| From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:05:54 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD |
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