Question

What does direct democracy imply ? Why can it not be practiced in present day world ?

Answer 1

In direct democracy, people directly decide on matters of policy and legislation, they vote and decide upon policy initiative. There are no elected representatives to act on behalf of the citizens. It is also known as participatory democracy. This form of democracy is usually workable only in small countries or communities. Switzerland is an example of direct democracy.
It is not possible to practice direct democracy in the present day world with the population of each country running into millions. It is unfeasible that for each of the policies, any country calls for voting from each of its citizens (who qualify the age limit). Policy making with this kind of system will be chaotic, cumbersome and will take a lot of time.
Referendums are tools of direct democracy, but their effectiveness as expression is of democratic values is often questioned.
The use of the instruments of direct democracy nevertheless entails some risks. For example, the choices offered to citizens in referendums are few and are fixed beforehand. The citizens may not not be interested or not agree with the options presented.
So, these are reasons due to which direct democracy can't be practiced in present day world.

Answer 2

First let us know direct and indirect democracy systems. Then we see the reasons.

    In True or  Direct democracy people make the decisions regarding the way they are ruled, budget, policies etc. People assemble at one place or vote through a referendum or there is a consensus gathering etc.  Here people have more power than in case of indirect democracy.  

    In indirect democracy (or representative democracy),  people elect representatives. The representatives sit in a parliamentary house. Then they make laws and decisions. Here people have no direct power to make laws.

   Switzerland is an example of this system. Uruguay too.  In direct democracy, each person is important. Majority rules. In indirect democracy system, people could be exploited. it is possible.

Reasons for not practicing this system in today's world:

    The countries are very huge. Then all people cannot sit at one place. Also the expenses for making a referendum or consensus vote will take a lot of time, effort and cost. There will be a lot of chaos when a large number of people sit and want their opinion to go through.  The meetings may not come through with decisions.

    Large countries like India have different levels of education, social background, castes, economical differences, regional differences in cultures, languages, behaviours and appearances.

   In such countries all people in a consensus do not understand the significance of the matters under discussion.  Imagine a tribal person in the parliament. He could not perhaps understand the proceedings.  So representatives who are more intelligent, efficient, capable and patriotic are elected to make decisions on the people's behalf.

    In case of Switzerland, all people have equal background. They have same culture. So they understand well, what each policy means. The country is a peaceful country.  It is rich.  They can afford the expenses.  So they can effectively participate in the direct democracy system.