The theoretical down-site of direct democracy is that if the population is stupid, you'll get instant stupid decisions forced onto politicians. A population ca

The theoretical down-site of direct democracy is that if the population is stupid, you'll get instant stupid decisions forced onto politicians. A population can be educated and still pass controversial laws. Switzerland, through a referendum, voted in favour of banning the building of minarets a few years ago. It was a completely democratic decision by the populace (57% in favour of a ban). Mosques can still be built, just without minarets. What surprised me as someone viewing this from abroad was how this could become a political issue worthy of a referendum. Even more surprising was some of the campaigning around the issue, particularly the menacing and controversial posters in favour of a ban [1]. The impression I was left with (and tell me if it's an unfair one) was that Switzerland, a thoroughly democratic country, had a rightwing and reactionary streak to it (one which it's perfectly entitled to have). [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/11/ch-1.jpg