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.

But don't we have "democracy by media" already?

Just turn on that little cathode ray tube in the lounge room, jot down the relevant poll line number, call the station, (& subsidise the media barons while you're at it) - hey presto - democratic principles in action!

No need for overpaid judges, unweildy legal processes and the usury levied by 'Jills & Jacks' in Beemers anymore.

Those insipid little TV folk will make redundant all those subtle niceties of the democratic process.

Tune in and turn off your brains. May your god help us all!

Ludwig: I think it's a matter of what one's objectives are from a political system. Direct and representative democracy both have their advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other, so I don't know that it's necessarily possible to ask which is better without setting the limitations of one's objectives and judging them accordingly.

What exactly do you mean by the modern era, for instance, and what exactly would a political system need to accomplish in order to be relevant to the modern era? Arguably, Singapore and the Netherlands are both particularly modern, and yet they're both quite different from each other and from Australia. Bear in mind that some things we consider progressive (eg. free choice and environmentalism) may actually be at odds with one another. I think history has shown us that autocracy, or at least oligarchy, is the norm (to which we will return) and democracy is actually the anomaly.

For human nature to change, we'd need a return to survival pressures to cause natural selection. Even environmental collapse or pandemics that wiped out 99% of the population would still leave 1% (who could cope quite well with the available resources), yet we're talking millions. Also, it's unlikely that they'd regress beyond the iron age and agriculture. Humans have remained more or less the same in the past 10,000 years of civilisation, let alone the 200,000 years (I think?) since homo sapiens has been around.

I think we'd be more likely to see radical genetic changes due to mutation from nuclear radiation, or changes through genetic engineering. I think these two are more likely than widescale collapse leading to a fundamental change in the nature of the species.

Whilst I don't think unsustainability is good, ultimately, we'd reach an equilibrium even if there were collapse. I just don't think we're that significant in the scheme of things. It would take an extinction level event to really knock us around enough.

One of Haradine's major premises would appear to have been that the electrorate would be "well-informed and well-educated"

I don't see that technology has resulted in either of those being true. People may be receiving more information, but they are also receiving more disinformation. People are certainly not being educated so as to provide them with the intellectual tools to form valid judgments. Most people would not be capable even of voting in line with their self interest, because they have no way of determining where that interest lies.

I believe that much current dissatisfaction with government derives exactly from the fact that rational government decisions are not perceived as such by the electorate due to poor understanding. Giving the electorate real power in such a situation would only lead to a worsening of our condition.

Sylvia.

Aldous Huxley said:

"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy."

For my ten cents worth, Australia ceased to be democratic many years ago with the introduction of "two party abused system" of voting.

RIP & Vale Don Chipp, at least someone in our political desert had the intestinal fortitude to try and keep the bastards honest.
The wasteland of Australia's opposition parties (if this is what they really are) is a void which needs filling.

Human rights in dear old Oz - what a joke! Trial by media, trial by political expedient, and justice for all... spare me please.

I sat last night at the public meeting re: Karama/Malak - 'The Bronx Revisited' listening to the Federal Minister for Justice, our NT Police Minister, Big Dave Tollner, and other assorted talking heads waffle on about 'security', our 'responsibilities' and 'civic duties'. An ABC journo with bad breath was there, trawling the crowd, drumming up for 'beat ups on a story'.

What issued forth from them was nothing short of tired rhetoric, re-hashed from time immemorial. Sure, a nice placebo effect from the on offer pills of beefing up police numbers, and other worthy programmes. But, the upshot is, that ever gnawing threat of 4 year terms in office and political myopia stalking anything of substance from ever really happening.

The most wonderful moment, a young African fellow by the name of Edward...marvellous! He spoke passionately about his arrival here, his experiences thus far in Oz, and what in fact our 'responsibilities' were to each other, as citizens.

Problem is, that until were free ourselves from being 'Subjects of the Crown' , and the status quo - citizenry is a moot discussion. Democracy, nothing but a shadowy phantom....?

Sylvia: It sounds like an argument for fascism. Just who out there in society is really capable of making informed decisions, especially since half the time we're lied to and given misinformation? Once we start saying people aren't capable of making the right decisions anyway, it's pretty easy to then justify the bureaucrats and politicians just doing whatever they want and completely ignoring the populace. Of course, societies (past or present) run on such principles work so well...

Besides, if we believe them, a whole bunch of politicians don't even know what's going on in their departments regarding everything from deporting Australians to the AWB scandal, so why should they get to make any decisions either?

Here's an idea: when a politician can accurately predict the future and make rational decisions himself or herself and actually does what he or she promises instead of being a law unto himself or herself, then I might just consider giving him or her my undivided power. Of course, we know neither is going to happen. There's a reason no civilised country has absolute rule: history has shown it doesn't work and the concept of the enlightened despot is false.

Shorbe,

Nice attempt at a strawman.

It's only an argument in support of our existing form of representative democracy. People might be attracted to the idea of a direct democracy, but that does not in itself mean that such a democracy would function.

I'm not particularly happy with the way government currently works, but it's clear that things could be a lot worse.

