This document discusses the political philosophy of Akiva Orr, an Israeli writer and activist who advocates for radical direct democracy. It provides a biography of Orr, outlining his early life and political career in Israel and London. It describes how Orr became disillusioned with representative democracy and political parties, and became a leading advocate for direct democracy beginning in 1968. Orr believes direct democracy, where citizens vote directly on policies rather than electing representatives, can eliminate political corruption by removing political power and authority over others. The document examines Orr's key works promoting this vision of "politics without politicians."

1. Directe Democratie
versus
BROV als correctie op
Political Party Rule
Piet De Pauw
16 Maart 2010

2. Zijn Bindende Referenda op Volksinitiatief
(BROV) het einddoel?
of
Is the BROV slechts een middel om het
einddoel “directe democratie”,
geimplementeerd als politiek zonder
politieke partijen, te bereiken?

3. Direct Democracy
= Politics without Politicians
Aki Orr

4. Akiva Orr
Akiva 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.

5. Akiva Orr
Early life
Orr was born in Berlin in 1931. His parents left
Germany when he was 3 and moved to Palestine. Orr
grew up in Tel Aviv and attended the First Municipal
School of Tel Aviv. Orr was a keen swimmer and was
the Maccabi 200m breast stroke champion in 1946 and
1947. In 1946 Orr was drafted into the Haganah, the
Jewish paramiltary organisation which was to develop
into the Israeli Defence Forces following the creation
of the State of Israel in 1948. Orr joined the Navy,
which played a minor role in the 1948 War of
Independence.

6. Akiva Orr
Political Carreer
Orr 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 the
Israeli Communist Party. Orr remained in the merchant navy until 1955, when he moved to Jerusalem to study mathematics and physics at the Hebrew
University. There, he served as secretary of the Union of Communist Science Students at the University. Following his graduation in 1958, Orr started
teaching 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 ve'ein 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 a
colonial war against Egypt and disprove Ben-Gurion's 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 Party's unquestioning loyalty to the
Soviet 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 the
19th 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[1], although the group began
to 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 of
ISRACA (Israeli Revolutionary Action Committee Abroad), an anti-Zionist publication "devoted to a critique of the ideological, cultural and psychological
aspects of Political Zionism"[2]
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 close
friendships.
In 1968 he joined the London-based group “Solidarity”, a libertarian socialist organisation and befriended its Greek mentor Cornelius Castoriadis. From
this 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, edited
by Arie Bober.
In 1984 Ithaca Press published Orr's The Un-Jewish State: the Politics of Jewish Identity in Israel, in which he argued that political Zionism had failed
to create a secular Jewish identity.
In 1994, Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crises was published, a collection of Orr's essays which also dealt with the issues arising from the clash
between Israel's secular and Jewish identities. By this time, Orr had moved back to Israel (in 1990).

7. Akiva Orr
Direct Democracy
Following his conversion to Libertarian Socialism in the late 1960s, Orr became increasingly active in
the promotion of radical Direct Democracy, which rejects the notion of representative democracy and
calls for political decision-making to be placed in the hands of every single citizen.
Orr's ideas are grounded in the events of May 1968 in France. In the wake of this wildcat general
strike, (opposed at first by all Unions and Political Parties), which at its peak saw 10 million employees
on strike for 20 days, thousands of self-managed committees sprang up throughout the country. They
did 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 Maureen
McConville[3], Orr asserts the desire of the strikers was not to reform the political system but to
replace it entirely by a system of democratic self-governance, in which all employees have a say in the
decision-making process.
Orr argues that while in 1968 the technology did not exist to enable all citizens to participate in
decision making, it exists today.
Orr has argued that political corruption is an inherent feature of politics by representatives and of all
elections 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 Direct
Democracy: Who Should Shape Society?", a history of the 20th century viewed in terms of the
conflict between state and private control of the economy, a conflict which the author sees as the
defining feature of the epoch. Orr states that a system of Direct Democracy is the only viable
alternative to 'big government states' or 'big business states', both of which he views as oppressive
forms of governance.[4]

8. Akiva Orr
Works
English
1972 - The Other Israel: the Radical Case against Zionism, edited by Arie Bober, with
contributions 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, available
online)
Hebrew
1961 - Peace Peace & there is no Peace Shalom, Shalom ve'ein Shalom (with Moshe
Machover)
2002 – Alternative to a Psychotic State
2003 - From protest to revolution (Five talks to young activists)
2005 - Flashbacks (recollections of London)

