Uruguay

Plebiscite / Popular Initiative of the Retired

City/State/Region
Begin – End: 1994 – 1994
Name of organization in charge: Partido ColoradoPartido NacionalFrente AmplioMovimiento de Jubilados y PensionistasOrganización Nacional de Jubilados
Type of organization in charge: civil society
Level: national

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: yes
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: yes
Output: yes
Policy Outcome: yes

The plebiscite of 1994 was the result of a popular initiative in order to implement a constitutional rule in the matter of pensions. This mechanism sought to prevent the Executive Branch from introducing changes to pensions and the pension system through Accountability. The plebiscite was carried out by a movement of pensioners, including a strong union participation and counted on the support of several political parties. The voting was carried out in parallel with the general elections and was approved by a very high percentage of 72.3%. That is to say that the popular initiative in Uruguay is one of the mechanisms of direct democracy. In this case, the procedure was entitled to promote the reform of the Constitution by the "initiative of ten percent of the citizens registered in the National Civic Register, submitting a structured project," provided for in Article 331(a) of the Constitution. The legislative power has the option to propose an alternative project, but the decision lies in the vote of the electorate.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: embedded in the constitution/legislation
Frequency: single
Mode of selection of participants: open
Type of participants: citizens
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields a binding decision
Co-Governance: yes

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation