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

01250: Re: [WDDM] Re: Charter and other thoughts

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 10 Jun 2007 14:59:13 -0000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: Charter and other thoughts

Dear Eric,
I fail to understand why in spite of my clarifications regarding this, still there is the impression that I am for banning of political parties. I am for banning the political parties WITHIN THE ELECTED HOUSE ONLY. There is a lot of difference between the two.

You say that - 'There is no basis for us to believe that partyless representatives would necessarily serve the people when in office, and not to rule them'. The provision to recall the elected representative should take care of this possibility. Moreover when every candidate is elected as an independent with the political parties being obviously banned from the election campaign as well, the candidate has to have enough merit on his own to be able to impress the voters. Such candidates are more likely to do justice to the post to which they are elected.

You have said - 'It is better to see the political parties wither away one by one before our eyes when they become a serious liability to the election candidates in the new political system'. What is the new political system you are having in mind and how is it going to be ushered in?

PVR


On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
>Hi Mark,
>
>  Yes, the act of banning political party is a bad precedent for the violation of an individual's freedom of association. If there is a ban of one form of peaceful, no-violent association of an individual, it would be so much more easier to ban another form, and yet another form, ....
>
>  Even successful prohibition on political parties as it is is unlikely to eradicate political parties. It would instead transform visible political parties into invisible ones. We already have so much troubles from visible political parties which can be seen and identified. Invisible ones would most probably make these troubles intractable. This point deserves more careful thoughts.
>
>  Moreover, although party politics is undoubtably evil, what we are really against is Rule by Representatives, whether such representatives are partyless or not. There is no basis for us to believe that partyless representatives would necessarily serve the people when in office, and not to rule them. Most probably, partyless representatives would have to form partless gangs to control the elected Legislature in order to have their agendas fulfilled. Then we would go back to square one: the Rule by Representatives.
>
>  It is better to see the political parties wither away one by one before our eyes when they become a serious liability to the election candidates in the new political system.
>
>  Yes, the present document you refer to as the WDDM Charter is an achievement for the community. Congratulations! to you and all who have worked for it. It is undoubtedly a progress.
>
>  However, these are some of my reservations:
>
>  1  It has yet to obtain true majority endorsement from WDDM members;
>
>  2  It does not encourage members to be active in WDDM affairs. Here, encouragement actually means encouragement, not coercion in one form or another. Basically, democracy means persuading people to agree with you, and not to obtain complaince by legislation through the control of the legislature.
>
>    3  Because it is so easily modified without a true majority, it could be easily hyjacked by a small motivated minority with an private agenda in the name of all.
>
>
>  Eric Lim (lpc1998)
>
>
>
>
>"Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net" <citizenp(at)citizenpowermagazine.net> wrote:
>  Hi Eric,
>
>I surely did like your thoughts in response to PVR's concept of
>'partyless democracy.' It strikes me that freedom of association
>precludes partyless politics. Prohibition on parties has been tried in
>Africa (Kenya I think). The results were terrible.
>
>As to the charter..... well, I think it's pretty good. Plus it has a
>very clear mechanism for modification, or even dissolution. If members
>really don't like it, it wouldn't take much to throw it out.
>
>Mark
>




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