The Impact of Changes in Referendum Regulation on the Relationship between Political Parties and the Use of Direct Democracy

As in many modern democratic countries, some forms of direct democracy are established alongside bodies of representative democracy in Slovenia. For more than two decades, Slovenia followed the ‘liberal’ approach to the regulation of referendum initiatives and referendums in general. In recent years, the high number of referendums held had been criticised for obstructing the legislative process and contributing to political instability; not to mention that circumstances that also 1/3 of MPs could demand a referendum represented a solid ground that referendums could be exploited by parties for achieving their political aims. In 2013, the parliamentary parties agreed to make some constitutional amendments which limit the ‘liberal’ regulation of referendums. Since 2013, a referendum can be held only if 40,000 voters demand so, and a set of issues has been proscribed from being put to a referendum. A referendum may reverse legislation if the latter is voted against by the majority of valid ballots, but only if at least one fifth of all eligible voters vote in that way. The constitutional amendments also restrict the range of issues upon which a referendum may be held. The aim of the paper is twofold; first, to assess how parties were involved in adoption and use of referendums at national level in Slovenia, and second to find out if (and how) changes of the referendum legislation changed relationship between parties and the use of direct democracy.