Saturday, October 31, 2009
Gerrymandering
Following on from a piece about single country constituencies this article Conservatives and Labour prepare to drum up the expat vote openly suggests “Expats can make a difference, there are many marginal seats where the expat vote could help deliver change." Surely if you choose to live somewhere else many of whom are choosing this to avoid paying taxes and evade contributing to the structure of a country you should not have the right to vote in that country. This is particularly disturbing when these folks can choose to strategically affect the outcome of the whole election process. This is so wrong on so many levels!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Creating an Organisation for Change
Here is avery interesting piece written in response to a small island corrupt gvernment.
IMHO in order to succeed a new political system/organisation needs the following:
Membership Management
Know who your supporters are. Once you have that information then you can 1) ask them for money, 2) communicate with them directly, 3) Ask for volunteers, 4) Take lobbying action.
Volunteer Management
If your organisation has a worthwhile reason to exist and goal then it’s not difficult to find people who are willing to devote a few hours a week to help a cause they believe in. Then use their unique skills – better yet, produce a database of people, their skills, and their availability and call on them to help you. Suddenly you end up with a staff of several hundred part-time finance professionals, graphic designers, writers, administrators, proofreaders, and coffee makers.
Donation Management
In order to fund your organisation you need to use your volunteers and your membership and contact lists to continually ask for donations, then put them to good use. The value of an $5 donation is not the money, it’s having someone buy into your mission financially and personally. They become invested and they are more likely to join your volunteer army.
CommunicationsProduce good talking points for the different levels of argumentation, from the very simple headline for the entire organisation to the bullet point breakdowns of specific policy points and spreadsheets for sophisticated readers. Directly mail your supporters and ask them to help you lobby, raise funds, or recruit new supporters.
These are the things that Obama did better than his competitors.
To effect political change it’s a matter of:
1. Developing a platform and strong identity.This same process happens in the US, where the Republicans own the brand of “individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility”. Their performance in these areas is irrelevant, it’s the branding that matters.
2. Communicating effectively.Use talking points communicating the headlines of the platform. Get everyone involved on board and publicly saying the same things about the same topics. This will both lower the constant infighting that generally plagues opposition parties, and produce an us vs. them where simple truisms of talking points make it very hard to oppose the organisation saying them because people find themselves agreeing with them.A lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes truth. In many durisdictions the ruling party invariably uses this , that’s why they repeatedly smear their opposition using the same language over and over again. No matter how crazy it would seem if said once, it becomes very effective when the whole team is up on a pulpit spouting the same rhetoric. To combat this, an organisation must shout the truth loudly, stick to places where it can be impeccable with its word, and constantly put the current corrupt political party system on its back foot by both combating their attempts to spin their record and attacking them for the things they haven’t done – which presumably would be addressed in #1.
3. Using the above two to build an army. When all voices of reason are coming from one defined source and one brand then it becomes powerful. There is more than enough wrong with the current political system to get everyone on the same page (see #1 and #2).
IMHO in order to succeed a new political system/organisation needs the following:
Membership Management
Know who your supporters are. Once you have that information then you can 1) ask them for money, 2) communicate with them directly, 3) Ask for volunteers, 4) Take lobbying action.
Volunteer Management
If your organisation has a worthwhile reason to exist and goal then it’s not difficult to find people who are willing to devote a few hours a week to help a cause they believe in. Then use their unique skills – better yet, produce a database of people, their skills, and their availability and call on them to help you. Suddenly you end up with a staff of several hundred part-time finance professionals, graphic designers, writers, administrators, proofreaders, and coffee makers.
Donation Management
In order to fund your organisation you need to use your volunteers and your membership and contact lists to continually ask for donations, then put them to good use. The value of an $5 donation is not the money, it’s having someone buy into your mission financially and personally. They become invested and they are more likely to join your volunteer army.
CommunicationsProduce good talking points for the different levels of argumentation, from the very simple headline for the entire organisation to the bullet point breakdowns of specific policy points and spreadsheets for sophisticated readers. Directly mail your supporters and ask them to help you lobby, raise funds, or recruit new supporters.
These are the things that Obama did better than his competitors.
To effect political change it’s a matter of:
1. Developing a platform and strong identity.This same process happens in the US, where the Republicans own the brand of “individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility”. Their performance in these areas is irrelevant, it’s the branding that matters.
2. Communicating effectively.Use talking points communicating the headlines of the platform. Get everyone involved on board and publicly saying the same things about the same topics. This will both lower the constant infighting that generally plagues opposition parties, and produce an us vs. them where simple truisms of talking points make it very hard to oppose the organisation saying them because people find themselves agreeing with them.A lie repeated loudly and often enough becomes truth. In many durisdictions the ruling party invariably uses this , that’s why they repeatedly smear their opposition using the same language over and over again. No matter how crazy it would seem if said once, it becomes very effective when the whole team is up on a pulpit spouting the same rhetoric. To combat this, an organisation must shout the truth loudly, stick to places where it can be impeccable with its word, and constantly put the current corrupt political party system on its back foot by both combating their attempts to spin their record and attacking them for the things they haven’t done – which presumably would be addressed in #1.
3. Using the above two to build an army. When all voices of reason are coming from one defined source and one brand then it becomes powerful. There is more than enough wrong with the current political system to get everyone on the same page (see #1 and #2).
Monday, October 26, 2009
World Federation
An interesting read A GLOBAL PARLIAMENT - Principles of World Federation by C. HAMER can be found online.
In his introduction he starts by saying “Everybody knows that the world has become a “global village”, in the famous phrase of Marshall McLuhan. We all have to live together and work together on one small planet Earth, which seems to grow smaller and more fragile with every passing year. What we need now is a properly constituted ‘village council’, to deal with the global problems that confront all of us in common, and to move us towards a safer and more prosperous future. That is the argument for world federation in a nutshell, and the basic premise of this book.”
The concept of world citizenship is by no means new:
“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world”, said Socrates.
The command and control model the way one runs an army is not well suited to new ideas and in countries where this thinking dominates the human spirit is literally suffocated. We need some new thinking outside the box. A new viewpoint often comes about through a network of ideas – some borrowed some stolen – or a simple light bulb moment that cross pollinates from one field of endeavor to another. The result can be remarkable. It took 500 years to cobble together St Mark’s Basilica in Venice. Traders and crusaders going east and west brought columns, friezes, statues and mosaics from all corners of the globe to create a magnificent tribute to human endeavor. Surely we can cross-pollinate some ideas to give us all a better form of governance.
In his introduction he starts by saying “Everybody knows that the world has become a “global village”, in the famous phrase of Marshall McLuhan. We all have to live together and work together on one small planet Earth, which seems to grow smaller and more fragile with every passing year. What we need now is a properly constituted ‘village council’, to deal with the global problems that confront all of us in common, and to move us towards a safer and more prosperous future. That is the argument for world federation in a nutshell, and the basic premise of this book.”
The concept of world citizenship is by no means new:
“I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world”, said Socrates.
