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

01161: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

From: lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 05:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Truer Democracy

Hi Albano,

You said: "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 ."

You have missed the sentence immediately following your quote "Representatives are elected to serve the people and not rule the people".
It is : "That is what they are supposed to do in a true democracy."

In my discussion with PVR, he was agreeing with me that in a true democracy, representatives should be elected to serve the people and not rule the people.

Have a nice day!

Eric Lim (lpc1998)




Albano <cordei(at)ccr.jussieu.fr> wrote:
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]