Directe Democratie versusBROV als correctie op Political Party Rule Piet De Pauw 16 Maart 2010
Zijn Bindende Referenda op Volksinitiatief(BROV) het einddoel?ofIs the BROV slechts een middel om heteinddoel “directe democratie”,geimplementeerd als politiek zonderpolitieke partijen, te bereiken?
Direct Democracy= Politics without Politicians Aki Orr
Akiva OrrAkiva or Aki Orr (b. 1931) is an Israeli writer and political activist. He is an outspoken critic of Zionism and supports a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since 1968 Orr has been an leading advocate of radical direct democracy.
Akiva Orr Early lifeOrr was born in Berlin in 1931. His parents leftGermany when he was 3 and moved to Palestine. Orrgrew up in Tel Aviv and attended the First MunicipalSchool of Tel Aviv. Orr was a keen swimmer and wasthe Maccabi 200m breast stroke champion in 1946 and1947. In 1946 Orr was drafted into the Haganah, theJewish paramiltary organisation which was to developinto the Israeli Defence Forces following the creationof the State of Israel in 1948. Orr joined the Navy,which played a minor role in the 1948 War ofIndependence.
Akiva Orr Political CarreerOrr served in the Israeli navy until 1950, and then joined the merchant navy. He participated in the Israeli Seaman Strike of 1951 which lasted 40 days.It was during this time that Orr became politicised as a result of a beating incurred at the hands of the Israeli police. In the same year he joined theIsraeli Communist Party. Orr remained in the merchant navy until 1955, when he moved to Jerusalem to study mathematics and physics at the HebrewUniversity. There, he served as secretary of the Union of Communist Science Students at the University. Following his graduation in 1958, Orr startedteaching mathematics and physics at the AIU Technical College.In 1961, Orr published his first major work. Written with Moshe Machover under the pseudonym, A Israeli, Shalom, Shalom veein Shalom (Hebrew: , שלו ; שלו , ואי שלוPeace, Peace, and there is no Peace) set out to demonstrate how Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion had colluded with Britain and France in acolonial war against Egypt and disprove Ben-Gurions claims that the 1956 Suez War had been a war fought to save Israel from annihilation.In 1962, Orr left the Israeli Communist Party and alongside Machover, Oded Pilavsky and Jeremy Kaplan formed The Israeli Socialist Organization,better known by the name of its publication Matzpen. Its founders rejected what they saw as the Israeli Communist Partys unquestioning loyalty to theSoviet Union. They defined "Socialism" as a regime run by Workers Councils, not by a political party.Matzpen criticized the Zionist project in Israel as a colonising project, although they were careful to distinguish it from the European colonialism of the19th and 20th century, arguing that the Zionists had come to Palestine to expropriate the indigenous population rather than to exploit them economically.Matzpen remained on the fringes of Israeli politics throughout its existence, never gaining more than a few dozen members, although the group beganto receive attention in the Israeli press after the 1967 war and the emergence of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.Orr left Israel in 1964 to study Cosmology in London, where he continued to be politically active. He co-founded and was on the editorial board ofISRACA (Israeli Revolutionary Action Committee Abroad), an anti-Zionist publication "devoted to a critique of the ideological, cultural and psychologicalaspects of Political Zionism"In London, Orr became acquainted with several prominent left-wing intellectuals, such as the Austrian poet Erich Fried, the veteran revolutionary Rosa-Levineh-Meyer, the German student leader Rudi Dutschke, and Trinidadian Marxist and cricketing authority CLR James, with whom he enjoyed closefriendships.In 1968 he joined the London-based group “Solidarity”, a libertarian socialist organisation and befriended its Greek mentor Cornelius Castoriadis. Fromthis time on, Orr became a libertarian socialist (not ideologically bound to the theories of Marx and Lenin). 1972 saw the publication of The Other Israel:the radical case against Zionism, a collection of articles and documents by various Matzpen members, including Orr, Machover and Haim Hanegbi, editedby Arie Bober.In 1984 Ithaca Press published Orrs The Un-Jewish State: the Politics of Jewish Identity in Israel, in which he argued that political Zionism had failedto create a secular Jewish identity.In 1994, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises was published, a collection of Orrs essays which also dealt with the issues arising from the clashbetween Israels secular and Jewish identities. By this time, Orr had moved back to Israel (in 1990).