The command and control model the way one runs an army is not well suited to new ideas and in countries where this thinking dominates the human spirit is literally suffocated. We need some new thinking outside the box. A new viewpoint often comes about through a network of ideas – some borrowed some stolen – or a simple light bulb moment that cross pollinates from one field of endeavor to another. The result can be remarkable. It took 500 years to cobble together St Mark’s Basilica in Venice. Traders and crusaders going east and west brought columns, friezes, statues and mosaics from all corners of the globe to create a magnificent tribute to human endeavor. Surely we can cross-pollinate some ideas to give us all a better form of governance.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Storytelling and Taking Control
We live in a world of stories. Stories are invented to help us understand everything that is around us. The unpredictability of life has from the dawn of time encouraged human beings to be very creative in their narratives from the wall paintings of prehistoric times the hieroglyphics of Egyptians to the History Channel documentaries of today.
Although we dismiss as ignorance that primitive people actually believed the myths they created about everything, from the weather to the afterlife, it is more probable that early religions were understood on a much more metaphoric basis. The ancients didn't believe that the wind or rains were gods. They invented characters whose personalities reflected the properties of the elements. The characters and their stories served more as ways of remembering that it would be cold for four months before spring returns than as genuinely accepted explanations for nature's changes.
History shows that stories were discovered to be vital tools to influence the courses of politics, economics and power. The first steps along the path to a more civilized society was really just a process in which older, weaker people used stories to keep younger, stronger people from vying for their power. By the time the young were old enough to know what was going on, they were too invested in the system, or too physically weak themselves, to risk exposing the stories as myths.
Since Biblical times we have been living in a world where stories are used to describe and predict our reality and have been presented as truth or mistaken for fact. These narratives, and their tellers, compete for believers in two ways: through the content of the stories and through the medium or tools through which the stories are told. We don't call the stuff on television 'programming' for nothing. The people making television are not programming our TV sets or their evening schedules; they are programming us.
The programmer creates a character we like and with whom we can identify. As a series of plot developments bring that character into some kind of danger, we follow him and within us a sense of tension arises. This is what Aristotle called the rising arc of dramatic action. The storyteller brings the character, and his audience, into as much danger as we can tolerate before inventing a solution, the rescue. Back in Aristotle's day, the solution was called Deus ex machina (God from the machine). One of the Greek gods would literally descend on a mechanism from the rafters and save the day. TV commercials have honed this storytelling technique into the perfect 30-second package. A man is at work when his wife calls to tell him she's crashed the car. The boss comes in to tell him he just lost a big account, his bank statement shows he's in the red and his secretary quits. Now his head hurts. We've followed the poor guy all the way up Aristotle's arc of rising tension. We can feel the character's pain. What can he do? He opens the top desk drawer and finds his bottle of Tylenol and swallows the pills. He, and us, are released from our torture.
The computer mouse and keyboard have ended the power TV programming changing a receive-only monitor into a portal. Packaged programming is no longer any more valuable, or valid, than the words we can type ourselves. The addition of a modem has added the dimension of turning the computer into a broadcast facility. We are no longer solely dependent on the content of Newspapers or corporate TV/Radio stations, but we now have the power to create and disseminate our own content. You are reading my blog right now and you can respond with your own comment for everyone to see. The Internet revolution is a do-it-yourself revolution. We can now deconstruct the content of media's stories, demystify its modes of transmission and do it all for ourselves.
For transformation there must be three stages in our redevelopment: deconstruction of content, demystification of technology and finally do-it-yourself or participatory authorship. Can these three steps see a programmed/manipulated world population become an autonomous thinking world where everyone can influence the way we live?
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from the arc of rising tension that dooms us to stressful conflict.
Although we dismiss as ignorance that primitive people actually believed the myths they created about everything, from the weather to the afterlife, it is more probable that early religions were understood on a much more metaphoric basis. The ancients didn't believe that the wind or rains were gods. They invented characters whose personalities reflected the properties of the elements. The characters and their stories served more as ways of remembering that it would be cold for four months before spring returns than as genuinely accepted explanations for nature's changes.
History shows that stories were discovered to be vital tools to influence the courses of politics, economics and power. The first steps along the path to a more civilized society was really just a process in which older, weaker people used stories to keep younger, stronger people from vying for their power. By the time the young were old enough to know what was going on, they were too invested in the system, or too physically weak themselves, to risk exposing the stories as myths.
Since Biblical times we have been living in a world where stories are used to describe and predict our reality and have been presented as truth or mistaken for fact. These narratives, and their tellers, compete for believers in two ways: through the content of the stories and through the medium or tools through which the stories are told. We don't call the stuff on television 'programming' for nothing. The people making television are not programming our TV sets or their evening schedules; they are programming us.
The programmer creates a character we like and with whom we can identify. As a series of plot developments bring that character into some kind of danger, we follow him and within us a sense of tension arises. This is what Aristotle called the rising arc of dramatic action. The storyteller brings the character, and his audience, into as much danger as we can tolerate before inventing a solution, the rescue. Back in Aristotle's day, the solution was called Deus ex machina (God from the machine). One of the Greek gods would literally descend on a mechanism from the rafters and save the day. TV commercials have honed this storytelling technique into the perfect 30-second package. A man is at work when his wife calls to tell him she's crashed the car. The boss comes in to tell him he just lost a big account, his bank statement shows he's in the red and his secretary quits. Now his head hurts. We've followed the poor guy all the way up Aristotle's arc of rising tension. We can feel the character's pain. What can he do? He opens the top desk drawer and finds his bottle of Tylenol and swallows the pills. He, and us, are released from our torture.
The computer mouse and keyboard have ended the power TV programming changing a receive-only monitor into a portal. Packaged programming is no longer any more valuable, or valid, than the words we can type ourselves. The addition of a modem has added the dimension of turning the computer into a broadcast facility. We are no longer solely dependent on the content of Newspapers or corporate TV/Radio stations, but we now have the power to create and disseminate our own content. You are reading my blog right now and you can respond with your own comment for everyone to see. The Internet revolution is a do-it-yourself revolution. We can now deconstruct the content of media's stories, demystify its modes of transmission and do it all for ourselves.
For transformation there must be three stages in our redevelopment: deconstruction of content, demystification of technology and finally do-it-yourself or participatory authorship. Can these three steps see a programmed/manipulated world population become an autonomous thinking world where everyone can influence the way we live?
Perhaps we can rescue ourselves from the arc of rising tension that dooms us to stressful conflict.
How about a Country constituency?
Gerrymandering is a direct attack on representative democracy and typically concentrates opposition votes into a few districts to gain more seats for the majority in surrounding districts (called packing), or diffuses minority strength across many districts (called dilution).There is no doubt that electoral districts in any country are drawn in favour of the ruling political party. In a small island where less than 100 votes can determine who picks up a nice fat Members salary it is not uncommon for die hard political party members to have families and friends registered in their homes to distort the outcome. Also in the transient world in which we live citizens who no longer reside in their mother country can further complicate it. These folks can choose to register in a constituency that would favour their political views. They can literally inflict a negative government on a people without any recourse to themselves. If there is a way to cheat people will always find a way.
The British Parliament, has commented, "One of the most important things in an electoral and voting system is that, as far as possible, there is equality in how people vote, and how their votes are expressed. This should cut across class and race."
Most countries have a Boundaries Commission to counter the influences of Gerrymandering. Here is a thought rather than fiddle with the inherently defective constituency boundaries, they could do us all a favour, and do themselves out of a job, by consolidating the country into a single constituency. A single, constituency would make much sense. It would eliminate the racial and cultural bias inherent in historical boundaries. It would soften the insensitive class and partisan divide. Here is a vain hope it may encourage candidates of integrity to stand for election instead of some of the obvious racial/political partisans we now see who stand on the back of the popularity of the party rather than their own ability.
