| From: | "Bruce Eggum" <bruceeggum(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:04:53 -0500 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [WDDM] Proposal |
Bruce responds: What I said is well documented on Swiss sites. Indeed the Swiss have a Constitution Committee reviewing and changing their Constitution as needed. Yes the political folk can also request a change in the Constitution but it must be approved by Referenda of the Swiss people before it can be ratified. Your charges are false Nico.
The political parties have no say, no vote in these matters.
The following is from Switzerland is yours site.
Anyone who does not believe that you can have too much democracy should be sent to Switzerland. Gather 100,000 signatures and you can put to vote a change in the constitution. If 50,000 citizens decide so, they can block any law passed by the Swiss Parliament and have the entire country vote on it. This works for small things too. Don't like the new multimillion shopping mall project down the street? Any resident of the neighborhood can delay it for months with a simple letter explaining why it will lessen the quality of life.
But people are not crazy about the power the system gives them. With votes and polls taking place every two to three months on a vast number of municipal, cantonal and federal issues, voters get tired of their duties and the turnout is usually 30% or less. Perhaps there can be too much of a good thing after all?
The Swiss political system may be slow, but it is stable and efficient. For a constitutional change to be passed, both the majority of voters and that of the cantons are needed. In practice it means that a tiny canton the size of an Edelweiss (e.g. Uri, with 36,000 inhabitants) will weigh in a federal vote with as much clout as Zurich (1,181,000 inhabitants). As the smaller cantons are not the most liberal, the balance swings in favor of conservatism.
By balancing power among the regions in a very generous way, this system has kept Switzerland united for 150 years, preventing its many linguistic, religious and economic divisions from tearing the country to pieces.
For readers with an interest in political institutions, some places in Switzerland are worth a visit. In the small, scenic village of Gruyères (yes, home to the famous cheese), citizens gather twice a year in a communal assembly to vote by raising their hands on municipal issues. Or the picturesque canton of Appenzell, where until recently even cantonal issues were voted upon with raised hands by a general assembly of men, the Landsgemeinde.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/democracy.html
Dear PVR and Bruce,
I'd like to react to 2 things.
First, a point of detail: Bruce says "The Swiss make their Constitution, not the parties or any part of the government". I believe that this is quite wrong. You could say "The Swiss CAN make their Constitution". But many changes to constitutions (at federal and cantonal level) are actually TRIGGERED by the governments (=the parties), and accepted – or not – by the people, the Swiss. IMHO, the Swiss will NOT drop the political parties. But they are VERY attached to their I&R rights.
Second, a point that is a little deeper: I think that partyless governance, in or in the elected house(s) is an interesting long-term thinking and talking subject, but that is WAY beyond anything we can actually DO today. If I may suggest one thing, it is that we define a few realistic goals (like e.g. I&R – in my opinion the most important, and then electronic debate, if not voting) and start really working on it (implementation within WDDM, education, "evangelism", etc.). We are too few and have too little time right now to think about things that people can not even conceive! Just go around and ask people if they would like to drop political parties – most will tell you that parties are necessary, be it in or out of the house (most will not even be able to conceive that parties could exist, but not be elected as such in the house). In Europe, parties are part of the political life. Asking people to ban them, wherever it is, would be like telling them that the planet is getting warmer and they need to leave their car in the garage 3 days per week – this is absolutely unconceivable for 99% of the population.
Nico
From: bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com [ bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Eggum
Sent: dimanche, 10. juin 2007 21:03
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: Re: [WDDM] ProposalDear PVR.
I answer in your note. I thank you for your response.On 10 Jun 2007 07:51:04 -0000, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan < vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruce,
You have said - "We must have the power to intervene, and getting I&R is the first step. Once that is achieved we can 'take charge of our governments'. Until that is achieved, we are whistling in the wind".
