A LUNDEMOCRACY.
I like Thomas's idea. A significant improvement over currently
operative models of democracy.
But I would make these modifications.
(1) that citizen education for parliamentary participation be
compulsory, IF participation is to be compulsory, OR:
(2) that participation in parliament not be mandatory, but the right to
participate be conditional on attainment of certain communicative and
other competencies, ie, on a 'driving' licence.
(3) that a person's participation be limited to two or three main
decision-making domains. Few, if any, people have the capacity to
absorb the theory and info. in all areas in order to make reasonable
decisions. Better that people choose those areas in which they have a
genuine interest. The rule: don't participate in a decision if you
don't have have time to properly deliberate on the information and have
not well considered the underlying theoretical assumptions.
(4) that full right to effect decisions in the chosen domain be bestowed
only after a 'learning' period - say a year or two, during which time
one serves as an observer/commentator.
(5) that one has the right to choose to continue to serve as a
parliamentarian in an honorary capacity for an extended period say up to
30 years (subject to confidence maintaining procedures).
(6) that such a democracy be glocal (ie, local and global), using the
Internet as the 'Virtual Parliament'. Such a democracy would render
national politics redundant.
THE POSSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND TRIAL SUCH A PARLIAMENT NOW EXISTS. THE
EXPERIMENT DOES NOT NEED THE SANCTION OF THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL
ORDER. BETTER THAT IT BE TRIALED, DEVELOPED BY AND IMPLEMENTED AMONG
THOSE INTERESTED RATHER THAN IT BE UNDEMOCRATICALLY FOISTED ON AN UNWARY
PUBLIC.
Thomas Lunde wrote:
>
> I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to
> propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one
> assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making
> decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman,
> businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having
> opinions and making decisions.
>
> I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National
> Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of
> the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term.
> The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the
> individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The
> second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required
> by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as
> whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the
> standing committees.
>
> This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the
> dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific
> cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian
> and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by
> all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from
> office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in
> which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could
> participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for
> a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced
> elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small
> increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of
> parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position.
>
> This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for
> re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery
> that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender,
> ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though
> some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has
> not proven to be superior.
>
> If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent
> citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least
> possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a
> particular agenda.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Thomas Lunde
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: real-life example
>
> >At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed
> >>>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent
> ones.
> >>>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
> >>>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited
> tenure.
> >>
> >>Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best
> >>skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and
> xperience --
> >>not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
> >>
> >>Jay
> >
> >Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
> >broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
> >DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
> >more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
> >
> >But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
> >of the leader".
> >
> >In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
> >accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
> >4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
> >the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
> >UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
> >
> >Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
> >" a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
> >directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
> >
> >Colin Stark
> >Vice-President
> >Canadians for Direct Democracy
> >Vancouver, B.C.
> >http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
> >
