The argument against direct democracy (referendums on any subject any sizeable group wants to put on vote) is that people will be economically irresponsible and vote themselves popular, expensive goodies with no regards of financing or cost.
This shows otherwise.
Many countries in Europe, including Switzerland, were ramping up debt. In Switzerland this was stopped by the people via a vote in 2001. In the eurozone it took the debt crisis.
Switzerland is one the most highly educated and richest country on earth. Do you think the results of direct democracy would be equally responsible in Egypt, Syria or Bolivia? (I'm half-Syrian).
Quality attracts and breeds more quality. Somehow, they manage to pull it off for last 800 years, in one way or the other.
Even in the US, voters often tend to vote against their own self interest. E.g. people that stand to benefit from social programs often vote for conservatives against social programs.
Why is anyone who votes against short-term self-interest automatically uninformed?
However, I think the prevailing thinking will lean more and more towards voting for the free stuff. Someone else is paying for it, right?