Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda

In his famous dichotomy of consensual versus majoritarian democracies, Lijphart ~1984! claims that “consensual” means are more applicable in heterogeneous societies, while “majoritarian” means are more adequate in homogenous societies. While discussing at length many features of both consensual and majoritarian democracy, Lijphart refrains from reaching a conclusion concerning the desirability of conducting referenda in either homogeneous or heterogeneous societies. He argues that referenda “are foreign to both majoritarian and consensual theories,” although “they may occur to a certain degree in the practice of both types of democracy” ~1984: 197!. His findings support this claim. Unlike the other “variables distinguishing majoritarian from consensus democracy,” referenda do not fit either type ~1984: 214!. However, in his more recent work on democracies Lijphart states that, contrary to conventional wisdom—which views referenda as “blunt majoritarian” instrument—referendum-plus-initiative as has worked in Switzerland supports the conclusion that, according to Jung ~1996!, “it can be seen as a