The British Parliament, has commented, "One of the most important things in an electoral and voting system is that, as far as possible, there is equality in how people vote, and how their votes are expressed. This should cut across class and race."
Most countries have a Boundaries Commission to counter the influences of Gerrymandering. Here is a thought rather than fiddle with the inherently defective constituency boundaries, they could do us all a favour, and do themselves out of a job, by consolidating the country into a single constituency. A single, constituency would make much sense. It would eliminate the racial and cultural bias inherent in historical boundaries. It would soften the insensitive class and partisan divide. Here is a vain hope it may encourage candidates of integrity to stand for election instead of some of the obvious racial/political partisans we now see who stand on the back of the popularity of the party rather than their own ability.
Lets Talk Without Hindrance
As the world comes to terms with the impact of globalism, the pervasive threats of fundamentalism, and the surfacing of seemingly irreconcilable value systems, it is vital for us to generate a new reason to believe that living at peace interdependently is not only possible, but preferable to the competitive individualism characterized as the holy grail of success in modern living. Much of the 20th century thinking and culture was characterized by ethnocentrism, nationalism and particularism. How many more fellow humans have to suffer war starvation subjugation and the evil of people seeking power over others before we say enough is enough.
The internet as a self-organising community, may serve as a ray of hope in the birth of a new age of enlightenment. The battle for control over this new and little understood communication system has actually exposed many of the agendas in the current political and cultural controls that pervade the world today.
While the technology itself gives you and me the power to take part in the creation of new form of governance there is a full spectrum of opposing forces, from lobbyists empowering special interests to exaggerated calls for national security, that have hijacked our representational democracy with one intent; prevent free discourse of all peoples at all costs. The internet offers us a ray of hope for a new spirit of genuine civic discourse that may free us all from the confines of the national and cultural prison walls we live in today.
In short, the internet may actually offer us a new way of understanding civilisation itself, and a new set of good reasons for engaging with each other more fully in the face of what are often perceived (or taught) to be the many risks and compromises associated with cooperative behaviour. Sadly, thanks to the proliferation of traditional top-down media and propaganda, both marketers and politicians have succeeded in their efforts to turn neighbour against neighbour, city against city, nation against nation and continent against continent. While such strategies sell more products, earn more votes and inspire a sense of exclusive salvation (we can't share, participate, or heaven forbid collaborate with people whom we've been taught not to trust) they imperil what is left of civil society. The government control of the internet could actually threaten the last small hope for averting the prophetic armageddon or the millions that will perish in the next set of faith-justified fundamentalist wars.
The internet as a self-organising community, may serve as a ray of hope in the birth of a new age of enlightenment. The battle for control over this new and little understood communication system has actually exposed many of the agendas in the current political and cultural controls that pervade the world today.
While the technology itself gives you and me the power to take part in the creation of new form of governance there is a full spectrum of opposing forces, from lobbyists empowering special interests to exaggerated calls for national security, that have hijacked our representational democracy with one intent; prevent free discourse of all peoples at all costs. The internet offers us a ray of hope for a new spirit of genuine civic discourse that may free us all from the confines of the national and cultural prison walls we live in today.
In short, the internet may actually offer us a new way of understanding civilisation itself, and a new set of good reasons for engaging with each other more fully in the face of what are often perceived (or taught) to be the many risks and compromises associated with cooperative behaviour. Sadly, thanks to the proliferation of traditional top-down media and propaganda, both marketers and politicians have succeeded in their efforts to turn neighbour against neighbour, city against city, nation against nation and continent against continent. While such strategies sell more products, earn more votes and inspire a sense of exclusive salvation (we can't share, participate, or heaven forbid collaborate with people whom we've been taught not to trust) they imperil what is left of civil society. The government control of the internet could actually threaten the last small hope for averting the prophetic armageddon or the millions that will perish in the next set of faith-justified fundamentalist wars.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Party Politics the modern Evil
They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
The statement above was made by one of the Founding Fathers, and the first President, of the United States of America, George Washington. He also stated at that time.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I bring these statements by George Washington to your attention and consideration of citizens and residents in all countries.
One can see how these statements by George Washington apply not just to the United States as Washington warned, but we can see their relevance in many countries throughout the world where one or two political contributors can come to control and influence an entire political party. In an extreme case political parties can destroy a Country by their focus on gaining and maintaining political power and not on truthfulness or service to the people.
In this 21st century , there is no reason we cannot address the weaknesses in our current political system.
As I have suggested before:
1. That a person seeking to stand for election as an individual must do so as an individual. That they stand on the strength of their own intellect, compassion and character, committing themselves to doing what is best for their district and their Country, and to do away with the corrupting and competing aspects of party politics.
2. The influence of money and indebtedness in governance must be outlawed. A start would be public funding of elections. No more smear campaigns and ugly tv ads.
Look around the world and the death and destruction on a daily basis must tell us things are not working. We have the rare opportunity that always comes with the costly price of transiting through a time of destruction and pain; to consciously decide how we will now choose to govern ourselves.
As George Washington stated, there are better ways to govern ourselves, and we as a people CAN do better.
—GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
The statement above was made by one of the Founding Fathers, and the first President, of the United States of America, George Washington. He also stated at that time.
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
I bring these statements by George Washington to your attention and consideration of citizens and residents in all countries.
One can see how these statements by George Washington apply not just to the United States as Washington warned, but we can see their relevance in many countries throughout the world where one or two political contributors can come to control and influence an entire political party. In an extreme case political parties can destroy a Country by their focus on gaining and maintaining political power and not on truthfulness or service to the people.
In this 21st century , there is no reason we cannot address the weaknesses in our current political system.
As I have suggested before:
1. That a person seeking to stand for election as an individual must do so as an individual. That they stand on the strength of their own intellect, compassion and character, committing themselves to doing what is best for their district and their Country, and to do away with the corrupting and competing aspects of party politics.
2. The influence of money and indebtedness in governance must be outlawed. A start would be public funding of elections. No more smear campaigns and ugly tv ads.
Look around the world and the death and destruction on a daily basis must tell us things are not working. We have the rare opportunity that always comes with the costly price of transiting through a time of destruction and pain; to consciously decide how we will now choose to govern ourselves.
As George Washington stated, there are better ways to govern ourselves, and we as a people CAN do better.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Democracy and the Size of a Country
Here is an interesting article by Professor Anne Sibert
Are there enough people in Greenland for a whole country?
Greenlanders have been pressing for more autonomy from Denmark, and looking forward to independence. Anne Sibert asks, "Undersized: Could Greenland be the new Iceland? Should it be?" Greenland has 60,000 people, is that enough for a nation-state?
She points out that:
there is little to suggest that small countries grow faster than larger ones.
small country output fluctuates more than larger country output - their production is simply less diversified.
small country consumption fluctuates more than that in larger countries
public goods have an important fixed cost component - so the per capita cost of public services will be higher for a small country.
"...it is also likely that the per capita administrative cost of income taxes is decreasing in country size. As a result, smaller countries tend to rely less on relatively efficient income taxation and more on relatively inefficient taxes, such as customs taxes."
