In their article “Beware of the Big-Government Tipping Point”
published in WSJ on January 16, 2009, Peter Wehner and Paul Ryan
wrote the following “we might be approaching a tipping point for
democratic capitalism… a public accustomed to iTunes, Facebook,
Google, eBay, Amazon and WebMD is not clamoring for centralized,
bureaucratic government....  Instead, Americans want efficient
government – one that is modern, responsive and adaptive.” Then the
authors went on building an argument why a private health care system
may still be better than a public one. While this may or may not be
the case, focus on health care misses the bigger picture – how to
improve efficiency of the government overall. Yet, the article lists
all the ingredients of the solution: democracy, modern communication
technologies and individualistic, entrepreneurial population.

Yes, the democratic capitalism is on its way to be replaced. Which
part of it is going away? In American context democracy typically
means representative democracy – heads of executive branches of power
and legislators are elected, their actions are rarely controlled by
the public, which essentially has only one recourse – deny their
election to a subsequent term, and for most of the nation referendum
remains a curiosity rather than a practical political institution.
Analysis of easily-observable technology trends suggests that the
archaic representative democracy is going to be replaced by a direct
democracy.

Direct democracy means direct participation of citizens in approving
controversial laws, judging performance of government leaders of all
levels, deciding on major ways the public resources are used. The laws
would still be drafted and pre-approved the usual way - by elected
legislators and their expert aids. Only those laws that appear
controversial to a certain fraction of the population would be brought
to a popular referendum. Performance of government officials
("bureaucrats") is judged constantly, those failing to meet citizens
needs are dismissed immediately, rewards (and punishments) are
directly tied to official’s performance. Levels of federal and local
taxation, funding split between major government programs is also
decided by a popular vote.

Why would this make for an efficient government? One component of
efficiency is that government always acts in the interest of the
majority of the citizens. Bringing controversial laws and fiscal
proposals for a public vote before they are fulfilled ensures that
government’s intents are consistent with desires of the public.
Constant real-time public control over actions of the executive powers
assures that society’s goals are achieved with the minimum expenditure
of public resources.

What would make direct democracy possible? The key ingredient is the
wide spread use of the mobile communication technology. These days we
trust these technologies with online banking, supplying us with
information and connecting us with friends and family. Why shouldn’t
we use these technologies to express our opinions on relevant matters
of public life and then make sure that our demands are fulfilled? The
technological trend of secure mobile communications penetrating every
aspect of our life is clear and unstoppable. The technical and
financial possibility of creating an efficient feedback loop between
government and the citizens exists. What is still missing is a
political will and wisdom.

Is this another utopia? Utopia is something that can’t exist. Direct
democracy exists now. In fact, it has existed in Switzerland since
1848 contributing to prosperity, social peace and efficient use of
resources in this country. Switzerland has held more nationwide
referendums than all other countries combined. Australia holds a
distant second place. In the US, only in California do referendums
play a noticeable role in political life. Despite a common objection
that bringing laws for a public vote will put too much burden on
people so they would loose interest in voting, Swiss experience proves
that people consistently continue to vote on what they perceive to be
important issues.  Furthermore, legislators have learned to avoid
drafting laws violating public interests out of the fear of loosing
face or even a parliamentary seat if their proposals would be struck
down by a referendum. Swiss experience proves the feasibility of a
direct democracy with a traditional voting system based on paper
ballots. Modern communication technology will allow for people to vote
anytime, anywhere thus attracting more voters and increasing their
political engagement. This is also not just a theoretical concept as
parliamentary elections in Estonia have allowed for internet voting
using secure ID cards since 2005.

The American political system was a progressive one at the time it was
designed. Given the much more complex society with so many new
challenges to handle, the technology advancements, an educated and
engaged public, this system is becoming archaic. So much more can be
accomplished by freeing up peoples’ initiative not only in the
economic, but also in the political arena. Direct democracy will
resolve the everlasting dispute on preference of individual freedoms
vs. “tyranny” of a strong government. It will enforce a truly people’s
government, which always acts in the interests and under direct
control of the people.

Dmitri Paramonov