Topic: Democracy
We Need More Direct Democracy The failure of our representative democracy creates urgency for more direct democracy.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Representative government fails when corrupt politicians mostly serve corporate and other special interests. Then it is crucial for citizens to have direct democracy opportunities. This means having the right to place initiatives or referenda on ballots that can make new laws, amend constitutions, recall elected officials, or control taxes and government spending.
Though many local and 24 state governments provide rules for some ballot measures and initiatives, they have been limited by diverse establishment, status quo political interests on the left and right that feel threatened by such populist citizen power.
I was impressed by the recent Wall Street Journal article by John Fund: The Far Left's War on Direct Democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121702588516086143.html?mod=todays_columnists). He made the point that direct democracy, though sorely needed, has been successfully crushed by ugly tactics from those interests that would rather use their money and influence to control legislative and other government functions. They fear citizen power. They know how to control elections and manipulate voters. "Unfortunately, some special interests have declared war on the initiative process, using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery," said Fund.
I agree with Fund's summation: "Representative government will remain the enduring feature of American democracy, but the initiative process is a valuable safety valve. …attempts to arbitrarily curb the initiative, or to intimidate people from exercising their right to participate, must be resisted. It's a civil liberties issue that should unite people of good will on both the right and left."
If this sounds reasonable to you, then the appropriate question to ask of presidential candidates is straightforward: Do you support providing more direct democracy opportunities?
Indeed, many people want some way of creating a federal ballot initiative mechanism whereby the misdeeds or inaction of government could be addressed by Americans voting directly to get the transparent and accountable government and effective public policies they want. A national ballot measure to end the Iraq war would have succeeded in 2006, for example. Putting Democrats in control of Congress did not work. Do we need the ability to recall a president because of dishonesty, incompetence and wrongheaded policies? Yes.
Also consider that the two-party plutocracy has been able to stifle political opposition by making third party and independent candidates unable to grasp any real power, as they can do in most other democracies.
In thinking about direct democracy I was reminded of the all too prevalent view that Barack Obama will challenge the traditional, money dominated two-party control of Washington politics. So, I pose this challenge to Obama: If you truly represent a force for fixing a divisive and ineffective political system, then why don't you explicitly come out in favor of creating more direct democracy opportunities? Why not condemn all attempts to crush ballot measures and initiatives? And why not help start a national discussion of the possibility of a federal ballot initiative mechanism?
When over 80 percent of Americans see the nation on the wrong track it is fair to conclude that representative government has failed. The two-party plutocracy has too much power. This is the ideal time to recognize the limits of electoral, representative democracy and become an advocate for more direct democracy.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1912, wisely observed "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative." Direct democracy is all about converting the notion of sovereignty of we the people into reality.
It comes to this: Should we be content to put our faith in elected representative or should we put it in ourselves? When you vote for candidates you don't put your faith in yourself, you put it in them. Haven't we been disappointed enough in those elected? We have less to fear from the will of the majority than from the actions of dishonest, corrupt and plutocracy-serving elected officials.
For political reform seeking Americans the litmus test for presidential candidates should be whether they support more direct democracy. If Obama is not just about rhetorical change, but a true reformer of the political system, then we need to hear from him on this issue.
Let him explain whether or not he supports what Ralph Nader does, who has said that presidential candidates should "put front and center empowering the American people in direct democracy format so they can move in when their so-called representatives cave in to the interests of big business. …Campaign finance reform has got to go hand in hand with direct democracy like initiative, referendum, recall." His current platform says that we need "more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with ‘we the people,' and not ‘we the corporations.'"
Can you imagine Obama saying these things? I can't.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Someone once compared direct democracy to a sheep sitting down with two wolves to decide what's for dinner. The point being that in a democracy 51% of the people could vote to take the rights from the other 49%.
In our constitutional republic we say we still believe in majority rule, but the majority must respect the rights of the minority. To that end the founders created a congress, a president and a Supreme Court, all of whom are bound by their oath of office to support the constitution. Unfortunately that doesn't work well because so many people, in all 3 branches of government, don't give a rat's ass about the constitution.
You raise good points about how our government no longer serves the people, but I would be fearful of a pure democracy too.
Democracy my a**. Democracy is simply an oligarcy of the majority. Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? The Senate and Executive were never intended to be elected by popular vote. The only "voice of the people" is supposed to be the House of Representatives which very conveniently holds the purse strings and represents the people who do the paying (you and me) if that is required of a given (and approved) course of action. The Senate is the voice of the collective States' governing bodies and is supposed to be chosen as such. Article 2 of the Bill of Rights exists precisely because democracy does not guarantee any of the other nine. This should help: [link edited for length]
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-07-28 16:45:24
Hi Joel,
I'll have to vote "No" on that one. Democracy is simply mob rules and should be limited only to those decisions that can be made locally. If an issue gets elevated above that local level I no longer have the means nor the opportunity to face my opposition and make my case.
