Dear Alexander,
thank you for the Flowchart! It´s well in line with
other graphic models I have received during the years. It´s important that you
do not limit yourself to the voting procedure, but include deliberation in the
process. Some researchers, particularly Prof.Becker and Prof.Behrouzi, USA,
stress the importance of deliberation and call the desired model not simply DD,
but DDD - Deliberative Direct Democracy. Models of this type will probably be
discussed at the coming Prague Conference.
Sincerely,
Jiri Polak
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:31
AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS
AND VOTERS Dear Jiri,
I am excited to see people researching alternatives to a better
democracy.
The swiss is only a (good) model for research.
I am very interested in your progress and your findings so far,
regards,
Alexander Kassios
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM, < Hamid Mohseni>
wrote:
Hi Jiri Please tell me more about your internet experiments and how
it is going.
Date: Wed, 2 Feb
2011 17:58:38 +0100
Subject: Re: [WDDM] MANY ACTIVE MEMBERS AND VOTERS
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 >
|