Re: [WDDM] Achieving True Democracy 200705-03

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

Dear Eric lim,
My answer is 'yes' to your query asking whether we have to seek transition to Direct Democracy (representative but without political parties)from the current 'representative democracy' (based on political parties) by constitutional means. Regarding redefining democracy I have clarified in my earlier post today.
PVR


On Wed, 30 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
>Dear PVR,
>
>  Thank you.
>
>  Are you saying that, we have to seek the transistion to Direct Democracy from the current "Representative Democracy" by constitutional means which require us to participate in the existing political system under the existing Constitution and the best strategy is to elect independent candidates as our representatives in the Executive and Legislative Bodies of the state?
>
>  If this is so, you are simply being realistic as whether we like it or not, we are bound by the existing Constitution and laws. Moreover, as different countries or societies are in different stages of political development, forming DD political parties or even tactical support for existing political parties or candidates who are willing to adopt or promote DD objectives are also viable strategies as long as nothing done hurts or damages the DD cause more than it advances it (the DD cause).
>
>  Of course, these strategies raise many questions, but let us discuss them at another time.
>
>  However, re-defining Direct Democracy "as Democracy where people have direct say in matters of governance through their representatives ...." is both contradictory in terms and inappropriate. On a particular issue, the people cannot have both a direct say through I&R or an indirect say through their representatives simultaneously, but they can, in accordance with their wishes, have a final say whether directly through I&R or indirectly through their representatives, elected or not. In a democracy, whichever or whatever choice the people make, it has to be respected. Otherwise, the people have no say and the country has no democracy.
>
>  For the avoidance of doubt, would you consider it adequate, if it is expressly written into the WDDM Current Operating Rules or Constitution that seeking the transistion to Direct Democracy from the current "Representative Democracy" by constitutional means is permissible and that such means include participation in the election processes under the existing constitution and laws?
>
>  Direct Democracy is true democracy so long as the directness do not take precedence over the democracy. In other words, the objective is to achieve the maximum extent of direct decision-making by the people at a particular point of time and place, but the directness should not be achieved at the expense of democracy. Otherwise, when the Democracy is lost, the people will be left with Direct and devastating consequences.
>
>  What constitutes the maximum extent of direct decision-making by the people in a country at any point of time is to be decided by the people of the country concerned, taking into account the ground condidtions at that point of time.
>
>  Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>
>
>
>Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
>    Dear Eric Lim,
>Your e-mails clarify matter. You have asked 'what should be the first step we can take at WDDM towards True Democracy'. The first step, I think, should be to come to a conclusion that we cannot do away with representative democracy at least for the time being. We need to redefine Direct Democracy as Democracy where people have direct say in matters of governance through their representatives without the intermediary of political parties within the elected house.
>
>PVR
>
>
>
>On Sun, 27 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
> >Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano,
> >
> >  Annette, many thanks for your kind words.
> >
> >  It is good you are conversant with the ways of the power elites. It will come in handy when we discuss the strategies in dealing with them. For the time being, let us look into the WDDM itself and see whether we could find a way to enhance its contribution to true democracy.
> >
> >  Albano, your cautioning is timely. I have appended it below for the convenience of readers since it was written in another email.
> >
> >  Yes, as far as we know there has never been a true democracy, except, perhaps, the one in Athens 2,600 years, but this does not mean we have to surrender to false democracy. We are only a part of the continuum of people who have been inspired by the spirit of democracy since its Athenian birth.
> >
> >  You are also right that we should not go for perfect true democracy. After all, very little things in the real world are perfect.
> >
> >  However, it is important that we do not confuse imperfect true democracy with false democracy, with the latter brimming with cheating, oppression, deceits, dishonesty, lies or half or distorted truths while with the former, democracy is operating under less than ideal conditions.
> >
