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

01212: The Key Issue

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 4 Jun 2007 11:47:44 -0000
Subject: The Key Issue

Dear Bruce, Antonio and all,
I think this conversation between Bruce and Antonio illustrates the key issue facing WDDM. Bruce says that he visualizes DD as people's initial method of controlling government. The people need a structure to develop initiatives and petitions they agree upon to tell government what their community is demanding.
My question is that how is this going to transform into true democracy when people are still out of govt. controlled by political parties. Already there are methods of petitioning and developing initiatives available for people to make known their preferences as in the swiss system. But still they are at the receiving end. There is no clear strategy on how the people are going to gain control over governance. If there is a final method of controlling the government that is being contemplated, Bruce, kindly make it known. Under such circumstances, Antonio's grievance over 'setting up a bureaucratic infra structure as the core point of DD' is valid. First the exact way in which the goal is going to be realized should be made clear. Without this WDDM with its present rules and regulations will end up as one more political party. The values that Eric has clearly explained, which should guide WDDM, will remain just on paper.

Pushing this issue under the carpet is not going to help.

PVR
 

Yes Antonio, I am aiming to a Direct Democracy which is the peoples initial method of controlling government. Yes the people need structure to develop initiatives and petitions they agree upon to tell government what their community is demanding.
Bruce


Thanks for your agreement.
Yet unfortunately,  you want to set up a  (top-down led) bureaucratic
"infrastructure" to be the core point of  (direct) democracy.  In other
words, you seem like you're aiming at a kind of  directed democracy.
antonio


Bruce Eggum ha scritto:
Yes Antonio, I agree with your statement " I would suggest
Democracy is a society where the people (not the bureaucrats!) have the
first say --and   the last say, in respect of local laws."
That is why "the people" need an infrastructure to discuss and develop
their community's laws and needs so they can be united and petition
[demand] government do what they want done. Unless the people vote
democratically and make decisions, those decisions will be made for
them. It is a matter of the people taking responsibility and exercising
their power.
Regards,  Bruce
ps - we people are not bureaucrats, that is government agencies.



On 6/3/07, Antonio
Rossin <
rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
VPR,
and others,
The difficulties WDDM faced these years, have not been overcome still.
These difficulties are still up, caused by some members who want to get
(direct) democracy being turned into a bureaucratic organization.
Anyway, their attempts to rule democracy by a bureaucratic board seem
to have revealed a flop, so late, because of the refusal of members
inside - and the member inside I dare say - to keep on being ruled by the usual
bureaucratic power-seekers' class.
That is, in reply to the question: "What the Hell is Democracy", I
would suggest Democracy is a society where the people (not the bureaucrats!)
have the first say --and   the last say, in respect of local laws.
antonio



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