BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Representative Democracy Prevents Domination by Special Interests

Governments often have to pass decisions which anger small, well-organised special interest groups – like teachers unions – but are in the long-term interest of the country. Under representative democracy, the government can simply make the decisions it has to, and resist the political pressure these groups put on them. But under more direct forms of participatory democracy, the special interest groups can organise their members to campaign and vote against proposals which are good for the country but against their private interests. The reason why they are likely to be successful is that most voters won’t have the technical knowledge to recognise the importance of the proposal (curbing unaffordable public sector pensions, for example), they may be uninterested if they do not see how it directly affects them, and will probably be exhausted and bored of referendums if they are held very regularly – an effect observed in Switzerland called “election fatigue”.[1] As a result, turnout amongst regular voters is likely to be low, but the unions or interest groups will be well organised and will be active in campaigning and voting, since they know that they are fighting for their interests. The effect of this will be to enable organised interest groups to dictate policy on issues where they have a major conflict of interest. An example of this is a Californian initiative in 1990 to raise billions of dollars on the bond markets to invest in railways. The initiative was passed after a campaign funded by railway companies.[2] [1] Buhlmann, M. et al. (2006) “National Elections in Switzerland: an Introduction” Swiss Political Science Review, 12(4) 1-12 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2006.tb00058.x/pdf [2] The Economist (17 December 2009) “The tyranny of the majority” http://www.economist.com/node/15127600
Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites

Some forms of elite manipulation will be much worse under direct democracy. Media barons, for example, influence politics primarily by influencing public opinion. Whereas elected politicians can sometimes resist public opinion, this is not possible if the public make political decisions directly. Under direct democracy, owners of newspapers and other media outlets would be much more powerful because their power over the public mind could be translated directly into political decisions. This influence would even be outsized when individuals opinions are sought, as in the wiki constitution model, as people’s opinions are shaped by the media many will simply follow the lead set by the members of the elite who are setting the agenda through their media networks.
Participation Is Good In Itself

This point only stands if participatory democracy actually involves more participation. In reality, when taking the example of referendums, for most voters all that changes under a participatory system is that they get to vote more regularly – which given how turned off voting many people are this may simply lead to them ignoring all the new votes. In any referéndum all the electors have to do is decide to vote yes or no. There’s hardly any intellectual stimulation at all. This binary choice is much more basic than choosing which political party to vote for, and encourages even sloppier thinking – just look at the misleading claims the “No to AV” campaign spread in the 2011 UK referendum on electoral reform.[1] Then, participatory democracy is not the be all and end all, we should not ask only for more participation but we must move towards a more deliberative democracy, where the public debate and consequent consensus is an important issue to pass new political decisions.[2] [1] Newman, C. (25 February 2011) “FactCheck: the AV campaign gets dirty” 4 news. http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-av-campaign-gets-dirty/5789 [2] Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives

Under participatory democracy people can participate as much or as little as they like. They are not obliged to vote in every referendum or attend every public meeting, but they have the right to. If they only care about a few political issues, they can just vote on those and ignore everything else. That way they get to have their say on just the issues they care about without becoming part-time citizen-politicians. Moreover, that would be more effective than simply voting for a politician once every five years because it would allow them to specifically vote on the issues they cared about rather than having to support an all-or-nothing manifesto that they will probably only partially agree with.
Participatory Democracy Facilitates the Misrepresentation of Issues

The more experience of participatory democracy the people have, the better they will get at it. In particular, common wisdom will learn from past mistakes. Whilst the Californian example cited is true, it is also true that in 2000, just six years after the “Three Strikes” law was introduced, the 1978 tax amendment was partially repealed in response to money shortages.[1] [1] State of California (7 November 2000) “Proposition 39 School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements.” Smart Voter. http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/11/07/ca/state/prop/39/
Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites

Representative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market.[1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account.[2] A clear example is the Iceland's "wiki constitution" (2011).[3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable. [1] Toynbee, P. (8 July 2011). “The game has changed. The emperor has lost his clothes”, The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/ed-miliband-broken-omerta-old-monster [2] Resnick, P. (1997). Twenty-first Century Democracy. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 84 [3] Siddique, H. (9 June 2011). “Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution”, The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/09/iceland-crowdsourcing-constitution-facebook
Participation Is Good In Itself

Giving people more responsibility for making political decisions is itself a good thing. Participating in political decision-making allows citizens to achieve a higher state of intellectual and moral maturity, letting them lead better and wiser lives. Since the difficult business of government forces them to learn how to make tough choices and compromise they will quickly abandon their simplistic prejudices and assumptions. Representative democracy is the opposite: it treats the public as if they are incapable of making important choices themselves, and thus denies most citizens a chance to meaningfully participate. Representative democracy often implies a mercantile vision of the political performance, where the politicians play the role of the sellers and the voters act as a simple buyers of political options.[1] This means that the vast majority of voters remain ignorant at best, and apathetic at worst. This leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by deceitful politicians and political commentators. Furthermore, since many government decisions involve major moral dilemmas, citizens who participate in such decision-making will develop a more nuanced moral understanding and more thoughtful personal conduct. Thus, all democratic participation is beneficial. Participatory forms of democracy allows people to participate more than they otherwise would. Evidence for the impact of democratic participation is that radical and intolerant views are frequently expressed in young democracies but fade away as participation in democratic politics implants in the people respect for due process and different points of view. A good example of this is that intolerant far-right parties are much more successful in the young democracies of Eastern Europe than the old democracies of Western Europe.[2] [1] Macpherson, C.B. (1977). The Life and BTimes of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press). [2] The Economist (12 November 2009) “Right on down”, http://www.economist.com/node/14859369
Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives

