How to Write a Summary of an Article? Direct Democracy The assumption underlying the discussion on the initiative process is that the employment of paid petitioners is a harmful development reducing the quality of our democracy and privileging money over true commitment to causes that are put on ballot.
This topic is particularly relevant at a time in which trust in existing systems of representative democracy is at an unprecedented low, and pressure for this to be reflected in constitutional changes is growing. A common complaint about representative democracy is that it creates a distant class of lawmakers who will often collude with vested interests, or become so detached from the lives of the general public, that they will make decisions that the public do not support.
This is only possible because of the exclusivity that inevitably arises around a relatively small number of representatives. By contrast, such corruption of decision-making is impossible if every citizen is an equally powerful participant in the process.
There is simply no better way of making the debate about an issue and the thinking about a solution more transparent than throwing it open to every citizen. Consequently, if the public sense their complete control over a decision, they are more likely to engage with it and improve their understanding surrounding the matter.
There are numerous benefits to having higher public awareness and better understanding of political topics. Where there is generalised ignorance surrounding a political question, political figures are usually unable and unwilling to implement good policy. Compare political debate in the US and the UK on drugs, for example, and it is clear why this is the case.
In the US, several state-wide referenda have legalised certain drugs, a pragmatic approach resulting in a reduction in the harm these drugs have caused to users and to society. It could be argued that this is because US citizens have accepted responsibility for making informed decisions on drugs policy while the British have not.
Of course, the counterargument would be that direct democracy could place more power in the hands of an often ill-informed citizenry, and empowerment and education are not guaranteed to support each other. Speaking of pragmatism, a lack of political constriction is a further advantage of direct democracy.
A typical politician does not enjoy freedom simply to represent his or her constituents. The UK prime minister must have the support of their constituents, their constituency party, their parliamentary party, the national membership of their party and a majority of the House of Commons, together with the confidence of much of the media and business constituency.
The potential for conflict between these groups is self-evident, and it is similar for other politicians. When a voter participates in a referendum, they have none of these issues. Voters are entirely free to vote according to the facts at hand.
The removal of politicians from politics has massive theoretical potential to shift the emphasis on government from what is possible under the balance of power between groups to what is best for the country.
Nevertheless, the possible reduction of conflicting interests in politics is one of the biggest advantages of direct democracy. There is an even greater advantage though. For under representative democracy, voters must select a person or more usually, party that is the best match for their opinions and values.
Unsurprisingly, no representative can be a perfect match, so all voters end up voting for a package that contains some ideas they dislike. A good metaphor for this is buying a bag of Revels chocolates, knowing that there will be some annoying chewy caramel chocolates in the bag, but tolerating them because one likes the other chocolates.
Under a system of direct democracy, we can choose a Revels bag with no caramel chocolates in it. Voters are able to support all the policies that they wish, and reject all that they are opposed to. This concept offers fertile ground for speculation.
If direct democracy had existed, or been further reaching, in the UK, would much of the social liberalisation of the s have ever happened?Essay about Republicanism and Direct Democracy - Republicanism and direct democracy, these are two ways that a people can be governed.
There is a major difference between these two systems. In a republican system the government represents the people.
Oct 13, · Essay: The Advantages of Direct Democracy Direct democracy is the process by which the public make governmental decisions themselves, instead of entrusting elected representatives with that task. It can take a variety of forms, but the primary ones are .
Essay about Republicanism and Direct Democracy - Republicanism and direct democracy, these are two ways that a people can be governed.
There is a major difference between these two systems. In a republican system the . Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy: The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people and kratos, meaning rule.
These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Direct vs representative democracy essay quotations.
Assembly election analysis essay zinch weekly 3 sentence essay my dream house essay in german pathologic twist ending essay le tombeau des lucioles critique essay teachers day celebration essays dillenia philippinensis descriptive essay can you put headings in a research paper alma media.
Oct 13, · Essay: The Advantages of Direct Democracy Direct democracy is the process by which the public make governmental decisions themselves, instead of entrusting elected representatives with that task.
It can take a variety of forms, but the primary ones are referenda, citizens’ initiatives and town hall meetings.