Democracy is usually considered to be a system of political representation of the people. However, representative democracy has some disadvantages which can only be countered by accepting some dose of direct democracy, and hence a mixed system.
In a representative system, I can agree or disagree with the decisions of my representative and I can only do this:
- afterwards, when it may be too late, and
- for the whole of his decisions.
I cannot agree or disagree with each decision separately, even though perhaps, he took some good as well as some bad decisions. I can only vote for or against the whole person of the representative.
This is not only a lack of finesse; it also reduces the power of the people to influence decisions and to judge politicians. A politician may take one very unpopular decision and still be re-elected, because all his other decisions are approved by the people. The people generally approve of the politician, and therefore, cannot disavow the unpopular decision at the election. However, this means that decisions can be taken against the will of the people, and cannot be undone by the people. The people, therefore, do not govern themselves.
In such a system, the will of the people cannot be adequately expressed because the people cannot vote on every political decision separately. As a result, the will of the people cannot be adequately implemented, which means that the people do not rule. The people yield their power and are unable to enforce the adequate implementation of their will.
The impossibility of issue-oriented choice rather than person-oriented choice creates the temptation to focus everything on the person of the politician. After all, that is the only thing left. When it is impossible, in a vote, to distinguish between good and bad deeds of the politician, then one is liable to focus on things as vague as personality, general convictions, “charisma“, image etc. The people vote for or against politicians, names or faces, not for or against ideas or acts because they cannot use their votes to distinguish between different ideas or acts.
Direct democracy can move democracy away from a system for choosing and legitimizing (or dismissing) leaders without reference to any specific content. It can create a system where the people can decide on ideas and acts and not just on the people who are supposed to decide in their place. Referenda or local consultations are ways to let people decide directly on certain issues that concern them.
[…] on important public issues are taken by vote (a vote either among those previously elected, or among the population at large; preferably a mix of both […]
LikeLike
[…] an older post in this series, I’ve argued in favor of a certain amount of direct citizen participation in […]
LikeLike
[…] are all alike, at least in their actions, and no single politician accurately represents all the different opinions that single voters may […]
LikeLike
[…] Fifth problem: even if all of the problems above could somehow be overcome, there are huge practical problems involved in allowing large numbers of people to vote on issues. Hence, deliberation about interests, justice, laws and policies takes place not in preparation of a vote on the substance of the matter but in preparation of the election of politicians who in turn will vote on the substance. This results in an additional problem: once – or better if – the people have decided on matters of interest, justice, law and policy, they’ll have to select those politicians most likely to hold the same views. That, obviously, is a problem. Not only can politicians pretend to hold certain views and do something completely different once in office. It’s also unlikely that people find a politician that holds all the good views. Hence, people have to elect politicians who will, predictably, implement some wrong views. This leads to a conclusion in favor of votes on issues rather than votes on people. In other words, a conclusion in favor of direct democracy. However, this type of democracy imposes even more duties on citizens and raises a whole new set of difficulties. […]
LikeLike
[…] Does a country provide more or less ways to express a democratic say? Can voters only elect officials or can they also vote on issues in referenda? […]
LikeLike
[…] politics to some kind of elite. More positively, perhaps we should start seriously considering a type of democracy that isn’t focused on the selection of candidates through the means of a media […]
LikeLike
[…] consented to those laws (or to the power exercised in passing those laws). That’s the whole idea behind […]
LikeLike
[…] This distinction also makes it possible to accept a high level of citizen engagement in politics (direct democracy for instance) without abandoning the important distinction between state and society (some argue […]
LikeLike
[…] execute the will of the people by way of laws and policies (if we sidestep the important issue of direct participation). The people don’t vote laws and don’t decide and pursue policies themselves. They […]
LikeLike
[…] mentioned in a previous post that a purely representative system of democracy isn’t able to accurately implement voter […]
LikeLike
[…] is representative democracy best, or should there be some kind of <a href="http://direct democracy? […]
LikeLike
[…] to a limited kind of democracy in which there is no place for public debate and active participation guaranteed by freedom rights. It is evident that the debates which precede and which are almost […]
LikeLike
[…] exclusively on representation creates apathy because people can only vote on persons. Take a look here for the reasons why representation creates […]
LikeLike
[…] it is my view that the state can be a place of freedom if we understand freedom in another way. Democratic political participation in the decisions of the state (especially on a local level) can be a source of freedom; freedom not […]
LikeLike
[…] Direct democracy is the only solution to the problem of vote buying. In a direct democracy, there are no representatives who have to grant all kinds of benefits to pressure groups, in order to cling to power. […]
LikeLike
[…] in a democracy which allows some kind of direct participation, are active citizens. They can decide on issues and not only on their representatives. Because they […]
LikeLike
[…] different states have to be represented in these organizations and not only in their own states. Direct democracy is also a possibility. Perhaps we can presume that we have a democratic decision from the moment […]
LikeLike
[…] that the people agree with the laws they are supposed to respect. One way is to allow the people to make the rules themselves, for example, by voting in a local meeting or in a referendum. That would be direct democracy. The […]
LikeLike
[…] all has to be approved by all. And the best way to have this kind of approval is to allow the people to make the laws themselves or at least to allow them to participate in the process of legislation, for example by way of the […]
LikeLike