Politics: participation and democracy
Weaknesses of Direct Democracy and 12 markers
Participation for all vs potential exclusion of minorities
Many argue that direct democracy increases equality and allows all citizens to have a say about their
country and how it should be run, this is done through everyone having equal and multiple
opportunities to participate, creating a fair system. However, it can be argued that if everyone were
to vote then problems concerning ethnic minorities would not be resolved due to voting creating the
same outcomes and smaller issues never having light shone on them.
Interest vs Apathy
Some argue that direct democracy is at an advantage because it increases the involvement and
participation of the public in politics because it allows them to voice their opinions and beliefs
effectively. However, direct democracy is also argued to be impractical because it relies on people's
interest in politics and if there is a lack of interest then this may hinder the development of the
country massively.
Educating the public vs public’s lack of education.
Some argue that direct democracy persuades and almost forces the public to educate themselves
and to stay up to date with how things work, also would mean that the public as a whole would be
more educated and work better. However, some would argue that in a direct democracy not
everyone has the education and the skills to make life changing decisions well, meaning in the long
run some wrong decisions and potentially damaging decisions within society.
‘Pure’ Democracy vs Practicality (Speed and Cost)
Many argue that direct democracy is the purest form of democracy as it allows freedom of opinion
and ability to participate, it also is said that due to people creating their own laws they are more
likely to follow them. However, some argue that direct democracy is extremely impractical due to
the cost and speed of it. Due to everyone voting that means there would be large numbers of votes
to count which would be extremely slow. Also having to set up multiple voting areas throughout the
year to vote on every little issue would be expensive and then it would cost the employers money to
allow their employees to go vote.
Legitimacy vs Potential Corruption
Some argue that direct democracy creates legitimacy as people are more likely to accept policies
that they have had a say on, and it is said this creates a more stable and better structured political
system. However, it can be argued that.
direct democracy would now still have corruption as politicians would now begin to exploit the
public instead of trying to persuade them to get their vote.
Task 2 - 12 Marker
Direct democracy has many arguments in its favour. Discuss with reference to the ideas of relevant
theorists. (12)
One positive aspect of direct democracy is the personal development of its citizens. Within direct
democracy it allows for the public to become educated as this is needed to participate well in the
political system of the country. This means that every individual needs to have a full understanding
of how their country is run and should be run to cast a well thought out and reasonable vote.
Knowledge is needed to be an effective contribution to society, according to Robert Dahl’s
enlightened understanding. An example of how this has been successful is through the participation
in referendums and the increased turnouts such as in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum
that is an example of direct democracy and had an 85% turnout. Therefore, personal development
can be seen as a positive aspect of democracy as it allows not only the community as a whole to
benefit but individuals too, meaning everyone’s way of life should be better. However, it can be
argued that personal development has its limitations as it is hard to achieve because not everyone
has the skills and education needed to be able to participate effectively, meaning there could be a
lack of contribution.
Weaknesses of Direct Democracy and 12 markers
Participation for all vs potential exclusion of minorities
Many argue that direct democracy increases equality and allows all citizens to have a say about their
country and how it should be run, this is done through everyone having equal and multiple
opportunities to participate, creating a fair system. However, it can be argued that if everyone were
to vote then problems concerning ethnic minorities would not be resolved due to voting creating the
same outcomes and smaller issues never having light shone on them.
Interest vs Apathy
Some argue that direct democracy is at an advantage because it increases the involvement and
participation of the public in politics because it allows them to voice their opinions and beliefs
effectively. However, direct democracy is also argued to be impractical because it relies on people's
interest in politics and if there is a lack of interest then this may hinder the development of the
country massively.
Educating the public vs public’s lack of education.
Some argue that direct democracy persuades and almost forces the public to educate themselves
and to stay up to date with how things work, also would mean that the public as a whole would be
more educated and work better. However, some would argue that in a direct democracy not
everyone has the education and the skills to make life changing decisions well, meaning in the long
run some wrong decisions and potentially damaging decisions within society.
‘Pure’ Democracy vs Practicality (Speed and Cost)
Many argue that direct democracy is the purest form of democracy as it allows freedom of opinion
and ability to participate, it also is said that due to people creating their own laws they are more
likely to follow them. However, some argue that direct democracy is extremely impractical due to
the cost and speed of it. Due to everyone voting that means there would be large numbers of votes
to count which would be extremely slow. Also having to set up multiple voting areas throughout the
year to vote on every little issue would be expensive and then it would cost the employers money to
allow their employees to go vote.
Legitimacy vs Potential Corruption
Some argue that direct democracy creates legitimacy as people are more likely to accept policies
that they have had a say on, and it is said this creates a more stable and better structured political
system. However, it can be argued that.
direct democracy would now still have corruption as politicians would now begin to exploit the
public instead of trying to persuade them to get their vote.
Task 2 - 12 Marker
Direct democracy has many arguments in its favour. Discuss with reference to the ideas of relevant
theorists. (12)
One positive aspect of direct democracy is the personal development of its citizens. Within direct
democracy it allows for the public to become educated as this is needed to participate well in the
political system of the country. This means that every individual needs to have a full understanding
of how their country is run and should be run to cast a well thought out and reasonable vote.
Knowledge is needed to be an effective contribution to society, according to Robert Dahl’s
enlightened understanding. An example of how this has been successful is through the participation
in referendums and the increased turnouts such as in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum
that is an example of direct democracy and had an 85% turnout. Therefore, personal development
can be seen as a positive aspect of democracy as it allows not only the community as a whole to
benefit but individuals too, meaning everyone’s way of life should be better. However, it can be
argued that personal development has its limitations as it is hard to achieve because not everyone
has the skills and education needed to be able to participate effectively, meaning there could be a
lack of contribution.
