www.world-wide-democracy.net
Direct Democracy and Political Parties
E-mail discussion conducted in the WDDM, CICDD, and D-Europe Mailing Lists
(End of October 2006)
The highlights (conclusions?):
- The notion of a Direct Democracy political party is self-contradictory by definition.
- A DD political party will have a hard time to live up to its principles.
- However it is claimed that in some jurisdictions it may be the only way to achieve change.
- The most important/hardest thing to solve is how to convince the majority of public
that DD is a better system - how to show the public that it works.
- A DD party (movement) should be global.
| |
I thank Vladimir Rott for forwarding this comment from EUobserver.com. As I read this comment, I see the value "parties" have in democracy. We
want to "network" our interests, but isn't a "party" a network of people with similar
views? If we disagree with some of our "Parties" (network) views, we must bring
strong documentation and proof supporting our views.
I suggest if we want DD, we may need to from a
DD party or introduce DD to our party to carry that view into government.
Please comment on this, it could help us "network" our DD
goals. Bruce
--
Bruce Eggum Gresham Wisconsin, USA
Free Movie on Gov http://www.truemajorityaction.org/takeback/
www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
www.doinggovernment.blogspot.com/
Yes, I guess this is a good idea to create a DD political party. As for us (Academy of Direct Democracy, Ukraine) we see no way to create it for now but as the idea it sound good for us.
My best regards, Maria Ivanova
Setting up a party would be a good thing
do.
Martin Jackson:
P.S Solomon Islands is well worth watching,
they are undertaking an economic change (unlike any other in the world at
present) which the Australian Government doesn't like.
Below is from John
Seale on the Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare
Yes he does have good
support from the people and particularly in the Provinces where there are 83% of
the population. Unfortunately PIG "Privileged Industry
Groups" has all the usual bases covered, e.g. the radio broadcasting
network, the main newspaper, the judiciary, the police, the central bank, the
treasury and finance department and some key NGOs "National Government
Organisations". Otherwise Sogavare’s guys control the streets and have
high respect in the church networks, which in SI are strongly Christian.
He is also now drawing
on our ideas and has some good personal staff to support him. Also the
SoCred party is going from strength to strength. SoCred has gone from a
parliamentary representation last May of 4 including Manasseh, to just under an
absolute majority (without counting the 2 in jail).
Exciting times
eh!
At 0:51 +0300 26-10-2006,
Maria Ivanova wrote:
Yes, I guess this is a good idea to create a DD political party.
As for us (Academy of Direct Democracy, Ukraine) we see
.....
Hi Maria Ivanova,
Albert Einstein is said he stated :
"We cannot solve the problems of a system
by using the tools of the same system
that originated them".
I guess, all the ideas sound good for critical discussion --
yet I wholeheartedly appreciate the clear fact that your
Academy sees no way to create a DD political party.
Cheers,
antonio
Antonio Rossin - Neurologist ‚ Dialectical Philosopher ‚
rossin @ tin.it
www.flexible-learning.org
Parties. If the ambition is to become a DD Party, the requirements of being a party should be clearly understood. I do not know about other countries, but in the UK the requirements are laid down by various bodies, not least of which is the Electoral Commission. To comply with those requirements means you will be squeezed through a very narrow orifice, the result of which will mean it will be the same as all the others i.e. level playing field. Then you have to consider public perception, parties are viewed with a great deal of justified suspicion i.e. you will be painted with the same brush.
What is in a name? If DD is ever going to happen, it needs to rewrite the 'book', starting with the basics of a) what it is called, b) the public, not parliament. That leads to the misunderstanding of various terminolgies; activist - one who does something, advocate - one who talks about it (hoping someone else will do it). Groups are long on advocates, short on activists If DD is ever going to be a reality, the activists need to work on convincing the public, not trying to convincing parliament to change. The only way you will convince the public is to demonstrate how it could work, that means you getting of the 'speakers stand' and doing it, then letting everyone know so we can learn from it. It will be a slow process, but not as slow as shouting in to an empty barrel (which is what preaching to the converted amounts to).
