WI: Country without elections for government posts, but referenda needed to pass laws

[Fabius Maximus]

This idea came to me while I was thinking of alternative ways that politics and constitutions could evolve. Basically, the executive would be chosen by non-democratic means -- a hereditary monarchy, or an elective (by a subset of the population, a la Venice or Poland) monarchy, or something similar. It also wouldn't have a group of elected representatives with authority to pass laws. Instead, any new laws would require a national referendum to pass. There would probably also need to be a mechanism whereby any proposal which can gather a certain number of signatures has to be put to a referendum, to stop the executive just stonewalling popular ideas indefinitely by refusing to put them up for a vote.

My question is, how would government and politics function in such a state? Since it would be harder to pass laws, there would probably be fewer of them, which frankly might not be a bad thing. Would party politics exist in a recognisable form? And what sort of country would be produced?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

What counts as a 'law'?

 

[da Racontor]

Just mulling over the idea quickly, I think it would depend greatly on the size of the country.

If it is rather small city-state sized, this may not end up much different than other governments.

Bigger than that, if we assume for the sake of argument no one tries any "funny business" to subvert the system.

I see political campaigns all over the place & massive amounts of money being spent on them. As well as any moderately wealth interest groups funding their own campaign groups.

 

[Entrerriano]

This probably wouldn't work, especially in the modern world. Election events are costly, people get voting fatigue, and not everyone understands law. Any rapid change would basically be impossible unless this is limited to just a very small subset of atributions and the executive can just legislate on most common affairs.

 

[Aichi72]

Liechtenstein but without the Landtag?

 

[Lalli]

Liechtenstein but without the Landtag?

And same with Switzerland.

But I can't see this working effectively any bigger nation than city state. This is ineffective, too expensive and people probably would vote over things what they can't really understand and actually cause more damage. And what happens if voting percentage is really low?

 

[chornedsnorkack]

This idea came to me while I was thinking of alternative ways that politics and constitutions could evolve. Basically, the executive would be chosen by non-democratic means -- a hereditary monarchy, or an elective (by a subset of the population, a la Venice or Poland) monarchy, or something similar. It also wouldn't have a group of elected representatives with authority to pass laws. Instead, any new laws would require a national referendum to pass.

A law is a complex thing. Who compiles and edits the proposals for the referendum? Who makes the decision to submit proposals to referendum?

There would probably also need to be a mechanism whereby any proposal which can gather a certain number of signatures has to be put to a referendum, to stop the executive just stonewalling popular ideas indefinitely by refusing to put them up for a vote.

Why "need"? Stonewalling could very well be the goal, not a bug.

My question is, how would government and politics function in such a state? Since it would be harder to pass laws, there would probably be fewer of them, which frankly might not be a bad thing. Would party politics exist in a recognisable form? And what sort of country would be produced?

Referendums have been a known option since late 18th century.
Avoiding parliamentary scrutiny by sticking to existing laws, keeping taxes low and constant and therefore arguing that the executive has the sufficient mandate is a tactics used at least since 16th century. Using alternative and less troublesome options to legitimize new laws and taxes is also a known tactic. For example, Spain got rid of Cortes in 17th century by negotiating with the cities represented in the Cortes separately.
Napoleon I held 4 referenda (Ist in February 1800 established Consulate and, effectively, abolished elections for good. On official results, 46% turnout, 0,06% against. IInd, May 1802, made Bonaparte First Consul for life, 50% turnout, 0,24% against. IIIrd, June 1804, made him Emperor, about 50% turnout, 0,07% against. IVth, April 1815, allowed elections, 22% turnout, 0,33% against). Napoleon III held 3 referenda (Ist, 18 days after violent coup making him dictator, approved the coup with 82% turnout, 5% against. IInd, 11 months later, made him emperor with 80% turnout, 3% against. IIIrd, May 1870, approved liberal reforms with 81% turnout, 17% against).
But Napoleon I did pass a lot of laws between his referenda. They were made by Tribunat and Corps Legislatif... which were not elected by people. There were elections... as far as the national list. Which was about 6000 men. Then...

Of the Conservative Senate.​

20. It chooses from this list the legislators, the tribunes, the consuls, the judges of cassation, and the commissioners of accounts.

The Legislative Body and Tribunat were thus not elected by people - if opponents of Napoleon got elected in National List, that gave them no functions, and with 6000 people in National List and just 400 members between Tribunat and Legislative Body, the Senate did not need to appoint opposition members. Well, as long as 400 government supporters remained in the 6000 of national list.

 

[da Racontor]

Have a division of power may actually help this idea.

So for example, let's say tax policies must be referendumed. But foreign policy is considered a specialized topic, so the government acts on it without a referendum, etc.

This way the voter fatigue is reduced &, in theory, the people vote on what concerns them most. While it also prevents certain "bad ideas" like a war with a hated enemy, that may be quite popular of an idea, but impossible to carry out logistically.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

There are systems of direct participation in political decision-making. Switzerland has the Landsgemeinde, for example -- a deliberative assembly in which everyone within a canton assembles, debates, and votes (in a non-secret, public ballot) on issues relevant to the whole canton. The Landsgemeinde is also a theatre for the settling of disputes and other issues of public interest.

