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

02330: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

From: "Esi" <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:55:59 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

Hi Jim

In your example of company (which I think you mean a country or society), exitsts more than one job. The manager or director manage and perform all these jobs without asking voters.
Each voter can be staisfied with the results of some of the jobs and unsatisfied with others. The voter has not controll over each individual job or how they should be performed. In other
words as a voter you are forced to buy all results in a sack without a chance to choose those you like and throw away those you don´t. Even if a voter is satisfied with the
results of one job probably the job could be performed with better results in another way. As I understand the voters can not neither affect how the jobs should be performed.
I don´t know exactly how direct democracy works in Switzerland but I as a voter like a system which gives me and other voters possibility to intervene and affect each separate job or
question´s performance before they they are done if we wish, call this system what you like.

Hope it works similar to my desire in Switzerland otherwise I don´t see so much differences between political system in Switzerland and Sweden.

Thanks
Hamid




Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 4:39 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

Hi Hamid,

I see that the officials and politicians have specific jobs to do similar to the managers and directors of companies

Each of us has a single share in our company (country) and that share is called a vote.

We expect our managers and directors to do a good job as we get on with our lives.

When it comes to our notice that the company (country) is not being run properly, we must have the facility to intervene.

That is the starting point of direct democracy Seems to work well in Switzerland  where 97% of the legislation created by the politicians goes unchallenged.

Seems a good system to me.

Regards

Jim Powell

From: Hamid Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: 23 Sep 2009 11:42 AM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni


The problem is that we are living in a changing world. What seems right for a voter today can be wrong for him tomorrow.
An employee must know what his / her employer desire and do what is best for him. A politician has no chance to know
what millions of voters like to be done or decide everyday. The result is when vote for a politician to be your employee instead in practice you choose a leader and not an employee. To change this we should have another politic system which
I call direct democracy in this moment which alla decisions and rules are made by people through refrandoms and votings

As I know what you call direct democracy is call representative democracy.

Regards
Hamid
 


From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:49:04 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni

Hi Hamid,

Exactly the point

With Direct Democracy the voters decide what they want to delegate to officials and politicians.

There is not another economic institution where the employees tells the employers what to do

For those of you who have not seen the one pager from me on South Africa, it is repeated below

Regards

Jim Powell South Africa

Politicians are the employees of the voters


Our current system in South Africa is so much better than pre 1994 but it lacks accountability. The primary allegiance the proportional representatives have is to their own political party. The 50% of the local government councillors that have a constituency can at least be identified by the electorate but still are not accountable. We, the electorate, are the shareholders of the South African government and employers of our politicians. We choose the politicians who are employed and we must be able to directly control the politicians. An interesting statistic is that 97% the laws of the world’s best-known democracy, Switzerland, are passed without voter intervention. The threat of voter intervention means the laws are passed with the electorate in mind.


A combination of:


1. Constituency (Wards at all three levels of Government)

2. Top-up proportional representation to ensure that the representation reflects the will of the people

3. Portfolio positions (Ministers etc)

4. Recall of politicians (firing of politicians by the voters before the end of their 5 year term)

5. And referendum with initiative mechanisms where the electorate can reject or propose legislation and change the constitution.

 

should work the best for the employers of politicians, the voters.


The ANC would have won 80% of the seats on a constituent basis in 1994. The top up proportional vote would counter this. The ANC that obtained 69% proportional votes would then not receive any proportional seats, but would be able to appoint ministers as extra positions, as would the official opposition appoint shadow ministers. A political party that did not win any constituency seats but obtained 2% proportional votes would then be allocated 2% of the seats.


*Charles Bukowski quotes* <http://thinkexist.com/quotes/charles_bukowski/>

“The difference between a democracy (as normally practiced) and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.” Our current system can be called a 5 year dictatorship.


An employment advert for a politician in South Africa under the current system (and generally throughout the world) should read as follows:


Applicants are requested to submit their CV's for the position of politician:


1. The interview will last for a number of months.

2. Many thousands, or even millions, of the politicians’ potential employers (voters) will decide whether the politicians’ application will be successful

3. Should the politician be successful, the politician is guaranteed employment for 5 years unless the politician resigns, die, found guilty of a serious crime (we can talk about this one) or upset the group of people (political party) that the politician chooses to be employed with.

4. The politicians’ CV does not have to be accurate or truthful

5. The politician can ignore the employers (the voters) for the whole of the 5 years, and even go against the wishes or the politicians’ employers (voters).

6. The politicians’ employers are relying on the goodwill and integrity of the politicians, to act honestly and with dignity. But if the politicians choose not to, there is nothing that your employers, can do about it.

7. The politician’s employers understand that the basic rules of operation (SA Constitution) are in many ways much better than the vast majority of basic rules of many other countries and so much better than pre 1994. The basic rules were created by the politicians and in many ways for the benefit of the politicians and detriment of the employer (voter) and as a result the politician, the employee, will be in charge of the employers (voters).

