ATD 200705-02 - Albano

[lpc1998 <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>]

Hi Albano,

Thank you for your reply.

You are right that, democracy requires a substantial majority of informed, thinking and participating citizens to be viable, and unfortunately the common people like us are too bogged down with the demands of work, family and private lives. Therefore, a democratic system of governance to be relevant to the ordinary people must take this into account.

Eric Lim (lpc1998)

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

> I'll like to reply as it will be, but these days I have not so much time
> to, and I'm sorry, because it could be an occasion to develop ideas
> concerning democracy.
> Jean Paul Sartre said once that "Liberty doesn't existe, what is
> existing is the fight to
>  Liberty". Liberty exists by the fact we fight
> for. And it is "inside" this fight that Liberty can exist. But by itself
> it is not existing.
> So it goes with democracy. It appears "behind" the fight for it. But we
> can perfect the "real existing democracy" (as un famous east german
> economist said about "real existing socialism").
> Nowadays the main menace coming the new right wing tendencies in some of
> the developped countries and "democratic dictatorships" in the South
> countries is that they are trying (and they believe it could be
> possible), by differents means of "opinion building" to ensure
> systematic success in elections.
> In almost all societies ringt wing opinion is in structurally in
> majority, but the difference is not a wide one. Some 5 to 10% people
> makes the difference. And this people can be influenced by controlled
> mass media. The mass media, controlled by great economic interests,
> has the possibility of
>  shifting 5 to 10% of the electors.
> This works because the all-around the world electoral system is
> representative. The electoral dispute, as some colleagues said in this
> list of discussion, is a dispute among elites in competition for taking
> power of all-nation decisions.The power of decision must be shared. Part
> for representative democracy, but in a function of a referee. The
> deliberatory process would be
> the function of participatory democracy....but you must have a large
> amount of politized citizens able to judge about collective affairs...
> Albano C.
>
> lpc1998 a écrit :
> > Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano,
> >
> > Annette, many thanks for your kind words.
> >
> > It is good you are conversant with the ways of the power elites. It
> > will come in handy when we discuss the strategies in dealing with
> > them. For the time being, let us look into the WDDM itself and see
> > whether we
>  could find a way to enhance its contribution to true democracy.
> >
> > Albano, your cautioning is timely. I have appended it below for the
> > convenience of readers since it was written in another email.
> >
> > Yes, as far as we know there has never been a true democracy, except,
> > perhaps, the one in Athens 2,600 years, but this does not mean we have
> > to surrender to false democracy. We are only a part of the continuum
> > of people who have been inspired by the spirit of democracy since its
> > Athenian birth.
> >
> > You are also right that we should not go for perfect true democracy.
> > After all, very little things in the real world are perfect.
> >
> > However, it is important that we do not confuse imperfect true
> > democracy with false democracy, with the latter brimming with
> > cheating, oppression, deceits, dishonesty, lies or half or distorted
> > truths while with the
>  former, democracy is operating under less than
> > ideal conditions.
> >
> > The so-called "Representative Democracy" as we know it is false
> > democracy because as you have said elsewhere it is not democratic or
> > ever meant to be. Moreover, while the representatives, when in
> > offfice, are representatives who rule in the name of the people, they
> > are often the representatives of somebody else, and are seldom the
> > representatives of the people who have supposedly elected them to office.
> >
> > What do you think is the first step we in WDDM could now take in the
> > directon of true democracy?
> >
> > Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> >
> >
> > =============================================
> >
> >
> > I continue to be surprised. Let's be simply realistic. In the world UN
> > counted some 40 or 50% of the countries ruled by democracies. But no
> > one
> > is a true democracy
>  and a true democracy never existed. There are only
> > false democracies or, if you prefer, imperfect democracies .But
> > imperfect democracy is the one that is possible. Talking about "true
> > democracy" is supposing it is possible to achieve an organisation of
> > the
> > society where citizens use the sovereign powers and arrive at solutions
> > acceptable for all. We must avoid that. There must be confrontation and
> > regulated conflits, and the result is not harmony. Let's only create
> > the
> > conditions for peace and justice (fair sharing of richness) and ....
> > long life to dissensus.
> >
> > Democracy is not only proceedings but also a list of values. These
> > values are not "harmonious". In fact ther must be couples of
> > contradictory values, the defenders of one term of a couple of values
