia despite a relatively high signature threshold (just under 8% of voters are required) in the latter country. This suggests that high thresholds are easier to reach in small countries where the population is often more concentrated.
The following section exclusively focuses on legislative citizen initiatives aiming at proposing ordinary (as opposed to constitutional) legislation.

Countries providing for such procedures, but not for a possibility of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, are always characterized by the presence of constitutional clauses that explicitly specify which issues are beyond citizens' reach. Legislative citizen initiatives are a defining feature of many former USSR countries (such as Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine) as well as of five former communist countries of Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia).

In almost all of these countries, three main restrictions are mentioned in the constitution:

1) on fiscal or budgetary matters (except Georgia);

2) to alter / ratify international treaties and on certain foreign policy issues and

3) on issues affecting the structure and organizing of public authorities particularly concerning the roles and responsibilities of elected representatives and civil servants, and the question of amnesties.

Regarding their modalities, all of them required an absolute number of signatures for a referendum to be organized. Thresholds however vary. The lowest thresholds – representing around 1.5 to 2 % of the electorate – can be found in Hungary, Russia and Serbia. Note, however, that in Russia the threshold is quite difficult to reach, since two million signatures are needed, distributed across the different regions of the federation. A similar constraint exists in Belarus and Ukraine. The highest signature thresholds are around 10% of the electorate and are found in Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. Despite these relatively low thresholds on average, not a single referendum has been held in former USSR countries as well as in Serbia and Macedonia at the time of writing these pages. Irrespective of the thresholds, these countries are experiencing a rather bumpy democratization process and a low level of protection for civil and political rights. As a result, the only referendums held have been organized on the initiative of the President. On the other hand, in Eastern Europe, Hungary has experienced 6 legislative CIRs, Bulgaria 5, while 13 have been organized in Slovakia despite a relatively high signature threshold (just under 8% of voters are required) in the latter country. This suggests that high thresholds are easier to reach in small countries where the population is often more concentrated.
When it comes to the criteria determining the validity of a referendum, almost all countries foresee a participation quorum similar to the Italian one, which requires that 50% of registered voters go to the ballot. A notable exception is Bulgaria, where the turnout must be at least as high as in the last parliamentary election and, in any case, not lower than 20% of all registered voters. It should be noted that this type of quorum may induce voters to abstain from voting in parliamentary elections in order to have an easier grip on the validation of referendums during the term of office. This quorum has led to the cancelling of the five legislative citizen initiatives that the country has experienced, even though the proposals were supported by a large majority of voters. Ironically, in 2016, more than 50% of Bulgarian voters cast their vote in a referendum on the introduction of compulsory voting – a reform likely to mitigate the negative impact of the quorum). While 63% of voters were in favor of the proposal, the number of voters was slightly lower than in the 2014 parliamentary election, and the result was rejected. In Hungary, despite a quorum of 50%, three legislative citizen initiatives out of six were approved. Finally, in Slovakia, the Italian participation quorum has been lethal for all legislative citizen initiatives held in the country, although voters largely supported the proposal. Only the government plebiscite on EU membership has ever been able to reach this threshold. Overall, out of the 24 legislative citizen initiatives held in these countries, 18 have been invalidated because of the quorum.

Similar configurations have emerged in Latin America, with the introduction of legislative citizen initiative in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. Here again, the restrictions are mainly related to fiscal and budgetary issues. The political and administrative structure of the country, individual rights and existing international treaties are also sometimes mentioned as out of the citizens' reach. Signature thresholds are quite low, ranging from 2% in Mexico to 10% in Peru. Also, apart from Ecuador, quorums exist but remain accessible with a 30% and 40% participation quorum respectively in Costa Rica and Mexico as well as a 30% approval quorum in Peru. However, and despite a significant increase in the number of referendums held since the 1990s, almost all of them are initiated by the presidents of these countries. One referendum has been held on the initiative of citizens in Peru, a paradoxical fact when one considers the high constraints placed on legislative citizen initiative in this country. In 2010, the trial of former President Fujimori was in full swing.
When it comes to the criteria determining the validity of a referendum, almost all countries foresee a participation quorum similar to the Italian one, which requires that 50% of registered voters go to the ballot. A notable exception is Bulgaria, where the turnout must be at least as high as in the last parliamentary election and, in any case, not lower than 20% of all registered voters. It should be noted that this type of quorum may induce voters to abstain from voting in parliamentary elections in order to have an easier grip on the validation of referendums during the term of office. This quorum has led to the cancelling of the five legislative citizen initiatives that the country has experienced, even though the proposals were supported by a large majority of voters. Ironically, in 2016, more than 50% of Bulgarian voters cast their vote in a referendum on the introduction of compulsory voting – a reform likely to mitigate the negative impact of the quorum). While 63% of voters were in favor of the proposal, the number of voters was slightly lower than in the 2014 parliamentary election, and the result was rejected. In Hungary, despite a quorum of 50%, three legislative citizen initiatives out of six were approved. Finally, in Slovakia, the Italian participation quorum has been lethal for all legislative citizen initiatives held in the country, although voters largely supported the proposal. Only the government plebiscite on EU membership has ever been able to reach this threshold. Overall, out of the 24 legislative citizen initiatives held in these countries, 18 have been invalidated because of the quorum.

Similar configurations have emerged in Latin America, with the introduction of legislative citizen initiative in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. Here again, the restrictions are mainly related to fiscal and budgetary issues. The political and administrative structure of the country, individual rights and existing international treaties are also sometimes mentioned as out of the citizens' reach. Signature thresholds are quite low, ranging from 2% in Mexico to 10% in Peru. Also, apart from Ecuador, quorums exist but remain accessible with a 30% and 40% participation quorum respectively in Costa Rica and Mexico as well as a 30% approval quorum in Peru. However, and despite a significant increase in the number of referendums held since the 1990s, almost all of them are initiated by the presidents of these countries. One referendum has been held on the initiative of citizens in Peru, a paradoxical fact when one considers the high constraints placed on legislative citizen initiative in this country. In 2010, the trial of former President Fujimori was in full swing.
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>