At that point the issue rests in the hands of professionals, and in the ruling, rich elite, not the People. This is the system we have and that is not representative at all. It is as close to your populist pure democracy as it is to representative.
Also, I'm having a hard time taking it on your assertion that representative government has "failed". It sounds more like you just don't like it so far.
Since you are advocating tossing the Constitution and starting over I'm more interested in your transition plan than how you would back up your asserted premise.
If you ain't got no plan then this is just political fiction.
When you ask, "Should we be content to put our faith in elected representative or should we put it in ourselves?" You don't explain who "ourselves" is and I'm pretty sure that whatever image "ourselves" conjures in your mind, I'm not in that image. I prefer my odds when I'm able to groom candidates from the local level up to represent my views to those I cannot meet but who must be swayed...representation is necessary...except for those in the majority through numbers or force.
The problem is that most of America doesn't vote. If there are corrupt politicians, we can always vote them out, or have them impeached if there are substantiated crimes. More democracy would simply destroy this country from within even quicker.
I have to agree with David. 51% of the people can vote to bring slavery back; or to put a limit on the amount of earnings an individual or company can make per year; or to kill all the people in jail, or drug users. Also, Main Strem Media could convince the mob to vote in favor of stupid things. Although a direct democracy sounds better than the corrupt politicians, the real best solution would be less government and less intervetion in our daily lives.
However, a direct democracy can only work if the proposals do not interfere with other people's rights and for impeachments, recalls, tax collections, budgets and accountability. Term limits on senators and congressmen also helps.
That's just the problem, we have had too much direct democracy. The nationalization of the Senate with the 17th Amendment placed the election of Senators on the open market and equalized the Senate and the House of Representatives. That distorted the checks and balanced between the States and the federal powers in favor of the federal, yes, it gave the people a more direct influence in the Senate, but effectively gave the federal government yet another arm of power.
We need less democracy and more republicanism in this country. In ever democracy the majority will eventually vote the rest of the people into tyranny, giving a prescribed degree of freedom to those who do not share in the majority opinion. The whole purpose of the Republic was to blunt the force of majoritarian rule, preventing just such tyranny for effecting the country.
The democratization of the entire process lends itself to more, not less corruption. Democratization eliminates the checks and balances within the Republic, the very checks and balances necessary to prevent such corruption.
Here is a suggestion. How about before echoing wingnut talking points, you all crack open a DICTIONARY to find out what "democracy" and "republic" really mean. Democracy is not "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority" whatever that means...
If you actually knew what those terms meant, you would realize that "republic" (a state form) and "democracy" (a mode of governance) are not mutually exclusive.
And, yes, Ron Paul is awesome, but even he has occasionally said things that are incorrect or just plain dumb. Dr. Paul is a great man, but ultimately, nothing more than a man. As such, he makes mistakes.
America was founded as a democratic republic. If you used a dictionary, you can trace the etymology of "democracy" to the Greek words meaning "the people" and "power." Even if democracy was "tyranny of the majority," which it is not, that would be preferable to tyranny of the minority. The essence of our democracy, however, is compromise, not "majority rule."
Not to mention, the next "argument" used by the "republic-not-democracy" dittoheads --that democracy = "rule of men" but we uphold "rule of law" -- needs to be debunked once and for all. Who do you think creates the law? HUMAN BEINGS! So "rule of law" is "rule of men" (and vice versa). Democracy is not incompatible with rule of law or constitutional government.
The arguments against pure democracy are strawman arguments, because that's not what's being talked about. Having some direct democracy does not mean having pure democracy. We could have initiatives and recall, but keep our representatives (whose laws would be subordinate to the initiatives) and the Constitution (whose laws would trump all other laws including the initiatives). Then an initiative that violated minority rights would be null and void just like a law passed in Congress is.
All government is by human beings, so no matter who gets to decide there's a potential for problems. Not having initiatives won't stop it. It didn't stop slavery or segregation did it? Our elected officials basically care about two things 1. What their constituents want & 2. What the monied special interests want. So if the majority wants to take away minority rights our republic will vote to do that & the only time they won't side with the majority is if monied special interests get in the way which tends to mean taking away rights. Only the Constitution and the willingness of the Supreme Court to uphold it prevents this abuse of power.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