Sylvia.

Ludwig, I was interested in your comment "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?"

I agree that governments will have to make tough and unpopular decisions at times, thats one of the bits I like about the current system. Political parties are judged more on overall performance than on specific decisions (hopefully).

Your comment though suggests to me that you don't think we should have a choice between the provision of public services and taxation.

I would like to have a choice between the two, I think I can use my income more effectively than the government to provide a lot of those services.

At the moment neither of the major parties seem to offer that choice in a real form but it is a choice I would like to be able to vote on.

R0bert

Will people ever vote for higher taxes? Possibly not. The Washington Watch site has polling for each bill it lists, and generally (but not always) people are opposing bills that cost money. Of course this is not a real vote, and it’s not clear how much the site prevents people from voting twice, so the results aren’t reliable.

On the other hand, Beedham’s second article looks at this problem, http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/econom-3.htm#unselfishly and argues that a better-informed voter will be more likely to vote unselfishly. Certainly there are Swiss examples of referenda which have been determined contrary to the voters’ apparent short-term interests, so maybe self-interest would be just part of the mix of factors deciding an issue.

In our private lives, we are capable of weighing up the pros and cons of say, spending money to get the roof fixed. Surely we are also capable of deciding to pay higher taxes to improve hospitals. Maybe it’s naïve, but I suspect the informed voter will eventually prevail over the self-interested one.

Of course, there will be limits, but these apply equally to elected governments. For example, what about where a difficult decision will threaten the livelihoods of many? Are we any less capable than our elected representatives of voting to say, triple the price of fossil fuels, or make farmers pay the real cost of the water they use? I don’t think so.

Which brings me to shorbe's tyranny-of-the-majority problem. This is likely to be an intractable one, and will as a minimum require solid protections for minorities. Otherwise how can we be sure that in a moment of grief, passion or elation we won’t vote to disenfranchise muslims, to make cricket compulsory or to excise Tasmania?

I suspect that shorbe’s notion that no-one is capable of making an informed political decision is really a search for someone who can make a perfect decision, and this, by nature, is impossible. I passionately disagree with the view that we’re not capable of governing ourselves – since we all share the consequences of political decisions, we must also shoulder the responsibility for them.

Sylvia: It's not an attempt at a strawman. It's a very important philsophical problem.

If people can't make rational decisions about political issues, then how can they evaluate the performances (or lack thereof) of politicians, since to do so would require people to be able to make rational decisions about the performances of politicians, which would require people to be able to understand the (ir)rationality of the decisions being made? All you're doing is pushing the problem back one step because at some point someone you claim to be unable to make these rational decisions has to make a decision. It doesn't matter where that step is or how many times it's made (eg. We could establish an independent body to evaluate the politicians, yet who evaluates the independent body?), the problem remains.

By the way, I'm not arguing for direct democracy (or democracy in general).

R0bert: I also agree with your questioning of Ludwig's point and think that people would often be able to make better decisions for themselves. I don't think that more taxes equal better service. They might mean more government largesse and a bigger gravy train, but they don't necessarily mean the money will be more effectively spent for the people who pay the taxes.

w: Sorry if I've misinterpreted you, but I just want to clear up that I agree with you in thinking that people can (and should) make their own decisions. I don't think that just because people can't make perfect decisions that they shouldn't. I think people should have the opportunity to make their own decisions, even if they're not very good at making them. I'm interested to know whether you agree with democracy in principle (regardless of whether it is or isn't the best practical system). Isn't democracy just a way of people claiming that simply because of numbers they know better about making decisions for other people? Two morons can out vote a genius, or two wolves can out vote a sheep about what's for dinner.

R0bert

“Your comment though suggests to me that you don't think we should have a choice between the provision of public services and taxation.”

I assumed that there would always be taxes, and services provided by a centralised government. It was just the level of taxation that was open to debate.

But yes, some service-provision directly from private enterprise could increase if taxes were to fall and the ability of government to provide those services was to fall accordingly. And that sort of thing might be appealing to voters.

But if a bill was put forward under a direct democracy regime in which the constituency was given the chance to vote on having no taxes at all, or very low taxes, it might just prove to be too tempting to many people, perhaps the majority, to vote for no or nominal taxes, especially as it would mean a very large increase in their take-home income. While private enterprise would take over some services, that would be disastrous to governments and service provision overall, including policing, education, and many other things.

So if we had unfettered direct democracy, we might just see some very radical changes that could turn us into a very different sort of society or be our undoing. If we were to increase the participatory aspect, we would have to be careful about the connotations. Some things just could never be open to direct voting.

And that leads to the question of what things would be ineligible. With all the ineligible stuff worked out, would a move towards direct democracy be a real expansion of our ability to have a meaningful say in policy, or would it be basically a feel-good exercise, or would it be no different to the current system, with just the occasional referendum?

Shorbe, it's a strawman.

You sought to characterise my post as being an "argument for fascism". Your comment served no valid purpose in the debate, but was included in an attempt to taint my position by associating it with a discredited model of government.

