|
DEMOCRACY
Democracy is best described
as - Government of the people, by the people.
A simple banner that says it
all, yet the meaning of democracy has been corrupted by ..........
1. Human Nature
(Brief synopsis as it is not intended as an explanation of the psychology of
humans)
1a. The origins of that go way back to before humans evolved from pack (herd)
animals i.e. numbers equated to the strength to compete and survive.
Packs/herds need leaders, the favoured characteristic was strength,
a) to keep the herd in line, and
b) number one candidate to beat off any contenders/attackers.
1b.We have 'evolved' over that characteristic (and I use the word evolved with
reservations), we now rely on speakers, the advent of visual media has changed
the type of speakers, whereas we did have thinkers who made pre-prepared
speeches, we now have reactors who can answer unknown questions in a cosmetic
way to appeal to the public - hence we have the leaders we deserve - yet the
support wanes when those cosmetic answers become reality.
A thinker can not survive in the media circus because by the time he/she has
considered all the potential options, the 'show' has moved on.
1c. These facets can be seen today in groups, parties, councils, states,
countries, and even groups of countries (the EU is an example of a group of
countries requiring to be bigger, and stronger), yet the bigger they become, the
more one relies on others to do 'something' instead of doing it yourself, thus
it becomes weaker in resolve so every thing becomes a 'bodged job'.
One can predict the future by looking in the past, the Rise and Fall of the
Roman Empire is the pattern that has seen the rise of every empire, it will also
see the fall of current ones i.e. success breeds dependency and complacency.
1d. Yet each level (from groups up to the EU) fail for the same basic reason,
they 'lose' contact with their supporters i.e. the people.
By electing a leader (secretary, chairman, spokesperson, officer, MP, Prime
Minister, President), that person then takes the remit of speaking for everyone
.......... without asking/consulting them first.
2. Processes of asking/consulting/telling.
2.a By the people -
2a1) Petitions are a begging letter, usually fail due to
random signature collecting which is not verifiable.
2a2) Calling for a referendum, this leaves the power in the
hands of authority who have the option of what question/s to ask i.e. using a
Catch-22 type of question/s in the form of the legal question of 'Have you
stopped beating your wife, answer Yes or No', the fact you are-not/never-been
married is does not come in to it.
2a3) Creating a group/faction.
2b By the government -
2b1) Referendums
2b2) call an election
2b3) use polls as evidence (if the result suits them, ignore
it if it does not)
3. Why I&R should change.
I&R track record of success/failure.
Turnouts the same, or rarely higher, than elections.
Successful referendums stand a high chance of being challenged, and reject in
the courts.
This is a typical case of the 7P's (Piss Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor
Performance).
When a Bill goes before parliament, it has the comments/objections addressed in
the form of clauses before voting.
It then goes to the higher house to be ratified, again, more clauses etc, a
worse case scenario will see it thrown back to be re-written.
None of that is in I&R, which makes me wonder -
3a) whether the originators of I&R wanted to keep control in the hands of
political system.
3b) how it has lasted this long with such a crap record.
3c) why no one has done anything about improving it.
Nowhere have I seen an initiative with clauses added to address others concerns
(as a Bill would have going through parliament), therefore people with concerns
are less likely to support it, and if it is successful it is tailor made for the
lawyers to shoot it down in the courts i.e. look at the number that fail through
legal challenges, hence it is not a real threat to the status quo.
An recent example is the Strempt village referendum
http://www.european-referendum.org/up/up137.html
739 citizens were authorized to take part in the referendum, 383 of them made
use of this right. As a result, the participation rate amounted to approximately
52 per cent. Among 383 votes given, 3 were invalid. 279 citizens voted
"Yes" (73,6 per cent of votes), 101 voted "No" (26,4 per
cent of votes).
One can presume the question was are you in favour of the EU Constitution? YES
or NO.
For those who think that Germany should not be in the EU, or there should not be
an EU, the question was total academic so why vote.
37% of the eligible voters voted YES,
13.6% voted NO,
48% could have been dis-enfranchised by the question.
4. How to change.
4.a I&R (Initiative and Referendum) is seen by some to be the answer, some
perceive it to be democracy, yet is it, or can it be.
It has many good points, it also has failings, it needs to evolve but the
question should then be asked whether the name should be used for an evolved
version that corrects the deficiencies.
Referendums have a bad name in some countries do to the political manipulation,
I&R has been tarred with the same brush by name association.
Viewing I&R (albeit from a distance), the biggest failing would appear to be
the lack of public participation before the initiative is set, so any discussion
after that is restricted to convincing the participators of the validity of the
initiative.
