Direct democracy

               

                There are two main types of democracy; direct and indirect. Under the latter, politicians are elected to represent the people. This is the most common form of democracy, and is clearly the most suited to countries with large populations. Direct democracy however occurs when the will of the people is directly translated into policy. This form of democracy is widely used throughout the world. In America however, direct democracy is limited to those states that allow it. Nationwide plebiscites are actually prohibited by the Constitution. The founding fathers believed that national plebiscites might be used to undermine the rights of individuals and minority groups.

                When considering the whole area of direct democracy, one must distinguish between an indirect initiative (where citizens draft a proposal and present it to the state legislature) and a direct initiative (where a draft proposal goes straight to a public ballot). The constitutionality of a proposition may well come to the attention of the judicial branch. Pressure groups unhappy at the wording of a proposition routinely adopt the legal route, and this can at times be successful for that particular pressure group. Propositions that catch the headlines tend to be held on controversial issues such as gay marriage, immigration measures, reproductive rights, affirmative action and the legalization of marijuana. Propositions can mobilize a wide number of pressure groups and other relevant organizations. Politicians will also be involved in some manner. At the very least, a politician will almost certainly be asked about their stance on the issue(s) at hand.

                There are various arguments in favor of direct democracy; and of course many against. Perhaps the most interesting point to consider is their impact upon democracy. At first glance, direct democracy provides a means by which to address the democratic deficit. A proposition could be described as the distilled essence of people power. The demos can directly affect public policy in some manner without recourse to elected politicians or the broader political process. However, propositions can of course result in the tyranny of the majority. To take one noted example, proposition 187 held in California over the status of illegal immigrants in the mid-90s impinged negatively upon a marginalized group within society. Historically, referendums (to use the more generic term for examples of direct democracy) have been used within autocratic regimes to target minority groups.

                Direct democracy also makes the task of governance much more complex. There are few better examples to consider than California. The tax constraints imposed upon law-makers makes the golden state virtually ungovernable; and may well have contributed to cities like Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino having declared bankruptcy. California also provides the classic illustration of the problems inherent with direct democracy. Proposition 13 (held way back in 1978) seems to exemplify in a succinct manner all that can go wrong when the demos are asked to shape policy in such a direct manner.

                From the opposing angle, propositions could be seen as a welcome addition to the democratic arsenal held by people living in the states. They enable the public to directly influence decisions that affect their lives. That said; our support or otherwise for direct democracy relates to our view of the general public. The demos do not necessarily reach decisions on a rational or impartial basis. Indeed, voters can at times adopt a prejudicary mindset that may well undermine the civil rights of minority groups. Elected representatives might actually adopt a more tolerant and enlightened perspective that reflects the best of what democracy should be about; as opposed to the public who can adopt a hostile attitude towards those who are somehow ‘different’ from the norm. This is particularly noticeable during a time when the public feel threatened in some manner (perhaps via terrorism or when their jobs are being ‘lost’ to illegal immigrants). One would only have to consider the aforementioned proposition 187 held in California which was described at the time as the SOS (Save Our State) initiative. The use of such alarmist discourse plays on fears amongst white people at losing out to Hispanics and other minority groups.