Regards Bernard
Hi everyone...
I would like to suggest that if we want a DD party
it's crucial that it is global and e-democratic. I am aware of many people who
are interested to help create this. I am creating project platforms within
conferences and other events to test these concepts out in and amongst the
political community. I think this is the best way to attract the people within
the existing systems who also want change.
I'm keen to contribute any knowledge or
projects to be able to create platforms for a global direct democracy party.
Please contact me if you would like to create something together.
Dear friends,
A party for DD is different from any other party, as long DD is really
practice within that party. Einsteins message cannot apply in this context.
But a party for DD is a difficult task and needs permanent selfrenewal. In
other words it needs a strong nucleus of very competent and devoted
DD-freaks and also a very good internal constitution.
Franz Isemann
Dear Franz,
glad with reading of you.
I agree with you, but "a party for DD" is no "DD political party".
Let's suppose, any political party can be "for", i.e. in favour of, DD:
provided only it supports "Initiative & Referendum" directly from
the people bottom-up.
ciao,
antonio
Dear Antonio,
I fully agree. The awful thing with parlamentary DD-parties is: they become
very easily corrupted.
That also occured to the German Green Party, which was in the beginning
rather fond of DD, not though Joschka Fischer.
Franz
We
need to strongly advocate Direct Democracy. What ever group we
are in we can advocate. Political Parties are not that different than
other groups. The name Party, tells us this group is "political".
As
we advocate for DD, more and more will grast the idea and hopefully
subscribe to it. A DD Party would than be one who has DD as a major
statement in their ideologies. Of course, continual advocacy is
necessary as people and ideas change. The world is in constant
argument, so advocacy is essential.
Organization of people supporting DD so we all speak the same
voice is essential. A DD Party could provide this organizational
factor, but it will take strong DD voices to accomplish.
ATB Bruce Eggum
I am personally afraid that any party, however good are its initial intentions
and its internal structure, if it would try to become successful in the current
political system, if would be under enormous pressure to use the same methods
as other parties, and it would have very hard time to avoid corruption and
dilution of DD principles.
Mirek
I agree that if using the current methods the same pressures would apply.
Is anyone in this forum actually interested in DOING anything about this? or
is it just the people front of Judea?
I'm going to http://www.items.fr/globalforum.php3?id_rubrique=75 to present
an idea to change this process, and act directly to change the methodology
behind government.
If anyone has any interest in doing something to try and change this please
let me know and we can create some action. All this talk about creating a
charter and all just serves to become the same unintelligent mechanism we
have at the time of writing.
Is everyone interested in politics unable to act upon change? That is sad
http://myspace.com/mrpras
http://social-computer.com
dear antonio, franz, annette, bruce,
miroslav, pras ... and all/other related fellow human in one mission
...
what do we do first have a position and
then have a stand ...
or have a stand and then win a position
...
or create a thing as a
party?
what is a party?
i wondered this question deeply
...
and share with you the idea that a party
never could be a thing as an organism, an institute, a political entity
...
blunt ...
blunt told?
well, do you perhaps allow me to whisper
some arguments?
on the collective perception and on the
individual perception starting from our seperated positions the arguments are
described here. here i admit the both perceptional views may be useful when
united people stage is reclaimed, ... at last, as an exercise of thinking both
medalsides simultaneously.
arguments from the collective
perception:
* a party is a process happening, as a
birthdayparty, a rememberance, and still even a carnavalesk election campaign
"taking oneself at the nose in a carnavalesk party"
* the word "party" which until now
(proposed) co-laborated people can be whiped out from the planet, from peoples
vocabulaire (in stead: think and decide on other single meaning
comprehensions)
* (more things can be said, when we
can get free of the emotions that every now and then may come up te
resolve)
arguments to the individual
perception:
* "one man one vote" was a motto
mystifying individuals in the act of voting: deciding to select one other person
out of a list to do the job for "you" for a considerable number of days (say
about 1400)
* exercising decision making is for each
individual a "partytime" in maintaining ones collaborative radar free of
emotional memories related to poor, not so smart from the humanitary viewpoint
token, historic times
* (also here more things can be
said)
on the DD side ...
