PROPOSED FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE
From peaceful protest to meaningful political power — a proposal for a more responsive democracy.
Democracy should not end at the ballot box. It should begin there — and continue every day.
In a previous article, “What If We Reinvented Demonstrations?”, I explored the possibility of transforming mass protests into a more peaceful and constructive form of collective expression. The idea was simple: citizens should be able to demonstrate their dissatisfaction, demand change and make themselves heard without the destruction of property, looting or violence that too often accompanies demonstrations.
But this raises a more fundamental question.
What happens after the demonstration is over?
People return home. The streets become quiet again. The damage is counted, political statements are issued, and life goes on. Yet the reasons that brought thousands of people together may remain unresolved.
If citizens repeatedly take to the streets because they feel ignored, perhaps the problem is not only the way they protest. Perhaps it is also the lack of effective mechanisms allowing them to influence political decisions between elections.
What if we could build a democracy in which peaceful protest was not the final expression of public dissatisfaction, but the beginning of a genuine democratic process?
Two complementary reforms deserve serious consideration.
1. The right to demand a public debate
Imagine that a proposal receives widespread public support. Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of citizens sign a petition demanding action on an issue that affects their lives.
What happens next?
Too often, citizens have little certainty that their request will receive a serious response. A petition may attract attention, generate headlines and circulate widely on social media, yet still disappear without a meaningful explanation from those responsible for making decisions.
A modern democracy should do better.
A properly designed citizens' initiative system could require Parliament to examine a proposal once it reaches a clearly defined threshold of verified public support.
This would not mean that politicians must automatically accept the proposal. Nor would it mean that every petition, however small, must trigger a parliamentary debate.
It would mean that when a sufficiently large number of citizens raise a legitimate public concern, their representatives have a legal duty to listen, examine the proposal and explain their position publicly.
Such a system could include:
A guaranteed parliamentary debate once a defined threshold of valid signatures has been reached.
A public response from the relevant government minister or parliamentary committee, explaining the arguments for and against the proposal.
A transparent timetable, ensuring that initiatives cannot simply be postponed indefinitely.
A published decision and its reasons, allowing citizens to understand what has been decided and why.
A public record of progress, so that people can follow the initiative from its submission to its final outcome.
The objective is not to weaken representative democracy. It is to make it more accountable.
Politicians would retain their responsibility to examine evidence, consider competing interests and make informed decisions. But they could no longer treat substantial public concern as something they may acknowledge or ignore at their convenience.
Listening to citizens should not be a political favour. It should be a democratic responsibility.
2. The right to trigger a referendum
Public debate is essential, but is it always enough?
Suppose citizens collect the required number of verified signatures, Parliament debates their proposal, and the government rejects it. The issue remains important to a large section of the population, yet citizens have no effective way to take the matter further.
This is where the second reform becomes relevant: a properly regulated citizens' right to initiate a referendum.
Under such a system, citizens who gather sufficient verified support could request a referendum on a clearly formulated legislative proposal or, where legally appropriate, on whether an existing law should be retained or repealed.
After the proposal passes constitutional and legal checks, the population would have the opportunity to vote directly.
The result could be binding, provided that the referendum meets the conditions established by law.
This would give citizens a democratic instrument beyond elections and petitions. It would allow them to participate directly in specific decisions without requiring them to wait until the next election.
However, such a right must be designed carefully.
Not every subject should necessarily be eligible for a referendum. Fundamental rights, constitutional safeguards, international obligations and the protection of minorities must remain respected. Proposals should be clearly worded, legally workable and accompanied by impartial information explaining their potential consequences.
There should also be safeguards against manipulation, disinformation, abusive campaigns and the excessive use of referendums.
The aim is not to replace Parliament with permanent popular voting. It is to give citizens a credible means of intervening when an issue of major public importance cannot be resolved through the ordinary political process.
Representatives should govern, but citizens should not be powerless when their representatives refuse to listen.
3. What would citizens gain from these reforms?
The benefits could extend far beyond the individual proposals put forward.
A democracy that listens could become a democracy that is trusted.
When people believe their voices can influence decisions, they have a stronger reason to participate constructively rather than withdraw from political life or conclude that nothing can change.
These reforms could bring several important benefits.
Greater political accountability. Elected representatives would have to explain their decisions more clearly when major public concerns are raised.
More meaningful participation. Citizens could contribute between elections instead of being limited largely to choosing representatives every few years.
