Dear friend of DD,
For our better understanding of DD, please,
see here: http://democracy-international.org/book-direct-democracy.html
(it is free). There are many information about practise of DD in various
countries here.
Best regards
Milan Valach
From: Lata Gouveia
[latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:09
PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: [WDDM] Re: A clean slate
|
I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get
from WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break away from
the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is perceived to be such an
important feature of any democratic system. It goes around in circles.
The problem with this is that, this type of debate
focuses on trying to prove the other person wrong and it's an essentially
egotistical reflex. If Democracy does not break down this vicious cycle then
no amount of democracy is going to change the World, the way we do business,
the way we perceive each other and our role and status in society... and if
we don't do that, it doesn't matter what political system is in place.
The human mind constantly focuses on outcome and it
does not accept that outcome, more often than not, is beyond its control.
There is a difference between someone who does the right thing and someone
who does the right thing because they want to go to heaven.
How does this apply? Consider the option of not
focusing on how to ACHIEVE the most democratic outcome and instead search for
ways to LIVE more democratically. I know it sounds like some hippie,
post-modern, esoteric concept but I have thought long and hard about this and
realized that there are two things that prevent us from even thinking (let
alone living) more democratically: Representation and the interference of
identity.
From the moment that anyone fighting for DIRECT
democracy embraces the concept that anyone should be allowed to speak for
someone else, failure is inevitable. Secondly, no matter how objective we
think we are, if the origin of any process of initiative (a core value of DD)
can be traced to an identifiable demographic, our individual ability to judge
becomes tarnished. It might even become tarnished by our need to think of
ourselves as open-minded, tolerant individuals, rather than it coming from
open mindedness and tolerance.
So what's my solution?
Get away from outcome. If the supporters of DD focus on gaining power they
will become corrupted by that pursuit. Do not attempt to shadow any existing
structure like your national parliament or the way that a political party
engages with it. It is not the parties that make the system, it's the system
that makes the parties. The very first thing a party requires is
representatives who obviously have a public profile and individual identity.
A lot of you agree that education is a crucial part
of bringing the change we hope for about. As long as our decision making
process is based on the cult of personality, we cannot get closer to the
democratic ideal. If we make decisions based on whether or not "I like
this guy", based on the candidate's personality, ethnic background,
political affiliation (party) and appearance, we are failing... the worst
thing is that we are not capable of not taking those factors into account,
the brain will not allow us. Solution: No more candidates, no trusting
someone else to take on our individual responsibility for us.
I support the idea of a Civil Service. A group of
paid administrators who, like accountants, administrate out society but who
have no decision making powers. If you want to really change something, the
most important thing is to make democratic living a popular choice. It
doesn't even matter if people are aware of the theory behind it.
Look at how popular any online trend becomes. Do you
realize that the number of people who actively pursue direct democracy is
probably less than 0.01% of those that use Myspace? Do you realize that there
are more people who play Guitar Hero than there are people thinking about
these issues? This is the reason why I laugh when I see the ego creeping into
the emails I get from WDDM. Like a bunch of fleas fighting over whose dog it
it.
Let us create an online game, something that is fun,
interactive and appealing to a wide audience. The word "democracy"
doesn't even have to be used. Just make sure that the process of interaction
is democratic, which, by my definition means participants should remain
totally anonymous and unable to form any kind of sub-group. The prize/goal of
the game? To collect enough points to earn a "Citizen of the World"
passport.
The two main pillars of the game: 1) Participation,
2) Weighted voting. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, regular and consistent
participation is rewarded whilst interruptions in participation is punished.
(reward and punishment in terms of points). WEIGHTED VOTING is the process by
which you take a multiple choice test on the topic on which you are about to
vote and your vote is worth that. If you get 65%, your vote is worth 65% of a
full vote. The point system should reflect this. The "perfect"
player should take no less than 2 years achieve the citizenship status and
collect his passport.
Now, here is the beauty of it. Obviously the game is
some kind of political system to run a virtual society. If the game was
popular, it can generate advertising revenue, which becomes the community's
budget, to spend however IT sees fit. Imagine that in 10 yeats time, the game
had become so popular that 10 million people had these passports. Would that
still be meaningless? The virtual society would have its own laws, its own
character. It would BE a democratic community... a big one. Would it buy some
land from the Australians and create its own "not so virtual" World
citizen nation? How big would it grow?
