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

01160: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 08:15:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

Albano, and list

My humble opinion is: Before building up democracy, it is the
democrats that shall be build first.

Or else: Since democracy is a product of the people's minds, it is
inside the people's minds that democracy shall be built first.

Btw, this is why I refuse voting together with gregarious-minded
people, to wit, people who support and vote the "ruled by Reps"
political arrangement and call it "Democracy". <g>

And this is why I'm proud to share-in to this 54 participants list,
so late, there where I read: "Of the 54, about 1% vote..."


Regards,

antonio




Albano ha scritto:
I didn't intervene in this list for 6 months ( no matter the reasons),
and I'm trying to be active again.
But I'm surprised to read things like "Representatives are elected to
serve the people and not rule the people". I don't know in which level
this kind of sentence is put on. It seems to me quite "hors sol"( over
the soil). The so-called "representative democracy" is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
There is a basic contradiction, because the representative is elected
to take the place of the citizens to rule IN THEIR name. There is
DELEGATION and not exercise of citizenship .
Siyès, a jacobine radical priest, one the ideologues of the French
Revolution (1789) made this remark : “*Les citoyens qui se donnent des
représentants renoncent et doivent renoncer à faire eux-mêmes la loi;
ils n’ont pas de volonté particulière à imposer. S’ils dictaient des
volontés, la France ne serait plus cet État représentatif, ce serait
un État démocratique. Le peuple, dans un pays qui n’est pas une
démocratie - et la France ne saurait l’être- ne peut parler, ne peut
agir que par ses représentants.”
*Trying to translate :* "The citizens who give themselves
representatives renounce to do themselves the laws; they have no
particular will to impose. If they dictated their wills, France will
be no more a Representatif State, it will be a democratic state. The
people, in un country which is not a democracy - and France could not
be so- cannot speak, cannot act otherwise than by his representatives."
*Representatives are elected to rule the people! To be elected "to do
good", "to serve", "to apply the general interest" is simply rhetorics.
So long*
*Albano Cordeiro*
*

Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan a écrit :

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,

No, I do not mean that we have independent representatives elected
"to rule with the consent of the governed". Representatives,
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.

Representatives, elected or not, are mere agents or employees of
the People and, therefore, do not have the ultimate powers or the
final say.

In the paragraph below quoted from my previous email what I mean is
that it is as nonsensical to talk about "to rule with the consent of
the governed" as to talk about "a sovereign People being ruled by an
individual or a gang of individuals":

"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"."


The matter you have to clarify now is whether representatives are
elected or appointed to rule over the people or to serve the people.
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.

If what you have meant is the latter, then for the avoidance of
confusion, the phrase, "the rule by representatives" should be
abandoned as it does not mean what you have in mind.

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
I have stated earlier seems to be have been misunderstood. By 'rule
by 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.

On the other hand Mark as well as many advocating DD are totally
against having anything to do with representatives. Jiri Polak's
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.

Mirek, answering your concern: What I meant was that we do need to
put our trust on representatives who are independents, free from
party 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.

PVR


On Mon, 21 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
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>
God Bless us all




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