"...a lack of competition in the provision of non-traded goods in small countries can lead to inefficiency."
it's not clear there be enough qualified and talented people to staff of the agencies of a modern state
"...Farrugia (1993) suggests that very small countries may also suffer because of their high degree of interpersonal relations... Farrugia comments that, “Many necessary decisions and actions can be modified, adjusted and sometimes totally neutralised by personal interventions and community pressures. In extreme cases, close personal and family connections lead to nepotism and corruption.”
"...each civil servant is forced to play more roles than he would in a more populous society. Such multi-tasking can be demanding and makes it difficult to build up expertise in a particular area."
and it's not clear that policy-makers in a small remote polity will be able to avoiding becoming insular in their thinking?
There are work-arounds. For example a country can import or hire expertise. Also, "Residents of a country with variable output can smooth their consumption across states of nature by holding a diversified portfolio of home and foreign equity." Perhaps a portfolio could be built with a resource investment fund similar to Alaska's permanent fund.
Sibert knows a small nearby Arctic economy well: Iceland. She and her husband Willem Buiter wrote a paper on Iceland in April 2008, projecting the financial disaster months before it took place. She's now a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank of Iceland.
Are there enough people in Greenland for a whole country?
Greenlanders have been pressing for more autonomy from Denmark, and looking forward to independence. Anne Sibert asks, "Undersized: Could Greenland be the new Iceland? Should it be?" Greenland has 60,000 people, is that enough for a nation-state?
She points out that:
there is little to suggest that small countries grow faster than larger ones.
small country output fluctuates more than larger country output - their production is simply less diversified.
small country consumption fluctuates more than that in larger countries
public goods have an important fixed cost component - so the per capita cost of public services will be higher for a small country.
"...it is also likely that the per capita administrative cost of income taxes is decreasing in country size. As a result, smaller countries tend to rely less on relatively efficient income taxation and more on relatively inefficient taxes, such as customs taxes."
"...a lack of competition in the provision of non-traded goods in small countries can lead to inefficiency."
it's not clear there be enough qualified and talented people to staff of the agencies of a modern state
"...Farrugia (1993) suggests that very small countries may also suffer because of their high degree of interpersonal relations... Farrugia comments that, “Many necessary decisions and actions can be modified, adjusted and sometimes totally neutralised by personal interventions and community pressures. In extreme cases, close personal and family connections lead to nepotism and corruption.”
"...each civil servant is forced to play more roles than he would in a more populous society. Such multi-tasking can be demanding and makes it difficult to build up expertise in a particular area."
and it's not clear that policy-makers in a small remote polity will be able to avoiding becoming insular in their thinking?
There are work-arounds. For example a country can import or hire expertise. Also, "Residents of a country with variable output can smooth their consumption across states of nature by holding a diversified portfolio of home and foreign equity." Perhaps a portfolio could be built with a resource investment fund similar to Alaska's permanent fund.
Sibert knows a small nearby Arctic economy well: Iceland. She and her husband Willem Buiter wrote a paper on Iceland in April 2008, projecting the financial disaster months before it took place. She's now a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Central Bank of Iceland.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Trust
So how can a government keep trust from the start. It's really quite easy; if you want to be trusted, simply be trustworthy. The pressures will be great to act otherwise, and if you succumb, well, you'll lose trust and you'll never get it back.
Changing governments to gain trust
Trust isn't one-way, of course—trust takes two, it can be between a person and any organization. You can trust a person while distrusting their organization. Conversely you can trust an organization while distrusting its people.
In business, one bad manager rarely destroys trust in the entire company. But several bad managers, armed with policies that clearly treat people as disposable implements, can destroy trust in an entire organization.
In a business, bringing in a new management team that takes clear, visible action may provide a chance of rebuilding trust. For a government it must go further a complete change in its modus operandi is required. These actions will be hampered because citizens have learned to distrust the government as a whole. But at least the new leaders may have a chance to gain one-on-one trust and translate that into the organizational changes needed to build trust throughout.Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Power of the Pamphlet
The precedence for anonymous writing changing people’s view of their circumstances was best illustrated by the document “Common Sense” first published in 1776. This document spread across a continent with over 600,000 copies distributed to a population of 3million. No Internet in 1776 just word of mouths reinforcing the exceptional power of human beings. Sadly we still live in times when open expression can have very vindictive consequences. The document makes very interesting reading.
The opening line “SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” Seems as true today as it was back in 1776.
John Paine’s writings may have sparked the birth of a new nation but I fear that although the world has aged in years the hope of a society embracing everyone equally is as remote today as it was back in 1776.
The opening line “SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” Seems as true today as it was back in 1776.
John Paine’s writings may have sparked the birth of a new nation but I fear that although the world has aged in years the hope of a society embracing everyone equally is as remote today as it was back in 1776.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Evolution towards Positivism
In its quest for civilization it is believed that society must develop in accord with the Law of three stages. Auguste Comte first put this forward. He believed that the three stages are the theological, the metaphysical, and a third positive Stage.
Certainly in the 20th century a number of societies in the world progressed to the beginnings of the positive stage. The Positivism stage refers to full scientific explanation based on observation, experiment, and comparison. Interestingly Comte believed that there was a further hierarchy in the final stage, which was to develop thought in the order of: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. Comte obviously believed we had to work through the understanding of everything else before we could attempt the most complex science the knowledge of human social structure. No wonder the world is as dysfunctional as it is with sociology at the back of everyones thoughts.
Certainly in the 20th century a number of societies in the world progressed to the beginnings of the positive stage. The Positivism stage refers to full scientific explanation based on observation, experiment, and comparison. Interestingly Comte believed that there was a further hierarchy in the final stage, which was to develop thought in the order of: Mathematics; Astronomy; Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Psychology; Sociology. Comte obviously believed we had to work through the understanding of everything else before we could attempt the most complex science the knowledge of human social structure. No wonder the world is as dysfunctional as it is with sociology at the back of everyones thoughts.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Why do folks not want to think about Direct Democracy?
There is a scientific explanation Praxeology. The term was coined and defined as "The science of human action" way back in 1890 by Alfred Espinas
The science was taken a step further in 1986 when Richard Petty and John Cacioppo developed a theory based on social scientific research known as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. What does all this mean?
Put simply a person's motivation is generated by their involvement and perceived relevance to the point in question. The conscious mind is capable of only one decision at a time. It follows, individuals will put less effort into decisions that are less relevant. Could this also be why Initiatives and Referendums largely fail?
Another way to manipulate thinking is to overload people with a tyranny of choice. When presented with an excess of options, many people just freeze up. It’s like being at a buffet when you find yourself spoilt for choice stopping somewhere between the crab claws and the gelato bar.
Who is using this science - could it be the political parties that control governance?
Government intervention throughout society removes the relevance of decision making from the individual, and it is in the ruling government’s interest to promote a less aware voting public. Advocates of big government often cite the inadequacy of the population to manage their own affairs, and as a result call for the necessity of a "big brother" to forcibly "protect people from themselves".
While it may be true that a majority of people today lack any motivation to get involved it may become the case that we need to lose it to appreciate it. History is littered with examples of this. The loss of relevance produces a head in the sand approach to thinking about government-managed issues. The resulting consequence is a voting public who is inclined to make superficial judgments when electing political representatives.
When fewer people are thinking about the most important issues of our time, it follows that the resulting majority will be less equipped to respond to these issues because there is little if any free exchange of ideas. I welcome your thoughts.
