As we see today the representative democracies of the world’s countries have largely fallen into extreme dysfunction. With confusion what to do and many believing that that is the best form of government, not enough have come to realize the truth behind direct democracy and the difference between pure democracy and indirect democracy.
It is popularly believed that direct democracy is dangerous, being referred popularly as “Mob Rule” famously quoted by Plato. When the rule of any mob violates the inalienable Bill of Rights we here in the USA, we have a loss of law and order. The concept of “limited direct democracy,” limits all direct democracy options to the constitution and prevents any mob rule from violating our life, liberty and pursuit of happyness.
Countries like Switzerland who had federal direct democracy system implemented up to the highest levels of the government for 700 years shows that direct democracy truly has substance behind its promise.
Perhaps they thought after being cut loose from the Holy Roman Empire whose representative democracy failed leading to the collapse of the Roman Republic, that a system with much more thorough processes of direct democracy could be a better choice for them as a new country moving forward.
In 133 B.C. the lack of accountability of the Roman Republic’s elected leaders came at a grave cost. The Roman Revolution occurred leading to putting in power the a more accountable autocratic government, the Holy Roman Empire.
A Roman Republic government with more thorough systems of direct democracy could have given an ability for the people to use their democracy to hold their elected officials accountable, avoiding the Revolution of arms.
The Roman people could have continued through history to this day as an intact Republic State.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.