Otsedemokraatia Eestis: õigussotsioloogilisi aspekte
Date
2017-02-14
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Kehtivas PS-s puudub rahvaalgatuse institutsioon ning rahvahääletust saab algatada üksnes Riigikogu. Viimase 15 aasta jooksul Riigikogus toimunud otsedemokraatia diskursuse raames oli keskseks opositsiooni algatatud debatt rahvaalgatuse põhiseadustamise küsimuses (2003-2008). Diskursust hinnati osaliste endi poolt mitte üksnes rahvaalgatuse õiguslikus kontekstis, vaid Eesti parlamentaarse kultuuri indikaatorina in genere. Lõppkokkuvõttes jäid domineerima majoritaarse (majoritarian democracy), mitte arutleva demokraatia (deliberative democracy) põhimõtted. Diskursusanalüüs näitas, et debatil puudusid (Habermas-Alexy mudeli järgi) olulised ratsionaalse diskursuse eeldused.
1992. a. referendumil vastuvõetud PS-ga riivati/riivatakse olemuslikult rahva kui suverääni õigusi, sh õigust otsedemokraatiale. Olulise tähenduse omandab seejuures vaba resp parlamentaarne mandaat (PS § 62), mille määravaks tunnuseks on volitatu, mitte volitaja tahte ülimuslikkus. Võimuressursside põhjendamatult ebavõrdne jaotus rahva kui vormilise suverääni ning rahvast esindava kogu vahel viib õigussotsioloogilisest vaatenurgast kaaluka küsimuseni: milliste suhetega rahva ja Riigikogu vahel on tegemist, võimu- või domineerimissuhetega? Lähtudes arusaamast, et domineerimine on võimu autoritaarne/autokraatlik/antidemokraatlik erivorm, saab antud juhul rääkida üksnes viimastest. Rahva ja rahvaesindajate võimusuhted ning nende raames toimivad konkreetsed võimumehhanismid peaksid edaspidi pälvima õigussotsioloogide ja sotsioloogide märksa tõsisemat tähelepanu. Tegemist on poliitiliste baassuhetega, mille iseloom määrab demokraatia tegeliku määra.
The valid Constitution lacks the institution of popular initiative, whereas only the Riigikogu can initiate popular vote. Within the past 15 years in the framework of direct democracy discourse, the most significant was the popular initiative debate carried out in 2003-2008, launched by the opposition. The discourse was assessed by parties involved in the context of law and beyond, as an indicator of Estonian parliamentary culture in general. Summing up, principles of majoritarian democracy prevailed over deliberative democracy. The analysis of discourse revealed that it lacked (according to the model of Habermas-Alexy) essential prerequisites of rational discourse. The constitution adopted in 1992 by the referendum in essence infringed/infringes people’s sovereign rights including the right to direct democracy. Therewith the free resp parliamentary mandate (Section 62), where the will of delegated and not the will of delegator prevails, plays a substantive role. Unjustified and unequal division of power resources between people as a formal sovereign and a body representing people will lead to an essential question from the point of view of legal sociology – what type of relations exist between the people and the Riigikogu, relationships of power or domination? Understanding domination as a special authoritarian/autocratic/antidemocratic form of power we can only speak of relationships of domination here. Power relations of people and their deputies and power mechanisms operating within them ought to draw a more serious attention by sociologists and legal sociologists. It features politically fundamental relationships determining the actual extent of democracy.
The valid Constitution lacks the institution of popular initiative, whereas only the Riigikogu can initiate popular vote. Within the past 15 years in the framework of direct democracy discourse, the most significant was the popular initiative debate carried out in 2003-2008, launched by the opposition. The discourse was assessed by parties involved in the context of law and beyond, as an indicator of Estonian parliamentary culture in general. Summing up, principles of majoritarian democracy prevailed over deliberative democracy. The analysis of discourse revealed that it lacked (according to the model of Habermas-Alexy) essential prerequisites of rational discourse. The constitution adopted in 1992 by the referendum in essence infringed/infringes people’s sovereign rights including the right to direct democracy. Therewith the free resp parliamentary mandate (Section 62), where the will of delegated and not the will of delegator prevails, plays a substantive role. Unjustified and unequal division of power resources between people as a formal sovereign and a body representing people will lead to an essential question from the point of view of legal sociology – what type of relations exist between the people and the Riigikogu, relationships of power or domination? Understanding domination as a special authoritarian/autocratic/antidemocratic form of power we can only speak of relationships of domination here. Power relations of people and their deputies and power mechanisms operating within them ought to draw a more serious attention by sociologists and legal sociologists. It features politically fundamental relationships determining the actual extent of democracy.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.
Keywords
esindusdemokraatia, otsedemokraatia, referendumid, rahvaalgatused, poliitiline osalus, sotsioloogilised aspektid, Eesti, representative democracy, direct democracy, referendums, popular initiative, political participation, sociological aspects, Estonia