WDDM Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement : GeMePolicyProposal

WddmWikiMain :: News : Members : Topics : Links : Recent : All : Grouped : Login

Policy Proposal by Georges Metanomski

Submitted July 3, 2006

The present Policy Proposal responds to Mirek's prompt
to "draft an alternative proposal for WDDM structure/
rules/whatever that would make WDDM a meaningful entity".
Although expressed for simplicity's sake in declarative
mood, all its assertions are implicitly prefixed by "IMO",
conditional and open to discussion.

Cornerstone of the Proposal is the "Shadow Parliament" (SP)
available here in TransitionToDemocracy
(also in the MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS in http://findgeorges.com/)

It goes without saying that the Proposal and its
SP base are open to comments and suggestions.

What's WDDM?

Clearly a group of people sharing some
common objectives revolving around DD.

What are its objectives?

WDDM's discussions seem to point to several

1.Define DD.

2.Determine DD's structures and rules.

3.Instruct one another about 1. and 2.

4.Consolidate WDDM into a DD Collectivity.

5.Create concrete DD instances of "World-Wide"
or at least country scope.


To 1. There is nothing to define, or, better
said, there is a general universally accepted
definition: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".
As any real Entity, each specific instance of
DD exists in a context within which it has a
particular scope ranging from a village, an
economic enterprise or a small collectivity,
to state and country within planetary context.
Interactions with the context is part of DD's

To 2. There is NOTHING to determine for WDDM.
Structures and rules of each instance of DD
are determined directly and exclusively by
its Forum and vary from instance to instance.
As fun and exercise WDDM members may of course
play with science fiction and discuss some
hypothetical instances of DD, but it is a
pure amusement and no real objective.

To 3. In the light of "To 1" and "To 2" there
is nothing to instruct anybody about. Still, 3.
accounts for the main traffic of WDDM, manifesting
the maybe deplorable but very human conceit, the
inclination to show how clever one is and how
stupid are the others. A popular song puts it in
the nutshell saying "teaching me what they don't
know how".

To 4. Total misunderstanding and unbelievable
naiveness. Whatever DD may be, it's a real
decision making structure whose outcomes imply
and impact essentials of members' life.
It presupposes some common economical
and ideological base shared by all members and
sincere attitude vowed by all of them (SP SINCERITY).
This Sincerity can be motivated only by the
urge to shake off some oppression and explicated
by Enlightenment emerging from the oppressing
The unique existing DD of Kibbutzim emerged from
millenary christo-feudal oppression and was
carried by the Enlightenment and Marxist ideology.
WDDM does not meet a single prerequisite of a
concrete, real life DD community. All rules,
constitutions and other crab addressing the
delusory mirage of WDDM being a concrete DD
instance are simple hallucinations.

To 5. Creating a concrete DD political instance
of country, let alone of "World-Wide" scope
presupposes an influence similar or stronger than
that of Christianity on Rome, of the Enlightenment
on French and American Revolution, of Zionism and
Communism on creation of Israel.
Tiny chat list which has no defined orientation
nor any reader base, but nevertheless pretends
to exert such an impact, manifests naiveness
going without any comment.


Having thus shown that apparent objectives of
WDDM are delusory and impractical, should we
conclude that the Group is irreparably void
of interest and useless?

Certainly, unless we find some pertinent and
practicable objective compatible with our means
and competencies. In searching one, it seems
advisable to ask history for hints and guidance.

Refraining from moral evaluations and personal
preferences we note that each socio-political
diachrony invariably stemmed from some widely
spread and deeply motivating ideology:
-Feudalism from Christianity,
-French, American and Russian Menshevik Revolution
from the First Enlightenment,
-Bolshevik and Maoist Gulags from Marxism corrupted
by Leninism and Engels' Dialectic,
-National Socialism from the Lebensraum ideology
of Mein Kampf,
-Israel from Zionism and Communism.

SP postulates that large scope DD can stem only from
the bedrock of the Second Enlightenment. But the
Second Enlightenment is still in the bud, restricted
to Physics and lacking the socio-political explication
capable to be spread amongst the people as a potential
support of DD.