A peaceful alternative to repeated demonstrations. When people have a credible route to demand a debate and, under appropriate conditions, a referendum, they gain another way to express collective dissatisfaction. This would not eliminate demonstrations, nor should it. Peaceful protest remains a fundamental democratic freedom. But it could give public frustration a more direct institutional outlet.
Better-informed public decisions. A formal process could encourage open debate, independent analysis and public scrutiny before decisions are made.
A stronger sense of collective responsibility. Citizens would not only demand action; they would also have to consider the practical consequences of their proposals and the choices presented to voters.
Greater legitimacy for political decisions. Even when a proposal is rejected, people may be more willing to accept the outcome if the process is transparent, fair and genuinely open to public participation.
There is, of course, no guarantee that these reforms would eliminate political distrust, populism or social conflict. Referendums can themselves divide society, and public opinion can be influenced by incomplete information.
That is precisely why the rules matter. The objective should be to create a system in which citizens can exercise greater influence while protecting democratic institutions, fundamental rights and the rule of law.
4. How could these proposals become law?
Ideas alone are not enough. If citizens want these rights to become a permanent part of democratic life, they need a realistic legal and political strategy.
Since this article is written in English for an international audience, the following example focuses on France while identifying a possible European dimension.
Step one: Write a precise proposal
The first task would be to prepare a clear, concise document setting out the two proposed rights:
A guaranteed public parliamentary debate when a citizens' initiative reaches a legally established threshold.
A citizens' right to trigger a referendum when a higher threshold is reached, subject to constitutional review and clearly defined safeguards.
The document should explain the purpose, eligibility rules, signature thresholds, verification procedures, deadlines, legal limits and consequences of each initiative.
It should also distinguish between a request for parliamentary consideration and a referendum that could result in a binding decision. These are different democratic powers and should not be confused.
Step two: Examine the existing law
In France, these ideas would not begin from a completely blank page.
Article 11 of the French Constitution already provides for certain referendums and a mechanism known as the référendum d'initiative partagée (RIP), or shared-initiative referendum.
Under the existing system, an initiative must be supported by one-fifth of members of Parliament and one-tenth of registered voters. It is subject to constitutional requirements and does not amount to an unrestricted citizens' right to initiate a referendum independently.
This distinction is important.
The reform proposed here would seek to give citizens a more direct and accessible route to initiate the process, rather than relying on the initial support of a substantial number of parliamentarians.
A legal review would determine which changes could be introduced through ordinary legislation and which would require constitutional amendment. The proposed mechanisms would also need to be reconciled with existing parliamentary procedures and protections for fundamental rights.
Step three: Build a citizens' coalition
A reform of this importance should not depend on a single individual, political party or association.
It should be developed through a broad, non-partisan coalition bringing together citizens, civil society organisations, legal experts, academics and people from different political backgrounds.
The objective would be to agree on a clear set of democratic principles rather than promote a particular party or ideology.
The initiative could then be presented publicly through a dedicated website, explanatory articles, public meetings and a structured signature campaign.
The support gathered would help demonstrate the level of public interest. However, signatures collected for an informal petition would not automatically have the legal effect of signatures collected through a formal constitutional procedure.
Step four: Submit the proposal to the institutions
Once the proposal has been legally reviewed and the supporting coalition established, it could be submitted to relevant members of the National Assembly and the Senate, parliamentary groups, political parties and other competent institutions.
Citizens could also use existing petition procedures to request parliamentary consideration, in accordance with the applicable rules.
The objective would be to obtain a formal response, identify political sponsors and determine the appropriate legislative or constitutional route.
A crucial point must be understood: a petition, even one supported by a very large number of citizens, does not automatically oblige the French Parliament to enact a constitutional reform.
Political support and the constitutionally required procedures would still be necessary. The campaign must therefore seek not only signatures, but also a concrete commitment from elected representatives to examine and advance the proposal.
Step five: Seek formal legal recognition
If the campaign gained sufficient support, the next objective would be to obtain the necessary legal changes.
In France, a constitutional reform follows the procedures established by the Constitution; it cannot simply be created by collecting signatures. Depending on the route chosen, the constitutional rules governing amendments would have to be followed.
Once adopted and promulgated, the relevant provisions would form part of the country's constitutional or legislative framework and be published through the appropriate official channels.
In other words, the goal is not merely to have an idea acknowledged by politicians. It is to secure a legally recognised mechanism with clearly defined rights, obligations, deadlines and safeguards.
This is what would give the proposal lasting force beyond the political circumstances in which it was first launched.
Step six: Consider a European dimension
The question does not concern France alone. Across Europe, citizens often express similar concerns about political accountability and the distance between elected representatives and the people they represent.
