Compare and contrast the key features of representative and direct democracy

MAKE SURE YOU GIVE QUOTES FROM THEORISTS IN YOUR ESSAY

Intro: Explain that democracy is the leading political system in capitalist nations today. It
has its roots as far back as Ancient Athens, when political decisions were made by show
of hands. Today, democracy takes different forms, the most apparent is representative
democracy, where elected representatives legislate on behalf of the people. However,
recent examples show that direct democracy is still alive and well. This essay will use the
theory of each system, as well as analysing the impact of each type of democracy on
turnout, choice, decision making and practicality to show that there are indeed major
differences between representative and direct democracy.

Para 1: Theory

Knowledge

Direct democracy is when people or citizens make the decisions and are expected to
participate fully in the political process.

Direct democracy is when citizens of a state actively participate in the decision making
process of that state. Usually this mean they vote regularly elections to determine basic day
to day law and order. Historic examples of direct democracy was ancient Athens, where
citizens were expected to vote to enact on legislation and bills by turning up to the assembly
and voting with their hands, or in Switzerland where citizens vote regularly by referenda in
order to enact law.

Direct democracy allows citizens to bring up difficult issues which the politicians would
otherwise avoid. Robert A. Dahl believed that there had to be effective participation,
everyone has to be able to participate effectively. ‘All the members must have equal and
effective opportunities for making their views known to the other members as to what
the policy should be’.

Joseph A. Schumpeter believes that choice is manipulated. The people's will is false and
it is formed from propaganda. The people only want what’s best for themselves and their
opinions are not made by their own judgement- Schumpeter thinks as long as there are
elections then this is democracy, while Dahl thinks full participation is necessary, so
Dahl’s beliefs are more in line with direct, rather than representative democracy.

Example: This occurred in the past in Greek City States such as Athens, where any adult
male citizen over the age of 20 could contribute directly to legislation by voting in an
assembly. More recently, this has occurred when nations have a referendum on certain
issues, such as the upcoming UK referendum on continued EU membership.
Representative democracy is more common today. It occurs when people vote not to pass
laws, but for a representative who will vote on laws on their behalf.

RD is a limited and indirect form of democracy. Popular participation in government is

infrequent and brief – eg through voting in elections, the most important feature of
representation. The public do not exercise power themselves, they select those who will
rule on their behalf. Should therefore be a link between government and governed – the
electoral mandate.

Example: A good example of this is UK General elections, where people vote for an MP
who will discuss their issues and vote on laws in Westminster.

Analysis: Aristotle called democracy ‘the rule of the people’, although he warned of the
danger that they would use their power to serve their own ends, and therefore
democracy wasn’t for Aristotle, the best form of government.

Many people see direct democracy as fair, as it allows, in theory, each individual to be
treated equally, a key modern belief.

It might be argued, therefore that direct democracy is actually more democratic than
representative, as it goes further by allowing the people to literally ‘rule’ as opposed to
representative democracy which only allows them to choose rulers.

Direct democracy is sometimes considered as “pure” democracy. Removes the need for
legitimacy as the people make the law themselves, and so naturally give consent by being
part of the system.

Ever since its inception in Ancient Greece, some such as Plato, have
argued against its use, often on the grounds that the ‘masses’ don’t know
what’s best for them

Para 2: Choice/ turnout

For Knowledge, use the turnouts of General Elections in the Uk in recent times (average
of 60%).

For Direct Democracy, you can use two pieces of knowledge, the turnout for the Scottish
Independence Referendum (80%), or the AV Referendum, or even the Swiss Referendums,
where only 2 in 5 people use their vote.

Analysis

So a direct comparison between the UK General election, where RD was used, and the
Scottish Independence Referendum seems to suggest that DD produces higher turnout and
thus a more legitimate result. You can show good analysis and counter arguments here-
basically that direct democracy only produces a better turnout when people are engaged
anyway.

