Why was indirect democracy considered a necessary alternative to direct democracy?

Indirect democracy was considered a necessary alternative to direct democracy primarily because it addressed the practical challenges associated with involving all citizens in decision-making processes. In a direct democracy, every eligible citizen would need to participate in every decision, which is feasible in smaller communities but becomes increasingly impractical in larger societies due to the sheer number of participants and the logistical challenges that arise.

As populations grow and geographic areas become more expansive, it becomes difficult to organize and ensure that all voices are heard on every issue. Indirect democracy, on the other hand, allows citizens to elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf, making governance more manageable and allowing for the representation of diverse interests within a large population. This system also facilitates more thoughtful deliberation and decision-making, as elected officials can dedicate time and resources to understand complex issues, engage with constituents, and craft legislation that reflects the will of the people they represent.

While enhancing citizen participation, reducing costs, and limiting the number of representatives are relevant considerations, they are secondary to the fundamental need for an effective governance structure that can function in larger, more populous societies.