Panel at the ECPR-GC in Prague: "Direct Democracy in comparative perspective" co-hosted by the Direct Democracy Navigator

We witness ongoing debates about the state and the future of democracy in general. One major part of this debate refers to the mechanisms and actors of representative democracy. Questions about the legitimacy and reform of representative democracy put considerable pressure on politics, especially in times of multiple crises. Besides the arena of deliberative democracy, instruments of direct democracy are considered to be one crucial element for rejuvenating democracy in the face of today’s challenges. As consequence, instruments of direct democracy are currently institutionalized in 106 democratic or semi-democratic countries around the world (source: www.direct-democracy-navigator.org). The direct vote of the people has become an important element in the interplay of democratic institutions. But while direct democracy is touted by some, especially populists, as a panacea, the reality of voting comes across as much more devoid of anything. The crucial question is: how close, then, does direct democracy come to the role ascribed to it? What are the achievements of direct democracy in the face of supposed symptoms of crisis in representative democracy? What influences the performance of direct democratic instruments? This panel seeks to further deepen our understanding of direct democracy in representative systems by addressing the aforementioned questions. It refers to a strand of literature looking at the role of direct democracy in (creaking) representative systems. What can we expect from direct democracy? The panel highlights the spectrum from the idea of putting the direct in the middle of democracy over referendums as a source of stability to the potential fragility of decisions by referendum.