Michael Macpherson I&Rgb:

Gareth, from experience of partial direct democracy elsewhere we would expect most government business and parliamentary legislation to be done as before.

We would not advise introducing the obligatory referendum (e.g. for constitution change and international treaties) unless the electorate wants this instrument. With citizens' initiative (proposal) and the optional veto referendum the electorate could choose when and on which issues to intervene.

Complex issues can be handled by "ordinary" citizens. This has been proved in studies of deliberative polling and citizens' juries. And how much do you think the average MP can grasp about the biology of stem cell science? Surely ethical decisions should not be left only to the specialised scientists. Not long ago an initiative about gene-manipulated animals and plants went to referendum (Switzerland).

The "I and R" process is rather long - many months to years - so it cannot be applied to emergencies. Going to war? Well, at least principles could be set. (Emergency law can be retrospectively considered by I and R).

So, Michael, would you prevent people from having a direct say in everything that the Government does on their behalf?

Should we, for example, be able to wage war by common consent?

I'm not opposed to the principle of direct democracy but speaking as a geneticist I wouldn't feel qualified to vote on the ethics of stem cell research (for example).

Michael Macpherson I&Rgb:

Gareth Young wrote

"If we had direct democracy, even with the period of reflection that you describe, you can be fairly certain that before too long paedophiles would be routinely put to death, and very possibly some less malodorous groups might follow; terrorists; travellers; estate agents…"

This type of argument is often used to frighten people away from issue-based democracy. The macabre claim "you can be fairly certainly ..." is pure, misleading rhetoric. In western-style democracies cruel and capital punishment by the state has -- almost without exception -- been introduced or maintained by *representative* democracy -- by ministers, governors and parliamentarians (and the EU -- see new "Treaty"). Where in two recent cases an electorate has had opportunity to vote on death penalty in referendum in Europe, they *abolished* the death penalty. Public opinion even in the USA has for some years been turning against capital punishment.

We in Britain need stronger democracy across the whole range of policies handled by local and central governments. Many lives could be saved by improving policy for instance in traffic regulation, health care and social services.

I am against the death penalty. But I strongly object to its instrumental use in a tactic designed to hinder much-needed reform, such as the citizen-initiated referendum.

Michael Macpherson

You may be right that if decisions where instantaneous that the populous would be more popularist than elected politicians, but there are plenty of examples like the dangerous dogs act where elected politicians got swept along on the popular tide.

But we are not arguing about instantaneous referendums, any process of direct democracy in Britain should take time. Time to raise signatures to have the issue debated and finally after many stages a referendum if it is required. All democracy whether direct or representative take time. Quick law making tends to be bad law making.

Peter, I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, I don't think that there can be any justification for the state taking of life of an individual.

If we had direct democracy, even with the period of reflection that you describe, you can be fairly certain that before too long paedophiles would be routinely put to death, and very possibly some less malodorous groups might follow; terrorists; travellers; estate agents...

Great, you might say, let's burn witches too if that's what the people want. 100% democracy.

You could create a written constitution to prevent the public from having a vote on certain things (like capital punishment), but if you are in favour of direct democracy I don't understand the intellectual argument that says that the people should only be trusted with certain decisions. It's one of those all or nothing ideologies, either the judgement of the people is always right, or it is not, and if it is not then who decides the limits of our power.

I'm very much in favour of direct democracy for major decisions that affect our relationship with the State (because it's not the job of the Government to dictate the terms of our democracy, and Parliament should not be able to bind its successors) but I really don't think I need a direct vote on the dangerous dogs act. Please let's keep referendums to a bare minimum.

For me there's a very good reason why we elect people to sit, debate, and make an intellectual informed decision on our behalf: It's so that we don't have to.

He has a point though Peter. If we had absolute direct democracy we would have the death penalty for Argentinians who get Beckham sent off, and we would have nuked Afgahnistan after 9/11.

Elected politicians are less likely to put their names to such populist moves because, unlike the people at the ballot box, they have to face public scrutiny for their decisions at a later date.

We expect a certain probity from people in public positions that we do not expect from the baying mob.