Just to get things started, I suggest that although far from perfect, rep. dem. can meet the bar of political legitimacy.  A competitive political party system (either two or multi-party), which offers genuinely different agendas and candidates comitted to those platforms is necessary.  If any group or segment of the interest group system is dominant, as is the corporate interest group sector in the US, the quality of both the electoral process and the public policy process will be tainted, and they will not reflect the common good and/or the voice specific groups of the citizens.

Dear David,

It is clear that any optimal political system is rather Utopia. The point is that every system has its pros and cons. Concerning democracy and its forms (incl. representative democracy), the true is that theory differs from reality in significant way. Therefore it might be tricky to formulate a clear answer to your question. There are many factors that may determine quality of representative democracy. I mean... just look at present member states of the EU, and you can find very colourful picture. If you concentrate for instance on some new EU members (especially those with experience with Communist parties´ domination) then you can find plenty of examples how insufficient level of political accountability is followed by citizens´ general distrust to politics. Consequently, there is no surprise that the citizens are uninterested, dissatisfied and inactive; and it is pretty difficult to define their choice. (Obviously, the topic is much more complicated.)

And one more comment on Madison´s idea: decisions of local governments and local referenda on replacement of Roma settlements in a few Slovak municipalities could be perfect examples of limits of direct democracy. Phenomena like NIMBY syndrome play the role, and the final decisions can be sometimes described rather as tyranny of majority than as common good.

Daniel

Daniel,  Thanks for your interesting comments.  My intention was to pose a rather broad question regarding one important aspect of democratic theory, so that those who chose to answer it could take any of a number of directions; a sort of political Rorschach test.

Dear David,

This is an interesting question and my first attempt short answer is NO. I would like to elaborate using the example of India. But before that we must quickly gather some small facts:

1. India is home to 1/6th of humanity. The last official count (2011) of population is 1.2 billion.

2. From its independence, India has firmly remained a democracy, the largest in terms of numbers. It specifically follows the electoral democratic tradition from its inception.

3. The federal structure of government creates two layers for electoral democracy to play. In the center is the parliament, whose Lower House has 524 representatives elected directly by the people of India. The Council of States or the upper House of parliament has 250 elected/nominated members. In each of India's 29 States, we have state legislatures to which representatives of people are elected by people directly.

Despite such representation, the will of the people found better expression, when India enacted the Right to Information Act 2005 particularly. In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had for over three decades allowed Public Interest Litigation to be brought before Appellate courts, directly enhancing the accountability of governance structure. Yet another factor has been the huge demand by people for probity in politics that led to the electoral debut of a little known party (AAP) sweeping Delhi Polls earlier this year. Finally, the routing of Congress Party that had ruled this country for 37 years in the country's recently held elections mostly on the indelible stamp of corruption in its ranks propped another lesson in electoral democracy. Cumulatively, all these factors have given rise to the conclusion that accountability, probity, rule of law and transparency in governance are important factors. Unless these are present, electoral democracy by itself cannot render weight-age to the voice of the people.

One of my book chapters mainly focused on these issues is under editorial review. Otherwise, I could have shared more on the subject. I do sincerely hope that this helps the discussion.

Have a great day.

There seems to be no doubt that representative democracy is pressed by proposals for change and a new governance model can be output to the 'evils' of representative democracy.

Representative democracy, as a method of operationalization of democracy is, as argued by Sartori (1994: 41) "the only possible" because democracy based on direct participation of citizens in decision-making "is only possible under certain conditions", today virtually unattainable in most states, having regard to its territorial and population size and even their own individual interests and limitations of citizens, as well as its own qualification.

Representative democracy is the model more rooted in modern democracies and its essence is "the ability, by citizens, to replace a government by another" Kriesi (2004: 187), but one of the main problems of representative democracy concerns with accountability, "which guarantees the connection between representatives and the represented" (Miguel, 2005: 25).

In fact, this accountability seems to be one of the most controversial issues addressed in the literature, for, as the author argues, is virtually inaccessible to those shown "supervisory capacity over their representatives, due to factors including the complexity of public issues, weak incentives for political qualification and control over the agenda "(Miguel, 2005: 25). This perception, represented by decision, has resulted in a "sharp deterioration of public confidence in its political agents", which leads to separation of the public and political life (Jalali, 2005: 29) society.

This new paradigm poses challenges to representative democracy and no wonder, therefore, that representative democracy lies down by proposals for change. The rebirth and reinvention of democracy have been launched by various authors, but as Jalali remember "Democracy takes work" (Jalali, 2012). A couple of other authors, Jalali argues that a new model of governance can be output, since it moves by a "growing involvement of more actors in the governance process, from state bodies or state-like the third sector and nongovernmental organizations government, in the process of governance increasingly open and participatory "(Jalali, 2005: 35).

Greater involvement of those represented in public and political life, should join more publicity of the acts on the part of the agents, which will lead to better information society and greater transparency of processes that may sprout and be enhanced through use of new information technologies, increasing therefore accountability - accountability - of all agents.

Sorry my english

Best regards

In to-day's context direct democracy is not possible. The success of indirect democracy depends on the quality of elected representatives and the voters.