5.2.3 Direct and Representative Democracies
Completion requirements
5.2.3 Direct and Representative Democracies
In ancient Athens, citizens engaged in direct democracy; that is, each eligible voter had the right to vote on each issue before the government. Each voter had the opportunity to be heard. Could we still have direct democracy in today's world?Remember that in Athens, voter eligibility was limited. Women, slaves, immigrants, and people who did not own land were not able to vote. The question becomes, how is the will of the majority served if certain segments of society cannot vote?
How is the will of the majority served if certain segments of society cannot vote?
This is a major difference between classical liberal societies of the 19th Century with those in the 19th Century. The expansion of suffrage is reflective of a modern liberal society.
This is a major difference between classical liberal societies of the 19th Century with those in the 19th Century. The expansion of suffrage is reflective of a modern liberal society.
Representative Democracy
There are different ways to vote for representatives in a democracy. Watch this brief introduction below:"The Electoral Process", Civix Student Vote Canada, You-tube
Image courtesy of One02/9004136/fotolia
Direct Democracy in Canada
Canada has a population of more than 33 million people. Direct democracy would be very difficult to implement here. Providing a venue would be impossible for millions of people to express their opinions, consider all the opinions of others, debate suggested policies, and then hold a vote on which policy to follow.Canada is a large and complex nation. Many issues need to be dealt with. Laws must be written carefully in much detail. One bill can be many pages long and deal with subject matter unfamiliar to many individuals. Most people in Canada, as many ancient Athenians, could not, or would not, spend the time to review all proposed laws.
Direct democracy is used only in rare instances in Canada. If elected politicians see an issue as so important that they wish the electorate to have a direct role in decision-making, they may choose to hold a referendum or plebiscite. Referenda and plebiscites may be binding or non-binding. In a binding referendum, politicians must implement the decision reached by the direct vote. A non-binding plebiscite is held to provide politicians with a sense of the people's opinion on an issue, but the politicians are not required to follow through with what the people decide.
Plebiscites and referenda are two tools of direct democracy, and tend to be used more frequently at local levels of government. Citizens may be asked to vote on a local issue at the same time as they elect their city councillors. In Canada, national referenda are far more infrequent than at the local or provincial levels. Only three national referenda have been held in Canada since confederation.
However, some populous parts of the world continue to practise direct democracy. For example, the state of California has an extensive system in which citizens vote on multiple propositions or proposed laws. In this case, the will of the majority makes or breaks the proposed law.
Read about plebiscites and referendums on page 338 of your textbook Perspectives on Ideology.
Make sure you understand the legal differences between the tools of direct democracy, plebiscite and referendum.
"Are Referendums Bad for Democracy", NowThis Word, You-tube
The most recent, held in 1992, asked Canadians if they wished to make changes to the country's constitution. These changes were outlined in a document called the Charlottetown Accord which, among other things, proposed changes to the status of
Aboriginals and to Québécois society within Canada. Canadians voted to reject the proposed amendments to the constitution.
Holding a referendum on the Charlottetown Accord was expensive and divisive. Many Quebeckers saw the result as a rejection of Québec's distinctiveness within Canada. In 1995, Québec held its own referendum on whether the province should remain in Canada or become a sovereign nation. By the narrowest of margins, Quebeckers chose to remain part of Canada.
As you have discovered, the understanding of who should have the right to vote and run for political office in Canada has broadened considerably over time. Canadians can now have a much more representative democracy than existed in ancient Athens. Canada still has some problems that plagued ancient Greek democracy, but Canada's are much larger.
However, some populous parts of the world do practise direct democracy. California has a system in which citizens vote on propositions or proposed laws.
Holding a referendum on the Charlottetown Accord was expensive and divisive. Many Quebeckers saw the result as a rejection of Québec's distinctiveness within Canada. In 1995, Québec held its own referendum on whether the province should remain in Canada or become a sovereign nation. By the narrowest of margins, Quebeckers chose to remain part of Canada.
As you have discovered, the understanding of who should have the right to vote and run for political office in Canada has broadened considerably over time. Canadians can now have a much more representative democracy than existed in ancient Athens. Canada still has some problems that plagued ancient Greek democracy, but Canada's are much larger.
However, some populous parts of the world do practise direct democracy. California has a system in which citizens vote on propositions or proposed laws.
Routinely, California demonstrates a form of direct democracy. Citizens can force a plebiscite on an issue by obtaining a certain number of signatures on a petition. Then, it goes to a vote by the people. The intent of these propositions or initiatives
is to represent the will of the people on major issues. Consider the following examples.
In 1978, Californian voters rejected tax increases. By voting for Proposition 13, they chose to cap property tax rates, reducing them by an average of 57%. At the same time, they established a requirement that all taxes, including property tax and income tax, could not be increased unless the action received a two-thirds majority approval in the legislature. This has had disastrous effects on public schools, libraries, fire departments, post-secondary institutions, and other government-funded services. Cost of goods and services are always increasing, and more people are moving to California; its government needs tax dollars to operate. As a result, the Government of California now is in a budget crisis, without the ability to tax its citizens at sufficiently high rates to fund essential services. This has resulted in some interesting actions, such as the early release of prisoners from jail, mandatory days off without pay for state workers, massive teacher layoffs, and reduced services to people with disabilities.
In 2000 and 2008, the voters of California decided to describe a marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman" although California law describes a marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary". In this case, California law and the will of California voters conflict. Which one actually reflects the will of the people?
In 1978, Californian voters rejected tax increases. By voting for Proposition 13, they chose to cap property tax rates, reducing them by an average of 57%. At the same time, they established a requirement that all taxes, including property tax and income tax, could not be increased unless the action received a two-thirds majority approval in the legislature. This has had disastrous effects on public schools, libraries, fire departments, post-secondary institutions, and other government-funded services. Cost of goods and services are always increasing, and more people are moving to California; its government needs tax dollars to operate. As a result, the Government of California now is in a budget crisis, without the ability to tax its citizens at sufficiently high rates to fund essential services. This has resulted in some interesting actions, such as the early release of prisoners from jail, mandatory days off without pay for state workers, massive teacher layoffs, and reduced services to people with disabilities.
In 2000 and 2008, the voters of California decided to describe a marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman" although California law describes a marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary". In this case, California law and the will of California voters conflict. Which one actually reflects the will of the people?
"Switzerland's Direct Democracy", SWI swissinfo. ch-English, You-tube
Consider these questions:
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy in terms of serving the will of the people?
- In direct or representative, how can the "tyranny of the majority" infringe on the rights of the minority?