|
WORLDWIDE
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
(WDD)
Vol.7 (No. 4) November 2005
DD - a
Historical Necessity (cont.)
by Jiri Polak
Anatomy of an Organization. We have seen that, invariably and
unavoidably, all (fixed) organizations develop in the same way and establish
structures of the same type. At the beginning, each big organization comes into
being as a response to a real social need and as a result of the progress of
history. When firmly established, the original purpose recedes into the
background and the organization is successively transformed into a power base
for an oligarchy paying only lip service to the original purpose while, in fact,
not shrinking from any crimes in order to preserve its power and privileges.
This insight applies to churches, monarchies, republics, parliamentary systems,
political parties, the Pentagon, the CIA - as well as overtly criminal
syndicates like Cosa Nostra. The main difference between the latter and
the former is that overtly criminal organizations are clandestine and are
generally considered illegitimate, while the former act partly in public and are
considered legitimate. Nevertheless, all fixed organizations behave basically in
the same way. Beside developing oligarchies, they also cultivate and foster a
sense of loyalty and friendship among members, while maintaining distance or
hostility towards outsiders. Among members,
various factions compete for power and influence. Often loyalty towards a
faction becomes more important than loyalty towards the organization as a whole.
That was particularly conspicuous in communist states, where thousands of party
members were imprisoned and put to death if they belonged to a "wrong"
faction. However, similar, even if less drastic, processes can also be observed
in countries of the West.
During the life of the organization, the original ideas are preserved,
even if successively modified to better serve the oligarchic and insider
purposes, while behavior becomes increasingly guided by hunger for power. The
difference between formal and shadow organization increases. In would-be
"democratic" organizations like western political parties, there is a
discrepancy between seemingly democratic structures, based on the myth of
equality between citizens, and real behavior, in fact establishing a
crypto-feudal system where parental and other types of personal relationship are
the decisive factor with regard to career opportunities. Recently, in Sweden a
book was published under the title The New Aristocracy, showing
that most high level social democratic politicians - i.e. belonging to the party
dominating Sweden since the 1930s - are one another’s relatives. In the USA,
there are two notorious political families - the Kennedys and the Bushes - and
surely, innumerable others.
Fortunately, no fixed organization lasts for ever. While, in the eyes of
most people, rule by political parties is still considered democracy, signs of
decay and crisis are breaking through the polished surface. The years of Rule
by Organization and Ideology are numbered.
Third
CICDD
and WDDM Conference
The Pauliny hotel, Prague,
Czech Republic, 16 - 18 September 2005
Jiri,
Mirek, Lee, Filia, George, Heiko, Josef, Leopoldo
Participants: Lee Gottlieb, USA, Miroslav
Kolar, Canada, George Kokkas, Greece, Filia den
Hollander, The Netherlands, Leopoldo Salgui, Spain, Domitila
Barbolla, Spain, Heiko Dittmer, Belgium, Josef
Hromadko, Czech Republic, Jiri Polak, Czech
Republic/Sweden
The conference
was not sponsored by anybody. Each
participant had to pay for his/her trip, hotel and meals. Had we had a sponsor,
participation would have been many times higher. On the other hand, those who
did come, belong to the most prominent DD activists globally. Thank you!
Program
16 September,
17:30: A get-together dinner, exchange of materials and proposals to be
discussed during the conference proceedings.
17
September
9:00am - 12:30am
Presentation and discussion of eight different models of Future Democracy (by Lee
Gottlieb, Mohssen Massarrat, George Sagi, Jaroslav Koci, Ted Becker, George
Kokkas, Bernard Clayson, Michael N.Mautner, and Jiri Polak)
14:30pm - 17:45pm
DD progress in various countries: Leopoldo, Spain (video clip
2.9MB), George, Greece (video clip 5.2MB), Mirek,
Canada and other territories (Russia), Lee, USA; also presenting
his proposal for a new International Structure, by modifying the WWDDM into
an educational organization addressing especially students.
18:30pm - 21:00pm
A special working group was constituted, consisting of Lee, Mirek and George,
to prepare a document describing the above proposal.
18
September
9:00 - 12:00
Presentation of the project Everyone´s a Citizen Baby (People´s EU
Constitution) by Filia. Discussion of the principle of People´s
Constitutions in general.
