Difference Between Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy

Democracy needs no explanation; it is not a foreign concept to the majority of this world's living population. There are 74 countries in the world as of 2024 that are democracies, and these include some Giants like the United States, UK and India, to name a few. Even among countries that fashion non-democratic government, it is highly probable that the citizens are already aware of what it means to have a Democratic Nation.

However, just on the other side of the coin, chances are that even those living in democratic nations don't know all the details, the ins and outs about it. Today, this article will touch over Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy, discussing what each of the two are and comparing how they differ.

Direct Democracy

Direct democracy, also known as pure democracy, is a form of governance where citizens actively participate in decision-making and policy formulation without intermediaries such as elected representatives. Unlike representative democracies, where officials enact policies on behalf of the people, direct democracy allows the electorate to directly decide on initiatives.

In this system, citizens vote on laws, bills, and even court decisions. In other words, instead of people casting a vote and selecting a representative to take part in important decision-making processes of the nation, people themselves directly take the steering wheel and make decisions. Notable forms of direct democracy include referendums, initiatives, and recalls. Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus are currently the only places on the globe that fancy Direct Democracy in its pure form.

Advantages

One might be wondering whether letting people take charge directly is an approach with merits. It is only natural to think that way when taking into consideration how easily the general public is swayed by emotions, issues in daily lives and subjective opinions over objective analysis and informed decision-making processes. Although valid on one hand, on the other Direct Democracy has some advantages of its own worth mentioning.

1. In a direct democracy, every citizen pulls their weight. Citizens actively participate in decision-making, sharing opinions, and expressing approval or dissatisfaction. Laws, bills, court etc are all major decisions made by people, which has shown to incline the citizens towards better participation.
2. In a direct democracy, it is required for all, clear and complete information to be presented to each and every individual. This makes it so the public can make better informed decisions with access to complete details.
3. The population itself is the government, therefore, any decisions made are accountable by the voting individuals. An individual's vote record can reflect their actions and provide accountability for them.
4. The Accountability also has the merit of elimination the possibility of any ambiguous talk, blame-shifting and other politically clever conversations.
5. Naturally, citizens will incline towards having vastly different opinions on various matters, this leads to formation of groups, local representatives, discussions and such in order to unify the public decisions, which leads to better communication withing the people and better cooperation.
6. When each and every citizen of a nation is made to feel important by giving them just as much power and influence over the nation's decisions as anyone else, it naturally also brings satisfaction for the people, so much so, that despite not having their direction be taken for a decision on a specific matter, people can still find themselves accepting it with an open mind, instead of going on a rant.
7. With all the people of the population pulling their weight and influencing the major decisions of the nation, it naturally gives rise to development of a sense of responsibility among the people of the nation. It brings the realization that the power to steer the nation and be the driving force also comes with the natural requirement to be able to take responsibility for the actions.

Disadvantages

Direct Democracy has displayed some strong merits. However, one might ask the question as to why is it not more popular within other democratic nations of the world if it brings in great benefits for the citizens and country alike? Well, that is because merits is not all that Direct Democracy brings.

Almost every entity in this world brings its own set of pros and cons and Direct Democracy is no exception. It does possess some glaring issues and disadvantages that play a major role in its absence among democratic nations.

