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

02973: RE: View Direct Democracy to be established somewhere in the coming New Year !

From: "Comtrend" <comtrend(at)mweb.co.za>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 22:20:28 +0200
Subject: RE: View Direct Democracy to be established somewhere in the coming New Year !

Hi Fred,

Thank you for the detailed response. My comments follow ***

Regards

Jim Powell, Johannesburg, South Africa

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Gohlke(at)verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:12 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: View Direct Democracy to be established somewhere in the coming
New Year !

Good Morning, Jim Powell

Is it possible the Swiss system works, in part, because of its unique
geographical position? *** Mainly because of the system itself

One of the biggest obstacles blocking the achievement of democratic
government is the nature of public communication. While the technology of
communication has advanced over time, its effectiveness has receded.
This occurred because the dominant modes of communication are one-way ***
A good point. The systems can be refined by the voters once the Referendum,
Initiative and recall are in place.

- from an author or announcer to an audience. The obvious problem with
one-way communication is that it propagates the biases and misdirections of
the source without the leavening influence of differing points of view.
This powerful force has an enormous impact on the formation of public
opinion and is the biggest single tool used by politicians to persuade
voters to support partisan causes. *** This has always been the case. With
Direct Democracy, the system removes total control from the representatives
and gives some control to the voters.

Public opinion in Switzerland is influenced by French, German and Italian
media which are seldom in concert. This coupled with the Swiss commitment
to independence prevents the mass manipulation so prevalent in other
countries. Had there been a referendum, it is unlikely Swiss voters would
have supported the invasion of Iraq, but, in the United States, where
fear-mongering based on the threat of fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction
flooded the media in a one-way flow, there was no natural means for opposing
voices to gain an audience. *** I see this as an acceptance of the Swiss
system in comparison to the American system

I do not wish to imply Initiative and Referendum would not be a vast
improvement in achieving some level of control over the partisan oligarchies
that dominate the political scene. I simply want to point out that relying
on easily manipulated public sentiment as a basis for democratic government
is a flawed approach. *** As you have stated, DD is an improvement. Let us
move in the right direction

we cannot achieve democratic governments until we devise a mechanism that
allows the voters to participate in the formulation of public issues in a
meaningful way. Allowing political parties to select the candidates and
choose the issues is profoundly undemocratic, because. He who sets the
options controls the outcome. *** DD makes it more difficult

Our views differ on the matter of political parties. You "... see political
parties as essential to form an effective administrative base". I think the
administrative base is formed by the bureaucracy.
The problem we experience with our governments is the way our administrative
base is directed by our elected representatives. *** I am OK with your
analysis. The question is how do we change the whole system in one go or
move in steps that will eventually allow control to be in the hands of the
voters. We have to work within the current systems to change them. That is
why I am working in South Africa to have the candidates sign a social
contract to promote and support DD. No contract, no vote.

I see political parties as divisive instruments that inspire confrontation
among voters instead of helping to find constructive solutions to common
problems. They aid egocentric power-seekers at the expense of the people.
Partisan politics lies at the heart of the failure of so-called 'democracy',
but devising a practical political process that does not rely on
partisanship is a non-trivial challenge. *** Agreed but we must move where
we can

*** We are in danger of "analysis paralysis" where the solution does not
give a near perfect solution. Where a step in the right direction is
available, we should take that step

Fred Gohlke
[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]