Eric, the French have an Inquisitorial legal system, what do the people
think of it,
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:54
AM
Subject: [WDDM] ATD 200705-04 -
Shaking False Democracy to the Core
Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano, Mirek &
Nicolas,
No Mirek, I do not make any claim "that only 6 members participated
in the deliberation and approval of the present Charter. ... "
The relevant text of my email is reproduced below for easy reference. It
begins with "For example, if ..." meaning that it is not a statement of
fact or claim. It is only an illustration of, in this case, what I
understand by a "true majority" in decision-making. I do not know how many
members actually participated in the deliberation and approval of the
present Charter. After the twists and turns of last year's attempt at
writing the WDDM Current Oprating Rules, I have decided then to
join the non-participating majority. Except for a couple or two which
were open out of curiosity, most emails on the WDDM organisational
matters were transferred to a folder unread. I do not wish to re-visit the
circumstances surrounding last year's events.
==========================================
Eric:
"For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6 members
participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6 approve and
endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 6, because for it
to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by
a simple true majority of 28 members out of 54 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the
simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."
============================================
The figures 54 and 6 in this quote were picked up from an
email I read out of convenience and what I thought to be closer to
reality, but unfortunately it has caused confusion and for this I
apologise.
For avoidance of confusion, I wish to amend the figures in the
relevant text from 54 to 100 and 6 to 10 respectively. The substance and
logic of my illustration remain unchanged. Thus, the amended version of
the relevent text is as follows:
"For example, if we have a membership of 100, and only 10 members
participate in the deliberation process and even if all 10 approve and
endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 10, because for it
to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by
a simple true majority of 51 members out of 100 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the
simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."
==============================================
The issue of false majority is a critical one in the battle against
false democracy. False majority is the core pillar of false democracy.
This is because the ruling elites of a country seldom obtain a true
majority in a ballot. So they invented a legal fiction majority. As an
illustration, let us say there are 100 million voters in the country.
Voters turnout is only 40%; i.e 40 million voters voted in the election.
In order to declare a victor among the competing elites, they have written
into the country's constitution that the condidate who polls the greatest
number of "valid" votes wins. The "valid" votes in the
illustration invariably would be less than 40 million after deducting
the "disqualified" votes which includes the spoilt, blank and protest
votes.
So in a false democracy:
1 The ruling elites survives on legal fictions contrary to the
actual facts or truths;
2 They seldom have a true majority of 50%+1 of the total
eligible votes and consequently they do not have the moral authority to
govern the country. Their rule is often characterised by the extensive use
of the coercive powers of the state;
3 Since they do not have the true majority of 50%+1 from
the people, their claim of having won the mandate from the people is often
not only false, but also an outright lie, a cheat and blatantly dishonest
since such claims are made knowingly.
4 They conveniently disregard the voters who have rejected
participation in their balloting processes and yet they shamelessly claim
the right to govern these disregarded voters with their consent (the
consent of these disregarded voters).
5 They conveniently justify the effective disenfranchisement of
a very substantial number of voters, sometimes even a clear
majority, on a so-called phenomenon of "voters' apathy" when, in
fact, most voters who do not participate in the ballot or referemdum, do
so intentionally because they have lost their confidence in the balloting
system or processes. A fair and honest interpretation when a voter
does not turn up to vote, is that he is, in fact, voting against all the
prescribed condidates or issues and/or against the ballot system or
processes.
6 The deeming of what the voter has, in fact, not done as
having done by him through a dishonest legal process is a cynical and
blatant violation of the individual's freedom of conscience or choice. The
voter is effectively being robbed of his vote by a most undemocratic
means.
7 The ruling elites sitting on a pedestal everywhere would most
likely react vehemently against the insistence for a true majority in
decision-making precisely because true majority exposes their deceit and
lack of legitimacy and renders most, if not all, of their
institutions and organisations unworkable.
In view of the above and of WDDM's mission to achieve true democracy
for itself and for the people of the world, WDDM should reject false
majority in its internal governance. Inspired WDDM members have to
work hard and with preseverence to achieve true majority (50%+1)
decision-making. Any candidate or issue that does not have 50%+1 of the
total eligible votes does not have majority support. It is as
straightforward as that. Any candidate or issue that receives 10 votes out
of a total 100 eligible votes receives just that: 10 votes out of
100. Any legal fiction that converts these 10 votes into majority support
is just fiction.
With such an achievement together with the resolute rejection of the
use of false majority, WDDM would be leading people everywhere in shaking
false democracy to the core.
==============================================
Mirek's Proposal:
"When a decision is to be made, every member must
get all the information about an issue, and be informed that a vote will
be held well in advance. Everybody can freely participate in all the
deliberations and in the vote. If a member chooses not to participate in a
vote, it will be deemed that (s)he abstained in this particular vote. By
abstaining in a vote either explicitly or implicitly (by not participating
at all), this member states that (s)he leaves the decision in this matters to others who
are participating in the vote, and that when a decision is made,
(s)he will accept the decision made by others and not object to its
implementation.
this would be the best incentive for everybody to
participate if they have any opinion on the
matter."
