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

02652: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 9 Aug 2010 14:54:04 -0000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive pragmatism

Dear Jiri, Fred and All,
There has been a burst of ideas on the mail-list after a lull, but it is clear that everybody is sticking to their respective positions. Each of the positions is based on one's actual experience, so there is nothing wrong except that we should try to arrive at a common position that addresses all our individual concerns.

I am surprised that Jiri Polak is not backing Fred Gohlke's core point that we need a mechanism to elect people whom we can trust. Jiri Polak has suggested in his writing on the New Political System where he calls for an Association of Independents to take on the political parties: http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/nps/nps2.htm#How do we achieve this?
He has clearly brought out the scenario that would emerge once the Association contests elections where the candidates from the Association would have greater credibility among the people, simply because they allow people to vote on issues.

Jiri has arrived at the concept of Association of Independents in a logical manner, while Fred and myself have come to the same conclusion in a largely intuitive manner. Good Democracy should have mechanisms that are both logically and intuitively correct. I have tried to integrate both the logical and the intuitive aspects into a single mechanism and have posted it for voting on the WDDM voting area. Only 5 people have voted on it so far.

I only wish that the proposed conference would be able to achieve an integrated view point taking into account the various facets of Democracy.

Vijayaraghavan








On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:42:49 +0530 wrote
>Thank you, Jiri
>
>The proposal has merit, but I'm not surprised that "all parliamentary
>parties have rejected this proposal".
>
>I differ with the authors of the proposal because I believe the problem
>is less a matter of monitoring our representatives than it is a matter
>of picking the best representatives in the first place. As long as
>political parties control the selection of candidates for public office,
>we will be ruled by the vested interests that control the parties.
>
>We have, among us, no shortage of people with the ability and the
>integrity to advocate the common good (even when their advocacy does not
>serve my personal interest). What we lack is a means of finding those
>people and raising them to public office.
>
>Still, the important thing is, as you say, "... the fight for democracy
>goes on." My guess is that we are 200 years from government "by the
>people", but it won't even happen then unless be keep working.
>
>Fred Gohlke
>
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]