I'm sitting on the fence here

Is parliamentary democracy the best available system of government? What about a bit more direct democracy? I must admit that I've never really thought seriously about the alternatives, but a couple of bloggers have just raised the question. The title of Miljenko Williams' post 'Referendums - the coward's way into democracy', leaves little doubt where his sympathies lie; he thinks that referendums don't change fundamental power structures (if parties are able to skillfully manage which questions do and don't get put to a vote), are open to abuse, depending on how you word the question and oversimplify complex issues.

He's not the only one to be suspicious:

I've said it before but it bears repeating: the only time governments and opposition parties call for referendums is when they think they'll yield the result they want. If they don't think this, they avoid them.

Chris Dillow sums up what's perhaps the strongest argument for referendums:

The case for a referendum is simply that, in unbundling options, public preferences can be more clearly expressed.

I like the phrase "unbundling", which sounds quite attractive if you've ever voted for a political party with gritted teeth, because you think they've got the least worst bundle of policies, mixed in with a few horrendous ones. I know I have.

Switzerland, which ranks pretty high on both the Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life Index, 2005 and the Satisfaction with Life Index, 2006, is the most famous example of a country where direct democracy plays a far larger role than it does in the UK. Are the Swiss just happy with a sub-optimal system of democracy, or have they found a way to get round the problem of political parties managing some referendum questions to get the answers they want and ensuring that other questions that don't fit their agenda are never put to a vote? I don't know the answer, but it's a question worth asking.