Evaluate the argument that direct democracy is superior to representative democracy

For points

• direct democracy directly involves people in decision making

• Direct democracy gives equal weight to all votes

• Representative democracy politicians follow their own interests

Against points

• public are open to manipulation and representative democracy is practical

• Tyranny of the majority

• Representative democracy allows for accountability and effective representation

FOR: involving people in decision making, answer, evidence and conclusion

• answer

• Direct democracy ensures that the people have real power over political decisions, preventing their views being ignored by representatives

• Evidence

• Higher voter engagement and turnout in referendums

  • 2014 Scottish independence referendum : 84.6% turnout, including 16 and 17 year olds

  • 2016 brexit referendum: 72.2% turnout, engaging many disillusioned voters and increasing political awareness

• Comparison with UK GE’s

  • 2019 GE: 68% turnout

  • 2001 GE: 58% turnout, much lower than the 76% avg between 1945-1997

• Citizens assemblies as a check on parliament

  • 2019 climate assembly UK represented public views on net zero emissions

  • Recommendations influenced policies like banning new petrol/diesel cars and expanding renewable energy

• Conclusion

• Direct democracy empowers citizens, increases engagement and ensures that decisions reflect public opinion more effectively than representative democracy

AGAINST: involving people in decision making, answer, evidence and conclusion

• answer

• Representative democracy ensures informed decision making and practical governance, unlike direct democracy, which leaves public vulnerable to manipulation and can be impractical for modern states

• Evidence

• Public manipulation in direct democracy

  • 2016 EU referendum: leave campaign misled voters, claim on the bus “we send the EU £350m a week, let’s fund our NHS instead”

• Expert decision making in representative democracy

  • Elected mp’s are professionals who focus on politics full time and are less prone to manipulation

• Impracticality of constant direct democracy

  • Large, modern states require quick decision, such as the Covid response, which direct democracy won’t be able to handle efficiently

• MP’s can still incorporate public opinion

  • 2024 assisted dying bill: reform UK MP Rupert Lowe held a mini referendum in his constituency, with 75% support for assisted dying and voted accordingly

• Conclusion

• Representative democracy balances expertise and public input, preventing manipulation and ensuring efficient decision making in a complex modern society

Judgement for involving people in decision making

• direct democracy is superior to representative democracy as it directly involves the people in decision making

  • This encourages participation and fulfills the key purpose of democracy; to give power to the people, which is important even if the people are sometimes misguided

• Not to say it should entirely replace representative democracy, as it would be impractical, instead it should be used for key constitutional decisions

FOR: direct democracy gives equal weight to all votes, ensures fairness and higher participation, evidence and conclusion

• evidence

• All votes matter equally in direct democracy, unlike in representative democracy, where FPTP creates vote inequality

• FPTP disadvantages certain voters

• Safe seats: votes have less impact, leads to lower turnout, labour in Liverpool Walton, conservative in Surrey heath

• Marginal seats: votes matter more, leads to higher turnout and more campaign focus (Thanet south, Kent which has always voted for winning party)

• Referendums boost engagement

• Higher turnout in referendums than in many GE’s (84.6% in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum)

• Conclusion

• Direct democracy eliminates vote inequality, forcing politicians to engage all voters, not just those in key constituencies

AGAINST: direct democracy gives equal weight to all votes, leads to tyranny of the majority, answer evidence and conclusion

• answer

• Tyranny of the majority occurs when the majority decisions override minority rights, disregarding their viewpoints

• Evidence

• Direct democracy is majoritarian - meaning over 50% can impose their will on rest even if turnouts low

  • Brexit (2016) only 37% of electorate voted leave

  • Despite this, UK govt pursued a hard brexit, ignoring softer brexit options that some remain voters preferred

• Why representative democracy is better

• Minority votes are protected through parliamentary representation

• Pluralist democracy ensures debate, compromise, and competing ideas shape policies instead of just the majority’s will

• Conclusion

• Direct democracy risks marginalising minority groups, whereas representative democracy balances different viewpoints

Judgement of direct democracy gives equal votes

AGAINST: representative democracy allows for accountability and effective representation, evidence and conclusion

• evidence

• Accountability through elections

• Regular elections allow voters to hold representative accountable

• If MP’s fail to represent their constituents effectively, they can be voted out

• Strong MP constituency link

• MP’s engage with their constituents, handle concerns and hold weekly surgeries

  • E.g Dec 5th 2023, 22 conservative MP’s rebelled to support a labour amendment for faster compensation for victims of the infected blood scandals

    • MP Caroline Nokia rebelled due to strong local support in her constituency

• MP’s as trustees, not just delegates

• Edmund Burkes trustee model: MP’s use their own judgement rather than just following public opinion

  • E.g Dan Poulter defected from conservatives to labour in April 2024 citing concerns over nhs funding from his experience as a mental health doctor

• Conclusion

• Representative democracy allows for effective governance, as MPs can use their expertise while still being held accountable by the public

FOR: representative democracy allows for accountability and effective representation, however isn’t guaranteed, evidence and conclusion

• evidence

• Party loyalty over public interest

• MP’s rely on their party support to gain power and advance their careers

• Heavy party whipping means MP’s rarely vote against their party, even if it contradicts their constituents interests

  • E.g MPs who defy party line risk losing promotions (e.g cabinet positions)

• MP’s financial interests and second jobs

• Some MP’s focus on lucrative second jobs, diverting attention from public service

• The guardian, aug 2023, MPs earned £10M from second jobs and freelance work (2022/2023)

  • Sajid javid: £300,000 a year as an adviser to centricus partners

  • Boris Johnson: earned £4.8M from speaking engagements and consulting

• Public distrust in politicians

• Yougov/sky poll, 2024, 49% say they almost never trust the govt to prioritise national needs over party interests (up from 26% in 2019)

• Driven by political scandals

• 23 By elections since 2019 due to MP’s resigning over misconduct

• Blackpool south by election (may 2024) Scott Benton resigned after being caught offering political favours for cash

• Labour govt “freebiegate” scandal (2024)

• Labour accused of cronyism after accepting substantial gifts from Lord Alli

• Starmer allegedly received £16,000 worth of clothing and eyewear before granting Alli a security pass to Downing Street

• Direct democracy

• No possibility of political self interest interfering in decision making

  • E.g 2016 EU referendum, 75% of parliament supported remain, but the public voted leave demonstrating direct democracy over elite control

• Conclusion

• Representative democracy risks corruption and self interest

• Direct democracy ensures decisions are made by the people, without manipulation by politician’s