4b. To separate the various voting processes for discussion clarity, I would
suggest they be classified as
I&R - as is.
RIP - Representative Initiate Processes (and I wish it would (Rest In
Peace)<grin>)
P-PPD (Public - Participation, Proposal, Decision) which is what I propose as an
evolved version of I&R.
( I choose P-PPD to remove word associate from 'referendum' and 'voting', voting
is often perceived as 'voting for representatives' - hence 'decision', not
voting)
5. P-PPD
Any change will have to be progressive i.e. by evolving, due to -
a) public 'apathy',
b) lack of magic wands.
5 a. Stages.
5.1) Introduce public run deliberation, proposal, and decision. (the publics
voice)
It matters not whether they are legally binding, if the politicians ignore the
result they will be judged on it next election.
5. 1a) Write a 10 Commandments for the public to use as a barometer to
judge the political hierarchy and bureaucrats. (the publics opinion forming)
5. 2) Vote for candidates that declare to abide by public opinion. (public
selection of officialdom)
5. 3) Go back to 1 for the next level of government.
6. Deliberation.
6a. Idea for proposal.
6b. Enlist support
6c. Present the idea to a public committee (see below)
If an idea/issue/proposal was subjected to increasing public involvement as in -
if it was accepted by the lowest level of government i.e. village, it would then
go up to the next level, each time public input would go before presentation for
voting.
This would cope with local issues, district, county, and state before becoming
national.
7. Public Committee.
I looked at the concept of Planning Cells to do this function, which gave a
problem as in a planning cell may have 25 people on it, that's 25 perceptions
for a local population of say 1000.
I then turned it round to the committee formulating/collating the public
responses in order to present a broadest picture possible.
The committee would search out answers to questions, again, to present a
document in as complete overview as possible for the public to judge on,
presenting the facts in a tabulated 'for' and 'against' format.
The committees could have professional people as advisors on technical aspects.
When I was looking at that aspect I found that panels of experts do the
predictable thing of doing what they are trained to do i.e. planners plan, and
lawyers argue, so I opted for expert panels as 'working parties' that advised
the committee.
That way the experts did not get carried away with planning, or arguing, where
there was no need to plan, or argue.
8. Parties/Factions/Groups
Their existence is a symptom, not a cause, and points us to unresolved concerns
that need to be addressed.
The population is a mirror of the individual, same issues, same concerns, the
variation comes from proximity to the problem, or perception/awareness of it's
existence.
People living beside a waste dump/incinerator/factory, would be very aware of
the implications, they are quite likely to be the first to make the
connection that breathing problems have increased in certain weather conditions,
whereas some one living 10 miles down wind may have the same problem but not
make the connection.
When the situation reaches a certain point, someone is going to get on their
'high-horse' and complain, that attracts others to the cause, hey presto, you
have a faction.
The growth of minor parties is indicative of how well the major parties are
doing in addressing the concerns of the population, they are also used by the
public as knuckle-rapping mechanism i.e. get your act together.
Providing a mechanism with which the public can see their concerns being
addressed is potentially more effective in creating unity than allowing the
faction-creating problems to continue.
Solve the problem, not treat the symptom.
9. Decision criteria.
The aim should be consensus, that does not imply that it HAS to be achieved,
consensus is impossible due to the fact there will always be some who are
dieing, seriously ill, holiday, away on business, or would not vote even if it
benefited them, etc.
The question then become to what level is acceptable, AND whether the criteria
should be based on the eligible voters, not just the actual votes.
If the means to address the individuals concerns was in place, there should be
little reason not to base it on the whole electorate.
It is also worthy of note that basing the result on actual votes is used to make
the parties look as though they are performing better than they really are,
there should be no reason for democratic processes to do the same (unless they
did/do it for the same reason).
The usual majority (greater number) vote has a minimum of 50%+1 vote, as neat a
division of the public as one can get, not exactly the objective of a process
aimed at public unity.
66%-75%-80% etc, is sometimes viewed as penalising the minority, if the result
comes in at 65%-74%-79% it is viewed by some as minority rule.
As consensus is the objective, the high pass rate could/should apply, it then
raises the question of if a proposal fails by X%, should it go back to the
originators to reword the proposal (as in parliamentary procedure).
Which then leads to ........
10. Silentmajority - Minority.
Both terms are used extensively in political 'debates' (especially ones
regarding decision criteria) as though they are fixed entities i.e. it's the
same people every time.
It is rarely so even with political parties, even less with issues, peoples
opinion/stance/actions move according to their perception on the 'hot-topic'
under debate.
Perceptions
Nature
INDEX
|
