Re: [WDDM] Re: Discussion on Direct Democracy

["Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>]

Dear All,
I thank Mark for his response. First of all I am not saying that there should be a ban of political parties as misunderstood by him. As he says it is not possible to prevent voluntary associations. What I am suggesting is to aim at a system where political parties are banned within the elected house. They would be free to exist outside the elected house but during elections every candidate would be an independent including those affiliated to political parties. And political parties should not be allowed officially to nominate or sponsor any candidate.

Though a party affiliated candidate may tend to be loyal to his party, the environment within the elected house would give no value to this loyalty. His neutrality and non-partisanship alone would impress other members who are all independents, in every situation. For example in electing the speaker of the house or the Prime Minister, only if the member has the reputation of being neutral and non-partisan, will he be considered for the higher post by other members who have all been elected by the people for their real worth. Thus the positive qualities are favoured within the house of independents. Members with the usual qualities of party politics would soon find that the elected house with the partyless mechanism is not conducive to their kind of politics.

Mark says that people should be able to decide on issues as much as possible. This is very much needed in the partyless mechanism since the representative of that particular constituency needs to be in constant touch with the needs of the people if he has to complete his term without being recalled. Hence the tools of modern technology would play an important part in a system of partyless governance.

Mark says that we have to move as soon as possible away from representation to direct democracy. Assuming that it is theoretically possible, still we need to first transform to a truer representative democracy before moving further up.

