| From: | Jon Lalanne <moelalon2000(at)yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT) |
| Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD |
Hi Vijayaraghavan,
Thanks for the well thought out email.
My comments *** below
Let us keep this going
Regards
Jim Powell
From: Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan
[vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com]
Sent: 12 Mar 2008 09:23 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Getting the whole picture about DD
Dear All,
I agree with the definition suggested by Roy Daine -
"Direct democracy -
Wherein sovereignty is vested directly in the
people, who, in exercise of
their inalienable right to self-determination and
under universal suffrage,
determine the structure and functioning of their own
governance." *** Agree
with this. We need a snappy marketing phrase such as
"The politicians are
the employees of the voters" or on the negative,
"Politicians are 5 year
dictators". Any other ideas from the members?
This is broad and accomodative of various points of
view. However this is
precisely the definition that would be offered by
all those who believe in
'Democracy' and not particularly 'Direct Democracy'.
Similar would be the
case with other definitions. The definition - 'DD is
Initiative and Binding
referendum' focusses on what exactly needs to be
done to bring about True
Democracy, which implies that what we have in the
name of Democracy today is
'false'. What is it that makes it false? Undoubtedly
there are shortcomings
and the visible symbol of this is the unsatisfactory
governance based on
political parties. *** Well put
All of us want to get rid of the false and usher in
the true. The first step
would be to identify where to start. It has to start
where power lies at
present as otherwise it would be an exercise in
futility. We have to declare
that we are opposing the concept of political
parties and not any political
party as such. Only then would an alteration in
dynamics in favour of True
Democracy be possible. *** I believe that political
parties are necessary.
The Swiss system seems to work well. Let us regard
the country as a
"company". The politicians are the directors. They
are employed to run the
"company". The difference being that the
"shareholders", who are the voters
have the right to overturn the decisions of the
directors and directly
instruct the directors through initiative. The
politicians simply become
less important, not all important.
I&BR is focussed on the process that would enable
True Democracy but it does
not tell us how to get there. It ignores the reality
of political parties
wielding power in the present day. The definition of
DD should indicate how
it is going to be attained in the real world. I
would suggest that the
following be added to the one suggested by Roy
Daine, at its end -
".....without the intermediary of political
parties". *** The voters need to
get on with their own lives. There
There is a story where five blind men encountered an
elephant, but each one
of them felt only one part of the whole. The person
who touched the ear told
that the animal is like a huge fan. The person who
touched the trunk told
that it was like huge moving pipe. The person who
touched the limb told that
the animal was like a pillar. The person who touched
the body told that it
was like a rock. And the person who touched the tail
told that it was like a
whip. Each one of them is correct and they would
continue in their belief
about what an elephant looks like unless somebody is
going to tell them
about the reality.
We do not know the entire picture about DD. We have
to first understand how
it came to be established in Switzerland. It must
have been established long
before the advent of the internet. Hence it would be
hasty to conclude that
DD should be accomplishable with the availability of
internet. First we have
to understand the human aspect. I had mentioned in
an earlier post that it
is quite possible that the Swiss were able usher in
DD because they were
focussed on family values. Possibly because of their
geographical location
they were protected from political developments
occuring around them and
were able to concentrate on the basics of good
living. *** My understanding
of the way in which DD came about in Switzerland was
due to perceived
dangers from outside. There were 3 major language
groups German, Italian and
French with a smaller language. They did not trust
each other but realized
that they would not survive as an entity if they did
not group together an
cooperate, particularly in defense. Since they did
not trust each other,
they would not give each other power. They vested
the power in the
electorate with limited power over each other.
Comments?
Now we have to deal with a system of governance that
is controlled by
political parties, world-wide. We have to face this
reality and plan
accordingly. WDDM should primarily be concerned with
evolving guidelines for
action at the local level. We have to avoid
centralized action as it would
replicate the existing system of governance. In this
context may I suggest
that we need not have an executive board at all. If
somebody is ready for
local action he may proceed. He can seek opinion
from other members and
share his experiences so that others may benefit. He
may raise funds locally
and WDDM need not get involved with it. There is no
need to register WDDM
locally; it can remain as a web-platform for
discussions on DD. *** The
Swiss system is bottom up, not top down. The
importance of WDDM is to
exchange information and use the internet platform
as a tool
Finally action on the ground is what is going to
matter. We should know the
value as well as the limitation of having
discussions. I am myself not ready
for any local action in my area. It may take some
years for that. WDDM
should facilitate the evolution of thought and
action on DD. Members would
be in various states of readiness. Everyone should
find WDDM to be useful.
*** The Executive of WDDM should and do act as
administrators. They are
given the power to operate on a day to day basis
with decisions made by the
voters (members)
PVR