As champions of the Direct Democracy concept we, of the Institute, believe an explanation, or definition, of the concept is necessary in as simple a way as possible for the millions of current American generations who not only have never heard of Direct Democracy, but who have little understanding of what true democracy is.

Unforunately, there have been many definition/descriptions of Direct Democracy—too many. All are correct, but none truly explain the universal appeal of DD in a clear, simple way. That's because an accurate description or explanation of Direct Democracy can be neither simple nor short.

For many years the definition seeming to explain it all was:

"Direct Democracy is a form of self-government in which all citizens
of a political unit are educated with the skills of self-governance, and all
participate in maintaining government when it is their time to do so."

The definition is, I believe, a correct one, but it is as superficial as all others. It lacks depth. It doesn't really explain the concept of democracy. Today, too many Americans haven't the slightest idea what democracy—true democracy—is or what it isn't, or why it is so deeply ingrained in the human consciousness. I am constantly amazed at the blank faces on young Americans when I mention Direct Democracy and hear the inevitable and astounding question asked by at least one of them: "What is it?"

The ignorance isn't their fault, it's simply that they have been allowed to develop lazy thinking habits, and have grown to adulthood with brains filled with trivia and misinformation fed them by political leaders and entertainment idols. Their brains are filled with information irrelevant to solving the real problems they must face in life. Simply put, they have not been told the many truths they should have been told as they were growing up. Their truths and values have been influenced by the needs of the few groups of wealthy Americans who, for centuries, have enjoyed the wealth of the North American continent, and the power bestowed upon them by this wealth, neither of which they have wanted to share with working Americans.

Many Americans don't know there is only one true democracy, or that "representative" democracy, "socialist" democracy, and all other adjectival democracies are false democracies. False because they are all hierarchical forms of government in which only some people govern while the masses are denied participation in political decisions affecting their lives. Hierarchic governments are top-to-bottom forms of government. True democracy is a bottom-to-top form.

The big problem is that there has never existed a true democracy on planet Earth and no one really knows how such a political form would function—or malfunction. There have been only guesses or self-serving misrepresentations, such as contained in F. A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. Contrary to common belief the Ancient Greeks didn't possess true democracy as their females were excluded from political participation and wealthy Greeks possessed slaves. Slavery and democracy are at opposite ends of the spectrum called "freedom."

BUT, WHAT IS FREEDOM?

The concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" are inextricably related. However, there are different levels, or kinds, of "freedom." At the most basic biological level freedom is relief from harmful environmental stimuli. You remove a hand from the hot oven to free yourself from the possibility of a harmful burn. You turn the music volume down to free yourself from the annoyance of loud sounds and the possibility of damaging your eardrums. You place sunglasses over your eyes to free yourself from the bright glare of sunlight and possible damage to your eyes. A second level of freedom contains the two most universally recognized and accepted human freedoms: Freedom of thought and freedom of behavior.

Throughout all of human history the masses have been ruled by two very different groups using two very different methods. The first group consists of kings, emperors, dictators and lords of the land who rule either by physical conquest or by inheritance using brute force and physical intimidation to subjugate physical bodies. The second group consists of priests, magicians, witches, and other charlatans who have taken control of the human self living deep within every human brain. This group has easily influenced the thinking of their "subjects" and, consequently, has easily influenced the physical behavior of a great many nice, but very ignorant and trusting people.

Throughout all of human history these two groups of "elite" citizens have "ruled" human populations and have abused and misused their powers, oppressing and repressing ordinary, "common" people in such uncaring and often brutal ways that it has become second nature for commoners to desire "freedom" from such abuse. A corollary line of thinking has produced the belief that a true democracy, a bottom-to-top form of "self-government" would be the best and surest way to permanently escape enslavement by either of these two groups.

Can you understand this simple explanation: this simple truth? It's why the concepts of "democracy" and human "freedom" have always been intermingled—almost one and the same. Yet, they are different and not one and the same. Human "freedom" is a complete release from human oppression. Such a condition can be maximally obtained only in a properly structured true democracy—a bottom-to-top government. It is imposible to enjoy true freedom in a pseudo-democracy such as possessed by the United States.

Democracy is self-government. All citizens participate in the self-governing processes when it is their turn to participate, and politicians, leaders, or rulers are completely unnecessary. True democracy is a form in which all citizens of a political unit like a city or a country are educated to the needs of self governance, and like mature, responsible adults—who solve their own problems in life—they take their civil obligations seriously, for in a true democracy every citizen is competent and expects to participate in self-rule.

