Forum: Participatory Vs. Representative Democracy

Several of the articles in the January 2001 Communications are linked by the same implicit proposition: Direct (par-ticipatory, " quick ") democracy is a better form of government than representative democracy. Information and communication technology (ICT) can facilitate direct democracy. Therefore ICT should be used to realize direct democracy. But before embarking on an ICT-enabled, direct-democracy implementation path, we should determine whether we are justified in accepting the premise that direct democracy improves government. Guest editor Åve Grön-lund (p. 22) dismisses this issue with an appeal to " a more inclusive role of e-democracy " in which " formal rule by the people " is required, and " needs to be both effective and efficient. " Regardless of whether governing qualifies as " formal rule by the people " or inclusive, effective, and efficient, it is no benefit if the government is tyrannical. Watson and Mundy (p. 27) insist efficient government is a fundamental principle of democracy that neutralizes demagogues and populists. We can all applaud transaction cost reductions , but there is no reason to believe saving money will reduce a demagogue's appeal. Becker (p. 29) supposes there may come a time when too much (participatory) democracy is reached, though this has never happened. How then did the majority in a participatory democracy elect Hitler? Snellen (p. 45) dismisses representative government as " second best, at best. " This is followed by the assertion that " people prefer direct democratic arrangement " and the accusation that the " general " interests are not served by representation because " partisan " interests prevail. In direct democracy, the majority rules. Are " general " interests defined as " anything " a majority decides? What prevents the majority from depriving the minority of its natural rights? Perhaps an increase in partici-patory democracy can be consistent with the rule of law— protecting minority rights and avoiding tyranny—but the absence of provisions to ensure these essential protections should prevent us from embracing the vehicle of our own destruction. Finally, I must question Grön-lund's quote of Castell: " [T]he medium has become so comprehensive , so diversified, so malleable that it absorbs in the same multimedia the whole of human experience, past, present, and future. " Without any indication of hyperbole, this is given as a reason political actors must play by the rules of the medium. Even if the absurd premise that the whole …