Page 3 of 4
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|
DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS REAL DEMOCRACY. USING SWISS MODEL AND AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY, DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION. |
|
HOLDING BACK PROGRESS Nature is diverse and complex. Separately it is able to adapt to almost any living condition and collectively it works to regulate the earth's atmosphere. Nature finds the good in all things. What is waste for one living thing becomes in turn a resource for another, and by harnessing this ability, as well as using it as an example, nature could also directly help us to function as a society in a healthier less wasteful way. Using a rich diversity of life forms, it is already possible to create living machines that can transform our wastes, help regulate our climate temperature, generate the fuels we need, culture our food, clean our air and purify our water. 1 Under the current system these and other ecological projects haven't been utilised properly and won't be, at least not for the foreseeable future. This is because both chemical-and-oil-producing companies across the globe would lose a huge amount of business if these innovations were to be used, and the people involved in these chemical and oil industries hold a great deal of power. Lets not forget that many of the world leaders have intimate connections to them. (Are we beating around the Bush here?) The current structure of society gets in the way of progress; it hampers new innovations because it doesn't recognise where our real wealth exists and instead values wealth in monetary terms only. What we are suggesting is a new structure; one that is equal and fair, which recognises and encourages creativity. We are holding ourselves back by subscribing to certain man made laws and traditions, but the opportunity to change them exists if first we believe we want to and second we believe we can. 1. John Todd, Nancy Jack Todd, From Eco-Cities to Living Machines, 'Principles of Ecological Design' A NEW GAME The fun of the money being distributed at the start of a monopoly game fades as one person gets to own all the property deeds, and far from continuing in this state, we naturally start a new game and redistribute the wealth. It may seem strange that achieving the aim of this board-domination game makes playing it any further pointless, but it's worth remembering that monopoly rules are based on how we actually run things in real life. The only real difference is that the dominators of the real life game are refusing to let go of the dice, claiming that now it's forever their turn. Faced with organisations which control most of our vital resources (including the production of money) it can easily feel as if most of us are not even on the board any more. POLITICS Those in power want the rest of us to believe that 'we the people' control what is happening, but really the things that matter are never put to the vote. Is there a box on the ballot to allow you to vote against world domination by multi-national companies? Is there an alternative to the central banking economics? Are we allowed to consider and vote for alternative methods of government? What we have at present is a cleverly presented illusion of choice which allows us to choose only from within the system, but allows no choices outside of it. It's like sailing on the Titanic and being allowed to choose the main course on the menu while having no say on the actual course of the ship, despite having spotted the iceberg. Party manifestoes can be complicated documents that cover a huge number of issues, yet we are expected to decide between them with only one vote. In each manifesto which includes issues you wish to support, there are bound to be some issues you are against, so by voting for what matters to you, you might actually be supporting something you are really against. You might also be supporting things the winning party will introduce after the election which you would never have voted for had you known they would do this before. When we elect a government under our current system, we give them the right to dictate our future for a limited time without ever really knowing fully what they might do. Is this really a responsible way for us to continue? VARIATIONS OF NOTHING Struggle for political power is in every instance an unfair struggle in which the rich and well connected minority have the upper hand over the poor and disillusioned majority. Some struggles are called democratic, and these so called democracies claim that the only alternatives to their systems of government are the systems of dictatorship or anarchy. But in a world full of possibilities, is it at all conceivable that these existing systems are the best that humanity can ever hope to come up with? If an election were to be held tomorrow the only parties able to stand would be the ones that could afford to pay for the privilege. (In Britain the cost is around £500 a seat) As a result it is the same wealthy groups of people who are fighting each time to represent us; so even before we are given the right to choose, choice itself is taken away. Maybe this is why today so many people are deciding not to vote at all. It isn't because they don't care; they just don't care for what's on offer. Aside from this, even if we were given a real choice, not everyone would vote the same, and so in a situation where one party wins with 51% of the vote, the result is that 49% of the population will spend the next 4 to 5 years living under a system that they didn't want. For the 51% of people this is democracy, for the other 49% this is dictatorship; and in a situation were there are more than 2 parties standing, the percentage of people being dictated to can be much higher. IN OUR NAME Politicians label themselves as representatives of the people, speaking and acting on our behalf, but do we really need these kind of representatives anymore? Back in the days of horse and cart, it made sense for one person from each community to travel the long journey to the Capital to speak on their neighbourhood's behalf; but with today's technologies of telephones and computers, we can all communicate with each other over long distances instantaneously. Politicians are making important decisions all the time that affect all aspects of our lives. Allowing them to do this, no matter who or what they call themselves, is to allow them to steal our say in the World. What we have as a result is a rich powerful minority of Politicians, Bankers, Businessmen and combinations of, who in the guise of caretakers are, unconsciously or consciously, cheating the mostly poor and subservient