Post by Administrator on Sept 1, 2012 13:26:56 GMT -5
It must be imagined by many citizens that a direct democracy would lead to outright tyranny by way of skilled orators and slick ads, each backed by unseen private interests, whose crass appeals to the passions of the masses would lead to the abolition of basic civil rights. Partisan gridlock, it might be argued, at least serves to protect what rights remain to us today.
Of course, even a casual observer of the political scene will find this absurd. The Congress has proven quite capable of infringing upon or otherwise blocking our civil rights and of creating new ones out of thin air. And under a new, properly designed, constitutional system, it might be made much more difficult than it is today through our representatives in Congress for any significant voting majority to impose itself upon a minority, let alone to deny to it their basic civil rights.
The main difference between a representative system and a direct democracy, beyond the absence of legislatures and partisan gridlock, would be the consequent need for the aforementioned private interests to lobby the People themselves in the open public square, rather than influencing politicians behind closed doors. If this isn't seen on balance as more of an improvement upon the status quo than a threat to it--well, I suppose that would all depend upon whose side you're on.
Of course, even a casual observer of the political scene will find this absurd. The Congress has proven quite capable of infringing upon or otherwise blocking our civil rights and of creating new ones out of thin air. And under a new, properly designed, constitutional system, it might be made much more difficult than it is today through our representatives in Congress for any significant voting majority to impose itself upon a minority, let alone to deny to it their basic civil rights.
The main difference between a representative system and a direct democracy, beyond the absence of legislatures and partisan gridlock, would be the consequent need for the aforementioned private interests to lobby the People themselves in the open public square, rather than influencing politicians behind closed doors. If this isn't seen on balance as more of an improvement upon the status quo than a threat to it--well, I suppose that would all depend upon whose side you're on.