Re: [WDDM] Response to PVR - Regarding rule by representatives

[lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>]

PVR,

It appears to me that there is some confusion over the words, "rule by representatives" as used by you. Would you please clarify what you actually meant by them.

In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected to serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the People who are the true owners of the country are sovereign, they are the rulers. So any talk of a sovereign People being ruled by an individual or a gang of individuals is simply nonsensical. So, in this context, is the _expression_ "to rule with the consent of the governed".

This would constitute a clean break from the present form of corrupted "democracy" which is, in fact, the Rule by Representatives (or "Reprocracy"). In many of the "democracies" of our days, through a legal, but often dishonest process, bosses of organised gangs known as political parties claim the right to rule over the people for a fixed, but renewable terms of usually 4 to 6 years with some having unlimited renewability.

Party politics everywhere is clearly evil, but is it a necessity? You seem to believe in the necessity of party politics. I would concede that it was perhaps a necessity before the Information Age. But we are now at the dawn of the information Age which by abolishing geographical distances in the area of individual communication makes true democracy a highly realisable possibility.

And with true democracy, party politics would become obsolete when the People develop the means to elect truely their own representatives to serve the people and the country and not the representatives of politcal party bosses to serve such bosses and their sponsors.

Eric Lim (lpc1998)

"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I completely agree with Mark.
>
> PVR,
> I must say that I am somewhat puzzled by your suggestion. I do not
> see how it fits with your proposal on transition to "Partyless
> Governance mechanism" from our previous private conversation?
>
> Mirek
>
> Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Mark,
> > Thanks for your reply. You have stated that 'We don't want to be
> > governed. We want to move from representative democracy to direct
> > democracy'. This position is due to utter frustration with the present
> > form of representative democracy. By taking this position we will be
> > aiming at a near impossible goal.
> >
> > Besides don't we put our trust in our parents and others close to us
> > in day to day life, to take care of our
>  concerns? Without some degree
> > of trust nothing is possible in our life. We need to improve our
> > system so that our trust is not misused by the unscrupulous.
> >
> > PVR
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 20 May 2007 Mark Antell,editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote :
> > >Hi PVR,
> > >
> > >You've stated a position clearly: "We need to put our trust into
> > somebody to take care of our concerns."
> > >
> > >I disagree with that position. And I think that most of us in WDDM
> > disagree with that position.
> > >
> > >We don't want to be governed. We want to move from representative
> > democracy to direct democracy.
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >PS. Yours is a legitimate, honest, and widely held position. Though
> > I disagree with what you say, I'll defend your right to say it.
> > >
> > >-----------------------
> > >
> > >Vijayaraghavan
>  Padmanabhan wrote:
> > >
> > >>Dear All,
> > >>Continuing from my previous letter, an important matter to be
> > decided before we formulate a mission statement is to decide whether
> > by aiming at Direct Democracy, we are doing away with the concept of
> > 'rule by representatives'. This particular view is held by some
> > advocates of DD. While this may be the ideal theoretical goal, it may
> > be nearly impossible in practice. We need to put our trust into
> > somebody to take care of our concerns. This is the natural order of
> > things in life. What we need is to have a mechanism where our
> > representatives are directly accountable to the people and can be
> > recalled at any time if sufficient people feel so. I request that
> > members express their views regarding this since this is important to
> > formulate a workable mission statement.
> > >>
> > >>PVR
> >
>  >>
> > >
> >