Switzerland and numerous American states integrated direct democracy into their constitutions during the 19th century. Three main categories of changes led to the continuous use of direct democracy:
• Attempts by people from different social classes to limit the oligarchy's political influence.
• Processes leading to political or territorial independence or autonomy for integrating and legitimizing emerging nations.
• The switch from authoritarian to democratic government, as happened in the post-World War II regional states of Germany.
People's demands for expanded representative voting rights and more political representation led to the development of modern democracy. Based on the ideas of popular sovereignty, freedom, and political equality, constitutions, civil rights, and universal suffrage came to be associated with "democracy."
Representative Versus Direct Democracy
• Direct democracy is the reverse of representative democracy, which is more widespread and in which the people elect representatives who have the authority to make laws and policies on their behalf. The laws and policies that are passed by the elected officials should, in theory, accurately reflect the preferences of the majority of the populace.
• While the U.S. practices representative democracy through the U.S. Congress and state legislatures, protected by a federal system of "checks and balances," two forms of limited direct democracy are practiced at the state and local levels: recall of elected officials and ballot initiatives and binding referendums.
• Citizens may petition to have laws or spending items that are generally addressed by state and local legislative bodies placed on statewide or local ballots through ballot initiatives and referendums.
• Citizens have the power to enact, amend, or repeal laws, as well as change state constitutions and local charters, through successful ballot initiatives and referendums.
The American System Of Direct Democracy
Towns in some states, like Vermont, practice direct democracy through town meetings to decide local issues in the New England region of the United States. The custom, which stretches back more than a century to the British colonial era in America, predates both the country's formation and the U.S. Constitution.
The "tyranny of the majority" was something that the Constitution's framers feared could result from direct democracy. For instance, James Madison specifically advocates for a constitutional republic that favors representative democracy over direct democracy in Federalist
To protect the individual citizen from the majority's will. People who own property and people who don't have any have always developed separate interests in society, he argued. "Those who are debtors and those who are creditors are treated unequally. In civilized countries, landed interests, manufacturing interests, mercantile interests, moneyed interests, and many other smaller interests develop out of necessity and separate people into various classes, each driven by a different set of emotions and viewpoints.
The main goal of modern legislation is to control these disparate and conflicting interests, which incorporates the spirit of party and faction in the essential and routine functions of the government. "Pure democracy cannot survive long nor be extended far into the departments of state—it is very prone to caprice and the lunacy of popular wrath," said John Witherspoon, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence.
A pure democracy, if it were possible, would be the best form of governance, according to Alexander Hamilton. No position is more wrong than this one, experience has shown. There was never a single beneficial aspect of government in the ancient democracies where the people participated in the decision-making. Their very nature was tyranny, and they had a deformed appearance.
Contrary to the framers' original intentions, direct democracy in the form of referendums and ballot initiatives is now frequently used at the state and local levels.
Examples Of Direct Democracy In Switzerland And Athens:
In ancient Athens, Greece, direct democracy may have been best demonstrated. Athenian direct democracy obliged men over the age of 20 to vote on all significant matters of governance, despite the fact that it prohibited many groups, including women, slaves, and immigrants, from exercising their right to vote. Every court case's verdict was also decided by a popular vote of the entire population.
The most notable example of modified direct democracy in contemporary society is Switzerland, where any law passed by the country's elected legislative branch can be vetoed by a vote of the general public.
Additionally, voters can demand that the national legislature take Swiss constitutional amendments into consideration.
Direct Democracy: Advantages And Drawbacks
Direct democracy has both advantages and disadvantages that should be taken into account, notwithstanding the allure of having the final say in governmental issues.
Three Benefits of Direct Democracy:-
Complete government openness (Transparency):
No other type of democracy, without a doubt, guarantees a higher level of openness and transparency between the populace and their government. Major issues are the subject of public discussions and debates. Additionally, rather than the government, the people can be held accountable for all of society's accomplishments or failings.
More Government Accountability:
Direct democracy requires a high level of accountability from the government since it gives the people a clear and direct voice through their votes. The government cannot argue that it was unaware of or unsure of the people's will. Political partisanship
and special interest group meddling in the legislative process have mostly removed.
Greater Citizen Cooperation:
People are more likely to gleefully abide by laws they helped to design, at least in theory. People are also more eager to participate in governmental processes when they believe their opinions will have an impact.
Drawbacks Of Direct Democracy:
We May Never Decide:
We might never reach a decision if every American citizen were required to vote on every topic being examined at every level of government. Voters might practically spend the entire day, every single day, voting due to the number of concerns that are taken into consideration by the local, state, and federal governments.
Public Participation Would Decline:
When the majority of people participate in it, direct democracy best fulfils the needs of the populace. The public's interest and involvement in the process would rapidly decline as the amount of time needed for debating and voting increased, resulting in decisions that did not accurately represent the majority's will. Small groups of people, frequently with personal grudges, eventually gained control of the government.
A series of tense situations:
What are the chances that everyone will ever happily agree with or at least peacefully accept decisions on major issues in any society as large and diverse as that in the United States? Not much, as recent history has demonstrated.
Any suggestions or correction in this article - please click here