Direct Democracy

This entry was posted by on Thursday, 21 January, 2010 at

Direct Democracy Some people argue that “liberal democracy” does not respect the will of the majority (except in the election of representatives). The “freedom” of the will of the majority is constrained by the constitution or precedent. Moreover, power is actually held by a relatively small group of representatives. Thus, the argument is that “liberal democracy” is nothing but an oligarchy disguised as preferable to being direct democracy. New technologies may enable implementation of systems such as electronic democracy. Others would say that a liberal democracy can only guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development of a dictatorship. The implementation of the will of the majority without restraint could lead to the oppression of minorities.One argument used in the opposite direction is that elected leaders would be more capable and more interested in the issues to deal with than the average voter, they should work hard to collect the necessary information and then discuss and vote on it. Some liberal democracies have some elements of direct participation such as referenda or plebiscites. In countries such as Switzerland and Uruguay are used to press the popular view of many legal issues, while others are limited to issues of extreme importance as they were, in Spain, those for which adopted the 1978 Constitution, various statutes Autonomy or accession major international (EU, NATO …).

Comments are closed.