Direct Democracy in the US - Essay Example

of the Direct Democracy. The electoral system in the US is such that there are only two political parties to the congress - the Democratic and the Republican parties. External funding is required to get candidates elected. The implication of this is that individual representatives must compromise their own values and those of the electorate, in order to conform to the party ideology. The change from one ruling party to another by the elected may cause governmental disruption and modification in laws. (Direct Democracy, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). In order to circumvent the drawbacks to fair and proper representation of the will of the people a new system of governance namely, the Direct Democracy has been propounded. Direct Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. (Direct Democracy Campaign, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Daniel B. Jeffs, founder, The Direct Democracy Center, states that the problems are due to the Government being too large and too dangerously powerful. He firmly believes that elected representatives are corrupted by a deeply flawed system that seduces them with money and power to gain and remain in office, or seek higher office and that in this process it has disenfranchised the overall electorate. Finally, he states that this system needs to be altered in such a way that it will override the practice of selective democracy by factions and vested interests. The solution according to him lies in nonpartisan elections and government with more democracy. In this age of communications and information technology, the Constitution should be amended so as to establish direct democracy by means of secure voting networks connected to voter's homes. All elections would be conducted over the voting networks. In this proposed system the elected representatives would be nonpartisan, highly qualified professional government managers. To keep it honest, with no more government than we need, well-informed voters should decide matters of taxation and public policy. And the collective judgment of our fellow citizens (which could be trusted because the direct democracy voting networks would require voters to be truthfully informed) would know what is best for all of us. (Daniel B. Jeffs, The Direct Democracy Center). The advantages of Direct Democracy are that first, it would remove the barrier between the electorate and the government. Secondly, in Representative Democracy the voter has to vote for one party or the other with no guarantee of either party addressing the issues facing the voter, on the other hand in Direct Democracy the voter will be voting on each issue separately. Thirdly, decisions will always be that of the people rather than that of a few politicians. Fourthly, it encourages people to be more proactive in the political process, this results in a more deterministic future for the voter. Fifthly, it curbs the power of the elite. Sixthly, the practice of elected representatives following the diktats of party leaders and civil servants to the detriment of the voter will cease. Seventhly, quid - pro - quo transactions between the elected representatives and the rich and powerful pressure groups will cease altogether. Eighthly, thorny and uncomfortable issues which elected representatives would do anything to avoid, will be addressed by this system. Ninthly, there would be control on governmental tendencies running towards the dictatorial. And finally, the system of Direct Democracy is more democratic. (Direct Democracy Campaign). The disadvantages of Direct Democracy are that: first, all citizens must be actively involved on all issues all of the time. For very large population groups, it might become well nigh impossible to do so. Secondly, the public generally gives only superficial attention to political issues and is thus susceptible to charismatic arguments. Thirdly, the decision of all or most matters by direct referendum will be a slow, expensive and a voter fatigue inducing exercise. (Direct Democracy). The present system of democracy obtaining in the US is the best. The most important aspect of this form of government is that of the principle of the separation of powers, wherein the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers are separated and entrusted to three different bodies. The theory of checks and balances is introduced in this system to safeguard individual liberty and to avoid concentration of power in any branch of the government. The threat to the US from its many detractors is not imaginary or negligible and over a period of time, its enemies have been emboldened by the lackadaisical response to their serious attempts to harm US interests. Adoption at this stage of a direct democratic system of governance, with its concomitant processes of referendums which take time to conduct, will prove disastrous as the US cannot afford to be slow in its actions or reactions. Therefore, at this crucial juncture it is inadvisable to opt for this form of government by the United States of America. In 1912, the Mississippi voters approved an Initiative and Referendum by a nearly two to one margin. This measure failed due to the state's requirement of super majority of all votes cast. In 1914 another attempt was made by I&R supporters through the legislature, and their attempt met with success. However, the State Supreme Court abolished the people's right to self-government by I&R in 1917. Subsequently, the power of initiative and referendum was granted to the citizens of Mississippi by the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 616 in the 1992 regular session. This initiative process is the most recalcitrant in the country and the two statewide initiatives made since 1992 were defeated. In this respect applicability of Direct Democracy has proved to be a failure. (Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, 2005). The Direct Democracy Centre was founded by Daniel B Jeffs is a fiercely independent voter and the author of America's Crisis: Democracy and Education, Letters to the Editor: From the Trenches of Democracy and three novels. Dan's passion for real democracy was a result of running for public office and writing the novel, Black Robes on White Horses, which gives a truly thought provoking account of the Supreme Court gaining absolute power in the US. His search for a solution to too much government and too little democracy resulted in founding the Direct Democracy Centre. This centre carries articles by writers who in the main oppose the present system of democracy. A lot of very interesting and important facts about the excesses committed by the government, in the name of national security and the like can be gleaned from this centre. (The Direct Democracy Centre, www.realdemocracy.com). References Direct Democracy, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2006 Direct Democracy Campaign, http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/case Majority Rule is Good - Tyranny of the majority is nonsense, Daniel B. Jeffs, founder The Direct Democracy Center, http://www.realdemocracy.com Mississippi, Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, 2005 The Direct Democracy Centre, www.realdemocracy.com Read More