9. Direct Democracy
= Politics without Politicians
Aki Orr

10. Political power
coerces.
Political equality
inspires.
Aki Orr

11. Mistrust in Politicians
All over the world today most people mistrust most
politicians.
Political scandals, conspiracies and corruption occur
daily in every country and in every political party,
hence most politicians are mistrusted even by their
supporters. Many believe that politics necessarily
breeds corruption (there’s a well-known saying, “All
power corrupts”). No wonder many people mistrust not
only politicians or Parties but all politics.
Many refuse to vote. They no longer believe elections
can make a significant change.
Non-voting for representatives is a vote of “no
confidence” on rule by representatives.

12. Often people disgusted by most Politicians’
duplicity seek trustworthy politicians. If
they find some, those too eventually
disappoint them. No wonder some believe a
dictator should replace parliament. Others,
rejecting dictators but seeing no
alternative, give up and leave politics to
politicians. This makes matters worse as
politicians concerned more with their power
than with the interests of society are left
to run society.

13. The Solution
This 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 of
hipocricy, duplicity, and conspiracies.
When all citizens decide all policies themselves we have a new political
system 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 for
their society is enhanced.

14. No political system can cure all political problems.
Belief in such a cure is a dangerous delusion. There
is no such cure. Abolishing power will solve many
political problems but not all of them. When every
citizen can propose, debate and vote on every policy
no one has authority to decide for others so
politicians’ power is abolished. Political power works
like a drug. Those who get it - in any State, Church,
municipality, school, or family - become addicted to
it. They should be treated like addicts who will do
anything to get their drug.
Many politicians crave power for its own sake, but
even those who use it to improve society will do
anything to hold on to it.

15. DIRECT Democracy abolishes political power by
forbidding anyone to decide for others.
In DIRECT Democracy no one decides for others. Every
citizen can decide directly every policy. Every citizen has
only one vote on every policy and represents him/herself
only.
If a policy produces undesirable results, those who voted
for it are responsible.
To prevent recurrence of bad results voters must
discover what made them vote for a bad decision and
reconsider their motives. This enables people to search
for causes of political problems within themselves - not
outside themselves - to find them and overcome them.

16. Summary
Direct 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.

17. Decisions are no
conclusions

18. 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.

19. Politicians

20. To vote is to choose. To choose is to prefer.
In elections we decide who will decide for
us what our society should do. We choose
others to express our preference and
expect them to prefer according to our
priorities. They are supposed to serve as a
mere extension of us.
In reality they impose their own priorities
on us.

21. How politicians decide
Many believe that politicians apply the preferences of those who
elected them. Usually they don’t. Nor do they possess a special skill for
deciding.
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 that
decision-making is a skill like that of a ship’s captain who steers a ship
in a particular direction by using knowledge of ships and navigation. But
society is not a ship. All passengers on a ship want to reach the same
destination, but not all citizens in society want the same policy since
they have different priorities.
Politicians need some skills to get Power, like conspiracy (to defeat
rivals); flattery (to get the support of superiors); and hypocrisy (to win
voters) but they need no special skill for deciding policy.
Politicians decide policy according to their personal priority like
everyone else.

22. Decisions and Priorities

23. Neurological Levels
Robert Dilts

24. Values and Beliefs
determine everything
what is below

25. A priority is a principle that determines
preference. Without a priority we cannot
choose.
To ‘decide’ is to choose one option from a
number 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 arbitrary
assertions we make as without them we
cannot make a decision.

26. 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)

27. Only 1 priority?
At any moment we have a single priority. We need it as
without it we cannot decide.
We cannot have two priorities at the same time, as we
cannot prefer two things. We may want two things but if
we must choose one of them we must prefer by using our
priority.
Each priority excludes all other priorities. ‘Good for King
and Country’ excludes ‘Good for me’; ‘Deutschland uber
Alles’ excludes ‘Rule Britannia’; both exclude ‘Good for
Humanity.’ Many people use one priority for one purpose
and another priority for other purposes but at any given
moment everyone has only a single priority.

28. 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.

29. Current Situation
Politicians decide what society will do.
The State carries out these decisions.
This raises two questions:
1. What is ‘Society’?
2. What is ‘The State’?

