Here's the prepared text of my short address on the state of direct democracy in North America, to be delivered Monday at the 2nd Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in Seoul.
 
Greetings from the New World. 
North America is still the New World, when it comes to direct democracy.
 Yes, direct democracy, as one method of government dates to the earliest
European settlements in North America (and, some historians tell us, to Native American
civilizations before that). And yes, initiative and referendum has been part of our political
culture since the Populists and Progressives grew enamored of it in the 1890s. But the
news about direct democracy in North America is how new direct democracy remains
there. And because it still feels new, the process itself is not settled. It's hotly contested in
each country that welcomes initiative and referendum (and even in some countries that
don't).
 I look at this state of affairs in the same way I look at today's very difficult
economy. In the short term, we have big challenges. In the long term, we have big
opportunities. 
Elite opinion across the continent continues to be hostile to initiative and
referendum. Elites prize the sort of stability that keeps elites in power, and direct
democracy, for all the consensus and stability it has brought to Switzerland, seems a force
for instability on our continent.
In Honduras, a president was removed by the military - at the direction of the
courts - because of a dispute over a referendum to extend the president's term that other
branches of the government saw - quite correctly in my view - as an unconstitutional
plebiscite.
In Guatemala, citizens who want to use direct democracy are engaged in very
difficult local fights to protect their environment and ward off dams and developments.
Whether they will be allowed to use the referendum is itself a subject of controversy. 
In Costa Rica, the new process - direct democracy procedures were passed at the
national level only in 2006 - is experiencing growing pains as citizens try to use their
new powers at all levels of government. The recent experience is positive, particularly the
historic 2007 referendum through which Costa Ricans approved a Central American Free
Trade Agreement. 
And in my home state of California, direct democracy, via our inflexible initiative
process, is a culprit - though not the only culprit -- in driving the state that once defined
the limitless possibilities of America into a near bankruptcy that has undermined public
education and shattered the public safety net. 
 In many Western states - the part of the hemisphere where direct democracy is
strongest and where huge problems with home mortgages (and the securitization of same)
helped start the global economic crisis -- direct democracy is seen as a problem that
needs mitigation. Major legislation in the states of Oregon, Colorado, Arizona and
Nevada seeks to limit the process - particularly the use of initiatives to authorize public
expenditures without legislative participation. There are also attempts to limit excesses in
signature gathering and to bring the legislative bodies into the process. Some of these
bills are thinly disguised attempts to take rights away from the people. But some of them
are noble reforms to curb excesses. This group should be particularly proud of the
legislation in Oregon, which includes the introduction of a counter-proposal. Reformers
there were inspired by reports of the counter-proposal during last year's forum in Aarau;
change in Oregon would not have happened without conversation in Switzerland.
These challenges to the process are a threat, but they also represent an opportunity.
If we can clean up the process in places like California, where it is being blamed for
economic and other ills, direct democracy can regain credibility - and gain new ground in
the U.S. and elsewhere. One particular target of opportunity is Texas, the second largest
state in the union, where a movement is under way to add the initiative and referendum to
the constitution.
 Canada and Mexico also offer the possibility of growth. The referendum is very
much a part of the political tradition in Canadian provinces, and Canada, unlike its
neighbors to the South, which have no procedure for national referenda, has conducted
three federal referendums, most recently on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. Canada's
robust local history of participatory democracy, including experiments in citizens'
assemblies, offers evidence that there is considerable room for growth.
There's also reason to hope that the referendum may be a part of Mexico's
long and difficult transition from one party rule to a mature democracy. It is true, as a
recent paper from our friends at C2D noted, that Mexican direct democracy comes from
above - through questions submitted to the voters by the government - rather than from
below the people. But the good news is, of that country's 31 states (plus the federal
district), 23 have constitutions with some element of direct democracy. And the
referendum has become a common part of politics in Mexico City, the continent's largest
city. 
One final note: one disturbingly common question in American job interviews is:
if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? If we think of direct democracy as a
kind of tree, we would say that the North American version could benefit from the
pruning of its weaker branches - thus allowing it to grow stronger and taller. There is
room for such growth. We remain a continent of wide-open spaces, a frontier for direct
democracy. Still the New World.