Arguably, a direct democracy is more fair. While liberal democracies have been accused of being partisan to the interests of the bourgeoisie and ruling elite, direct democracies govern according to simple majority. For example, in Switzerland, by calling a federal referendum, a group of citizens may challenge a law that has been passed by Parliament. By gathering 50,000 signatures in protest within 100 days, a national vote can be called to decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law. Yet, Switzerland has a small population overall, and because it is technologically advanced, electronic voting can happen instantly. Practically speaking, it would be inefficient for countries that are less developed and with a much larger population vote in this way for every decision. Furthermore, it is often that people such as elected officials are better informed and more able to make decisions that affect large numbers of people. For example, if all the citizens of the UK were allowed to vote on abolishing any sort of income taxation, it is possible that such a motion could be passed. However, taking such an action would cripple the nation’s finances and lead to social harms such as inability to fund the National Health Service.
If we accept that elected leaders should be empowered to make decisions in the best interest of citizens, it is still important to acknowledge that systems should exist that prevent this power from being abused. Perhaps most importantly, a liberal democracy is constructed in such a way that the majority is unable to oppress the minority as a result of the distribution of power. For instance in the UK we have a system which separates the legislative and the executive, thereby a check on the prime minister’s power is created; the House of Commons can call a vote of no confidence at any time and the House of Lords is able to delay any laws for up to a year. Of course democracies are not immune to corruption but they promote a check and balance system and transparent governance, making them accountable to their citizens.
However, citizens do not always act within their rights to demonstrate their feelings about their governments, and low voting rates are a problem for liberal democracies. This may be caused by a general disillusionment with the system, a lack of concern, or inaccessibility to voting areas—despite the origin it is unsettling that in many countries citizens who are able choose not to vote. Some might argue in favor of compulsory voting, however enforcing these laws calls into question the right of the individual to withhold their vote, as well as various other logistical problems and high costs. I believe that a liberal democracy works at its best when all of the citizens participate in voting, and it is an inevitability of any system without compulsory voting that this will not happen. For this reason, I am in favor of compulsory voting and believe that many disparities between what is widely accepted as public opinion and what polls actually reveal would be reconciled if the majority of a population were to vote. Nevertheless, I understand the infringement on personal liberty that this would involve, and it is better to err on the side of caution when gambling with individual freedoms. Despite the fact that democracies might be maintained only by those who chose to participate, there is no better way to understand the will of the people than to ask regularly.
Opponents of liberal democracy also criticise the problems that can arise from frequent changes to both laws and governments. Liberal democracies are founded on the principle that elections must take place regularly to ensure that the elected officials represent the will of their constituents. Furthermore, they are also designed to facilitate the introduction of new laws or amendments to existing laws, which can create a large volume of propositions and a lot of bureaucracy. Both of these issues are problems because they create an opportunity for individuals to act in their own interest and push forward ideas that would benefit them in the short term, rather than choosing to do what is best for the society in the long run. This is a very important problem for liberal democracies, and one that in reality creates many problems and causes important issues to be endlessly delayed. However, the only alternative would be to run the risk that unfair laws are difficult to change and corrupt or incapable governments could maintain their position of power far longer than they ought. Within the restrictions and confines of our ability to interact and understand one another and what is best for society, it is far preferable to leave a lot of room to make changes and adjustments. As history has shown us, the tide of majority opinion has ebbed and flowed in ways that would shock our ancestors.
Finding a balance between the individual and society that maintains optimal liberties to each is challenging, however it is of utmost importance that a working system is focused on maintaining this balance. Although liberal democracy is as susceptible to mismanagement as any other form of government, it is the best system because it holds the welfare of individuals and society above all else.
North Korea – The Hermit Kingdom. CBS News. January 15, 2006
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/60minutes/main1203973.shtml>
”Political System". Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. 29 April 2011. <http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/eur/vgbr/infoch/chpoli.html>
“International IDEA; Compulsory Voting”. Idea. Int. Retrieved 2011-04-26.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed . Rutgers, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2001. Hardcover.