Views on Direct Democracy
Written By: Zehra Nasirali
Date: 13 February, 1998
“Citizens
should have a say – they must be part of every issue discussed.” This is what the majority of the people
feel. Although direct democracy seems
to be the answer, voting also expends great amounts of time and resources. However the idea of plebiscites and
referendums are not totally wrong; they do help solve perplexities at
times. When it comes to public poles,
the question is ‘who’ votes. The
requirements are that voters have to be eighteen years of age, a citizen and
not a jail inmate nor mentally unfit.
These requirements are strict and narrow. Furthermore, with great difficulty and persuasion have women now
be allowed to vote in this time and age.
This extension was enforced in 1918.
Besides this question another two questions that also work against
direct democracy are ‘the importance of the issue and the phrasing of the
question,’ as stated by Janet Rosenstock and Dennis Adair, the writers of ‘LET
THE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR SAY.’ Complex
issues are not easily solved by direct democracy. The phrasing of the question also plays great importance. If it slightly alters or is not in proper
structure, the question can be mistranslated into a completely different idea. Moreover, the probability of the final
decision being faltered greatly depends on the probability of the votes of
up-to-date and intellectual citizens.
The votes of inert people may chance the final decision altogether. In addition, although direct democracy is a
great type of democracy, it also has cons that need to be considered.
Teachers
Comments: Well done! 90%