Similar systems exist within various nomadic/tribal societies, all of which have their own customs and quirks. Examples include the Arab/Bedouin shura, the Cossack sich, the Turco-Mongol kurultai, and the clan councils of the Iroquois Confederacy. Rojava in Syrian Kurdistan is organised into cantons governed by direct democracy via deliberative assembly -- although it's certainly not immune to controversy. My point is, there are plenty of examples you can look to, both historical and modern.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

This probably wouldn't work, especially in the modern world. Election events are costly, people get voting fatigue, and not everyone understands law. Any rapid change would basically be impossible unless this is limited to just a very small subset of atributions and the executive can just legislate on most common affairs.

How many laws actually need to be implemented rapidly? I guess in some cases, like a foreign invasion or civil war, you might need to pass laws quickly, but most democracies give the executive the ability to implement emergency measures without a vote anyway (e.g., the US President can suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion).

But I can't see this working effectively any bigger nation than city state. This is ineffective, too expensive and people probably would vote over things what they can't really understand and actually cause more damage. And what happens if voting percentage is really low?

Expensive: maybe, but then ancient and medieval city-states managed to have regular large-scale popular assemblies in an era when GDP per capita was much lower than it is today.

People voting over things they can't understand: that's a potential issue with any kind of democracy.

If the voting percentage is really low: well, as they say, those who don't vote, vote for the winning side. I believe voting percentages are generally really low in Switzerland (around 10% or so), but the system seems to work OK.

Why "need"? Stonewalling could very well be the goal, not a bug.

Assuming that the goal is, inter alia, to ensure that the set of laws broadly matches popular preference, some way to stop indefinite stonewalling would be necessary.

Have a division of power may actually help this idea.

So for example, let's say tax policies must be referendumed. But foreign policy is considered a specialized topic, so the government acts on it without a referendum, etc.

This way the voter fatigue is reduced &, in theory, the people vote on what concerns them most. While it also prevents certain "bad ideas" like a war with a hated enemy, that may be quite popular of an idea, but impossible to carry out logistically.

That's what I was thinking -- having a non-elected executive would hopefully avoid the "politicians never thinking beyond the next election" problem you get with democracies, whilst requiring referenda for new laws would hopefully avoid the "tyrannical/out-of-touch ruling class imposing oppressive and unpopular laws" problem you get with monarchies and oligarchies.

 

[da Racontor]

How many laws actually need to be implemented rapidly? I guess in some cases, like a foreign invasion or civil war, you might need to pass laws quickly, but most democracies give the executive the ability to implement emergency measures without a vote anyway (e.g., the US President can suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion).

Expensive: maybe, but then ancient and medieval city-states managed to have regular large-scale popular assemblies in an era when GDP per capita was much lower than it is today.

People voting over things they can't understand: that's a potential issue with any kind of democracy.

If the voting percentage is really low: well, as they say, those who don't vote, vote for the winning side. I believe voting percentages are generally really low in Switzerland (around 10% or so), but the system seems to work OK.

Assuming that the goal is, inter alia, to ensure that the set of laws broadly matches popular preference, some way to stop indefinite stonewalling would be necessary.

That's what I was thinking -- having a non-elected executive would hopefully avoid the "politicians never thinking beyond the next election" problem you get with democracies, whilst requiring referenda for new laws would hopefully avoid the "tyrannical/out-of-touch ruling class imposing oppressive and unpopular laws" problem you get with monarchies and oligarchies.

I guess it comes down to what is considered referendum material & how the division is enforced.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I mean, ignoring the "no elected government officials" bit, that's basically how Rome worked.

The Senate only drafted laws, whilst the Assembly had the power to approve or reject it.

Effectively, the legislative process worked through referendums.

--

Systems like this would work for local government. Indeed, systems like this were used in various places.

Oligarchic town councils (or whatever they were called), choosing members through co-option (i.e. the existing members inviting someone to join as and when a vacancy opened up, rather than through election), and selecting a mayor (or whatever the local executive is called), but with a citizen's assembly with the power to approve or reject laws.

Of course, the council would draft the laws, and decide which laws would be put to a vote.

 

[da Racontor]

I mean, ignoring the "no elected government officials" bit, that's basically how Rome worked.

The Senate only drafted laws, whilst the Assembly had the power to approve or reject it.

Effectively, the legislative process worked through referendums.

--

Systems like this would work for local government. Indeed, systems like this were used in various places.

Oligarchic town councils (or whatever they were called), choosing members through co-option (i.e. the existing members inviting someone to join as and when a vacancy opened up, rather than through election), and selecting a mayor (or whatever the local executive is called), but with a citizen's assembly with the power to approve or reject laws.

Of course, the council would draft the laws, and decide which laws would be put to a vote.

It's very close to how a lot of places were supposed to work.

The problems come when enforcing it to stay that way & how to get it to function on larger scales.