The row that No 10 has got into over the anti-road-pricing petition was both predictable and avoidable. It illustrates some of the contradictions of trying to combine experiments in direct democracy with a representative system. The result has been more, not less, anger and disillusionment with mainstream politics.

When Downing Street set up its online petitions site three months ago, the aim was to make it easier for people to make their views known directly at the top of government. But there have always been inherent flaws. Petitions, like marches and phone-in surveys to media outlets, indicate the intensity of feeling on an issue and often the extent of organisation by protesters, but not the balance of views.

It is obviously significant that more than 1.5 million people marched against the Iraq war four years ago and almost 1.2 million have signed the petition against the planned vehicle tracking and road-pricing policy. It shows that a large number of people care and, in the case of the petition, how effective the motoring lobby is.

The numbers reflect particular interests. By definition, they cannot represent the broader public interest. These protests are populist, not democratic: only some people are being heard. Government and Parliament exist to reconcile divergent interests. When the Government rejects them, however, it appears to be ignoring the popular will; witness the alliance of The Mail on Sunday proclaiming “How many people have to sign a petition before this Government takes notice?” and Henry Porter in The Observer giving warning of “road rage like never before” if the Government snubs the petition.

There is a role for more direct participation between general elections but this should supplement, not replace, representative democracy. The key is to convince petitioners that their views are being seriously considered. One of the problems of the No 10 website is that when a petition closes, as the anti-road-pricing one will a week today, all the petitioners usually get is an e-mail stating, or restating, government policy.

A better approach is that adopted by the Scottish Parliament, which has a formal committee to sift public petitions and send substantial ones to relevant subject committees, which can hold formal hearings. This has led to remedies of grievances, alterations in administrative practice and legislative changes. Petitions have become part of the representative system.

A similar approach has been urged for Westminster by, among others, the Hansard Society and the Power inquiry. The Commons Procedure Committee is inquiring into the issue and Gordon Brown is sympathetic.

The danger, as now, is of exaggerated expectations. Members of the public should have a greater say. Their views, whether expressed in petitions, marches or in citizens’ initiatives (as discussed in Supply Side Politics, a new Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet by Matt Qvortrup), should be taken into account, but they should not in themselves determine policy.

Times Recommends

• Farwell to the stiff upper lip
• It’s about who runs the US, not health
• The Iron Lady and her blue felt-tip sympathy