The science was taken a step further in 1986 when Richard Petty and John Cacioppo developed a theory based on social scientific research known as the Elaboration Likelihood Model. What does all this mean?
Put simply a person's motivation is generated by their involvement and perceived relevance to the point in question. The conscious mind is capable of only one decision at a time. It follows, individuals will put less effort into decisions that are less relevant. Could this also be why Initiatives and Referendums largely fail?
Another way to manipulate thinking is to overload people with a tyranny of choice. When presented with an excess of options, many people just freeze up. It’s like being at a buffet when you find yourself spoilt for choice stopping somewhere between the crab claws and the gelato bar.
Who is using this science - could it be the political parties that control governance?
Government intervention throughout society removes the relevance of decision making from the individual, and it is in the ruling government’s interest to promote a less aware voting public. Advocates of big government often cite the inadequacy of the population to manage their own affairs, and as a result call for the necessity of a "big brother" to forcibly "protect people from themselves".
While it may be true that a majority of people today lack any motivation to get involved it may become the case that we need to lose it to appreciate it. History is littered with examples of this. The loss of relevance produces a head in the sand approach to thinking about government-managed issues. The resulting consequence is a voting public who is inclined to make superficial judgments when electing political representatives.
When fewer people are thinking about the most important issues of our time, it follows that the resulting majority will be less equipped to respond to these issues because there is little if any free exchange of ideas. I welcome your thoughts.
Controlling the Wealth
Our individual, family and country’s wealth determine how we live. There is increasing concern in the US about how the government is involved in the economy of the country. How much control does the elected US government actually have? Interestingly a private company supplies the money with unknown owners set up much the same as the Bank of England. If the Government does not have control then we the people certainly have no say. Did anyone vote for this? Here is a video on the process of taking everyone’s wealth.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
European Initiative & Referendum
At this site we have a European version of Initiative and Referendum. A far more stuffy view of things no stirring videos but they have produced a handbook. Sadly it seems to be more about a way of controlling Direct Democracy rather than enabling it after all we must not let those pesky people actually start controlling things.
In the introduction it speaks of three dangers:
If certain falsehoods or biased opinions are repeated often enough they can be seen as truths. This supports the view that Nazis and fascists will take control by brainwashing everyone. With global communications more open today than ever this is a far less of a threat. When they muzzle the internet then yes we have something really sinister to worry about.
Second the protection of minorities. Well as I mentioned before they wrestled with this 200 years ago in the formation of the United States. Direct Democracy is a tool and in the Ni4D it talks about expanding the process to allow everyone to participate in law making.
How do we guarantee the interests of future generations? Somebody tell me who is looking after the future of my grandsons and granddaughters. That is precisely the reason I started writing not for me but yes for those yet to step into this world. One small step for Direct Democracy one giant leap for humanity.
In the introduction it speaks of three dangers:
If certain falsehoods or biased opinions are repeated often enough they can be seen as truths. This supports the view that Nazis and fascists will take control by brainwashing everyone. With global communications more open today than ever this is a far less of a threat. When they muzzle the internet then yes we have something really sinister to worry about.
Second the protection of minorities. Well as I mentioned before they wrestled with this 200 years ago in the formation of the United States. Direct Democracy is a tool and in the Ni4D it talks about expanding the process to allow everyone to participate in law making.
How do we guarantee the interests of future generations? Somebody tell me who is looking after the future of my grandsons and granddaughters. That is precisely the reason I started writing not for me but yes for those yet to step into this world. One small step for Direct Democracy one giant leap for humanity.
Monday, July 27, 2009
A Higher Power
As part of the human condition we have always sought to shelter our fears in the coming of a savior to transform the world and bring a rush of adrenalin to our lives.
The Christians await the second coming of Christ
The Jews still wait on the Messiah
Hindus look for the coming of Krishna
The Buddhists expect the appearance of Maitreya
And the Muslims believe in the appearance of Imam Mahdi.
This is not the full list by any means.
To me it shows the more we separate into different tribes the more we are all the same we all bleed. Why are we all so quick to give up control to a higher power. The power is within each and every one of us.
The latest scam is the bright star heralding the appearance of Maitreya.
Check out Youtube. I cannot bring myself to advertise any of the nonsense videos.
The Christians await the second coming of Christ
The Jews still wait on the Messiah
Hindus look for the coming of Krishna
The Buddhists expect the appearance of Maitreya
And the Muslims believe in the appearance of Imam Mahdi.
This is not the full list by any means.
To me it shows the more we separate into different tribes the more we are all the same we all bleed. Why are we all so quick to give up control to a higher power. The power is within each and every one of us.
The latest scam is the bright star heralding the appearance of Maitreya.
Check out Youtube. I cannot bring myself to advertise any of the nonsense videos.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
China's Democracy Wall
It is 20 years since the destruction of China’s Democracy Wall.
The events of Tiananmen Square in June 1989 extinguished a small flame of hope of government by the people of China for the people China. Time Magazine asks “Where is China headed in the 21st century? Will it continue with 'modernization' under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.”
20 years on here are scenes of violence against protesters in Iran.
John F. Kennedy put it best – “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Perhaps the time has come for a Global Democracy Wall to initiate change for democracy for everyone.
The history of Initiative and Referendum in the United States
Here is an excellent speech about how legislatures in the United States are killing direct democracy. It is a little long but it contains some very interesting historical points about a process that started in Oregon in 1904 with great hope but has been circumvented if not directly thwarted by the politicians throughout the 1900s. Far from Direct Democracy being nurtured it has been blocked. The representative system has been hijacked there have been numerous attempts to make it more democratic. Well folks it just is not working the speech ends with a call for thinking outside of the box.
A 2009 Constitution
For the Cayman Islands a new constitution has been approved by the UK government.
It has been developed in consort with the Constitutional Modernization Initiative
How modern can this be when the government must pledge allegiance to the UK monarchy an institution a 1000 years old and 4000 miles away. There is also no mention of any right for the people to call referendums. It seems to me it is the same old same old with a bit of window dressing. Hardly a modernization Initiative.
It has been developed in consort with the Constitutional Modernization Initiative
How modern can this be when the government must pledge allegiance to the UK monarchy an institution a 1000 years old and 4000 miles away. There is also no mention of any right for the people to call referendums. It seems to me it is the same old same old with a bit of window dressing. Hardly a modernization Initiative.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Office of Electoral Regulation
Here is a depressing point of view about Direct Democracy
“I think that the ultimate outcome of direct democracy is anarchy. With no separation between the government and the people, you lose what ensures peace and order. People always end up ruling by mob mentality. Every issue brought up would be ruled that someone cheated and that someone rigged the ballot, even more so that today. Representative democracy ensures a certain amount of separation while still maintaining the peoples will. This helps to prevent mass chaos since most people are not directly involved with the decision, they let the people they elect do that.”
Obviously maintaining the status quo is the path of least inconvenience and yes we all prefer an easy life. However I maintain that the representative democracy is a failure. I believe the words representative and democracy cannot sit together. The current system is a fraudulent form of democracy used by ignorant persons and intellectual fakers, to describe a villainous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose honest principles often make them perfect victims.
As to the rigging of ballots well talk to the folks of Florida who voted in 2000. We have a Supreme Court with Supreme Justices should we not elevate the control and operation of elections to such a lofty position in our societies.
