Representative democracy is dead, make way for direct or semi-direct democracy

Hello everyone,

The association is coming back to you this week to discuss the topic of democracy.

The May 13, 2024, uprising demonstrated the failure of representative democracy . By haranguing the crowds and leading them to violence, our elected officials clearly crossed red lines, exceeding the mandate entrusted to them.

While the State also bears some responsibility for the destruction committed, the solution proposed by the association, aimed at rebuilding the links between the territory and the mainland via an external federalism where the State would only manage sovereign powers and New Caledonia its internal affairs, constitutes another aspect of the changes expected in the crisis we are experiencing.

But even if the federal solution implemented in the 1980s were to be continued, it is indeed a new local governance that will need to be considered in order to avoid a new crisis arising in the future after 1984 and 2024.

In this respect, the association is moving towards two other types of democracy :

– democracy by drawing lots , known as Athenian, at the very origin of modern democracy,

– or semi-direct democracy for greater control of our elected officials by the population itself through the establishment of a popular initiative process.

As a reminder, there are 3 types of democracy which are:

– direct democracy, including that by drawing lots, known as Athenian or stochocratic,

– semi-direct democracy,

– and indirect or representative democracy, which we have been in for almost 200 years.

All of these aim to define the functioning of the city and society, particularly in times of crisis in order to avoid the law of the strongest being applied.

The association also recalls that the term democracy means in Greek: power to the people.

If in ancient times the first democracy established was a direct and non-representative democracy, it is because the Greeks believed that appointing representatives meant abdicating one’s sovereignty and renouncing one’s freedom . The elected officials were considered tyrants. They did not see why it would be necessary to pay men to make the rules when they could make them themselves. The representatives were not concerned with the aspirations of the people but constituted a closed caste whose members, although sometimes in opposition, on the surface, wanted in reality to preserve their privileges.

Representative democracy , the Macedonian and then Roman model, already proved at the time to present certain contemporary problems, such as:

– the inability to solve problems,

– proven corruption and cronyism,

– personal enrichment of elected officials during their terms of office,

– a subsequent lack of interest in politics among the population with an increase in abstentionism and a drop in electoral participation,

– politicians with no vision for the future, more concerned with their egos than their programs,

– a real lack of representativeness of elected officials in relation to the population, the former being from the aristocratic class,

– the creation of a class of politicians who, once elected, could be easily dismissed,

– representatives defining their own remuneration,

– etc.

Athenian democracy by lot was thus born :

– too much inequality in society,

– discontent in rural areas,

– an increase in the number of poor and unemployed,

– and a monopoly of the (rich) nobles on the political sphere.

Thus, like the appointment of assize jurors today at the level of the courts, any man aged over 30, having his civil rights, having undergone a moral check and up to date with his tax obligations, could by drawing lots be designated to occupy a political function for a period of time and for a fee aimed at the proper functioning of the city and society, both for the development and voting of laws but also to deliver justice, … The drawing of lots allowing real equality of citizens in order to serve their country. This method was also considered the most impartial in order to resolve conflicts . It thus allowed a horizontality of power, a rotation of mandates, a possible revocation of the designated persons and decision-making based on the common sense of each individual, without passion . An assembly made up of members drawn at random from among ordinary individuals who were not necessarily competent or specialists was considered more effective in solving a problem than an assembly that was too competent because the diversity of the members and their constant opposition did not allow for optimal efficiency.

During the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution of 1789, candidacy as a political representative was considered an aristocratic pretension. Direct democracy, on the other hand, was defended by the revolutionaries . During this period, the people had the right to reject laws for a period of 40 days. Some thinkers believed that representative democracy allowed the people to be free on election day and then to become slaves again the next day. As in ancient Greece, representative democracy (by choice) was considered the prerogative of aristocrats, while that by drawing lots was popular democracy , of the people and therefore true democracy. Drawing lots was promoted by Montesquieu . Rousseau thus designated those drawn by lot as simple municipal officers.

