WDDM Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement : TransitionToDemocracy

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

Transition To Democracy

by Georges Metanomski
(Originally here)

A Related Policy Proposal



Shadow Parliament


Let us consider the problem of transition towards
DD in a structured form.

===============================================

1. REVOLUTION.


1.1. FOR.

Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
I personally do not see any.


1.2. AGAINST.


1.2.1. COST.

Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.

1.2.2. DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.

None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.

===============================================

2. EVOLUTION.

As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of
two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.

2.1. LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.

This means to postpone all practical DD
procedures until respective legislation is in
place. The only possible action seems to consist
in petitions imploring such legislation.
However, Particracy will just throw such
implorations into the dust bin, as they would
on the one hand imply restriction of its power
and, on the other hand, carry no weight.

The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed,
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to
wash its hands and to discharge the politically
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.

2.2. ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.

As consequence of all above it seems the only
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.

2.2.1. SHADOW PARLIAMENT.

Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that
it is far from plain sailing.

2.2.1.1. CONDITIONS.


2.2.1.1.1. SIZE.

In order to be able to put any pressure, the
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.

2.2.1.1.2. LOGISTIC.

Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform.
Short experience with my CN shows that while
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient,
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship
of its use will require at least a generation.
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity
engendered by our educational system making
people unable to understand, let alone to apply
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.

2.2.1.1.3. SINCERITY.

It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever.


2.2.1.1.4. CONCLUSION.


Three issues seem essential for starting to move
towards the DD:

1. Getting a Shadow Parliament within the Particracy.

2. Establish a logistic 3 Functions support.

3. Propound Sincerity, which appears to be the
critical condition of DD. A very limited experience
seems to point to "self applicable attitude".
An example:
A small forum discussed pollution and found out rightly
or wrongly that the worst pollution source is the
factory breeding of animals. Besides pollution it
involves unacceptable suffering of animals and mental
corruption of attendants who become potential sadistic
Auschwitz guards. The group condemned eating meat. Not
as a theoretical principle, but as a self applying
decision and all members stopped eating meat.
Another very limited and positive experience consisted
in stages in Kibbutzim, confronting fellows with the
sincerity of the unique ever realized genuine DD.


============================================


Related notes:


The necessary condition of sincerity is the New Manner
of Thinking discussed and partially defined in
RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC


SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT.

Motto: Einstein's assertion: "A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."

A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by
established governance, media, education and religions.

The First Enlightenment originated in the scientific
revolution of Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and from
the involved new Reason, wherefrom the alias "Age of
Reason". This new Reason explicated in ontological
and epistemological terms by Kant and in socio-political
terms by the Encyclopedists spread the Enlightenment
over the people and led to the French Revolution from
which emerged the Particratic Oligarchy called
"Representative Democracy".
One may object that we contradict here the denial of
Revolutions (1. REVOLUTION). However, the French
Revolution betrayed in fact its Enlightenment seeds
and instead of emancipating people, changed the form of
their oppression, first in the Terror, than in the
Empires and finally in the Particracy ruling till
our own days.
Still, Particracy is less bad than the autocracy of
the Ancien Regime and, above all, the best, if not
the only step towards DD. So, even betrayed by the
Revolution, the First Enlightenment did not get
completely lost.

Our epoch appears by analogy as origin of the "Second
Enlightenment". Einstein's new edifice of science
reposes on an entirely refounded Reason supplanting
antecedent Absolute Logic with Relativistic Dialectic.
Ontological, epistemological and socio-political
explication of this Reason are still lacking, so that
the Second Enlightenment stays in the bud, in a form
that cannot be popularized and serve to free people
from oppression of the established obscurantism.

And we need it more than did the French people
oppressed by the Ancien Regime. They were confined
in slave labor and misery which was bad enough, but
our established obscurantism goes deeper and calls
into question the very survival of humanity.

That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms
as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment
and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct
Democracy.


