Two main critiques of the general idea of a more direct democracy are that "the people" are not qualified to make the important decisions that our current "political class" make, nor do they have time to invest in getting involved in every single decision that governments make.

​

There is obviously some real validity in these points and it would be foolish to ignore this.

​

However, Bruce does not propose to simply get people to voice their opinion on anything and everything quickly and without much consideration, but intends to provide as much information for people as possible before making their own considered judgement about issues and they are still completely free to basically "leave it to him" to make the decision about the worthiness or not of the bill before parliament.  The difference to political parties in general and even other Independent candidates, is that they will not even allow the possibility of the people overruling the MP or government if ever they want to, and this sounds much more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

​

It is also quite a disrespectful attitude about the intelligence and integrity of ordinary citizens to judge them incapable of judging when they really are somewhat "out of their depth" about an issue due to its complexity or requirement for significant specialised knowledge, or when the issue is of a nature that it is quite possible to gain sufficient information to form an informed view based on their own values and judgement about how the competing interests involved should be balanced.

​

The question can also be asked, if it is judged too dangerous for people to be given the power to make an important decision themselves once in a while, why would it not be thought too dangerous for them to be given the power to choose a parliamentary representative and ultimately a government, that makes every single decision and that everyone will "be stuck with" for the next four years!

​

Another question to be answered by those who oppose the idea of the people making decisions on the basis that our system is called a representative democracy rather than just a democracy, is about the meaning of the term representative.  If the Premier appoints one of the cabinet ministers to represent them at a meeting or function, that minister is not free to put forward their own opinion on issues but is bound to present the Premier's / Cabinet's view.  In a similar vein, in what way is a parliamentary representative actually representing their constituents, if they present their own view on matters in defiance of the views of the people they are meant to be representing?

​

Finally, the proposed mechanisms for enhancing the "power of the people" may rarely, if ever, be used, BUT they can be considered an important, entirely valid safeguard against executive government overreach or corruption of the system by ruthless, powerful individuals or small groups, and are a powerful symbol of the principle behind democracy - that in the final analysis, it really is the people in charge of the government and not the other way around.

​

While some of the above does sound a little negative towards our current system and political leadership, it is not meant to deny that many, if not most, of our political leaders work very hard to make people's lives better, and are intelligent people who are worthy of our respect and attention to their viewpoints.  However, they are not infallible, and in a system that wants to call itself a democracy, they are not the ultimate authority.  That position is reserved for the people.

​