| From: | "Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:48:34 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS |
Very good Jiri. I'll vote for that. Can I apply for Czech citizenship
in absentia?
Ted
Dear Hamid,"Jiri Polak" <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se> 2/3/2011 9:51 AM >>>
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 -----
From: Hamid Mohseni
To: World Direct Democracy
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 -----
From: Alexander Kassios
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 <jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za>
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
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 -----
From: Alexander Kassios
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
<jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za> 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
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
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" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
> 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
>