Going beyond voting for representatives — how ordinary citizens can decide issues directly, through referendums, citizens' assemblies, and participatory budgeting. What works, what fails, and why this matters.
Young children are already experiencing direct democracy in small ways — class votes on what to do, sharing decisions with friends, family discussions. At this age, the goal is to help them see that deciding together can happen in different ways, and that each person's voice matters. They do not need to learn about referendums or citizens' assemblies specifically. They need the foundation — that listening to everyone, giving everyone a say, and thinking together before deciding produces better outcomes than any one person deciding alone.
Most classrooms already use some forms of direct deciding (class votes, group discussions).
No materials are needed.
In a vote, whoever gets the most voices wins — and that is always fair.
Voting is a fair way to decide many things. But it is not the only fair way. Sometimes the first vote misses important ideas. Sometimes the winning side by one vote has not really listened to the side that lost. Sometimes a group needs to talk first, think together, and then decide. Sometimes a decision affects one small group much more than others — so that group deserves extra listening, not just equal votes. Simple majority voting works well in many cases, but it is not the only fair method. Good communities use voting alongside listening, discussing, and finding solutions that work for as many people as possible.
Only adults can have a say — children cannot really contribute to decisions.
Children often have clearer eyes than adults. They notice unfair things adults have got used to. They think about the future more, because the future is closer for them. They ask good questions. In many places, young people's voices now shape real decisions — on environment, school policies, city planning. Your voice matters. Learning to use it well starts young. A child who practises speaking up and listening becomes an adult who does it well.
Most democracies today are primarily representative — citizens elect leaders who make most decisions. Direct democracy refers to processes where citizens themselves decide issues rather than (or in addition to) through elected representatives. It takes several forms. Representative vs direct. Representatives are elected because no-one can decide every question directly. This has real advantages — specialisation, compromise. But it can produce distance between citizens and decisions. Direct democracy aims to bring specific decisions back to citizens.
A direct vote by citizens on a specific question. Switzerland holds several per year. Ireland used referendums to change abortion and marriage laws (2015, 2018). The UK's 2016 Brexit referendum. Referendums can be mandatory, optional, binding, or advisory.
Well-designed referendums on clear questions, with good information and real debate, produce legitimate decisions. Poorly-designed ones on complex questions, dominated by slogans, produce poor decisions.
A body of citizens chosen by random selection who study an issue carefully, hear from experts, deliberate, and make recommendations. Typically 100-250 people, meeting over weeks or months. Ireland's assemblies on abortion (2016-2017) and other issues are often cited as successful. France's Citizens' Convention on Climate (2019-2020) produced 149 proposals. Many countries have now used the method.
Citizens decide directly how portions of public money are spent. Developed in Porto Alegre, Brazil (1989), spread to over 7,000 cities globally. Residents propose projects, discuss priorities, vote on what gets funded.
Clear questions, time for deliberation, trusted information, diverse participants, genuine impact on policy, protection from manipulation.
Not all issues suited to direct decision; potential tyranny of majority over minorities; swayability by fear or prejudice; turnout and representativeness concerns. Despite these, well-designed direct democratic processes have produced substantial successes.
Direct democracy is contested — some see it as highest democratic legitimacy, others as dangerous populism.
Use specific real examples.
Direct democracy is always more legitimate than representative democracy because it is the 'pure voice of the people'.
The legitimacy of direct democracy depends on how it is conducted. A well-informed, carefully deliberated decision by citizens can be highly legitimate. A hasty, manipulated, poorly understood referendum can produce worse decisions than representative bodies would make. Most democratic theorists now argue that combining representative and direct democracy thoughtfully — each doing what it does best — produces better results than either alone. Direct democracy is valuable but not automatically superior. The 'pure voice of the people' framing is often used by populist movements to justify poorly-designed processes that actually undermine democratic quality.
Ordinary citizens are not qualified to make decisions on complex policy issues.
This assumption has been tested and largely refuted by citizens' assembly experience. Random citizens, given time, information, and good facilitation, have consistently produced thoughtful recommendations on complex issues — including climate policy, electoral reform, abortion rights, and others. They sometimes reach conclusions different from what expert-dominated processes would reach, but not typically less considered ones. The myth that 'ordinary people cannot handle complex issues' often reflects elite scepticism rather than empirical fact. Real people, given real opportunity to engage, handle complexity well. What they need is time, good information, and structured discussion — not to be treated as incapable.
