Representative
democracy, such as exists in Parliament and Congress, effectively
isolates people. Once ever four or five years you get to have your
five minutes of democracy, casting your vote for one group or
another, groups over which you have zero control. Meanwhile, you have
been subject to a 24-7 propaganda bombardment from the media. This
onslaught works upon and bolsters your fears, anxieties and
prejudices. In isolation, both at home in front of the TV and later
the ballot box, you are more likely to vote against your own
interests with knee-jerk fears and prejudices.
Direct
democracy links individuals, involves them in discussion in an
assembly. Issues are debated, and without the censorship and
demonization indulged in by the media, people can hear other
viewpoints and make their own decisions. Fence-sitters can be swayed
by the assembly in a positive direction, whereas in isolation and
subject to propaganda bombardment, they might support policies that
work against their real interests.
Direct
democracy can only function in a relatively small group – no more
than a few thousand people. This means a community or neighborhood
assembly, and thus questions get discussed in relation to the needs
and desires of that community and are not abstract debates at the
provincial or national level. Positive NIMBY can take place. A
possible example – no one wants a nuclear waste dump in their
community, but in a national referendum they might allow one if they
thought it might be put somewhere other than their region. If the
vote was by community only, there would be no nuclear waste
dumps allowed anywhere.
It
isn't hard to see why the dominators hate direct democracy. Their
power to dominate would quickly fade. The claim that right-wingers
sometimes make that direct democracy is a form of tyranny is easy to
understand. It seems like tyranny to them, because they are no longer
in control and telling us what to do. Our freedom is despotism to
them. Their freedom can only rest upon our servitude.