Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Dear Franz, and forum members

Yesterday I was in a great hurry, so my reply to your sharp

question has been too hastened. Sorry for that. I shall deepen

my answer a bit more.

I think, during all these five years, we have spent lots of time

trying to define Democracy, but we did not try to define what

does "people" mean, whom we point out to as "the People".

In my opinion, "the people" are *indifferentiated* humans

who, in a democracy context, are empowered to vote.

Within that same context, among them, there are also some

differentiated humans who have been given -- or who give

themselves -- a political function over "the indifferentiated

people".  I mean, there are humans who are in office for

some political purpose over "the people".  Since they are far

fewer than "the people", let's conveniently adjudge them "elite".

Now, it does not matter, who these officials are, and how

they have come to perform a sociopolitical function -- like

initiating a policy, or stating out a constitutional rule -- over

the indifferentiated people. They are an elite of top-siders,

and all what they will do *after their own initiative* over

the people, is top-down.  This is IMHO the typical case of

the so-called "Representative Democracy" where the Reps

have the first and the last say on any policy.

Of course, also in our wanted DD arrangement, some

officials have to be chaired up by the bottom people in

order to implement policies and set up constitutional rules

-- but in which the people hold the first say, i.e., the right

of  Initiative, and the last say, i.e., the right of controlling

every political issue via referendum.

Coming to us. We, who have come to implement DD

discussion lists such as cicdd or WDDM, and who gave

ourselves the aim -- mission of getting *the People* into

the DD sociopolitical arrangement, by doing so are not

indifferentiated People, but an elite of activists. Therefore,

all what we do, all the policies - rules we may decide, are

to be adjudged *top-down* issues, since in doing so we

are an elite of activists who are setting up  these policies

and rules over the People .

One might say that this difference is irrelevant, since we

are implementing policies and rules that give the People

the first and the last say on everything.  Btw, this point

as been the kernel of endless discussions, and conflicts,

up to now.

I insist that this difference is relevant, because the People

are accustomed to assume the officials as *the authority*.

Therefore, when a policy is dropped onto them by some

official -- be the latter an elected politician or self-appointed

activist -- the People are incline to approve that policy-rule

not because it fits their territory-linked, bottom-up expressed

needs, but because they have been given it by the authority.

The risk is great, IMHO, because this way the People do

approve "democratically" policies and rules being delivered

top-down to them by some authoritative opinion-makers and

consent-builders, not by themselves.

Therefore, IMHO, we DD activists must prevent the People

from the risk of  assume any top-down given policy as really

democratic. It cannot be such, since it has been dropped from

top-down by initiative of an elite only - be the latter made with

the best committed DD activists -- ourselves included.

This Is why I always opposed, and still will do, as much

as I can, those of us who claimed that the policies they

decide are policies made by the people bottom-up. No

such policy can be adjudged grassroots bottom-up, thus

DD, because it has not been initiated by the People, but

by a distinguished elite of DD activists who put themselves

in office -- even though with the best DD purposes and

knowledge.

This is why I suggest us to call "fascist" all those officials

-- be they elected Reps or self-appointed activists -- who

pretend the policy they initiate and decide to be bottom-up,

as if these policies had been made "by the People".

Hoping this helps,

antonio

At 10:02 +0200 16-06-2005, Antonio Rossin wrote:

> IMHO, the elite are the officials, be
> them politicians or
> lobbyists or also burecrauts or activist
> volunteers, that
> does not matter.
> The people are the commoner ones "in
> the streets"
>
>
> antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 9:45 +0200 16-06-2005, Franz Isemann
> wrote:
> > Dear
> > Antonio,
> > you wrote
> > among other things:
> >
> > <<To me, at this stage DD means
> > some committed volunteers
> > to prepare  the fittest communication context in which the
> > people -- not an elite -- may have the first and the last say
> > on everything>>
> >
> > Can you
> > explain the definition of the people as opposed to an elite
> > ??
> > Are not the
> > people also an elite ?  Are not the elite also people
> > ?
> > I am still
> > having difficulties with your language, sorry.
> > Franz