CategoryProjects
Backlinks: DdModels, GeMePolicyProposal, GeMetanoski, LinksIsrael
 Comments [Hide comments/form]
At 21:36 +0200 24-09-2005, Leopoldo Salgui wrote:
> I'd like also to support it, but how do I do it?
> Georges
>
> PS. My support does not mean that I find it pragmatic.
> Indeed, I believe that ALL actions of WDDM and CICDD
> are nice games without any practical, pragmatic impact.
> I justify this stand in
> http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy
>.html which is known to our list, but which nobody so far
> discussed.

Dear Georges,
thanks for your support. In a former email I have explained how to support the
Declaration. However, I have added your name inferring following data:
Name/Email: Georges Metanomski <zgmet@wanadoo.fr>
Country: France
Group / website: Not applicable
if above data is no correct, please send me an email.

Please, check the most updated list of undersigned in
http://64.62.195.58/wddf/download.php?id=11
http://64.62.195.58/wddf/viewtopic.php?t=54

Regards, Leo


Antonio, jumping-in:

Leopold, and all
Really, George's writing
http://members.fortunecity.com/georges/demo_archive/transition_to_democracy
was not so known to the lists - at least to the list-member I am.

Let me try to discuss it now, inserting my comments into its text.
It reads:

Let us consider the problem of transition towards
DD in a structured form.

===============================================
1.REVOLUTION.

1.1.FOR.
--------
Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
proposed and inserted here as paragraphs
1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
So far we don't see any.

1.2.AGAINST.
------------

1.2.1.COST.
-----------
Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.

1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.
--------------------------------
None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.

===============================================
2.EVOLUTION.
------------
As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired way.
In very broad strokes it may take one of two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.

2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.
----------------------------------
This means to postpone all practical DD procedures
until respective legislation is in place.
The only possible action seems to consist in petitions
imploring such legislation.
However, Particracy will just throw such implorations
into the dust bin, as they would on the one hand imply
restriction of its power and, on the other hand, carry
no weight.

(ant)
Paradoxically, Particracy manages outspokenly to give the
people ALL of what the people want to receive -- according
with existing possibilities and resources of course -- even
before the people may ask for or decide about.

Which means, Particracy decide in advance All what the
people may ask for, as a rule

In the case of DD, which requires the people do decide
directly what they want to be given, Particracy realizes
in no time that it is wrong, or at least, backwards.

This implies dialectical competition (not cooperation at all)
between Democracy and Particracy - in facts, even though
Politicians claim in their words that they are performing "true
Democracy" simply because they are "democratically" elected.

Yet this kind of elections have to be encompassed in the
Snapshot (in the author's terminology, see below) domain.

In facts DD denies Particracy to choose and decide policies,
as Aki Orr so aptly exposed in http://www.abolish-power.org
This basic denying bans Particracy establishment from
accepting proposals and policies made by the people.
===============


2.1.1.I&R
---------
The only exception may be implementation of
some form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum).
Indeed, in crisis situations requiring extremely
unpopular measures Particracy may find it
comfortable to wash its hands and to discharge
the politically disastrous responsibility on the
shoulders of manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy.
DD implies necessarily a continuous "3F" Forum
having all 3 functions namely Initiative, Debate
and Decision, with Debate determining current
consensus and Decision occurring when consensus
reaches a value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R often confused with DD would be
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.

(ant)
Unavoidably, any I&R proposed issue is under great
risk of being conditioned by the Bureaucracy in office
and other alike staff implementing the agenda through
mass media advertising, forums and debates, leading
to "snapshot" decisions in what is called "Consensus
building".

The question arises, whether Bureaucracy officials
2.1.1.1. - shall be chaired by the Particracy leadership
-- which option keeps them under Particracy's control
to secure the Particracy power-holding interests and
decisions over the people's --
2.1.1.2 - or by the people directly.

Since the people are kept far away from controlling
the setting-up of the bureaucracy staff, the latter
seems to be chaired according with the Particracy's
needs of holding decisional power over the people --
which power the politicians won't wash their hands
even, also in the occasion of political disasters.
Rather, politicians will always find out, and point to,
some outer enemy to fight against as the culprit of
any such disaster but themselves.

