"Better" Rather Than "More" Democracy? Citizens' Perceptions of Direct vs. Representative Democracy in a Comparative Perspective
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In light of increasing claims for a accountable political representation on background of what is perceived a crisis of representative this discussion paper examines citizens' perceptions of direct vs. representative It first provides a historical contextualisation by exploring evolution of process of reintroduction of direct democracy in modern era as a complement to representative and dynamics of comparative global trends in increase of implementation of instruments of direct These aspects are then correlated in a detailed comment on a recent comparative study of citizens' perceptions of direct democracy that demonstrated complex idiosyncrasies of particular European polities, but also important common characteristics i.e. prevailing support for direct democracy in all considered Western states and interdependence of citizens' perceptions of direct and representative as well as decisive impact of political representatives' attitude toward direct democracy on citizens' perceptions of latter.Key words: Direct Democracy, Political History, PostCommunist Europe, Path Dependence.1 INTRODUCTIONIn context of overall economic, financial, social, environmental and political crisis, public criticisms of representative democracy and claims for political alternative, essentially focused on reintroduction or reinforcement of direct democracy (in absence of new ideological and ruling concepts), have been made increasingly prominent and even put forward in recent protest actions and movements across globe. Although it appears that citizens are eager to take sovereignty back in their hands from their representatives, this eagerness not necessarily reflect neither a reaction to current crisis alone nor it is necessarily consistent with greater political awareness, civic education and readiness to engage in active citizenship practices in contemporary knowledge societies.This discussion on public perceptions of direct democracy vs. representative democracy will be based in part on a cross-national study by Bowler, Donovan and Karp that, while exploring citizens' attitude towards direct democracy in affluent democracies, also presents some noteworthy conclusions on citizens' perception of representative democracy.In a study that included 11 EU Member States (old as well as postCommunist democracies), USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland, authors demonstrated that substantial enthusiasm for direct democracy in studied polities may reflect what people find lacking in representative democracy as much as it reflects interest in a participatory version of democracy. Approval for direct democracy is therefore not coming primarily from people who are politically engaged and wish for more democracy, i.e. public participation in decision-making processes, but at least as much from people who are not necessarily interested in politics but feel a strong urge to control and correct ways representative democracy is currently functioning. The results of study demonstrated furthermore that the most consistent factors predicting interest in additional opportunities to participate are political distrust and idea that citizens must keep watch on their Government.Since collected data originate from a period prior to current crisis and authors of study only superficially probed into causes for detected prevailing citizens' position, I am first going to verify their argument on background of historical reintroduction and evolution of implementation of direct democracy worldwide aiming at a possible detection of path dependence indicators. Since authors explain outcomes of their study primarily by procedural varieties in direct democracy regulations, I am going to address these in comparison. Second, I am going to comment on outcomes of study done by Bowler et al. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle