Examine some of the main differences, in theory and practice between direct and representative democracy.

Democracy originated in the 4th and 5th Century BC, in Greek cities like Athens. At this time Athenian democracy, and the only form of democracy, was what we now call direct democracy (Holden, B, 1974). It has proven problematic in practise as societies have increased in complexity and attempts to address the problems posed by direct democracy resulted in the development of Representative democracy, the system used in the UK today. Democracy is often taken to mean government by the people (Hurst, P, 1990), or at least by the majority as ‘the people' rarely agree (McLean, I, 1996). This definition however, does not really cover the modern idea of representative democracy and is therefore inadequate. The Oxford English dictionary extends its definition to:

“That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them.” (OED cited in Hurst, P, 1990, p 24)

This definition attempts to define democracy whilst including both direct democracy and modern representative democracy.

The aim of this analysis is to explore and debate the main practical and theoretical differences between direct and indirect or representative democracy. It will begin by describing direct democracy and raising the problems posed by its main characteristics. The later development of representative democracy will then be discussed in the context of overcoming these obstacles and how and whether it has improved on the Greek system. Throughout the analysis many arguments in favour and criticising both systems will be considered and the suitability of their use in modern society scrutinised. Suggestions that have been made on ways to improve each system will also be covered and any ways the two can be reconciled.

In the Greek model of direct democracy, the people of the city would raise and debate current issues in sovereign assemblies, voting to decide on what action is to be taken. The people filled other offices by lot, regularly rotating so most citizens experience it. In these ways it is the type of democracy best fitting the definition of rule by the people as they make the decisions directly. Rousseau, an important thinker in the ‘Enlightenment’ was a great advocate of direct democracy, which he thought to be the ideal form of democracy. He believed that the state should be small-scale with City-states and people would vote in their own locality on important issues. In this way, he thought that any decisions made would reflect the ‘general will’ of the people (or what they believe is best for society).

There were, however, problems with this system. In the Greek model only about 6-12% of the population usually attended these meetings (Holden, B, 1974). Slaves, foreigners and women could not attend, slaves created the time for the elite to participate (Hague et. al. 1998). Rousseau’s model also prevented women attending. Some (e.g. Finer) believe that system’s lack of effective bureaucracy and resulting ineffective government contributed to the decline of Athenian democracy, prevented expansion and made it vulnerable (Hague et. al. 1998). As societies grow and increase in complexity, practical problems arise. In modern society, for instance, the obstacle of large numbers of people who need to assemble would be prohibitive to direct democracy; especially if we are to assume that all the current electorate (including women) would be entitled to vote. Discussion would also be hard, due to the large numbers assembled.

One way of overcoming these barriers which has been suggested would be to use interactive television or something similar involving debate on screen followed by a vote. Experiments of this nature have begun in the US. This has been criticised however for omitting ‘a vital element of direct democracy as it is usually conceived: the positive initiation of proposals by the people.’ (Holden, B, 1974, p.p. 28 & 29). This obstacle has been tackled more recently by the Direct Democracy Campaign (DDC) who suggest ways in which the people can call referenda to address issues that concern them (Harvey, J, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the representative democracy system prospective representatives form parties and then compete in elections. The citizens vote to elect the representatives they want who will make decisions on their behalf within formal limits designed to protect the people’s rights. Unlike direct democracy, it is easily practicable in large modern societies. It is possible in theory that the whole world could become one giant representative democracy since there are no restrictions on size (Hague et. al. 1998).

One benefit it is said to have over direct democracy is that the representatives receive specialist knowledge and are highly educated so they have better capabilities of decision-making than ‘ordinary citizens’ do and it is therefore prudent to leave it in the hands of experts. This results in debate over how much autonomy the representatives should have over decision-making.

