Direct democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Direct democracy is any form of government based on a theory of civics in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. Such participation can take various forms:
This was first experimented with in the ancient Athenian democracy, which was governed for two centuries by a council of randomly selected representatives and a general assembly of all citizens.
The restrictive conditions for citizenship (only a very small male elite could participate) and small size of the Athens city-state minimized the logistical difficulties inherent to this form of government. Since then, however, this form of government has rarely been used (for example in some cantons of Switzerland (Landsgemeinde) and in town meetings in parts of New England). Modern mass-suffrage democracies generally rely on representatives elected by citizens.
Many political movements seek to restore some measure of direct democracy or a more deliberative democracy (based on consensus decision-making rather than simple majority rule). Such movements advocate more frequent public votes and referenda on issues, and less of the so-called "rule by politician." Collectively, these movements are referred to as advocating grassroots democracy or consensus democracy, to differentiate it from a simple direct democracy model. Another related movement is community politics which seeks to engage representatives with communities directly.
The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to direct democracy is that it is open to demagoguery. Another objection to direct democracy is that of practicality and efficiency. Deciding all or most matters of public importance by direct referendum is slow and expensive, and can result in public apathy and voter fatigue. Furthermore, since referendum questions have to be short and with a yes/no answer, voters may choose incoherent policies: for instance, a majority may vote in favor of reducing taxes, while a majority may also vote for increasing expenses for public education.
Further, in seeking to limit the popularity and societal foothold that direct democratic principles could naturally attain, government officials and adherents to strict republican principles tend to utilize memes such as mob rule and mobocracy (based on spare historical cases) to exacerbate a natural paranoid tendency in citizens to fear what might happen (especially with regards to their fundamental civil liberties) if all their fellow citizens were to directly make decisions on a significant degree of public policy.
Some political scholars use the term semi-direct democracy to describe direct democracy systems that are mediated in some way to protect civil liberties as well as protecting minority interests from majoritarianism. However, since direct democracy mechanisms are almost always mediated in this way, this term suggests a grey area where there is most likely none.
Interestingly, direct democracy models in practice usually focus on the adversarial process of advocating and choosing one of usually two broad or sweeping options defined for the citizens by experts. They usually de-emphasize the deeper, and some would argue more "direct" to public concerns, deliberation required for agreement that actually stands the test of time. For this reason, direct democracy is associated more with right-wing politics or left-wing politics, as evidenced by who backs many initiatives in US states that provide for them. Note however that any decision resulting from an initiative must comply with prevailing constitutional law, which usually includes disallowing any abrogation of civil liberties. Thus, initiative results are often challenged in the courts.
[edit]
See also
▪ Direct action
▪ E-democracy - using electronic communications to enhance democratic processes
▪ Internet democracy
▪ Liquid Democracy
▪ Nader's Concord Principles
▪ Participatory democracy
▪ Representative recall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Direct democracy is any form of government based on a theory of civics in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. Such participation can take various forms:
This was first experimented with in the ancient Athenian democracy, which was governed for two centuries by a council of randomly selected representatives and a general assembly of all citizens.
The restrictive conditions for citizenship (only a very small male elite could participate) and small size of the Athens city-state minimized the logistical difficulties inherent to this form of government. Since then, however, this form of government has rarely been used (for example in some cantons of Switzerland (Landsgemeinde) and in town meetings in parts of New England). Modern mass-suffrage democracies generally rely on representatives elected by citizens.
Many political movements seek to restore some measure of direct democracy or a more deliberative democracy (based on consensus decision-making rather than simple majority rule). Such movements advocate more frequent public votes and referenda on issues, and less of the so-called "rule by politician." Collectively, these movements are referred to as advocating grassroots democracy or consensus democracy, to differentiate it from a simple direct democracy model. Another related movement is community politics which seeks to engage representatives with communities directly.
The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to direct democracy is that it is open to demagoguery. Another objection to direct democracy is that of practicality and efficiency. Deciding all or most matters of public importance by direct referendum is slow and expensive, and can result in public apathy and voter fatigue. Furthermore, since referendum questions have to be short and with a yes/no answer, voters may choose incoherent policies: for instance, a majority may vote in favor of reducing taxes, while a majority may also vote for increasing expenses for public education.
Further, in seeking to limit the popularity and societal foothold that direct democratic principles could naturally attain, government officials and adherents to strict republican principles tend to utilize memes such as mob rule and mobocracy (based on spare historical cases) to exacerbate a natural paranoid tendency in citizens to fear what might happen (especially with regards to their fundamental civil liberties) if all their fellow citizens were to directly make decisions on a significant degree of public policy.
Some political scholars use the term semi-direct democracy to describe direct democracy systems that are mediated in some way to protect civil liberties as well as protecting minority interests from majoritarianism. However, since direct democracy mechanisms are almost always mediated in this way, this term suggests a grey area where there is most likely none.
Interestingly, direct democracy models in practice usually focus on the adversarial process of advocating and choosing one of usually two broad or sweeping options defined for the citizens by experts. They usually de-emphasize the deeper, and some would argue more "direct" to public concerns, deliberation required for agreement that actually stands the test of time. For this reason, direct democracy is associated more with right-wing politics or left-wing politics, as evidenced by who backs many initiatives in US states that provide for them. Note however that any decision resulting from an initiative must comply with prevailing constitutional law, which usually includes disallowing any abrogation of civil liberties. Thus, initiative results are often challenged in the courts.
[edit]
See also
▪ Direct action
▪ E-democracy - using electronic communications to enhance democratic processes
▪ Internet democracy
▪ Liquid Democracy
▪ Nader's Concord Principles
▪ Participatory democracy
▪ Representative recall