majority. Those at the top of the financial tree who rely totally on those below for their position take our co-operation for granted. They grin with confidence even during an election, secure in the knowledge that whoever we might vote for, we will end up with the same system, with them ultimately in control. The election process as it is now does not threaten the financial powers that are really running things. While they can see the value in giving us a choice on minor matters, there is no way they are silly enough to risk their privileged position by going along fully with the will of the people. The real rulers act beyond democracy and with no mandate from us, and they will continue to do so as long as we collectively let them. DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND THE SWISS In Switzerland a form of direct democracy has been in operation for over 150 years and whilst what we are going to be suggesting will differ in many ways, it's still worth quickly going over how their system works. Politicians are still elected in Switzerland, but if the citizens decide they don't like how things are being run, they can call on a Referendum to reverse their parliament's decisions. The Swiss people can seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to their Constitution, for instance, by gathering the signatures of 100,000 voters within 18 months. This is called a People's Initiative. Once the criteria is met, the whole country gets to vote on the issue. If they wish to have a public vote on a law which has just been passed, they need to gather 50,000 signatures from voters within 100 days of the law coming into effect, and every voter in the country gets a say on the law in question. This they fondly refer to as 'a brake' being applied by the people.1 The orderly procedures that the Swiss employ, involve 16 steps being satisfied before a new law can be enacted. 2 Considering the 6.5 million Swiss people involved, and the 150 years this has been operating, it would be difficult to set up a more convincing experiment to test this process. What we find after all this time is not a country in chaos, but in fact an economically stable country enjoying the highest Gross National Product (GNP) per head in Europe. While the methods of presentation may vary, the Swiss are not the only ones to use referendums to give their citizens a greater say on some contended issues. Referendums have been held recently in Italy, Australia, Canada, France, Denmark and Ireland, and over half of the States in the USA hold them on a regular basis for local decision making. All of these existing forms of direct democracy present us with a good starting point, however major improvements still need to be made, as certain worries posed by many people fail to be addressed. These are that: 1. Direct democracy lays itself open to the whims and reactions of the mob. 2. The topics and wording of issues put up for vote may become open to manipulation. 3. Voter fatigue may set in. 4. The costs of mass voting may become too high. In the following sections, we will be describing a new form of what we will call Specialised Direct Democracy, due to its focus on individual knowledge and experience, and in the process we will give solutions to these four problems. 1. The Swiss Confederation, a brief guide 2003, pg 62 2. The Swiss Confederation, a brief guide 2003, pg 28 - 29 WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY One of the main instigators of the American revolution and a designer of the political system we have today, constantly questioned the status quo to come up with new and better ideas to serve humanity. Much of what he suggested was actually radical to the conventional thinking of his time, causing the words democracy and anarchy to be interchangeably used by most people. Thomas Paine in his book 'Rights of Man' praised the ancient Athenian's form of Direct Democracy, but made clear the distinction between this old method and his new ideal. He argued that many people at the time confused the two, and as a result were able to dismiss his suggestions as something which had been tried before, being no longer workable for the now larger societies. He claimed that if the Athenians had developed their democracy further, monarchies and aristocratical rule would not have been able to take hold. In a similar way we believe that if the Athenian's had had the ability to use the technology we have today, their problem with numbers would have been overcome and representative democracy would also have been superseded. The success of many interactive TV shows demonstrates that the voting process, if done right , would not have to be a costly venture. In fact, in using the technologies of television, radio, computers and telephones we not only could maintain a reasonable level for overall expenses, but also raise public interest and knowledge on the subjects being put up for vote. By taking advantage of technology, both issues (3 & 4) of voter apathy and high costs can be addressed. NATURE'S INDIVIDUAL WAY At present everyone in the country (of voting age) can decide with one vote what is best for everyone. How is this possible? Every issue that might occur over the next few years is covered here, whether it affects you or not. That's what we have now and we call it majority rule or democracy. Within nature you find plants that grow well in the sun while others prefer the shade. Some animals fly in the air while others swim in the ocean. Each one has special needs. Nature does not decree that all animals should live in water or that all plants should grow only in the sunshine. Even a billion birds can't vote to force just one fish to live in the air. Nature works, but it doesn't work that way. All the various forms of life on earth contribute individually for the continued survival of the whole. Trees need to be stationary to produce oxygen while bees need to be mobile to pollinate flowers. Life everywhere depends on diversity, not uniformity, yet our current man made systems strive to impose uniformity on us. The reason for this is easy to explain. In a great state, officials and legislators need to transform their infinitely complicated domain into something more simple for them to control. They realise that the task of truly understanding the detail, and the individual's need, is beyond their capacity, and so give up before they even try. Far easier to homogenise everyone into one big blob and give that blob the opportunity to express its whimsical opinion on mass once every few years. Manageability of this kind is easy but.... THE MAJORITY MYSTERY This brings us to one of the greatest problems with modern large democracies today. Most of the people voting