| From: | Albano <cordei(at)ccr.jussieu.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 27 May 2007 00:02:21 +0200 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Achieving True Democracy 200705-01 |
Dear PVR, Mark & Filia
Thank you, PVR, for starting this exchange of views and ideas on
how to achieve true democracy.
First of all, the People's Constitution is not just "to truly reflect
the people's opinion on how governance should be ...". It should be
the Will of the People that governs the political, legal and
social systems of the country.
No, our main and immediate battle is not with the political parties.
It is to establish a community that develops and runs on true (as
opposed to existing false) democractic principles. A thriving and
growing true democracy community will demonstrate to the ordinary
people what is true democracy, what are its benefits, and that it
provides a far superior political system or governance that upholds
their interests as the real owners of the country.
Moreover, such a community would be able to provide the material,
intellectual and other resources for the promotion of true democracy
on an ever increasing and sophisticated scale and eventually when
there is support from the majority of the people we would have the
first true democracy in the world.
Political parties have in themselves full of contradictions and
weaknesses. We shall study these contradictions and
weaknesses carefully and use them against the political parties. For
instance, we can set one political party against another.
In the final analysis, what really matters is that the true democracy
principles we develop must not only be relevant to the lives of the
ordinary people, but also be potentially tremendously beneficial to
them. It is only in this way that it could win over the hearts and
minds of the majority of the people from the existing political system.
When increasing number of people are won over to true democracy and
when they give their least preference to election candidates from the
political parties, increasing number of existing politicians sensing
"a new political trend" would dump their political parties to be
independent candidates to boost their electoral chances. In such an
event, the obsolescence of the political party will become inevitable.
So the question is how do we develop true democracy principles and
practices that could win over the majority of the people? The
starting main battle is with ourselves, not against each other, but
against the undemocratic forces that has enslaved our souls.
Real-life meetings are useful for those who are able to attend,
especially for people from the same locality or region. They do help
to advance bonding, friendship, understanding and, perhaps, trust.
WDDM as a whole is globally orientated and a cyberspace community of
politically aware people. It is best it leverages on available
information technologies to enable it to evolve into, perhaps, the
first true democracy community albeit cyber with a global reach.
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
*/Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>/* wrote:
Dear Eric Lim and all,
You have suggested that we need a 'people's constitution' to truly
reflect the people's opinion on how governance should be and to
end the present virtual 'rule' by representatives. Agreed. But how
are we going to make this happen unless we are going to occupy the
political space by taking on the political parties through a
workable strategy? And political space (lying within the
collective consciousness of people) is occupied in modern times by
contesting in elections. Hence our mission statement should be
tailored keeping this in focus.
Dough Everingham in his e-mail has suggested we need to oppose
political parties like we oppose so many other undesirable groups.
But that is not enough to occupy political space. We need to
directly take on them and allow the people to decide and choose
between the same old kind of party politics or a new kind of
politics where they are able to participate in matters of
governance more genuinely.
PVR
On Thu, 24 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
>Dear PVR and Mark,
>
> Yes, having read some of your emails, I am too convinced that
we do share many points of agreement.
>
> Yes, we are seeking for a system of government where elected
and other representatives of the people would be constitutionally
bound to serve the people. To this end, we need a People's
Constitution to replace the current one written by the
representatives for the representatives. The key provisions in the
People's Constitution are what we have to develop and eventually
to have the people's endorsement. Yes, this is a very long journey
indeed.
>
> However, we should not be limited by the principles and
practices of existing politcal system which effectively makes the
people's elected representatives rulers over the people. We are
only limited by the people's needs for an effective government and
at any point of the time by the level of the people's political
maturity and resources for public affairs and by available
relevant secure technologies.
>
> "Government by Representatives" in practice is little different
from "Rule by Representatives". What we actually want is
"Goverment of the People, by the People and for the People". And
our aim is to make "Government by the People, ..." a reality, and
not for this critical concept being used as a tool for deception
or oppression.
>
> In this connection, I see no objection to "Representatives in
Government" who are bound by the People's Constitution, if this is
what you (PVR) have in mind.
>
> Yes, Mark, the people in a true democracy have the final say on
all matters concerning the people and country, including whether
they need representatives in Government, but such representatives
must, at all times, remains agents or employees of the people, and
never be the people's rulers. Here the basic assumption is that a
sovereign people would want to remain sovereign.
>
> In this connection, for the consitution to be the People's
Constitution, it has to be discussed by as many people as possible
and when it is ready, it has to be actually endorsed by not less
than 50%+1 of the total eligible voters at the time of the voting.
>
>
> Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>
>
>
>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Eric,
>Thanks for your reply which further clarifies our view point,
which I emphasize, is identical. Representatives are elected to
serve the people and not rule the people. That is what they are
supposed to do in a true democracy. However the present day
politicians, while campaigning during elections, impress on the
voters that they will serve the people to the best of their
ability. But once they are declared elected they undergo
transformation and start 'ruling' in the real sense of the term.
>
>We need a system where the representatives stick to their
pre-election level of commitment to the voters. Addressing your
concern, perhaps 'government by representatives' would be a better
term than 'rule by representatives'.
>
>PVR
>
>
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 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