i am convinced that a DD practise as
collaborative fellow citizen job adds to the mutual understanding of what may be
the right decisions to take ... at the same time i think we have to have a
discourse where people have a stage to vote for there representatives. if such a
discours is still needed apart from the solution in legalizing DD strategies to
the governance decorum (also still needed, aint it??? ... eg. filling our media,
creative frictions etc.) then it comes in the dialogue arena to discuss
which alternative forms of mass-decision making can lead our mutual
& serious exercises to the unified systemical paradigm (s
word?).
may the well be and be with Y our
S,
s'ace
have your stand ... moving
( "neureebah" )
Dear everyone,
I agree with Mirek and with Albert Einstein.
‘Be part of the solution, not part of the problem,’ is an expression. The only solution I can think of for now, is to initiate projects and see who is willing to participate in them. So in this sense, I also agree with Mr/Ms Pras Anand.
Kind regards,
Filia den Hollander
Dear S'ace,
it seems to me, You are pointing out to some of people's
problems...
which I would categorize as follows:
"
PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEMS, THEY ARE THE SOLUTIONS
IF THE PEOPLE LEAD, THE LEADERS WILL
FOLLOW."
Accordingly, whichever the addressed political problem may
even
be, those of us who feel the political mission to make a
political
change should open a room for the people's (direct)
leadership.
How to do it? A political party is Representative
politicians'-
or bureaucrats'- leadership: not people's, as far as I can
see.
Ciao,
antonio
PS. (to Bernie)
I would call "horizontal thinking" your "thinking both medalsides
simultaneously", there were the
people (as far as I can see) far
prefer to look at one medalside -- or medal party -- only, in
what
I call "vertical thinking".
dear antonio,
thanks for giving a gift of
contemplation. which i accept within.
some themes on dialogue here, to
me/us?
people's problems
if i, s'ace, was pointing people's
problems, then what were the problems i pointed at?
(see my suggestion
below)
to the suggestion antonio
categorizes:
"people are not the problems, they are
the solutions. if the people lead, the leaders will
follow"
i heartedly underscribe the mission of
mobilization that is under(g)round ...
so the main call here may be the call to
each peoples individual to co-exist with all fellow humans not serving "an
instance" but human self ... at last.
before opening the rooms and space there
may be a meditative moment asked for to realize oneself what is at stake when
opening the windows and doors ...
because that moment binds all people
unitive ...
representative
i think this entity is deeply set in a
corruptive, (not) comprehensional state within the democratic
stage.
if so, we must ask "do people need
people to refer to as public serving human individuals?".
if NO - then what is the alter-native
example by being alive?
if YES - i suggest to admit the function
of representation and introduce the entity "votee" as the ultimate
"representative".
CONSTRAINT to the term "votee": a votee
can never chosen in a partytime as the electional procedures claiming
one-man-one-vote as the instrument;
AND the votee never can be a voter in
the same election procedure/event where s/he was a votee.
NB. it is a property required by a
system to be a system that if offers "without delay/decay",
spontaneously what it was created for.
at the end of this contribution in
dialogue ...
i would say that if i point to a
problem, a people "related" problem, i point to a dilemma, say mental
blockade, "hidden" deep within a systemic paradigm of dialogue weaved
in deliberate / conscious liberate / unconscious liberate / <whatever>, to
the electional partytime the people mystifies to another period of suffering "a
not-people-binded&minded government".
