c) Why might Indirect Democracy be considered more desirable than Direct?

Will Heather

A) Define political apathy.

Political apathy (or voter apathy) is a term used to describe the fall of political participation in the UK. More specifically, it refers to trends regarding the electorate in relation to the participation crisis. These trends usually involve a lack of care for the political climate or a feeling that the individual has no power in shaping it. The results of such tends can be seen in party-membership figures: in the 1950s, in the UK, Labour had a membership figure of around 800,000 but this had fallen to 200,000 in 2009.

In the UK, political apathy can also be seen in the voter-turnout figures, which have recently been far below average. Fall in participation in the UK is a huge problem – especially in turns of general election turnout. Low participation undermines the legitimacy of the government, and creates a democratic deficit.

B) Give three reasons for declining voter turnout.

One reason for decline in voter turnout is a lack of effort on the electorate’s part. It is widely argued that social capital (the connection between the electorate and society) has declined. This could reflect the growth of individualism and consumerism within society. This would make declining voter turnout part of a larger trend of social isolation; of members of the electorate withdrawing from large-scale socio-political bodies such as organised churches or trade unions. It is possible that some members of the electorate feel so disconnected with politics that they choose not too vote: obviously decreasing voter turnout.

Another reason for declining voter turnout is the role of the media. In recent times the media has been far more willing to treat the political climate with cynicism. It has been said that the mass media creates a “culture of contempt” by placing negative spins over politics and politicians. This has arguably lead to disenchantment on the electorate’s behalf; meaning a decline in voter turnout.

A final reason for declining voter turnout is change in the politicians themselves. Modern politicians are criticised for having a lack of vision; their focus is purely on getting elected. Also, some say that politicians have become too obsessed with appearance and “spin” rather than the reality of their policies; leading to a general decline in policy competence. Many feel that politicians have become too similar, that there is no real choice at election time. This can lead to voter apathy and further disengagement from politics. A mixture of these things has lead to a decline of faith and interest in politicians. This in turn, has lead to decreased voter turnout.

c) Why might Indirect Democracy be considered more desirable than Direct?

One reason that Indirect Democracy may be more desirable than Direct Democracy is because of relative efficiency. In an Indirect Democracy, decisions can be made far more quickly. This is because there would only be a small number of people (650 in the UK) making political decisions – minimizing the amount of political conflict during debates. Moreover, in a Direct Democracy, the electorate only has to vote once every four or five years; reducing the logistical cost of politics as a whole. By contrast, a Direct Democracy would require large-scale votes relatively often. There would also be far more room for disagreement, vastly increasing the cost in terms of time and money. The faster, cheaper, Indirect Democracy feels far more desirable in this regard.

Another advantage of Indirect Democracy is the high level of political knowledge that the decision-makers possess. Indirect democracy allows those with the greatest political knowledge to make political decisions. Most politicians have spent years in practical training before entering the forefront of the political system. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, spent 22 years in various political roles before his election to Parliament in 2000. Moreover, trained politicians have more time and resources to deal with political issues. In a Direct Democracy, the decision-makers would be untrained and may have little relevant political knowledge. This could lead to irrational or bad decisions being made, making Indirect Democracy more desirable.

A third advantage of and Indirect Democracy is that it relieves “political burden”. In an Indirect Democracy, the government would be the sole accountable body. This has several advantages. First, it would relieve the electorate of the responsibility of making difficult political or moral decisions. It would also allow the electorate more time to pursue their private lives on a daily basis, allowing growth and development in other areas of society. The alternative Direct Democracy would be very time-consuming for the electorate. Regular votes would leave little time for day-jobs and could be a strain on the electorate. Allowing the electorate to continue their own private lives makes Indirect Democracy far more desirable.

A final advantage to Indirect Democracy is that it promotes “pluralist democracy”. Indirect Democracy usually leads to political compromises instead of majoritarian domination – or “the tyranny of the majority”. It ensures that the rights and wants of all groups are taken into account when making political decisions, not just the rights and wants of the majority group. The idea of balancing “what the majority wants” with individual rights is a key element of any democratic system. In a Direct Democracy, it would be easy for the majority group to marginalize minorities. In 2008, in the USA, several states voted (in an initiative) to end a policy designed to help racial minorities get into universities. The greater threat of the “tyranny of the majority” in a Direct Democracy, makes Indirect Democracies more desirable.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 641