“I think that the ultimate outcome of direct democracy is anarchy. With no separation between the government and the people, you lose what ensures peace and order. People always end up ruling by mob mentality. Every issue brought up would be ruled that someone cheated and that someone rigged the ballot, even more so that today. Representative democracy ensures a certain amount of separation while still maintaining the peoples will. This helps to prevent mass chaos since most people are not directly involved with the decision, they let the people they elect do that.”
Obviously maintaining the status quo is the path of least inconvenience and yes we all prefer an easy life. However I maintain that the representative democracy is a failure. I believe the words representative and democracy cannot sit together. The current system is a fraudulent form of democracy used by ignorant persons and intellectual fakers, to describe a villainous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose honest principles often make them perfect victims.
As to the rigging of ballots well talk to the folks of Florida who voted in 2000. We have a Supreme Court with Supreme Justices should we not elevate the control and operation of elections to such a lofty position in our societies.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Separation of Party Affiliation & State
Looking at the state of modern party politics a statement such as ban all party politics could easily be forgiven. It should however be qualified: all elected officials should not be unduly influenced in the decisions of state by an affiliated party but their decisions should be guided by personal conscience and or the majority will of the people that elected them. Thomas Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation between church and state," one of the founding principles of the US to ensure that the federation never becomes a religious monopoly but a place where free religious belief was welcomed. Looking at a parallel why can we not have a wall of separation between party affiliation and state. That is to say any person could still affiliate with fellow groups for sympathizing views but as an elected official they should be held to a duty not to slavishly follow a party line. Is that asking too much for a person to be guided by their sense of right and wrong? As an individual we make mistakes but the wisdom of the crowd could help in those sometimes gray areas affecting the common good.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Seeing the world as a child
There is an excellent offering from youthforhumanrights which aims to strengthen the understanding of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights . They have produced a series of ads/short videos for each article the one I found I liked best was for Article 28 a perfect world seen through the eyes of a child.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Internet Interactivity
Here is an interesting site ChoiceRanker which gives a realtime method of voting.
This the promise of the internet in action someday lets hope we see it as reality.
This the promise of the internet in action someday lets hope we see it as reality.
When a Government fails
Events in the Turks & Caicos islands yesterday demonstrate clearly that democracy can easily be abused. While for several months investigations and enquiries grind on there is no hope in sight for the common people. At the demonstrations yesterday feelings boiled over. Demonstrators told reporters that their protest had nothing to do with politics but was a matter of them reaching their breaking point with the way the country was being governed. Among the signs borne by the demonstration: “Go home or give up your salary”; “Let civil servants get pay on time”; “We ain’t rich…we broke”; “Country on life support”; “Can a brother get a job”; and “Independence – hell no”. The country has been driven into debt by a leader totally out of control. A nurse who was among the protesters said: “No one can ever remember a time as bad as this and it will soon be worse. Welfare folk have not received their allotments in four months, the clinics were out of life supporting drugs and we were not paying our contractors.” TCI is a small jurisdiction but they were sold the Westminster system a toally inappropriate form of governance which has now been fully exposed as a flop. The full extent can be read in a report posted here. It is interesting that the islanders are seeking to be saved by the UK Government which is just as corrupt and self serving. I think it is time for everybody to wake up and smell the coffee.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Mixed Ink a great start
President Obama issued a Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government in which he called for recommendations on making the government more transparent, participatory, and collaborative. An excellent new concept Mixedink has been developed to encourage open debate. It is a sad indictment that there were 375 contributors and 2256 ratings from a population of milions. Clearly there is much work to be done to generate interest.
Global Collaboration
Never before has our existence felt so under threat as it is today.
In a speech to the United Nations in 1995 I believe Nelson Mandela captures in a few eloquent words our need to collaborate Globally.
"how does humanity co-operate to build a better life for all.
If this question sounds trite in its simplicity and too familiar in its rhyme, it is because this challenge has been with us for millennia.
More often, however, the need to pursue the good of all has been subsumed under the narrow interest of the self or the corporate unit. The endless cycle then becomes: better circumstances for a few, precarious ones for many, and indeed, worse for the majority.
That age-old question confronts us today under conditions which require of us an abiding consensus.
Technological advance has narrowed the plains and oceans dividing nations. The era, in inter-state relations, in which military considerations were placed above pertinent socio-economic imperatives, has come to an end. Our common habitat is in danger."
In a speech to the United Nations in 1995 I believe Nelson Mandela captures in a few eloquent words our need to collaborate Globally.
"how does humanity co-operate to build a better life for all.
If this question sounds trite in its simplicity and too familiar in its rhyme, it is because this challenge has been with us for millennia.
More often, however, the need to pursue the good of all has been subsumed under the narrow interest of the self or the corporate unit. The endless cycle then becomes: better circumstances for a few, precarious ones for many, and indeed, worse for the majority.
That age-old question confronts us today under conditions which require of us an abiding consensus.
Technological advance has narrowed the plains and oceans dividing nations. The era, in inter-state relations, in which military considerations were placed above pertinent socio-economic imperatives, has come to an end. Our common habitat is in danger."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Opensource Maturity Model
Based on recognised maturity models for opensource software here is a possible model to achieve Direct Democracy. I would say the current situation has yet to reach the collaborative stage. This is the stage where loose community coupling takes place. Somewhere there has to be a start.Friday, July 17, 2009
Democracy and the Internet
In the early days of the internet, many of its most enthusiastic supporters expected cyberspace to transform the world of politics. Oppressive governments, they thought, would be in trouble by their inability to control the free flow of information. Here's hoping it could yet happen. But cyber-optimists' hopes were even higher for recognized democracies, where they saw the internet restoring the electorate's civic commitment. Citizens would no longer rely on information spoon-fed by politicians, but be able to find out for themselves. Eventually, people would vote directly from the comfort of their own homes. The political apathy which has spread through western countries in recent decades would be reversed. Democracy would be rejuvenated, at last achieving its original meaning of “power of the people”.
So far this has not happened. Established democratic governments have published enormous amounts of information on the internet and moved towards the electronic delivery of some services. Hardly bringing power to the people, and it certainly has made no difference to the conduct of politics.…
So far this has not happened. Established democratic governments have published enormous amounts of information on the internet and moved towards the electronic delivery of some services. Hardly bringing power to the people, and it certainly has made no difference to the conduct of politics.…
Thursday, July 16, 2009
When do the Moderates get a say?
Where do we hear from the man in the middle the average person living an honest life supporting their family and community?
More and more the extremists are taking over and brainwashing normal people with abnormal thoughts. Read this interview with a Minister of God such clear subversion is occurring at many levels in many ways. It is interesting to read the Minister’s justification for the violent behaviour of gangs in North America. I wonder if you can apply the same logic to justify the killings in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Right is right wrong is wrong this modern phenomenon of finding excuses for people crossing civilized boundaries needs to stop. Direct Democracy needs to take charge.