"fit the horseshoe
fitting"
thanks for reading, for the opportunity
of some free speech,
yours sincerely,
s'ace
feel free to intervene, as
be4
Forwarding Aki Orr's contribution to this discussion that he sent only to CICDD:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [cicdd] Re: [WDDM] Re: [d-europe] Re: [WDDM] Parties and
Politics
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:15:03 +0200
From: akiva orr <aki_orr at netvision.net.il>
DD definitely needs an ORGANIZED MOVEMENT of activists to promote
its case but it must not form a Political Party.
A Movement for DD (MDD) is a network of cells of ACTIVISTS who
spread ideas and practices of DD in neighborhoods, places of work,
sites of education.
Membership in a cell must depend on ACTIVITY not merely on agreement
with DD principles.
ACTIVISTS are active in spreading DD ideas.
Those who agree with the ideas but do nothing to spread them qualify as
SYMPATHIZERS
not as activists There must be a distinction between sympathizers and
activists.
MDD must be a movement of activists, not of sympathizers.
The MDD network must have a co-ordinating committee
whose members are drawn by lottery from all cells. One per cell.
Each cell appoints by lottery its delegate to the co-ordinating committee.
These people are changed regularly.
Those who served in the committee are withdrawn from the lottery lists
Each cell must be self-supporting financially.
No financial support must be accepted from outside.
The co-ordinating proposes joint actions of all cells.
It PROPOSES but does IT not DECIDE FOR THE CELLS.
Those who support the proposals - act according to them.
Those who don't - don't.
MDD must NOT PARTICIPATE IN PARLIAMENTARY POLITICS.
If it does it will inevitably become part of RR.
It will become a political party like all others.
DD supporters can support - as citizens - MPs who support particular DD
issues.
Support for an MP on a particular issue is not support for a political
party of which this MP is a member.
Any other scheme will turn MDD into a participant in the circus of RR ,
a.k.a. "Parliament"
Fraternally,
Aki
Bernard Clayson wrote:
If DD is ever going to be a reality, the activists need to
work on convincing the public, not trying to convince parliament to
change.
The only way you will convince the public is to demonstrate how it
could work, that means you getting off the 'speaker’s stand' and doing
it, then letting everyone know so we can learn from it.
I fully agree !!
Filia den Hollander
Dear everyone,
Someone wrote me a reply. For privacy reasons I will not tell you
who it is (this person can come forward if s/he wishes to do so), but
I’d like to share my response with you.
Kind regards,
Filia den Hollander
-----
Received your note on learning by
doing from the WDDM listserve. Nice note, although I'm troubled by the
way that organization works. No charter, no organization, no
agreements. And some who would keep it that way because they prefer
cursing the darkness over lighting a small candle.
The point is that WDDM – as is Democracy
Europe – is ‘just’ an internet community, with virtually no
opportunities to meet in the flesh. So what happens when it comes to
getting “organized” – and this has happened before – is bickering on
wording(s) or on points of view of what DD means. So those who actually
want to act, act. And they take the risks that are involved,
such as becoming too homogenous as a group, or start projects which may
not be of genuine relevance, or, internal power struggles and the loss
of valuable people.
It is very hard to be flexible and to “shift” from one frame of
reference to another in time and in the right (humane and
clear-sighted) manner.
In Europe we had, as a DD movement, one focal point to work towards to,
and this was simultaneous national referendums on one day on the EU
Constitution, and, additionally, to push toward a more democratic EU
Constitution. For various reasons the focal point collapsed. One reason
being that the EU Convention didn’t make it in finishing the EU
Constitution on its planned date (10th of June 2004, I believe), which
scattered the ‘simultaneous referendums’ project. Another reason being
that money resources came too much from one direction (there was power
involved).
So in that sense, the European DD community is in a similar crisis as
the EU institutions: no real answer to the current situation.
But the EU institutions have started to get their act together ...
Best,
Filia
DEAR D.D. COLLEAGUES,
being a founding member of WDDM and for more than three
years its elected spokesperson, I consider that today's "soft" situation of WDDM
with its very good site, thanks to Mirek and a few others , without the
horrible trroubles we faced when we tried to make it a formal Organisation and
open to everybody for new D.D. Initiatives in each country ,
under the auspices of WDDM is much better than in the past years!
