1
Pirates and Democracy
DEMOCRACY SQUAD - Belgium
Presented by
Paul Nollen [email protected] Alexandre Zenon [email protected]
Direct democracy 09122013c
The goal of this workshop is to present some elements about democracy in order to start up discussion about our definition of “Democracy”. We will try to give a little historical background, some information about democracy today in the world and about the current projects we know that are attempting to move democracy forward.
2
Pirates and Democracy anno 2013
DEMOCRACY SQUAD
A hundred years before the French Revolution, the buccaneer companies were run on lines in which liberty, equality and fraternity were the rule. In a buccaneer camp, the captain was elected and could be deposed by the votes of the crew. The crew, and not the captain, decided whether to attack a particular ship, or a fleet of ships. (source: wikipedia)
Direct democracy 09122013c
3
Elections have nothing to do with democracy
Voting serves only to select leaders, not to directly decide policy
The "idea that electoral participation means popular control of government is so deeply implanted in the psyches of most Americans that even the most overtly skeptical cannot fully free themselves from it" (B.Ginsberg)
From “Democracy without Elections” (Brian Martin)
4
DEMOCRACY = legislative power of the people
But then, what is democracy
The people are SOVEREIGN
In a true democracy there is no authority above the people.
DIRECT means without intermediary, or forced delegation
What we usually call democracy is in fact PARTICRACY
Elections have nothing to do with democracy
5
Electoral Representative systems
• NON PARTISAN ( Nebraska,..)
• SINGLE DOMINANT PARTY
• TWO POLITICAL PARTIES
• MULTIPLE POLTICAL PARTIES
Main characteristics are : FORCED DELEGATION for YEARSPARTICRACY
What is wrong with elections?
6
Power tends to corrupt…Modern “electoral representative democracies”
This is the definition of oligarchy (rule by few)
Power rests effectively with a small number of people
They tend to be always the same
What is wrong with elections?
7
Power tends to corrupt…
Roberto Michels, 1911
Mission drift: preservation of the organization itself
Mission drift: preservation of the organization itself
The structures of institutions lead to abuses of power
The iron law of oligarchy
What is wrong with elections?
8
Power tends to corrupt…
Social psychology
Thirst for power is correlated to other personality traits (Bennett J. 1988)
• Machiavellianism: tendency to deceive and manipulate other people for one’s personal gain.
"Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”
• Arrogance
• Low conscientiousness
What is wrong with elections?
9
Power tends to corrupt…
Politicians are morally little different from anyone else. The expectations and pressures on them are much greater. Positions of great power both attract the most ambitious and ruthless people and bring out the worst features of those who obtain them. It is not the individuals who should be blamed, but the system in which they operate. ( From “Democracy without Elections”)
Together with the iron law of oligarchy of organizations we have a very powerful combination.
What is wrong with elections?
10
Power tends to corrupt…Why elections in a Particracy invariably lead to oligarchy?
We don’t really have a choice: there is little difference between the viable candidates
• Our power is extremely limited in time: every 4-5 years and nothing in between -> no intervention possible
• Money influences the result overwhelmingly: campaign contribution, media ownership, lobbying : EU 2008 - lobbies spending from 50 biggest corporations: 13.351.000 - 14.501.000 Euro + undeclared amount!
• The choice is difficult: an enormous amount of variables to take into account, including psychological variables (e.g. “Is he trustworthy? Is he lying?, etc…”)
• Parties make deals influencing their program after elections to form majorities
What is wrong with elections?
11
Power tends to corrupt…Things do not tend to get better
Percent agreeing that “people have a say in what government does”
Matsusaka 2004 & Gallup polls
2007
What is wrong with elections?
12
Politicians: a necessary evil?Every elites in history have used “myths” to justify their power
Today, the representative political system is based on the idea that people are not able to govern themselves, that they need elites to decide what’s good for them
Is it really so? Are politicians a necessary evil?
What is wrong with elections?
13
Why?
