Direct democracy as a normative ideal: a critical analysis

The subject of the article is a normative analysis of direct democracy, namely, the identification of its advantages and disadvantages, the definition of the basic conditions and factors under which these advantages and disadvantages manifest themselves. To this end, the author lists the arguments "for" and "against" direct democracy, which are most often found in modern Western literature on this topic. The most popular classifications of voting types are given, and the advantages and disadvantages that are usually attributed by political theorists to each of these types are shown. At the same time, it is demonstrated that there is no agreement among researchers based on empirical data on many issues related to the influence of certain factors on the acceptability of the results of direct democracy, and therefore the final normative justification for the application of institutions of direct democracy is possible only in relation to specific institutions in specific circumstances. At the same time, the research is purely theoretical, not empirical. Empirical data are used exclusively to formulate theoretical generalizations, for example, regarding the procedure for initiating referendums and the binding force of decisions taken at a referendum. It is shown that it is possible to formulate a number of general recommendations that make it possible to actualize the positive consequences of direct democracy and avoid negative ones, namely: resorting to direct democracy, one should 1) correlate the scope of direct democracy with the civic culture of society; 2) evaluate factors such as the homogeneity of citizens' preferences, the personal interest of political representatives, the presence of influential groups lobbying for private interests, as well as the nature of the issue (technical or not) and the availability of information; 3) maximize the use of advisory mechanisms at the stage preceding the direct expression of the will of the people; 4) competently integrate the institutions of direct democracy into the existing system of checks and balances; 5) give priority to bottom-up votes 6) if possible, make decisions taken at the polls binding.