|
I don´t remember having promoted any Association of
Independents. I admit that representation will be necessary for the forseeable
future but that representatives must be subject to the will of the majority of
citizens expressed by elections and referenda, but also anchored in structured
deliberation. Ordinary citizens must have the right to deliberate and vote even
on issues of international and environmental politics. Such a system would make
all wars impossible and save millions of lives. But changes must be initiated on
the local level. On the transnational level, so far, we can only discuss, we
have no other instruments.
Sincerely,
Jiri
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:54
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Constructive
pragmatism
Dear Jiri, Fred and All,
There has been a burst of ideas on
the mail-list after a lull, but it is clear that everybody is sticking to
their respective positions. Each of the positions is based on one's actual
experience, so there is nothing wrong except that we should try to arrive
at a common position that addresses all our individual concerns.
I am
surprised that Jiri Polak is not backing Fred Gohlke's core point that we need
a mechanism to elect people whom we can trust. Jiri Polak has
suggested in his writing on the New Political System where he calls for
an Association of Independents to take on the political parties:
http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/nps/nps2.htm#How do we achieve this?
He has clearly brought out the scenario that would emerge once the
Association contests elections where the candidates from the Association would
have greater credibility among the people, simply because they allow people to
vote on issues.
Jiri has arrived at the concept of Association of
Independents in a logical manner, while Fred and myself have come to the same
conclusion in a largely intuitive manner. Good Democracy should have
mechanisms that are both logically and intuitively correct. I have tried to
integrate both the logical and the intuitive aspects into a single mechanism
and have posted it for voting on the WDDM voting area. Only 5 people have
voted on it so far.
I only wish that the proposed conference would be
able to achieve an integrated view point taking into account the various
facets of
Democracy.
Vijayaraghavan
On Mon, 09
Aug 2010 03:42:49 +0530 wrote
>Thank you, Jiri
>
>The
proposal has merit, but I'm not surprised that "all parliamentary
>parties have rejected this proposal".
>
>I differ with the
authors of the proposal because I believe the problem
>is less a matter
of monitoring our representatives than it is a matter
>of picking the
best representatives in the first place. As long as
>political parties
control the selection of candidates for public office,
>we will be
ruled by the vested interests that control the parties.
>
>We
have, among us, no shortage of people with the ability and the
>integrity to advocate the common good (even when their advocacy does
not
>serve my personal interest). What we lack is a means of finding
those
>people and raising them to public office.
>
>Still,
the important thing is, as you say, "... the fight for democracy
>goes
on." My guess is that we are 200 years from government "by the
>people", but it won't even happen then unless be keep
working.
>
>Fred Gohlke
>
|