Akiva Orr Direct DemocracyFollowing his conversion to Libertarian Socialism in the late 1960s, Orr became increasingly active inthe promotion of radical Direct Democracy, which rejects the notion of representative democracy andcalls for political decision-making to be placed in the hands of every single citizen.Orrs ideas are grounded in the events of May 1968 in France. In the wake of this wildcat generalstrike, (opposed at first by all Unions and Political Parties), which at its peak saw 10 million employeeson strike for 20 days, thousands of self-managed committees sprang up throughout the country. Theydid not make any economic demands but asserted their right to run their institutions independently.Drawing on contemporary reports of the Observer journalists Patrick Seale and MaureenMcConville, Orr asserts the desire of the strikers was not to reform the political system but toreplace it entirely by a system of democratic self-governance, in which all employees have a say in thedecision-making process.Orr argues that while in 1968 the technology did not exist to enable all citizens to participate indecision making, it exists today.Orr has argued that political corruption is an inherent feature of politics by representatives and of allelections and that only a system of "politics without politicians" can eliminate corruption.Orr has written and distributed two major works on Direct Democracy, "Politics without Politicians",an outline of the central tenets of Direct Democracy and "Big Business, Big Government or DirectDemocracy: Who Should Shape Society?", a history of the 20th century viewed in terms of theconflict between state and private control of the economy, a conflict which the author sees as thedefining feature of the epoch. Orr states that a system of Direct Democracy is the only viablealternative to big government states or big business states, both of which he views as oppressiveforms of governance.
Akiva Orr WorksEnglish1972 - The Other Israel: the Radical Case against Zionism, edited by Arie Bober, withcontributions by various Matzpen members ()1984 – The Un-Jewish State: The Politics of Jewish Identity in Israel, (Ithaca Press)1994 - Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises, (Pluto Press)2005 - Politics without Politicians (self-published, available online)2007 - Big Business, Big Government or Direct Democracy: Who Should Shape Society?(World Power Politics of the 20th Century and their Lesson) (self-published, availableonline)Hebrew1961 - Peace Peace & there is no Peace Shalom, Shalom veein Shalom (with MosheMachover)2002 – Alternative to a Psychotic State2003 - From protest to revolution (Five talks to young activists)2005 - Flashbacks (recollections of London)
Direct Democracy= Politics without Politicians Aki Orr
Political power coerces.Political equality inspires. Aki Orr
Mistrust in PoliticiansAll over the world today most people mistrust mostpoliticians.Political scandals, conspiracies and corruption occurdaily in every country and in every political party,hence most politicians are mistrusted even by theirsupporters. Many believe that politics necessarilybreeds corruption (there’s a well-known saying, “Allpower corrupts”). No wonder many people mistrust notonly politicians or Parties but all politics.Many refuse to vote. They no longer believe electionscan make a significant change.Non-voting for representatives is a vote of “noconfidence” on rule by representatives.
Often people disgusted by most Politicians’duplicity seek trustworthy politicians. Ifthey find some, those too eventuallydisappoint them. No wonder some believe adictator should replace parliament. Others,rejecting dictators but seeing noalternative, give up and leave politics topoliticians. This makes matters worse aspoliticians concerned more with their powerthan with the interests of society are leftto run society.
The SolutionThis presentation explains how all citizens can - without representatives -run society by voting directly for POLICIES rather than for politicians.When all citizens decide all policies politicians are redundant.Politicians decide for citizens.Authority to decide for others is “Power”, and it is this Power - not politics– that breeds corruption.Abolishing authority to decide for others will abolish corruption.When no one has the right to decide for others, politics will be purged ofhipocricy, duplicity, and conspiracies.When all citizens decide all policies themselves we have a new politicalsystem called DIRECT Democracy (DD).In this system no one decides for others, no one is paid for deciding policy,so costs of running society are greatly reduced, while citizens’ concern fortheir society is enhanced.
