THE CLARITY OF REFERENDUMS: AN INSTRUMENT FOR MANAGING THE (DIS)CONTINUITY AND PERCEPTION OF CHANGE
Sažetak
Seen as a precondition for a referendum, clarity requires a clear referendum question and a clear majority for or against an outcome. In this article I argue clarity is not only an enabler of individual referendums but one way to politicize their context. In separating what is clear from what is obscure, clarity imposes the twin requirements of homogeneity and predictability. These, in turn, presuppose an interpretation of acceptable political (dis)continuities beyond the referendum as well as of perception of change. This reading of clarity shows how the referendum does not only manage change to which it is explicitly addressed, but that the purported voice of “the people” may at the same time be an instrument of clarity that imagines and normatively orders the referendum’s surroundings.
Reference
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albert, R., 2022, Discretionary Referendums in Constitutional Amendment, in: Albert, R., Stacey, R., 2022, The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2. Auer, A., 1978, Les droit politiques dans les cantons Suisses, Geneva, Libraririe de l'Université George et Cie S.A.
3. Barshack, L., 2006, Constituent Power as Body: Outline of a Constitutional Theology, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3.
4. Bernstein, D. E., Reverse Carolene Products, the End of the Second Reconstruction, and Other Thoughts on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Cato Supreme Court Review (2013-2014).
5. Böckenförde, E.W., Democracia y representación. Critica a la discusión actual sobre la democracia, in: 2000, Estudios sobre el Estado de Derecho y la democracia, Madrid, Editorial Trota.
6. Canepa, A., 2001, Referendum costituzionale e quorum di partecipazione, Quaderni costituzionali, 2.
7. Chiappetti, A., 1974, L'ammissibilità del referendum abrogativo, Milan, Giuffrè Editore.
8. Christmann, A., 2011, Die Grenzen direkter Demokratie. Volksentscheide im Spannungsverhältnis von Demokratie und Rechtsstaat, Baden-Baden, Nomos.
9. Colón-Ríos, J., 2020, Constituent Power and the Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
10. Contiades, X., Fotiadou, A., The People as Amenders of the Constitution, in: Contiades, X.. Fotiadou, A. (eds.), 2017, Participatory Constitutional Change. The People as Amenders of the Constitution, New York, Routledge.
11. Daly, E., 2019, Translating Popular Sovereignty and Unfettered Constitutional Amendability, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 4.
12. Denquin, J.-M., L’esprit des référendums sous la Véme Republique, in: Lauvaux, P. (ed.), 2012, Théorie et pratiques du référendum. Actes de la journée d’étude du 4 novembre 2011, Paris, Société de legislation compare.
13. Denquin, J.-M., 1976, Referendum et plebiscite. Essai de theorie generale, Paris Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence.
14. Domenico, M. E., 2020, Civic Identity in Changing Cityscapes: Material Rhetorical Obscurity at Denver's Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 84, No. 4.
15. Esposito, C., 1954, Commento al'art 1 della Costituzione, in: La Costituzione Italiana – Saggi, Padova, CEDAM.
16. Fitch, S. M., 2017, Citizen Ballot Initiatives to Amend the Illinois Constitution, DCBA Brief, Vol. 29, No. 1.
17. Flückiger, A., The Ambiguous Principle of The Clarity of Law, in: Wagner, A., Cacciaguidi-Fahy, S. (eds.), 2008, Obscurity and Clarity in the Law. Prospects and Challenges, Aldershot, Ashgate.
18. Foley, M., 1989, The Silence of Constitutions. Gaps, “Abeyences” and Political Temperament in the Maintenance of Government, New York, Routledge.
19. Friedrich, C. J., 1946, Constitutional Government and Democracy, Boston, Ginn and Company.
20. Gardašević, Đ., 2021, “Business as Unusual”: Pandemic Concentration of Executive Powers in Croatia, Pravni zapisi, Vol. XII, No. 1.
21. Gaudreault-DesBiens, J-F., The Law and Politics of Secession: From the Political Contingency of Secession to a “Right to Decide“? Can Lessons be Learned from the Quebec Case?, in: Delledone, G., Martinico, G. (eds.), 2019, The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession. Legacies of the Quebec Secession Reference,Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Graves, E. L., 1998, The Guarantee Clause in California: State Constitutional Limits on Initiatives Changing the California Constitution, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1305–1326.
23. Greifeld, A., 1983, Volksentscheid durch Parlamente. Wahlen und Abstimmungen vor dem Grundgesetz der Demokratie, Berlin, Ducker & Humblot.
24. Hamon, F., Le referendum. Étude comparative, Paris, L.G.D.J.
25. Harris, W. F., 1993, The Interpretable Constitution, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Hartmann, B. J., 2005, Volksgesetzgebung und Grundrechte, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.