14:00 - 18:00
A DD conference in Czech for Czech citizens. Participation: about 30 persons.
14:00 - 15:30
Presentation of the draft of a Czech Citizens´ Constitution by the
spokesperson of the Czech DD organization HzPD (MDD), Ph.D..Milan Valach. Discussion
16:00 - 18:00
Presentation of Mr.Peter Czasch´s anti-corruption project Vnitrostátní
Offset (Internal Offset). Mr.Czasch held a lecture accompanied by a video
film. As an entrepreneur active in the field of construction, Mr.Czasch has met
incredible corruption when trying to acquire orders on the basis of the superior
quality of his company’s work. He has developed a procedure conducive to the
eradication of corrupt practices, if adopted by the authorities. Since the
post-totalitarian regime itself is corrupt, real improvement can only be
achieved by changing the system. Therefore, Mr.Czasch supports the idea of DD
and the draft of a Citizens´ Constitution. Together with a few other persons,
he tries to obtain the support of at least 1,000 citizens necessary for the
registration of a DD party, simply called DEMOCRACY. His most important
supporter is Mr.Jan.Sinagl - a formidable public relations man who
has returned to Czech Republic from exile in Switzerland. He bombards various
public figures, including the Prime Minister Paroubek, with critical letters,
demonstrates in the streets, and has even appeared on the TV screen. He has
become many oligarchic politicians´ worst nightmare.
The Political System Envisaged by the Draft of
the Czech Citizens Constitution
INTERNATIONAL
USA
At the 3rd CICDD
- WDDM Conference, held on 16 - 18 September in Prague, Mr. Lee Gottlieb,
a brilliant theorist of worldwide importance, presented 6 excellent
papers:
Thoughts about creating a permanent, non-profit organization to promote
Direct Democracy;
Active Humanist Creed; AMERICA - a Direct Democracy created, and
maintained by the people, for the people. A simple vision upon which to build a
better world;
VOICES - a publication of Voices for Direct Democracy, Volume 1,
Mr. Gottlieb
writes: "These three handouts are typical of those to be produced in many
languages by the organization and disseminated by grassroot followers and their
computer printers."
3 November,
information by Mr.Miroslav Kolar: New submission to http://democracy.mkolar.org/newURL.htm
LINK: http://www.cusdi.org -
Constitutional Amendment Creates Direct Democracy by Nationwide Initiatives.
This detailed proposal and action plan calls for a Constitutional Amendment
authorizing direct democracy by nationwide Initiatives. It empowers the People
to ensure that the federal government shall promote the general well-being over
special interests. An independent Voter Initiatives Assembly, responsible only
to the People, deliberates and chooses worthy Initiatives for the federal
election ballots. Constitutional safeguards vigorously protect the Assembly from
any improper influence.
Using the Constitution's
second method, the States propose this Amendment at a Constitutional Convention
and later ratify it. Voters advance its passage in 24 States using State
initiatives, in the remaining States using referenda, and by voters´ choice of
supportive representatives.
Anthony U.Simpson, AUSimpson@cablespeed.com
USA, 2005/11/3
GLOBAL OUTLOOK, Issue
Number 10: Most of the issue is focused on the
suspiction that the 9/11 events took place either under clandestine
collaboration, or at least under deliberate passivity on the part of the White
House. It is reported that about 41% of Americans in general and 49% of
New Yorkers are inclined to believe this. The 9/11 Truth Movement,
counting among their members many prominent personalities, spare no energy in
the process of penetrating behind the official smoke screen. Their findings,
analyses and theories are very convincing indeed! Shall we ever know the full
truth? www.GlobalOutlook.ca
Those who are
interested in knowing more about the background of recent USA wars are invited
to visit http://mkolar.org/antiwar/index.html
GREECE
In this classical
country, vivid activities promoting DD are taking place. Witness: A list of
supporters headed by Mr.George Kokkas. His name tops the list.
RUSSIA
Information from
Mr.Miroslav Kolar: The No.17, 13 September 2005, of the magazine Terminator,
Irkutsk, Siberia, has a headline on the front page: For Soviet Russia! An
article on page 2 advocates a return to the soviet tradition of the
country.