No political system can cure all political problems.Belief in such a cure is a dangerous delusion. Thereis no such cure. Abolishing power will solve manypolitical problems but not all of them. When everycitizen can propose, debate and vote on every policyno one has authority to decide for others sopoliticians’ power is abolished. Political power workslike a drug. Those who get it - in any State, Church,municipality, school, or family - become addicted toit. They should be treated like addicts who will doanything to get their drug.Many politicians crave power for its own sake, buteven those who use it to improve society will doanything to hold on to it.
DIRECT Democracy abolishes political power byforbidding anyone to decide for others.In DIRECT Democracy no one decides for others. Everycitizen can decide directly every policy. Every citizen hasonly one vote on every policy and represents him/herselfonly.If a policy produces undesirable results, those who votedfor it are responsible.To prevent recurrence of bad results voters mustdiscover what made them vote for a bad decision andreconsider their motives. This enables people to searchfor causes of political problems within themselves - notoutside themselves - to find them and overcome them.
SummaryDirect Democracy can be summed up thus: Every citizen has, every moment, authority to propose, debate, and vote for, every policy. This abolishes political power. There are no representatives with authority to decide policy for others. In DIRECT democracy no one decides any policy for others Every citizen has the right to propose, debate, and vote on every policy. Whether citizens use this right - or not - is up to them.
1. To ‘decide’ is to choose one option from a number of options. If only one option exists we cannot choose and there is nothing to decide. To choose is to prefer. Preference is determined by a priority. So every decision is determined by a priority.To "reach a conclusion" is utterly different. Only one right conclusion exists and we cannot choose it according to our priorities. We must deduce it from the data by using logical reasoning and technical knowledge. Data, reasoning and knowledge - not priorities - determine a single right conclusion. We must accept it even if we prefer a different one.2. A conclusion can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, (2+2=5), but not ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’. There are no bad conclusions, only wrong ones. A decision can be ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’, but not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. There are no wrong decisions, only bad ones..3. Those making a decision are responsible for its outcome as they could decide differently - by a different priority - and get a different outcome. Those who draw a conclusion are not responsible for its results. They could not draw a different conclusion that is right. They are responsible only for the conclusion being right, not for its results.4. Data determines conclusions, it does not determine decisions. The same data forces different people to draw the same conclusion, but they can make different decisions on it because of their different priorities.
To vote is to choose. To choose is to prefer.In elections we decide who will decide forus what our society should do. We chooseothers to express our preference andexpect them to prefer according to ourpriorities. They are supposed to serve as amere extension of us.In reality they impose their own prioritieson us.
How politicians decideMany believe that politicians apply the preferences of those whoelected them. Usually they don’t. Nor do they possess a special skill fordeciding.Every decision is determined by a priority, not by a skill.Decision-making is a role, not a skill; everyone makes decisions daily.The Athenian philosopher Plato - who opposed Democracy - argued thatdecision-making is a skill like that of a ship’s captain who steers a shipin a particular direction by using knowledge of ships and navigation. Butsociety is not a ship. All passengers on a ship want to reach the samedestination, but not all citizens in society want the same policy sincethey have different priorities.Politicians need some skills to get Power, like conspiracy (to defeatrivals); flattery (to get the support of superiors); and hypocrisy (to winvoters) but they need no special skill for deciding policy.Politicians decide policy according to their personal priority likeeveryone else.
Values and Beliefsdetermine everything what is below
A priority is a principle that determinespreference. Without a priority we cannotchoose.To ‘decide’ is to choose one option from anumber of options. To choose is to prefer.We prefer according to our priority.Priorities determine what we consider as‘good’ and for whom it is ‘good’.Many believe priorities are ‘natural’ or ‘self-evident’. Not so. Priorities are arbitraryassertions we make as without them wecannot make a decision.
