Chapter 22: Initiatives
A (public) initiative is a legal document. For example it may be a contract to implement a public service by a private operator or a proposed amendment to the rule of law. Anyone with the right technical expertise can write and submit an initiative. But before it can move forward, it must pass an impartial review that ensures it is coherent, unambiguous, constitutional, consistent, and complete.
Each initiative must also be cohesive, meaning indivisible. Typically, it covers only a single law or a single public service.
All initiatives are placed in the public domain. They are free to download, and anyone can build upon them to create derivatives.
Registration and deregistration of initiatives
Every initiative exists in one of two states: registered or unregistered. To become registered, an initiative must meet two conditions: a minimum number of votes, and a minimum percentage of votes in favor. Once registered, that status can be reversed. If support falls below a certain threshold, the initiative can be deregistered. There is a deliberate gap between the conditions for registration and deregistration, to prevent initiatives from constantly flipping back and forth between states.
The minimum number of votes may for example equal 10000. This affects the locality of laws and public initiatives. A smaller value results in more initiatives localised to smaller communities, while a larger number would push initiatives toward broader, national impact.
Conflicting initiatives
In any system where citizens are free to propose initiatives, conflicts are possible. The constitution defines conflict between initiatives as follows:
Two initiatives conflict when the legal effects of one negate, override, or render impossible the legal effects of the other.
Conflicts are an unavoidable consequence of people thinking independently, pursuing different goals, and drafting proposals without coordinating with one another. Two initiatives may each be well‑intentioned, well‑designed, and strongly supported, yet impossible to implement together.
Consider a simple example. Imagine two initiatives concerning the same parcel of land. One initiative designates the land as a public park: trees, open space, no buildings. The other authorizes construction of a hospital on that same land. Both proposals might pass review. Both might attract strong public support. But they cannot both be implemented. This is a textbook conflict: the legal effects of one initiative make the legal effects of the other impossible.
Once we accept that such clashes are inevitable, the real design question emerges: who decides what happens when they occur?
Many political systems rely on negotiation among elected officials, judicial interpretation, or administrative discretion. These approaches introduce uncertainty and invite pressure, lobbying, and back‑room deals. A more robust approach is to build a deterministic rule directly into the democratic process so that everyone knows, in advance, how conflicts will be resolved.
The rule is straightforward. When two registered initiatives conflict, the initiative with the higher total score prevails. The losing initiative is treated as deregistered. Total score refers to the sum of all citizens’ scores on that initiative, capturing both the breadth and intensity of support. This ensures that outcomes reflect not just how many people support a proposal, but how strongly they care about it.
Returning to the land‑use example, if the park initiative has the higher total score, the park proceeds and the hospital initiative is deregistered. If the hospital scores higher, the hospital is built and the park initiative falls away. There is no bargaining, no ad‑hoc compromise, and no ambiguity about which initiative wins.
Not all initiatives, however, stand on equal footing. Constitutional initiatives occupy a special category. They define the framework within which all other initiatives operate. For that reason, once a constitutional initiative is registered, it cannot be deregistered. Ordinary initiatives may conflict with one another and displace one another, but they cannot displace a registered constitutional initiative. This preserves the stability of the constitutional layer.
Another important feature of the system is the handling of dependencies. Sometimes one initiative is defined to depend on another, perhaps because it refines or extends the legal structure introduced by the first. If the base initiative is deregistered, any initiatives that depend on it must also be deregistered. This prevents the system from being left with orphaned initiatives whose legal foundation has disappeared. This mechanism is known as cascading deregistration. Constitutional initiatives again form an exception: once registered, they are not removed through this process.
Taken together, these elements create a system that can handle conflicting initiatives without confusion or deadlock. The key points are simple:
- No ambiguity about what constitutes a conflict
- No bargaining or political deal‑making
- No ad‑hoc interpretation by courts or agencies
- Predictable outcomes that citizens can understand in advance
First, the constitution defines conflict clearly: one initiative’s legal effects negate, override, or make impossible the legal effects of another. Second, conflicts are resolved deterministically: the initiative with the higher total score prevails. Third, constitutional initiatives form a stable layer that cannot be displaced once registered. And finally, dependencies are handled through cascading deregistration, ensuring that initiatives never float free of their legal foundations.
Conflicts between initiatives are inevitable in a vibrant, citizen‑driven democracy. But conflict does not have to mean confusion. With clear definitions and predictable rules, the system can remain coherent, responsive, and stable, even when many initiatives are active and some of them collide.