Dear Alexander,
I shaare your opinion on ancient Greece. But I do
not consider Switzerland as THE model we all should follow. The Swiss system is
better than that of other countries but we should create a better system still,
based on recent experience and modern communication technology (the internet).
This is what we in Czech Republic are trying to do.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 3:55
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS
Dear Jiri,
Although I am Greek, I am not evangelizing
on the merits of the ancient Hellenic systems when I am proposing research of
History.
Sure they should be studied as the origin
of democracy, in a strict scientific and unbiased way, pointing out the good
and bad of all political instruments proposed and applied by Solon,
Cleisthenes, Lycurgus and other figures of the past.
We need to learn equally from the mistakes
as well as successes of democracy.
Still I do believe the Swiss system is a
better candidate for detailed evaluation. Their system is of our era, they've
been holding referendums since 1848, had to face political, religious and
language complexities and have a blooming economy. Have they integrated
technology and information into their system? I do see them as pioneers in
that department as well: Internet referendum successfully
held in Switzerland {epractice.eu}
Parties (political and otherwise)
exist as a fundamental social phenomenon (fallacy?)
Hardly.
People organize in groups. We first form families, friendships,
communities. People need to belong, especially among people who have similar
interests and ideas. This is a biological sociological function, and any
political system trying to succeed in real life should be a keen observer and
researcher of how humankind behaves.
Taking for example
Greece. People are trying to organize themselves to take the fate of their
lives into their own hands. This does not happen in one large group. It
neither happens individually. Due to geographical and ideological pluralism,
we form groups of commons ideas, interests and discuss on combined actions
with other communities who share the same political agony.
A group, a party is not
a priori synonymum with representation, nor with
majoritarianism.
I am stating that
forming groups is in our nature, and forming political groups/parties is an
extension to this sociological function.
Community and solidarity
cannot happen outside of social structures.
Regardless, from my
research the Swiss system is hardly a majoritarian one. First party in
elections does not win half the seats in the Council, something that does
happen in our Greek oligarchism.
I don't think they would
have lasted that long with a system that lacks respect of their 4
different ethnic communities and 2 competitive religions.
A repressive majority would have alienated all other
minorities.
Anyway, I am open to any proposal/discussion on political
reformations/recommendations.
This is no longer a philosophical debate but
an existential demand for us in Greece. We either fight to win
democracy back, or perish under the economical slavery imposed on us by the
very few.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:08 AM, < Jim Powell> wrote:
Hi Jiri,
Greece was
the first Direct Democracy, with a big flaw. They were selective in who
could vote similar to the system of apartheid pre 1994 in South
Africa
Regards
Jim Powell
South Africa
From: Jiri
Polak [jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se] Sent: Wednesday, January
26, 2011 5:39 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
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.
----- 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.
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 >
|