argument top image

Is direct democracy superior to representative democracy?
Back to question

It allows citizens more control over their lives

Direct democracy cuts out the need for citizens to engage with actors who may act in their own interest.
(1 of 4) Next argument >

The Argument

Direct democracy allows citizens to personally make decisions that directly impact on their lives without the obstacle of having to indirectly engage with elected representatives or political parties who may not have their best interests at heart. Through referenda and initiatives people have an increased amount of control over the major decisions that affects their lives. It also ensures that citizens do not have to worry about replacing corrupt or incompetent representatives at an election, as ultimately they have a personal responsibility for key policy decisions.

Counter arguments

Direct democracy is heavily time consuming and requires that citizens are willing to engage with the process of governing and educate themselves on the issues. It requires a significant commitment from citizens to be able to understand the complex real world impact of their policy decisions. Many citizens simply do not have the time required to dedicate themselves to mastering the process of governing. This builds an inequality into society, as the demographics that have the time and resources to do so would be put at an advantage, wielding more power and influence over their fellow citizens.


[P1] With direct democracy, people can engage directly with policies without any middle men.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is an unrealistic expectation of citizens.


This page was last edited on Monday, 30 Mar 2020 at 09:06 UTC

Explore related arguments