On their side, Bureaucracy staff are unlikely to turn
against the Particracy giving them jobs and benefits,
which makes the 2.1.1 I&R exception become much
absurd -- unless the people were able either:
2.1.1.2.1. to take upon themselves the full control of
Bureaucracy staff (let alone the advertisers), or
2.1.1.2.2. to free themselves (i.e., their minds self-fixing)
from the so-called "Manipulation of Consent" that
is currently grasped, held and managed by Particracy.
=======================


2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
----------------------------------
As consequence of all above it seems the only
way left. Which form may it take? We can see only
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.

2.2.1.SHADOW PARLIAMENT.
------------------------
Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that
it is far from plain sailing.

2.2.1.1.CONDITIONS.
-------------------

2.2.1.1.1.SIZE.
---------------
In order to be able to put any pressure, the
Group must count enough members. 0.1% of the
population seems to be a minimum, but of course
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.

2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC.
-------------------
Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform.
Short experience with our CN shows that while
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient,
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship
of its use will require at least a generation.
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity
engendered by our educational system making
people unable to understand, let alone to apply
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.

(ant)
Which makes *self*-Education become mandatory, in
order to get the 2.2.1.1.1 Group into being able to pay
attention in the DD problematic with cooperative and
purposeful aims.

Which is not a matter of "Consensus Building" upon some
top-down"platform" or "constitution" -- which the people
pay no attention into, by postulate.

It sounds rather a matter of getting (educating) the people
into being able to spot and choose their own proposals and
policies bottom-up. This requires *confrontation* among
different platforms and constitutions *inside one same*
2.2.1.1.2.1. "3F" E-Discussion *overt* room --
that's something else but a
2.2.1.1.2.2 3F" *closed* E-Platform -- such as
Particracy does as.

Plainly, this 2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC shall start since earliest
education of people, at babyhood when parents are the only
teachers by means of family feed-back for language and
interpersonal relationship patterning (self)-learning.

About this 2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC priority, a point to be
discussed and perhaps improved is free in the Internet
at http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm
==========================


2.2.1.1.3.SINCERITY.
--------------------
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
It's necessary condition is the New Manner of
Thinking discussed and partially defined in

RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC

(ant)
Unfortunately, the so-called "RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC"
is presented in facts as an ABSOLUTE REFERENTIAL,
i.e., a 2.2.1.1.2.2 3F" *closed* E-Platform.

That is, RD is presented as the "frame of references"
within which any discussion is foregrounded, and thus
discussion cannot question the mechanism of discussion
itself -- i.e. the mechanism of the people's democratic
sharing-in to politics, encompassing their relationship
with Particracy -- without being "prima facie" absurd.

In short, RD for as it is presented as, becomes a kind
of absurdity:

2.2.1.1.4. ABSURDITY
and the one who wants to implement DD through RD
falls subsequently into the domain of just Delirious
Thinking (DT). Which does not imply that a DT shall
be insincere: rather the reverse. But any DT has some
precise DT rules to obey to, to become successful.

About these DT rules there is a draft, still undiscussed, at:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin04.htm
========================


Just my "discussion" two cents,

antonio
-- a-lu5-43.tin.it (2005-12-18 04:27:40)
I agree with Georges' conclusions in the above essay completely - that the preferred, and most probably the only feasible transition to DD is to assemble a sufficiently large fraction of citizens who would want DD (your section 2.2, 2.2.1 - Shadow Parliament). That it would require new way of thinking and would take a long time to get to this point. Many other WDDM members seem to have come to the same conclusion, they just use a different language.

It would be interesting to know whether all of you believe that this is the case, and if not, what is your opinion on this issue.
And a related question: has Georges in the above essay listed all the possibly imaginable ways of transition to DD, or has he missed something?
-- MiKolar (2006-07-20 01:27:49)