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

01282: Re: RE: [WDDM] Not so difficult

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 21 Jun 2007 13:40:04 -0000
Subject: Re: RE: [WDDM] Not so difficult

Dear Nico,
Your reply sums up our positions. Only thing I wish to add is that we cannot take political parties totally out but only out of the elected house.

The two approaches you have mentioned have their respective points of relevance. Where the political parties still have a degree of credibility, the method you prefer would be preferable (first bring in a large measure of DD and the people would then take the political parties out). Where political parties have almost totally lost their credibility in public perception, the other method would be preferable (first bring in independent candidates who would then bring in a large measure of DD).

The choice of method also depends on the temperament of the people, which can differ even within the same country. I think both methods should be available in an integrated manner, a kind of twin-track approach, so that people can lend support to whichever method that is appealing to them. Since both methods lead to the same goal of true democracy they are bound to complement each other.

PVR



On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 Nicolas Durand wrote :
>Dear PVR,
>
>
>
>I now see where our difference in opinion lies:
>
>You think that independent candidates will take political parties out and
>(maybe?) institute DD.
>
>I think that it's easier to make people accept DD, and DD might (or might
>not, depending on the people's choice) take political parties out.
>
>
>
>Both lead to what we want, but I think that the second path will be shorter
>(and hence what I will concentrate on. ;)
>
>
>
>Take care,
>
>
>
>Nico
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
>Sent: mardi, 12. juin 2007 15:53
>To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
>Subject: [WDDM] Not so difficult
>
>
>
>Dear Nicolas,
>Thanks for your reply. Regarding the second point you have mentioned, I wish
>to say that we are going to ask the people to ignore the political parties
>and vote for best among the independent candidates (possibly backed by
>people believing in WDDM), in the initial phase. Straight away the political
>parties cannot be prevented from contesting in the elections. Later as the
>value of independent candidates is proven and when they are in sufficient
>strength, then only can the political parties be banned from contesting in
>elections. As you have said it is a much deeper issue, but would address the
>drawbacks of present day politics in a more lasting way. I may add that the
>above strategy is non-violent, constitutional and within the realm of
>possibility. It would enable every person to participate in the process of
>change and certainly not as difficult as you have suggested it to be.
>
>PVR
>
>
>
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 Nicolas Durand wrote :
> >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] On Behalf Of
> >Bruce Eggum
> >Sent: dimanche, 10. juin 2007 21:03
> >To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> >Subject: Re: Re: [WDDM] Proposal
> >
> >Dear 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/
> >
>




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