You do yourself a disservice, because I'm sure many people are like me, and just ignore the rest of your post when you try to use such tactics. After all, if you have so little confidence in your ability to argue a point on its merits, why should anyone else?

Sylvia.

Sylvia: Your argument was invalid as a defence for any form of democracy for the reasons I outlined in my last post, namely that there's a contradiction in it (look up "exclusive disjunction" in logic for a start on what's wrong with your argument). You can't argue against something and then try to argue for something else that also requires the same thing. Explain how people cannot be responsible enough to vote directly on an issue, yet can be responsible enough to assess a representative's stance or performance who will vote on the issue. Whether you intended it or not, it was an argument for fascism (or at least for an enlightened despot or group thereof).

I actually don't care one way or the other in a sense about whether fascism or (any) form of democracy is liked or disliked as I don't believe in either democracy or fascism. I think they both have their practical applications, I just don't agree with either from an ideological perspective. I actually think that historically, democracy will be seen as an anomaly (and will be "discredited" in time), and that within this century, we'll see a move away from it again, but that's beside the point.

If you're so hell bent on pushing an argument that has a contradiction at its centre, then it really doesn't bother me one way or the other what you think of what I write, or whether you think I try to argue my point on its merits. Also, who knows what other people will think about what I write? Maybe they come from a completely different angle to both of us and might find it interesting.

Shorbe,

Your attempt to refute my position using logic fails because you start with a false premise, which is that our existing system depends on voters being "responsible enough to assess a representative's stance or performance who will vote on the issue."

Whether voters are actually responsible enough to do that is a moot point. In reality, assessing the stance or performance of prospective representives is not something that the vast majority of voters do. Indeed, attempting to do so would be a waste of time because most of the time our representatives just do what their parties tell them to.

So voters by and large vote for which ever candidate is a member of their favoured party, and real power is accorded to a handful of people based on a combination of a popularity contest and a meritocracy.

Hmmm ... "agree with democracy in principle." Not sure what you mean, shorbe. Democracy exists, in many different forms, irrespective of whether or not I agree with it.

Do I regard it as a higher principle? Not sure what you mean by this, either. Democracy is one of the ways in which we respect and accommodate individual human rights. However it’s not the only way.

As you’ve pointed out, in a democracy there’s always a danger that the majority will exercise its will to the disadvantage of a minority. Fortunately, all modern democracies have protections against this: separation of powers, bills of rights, bi-cameral parliaments, proportional representation, freedom of the press, constitutional protections ... no doubt you could name a whole lot more.

Government by elected representatives is itself a protection against the tyranny of the majority, though less so when one party holds a majority in both houses of parliament.

Technology is enabling voters to become much better informed. At the same time, voters’ opinions on any given issue are being revealed with greater accuracy than ever before, and our elected representatives are following voters’ opinions more and more closely. It can’t be long before pressure to cut out the middleman (politicians) starts to mount, at least on social issues.

As democracy becomes more direct (as I suspect it inevitably will), I fear that some of the protections could be diluted, especially where there is no Bill of Rights. However this is a reason to fortify the protections, not to condemn democracy.

I’d still much rather face the danger of a majority overriding a minority, than the danger of a despot riding roughshod over everyone.

Sylvia: So you're saying the system is a bit of a charade? Have I interpreted you correctly?

w: You made some interesting comments.

I was asking you whether, regardless of if your personal beliefs are out of line with those of others or the practical reality, you think it's a just or fair system in principle, people being able to decide how others should run their lives.

I don't agree that democracy inherently respects and accomodates human rights. I think a Bill of Rights or any other protection can be tacked on to a democracy and co-exist fairly well, but it's not fundamental to it. Democracy is essentially a numbers game that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with absolutes such as human rights. Singapore is a democracy, yet I think it lacks all sorts of individual rights.

It's interesting that you think that democracy will eventually become more direct. What about misinformation? How do people know the information they're getting via the technology is true? How do you know that both this information, and the voting process, isn't manipulated? Maybe you're more optimistic than I am.

Also, I'm interested in how you think people will eventually cut the middlemen of politicians from running their lives. Do you think people might move even beyond that and cut the middlemen of each other from running their own lives? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, what would make a Bill of Rights be set in stone? Why would it necessarily stand up against public opinion? It's not like it's the law of gravity. If enough people wanted to ignore a Bill of Rights, it would effectively be irrelevant. Whilst it might be a nice idea to have one, it doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

What about instead of an individual or a group of people telling another what to do (because ultimately, if someone tells me what to do, it doesn't make a difference how many people are doing it), no one has any sway over anyone else?

'A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic', quotes Mr Manton.

Does anyone see the lineal progression of the Rise of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat -or is it the Rise of National Socialism- ? Either way, the Bomber (Heir Leader) looks like being in-charge after the 2007 election!

The old and the grey have really done it now with their assertions of 'attitude'. What next grandma, lessons in how to eat dirt and grow grass? Talk about un-natural selection and devolution.

Perhaps Bomber will throw a state or two, or am i just being conceited? No matter really, for i fear the party will have all the answers i will ever need.

Darwin.