Thus, the first critical task for WDDM or anybody striving
for DD consists of ontological, epistemological and
socio-political explication of the Second Enlightenment.
Once this step accomplished, one may start thinking about
spreading this knowledge amongst the people in understandable
and motivating way. Now, the first task, the Explication
seems well within the means and skills of WDDM in the manner
of a tough but most exciting challenge.

Explication of the Second Enlightenment

WDDM never lacked proficiency of editing long and highly
sophisticated texts. It's enough to recall hundreds of
produced Rules, Constitutions and other Manifestos.
It's true that none of them is in the least pertinent,
or practicable. However, it should not be imputed to
illiteracy or unintelligence of the authors, but to the
lack of context. Indeed, even the best writing is
meaningless in absence of a context.

Several WDDM members have demonstrated good writing and
speculating skills and it is permitted to hope that,
once standing on solid and adequate bedrock, they may
produce pertinent and practicable stuff.

We would not need, of course, any voting, nor raising
Explication of the Second Enlightenment to some
constitutional rule of WDDM. We would need just a few
people motivated by the challenge and ready to contribute
to it as an "Editing Committee" in a free, improvising
manner. We could invite people from other groups
concerned by the issue, such as CICDD and Epistemology.

Although the form of the Explication would be entirely
in the hands of the Editing Committee, I shall risk here
an anticipated suggestion: we could produce something
like a "Second Encyclopedia", a set of self contained
articles on author-chosen issues, individual and free
within the commonly accepted context of Second
Enlightenment's Ontology.

Once, if ever, this first task accomplished, we will
have to consider the problem of spreading its results
amongst the people.

Backlinks: TransitionToDemocracy
 Comments [Hide comments/form]
This Policy Proposal definitely contains a lot of food for thought, first of all a very good "general universally accepted definition" of DD. But this very definition may not actually be so universally accepted even among the members of WDDM, see the current discussion in the Forum on this subject: http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?22,317,317#msg-317
Or better said, it is not disputed that this is the correct definition of pure democracy, but whether this is what WDDM is to promote.

So here is a question for the general WDDM membership: what are your thoughts on this question: exactly what kind of democracy should WDDM promote?

Otherwise to points 2-5 in Georges' Proposal above I would like to clarify/counter that WDDM has no ambition to substitute any government or to create any rules or instances of DD for any country or other communities. WDDM is a group (or association or possibly an organization) that wants to promote DD. And all the rules and structure we are talking about are only the rules and structure for this group and nothing else. From the text of Georges' proposal it would seem that this is still not fully understood!

And if WDDM (or any other group promoting DD) wants to be credible, it must itself be "an instance of a DD collective", its internal structure and rules must be based on DD principles.
Its apparently a big challenge, bigger than everybody thought in the beginning. Everybody praises the significance of Internet and how it can bring about a more inclusive democracy (e-democracy), but it seems (past WDDM experience seems to show) that nobody actually knows yet how to use it effectively for deliberations (and making of conclusions) of an online based group dispersed all over the Earth, like our WDDM group. If we (or anybody else) can succeed in devising an effective protocol for such online deliberations, this could be a significant achievement in itself (also for the advancement of democracy).

Mirek Kolar
-- MiKolar (2006-07-20 01:25:50)
RE Georges diatribe
"To 2. There is NOTHING to determine for WDDM.
Structures and rules of each instance of DD
are determined directly and exclusively by
its Forum and vary from instance to instance.
As fun and exercise WDDM members may of course
play with science fiction and discuss some
hypothetical instances of DD, but it is a
pure amusement and no real objective.

Georges has said all comes out in Forum. However he refuses to allow WDDM to set up a Forum to determine these things. It is also interesting that all should accept whatever Georges has determined such as what is DD. I did not see this view determined on any "Forum" available to WDDM.

NOPE Georges, WDDM will have it's forum and establish methods to use it. Talk of a Forum is not the same as utilizing a Forum.
Bruce Eggum
-- BrEggum (2007-01-28 16:37:17)