This proposal when adopted by WDDM would enshine in its Charter false
majority for decison-making and would make it a false democracy too.
And more importantly, WDDM would have surrendered the moral right to
challenge or to lead others to challenge this core pillar of false
democracy.
It also proposes to adopt the legal fiction of
deeming non-participation of members as authorising others by such
members to decide on their behalf. This is false and contrary to
fact or truth, and a denial of a member's freedom of choice or conscience
for non-participation. Also it is a bad precedence for deeming what the
members or voters have not voted for as having voted for by
them.
It also proposes to deny a member's right to object or to
disregard decisions that do not have true majority support, a position any
democracy believer is obliged to take.
In connection with the last point, it is also an implicit rejection
of I&R. I&R is the mechanism for any member who objects,
challenges or disputes any rule or decision of WDDM to have it amended or
changed in a manner he/she believes to be necessary provided he/she could
convince a true majority of the members to support the amendment or change
he proposes even if such a rule or decision was made or supported by the
current true majority or by a previous true majority that included
him/her.
I&R ensures that no rule or decision of a democracy is cast
in stone and put above the members or the people. It allows even a
single member or voter, the minority of minorities, to begin a process
that could bring about the necessary changes and makes progress
possible.
Mirek, in view of the above, would you like to reconsider your
proposal?
================================================
Nicolas:
"I am a very
strong supporter of the blank vote. I think that it needs to be added to
every poll and election, and be treated as another candidate or option,
meaning that if more people vote blank than for a candidate or an option,
things must be re-shuffled."
Yes, Nicolas, you are right. The people must have the option to vote
officially against all the prescribed candidates or issues they do
not support. I would advocate one step further: to be able to vote against
the system or the ballot processes in which they have no
confidence. It is duty of the officials concerned to build a ballot
system the people can support. They should not be allowed to sweep
their incompetence or treachery under the carpet of "voters'
apathy".
As it is, apart from blank vote, there is a stronger alternative
known as "protest vote". It is to draw a straight line diagonally across
the ballot paper to leave no doubt that the voter is not endorsing any of
the prescribed candidates and/or that the voter is voting against the
ballot system or processes. It also demonstrates that the voter can
think out of the boxes prescribed by false democracy and to deny false
democracy the pretty little crosses in these boxes that false
democracy would love so much to see.
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
wrote:
Dear
Eric,
I think that you gave in your message below a very good summary
of the
situation. I especially agree with:
> At this
juncture, some members may ask why must WDDM itself be truly
>
democratic so long as it could lead the world to true democracy. The
> simple answer is that an undemocratic WDDM has no credibility
even to
> talk about democracy, let alone to lead
others.
But I beg to differ with your claim that only 6 members
participated in
the deliberation and approval of the present
Charter. In fact, everybody
participated at least passively.
Everybody was informed about the
deliberation and about the vote.
They were actually repeatedly begged to
vote or express themselves
somehow. If they didn't like the charter
proposal, why did they not
voted explicitly against it??? It was so easy
to type NO in an
e-mail. There are absolutely no sanctions in this group
against the
way people vote (unlike in some false democracies you
mentioned). I
suppose that it was made clear enough that not sending an
explicit
vote equals abstaining in a vote. If it was not yet made clear
enough, it should be written in big letters somewhere. I do not see
personally other way how to operate in a group like this. In a real
country you may legislate that voting is compulsory, and fine people
if
they do not come to the booth (I think Australia is doing that?).
But I
do not think that is particularly vise even in a real-life
society. Can
you really get an informed vote by dragging people by
force to the
voting booth? All people should be of course encouraged
by all means to
participate in decision making. But voluntarily,
they should have a
choice not to participate when they don't feel
like. Perhaps everybody
should be required to confirm that they were
informed about a vote?
The basic principle should be: Everybody
should get all the
information about an issue, be well aware that a
vote will be held. And
it would be up to them if they will
participate in the deliberations an
in the vote, and how they will
participate. If they choose not to
explicitly vote, it will be
deemed that they abstained in this
particular vote. I suggest that
we officially adopt this principle at
WDDM, and write it up
explicitly into the WDDM rules (or Charter). So
this is my formal
request to the WDDM board to put this proposal in due
course to
further discussion and vote (maybe as an amendment of
Charter)..
Mirek
lpc1998 wrote:
> Dear PVR,
Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano,
>
> The first step, in
my view, we at WDDM could take towards true
> democracy is to
understand the critical nature of the present WDDM
> members in
order to tailor a true democracy Charter or Constitution
>
relevant and meaningful to them. Continued obsession with WDDM history
> would only imprison us in the past and deny us our future
possibilities.
