Hi All,
Whilst we can find fault and inconsistency within the Swiss
system I consider that it is best form of government currently in practice.
Let us now exchange ideas of how to push for Direct Democracy
Regards
Jim Powell
From: [bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Eggum
Sent: 17 Mar 2008 12:02 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD
It seems we get caught discussing other Nations decisions.
"A point about the Swiss constitution.
It makes sex discrimination illegal and then makes
military service compulsory for men and voluntary for women."
WDDM sees the Swiss method or process using Initiative and Binding Referendum
as an adaptable and useful method of people gaining control of their
government. What the Swiss people have decided by means of this process is
their business, unless it violates national law or human rights.
Bruce Eggum
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM, <ROY DAINE> wrote:
It has been suggested that I retract -
"It must also be realised that a people, in determining
the system and functioning of their own governance, if done under universal
suffrage, would be enacting direct democracy in that determination, regardless
of the outcome of said determination."
A country having universal suffrage, in no way suggests
direct democracy.
The point about the right to self-determination, is that it
flows to a people, not to nations or governments. Representatives, be they
party political or indepedant, cannot exercise this right on anybody's behalf.
By partaking in representative democracy, as we understand it, a people are not
exercising their right to determine their own governance, they are merely
partaking in an existing system, which was determined by others.
I suggest that you read the original statement carefully.
Put another way it could have said -
" Direct democracy must exist, in order for a people to
exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, even if the outcome of
that determination negates direct democracy.
Both statements pertain only to the initial determination
and not to any ongoing system of governance.
I'm also unable to add PVR's suggested bit about political
parties. Parties or lack of them, in no way describe a direct democracy.
The only viable, alternative definition I can come up
with is -
'Direct Democracy - Wherein sovereignty is
vested directly in a people, who under universal suffrage, determine their
own governance.'
A point about the Swiss constitution.
It makes sex discrimination illegal and then makes
military service compulsory for men and voluntary for women.
Dear All,
Perhaps adding the following at the end of Roy Daine's suggested definition for
DD, may be better ".....without the intermediary dominance of political
parties". Political parties are acceptable as long as they are
primarily concerned with their function of raising issues concerning
people and avoid dominating the process of governance itself.
I agree with Roy's statement that - " The right of a people to
self-determination MUST be paramount. A people may wish for a dictatorship or
an absolute monarchy. It is not for any of us to impose or attempt to impose
any system of governance upon a people. Our modus operandi should be persuasion
to the acceptance of an idea, through force of argument". What is
being attempted through WDDM is to find out and fine tune
a better system for people to think about and aspire for. If
they like it they may go for it. We are not going to force anyone.
"It must also be realised that a people, in determining the system and
functioning of their own governance, if done under universal suffrage, would be
enacting direct democracy in that determination, regardless of the outcome of
said determination." Roy will have to withdraw this statement if he
knows that in India we have universal suffrage and yet two-thirds of the
population especially in the rural areas are so alienated from the
mainstream thinking of the government that one can ask if they really belong to
India. Definitely the wishes of the people are not getting translated into
action. No doubt a popular upheaval can bring down governments at the
polls but it is crude democracy and not direct democracy.
Thanks to Mirek for suggesting the link to an excellent and exhaustive insight
into how DD came into being in Switzerland even eight centuries back. A few sentences
from the text, which are revealing:
"....if you look at a map, and you see all these valleys, lakes, rivers,
and steep hills and mountains, breaking the country up into a tapestry of
thousands of natural villages. If you wanted to impose your will even on your
neighbor, how would you do it? It would take a large army just to conquer a few
such communities. How would you then take over dozens or hundreds of
them?"
"....Switzerland seems almost designed to be a democracy. The slopes make
for a natural stadium or amphitheater, allowing a large number of citizens to
participate in a discussion and then vote."
This geographic aspect appears to have played a role in the evolution of
Swiss thought. It is not surprising then that they were able to focus on what
matters most for the well-being of their families and communities.
The following words about the Swiss constitution, in that account, are notable
-
"The Swiss regard their constitution somewhat differently than the people
in other Western democracies....
"On the one hand, in political and even everyday discussions, it is
treated with a little less reverence than in the United States. If the
constitution is a holy oracle or fixed tablet in the United States, France, or
Germany, in Switzerland it is more of a home medical guide.
The Swiss are more used to taking the thing off the shelf and using it.....
"The typical Swiss voter of age fifty has seen about twenty to twenty-five
constitutional changes in his lifetime, and as an adult has voted on an average
of more than one per year. Perhaps he even volunteered time to help support the
passage of one or the defeat of another. In any
case, if he is a typical Swiss, he was reading regular newspaper articles about
the merits of this change or that change. In this process, implicitly, he was
engaged in a kind of rolling review of his country's fundamental law. This
process makes the constitution alive and the people its owners, in a more
tangible way than in nearly any other country. To say this is not to comment on
the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the measures themselves. It is an observation
about the
process and its impact upon the sociology, if you will, of the Swiss
constitution as against others.....
"The Swiss constitution, for all its flaws, is less an object for handling
only by an opaque priesthood of attorneys and officials, and somewhat more of a
living document and a family member. If familiarity breeds a certain rough
contempt, the overall impact appears to be a
healthy, balanced respect and a greater sense of pride and participation."
What we see in India as well as in most democracies today is that the
constitution is used as a legal document with the spirit in which it was
written being forgotten. Once we understand and agree that the main
obstacle between the people and true democracy in today's world is the
dominance of party-based governance then we can focus on it and define our
efforts towards it.
By 'True' Democracy I mean opposite of 'false' and am not implying any
particular system. I hope Bruce will agree on this. Antonio has asked
whether the basic problem of selection of candidates to run the government can
be solved. The 'Troika' system suggested by Fred is excellent and I hope every
one has gone through it.
Georges has suggested a 'shadow parliament' to act as a counter check to those
in government. David Frank's One Voice Now and Roy Daine's My
Verdict are efforts in this direction. In other words we need
a True or Direct Democracy Platform for people to voice their opinion
on issues concerning them.
The Direct Democracy Experiment on My verdict is unique since it focusses on
the main obstacle to True Democracy, which is to get 'there' to the
seats of governance independent of political parties and this experiment
envisages the use of the 'Troika' system to achieve it. This will
eventually favour the introduction of I&BR processes to put democracy on a
firm footing.
While geography favoured the Swiss to evolve and deepen their democracy
over the centuries, internet and the abysmal record of present day democracies
favour the further evolution of democracy to reach perfection.
PVR
Enhance
democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.
--
Bruce Eggum
Gresham Wisconsin, USA
President King http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/74.html
http://www.doinggovernment.com/
Check out my Blog too
http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/
http://usinitiative.com
vote
|