Swiss direct democratic instruments in parliamentary debates on representative democracy in France and Germany, 2000-2019

In various discourses on the so-called “crisis” of representative democracy, citizen’s initiatives, referendums and recalls - usually referred to with the umbrella term of “direct democracy instruments” (DDI) - have had a peculiar place. Much of the empirical literature has focused on constitutional issues, on the factors leading to the implementation or uses of these instruments, as well as on voting campaigns or policy-related aftermath effects (Morel and Qvortrup, 2018). Normative perspectives tend to either see DDI as a solution to the shortcomings of representative democracy or as exacerbating its problems (Cheneval and el-Wakil, 2018). While scholars have studied the discourses concerning DDI from the point of view of jurists and theorists, government and opposition figures, or the population at large, few have focused on elected representatives (for an exception, see Bicquelet and Addison, 2017, 2018). Drawing on conceptual history and taking a comparative approach, this empirical contribution investigates how members of parliament (MPs) have discussed DDI in parliamentary plenary debates in France and Germany from 2000 to 2019. More precisely, we focus on the uses of the Swiss case in arguments about DDI. Considering that the Swiss political system is sometimes perceived as “semi-direct”, we suggest that Switzerland acts both as a model and counter model in most discussions. We thus ask: how did MPs talk about Swiss DDI? What elements are presented as inspirations or as drawbacks? On a more fundamental level, how is the integration of these instruments into representative systems conceptualised? And, how do these debates relate to and impact on Swiss conceptions as a model for direct democracy? Our tentative results underline both the increased topical importance and the growing controversial nature of DDI in the period understudy in the two countries. While Switzerland might work as an inspiration for reforms to increase local consultations, the majority of MPs argued that its small size or specific history rendered its example less relevant. Nonetheless, radical leftwing parliamentarians and far-right parties continued to mobilise it as an inspiration. References Bicquelet, Aude, and Helen Addison. 2017. ‘How to Refuse a Vote on the EU? The Case against the Referendum in the House of Commons (1974–2010)’. Quality & Quantity 51(5): 2141–62. ———. 2018. ‘Are Discretionary Referendums on EU Integration Becoming “Politically Obligatory”? The Cases of France and the UK’. Parliamentary Affairs 71(2): 219–42. Cheneval, Francis, and Alice el-Wakil. 2018. ‘Introduction to the Debate: Do Referendums Enhance or Threaten Democracy?’. Swiss Political Science Review 24 (3): 291–93. Morel, Laurence, and Matt Qvortrup, eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy. London: Routledge.