Assuming that the Swiss, who already have I&R in place, decide that they want to take charge of their government fully by doing away with the political parties, will the political parties agree to it? Is there such a possibility in the Swiss constitution, and if not, will the political parties allow such an amendment to be brought in? My guess is that the political parties will not allow this to happen.BE- The Swiss have Initiative and Binding Referendum. If the Swiss made an Initiative that the people were going to run the government using an electronic forum, the people making all decisions and the Parliament was only an administrative body, providing the Initiative was validated by Referendum, it would be so in Swiss land. (Binding Referendum) The Swiss make their Constitution, not the parties or any part of the government.
That is why I say FIRST Initiative and Binding Referendum, than the people have control and can operate their government as they choose.(Please note Swiss political parties are subservient to the people)Most communities have the provision established by Magna Carta and subsequent law:: "Every person has the right to petition their government" and the government is subservient to the people. I believe if a huge majority petition, it can not be denied. ( just my view)
PVR- Talking about other nations, may I know which of them is closest to being the second nation where I&R can be ushered in? I do not know any groups other than those on WDDM.
BE- I only know of the groups on WDDM. WDDM was the initiating group for the I&E "movement".
PVR- I am unable to understand your optimism for WDDM with the current definition of DD.
BE- What definition of DD are you using?
PVR- I believe that we should first concentrate on taking charge of governments, through constitutional means, and then the direct democratic processes like I&R can easily be ushered in.
BE- I agree. However each present constitution is different. Each Nation or Community must do what is necessary to have I&R provisions in their Constitutions. WDDM was established to discuss I&R, explain what I&R is, why it is important for people to establish I&R in their Communities. WDDM intended to have information for activists to use to "Sell" I&R in their community. WDDM was not intended to take on government or parties or tell people what to do. WDDM is simply a clearing house of ideas and information which serve to assist people in their pursuit of I&R. When WDDM was established, there was little information on Swiss DD available and in languages other than Swiss.
Do you want to establish I&R in your government PVR? Do you think in your Communities government, it is best to form a political party or some way get parties to support it? Than do it. You do this in your community But your solution does not fit all. What you have been advocating is that WDDM accept your idea as the WDDM supported way to achieve the goal of WDDM. It can be one of many but not THE way.
[I realize some of the replys do not encourage you to do this]
When you have a good plan, please publish it on your WDDM Website, please keep us posted on your accomplishments so others can learn and utilize your experience.
PVR- You had said that WDDM stands for ushering in DD and not for any revolution. This is surprising. Then why call it a 'movement'? "DD education forum" would be a more appropriate name.
BE- The WDDM Movement is not violent but a movement from full Representative to Direct Democracy (I&R). WDDM does not tell people how to activate I&R, only that I&R would be advantageous for them. They must "sell" the people of their community that they should establish I&R, than those people within community act in their community to do so. WDDM hopes to have available "selling points" people can utilize. WDDM does not tell them not to have a revolution, that is their choice. Yes WDDM hopes to provide "education" however it takes people to bring these works into action and recruiting people to do so establishes the movement toward I&R DD.
A personal opinion, if violent overthrow is necessary and warranted, than it must be done. The US Constitution states the people must overthrow the government, violently if necessary, if the government becomes corrupt. [it may be time for the US people to do so?]
Bruce
PVR
On 10 Jun 2007 07:51:04 -0000, Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan < vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bruce,
You have said - "We must have the power to intervene, and getting I&R is the first step. Once that is achieved we can 'take charge of our governments'. Until that is achieved, we are whistling in the wind".
Assuming that the Swiss, who already have I&R in place, decide that they want to take charge of their government fully by doing away with the political parties, will the political parties agree to it? Is there such a possibility in the Swiss constitution, and if not, will the political parties allow such an amendment to be brought in? My guess is that the political parties will not allow this to happen.
Talking about other nations, may I know which of them is closest to being the second nation where I&R can be ushered in? I am unable to understand your optimism for WDDM with the current definition of DD. I believe that we should first concentrate on taking charge of governments, through constitutional means, and then the direct democratic processes like I&R can easily be ushered in.
You had said that WDDM stands for ushering in DD and not for any revolution. This is surprising. Then why call it a 'movement'? "DD education forum" would be a more appropriate name.
PVR
--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/