Representative Democracy vs Direct Democracy, Research Paper Example

The word ‘democracy’ comes from the Greek meaning, “the rule of people”. It implies the existence of civil and political freedoms to speak, publish, assemble and organize that are necessary to political debate and the conduct of electoral campaigns. (Huntighton 7). There is one word so close, yet so distant, from democracy and that is ‘demagogy’. A demagogue is someone who is a political leader in a democratic country in which to rule and obtain certain goals and appeals to use the fear and ignorance of people against them.

Democracy is an ideology; it is something believed to exist but it is not witnessed. Another term associated with democracy is ‘politics’, which comes, again, from the Greek meaning, “relating to people”. Politics is perceived as an art — the art of being believed, perhaps? There are two types of democracy, which will be the focus of this paper and those are 1) direct democracy and 2) representative democracy.

Direct Democracy

One of the main forms of democracy in the world is direct democracy. Direct democracy is defined as “a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraordinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination.” It is also referred to as “pure” democracy (Swiss Government). In this type of democracy, the citizens of Switzerland are allowed to vote on every law put on the table by their representatives; all laws can go through a general vote, if the citizens want them to, unlike with a representative democracy. However, this is not usually the case, because Switzerland enjoys a very legitimate parliamentary process because lawmakers are well aware that the public scrutinizes them closely. But, in the event the public chooses to carry out a general vote, they need to get at least 50,000 (approximately 1.2% of the electorate) signatures within 100 days of a new law publication to initiate a vote(Kaufmann). This is very different from a representative democracy, but would be very interesting to see indeed in Britain or America, for example. Kaufmann states that Switzerland’s direct democracy structure makes it a better place, due to its system of checks and balances, which also gives Swiss citizens the right to propose constitutional amendments. To do this, the public needs to gather at least 100,000 signatures (approximately 2.5% of the electorate) in 18 months. In addition, this type of democracy allows the citizens the last word on any constitutional changes such as those proposed by parliament, the government, and international treaties. That is a lot of power to give to the citizens, which is something unheard of in representative democracies.

Of course, it is not only the public that is involved with changes with the Swiss constitution. Federal legislators periodically update the constitution in Switzerland to account for changes in society, technology, etc. The aim is to keep solutions throughout the country standardized. With this, a majority of the Swiss electorate must agree for any changes to the constitution to carry (Swiss Government). Direct democracy is largely based on public management working in conjunction with the balance of powers.

It is significant to note that, with direct democracy, there are sometimes mandatory referendums that serve to automatically submit some parliamentary decisions to a popular vote, based on whether enough citizens sign up to vote. This type of voting is designed to be a positive initiative for the people; however, there are times when organized decision making schemes may be implemented to lessen the risk of negative votes, which is one drawback of the direct democracy system (Ritz and Sager). This is all part of the process of public management and comes with the territory.

Public Management

According to Ritz and Sager, Switzerland implemented a New Public Management (NPM) in the early 1990s that included the involvement of three levels of the federal government, namely, the member states, the municipalities, and the central state. This basically stipulates that the Swiss government governs by outcome of direct democracy. Additionally, “Outcome-based public management faces speci?c problems under these conditions since there is a third agent capable of directly interfering–namely, the sovereign, in the form of the voting population” (Ritz and Sager). That is, political decisions are the responsibility of business and political representatives and the sovereign people. This is, no doubt, a means of satisfaction for the Swiss people, as it must give them a sense of security in their government.

Satisfied Swiss Citizens

Direct democracy offers citizens more rights and control over the popular vote, than does representative democracy. According to Kirchgassner, Dorn and Fischer, citizens’ power in the political decision-making process enhances their feelings of well-being. In addition, this type of citizen empowerment leads to more acceptance of political results, because the citizens had a hand in creating the results. This is significant to note because political outcomes that are more in line with voter preferences are likely to create a more harmonious atmosphere. On the other hand, representative democracy sometimes has an opposite affect on people, although not always.

Represenative Democracy

According to USLegal, representative democracy is “a form of democracy founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people”. It is a political system in which elected officials (elected by the sovereign people) make decisions that affect the public at large. These elected officials represent the people, as an independent ruling body acting in their interests, in the democratic process. This form of government is practiced in countries such as in Spain and in the United States (USLegal).

It is a fact that Americans believe in democracy, perhaps because it is the only form of government they have known. However, although most Americans believe in democracy, there have been a number of cases where people seem unhappy with it and the politics that goes along with it. This is because the elected officials charged with acting on behalf of the people sometimes do not please the people, or at least they are not able to please all of the people all of the time.

Purpose of this Form of Democracy

There are certain benefits to be obtained from a government operating in a representative democracy structure, such as decisions of the government being responsive to the various needs of the people, as a whole. This does not always help individuals, but as a whole, the system is in place for the betterment of the people as a unit. This does not mean that representative democracy is a dictatorship, as the people hold the power to elect their representatives into office and have some say over how those offices are handled (Crum). However, representative democracy does have its limits. There are times when the people fear criticizing democracy when they really feel they want to because they are concerned about backlash, as democracy is “an unquestionable good” (Hirst).

Democracy in the United States

In modern America, the people have a definite voice in the decisions of the government, through representative bodies, of course. This is at the heart of representative democracy. As many people in America value the idea of democracy, many are uncertain because they are not very knowledgeable about the legislative process and feel that the process is often too slow or unresponsive to the needs of the people. A 2011 Gallup poll reported that only 42% or Americans had faith in the United States form of government(Zeese). This clearly shows some dissatisfaction among Americans with the representative form of democracy in the country. There is a definite disconnect between the American people and the government in many instances. This lends credibility to the power of public opinion in a representative democracy. Shapiro notes that “Today public opinion operates in quite new dimensions and with new intensities; its surging impact upon events becomes the characteristic of the current age…”  (Shapiro). This is something that is of major interests to political leaders, as well it should be.