The European Union already has a mechanism that offers a useful example: the European Citizens' Initiative.
An initiative that gathers at least one million valid statements of support from EU citizens across at least seven member states can invite the European Commission to propose legislation in an area where it has the power to act. The Commission must examine the initiative and respond, but it is not obliged to propose a law.
This mechanism demonstrates that citizens can organise across national borders and place an issue on the institutional agenda.
However, it does not give citizens a direct power to enact EU legislation or compel a referendum. Its limitations are also instructive: the right to ask for action is not the same as the right to obtain action.
A future European debate could therefore explore how existing participation mechanisms might be strengthened, while recognising that changes to national constitutions and EU law follow different legal procedures.
The long-term ambition could be to encourage every European democracy to consider effective, transparent and legally protected mechanisms for citizen participation.
5. Would politicians accept such a reform?
This may be the most difficult question of all.
Some politicians would undoubtedly support greater citizen participation. Others might fear that these mechanisms would weaken parliamentary authority, create instability or make governing more difficult.
Those concerns deserve to be addressed seriously.
A well-designed system would not allow any group to call a referendum whenever it wished. It would establish reasonable signature thresholds, independent verification, constitutional review, clear rules on eligible subjects and safeguards against repeated or abusive initiatives.
It would also preserve the essential role of elected representatives in examining legislation, scrutinising government action and protecting the public interest.
But there is another argument that deserves equal consideration.
If political institutions claim to represent the people, why should they fear a transparent mechanism through which the people can occasionally challenge their decisions?
A democracy that trusts its citizens should be prepared to give them a meaningful voice, provided that this voice operates within a fair and constitutional framework.
Political representatives would still be elected to govern. They would simply have to accept that their authority comes with a responsibility to listen, explain and remain accountable.
The objective should not be to make governing impossible. It should be to make ignoring citizens more difficult.
6. From protest to participation: a new democratic culture
Let us return to the question that inspired the first article.
When thousands of people gather in the streets, they are often expressing something more than disagreement with a particular policy. They may be expressing a loss of confidence in the political process itself.
Peaceful demonstrations remain necessary. They draw attention to injustice, bring neglected issues into public debate and allow people to exercise a fundamental freedom.
But a modern democracy should offer citizens more than the choice between demonstrating and waiting for the next election.
It should provide a clear path from public concern to parliamentary debate, from parliamentary debate to a reasoned decision, and, in appropriate circumstances, from a citizens' initiative to a referendum.
Imagine a society in which a major public concern could be submitted through a transparent process, verified signatures could trigger a parliamentary debate, elected representatives would have to explain their position, and a sufficiently supported proposal could proceed to a legally regulated referendum.
Citizens would know what to do after a demonstration. Politicians would know that substantial public support could not simply be ignored. And public disagreements could be channelled into institutions designed to resolve them peacefully.
This would not eliminate political conflict. Democracy is not the absence of disagreement. It is the ability to manage disagreement fairly, peacefully and constructively.
Nor would it guarantee that every popular proposal was wise or that every referendum produced the best possible outcome.
It would, however, offer something valuable: a stronger connection between citizens' voices and the institutions that exercise power in their name.
Conclusion: Democracy must be more than the right to choose
The first article asked whether we could reinvent demonstrations.
This second article asks whether we can reinvent the relationship between citizens and political power.
The two questions belong together.
If we want people to express their dissatisfaction peacefully, we must also give them credible ways to influence what happens after they have been heard.
If we want citizens to take greater responsibility for society, we must give them meaningful opportunities to participate in its decisions.
And if we want political institutions to regain public trust, we must ensure that accountability is not merely a promise made during election campaigns, but a principle embedded in the democratic system itself.
The proposals outlined here are not a demand to abolish representative democracy. They are an invitation to strengthen it.
They would require careful legal drafting, broad public support, institutional cooperation and, potentially, constitutional reform. They would also require citizens to remain informed, responsible and respectful of the rights of others.
But every major reform begins with a question that people are willing to take seriously.
So here is mine:
What if citizens had not only the right to elect their representatives, but also a clearly defined right to demand answers, initiate public debate and, under carefully established conditions, decide directly on important laws?
Would our democracy become more responsive, more accountable and more worthy of the trust we place in it?
Perhaps it is time to stop asking only how citizens can make themselves heard.
Perhaps we should start asking how democracy can be made to listen.
This article proposes a direction for democratic reform, not a statement that these rights already exist in the form described. Any implementation would require detailed legal analysis and compliance with the relevant constitutional procedures.
SAISI
