[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1715-E1716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            DIRECT DEMOCRACY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 10, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting my Washington Report for 
Wednesday, August 20, 1997, into the Congressional Record:

                            Direct Democracy

       One of the more intriguing questions of government is 
     whether it is responsive to the views of the voters. Many 
     Americans think it is not. Others think politicians are too 
     responsive, spending all of their time trying to be reelected 
     and basing their positions on what they think the voters want 
     rather than what they think would be good for the country. My 
     belief is that politicians reflect the views of those they 
     represent more than the people think, but certainly examples 
     can be found to the contrary. In a country as large as ours 
     the people cannot govern themselves directly, at least not on 
     every matter on the national agenda. A fundamental issue of 
     American democracy is the appropriate means for the voters to 
     express themselves.
       Under our system of representative democracy, the voters 
     play an essential but limited role. They do not determine 
     public policy but they vote to determine who will determine 
     public policy. In some ways, the accepted notion that every 
     adult is entitled to an equal voice in the conduct of public 
     affairs is difficult to square with the practice of filtering 
     the wishes of the voters through elected leaders.
       I sometimes wonder whether we are on the threshold of a 
     transformation in our democracy involving a significant 
     increase in citizen participation. All of us lament the 
     decline of voter participation and the cynical manipulation 
     of our political campaigns. Most of us have a feeling of 
     being ``left out'' of the decision-making process, like the 
     constituent who complained to me that no one asked him 
     whether he favored the recent budget agreement. Occasionally 
     I encounter people who believe government has become an alien 
     force in American life. Faith in major institutions of 
     government is low. The damage to democracy in all of this is 
     obvious.

[[Page E1716]]

                            Direct democracy

       More and more I hear Hoosiers who believe that the answer 
     to problems with the democratic process in this country is to 
     let the people directly make some policy decisions. They are 
     interested in proposals to create electronic town meetings 
     where voters could use advanced technology to register their 
     views on a given issue directly. They like the idea of 
     holding nationwide referenda on issues like tax increases or 
     reform of Social Security.
       About half of the states in the U.S. use the referendum, 
     which is a vote by all of the people on a particular 
     proposal. Though state laws vary, this process typically 
     requires garnering the signatures of a certain number of 
     registered voters in support of placing a proposition on the 
     ballot. Indiana law does not provide a way for citizens to 
     put issues directly on the ballot, though citizens do vote on 
     amendments to the Indiana Constitution once they are approved 
     by the General Assembly. The U.S. Constitution does not 
     provide for use of the referendum at the national level.
       Proponents of direct democracy note that the information 
     gap between ordinary people and their elected representatives 
     is far narrower now than centuries ago. Thanks to television, 
     radio, instant polling, the Internet, and fax machines, news 
     travels widely and instantaneously. Voters are informed, and 
     they want a part of the action.


                           Possible drawbacks

       The hope behind direct democracy is that American civic 
     life will be re-energized as voters become more involved. But 
     direct democracy does present problems. First, it sometimes 
     omits time to absorb information and exchange views. While 
     the legislative process doesn't often work quickly, it is 
     designed to allow extensive deliberation.
       Second, while direct democracy seeks to make an end run 
     around powerful special interests, this is not easily 
     accomplished. Interest groups simply shift their lobbying 
     focus from politicians to the people. In California, where 
     ballot initiatives are perhaps most prolific, millions of 
     dollars are spent on sophisticated, sometimes misleading, 
     advertising campaigns.
       Third, direct democracy could sometimes slight the rights 
     and views of racial, religious, or other types of minorities. 
     Our Founding Fathers warned of the ``tyranny of the 
     majority,'' and expanding direct democracy would probably put 
     more responsibility on the courts to ensure that fundamental 
     constitutional guarantees were preserved.
       Fourth, direct democracy places more responsibility on 
     voters. They must move beyond educating themselves about 
     candidates for office to learning about specific issues in 
     some depth.


                         The democratic process

       The democratic process does not invariably get us to the 
     right policy, but when citizens talk and deliberate with one 
     another in a spirit of mutual respect, it yields impressive 
     results. Not every issue can be resolved through the 
     democratic process, but even with the tough issues it does 
     permit us to live with disagreement and to move on. When 
     everyone's claim is considered on its merits rather than on 
     the basis of power, status, or wealth, the decisions made 
     will likely lead to better public policy.
       The lifeblood of democracy is citizen participation. As 
     people participate in the institutions of civic life--whether 
     schools, churches or community organizations--they are drawn 
     out of their own private interests, they reject cynicism, and 
     begin to think about what is good for their community and 
     country. It is important not to think of direct democracy as 
     a substitute for existing means of participation in the 
     political process, and we should work to increase voter 
     turnout. Direct democracy has its risks, but so does the view 
     that government is inaccessible, unresponsive and unworkable.
       I treasure America's unique system of representative 
     democracy, but I also think we need to keep searching for 
     ways to strengthen our democracy by finding better ways to 
     give all Americans a sense that they have a stake in the 
     process. My guess is that with the rapid advances in 
     telecommunications technology and the dissatisfaction many 
     persons now feel with the political process, we will see a 
     demand for more direct democracy and broader citizen 
     participation. It may be that a good dose of direct 
     democracy, carefully administered and selectively used, is 
     just what we need to reinvigorate our democracy.

     

                          ____________________