Direkte Demokratie und Sprachminderheiten in der Schweiz und in Sudtirol - Ein Vergleich = Direct democracy and minority language in Switzerland and South Tyrol - a comparison. EDAP 2/2010
Do procedures of direct democracy involve fundamental dangers with regard to social, ethno-linguistic and religious minorities? Is there even a conflict between popular decision-making by initiative and referendum and the requirement of interethnic consociational democratic procedures? The article focuses on the existing tension and supposed contradictions between procedures of direct democracy (initiative and referendum) and the protection of rights and interests of minorities in multilingual areas. Drawing upon some recent examples of such kind in four Swiss bi- or multilingual cantons and in South Tyrol the author compares these experiences and discusses the crucial issue whether such a conflict can be solved and which special precautions should be established when it comes to apply direct democracy in multilingual areas. Eventually he presents a new approach about how civil rights to direct political participation, enshrined in Italy's constitution and South Tyrol's autonomy statute, could be brought into concordance with the need to respect the equality of fundamental rights of linguistic groups within a multilingual polity, which is currently debated in South Tyrol's politics.
Wind of Change: The Croatian Government’s Turn towards a Policy of Ethnic Reconciliation. EDAP paper, 6/2004
After almost a decade of nationalist HDZ rule in Croatia, the change of government in 2000 brought pro-minority governance and concrete implementation of minority rights legislation. In 2003, when a reformed HDZ came to power, the new government declared that the unconditional return of all refugees, regardless of their ethnicity and the return of their property constitutes the priority of its mandate. This shift in the treatment of minorities, particularly the Serb minority which is the second largest ethnic community in the country, is closely linked to the fact of the country’s key foreign policy priority of joining the European Union. Since the current government is striving to legitimize its mandate by supporting the country’s entry into the European Union, the state is obliged to comply with all conditionality policies pursued by the Union, including respect for and protection of minorities. This paper examines how the issue of minority protection was perceived and realized in Croatia in thirteen years of the country’s independence by tracing amendments in Croatian legislation for minority protection. The paper emphasises that even though the potential accession to the European Union has motivated politicians to publically advocate the proper inclusion of minorities, the majority of Croatians remain reluctant to accept the need for minority protection. The domestic legislative framework has been brought in line with international minority protection standards, and implementation of minority rights has become more active. Nevertheless, the absence of broad acceptance of minorities constitutes major obstacle for the true realization of minority rights in Croatia.
Fundamentals of Institutional Design: The Functions and Powers of Parliamentary Second Chambers
There is a powerful sense in which, if you have seen one parliamentary body, you have seen them all. Of course, there are many differences in detail – of constitutional form, organisation, rules, influence, habits, standards of appropriate conduct. Nevertheless, on a wide canvas representative assemblies around the world have much in common. They are collective decision-making bodies that follow long-standing, widely shared practices and procedures epitomised in the British Parliament and the United States Congress and replicated, with variations, in many countries. These two famous, even maternal, parliaments have metamorphosed in many ways over the centuries. Still, it seems likely that if Edmund Burke or William Pitt could be resurrected to visit today’s British House of Commons, or if Henry Clay could sit in today’s US House of Representatives, they would be at home. In 1999, parliaments remained in 178 countries, according to the tally kept by the International Parliamentary Union headquartered in Geneva; today (2000) the figure is 177. The family resemblance among these parliamentary entities is very marked. But, of course, there are differences in the institutional design and performance of parliaments, and these lie at the heart of parliamentary analysis. The upper houses of the world’s parliaments, most commonly called senates, have not been given much attention by scholars or commentators. 1