Direct vs Representative Democracy

**eurosceptic** · 31st October 2008, 08:30 PM

This debate has come about by the Lisbon rejection and very very nearly came about in 1995 as Divorce avoided defeat by a whisker. I am a direct democracy advocate, referenda on as many issues as practicable. Obviously its not possible to have referenda on everything. As part of this I would require a 50-50 public debate and a decent period of debate, say at least 3 months. This i believe will ensure the issue is properly teased out and the potential benefits and pitfalls can be chewed over. Plus it brings decision making to the ordinary joe soap.

Alternatively is representative democracy where we defer all decisions to a parliament. I dont agree with this as inevitably special interest groups (especially those who make political donations) have undue influence. I have derided RD as government for special interest groups.

So what do you think.

**He3** · 31st October 2008, 08:34 PM

Representative democracy carried to an extreme - where the public has merely the right to choose between sets of representatives twice a decade - has many ardent fans who are following their paychecks. Most of the ones who post here are government party animals I would guess.

**Pauli** · 31st October 2008, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by eurosceptic

This debate has come about by the Lisbon rejection and very very nearly came about in 1995 as Divorce avoided defeat by a whisker. I am a direct democracy advocate, referenda on as many issues as practicable. Obviously its not possible to have referenda on everything. As part of this I would require a 50-50 public debate and a decent period of debate, say at least 3 months. This i believe will ensure the issue is properly teased out and the potential benefits and pitfalls can be chewed over. Plus it brings decision making to the ordinary joe soap.

Alternatively is representative democracy where we defer all decisions to a parliament. I dont agree with this as inevitably special interest groups (especially those who make political donations) have undue influence. I have derided RD as government for special interest groups.

So what do you think.

I live in a Direct democracy and would want it any other way. Democracy from the bottom up works better than from the top down

**geraghd** · 31st October 2008, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pauli

I live in a Direct democracy and would want it any other way. Democracy from the bottom up works better than from the top down

Well that settles it I guess :-?

**Respvblica** · 31st October 2008, 10:48 PM

Pauli (and the swiss) have it best. Democracy works best from the bottom up and Direct democracy is most easily established on a local level.

I think its important that we dont lose sight of the actual goal of government and self-determination in a republic. All citizens are equal stakeholders in a republic and the people are proclaimed sovereign in the constitution. Yet we have had so much secret back room dealing, so much unacountability, incompetance and sometimes even criminal behaviour from our TDs that we really need to see to what extent they have usurped power from the people. We all know a party can promise a million things at an election and then once in government do a u-turn and sufficed that it has the seats and the party whip it can basically do what it wants. We have some protection with referendums on constiutional matters, but with regard to practically everything else the people are powerless. The door is left open for corruption on a massive scale.

In the early 20th century there was a movement in america towards direct democracy especially in the western states because the representative system seemed to be in teh hands of the railroad companies(for 21st century Ireland read builders). The movement was built on the pillars of bringin in Referendum, Iniative and Recall. Today about half the American states have it. Its also a feature in Venezuelan constitution, while in Britain the Tories are looking at d.democracy at a local level(localism).

My overall idea would be the following.

1. Introduce localism at the county level with direct democracy for local issues(health and welfare). Expenditure decisions and taxation is thus devolved, partially at least to the people who are directly affected. Save money on central administrators and inefficient decision making. No one will chose better than the people if they pay directly for it.
2. Enable Popular initiative at a local and national level.
3. Reform the senate so that it is similar to the german budesrat so that its members would come as delegates from counties to represent the county interests.
4. Keep the Dail as the main legislative body but establish a separation of powers and have the Taoiseach and the executive separately elected, subject to recall.The Dail would be the national parliament. The need for Healy Rae's would be dealt with by localism or at a stretch the senate.
5.Abolish the presidency which is essentially ceramonial.

**Mr. Greasy Till** · 2nd November 2008, 10:08 PM

I'm glad this was brought up. Besides the reasons already stated in this thread, bottom up governance also prevents one-size fits all solutions being imposed upon various societal scenarios. There are an infinite variety of factors and dynamics in all human negotiation, from labour relations to family squabbles. If decisions were taken more slowly, by mass consultation, then the results would be more robust and less people would be left disenfranchised. As it stands, decisions are made quickly but are all too often held up by overlooked legal aspects etc. so the potential delay on progress might not be so considerable. Instead of policy makers, our representatives could be exactly that, representatives. It seems to me that we need delegates of mass will instead of potentially corruptible 'leaders' and decision makers. Certain decisions would have to be made quickly however, in the face of unforeseen calamities like natural disasters for example, and so something would have to be put in place to deal with such events. This might be problematic.

I also have a couple of other initial concerns. My first concern is that in order to enable the masses to make informed choices, consultants would be needed. We are not all experts on every matter so we would need impartial advice. What if these advisers were in the pockets of the vested interests in the same way they are often in the pockets of influential lobbies in our current system? This aside, is impartiality even possible? Would we have to accept a variety of consultants arguing opposing options?

My second initial concern is that, although Direct Democracy negates much potential corruption, there is still the mass media to consider. The democratisation of communications would be necessary to ensure that all sides of the story are heard. If the media remained as dependent on sponsorship etc. from vested interests all sides would not be heard equally and spin would still be a factor. It could be argued that the Internet is gradually bringing around this democratization of communications but when I look at the net I sometimes wonder if rational debate is possible or if we are just fated to live in a Tower of Bable.

The inability of the masses to govern themselves has been accepted wisdom since Plato, the argument being that humanity is innately flawed. However, the alternative, that we be governed by philosopher kings, seems to me paradoxical. Aren't these philosopher kings also human? What exempts them from our innate ills? So, as much as the ranting on the net makes me shudder, recounting philosopher kings from past to the present, and the things they have advocated, also makes me shudder.

The book 'Parecon' by Michael Albert attempts to tackle questions about the possible implementation of a bottom up system. I would appreciate tips on a few other books on this matter, I'd like to get my head around it more. I think people are convinced that societies can work in one of only two basic ways: the top down 'democracies' of the current occidental world or the central governance of leftist politics. The horizontal approach seems to make more sense to me. In fact, I would argue that the more devolved power becomes the better, but there is a lot to be ironed out.

**cyberianpan** · 2nd November 2008, 10:26 PM

Ok I get taxed and that pays my "representative government" who make some very odd decisions

But also I get to keep some of my own money which I can spend as I choose: healthcare, education, alcohol ... surely isn't spending akin to Direct Democracy ?

cYp

**Kiss** · 2nd November 2008, 10:29 PM