Conversely, this isn’t practical in the way that many uneducated people can advice policies, which realistically and professionally cannot be put into practice. These policies could be anything due to freedom of speech and thought. Direct democracy clearly suggests that these policies, should they become popular, must be put into practice. The public all having other jobs and a life of their own may tire of being part of the political decisions and become idle not putting in the time and effort needed to keep the county running the way it should be.
On the other hand, direct democracy is the most pure form of democracy creating a unity between the government and the public. Pure democracy means that people obey the laws because they made them. Popular participation in government is the very stuff of freedom: it is how the people determine their ’general will’. Representative democracy means that there will always be a gulf between the government and the public. This means there is no division between the people and the government guaranteeing democracy to be performed how it should be. Inviting the public in is taking the blame off the government for decisions that the public may not agree with. This means the government and the public are made happy.
However, the unity of the government and the people almost overrules the power of the government. They are the people who give the most educated views on policies that should go forward and therefore should be given the opportunity to voice this as a majority over the public. The circumstance of public overruling authoritative individuals highlights a huge danger on the government as the public can easily overthrow it.
In spite of this, direct democracy confirms legitimacy, which is the right to rule which people are willing to obey. The way the public are making direct decisions empowers the legitimacy. People will always be willing to obey laws, which they have suggested. This will then increase pleasure in the way people live because they approve the way in which they are governed. It will again take pressure of the government because the public are forced to take responsibility for their decisions, as there is nobody else for them to blame. This helps to ensure a stable government.
Alternatively, this may increase political instability. This is due to the way that people may become obsessed with their political beliefs that if a policy they propose doesn’t go forward they may be forced to start rioting and go against the government.
Finally, direct democracy reduces, or removes, the public’s dependence on self-serving professional politicians. Representative democracy places too much faith in politicians, who are always liable to distort public opinion by imposing their own views and preferences on it. It therefore amounts to ‘government by politicians’, acting only in the name of people. This could also be encouraging for the public over the expenses scandal. This will put piece of mind into the public allowing them to feel like taxes are always going to the correct cause.
Oppositely, without experts in their position politics will loose all of its shape and form. The experts are needed to make decisions, as they are more able to look at the wider picture. Politicians work well in a representative democracy for example as they can give an expert account on behalf of the people they represent in their constituency.
In conclusion, I deem direct democracy to hinder the way a country is governed. Despite the public being able to have a direct say they should always be advised in an experienced way in order to make a policy acceptable. Representative democracy allows just that in the way that the public are allowed to make propositions but these propositions are then taken into account in a professional way.
Furthermore, in representative democracy’s we are allowed to elect a person to act on the behalf of yourself and your views. This is the ultimate way to ensure that policies remain worthy and that the public get an insight into politics, parties and ultimately policies.