1. All decision-making is done by accounting for every person and their opinions and requires citizens to cast vote. This, in turn, leads to everything in the nation moving at a much slower pace than if the people had a representative making decisions themselves.
2. Since, the democracy directly follows the decisions of the majority of the population, it makes any opinions, ideas, and wishes of the minority moot. Even if the votes are not lower by a considerable margin, the minority fails to provide any effect on the government.
   This makes it so even if a decision might be good for the country, it won't be carried out if most of the general public perceives it as a bad one, which can limit the development of the country as most people generally tend to play safer options.
3. The presence of vastly different views and opinions on matters is obviously expected among a population. This leads to frequent disagreements and disputes among the citizens. The general public is swayed by emotions and personal feelings rather easily, which leads to the difference in views causing a polarization. Discipline and open mind are extremely important to have in order to have productive discussions, which the average citizen tends to lack.
4. Elections are an expensive matter in any Democracy. While most countries only need to go through the process once every few years, in a direct democracy every decision needs to be made by the people and their votes. This leads to extraordinarily large financial allocation being necessary, which in turn causes a larger part of tax money to be used for elections instead of being allocated to other important areas such as research, education and healthcare, while also increasing the burden of tax on the citizens.
5. The superiority of majority rule can easily lead to suppression of minorities. In a direct democracy, the majority control each and every decision that impacts the country and its population. This means that, those in minority have a much greater risk of being suppressed by the majority, since only numbers dictate the ultimate deciding factor. A minority group can easily have their rights violated, face prejudice and discrimination, and their voices suppressed due to the majority rule.
6. Conducting elections take time, effort and is a complex procedure to complete in indirect democracies despite being handled once every few years. When it comes to direct democracies though, the same procedure to establish rules, prevent discrepancies, collecting votes, counting votes, determining results, and preventing any tampering of said results has to be done for each and every decision that has to be made in the country.
   Needless to say, this is highly inefficient and very challenging to manage. The process can still find itself executable in smaller populations. However, once we take into consideration the countries with larger population, it quickly becomes clear just how challenging and impractical the entire ordeal becomes.
7. The general public tends to not be very knowledgeable about specific matters. This becomes an issue since the decision is taken by majority, so the lack of required expertise can lead to less than competent decisions being made. An average citizen that does not possess enough knowledge, experience and expertise to be able to identify the correct decision on every matter.

Therefore, most of the time people tend to choose safe and simple options over everything else despite having better options available that can aid in further development of the country in various sectors. Decisions made in such a manner can and will most likely lack any deeper thoughts behind them, and are likely to have been made over general public's sentiment and perception over concrete logical and analytical undertakings.

Indirect Democracy

Indirect democracy, also known as representative democracy is a form of governance where citizens participate in decision-making and policy formulation through intermediaries such as elected representatives. Unlike Direct Democracy, where people vote and enact policies on basis of the majority vote, indirect democracy allows the people to elect a candidate, this candidate acts as a representative and makes decisions for the nation on behalf of the people.

The citizens of a country vote to select legislators, these legislators enact laws, take part in the nation's decision-making processes regarding bills, laws, policies etc. and represent the interests of the people.

Advantages

Now that direct democracy has been discussed it is only natural to ask more about indirect democracy. Is selecting a representative over letting people directly take control good enough? It is a valid question when taking into consideration how representatives can make themselves rise to power with lies and history has shown how often can corruption of this individual hinder the nation's growth.

Although valid on one hand, on the other Indirect Democracy has some advantages of its own worth mentioning. There has to be a reason as to why almost all of the democratic nations around the globe choose indirect democracy over direct democracy.

1. All decision-making is done by representative and other organs of the government that are either directly or indirectly elected by the people. This eliminates the need to address and account for each and every individual's opinion in the country, this making all decision-making processes much faster.
   This also means that more time can be allocated for other tasks that need to be done, and makes the overall operational efficiency of the government far better, only to get even better than direct democracy as the population gets larger.
2. Even if a larger part of the country's population does not see merit to a decision, while a smaller portion does, the likelihood of that specific decision being made remains unchanged, and lies solely on how beneficial the representative, and their supporting members perceive it to be. Since, these personnel tend to be more educated than an average citizen, the likelihood of better decisions being taken is improved, which is better for the nation.
3. The general public's often biased and easily affected opinions do not exercise power over the final outcome. Unlike direct democracy where polarization can occur rather easily, in an indirect democracy, the representatives themselves make decisions on behalf of the people, which lowers the overall frequency of conflicts over personal feelings and polarization in the general public. Especially since representatives tend to be more objective in their approach, the chances of having bias is much lower.
4. Indirect Democracy is extremely practical for nations of any size. Elections are an expensive matter. Since, these elections do not need to be conducted over and over for every decision to be made, the total finances spent on election procedures drops down significantly, making the cost on tax money a lot lower, and allows allocation of fund to other areas as well such as improved education, health care, military, research etc, which leads to overall betterment of the quality of life.
5. Even if the majority of the population agrees on a decision that goes directly against the minorities, it is much more difficult to suppress the minorities. Since, direct majority control does not prevail in indirect democracy, but a representative to account for everyone's opinions, it becomes a lot easier for minorities to get their perspective addressed and taken into account, while also being given a fair shot against other options by objective analysis. This makes protection of minority rights, and inclusion of minorities much easier.
6. Similar to how elections being done far less frequently in an indirect democracy results in much better financial situation for the nation and better allocation of tax money, the overall process of running the government is also made much more efficient.
   The elections do not need to be conducted for each and every decision, this makes it so all the proceedings have to be conducted and managed only for electing a representative once every few years which makes the management far simpler, easier and more practical. The gap of practicality only gets larger with the population, as direct democracy seems nearly impossible to execute.
7. An average citizen is unlikely to possess expertise knowledge on every subject that comes up in the decision making processes, if any at all. This issues is relevant for direct democracies where people have to make the decision themselves, leading to less thought behind decisions, going the safer routes over the ones with potentially much more reward, prosperity and growth. This is not the case with an indirect democracy.