27. Hertig Randall, M., Direct Democracy in Switzerland: Trends, Challenges and the Quest for Solutions, in: Chommeloux, A., Gibson-Morgan, E. (eds.), 2017, Contemporary Voting in Europe. Patterns and Trends, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pp. 129-156.
28. Issacharoff, S., Bradley, J. C., The Plebiscite in Modern Democracy, in: Sajó, A., Uitz, R., Holmes, S. (eds.), 2022, Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism, New York, Routledge.
29. Jović, D., 2017, Rat i mit. Politika identiteta u suvremenoj Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, Fraktura.
30. Kenny, D., The Risks of Referendums. “Referendum culture” in Ireland as a Solution?, in: Cahill, M. et al. (eds.), 2021, Constitutional Change and Popular Sovereignty. Populism, Politics and the Law in Ireland, New York, Routledge.
31. Kenny, D., Kavanagh, A., Are the People the Masters? Constitutional Referendums in Ireland, in: Albert, R., Stacey, R. (eds.), 2022, The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
32. Klapper, R., 2015, The Falcon Cannot Hear the Falconer: How California’s Initiative Process is Creating an Untenable Constitution, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 3.
33. Koivisto, I., 2022, The Transparency Paradox. Questioning an Ideal, Oxford, Oxford University Press,.
34. Kostadinov, B., 2015, Načelo jasnoće referendumskog pitanja u Europi i SAD-u, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, Vol. 65, No. 1.
35. Kuzelj, V., 2022, Zabrana referenduma o proračunskim pitanjima u hrvatskoj i poredbenoj perspektivi, Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, Vol. 22, No. 2
36. Lanchester, F., 2011, Il referendum elettorale: tra l’infanticidio e il miracolo di Lazzaro, Nomos, N. 0.
37. Loughlin, M., The Silences of Constitutions, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 16, No. 3.
38. Luciani, M., Introduzione, in: Luciani, M., Volpi, M. (eds.), 1992, Referendum. Problemi teorici ed esperienze costituzionali, Rome, Editori Laterza.
39. Luciani, M., Referendum abrogativo e rappresentanza politica, in: Capezzone, D., Eramo, M. et al. (eds.), 2000, Referendum e legalità. “Tornare alla Costituzione”, Torino, G. Giappichelli Editore.
40. Mathieu, B., 2017, Le droit contre la démocratie?, Paris, L.G.D.J.
41. Mendes, E. P., The Legacy of the Quebec Secession Reference Ruling in Canada and Internationally, in: Delledone, G., Martinico, G. (eds.), 2019, The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession. Legacies of the Quebec Secession Reference, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 9–31.
42. Merryman, J. H., 1999, The Italian Style I: Doctrine, in: The Loneliness of the Comparative Lawyer. And Other Essays in Foreign and Comparative Law, Den Haag, Kluwer Law International, pp. 177–213.
43. Mezzanotte, M., 2015, La reviviscenza e i limiti finalistici del referendum abrogativo, (https://bit.ly/3CHR6PU).>
44. Miljojković, T., 2021, Emergency Governance (Un)bound: A Brief Reflection on Southeast Europe’s Response to Covid-19 Pandemic, Pravni zapisi, Vol. XII, No. 1, pp. 123–145.
45. Miloš, M., 2020, Reimagining Direct Democracy as an Intersection of Different Forms of Representation, Pravni zapisi, Vol. XI, No. 1.
46. Miloš, M., Ustavnosudski nadzor jasnoće referendumskih pitanja, in: Koprić, I.,Staničić, F. (eds.), 2021, Referendum i neposredna demokracija u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, Institut za javnu upravu.
47. Miloš, M., 2022, Susprezanje autonomije političkog predstavništva građanskim inicijativama, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Vol. 43, No. 1.
48. Monahan, P. J., Doing the Rules. An Assessment of the Federal Clarity Act in Light of the Quebec Secession Reference, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, No. 135, pp. 3–39.
49. Oklopčić, Z., Secession Reference and Its Intellectual Legacy: Sceptical Notes from the European Peripheries, in: Delledone, G., Martinico, G. (eds.), 2019, The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of Secession. Legacies of the Quebec Secession Reference, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.
50. Oseid, J. A., 2012, The Power of Clarity: Ulysses S. Grant as Model of Writing so that there Could Be no Mistaking It, Legal Communication & Rhetoric, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 49–80.
51. Promislow, J., Deciding on the Future. First Nations Ratification Processes, Crown Policies, and the Making of Modern Treaties, in: Albert, R., Stacey, R. (eds.), 2022, The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums, Oxford, Oxford University Press,.
52. Reestman, J-H., A Future for Referendums in the Fifth French Republic?, in: Contiades, X., Fotiadou, A. (eds.), 2017, Participatory Constitutional Change. The People as Amenders of the Constitution, New York, Routledge, pp. 52–64.