> >  The so-called "Representative Democracy" as we know it is false democracy because as you have said elsewhere it is not democratic or ever meant to be. Moreover, while the representatives, when in offfice, are representatives who rule in the name of the people, they are often the representatives of somebody else, and are seldom the representatives of the people who have supposedly elected them to office.
> >
> >  What do you think is the first step we in WDDM could now take in the directon of true democracy?
> >
> >  Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> >
> >
> >
> >  =============================================
> >
> >
> >  I continue to be surprised. Let's be simply realistic. In the world UN
> >counted some 40 or 50% of the countries ruled by democracies. But no
> >one
> >is a true democracy and a true democracy never existed. There are only
> >false democracies or, if you prefer, imperfect democracies .But
> >imperfect democracy is the one that is possible. Talking about "true
> >democracy" is supposing it is possible to achieve an organisation of
> >the
> >society where citizens use the sovereign powers and arrive at solutions
> >acceptable for all. We must avoid that. There must be confrontation and
> >regulated conflits, and the result is not harmony. Let's only create
> >the
> >conditions for peace and justice (fair sharing of richness) and ....
> >long life to dissensus.
> >
> >Democracy is not only proceedings but also a list of values. These
> >values are not "harmonious". In fact ther must be couples of
> >contradictory values, the defenders of one term of a couple of values
> >contest  the defenders of the second term. The regulation is to
> >maintain  civic ways of debate.
> >Albano Cordeiro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Annette Jackson <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >          Eric,the comments you made were very good,
> >
> >  What are the keys to the power elite.
> >
> >      Their control of the executive powers of countries
> >      Having front people and groups e.g. Royals, Presidents, The Pope, Religions and Politicians and while they do the business in secret behind the scenes.
> >      Controlling the press that feed into peoples minds
> >      The Mastering of mind control
> >      The use of a scents of magic and deception to sell something to the public
> >      Ensure they crush and get rid of heretics,free thinking and liberal minded people
> >
> >  Don Veitch and John Seale said that there have been 3 revolution of the world.
> >
> >    Mass agriculture
> >    Inductrial revolution
> >    Mass communications revolution (the world wide wed)
> >  The third is our great hope.
> >
> >    We need to make the internet the prefferred place where people get their information,not the television
> >    We need to development a media, that caters to the average person in all countries
> >    We need to use the likes of You Tube,My Space and so on to sell our message.
> >  We need need define who are the good groups of society and join forces.
> >
> >  There are good people out there that have money and some power,we need to define who they are.
> >
> >  60% of society do no like violence's, that is why violence's it planted in people's protests.
> >
> >  Recently in Australia our parliament,they had a conscience vote on a topic, a poll after it, found that over 80% thought the conscience vote was a good thing.
> >
> >  I believe as Ricardo Semler found out, when people have been program, and it takes awhile to bring out openness in people ,belief in their right to have free speech,Semler found that once people did start to talk there was no stopping them,people will need some leading to direct democracy.
> >
> >  It is hard to break habits within people,and some personalities will never like it direct democracy.
> >
> >  I believe that some measure should be developed that rewards the best national for the year, a public vote to decide,cannot vote for own nation.
> >  An Example
> >  Key measures weighted to countries size.
> >  The total value of all land,property & businesses
> >The personal & business saving
> >Known resources
> >Reserves of items and materials
> >The debts of the nation
> >Employment
> >Health
> >Income
> >Education
> >Condition of environment
> >Living Standards
> >Home & Property ownership
> >  Relationships with other nations
> >  Fair trading with other nations
> >  Human freedom and rights
> >
> >  I have enjoyed the recent comments by all and can see we are heading in a positive direction,we will have some hurdles to get over,but l believe we have people in this movement with their heads and hearts in the right place.
> >
> >  Some of the final parts of whatever system we propose, should be finalised by the people,what they would like to vote on and what our representatives should look after,and how many time they would vote per year.
> >
> >  Cheers
> >  Martin Jackson
> >
> >  P.S.Bruce you might enjoy this,PINK-DEAR MR. PRESIDENT-MIKE GRAVEL`s MySpace Song
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a0DZRyENss
> >
> >  ~----- Original Message -----
> >    From: lpc1998
> >  To: WDDM
> >  Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:58 AM
> >  Subject: [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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>God Bless us all
>
>