The people don't always choose what is right for himself in the field of health and in the field of justice.

If you believe in the above, if you need to have somebody above all the other people who will decide what is good for them, there is no point to fight for direct democracy. Such an office will always be abused.

Human rights are changing and developing with time. At any given moment of history they reflect what the consensus of the majority of the society. The most progressive people are usually ahead of the majority, but that should be their role to explain and persuade the rest to advance and improve the human rights.

Direct democracy is possible only in an educated society where everybody is willing to participate at least a little bit. Again, if you need somebody more wiser than the "mob" to override any decisions made by a direct democracy process, there is no chance for DD.

Anyway, the examples you gave of "mob" justice are not decisions made by majority in a DD process, but the acts of minorities (some of them criminal).

Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]