Democratically elected governments often do things that many of their people oppose. Throngs have protested austerity measures in Athens, London, Dublin, and beyond. A recent poll shows that 58 percent of Americans favor repealing President Obama's health care law.
In Switzerland, however, the situation is reversed: citizens are taking steps opposed by their elected leaders. This is the result of the country's direct democracy, in which voters can propose popular initiatives and even veto laws or treaties adopted by the government.
The latest action by Swiss voters came on November 28, when they approved an initiative that will automatically expel foreigners convicted of a wide range of crimes. The Swiss government had urged citizens to reject the initiative in favor of an official counter-proposal, which would have considered the seriousness of a foreigner's crime in deciding on expulsion. Something similar occurred in November 2009, when voters approved an initiative banning the construction of minarets. The government had said this "would endanger peace between religions and would not help to prevent the spread of fundamentalist Islamic beliefs."
Direct democracy is by no means limited to Switzerland. Indeed, it seems to be on the rise, at least in Europe. The European Union is creating a European Citizens' Initiative that will let individuals petition the European Parliament to take up an issue. In the United Kingdom, the government last month proposed a bill that would allow citizens to conduct referendums on local issues and to veto "excessive" tax increases by local councils.
Direct democracy also exists in the United States, most notably in California. The state's voters cast ballots on nine propositions in last November's election, and many more have already been proposed for 2012.
Is all this popular policymaking a good idea? It is tempting to judge direct democracy by its results -- that is, by the outcomes of various referendums. But this yardstick can go both ways. To those who support a vote's result, direct democracy is a godsend. To those opposed, it is a dangerous step toward mob rule.
Instead we should look to direct democracy's broader costs and benefits.
On the one hand, giving citizens a direct voice seems to promise important upsides. It can, in theory, offer a clear statement of the popular will and let citizens advance priorities that elected officials will not address.
Indeed, the people should be able to vote directly on certain fundamental questions that cut to the very foundation of their lives and well-being. The referendum on independence scheduled for this Sunday in Southern Sudan is just such an instance.
But popular policymaking has significant drawbacks. First, an initiative said to be approved by "the people" might well be approved by only a small percentage. The recent Swiss initiative on expelling criminals, for example, passed with 52.9 percent of the vote in a referendum with 52.6 percent turnout. Of course, the same thing happens in elections, and this is a serious shortcoming -- but it is all the more damaging for popular referendums given the common assumption that direct democracy conveys the people's views.
Initiatives approved by citizens might also clash with existing law or hamstring leaders trying to advance the public good. The Swiss measure raises "conflicts with the constitution and international law," as the government delicately put it. In California, ballot propositions adopted over the years have limited the legislature's control over taxes and spending, complicating the state's emergence from its fiscal mess.
Moreover, at a time of daunting economic and security challenges in democracies around the world, referendums can distract policymakers and the public from issues that must be tackled. To take just one example, New Zealanders voted in 2009 in a non-binding referendum on whether they should be allowed to "smack" their children. This illustrates how direct democracy allows individuals and interest groups to whip citizens into a frenzy over issues that are unimportant, divisive, or worse.
To be sure, citizen action in a democracy is a good thing. Forming advocacy groups, pressing elected leaders through the media, campaigning for or against candidates at election time, and voting itself -- all these are vital if democracy is to remain worthy of the name. But taking the next step and allowing citizens to make policy directly usually costs too much to be worthwhile.
Competitive elections should be frequent, but direct democracy should be rare. In general, we should elect our governments and then let them govern.
Charles Landow is associate director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations.