Direct Democracy – Now At Local Level, Later – In the Whole State

These very impressions made some of my former beliefs even more stubborn:

· Direct democracy is an emanation of the common activity of really democratic representative institutions together with the highly organized and active civil society.

Direct democracy at national level is possible when the following grounding factors are given:

- Strongly developed structured and decentralized civil society;

- Structures of the civil society that can sharply define and consequently defend the interests of a large group of people

- National, regional and local institutions that do not fear that practicing direct democracy may deprive them of their powers;

- Institutions that are able to realize that practicing direct democracy leads to better functioning of the social and political system in the country;

- The better part of the society should believe that social-civic system works in favor of the citizens and defends their rights;

Most of these factors are not available in Bulgaria at this moment, but this does not mean that we should not try to establish them and encourage their further development. JUST ON THE CONTRARY!!! Direct democracy аaccounts for a huge unused resource not only for the Bulgarian citizens and society, but also for the politicians and institutions.

A permanent campaign for announcing the possibilities, potential and mechanism of direct democracy is needed among the citizens and NGOs as well as politicians and institutions!

· Direct democracy is an effective mechanism for correcting and going back to the genuine functions of the institutions of the representative democracy.

It is defined that the institutions of the representative power subsist in order to represent the common interest and they work so that it could be represented and defined best in the institution. Without this function the political elite and the institutions transmute into a custom, a center of corruption, unlegitimate lobbying for private or group interests that are not clear but vaguely defined in front of the society. That is one of the main reasons for the political and social crisis, for the crisis of the system of the representative democracy, for the exceptionally low rate of confidence in the political system and institutions!

The over-centralized political and social life in Bulgaria impedes the possibility of strong local groups and formations to appear at national level, and they also impede the mechanism for the realization of these ideas.

The originating and developing of active citizens’ structures COULD impose a decisive pressure on national elites. Such groups COULD literally force the institutions to restore the exercising of their genuine functions – representation of the common interests on national level and searching for mechanisms for their accomplishment.

At this very moment the better part of the local and national elites is not a function of the social or citizens’ agenda. The better part of these people is part of the so called nets of clients or they use the power given to them by the community to flatter their own ambitions or to achieve the aims of their political parties, so the actual work in the name of the citizens and community is absent.

Powerful citizens’ structures, citizens’ initiatives, collecting signatures and referenda COULD REALLY turn into a mechanism for exercising effective control over the business of politicians and political parties. These citizens’ structures can force the politicians and the parties to return to their authentic functions: to represent and defend the interests of the society.

· At national level direct democracy in Bulgaria has relatively small chances (at least at the moment) to become an effective instrument for declaring the position of the citizens and achieving the interests of the society.

The now-existing and parliamentary represented leading political parties would not concede voluntarily even a small part of their mechanisms and resources given them by the laws they themselves have adopted.

The leaders and ruling bodies of these parties are not able to realize that mechanisms of direct democracy can give a decisive contribution to the regaining (at least partially) of the people’s trust in the social – political system. Without this trust to the System politicians and institutions will continue to represent this closed ineffective system where the idea of defending social interests does not really exist.

There is a sense in working with younger and more open, European-orientated politicians and leaders because it is possible that in little time they would be in positions that would allow them to influence more the decision-making process at national level after, of course, they have been “gained” for the idea of direct democracy.

Direct democracy and its mechanisms and procedures at national level are rather a strategic goal that seems to be a little distanced now.

· At local level citizens’ initiatives and referenda could be an effective instrument for active participation of citizens in the decision-making process concerning future and running the resources of the local community

At local and regional level obstructions of direct democracy are not just an opportunity but also a real existing mechanism that may unlock enormous society power and lead to the so-scarce trust.

Preconditions for the success of direct democracy at local level:

- Local communities do not have the feelings that state institutions of the representative democracy can be a part of the solution of their problems: they look on them rather as a part of the problems themselves;

- Without a total apriori challenging the institutions and the citizens there should first be known the real truth: central institutions do not want to empower local powers or NGOs in order to participate in finding the solutions to the problems;

- Stimulating effective local NGOs with consequent ideas and activities about solving important community problems;

- Taking the NGOs out of the political structures that actually aim at abusing free resources and non-political authorities;

- Good cooperation between local authorities and NGOs and groups of citizens that are able to define a distinguished and defensible community interest, the public- private partnerships MAY “produce” effective forms of direct democracy at local level;

- It is much more likely that relatively big and steady groups of people are structured at local level. They will support a certain social interest, define it clearly and they will eagerly spend time for working in order to reach a solution, fulfilling the interest;

- Local “patriotism”, the wish to differentiate from the “others”, from the neighbors, from the state, may end in mobilizing huge amount of society power;

- Local opinion-makers would search for legitimization in the process of direct democracy in such a way that would differ them from institutions and political parties but would still make them important factors for the local community;

- The practical thing in the problem discussed may force most of the citizens to believe that they could really influence the decision-making process concerning this certain problem;

- It is likely that the mayor and the counselors find out the answer to their political interest (reelection) in the mechanisms of direct democracy at local level, and direct democracy would allow them to orientate flawlessly about the priorities in the local community agenda;

- The consideration of this local community agenda gives them big opportunities for directing an adequate current policy and to gain the trust of the citizens, and, last but not least, a maximum number of votes cast in the next ballots.

· The success of each form of direct democracy at local level is a function of good planning, systematic and straight organization, clearly formulated and adhered-to rules, and a COMPLETE consideration of the referenda results in part of the local powers.

In order to be successive and to introduce an innovative model of social relations and making decisions, these forms of direct democracy should be:

- Extremely well-prepared in the sense of organization;

- Procedurally clarified to the least possible details;

- Administratively, logistically, technically supported - the whole process from announcing the topic of the referendum to announcing the final results and current control over the process of applying the results in the working local policy;

- Extremely well-popularized between the broadest possible local social layers by means of ALL the information and communication channels;

- A back-up from all possible and needed partnerships;

- Local institutions should actively help the process of the referendum with active positions meaningful debate, with experts’ analyses from all views, explaining possible consequences and effects of both possible outcomes of the referendum;

- A campaign that makes the referendum itself a real local goal;

- Institutions should first declare strongly that they would UNDOUBTEDLY ADHERE TO THE REFERENDUM RESULTS!