More and more the extremists are taking over and brainwashing normal people with abnormal thoughts. Read this interview with a Minister of God such clear subversion is occurring at many levels in many ways. It is interesting to read the Minister’s justification for the violent behaviour of gangs in North America. I wonder if you can apply the same logic to justify the killings in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Right is right wrong is wrong this modern phenomenon of finding excuses for people crossing civilized boundaries needs to stop. Direct Democracy needs to take charge.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Democracy a danger to itself
The founding fathers of the USA debated at length the issues of how to govern. Those such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry on one side favored a pure and direct democracy with the legislative power vested in the very hands of the people, while others such as James Madison, John Adams and George Washington held that a representative democracy would offer a better democracy because they believed it would protect the individual liberties of the minority from the will of the majority.
Lets fast forward to 2009. The European Parliament opened today with a new batch of MEPs. Among the many MEPs there is a new minority the BNP. I think there is something wrong with modern representative democracy when raving lunatics get elected. What on earth is happening? Perhaps this serves as a warning that democracy in action can also be most dangerous to democracy itself. It can be shown that Hitler and Mussolini used bogus referendums to consolidate their power which in the post war era provided a backlash against direct democracy. The use of referendums was branded an instrument of Nazism and fascism.
Lets fast forward to 2009. The European Parliament opened today with a new batch of MEPs. Among the many MEPs there is a new minority the BNP. I think there is something wrong with modern representative democracy when raving lunatics get elected. What on earth is happening? Perhaps this serves as a warning that democracy in action can also be most dangerous to democracy itself. It can be shown that Hitler and Mussolini used bogus referendums to consolidate their power which in the post war era provided a backlash against direct democracy. The use of referendums was branded an instrument of Nazism and fascism.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Separation of Church & Government
It is interesting that in these times of economic crisis religious beliefs are creeping back into the governmental hierachy. In the Netherlands there is now a backlash against the liberal thinking which had allowed open drug use and prostitution. The Dutch Prime Minister earlier this year stated ""The economic crisis is also a moral crisis created by greed, preoccupation with money and egotistical acts," and he further stated "Calvin knew that society needed strong moral anchors, this is a lesson we need to take to heart." Interestingly you can take a test to see how Calvinistic you are. I scored 53% a hard worker but someone who enjoys a few of lifes luxuries. Hey we only pass by once. Not sure I would recommend any country be led solely by Calvinistic principles. I am sure thats not what the majority of the Dutch voted for.
The Thick of it
This is a political satire, The Thick of It, but the sad thing it is close to reality. This is how we are governed the spin is classic. This depicts a British Government Minister asking his assistants for a diversionary policy that’s free, universally popular and something he could announce immediately. How often have we seen this nonsense in our own country. The really sad thing is that actual real life events going on today are even more stranger than what was depicted. Why oh why do we allow these jokers to govern us!
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Lobbyist
As the second millennium ended we saw the finish of the battle between communism and pluralism. The battle lines drawn since the Second World War enabled both opposing regimes to control their populations with fear. It was a simple question at election time which of these two incompatible systems of government and economics do you prefer. After the collapse of the Berlin wall politics degenerated into one of dull detail. The Bogeyman had disappeared. Alas along came 9/11. We now have a world in conflict again battling fundamental conservative Muslims once again setting populations apart making them more worried about a loss of their way of living than holding their governments to account.
Into this fear the freebooter of modern politics the lobbyist has found fertile ground. The lobbyist seeks to influence governments on behalf of special interests which command more wealth than ever before in history. They have at their disposal an armory of technology not least the modern media to brainwash and manipulate not just the citizen but also the citizen’s representative. The United States has led the way to a complete new level of lobbying. Buying Congress is now considered the world's best investment, paying off at 1000 to 1 or more. See what jailed lobbyist/bribesman Jack Abramoff said in this Washington Post article. Everyone is looking to President Obama to reverse the influence of the lobbyist. On the other hand we can all do that with Direct Democracy.
Into this fear the freebooter of modern politics the lobbyist has found fertile ground. The lobbyist seeks to influence governments on behalf of special interests which command more wealth than ever before in history. They have at their disposal an armory of technology not least the modern media to brainwash and manipulate not just the citizen but also the citizen’s representative. The United States has led the way to a complete new level of lobbying. Buying Congress is now considered the world's best investment, paying off at 1000 to 1 or more. See what jailed lobbyist/bribesman Jack Abramoff said in this Washington Post article. Everyone is looking to President Obama to reverse the influence of the lobbyist. On the other hand we can all do that with Direct Democracy.
The Wisdom of Crowds
Large, diverse groups of independent people make better decisions. An award-winning book The Wisdom of Crowds shows how and why. Why are we so scared to initiate a shift from "representative democracy" to "direct democracy". The collapse of communism in the 20th century removed an ideological crutch that propped up the politics of representative democracy. This is the 21st century isn't it time for a change. Democracy is currently in a condition of arrested development. Each person exercises their political right once every few years casting a vote to choose their representative. Thats the limit for the following years which can be up to 7. These representatives then make all the decisions which in the extreme can lead a country to war. This is not what the ancient Athenians had in mind for democracy.
Charter of Rights & Freedoms
A very good colection of principles is given by a group of Canadians. There is one very critical element underpinning all this and that is the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms . It is interesting that such a charter does not exist in the UK whereas in the United States such rights are enshrined in the Declaration of Independance which was the rallying call of George Washington to his troops on July 9th 1776. I wonder what George Washington would think of the world today 233 years on?
A civilized society affords all its citizens certain inalienable rights the most well know bill of rights being enshrined as the first ten amendments of the American Constitution.
Should there not be a global bill of rights. Should countries not sign up for such in a way they currently submit to global trade agreements.
Where would you start with a Global Bill of Rights? Lets look back at the Magna Carta:
"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Very noble intentions and yes freedom from summary imprisonment would eliminate many fearful populations and I bet we can all name one or two countries where summary imprisonment is happening right now. The key to this in my mind is by lawful judgment of his Peers. In the modern world there is a further twist as people travel globally and reside and work in countries other than the one in which they are a citizen. There are many cases where a person innocently transgresses a law in a foreign country and the person is punished more severely because they are a foreigner. This regularly happens where I live. Is there not a case where if a country signs up to a Global Bill of Rights a foreigner is entitled to have judgement tempered or sharpened by citizens from his or her country? Just a thought.
A civilized society affords all its citizens certain inalienable rights the most well know bill of rights being enshrined as the first ten amendments of the American Constitution.
Should there not be a global bill of rights. Should countries not sign up for such in a way they currently submit to global trade agreements.
Where would you start with a Global Bill of Rights? Lets look back at the Magna Carta:
"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Very noble intentions and yes freedom from summary imprisonment would eliminate many fearful populations and I bet we can all name one or two countries where summary imprisonment is happening right now. The key to this in my mind is by lawful judgment of his Peers. In the modern world there is a further twist as people travel globally and reside and work in countries other than the one in which they are a citizen. There are many cases where a person innocently transgresses a law in a foreign country and the person is punished more severely because they are a foreigner. This regularly happens where I live. Is there not a case where if a country signs up to a Global Bill of Rights a foreigner is entitled to have judgement tempered or sharpened by citizens from his or her country? Just a thought.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Direct Democracy
It is interesting to see the global spread of Direct Democracy groups illustrating the frustration of many people with the current form of Government. Interestingly the largest list is for such groups is in the USA. Whether this reflects the affluence and freedoms available to US citizens or whether the number is a reaction to poor government who knows? Politicians throughout the ages have often displayed their own guilt in participating in a corrupt system with grand words like " I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power". Despite such words and intentions politicians are invariably sucked into a machine that perpetuates itself out of control.
