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

01165: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

From: lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

There was a time when the French Revolution had contributed much to democracy, freedom and human progress, especially in overthrowing the absolute monarchy of the day, but grave weaknesses in the Constitution and the then French society very quickly corrupted the democratic revolution. A promised democracy quickly descended into the Reign of Terror. Notwithstanding that it had its role inspiring democratic revolutions in other countries.

Nevertheless, the French Model as it is is also an excellent case study of why democracy failed after take off. And something better than it, but also failures, are unsatisfactory models. We must be bold enough to sail into unchartered waters which is where the greatest hope of success lies since existing or available models are all failures or outdated.

Eric Lim (lpc1998)



Albano <cordei(at)ccr.jussieu.fr> wrote:
Ok, even if I am not intending to develop now this matter, I can say
that I can be influenced by the "french model" in which a elected
representative have no bind with the electors.
He-she has the so-called "universal mandate" that is to say he-she can
take a decision on any subject in according ONLY with his-her
consciousness. Only limits to the power who detains the elected
representative, there is the respect of values included in the
Constitution AND the right of the citizens to vote regularly to change
eventually their elected representatives. Only sanction for no respect
of their promises is not to re-elected by a majority of the expressed
votes (abstentionnists, blank votes and nullified vodes are not taken in
account) on his-her circonscription. But they can be elected all the
life round, and hold simultaneously different elected charges. 85% of
the members of the parliament have one other elected charge, while in
E.U .the average is between 10% and 16% (cf. Le Monde, 22/2/07 "Cumul
des mandats. L'exception française", by Patrick Roger). The "non-cumul
des mandats" (not to hold other elected charges) has been in the program
of some candidates to the Presidency of the Republic. Even Sarkozy has
promise to see the question one day.
Of course a candidate must present what he-she intends to do. But in
France we use to say : "the promises of a candidate commit only those
who believe in them".
In the French case (exasperating one) there is a POLITICAL CLASS
managering the power, extremely connected with great enterprises and
mediatic powers. And they have a very weak turnover. It is necessary to
change the rules of the political game in France. Something like
Netherlands ou Germany would be better .....
Already in the XVIII century France was a retrograd political and social
regime two centuries back in comparisoin with the most important
countries of Europe. And still now ...
Albano



lpc1998 a écrit :
> Hi Albano,
> You said: "But I'm surprised to read things like "Representatives are
> elected to
> serve the people and not rule the people". I don't know in which level
> this kind of sentence is put on. It seems to me quite "hors sol"( over
> the soil). The so-called "representative democracy" is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
> There is a basic contradiction, because the representative is elected
> to
> take the place of the citizens to rule IN THEIR name. There is
> DELEGATION and not exercise of citizenship ."
> You have missed the sentence immediately following your quote
> "Representatives are elected to serve the people and not rule the
> people".
> It is : "That is what they are supposed to do in a true democracy."
> In my discussion with PVR, he was agreeing with me that in a true
> democracy, representatives should be elected to serve the people and
> not rule the people.
> Have a nice day!
> Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>
>
> */Albano <CORDEI(at)CCR.JUSSIEU.FR> /* wrote:
>
> I didn't intervene in this list for 6 months ( no matter the
> reasons),
> and I'm trying to be active again.
> But I'm surprised to read things like "Representatives are elected to
> serve the people and not rule the people". I don't know in which
> level
> this kind of sentence is put on. It seems to me quite "hors sol"(
> over
> the soil). The so-called "representative democracy" is NOT
> DEMOCRATIC.
> There is a basic contradiction, because the representative is
> elected to
> take the place of the citizens to rule IN THEIR name. There is
> DELEGATION and not exercise of citizenship .
> Siyès, a jacobine radical priest, one the ideologues of the French
> Revolution (1789) made this remark : “*Les citoyens qui se donnent
> des
> représentants renoncent et doivent renoncer à faire eux-mêmes la loi;
> ils n’ont pas de volonté particulière à imposer. S’ils dictaient des
> volontés, la France ne serait plus cet État représentatif, ce
> serait un
> État démocratique. Le peuple, dans un pays qui n’est pas une
> démocratie
> - et la France ne saurait l’être- ne peut parler, ne peut agir que
> par
> ses représentants.”
> *Trying to translate :* "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. The
> people, in un country which is not a democracy - and France could
> not be
> so- cannot speak, cannot act otherwise than by his representatives."
> *Representatives are elected to rule the people! To be elected "to do
> good", "to serve", "to apply the general interest" is simply
> rhetorics.
> So long*
> *Albano Cordeiro*
> *
>
> Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan a écrit :
> >
> > 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)
> > >
>


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