Five different number 1 priorities All political priorities can be sorted into just five types by posing the question: “I want to do what is “Good”, but for whom should this be good ”? The five possible answers are: 1. Good for me/my family (the Ego-centric priority) 2. Good for my King/Country/Nation/tribe (the Ethno- centric priority) 3. Good for Humanity (the Anthropo-centric priority) 4. Good for God (the Theo-centric priority) 5. Good for all Nature (the Bio-centric priority)
Only 1 priority?At any moment we have a single priority. We need it aswithout it we cannot decide.We cannot have two priorities at the same time, as wecannot prefer two things. We may want two things but ifwe must choose one of them we must prefer by using ourpriority.Each priority excludes all other priorities. ‘Good for Kingand Country’ excludes ‘Good for me’; ‘Deutschland uberAlles’ excludes ‘Rule Britannia’; both exclude ‘Good forHumanity.’ Many people use one priority for one purposeand another priority for other purposes but at any givenmoment everyone has only a single priority.
Once implanted it is very difficult to change priorities In his inaugural speech in 1961 President Kennedy appealed to the citizens of the USA to change their priority. He said : “Ask not what your country can do for YOU. Ask what YOU can do for your country.” He asked them to change their priority from ego-centrism to ethno- centrism. Very few did so. Priorities are programmed into children by parents, teachers, leaders. Once implanted, it is very difficult to change them - especially if this is done using authoritarian means. People believe that their own priority is ‘natural’, ‘self-evident’, ‘the only sensible choice’. But all priorities are arbitrary. No priority can be justified ‘objectively’ as every justification is itself based on a priority which requires justification. Despite Kennedy’s request, very few Americans changed their ego-centric priority. Some Americans decided that Kennedy’s priorities contradicted their priorities and assassinated him on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. This event - like all wars - demonstrates that conflicts of priorities often motivate people to kill.
Current SituationPoliticians decide what society will do.The State carries out these decisions.This raises two questions:1. What is ‘Society’?2. What is ‘The State’?
SocietyThe difference between “people” and “society” is not inhow they look but in how they behave. A ‘society’ is notmerely people living next to each other but people behavingaccording to rules accepted by all of them. These rules -known as ‘laws’ - are made to resolve conflicts betweenpeople, and are accepted by most people in a society.Obedience to laws makes “people” into a ‘society’. Differentsocieties make different laws, but only when a group ofpeople accepts the same laws do they become a society.Not everyone obeys every law, but most of the time mostpeople obey most laws. Some do so out of fear ofpunishment, but most people in most societies obey mostlaws because they know that without laws there will beconstant strife and living together will be impossible.
Freedom for people living in a societyTotal freedom is impossible in any society. It is possible only when one lives -voluntarily - isolated from all people. Living with others requires accepting,occasionaly, their decisions, and limiting one’s own decisions so they do notharm others. Even two people living together voluntarily have disagreements,and each must, occasionally, accept decisions of the other.If the same person always accepts others’ decisions, that person is oppressed.But if people take turns in accepting others’ decisions they limit theirfreedom - voluntarily - for the sake of living together. This occurs in mostfamilies, communities, cities, and societies.In society people agree to obey decisions of others if others in turn obeydecisions of theirs.If the same person or group always has to bow to decisions of others, theyare oppressed.Total freedom for every member of a group is impossible in any group, even inthe smallest anarchist commune.
Freedom for people living in a societyMost people prefer to live in groups such as family, tribe, society,with partial, rather than total, freedom. However, there aredifferent degrees of partial freedom. Living under elected rulersgives people more freedom than living under unelected rulers, as theruled can at least decide who will decide for them. But those livingunder elected rulers have less freedom than those living withoutrulers. A society where every citizen can propose, debate and voteon every law and policy is self-ruled, and its majority lives by its owndecisions. The minority must obey majority decisions but if theminority has a fair chance to become a majority it is not oppressed.These citizens enjoy far more freedom than those who live in asociety where representatives decide every law and policy.Politics without politicians (Direct Democracy) allows the highestlevel of freedom possible in any society. It is not total freedom, asmajority decisions are binding and the minority must accept them.So the minority is not totally free.
