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

02819: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

From: Alexander Kassios <kassios(at)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:55:06 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS

Dear Jiri,

Although I am Greek, I am not evangelizing on the merits of the ancient Hellenic systems when I am proposing research of History.

Sure they should be studied as the origin of democracy, in a strict scientific and unbiased way, pointing out the good and bad of all political instruments proposed and applied by Solon, Cleisthenes, Lycurgus and other figures of the past.

We need to learn equally from the mistakes as well as successes of democracy.

Still I do believe the Swiss system is a better candidate for detailed evaluation. Their system is of our era, they've been holding referendums since 1848, had to face political, religious and language complexities and have a blooming economy. Have they integrated technology and information into their system? I do see them as pioneers in that department as well:  Internet referendum successfully held in Switzerland {epractice.eu}


Parties (political and otherwise) exist as a fundamental social phenomenon (fallacy?)
Hardly.
People organize in groups. We first form families, friendships, communities. People need to belong, especially among people who have similar interests and ideas. This is a biological sociological function, and any political system trying to succeed in real life should be a keen observer and researcher of how humankind behaves.
Taking for example Greece. People are trying to organize themselves to take the fate of their lives into their own hands. This does not happen in one large group. It neither happens individually. Due to geographical and ideological pluralism, we form groups of commons ideas, interests and discuss on combined actions with other communities who share the same political agony. 
A group, a party is not a priori synonymum with representation, nor with majoritarianism. 
I am stating that forming groups is in our nature, and forming political groups/parties is an extension to this sociological function. 
Community and solidarity cannot happen outside of social structures. 
Regardless, from my research the Swiss system is hardly a majoritarian one. First party in elections does not win half the seats in the Council, something that does happen in our Greek oligarchism. 
I don't think they would have lasted that long with a system that lacks respect of their 4 different ethnic communities and 2 competitive religions. A repressive majority would have alienated all other minorities. 

Anyway, I am open to any proposal/discussion on political reformations/recommendations.
This is no longer a philosophical debate but an existential demand for us in Greece. We either fight to win democracy back, or perish under the economical slavery imposed on us by the very few.

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:08 AM, <Jim Powell> wrote:

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

Dear Alexander,

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.

Sincerely,                   Jiri Polak

----- 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.  


Regards,


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
>




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