Why We Don’t Actually Have A True Democracy (And How To Build One) — The Benefits of a Direct Democracy
Democracy is built on the ability of a country’s citizens to vote on, and have an opinion about, how their country is governed. The problem with current day modern democracies is that they aren’t true democracies.
Currently the citizens of our current democratic nations such as the USA, the UK, France, Germany etc. only vote on the most major of decisions. Instead choosing to elect a party based on their policies who decide laws between themselves without allowing votes for every issue. The problem with this is that it isn’t a true democracy. In a true democracy each citizen would be able to vote on every single issue involving how their country is run, as well as being able to call for votes. This would be a direct democracy where the people directly had control over the voting process and what is voted on.
The closest we have to this currently in the UK is where citizens can sign a petition online at https://petition.parliament.uk on an issue to be discussed in the UK Parliament once it reaches 100,000 signatures. Unfortunately the Government itself chooses what will be debated in Parliament making this system almost useless.
A direct democracy would utilise a digital system where every citizen could call for a vote on an issue and also vote on it. As well as the government and MPs being able to call votes. I imagine a system where once a million people had called for a vote on an issue it would automatically go to a full country vote where the people of the country would get to choose for themselves. This is what a true democracy would look like instead of the pseudo-democracies we have now.
One of the main arguments against this would possibly be: “What if this led to terrible decisions being made?” I can imagine people arguing that government acts as a filter to bad decisions. I’m laughing while thinking about this as governments themselves are notoriously bad at decision making. My main argument against the government as a filter argument is that we don’t have politicians that were trained to be politicians. We have a bunch of politicians in government who didn’t know anything about their departments and roles before they were elected. The Health Secretary knew nothing about healthcare before being appointed, neither did any of the ministers know about their departments. There are no experts being appointed to Parliament or government.
The collective wisdom of a nation is far superior to elected government officials who are non-experts on the issues they are voting on.
Another important reason why a direct democracy would be of benefit to us all is that we need the ability to rethink and to be wrong. In a direct democracy mistakes are corrected quickly due to the ability to revote on an issue. Take the Brexit vote as an example. After years of disastrous negotiations and false promises most people had realised (as backed up by opinion polls) that Brexit was a mistake and they wanted it to be cancelled. Yet the country was not offered another vote on the issue as the government called it a “Once in a generation vote.” This is the antithesis of democracy. In a true democracy voting is not linked to time. Voting is a living ongoing continuum. An integral part of the system that politicians should not be allowed to control or dictate to the country about.
A vote belongs to the people in a true democracy.
The people should be able to call for a vote and to vote on an issue any time they want.
The other main argument that I can predict being used against allowing greater control of voting to the citizens of a country is that it might be impractical, as if there are major issues being voted on there could potentially be constant rewriting of legislation and laws going on. As well as the potential for different people with different views constantly trying to start votes to change laws in their favour.
My response to this is that a government should exist to serve the people and not the other way around. The government of a truly democratic country would serve as a conduit for the will of their people. In current day democracies governments have far too much control over how their countries are run.
The vote should not stop at electing officials. It should extend to all laws of a country.
As for the potential for groups with different views to be constantly starting votes to try and change the law in their favour: I’d suggest a sensible limit on the number of votes that can be made on the same law within a year. Even 3 votes a year on the same law would be better than the system we have now and allow for corrections to be made to any potentially wrong decisions. Having a sensible threshold of a million or so votes in order to progress an issue onto a country-wide vote also helps prevent any sort of abuse to the system and allows for a sensible number of votes for the public to vote on.
Right now if you want to change a law in a democratic country then good luck to you as the process involves having to lobby your own government representative, other members of your government and also the people of your country. A process that can take years and potentially decades. Whereas with a system of direct democracy where people can vote on which issues and laws to vote on, the good ideas will get put before a country-wide vote much faster and all without the interference of government.
The world has changed and is changing faster than our democracies are. We need true democracies that reflect our world. We need the ability to make decisions quickly. We need direct democracies. The pandemic has shown this. Our governments were so slow to act that the pandemic became far more disruptive and deadly than it had to be. An empowered country with voters in control of their voting system would have been a corrective to the slowness and complacency of government.
An empowered people are also a thinking people. They are a country that are a hotbed of thought, of ideas, of innovation. Giving true democracy to a country gives them an advantage in the world. All of the world’s greatest innovations and inventions came from groups of people who had ideas and shared them. Giving people direct votes helps to create this atmosphere of idea sharing in a true democracy.
I don’t know how long it will take until the world gains its first true democracy but I do know that it is coming. Currently we can vote on a whole range of things online. We live our lives online, via our smartphones, our tablets, our computers, and now other devices. We buy our food online, our clothes, our new furniture. We start relationships online, we make friends online, we learn online. Every part of our lives now has a digital aspect
We have the technology for every person to decide what issues they want the country to vote on, and then vote on them. Why shouldn’t we use it?
