We Voted Our Way
The Case for Direct Democracy
In an age characterized by rapid advances in communications technologies and unprecedented access to information, the limitations of traditional representative democracy have become increasingly apparent.
The core concept of the Westminster model of governance was the notion of using elected officials to represent the views of the masses. When the population was small, relatively speaking, and most people could not read or write, such a scheme was sheer genius. But as the populace increased in numbers, and schooling led to a society of literate, well-educated citizens, the system began to display its flaws. Today, the sheer size of most constituencies takes it beyond the capacity of any one individual to adequately address the diverse needs of all residents.
No longer fooled by the myth that exercising one’s franchise to vote for a political party every four or five years corresponds to democracy as it’s intended to function, or that parliamentarians are the crème de la crème of society, citizens are increasingly disgruntled by a system from which they are largely excluded, and where the theatre of political game-playing soaks up valuable time and energy that might otherwise be devoted to more informed policy formulation, legislation and delivery.
While representative democracy has long been heralded as a cornerstone of political participation, it falls short in addressing the complexities of modern life. Relevant in the days of horse and carriage, the recent proliferation of smartphone apps, blockchains, and other smart technologies presents a compelling case for moving towards a more hands-on system of democracy, where citizens can engage openly and without undue delay in the decision-making processes that affect their lives.
Today's world is marked by levels of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty that were unimaginable in earlier eras. Issues like global heating, disparities in health care, climate justice, economic stratification, and digital privacy all blend with the continuing and most harmful detritus of colonialism, slavery, racism, gender inequality, and other forms of discrimination, to create conditions that are so convoluted as to be almost imposssible to comprehend, least of all respond appropriately, even when its possible to discern patterns that clarify what actions could or should be taken.
Representative democracy relies on elected officials, with advice and practical help from experts in the bureaucracy, to interpret the most critical patterns. This often leads to an impossible balancing act where generalizations, flawed policy design criteria, and inadequate legislation merge, and where administrative impediments occur on a regular basis. Even the way government departments are configured, discretely structured around themes like finance, health, education and environment, hinder the kind of whole-system knowledge needed to adequately address today’s inherent complexities.
The intricacies of policy-making demand input from those directly affected, yet, in practice, citizens often feel alienated from a political system that prioritizes party agendas over public needs. The rapid pace of change also means that the challenges we face evolve quickly. Representatives, bound by election cycles and party loyalties, struggle to respond effectively to emerging crises, creating a disconnect that can lead to disillusionment and apathy among voters.
This is especially the case when the crisis in question is one that affects more than just one nation. Today such crises and emergencies are increasing and the world has yet to find a satisfactory way of dealing with that. Sovereign nations, after all, are constituted on the basis of competing with other sovereign nations. Cooperation goes against the grain in this context. Even when states join a coalition, their overriding focus is on their own material interests.
When the Centre for the Future embarked on the initial research for our proof-of-concept project called Democracy Unplugged, which became a direct democracy social movement, a technology platform, and a smartphone app, we quickly unravelled the most significant shortcomings of representative democracy as currently practiced. The influence of political parties and their ingrained ideologies, lobbying coupled to financial donations, and the potential for a career in parliament from men and women who hadn’t held down a real job were bad enough and clear to see. More seriously, the entire system actively discourages citizens from involvement of any kind whatsoever – apart from volunteering during elections.
To be clear, the general attitude among many career politicians is to shun input from citizens; to demand that we leave the work of policy development to them – the professional political classes. This in spite of democracy being defined in the US Constitution, for example, as governance of the people, by the people, for the people. Clearly something is wrong with that ethos.
Political parties often give precedence to their survival and electoral success over the interests of their constituents. Not only that, but during the space between general elections, citizens have few openings to make policy suggestions or respond to government programs. Generally speaking, when initiatives seem to go against the wishes of the people, social activism and protests become the only channels available to bring their concerns into the public arena. This inevitably results in a focus on short-term gains rather than long-term solutions, as parties engage in tactical maneuvering rather than genuine representation.
Lobbying further complicates the landscape; interest groups often wield substantial power, drowning out the voices of everyday citizens. Financial contributions to campaigns can create a situation where elected officials are beholden to the plutocracy rather than the broader electorate. This dynamic fosters a system where the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals frequently take precedence over the needs of the general public, leading to policies that don’t even come close to reflecting the will or welfare of the majority.
The rise of the professional political class, with individuals recruited from within the ranks of the ruling ideologies and encouraged to pursue a long-term career in politics, has made matters worse - actually undermining both the foundational principles and guiding spirit of democracy. The ethos of egalitarianism is inevitably compromised through a lack of diversity and where the community is inadequately reflected in the parliament. Moreover, when the system of governance is not being dispensed by ordinary citizens contributing to a period of public service on a limited tenure basis, and when political decisions are not being taken in the interests of the community at large, we know that democracy is sick.
