At the heart of representative democracy is the notion that we allow representatives to make decisions on our behalf because they make better decisions.  This claim rests on two fundamental arguments: the value of deliberation and the superiority of ‘professional’ decision makers.

Direct democracy

Today, because of the size of most democracies, representing oneself in an assembly is largely unworkable.  The more common modern form of direct democracy is through the use of referenda.  A referendum allows the public to vote on policy or constitutional amendments, but it does not normally include a mechanism for deliberation.  Referenda do tend to take place against a backdrop of debate and information, but it is often questioned how effectively this educates the public to make an informed decision.  And merely listening to debate or reading information is not the same as actively participating in a deliberative forum.

Referenda present voters with the choice of two entrenched viewpoints; they encourage neither compromise nor consensus but rather tend to polarize the voter into a simple yes or no vote.  This raises another difficulty of direct democracy through referendum – most issues are not suited to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.  More often, modern problems are complex.  These complexities are better examined in a forum where decision makers can deliberate and discuss more complex solutions.

The value of deliberation

One of the real strengths of representative democracy, then, is its use of deliberation.  The forum of a popularly elected assembly, where representatives vigorously debate issues and where governments are exposed to alternative viewpoints, is believed to improve the quality of decision making.  It is the emphasis on the process of debate and discourse which, in turn, affect the decision made, that gives representative democracy an advantage over direct democracy through referendum.

In New Zealand, there is often spirited partisan debate in the chamber of the House.  Our parliament is a talking assembly, where debate is vigorous and theatrical, and where parliamentary reputations are made and broken.  But a key question arises – is this true deliberation or is it merely partisan politics on display?  It is true that hard-and-fast, partisan positions could blot out the benefits of deliberation.  But in New Zealand since MMP, where governments are normally a minority in both the House and on select committees, deliberation more often results in compromises and amendments designed to attract a majority and to improve the legislation.  And the most effective deliberation, increasingly, takes place at select committees which have displayed greater independence and a willingness to act in a more non-partisan fashion.  It is also important to note that the audience of the deliberation is wider than the MPs in the House.  These discussions are also meant to inform public debate and become part of a continuous election campaign.

The 'professional' decision maker

Another advantage of representative democracy over direct democracy is that it prevents what Alexis de Tocqueville called ‘the tyranny of the majority’.  The appeal of a parliamentary system is not simply the democratic rule that operates through a popularly elected deliberative assembly, but also that the link between the government and the governed is indirect.  It allows popular participation, but this is tempered by the deliberation of elected representatives whose job it is to make decisions based on the public’s best interests, not mob rule, and to ensure the protection of individual liberty and minority rights.  According to John Stuart Mill, the majority is not always right; wisdom cannot be determined by a simple show of hands.  Underlying Mill’s argument is the belief that these representatives are better able than the public to make good decisions and are expected to provide leadership.  Their superiority is based on three key resources:

• time
• interest
• ability.

Time

Representative democracy allows for a division of labour in politics. By electing representatives, voters are selecting full-time, professional decision makers.  The theory is they devote themselves to politics, participate in debates, and thus become more knowledgeable about issues.  The key resource here is time – time spent immersed in the issues, time that the general public simply does not have.  Having representatives devoting the time required to politics is meant to relieve the public of a burden, and to improve the quality of decision making.

Interest

A further strength of representative democracy is that it places in decision-making positions people who have a genuine interest in politics.  One of the major criticisms of direct democracy is that it assumes a high level of both interest and commitment on the part of the general public to access the information required to do the job well.  It is argued that most people have neither the interest nor the time needed to participate in policy decisions on a regular basis.  In most modern democracies the public is increasingly reluctant to participate in even the most basic of democratic duties – voting.  To expect more of them, and more often, is not realistic.

Ability

Another argument for representative democracy is that it gives power to the most able.  This view, often criticized for being elitist, argues that it is desirable to take decision-making power out of the hands of the masses; that it is better placed in the hands of the most educated, the most interested and the most experienced members of society.  Those most able have a moral duty, according to Burke, to serve the public.  In this sense, advocates of representative democracy argue it should not be ‘representative’ of the masses at all, but rather, only the ‘best and the brightest’ of the masses.  According to John Kay, ‘those who take part in politics are unrepresentative because, if they were representative, they would be at home watching television’.  But what defines ‘the best’ representative?  The discussion thus comes full circle – what characteristics should our representatives possess and how should they represent?