Dear Hamid,
in Czech Republic, there are several citizen initiatives
severely criticising the current situation. One of them accepted my proposal and
put on their website a facility for voting. Citizens are invited to choose one
of the following alternatives:
1I am in favor of a new, Citizens´ Constitution based
on these principles:
2.No, I want to keep the system as it is.
3.I abstain
The principles proposed:
1.Any Constitution, to be valid, has to be approved by
citizens in referendum.
2.The legislative and executive powers have to be
separated, not merged in the hands of a few party politicians.
3.The head of State must be elected directly by all
citizens
4. Parliment must be elected on the basis of single vote
constituencies, not on party basis.
5.There must be the right to Initiative and referendum on
all levels.
6.Immunity of politicians must be cancelled.
7. There must be a possibility to recall any
representative even between elections, if the majority of the voters in the
respective district demand it.
8.The salaries and benefits of elected representatives
must be periodically set by independent citizen commissions. Politicians are
employees of the citizens. It is absurd to let employees determine their own
wages.
So far, 677 persons have voted. More than 98% chose
alternative Nr.1. This is a statistical proof of the widespread dissatisfaction
and desire of change. We plan to send, in June, a letter to the government and
demand a referendum on the draft of a Citizens´ Constitution. The draft exists
already and has been published, even in print. In case of refusal,
demonstrations etc. might follow. We´ll see.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:35
AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS Hi Jiri Please tell me more about your internet experiments
and how it is going.
Regards Hamid
From: jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se To:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Date:
Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:58:38 +0100 Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND
VOTERS
Dear Alexander,
I shaare your opinion on ancient Greece. But I do
not consider Switzerland as THE model we all should follow. The Swiss system
is better than that of other countries but we should create a better system
still, based on recent experience and modern communication technology (the
internet). This is what we in Czech Republic are trying to do.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:55
PM
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
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 >
|