Would you like your country to have a higher standard of living, lower unemployment, better and universal health care, better education, better roads, look cleaner, have sounder public and private finances, practically no youth unemployment, no friction among languages and territories, no separatists, no extreme politicians, etc.?, then you should push for direct democracy.
When the people in a direct democracy decide to reject a law, a treaty, change the constitution or propose a new law, build a new road, increase the size of the armed forces, change the constitution, approve or reject a budget, etc., what they do is place at the service of the whole country their collective knowledge.
They do it as family members, neighbours, professionals, taxpayers, lovers of the outdoors, consumers, etc. Naturally, such wider and deeper input makes for better decisions.
For example, when the Swiss (a direct democracy) decide, on the coming 7th of March referendum, to approve or reject the use of burkas in public places, a trade treaty with Indonesia, or the digital ID, they decide by bringing their massive collective knowledge and points of view to the issue. There is no way elected representatives alone, with their advisers, have the quantity and quality of the knowledge millions of voters have. Do not forget either thousands of those voters are authorities on many issues and participate in debates, write, etc.
At the local and regional level, similar things happen. For example, the voters of Geneva, Switzerland will also decide if illegal workers should receive up to 4 000.00 UDS per month because many lost their jobs because of the virus from China, or its British or other variants.
In other countries the politicians would decide, or would be to afraid to, in Switzerland a few citizens collected about 5000 signatures and the voters of Geneva will decide; “oui” or “non”; nothing can be more democratic.
Direct democracy is not mob rule, that is a silly accusation with no basis; decision-making by the people in a direct democracy is far more deliberate, restrained and organized than the debates in most parliaments. Perhaps that also contributes to better decision-making.
Before a referendum, eligible voters receive from government the information package presenting all sides of the issues (the government does that because it has to, by law), voters also watch debates, see what the media say, listen to experts for and against the issue, discuss the issues with friends and family, even at work. At the end of the process voters are well informed, they know what they want to decide.
If you live in Germany, Italy, France, the UK, Canada, the US, Japan, etc., and had direct democracy your country would be more democratic and you would make better decisions if it adopted direct democracy.
Although the primary goal of direct democracy is better democracy; giving the people the final say on issues that affect their lives creates a better functioning society.
Direct democracy works better because it profits from the voters collective knowledge and experience. It as if a direct democracy had thousands, millions of free consultants whose only interest is to make the country better.
Direct democracy has made Switzerland the country with the highest standard of living, the most stable politically, with the best universal system of health care, low youth unemployment, etc.
Other countries handicap themselves by not letting voters make decisions; as result they make poorer decisions on practically all issues; economy, industrial policies, health care, entrepreneurship, education, social issues, language and territorial issues, etc.
Conclusion: Besides wanting direct democracy, because it really is more democratic than representative democracy, there is another reason; direct democracy makes the country more productive, more prosperous, more stable, etc.
The same country will become a better country with direct democracy.
Victor Lopez
