|
WORLDWIDE
Vol. 10 (No. 1) March 2008 INTERNATIONAL
Among the activists and theorists (whose number increases all the time in the whole Western world) who want to reform the so called representative "democracy", there are two, to some extent competing, currents: the I&R approach and the Deliberative approach. The former considers the Swiss system as a model and an ideal. The latter seeks inspiration in various sources, from ancient Athens to American electronic town meetings. It seems that the I&R people want to exclude the advocates of deliberation from the DD movement, pretending that only I&R deserves to be called direct democracy. This is a very deplorable standpoint. In Sweden, some twenty years ago, there was a referendum (a plebiscite) about nuclear energy. Shall we go on producing it indefinitely, or shall we successively close all nuclear plants? The latter standpoint prevailed. In the meantime, global warming began to influence public opinion in favor of the use of other energy sources than oil, gas, and coal. Nuclear energy turned out to be an attractive alternative. Most Swedes now want to keep it, but the decision-makers are hampered by the referendum. Advocates of the establishment say: This shows that direct democracy is no good. This is only an extreme example of particratic demagogy: By picking up an untypical, isolated situation, they try to discredit the whole idea. Arguments of this type, using crazy examples to brainwash lazy and poorly informed minds of the majority, are prevalent in the media. Serious DD theorists are boycotted and silenced. The undemocratic rule of party elites is allowed to rave unopposed. Mainstream political "scientists" call particracy "responsible government", suggesting that DD is irresponsible. On the other hand, obviously, qualified decisions about most issues do require knowledge that average citizens do not have. Such knowledge can be obtained using deliberative processes - planning cells, citizen juries and scientific deliberative polling. But such projects cost money that can only be supplied by politicians. Evidently, politicians will not finance deliberation which questions the very system. Dozens of planning cells have been organized in continental Europe, but only concerning politically innocuous issues - a park here, a bus station there, a road, a construction project and the like. Consequently, orthodox I&R people seem to believe that it´s only such issues that are suitable for deliberative projects and that deliberation is irrelevant for the lofty idea of I&R. As a matter of fact, deliberative approaches are opening a Pandora´s box of structural reforms of corrupt, decaying particratic systems, changes inevitable in the long run. With all respect and sympathy for Switzerland, we should understand that the Swiss DD- based system was developed in small communities of a simple society which no longer exists. Owing to a long, unbroken tradition and a unique political culture, the Swiss system still works very well. However, efforts to transplant one element of that system - the I&R - no matter how essential for Switzerland itself - into other particratic systems, without complementing them with structured, informative deliberation, might be not only ineffective, but directly counter-productive. The claim that DD is tantamount to I&R alone opens the field to all sorts of demagogy and paralyses serious democratic development. Let's forget about prestige, let´s join forces! We have not much time if our civilization is to survive. . What Are the Main Elements of Deliberative Democracy? (Quoted from the Journal of Public Deliberation, www.auburn.edu/jpd) At present, there is no single, universally accepted definition of "deliberative democracy". However, there is substantial agreement among those who study and practice it that it is a form of democratic self-governance in which public decisions are shaped through public dialogue and deliberation among citizens rather than solely through adversarial debate among politicians and elected officials. Democratic public deliberation requires that citizens (a) have an equal opportunity to participate in the process (if only by having an equal chance to be selected as part of a representative sample); (b) have ready access to relevant factuaal information and a wide range of viewpoints and arguments about the issue; (c) have adequate time to reflect and talk about the issue or problem; (d) are aided by experienced, non-partisan facilitators who help the group work towards a generally shared judgment about how to resolve the issue or problem. 12 December 2007, a letter sent to the world-wide democracy.net discussion channel by Mr. Daniel Rosen: "I was an independent candidate in the election, a member of no party. In the U.S. the two main parties are a lost cause, as any sentient being knows. As for third parties which might conceivably interest me, I have explained for example to the Greens that I would personally NOT be a member of any party that does not use new technology to implement direct democracy within its own procedures. There is absolutely no reason for any organization at any level of society (unions, environmental and consumer groups, etc) to delegate uncontrolled power to leaders and administrators. In general, however, I think political parties are merely a necessary function of outdated and obsolete politial technology. It is important to note in the American context, that the framers of the constitution viewed political parties, which they called "factions", as the ultimate political vice. History has demonstrated their sagacity in this and other respects." Have a look at: 12 February 2008, a letter sent by Mr.Roy Daine to the CICDD discussion channel: http://www.myverdict.net has been asked to be the focal point for the ´Great Direct Democracy Experiment´, an attempt to select a candidate for public office FROM the people, using the ´Active Democracy´ system outlined at - http://www.myverdict.net/articles/intarticle.php?aricleID=11 The right of people to self-determination, is enshrined in
international law as an inalienable right. This right flows to the people and
not to nations or governments. But no community anywhere, at any time in history, has been
able to exercise this right. In all societies, power, initially, has been taken by the
strongest and any democracy has evolved. The internet gives us a tool, at last, for finding out the
opinion of everybody, on every issue, at every level of society and any
community can now exercise their right to self-determination. Understandably, governments have failed to capitalise on
this, as there is no statutory duty, at least in the UK or USA, to take any
notice of the people (representatives represent constituencies and NOT
constituents). Best Regards Roy 12 January 2008, information sent round by Mr.Miroslav Kolar - new submission: Democracy by the people is a newly formed DD advocacy group
in the U.S. We are currently launching two websites in the form of blogs: We have also built a webpage on which we have compiled over 600 links by country to Direct/Participatory Democracy and Initiative and Referendum related websites and articles. 22 January 2008, a letter sent by Mr.Lee Gottlieb: (see this Newsletter, September 2007) "I've been in Florida for the past month and expect to
be here for another two. True Democracy is still trying to see its day in this
state as witnessed from the article in the St.Petersburg (FL) Times which
claimed that advocates of the Florida Hometown Democracy petition ran into a
brick wall in their efforts to get the amendment on the November ballot. How about such fear?" 24 January 2008, a letter sent round by Mr.Evan
Ravitz: Thanks for your help! Evan " 12 December 2007, Mr. Miroslav Kolar drew our attention to 2 new websites: http://gov21.org -
Governance in the 21 Century 17 December 2007, new submission to http://wwwdemocracy.mkolar.org/MessBoard.html UK New British PM Wants National Citizen Juries to Discuss
Constitutional Reforms This Coming Year by Jim Snider "..... In Britain we have a largely unwritten constitution. To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our constitutional arrangements. So it is right to involve the public in a sustained debate whether there is a case for the United Kingdom developing a full British Bill of Rights and Duties, or for moving towards a written constitution. ......" 22 December 2007, information sent round by Dr.
Michael Macpherson through Mr.M.Kolar´s Meeting Place: Zeitschrift für direkte Demokratie 4/07 7 - 9 December 2007 a meeting of the nascent DD party The
Democracy Movement was held at the town of Karlovice, the home town
of the chairman, Mr.Petr Czasch: 29 December 2008, a letter sent round by "ASCOP": Peoples Congress Consultative Assembly ASCOP 5 January 2008, a letter sent by Mr. Jim Powell to
the WDDM discussion channel: 21 January 2008, information sent round by Mr. Mikael Stenborg concerning the current situation on the global democratization front: 4 January 2008, a letter sent round by Mr.John Bunzl: (excerpt) "Due to the very hard work of a number of Adopters,
Simpol continued to make good progress, managing to sign up a number of new MPs
from around the world. We've also further evolved our policy development
process. But we will have to do far, far better if we want to solve global
problems. .... Vol. 10 (No. 1) March 2008 |