Most people
probably associate the word soviet with one of the worst dictatorships in
history. But those who are familiar with its origin know that the soviets (i.e.
councils) were organs of true popular power before and during the February
Revolution of 1917 - i.e. the real, progressive revolution that put down the
tzarist regime. That revolution might have inaugurated a development bringing
Russia in harmony with the progress achieved after WWI
in the other European
countries. Unfortunately, communist fanatics led by Lenin exploited the chaos
and the incompetence of the Kerenski government, penetrated the soviets and
staged a coup which became famous as the Great October Revolution (in
spite of the fact that it took place in November). Contrary to their original
purpose, the soviets became obedient lackeys of the bolsheviks. Nevertheless,
evidently, the original revolutionary tradition survives in the consciousness of
the Russian people and the soviets - in fact a primitive and spontaneous
form of citizen deliberation - might begin to again play a positive role in
Russian post-totalitarian history.
ESTONIA
16 October, information
from Mr.Miroslav Kolar (sent in Czech, here translated): "An
Estonian internet voting, lacking precedent, has been declared successful.
Estonian
authorities have published the results of the World´s first official internet
voting which took place this week
within the framework of local communal elections and the elections of heads of
urban administrative organs in various places of the country. On Friday, the
Associated Press Agency announced that the Estonian authorities declared the
experiment to have been successful - no
electronic system failures or hacker attacks have been reported.
To legalize
internet voting, some time ago already, the Estonian Parliament had passed a law
to the purpose. In general, the Estonian State takes many steps to spread
relevant information in society. All schools have internet connection and,
beside the traditional way, there is
an electronic system of verifying personal identity.
The electronic
voting was taking place parallel to the traditional voting. Less than 10
thousand persons - i.e. about 1 % out of the 1.4 million inhabitants - voted
using the internet."
KENYA
18th November,
a letter from Mr.George Omondi, addressed to the WDDM discussion
channel: "Sorry for my delayed response!! It´s because we are having the
first ever referendum on the constitution of Kenya this coming monday 21st Nov.
It´s a historical event and we in the DD movement are particularly interested.
So I am running all over the country training poll observers. Individually, I
must train 2,000 people before sunday. I started only this week ... so it´s
hectic!!!!!!"
EUROPE
A paper presented
by Mr.Leopoldo Salgui at the 3rd CICDD-WDDM Conference in Prague:
DRAFT/PROPOSAL
- Statement on the European Constituent Process
"On the 18th
of September 2005, Prague, /the undersigned, attending/ the 3rd International
Conference on Direct Democracy, considering
-
The political process used to generate
the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"
is not a suitable Constituent Process since it encroaches on
popular sovereignty. The constituent pact between European citizenship and
the emerging European institutions has to be set up by representatives,
directly elected for such a mandate, and ratified by binding referendum. If
the European elites want to agree on a constituent pact with the European
citizenship, they had better not to use treaties among states.
* The article 47.4 of the mentioned Treaty establishes the so-called
European Citizens´ Initiative, which is a unique political freedom to use
Direct Democracy according to the draft of European Constitution. It is
disappointing that the political region having the strongest tradition and
experience of Direct Democracy would only enjoy a non-binding collective
right to petition the European Commission for a legislative initiative. We
encourage an effective introduction of real forms of binding popular
initiatives for legislative, abrogative, and recall decisions.
-
The absence of any form of referendum is
a significant fault in a real constituent pact. Worth mentioning is also the
absence of popular initiative in the constitutional amendment,
and particularly the absence of mandatory referendum to ratify
constitutional amendments. Such
deficiency downgrades the constitutional nature of the mentioned treaty.
-
If the European elites insist on
assigning a constitutional rank to this international treaty, it
is a significant fault that the only elected institution, the
European Parliament, plays a minor role
if compared to the European Commission and Council, which are several levels
remote from popular sovereignty. Particularly, the lack of legislative
initiative in the legislative process, and the weak role of the
constitutional amendment, are conspicuous.
propose to make the following statements on
the European Constituent Process:
-
We encourage the European elites to
restart a real European Constituent Process, setting up an elected
Constitutional Assembly and scheduling a binding referendum to ratify it.