8. Voters recognise that many politicians, from 1994, have done sterling jobs and others have done a terrible job but we, the voters (employers), will not able to remove the politicians from the voters employment or payroll if the voters are not happy with the politicians’ performance.

9. The voters (employers) will not be able to control the politicians (employees).

10. If the politicians are successful the politicians could change the basic rules (constitution) then the politician (employee), would then not govern us but would have to operate in the voters’ interest. This will be under the politicians’ control and we recognize from the past that you are not likely give the power to the voters (the politicians’ employers).

11. The voters, the politicians’ employers, would like the politicians to listen to the voters all the time and do as the voters instruct the politicians, not just play lip service for a month and then disappear for 5 years. It is the politicians’ choice whether you will do this.

12. The voters would like you to create a system to have an individual at every level of government that we can go to, so the voters would like to have constituencies at Central, Provincial and Local levels. Politicians, please put this in if you are elected

13. We will rename the position of "politician" to "5 year dictator" since this more accurately describes the position on offer. When the politicians give the power to the voters (employers), the voters will rename the position to “representative”.


We accept that this is a long road to travel. There are many steps to take so that the community will believe that they are in control of their destination. Let us all take the journey together.


Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy,

http://democracybythepeople.googlepages.com/direct-participatory-democracy-links

And http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/


Jim Powell (+27) 0118041335 0825712856 autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za

From: Hamid Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: 23 Sep 2009 10:17 AM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni


Hi Jim

An employee ask the employer whole the time what to do. Pratctice politic in the world makes it obvious that politicians
on the contrary command and force their employers (voters) what to do.
If I as a voter don´t like it I can not stop my politician employee because he/she has all resources, police and military.

Regards
Hamid

> From: autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:04:11 +0200
> Subject: RE: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
> Hi All,
>
> The definition should be of the concept of DIRECT DEMOCRACY. "Democracy" was
> used by dictators and the apartheid regime of South Africa.
>
> My definition of Direct Democracy is where the voters are in control of the
> politicians
>
> Politicians are the employees of the voters. Voters decide who gets employed
> and voters pay the salary
>
> Everything should grow from this
>
> Regards
>
> Jim Powell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiri Polak [jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se]
> Sent: 22 Sep 2009 03:03 PM
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
> Dear all,
> I believe that most people agree that it is necessary to put forward a
> definition of the concept of DEMOCRACY most, if not all, people will approve
>
> and accept. In Athens 3.-4. October, at the second DDEV meeting, we will try
>
> to reach such an agreement. Anybody willing to participate at this
> discussion would be welcome. It is still time to contact the organizer,
> George Kokkas, geoko(at)otenet.gr if some of you would decide to go to Athens -
>
> the cradle of democracy and of the Western civilisation in general. A report
>
> from the meeting will be published in the usual channels.
> Sincerely, Jiri Polak
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Gohlke" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:50 PM
> Subject: [WDDM] Response to Hamid Mohseni
>
>
> > Good Morning, Hamid
> >
> > re: "We should not forget that it is the present corrupt
> > democracies and diktator societies which gives enough
> > economicall and politicall power to few individuals and in
> > this way makes it possible for them to manipulate and
> > decieve peoiple by propaganda and other means."
> >
> > I agree with you, but I would point out that it is even more important to
> > understand how and why the democracies deteriorated to their present
> > state. If we don't understand how it happened, we can't prevent a
> > recurrence.
> >
> > The people are, indeed, manipulated and deceived. The work of B. F.
> > Skinner and the behavioral scientists lets our leaders (political and
> > commercial) milk us like cows ... and the growth of mass communications
> > has made their efforts inescapable. These people are very good at what
> > they do, and their success is the strongest argument against 'direct
> > democracy'.
> >
> > If we are to defeat deception and manipulation we must find people who are
>
> > superior to the deceivers and manipulators. We have such people among us.
>
> > What we lack is a means of finding them and raising them to positions of
> > leadership.
> >
> >
> > re: "In proper functioning democracies it would be more difficult
> > for few people to manipulate others for their own interest
> > because the power is shared between bigge number of
> > individuals."
> >
> > Of course, but what ... exactly ... is a 'proper functioning democracy'.
> > How is it organized? How does it work?
> >
> > It is easy to say the people must make all the decisions. It is not as
> > easy to say how they should do so. Will you allow public officials? How
> > will they be selected? What will be their role?
> >
> > Failure to consider these questions is what causes the huge gap between
> > the theory of democracy and its actual practice. It is precisely because
> > we have failed to consider these questions and provide sensible answers
> > for them that 'politicians' have been able to take control of our
> > governments.
> >
> > Fred Gohlke
>


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