Similarities and differences

The fundamental difference between these two models is that in representative democracy there is a divide between those governing (representatives) and those governed (the people) and in direct democracy that distinction is blurred. The principle is self-government.

Direct democracy , also called plebiscitary democracy, has some very important advantages.. For instance, direct democracy is the most pure form of democracy, it increases the control citizens have over political decisions, strengthens political culture and involvement in political activities and it provides legitimacy to the decisions made, because it is the citizens who have taken them (Heywood, 2013, p.92). But it also has limitations . Mass meetings and discussions with

the participation of all citizens are not possible beyond small communities. Ordinary citizens may lack sufficient background information and expertise to decide on some technical issues. Moreover, it is commonly argued that direct democracy is more prone to populism and demagogy; leaders with good oratory skills can more easily manipulate the masses in that type of democracy

Representative democracy, on the other hand, gives less room for participation but counters some of the drawbacks of direct democracy. Representative democracy can be used in larger communities because the discussions and decisions are not made by the whole population but by a subset. The members of the parliament and the executive are the representatives in charge of ruling. In this system decisions are usually taken by people with good education,

expert knowledge and experience. Despite these advantages there are still some problems with representative democracy. Popular participation is infrequent and brief. The act of participation is usually confined to voting in elections

every few years in order to select a representative.

The act of representation itself can be controversial: how can one person represent the interests (sometimes incompatible) of many people? How does the representative communicate with the people represented? Do representatives favour the interests of the people they represent or are they more likely to favour their own?

Representative democracy can be supplemented by some of the instruments of direct democracy such as referendums and popular initiatives.

Referendums can be advisory or binding and are generally used in decisions concerning constitutions or other fundamental laws governing things like electoral systems.

Popular initiatives

are petitions that, when signed by a minimum number of citizens, oblige the government to discuss an issue or to

submit it to referendum. The best example of direct democracy is Switzerland where the use of these instruments is extremely frequent at the federal (state), cantonal (regional) and local levels. Moreover the development of electronic direct democracy thanks to innovation in communication technology is creating new opportunities for the direct participation of citizens in government. The use of the instruments of direct democracy nevertheless entails some dangers. For instance, the choices offered to citizens in referendums are few and are fixed beforehand.

The citizens may not be interested or not agree with the options presented. Whoever has the power to compose the question has the capacity to shape its outcome. For instance, there is a great controversy about the wording of the question and the options for the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. In many authoritarian regimes, referendums and acts of mass acclamations (voice votes) are used to legitimise policies that could be considered non- democratic elsewhere. Some of the questions proposed in a referendum could violate individual or minority rights. Others could have wider implications that are difficult for the public to assess. Moreover, where political views are polarised or popular leaders claim to speak on behalf of ‘the people’, referendums can be utilised to bypass some of the representative institutional checks and balances