The minority is not totally free.However: Those in a minority on one issue can be in the majority on another decision. A minority that can promote its views and become a majority is not oppressed. A minority prevented from becoming a majority by rules (laws) forbidding it - or restricting its ability - to publicize its views, is oppressed - but if it can publicize its views, gain votes and become a majority, it is not.
Direct democracy within a societyDirect Democracy enables every minority topromote its views, however disagreeable they maybe .This stimulates public debates on policy,increases people’s concern for their society, andraises the quality of life in society as a whole and ofeach individual within it.Indifference to society breeds boredom anddepression. By encouraging people to participate indeciding what their society should do DirectDemocracy will dispel their indifference to societyand thus the boredom and depression most peoplesuffer today.
Principle of Political Equality (PPE)The Principle of Political Equality (PPE) asserts that even though notwo citizens are biologically equal all must have equal authority tovote on every law and policy of their society. Only those who havethis equality live by their own decisions - and are free.When all citizens have equal authority to make laws, they canlegislate other equalities.They can decide all laws of society, including other equalities.PPE must be applied to any group, couple, family, tribe, nation, army,place of work, school, and to society itself. PPE asserts the right ofevery member of a group to propose, debate and vote on everydecision of the group. Some will accept PPE as self-evident. Otherswill prefer to die rather than accept it. They will oppose itsapplication to society - but even more so to family, school, and work.PPE abolishes power and domination in every domain of society, infamilies, schools, places of work, trade unions, and political parties.It equalizes ‘leaders’ and ‘led’, dominators and dominated.
Opposition to PPEOpponents of political equality argue that most citizenslack the knowledge to understand the laws they votefor, either their benefits or their drawbacks.But this applies to most politicians who vote on lawsnowadays. Most of them are not legal experts, yet theydebate and vote on new laws and policies. They callexperts to explain the consequences of proposedpolicies, then they choose the option that suits theirown priorities.Every citizen can do the same. Citizens can listen onradio or TV to panels of experts explaining a new law orpolicy, and later vote on it.If a law or policy has unforeseen negative results, thecitizens can always repeal them.
Political PartiesParty Rule is not democracy. In ‘Demos-kratia’ thecitizens vote directly for policies, not for politicalParties. What is called "Democracy" today is Rule byRepresentatives (RR).In Democracy Party leaders can decide only thepolicies of their Party, not of society as a whole.Parties can propose a policy to the citizens; but notdecide it for them.A political party advocating a particular policycontributes to democracy, but a Party deciding allpolicies for all citizens is blatantly anti-democratic.
Political Parties RuleAfter World War II, Political Parties everywhere deteriorated in three ways:1. Party Officials took over the Party from the policy-makers.2. Parties began to seek power for their own sake, not for the sake of society.3. Parties turned into vote-collectors rather than advocators of particular policies..Power itself - not particular policies - became the aim of Political Parties.Today, in most countries, Party officials run States (and Parties) for their own benefit, not for the benefit of all citizens. Most people today believe Politics is about Party Power.This reflects the confusion in most peoples minds - including "Political Science" academics - concerning the meaning of politics.Political means have become political ends and most people believe this is normal.
Direct DemocracyIn a Direct Democracy every citizen has the right to participate in the first task, to proposea policy, to debate and vote on it. Public debates on policies are the core of DirectDemocracy.In Athens these debates stimulated people to produce Philosophy, to invent the Theatre,Tragedy, Comedy, and to convince people by logical reasoning rather than by imposing one’sauthority.Public debates on policies are genuine only if facilities exist enabling every citizen toparticipate.How can millions do so? Today they can do it - by using TV for the debate, and mobilephones, magnetic cards and touch screens for voting. In ancient Athens citizens debatedpolicy in an open-air space called “Agora”. The modern Agora is TV where every citizen canspeak to millions of other citizens. In DD every government Department (Health, Education,Industry, Finance etc.) operates its own TV channel around the clock all year round. Tuning into a channel will show a panel debating policies for this department.Panel members must have knowledge and experience with issues of the particulardepartment. They will answer questions phoned in by the public. They will explain the goodand bad points of every proposal. Panel members must be drawn by lottery (not by elections)from a list of those with the required expertise. Panel members will be changed regularly; nomember will serve two consecutive periods. Any reward to panel members will be a punishablecrime.
