Hi All,

I must disagree with PVR's suggested ammendment to my proposed definition.

The definition was intended to be exact, while allowing for differing forms of DD. It was intended as a definition. PVR states that it could be used for any democracy. This is not the case. The UK, for example, is a parliamentary democracy, wherein sovereignty resides in parliament.

What we cannot do, no matter how much we wish for DD in any or all countries, is dictate that this be so.

The right of a people to self-determination MUST be paramount. A people may wish for a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy. It is not for any of us to impose or attempt to impose any system of governance upon a people. Our modus operandi should be persuasion to the acceptance of an idea, through force of argument.

A people may choose to have a representative democracy as we understand them today, complete with political parties and lack of representation and with all their deficiencies. But that would be their choice.

It must also be realised that a people, in determining the system and functioning of their own governance, if done under universal suffrage, would be enacting direct democracy in that determination, regardless of the outcome of said determination.

I&BR, while being one method of implementing some decision-making, is not in itself a definition of DD, at least, not in my opinion. I imply no criticism of I&BR when I say this.

Similarly, the Swiss model, while having aspects of DD, is not entirely so. I suggest it is an amalgamation of Direct and Representative democracies.

Regards to all

Roy