Referendum Request: Repeal of the Administration of Savings Funds Act
In order to carry out a Referendum to repeal the articles referred to as the Fund Administrators (AFAPs) within the social reform, the National Commission in defense of the principles of Social Security, a set of different social organizations, began gathering signatures in 1998 and handed over the collected signatures in 1999. The organizations reported that they had collected enough signatures. However, after scrutiny, the Electoral Court did not permit a Referendum with the justification that not enough signatures had been collected.
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
- no
Means
|
Ends
|
