Re: [WDDM] Proposal

["M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>]

Nico and all,
Nobody wants to ban parties. They will always associate like-minded
people around various causes. They should be able to present people with
information, choices. But they should not directly participate in
decision-making, in government. They should not make decisions for the
people. At least their direct influence in this are should be gradually
eliminated it if is impossible to ban it outright. In some countries
many people are definitely quite fed with the decision-making role of
the parties. For example here in Canada the ruling elite openly admits
that we even do not have a representative government, we have a
"responsible government" instead, i.e., the members of parliament are
not expected to represent the wishes of their constituents. They are
even often punished if they vote in such a way (it happened just a few
days ago, this fact that we do not have a representative system was
discussed at this opportunity). The parties are supposed to do the
decisions in a responsible way, who knows what that means, probably that
the leader of the ruling party knows better than the voters what is good
for them. MPs from each party are then required to vote in the
parliament on all the important decisions as the leader decides. Only
sometimes (on unimportant decisions, definitely not on the budget) they
are explicitly allowed to vote according to their conscience. This can
work satisfactory only as long as the ruling elite has enough integrity.
I think that situations like this should be corrected soon, otherwise
they can be any real progress toward DD.

Mirek

Nicolas Durand wrote:

> Dear PVR and Bruce,
>
> I’d like to react to 2 things.
>
> First, a point of detail: Bruce says “The Swiss make their
> Constitution, not the parties or any part of the government”. I
> believe that this is quite wrong. You could say “The Swiss CAN make
> their Constitution”. But many changes to constitutions (at federal and
> cantonal level) are actually TRIGGERED by the governments (=the
> parties), and accepted – or not – by the people, the Swiss. IMHO, the
> Swiss will NOT drop the political parties. But they are VERY attached
> to their I&R rights.
>
> Second, a point that is a little deeper: I think that partyless
> governance, in or in the elected house(s) is an interesting long-term
> thinking and talking subject, but that is WAY beyond anything we can
> actually DO today. If I may suggest one thing, it is that we define a
> few realistic goals (like e.g. I&R – in my opinion the most important,
> and then electronic debate, if not voting) and start really working on
> it (implementation within WDDM, education, “evangelism”, etc.). We are
> too few and have too little time right now to think about things that
> people can not even conceive! Just go around and ask people if they
> would like to drop political parties – most will tell you that parties
> are necessary, be it in or out of the house (most will not even be
> able to conceive that parties could exist, but not be elected as such
> in the house). In Europe, parties are part of the political life.
> Asking people to ban them, wherever it is, would be like telling them
> that the planet is getting warmer and they need to leave their car in
> the garage 3 days per week – this is absolutely unconceivable for 99%
> of the population.
>
> Nico
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com [bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Bruce Eggum
> *Sent:* dimanche, 10. juin 2007 21:03
> *To:* wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [WDDM] Proposal
>
> Dear PVR.
>
> I answer in your note. I thank you for your response.
>
> On 10 Jun 2007 07:51:04 -0000, *Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan*
> <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bruce,
> You have said - "We must have the power to intervene, and getting I&R
> is the first step. Once that is achieved we can 'take charge of our
> governments'. Until that is achieved, we are whistling in the wind".
>
> Assuming that the Swiss, who already have I&R in place, decide that
> they want to take charge of their government fully by doing away with
> the political parties, will the political parties agree to it? Is
> there such a possibility in the Swiss constitution, and if not, will
> the political parties allow such an amendment to be brought in? My
> guess is that the political parties will not allow this to happen.
>
> BE- The Swiss have Initiative and Binding Referendum. If the Swiss
> made an Initiative that the people were going to run the government
> using an electronic forum, the people making all decisions and the
> Parliament was only an administrative body, providing the Initiative
> was validated by Referendum, it would be so in Swiss land. (Binding
> Referendum) The Swiss make their Constitution, not the parties or any
> part of the government.
>
> That is why I say FIRST Initiative and Binding Referendum, than the