Thus, in order to allow all citizens to exercise power, to avoid too much instability, particularly of laws, impacting the daily lives of residents during changes of majority and at the same time reduce the cost of expenses resulting from election periods, the association thus recommends as a first option the shift from a representative democracy to a democracy by drawing lots where elected officials will be designated from among the population directly during a term of office identical to today. The elections and the choice to be made during the election period no longer concern individuals but the themes, objectives, principles and general directives to be implemented by the future elected officials drawn by lot. The population thus guides the work to be carried out by the latter.

Concretely, within the framework of a municipal election, municipal councilors would be appointed by drawing lots among the inhabitants of the said municipality over 30 years old. The 6-year term would remain. Once appointed, it would be up to them to conduct a new drawing of lots among themselves in order to distribute the positions of deputy mayor and that of mayor. The latter could have the only advantage of having 2 votes in the vote in the event of a tie. However, residents would have to go to the polls not to appoint elected officials but the themes or concrete actions they would like to see the elected officials address. Each citizen would have a maximum of 3 themes or actions to write on their ballot. The first year of each term would be intended to present the community’s operating mode to the new elected officials while the administration would compile and synthesize all the votes in order to present them not only to the new elected officials but also to the population. Elected officials must submit a project for each topic submitted by the population each year, by December 31st at the latest. The last two years are left to current events that would require the municipal council to decide on them urgently and at the express request of the population. Otherwise, the one-year deadline for each proposal could be extended to two years, allowing elected officials to resolve 3 to 5 topics defined by the population during their terms. One could imagine extending this practice to all elections and mandates, up to the presidency of the republic and also on the legislative side. Newly elected officials would be assisted by their respective competent administrations.

The second option advocated by the association would be to move towards a so-called semi-direct democracy with the mandatory implementation of a popular initiative process . The goal is to maintain a representative democracy, while allowing the population to participate and better control the actions of these elected officials. This will involve the possibility, based on a certain number of votes, of revoking an elected official, submitting a law or, on the contrary, repealing it. This direct control by the population would thus prevent elected officials from becoming too distant from the population , which then perceives the government apparatus as oppressive. The control of laws is also an essential feature of direct democracy. Semi-direct democracy, through the participation of citizens in political decision-making, thus allows collaboration with elected representatives, unlike direct democracy, which completely eliminates them.

It should be noted here, however, that the search for alternatives such as direct or semi-direct democracy are very incompatible with representative democracy because there remains a risk of manipulation by elected officials in place . This is also why the Greeks were wary of professional politicians, believing that the political function could be exercised by non-specialists. The small changes brought about by the various experiments around the world of so-called participatory or deliberative (semi-direct) democracy are an example of this, all being locked by elected officials in place.

In conclusion, although half of the world’s countries and population are governed by a representative system, direct democracy is nonetheless present in several large states such as Switzerland, the United States of America, Brazil, etc., all of which are federal states. Proudhon, a supporter of federalism, was also de facto in favor of direct democracy.

It is still necessary for the local New Caledonian political class to carry this measure aimed at replacing representative democracy with direct democracy (by drawing lots) or semi-direct democracy (RIP or RIC), which would surprise us greatly, to the extent that political parties would be relegated to simple associations, lobbies, in the first case, or in the second case increasingly controlled with the implementation of a popular initiative process. It would indeed be surprising if this happened to the extent that since the French Revolution in 1789, only the Paris Commune in 1871 and the period of May 1968 have briefly experienced phases of direct democracy. The example, moreover, of the shared initiative referendum existing in France is the perfect example of a political class wishing to retain power to the extent that the procedure for implementing this tool, so complex, has been made unusable, some would say deliberately. A poll in April 2025 is also damning in that 61% of French people believe that democracy is not working well today in France (see SURVEY – 61% of French people believe that democracy is not working well today in France ).

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.

The APROFED association