Democracy and the Public Demonstrations: Crisis of representation again

The question of principle is classic: is democracy better served by representatives, as MONTESQUIEU maintained in France, or by direct vote of the citizens, as ROUSSEAU maintained?
Democratic logic favours ROUSSEAU's thesis:
- If the people are sovereign, why believe them incapable of deciding for themselves?
- Elected representatives may have a personal will opposed to that of their electorate: recent examples in western Europe have shown that the answer given by the people directly consulted differed from that of their representatives.
- The referendum frees the people from the supervision of parties.
Conversely, it can be noted:
- that many political questions are beyond the real understanding of "the man in the street";
- that the real purpose of the referendum is distorted because the mass of citizens regard it as a vote for or against the party in power;
- that a too frequent use of referenda discourages the electorate who can no longer be bothered to vote.
It is difficult to come down on one side or the other, the conditions not necessarily being the same in different countries.
It must, however, be observed that democratic logic tends to prevail. The example of Great Britain, the home of the sovereign Parliament, is apposite here: for about twenty years now referenda have been held there.
The referendum cannot, therefore, be excluded altogether. But two remarks are necessary:
- Firstly, the frequency with which the referendum is used should depend on the specific national situation, the degree of development of democratic institutions, the existence of a pluralistic, competent media network - press, radio and television.
- The citizens' legitimate desire to have a more direct influence on political decisions can be satisfied in another way by the election of a Head of State by direct universal suffrage. 

Even in Iran who are one of the most educated and civilized people of the East, masses can not form a democratic movement, with its very meaning as a form, and stepping down into the streets (sometimes necessary) is maybe over-valued as an attitude assumed to be sufficient in acquiring a democratic regime, it is only a nudge (sometimes necessary) yet politicians are so irresponsible as well that being so assured that masses can only act in the domain of emotions but not proposals, to fulfill a base for the formation of democracy in a country. 

Apart from the fruitful opposition of the Montesquieu and Rousseau in the past: the system of a democracy with its representatives (laborers maybe, in different professions) and voters (or supporters) may also need thinking on. 

I would never join a mass of people promising democracy if there isn't any lawyer who understand politics as well as its relation to the democracy.

I saw some publications in the US newspapers on Dworkin which made me curious and hopeful but I couldn't have made any further research, and I haven't read Dworkin as well, I think it is a necessity.