According to Shapiro, public opinion plays a major role in policymaking in a representative democracy, but unlike with a direct democracy, does not always allow for a popular vote on legislative issues. The basic principle of representative democracy stipulates that the people govern themselves through giving power to the administration of the state and their representatives they vote into office. According to Mezey, all citizens play a role in the reach of political power, all the way up to the highest position of authority, which belongs to the right of the nation as a whole.    The direct action of the people is, however, limited in five key areas.

1. Legislators, including the president, are elected by the people. This is different with the Swiss government, which allows the chief executive to be chosen by federal assembly election.
2. Voting takes place with fundamental and constitutional law.
3. Citizens participate in self-government, such as with municipal administration, jurors, or justices of the peace.
4. Universal eligibility to public offices exists and not just with the privileged class.
5. Individual and political liberties are exercised. These liberties include freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, freedom of association, freedom of assemblages, etc.

The United States has a representative democracy structure in which elected officials represent the people who elected them, and they have the authority to select other representatives to hold various offices within the government. The United States Constitution governs the power that the representatives have. This draws attention to the power of public opinion having a significant impact on political and economic action within the country.

Comparison of Direct and Representative Democracy

A democratic government is a representative democracy run with the input of the people, but not completely run by the people. This is different from a direct democracy government that is basically run by high-ranking people belonging to small groups or as individuals. With representative democracy, the citizens elect representatives to act on their behalf and vote on legislative matters. The difference between direct democracies and representative democracies is that in direct democracies, all eligible citizens participate and can vote on legislative matters independently as a group (NCDD).

In a representative democracy, only certain people who are eligible to vote based on their age or other criteria vote to elect representatives to serve as government officials. These officials include chamber of congress members, and members of the senate or parliament. Usually, these elected officials are elected by area or region of a country. An elected official is supposed to represent the people’s voice and agree to serve the interests of the people. Often, a representative is faced with competing interests within the jurisdiction and works to find a balance to try to satisfy the greatest number of the people (NCDD).

In a direct democracy, all citizens can have a voice and vote on issues directly, and this is regardless of who the people are; they each have an equal voice. This type of government structure is often flawed because many people do not actually participate for one reason or another. Perhaps they do not feel they know enough about the issues or they simply do not have the time to participate. It is a fact that, for this type of democracy to work, the people most be actively interested, which is not always the case. However, the direct approach to governing gives the citizens an opportunity to set priorities on issues that is important to them and has a direct effect on the legislative decisions behind the issues (NCDD).

Conclusion

As shown above, a democracy is a form of government that can be structured in at least two ways, which are direct and representative. These are the two basic forms of democracy. However, the differences between the two depend on whether or not the public citizens have a direct or indirect impact on the political outcomes within the government. This is different from other forms of government, such as an oligarchy, where only a small group of people holds all the power (Shapiro). In modern times, democracy plays a significant role in the governments of some of the most powerful countries such as Switzerland, with its direct democracy structure, and the United States, with its representative democracy structure. No doubt, curious questions about the future of the representative democracy structure in America are posed, particularly with the continual advancement of new technologies and the power of the public to obtain information easier than ever before. Present-day trends may begin to collide with political theories of the past, as people continue to demand more clarification of political concepts and legislative actions. Governmental disciplines and institutional trends often leave its citizens debating what actually the best is for the people, and often it leaves them questioning whether or not their elected officials are acting in their best interests. Therefore, it is a viable concern to contemplate possible future developments in the area of democratic representation and how this would affect the world, as whole.

Works Cited

Crum, Ben. “Tailoring Representative Democracy to the European Union: Does the European Constitution Reduce the Democratic Deficit?” European Law Journal. 11.4 (2005): 452-467. Print.

Hirst, Paul. “Representative Democracy and.” Political Quarterly 59.2 (1988): 199-213. Print.

Kaufmann, Bruno. How direct democracy makes Switzerland a better place. 18 May 2007. Web. 24 April 2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435383/How-direct-democracy-makes-Switzerland-a-better-place.html>.

Kirchgassner, G., et al. “Direct democracy and life satisfaction revisited: new evidence for Switzerland.” Journal Of Happiness Studies 9.2 (2008): 227-255. Print.

Mezey, Michael L. Representative Democracy: Legislators and their Constituents. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Print.

NCDD. Liquid vs. Direct vs. Representative Democracy. 6 January 2014. Web. 24 April 2014. <http://ncdd.org/13854>.

Ritz, Adrian and Fritz Sager. “outcome-based public management and the balance of powers in the context of direct democracy.” Public Administration 88.1 (2010): 120-135. Print.

Shapiro, Robert Y. “Public Opinion and American Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75.5 (2011): 982-1017. Print.

Swiss Government. Switzerland’s Direct Democracy. n.d. Web. 24 April 2014. <http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/index.html>.

USLegal. Representative Democracy Law & Legal Definition. 2001-2014. Web. 24 April 2014. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/representative-democracy/>.

Zeese, Kevin. s the United States a Representative Democracy or a Mirage Democracy. 5 July 2011. Print. 24 April 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-zeese/a-question-for-reflection_b_889544.html>.