Direct vs Representative democracy

[Songsofexperience]

5 years or so ago I wasn't particularly politically engaged. Today, it seems there is a struggle going on which goes straight to the heart of what we are as a state. It's much bigger than brexit.
I've had recent conversations with friends who argue that direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. I think in fact it enables direct rule over the people rather than rule of the people over government. I see so much criticism of Parliament, the judiciary and the civil service when in fact they are the only peaceful levers we have at our disposal to hold government to account and depose a potential tyrant peacefully.
If checks and balances are removed, the people will be helpless. It might seem a neat solution to hold referendums but what can we do if the government no longer acts in our interest?
If we don't like the current crop of MPs then let's make sure civic education is taught in school and motivate young people to develop a social conscience so the next generation gets better representation. Don't scrap the only counterpowers we have.

So AIBU to think direct democracy is not democracy at all and only representative democracy can ensure we live in a free and just society?

We are a representative democracy but if we have a referendum (or an election) the voice of the people must override any parliament or court. Otherwise the government could decide to put aside an election just as they are attempting to put aside the referendum because they don't like the result. We don't ask the people that often but when we do the politicians should respect the outcome. Otherwise the political elite will just run things as they see fit which is pretty much what is happening the world over.

Frankly what is playing out now is the failure to consult people about Maastricht and a move to a Federal Europe. Well they did consult them and the Irish, Dutch and French gave the wrong answer so they decided to go ahead anyway and not ask anyone else. How is that democracy of any kind?

I agree with what Apollo said.

We are a representative democracy but if we have a referendum (or an election) the voice of the people must override any parliament or court.

This is contradictory. Either we are a representative democracy or we're not. If we are, no referendum can overturn Parliament.

Frankly what is playing out now is the failure to consult people about Maastricht and a move to a Federal Europe.

The people were consulted - through our representative democracy.

To have coherent rational government, you need to gets as close as possible to having a (good) single mind in control. Millions of voters voting are the exact opposite of that.

Direct democracy is stupid, referendums should almost never happen. (And I thought that before Brexit.)

If we had direct democracy, people would vote for taxes to go to zero in one referendum and spending on anything that benefited most of the population to go up in others, and when some sweating civil servant pointed out on TV news that this was a problem, people would switch over to watch some reality TV.

The idea that the 2016 referendum is some pure form of democracy is ludicrous. The question was between the status quo and some undefined "leave the EU". Was it Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Turkey, etc, etc? This explains some of the shit-show for the last 3 years.

In an election all parties stand on a manifesto so there's (an arguable) thing that is chosen by the electorate.

Also, there was an election in 2017 (after the ref) when 54% of people voted for parties opposed to no deal. This makes Johnson's current course look undemocratic.

Apollo440 I don't think that's what happened. Different countries have different systems so some held referendums on Maastrict and some didn't

PettyContractor I couldn't agree more. AFAIK no country in the world governs by direct democracy. It's unworkable. Can you imagine deciding whether to go to war based on a popular vote? V unlikely we would have fought Germany in 1939 on that basis.

I keep thinking about the period of massive social reforms in the 1960s, all of which went against prevailing social attitudes. Removing the death penalty, decriminalising abortion and homosexuality, relaxing censorship laws and making divorce easier. We might still be waiting for some of those in a direct democracy, especially if you aren't driving social attitudes forward with legislation.

Our democratic institutions make me proud to be British. I hate to see them under attack - in some cases from people who ought to know better (because they are part of them).

The problem, as I see it, is that the term "democracy" has become corrupted to mean to many majority rule (ok, granted, that is what the term literally means and meant when the Greeks invented the concept), but the history of liberal western democracy, its development and practice over the past few hundred years has been about finding ways to include checks and balances, to overcome the tyranny of the majority, oversight, etc, etc.

The UK population can't even vote for a decent Eurovision song choice, we've no chance with complex matters of economics, law and policy.

Your question implies that obeying the 'voice of the people' is automatically a good thing.

I suggest this is not always the case, and to do so means lurching from short term expediency to quick, unsustainable fix.