Eric, the French have an Inquisitorial legal system, what do the people
think of it,
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:54 AM
Subject: [WDDM] ATD 200705-04 - Shaking
False Democracy to the Core
Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano, Mirek &
Nicolas,
No Mirek, I do not make any claim "that only 6 members participated in
the deliberation and approval of the present Charter. ... " The
relevant text of my email is reproduced below for easy reference. It begins
with "For example, if ..." meaning that it is not a statement of fact or
claim. It is only an illustration of, in this case, what I understand by a
"true majority" in decision-making. I do not know how many members actually
participated in the deliberation and approval of the present Charter.
After the twists and turns of last year's attempt at writing the WDDM
Current Oprating Rules, I have decided then to join the
non-participating majority. Except for a couple or two which were open out of
curiosity, most emails on the WDDM organisational matters were
transferred to a folder unread. I do not wish to re-visit the circumstances
surrounding last year's events.
==========================================
Eric:
"For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6 members
participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6 approve and endorse
the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 6, because for it to be a
current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by a simple
true majority of 28 members out of 54 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the simple and
honest meaning of a true majority)."
============================================
The figures 54 and 6 in this quote were picked up from an email
I read out of convenience and what I thought to be closer to reality, but
unfortunately it has caused confusion and for this I apologise.
For avoidance of confusion, I wish to amend the figures in the relevant
text from 54 to 100 and 6 to 10 respectively. The substance and logic of my
illustration remain unchanged. Thus, the amended version of the relevent text
is as follows:
"For example, if we have a membership of 100, and only 10 members
participate in the deliberation process and even if all 10 approve and endorse
the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 10, because for it to be a
current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by a simple
true majority of 51 members out of 100 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the simple and
honest meaning of a true majority)."
==============================================
The issue of false majority is a critical one in the battle against false
democracy. False majority is the core pillar of false democracy. This is
because the ruling elites of a country seldom obtain a true majority in a
ballot. So they invented a legal fiction majority. As an illustration, let us
say there are 100 million voters in the country. Voters turnout is only 40%;
i.e 40 million voters voted in the election. In order to declare a victor
among the competing elites, they have written into the country's constitution
that the condidate who polls the greatest number of "valid" votes wins. The
"valid" votes in the illustration invariably would be less than 40
million after deducting the "disqualified" votes which includes the spoilt,
blank and protest votes.
So in a false democracy:
1 The ruling elites survives on legal fictions contrary to the
actual facts or truths;
2 They seldom have a true majority of 50%+1 of the total eligible
votes and consequently they do not have the moral authority to govern the
country. Their rule is often characterised by the extensive use of the
coercive powers of the state;
3 Since they do not have the true majority of 50%+1 from the
people, their claim of having won the mandate from the people is often not
only false, but also an outright lie, a cheat and blatantly dishonest since
such claims are made knowingly.
4 They conveniently disregard the voters who have rejected
participation in their balloting processes and yet they shamelessly claim the
right to govern these disregarded voters with their consent (the consent
of these disregarded voters).
5 They conveniently justify the effective disenfranchisement of a
very substantial number of voters, sometimes even a clear majority, on a
so-called phenomenon of "voters' apathy" when, in fact, most voters who do not
participate in the ballot or referemdum, do so intentionally because they have
lost their confidence in the balloting system or processes. A fair and
honest interpretation when a voter does not turn up to vote, is that he
is, in fact, voting against all the prescribed condidates or issues and/or
against the ballot system or processes.
6 The deeming of what the voter has, in fact, not done as
having done by him through a dishonest legal process is a cynical and blatant
violation of the individual's freedom of conscience or choice. The voter is
effectively being robbed of his vote by a most undemocratic means.
7 The ruling elites sitting on a pedestal everywhere would most
likely react vehemently against the insistence for a true majority in
decision-making precisely because true majority exposes their deceit and lack
of legitimacy and renders most, if not all, of their institutions and
organisations unworkable.
In view of the above and of WDDM's mission to achieve true democracy for
itself and for the people of the world, WDDM should reject false majority in
its internal governance. Inspired WDDM members have to work hard and with
preseverence to achieve true majority (50%+1) decision-making. Any candidate
or issue that does not have 50%+1 of the total eligible votes does not have
majority support. It is as straightforward as that. Any candidate or issue
that receives 10 votes out of a total 100 eligible votes receives just
that: 10 votes out of 100. Any legal fiction that converts these 10 votes into
majority support is just fiction.
With such an achievement together with the resolute rejection of the use
of false majority, WDDM would be leading people everywhere in shaking false
democracy to the core.
