Hi Jiri,
Greece was the first Direct Democracy, with a big flaw. They
were selective in who could vote similar to the system of apartheid pre 1994 in
South Africa
Regards
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Jiri Polak [jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:39 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
We
all are aware that Greece is the cradle of democracy and there is much to be
learned from it. On the other hand, at present, we have a situation which has
never before existed - the information revolution due to the internet and
globalization exceeding national bounadries within which political parties had
been founded. Representation need not be based on political parties. It can be
based on a single majority mandate in voting districts, with representatives
exposed on continuous control on the part of the voters and the possibility of
recall. The Swiss system is better than other European systems, but not yet the
ideal.
-----
Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, January
26, 2011 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY
ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
The Swiss system has α proven value on the balance between
citizens and politicians. It has more resemblance to the Spartan
constitution rather than the Athenian. Main principles are vetoing
and mutual compromise (and a strong sense of citizenship but this lies
outside the strict sphere of constitution, although a
strong requirement).
Regardless, all of them had some balance between Aristocracy
(not oligarchy) and Democracy, and none was ruled by the demos alone.
Parties (political and otherwise) exist as a fundamental social
phenomenon.
My opinion is we should be strong pupils of history
and researchers of the future.
Looking for the ultimate direct represent-less system
is less than half of the equation.
It is the top floor of a skyscraper still in design.
Building from the ground up -based on political history into
what worked and what didn't- is the foundation of human progress.
The swiss model is a compromise and that is what actually
makes it real and effective. A society based on compromise and mutual
respect to diversity and common belief in unity.
Democracy should be an applied science, a field of research
combined with practical reality, as well as an inspiration and
ideal.
Alexandros Kassios
Hellenic Direct Democracy
Movement
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:38 AM, <Jim Powell>
wrote:
Hi Hamid,
Having the voters making decisions on
all matters is a waste of time. The politicians are employed to consider the
information and make decisions, similar to managers employed by shareholders in
a company. The voters are the shareholders and the politicians the managers
Regards
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Hamid Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:24 PM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
The Swiss system is better than many other countries
but not good enough, because stíll it is politicians and not people
who are the leaders eventhogh people can stop politicians decisions and
propositions sometimes.
Hamid
From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:47:38 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
I think the Swiss have got it right
(mostly)
Have your politicians investigate and
propose new laws. The electorate will have access to all the information and
can raise a referendum if enough of them are unhappy with the legislation. A
referendum is held and the will of the people is sovereign.
97% of legislation in Switzerland goes
through without objection. The laws that are passed will be created with the
knowledge that they can be challenged, so they are voter friendly
Jim Powell South Africa
From: Hamid Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:18 PM
To: World Direct Democracy
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
As I understand real direct democracy don´t
need politicians as represents or leaders but advisors and organizers.
Their job is to inform people about political facts and theories
and organize refrandums and realise the result of refrandums and decisions made
by people
in common political and practical questions.
Regards
Hamid
> From: jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se
> To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:06:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
> Dear Fred,
> as far as I see, the model of PD you put forward is compatible with my own
> ideas, which are much more simple and only rudimentary. The PD model is
> certainly worth studying. I´ll bring an information about it in the next
> issue of my newsletter.
> Sincerely, Jiri Polak
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fred Gohlke
> To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
>
>
> > Good Afternoon, Jiri
> >
> > From your January 14th post:
> >
> > "The basic fault ... is to call party-based regimes
'democracy'".
> >
> > From your January 16th post:
> >
> > "But I - and many others - also want a system where elected
> > representatives get continuous feedback from their voters who
> > can recall them at any moment (not only during elecions) if
> > the majority within the respective constituency demand it."
> >
> > Have you thought about the way Practical Democracy functions? It
> > addresses and resolves both the points you make; the first because it
> > sidesteps political parties and the second because it is inherently
> > bi-directional.
> >
> > Political Parties
> > -----------------
> > Over two hundred years experience with party politics informs us
that,
> > when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic
> > power blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately transcend
the
> > will of the people.
> >
> > Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but
it
> > does not foster government by the people. It results in government by
a
> > small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the flaws in
> > party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect victimizes
the
> > public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination ---
divide
> > and conquer.
> >
> > Parties are important for the principals: the party leaders,
> > contributors, candidates and elected officials, but the significance
> > diminishes rapidly as the distance from the center of power grows.
Most
> > people are on the periphery, remote from the centers of power. As
> > outsiders, they have little incentive to participate in the political
> > process.
> >
> > The challenge of representative democracy is not to divide the public
into
> > blocs but to find the best advocates of the common interest and raise
them
> > to leadership positions as the people's representatives.
> >
> > To meet that challenge, given the range of public issues and the way
each
> > individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an
effective
> > electoral process must examine the entire electorate during each
election
> > cycle, seeking the people's best advocates. It must let every voter
> > influence the outcome of each election to the best of their desire
and
> > ability, and it must ensure that those selected as representatives
are
> > disposed to serve the public interest.
> >
> > Practical Democracy allows voters to quickly and easily align
themselves
> > with others who share their views. It changes the focus of advocates
of a
> > partisan position from getting votes for a politician to persuading
voters
> > of the value of the idea they espouse. It lets every faction select,
from
> > among themselves, the best champions of their point of view and raise
them
> > as far as the size of the group allows.
> >
> > One huge flaw in the party-based systems that dominate the globe is
that
> > individuals must support one of the existing parties or be denied a
voice
> > in the political process. They have no way to prevent the excesses of
the
> > parties.
> >
> > Practical Democracy gives unaligned people a voice. Those who
advocate
> > partisan interests must ultimately present their point of view to
voters
> > who may not share their view. This provides unaligned people with a
> > countervailing force that prevents domination by any party.
> >
> > PD allows, indeed encourages, enclaves to easily form and attract
> > adherents. As Jane Mansbridge said in The Deliberative System
> > Disaggregated, "Enclaves are good at generating new ideas.
Everyday talk
> > is good at applying ideas and selecting those best applicable to
common
> > experience." That is how fresh ideas are introduced into
society, but
> > they cannot impose their will unless they are able to persuade the
> > unaligned of the value of their ideas. PD guarantees that fresh ideas
> > will be accommodated to the extent they are deemed worthy by the
> > electorate.
> >
> > Bi-directionality
> > -----------------
> > Practical Democracy is inherently bi-directional. Because each
advancing
> > participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known
electors,
> > questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted directly to
and
> > from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official.
This
> > capability offers those who implement the process a broad scope,
ranging
> > from simple polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues
and
> > recall of an elected representative.
> >
> > If you are interested in these concepts, the process is described in
> > Paricipedia at:
> >
> > http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy
> >
> >
> > I wonder if you'll find value in it.
> >
> > Fred Gohlke
>
|