Nell’epoca della globalizzazione e dell’informazione, i fondamenti caratterizzanti la rappresentanza in campo politico negli ordinamenti di massa contemporanei sembrano posti in forte tensione, fino a far pensare che si debba fare riferimento ad altri parametri e ad altre figure. La rappresentanza in campo politico viene connessa al metodo elettivo e alla responsabilità nell’ambito di quella istituzione storicamente situata che è lo Stato moderno. La teoria della responsabilità, tipica della concezione rappresentativa dello Stato monoclasse, è stata posta in crisi dall’estensione del suffragio, dall’adozione di strumenti istituzionali tipici della democrazia diretta e dalla presenza dei partiti. La tensione tra concezione tradizionale della rappresentanza e l’ideale della democrazia diretta e partecipata si concreta in un controllo standard a consuntivo ed in altri attivabili a domanda durante la legislatura. Quindi il rapporto rappresentativo, che si istituisce tra gli eletti e il corpo elettorale, individua il divieto di mandato imperativo e l’adozione del meccanismo di responsabilità politica ovvero di un controllo da parte degli elettori sugli eletti esclusivamente allo scadere del mandato attraverso la sanzione politica dell’eventuale non rielezione. Al contrario negli ordinamenti che adottano una differente concezione del rapporto rappresentativo, intendendolo come mandato sulla base di una concezione specifica della democrazia, il controllo in questione può essere operato, durante il mandato, secondo determinate procedure in maniera da “richiamare” il rappresentante che non si sia conformato alle “istruzioni” o al “programma” presentato al corpo elettorale nel momento dell’elezione. Gli istituti del Recall e l’Abberufungsrecht si inseriscono nell’ambito di questa concezione del costante controllo costituzionale popolare e disciplinano il processo di rimozione dalla carica elettiva o di un singolo eletto o di un’intera assemblea che non siano più in possesso della fiducia dell’elettorato. Il presente lavoro di ricerca, il cui taglio vuole essere comparatistico, persegue la finalità di analizzare le procedure contrarie al principio dell’irresponsabilità politica dei titolari di cariche elettive. Verranno analizzati, in particolare, gli istituti di democrazia diretta che consentono di revocare anticipatamente il mandato elettivo. Dopo una necessaria ed imprescindibile, seppur sommaria, ricostruzione storico-giuridica dei concetti di rappresentanza e responsabilità politica (PARTE I), si è ritenuto di approfondire preliminarmente le procedure di revoca popolare legate al modello di mandato imperativo proprio della tradizione costituzionale degli Stati socialisti. Inoltre, si darà conto dei casi di trasposizione dell’istituto negli ordinamenti di quei paesi dopo la fase di transizione verso modelli statuali democratico-liberali (PARTE II, Capitolo I). Il proseguo della trattazione si concentrerà sull’istituto del Recall come disciplinato nelle Costituzioni degli Stati membri della Federazione nord-americana con particolare attenzione alle concrete applicazioni di recente verificatesi in California. Seguirà una panoramica sulla recezione della revoca popolare degli eletti nelle nuove Carte fondamentali degli Stati ibero-americani (PARTE II, Capitolo II). Un particolare spazio sarà, infine, riservato all’esame delle procedure di revoca codificate in alcune realtà istituzionali europee. Si tenterà di trovare una matrice unitaria a fenomeni diversi ma con alcuni tratti comuni, ed in tale contesto verranno considerati: la dissoluzione referendaria quale modalità di risoluzione dei conflitti fra i poteri dello Stato, l’Abberufungsrecht regolato dalle Costituzioni di numerosi Cantoni svizzeri e le procedure di scioglimento anticipato del Landtag su richiesta popolare contemplate dalle Costituzioni di alcuni Länder della Repubblica federale di Germania (PARTE II, Capitolo III). Si accennerà, in ultimo, alla recente e non ancora conclusa fase costituente delle Regioni italiane e al dibattuto problema della compatibilità della revoca popolare degli eletti con l’ordinamento costituzionale italiano, in vista del suo possibile inserimento nei nuovi statuti (Note conclusive). Come si potrà verificare nel corso della trattazione, gli spunti d’interesse per il comparatista sono senz’altro rilevanti in quanto le varie applicazioni presentano forme, modalità e giustificazioni teoriche molto variegate fra loro, frutto delle esperienze storico-costituzionali delle diverse realtà nazionali.