> > contest the defenders of the second term. The regulation is to
> > maintain civic ways of
>  debate.
> > Albano Cordeiro
> >
> >
> >
> > */Annette Jackson <AJA95799(at)BIGPOND.NET.AU> /* wrote:
> >
> > Eric,the comments you made were very good,
> >
> > What are the keys to the power elite.
> >
> > o Their control of the executive powers of countries
> > o Having front people and groups e.g. Royals,
> > Presidents, The Pope, Religions and Politicians and
> > while they do the business in secret behind the scenes.
> > o Controlling the press that feed into peoples minds
> > o The Mastering of mind control
> > o The use of a scents of magic and deception to sell
> > something to the public
> > o Ensure they crush and get rid of heretics,free
> > thinking and liberal minded people
> >
> > Don Veitch and John Seale said that there have been 3 revolution
> > of the world.
> >
> > 1. Mass agriculture
> > 2. Inductrial revolution
> > 3. Mass communications revolution
>  (the world wide wed)
> >
> > The third is our great hope.
> >
> > * We need to make the internet the prefferred place where
> > people get their information,not the television
> > * We need to development a media, that caters to the average
> > person in all countries
> > * We need to use the likes of You Tube,My Space and so on to
> > sell our message.
> >
> > We need need define who are the good groups of society and join
> > forces.
> >
> > There are good people out there that have money and some power,we
> > need to define who they are.
> >
> > 60% of society do no like violence's, that is why violence's it
> > planted in people's protests.
> >
> > Recently in Australia our parliament,they had a conscience vote on
> > a topic, a poll after it, found that over 80% thought the
> > conscience vote was a good thing.
> >
> > I believe as Ricardo Semler found out, when people
>  have been
> > program, and it takes awhile to bring out openness in people
> > ,belief in their right to have free speech,Semler found that once
> > people did start to talk there was no stopping them,people will
> > need some leading to direct democracy.
> >
> > It is hard to break habits within people,and some personalities
> > will never like it direct democracy.
> >
> > I believe that some measure should be developed that rewards the
> > best national for the year, a public vote to decide,cannot vote
> > for own nation.
> > *An Example*
> > Key measures weighted to countries size.
> > The total value of all land,property & businesses
> > The personal & business saving
> > Known resources
> > Reserves of items and materials
> > The debts of the nation
> > Employment
> > Health
> > Income
> > Education
> > Condition of environment
> > Living Standards
> > Home
>  & Property ownership
> > Relationships with other nations
> > Fair trading with other nations
> > Human freedom and rights
> >
> > I have enjoyed the recent comments by all and can see we are
> > heading in a positive direction,we will have some hurdles to get
> > over,but l believe we have people in this movement with their
> > heads and hearts in the right place.
> >
> > Some of the final parts of whatever system we propose, should be
> > finalised by the people,what they would like to vote on and what
> > our representatives should look after,and how many time they would
> > vote per year.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Martin Jackson
> >
> > P.S.Bruce you might enjoy this,PINK-DEAR MR. PRESIDENT-MIKE
> > GRAVEL`s MySpace Song
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a0DZRyENss
> >
> > ~----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* lpc1998 [lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com]
> > *To:* WDDM [wddm@world-wide-democracy.net]
> > *Sent:* Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:58 AM
> > *Subject:* [WDDM] Achieving True Democracy 200705-01
> >
> > Dear PVR, Mark & Filia
> >
> > Thank you, PVR, for starting this exchange of views and ideas
> > on how to achieve true democracy.
> >
> > First of all, the People's Constitution is not just "to truly
> > reflect the people's opinion on how governance should be ...".
> > It should be the Will of the People that governs the
> > political, legal and social systems of the country.
> >
> > No, our main and immediate battle is not with the political
> > parties. It is to establish a community that develops and runs
> > on true (as opposed to existing false) democractic principles.
> > A thriving and growing true democracy community will
> > demonstrate to the ordinary people what is true democracy,
> >
>  what are its benefits, and that it provides a far superior
> > political system or governance that upholds their interests as
> > the real owners of the country.
> >
> > Moreover, such a community would be able to provide the
> > material, intellectual and other resources for the promotion
> > of true democracy on an ever increasing and sophisticated
> > scale and eventually when there is support from the majority
> > of the people we would have the first true democracy in the world.
> >
> > Political parties have in themselves full of contradictions
> > and weaknesses. We shall study these contradictions and
> > weaknesses carefully and use them against the political
> > parties. For instance, we can set one political party against