What kind of government do we all need? A government where elected representatives listen to their party leaders or a government where they listen to us?
Reviewing a number of sites there are three main principles of direct democracy
Initiative
Referendum
Recall
and FOI (Freedom of Information) to ensure transparent decision making.
To serve such high ideals a Direct Democracy Portal has been established.
What kind of government do we all need? A government where elected representatives listen to their party leaders or a government where they listen to us?
Reviewing a number of sites there are three main principles of direct democracy
Initiative
Referendum
Recall
and FOI (Freedom of Information) to ensure transparent decision making.
To serve such high ideals a Direct Democracy Portal has been established.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Vote Fraud
Vote Fraud
The fundamental basis of current democracy is one person one vote but this can be distorted in many different ways.
Voting systems, such as runoff voting, instant runoff voting, approval voting, citizen initiatives and referendums, recall elections, and proportional representation
Vote-counting procedures
Rules about political parties (typically changes to election laws)
Eligibility to vote
How candidates and political parties get their names onto ballots
Electoral constituencies and election district borders
Ballot design and voting equipment
Scrutineering (election monitoring by candidates, political parties, etc.)
Safety of voters and election workers
Measures against bribery, coercion, and conflicts of interest
Financing of candidates' and referendum campaigns
Factors which affect the rate of voter participation
It seems that politicians have successfully interfered in the process for one reason only self interest. Why do we let it happen?
We even have an United Nations Fair Elections Commission but did it help, in 2001 in Yugoslavia, in 2002 in Zimbabwe, in 2009 in Iran. The United Nations have talked about standards to address safety of citizens, coercion, scrutiny, and eligibility to vote. Why then is there a vote fraud group able to highlight such glaring failures in the USA. The impartiality of the law and its judges is held to a very high account but we leave the organisation of the voting process that ultimately decides the laws open to political interference. Is there not a case that every country should have a non partisan election manager much the same way we have a supreme judge.
The fundamental basis of current democracy is one person one vote but this can be distorted in many different ways.
Voting systems, such as runoff voting, instant runoff voting, approval voting, citizen initiatives and referendums, recall elections, and proportional representation
Vote-counting procedures
Rules about political parties (typically changes to election laws)
Eligibility to vote
How candidates and political parties get their names onto ballots
Electoral constituencies and election district borders
Ballot design and voting equipment
Scrutineering (election monitoring by candidates, political parties, etc.)
Safety of voters and election workers
Measures against bribery, coercion, and conflicts of interest
Financing of candidates' and referendum campaigns
Factors which affect the rate of voter participation
It seems that politicians have successfully interfered in the process for one reason only self interest. Why do we let it happen?
We even have an United Nations Fair Elections Commission but did it help, in 2001 in Yugoslavia, in 2002 in Zimbabwe, in 2009 in Iran. The United Nations have talked about standards to address safety of citizens, coercion, scrutiny, and eligibility to vote. Why then is there a vote fraud group able to highlight such glaring failures in the USA. The impartiality of the law and its judges is held to a very high account but we leave the organisation of the voting process that ultimately decides the laws open to political interference. Is there not a case that every country should have a non partisan election manager much the same way we have a supreme judge.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
e-Democracy Centre
Switzerland has been at the forefront of direct democracy. In the past 120 years the Swiss have seen more than 240 initiatives put to referendum. Interestingly the populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives; in addition, they have often preferred a version of the initiative rewritten by government. The Swiss operate a double majority system, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of states in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. The Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the USA, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states. The Swiss belief in democracy has taken things further and they have set up the e-Democracy Centre . Reading one of their reports the findings suggest that populations are more interested in using the internet to monitor what the government does rather than participate in the decision making process. This is possibly explained by a recent study conducted by pshycological researchers in Illinois and Florida. Their conclusion "For the most part it seems that people tend to stay with their own beliefs and attitudes because changing those might prevent them from living the lives they’re living.” There is some hope for change though they found that one out of three times, or close to that, people are willing to seek out the other side.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Federalist Debate
With the widespread failure of representative democracy we new need ideas regarding the desirability of direct democracy. The representative party system is a form of oligarchy. In a direct democracy, political parties should have no effect, as people do not need to conform with popular opinions. In addition to maintain party cohesion, representatives generally compromise in order to achieve other objectives. In order to satisfy one desire of the electorate, the representative may have to abandon a core principle. In direct democracy, each issue would be decided on its own merits. The use of direct democracy on a larger scale has historically been more difficult. There must be a new dawn, developments in technology such as the internet, user-friendly and secure software, and inexpensive, powerful personal computers have all inspired new hope in the practicality of large scale applications of direct democracy. I found an interesting debate led by a philosopher in favour of direct democracy. Please note that one of the original philosophers Socrates held the view that, "Ideals belong in a world that only the wise man can understand" making the philosopher the only person truly wise enough to govern others. Socrates the father of this ideal did however contradict that statement with the belief that a philosopher is only a lover of wisdom, and not actually wise. Mankind has been torturing itself with the issue of how we should be governed for a long long time!
Monday, June 29, 2009
No protection of human rights when the system of governance itself has failed
Reading this report highlights the fragility of our human rights.
Wiki-Style
How can technology bring greater democracy. An interesting experiment Tapping the Constituency was a fledgling attempt to get everyone involved in governing the way we live.
Red Hat Proposes Open Source Government
Expanding the thought processes of open source software Red Hat mirrors my belief that there must be a better way.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Why Ask for your thoughts?
Do you think the system of Westminster Governments is past it's sell by date? Though the head of state, be it governor-general, monarch, or president, has nominal powers to "check" those of the prime minister, in practice these individuals are little more than figureheads and they do not intervene in day-to-day politics. The operation of government has been hijacked by corrupt party(tribal) politics cloaked in a mask of party secrecy. The time has come to give a role to civil society but how can this be done in the fast changing modern world? Civil groups have been created in some countries to promote and protect the interests of citizens . Such organizations have been at the forefront of the struggle for open government and freedom of information. It must be said that we have predominantly seen corruption spiral out of control with horrendous consequences for ordinary people.
Like myself you may have seen the Prime Minister become a monster out of control, as he or she effectively determines when "consensus" is reached in cabinet, cabinet members do not have much independence to actively disagree with government policy, even for productive reasons. A cabinet member may be forced to resign simply for opposing one aspect of a government's agenda, even though they agreed with the majority of other proposals. Further many of the elected members are not part of the ruling party giving them zero opportunity to influence the direction of Government even if they have good ideas.
I write this to seek global feedback. Hopefully it will stimulate a broad discussion and lead to meaningful reformations of our antiquated system of Government. If we can solve open source code issues surely we can propose a more accountable form of Governance.
Like myself you may have seen the Prime Minister become a monster out of control, as he or she effectively determines when "consensus" is reached in cabinet, cabinet members do not have much independence to actively disagree with government policy, even for productive reasons. A cabinet member may be forced to resign simply for opposing one aspect of a government's agenda, even though they agreed with the majority of other proposals. Further many of the elected members are not part of the ruling party giving them zero opportunity to influence the direction of Government even if they have good ideas.
I write this to seek global feedback. Hopefully it will stimulate a broad discussion and lead to meaningful reformations of our antiquated system of Government. If we can solve open source code issues surely we can propose a more accountable form of Governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)