-
We demand real and effective Political
Freedoms for Direct Democracy to be included in a
future European Constitution.
-
We call European citizens´ attention to
the issue of a real European Constituent Process,
suggesting to concentrate their activism to the website EuropeanConstituentProcess.Net
European Democracy Activism. Perspective
from Spain
Demopunk Net Report, http://demopunk.net
3rd International Conference on Direct Democracy
Contents:
1 The Spanish perspective
1.1 Institutional development
1.2 Democracy activism
2. Trojan Initiative
3 OtraDem´s activities
3.1 Watching for the referendum on the European
Constitutional Treaty
3.2 Democracy
propaganda during elections
4 OtraDem´s infrastructure
5 Future plans in OtraDem
6 European Trojan Initiative
(Complete text can be found on the website. Please, see also
http://europeanconstituentprocess.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15
Communication
Democracy Activism. Applications of the
legal digital sign
A paper presented by Mr.Leopoldo Salgui at the above Conference
"Legal digital sign is an emerging legal and technological matter. Many
countries are developing Public Key Infrastructures (PKIs) to make equal the
printed and digital signs. In Spain since several years ago, there is
legislation making both media equal. ......."
(For the whole text, please, see http://demopunk.net
)
GERMANY
19
September, information from Mr.Ronald Pabst: NEWSLETTER
#8
http://www.democracy-international.org
Content
0) EDITORIAL. GERMANY HAS VOTED
1) FIGURE OF THE MONTH: 82%
2) REMINDER: DI MEETING
3) PARLAMENTARIANS WANT EU WIDE REFERENDUM
4) BERLIN MIT DER BITTE UM WEISUNG (BERLIN - REQUEST INSTRUCTIONS)
(for the text, please see the website)
15 November,
information from Mr.Leopoldo Salgui:
The most recent
activity of the forums at European Constituent Process has been:
Everyone´s a Citizen, Baby
Constitution Project
http://europeanconstituentprocess.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20
Nominee to the
Newropeans Grand Prix 2005
http://europeanconstituentprocess.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21
Erroneous IR
dangers EU Rep gov the same
http://europeanconstituentprocess.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22
Testing digest
http://europeanconstituentprocess.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23
THE
WORLD
Proposal
for Non-Adversarial Decision-Making:
Combining
the Majority Vote with Consensus Building
A paper presented
by Mr.Miroslav Kolar at the 3rd CICDD-WDDM Conference, Prague,
September 2005
Most of the
present so called "democratic" societies use only simple majority vote
to arrive at all decisions. Even if a proposal is approved by the smallest
possible majority of a single vote, the decision (law) is, immediately after the
vote, assumed binding for everybody and one proceeds with its implementation and
enforcing. In a polarized society, such a process can perpetuate or even deepen
division between opposing groups instead of healing. The group that very nearly
lost a vote could choose to secretly or openly disobey the new law, then force
is used to enforce it, which can, in extreme cases, provoke violence from both
sides.
Yet there is better way - the government by consensus - that has been practiced
by many Native Americans for centuries before their first contacts with
Europeans. It was, however, not the "pure" consensus requiring
unanimous vote, which could hardly ever be achieved because of the variety of
personal views. It was practical consensus in the following sense: They also
made decisions by "majority votes" but after a vote, its
implementation was postponed until everybody was comfortable with the majority
decision. Until everybody affected by a decision understood it, and was willing
to accept it and abide by it.. Thus a vote could be followed by a long period of
consensus building - discussions, explanation of the benefits of a
decision.
There is no obstacle why we could not use such a proven process in our modern
society. It could be equally well used in small groups or in large societies,
equally well in the future democracy as in the legislative bodies of the present
"representative democracies". The process would be as follows:
1.
Discussion of the proposals
2. Simple majority vote: 50% + 1
vote is enough for a proposal to win
3. Consensus building: further
deliberation to achieve the required level of acceptance of the winning
proposal; there would be no time limit, this phase would continue until enough
citizens (or members of a legislature, or a group) accept the proposal as
the best possible under the given
circumstances, and are willing to support and promote it, and
live with it and by it, even if they initially voted against it. This
phase can be suspended for arbitrary time
periods if it is clear that the required level of consensus cannot be
achieved at the given time, and it can be resumed whenever there is
indication that consensus can be achieved.