The current situation embeds self-interest, tolerates corruption, filibustering and grand-standing, limits wide-ranging dialogue, and risks the emergence of family dynasties imposing their preferences on the people over time. It can lead to a political culture that is totally out of touch with the democratic ideals of equality and service. Moreover, less variation in the gene pool from which politicians are chosen can lead to an ideological homogeneity highly resistant to change of any kind.
There is no doubt that the security of incumbency can erode both responsiveness and accountability. If elected officials no longer feel the pressure to respond to the needs of the community, knowing they are likely to win reelection regardless of their performance, complacency quickly sets in. If career politicians oppose reform, systems that prioritize the interests of career politicians over those of the public remain untouched, and entrenchment of the status quo becomes inevitable.
All of this is bound to create an environment in which the broader needs of the electorate can be easily overlooked or dismissed out of hand. Disconnections between what is best for the public and what is best for the Party then become an issue. When resulting policies reflect neither the concerns or the desires of the electorate, resentment among citizens is bound to occur as they will feel, with every justification, that their voices are not heard.
Addressing these challenges requires rethinking the configuration and incentives of holding political office, including potential improvements such as term limits, citizen juries contributing policy ideas, and changes to the rules governing campaign finance. But politicians are only human with human foibles - reluctant to vote for anything that threatens their power, or could bring their career aspirations to a premature end.
Direct democracy offers a compelling alternative, leveraging technology to empower citizens and enhance participation in the political process. Smartphone apps utilising blockchain technology have the potential to facilitate real-time voting on significant issues, ensuring that citizens are able to express their opinions and preferences directly and without any intermediary interpretations. This technological integration can create a more responsive political system, allowing for immediate feedback on policy proposals.
In a direct democracy, citizens are not merely passive observers but actively engaged in decision-making processes. This model encourages greater civic engagement. Individuals feel that their voices matter and that they have a direct stake in the outcomes of governance. By dismantling the obstacles to inclusion created by political parties, along with lobbying, direct democracy can create a more equitable political landscape where diverse perspectives are accurately represented.
The use of blockchain technology can enhance transparency and trust in the political process. By providing a secure and immutable record of votes and decisions, blockchains help combat voter fraud. This level of transparency can promote greater public confidence in the system. Citizens can see that their opinions are being considered and that elected officials, assuming their continuing relevance of some kind, are at least held accountable for their decisions.
Another benefit is the way information about issues can be conveyed to the voting public. Listening to repetitive sound grabs from incumbent politicians selling the Party line, along with the predictable reading of the same mantra by mainstream media, is not the best way to educate or communicate information to the public, especially regarding any pros and cons that might be entailed voting a certain way. Objectivity is increasingly best achieved when the research on any issue is outsourced or undertaken by AI. Biases can be declared and citizens accurately informed about the potential consequences, intended or unintended, of their decisions.
While the advantages of direct democracy are significant, transitioning to this model is not without its challenges. As previously noted, ensuring that citizens are well-informed about complex issues requires robust educational initiatives and access to reliable and timely sources of information. Frequent voting on numerous topics could lead to voter fatigue, especially after the initial novelty wears off. If citizens are overwhelmed it might lead to waning interest. In that situation it’s easy to imagine a scenario where gaming companies step in to introduce gambling on policy outcomes as a means of keeping citizens glued to their screens.
Additionally, the digital divide does present a barrier; not all citizens have equal access to the technology necessary for participation, making it essential to bridge this gap in order to ensure unhindered access to the system. Furthermore, it’s feasible that direct democracy might occasionally lead to populist policies driven by immediate public sentiment rather than longer-term strategic imperatives. That would compel mechanisms to promote careful deliberation and consideration of broader societal implications being introduced.
As we encounter increasing complexity, the limitations of representative democracy become more and more pronounced. The toxic influence of political parties, lobbying, and career politicians all undermine the best interests of the general public, leading to disillusionment and disengagement. Direct democracy is an idea whose time has come. Empowered by modern technologies, it offers a viable path forward, enabling citizens to take an active role in shaping the policies that govern their lives. By harnessing the capabilities of smartphones, blockchain, and other smart technologies, a more inclusive, transparent, and responsive political system that truly reflects the will of the people can evolve.
I believe the case for direct democracy is now compelling, particularly as our world is evolving at such a rapid rate and issues that concern us all are becoming increasingly multifaceted. By introducing a model like MiVote – the brand that Democracy Unplugged later became - we can generate a political landscape that not only reflects the will of the people but also empowers them to shape their futures actively as engaged citizens.
The time has come for a reimagining of democracy that aligns with the realities of the 21st century. We need a system that the founding fathers of America envisaged: a governance system not simply of the people and for the people, but a system also enacted by the people.