Dear Vijayaraghavan
Before the last (local government) elections in South Africa, I approached candidates to sign the contracts. All but the top 2 parties signed as individuals. One political party (COPE) committed all of their 3000 candidates to sign the document.
Consider that the candidate wants to be voted in and in power. The candidate is told by a sizable portion of the electorate that he will not get the vote without the contract (below). Some or one of the candidates sign and gets elected.
You now have a candidate who under the control of the electorate. As the knowledge of the electorate grows, DD grows
Regards
Jim Powell, Johannesburg, South Africa
The contract:
I, (name of politician or political party), acknowledge that I am effectively an employee of the voters because the voters decided who would be employed by voting and the voters who, through payment of their taxes and rates, pay my salary and I recognise that the current system does not put the voters in control.
- I commit to regular and effective consultation with the voting public through public meetings and continuous communication via the press, radio stations or in person.
- I agree to vote in accordance to the best interest of the voters who elected me, who may be polled by means of a referendum similar in format to that used for petitions.
- I am committed to ensure that the wishes of my constituency are effectively communicated and advocated for in at all levels of government.
- I am also committed in doing everything within my power to ensuring that the laws are upheld and that service delivery is efficient and effective.
- I commit to being held accountable for my performance by the voters
- I further agree that the registered voters will be able to remove me from office when 25% of the number of registered voters who voted in the last election within my ward or designated constituency sign a petition for my removal. This will mean that 2,500 signatures will be required if 10,000 voted in the last election. All registered voters will be able to sign, including those who did not vote in the last election. The recall petition may not be initiated until 6 months has elapsed since the last election and when an election has been called. Should an election be called, the recall process will be cancelled.
- I will promote legislation at all levels of government and changes in the South African Constitution to bring about a system of constituency with top up proportional representation, recall, referendum and Direct Democracy.
From: [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:28 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: View Direct Democracy to be established somewhere in the coming New Year !
Dear Jim Powell and Fred Gohlke,
I focus on the following exchange between you two:
-----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.-------
Fred Gohlke is on the spot when he says that the problem we experience with our governments is the way our administrative base is directed by our elected representatives.
Jim Powell asks the pertinent question: 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.
Jim Powell says he is working in South Africa to have candidates sign a social contract to promote and support DD. No contract, no vote.
Jim Powell, I fervently hope that this is possible. However the candidates posted by the political party, if they sign the contract may find themselves out of the race if their sponsoring political party does not like this idea. I would like to know the answer for this.
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
From: "Comtrend" <comtrend(at)mweb.co.za>
Sent: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:13:23
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
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 [fredgohlke(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