[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01076: Re: [WDDM] D3

From: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:43:51 -0700
Subject: Re: [WDDM] D3

Hi Antonio!
PDD is ok, too. For me it doesn't matter much whether DDD or PDD
(maybe the advantage of DDD is that it can be abbreviated as D3 :-)). DD
should also be enough, and actually only one D (democracy) should also
be enough, because what we actually want is just real (true,
undistorted) D. We have to add all those adjectives because the meaning
of only D has been distorted and discredited.
It seems to me that the problem with the unification of all D (or
DD, PDD,DDD) advocates is that many of them have their own narrow vision
(model of DD) and do not want to hear (much) about any deviations from
it. So for example when I talk to the advocates of Wisdom Councils, they
do not want to hear about referenda and initiatives and voting. Some of
the organization Ted Becker mentioned recently do not want do go beyond
(hear about anything else than) I&R&recalls. It doesn't make sense
because if and when real D (DD, PDD, D3) is finally established, it will
be a living thing, and people will modify and rewrite the rules and
procedures (its model) all the time as the society and its moral
standards will evolve.
Some groups talk about DD only as long as they believe that a
referendum would approve their particular political platform, and forget
about DD when polls are in favour of their political opponents.
The key is to separate one's own political preferences from the
effort to establish DD, and to unite in this effort even with one's
opponents in other matters. This seems to be very difficult - for
illustration see again http://democracy.mkolar.org/newcanada/ .
Some seem to plainly misrepresent what DD is. There is a small party
in Czechia that have DD in their platform. But by DD they apparently
mean only the direct election of the heads of all administrative units
(president of the Republic, heads of districts, mayors of communities),
nothing more. And the party is chaired by a descendant of a former,
powerful in Middle Ages, Czech aristocratic family, and on the party's
website more space than to DD is devoted to the claim that his family
has an 800-years-long experience in governance.

I also propose that people who run all those new wonderful
DD-related websites and organizations (Nico, Emanuel, CCIDD, IRI EUROPE,
MEHR DEMOKRATIE, Democracy International, WDDM,...) all create a working
groups that would come with ways how to interconnect together the
existing system into one connected network, and perhaps how to put
together the best features from the existing systems to create an even
better future network.
Mirek

Antonio Rossin wrote:


Hi Mirek,

Why not, PDD? Participative Direct Democracy?

antonio






M. Kolar ha scritto:

Ted,
I am also all for D3, the combination of possible approaches to
better democracy. When I talk about DD, I mean it in this broader
definition - DDD.
Enitiatives.org have also some deliberation in it, in preparation the
text of an initiatives to a vote.
Le Parlement of another of our members I mentioned yesterday has even
more deliberation in it.
I am trying to collect the links to all such tools here:
http://democracy.mkolar.org/vote.html (first part). Welcome additions
to this list.
Mirek

Ted Becker wrote:

Hi Nico:

Good to hear from you...and welcome to the movement...all parts of it
you mentioned....plus another part that I'm gonna inform you about and
ask you to think of how to include it some way in your website.

When a number of us "global" DD types met in Pribram, near Prague in
1999 or 2000....I forget which....there was some debate and
disagreement
over the importance of adding some kind of formal "deliberation" to the
I+R process....at one or more points.
The disussion revealed a fissure in the development of more and better
direct democracy in the world and what has occurred is that there
really
are two movements, the direct democracy movement, which your website is
part of....and a great addition I might add...and the delib dem
movement...which is growing beyond belief. For a view of that, look at
www.auburn.edu/jpd
Some in Pribram, including myself, Ned Crosby, Lyn Carson and Jiri
Polak...all agree that what we really need is a combination of the
movements into what I call D3, or DDD, "direct deliberative
democracy." What this does it to emphasize direct democratic
components to rep dem
systems that include either face to face delibs, online delibs, or some
combo thereof.

I'd love to write about your website for the Journal of Public
Deliberation....but there is no option for deliberation on your
citizens
initiative system. One place that some have suggested a delib section
can fit into the I+R process is to let citizens discuss and edit the
proposition...before it becomes the official petition that people
finally sign up for. Do you think this might be possible to do within
your system....if you agree it might be a helpful addition?

Let me know. We have two parallel movements that need much more
intersection....and I'm in them both.

Ted.



"Nicolas Durand" <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch> 04/19/07 2:40 PM >>>


That's a really good point, Ted!



........



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]