Directly To Hell? The basic tenets of Direct Democracy is removing the middle man - it is an organisation of people that gather (in a symbolic sense they dont have to be physically in the one space...perhaps not even mentally) upon one issue, decide the issue and act upon a further reached decision by the vote of their peers. What this does is remove the beauracracy, political crap and unwanted impotence that is inherent within today's system (Australia). Once again i am limiting this argument to my home nation for reasons of understanding; i would deem it unfair and ignorant to begin applying my limited knowledge to nations and their individual state of affairs. When i believe my knowledge dealing with the political atmosphere of other nations is satisfactory i will deal with them more straightforwardly.

The representational form of government that is consistent within the tiered parlimentary system of Australia (local, state, federal [the holy trinity]) not only does not truly represent an Australian population (even though there is preferential voting in place) nor does it create an active community minded government. The three year term structure, and relational term structure between the three tiers create numerous problems that lead to the aforementioned failings of Australian Government. However there is a deep seeded diplomatic contradiction within the democratic representation of the people within Australia's Representational Form of Parliamentary Government.

The two largest arguments against direct democracy are that: the people do not have enough time to access and understand the required mateials to make informed decisions upon the issues that are raised for 'parliamentary action'; and the fear of mob rule over the nation thus silencing minority groups. A third minor issue is raised by a few political sceptics, which is the question of a suitable forum for the duscussion of ideas, issues and voting to take place. This is obviously ignorant rehtoric. For the technological age has shown, via the internet, how easy it is to distribute information and forum like activities that lead to absolute action. We need only to site the protest marches across the world taking place on September 11th against the World Bank Organisation and the meeting that was held in Switzerland. Similar actions have been carried out for "Free The Streets" movements and further protests throughout the Western and Eastern Worlds...including anti-sweatshop actions and the McLibel suit. These have been documented in works by Noam Chomsky, Noami Campbell, and other contempory historians. The secure networking capabilities of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and other international intelligence organisations - especially INTERPOL - have shown that large electronic networking forums are possible with population sizes larger than the total population of Australia.

The result of mob rule within the structure of direct democracy is a fear of the staus quo at its worst. The current form of representational governement present within Australia is empowered by the majority of votes; a minor saving grace of the Australian Voting system is the use of preferential voting, which on some occasions deems what may seem an uncounatable vot as counting in a larger picture. Nevertheless the end result is governed by majority votes, which is not currently deemed as mob rule. The most probable reason that is not labelled as mob rule is because the "mob" does not decide directly what is to be done in action, instead the "mob's" representatives are positioned ot do just that: Insurrect the will of their voters. Under the three year term of Australian Government, the major deciding factor concerning parliament action is public concern, especially within the federal sector, the Party's main concern as being re-elected for the next term. This has been excelently exampled by the current Howard Government of the last three terms in their adoption of unprecedented use of the public opinion polls conducted by a newly instigated opinion directorate installed by the Howard Government. Appropriately the policies of the Howard Governement have remained absurdly pragmatic and at times openly hypocritical when such issues as the "Children Overboard" and the "Troop Withdrawal (from Indonesia and Iraq)" are examined. Of course one must also examine the policies of the opposition party (Labour), which have incidently been non existent due to their current strategy of creating policies that oppose that of the current government within powere (Howard), and since the current government refuse to set policies the opposition party has been left with nothing to oppose. It follows that the opposition does not have a voting market, due to the lack of policy making, which has lead to leadership reshuffling (incidently reminiscent of the Australian Democratic Party). The end political result is passive mob rule.

Under properly instrumented Direct Democracy "mob" rule becomes the action that benefits the largest number of citizens in a unique self staisfying utilitarian form of government. In the event that every individual votes in favour of what outcome best favours their own individual circumstance the end result will logically be the action that could only result in satisfying the needs and wants of the largest number of citizens. This defies "mob" rule in the form that it is not any one organisation or social group that unifies itself by sacrificing individual motivation to manufacture an end result that benefits a "mob". In this scenario the it is the well organised (fanatical) minorites that may potentially have a 'distinct' voice within a direct democracy due to the fact that memebers of some minorities may be willing to forgo their rights as citizens to vote in accordance to their individual needs to represent a greater 'cause'. At this moment we recognise the writings of Rawls' progeny Nocke in realising the political 'makeup' of the individual via his/her spheres of influence. An individual's political motives are influenced by the spheres in which one is actively participating within. For it stands to reason that a member of a cycling group will have in his/her political make-up the importance of dedicated cycling paths because ultimately the individual realises that this will not only benefit the group he/she identifies themself with but also oneself. across the board indivduals are made by there spheres of influence and their individual decisions are inseperable from them, but at a base level the result is instincively benefitting the individual at heart.

The first refutation (that people do not have suifficient time to understand important and complex political issues) is by far the most difficult to comprehensively reply to. In one part the refutation links directly to the aforementioned counter-argument to "mob" rule, in as much as the individual for the individual's sake by one's daily activies within their spheres of influence make informed decisions. Therefore if the individual deemed it necessary that one should acquire more time to understand more diverse and complex political issues to sufficiently govern their nation as a citizen then it follows the decision would be made (into action). Society is arbitary as it is made up of individuals. Take for example the closure of the Australian market over the Easter Period. From Good Friday to Easter Monday the Australian Business and Trading Market is shut-down for the will of the people - the market is exclusively defined by the people's needs and wants. People (society) need to have a functioning economy to maintain a wanted standard of living, yet simultanouesly people want to enjoy their lives and celebrate important religious festivals thus creating a need to ultimately control the economy - in a shutdown method.
A secondary counter argument, as an advantage to the system of direct democracy, relates to the people within the specialised areas. When political decisions pertaining to such public services as education and health, the professionals within the areas under political affect are rarely heard under Australia's current politcal atmosphere. Usually strikes and union stages are enacted in order for concrete public discussion to take place. Ultimately it is the professionals wihtin their specific areas that are comepltely aware of the issues and are directly affected by them in their working lives. What needs to be done becomes expressed among the professional communities within theior respective areas, however Direct Democracy creates a working forum in which professionals can discuss their industries problems and put forward proposed solutions and syntheses for public discussion whereas normally this would be filtered via politicians and media magnates.

Media outputs within a nation of direct democracy would ultimately have more responsibility to present/represent the core social and political issues that concern the now 'empowered' voter that no longer needs to be concerned with character debates or political subtefuge. The political bias, counter and pro subtefuge, and misrepresentation (decontextualisation) os the media can be sufficiently removed due to the source being removed, namely the 'middle men' of government, our poltical representatives. The true reporting ethics of unbiased media as a source of information on which the populus may make informed political decisions will be a necessary section of society that becomes answerable not only to society - in the complex relationship of media shaping society and society shaping media - but also answerable to truth itself.  ¶ 7:43 pm