Edmond Burke supports the view that they should not simply be delegates, but should have some control over decision-making (Heywood, A, 1999). He asserts that representatives are in that position due to their level of expertise in that area and would fail in their duty if they gave in to popular opinion over their own ‘mature judgement’ (Heywood, A, 1999). JS Mill agreed with Burke and also believed that the political opinions of the educated are more valuable than those of the uneducated are. It follows from these ideas that the public will have less influence over the decisions made. Modern political philosophers have often supported Schumpeter’s view that representative governments are more responsible and just because the majority of people has made a decision doesn’t mean that it’s a good decision (McLean, I, 1996).

However, the people now receive far superior education to the times of Schumpeter, Mill and Burke and some have argued that they are capable of making such decisions for themselves, especially with current technology available to provide them with appropriate information for making an educated decision. Politicians have experts to advise them who could instead be advising the public, possibly in television debates. Of course, if the people are incapable of making rational and intelligent decisions, is it not foolish to allow them even to elect their own representatives? Tom Paine argued that by encouraging representatives to think for themselves you run the risk of them becoming so far removed from public pressure that they start to act in their own interests rather than those of the public (Heywood, A, 1999). Representatives acting as delegates, with little power themselves, he believed, should avoid this (Heywood, A, 1999).

The representatives in this system are meant to be accountable to the public. The people elect which representative they feel will best serve them and if the people are dissatisfied they can elect someone else next time round. This is assumed sufficient threat to representatives to prevent them abusing the power entrusted to them. Some, however, suggest that representatives are only really held to account at the next election and can do what they like until then. It is for this reason Lord Hailsham famously said that Britain is an ‘elective dictatorship’ (Lord Hailsham, cited in Adonis, A, 1997). Rousseau once claimed that:

“The people of England think they are free. They are gravely mistaken. They are only free during the election of Members of Parliament.” (McLean, I, 1996, p 131).

Hirst argues that unlike the description given in the OED sovereign power does not lie with the people. He claims:

“The national assembly or parliament is ‘sovereign’ because it expresses the delegated power of the people and it is legitimately so because it is ‘representative’ of the people’s will” (Hurst, P, 1990, p 24)

Also, voting in elections has come to be seen by many as merely a formality that has little impact on the policy-making process; in short the public has become disillusioned with a political system they have minimal control over (Heywood, A, 1999). There is created great division between the representatives and the people due to the people’s lack of participation in politics. Although the technological barriers to direct democracy have been all but lifted now, there is still opposition from politicians who might lose out in a move to this form of self-government.

Some attempts have been made to address these limitations and put some power back into the hands of the people, whilst keeping the representative democracy system. Referenda and popular initiatives are two such measures. These along with the use of pressure/interest groups and by lobbying their MP’s are said to be effective checks on the power of government within a plurality system (one where power is diffused across society).

A referendum is where the government put a proposal to the people who vote to approve or reject it. However, this decision may still need approval by the legislative body, limiting its impact. Switzerland heavily uses both to improve the democratic nature of the country. As a result of their use of referenda, Switzerland did not have universal suffrage until the 1980’s, as the male electorate didn’t vote in favour of giving women the vote until then. The United Kingdom doesn’t use referendums very frequently, however the issue of whether or not to join the European Economic Community (then called the EU) was decided in this way. The DDC believe they should be held on a regular basis in the UK, along with popular initiatives (Harvey, J, 1999). They claim the best and most secure way of making voting in referenda accessible to all lies with the use of voting machines installed in public places similar to 'hole in the wall' automatic bank teller machines with cards and pin numbers to ensure security (Harvey, J, 1999). Derek Brown in the Guardian has criticised referenda however, and called for greater representation in parliament through PR. He said of referenda:

“That way lies a slippery slope, leading to a mire of cheap populism. Better by far that we stick to our elected representatives, encouraging them from time to time by kicking their backsides in general elections.” (Brown, D, 2000)

A popular initiative also involves a vote by the people. In this case however, the people propose the issue and the government may be forced to act by popular demand. In Switzerland the popular initiatives are rarely successful as ‘the Swiss government and the majority of Swiss MPs understand popular initiatives as a vote of no confidence and thus fight them fiercely’ (Gürke, J, 2001).