PVR


On Tue, 22 May 2007 Mark Antell,editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote :
>Hello All,
>Amazing that PVR and I both say we agree with Eric Lim; while at the
>same time we hold very different positions.
>I favor direct democracy.  That means people voting directly on the
>issues.  It means a decrease in the
>powers of representatives and an increase in decision-making directly
>by the electorate.
>Should the people of a town directly decide whether to pave Grove
>Street?  Yeah, why not?  They do that now in the New England town
>assemblies.  Should the people of the US decide directly whether the
>country should be at war?  Yes yes yes!  Do we need representatives to
>make some decisions?  Maybe today we do, but that's only because we
>haven't yet figured out how to use existing technology to allow
>deliberation and decision by the electorate.  It is a worthwhile goal
>to move as quickly as possible away from representation, and toward
>direct democracy.  I think WDDM can be a testing ground and exemplar of
>new direct-democracy methods for deliberation and decision.
>PVR calls for partyless representative democracy.  I don't understand
>the allure of his proposal.  The United States tried partyless
>representation in the early 19th century; but the system quickly and
>naturally evolved to party orientation.  A prohibition on parties?  How
>in the world would one enforce a prohibition on voluntary
>associations?  Not a place I'd like to go.
>Mark Antell, member
>WDDM Executive Board
>----------------------------------
>lpc1998 wrote:
>
>Hi PVR,
>
>No, I do not mean that we have independent representatives
>elected "to rule with the consent of the governed". Representatives,
>independent or otherwise, should not rule over the people because, in
>democracy, it is the People who rule ("demo" = "People", "cracy" = "to
>rule"). I.e the People are sovereign meaning that the People have the
>ultimate powers in the country and therefore the People have the final
>say on all matters concerning the people and country.
>
>Representatives, elected or not, are mere agents or employees of
>the People and, therefore, do not have the ultimate powers or the final
>say.
>
>In the paragraph below quoted from my previous email what I mean
>is that it is as nonsensical to talk about "to rule with the consent of
>the governed" as to talk about "a sovereign People being ruled by an
>individual or a gang of individuals":
>
>"In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected
>to serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the
>People who are the true owners of the country are sovereign, they are
>the rulers. So any talk of a sovereign People being ruled by an
>individual or a gang of individuals is simply nonsensical. So, in this
>context, is the _expression_ "to rule with the consent of the governed"."
>
>The matter you have to clarify now is whether representatives
>are elected or appointed to rule over the people or to serve the
>people. In the former (to rule over the people), the representatives
>while in office as rulers hold the ultimate powers in the country and
>have the final say on all matters concerning the people and the
>country, while in the latter (to serve the people), the representatives
>are mere agents or employees of the people who could, at any time, hire
>or fire them (the respresentatives) from the jobs of serving the people.
>
> If what you have meant is the latter, then for the avoidance of
>confusion, the phrase, "the rule by representatives" should be
>abandoned as it does not mean what you have in mind.
>
>Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
>
><vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
>wrote:
>Dear All,
>I totally agree with what Eric Lim has stated but unfortunately what I
>have stated earlier seems to be have been misunderstood. By 'rule by
>representatives' I meant what Eric has in mind - 'rule with the consent
>of the governed'. I am totally against party politics. But I feel that
>we still need to elect our representatives - all of them as
>independents - free from any party obligations. This will ensure that
>we will have a partyless mechanism within the elected house to carry
>out the business.
>On the other hand Mark as well as many advocating DD are totally
>against having anything to do with representatives. Jiri Polak's
>formulation of semi-direct democracy also does not fit into it. Mark,
>kindly clarify further. Whatever be our differences regarding the
>nomenclature, we are united in the spirit of ushering in a truer
>democracy and ending the pseudo-democracy that is prevalent. However
>differences have to be sorted out to formulate a workable action plan.
>Mirek, answering your concern: What I meant was that we do need to put
>our trust on representatives who are independents, free from party
>obligations, assuming that the partyless mechanism within the elected
>house would enable them to act according to their conscience. It is
>still possible that some may get elected as independents and after that
>behave in a partisan manner favouring a particular political party
>(kept out of bounds from the elected house) or group. The press and
>other pressure groups would expose such deviations and the voters can
>always recall them.
>PVR
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
>>PVR,
>>
>>  It appears to me that there is some confusion over the words,
>"rule by representatives" as used by you. Would you please clarify what
>you actually meant by them.
>>
>>  In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected to
>serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the People
>who are the true owners of the country are sovereign, they are the
>rulers. So any talk of a sovereign People being ruled by an individual
>or a gang of individuals is simply nonsensical. So, in this context, is
>the _expression_ "to rule with the consent of the governed".
>>
>>  This would constitute a clean break from the present form of
>corrupted "democracy" which is, in fact, the Rule by Representatives
>(or "Reprocracy"). In many of the "democracies" of our days, through a
>legal, but often dishonest process, bosses of organised gangs known as
>political parties claim the right to rule over the people for a fixed,
>but renewable terms of usually 4 to 6 years with some having unlimited
>renewability.
>>
>>  Party politics everywhere is clearly evil, but is it a necessity?
>You seem to believe in the necessity of party politics. I would concede
>that it was perhaps a necessity before the Information Age. But we are
>now at the dawn of the information Age which by abolishing geographical
>distances in the area of individual communication makes true democracy
>a highly realisable possibility.
>>
>>  And with true democracy, party politics would become obsolete
>when the People develop the means to elect truely their own
>representatives to serve the people and the country and not the
>representatives of politcal party bosses to serve such bosses and their
>sponsors.
>>
>>  Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>>
>>
>>"M. Kolar"
><wddm(at)mkolar.org>
>wrote:
>>  Hi all,
>>I completely agree with Mark.
>>
>>PVR,
>>I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by your suggestion. I do not
>>see how it fits with your proposal on transition to "Partyless
>>Governance mechanism" from our previous private conversation?
>>
>>Mirek
>>
>>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Dear Mark,
>> > Thanks for your reply. You have stated that 'We don't want to
>be
>> > governed. We want to move from representative democracy to
>direct
>> > democracy'. This position is due to utter frustration with
>the present
>> > form of representative democracy. By taking this position we
>will be
>> > aiming at a near impossible goal.
>> >
>> > Besides don't we put our trust in our parents and others
>close to us
>> > in day to day life, to take care of our concerns? Without
>some degree
>> > of trust nothing is possible in our life. We need to improve
>our
>> > system so that our trust is not misused by the unscrupulous.
>> >
>> > PVR
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 20 May 2007 Mark Antell,editor
>CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote :
>> > >Hi PVR,
>> > >
>> > >You've stated a position clearly: "We need to put our
>trust into
>> > somebody to take care of our concerns."
>> > >
>> > >I disagree with that position. And I think that most of
>us in WDDM
>> > disagree with that position.
>> > >
>> > >We don't want to be governed. We want to move from
>representative
>> > democracy to direct democracy.
>> > >Mark
>> > >
>> > >PS. Yours is a legitimate, honest, and widely held
>position. Though
>> > I disagree with what you say, I'll defend your right to say
>it.
>> > >
>> > >-----------------------
>> > >
>> > >Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Dear All,
>> > >>Continuing from my previous letter, an important
>matter to be
>> > decided before we formulate a mission statement is to decide
>whether
>> > by aiming at Direct Democracy, we are doing away with the
>concept of
>> > 'rule by representatives'. This particular view is held by
>some
>> > advocates of DD. While this may be the ideal theoretical
>goal, it may
>> > be nearly impossible in practice. We need to put our trust
>into
>> > somebody to take care of our concerns. This is the natural
>order of
>> > things in life. What we need is to have a mechanism where our
>> > representatives are directly accountable to the people and
>can be
>> > recalled at any time if sufficient people feel so. I request
>that
>> > members express their views regarding this since this is
>important to
>> > formulate a workable mission statement.
>> > >>
>> > >>PVR
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>God Bless us all