I agree that mechanical voting ("shouting" an initiative and voting on it without much discussion) is not good enough. Formulating a proposal must involve a lot of discussion and consensus building before it submitted to a vote.

On the other hand, nothing should be decided outside of such a comprehensive process of direct democracy. All the laws, including the formulation of what constitutes human rights must be produced by all people. If something is decided outside of the framework of (direct) democracy, that is not democracy.

I am not sure what exactly do you propose - a group of "wise" men who will formulate basic laws/human rights and force them upon all the society, and decide what they allow to be decided by direct democracy? Courts that can change laws? That's more or less what we have now.

Of course courts (composed of trained professionals) will continue to enforce the law (and possibly make sure that new or modified laws are not contradictory to all other existing laws - and if that happens, return the laws for modification by the direct-democratic process; but this this process is decided well, this should never or hardly ever happen). But courts cannot make law, including the basic laws or human rights law. That would not be democracy. All laws, all common values of each group/nation must be decided and accepted by all members of that group before they would be enforced.

This could work only in a highly decentralized system. Each group/community will decide locally all that effects only that group. On each higher level (county, region/district, province/state, country, whole world) only such laws that effect everybody in the respective area will be discussed and created. The higher the level, the smaller number of common laws is needed. See e.g. [www.basiclaw.net]

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]