53. Roznai, Y., Amendment Power, Constituent Power, and Popular Sovereignty, in: Albert, R., Contiades, X., Fotiadou, A. (eds.), 2017, The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendments, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
54. Sajó, A., Uitz, R., 2017, The Constitution of Freedom. An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
55. Salerno, G. M., 1992, Il referendum, Milan, CEDAM.
56. Shacter, J. S., 1995, The Pursuit of “Popular Intent”: Interpretive Dilemmas in Direct Democracy, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105, No. 1.
57. Stacey, R., The Unnecessary Referendum. Popular Sovereignty in the Constitutional Interregnum, in: Albert, R., Stacey, R. (eds.), 2022, The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
58. Taillon, P., 2012, Le référendum expression directe de la souveraineté du peuple? Essai critique sur la rationalisation de l'expresssion référendaire en droit comparé, Paris, Dalloz.
59. Thomas, M., 1986, Iconology: image, text, ideology, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
60. Tierney, S., 2012, Constitutional Referendums. The Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation, Oxford,Oxford University Press.
61. Tierney, S., 2013, Using Electoral Law to Construct a Deliberative Referendum: Moving Beyond the Democratic Paradox, Election Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4.
62. Tierney, S., Referendums in Federal States. Territorial Pluralism and the Challenge of Direct Democracy, in: Albert, R., Stacey, R. (eds.), 2022, The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums, Oxford, Oxford University Press,.
63. Trueblood, L., 2023, Referendums as Representative Democracy, New York, Hart Publishing.
64. Urbinati, N., 2006, Representative Democracy. Principles & Genealogy, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,.
65. Verrelli, N., Cruickshank, N., 2014, Exporting the clarity ethos: Canada and the Scottish independence referendum, British Journal of Canadian Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 195–216.
66. White, J. B., 1973, The Legal Imagination. Studies in the Nature of Legal Thought and Expression, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.
67. Wittreck, F., Einleitung: Direkte und representative Demokratie zwischen Konkurrenz und Konkordanz, in: Wittreck, F., 2012, Volks- und Parlamentsgesetzgeber: Konkurrenz oder Konkordanz?. Dokumentation eines Thüringer Verfassungsstreits, Baden-Baden. Nomos.
68. Wolin, S., Fugitive Democracy, in: Xenos, N. (ed.), 2016, Fugitive Democracy and Other Essays, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
69. Zwart, S., 2010, Ensuring a Representative Referendum Outcome: The Daunting Task of Setting the Quorum Right, Social Choice & Welfare, Vol. 34, pp. 643–677.
Legislative Sources
1. The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 56/90, 135/97, 8/98 [consolidated text], 113/00, 124/00 [consolidated text], 28/01, 41/01 [consolidated text], 55/01 [correction], 76/10, 85/10 [consolidated text] and the Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (citizens initiative), Official Gazette No. 5/14 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia No. SuP-O-1/2014.
Case Law
1. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bavaria in case Vf. 15-VIII-14, Vf. 8-VIII-15 of 21 November 2016.
2. Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia in case no. U-VIIR-1159/2015, 8 April 2015, Official Gazette, No. 43/15.
3. Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia in case U-VIIR-2180/2022, 16 May 2022, Official Gazette, No. 112/22.
4. Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Italy in case 28/1981, (ECLI:IT:COST:1981:28) of 10 February 1981, published in Gazzetta Ufficiale, No. 48 of 17 February 1981.
5. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Swiss Confederation in case 104/343 of 5 July 1978 (Annen et consorts contre Grand Conseil du canton de Neuchâtel).
Sources from the Internet
1. Arbutina, P., Dejan Jović: „1990. tek 11% Hrvata za nezavisnost“, (https://www.autograf.hr/dejan-jovic-1990-samo-11-gradana-srh-zagovaralo-nezavisnost/, 9. 10. 2022).
2. European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Revised Guidelines on the Holding of Referendums, CDL-AD(2020)031, (https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2020)031-e, 12.9.2022).
3. Milanović napao Ustavni sud, (https://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/clanak/milanovic-napao-ustavni-sud-ukinimo-ga-nema-razloga-postojati-nakon-ovog-ovo-je-drzavni-udar-foto-20220516, 20. 9. 2022).
4. Rivosecchi, G., 2017, La tutela del voto referendario. Note a margine del ricorso „Onida-Randazzo“ al Tribunale civile di Milano, Associazione italiana dei costituzionalistti – Osservatorio costituzionale, paper, No. 1, (https://www.osservatorioaic.it/it/osservatorio/ultimi-contributi-pubblicati/guido-rivosecchi/la-tutela-del-voto-referendario-note-a-margine-del-ricorso-onida-randazzo-al-tribunale-civile-di-milano, 9. 10. 2022).