Debate 1: Direct V Representative Democracy Flashcards
1A: direct democracy is the most legitimate form of democracy
Since 1918 only 2 elections (1931 and 1935) resulted in over 50% vote share for winning party, is this consent to be governed? And does that feeling mean there is a gulf between people and govt. that creates political apathy as change seems impossible. Although technically people have some power, in practise political parties. Most people don’t actually vote for who represents them so vote is wasted + representatives can ignore certain demographics that will not vote for them. DISCONNECT
In 2022, 33.9% of UK above 15 trusted govt. in Switzerland 82.4% according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
1B: direct democracy creates instability
Referendums have been used in UK as form as direct democracy, for example Brexit, if the public greatly opposed the representative govts views on leaving EU, they could simply threaten to note vote for them, by leaving it to the public became a reflection of parliament, divided and polarised as a 1.9% win also seemed just as illegitimate for a decision with such an impact, called another election, would DD create a pipeline of neverendums?
Also in indyref, 55% said to remain in UK in 2014, but as soon as another form of DD (Brexit referendum) was decided (where SCO voted 62% remain) they wanted indyref 2, in DD could one law that wins an extremely small minority, create reactionary secondary referendums, a snowball effect creating almost a form of political parties within the public.
Also AV vote 2011 had 42% turnout, if it was a majority that agreed, and was section of society that understood and supported the issue, would that be a form of minority rule for a fairly obscure issue? Not legitimate
2A: allows self determinism, only pure form of democracy
Ensures people are governed by laws THEY THEMSELVES directly consented to, ‘general rule’ of society, this prevents a dissonance between the people and the direction of their country meaning people feel they do not have power over government. E.g. voter turnout 59% in 2024, until 1997, never dropped below 70%, since it hasn’t reached 70%, only had during 2016 Brexit referendum, excercise of DD encouraged participation.
According to ipsos, 64% of those who felt unrepresented by parties in UK said that there is not point in engaging in politics as nothing ever changes and even 47% compared to 26% of those who did feel represented agreed
2B: direct democracy allows the majority to impose rules that harm minorities
Switzerland has trend towards conservatism, and it could be argued that the power given to a simple majority decider on policy allows the “tyranny of the majority”
2003 Swiss court arguably took away some powers of DD to prevent votes in anti-immigration regions consistently voting against citizenship applications from people with Turkish and Yugoslavian backgrounds, citizenship became state run.
2009, with 57.5% majority, vote banned construction of minarets on mosques, taking rights from Swiss Muslim population (5%), in the UK this would cause havoc in whether Supreme Court could declare laws agreed by majority as incompatible with HRA.
3A: direct democracy takes power from political elite
DD removes power from the political elite, 23% privately educated, 20% went to Oxbridge, could an elite consensus on certain issues limit the ideological scope of polices, does DD increase pluralism?
Only 100,000 signatures needed to hold referendum, with power above the Federal Council, could this speed modernisation of UK, as much of democracy is a gradual process of taking away power from previously autocratic regimes, in UK’s case the monarchy. This would increase trust in politics and reduce the paranoia of corruption by influence of corporations lobbying for power, e.g. 1994 Cash-for-questions scandal. In 2019, 63% said they felt potitics was rigged to favour upper classes, how can political class relate to general public? Would DD make sure politics serves the people
3B: representative democracy allows experts to control complex issues
Although concerns about technocracies are valid, the idea of a political class is exaggerated in modern times, 2024 recorded the lowest amount of privately educated mp’s, 20% is still a lot, but it is a record low, in 1983 it peaked at 51%, furthermore 2/3rds of new MP’s studied at comprehensive schools, closer to the 90% in public.
DD is not exactly the most sensible way to make decisions on economics etc 1) the public will not have time to understand these issues in as much detail as ministers whom are experts in the field, so poorer quality decisions are likely going to be made and 2) some decisions can’t be made simply through a binary choice.