Participatory budgeting is just a political gimmick — it does not actually matter.
This dismissive framing is not supported by research. Participatory budgeting has been studied extensively. Where implemented seriously, it has produced measurable benefits: redirected investment toward citizen priorities; increased engagement among previously excluded populations; improvements in specific service areas citizens targeted; increased political trust over time. Porto Alegre's original PB was linked to reduced infant mortality and improved sanitation access in areas that had been neglected. Over 7,000 cities globally have adopted some form — this reflects demonstrated value, not merely fashion. The concern is not that PB is a gimmick but that some implementations are tokenism (small amounts, weak processes) rather than serious participatory governance. Serious implementation produces serious benefits.
Direct democratic practices have expanded substantially in recent decades, both in use and in theoretical sophistication. Teaching them well requires engaging with democratic theory, comparative examples, and ongoing debates about what democracy should be.
Democratic theory has long debated the relationship between direct and representative forms. Ancient Athens practised substantial direct democracy — citizens assembled directly in the Ekklesia and held most offices through sortition (random selection). Modern democracies are primarily representative. Theorists including Benjamin Barber, Carole Pateman, and later deliberative democrats (Jürgen Habermas, Joshua Cohen, James Fishkin) have argued for enriching representative democracy with direct and deliberative elements.
Use varies dramatically. Switzerland holds several federal referendums per year, plus many at cantonal and local levels. 100,000 citizen signatures trigger a national referendum. Italy has used referendums regularly since 1946. Ireland requires constitutional referendums for significant changes. Australia has used referendums rarely. The US has no federal referendum but many states use them.
Referendums often produce better outcomes when the question is clear and binary; sustained public debate has occurred; trustworthy information is widely available; campaigns are balanced in funding; the political system has experience with referendums. The 2016 UK Brexit referendum has been extensively criticised for: vagueness (leave with what relationship?); disinformation on both sides but particularly Leave; inadequate time for consideration; manipulation by well-funded campaigns. Swiss referendums function better in part because they operate within a mature system with experienced voters.
The modern form emerged prominently in the 2000s. Ireland's Citizens' Assembly on the Eighth Amendment (2016-2017) is widely studied. 99 randomly selected citizens met over multiple weekends, heard experts, deliberated, and recommended constitutional change. Their report informed the 2018 referendum that liberalised abortion law. Subsequent Irish assemblies addressed gender equality, biodiversity, drug policy. France's Citizens' Convention on Climate (2019-2020) convened 150 randomly selected citizens over 9 months, producing 149 specific policy proposals. Implementation was partial — some adopted, some weakened, some rejected — illustrating both potential and political constraints. UK Climate Assembly (2020), Scottish and Welsh assemblies, Ostbelgien's permanent Citizens' Council (established 2019 as standing institution), and many others have followed. OECD research (2020, 2021) documents 600+ examples of 'deliberative processes' globally — a massive expansion. Deliberative polling (James Fishkin's method) uses similar random selection to measure how opinions change through deliberation.
Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1989 launch under Workers' Party. Research (Baiocchi, Wampler, Avritzer) found redirected investment toward poor neighbourhoods, improved service delivery, and increased civic engagement. The model has spread to 7,000+ cities globally. Design varies — some allocate substantial funds with genuine citizen control; others are largely symbolic. Paris allocates about 5% of investment budget. New York City, Barcelona, Seville, and many others have sustained PB programmes. World Bank and UN-Habitat have promoted it as governance innovation.
Online platforms have enabled new participation forms. Taiwan's vTaiwan platform allows collaborative policy drafting. Barcelona's Decidim combines online and in-person participation. Iceland's crowdsourced constitutional drafting (2010-2013). Promise and concerns both real — digital divides, manipulation, limits of online deliberation.
Complexity — some technical policy areas may exceed non-specialists, though well-designed processes provide deep information. Minority rights — direct democracy can produce majority decisions that violate minority rights (California's Prop 8 banning same-sex marriage is classic).
Manipulation — referendums can be swayed by well-funded campaigns, disinformation, fear appeals. Populism — direct democracy can be captured by populist movements claiming to represent 'the people' while undermining institutions. Despite critiques, well-designed direct democratic processes have produced genuine benefits. The field has matured substantially.