Direct DemocracyThe TV channel will display lists of all proposed policies and the panel will debate the pros and cons of each one. Viewers will be able to phone in at any time to question, criticize or suggest ideas. Every proposal will be allocated a discussion time (set by Constitution). When this time is up the proposal will be put to the vote. The public will have 48 hours to vote on each one. Any proposal receiving the required number of votes will be submitted to a second round of debates and voting. A policy gaining the required number of votes in the second round of voting will become state policy. If citizens demand a third vote, the proposal will be submitted to a third round of debating and voting.
Direct DemocracyPublic debates on policies, by millions of people, are possibletoday. Clearly, when ‘politics without politicians’ is established,all citizens will have to devise and adopt a Constitution to decideall the procedures. Unforeseen problems will emerge, but ‘wherethere’s a will, there’s a way’, especially with the help of TV,mobile phones, magnetic cards, touch-screen input and theInternet. What technology to use, and how, will be decided by allcitizens when Direct Democracy is set up. For now it issufficient to realize that by using electronic communication wecan establish a political system where every citizen can propose,debate and vote on every law and policy.When a policy has been decided a panel will be set up to carry itout. Panel members will be drawn by lottery from a pool of allthose with experience and knowledge of the specific task. Theywill be changed at regular intervals. Complaints about panelmembers’ inefficiency or corruption will be invistigatedimmediately - and punished if it was the case..
How does DirectDemocracy Work? (1/3) All citizens vote directly on all policies. There are no elections, no Parliament and no Government. 50% +1 vote is sufficient to accept a policy proposal. Each domain of the society, such as health, education, finance, agriculture, transport etc is allocated a TV channel and internet domain open 24 hours every day all the year round.
How does DirectDemocracy Work? (2/3) Every citizen has one vote. Voting is not a duty, but a right. However, a policy is binding for all, including those who did not participate in the voting on it.
How does DirectDemocracy Work? (3/3) Every citizen has the right to propose any policy, to vote on any policy, and to criticize any policy. Once a policy has been approved, a Committee will be drawn by lottery from a pool of people with the relevant experience and knowledge required, to carry it out.
Directe Democratie versusBROV als correctie op Political Party Rule
Tekortkomingen van hetsysteem BROV als correctie op Political Party Rule1) Macht is de oorzaak van het corrupte systeem van Political Party Rule. Die macht wordt in het systeem van BROV als correctie mechanisme op Politcal Part Rule wel gereduceerd, maar de macht door politieke partijen uitgeoefend is nog steeds zeer sterk. Elke macht corrumpeert. Wanneer er nog steeds heersende politieke partijen zijn, is er nog steeds corruptie. Het is de macht van de heersende politieke partijen die moet gebroken worden. Deze macht wordt onvoldoende gebroken in het systeem van BROV als correctie of Political Party Rule.2) De handtekening drempel bij BROV is nog steeds veel hoger dan de drempel die de heersende politieke partijen hebben voor het beslissen over policies. De heersende politieke partijen zijn in principe steeds aan zet. Er is zelfs geen machtsevenwicht.3) In het systeem BROV als correctie op Political Party Rule wordt de uitvoering in principe nog volledig overgelaten aan de heersende politici, daaruit putten ze veel macht, en dus veel mogelijkheid tot corruptie.
Kijk maar wat er inZwitzerland gebeurtDe regering excuseert zich voor de "foute"stemming van de Zwitzers over het verbodop minaretten.In Zwitzerland maken politieke partijenBROVs ondergeschikt gemaakt aan hetEuropees verdrag voor de Mensenrechten,en staat het hele systeem van BROVsdaardoor onder toenemende druk.
