PVR,
I see your key-issue. It appears to be a coin with two sides:
1. Education, to make the people understand critically and consciously,
unlike herd;
2. Organization, to make the people become effective.
Let's agree, even the last idiot should understand that these two
different sides of the
democracy solution are expected to co-operate together, if Democracy is
to be up as
a political, collective solution worldwide.
Unfortunately, many activists -- mostly some (non-native) Americans --
are unable to
accept differences. They understand consensus only, and reject any
difference to their
line, any criticism even constructive, as an offensive attempt "to
destroy everything".
That is, these one-eye-blinded organizers see organization only. No
matter to them,
if their organized people follow like herd, provided only they lead the
bandwagon on
(self-appointed) behalf. I do not follow.
Btw, you can read my last essay on this Key-issue at:
http://www.wmgd.net/archive/articles/antoniorossin.html
or, in a recent, more detailed version, at:
http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/demofunda.htm
Kind regards,
antonio
Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan ha scritto:
Dear Bruce, Antonio and all,
I think this conversation between Bruce and Antonio illustrates the key
issue facing WDDM. Bruce says that he visualizes DD as people's initial
method of controlling government. The people need a structure to
develop initiatives and petitions they agree upon to tell government
what their community is demanding.
My question is that how is
this going to transform into true democracy when people are still out
of govt. controlled by political parties. Already there are methods of
petitioning and developing initiatives available for people to make
known their preferences as in the swiss system. But still they are at
the receiving end. There is no clear strategy on how the people are
going to gain control over governance. If there is a final method of
controlling the government that is being contemplated, Bruce, kindly
make it known. Under such circumstances, Antonio's grievance
over 'setting up a bureaucratic infra structure as the core point of
DD' is valid. First the exact way in which the goal is going to be
realized should be made clear. Without this WDDM with its present rules
and regulations will end up as one more political party. The values
that Eric has clearly explained, which should guide WDDM, will remain
just on paper.
Pushing this issue under the carpet is not going to help.
PVR
Yes Antonio, I am aiming to a Direct Democracy which is the peoples
initial method of controlling government. Yes the people need structure
to develop initiatives and petitions they agree upon to tell government
what their community is demanding.
Bruce
Thanks for your agreement.
Yet unfortunately, you want to set up a (top-down led) bureaucratic
"infrastructure" to be the core point of (direct) democracy. In other
words, you seem like you're aiming at a kind of directed democracy.
antonio
Bruce Eggum ha scritto:
Yes Antonio, I agree with your statement " I would suggest
Democracy is a society where the people (not the bureaucrats!) have the
first say --and the last say, in respect of local laws."
That is why "the people" need an infrastructure to discuss and develop
their community's laws and needs so they can be united and petition
[demand] government do what they want done. Unless the people vote
democratically and make decisions, those decisions will be made for
them. It is a matter of the people taking responsibility and exercising
their power.
Regards, Bruce
ps - we people are not bureaucrats, that is government agencies.
On 6/3/07, Antonio
Rossin <
rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
VPR,
and others,
The difficulties WDDM faced these years, have not been overcome still.
These difficulties are still up, caused by some members who want to get
(direct) democracy being turned into a bureaucratic organization.
Anyway, their attempts to rule democracy by a bureaucratic board seem
to have revealed a flop, so late, because of the refusal of members
inside - and the member inside I dare say - to keep on being ruled by
the usual
bureaucratic power-seekers' class.
That is, in reply to the question: "What the Hell is Democracy", I
would suggest Democracy is a society where the people (not the
bureaucrats!)
have the first say --and the last say, in respect of local laws.
antonio
|