Direct democracy is contested politically. Some see it as authentic voice of people; others as populist threat. Present specific examples; avoid ideological framings. The honest assessment recognises both real benefits where well-designed, and real risks where poorly designed.
Direct democracy is more 'pure' democracy than representative forms — it is the true voice of the people.
The framing of direct democracy as 'pure' misunderstands democratic theory. All democratic forms — direct and representative — involve design choices that shape outcomes. A referendum without good information produces worse results than informed parliamentary debate. A citizens' assembly with careful deliberation produces better reasoning than either. The quality of the democratic outcome depends on how the process is designed and conducted, not on whether it is labelled 'direct' or 'representative'. The 'pure democracy' framing is often used by populist movements to legitimise specific direct processes (often poorly-designed referendums) while dismissing criticism. In democratic theory, deliberation and representation are valued alongside voting; no single method has monopoly on legitimacy. The best contemporary democratic theory advocates combining multiple forms — elections, deliberation, and direct decision — each doing what it does best.
Ordinary citizens cannot understand complex policy issues well enough to make decisions about them.
Citizens' assembly evidence has thoroughly challenged this assumption. Random citizens, given time (weeks or months), balanced expert input, and structured deliberation, have consistently produced thoughtful recommendations on complex issues — climate policy, constitutional reform, abortion rights, electoral systems, biodiversity. They handle nuance, engage with trade-offs, reason about long-term implications. Many of their recommendations differ from what elected politicians would produce alone, but not in ways that suggest incompetence — often they reach conclusions politicians found politically impossible but were democratically legitimate. The assumption that citizens cannot handle complexity reflects elite scepticism rather than empirical evidence. What citizens need to handle complex issues is time, good information, and structured deliberation — not technical PhDs.
Participatory budgeting is just a symbolic exercise — real power stays with elected officials.
This concern is legitimate for some PB implementations but not accurate for all. Well-designed PB allocates substantial portions of budgets to genuine citizen decision-making. Porto Alegre at its peak allocated large portions of investment. Paris currently allocates approximately 5% of investment budget — significant resources. New York City's district-level PB allocates meaningful amounts. Research has documented real redirection of investment toward citizen priorities, measurable service improvements, and population engagement. The concern about tokenism is real — some PB programmes are minimal allocations treated as symbolic — but this is a critique of specific implementations, not the model. The task for reformers is to push for serious implementation rather than accept token versions.
More direct democracy inevitably means more populism and less protection for minorities.
This concern reflects legitimate issues but overstates them. Some direct processes are indeed vulnerable to populist capture — particularly poorly-designed referendums on identity-related issues. California's Prop 8 (banning same-sex marriage) is often cited. But other direct processes are much less prone to these pathologies. Citizens' assemblies, because of their deliberative design and random selection, typically produce more moderate, considered recommendations than both referendums and elected politicians — including on minority rights questions. Ireland's assembly on abortion produced more liberal recommendations than politicians had thought possible, reflecting careful engagement rather than majoritarian sweep. Participatory budgeting often benefits marginalised populations because it gives them direct voice. The relationship between direct democracy and minority rights is complex — some forms threaten them, others protect them. Blanket rejection misses the variation.
Key texts for students: Benjamin Barber, 'Strong Democracy' (1984). James Fishkin, 'Democracy When the People Are Thinking' (2018). David Van Reybrouck, 'Against Elections' (2016). Hélène Landemore, 'Open Democracy' (2020). Archon Fung, 'Empowered Participation' (2004). Carole Pateman, 'Participation and Democratic Theory' (1970). For specific cases: Clodagh Harris and David M. Farrell on Irish citizens' assemblies; Claudia Chwalisz on OECD deliberative democracy research. For PB: Gianpaolo Baiocchi, 'Militants and Citizens' (2005); Anja Röcke's comparative PB research. For data and case studies: OECD 'Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions' (2020). Organisations: Sortition Foundation; newDemocracy Foundation (Australia); Involve (UK); Mehr Demokratie (Germany); MASS LBP (Canada); People Powered (US). Platforms: Decidim; Consul; Open Democracy. For history of democratic theory: Robert Dahl's works; David Held 'Models of Democracy'.
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.