The research will cover the function and development of institutions of participatory democracy in particular in new EU members countries, highlighting the circulation of the models of both synchronic and diachronic level. The interest of the study stems from the possibility of using broad spectrum of comparative method being recognize apparent in this specific area a circulation of models with different origins. Already in the period between the two world wars several countries of Central and Eastern Europe had received various forms of direct democracy on the Swiss and Weimarian example . Even in the socialist period, despite the diversity of forms of State and therefore geared to the needs of building a communist society had existed several modes of direct democracy (especially the withdrawal of the elect, as an expression of the principle of the mandate) . After the totalitarian parentheses and the return to democracy in assisting new members to a reuse of similar establishments in a certainly larger size than it does in the old EU members. This renewed interest, which also affects the dynamics of political-institutional influence on several occasions have had the referendum or popular recall of head of state on relations between the powers politically active, appears as a original factor in the revision of its traditions and using more elsewhere established models elsewhere. DESCRIPTION 1.INTRODUCTION Institutions of direct democracy (popular assembly, removal of the elect, the right to petition, popular initiative and referendum) are configured as a set of specific tools for integration, correction, encouragement, or exceptionally legitimacy of important political and institutional choices made by the organs electives, to ensure a better functioning of modern representative democracy typical of their large nation states (Carré de Malberg, Kelsen). The Constitutions of the new EU members, in particular the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, providing different instruments of direct democracy, especially referendum and popular initiative but also popular forms of withdrawal. It is therefore necessary to analyze whether these predictions are based on traditional internal regulations of individual states rather than arrays constitutional common with other countries already members. Institution referendum is the most common instrument of direct democracy in the constitutional texts and used in nearly all EU Member States in its multiplicity of variants based on various criteria of the classification . In fact in relation of the subject matter of voting can be divided into constitutional (precostituente, constituent, constitutional review, on the sovereign powers), legislative, conventional, administrative and political as having the object, respectively, an act constitutional, legislative, a treaty, an administrative act or a political issue not covered in a legislative text. Among the new EU Member States, unless some exceptions, there has been a wide use of the popular consultation, in particular, to penalize the fundamental choices of the nation, for example towards accession, as seen as the supreme expression of popular sovereignty. Unlike what happens in the EU already member states where, often, the referendum is used to oppose a determined European political choice. 2. REFERENDUM IN THE COUNTRY CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE Is necessary make for a special analysis for the Baltic states that had adopted during the period between the two world wars, given the Constitution’s defined by the doctrine of the time "ultrademocratiche" which on the example of Weimar, where was given ample space to the institutions of direct democracy at that time little known in comparative landscape (except the consolidated experiences of Switzerland and of Member States USA). The Central and Eastern Europe had made, in fact, in the first post- war period a space common, shared with other European countries which have become independent and sovereign from the ashes of empires crumbling from the war. All these countries are marked by the construction of democratic institutions able to oppose not only on the old monarchical absolutism but also l experience coeval fascist and Bolshevik. It's great season, in particular the rationalization of parliamentarism, according to reconstruction of the note B. Mirkin-Guetzevitch, but not shared by the other major French constitutionalist of the time, G. Burdeau. The rationalization was not only in the strict meaning , the relationship between executive and legislature to ensure the stability of governments and limit (or eliminate altogether) the dominance of old-style monarchical governments, but the entire construction of the new institutions democratic. One of the forms of rationalization of parliamentarism is expressed in its own combination with forms of direct democracy, building that would be one of the most exciting post-war constitutional law (Mirkin-Guetzevitch). The prediction of referendum and popular initiative is also explained with the attempt to remedy the failure consolidation and institutionalization of political parties, as well as the strong imprint of the new democratic constitutions. In Central and Eastern Europe after World War II is characterized by the establish of socialist regimes under the hegemony of the USSR with the annexation of certain States in the latter. In this context, the socialist doctrine meant the direct democracy in the broadest sense to include various modality of participation in the management of the company and the state. If at a formal the "participation" of citizens rise to genuine basic constitutional principle of the socialist state so had not been given ample space referendum in the sense "technical", but other forms and ideas of popular participation (popular assemblies, etc. ..). However towards the end of the procedure or during the transition to Western forms of democracy have been regulated and conducted various forms of referendum. With reference to the constitutional and legislative framework currently in force in the countries considered it possible to distinguish between two types of systems: those most open to expectations of institutions of direct democracy (with various types of referendum and popular initiative), regardless of their conception in so far limit remedial to the parliamentarism (both in the sense of people "legislature" that people "arbiter" of disputes between constitutional organs) or enrichment of democratic forms of participation in certain sensitive issues for the public (referendum on restrictions of sovereignty or political issues do not necessarily translated into legislative form) and the more anchored to a traditional conception of representation, which allows the use of the referendum only in limited and exceptional cases. 3. THE RECALL AND THE REFERENDUM c.d. ARBITRATION The withdrawal is a particularly popular democracy institute aims to give practical effect to the political accountability of those elected before the expiry of their mandate. In fact allows a certain number of voters to submit to popular vote the proposal to withdraw an entire collegiate body (Abberufungsrecht) or an individual holder of elected office (Recall). Expected since the XIX century. In several constitutions Swiss cantons had in the first decades of the last century, widespread among the American States, is both to the principle of the imperative mandate an institution typical of socialist States. Recently, the withdrawal was included in some constitutions of South American (Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela). Withdrawal people was not accepted, in stead of , the Constitutions of EU Member States whether they are "old" or "new" members. In this context it is widespread, on Weimar example, the use of popular forms of consultation related to the referendum (or defined so precisely), but controversial theoretical framework, such as the revocation referendum of the Head of State, which present in nature originality also in relation to forms of government chosen. This type of referendum c.d. "Arbitration" has primarily a value of legitimacy of power state and are currently present in the constitutions of Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Romania. Even the Weimar Constitution, as is known, had linked the referendum to the Head of State, which was established by direct election. There were thus a referendum veto (the President could submit to the voters every bill passed by the Parliament) and a referendum-withdrawal (Parliament could decide to revoke the President if the people had ratified the decision by referendum in case of negative results considered himself re-elected President and Parliament dissolved.) But if this special bond between people and the head of state (albeit subject to obvious risks of plebiscite results, as indeed happened) would be justified in countries that adopt forms of government, semi-presidential (Romania), although "weak" or "apparent" ( Austria, Slovakia), with the direct election of the President, the anticipation of a popular circuit who opposed legislative body and the head of state according to arbitration appears less convincing in parliamentary republics (Latvia, Estonia). 3.CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the research will therefore highlight the existence of models of direct democracy institutions and their movement within the European Union, with special regard to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, particularly broaden analysis will referendum, in its various forms and types, while maintaining other institutions such as the withdrawal of the people. The comparative study will move from a historical and legal reconstruction, since the first post-war period, to reach the constitutional and legislative framework currently in force throughout the EU and with a look at the most relevant experiences in the context of extra-union (Switzerland) and extra European (U.S., South American countries).