Vol. 1 - Direct Democracy (And Why It's Bad)
“Direct democracy offers up too many chances for populists to make the country tremble.”
– François Cherix, Co-President of European Movement Switzerland
The interim government of Alexandria – that is, the first government which was not elected by the people – established the Civic Engagement Act. This Act established a direct democracy – a system wherein the people themselves, through petitions, determine the laws and policies of the Kingdom without the mediation of the Parliament. On its face, this can appear a noble effort, wrapped within the language of popular will and self-rule, but beneath this appealing facade lies a danger often missed and rarely spoken of: tyranny of the majority.
The reasonable Alexandrian asks themself three questions when considering policy, beyond simply “Is it desired?” – They ask “Is it just? Is it stable? Is it wise?” On these questions, direct democracy fails all three.
A system to protect the majority, seems just at first glance, but truly a direct democracy is unjust, as it destroys the core of Alexandrian lifestyle – individual liberty. When majorities can act at whim, minorities are left defenseless, voiceless, and oppressed. What begins as a movement of self-governance ends in mob rules, where the interests of the few are trampled by the passions of the many. History bears witness to this, from Socrates’ death in Athens to the guillotines of the French Revolution. Liberty cannot be maintained when law is subject to the fleeting thoughts of the people.
Nonetheless, the untrained individual may believe that because direct democracy is simple, then surely it is stable. Once again, considering this with a critical mind, we see it is unstable, abolishing the virtue of deliberation. Although imperfect, representative institutions such as the Parliament serve to cool the hot temperament of the people. They permit debate, revision, and intentional deliberation. By contrast, direct democracy makes governance reactionary, and encourages haste, not prudence; emotion, not wisdom; and a short-term vision, not long-term stability.
Finally, it upsets the very structure of government and the core of our Constitution. In a well-ordered Kingdom, power is shared and constrained among the Crown, Parliament, and law. Direct democracy erodes these constraints by collapsing all power into the hands of whoever can rouse the masses of the day. This is not a limited government, but a chaotic recipe for disaster.
Direct democracy is not the cure for our ailments; it magnifies them. Let us then, as stewards of this young Kingdom, reject such vain desires and instead commit ourselves to the slow, difficult, but enduring work of constitutional governance.
Let the Crown reign with wisdom, Parliament govern with humility, and the people flourish in liberty — not chaos.
– Veritas