Direct Democracy & Rethinking Governance: Do We Still Need Elected Representatives?

In today’s digital world, where every voice can be digitally expressed and real-time dialogue is possible, it’s worth questioning why we still need elected representatives. Historically, representatives were chosen simply to carry the voices of the people to the governing body — they were our advocates, not rulers. The origins go back centuries, with the first parliaments in England featuring individuals sent to bring local concerns to the king. These representatives acted as messengers, conveying grievances and recommendations. But over time, this role shifted; representatives became decision-makers in their own right, accumulating power and, in many cases, allegiance to political parties rather than people.

In modern democracies, the concept of representatives as impartial advocates has been overshadowed by party lines and personal ambition. Elected officials are often bound by rigid party ideologies, expected to vote along party lines even when it doesn’t align with their constituents' views. For 4 or 5 years, people are struck to agreeing to a particular person's complete ideology for every issue, and there is no issue based discussion at all. For the years a party or person is in power, citizens are mere spectators. What would it take to really give this power back to people, on each issue ? Shouldn't people rule themselves in perpetuity, rather than the elected "rulers" dictating their direction on each issue ?

Today, it’s evident that this vision has been clouded by party loyalty, and as a result, society has become polarized, dividing into camps of “left” and “right.” Imagine a word where its all issue based, there's no left or right - the society in general becomes much peaceful and there are less heated rhetorics. I have the right to agree with someone on economy, but disagree on abortion, right ? Vice-versa too, agree with someone on 1 issue but disagree on another ? Since when did democracy became about agreeing to everything even if I don't agree to it. That is exactly opposite to what democracy was supposed to be.

With the tools we have now, we’re beginning to see that elected representatives may no longer be necessary. Imagine a system of governance that allows people to vote directly on laws and policies. This model — often called direct democracy or digital grassroots democracy — doesn’t require intermediaries. Instead, it gives each citizen the power to make decisions on key issues. Platforms like Petitions.gov.uk in the UK and We the People in the U.S. offer examples of what this could look like. Citizens use these platforms to propose and support petitions, which governments must consider once they reach a certain level of support. Similarly, Switzerland has a longstanding tradition of referendums, giving citizens the final say on national policies multiple times each year.

In this envisioned model, elected officials are replaced by paid, non-partisan bureaucrats. These bureaucrats focus on drafting proposals based on expert knowledge and public interest rather than political leanings. The proposals would be presented directly to the public through secure, user-friendly digital platforms. Each citizen could review, discuss, and vote on policies in real time. If a proposal gains majority support, it becomes law; if not, it can be revised based on public feedback or shelved entirely. This system emphasizes issue-based governance rather than allegiance to parties or ideologies.

A system like this could dramatically change the tone of our political conversations. Without the rigid frameworks of political parties, people would have the freedom to engage with issues independently, focusing on real impacts rather than partisan rhetoric. This could foster a more cooperative, solutions-oriented approach. Imagine a society where individuals engage on equal footing, each voice truly having the same weight, and every vote having the power to influence decisions directly.

In this framework, we wouldn’t rely on a small group of officials to represent our views. Instead, power would be decentralized and shared equally among citizens. This would reinforce the idea that governance is “by the people, for the people,” shifting responsibility for decisions directly to us. Rather than being passive recipients of policy, citizens become responsible contributors, which could deepen the sense of unity and reduce division.

There is NO elected head of state, or representatives at any level. In the existing structures, we need to replace the process of law making by letting citizens directly vote on each topic. Of course, there would be things which I haven't completely thought of - E.g. confidential sensitive informations being disclosed to people, but there it could be a selective approach - delegating a section of tasks to selected group of people. The direct-digital democracy can still be a reality without elected representatives as gatekeepers and certain issues being entrusted with group of people.

Today, technology already brings us together and allows collective participation in unprecedented ways. We have the tools to reshape governance so it reflects the will of the people on an issue-by-issue basis. The question is: are we ready to trust ourselves and each other enough to take this leap? What are your thoughts on a direct democracy model? Could it work in today’s world? I'd love to hear your insights. Even if its a ridicule, it'd be great feedback.