have no direct or vital interest in the issues being decided, and the representatives they choose are usually very remote, and not vaguely familiar with the conditions of life that will be affected by their decisions. This, the product of accepting that the majority is always right. There is no evidence that this is so. In fact when it comes to new ideas the majority is usually wrong, because it is easily guided by prejudice and habit. Declaring the majority right is a way of dismissing the rabble, and whilst we give a 'knee jerk reactions approval' to majority rule at election time, for the most part, we don't actually believe in its reliability. Deep down we know that there are many aspects of life which need no uniform consent to be right or acceptable. Our personal faith, the music we enjoy, the food we eat, the books we read, the clothes we wear, the shows we watch and the way we spend our leisure time are some examples of choices which are not for the majority to decide. Issues that concern only a minority group should not be dictated by votes coming from outside that group of people affected. Where uniformity is not absolutely necessary, the majority should refrain from imposing its will. Rather than have everyone blindly decide on everything for everyone, the Specialised Direct Democracy being suggested here allows everyone to help decide on everything that 'concerns them', with ample opportunity for new creative ideas to be expressed and implemented. This is calling on everyone to have a positive responsible influence on what they know best, while guaranteeing that no one will ever be subjected to the actions of distant politicians, ever again. Creating three main categories, Local, National and Global, plus sub categories to include our various places of work, would help facilitate an effective Direct Democracy. By dividing responsibility in this way we are better able to pinpoint knowledge and need, as well as reduce the amount of votes that each individual would need to make. LOCAL & SUB VOTES Giving people the ability to have a say in the way their local community is run is much more efficient and productive; as well, it restores a sense of pride in their area, and allows for more qualified decisions to be made. Decisions made by far away faces are less likely to take into account the real needs of the local people or environment. The people who know best are the people who live there. Up until the point when our decisions start to affect others, our freedom of choice should be respected. In the same way, our places of work would benefit from being managed more democratically; for industries to function responsibly, individuals within them need to be given a voice. Various companies are already successfully being run in this way.1 Allowing for a self management of this kind would be a vast improvement on our current system; more often than not issues become so bogged down by bureaucrats who's spurious knowledge of the industry produces decisions that fly in the face of reason. Logic dictates that you would not likely ask an electrician or a plumber for medical advice if you were sick, so where is the sense in asking a plumber to vote on how to run a hospital or indeed a doctor to vote on the best way to run a water purification unit? What concerns only the inner workings of a service should be decided by those working to provide that service. 1. Ricardo Semler, Semco NUMBERS VERSUS KNOWLEDGE We discussed how some things need a critical mass to work properly. Democracy is odd in that it only works well up to certain levels, under certain conditions and outside these limits it becomes a farce. Its potency gets diluted when millions attempt to decide many issues with only one vote each. For example, we indicated you would consult a doctor and not a plumber if you were sick. To get a second opinion from another doctor would be considered wise, but to ask a 100 plumbers to vote on what treatment you should have would be silly. It's not about numbers, it's about knowledge. The point here is that we are all better off if we allow those who understand an issue first hand to decide it. It might sound fair to allow everyone a say, but it's not sensible. The last thing you want to see when having an operation is your doctor asking the cleaners and interns for a show of hands. Only when an issue has an effect on people outside of the given business, industry or community should the decision making be expanded to incorporate a wider set of opinions and needs. If only those affected by an issue have a vote on it, this would rapidly reduce the amount of votes each of us would be required to take part in. It ensures that while we all would have a say on what's important to us, we would not all be swamped with questions that are best answered by people who better understand the subject. SUGGESTING AN ISSUE FOR VOTE People from within a service will understand the practicality of their suggestions, however people from outside may also come up with ideas from time to time, which could be of great benefit, and these ideas should not be overlooked. Therefore, a suggestion from outside a profession might require a few people from within to co-sign it and confirm its viability. This would be similar in design to the Swiss system, except it would need less signatures for each presented idea, because the people putting their name to it would be targeted professionals in the field for which the idea is potentially being adopted. To prevent professional people from being inundated with requests for co-signatures, each service could have an office that accepts suggestions and posts them to be co-signed. And of course rewards could be given to those who made or co-signed innovative suggestions that were implemented. This would encourage the flow of creative ideas and as well would address the problem of who would be behind the presentation of topics and their wording. ISSUES NOT POLITICIANS If you were allowed to vote on issues instead of for politicians, you would not risk being dictated to for years, if your vote lost. You might lose on some issues, but odds are you would win some too, and you would definitely not be made to feel powerless for years like you do now. As many issues would be decided locally, there would naturally be variations of choice from one area to another and this would create with it extra benefits, as ideas could be tried, tested and then compared with each other.
And whilst we do want a direct say on major issues affecting our community, like the building of roads or the erection of hospitals, most of us would be happy to leave the details of say, the hospital menu, in the capable and experienced hands of a nutritionist.
|
