CONSIDERING DIRECT DEMOCRACY

In advocating direct democracy we must question ourselves about our motives. Do we want to tilt the playing field in favor of progressives and keep the right wing fighting to take back its advantage? No, this would maintain the polarization that divides people and makes consensus impossible. Direct democracy is about giving more people a voice in the government, not about isolating people with different views. It is not about giving any one group advantage, but making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate and contribute to the structures that govern. The debates regarding motives behind direct democracy should be further discussed and the article below raises some important questions for advocates to consider. The author sees a benefit in pushing the right wing out of politics in favor of a more progressive government and we must ask why. He points to the faults of the current administration and its own use of "democracy" as justification for invasion. But that certainly does not mean that direct democracy can suddenly sweep in to save the world from unjust intrusions. That suggestion would create the same sort of ideological imperialism that 'democracy' has come to mean for the right wing. Instead, direct democracy will have to build itself through the participation of diverse voices in order to avoid the forceful imposition of a new system that does not reflect the true sum of the public will. - Editor

How Progressives Can Utilize Direct Democracy As a Means to Create Change

Source: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2008/01/how_progressive.html

As we re-create our progressive gospel, we can reference our central themes within each line, leaving no doubt as to who benefits from the governmental system we envision. Through Direct Democracy, we can put our vision to work, sowing the seeds of an international movement which profits no one but those who are most in need of its prospects. More importantly, such work will have the effect of muting the endless struggle among progressives and instead, join our voices in a powerful harmonic convergence. - Larry Sakin

by Larry SakinJan 25, 2008

Progressives have a long history of 'eating our own.' It’s a tendency that the right wing very much enjoys watching.

There's a lot of despair and cynicism floating around these days, and it’s easy to point fingers and try to find ‘traitors’ among our ranks. If we really want to change the current course of our country, we can instead get active and working for change together, achieving a sustainable world while annoying the hell out of the right wing as a bonus.

One way to achieve our goals is through Direct Democracy. Once this system is implemented, debates can be hot and heavy, but there will be no future pumping up introverted groups by simple math and letting people indulge their dreams and proposals with little chance of getting into the mainstream. Cattle will always move to the greener grass and it is better for the American 'undecided' or 'open-minded' to grasp the principles and methods of Direct Democracy, rather than pick at the details.

Direct Democracy is a concept which unites all progressives and reformers. Even some true conservatives and grassroots Republicans can be drawn into this idea through national referenda and a new power line that eclipses the feeble and old fashioned politics of the mainstream.

We must search for ideas that have mass appeal (foreign policy, defense, prescription drugs, social security, balance of trade, and energy economics). We have to out think the government, and then make proposals entertaining and exciting. A movement for Direct Democracy has to be exciting, with new techniques, or it is doomed to fill a larger group of progressives with false hopes. Remember that the current politics of this country are vulnerable and boring as hell. Surely we can stop in-fighting and drive salience through!

I believe very much in John Quincy Adams’s quote, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Unfortunately, our current leaders believe their worldwide quest to instill capitalist principles instead of Direct Democracy has rendered Adams’s vision archaic.

In order to bring Direct Democracy to the world, we must start by analyzing the language of our current leadership, and the thin line between ambition for profit and true democratic values.

Those who proffer capitalist values often sound more democratic than they really are. They say they want to see that freedoms are extended to all people in all places. They say that all people have a right to the basic necessities required to lead dignified lives and to pursue happiness and that America’s security and prosperity rely on the security and prosperity of people throughout the world. By helping others, they contend, we will help ourselves.

While all of the above sounds good, the open-endedness of these paradigms begs the question “who really benefits from this ideology?”

As we’ve witnessed in the Iraq War, the Bush administration and the neo-conservative architects of the invasion have said that the main reason for the war is extricating Iraq’s people from the grip of dictatorship and allowing them to live freely. Yet, the actions of the administration and war supporters clearly paint a different picture, that of using the cause they speak so highly of to fill private coffers with public money.

Advocates of Direct Democracy need to be clear in their language if they wish to distinguish their values from the deceptive blandishments of the right wing. To do this, we can pare our beliefs back to the central tenets of the left:

“Redistribution of wealth, elimination of poverty everywhere, unlimited expenditures to provide affordable or free medical care for everyone, curbs on destructive overpopulation, protection of the environment of the earth, universal freedom of expression, the spread of democratic institutions, elimination of all totalitarian regimes of any kind, and the conversion of the U.S.A. today from the present oligarchy run by an aristocracy bent on self-protected wealth and power to a genuine democracy.” ~Wolfe, 2006

With the exception of the last, these theories carried our nation through many desperate times, from the depression and the world war that followed, through the McCarthy era of the fifties, and the Vietnam conflict of the sixties. As we re-create our progressive gospel, we can reference our central themes within each line, leaving no doubt as to who benefits from the governmental system we envision.

Through Direct Democracy, we can put our vision to work, sowing the seeds of an international movement which profits no one but those who are most in need of its prospects. More importantly, such work will have the effect of muting the endless struggle among progressives and instead, join our voices in a powerful harmonic convergence.

If, on the other hand, we abandon our core beliefs and allow our democratic message agree with those of Bush and his cohorts, “spreading democracy throughout the world, even if it has to be done at gun point,” our values will be lost. Unless they mean to harm the US, let sovereign nations govern the way they want to govern. We’ve neither the resources in troops nor money to help overthrow all tyrannical governments.

That may sound cold, but it’s a fact.