Direct Democracy - Good or Bad?

The Herald on Sunday editorial discussed the dangers of being ruled by 'direct democracy'. With all the furor over the government failing to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act, the so-called "Anti-Smacking" Bill, there has been discussion over the merits of direct democracy and referendums which are not binding on governments. Those organisations frustrated with the governments lack of movement on this issue has promoted many to push for binding referendums, but as the Herald editorial rightly points out, there are some real dangers behind this. I'm not a political scientist, but I can see how binding referendums would be in effect, be "tyranny of the majority". It would handicap the government into continuous money being spent on changing and promoting issues. It would create an industry of vote gatherers of which the one with the most money wins. The Herald puts it well:

Binding referendums would simply magnify the potential for damage to good governance. Administrations trying to develop coherent public policy could easily have their hands tied by pre-emptive plebiscites. That's what's happened in California, where three decades of tax revolt, starting with the infamous Proposition 13 in 1978, have brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy. As the Economist has noted, it has "launched an entire industry of signature-gatherers and marketing strategists [who] circumscribe what representatives can do by deciding many policies directly".

As John Parkinson writes in his chapter on Direct Democracy in Raymond Millers edited New Zealand Politics (4th edn), 'Dominant groups - generally those who are older, male, well-off, well-educated and in certain countries, of European background - are also much more likely to vote' (p.558).

Perhaps, however, the greatest problem I feel with rule by referendum is that it presents simple yes/no answers to often very complex issues. This is means that the questions that are asked can be very difficult to interpret or can be purposefully (mis)leading questions. I also do think there is case to be made for ill-informed and uneducated decisions on serious questions and issues. Which again allows for groups with the loudest voice, the most money and the best soundbite to win.