Dear all,
concerning Switzerland, it surely is the only real
dedmocracy so far. Howevever, to only transplant it´s basic element - I&R -
to parliamentary and presidential systems would be insufficient to transform
these particratic systems into democraacies. A more radical reform is needed
which must include structured deliberation (citizen juries, PCs, scientific
deliberative polling) at all levels, including foreign and defense politics.
Such a model has been proposed in the draft of the Czech Citizens´ Constitution.
I have also mentioned this principle in the latest issue of my Newsletter.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:03
AM
Subject: RE: [WDDM] Getting the whole
picture about DD
Hi
All,
Whilst
we can find fault and inconsistency within the Swiss system I consider that it
is best form of government currently in practice.
Let
us now exchange ideas of how to push for Direct
Democracy
Regards
Jim
Powell
From: bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com
[bruce.eggum(at)gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Eggum Sent:
17 Mar 2008 12:02 AM To:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Subject: Re: [WDDM] Getting the whole
picture about DD
It seems we get caught discussing other Nations decisions.
"A point about the Swiss constitution.
It makes sex discrimination illegal and then makes
military service compulsory for men and voluntary for
women."
WDDM sees the Swiss method or process using Initiative
and Binding Referendum as an adaptable and useful method of people gaining
control of their government. What the Swiss people have decided by means of
this process is their business, unless it violates national law or human
rights. Bruce Eggum
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 4:27 PM, <ROY DAINE>
wrote:
It has been suggested that I retract -
"It must also be realised that a people, in determining the
system and functioning of their own governance, if done under universal
suffrage, would be enacting direct democracy in that determination, regardless
of the outcome of said determination."
A country having universal suffrage, in no way suggests
direct democracy.
The point about the right to self-determination, is that it
flows to a people, not to nations or governments. Representatives, be they
party political or indepedant, cannot exercise this right on anybody's behalf.
By partaking in representative democracy, as we understand it, a people are
not exercising their right to determine their own governance, they are merely
partaking in an existing system, which was determined by
others.
I suggest that you read the original statement carefully.
Put another way it could have said -
" Direct democracy must exist, in order for a people to
exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, even if the outcome of
that determination negates direct democracy.
Both statements pertain only to the initial determination
and not to any ongoing system of governance.
I'm also unable to add PVR's suggested bit about political
parties. Parties or lack of them, in no way describe a direct
democracy.
The only viable, alternative definition I can come up
with is -
'Direct Democracy - Wherein sovereignty is
vested directly in a people, who under universal suffrage, determine
their own governance.'
A point about the Swiss constitution.
It makes sex discrimination illegal and then makes
military service compulsory for men and voluntary for
women.
Dear All, Perhaps adding
the following at the end of Roy Daine's suggested definition for DD, may be
better ".....without the intermediary dominance of political parties".
Political parties are acceptable as long as they are primarily
concerned with their function of raising issues concerning people
and avoid dominating the process of
governance itself.
I agree with Roy's statement
that - " The right of a people to self-determination MUST be
paramount. A people may wish for a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy. It
is not for any of us to impose or attempt to impose any system of governance
upon a people. Our modus operandi should be persuasion to the acceptance of
an idea, through force of argument". What is being attempted through
WDDM is to find out and fine tune a better system for people to
think about and aspire for. If they like it they may go for it. We
are not going to force anyone.
"It must also be realised that a
people, in determining the system and functioning of their own governance,
if done under universal suffrage, would be enacting direct democracy in that
determination, regardless of the outcome of said determination." Roy
will have to withdraw this statement if he knows that in India we have
universal suffrage and yet two-thirds of the population especially in the
rural areas are so alienated from the mainstream thinking of the
government that one can ask if they really belong to India. Definitely
the wishes of the people are not getting translated into action. No doubt a
popular upheaval can bring down governments at the polls but it is
crude democracy and not direct democracy.
Thanks to Mirek for
suggesting the link to an excellent and exhaustive insight into how DD came
into being in Switzerland even eight centuries back. A few sentences from
the text, which are revealing: "....if you look at a map, and you
see all these valleys, lakes, rivers, and steep hills and mountains,
breaking the country up into a tapestry of thousands of natural villages. If
you wanted to impose your will even on your neighbor, how would you do it?
It would take a large army just to conquer a few such communities. How would
you then take over dozens or hundreds of them?" "....Switzerland seems
almost designed to be a democracy. The slopes make for a natural stadium or
amphitheater, allowing a large number of citizens to participate in a
discussion and then vote."
This geographic aspect appears to
have played a role in the evolution of Swiss thought. It is not surprising
then that they were able to focus on what matters most for the well-being of
their families and communities.
The following words about the Swiss
constitution, in that account, are notable - "The Swiss regard their
constitution somewhat differently than the people in other Western
democracies....
"On the one hand, in political and even everyday
discussions, it is treated with a little less reverence than in the United
States. If the constitution is a holy oracle or fixed tablet in the United
States, France, or Germany, in Switzerland it is more of a home medical
guide. The Swiss are more used to taking the thing off the shelf and
using it.....
"The typical Swiss voter of age fifty has seen about
twenty to twenty-five constitutional changes in his lifetime, and as an
adult has voted on an average of more than one per year. Perhaps he even
volunteered time to help support the passage of one or the defeat of
another. In any case, if he is a typical Swiss, he was reading regular
newspaper articles about the merits of this change or that change. In this
process, implicitly, he was engaged in a kind of rolling review of his
country's fundamental law. This process makes the constitution alive and the
people its owners, in a more tangible way than in nearly any other country.
To say this is not to comment on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the
measures themselves. It is an observation about the process and its
impact upon the sociology, if you will, of the Swiss constitution as against
others.....
"The Swiss constitution, for all its flaws, is less an
object for handling only by an opaque priesthood of attorneys and officials,
and somewhat more of a living document and a family member. If familiarity
breeds a certain rough contempt, the overall impact appears to be a healthy, balanced respect and a greater sense of pride and
participation."
What we see in India as well as in most democracies
today is that the constitution is used as a legal document with the spirit
in which it was written being forgotten. Once we understand and
agree that the main obstacle between the people and true democracy in
today's world is the dominance of party-based governance then we can
focus on it and define our efforts towards it.
By 'True'
Democracy I mean opposite of 'false' and am not implying any particular
system. I hope Bruce will agree on this. Antonio has asked whether the
basic problem of selection of candidates to run the government can be
solved. The 'Troika' system suggested by Fred is excellent and I hope every
one has gone through it.
Georges has suggested a 'shadow parliament'
to act as a counter check to those in government. David Frank's One
Voice Now and Roy Daine's My Verdict are efforts in
this direction. In other words we need a True or Direct Democracy
Platform for people to voice their opinion on issues concerning them.
The Direct Democracy Experiment on My verdict is unique since it
focusses on the main obstacle to True Democracy, which is to get
'there' to the seats of governance independent of political parties and this
experiment envisages the use of the 'Troika' system to achieve it. This
will eventually favour the introduction of I&BR processes to put
democracy on a firm footing.
While geography favoured the Swiss
to evolve and deepen their democracy over the centuries, internet and the
abysmal record of present day democracies favour the further evolution of
democracy to reach perfection.
PVR
Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue
that concerns you.
-- Bruce Eggum Gresham
Wisconsin, USA President King http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/74.html http://www.doinggovernment.com/ Check
out my Blog too http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/ http://usinitiative.com vote
|