Now. I appreciate you taking the time to read this
and I hope it inspired you on some level, but please don't respond, don't
write back to say you agree, disagree, think I'm crazy or anything else. I
don't want to spark a debate. I just wanted to share an idea. If you have the
intellectual means and the skills to put this online game together, then,
yes, please get in touch.
Thank you for having me in your forum
--- On Thu, 14/5/09, Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Subject: [WDDM] Re: WDDM: Regarding setting up of a web platform for
'Independents'
To: vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com
Cc: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Date: Thursday, 14 May, 2009, 10:07 AM
vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com
ha scritto:
> Hello AnRossin:
>
> While seeking to usher in Democracy in the true sense of the word it is
more important to raise the level of awareness of the majority of the
population about the practicability and the need for it, than trying to
devise the exact mechanism of it, which can vary from place to place and can
always be improved upon.
Dear Vijayaraghavan
I do not understand well. While I agree about the practicability
and the need for Democracy, it seems to me that these values too
can vary from place to place according with local people's culture
and history, and can alwais be improved upon.
> It is proposed that a 'Association of Independents Web Platform' be set
up by the WDDM to facilitate this raising of awareness by performing the
following functions, while acting as a nidus for action on the ground,
throughout the world:
> 1) To face political parties, which have failed to provide True
Democracy, by putting up candidates on an independent basis during elections.
This can be done by choosing from (among the willing) members of various
electoral constituencies registered on the platform, through a fair process
(eg. Triplet system).
Here I am skeptical. Here, usually the willing members gather under
the umbrella of a political party. Otherwise they fear from sharing-in.
Political parties set up the lists of candidates. I don't see any way to
break such a social arrangement - though I don't know what your
"Triplet system" stands for, please explain me how it works.
> 2) To familiarize the people about the procedures of Initiative
and Referendum by practising the same on the Platform with respect to issues
concerning their places of living (Citizen's Forum). When the independent
candidates put up by the platform successfully enter the legislative bodies,
the I&R results of the platform can actually influence the government of
the day.
Here in my country we have no chance for Initiative and Referendum.
Notice that I have spread a small newspaper here, gratis ie at no cost
for people but entirely paid by me, calling the citizens to mail a letter
with their opinions-requirements-protests. Actually a Citizen's Forum.
I've got back two letters only, in three months! Notice that next June
we will have the administrative elctions here, and there are four lists of
12 candidates each, 48 people out from a citizenry of three thousands
people. Absolute craziness. Two lists will win, the first winner puts 8
candidates and the mayor into the 12 members of town councillorship,
the second gains 4 members, third and fourth lists will get no councillor.
The electoral law, and the Constitution Law in its whole, is at hands of
the Representative Democracy members, ie political parties.
On this basis, making independent candidates enter the legislative body
looks like a dream of Alice in wonderland.
> 3) To educate the younger generations (through the above two processes)
about the possibility of a New Political System that stands for the best of
values: freedom of _expression_, equality of all and the people becoming their
own masters, not subjected to any ideology or line of thinking.
> While it is important to continue discussions as at present to deepen
our understanding about various issues, it is crucial that a workable plan is
put in place as soon as possible since forces opposed to True Democracy would
otherwise become more dominant than ever before in these times of moral,
economic and social crises.
>
> A VOTE HAS BEEN SET UP UNDER THE VOTING SYSTEM OF THE SITE FOR MEMBERS
TO GIVE THEIR OPINION ON THIS.
I am quite reluctant to vote on such issues. The reason is, I don't see
why or
how my vote in the site could or should influence any genuine democrat who
wants to try local ways to implement democracy . I don't want to
encroach
from WDDM top-down any local attempt to implement democracy on the
local territory, to wit, directly. I am no expert of voting systems -
and yet I
welcome any expert who draws and suggests a voting method to WDDM for
placing it at the disposal of whoever local DD activist who wants to improve
the political arrangement of his-her town according with DD principles.
Let me be even clearer: in my humble opinion, it is not the WDDM
members
who have to select the best voting system. It is the local DD activist
who has
to choose the DD tools, voting systems etc, that is fitter (in his-her
experienced
opinion) to the local territory he-she addresses.
Thus, IMHO, the task of WDDM is not that of deciding by vote the best DD
voting system and similar DD issues. The task of WDDM is that of
collecting
DD proposals and alike issues having some DD relevance, giving them
visibility
and putting them at everybody's free disposal. Period.
I thank the WDDM web-master for accomplishing this task excellently.
I take the liberty to CC this discussion exchange to WDDM list because
I think it useful to increase the overall understanding of DD .
Best regards
antonio
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>:00
>
>
|
|