Hi Vijayaraghavan,
Thanks for the well thought out email.
My comments *** below
Let us keep this going
Regards
Jim Powell
From: Vijayaraghavan
Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: 12 Mar 2008 09:23 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD
Dear All,
I agree with the definition suggested by Roy Daine - "Direct democracy -
Wherein sovereignty is vested directly in the people, who, in exercise of their
inalienable right to self-determination and under universal suffrage, determine
the structure and functioning of their own governance." *** Agree with this. We need a snappy marketing phrase
such as ”The politicians are the employees of the voters” or on the
negative, “Politicians are 5 year dictators”. Any other ideas from
the members?
This is broad and accomodative of various points of view. However this is
precisely the definition that would be offered by all those who believe in
'Democracy' and not particularly 'Direct Democracy'. Similar would be the case
with other definitions. The definition - 'DD is Initiative and Binding
referendum' focusses on what exactly needs to be done to bring about True
Democracy, which implies that what we have in the name of Democracy today is
'false'. What is it that makes it false? Undoubtedly there are shortcomings and
the visible symbol of this is the unsatisfactory governance based on political
parties. *** Well put
All of us want to get rid of the false and usher in the true. The first step
would be to identify where to start. It has to start where power lies at
present as otherwise it would be an exercise in futility. We have
to declare that we are opposing the concept of political parties and not
any political party as such. Only then would an alteration in dynamics in favour
of True Democracy be possible. *** I believe that
political parties are necessary. The Swiss system seems to work well. Let us
regard the country as a “company”. The politicians are the
directors. They are employed to run the “company”. The difference
being that the “shareholders”, who are the voters have the right to
overturn the decisions of the directors and directly instruct the directors
through initiative. The politicians simply become less important, not all
important.
I&BR is focussed on the process that would enable True Democracy but it
does not tell us how to get there. It ignores the reality of political parties
wielding power in the present day. The definition of DD should indicate how it
is going to be attained in the real world. I would suggest that the following
be added to the one suggested by Roy Daine, at its end -
".....without the intermediary of political parties". *** The voters need to get on with their own lives. There
There is a story where five blind men encountered an elephant, but each
one of them felt only one part of the whole. The person who touched
the ear told that the animal is like a huge fan. The person who touched the
trunk told that it was like huge moving pipe. The person who touched the limb
told that the animal was like a pillar. The person who touched the
body told that it was like a rock. And the person who touched the tail told
that it was like a whip. Each one of them is correct and they would
continue in their belief about what an elephant looks like unless somebody is
going to tell them about the reality.
We do not know the entire picture about DD. We have to first understand
how it came to be established in Switzerland. It must have been
established long before the advent of the internet. Hence it would be
hasty to conclude that DD should be accomplishable with the
availability of internet. First we have to understand the human
aspect. I had mentioned in an earlier post that it is quite possible that
the Swiss were able usher in DD because they were focussed on family values.
Possibly because of their geographical location they were protected from
political developments occuring around them and were able to concentrate on the
basics of good living. *** My understanding of the
way in which DD came about in Switzerland was due to perceived dangers from outside.
There were 3 major language groups German, Italian and French with a smaller
language. They did not trust each other but realized that they would not
survive as an entity if they did not group together an cooperate, particularly
in defense. Since they did not trust each other, they would not give each other
power. They vested the power in the electorate with limited power over each
other. Comments?
Now we have to deal with a system of governance that is controlled by
political parties, world-wide. We have to face this reality and
plan accordingly. WDDM should primarily be concerned with evolving
guidelines for action at the local level. We have to avoid centralized action
as it would replicate the existing system of governance. In this context may I
suggest that we need not have an executive board at all. If somebody is ready
for local action he may proceed. He can seek opinion from other members and
share his experiences so that others may benefit. He may raise funds locally
and WDDM need not get involved with it. There is no need to register WDDM
locally; it can remain as a web-platform for discussions on DD. *** The Swiss system is bottom up, not top down. The
importance of WDDM is to exchange information and use the internet platform as
a tool
Finally action on the ground is what is going to matter. We should know the
value as well as the limitation of having discussions. I am myself not
ready for any local action in my area. It may take some years for
that. WDDM should facilitate the evolution of thought and action on DD.
Members would be in various states of readiness. Everyone should find
WDDM to be useful. *** The Executive of WDDM should
and do act as administrators. They are given the power to operate on a day to
day basis with decisions made by the voters (members)
PVR