Here, in
the ideal circumstances, the required level or enough would
mean 100% of all citizens
or legislators. However, for example to ease the transition from the current
situation to this 100% ideal, one could initially require only the
consensus of 75% of citizens or
legislators, and increase this figure for example by 1% every year or every
few years until the 100% ideal is achieved.
4. Implementation
of the decision only when the required level of consensus is achieved.
Such a
decision-making process would ensure much better continuity and stability of the
governments even in the current representative systems, and generally, it would
not force big disruptive changes upon the unprepared population by the decision
of a simple slim majority. The consensus building process would prepare people
for necessary changes, and should decrease the degree of violence in society to
a minimum.
Literature:
"I have seen several sources describing various aspects of Native
American decision-making process. The most comprehensive known to me is the
following book: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy."
For excerpts from this book and some additional sources please see http://democracy.mkolar.org/consensus.html
Comment:
In this paper, Mr.Kolar hit the core of the difference between the present
party-based systems and future DD or semi-DD systems:
Rule by parties is based on (and cannot do without) conflicts,
while DD systems will be based on consensus. For this reason, top
level party politicians are not interested in really resolving conflicts. On
the contrary, they are interested in preserving them and puffing them out
by their rhetoric and actions, including the killing of millions in wars. They
are parasites subsisting on people's naivety and passivity. They have long since
lost the raison d´être which once justified their existence.
They are not our representatives, but adversaries. It's no use
trying to talk reason with them. They must be coerced and by-passed.
All
deliberative DD models, just like Mr.Kolar's proposal, strive for reaching
consensus. See e.g. the process-oriented model presented in Prof. Ted Becker's
The
Future of Tele-democracy (National
Electronic Town Meeting Design). This model was also quoted in the
November 2001 issue of this Newsletter. (JP)
PROPOSAL FOR A WDDM INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
(A paper sent
round on 13 October by the special workshop established in Prague at the
September 2005 Conference)
The transformation of Earth’s hierarchical governments into TRUE democracies
will not only meet great resistance from the people who are presently among the
privileged citizens of their respective societies but, in all probability, the
greatest obstacle to such an extreme transformation will be convincing the
general populations of the planet that the friendly, nourishing, just society
they all wish for can be obtained only within a true democratic political
system. Sad to say, even in the United States, with its ever pervasive flood of
communications into the lives of Americans, millions of citizens have only
confused ideas of what "democracy" truly means and millions more doubt
the abilities of the ignorant masses to operate and maintain self-government.
The angry stirrings of discontent around the globe, however, reveal a strong
universal desire for new forms of government and more peaceful societies. What
is needed at this precise moment in human evolution is an organized effort that
will nourish and spread the demand for true democracy without relying on elitist
governments or private foundations for approval or funding. The WDDM should be
the organization to activate such an effort. It was born in the Czech Republic
in 1998 by 39 interested citizens from 22 different countries and has had a long
and active life.
This Committee envisions a realworld organization that would be the educational
arm of WDDM called the WDDM Institute of Education that should be headquartered
in a college or university (with branches in other schools of higher learning).
All efforts to transform a hierarchical political system into a deliberative
democratic one is, in essence, an effort to change the future. The committee
believes the segment of society that should be the most interested in the nature
of the future is comprised of the young, for they are the future.
Shouldn’t they have a substantial voice in what that future will be?
Shouldn’t their energies be harnessed in ways to assure them a safe, peaceful
Earth? Shouldn’t they be the ones to help fund such an effort?
The Institute’s mission would be twofold.
First: to develop programs and produce textbooks and literature promoting deliberative
direct democracy. The Committee envisions Professor Dienel's "Planning
Cell" model as the core of both a direct democracy textbook and a newly
designed curricula to be included in all college courses of government and
politics. In this way every student would have the benefit of exposure to the
desirability and workings of a true democratic political system.
Second: to establish programs of education designed specifically for one or the
other segments of society that might be the receptive to true democracy such as
the politically progressive segment, the female, the not for profit, the young
nonstudent, the religious and anti-religious, and the general
population-at-large.
