Editing Direct democracy (section)

==Criticism==
{{Expand section|date=November 2024}}
The core criticism of direct democracy coincides with democracy's overall criticism. Critics have historically expressed doubts of the populace's capacity of participation, both in terms of numbers and ability, deeming its advocates utopian.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} Despite this, instances of direct democracy – such as the [[Petrograd Soviet]] – lack documented incidents involving participation deficits or [[mobocracy]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

From the [[Liberal democracy|liberal democratic]] standpoint, restraining popular influence stonewalls the [[state of nature]], protecting [[Property rights (economics)|property rights]]. Adversaries of greater democratization cast doubt on [[human nature]], painting a narrative of misinformation and impulsivity.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} [[MAREZ]], utilizing [[sortition]], had managed itself successfully prior to being overrun by drug cartels, as did [[FEJUVE]] remaining tranquil with self-managed organizations.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}

Although [[Revolutionary Catalonia]] had demonstrated the feasibility of non-liberal democracy, critics have continued to deride its presumed mobocratic nature, although there are no recorded instances of [[tyranny of the majority]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}} It is of note that direct democracy's critics have emerged from Hobbesian and liberal philosophy.{{Citation needed|date=November 2024}}