Preventing Direct Democracy: The Constitution's Two-Pronged Approach

Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate directly decides on policy initiatives, without elected representatives as intermediaries. Historically, direct democracy has been associated with the ancient Greeks, particularly in Athens, where decisions were made by an Assembly of male citizens. While the idea of direct democracy has been around for a long time, most modern liberal democracies are a mixture of direct and representative democracies. Two ways in which the constitution can prevent direct democracy are through representative democracy and citizens' initiatives. In representative democracy, people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives, as opposed to direct democracy, where people make decisions or vote directly on proposals, laws, or political issues. Citizens' initiatives, on the other hand, empower members of the public to propose specific statutory measures or constitutional reforms to the government through petitions. However, these initiatives are subject to specific requirements, such as the number of signatures needed, and may need to protect minority interests.

Explore related products

How to Save a Constitutional Democracy

$21.02 $23

Giving Up Is Unforgivable: A Manual for Keeping a Democracy

$26.04 $28

How Democracies Die

$14.4 $19

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?

$46.81 $61

On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization

$15.04 $30

The US Constitution's framers believed that transferring power to a smaller group would reduce the pursuit of self-interest in politics

The US Constitution's framers, including James Madison, believed that transferring power to a smaller group of individuals with proven wisdom would reduce the pursuit of self-interest in politics. This belief favoured representative democracy over direct democracy, and it played a significant role in shaping the US Constitution.

Firstly, let's delve into the concept of representative democracy and why the framers of the US Constitution preferred it. Representative democracy is a system of governance in which the people elect representatives to make laws and decisions on their behalf. The key idea behind this system is that the representatives, owing to their particular skills and wisdom, are better equipped to determine what is in the common interest. This belief aligns with the viewpoint of political thinker Edmund Burke, who argued that elected representatives should make their own judgments while remaining open to hearing and considering the views of those they govern.

Now, let's explore how the US Constitution prevented direct democracy and promoted representative democracy instead. One way was through the establishment of a representative government structure. The Constitution created a system where citizens elected officials at various levels, such as members of Congress, the President, and state legislators, to represent their interests and make decisions on their behalf. This representative structure contrasted with direct democracy, where citizens directly decide on policy initiatives without intermediaries.

Another way the Constitution prevented direct democracy was by not providing for mechanisms commonly associated with direct democracy, such as referendums or ballot initiatives. While some states later adopted these tools, they were not inherent features of the original Constitution. The framers likely saw the absence of these direct democratic instruments as a way to reduce the influence of self-interest in politics, trusting instead that the elected representatives would act in the best interests of their constituents.

Additionally, the US Constitution's complexity and the indirect nature of its amendment process also moved power away from direct democratic processes. Amending the Constitution is a complex process that requires supermajorities in Congress and ratification by the states, ensuring that any changes to the foundational document of the country require broad consensus and deliberation rather than direct democratic decisions.

Lastly, the US Constitution's framers, influenced by liberal thinkers of their time, may have been sceptical of direct democracy due to concerns about stability and minority rights. They recognized the importance of checks and balances and sought to prevent the tyranny of the majority, which could potentially oppress minority groups. By transferring power to a smaller group of elected representatives, they believed they could better safeguard against these risks while still upholding the principles of democracy and representation.

The UK Parliament retains the power to make constitutional changes without seeking direct approval from the public

The UK does not have a single, written constitution. Instead, the UK's constitution is found through laws passed by Parliament, rules established through practices, and principles established in court decisions (common law). The UK Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, and parliamentary sovereignty is often referred to as the defining principle of the British Constitution. This means that Parliament has the power to make constitutional changes without seeking direct approval from the public. While referendums have been used to seek approval for major constitutional changes, this is a convention rather than a legal necessity.

The UK's constitution and form of democracy differ from those of ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, which is considered the most important historical reference for direct democracy. In Athens, decisions were made by an Assembly (Ecclesia) of around 1,000 male citizens, and citizens voted as individuals without nominating representatives. Other Greek cities set up democracies, but none were as powerful or well-documented as Athens.

Liberal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries were sceptical of direct democracy, believing it to be unstable and prone to oppressing minorities. Instead, they favoured representative democracy, arguing that elected representatives with particular skills were better equipped to determine the common interest. James Madison, one of the Framers of the US Constitution, believed that transferring power to a smaller group of individuals with proven wisdom would reduce the pursuit of self-interest in politics.

While the UK has held referendums and explored other forms of direct democracy, it primarily operates as a representative democracy. The UK Parliament's power to make constitutional changes without direct public approval highlights the country's commitment to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Liberal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries believed direct democracy was unstable and prone to oppressing minorities

Liberal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries believed that direct democracy was unstable and prone to oppressing minorities. This belief stemmed from the idea that human affairs should be guided by reason, liberty, and equality. Liberal democracy, which emerged during the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, challenged the conventional views supporting monarchies and aristocracies. Philosophers such as John Locke published works espousing these ideas, which influenced the American and French Revolutions.

The ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, are often cited as the most important historical reference for direct democracy. In Athens, decisions were made by an Assembly (Ecclesia) of around 1,000 male citizens. While the Athenian model of direct democracy was influential, liberal thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries were sceptical of this form of direct rule. They argued that transferring power to a smaller group of elected representatives with proven wisdom would make it less likely that self-interested politics would prevail.

James Madison (1751-1836), one of the 'Framers' of the US Constitution, and Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a well-known defender of representative democracy, are examples of 18th-century thinkers who favoured representative democracy over direct democracy. They believed that elected representatives should make their own judgments while remaining open to hearing and considering the views of those they govern.

The concern about the oppression of minorities in direct democracy is not unfounded. Cases such as the criminalisation of homosexuality, laws against pornography and recreational drug use, and the practice of conscription have been cited as examples of majority rule oppressing minorities. Additionally, the rise of Adolf Hitler through democratic procedures in the Weimar Republic demonstrates the potential dangers of "tyranny of the majority".

While modern democracies often incorporate elements of both direct and representative democracy, the concerns of 18th and 19th-century liberal thinkers about the stability and potential for oppression in direct democracy have influenced the prevailing preference for representative democracy in established democracies.

Explore related products

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy

$11.4 $32.95

A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy

$11.99 $27.95

No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States

$18.99 $19.99

A User's Guide to Democracy

$13.29 $19.99

What Does the Constitution Say?: A Kid's Guide to How Our Democracy Works

$13.54 $19.99

Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard Paperbacks)

$27.77 $36

Direct democracy in the US was influenced by the Swiss system, where citizens can propose statutory measures or constitutional reforms

Direct democracy, or pure democracy, is a form of democracy in which the electorate directly decides on policy initiatives without intermediaries or elected representatives as proxies. In contrast, representative democracy, which occurs in most established democracies, involves voting for representatives who then enact policy initiatives.

In the 18th century, the authors of the US Constitution sought models for the design of a newly emerging state. They were inspired by Enlightenment writers, including Swiss writers. The US and Switzerland were once known as "sister republics" that strongly influenced each other. While Switzerland adopted federalism from the US, the US took the idea of direct democracy from Switzerland.

Swiss direct democracy is not an "export product", but it has served as an "inspiration". The Swiss political scientist Andreas Gross stated:

> We're like twins that were separated at birth, grew up in different families, but maintained close contact.

In Switzerland, citizens can propose statutory measures or constitutional reforms through a citizen-initiated referendum, also called an initiative. A successful proposition is placed directly on the ballot to be voted on. This process is known as a mandatory referendum and is required by law for deciding specific subjects, such as constitutional amendments. The time from an initiative's launch to a vote can be four to eight years in Switzerland, compared to less than a year in the US.

In the US, direct democracy is anchored at the local level, with town meetings in some states, such as Vermont, deciding local affairs. This is the oldest form of direct democracy in the US and predates the country's founding by at least a century. While the framers of the US Constitution favoured representative democracy to prevent the tyranny of the majority, direct democracy has influenced the US system, allowing citizens to propose statutory measures and constitutional reforms.

The New England Colonies practised direct democracy in the 1630s, but it was replaced by a representative system due to impracticalities

Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate directly decides on policy initiatives, without elected representatives as proxies. This is in contrast to representative democracy, where citizens vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives. Direct democracy has been associated with ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where an Assembly (Ecclesia) of around 1,000 male citizens made decisions. Other Greek cities set up democracies, but none were as powerful or well-documented as Athens.

In the 1630s, the New England Colonies practised a form of direct democracy through "open" town meetings, which allowed any citizen to deliberate and vote on legislation. These town meetings were public forums that promoted participation in local governance, allowing residents to voice their opinions on public issues and vote on laws and budgets. However, due to the impracticalities of gathering a large number of people to vote on every issue, the New England Colonies transitioned from direct democracy to a representative system.

The impracticalities of direct democracy were also recognised by the framers of the US Constitution, who opted for a representative democracy. They were concerned about the potential for poor decision-making by the general populace and the logistical challenges of having everyone vote on every issue. As a result, the United States, like most modern liberal democracies, adopted a mixed system that combines elements of both direct and representative democracy.

While representative democracy is the dominant form of democracy in established democracies, direct democratic procedures have been incorporated into various political systems. For example, many countries, including Switzerland, the United States, and Germany, have adopted referendums, citizens' initiatives, and other direct democratic mechanisms to involve citizens in decision-making. These procedures empower citizens to propose or call for a vote on specific issues, such as constitutional amendments or other statutory measures.

Frequently asked questions