Hybrid Democracy — Notes
1. Problem Definition (Structural Flaws of the Current System)
• Japan’s voter turnout is approximately 60%.
• Because political power is determined by a simple majority of those votes,
national politics can be shaped by the will of roughly 30% of all eligible voters.
• This 30% tends to be biased toward organized and entrenched interest groups.
• The preferences of a large portion of the population—marked by political disengagement and a sense of powerlessness—are difficult to reflect.
• As a result, a negative feedback loop emerges:
• Growing distrust in politics
• Declining voter turnout
• Repeated reliance on stopgap “life-support” policies
• Concentration of burdens on implementers and frontline actors
2. Core Philosophy
• Problem identification and solutions must come as a set.
• Prolonging an existing social system is not inherently good.
• Life-support policies often exhaust frontline actors and accumulate systemic anxiety.
• What is required is not a revolution, but a structural reset aimed at reducing the total amount of societal anxiety.
3. Overview of the Solution: Hybrid Democracy
Definition
A two-layer democratic model in which direct democracy operates in normal times, and representative (indirect) democracy operates in emergencies.
4. Division of Roles
A. Role of Indirect Democracy (Elections)
• Legislation and execution during emergencies
• Selection of crisis-response leadership
• National security, diplomacy, disaster response, and related domains
• Areas requiring rapid decision-making and clearly defined responsibility
→ Emphasis on speed and accountability
B. Role of Direct Democracy (Enabled by IT)
• Final expression of public will on legislation during normal times
• Medium- to long-term policies and institutional changes involving public burden
• Citizens indicate approval or rejection (“Yes / No”)
→ Emphasis on legitimacy and public acceptance
5. Concrete Design of Direct Democracy
Separation of Legislative Authority
• Drafting and design of legislation: Parliament, government, and experts
• Final judgment (approval / rejection): Citizens
Citizens are not turned into lawmakers.
Voting Method
• Choices are limited to “Approve” or “Reject”
• Abstentions are treated as invalid votes
(they are counted as neither approval nor rejection)
Approval Conditions (Quorum)
• Valid votes (approval + rejection) must exceed a predefined percentage of all eligible voters; otherwise, the proposal fails.
• A majority of valid votes is required for passage.
→ This prevents governance by a minority (e.g., 30%).
6. Switching Between Emergency and Normal Modes
• The definition of an “emergency state” must be explicitly codified.
• Switching modes cannot be based solely on executive discretion.
• The following are mandatory:
• Time limits
• Approval by a special supermajority
• Post-event public approval or verification
→ This prevents the normalization of emergency powers.
7. Effects of the System
• Citizens:
• Develop a sense of ownership over decision-making
• Reduced rational apathy (“Nothing will change anyway”)
• Politicians:
• Lose the ability to evade responsibility by hiding behind vague “public opinion”
• Entrenched interests:
• Fewer opaque, closed-door rule changes
• Reduced long-term anxiety
• Frontline actors and implementers:
• Reduced excessive burdens caused by system-preserving stopgap measures
→ Overall reduction in societal anxiety
8. Positioning
• Not a revolution
• Not system prolongation
• An upgrade of the governance operating system
• Not “ideal democracy,” but a democracy designed to be resilient and hard to break
Stress emerges when societies use peacetime systems in crises,
and authoritarianism emerges when crisis systems are used in peacetime.