I like clear and precise definitions - the simpler the explanation the better. So, let's clarify Direct Democracy and how it differs from Representative Democracy with an illustrative example:

Representative Democracy

Imagine a small town called Greenfield. In Greenfield, decisions about local policies, such as park renovations or school funding, are typically made by elected representatives in the town council. This is an example of Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy

Now, let's introduce Direct Democracy into Greenfield. Instead of "solely" relying on elected representatives to make decisions, Direct Democracy allows all eligible citizens of Greenfield to vote directly on these local policies themselves. For instance, if there's a proposal to build a new community centre, instead of the town council deciding, all citizens would have the opportunity to vote on it directly. Here's a breakdown:

Representative Democracy:

Citizens elect representatives (like councillors or MPs) to make decisions on their behalf. These representatives, ideally, are chosen to serve the best interests of their constituents. The decision-making process happens through the elected officials, and citizens have limited direct involvement in policymaking.

Direct Democracy:

Citizens directly participate in decision-making processes. Through referendums or initiatives, citizens can propose, vote on, and enact laws or policies themselves. This system empowers citizens by giving them a direct voice in governance, bypassing the need for intermediaries like representatives.

So, in our Greenfield example, Representative Democracy would involve citizens electing councillors to make decisions, while Direct Democracy would enable citizens to vote directly on those decisions, perhaps through town-wide referendums. A hybrid made up of the two works well #DirectDemocracy