Mening van een democraat “… ben ik tot de overtuiging gekomen dat de impact en zelfs de vorming van een politieke kaste zoals die nu bestaat totaal moet geëlimineerd worden. De Zwitsers bv zitten nog altijd met een politieke kaste en een particratie die het land bestuurt; de bevolking staat voortdurend aan een ideologisch bombardement bloot vanuit de door die kaste gecontroleerde staat, en ze kan hier en daar via de referenda wel wat tegengas bieden, maar niet echt tot een vrije samenleving komen. Voor mij is het Zwitsers voorbeeld interessant om te tonen dat directe besluitvorming niet tot rampen leidt, zoals voorstanders van de particratie altijd beweren, wel integendeel. Dus het vertegenwoordigende luik van de democratie dient, indien het überhaupt nodig is, volledig uit handen van de politieke parasieten te worden gehaald…”
Initiatives and Referenda to controlrepresentatives in a Political Party Ruled system versus Direct Democracy Some people support DD but do not define it as Politics Without Politicians. They support reformed Rule by Representatives. They want citizens’ Initiatives and Referendums (I&R) to control representatives. Basically, they accept Rule by Representatives. I&R merely tries to reform or ameliorate the faults of RR, while upholding it. I&R supporters refuse to define DD as ‘politics without politicians’ as this exposes I&R as reformed RR.
Path to Rule by parties Directe democratieTwo solutions:1) Revolution (destroys and requires that the struggle for power is won)2) Use BROV as crowbar (breekijzer) to reach Direct Democracy Can it ever reach this goal? (ref: how direct democracy is under pressure in Switzerland).
Bijkomende argumentenResultaten Correlatiestudie Feld en Matsusakade gemeente is de basisbouwsteen van directe democratie.De ervaring leert dat in gemeenten waar beslissingengenomen worden via directe democratie, de uitvoerendemacht of het uitvoeren van beslissingen, meer en meer inhanden is van individuele burgers of gespecializeerdemaatschappijen, los van politieke partijen.directe democratie, in tegenstelling tot het zogenaamdrepresentatieve systeem, kan volledig in overeenstemmingmet het “ recht tot zelfbeschikking” worden gebracht. Dit“recht tot zelfbeschikking” is een essentieel element van denatuurlijke rechten van de mens, en de “Verklaring van deRechten van de Mens en de Burger” uit 1789.
Effect van de handtekening drempels op de efficientie van overheidsuitgaven in USABron: John Matsusaka: For the Many or the Few, University of Chicago Press, 2004
Resultaten besparingen bij Financiele Referenda Besparing op Uitgaven Overheid door Financiele Referenda 0,0% 0 5 10 15 20 -5,0% Besparing (%) -10,0% Alleen kantons met verplichte referenda Alle kantons -15,0% -20,0% -25,0% Drempel Financieel Referendum (M CHF)Alle = 26 Zwitserse kantonsKantons met verplichte referensa: 17 van de Zwitserse kantons
BesluitHet invoeren van verplichte financiele referenda vooruitgaven boven 0.5M CHF (ongeveer 0.34 M EUR) leidt tot20% besparing op de totale overheiduitgaven.Hoe hoger de drempel voor een financieel referendum, hoekleiner het besparingseffect. Financiele drempels van 10 MCHF reduceren het besparingseffect tot 14%.Het ophalen van handtekeningen voor het afsmeken van eenreferendum bij de heersende bestuurders, verlaagt hetbesparings effect. Het ophalen van handtekeningen (ook al isde handtekeningdrempel slechts 0.7% tot 2% van dekiezers) is een blijkbaar een significante drempel.
