There are many reasons to prefer direct democracy over representative democracy (I do not consider systems like dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, religious regimes and other similar systems because they all disrespect the freedom of the individual to choose rulers and to dismiss them, and also do not allow criticism of the rulers;to me they are all illegitimate regimes).
My objective is to increase awareness of the advantages of direct democracy. I have no doubt it is the evolution representative democracies need to overcome or greatly mitigate its flaws. Today I will write about the advantages of direct democracy for the rich and the rest.
Because in a direct democracy the voters have the power to stop anything the politicians in the executive and the legislative want to do, neither branch of government dares make decisions or pass laws that do not have the support of the majority of voters.
Furthermore, because the voters can also force the legislative and the executive to pass laws and put in place policies the people want, the politicians can never deviate from the will of the people.
In a direct democracy, the people are the ones who can propose and make changes to the constitution too.
In representative democracies, the voters have no such power; the only power they have is to elect politicians; all other decisions concerning laws, policies and the constitution are under the control of the politicians. In some representative democracies the people have to approve changes to the constitution, but it is the politicians who propose the changes.
In representative democracies there is an additional problem; they give the Supreme court of the country the power to overturn the outcome of popular referendums if the court decides the result of the referendum is unconstitutional. In a direct democracy, the Supreme court has no such power because the people are the final decision makers; by definition, in a direct democracy the results of a referendum are always constitutional. The judges of the Supreme court, or of lower courts, can only cancel the results of the referendum if they find evidence of irregularities in the process.
By having the people as the ultimate decision-makers, direct democracy makes sure that the politicians and the elites (who in representative democracies have a disproportionate influence over the politicians) never do things that alienate the people. This means public anger at politicians, the elites, the rich, does not arise because they do not gave the power to impose their will over the people.
Direct democracy is like safety valve. Just like the safety valve of a pressure cooker lets steam out to prevent an explosion, so does direct democracy.
The rich in a direct democracy know it makes no sense to invest large amounts of money in the campaigns of politicians because, with their severely curtailed power, the politicians can not guarantee, propose, etc., laws or policies that will help the rich.
Because in a direct democracy the people know they are in control, that neither the politicians nor the rich can by-pass them, the people do not resent the power of the rich and of the politicians. This is very important because most people do not resent the rich (if they have become so by respecting the law), what ordinary people really resent is the political power and influence of the rich in the political process and over the politicians.
In representative democracies people resent also that they vote for someone or some party, but them feel betrayed when those elected ignore them, betray their electoral promises, or do things they never said they would do.
Direct democracy ensures that the politicians and the rich can never do things that alienate the people.
This is also why in a direct democracy the people have no need for massive, sometimes violent demonstrations.
Direct democracy brings unmatched political and social stability. This is perhaps what is most important for the rich and for everybody else. Wise rich people know that a stable society is the best protection of their wealth. Such rich people have learned to think for the long term, not for the quarterly results of their business.
By giving so much power to politicians, representative democracy corrupts itself because the power of the politicians corrupts them and corrupts the rich also, because it pushes them to meddle in the political process. It does so because rich people, big business, have to lobby for their interests, otherwise their rivals and competitors will have crucial influence over the politicians.
Direct democracy is good for everybody else too because it gives voters the dignity of knowning they are in charge of their country. It also develops in ordinary voters the awareness they need, and the sense of responsibility they must have to run the country.
Switzerland is a good place for the rich; the rich Swiss do not place part of their money in London, Paris, Berlin, Toronto or New York, but many wealthy English, French, Germans, Canadians and Americans do put “emergency” funds in Zurich; quite a few even move there.
Yet Switzerland offers some of the best universal social services in the World. For example, they have the best universal health coverage and very low cost university education;the not rich do very well in Switzerland too.
Why those other major countries, and many more, do not adopt and adapt the Swiss system can only be attributed to ignorance, fake pride or… a deliberate but silent scheme by politicians and elites to keep people distracted for their short term economic gain.
Switzerland is living proof direct democracy is a better system for the rich and for everybody else, study it, push for it.
Direct democracy is the way forward to overcome the discredited and wobbly political, economic and monetary system of representative democracy.
Victor Lopez
