Dear Alexander,
We all are aware that Greece is the cradle of
democracy and there is much to be learned from it. On the other hand, at
present, we have a situation which has never before existed - the information
revolution due to the internet and globalization exceeding national bounadries
within which political parties had been founded. Representation need not be
based on political parties. It can be based on a single majority mandate in
voting districts, with representatives exposed on continuous control on the part
of the voters and the possibility of recall. The Swiss system is better than
other European systems, but not yet the ideal.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:05
AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS The Swiss system has α proven value on the balance between
citizens and politicians. It has more resemblance to the Spartan
constitution rather than the Athenian. Main principles are
vetoing and mutual compromise (and a strong sense of citizenship
but this lies outside the strict sphere of constitution, although a
strong requirement).
Regardless, all of them had some balance between Aristocracy
(not oligarchy) and Democracy, and none was ruled by the demos alone.
Parties (political and otherwise) exist as a fundamental social
phenomenon.
My opinion is we should be strong pupils of history and researchers
of the future.
Looking for the ultimate direct represent-less system is less than
half of the equation.
It is the top floor of a skyscraper still in design.
Building from the ground up -based on political history into what worked
and what didn't- is the foundation of human progress.
The swiss model is a compromise and that is what actually makes it real
and effective. A society based on compromise and mutual respect to
diversity and common belief in unity.
Democracy should be an applied science, a field of research combined with
practical reality, as well as an inspiration and
ideal.
Regards,
Alexandros Kassios
Hellenic Direct Democracy
Movement
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:38 AM, < Jim Powell> wrote:
Hi
Hamid,
Having the
voters making decisions on all matters is a waste of time. The politicians
are employed to consider the information and make decisions, similar to
managers employed by shareholders in a company. The voters are the
shareholders and the politicians the managers
Regards
Jim Powell
South Africa
From: Hamid
Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday,
January 20, 2011 7:24 PM
To: World Direct Democracy Subject: RE: [WDDM]
MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
The Swiss system is better
than many other countries but not good enough, because stíll it is
politicians and not people who are the leaders
eventhogh people can stop politicians decisions and propositions
sometimes.
Hamid
From: jimpowell(at)mweb.co.za To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011
07:47:38 +0200 Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND
VOTERS
I think the
Swiss have got it right (mostly)
Have your
politicians investigate and propose new laws. The electorate will have
access to all the information and can raise a referendum if enough of them
are unhappy with the legislation. A referendum is held and the will of the
people is sovereign.
97% of
legislation in Switzerland goes through without objection. The laws that are
passed will be created with the knowledge that they can be challenged, so
they are voter friendly
Jim Powell
South Africa
From: Hamid
Mohseni [esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday,
January 18, 2011 8:18 PM To: World Direct
Democracy Subject: RE: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND
VOTERS
As I understand real direct
democracy don´t need politicians as represents or leaders but advisors
and organizers. Their job is to inform people about political facts and
theories and organize refrandums and realise the result of refrandums and
decisions made by people in common political and practical
questions.
Regards Hamid
> From: jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se > To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net > Date: Tue, 18 Jan
2011 16:06:18 +0100 > Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND
VOTERS > > Dear Fred, > as far as I see, the model of PD
you put forward is compatible with my own > ideas, which are much
more simple and only rudimentary. The PD model is > certainly worth
studying. I´ll bring an information about it in the next > issue of
my newsletter. > Sincerely, Jiri Polak > ----- Original Message
----- > From: Fred Gohlke > To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net> > Sent: Monday,
January 17, 2011 11:14 PM > Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS > > > > Good Afternoon, Jiri >
> > > From your January 14th post: > > > >
"The basic fault ... is to call party-based regimes 'democracy'". >
> > > From your January 16th post: > > > >
"But I - and many others - also want a system where elected > >
representatives get continuous feedback from their voters who > >
can recall them at any moment (not only during elecions) if > > the
majority within the respective constituency demand it." > > >
> Have you thought about the way Practical Democracy functions? It > > addresses and resolves both the points you make; the first
because it > > sidesteps political parties and the second because
it is inherently > > bi-directional. > > > >
Political Parties > > ----------------- > > Over two
hundred years experience with party politics informs us that, > >
when politics is based on partisanship, the partisans form oligarchic > > power blocs that become an end in themselves and ultimately
transcend the > > will of the people. > > > >
Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it > > does not foster government by the people. It results in
government by a > > small fraction of the people. For the people
as a whole, the flaws in > > party politics are devastating. Their
cumulative effect victimizes the > > public by the most basic and
effective strategy of domination --- divide > > and
conquer. > > > > Parties are important for the principals:
the party leaders, > > contributors, candidates and elected
officials, but the significance > > diminishes rapidly as the
distance from the center of power grows. Most > > people are on
the periphery, remote from the centers of power. As > > outsiders,
they have little incentive to participate in the political > >
process. > > > > The challenge of representative democracy
is not to divide the public into > > blocs but to find the best
advocates of the common interest and raise them > > to leadership
positions as the people's representatives. > > > > To meet
that challenge, given the range of public issues and the way each >
> individual's interest in political matters varies over time, an
effective > > electoral process must examine the entire electorate
during each election > > cycle, seeking the people's best
advocates. It must let every voter > > influence the outcome of
each election to the best of their desire and > > ability, and it
must ensure that those selected as representatives are > >
disposed to serve the public interest. > > > > Practical
Democracy allows voters to quickly and easily align themselves > >
with others who share their views. It changes the focus of advocates of a > > partisan position from getting votes for a politician to
persuading voters > > of the value of the idea they espouse. It
lets every faction select, from > > among themselves, the best
champions of their point of view and raise them > > as far as the
size of the group allows. > > > > One huge flaw in the
party-based systems that dominate the globe is that > >
individuals must support one of the existing parties or be denied a voice > > in the political process. They have no way to prevent the
excesses of the > > parties. > > > > Practical
Democracy gives unaligned people a voice. Those who advocate > >
partisan interests must ultimately present their point of view to voters > > who may not share their view. This provides unaligned people
with a > > countervailing force that prevents domination by any
party. > > > > PD allows, indeed encourages, enclaves to
easily form and attract > > adherents. As Jane Mansbridge said in
The Deliberative System > > Disaggregated, "Enclaves are good at
generating new ideas. Everyday talk > > is good at applying ideas
and selecting those best applicable to common > > experience."
That is how fresh ideas are introduced into society, but > > they
cannot impose their will unless they are able to persuade the > >
unaligned of the value of their ideas. PD guarantees that fresh ideas > > will be accommodated to the extent they are deemed worthy by
the > > electorate. > > > >
Bi-directionality > > ----------------- > > Practical
Democracy is inherently bi-directional. Because each advancing > >
participant and elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, > > questions on specific issues can easily be transmitted
directly to and > > from the electors for the guidance or
instruction of the official. This > > capability offers those who
implement the process a broad scope, ranging > > from simple
polling of constituents to referenda on selected issues and > >
recall of an elected representative. > > > > If you are
interested in these concepts, the process is described in > >
Paricipedia at: > > > > http://participedia.net/wiki/Practical_Democracy >
> > > > > I wonder if you'll find value in it. >
> > > Fred Gohlke >
|