Representatives tend to possess expertise and/or supporting team members that work under them and possess great knowledge and expertise in various walks of life. Moreover, since the entire population does not need to be involved, the representative and their supporting team can also do required research on a matter as per need as well as seek consultation from reputed experts. This enables much better decisions for the nation, with deeper thought and more logical and objective analysis behind them.

Disadvantages

Everything is bound to have pros and cons of its own. As shown earlier, Direct Democracy brings many merits to the table but also brings glaring disadvantages and issues. Similarly, indirect democracy also possesses both merits and demerits. There are various features of Direct Democracy that are desirable, but do not exist in the system of indirect democracy.

While Indirect democracy brings merits of its own, it also possesses some weaknesses in its system on top of lacking the features of a direct democracy system of government. Therefore, it is important to gauge the differences between the two and consider the pros and cons of each. Here are some of the notable limitations of Indirect Democracy.

1. People are not able to directly partake in the decision-making process, and instead have to rely on an elected representative to represent their views. With such a system in place, its pretty much guaranteed that all voices can't be heard and all vast number of ideas, opinions and perspective people have cannot be fully represented. Wishes of the public might remain unheard sometimes and some elected representatives do not act the way their public expects or wants them to.
2. Information may or may not be presented in full to the public regarding any specific matter at hand. This leads to the public wanting different things, but the representatives do what they believe is right. This can create a disconnect between the public and the governing body, which in a way weakens the core of what democracy is intended to be.
3. Since decisions are made by the representative instead of a large population, it is very easy to shift responsibility to the representative. However, because multiple organs and branches of the government are involved in a decision most of the time, it is somewhat unjust to hold an individual accountable and responsible for the decisions. Moreover, on the flip side, many times the representative take actions along the lines of what is beneficial to their party more than the people and there is often times no penalty for biased behavior
4. In an indirect democracy, the elected representative manages the legislation, and the representative belongs to a party. Since, multiple candidates and parties exist, it creates a direct competition among them for the spot in power. Even if elections are done and one party wins with its candidate being the representative, the other parties continue to act in competition. Oppositions are formed, conspiracy theories, rumors for defamation are spread around and the whole political environment quickly becomes very toxic, and tends to remain that way throughout the lifetime of a government generation.
5. When representatives value their party loyalty instead of the better public interests and oppositions care only about gaining power themselves instead of addressing the poor actions of legislation, then the entire government becomes prone to corruption. Unlike with direct democracy, where a corrupt individual cannot negatively affect the government of the nation, as it is run by the majority, in indirect democracy, the power is given to one elected candidate. Any corruption of this individual or their party means the system is bound to become corrupted until the next election cycle.
6. Indirect democracy has shown to have lower participation rates of the people in the elections. This is mainly because of how usually modern-day indirect democracies are full of corruption, and the individuals feeling that elections can be tampered with/are unfair/ or that all the possible candidates are not competent or good enough to be considered capable of being the representative in their eyes, which is a valid argument as most parties and their candidates tend to be self-centered, and corrupt.
7. Lastly, the citizens feel their views, opinions and ideas do not hold as much value since their votes or voices cannot directly affect how the government acts. This creates a sense of dissatisfaction, people keeping their views to themselves or ranting about them against others.

Conclusion

In summary, direct democracy involves direct citizen participation in decision-making processes, while indirect democracy relies on elected representatives to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. Both forms have their advantages and limitations, and their effectiveness often depends on factors such as the size of the community or nation and the complexity of the issues being addressed. Any one of the two methods cannot be marked as inherently superior to the other.