The Intelligibility of Referendum Issues and the Opportunities to Inform Voters. Comparative Observations with Special Regard to Hungary

László Komáromi, Gabriella Antalicz

Abstract


The intelligibility of initiative proposals is of utmost importance in case of direct democratic decisions. This study sums up the tools by means of which voters are informed about referendum issues in countries or states with well developed direct democratic traditions, like Switzerland, Oregon and California. A special attention is paid to ballot pamphlets and requirements regarding the wording of the proposal. The second part of the study focuses on Hungary. Ballot pamphlets are not in use here, the practice of the authorities is centred on the “requirement of the unambiguity of the question”. Based on an analysis of the resolutions of the National Election Committee, the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Curia (Supreme Court) of Hungary, the authors demonstrate that the requirement of unambiguity has become an obligation of initiators which is very difficult to comply with. The study finally recommends possible solutions in order to make the tool of bottom-up initiative a more practicable instrument of direct democracy in Hungary.


Keywords


direct democracy, referendum, popular initiative, voters’ competence, intelligibility of referendum issues, ballot pamphlet, Hungary, Switzerland, Oregon, California

Full Text:

PDF

References


Altman, D. 2011. Direct Democracy Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Auer, A. 1989. Le référendum et l’initiative populaires aux Etats-Unis, Helbing & Lichtenhahn – Economica, Bâle–Francfort-sur-le-Main–Paris.

Balogh, Zs. 2015. A Kúria szerepe és gyakorlata az országos népszavazási kezdeményezések kérdéseinek hitelesítésében, [in:] A népszavazás szabályozása és gyakorlata Európában és Magyarországon, K. Gáva, A. Téglási (eds.), NKE Nonprofit Szolgáltató Kft., Budapest, pp. 89–121.

Beramendi, V. et al. 2008. Direct Democracy. The International IDEA Handbook. IDEA, Stockholm, https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/direct-democracy-the-international-idea-handbook_0.pdf (access: 12.06.2019).

Decision 12/2010. (II. 4.) of the of the Constitutional Court (CC).

Decision 26/2007. (IV. 25.) of the CC.

Decision 32/2001. (VII. 11.) of the CC.

Decision 51/2001. (XI. 29.) of the CC.

Decision 52/2001. (XI. 29.) of the CC.

Decision Knk.37.145/2013/3. of the Supreme Court of Hungary (Curia).

Decision Knk.IV.37.132/2016/4. of the Curia.

Decision Knk.IV.37.356/2015/2. of the Curia.

Decision Knk.IV.37.457/2015/3. of the Curia.

Decision Knk.IV.37.458/2015/3. of the Curia.

Decision Knk.IV.38.010/2015/2. of the Curia.

Decision Knk.VII.37.336/2017/3. of the Curia.

Frei, Ch. 1995. Direkte Demokratie in Frankreich: Wegmarken einer schwierigen Tradition, “Kleine Schriften” 22. Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft, Vaduz.

http://oregonvotes.gov/voters-guide/english/votersguide.html (access: 11.06.2019).

https://static.valasztas.hu/nepszav08/hu/17/17_4.html (access: 11.06.2019).

https://static.valasztas.hu/nepszav08/hu/17/szorolap.pdf (access: 11.06.2019).

https://www.valasztas.hu/web/national-election-office/act-ccxxxviii-of-2013-on-initiating-referendums-the-european-citizens-initiative-and-referendum-procedure (access: 11.06.2019).

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voter-information-guides/ (access: 11.06.2019).

https://www.valasztas.hu/orszagos-nepszavazasi-kezdemenyezesek (access: 11.06.2019).

Komáromi, L. 2014. Parliaments and Popular Law-Making: The German and Estonian Experience in the Interwar Years, “Parliaments, Estates and Representation”, vol. 34(1), pp. 55–75.

Kukorelli, I., Milánkovich, A., Szentgáli-Tóth, B. 2018. Népszavazási jogorvoslatok – a modellváltás tapasztalatai, “MTA Law Working Papers”, vol. 15, https://jog.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/2018_15_Kukorelli_Milankovich_SzentgaliToth.pdf (access: 12.06.2019).

Küpper, H. 2011. A demokrácia közvetlen gyakorlása során hozott döntések minőségének ellenőrzése és megőrzése, “Pro publico bono”, vol. 2, pp. 25–42.

Linder, W. 2005. Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen – Prozesse – Perspektiven, Haupt Verlag, Bern–Stuttgart–Wien.

Mécs, J. 2018. A népszavazási kérdések hitelesítésének egyes kérdései, különös tekintettel az egyértelműség követelményére, [in:] Jogi Tanulmányok, F. Marianna (ed.), ELTE ÁJK Doktori Iskola, Budapest, http://epa.oszk.hu/02600/02687/00008/pdf/EPA02687_jogi_tanulmanyok_2018_105-119.pdf (access: 12.06.2019).

Milic, T., Rousselot, B., Vatter, A. 2014. Handbuch der Abstimmungsforschung, Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zürich.

Möckli, S. 1994. Direkte Demokratie. Ein Vergleich der Einrichtungen und Verfahren in der Schweiz und Kalifornien, unter Berücksichtigung von Frankreich, Italien, Dänemark, Irland, Österreich, Liechtenstein und Australien. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern–Stuttgart–Wien.

Möckli, S. 2007. Direkte Demokratie in den Gliedstaaten der USA, [in:] Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich, M. Freitag, U. Wagschal (eds.), LIT Verlag, Berlin, pp. 19–39.

Moeckli, D. 2017. The Legal Limits of Popular Initiatives in Switzerland, “Pázmány Law Review”, vol. V, pp. 217–227.

Petrétei, J. 2016. Az országos népszavazásról, “Kodifikáció”, vol. 2, pp. 5–42.

PRA. Federal Act on Political Rights of 17 December 1976 (Status as of 1 November 2015).

Resolution 128/2015. of the National Election Committee (NEC).

Resolution 130/2013. of the NEC.

Resolution 15/2013. of the NEC.

Resolution 45/2013. of the NEC.

Resolution 59/2017. of the NEC.

Serdült, U. 2018. Switzerland, [in:] Referendums Around the World, M. Qvortrup (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan–Springer, Basingstoke–Cham, pp. 47–112.

Szabó, M.D. 2007. A népszavazásra feltett kérdés egyértelműsége, [in:] A Magyar jogrendszer átalakulása. Jog, rendszerváltozás, EU-csatlakozás, Vol. I, J. András, P. Takács (eds.), Gondolat, ELTE ÁJK, Budapest, pp. 100–104.

Trechsel, A.H., Kriesi, H. 1996. Switzerland: The Referendum and Initiative as a Centrepiece of the Political System, [in:] The Referendum Experience in Europe, M. Gallagher, P.V. Uleri (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan–St. Martin’s Press, Basingstoke–New York, pp. 185–208.

Venice Commission. 2006. Code of Good Practice on Referendums. Study No. 371/2006, https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2007)008rev-cor-e (access: 11.06.2019).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/k.2019.26.2.73-90
Date of publication: 2019-12-28 00:00:00
Date of submission: 2019-06-15 19:05:41


Statistics


Total abstract view - 811
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 540

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.