[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00837: Re: decisions at wider levels

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:01:45 +1000
Subject: Re: decisions at wider levels

Just 2 points. Richard.
1. Ad hoc decisions are OK for one-off cases, as when juries are
empanelled or legal probes conducted.
But there are situations where implementation of decisions may take
years or generations, including some law of the sea issues at world
level, and local civic services like water supply, public libraries.
education courses -- some of them requiring ongoing research and
updating. Then the 'nested networks of stakeholders' may involve nearly
whole of life career participants.The process must sometimes be more
like public servant bureaucracies employing technical experts than
treaty making, but whichever pattern of consultation is dominant there
will remain a need for vigilance of the public and stakeholders, and
for transparency and answerability of agents.

2. While existing legal authorities claiming to serve thecommunity
etain power it will be wise to coofrdinatge pblic vigilance and voting
priorities as via www.simpol.org
-- Doug
===

hdr00837-tiff.gif

Doug Everingham wrote:

I don't see any of your principles as "silly". On the contrary.

In advocating use of coordinated citizens' voting to overcome

existing domination of governments by economic bullies I am

not abandoning support for local efforts, transparency,

answerability and experiment. The scenario you use as an

example is a good argument for decentralized initiatives.

However, you do not rejetc the need for eventual decisions at

wider (national, even international) levels, for example in

establishing education policy. I submit that this can only be

made quicker,  easier and fairer by nested networks of all

stakeholders (teachers' groups; parents' groups, child

psychologists, students. local associations etc.) and often

only achieved in coordination with elected lawmakers.

Hence the critical usefulness of SimPol.




Hi Doug,

Within the context of hierarchical governments, and with power
delegated to lawmakers, what you say makes a lot of sense. However,
that is not the context I have been talking about.

My vision of a democratic society is based on the principles of local
sovereignty and harmonization. Harmonization is a way of approaching
problems based on taking all concerns into account. Local sovereignty
means that each community can operate however it likes -- provided that
it maintains internally an inclusive democratic process, and that it
deals with its neighbors on the basis of harmonization.

In such a society, education policy would be determined locally. Many
different approaches would be tried, around the world, and those that
work best can be adopted by other communities. The rate of
education-evolution would be much greater than in a centralized
approach.

Other policies, such as dealing with fishing on the high seas, do
require a large-scale policy-making process. I agree with you that this
process needs to involve "nested networks of all stakeholders". In the
society I am envisioning, however, this would be accomplished by means
of temporary councils of delegates from stakeholder communities,
meeting to harmonize all the concerns involved. This is more like a
'treaty' process than a 'legislative' process.

Whether or not such a society can be achieved, and by what means, is a
separate issue that we can discuss if you like.

rkm

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]