On Revolution

The difference between direct and representative democracy is one of the central themes of On Revolution and remains a core concern of political theorists today. In the former, citizens themselves decide policies through collective deliberation, in which everyone’s opinion has equal weight; in the latter, they elect representatives to perform these roles for them.

Hannah Arendt was a passionate advocate for direct democracy, arguing that active participation by citizens in public decision-making is the essence of freedom. She argues that the right to elect representatives does not in itself constitute freedom but is “merely an exemption from the abuses of power,” with voting not an act of self-governance but simply “a safeguard against government,” in that it compels officials to be at least somewhat responsive to public opinion (134).

The earliest institutions of direct democracy in America were the colonial townships of New England, where residents gathered in a town meeting every year to vote on laws, budgets, officials, and other administrative matters. Arendt deeply admires these townships as ideal models of direct democracy. The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, frequently quoted by Arendt, visited several Massachusetts townships in 1831 and praised them in his influential book Democracy in America (1835) as training grounds for participation in democratic society.