When is representative democracy more feasible

Switzerland requires about 10 referenda per year. This is the main criticism of direct democracy from people subject to it. Complex issues can be sorted out by professionals.

The complexities of modern government require careful consideration of all the facts available, reports from all sides, scientific and rational analysis, a lack of knee jerk reaction and a willingness to consider the long term solution and to not put self-interest first. The majority of people do not have the time, or the inclination, to make a rational well considered judgement.

Direct Democracy in its truest form must necessarily be a one-party system. This party would be a neutral party, whose only policies are to do what benefits the majority of people, be it through their own ideas or those of others. This is the only way to ensure that people get what they want.

However, this direct democracy needs an intelligent and well informed public to make the correct decisions for the whole of society. Much of society is like this. However, if the public wish something to be made law or a certain policy to be seen through, but that it would be truly detrimental to the country, it must be stopped by the government.

This leads us into a grey area whereby we cannot know where to draw the line. However, the line is far easier to draw here along with the system being far more democratic than what it is like under a representative democracy.

Representative democracy functions on the premise that differnet parties have different ways of doing things, along with different wants and opinions. The idea that people have to choose between these parties is surely wrong for a democracy.

It is not the parties that should be making the policy suggestions, it is the people In a true democracy. Representative democracy allows the personal agenda of the ruling classes to cloud the agenda of what is right for the citizens of this country.

It could not be argued that representative democracy is better than direct democracy as a form of democracy. Democratic government begins in ancient Greece where people were deciding for themselves regarding war and peace and other public issues. If there were direct democracy today, the UK might not have participated in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. There is a great difference between technical issues and fundamental moral and political choices which should not be the prerogative of politicians.

If we understand democracy as the rule of the people we must support the establishment of more direct forms of participation. Direct democracy does not mean that we completely abandon representation since this is simple impossible within modern states or the EU. Having dual nationality and having lived for long periods in both a representative democracy and a direct democracy, I have to say that the direct democracy wins hands down.

There is growing citizen dissatisfaction within many of the leading indirect democracies and in several instances sheer frustration has led to protest swings towards increasingly populist governments. The main grievances include among others, elitism within political parties and governments, disregard for the opinions and job needs of citizens, outright corruption in some cases, and promotion of policies, which increase inequality through the blatant transfer of wealth from the middle and poorer sectors to elites.

Citizens in indirect democracies essentially have very little say in government other than to vote for one of two or perhaps three hardly distinguishable entities, which will rule largely autocratically and frequently squabble amongst themselves for the next four or five years. A general loss of confidence in government and political institutions is becoming more widespread and this is being exacerbated by unlimited access to the internet and social media which are exposing the comings and goings of the political classes and elites unfavourably.

In contrast, in a direct democracy power is disseminated and the electorate plays a controlling and corrective role. It was said to introduce competition for power that in turn enabled elected representatives to test out their political competence before others. The earliest champions of representative democracy also offered a more pragmatic justification of representation. Given that reality, the people must delegate the task of government to representatives who are chosen at regular elections.

The job of these representatives is to monitor the expenditure of public money, domestic and foreign policies, and all other actions of government. Representatives make representations on behalf of their constituents to the government and its bureaucracy. Representatives debate issues and make laws. They decide who will govern and how — on behalf of the people. What are the current contours and probable futures of representative democracy in this sense? In practice, there has always been a gap between the ideals of representative democracy and its actually existing forms.

Some observers draw from this the conclusion that expressions of dissatisfaction with representative democracy are normal, even healthy reminders of the precious contingency of a form of government that has no other serious competitors. According to other observers, euphoria about representative government is unwarranted. The mechanisms of representation that lie at the heart of actually existing democracies are said to be afflicted with problems.

These observers claim that such difficulties are nurturing public concerns about the future of representative democracy itself. Assembly meetings were where citizens could pass laws and decrees by majority vote.

The assembly also partially elected officials as the candidates were randomly selected by lottery. In contrast, representative democracies are based on the Roman system, which relied on leaders from different regions of the empire to be the voice of the people.

There were a number of citizen and tribal assemblies where ordinary people could discuss issues and laws. Because of this, and the influence of the Senate, the voices of the rich outweighed the interests of the poor.

Each system of government played to the strengths of its nation. In Greece, the citizens were well-educated, and power was central to the capital.

The Roman empire was massive and very diverse in terms of language and culture. It would have been impossible to get the opinion of every citizen in a timely manner. The systems developed by each empire reflected the structure of their societies. Today, as countries have larger populations, representative democracies are more common. The United States is a representative democracy as we elect senators and members of Congress to vote for us.

The United Kingdom, India, and France are also representative democracies. The only direct democracy is Switzerland, which has popular votes on issues four times each year. Representative democracies like the United States have their pros and cons. On the one hand, the US is very large, and less than half of all Americans vote in any given election. This means that it could be difficult to consistently contact the entire nation for votes, though technology has certainly made the idea far more possible.

The main question is whether or not the public would engage in the process properly. However, convenience comes at the price of control. Electing officials to vote for you is riskier than voting yourself; you never know what other factors are playing a role in their decision. Campaign money, wanting to be reelected, and personal morals could all cause a divide between what the people want and what an official votes for.

Additionally, when one representative speaks for a whole group of people, some minority voices will inevitably be overpowered.