30. Society
The difference between “people” and “society” is not in
how they look but in how they behave. A ‘society’ is not
merely people living next to each other but people behaving
according to rules accepted by all of them. These rules -
known as ‘laws’ - are made to resolve conflicts between
people, and are accepted by most people in a society.
Obedience to laws makes “people” into a ‘society’. Different
societies make different laws, but only when a group of
people accepts the same laws do they become a society.
Not everyone obeys every law, but most of the time most
people obey most laws. Some do so out of fear of
punishment, but most people in most societies obey most
laws because they know that without laws there will be
constant strife and living together will be impossible.

31. Freedom for people living
in a society
Total 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 not
harm 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 their
freedom - voluntarily - for the sake of living together. This occurs in most
families, communities, cities, and societies.
In society people agree to obey decisions of others if others in turn obey
decisions of theirs.
If the same person or group always has to bow to decisions of others, they
are oppressed.
Total freedom for every member of a group is impossible in any group, even in
the smallest anarchist commune.

32. Freedom for people living
in a society
Most people prefer to live in groups such as family, tribe, society,
with partial, rather than total, freedom. However, there are
different degrees of partial freedom. Living under elected rulers
gives people more freedom than living under unelected rulers, as the
ruled can at least decide who will decide for them. But those living
under elected rulers have less freedom than those living without
rulers. A society where every citizen can propose, debate and vote
on every law and policy is self-ruled, and its majority lives by its own
decisions. The minority must obey majority decisions but if the
minority has a fair chance to become a majority it is not oppressed.
These citizens enjoy far more freedom than those who live in a
society where representatives decide every law and policy.
Politics without politicians (Direct Democracy) allows the highest
level of freedom possible in any society. It is not total freedom, as
majority decisions are binding and the minority must accept them.
So the minority is not totally free.

33. 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.

34. Direct democracy
within a society
Direct Democracy enables every minority to
promote its views, however disagreeable they may
be .This stimulates public debates on policy,
increases people’s concern for their society, and
raises the quality of life in society as a whole and of
each individual within it.
Indifference to society breeds boredom and
depression. By encouraging people to participate in
deciding what their society should do Direct
Democracy will dispel their indifference to society
and thus the boredom and depression most people
suffer today.

35. Secession
Personal secession
Group secession

36. Principle of Political
Equality (PPE)
The Principle of Political Equality (PPE) asserts that even though no
two citizens are biologically equal all must have equal authority to
vote on every law and policy of their society. Only those who have
this equality live by their own decisions - and are free.
When all citizens have equal authority to make laws, they can
legislate 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 of
every member of a group to propose, debate and vote on every
decision of the group. Some will accept PPE as self-evident. Others
will prefer to die rather than accept it. They will oppose its
application to society - but even more so to family, school, and work.
PPE abolishes power and domination in every domain of society, in
families, schools, places of work, trade unions, and political parties.
It equalizes ‘leaders’ and ‘led’, dominators and dominated.

37. Opposition to PPE
Opponents of political equality argue that most citizens
lack the knowledge to understand the laws they vote
for, either their benefits or their drawbacks.
But this applies to most politicians who vote on laws
nowadays. Most of them are not legal experts, yet they
debate and vote on new laws and policies. They call
experts to explain the consequences of proposed
policies, then they choose the option that suits their
own priorities.
Every citizen can do the same. Citizens can listen on
radio or TV to panels of experts explaining a new law or
policy, and later vote on it.
If a law or policy has unforeseen negative results, the
citizens can always repeal them.

38. Political Parties
Party Rule is not democracy. In ‘Demos-kratia’ the
citizens vote directly for policies, not for political
Parties. What is called "Democracy" today is Rule by
Representatives (RR).
In Democracy Party leaders can decide only the
policies of their Party, not of society as a whole.
Parties can propose a policy to the citizens; but not
decide it for them.
A political party advocating a particular policy
contributes to democracy, but a Party deciding all
policies for all citizens is blatantly anti-democratic.

39. Political Parties Rule
After 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'.

40. Direct Democracy
In a Direct Democracy every citizen has the right to participate in the first task, to propose
a policy, to debate and vote on it. Public debates on policies are the core of Direct
Democracy.
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’s
authority.
Public debates on policies are genuine only if facilities exist enabling every citizen to
participate.
How can millions do so? Today they can do it - by using TV for the debate, and mobile
phones, magnetic cards and touch screens for voting. In ancient Athens citizens debated
policy in an open-air space called “Agora”. The modern Agora is TV where every citizen can
speak 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 in
to a channel will show a panel debating policies for this department.
Panel members must have knowledge and experience with issues of the particular
department. They will answer questions phoned in by the public. They will explain the good
and 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; no
member will serve two consecutive periods. Any reward to panel members will be a punishable
crime.