People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns".[1] [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html
Participatory Democracy Facilitates the Misrepresentation of Issues

An intrinsic problem with participatory democracy is that issues are easily misrepresented to the public. Whilst most voters may be intelligent and informed enough to understand a single issue in isolation, they will almost certainly not understand its complex relationship with other issues, and what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean for everything else – this is because only a full-time politician has the time and the resources to properly understand how dozens of different government policies fit together. An example of this effect is that in 1978 Californians voted to pass an amendment making it almost impossible to raise taxes, and then in 1994 voted for the “Three Strikes” Law that tripled their prison population. As a result, California is now almost bankrupt.[1] The reason why this happened was that these issues were presented in isolation from one another and from other issues as a simple yes-or-no choice – the public just didn’t connect the fact that if they were going to lock up more people for life, they would need higher taxes. [1] Adams, G. (18 February 2009) “Jobs terminated as California goes bankrupt” The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jobs-terminated-as-california-goes-bankrupt-1624892.html
Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty

First elections are not just a retrospective vote on how the government did, it is also about what political parties want to do. Yes a few elction promises get dropped but the vast majority stick to their promises because they know that not doing so will result in them losing the next election. It is simply not true that representative democracy is oppressive. If people aren’t happy with the way the government is using its power they can vote for a candidate who promises to undo what the previous government has done, or they can even enter politics themselves. The people can always take back powers that they don’t want the government to have by forming and supporting a party or a lobby specifically for that purpose. The reason why this hasn’t happened yet is that most people are happy with the representative system and do not feel like their liberty is being violated.
Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics

The problem of domination by elites and assertive minorities will be exacerbated because they are the only people who will be able or willing to make the time to play politics. Participatory democracy demands much more involvement than representative democracy – indeed that’s the whole point. Every single issue is the subject of its own debate, campaign and even referendum, and most voters will lose track. It’s a simple question of motivation: people with extreme views will tend to be strongly driven to impose their beliefs, whilst people whose special interests are at stake will be prepared to go out and fight for them. Ordinary working people or people without strong political views will not have the time or the inclination to put in the high level of involvement participatory democracy requires.
The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime

The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons.  This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism.  Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral.  There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia.  The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance.[i] Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons.[ii]  Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized. [i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4708312.stm [ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569
Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided

Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world.[i]  The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world.  As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in. Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union.[ii]  Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result. Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing. [i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001822.html [ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031902603.html
Radical and anti western voices in Islamic communities gained authority and legitimacy as a result of the newspapers' actions

The publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West.[i]  For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States.  Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes.[ii]   This set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world. [i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802296_2.html [ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews, http://europenews.dk/en/node/7143
Factors motivating publication of the cartoons

On the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.
Free expression and journalistic integrity

Publishing the cartoons was not only an important expression of press freedom, but fulfils the fundamental journalistic mission of exposing the public to important information, by forcing the examination of topics that would otherwise go unexamined.  Self-censorship in Islam is an important issue that deserves consideration by a democratic public.  There is a clear norm that causes Islam and Muhammad to be treated differently in the Western press than the Christian or Jewish faiths or their leading figures, and the editors felt it was important to violate that norm as a demonstration of a social phenomenon.[i]   They were well within their rights to do so, and this furthered legitimate discourse about religion within Denmark and the West.   It should also be remembered that demonization of Israel and the West using Christian and Jewish figures is not uncommon in the Islamic press – this is therefore a pernicious double standard.[ii]    Ultimately, the reaction by Muslims was unfortunate, but itself indicated the ways in which Islamic religious depictions in the press differ from their Christian and Jewish counterparts. Christian and Jewish groups have not responded with violence (though they have also sometimes staged protests), and where incidents have taken place, they were isolated and nowhere near the scale of the cartoons controversy.     [i] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm [ii] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm
Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity

Art should be given a great deal of license.  Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities.  By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous.  Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception.  The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw.
Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold

There is no right not to be offended.  It is one thing to show a religion respect.  One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque.  However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required.  The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold.[i] [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html
Controversy, integration and civic participation

The controversy has actually resulted in a much higher degree of civic participation by Danish Muslims than had previously been achieved, including town hall-style meetings, opinion columns, and radio and TV debates.  This may have been better than anything else at integrating the Muslim community in Denmark into Western liberal democratic norms of how to resolve conflicts.  Just because violence happened elsewhere in the world, where democracy does not currently hold sway, does not mean this was not a victory for Denmark.[i] [i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html