> people have control and can operate their government as they
> choose.(Please note Swiss political parties are subservient to the people)
>
> Most communities have the provision established by Magna Carta and
> subsequent law:: "Every person has the right to petition their
> government" and the government is subservient to the people. I believe
> if a huge majority petition, it can not be denied. ( just my view)
>
> PVR- Talking about other nations, may I know which of them is closest
> to being the second nation where I&R can be ushered in? I do not know
> any groups other than those on WDDM.
>
> BE- I only know of the groups on WDDM. WDDM was the initiating group
> for the I&E "movement".
>
> PVR- I am unable to understand your optimism for WDDM with the current
> definition of DD.
>
> BE- What definition of DD are you using?
>
> PVR- I believe that we should first concentrate on taking charge of
> governments, through constitutional means, and then the direct
> democratic processes like I&R can easily be ushered in.
>
> BE- I agree. However each present constitution is different. Each
> Nation or Community must do what is necessary to have I&R provisions
> in their Constitutions. WDDM was established to discuss I&R, explain
> what I&R is, why it is important for people to establish I&R in their
> Communities. WDDM intended to have information for activists to use to
> "Sell" I&R in their community. WDDM was not intended to take on
> government or parties or tell people what to do. WDDM is simply a
> clearing house of ideas and information which serve to assist people
> in their pursuit of I&R. When WDDM was established, there was little
> information on Swiss DD available and in languages other than Swiss.
>
> Do you want to establish I&R in your government PVR? Do you think in
> your Communities government, it is best to form a political party or
> some way get parties to support it? Than do it. You do this in your
> community But your solution does not fit all. What you have been
> advocating is that WDDM accept your idea as the WDDM supported way to
> achieve the goal of WDDM. It can be one of many but not THE way.
>
> [I realize some of the replys do not encourage you to do this]
>
> When you have a good plan, please publish it on your WDDM Website,
> please keep us posted on your accomplishments so others can learn and
> utilize your experience.
>
> PVR- You had said that WDDM stands for ushering in DD and not for any
> revolution. This is surprising. Then why call it a 'movement'? "DD
> education forum" would be a more appropriate name.
>
> BE- The WDDM Movement is not violent but a movement from full
> Representative to Direct Democracy (I&R). WDDM does not tell people
> how to activate I&R, only that I&R would be advantageous for them.
> They must "sell" the people of their community that they should
> establish I&R, than those people within community act in their
> community to do so. WDDM hopes to have available "selling points"
> people can utilize. WDDM does not tell them not to have a revolution,
> that is their choice. Yes WDDM hopes to provide "education" however it
> takes people to bring these works into action and recruiting people to
> do so establishes the movement toward I&R DD.
>
> A personal opinion, if violent overthrow is necessary and warranted,
> than it must be done. The US Constitution states the people must
> overthrow the government, violently if necessary, if the government
> becomes corrupt. [it may be time for the US people to do so?]
>
> Bruce
>
> PVR
>
> On 10 Jun 2007 07:51:04 -0000, *Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan*
> <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bruce,
> You have said - "We must have the power to intervene, and getting I&R
> is the first step. Once that is achieved we can 'take charge of our
> governments'. Until that is achieved, we are whistling in the wind".
>
> Assuming that the Swiss, who already have I&R in place, decide that
> they want to take charge of their government fully by doing away with
> the political parties, will the political parties agree to it? Is
> there such a possibility in the Swiss constitution, and if not, will
> the political parties allow such an amendment to be brought in? My
> guess is that the political parties will not allow this to happen.
>
> Talking about other nations, may I know which of them is closest to
> being the second nation where I&R can be ushered in? I am unable to
> understand your optimism for WDDM with the current definition of DD. I
> believe that we should first concentrate on taking charge of
> governments, through constitutional means, and then the direct
> democratic processes like I&R can easily be ushered in.
>
> You had said that WDDM stands for ushering in DD and not for any
> revolution. This is surprising. Then why call it a 'movement'? "DD
> education forum" would be a more appropriate name.
>
> PVR
>
> --
> Bruce Eggum
> Gresham Wisconsin, USA
> http://www.doinggovernment.com/
> Check out my Blog too
> http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/