From: | Albano <cordei(at)ccr.jussieu.fr> |
---|---|
Date: | Sat, 26 May 2007 23:27:06 +0200 |
Subject: | Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy |
Dear Eric,
Thanks for your reply which further clarifies our view point, which I
emphasize, is identical. Representatives are elected to serve the
people and not rule the people. That is what they are supposed to do
in a true democracy. However the present day politicians, while
campaigning during elections, impress on the voters that they will
serve the people to the best of their ability. But once they are
declared elected they undergo transformation and start 'ruling' in the
real sense of the term.
We need a system where the representatives stick to their pre-election
level of commitment to the voters. Addressing your concern, perhaps
'government by representatives' would be a better term than 'rule by
representatives'.
PVR
On Mon, 21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
Hi PVR,"to rule with the consent of the governed". Representatives,
No, I do not mean that we have independent representatives elected
independent or otherwise, should not rule over the people because, in
democracy, it is the People who rule ("demo" = "People", "cracy" = "to
rule"). I.e the People are sovereign meaning that the People have the
ultimate powers in the country and therefore the People have the final
say on all matters concerning the people and country.
People and, therefore, do not have the ultimate powers or the final say.
Representatives, elected or not, are mere agents or employees of the
that it is as nonsensical to talk about "to rule with the consent of
In the paragraph below quoted from my previous email what I mean is
the governed" as to talk about "a sovereign People being ruled by an
individual or a gang of individuals":
serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the People
"In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected to
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"."
elected or appointed to rule over the people or to serve the people.
The matter you have to clarify now is whether representatives are
In the former (to rule over the people), the representatives while in
office as rulers hold the ultimate powers in the country and have the
final say on all matters concerning the people and the country, while
in the latter (to serve the people), the representatives are mere
agents or employees of the people who could, at any time, hire or fire
them (the respresentatives) from the jobs of serving the people.
confusion, the phrase, "the rule by representatives" should be
If what you have meant is the latter, then for the avoidance of
abandoned as it does not mean what you have in mind.
I have stated earlier seems to be have been misunderstood. By 'rule by
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I totally agree with what Eric Lim has stated but unfortunately what
representatives' I meant what Eric has in mind - 'rule with the
consent of the governed'. I am totally against party politics. But I
feel that we still need to elect our representatives - all of them as
independents - free from any party obligations. This will ensure that
we will have a partyless mechanism within the elected house to carry
out the business.
against having anything to do with representatives. Jiri Polak's
On the other hand Mark as well as many advocating DD are totally
formulation of semi-direct democracy also does not fit into it. Mark,
kindly clarify further. Whatever be our differences regarding the
nomenclature, we are united in the spirit of ushering in a truer
democracy and ending the pseudo-democracy that is prevalent. However
differences have to be sorted out to formulate a workable action plan.
put our trust on representatives who are independents, free from party
Mirek, answering your concern: What I meant was that we do need to
obligations, assuming that the partyless mechanism within the elected
house would enable them to act according to their conscience. It is
still possible that some may get elected as independents and after
that behave in a partisan manner favouring a particular political
party (kept out of bounds from the elected house) or group. The press
and other pressure groups would expose such deviations and the voters
can always recall them.
"rule by representatives" as used by you. Would you please clarify
PVR
On Mon, 21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
PVR,
It appears to me that there is some confusion over the words,
what you actually meant by them.
serve, but never to rule over the electors or voters. When the People
In Direct or True Democracy, representatives could be elected to
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".
corrupted "democracy" which is, in fact, the Rule by Representatives
This would constitute a clean break from the present form of
(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.
You seem to believe in the necessity of party politics. I would
Party politics everywhere is clearly evil, but is it a necessity?
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.
the People develop the means to elect truely their own representatives
And with true democracy, party politics would become obsolete when
to serve the people and the country and not the representatives of
politcal party bosses to serve such bosses and their sponsors.
present
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
degreeform 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
wrote :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
it mayHi PVR,somebody to take care of our concerns."
You've stated a position clearly: "We need to put our trust into
disagree with that position.
I disagree with that position. And I think that most of us in WDDM
democracy to direct democracy.
We don't want to be governed. We want to move from representative
MarkI disagree with what you say, I'll defend your right to say it.
PS. Yours is a legitimate, honest, and widely held position. Though
decided before we formulate a mission statement is to decide whether
-----------------------
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan wrote:
Dear All,
Continuing from my previous letter, an important matter to be
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,
important tobe 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
God Bless us allformulate a workable mission statement.
PVR>