2024-01-22 19:01:40
Vienna (PK) – An expert hearing on the “Real Democracy Referendum” was on the agenda of the Constitutional Committee today. The referendum, which was signed by 131,619 Austrians or 2.07% of those eligible to vote, was initiated by Robert Marschall, who was also a proponent of various other referendums. The “Real Democracy Referendum” calls for a whole package of legal changes, ranging from shortening the legislative period to two years to the mandatory holding of referendums on successful referendums to a ban on “cartel formation” in parliament in the form of coalitions . Furthermore, the initiators are committed to ensuring that all resolutions of the National Council and thus also motions of no confidence once morest Chancellor Karl Nehammer can be voted on directly democratically (2074 d. B.).
As part of the hearing, the Head of the Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellery Albert Posch, the Upper Austrian State Parliament Director Wolfgang Steiner and the political scientist and democracy advisor Tamara Ehs were available to the MPs as experts.
“Real democracy referendum” includes 122 points
Democracy means popular rule and Austria needs “citizens’ decisions,” said the initiator of the referendum, Robert Marschall. The last referendum took place in Austria in 1994, and referendums have the advantage “that lobbyists cannot buy the entire country.” He referred to the 122-point demands of the “Real Democracy Referendum”. This includes, among other things, that civil liberties must not be undermined through regulations, as happened, according to Marschall, during the Corona period. Among other things, he spoke out in favor of abolishing postal voting and public vote counting.
As early as 2014 and 2015, a parliamentary study commission looked into strengthening democracy and presented a report on it, said expert Albert Posch. Popular legislation, as called for in the “Real Democracy Referendum,” would mean an overall change to the federal constitution. The existence and diversity of parties, a “party democracy” represents normality in an international comparison, said Posch and then went into more detail regarding some of the specific demands of the referendum: In his opinion, the requested ban on publication of survey results before elections is all in one Tension to freedom of expression. The right to vote for Union citizens is laid down in the EU treaties and its abolition is therefore not possible in Austria. He considers shortening the legislative period to two years to be unusual and, in his opinion, would lead to undesirable side effects, such as prolonged election campaigning. Regarding the required right to challenge an election by every eligible voter, Posch said that this would lead to the challenge of every election.
The head of the Upper Austrian state parliament directorate, Wolfgang Steiner, also pointed out that the topic had already been discussed by a study commission. There were six recommendations, some of which have now been implemented and are current. The state and local levels are particularly suitable for strengthening direct democracy. A corresponding study has shown various models and limitations in this regard. Real further development of direct democratic elements would require the federal constitution to be changed very quickly, which in turn would require a referendum, said Steiner. He considers the format of the citizens’ councils to be expandable. He also warns once morest restricting the courts. Because attacks on the highest courts are an attack on democracy. He is also not in favor of shortening the legislative period; rather, he is in favor of extending the period to six years, as in the Upper Austrian state parliament. He also spoke out in favor of more political education and emphasized the innovative power of federalism, as it promotes the “competition of the best ideas”.
From a political science perspective, there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the justification for the “genuine democracy referendum”. A large part of the discontent goes back to the time of the corona crisis, which the referendum referred to several times, said expert Tamara Ehs. However, this assumes a “shortened understanding of democracy”, she said, because the will of the people cannot be independent of the “will of the organs”, i.e. the will of parliaments. In addition, compromise is the essence of democracy. Among the constructive suggestions contained in the referendum are the call for a digital collection of declarations of support and the discussion regarding how vote counting can be made more transparent. A ban on the publication of survey results will not get you very far. Instead, she advocates increasing the quality of survey reporting. In addition, the Constitutional Court is not an opponent of democracy but rather a repair body. Ehs also spoke out in favor of setting up citizens’ committees and “preferends” instead of referendums. “Preferences” means the ranking of preferences by citizens, instead of voting for or once morest an issue.
Critical examination of the demands
In the further discussion, Wolfgang Gerstl (ÖVP) said that there were points worth discussing in this context, which is why a study had already taken place on this topic. Especially in times of crisis, decisions have to be made quickly, so the right balance must be found between quick decisions and the involvement of citizens.
Selma Yildirim (SPÖ) said she was happy regarding every opportunity to talk regarding democracy education, as it seems to be deficient. She supports representative democracy and therefore rejects the demand contained in the referendum for a ban on the “zipper system” when drawing up party lists. It is important in a liberal democracy that women are reflected in politics and the past has shown this is not possible without quotas.
The demands of the referendum are well-founded and extensive, many things can only be welcomed, some are excessive, said Susanne Fürst (FPÖ). The gap between politics and the population “should not be too wide,” people should not have the feeling that they are being “ridden over.” She therefore supports the expansion of elements of direct democracy; these must be given more weight.
Georg Bürstmayr (Greens) asked the experts where, in their opinion, citizens’ councils should be appointed. Eva Blimlinger (Greens) wanted to know how direct democracy might be used, especially at the local level. Expert Tamara Ehs emphasized that the local level is closest to the people and is where people are most familiar. When it comes to strengthening direct democracy, it is important that it is not just a yes/no vote. Ehs emphasized that democracy is not the moment of voting, but rather a negotiation process.
Nikolaus Scherak (NEOS) emphasized that his group sees great value in representative democracy. This does not mean that direct democratic means cannot be expanded. He shares some of the demands of the referendum, for example he is in favor of an end to the debt policy, a reduction in party funding, for urgent proceedings at the Constitutional Court and for declarations of support to be able to be submitted online. But there are also things that he doesn’t share. For example, he is in favor of allowing people to continue voting in Austria from the age of 16 and he is once morest shortening the legislative period to two years.
FPÖ motion to expand direct democracy postponed
The FPÖ presented proposals for expanding direct democracy in Austria as the next item on the agenda by means of a motion for a resolution (3767/A(E)). The motion, which was postponed with the votes of the coalition parties, contains three central demands – the introduction of a “popular initiative on legislation”, the enabling of “veto referendums” and the facilitation of referendums.
The expansion of direct democracy should lead to the population feeling more heard by politics once more, emphasized Susanne Fürst (FPÖ) and spoke out in favor of a “sensible expansion” of the elements of direct democracy. Harald Stefan (FPÖ) emphasized that issues can also be brought to the attention of the legislature “from the outside”, i.e. outside of parliament, which will then be decided on by means of a referendum under certain conditions. Wolfgang Gerstl (ÖVP) called for a more sensitive use of words in political debate. The matter, i.e. the expansion of direct democracy, should be discussed further, which is why he submitted the motion to postpone. A liberal representative democracy is important, which is why she is speaking out once morest the FPÖ motion, said Selma Yildirim (SPÖ), emphasizing that it is dangerous to create mood with half-truths and contradictory facts. Georg Bürstmayr (Greens) said he considered the FPÖ motion to be “highly problematic” because, among other things, it lacked minority rights. He also criticized the fact that FPÖ party leader Herbert Kickl had not distanced himself from Martin Sellner, who recently outlined plans for the deportation of millions of people in Germany. (Continuation of the Constitutional Committee) bea
1705960828
#Constitutional #Committee #dealt #Real #Democracy #Referendum #PK003101222024
