Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

["Esi" <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>]

I heard a good news in Swedish radio speaking about changing from representant to direct democracy soon. As I heard, about half of Swedish people already have fast access to internet

wich makes it easier for this change. They plan also to make it possible for people with no access or interest for internet to use the old post system to get informed and participate in votings.

I myself am also worry for practical problems for realizing direct democracy but problems can be solved eventually step by step when people want it.

The problem with reluctant people exist in different proportions in different countries because of their history and existing political systems but I think when people understand that they can change the society in their favour only if they participate in politial process they will change their mind. Probably later on when the system is stabilized many people will not be motivated

to participate in all political activities only because they are satisfied or don´t mind about questions which they don´t mind or are affected of.

In Sweden even though many people are not satisfied whith present political aprties,  most of people participate in elections anyhow.

Besides those protential problems which Antonio Rossin mentioned the populations uniformity and cultures is also a potential problem in the beginning.

I like to come back with my view and thaouts about these problems later because it is too late and I must wake up early tomorrow.

Regards

Hamid

From: Antonio Rossin

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:22 PM

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Esi wrote:

Thank you

See my view below:

From: Luca Zampetti

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:51 PM

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

I have no own definition of DD, as far as I know it does not exist and to my best science and conscience it is not required.

As I understand you can not state, DD does not exist if you don´t have any definition for it.

I don´t understand neither how you can say it is not required if you don´t have any definition for it and even if you have some sence for what it is for whom it is not required.

I read round 60% of the existing Swiss constitutional law books, at cantonal and at federal level, from 1830 to these days, there is no such thing anywhere. There is no "definition" of DD anywhere.

As I understand of what Jim Powel wrote before DD exist in Swiss. I myself have not enough knowledge about Swiss to have some opinion about it. Anyhow if DD exist in Swiss or notis a case of what you define the DD concept. For me it does not matter what you define DD or if it exist in Swiss or not. What is important for me to support real democracies which means people get the real control over the common laws and decision making system in societies they are living in. If this is achieved in Swiss, good for them and I hope more progressfor them but I am not attendig to imitate what is going on in Swiss or any other countries blindly. I strive to give people their right to affect and control common rules, laws and decisions in societies they are living in.

(snipped by antonio)

Hi DD friends - especially Hamid and Luca,

I wonder whether you knew the old say:
Top-down implemented policies with a bottom-up origin
are the only ones that function effectively.

To which, let me add:
Democracy, to be such, must fit the needs of just the inhabitants
who live in a definite territory.

In conclusion, if the local inhabitants of a definite territory were able to give themselves, i.e. grassroots bottom-up, collective rules and policies and were able to control the officials who had been committed by the same local inhabitants to implement those rules and policies, their social arrangement should be called "Democracy".

Accordingly, two problems (at least) arise.

First: the larger is the territory, the more difficult is the collective agreement on common rules and policies.

Second (and far more difficult to solve): at the "grassroots" social level, people seem to be very reluctant to take upon themselves any direct responsibility for originating bottom-up policies.

Accordingly, unless these people were trained to accept this kind of direct responsibility (they should have been learned to do so from babyhood on) how could you pretend that they will accept the kind of direct responsibility for social policies also known as direct Democracy?

What do you think?


Best regards

antonio