>
> Those of us who had worked on the
Current Operating Rules last year
> and earlier are generally
conscious of the fact that WDDM
> members broadly comprise of two
groups: Group A comprises of members
> who see WDDM as a cyber
forum for the exchange of views and
> sympathies in an oasis of
politically aware people (surrounded by a
> hostile world) who
reject the Rule by the Representatives and their
> false
democracy. Many of these people are excited over their personal
>
visions of a true democracy where the ordinary people are
sovereign.
>
> However, many are very busy and are fully
committed in their own
> projects and programs and have neither
the time nor the enthusiasm to
> develop WDDM further as a
vehicle for the global development of true
> democracy.
>
> At least one member is allergic to the ballot and the majority
will,
> and another who believes that true democracy must be
imposed top
> down on the ordinary people by undemocratic means.
And there are also
> some who preach true democracy like a
religion to be accepted by blind
> faith and would want all
heretics to be burnt on the stakes.
>
> Group B comprises
of members who also sees great potential in WDDM as
> a global
movement in the forefront in the battle for the advancement
> of
world democracy. And some with faith so great that, despite the
>
pain and anguish following every major setback, still soldier on,
> especially inspired by the talents and enthusiasm of new
comers.
>
> Because true democracy is also associated with
values such as the
> human rights, the freedom of the individual
including the freedoms of
> the conscience, choice and
association, the pursuit of individual
> happiness, political
equality, respect for the decision of the
> majority made for the
common good, unity in diversity, and so on, it
> is futile for
the minority Group B members to try to impose their
> views and
beliefs on the current majority Group A members, whether
> such
imposition is done knowingly or unknowingly because democracy
>
without its attendant values would quickly degenerate into the rule of
> the mob.
>
> Anyway, any rule or Charter approved
a small minority of members has
> neither the moral or legal
authority on the relatively vast majority
> who, in the first
place, have nothing to do with it. At the very most,
> as it is
it is only morally binding on those who participate in its
>
deliberation and adoption and most probably, it will be ignored by the
> rest. For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6
members
> participate in the deliberation process and even if all
6 approve and
> endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of
the said 6, because for
> it to be a current majority decision of
the WDDM, it needs to be
> approved by a simple true majority of
28 members out of 54 (i.e at
> least, 50%+1, the simple and
honest meaning of a true majority).
>
> So the road to a
truly democratic WDDM is a long and arduous one;
> there is no
easy short cut based on a false majority. The Charter must
> be
approved by at least a 50%+1 majority of the eligible voters. This
> is, in fact, a good thing as it would mean no hyjacking of WDDM
by a
> small group of people.
>
> So what is the
best cause of action that can be taken by the Goup B
> Members
for a truly democratic WDDM? Yes, they must presevere in
>
writing a truly democratic Charter or Constitution for WDDM, a
>
Charter or Constitution that recognizes the Group A's rights as WDDM
> members and at the same time, respect its decision not to
participate
> in WDDM's affairs.
>
> So in the Group
B's deliberation and voting and to determine the 50%+1
> majority
in decision-making, Group B has to maintain its own Register
> of
Voters.
>
> It is important to remember that until the
Charter is adopted by not
> less 50%+1 of the WDDM total
membership, it remains the Charter for
> Group B only.
>
> Of course, it is tempting to resort to false majority for
> decision-making, but in so doing, WDDM would be just another
false
> democracy claiming to democratic like so many false
democracies. Do
> note that the undemocratic Bush had garnered
about 30% of the eligible
> votes in the 2004 Presidential
Election and our democracy should not
> be more false than
his.
>
> The simple and honest truth is that for a true
democracy to be viable,
> at least a comfortable majority of its
members or citizens has not
> only to be reasonably informed,
thinking and participating, but also
> has to be honest, fair and
diligent in the handling of public affairs.
>
> For a
truly democratic WDDM to emerge eventually, Group B members have
> to resolve to uphold democratic principles, practices and
values truly
> and honestly, by both words and deeds, to a point
when many Group A
> members would be inspired to cross over to
Group B to assist making
> the necessary truly majority decisions
for WDDM.
>
> At this juncture, some members may ask why
must WDDM itself be truly
> democratic so long as it could lead
the world to true democracy. The
> simple answer is that an
undemocratic WDDM has no credibility even to
> talk about
democracy, let alone to lead others. And most probably,
> like
all false democracies, a small group of members will be speaking
> and promoting their personal democracy ideas in the name of
many.
>
> Do also note that WDDM is a oasis of politically
aware people. If we
> are unable to achieve true democracy in
WDDM, we are not ready to face
> the politically inert masses in
the outside world.
>
> So Ladies and Gentlemen, are we
ready to take our first step towards
> true democracy?
>
> Eric Lim
(lpc1998)