One other way the public can influence government decisions is through pressure groups or by lobbying MP’s. Pressure and interest groups are organisations, which campaign and lobby parliament to forward the cause for which they stand (McLean, I, 1996). Examples of British pressure groups include the ‘AA’ who campaign on behalf of motorists, ‘Shelter’ who campaign for the government to help the homeless and ‘Age Concern’ who try to improve the situation of the elderly. The public can also ‘lobby’ their local MP, raising their awareness of a particular situation by writing to them or attending their ‘clinics’ when they are available to discuss issues with the public. The MP may then decide to take the issue further.

There are many practical and theoretical divisions between direct and representative democracy, which this analysis has highlighted. While direct democracy offers great involvement of the people in their own government, representative democracy implies an inability on their part to cope with this responsibility, which is taken from their hands. The main power they have, being to replace the representatives though choice of replacements is limited, as is when this can be done. A more radical view is offered by Max Weber who said that while Direct Democracy is a type of rule, representative democracy is a form of legitimisation of rule (Hurst, P, 1990). If this is so, then they should not even be discussed as if they were two of the same breed. The compromise offered by representative democracy even with the checks and balances offered by pressure groups and popular initiatives is inadequate to say the least. To argue in this day and age that the people are incapable of understanding the concepts underpinning good decision-making on issues affecting them is ignorance. Politicians have advisers to educate them who could, instead, debate the issue on interactive television for the public’s information, preceding a vote. After all, having only one minister making decisions on each area of a complex society seems foolish. How can they ever represent all? The practical restrictions on direct democracy are diminishing with advancing technology rendering practical arguments in favour of representative democracy less persuasive than they once were.

Bibliography

Brown, D, (Sept 2000) Asking the people – Asking for Trouble (online), Guardian Unlimited, Available at:

Dalton, R, J, (1996) Democracy and its Citizens: Patterns of Political Change (online) The Centre for the Study of Democracy, Available at:

Eckstein, H, (1996) Lessons for the "Third Wave" from the First:
An Essay on Democratisation (online), The Centre for the Study of Democracy, Available at:

Goodwin, B, (1999) Using Political Ideas – 4th Edition, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Gürke, J, (2001) Popular Initiatives in Switzerland - Example: The Alpine Initiative (Online), The Alpine Initiative, Available at:

Hague, R, Harrop, M & Breslin, S, (1998) Comparative Government and Politics – An Introduction, 4th Edition, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Harvey, J, (1999) Direct Democracy Campaign (online), Direct Democracy Campaign, Available from:

Heywood, A, (1999) Political Theory, An Introduction – 2nd Edition, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Holden, B, (1974) The Nature of Democracy, London, Thomas Nelson & Sons.

Lord Hailsham (1976) cited in Adonis, A, (1997) Modernising Britain’s Democracy (online), Charter 88, Available at:

Hurst, P, (1990) Representative Democracy and it’s Limits, Cambridge, Polity Press.

McLean, I, (1996) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

References

Brown, D, (Sept 2000) Asking the people – Asking for Trouble (online), Guardian Unlimited, Available at:

Gürke, J, (2001) Popular Initiatives in Switzerland - Example: The Alpine Initiative (Online), The Alpine Initiative, Available at:

Hague, R, Harrop, M & Breslin, S, (1998) Comparative Government and Politics – An Introduction, 4th Edition, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Harvey, J, (1999) Direct Democracy Campaign (online), Direct Democracy Campaign, Available from:

Heywood, A, (1999) Political Theory, An Introduction – 2nd Edition, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Holden, B, (1974) The Nature of Democracy, London, Thomas Nelson & Sons, p.p. 28 & 29.

Lord Hailsham (1976) cited in Adonis, A, (1997) Modernising Britain’s Democracy (online), Charter 88, Available at:

Hurst, P, (1990) Representative Democracy and it’s Limits, Cambridge, Polity Press, p 24.

McLean, I, (1996) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p 131.

Examine some of the main differences, in theory and practice between direct and representative democracy.