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

02142: RE: [WDDM] Strategy

From: "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:25:56 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Strategy

Hi Fred,

Thanks for the reply.

My comments follow ***

Thank you for your letter. Your outline of some of the failures of our
current so-called 'democracies' is interesting. Since you asked, I live in
the United States and my country is not devoid of the problems you describe.
Indeed, none of us have exclusive entitlement to those ills. *** It is
indeed a general human trait, but not universal, to grab as much power as
possible.

Your letter and the enclosures put strong emphasis on Referendum and Recall.
They are excellent goals and I heartily applaud and encourage those who seek
to attain them. *** If we focus on the fact that "politicians are the
employees of the voters" we should get to the end focus of voter control

The Swiss Constitution you sent sets forth many noble tenets that no-one
favoring democracy could deplore. However, it also has several provisions
that seem (to me) to be legislative issues rather than constitutional ones.
*** I agree. The quirks of the system do not detract from the control of the
voters over the politicians

In any case, its biggest shortcoming, in my view, is in ignoring the fact
that you cannot legislate morality. If you do not have principled people in
government, proclamations (as in Article 5, paragraph 3) that "State organs
and private persons must act in good faith" are but words. I found no
provisions that fostered the election of the kind of people who can be
expected to act in good faith. *** I perceive this to be impossible. This
why a ward system should be introduced with "top up". This will allow for
the recall system and also ensure that the overall percentage representation
reflects the will of the voters. The Swiss have proportional representation.
An interesting statistic is that more Swiss voters turn out for a referendum
than elections of politicians

In the Direct Democracy book you forwarded to me, the authors, Jos Verhulst
& Arjen Nijeboer, describe the sorry state of nominal democracy in Germany,
Great Britain, Belgium, and The Netherlands. I have little doubt the list
is much longer since no-one seems ready to address the role our tendency to
pursue our own interest plays in shaping our political systems, or to accept
the need to integrate a method of harnessing that trait. A brief look at
the inception of the system in my own country will illustrate the point. ***
Effective Initiative, Referendum and Recall will allow voters to act in
their interest. It has been noted that the Swiss have enough sense not to
target minorities as this would destabilise their society

The United States has long claimed the title of The Cradle of Democracy. ***
Term long dictatorship

Indeed, at it's founding, it was called The Noble Experiment because of its
break with the royalty-based systems of Europe. Not many have any idea how
that Noble Experiment was subverted, but it is quite easy to understand. ***
Human nature

Although those who wrote our Constitution tried to avoid the partisanship
that was rampant in the country at that time, politicians in a position to
do so institutionalized their advantage by forming political parties and, in
the several states (which retained all rights not specifically granted to
the Federal government), enacting laws that gave parties the right to
advance candidates for public office. That simple, and, at the time,
seemingly innocuous, set of circumstances laid the foundation for the ills
we endure today. *** I perceive that there has to be a system similar to a
company with expertise to run the country. The voters each hold one share in
the government. With Initiative, Referendum and Recall the voters would have
control

The important thing to recognize is that those who instituted our present
system did no more than any of us would do, if we were in their position.
What they did was not vile. It is no different than seeking tenure or
forming a union. They simply devised a way to solidify their position. I
doubt anyone anticipated at the time that the upshot of their acts would
lead inexorably to the system we lament. *** With Initiative, Referendum and
Recall the system can be changed

With regard to your proposed "multi-pronged attack on the established
political systems", I'd like to comment on the 'real alternative' you cite
in your first item. It is my feeling that we have not yet devised a real
alternative. There is no shortage of proposals, but I haven't seen one that
gives any hint of how it is going to harness people's
tendency to pursue their own interest. This failure is a serious, indeed,
in my opinion, fatal, flaw. *** To repeat, "politicians are the employees of
the voters" and the voters must be in charge

The question is not, "What rules can we make to insure democratic
governments.", it is "How can we devise an electoral process that enables us
to find the best of our people and raise them to positions of political
leadership." *** If we place the correct rules in place, we will attract
more of the right people and the decisions will be more voter orientated.

That is the crux of the matter. There is no shortage of good, principled
people in our society. What we lack is a means of identifying them and
electing them as our representatives. *** I few have recall, we can remove
those that are not to the liking of the voters

I have developed several ideas along this line and have had the privilege of
detailed discussions with a few people, most notably my younger brother who
provided breadth and academic support for the concepts, and Roy Daine in
Sefton, Great Britain and Kristofer Munsterhjelm in (I believe) Norway who
provided significant enhancements to the concepts we discussed. I could
point you to some of the discussions, but believe we will be better served
by jointly developing the concepts. That will encourage a broader range of
participation and challenges. *** I look forward to it

I've passed my 80th birthday and feel the pressure of time. *** I have
passed my 60th

Maybe a few, very few, thoughtful people are the most we can ever expect to
meet in our lifetime. Perhaps I've already had my quota, but, given your
insight into the evils of our current political infrastructure, perhaps you
would be willing to consider the possibility that the real root of the
problem is the poor quality of the people our political
infrastructure allows us to elect? *** If the rules give responsibility over
power for the elected, the right people will be attracted

Would you be willing to focus on conceiving an electoral method that
harnesses our tendency to serve our own interest, even if we must
acknowledge that we may not accomplish it in our lifetime? We've been
digging the hole we're in 200 years. We won't dig out of it quickly or
easily. Even so, I believe we can, with careful thought and hard work,
design an electoral framework that will produce representatives marked by
their intelligence and integrity rather than, as at present, the reverse.
*** I believe that there is intelligence but little integrity. Those without
integrity will not be attracted to a system that they cannot benefit from

Regards

Jim Powell



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