Of course I would prefer to see it
more active, although we had excellent dialogues in our site until recently
(what happened and silence came in the meantime?), but I feel more efficient and
stronger in our many many D.D. activities in Greece, when I am referring before
different audiences in the coordinating role and in the D.D. Data Bank of WDDM
(now we try to enforce DD changes in the revision of Greek Constitution, that we
would never had the self -confidence to propose if WDDM, NDDIE or IRI
Europe would never have been existed).
So , I am proud having influenced today's
existence of WDDM by one or the other way!
George L. Kokkas
"Forum for Citizens' Democracy" - Coodinator
----- Añ÷éêü ìÞíõìá -----
From:
Filia den Hollander
Subject: [WDDM] To WDDM and D-Europe: Why
can't DD groups get their act together ?
Dear
everyone,
Someone wrote me a reply. For privacy reasons I will not tell
you who it is (this person can come forward if s/he wishes to do so), but I’d
like to share my response with you. .........
Fellas, I'm afraid that any attempt to change things for the better in the U.S. must legally be done via the existring political system, and that means via a political party. It's why I've given us a headstart by creating the outline and philosphy of such a party. Remember? The info can still be found on my website - see www.voicesfordd.com/dd-page.htmlLee
We found recently a way in Greece to support other certain political parties, that need and ask for our fresh D.D. ideas, cooperating with them as a D.D. NGO or party, especially in local Authorities elections, that bring us before great audiences and they promise us certain responsibilities on D.D. issues, when we win the elections, as it happened last week in a very crucial big suburb of Athens! This story is going on and I ' ll keep you informed.
George L. Kokkas "Forum for Citizens' Democracy" - Coodinator
Good going George. Yes, when it's actual political news....send a story in...with photos. I missed out on the Rhodes story, which I thought was terrific. It came just as the semester was beginning and I didn't get it up. But, as you can see on the articles about the French Socialist Party primaries and Citizen Juries and the Greek Deliberative Primary using the Deliberative Poll, I'm trying to emphasize the actual connection between Direct Democracy, Deliberative Democracy and Realpolitik. Ted. "George L. Kokkas Law Office" 10/30/06 9:50 PM >>>
We found recently a way in Greece to support other certain political parties, that need and ask for our fresh D.D. ideas, cooperating ......
I wanted to add from the comments from the guy from greece, there are a lot
of people interested (or talking about being interested) about eDemocracy.
How about we use their words as a way of creating solutions that work for
everyone? It's one thing to talk about necessary change, but enacting the
change through projects demonstrates the actual potentials. I'd like to see
more experimental projects which illustrate the concepts in actions. Anyone
doing that here? I'd like to talk with you!
Dear friends,
I have come to the conclusion that, at present, the
center of gravity is the work on the national and local level. If some of us
succede on these levels (Sen.Gravel and Lee in the USA, Filia in Holland, the
Mehr Demokratie in Germany, myself and my colleagues in Czech Republic .... ),
the success will soon influence, by demonstration effect, the whole world. But,
of course, we must go on working with the WDDM as wel! Thanks to all of you who
persevere!
Sincerely,
Jiri
Hi Daniel
I like your approach as outlined on http://vpsystems.net/Nevada/
.....
My work is on restructuring society in a box and creating spaces for people
to do it on a regular basis. This involves technological infrastructures
such as e-Voting and so called eDemocracy but also all manner of other
societal tweaks in a box..
At the moment I go to events and create mini "Social Computers" where we can
create a simulator of society and get people to play it to explore ideas in
a more informed way.
e2000.org/pras/soco2005.pdf
My last released (internal) document is from 2005, if you would like to talk
about more specific or advanced projects, please let me know what you are
focussed around. I have developed new democratic engines and new economic
engines which I cannot release the info about.
......
Pras
|