Referendum Request: Partial repeal of the "Urgency One Act"
Before the proposal of the "Urgency One Act? referring to themes like the promotion to the foreign investment or the reactivation for the agricultural sector the initiative to make a Referendum appeared against 13 specific articles of the mentioned law. Those who supported the Referendum were against a policy of privatizing and alienating, which they declared as a general expression of government policy and also claimed a lack of political discussion, since the bill was sent to Parliament as an "urgent statement ". The Pro Referendum Commission was formed, among other estates, by union groups and after the gathering of signatures (2%) received support from the Frente Amplio. Citizens were invited to join the referendum in February 2001, but the votes reached only 20.78%, which is why the mandatory referendum vote could not be carried out.
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
|