Higher Analysis
One argument is that this is advantageous as it gives citizens direct control over the political
process, and ultimately their lives because the laws that are being implemented are the
direct will of the citizens. The High turnout in the Scottish independence (85%) referendum
perhaps suggests that people are likely to engage more in politics when they feel their vote
will count. A counter argument, however is that this is unrealistic in a modern world when
people work hard living their daily lives because people simply don't have time to vote on
lawmaking on a regular basis. The Scottish Independence Referendum, for example, was a
process that lasted almost three years, including debates and many public meetings. It is
possible that it is this, alongside the subject matter that led to high levels of engagement,
rather than simply the fact that there was a referendum. For example, the turnout for the
2011 referendum on changing the electoral system from FPTP to AV was only 41%, suggesting
that direct democracy can lead to low engagement too.

Most proponents of direct democracy claim that it better reflects the will of the people than
Representative Democracy. However, the counter argument to this is the problem of what
John Stuart Mill referred to as ‘the tyranny of the majority’. During the independence
referendum in Scotland in 2014, 45% of the public voted in favour of Independence, a much
higher figure than most elected politicians, yet none of this significant minority got their
way, as the ‘No’ side won. It could be argued that a representative system, particularly under
proportional representational voting systems, actually manages the wide range of opinions
better.

Para 3: Decision making

Direct Democracy (could be analysis too)

It heightens the control of citizens.

 It creates a better informed and more politically knowledgeable group of citizens.
 Public can express a view and interest without having to rely on self-serving politicians.
 Ensures rule is legitimate – decisions will be accepted since the people made them.

Direct democracy means that people are expected to take part in political
decision-making, such as law-making, themselves. This may be achieved
through referenda where the voters directly make decisions on the issue. It
means that they don’t have to rely on professional politicians as in a system
of representative democracy and would be the participants in the decision
making process and may only be in it for their own self-interest or are
constrained in parliament by party discipline. The rule that ensues is
considered legitimate; decisions will be accepted since the people made
them.

The Swiss vote around 4 times a year on average on issues such as schools, pensions,
electricity etc. The people themselves elect 246 members of Parliament which is very
democratic but very times consuming and as the people are able to overturn laws through
a referendum it can make decision making a lot slower.

Representative Democracy

Maintains stability – distances ordinary citizens from politics and encourages compromise.
Accountability is an important feature.
It allows government to be in the hands of those with expert knowledge, experience and
perhaps better educated.

Analysis

One of the key strengths of direct democracy is that it places decision making directly in
the hands of the people. This means that all decisions are legitimate as they are made
directly by the people. However, if the population in general lack understanding of issues
then it means that poor decision making could result. For example in some states where
direct forms of decision making are offered, such as California, the voters have decided
to have lower taxes but increased spending and this caused the state to have huge budget
problems. This could be seen as a disadvantage because…

Another potential advantage of RD over DD is that it looks after minorities more

effectively. Use the example of Swiss Minaret bans to argue that Switzerland is becoming
the tyanny of the majority and that Muslim rights are not taken care of.

Para 4: Practicality

Knowledge

In Direct Democracy, people have to ote more often as they need to vote on each law.

In representative democracy, people only need to vote when there is a general election to
a parliament. In the UK parliament, this is every 5 years (give more examples)

Analysis

Ever since its inception in Ancient Greece, some such as Plato, have
argued against its use, often on the grounds that the ‘masses’ don’t know
what’s best for them. In modern times some consider it to be impractical,
given the size of modern populations and the complexity of the decisions to
be made. Others argue that the expansion of the use of referenda and of
e-voting may enhance the standing of direct democracy. For example, Swiss
cantons frequently provide opportunities for citizens to make political
decisions directly.

It might be argued that RD is more practical than DD because people in the modern world
don’t have time to vote on a number of political issues.

RD is more practicable than direct democracy given the numbers involved now – still
possible to have direct democracy in small communities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many benefits of both representative and direct democracy.
Representative democracy has benefits over direct democracy in terms of practicality as
people don’t have time to conduct modern politics by direct democracy. Moreover,
because decision making is left to those with expertise, they can make a more informed
choice than the general public, who are more likely to be influenced by the agenda
driven media. However, on the other hand, it could be argued that direct democracy
better reflects the wishes of the people, although this is debateable as it could lead to
the ‘tyranny of the 51%’. Overall, the benefits of representative democracy clearly
outweigh those of direct democracy as decision making and practicality are the two most
important facets for countries in the modern world as they have the largest impact on
people’s lives, proving that representative democracy is better overall than direct
democracy.