WDDM Home DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROMOTE DIRECT (TRUE) DEMOCRACY

WDDM Forum : Starting new deliberation

New attempt on creating new WDDM basic documents 
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage List• New Topic • Search • Log In
Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: June 29, 2006 12:41AM

Edited to reflect suggested changes 07 24 06


I submit this for consideration and comment. We need to define what WDDM terms "DD" Direct Democracy. I will propose this be accepted as the WDDM definition of DD after comments and corrections.


Definition of Direct Democracy


"There is a general universally accepted definition: "DD is a socio-political structure concentrating the Legislation directly and exclusively in the hands of people".


Direct Democracy (DD) is another way of declaring the people are in charge of government.


With representative government, the people have little "direct" impact on government.


WDDM intends to enhance and expand the democratic philosophy in all walks of life, especially through encouraging more direct democratic processes for public policy decision making.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many, many plans people have developed to have a direct impact on their governments. WDDM will provide web space for these plans to be considered by all who seek a Direct Democracy method for their communities and nations. This is a process, a process of the people taking due charge of their governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


It is these simple systems of DD, (Direct Democracy) which WDDM is "selling".


BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2006 05:20AM by BrEggum.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: stevemagruder (IP Logged)
Date: July 02, 2006 12:34PM

We should look to Teddy Roosevelt for guidance on what the true nature of DD is... when he said that I&R "should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."


In practical terms, direct democracy may never reach a stage where it would be used to decide every possible issue (and indeed, Switzerland today has a system that is a mixture of direct and representative democracy). But direct democracy is great for deciding issues the public is especially interested in deciding, where elected politicians are ignoring the public's majority position for whatever reason. And even on issues where representatives make the decision, those processes could be a lot more open to citizen input (a la e-democracy).


Basically, our approach to DD should be about enhancing and expanding the democratic philosophy in all walks of life, especially through encouraging more direct democratic processes for public policy decision making.


A statement like this would be helpful because it releases us from the bonds of the contemporary definition of DD (the three pillars of initiative, referendum and recall). We should certainly be interested in enhancing and expanding I&R, but there are many areas where we could inject more democracy outside of I&R.

Steve Magruder - Democracy 2.0 - d2.stevemagruder.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2006 12:36PM by stevemagruder.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: July 04, 2006 12:31AM

Georges submited an excellent DD definition:
There is a general universally accepted
definition: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: stevemagruder (IP Logged)
Date: July 05, 2006 03:19PM

BrEggum   wrote:
Georges submited an excellent DD definition:
There is a general universally accepted
definition: "DD is a socio-political structure
concentrating the Legislation directly and
exclusively in the hands of people".


That's certainly a respectable academic definition of classical pure democracy. I am concerned however that if that becomes our official definition of direct democracy, then our group would be seen as out of step with the real world. And, as somebody who is interested in real-world-only solutions, I would naturally be very distressed about that.


It is obvious to me (and hopefully to others) that the people cannot exclusively take on the role as legislators. However, I do think it can be a shared, coopetive role. It's just a matter of real-politik that there's no way in heck we can jump from A (representative democracy) to Z (full direct democracy) in even a couple generations, nor is that full jump even a good idea.


We should be about "a more direct democracy" and should be rational about the idea that many people are downright frightened by the prospect of pure democracy. We do nothing to counteract that fear by saying "100% pure democracy is our platform".


Democracy must be about sound decision making coming from the people, whether directly or indirectly. Adding more voices is a great idea. Greatly expanding the base of decision makers is a great idea. Making everyone a direct legislator is fantasy.

Steve Magruder - Democracy 2.0 - d2.stevemagruder.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2006 03:20PM by stevemagruder.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: July 05, 2006 04:36PM

How about this? " DD is a socio-political structure concentrating the Legislation directly in the hands of people.


BrEggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: stevemagruder (IP Logged)
Date: July 05, 2006 05:01PM

BrEggum   wrote:
How about this? " DD is a socio-political structure concentrating the Legislation directly in the hands of people.


BrEggum


That's definitely better than before.


Here's a stab at it from my perspective...


"DD is a socio-political structure where the citizenry as a whole enjoys irreversible legislative rights, equal to, and in cooperation and competition with the same rights of democratically elected representative bodies."


I guess I'm trying to achieve an idea that both criticizes the current "regime" and works with it at the same time. I don't want to see DD be a needle we use to poke the eyes of the politically motivated, who will want to work with us as well as within traditional representative politics.


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: BrEggum (IP Logged)
Date: July 05, 2006 05:31PM

Reality --- at least from my prospective is that if an I&R system were adopted, the people could eventually do more or total legislation. That said many Swiss Cantons have little or no I&R and have not progressed to more legislation. The "corrective" I&R seems to work. Also, if we had FULL democracy, than it is likely we would have committees, forums, and other groups who would be in effect "legislating" by representing us in the committee. How would they be chosen? Elected? Back to where we are.


But, we need to make a WDDM which has room for all DD advocates.


AS you wrote The explicit term "direct democracy" has such a specific contemporary definition (initiatives/referendums/recall) that it doesn't seem inclusive enough, although we're certainly interested in I&R (amongst other things).


Than how can we be inclusive, support DD and yet advocate I&R? This has been the problem for years.


Bruce

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: July 19, 2006 07:06AM

I would personally prefer to keep the "undiluted" definition of DD: DD is 100% pure democracy, where everything is concentrated in the hands of the people. Otherwise we would contribute to the confusion of what democracy is.


(I think that if people were ready for it, it could be realised even on the national level with the present technical means. It would be functioning as I tried to explain in this post:
[www.world-wide-democracy.net])


However I agree that people, except in some special cases, are not ready for such pure democracy, that it may take generations to to be accepted on the global scale.


We should nevertheless cite the pure DD as our final goal, or as the ideal to be achieved, with the above explanation (that it may take generations to achieve), and that we on the road to this ideal will support any enhancing and expanding of I&R of the present representative democracy, and any attempts to inject more democracy outside of I&R.

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: GeoKo (IP Logged)
Date: July 25, 2006 10:07PM

Dear Bruce and DD colleagues,
it is very important to face the definition of WDDM and I congratulate you and all the paricipants of this debate.
I basically accept the initial definition you propose for DD, but I would like to have answers to the following two comments :
a) Don't you think that we should refer to the economic Direct Democracy (equal financial chances for all people) and the democratic way of decision making for prices of goods and services (not market capitalistic decisions, nor central Authorities' decisions) or do you think that the above are covered by th term you use "socio-political structure"?
b) Do you think that we should give a chance to other DD ways of decision making like rotation of all interested people in all authorities or choice of Executives by lot instead of havind in our DD definition the term "exclusively"(decision making by everybody)?
If you agree I will try to enter the above possibilities in our definition.


George L. Kokkas


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message
Re: Direct Democracy Definition
Posted by: MiKolar (IP Logged)
Date: July 29, 2006 06:47PM

George,
I believe that the general definition of DD does automatically include your two points: DD should mean equal chances in all areas, and if people are the exclusive source of all power, then they can also decide how this power should be exercised - they can decide about rotation of interested people in various offices, how to choose the executives, etc.
But please go ahead, and propose any amendments to the definition as you believe are necessary.
Mirek

mk, [democracy.mkolar.org]


Options: Reply To This Message • Quote This Message


Get Firefox!       Powered by Phorum.       PHP