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

01156: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

From: "Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 08:37:44 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

Richard,personally l would like people to vote on everything too,the only example in the world is the Swiss system and they have a few votes per year,what are the 2 worst subjects in society to talk to people about politics and religion,and you would be asking them to vote could be as much as 20 times a week if not more,if people within WDDM can demonstrate a system to me that you could sell to people that did this,l will be surprised.
At present sellect groups are controlling who are the main players in political parties,some of these forces come from outside the countries.
Citizens need to take control of the selection process,using Psychological testing to assist in getting the right candidates.
That when a government is formed is it formed a vote of all the elected candidates,who are the government representatives.
 Regards Martin Jackson
http://realitypoliticsgoodgovernment.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy


Albano wrote:
"The citizens who give themselves representatives renounce to do themselves the laws; they have no particular will to impose. If they dictated their wills, France will be no more a Representatif State, it will be a democratic state.


Hear hear!  Thanks so much Albano for your contribution. I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly. But many, as we have seen, do not.

I think we must recognize that there are a range of views in our group as to the meaning of democracy, and how much we imagine is practically possible to achieve.  Some of us believe that only real participatory democracy can achieve the promise of democracy, and some of us believe that is unworkable or unachievable, and that representative systems can be made to work.

We've had considerable back and forth debate on these issues, and I for one have reached the conclusion that we will never agree, at least not with the current context of dialog. Speaking again for myself, I am not in favor of any voting approach that would aim to settle this issue and lead to an official "WDDM view" that excludes any of us.

If we really believe in democracy, then I think we need to learn to deal with diverse views, even in our own midst. I'd like to see our charter revised -- it is incomplete in any case with no mission statement -- so that we articulate the vision of a democratic society, without trying to be prescriptive of its exact form. We all want an effective, functional, democratic system, but do we really have the experience, knowledge, and wisdom to define it concretely at this moment? Have not wiser people (your favorite hero here, Jefferson or whoever) tried and failed?

It seems to me we would be doing a service to the larger community if we 'hold the focus' of seeking a democratic society, and relate to other organizations from that perspective. What can they contribute to an understanding or a practice of democracy? What can we share with them? How can we collaborate? I see us as declaring a mission: to seek out a path to democracy. Not enough people are taking that on as a challenge. We do not need also to pretend to know exactly where the path may lead.

best regards,
richard

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