To implement these programs the Institute would establish a student intern
program for young people more interested in solving social problems than
becoming rich. Through progressive levels of internship, these young people
would be trained to spread the word of true democracy to the various societal
segments, to perform the duties of planning cell programmers and moderators and
to go to any city or area on Earth that has asked for the Institute’s
assistance in initiating a system of deliberative democracy. The highest level
of internship would be for prospective Director or Administrator of the
Institute.
It is difficult to imagine a lack of response on the part of the young people of
Earth if they understood that the Institute is the vehicle that would allow them
to be the first Earth humans to enter a future of their own design. To put the
Institute on a sound financial basis, we would ask a minimal membership fee
(perhaps $10 annually) in WDDM from all young people, intern or not.
To understand why we have selected the students of the world for internship and
not all young people, read the original proposal made at the Prague Conference
in September. (link)
Initially, we will use this logo (logo) designed for xxx in Athens, but as soon
as feasible we will hold an international design contest for a logo among the
young people of all countries (which will gain us a great deal of favorable
publicity).
This is the committee’s concept of WDDM's realworld organization, an
organization that would officially begin a concentrated educational effort to
promote an understanding of direct democracy everywhere on Earth.
Your comments,
critiques, and suggestions are welcome.
The Committee: George Kokkas,
Mirek Kolar, Lee Gottlieb
World Direct Democracy Newsletter
Published by THE COALITION for World Parliameny & World Democracy
The Newsletter is published in Arab, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish, and
English
The first issue - 10 september 2005. Information from webmaster@utopianchronicles.org
to worldcitizen@utopianchronicles.org
; editorial: History of World Democracy by Ken Kostyo, U.S.
lawyer living in Amsterdam.
World
Direct Democracy Forum - World democracy activism claiming the
Popular Constituent Power http://64.62.195.58/wddf/viewtopic.php?t=54
Information from 25
September, containing Statement on the European Constituent Process
25 October,
information from Global Dialogue: November 2005
Newsletter is found at
http://www.telusplanet.net/GlobalConstitution/2005NovNews.htm
The theme is: "Direct Democracy" is a community right on
the Scale of Human and Earth Rights
29 October,
New submission to http://democracy.mkolar.org/newURL.html
LINK: http://thegreatexperiment.net
- DD Constitution Chatroom and Study Hall
Mission Statement: To create a pure democracy government model that can exist
among large scale populations. Where all individuals, regardless of wealth,
party affiliation and/or political connections, have access to alter their
government. A society where the government exists as the people themselves and
all decisions, be they right or wrong, are theirs alone to make. Click on
Socrates Forum to see the Constitution in Process. Be a part of the process;
send recommendations and alterations to pure_democracy@yahoo.com
to be a part of the great experiment. See you there.
Michael Stansfield, Pure_Democracy@yahoo.com, United States
16 November,
circular letter sent round by Mr.Joel Marsden: "Dear Direct
Democracy Enthusiasts, I am
currently involved in organizing a World Vote Test where we are trying to prove
that universal suffrage can be extended to every man and woman on the planet.
For detailed information, please have a look at: http://www.worldvotenow.com
In December we will be testing Satellite based mobile voting
machines in three sub-saharan African countries and on May 15th, 2006 we intend
to hold a test vote from every country and territory on the planet.
I would like to invite you to participate in this event. Please let me know if
you are interested and I would be glad to elaborate on the project."
SIMPOL
In the Simpol
discussion channel, several members put forward their standpoints concerning the
relation between simpol and democracy, even direct democracy. Obviously, simpol
is different from democracy. It doesn’t take sides in parliamentary struggles
and doesn’t analyse the essence of democracy. It is a pragmatic, common sense
approach aiming at consensus, just like the DD movement, and therefore there is
an affinity between the two. When DD will get the upper hand in any country,
unavoidably, that country’s leadership will adopt simpol. The "founding
fathers" of the Czech nascent DEMOCRACY party have already decided that
they will formally adopt simpol as soon as the party is registered.
MERRY
CHRISTMAS AND
CONTINUING SUCCESS
IN THE
NEW DD
YEAR!
Vol.7 (No. 4)
|