QUESTIONS ABOUT TRUE DEMOCRACY?
Over the centuries, opponents of democratic government—popular government—have questioned its validity in many ways:

Absolutely not! In every society, the timid masses are ignorant of truth and fearful of physical contact, and violence. It's why aggressive warriors and shrewd priests always rule. It's why the masses allow themselves to be ruled by cruel leaders, and why they reject radical change despite knowing such change will better their intolerable lives. But to the timid masses the intolerable is known while the consequences of change are unknown, and the known, even though intolerable, is always preferred to the unknown.

To form a true democracy, therefore, the timid masses must cast off their fear of the unknown and consciously and deliberately unite to fuse "The Greater Force" that will enable them to transpose their hierarchical governments into true democracies.

In the entire history of humanity, however, the transformation of a top-to-bottom government into a bottom-to-top government has never been attempted successfully. The attempt, itself, is an abnormal human act. But it is a heroic act and the next logical evolutionary step toward true human freedom and true human maturity.

Possibly. Some of the early American settlements were religious colonies and their leaders were as oppressive as any other dictatorial authorities. But are the masses of working Americans truly better off being governed by a minority of wealthy individuals whose priorities are differrent—often contrary—to those of working citizens, and often often harmful to their welfare? Wouldn't they be better off being part of a ruling majority of working class Americans with whom they have much in common? Actually, in a properly structured democracy the odds for an oppressive majority would be drastically reduced.

It depends upon who answers these questions. For the truly wealthy, or for those who are allowed to enjoy many of the luxuries of wealth, the answer is "no," direct democracy is neither better nor more superior to representative democracy. But to working Americans, the answers would be an unequivocal "yes" to both questions A direct, or true, democracy is a bottom-to-top governmental system meaning that each and every citizen participates in government's decision-making processes. In which would you rather live?

One of the conservative right's favorite arguments against popular government is supported in the book, The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. Mr. Hayak, an economist from an upper-middle class family and a doctor's son, made a very convincing argument that a popular government of the masses could only create a society of slaves. But of what relevance is the opinion of an economist on the merit, or value, of one social system over another, as his myopic vision is limited to such a narrow slice of human needs?

Hyak's conclusions were convincing, if, to begin with, you were prone to believe such things. But if Hyak's conclusions were correct—which in a properly structured direct democracy they couldn't be—would slavery to the wants and whims of the working class be any worse than slavery to the wealthy minority has been for American workers during the republic's first century-and-a-half? Could it have been any worse than it was for underpaid, overworked Americans who were beaten, and murdered by the hoodlums wealthy employers hired? Employers, who for all of those years, resisted worker demands for fairer pay and labor unions—and who still resist?

Could it be worse than the ruling American elites deceitfully tricking American working families in 1913 by establishing a private central bank system called the "Federal Reserve System" knowing American citizens didn't want another privately owned central bank and knowing working Americans would naively—and wrongly—believe the word "Federal," meant a government system?

Could it be worse than the ruling American elite committing the sons and daughters of working Americans to death and mutilation in their self-induced and illegal wars that have primarily benefited ruling elite families? I doubt it.

Hardly. Citizens of the U.S. and other Western democracies enjoy many more freedoms today than in the past. For one thing they enjoy freedom of choice: choice of religion, choice of a mate, choice of political leaders, choice of work, choice of clothes, and choice of foods.

The real problem for ordinary citizens of a Western "representative" democracy is that they live in a money economy and money dictates everything important, including who rules, and who establishes the laws and values of their social system.

It also means that common working citizens in a representative democracy have little to say about when, and with whom, their country will war against, and who makes the decisions that sends their children off to die in wars that are unwarranted or immoral.

Yes, of course there are. But like other forms of government, costs are dependent upon size, needs, and wants of the citizenry. A small democracy should require smaller costs than a large democracy.

In a properly structured democracy the public—and not private individuals or corporations—would own all property within its boundaries, including rights to land, water, and air. These would belong to present and future citizens of the democracy, and income for public welfare is derived from their rentals to individuals and corporation.

For a glimpse of how a properly structured and true democracy might work and the benefits bestowed upon its truly free citizens, see the book, The Democracy That Never Was, available only from the institute's webstore, and read about the direct democracy called "America."

Absolutely not. It's impossible. Democracy is a voluntary process: each and every citizen either voluntarily participates in government when called upon, or there is no democracy. Trying to impose democracy by military force upon a people neither acquainted nor prepared for self-governance is a total waste of time, money, and effort.

If there are, they will mostly affect the existing ruling minority by restricting the amount of wealth each individual and each family my remove from the national pool in a lifetime, and also by restricting the size and power each privately owned corporation is allowed to wield within its market—and upon the nation.