You can raise awareness to clause 17b, even in the form of pull requests. Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law.
With indirect democracy, none of our objections are binding. They'll just spit on them like they do every time.
> Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law.
I take it you don't have referenda on major issues in your country?
Much easier to campaign against a dubious clause of marginal relevance - before and especially after - when political figures have to justify a series of specific votes on specific amendments, and not just pick sides in extended public campaigns based on the headline intent of bills. Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken."
>Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken."
If you're referring to Brexit, this "absolute outrage" is mostly generated from the not-very-democratic billionaire owned media that probably would be reined in by a more directly democratic system.
I don't see any lack of outrage in grassroots blogs either. What it reveals is that (i) the public is very willing to believe in politicians' mendacity, and thus [depending on electoral system] the threat to politicians for repeatedly refusing to ratify amendments in the public interest is not nonexistent and (ii) turning a process of legislative change into a stage of a campaign for public assent makes politicians supporting it less accountable for its dubious implications and less willing to compromise on the detail.
You can raise awareness to clause 17b, even in the form of pull requests. Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law.
With indirect democracy, none of our objections are binding. They'll just spit on them like they do every time.