In 1993 Brian Beedham argued in The Economist http://www.vote.org/?q=node/8 that our current century would see “a radical change in the process by which the democratic idea is put into practice.” He was referring to an expansion in the use of referenda, enabled by technology and powered by a well-informed and well-educated electorate.

He argued that “decisions of parliament are ambiguous because nobody can be sure, on any given issue, whether a parliamentary majority really does represent the wishes of a majority of the people.” Direct democracy would enable voters to decide issues as they come up.

Already there are a lot of technological tools to help us. The internet has made parliamentary procedures much more accessible, and online forums give us the opportunity to toss issues around with better-informed individuals than you’re likely to find in most local pubs.

Online tools like GetUp http://www.getup.org.au help us to provide politicians with real-time information about our views, and in the US at least, online video sites are having an observable effect on the electoral process http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/weekinreview/20lizza.html

A new tool http://www.washingtonwatch.com/ costs every bill before the US congress, and averages out the cost per family or individual. This is empowering, because it gives voters access to comprehensible information about their elected representatives’ activities. However it’s also scary, because it skews the decision making process towards cost considerations, rather than all the other factors that our representatives are elected to weigh up.

So what do we reckon? Is more direct democracy a good or a bad thing? Should we be introducing more oversight for our elected representatives, or should we just push them aside and vote directly on all the issues ourselves? Or are we much more easy to manipulate than our elected representatives?

Beedham finished his article with the expectation that in this century “the least bad form of government yet invented by man can advance from its present half-way house to something more like full application of the democratic principle.” Is this happening? Do we want it to?

(see also Beedham, Brian. Full Democracy http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/econom-1.htm)

I can’t see that direct democracy would be any better.

For as much as I hate the lack of true democracy in our system, full democracy has a major drawback. In fact, it is really just the same drawback that we suffer from now – the desire for the here-and-now comforts, profits, material gain, etc…. and the shortage of consideration of what that means for our future.

I hate the way that our political directions seem to be so strongly controlled by business interests. But if Mum and Dad taxpayer had a vote on every issue, would it really be any different?

Let’s face it, there are political decisions that need to be made that are not going to win favour with the electorate. For example, if we were all taxed more, the provision of public services could be greatly improved. But how would a referendum for higher taxes get up?

The big issue I have with democracy of any form (and it's why I don't vote) is that it's like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Essentially, it just means the majority can bully the minority simply because they have the numbers. At the extreme end, it's no less tyrannical than anything else. As rightly mentioned, it's also incredibly short-sighted. A direct democracy wouldn't necessarily change a lot.

Also, in practical terms, it would require society to vote all the time (how does that get enforced in this country with compulsory voting?). Okay, maybe that would mean we'd be less inclined, on the whole, to interfere in each other's lives simply because we're too lazy to be constantly voting. On the other hand, maybe it would mean people would be even less informed on decisions because they'd have even less time or inclination to research every single topic. I think it would eventually lead back to a form of pseudo-representative democracy.

I think the problem is a very strong centralisation of government, coupled with the modern city (which is not sustainable, and so must always act as a leech upon everything around it). Direct democracy is practical and sensible to an extent in a small community because people have much more of a vested interest, as well as an awareness, in arriving at sensible outcomes such as a level of self-sustainability (be it social, economic, or whatever). However, people making decisions that affect large numbers of other people far away is a large part of the problem of where we are at.

Having said that, in all but the rarest circumstances, a large, centralised political body will be able to bully a smaller community economically or militarily, which is why history has shown that time and again (until collapse, and the slow re-centralisation process), and why we have arrived with the modern nation state.

Can you present a model of governance that you think has a chance working shorbe. Or do you think the very notion of government critically flawed?

Ludwig: It depends upon the parameters. If we changed human nature a whole lot of models could work, but I don't think that's what you mean.

Basically, I think the whole notion of government is flawed, certainly beyond the level of towns of a few thousand people at most (although even that would be really pushing it I think) since beyond that, the governance becomes less responsive to the needs of individuals (and eventually, even to entire communities).

Government is about who controls or lacks power. Perhaps the best model might be that of an enlightened despot if one actually existed and everyone were happy to go along with it, though that gets into the afore-mentioned fantasy. Any other form of minority rule is going to cause big problems. However, I don't think democracy (in any form) is fantastic because then there's just the majority/minority divide -- great if you're in the majority, bad if you're in the minority. Theocracy can be either model.

Then we might consider some sort of libertarianism (my own bias) or anarchism. However, the former is problematic in two ways. The first is that the market can be just as flawed as anything else, and in a way, you end up with a tyranny of the market. The second is that not everyone is like the protagonist from an Ayn Rand novel, which leaves them extremely susceptible to the former complaint. As for anarchism, an interesting exploration of this is the novel The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin, in which (I rightly believe also) any anarchistic society ultimately tends towards rigidity and a centralisation of power.

I think any model has its good points and bad points, but like any system (cultural, biological, etc.) it's only good in particular situations, and eventually, what made it good will lead to its downfall unless it adapts. I think historically, we see time and again a centralisation of power, a collapse to de-centralisation and then a slow re-centralisation.

However, I think government (and its problems) is only a manifestation of the deeper issues (and problems) of humans in general.

Thanks shorbe. Interesting stuff.

That is the problem – there is no good system.

So back to the original question then – is direct democracy better than our current system?

Or is there some other alternative within the broad parameters of our Westminster system, or something that has a chance of getting up that is outside of that system that might shift our political system into the modern era?

Or alternatively, how do we change human nature… which as you say really sits at the heart of our political system?

I can think of one way of changing human nature… to have a huge crash event wrought by just continuing on with our unsustainable practices, which are basically encouraged by our current political system.

But it would be nice if we could change before that happened, and to the extent that we could prevent it from happening.
.
.
.
.
Fat chance.