I agree we need to provide a definition of what we are speaking of. True democracy, could be the base definition of simply democracy. (1) Government by the people.
We add direct or true because to often democracy was automatically considered "representative".

Of course I agree a Hierarchy is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the people. If not, who/what/how could the people govern?

Perhaps the whole concept of king and his men must be discarded. If the people held a people's assembly of a given community, they could decide the goals, objectives, needed in their community. (World community also) The people bring forth Initiatives, discussion and fine tunning, than those receiving a given number of votes (I am using electronic methods to "vote" here) they could be submitted for Binding Referendum. When the Initiative was accepted by the community it would become a directive. Than the elected "representatives" who would be simply administrators would implement the peoples directive.

There would be no need for "party's" as Administration would be a "job" people with the qualifications could be elected for. The qualifications determined by the people could be readily evaluated by past performance of the individual. Being elected, they could be UN-elected relatively easily. Much quicker than an employee who would have to be "fired" for specific cause.

Of course there would be factions (not called party's but still groups of people with like interests) also NGO's and media. These groups would add to the information network for the people to understand the issues. Of course monopolies would have to be delt with.

We need to clarify better our goal, agenda. WDDM began with Initiative & Binding Referendum (I&BR) as the key to people having control of their government. I still believe I&BR is the necessary first step for the people to govern. I also believe the people would loose their power to govern themselves without I&BR.

Regards, Bruce Eggum

Bruce Eggum Wisconsin USA
www.doinggovernment.com