Direct Democracy

• Author: Julian N. Eule
• Pages: 785-786

Page 785

Those who framed the Constitution opted for a system of representative government rather than direct democracy. The true distinction between the "pure democracies of Greece" and the American government, explained JAMES MADISON in THE FEDERALIST #63, lay "in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity from any share in the latter." It was this distinction that the Federalists believed might permit American government to succeed where other democracies had failed. Placing the exclusive power of ordinary lawmaking in governors distinct from the governed, said Madison, would refine and enlarge public views "by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens" whose wisdom, patriotism, and love of justice would make them unlikely to sacrifice the interest of the country "to temporal or partial considerations." Representative bodies afforded greater opportunities for deliberation and debate. Popular masses were perceived as too quick to form preferences, frequently failing to consider adequately the interests of others, and overly susceptible to contagious passions.

Part of the Framers' distrust of popular rule was the threat it posed to creditor rights and individual property interests. And the well-heeled delegates had plenty to fear from the masses of have-nots. Indeed, some historians contend that the central problem that prompted the convening of the delegates at Philadelphia was not the weaknesses of the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION but concern over an excess of POPULISM in the states. In any case, Madison and his fellow Federalists labored mightily?and successfully?to block an attempt to include in the FIRST AMENDMENT a right of the people to "instruct their representatives."

In the early part of the twentieth century the Progressives successfully introduced two forms of direct democracy at the state level?the INITIATIVE and the REFERENDUM. These innovative reforms, now a part of the lawmaking process in more than half the states, were a response to the widely perceived corruption and control of legislators by wealthy interest groups. The Progressives sought to curb legislatures by placing corrective power in the citizenry. The initiative allows the voters to propose and enact legislation by simple majority vote. Initiatives are thus designed to rectify corruption that impedes legislation by circumventing the legislative framework. Conversely, referenda are directed against corruption that produces legislation by adding an additional layer to the lawmaking process. The referendum allows the...