Bestuur van gemeentenzonder politieke Partijen Het bestaat
De gemeenschap Conters inPrättigau, Graubünden, Zwitzerland Das Recht auf Selbstbstimmung Eine kleine Berggemeinde will autonom bleiben Interview mit Andrea Nold, Gemeindepräsident von Conters im Prättigau, Graubünden http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ausgaben/2010/nr1-vom-412010/das-recht-auf- selbstbstimmung/ Am 11. Dezember 2009 wurde in der Gemeindeversammlung der Prättigauer Gemeinde Conters das Thema Fusionen traktandiert, und dies führte zu einem erstaunlich mutigen Resultat: Die anwesenden Stimmbürger waren sich einig, dass sich eine Fusion mit anderen Gemeinden nicht aufdrängt und man so lange wie möglich eigenständig bleiben will. Im folgenden Interview mit dem Gemeindepräsidenten Andrea Nold fragten wir nach den Gründen für diese klare Haltung. Er selbst zog vor 23 Jahren in die Gemeinde, um in einem kleinen, autonomen Bergdorf zu leben, wo die Strukturen es vermehrt erlauben mitzuwirken. Seit vier Jahren ist er Präsident des Gemeindevorstandes und wie die anderen vier Mitglieder parteilos.
Het Vergeten DemocratischVerleden van Fosses-la-Ville Jos Verhulst
Fosses-la-Ville Fosses-la-Ville is een klein stadje in het arrondissement Namen. Het maakte deel uit van het prinsbisdom Luik. Fosses-la-Ville kende vanaf de veertiende eeuw tot aan de Franse revolutie een merkwaardig, eeuwenlang durend democratisch regime (*). De preciese organisatie van het lokale bestuur in Fosses-la-Ville kennen we erg uit een charter van 11 december 1447. Het dagelijks bestuur werd gevormd door een gemeenteraad, die jaarlijks werd verkozen. De verkiezing gebeurde op Pinksteren. De keuze van deze dag is niet toevallig: “Les Chrétiens invoquent le Saint-Esprit lorsqu’il doivent prendre des décisions importantes” (Lecomte 2003, p.130). De gezinshoofden van de burgers verzamelden zich dan bij de benedenpoort van Fosses, en duidden de leden van de gemeenteraad aan met meerderheid van stemmen. Na de veertiende eeuw werden die volksvergaderingen per wijk gehouden, maar in wezen bleef het systeem ongewijzigd. Niet enkel de burgers in de stad zelf, maar ook de ‘bourgeois forains’ uit het omliggende platteland stemden mee.(*) Jean Lecomte “L’éveil de la démocratie à Fosses-la-Ville aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles” 1995, 2003.
Fosses-la-VilleDe verzameling van bijeengekomen burgers werd de ‘Généralité’ genoemd. Zij duidde niet enkel de gemeenteraad aan, maar was ook bevoegd voor alle belangrijke zaken. De gemeenteraad kon dan niet zelf beslissen, maar diende een volksvergadering bijeen te roepen. Lecomte somt de volgende bevoegdheden op, die onvervreemdbaar tot de prerogatieven van de ‘Généralité’ behoorden ondermeer: uitvaardiging van nieuwe reglementen en statuten verkoop of hypothekering van gemeentelijke goederen belangrijke werken goedkeuring van de eindejaarsrekening opleggen van belastingen (‘taiiles’)
Fosses-la-VilleHet was de taak van de burgemeesters om de ‘Généralité’samen te roepen wanneer op zo’n domeinen een beslissinggenomen moest worden.De taak van de gemeenteraad was in wezen uitvoerend: delopende zaken dienden behartigd te worden, maar nieuweprincipes en zwaarwegende besluiten dienden steeds directdoor de burgers goedgekeurd te worden.Te noteren valt dat dit democratisch regime perfect konfunctioneren zonder politieke partijen.
Fosses-la-Ville Après bien des vicissitudes et des guerres au cours des XVIe et XVIIe siècles, la ville avait perdu de son éclat et après la bataille de Fleurus, en 1794, les Français occupèrent notre pays. Le chapitre fut supprimé, ses biens vendus et Fosses devint chef-lieu du 6e Canton du département de Sambre-et-Meuse. Elle est maintenant une petite bourgade de la Province de Namur. (**)(**) http://www.fosses-la-ville.be/spip.php?rubrique29