41. Direct Democracy
The 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.

42. Direct Democracy
Public debates on policies, by millions of people, are possible
today. Clearly, when ‘politics without politicians’ is established,
all citizens will have to devise and adopt a Constitution to decide
all the procedures. Unforeseen problems will emerge, but ‘where
there’s a will, there’s a way’, especially with the help of TV,
mobile phones, magnetic cards, touch-screen input and the
Internet. What technology to use, and how, will be decided by all
citizens when Direct Democracy is set up. For now it is
sufficient to realize that by using electronic communication we
can 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 it
out. Panel members will be drawn by lottery from a pool of all
those with experience and knowledge of the specific task. They
will be changed at regular intervals. Complaints about panel
members’ inefficiency or corruption will be invistigated
immediately - and punished if it was the case..

43. How does Direct
Democracy 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.

44. How does Direct
Democracy 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.

45. How does Direct
Democracy 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.

46. Directe Democratie
versus
BROV als correctie op
Political Party Rule

47. Tekortkomingen van het
systeem BROV als correctie op
Political Party Rule
1) 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.

48. Kijk maar wat er in
Zwitzerland gebeurt
De regering excuseert zich voor de "foute"
stemming van de Zwitzers over het verbod
op minaretten.
In Zwitzerland maken politieke partijen
BROV's ondergeschikt gemaakt aan het
Europees verdrag voor de Mensenrechten,
en staat het hele systeem van BROVs
daardoor onder toenemende druk.

49. Kijk maar wat er in
Zwitzerland gebeurt

50. 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…”

51. Initiatives and Referenda to control
representatives 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.

52. Path to Rule by parties
Directe democratie
Two 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).

53. Bijkomende argumenten
Resultaten Correlatiestudie Feld en Matsusaka
de gemeente is de basisbouwsteen van directe democratie.
De ervaring leert dat in gemeenten waar beslissingen
genomen worden via directe democratie, de uitvoerende
macht of het uitvoeren van beslissingen, meer en meer in
handen is van individuele burgers of gespecializeerde
maatschappijen, los van politieke partijen.
directe democratie, in tegenstelling tot het zogenaamd
representatieve systeem, kan volledig in overeenstemming
met het “ recht tot zelfbeschikking” worden gebracht. Dit
“recht tot zelfbeschikking” is een essentieel element van de
natuurlijke rechten van de mens, en de “Verklaring van de
Rechten van de Mens en de Burger” uit 1789.

54. Resultaten
Correlatiestudie Feld en
Matsusaka

55. Effect van de handtekening
drempels op de efficientie van
overheidsuitgaven in USA
Bron: John Matsusaka: For the Many or the Few, University of Chicago
Press, 2004

56. 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 kantons
Kantons met verplichte referensa: 17 van de Zwitserse kantons

57. Besluit
Het invoeren van verplichte financiele referenda voor
uitgaven boven 0.5M CHF (ongeveer 0.34 M EUR) leidt tot
20% besparing op de totale overheiduitgaven.
Hoe hoger de drempel voor een financieel referendum, hoe
kleiner het besparingseffect. Financiele drempels van 10 M
CHF reduceren het besparingseffect tot 14%.
Het ophalen van handtekeningen voor het afsmeken van een
referendum bij de heersende bestuurders, verlaagt het
besparings effect. Het ophalen van handtekeningen (ook al is
de handtekeningdrempel slechts 0.7% tot 2% van de
kiezers) is een blijkbaar een significante drempel.

58. Bestuur van gemeenten
zonder politieke Partijen
Het bestaat

59. De gemeenschap Conters in
Prättigau, 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.

60. Het Vergeten Democratisch
Verleden van Fosses-la-Ville
Jos Verhulst

61. 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.

62. Fosses-la-Ville
De 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’)

63. Fosses-la-Ville
Het was de taak van de burgemeesters om de ‘Généralité’
samen te roepen wanneer op zo’n domeinen een beslissing
genomen moest worden.
De taak van de gemeenteraad was in wezen uitvoerend: de
lopende zaken dienden behartigd te worden, maar nieuwe
principes en zwaarwegende besluiten dienden steeds direct
door de burgers goedgekeurd te worden.
Te noteren valt dat dit democratisch regime perfect kon
functioneren zonder politieke partijen.

64. 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