The traditional comparison between the instruments of direct democracy and representative democracy no longer has any value when it comes to forming the expression of the will of the people. The representative system is the only real way to give a concrete form to the idea of democracy today, so an analysis of the functioning of the representative system will in reality be a
judgement of the functioning of democracy.
The degree of democracy of a particular state should be measured fundamentally by the effectiveness with which the institutional organs carry out representation and not at all by the degree of survival of techniques of direct democracy. Such mechanisms are not formed as an overall institutional alternative to representative democracy, but at best as a complement (see
Referendums and Plebiscites, Legislative Recall).
Even considered as such, the way in which these mechanisms are judged should at least be cautious. On the one hand, it appears evident that with adequate constitutional treatment they could complement the representative and mediation structures of the political parties, penetrating the decision-making mechanisms of the citizens. However, they are also subject to abuse by governments. The referendum, in particular, has often been used with an anti-parliamentarian and personalised connotation. This has happened in authoritarian regimes that attempted to compensate for the absence of real mechanisms of representation through elections, by resorting to plebiscites, in countries as diverse as Spain in the time of Franco, Chile in the time of Pinochet or Algeria. It has also occurred in democratic regimes such as France in General De Gaulle's time. It appears generally to confirm that referendums that are not constitutionally mandated imply the admission that the instruments of representation have not been capable of solving the problem and frequently encompass a divergent attitude between the executive branch of government and the parliament, if not between the executive branch and its own party.
Other institutions of direct democracy, like the recall or programmatic vote, present in the Colombian constitution and in some of the United States (such as North Dakota), which permit a certain percentage of the voters (40% in Colombia) to force new elections, should the programme a representative was elected for not have been fulfilled, is rarely used nowadays and lacks of interest.
To sum up, nowadays representation and direct democracy cannot be considered contrasting choices for the organisation of a democratic system of government. On the contrary, the instruments of direct democracy should be employed with extreme caution, especially in countries in political transition, as they are in contrast to the typical objectives of these processes. Whilst institutional decision-making mechanisms have to be formed and the structures of political parties strengthened in these processes, instruments of direct democracy have often been used as counterproductive authoritarian mechanisms.