==============================================
Mirek's Proposal:
"When a decision is to be made, every member must get
all the information about an issue, and be informed that a vote will be held
well in advance. Everybody can freely participate in all the deliberations and
in the vote. If a member chooses not to participate in a vote, it will be
deemed that (s)he abstained in this particular vote. By abstaining in a vote
either explicitly or implicitly (by not participating at all), this member
states that (s)he leaves the
decision in this matters to others who are participating in the vote, and that
when a decision is made, (s)he will accept the decision made by others
and not object to its implementation.
this would be the best incentive for
everybody to participate if they have any opinion on the
matter."
This proposal when adopted by WDDM would enshine in its Charter false
majority for decison-making and would make it a false democracy too. And
more importantly, WDDM would have surrendered the moral right to challenge or
to lead others to challenge this core pillar of false democracy.
It also proposes to adopt the legal fiction of
deeming non-participation of members as authorising others by such
members to decide on their behalf. This is false and contrary to
fact or truth, and a denial of a member's freedom of choice or conscience for
non-participation. Also it is a bad precedence for deeming what the members or
voters have not voted for as having voted for by them.
It also proposes to deny a member's right to object or to disregard
decisions that do not have true majority support, a position any democracy
believer is obliged to take.
In connection with the last point, it is also an implicit rejection of
I&R. I&R is the mechanism for any member who objects, challenges
or disputes any rule or decision of WDDM to have it amended or changed in a
manner he/she believes to be necessary provided he/she could convince a true
majority of the members to support the amendment or change he proposes even if
such a rule or decision was made or supported by the current
true majority or by a previous true majority that included him/her.
I&R ensures that no rule or decision of a democracy is cast in
stone and put above the members or the people. It allows even a single
member or voter, the minority of minorities, to begin a process that could
bring about the necessary changes and makes progress possible.
Mirek, in view of the above, would you like to reconsider your
proposal?
================================================
Nicolas:
"I am a very strong
supporter of the blank vote. I think that it needs to be added to every poll
and election, and be treated as another candidate or option, meaning that if
more people vote blank than for a candidate or an option, things must be
re-shuffled."
Yes, Nicolas, you are right. The people must have the option to vote
officially against all the prescribed candidates or issues they do not
support. I would advocate one step further: to be able to vote against the
system or the ballot processes in which they have no confidence. It is
duty of the officials concerned to build a ballot system the people can
support. They should not be allowed to sweep their incompetence or treachery
under the carpet of "voters' apathy".
As it is, apart from blank vote, there is a stronger alternative known as
"protest vote". It is to draw a straight line diagonally across the ballot
paper to leave no doubt that the voter is not endorsing any of the prescribed
candidates and/or that the voter is voting against the ballot system or
processes. It also demonstrates that the voter can think out of the boxes
prescribed by false democracy and to deny false democracy the pretty
little crosses in these boxes that false democracy would love so much to
see.
Eric Lim (lpc1998)
"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
wrote:
Dear
Eric,
I think that you gave in your message below a very good summary of
the
situation. I especially agree with:
> At this juncture,
some members may ask why must WDDM itself be truly
> democratic so
long as it could lead the world to true democracy. The
> simple
answer is that an undemocratic WDDM has no credibility even to
> talk
about democracy, let alone to lead others.
But I beg to differ with
your claim that only 6 members participated in
the deliberation and
approval of the present Charter. In fact, everybody
participated at
least passively. Everybody was informed about the
deliberation and about
the vote. They were actually repeatedly begged to
vote or express
themselves somehow. If they didn't like the charter
proposal, why did
they not voted explicitly against it??? It was so easy
to type NO in an
e-mail. There are absolutely no sanctions in this group
against the way
people vote (unlike in some false democracies you
mentioned). I suppose
that it was made clear enough that not sending an
explicit vote equals
abstaining in a vote. If it was not yet made clear
enough, it should be
written in big letters somewhere. I do not see
personally other way how
to operate in a group like this. In a real
country you may legislate
that voting is compulsory, and fine people if
they do not come to the
booth (I think Australia is doing that?). But I
do not think that is
particularly vise even in a real-life society. Can
you really get an
informed vote by dragging people by force to the
voting booth? All
people should be of course encouraged by all means to
participate in
decision making. But voluntarily, they should have a
choice not to
participate when they don't feel like. Perhaps everybody
should be
required to confirm that they were informed about a vote?
The basic
principle should be: Everybody should get all the
information about an
issue, be well aware that a vote will be held. And
it would be up to
them if they will participate in the deliberations an
in the vote, and
how they will participate. If they choose not to
explicitly vote, it
will be deemed that they abstained in this
particular vote. I suggest
that we officially adopt this principle at
WDDM, and write it up
explicitly into the WDDM rules (or Charter). So
this is my formal
request to the WDDM board to put this proposal in due
course to further
discussion and vote (maybe as an amendment of
Charter)..
Mirek
lpc1998 wrote:
> Dear PVR,
Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano,
>
> The first step, in my
view, we at WDDM could take towards true
> democracy is to understand
the critical nature of the present WDDM
> members in order to tailor
a true democracy Charter or Constitution
> relevant and meaningful to
them. Continued obsession with WDDM history
> would only imprison us
in the past and deny us our future possibilities.
>
> Those of
us who had worked on the Current Operating Rules last year
> and
earlier are generally conscious of the fact that WDDM
> members
broadly comprise of two groups: Group A comprises of members
> who
see WDDM as a cyber forum for the exchange of views and
> sympathies
in an oasis of politically aware people (surrounded by a
> hostile
world) who reject the Rule by the Representatives and their
> false
democracy. Many of these people are excited over their personal
>
visions of a true democracy where the ordinary people are sovereign.
>
> However, many are very busy and are fully committed in their own
> projects and programs and have neither the time nor the enthusiasm
to
> develop WDDM further as a vehicle for the global development of
true
> democracy.
>
> At least one member is allergic to
the ballot and the majority will,
> and another who believes that
true democracy must be imposed top
> down on the ordinary people by
undemocratic means. And there are also
> some who preach true
democracy like a religion to be accepted by blind
> faith and would
want all heretics to be burnt on the stakes.
>
> Group B
comprises of members who also sees great potential in WDDM as
> a
global movement in the forefront in the battle for the advancement
>
of world democracy. And some with faith so great that, despite the
>
pain and anguish following every major setback, still soldier on,
>
especially inspired by the talents and enthusiasm of new comers.
>
> Because true democracy is also associated with values such as the
> human rights, the freedom of the individual including the freedoms
of
> the conscience, choice and association, the pursuit of
individual
> happiness, political equality, respect for the decision
of the
> majority made for the common good, unity in diversity, and
so on, it
> is futile for the minority Group B members to try to
impose their
> views and beliefs on the current majority Group A
members, whether
> such imposition is done knowingly or unknowingly
because democracy
> without its attendant values would quickly
degenerate into the rule of
> the mob.
>
> Anyway, any
rule or Charter approved a small minority of members has
> neither
the moral or legal authority on the relatively vast majority
> who,
in the first place, have nothing to do with it. At the very most,
>
as it is it is only morally binding on those who participate in its
>
deliberation and adoption and most probably, it will be ignored by the
> rest. For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6
members
> participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6
approve and
> endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said
6, because for
> it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it
needs to be
> approved by a simple true majority of 28 members out of
54 (i.e at
> least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true
majority).
>
> So the road to a truly democratic WDDM is a long
and arduous one;
> there is no easy short cut based on a false
majority. The Charter must
> be approved by at least a 50%+1 majority
of the eligible voters. This
> is, in fact, a good thing as it would
mean no hyjacking of WDDM by a
> small group of people.
>
> So what is the best cause of action that can be taken by the Goup B
> Members for a truly democratic WDDM? Yes, they must presevere in
> writing a truly democratic Charter or Constitution for WDDM, a
> Charter or Constitution that recognizes the Group A's rights as
WDDM
> members and at the same time, respect its decision not to
participate
> in WDDM's affairs.
>
> So in the Group B's
deliberation and voting and to determine the 50%+1
> majority in
decision-making, Group B has to maintain its own Register
> of
Voters.
>
> It is important to remember that until the Charter
is adopted by not
> less 50%+1 of the WDDM total membership, it
remains the Charter for
> Group B only.
>
> Of course,
it is tempting to resort to false majority for
> decision-making, but
in so doing, WDDM would be just another false
> democracy claiming to
democratic like so many false democracies. Do
> note that the
undemocratic Bush had garnered about 30% of the eligible
> votes in
the 2004 Presidential Election and our democracy should not
> be more
false than his.
>
> The simple and honest truth is that for a
true democracy to be viable,
> at least a comfortable majority of its
members or citizens has not
> only to be reasonably informed,
thinking and participating, but also
> has to be honest, fair and
diligent in the handling of public affairs.
>
> For a truly
democratic WDDM to emerge eventually, Group B members have
> to
resolve to uphold democratic principles, practices and values truly
>
and honestly, by both words and deeds, to a point when many Group A
>
members would be inspired to cross over to Group B to assist making
>
the necessary truly majority decisions for WDDM.
>
> At this
juncture, some members may ask why must WDDM itself be truly
>
democratic so long as it could lead the world to true democracy. The
> simple answer is that an undemocratic WDDM has no credibility even
to
> talk about democracy, let alone to lead others. And most
probably,
> like all false democracies, a small group of members will
be speaking
> and promoting their personal democracy ideas in the
name of many.
>
> Do also note that WDDM is a oasis of
politically aware people. If we
> are unable to achieve true
democracy in WDDM, we are not ready to face
> the politically inert
masses in the outside world.
>
> So Ladies and Gentlemen, are
we ready to take our first step towards
> true democracy?
>
> Eric Lim
(lpc1998)