Direct Versus Representative Democracy

Is representative democracy ideal? Or are direct democratic systems such as the one in ancient Athens? It is challenging to contemplate answers to these questions. More importantly, different people from different political schools will answer differently. A British citizen with a strong belief in the parliamentary system will favour representative democracy and will most likely consider Athenian democracy impractical. A young anarchist, on the other hand, might strive for direct democracy. In his book titled “On Politics”, Alan Ryan mentions commentators who view representative democracy as a system of “competing elites.” This argument rests on the idea that representative democracy does not give the people “complete power” in governance. This system forces the people to choose from within a group of professional politicians. To illustrate this point, Ryan provides an example of a doctor. People are usually free to choose their doctor, and the patients trust their doctor to do the right thing. Similarly, representative democracy requires the people to elect politicians and trust these officials to make the right decisions. As a result, more often than not, people living in representative democracy are forced to pick the lesser of two evils. This phenomenon was most evident in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where many voters complained of not having a candidate that represents their ideals. There is another influential criticism of representative democracy: the importance of money. Even when the participants of representative democracy have good intentions and a clear conscience, money is an essential factor to get a politician’s message to the people. According to the Electoral Commission of the U.K., in the 2017 general elections, the Conservative party spent more than £18 million and was the top spender among all parties. And, not surprisingly, the Conservatives won the General election with 317 out of 650 seats in the House of Commons. So, if representative democracy has many flaws, is direct democracy better? If Athenian democracy is considered the perfect model of direct democracy, then it has as many flaws as representative democracy. Plato, the disciple of Socrates, believed that a philosopher-king — a philosopher who is also a king — rules an ideal state. The persecution of Socrates further intensified these sentiments. Socrates and his disciples did not esteem Athenian democracy. Their main argument against democracy was related to justice. According to Plato, direct democracy is not practical because the citizens of a state do not know of justice. The most crucial role of a ruler is to ensure justice, and philosophers are the only ones with such a capacity. Plato’s argument carries relevance even in modern society. People often vote for the wrong candidate or the wrong idea because they are not well informed. Second, and the most popular argument against direct democracy is its impracticality. How is it possible to ensure every citizen of a state gets a voice in every decision? There are numerous other arguments for and against both kinds of democracy. Yet, representative democracy prevails in all democratic countries of the modern world. However, with the advancement of technology and increasing political consciousness of people, a practical model for direct democracy might be possible in the future.