> > another.
> >
> > In the final analysis, what really matters is that the true
> > democracy principles we develop must not only be relevant to
> > the lives of the
>  ordinary people, but also be
> > potentially tremendously beneficial to them. It is only in
> > this way that it could win over the hearts and minds of the
> > majority of the people from the existing political system.
> >
> > When increasing number of people are won over to true
> > democracy and when they give their least preference to
> > election candidates from the political parties, increasing
> > number of existing politicians sensing "a new political
> > trend" would dump their political parties to be independent
> > candidates to boost their electoral chances. In such an event,
> > the obsolescence of the political party will become inevitable.
> >
> > So the question is how do we develop true democracy principles
> > and practices that could win over the majority of the people?
> > The starting main battle is with ourselves, not against each
> > other, but against the undemocratic forces that has
>  enslaved
> > our souls.
> >
> > Real-life meetings are useful for those who are able to
> > attend, especially for people from the same locality or
> > region. They do help to advance bonding, friendship,
> > understanding and, perhaps, trust.
> >
> > WDDM as a whole is globally orientated and a cyberspace
> > community of politically aware people. It is best it leverages
> > on available information technologies to enable it to evolve
> > into, perhaps, the first true democracy community albeit
> > cyber with a global reach.
> >
> > Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> >
> >
> >
> > */Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
> > <VIJAYARAGHAVAN.P(at)REDIFFMAIL.COM> /* wrote:
> >
> > Dear Eric Lim and all,
> > You have suggested that we need a 'people's constitution'
> > to truly reflect the people's opinion on how governance
> > should be and to end the present virtual 'rule' by
> > representatives.
>  Agreed. But how are we going to make this
> > happen unless we are going to occupy the political space
> > by taking on the political parties through a workable
> > strategy? And political space (lying within the collective
> > consciousness of people) is occupied in modern times by
> > contesting in elections. Hence our mission statement
> > should be tailored keeping this in focus.
> >
> > Dough Everingham in his e-mail has suggested we need to
> > oppose political parties like we oppose so many other
> > undesirable groups. But that is not enough to occupy
> > political space. We need to directly take on them and
> > allow the people to decide and choose between the same old
> > kind of party politics or a new kind of politics where
> > they are able to participate in matters of governance more
> > genuinely.
> >
> > PVR
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 May 2007 lpc1998 wrote :
> > >Dear PVR
>  and Mark,
> > >
> > > Yes, having read some of your emails, I am too convinced
> > that we do share many points of agreement.
> > >
> > > Yes, we are seeking for a system of government where
> > elected and other representatives of the people would be
> > constitutionally bound to serve the people. To this end,
> > we need a People's Constitution to replace the current one
> > written by the representatives for the representatives.
> > The key provisions in the People's Constitution are what
> > we have to develop and eventually to have the people's
> > endorsement. Yes, this is a very long journey indeed.
> > >
> > > However, we should not be limited by the principles and
> > practices of existing politcal system which effectively
> > makes the people's elected representatives rulers over the
> > people. We are only limited by the people's needs for an
> > effective government and at
>  any point of the time by the
> > level of the people's political maturity and resources for
> > public affairs and by available relevant secure technologies.
> > >
> > > "Government by Representatives" in practice is little
> > different from "Rule by Representatives". What we actually
> > want is "Goverment of the People, by the People and for
> > the People". And our aim is to make "Government by the
> > People, ..." a reality, and not for this critical concept
> > being used as a tool for deception or oppression.
> > >
> > > In this connection, I see no objection to
> > "Representatives in Government" who are bound by the
> > People's Constitution, if this is what you (PVR) have in mind.
> > >
> > > Yes, Mark, the people in a true democracy have the final
> > say on all matters concerning the people and country,
> > including whether they need representatives in Government,
> > but
>  such representatives must, at all times, remains
> > agents or employees of the people, and never be the
> > people's rulers. Here the basic assumption is that a
> > sovereign people would want to remain sovereign.
> > >
> > > In this connection, for the consitution to be the
> > People's Constitution, it has to be discussed by as many
> > people as possible and when it is ready, it has to be
> > actually endorsed by not less than 50%+1 of the total
> > eligible voters at the time of the voting.
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric Lim (lpc1998)
> > >
> >