DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Direct Democracy

Direct Democracy

Is the classical idea of direct democracy relevant today?

Introduction

Direct democracy refers to a system in which all citizens participate in political decision-making processes. This regime type was first conducted in ancient Athenian politics of Greece in 508 B.C. However, the right to direct participation was restricted to male citizens, who selected their representative officers annually. The success of Athenian democracy was due to the city-state's small population of 300,000 people. A similar political system run by citizens was exercised in the Roman Republic in 449 B.C. Citizens participated in the entire lawmaking process, and the political system lasted approximately 400 years (Honderich 1991 40).

In a direct Democracy, citizens vote directly on issues. In a system of indirect Democracy, such as the representation system in the United States and in many other countries, voting is done indirectly or by proxy. Constituents elect a representative, and, in turn, the representative votes on the issue, supposedly on behalf of the constituency that elected him or her. Many argue against this idea, noting that sovereignty should not be delegated. If citizens allow themselves to be represented by others, then they are no longer free. In addition, if citizens are represented, then accountability is needed to ensure that the representatives do not pursue their own self-interests (Held 1997 10). Finally, because those with higher education, income, and class are more likely to vote, those with lower socioeconomic status factors can be underrepresented.

Discussion

Others note that indirect Democracy is more feasible than direct Democracy, given the large populations and complexity of modern societies. In terms of accountability, the election structure present in many countries allows citizens to serve as checks to see if the representative is acting responsibly. Because representatives hold office for a limited time, citizens reward the representatives for acting on their behalf by re-electing them (Held 1996 29). In turn, if the representative does not act on their behalf, they can be punished by not being re-elected.

Aristotle was, however, as much a scientist as a philosopher, and he distinguished between different forms of democracy. In doing so, he arguably anticipated important modern distinctions between representative and direct democracy, on the one hand, and constitutional versus purely majoritarian democracy, on the other (Held 2006 36). While citizens themselves decide on some laws through referenda and ballot initiatives in several modern democracies, such as Switzerland and the United States, these decisions are generally bound by a constitution that limits the legislative power of majorities. And while some modern states, such as England, have no formal constitution, citizens generally do not decide on laws themselves, but instead elect representatives to a legislative assembly.

Furthermore, modern democracies use courts to scrutinize legislation in light of either a constitution (as in Canada and the United States) or precedents derived from a tradition of common law (as in England). There are no obvious historical examples of genuinely populist democracies in which the laws are determined directly by the majority of citizens, without mediation by representative institutions or judicial ...