It's been a long time since my studies in philosophy and politics so my recollection of the topic of direct democracy is a little hazy.
The arguments for and against direct democracy have been going on for centuries. The political model of ancient Athens can be considered to be the earliest form of direct democracy. Every 'citizen' was expected to play a role in the democratic process through direct participation in the polity. Ultimately, however, this model excluded foreigners, slaves and women. With such widespread disenfranchisement it can be argued that the model was not democratic at all, since engagement in the process was limited to a few men -- the political elite. So much for rule of the people by the people and for the people.
Today's representative model of democracy is indirect in nature. Citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Obviously, this can lead to decisions being made that go against the needs and wishes of the majority. The only fall back the electorate has is the option to vote political representatives out of office at the next election. But this in itself, particularly in the 21st century, may appear intrinsically undemocratic.
Francis Fukuyama wrote about the End of History. He considered that with the fall of the Berlin Wall came the death of the battle of ideologies in politics. During the Cold War two distinct ideologies were being espoused, that is, capitalism and communism. Fukuyama saw the death of communism as leading to the final stage in the political evolution of mankind. With the death of communist ideology, the liberal democratic model became the only choice for the electorate. This has led to little distinction between political parties since they all purport to be liberal democrats and, by definition, capitalist in nature. Ultimately, as I have stated, the electorate is able to vote politicians in and out of office. However, with there being little ideological difference between political parties, voters are destined to vote in 'more of the same' -- the same politicians just in a different guise. It can be argued, therefore, that with so Little realistic choice the system is not democratic at all. Compounded with the fact that unelected civil servants advise politicians on, and implement, policy the representative model doesn't look democratic at all.
Theoretically, direct democracy may seem like an obvious choice of democratic model. In practice, however, there are potential problems. Advocates of the representative model have argued that direct democracy is impossible because of the difficulty in ensuring every-ones participation in the system. How, they ask, could you possibly incorporate millions of people directly into the political process? This argument still holds some weight, although less so than it once did.
Proponents of the direct model can now argue that direct participation is possible due to the widespread availability of electronic communication technologies, such as the Internet. Critics of this point of that technology is not infallible and it would be impossible to police such a system. Furthermore, tthey point out that the population as a whole is incapable of making political decisions due to a general lack of esoteric knowledge. Advocates of the direct model may counter this by stating that the lack of political knowledge is due to the poor education put in place for the masses by the elite. That is, only the ruling elite have access to decent education, thus ensuring the status-quo remains intact.
Obviously, prior to a direct model being put in place the education system would require an overhaul. This would take time, at least a generation and, as such, it appears unfeasible that a direct model could be implemented anytime soon. Another problem, according to advocates of the representative model, is that most people do not want to play a direct role in the political system. Would the law require them to participate, and what if they chose not to? Living in a pluralistic society, like the UK's, may create insurmountable difficulties as well. Would anything ever get done if disparate members of a seemingly fragmented society (Christians, atheists, Muslims, Sikh's, Jews, Hindu's, etc) all played a direct role?
It is not an easy topic but one that is needs to be addressed. We must not allow the difficulties faced in creating such a system instill a paralysing defeatist attitude from the beginning. Maybe it could be done, maybe not. The fact remains, however, that we do not live in a democracy, only the ever weakening illusion of one. The ultimate question is, therefore, how democratic can society be?