Solution against the abuses of power (Checks and balances)
Setting the political agenda
Real representation: the point of view of each citizen is taken into account in each single decision
● If they want to
Representation by sortition (Demarchy) or non partisan
Efficiency: wisdom of crowds
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
14
The wisdom of crowds
Averaging people’s opinions may allow to reach better decisions
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
15
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
Agenda setting = Initiative
What are the basic ingredients?
Discussion and debate = Reflection
Decision = Legislation
By Representation – Initiative – Referendum - Recall
16
Freedom of speech
What are the basic conditions?
Freedom of organisation
Transparency in government
Respect for all the people
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
A reliable justice department
17
In the “parliamentary democracy” of the UK
What is SOVEREIGNTY ?
SOVEREIGNTY is described as follows:
The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is the unshakeable keystone of Britain’s judicial system; it guarantees the continued supremacy of parliament. A codified constitution, which in many other countries restricts the powers of government, does not exist in Britain. Thus the only check on the power of Parliament is the sovereignty of future parliaments – legislation can always be overturned, treaties can always be broken and participation in the European Union is never truly binding.
In the “direct democracy” of Switzerland sovereignty belongs to the citizens
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
18
Examples:
Around half the US statesGermany (states and communes)Venezuela (consejos comunales)BrazilItaly (federal and local)Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia (referendum)
but in a way, they all have their differences …
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
19
Major typesDirect: California, ….No interference of elected representativesIndirect : Switzerland, ……Elected representatives can launch a counterproposal
This possibilities becomes part of “tactics” that can be used.- Citizens are launching an initiative- Representatives are launching a counter proposal- Citizens have the right to redrawn their initiative or stand by it- Citizens have the right to launch a referendum on the counter proposalThis means that there is a possibility that citizens have to vote on three proposals about the same issue. In case of acceptance of two or three of the proposals the proposal with most yes votes wins (double yes).
Sovereignty to the people: Direct Democracy
20
Direct Democracy in Switzerland
Role of the parliament:
Proposed laws are submitted to referendum eitherobligatorily (constitutional changes)or through citizen choice (signature gathering)
They are revocable (cantons)
Their budget is voted on (cantons)
They can make counter-proposals on initiatives
21
The backbone:
Referendum: vote on politicians’ law proposalsobligatory or citizen-initiated ( plebiscite is not allowed)
The result is binding !
Initiative:law proposals submitted by citizens
Recall:end the mandate of elected representatives
Mandatory vote on budget at local level
Free participation : delegation from non voters to voters
Direct Democracy in Switzerland
22
- Libertarian : democracy starts at municipal level and free associations are formed bottom-up.
- Constitutional : Switzerland has a constitution (but no constitutional court).
- Populist : The citizens, and only them, can change their constitution if they want to. A change of the constitution needs a “double majority” of the cantons and the people.
The Swiss system of Direct Democracy is a balance between different views on democracy
Direct Democracy in Switzerland
23
Majority rule and Consensus- Majority rule (50%+1) : never changed where people have the power to do so
- Special case : Switzerland “double majority”.
- Cure : Can lead to tyranny of a minority
Jeremy Waldron, 1999, Law and Disagreement.May's theoremCondorcet's jury theorem
- Consensus : can be reached in small groups with enough common ground
– no right to another opinion
– watering down support (unstable solution)
– pressure on the last opponent(s)
James M Buchanan, Stability of solutions:
Direct Democracy in Switzerland
24
Views on Direct Democracy -Libertarian : democracy, if necessary at all, is only acceptable at the lowest juridical level, municipality, neighborhood,.. . Direct Democracy is viewed as dictatorship of the majority.
- Constitutional : democracy has to be limited by a constitution, a social contract, divine law, …
- Populist : there is no authority above the people.
Direct Democracy is not perfect, it is a continuous learning system (source IRI Europe)
Criticisms of Direct Democracy
25
Higher JusticeInvoking a “Higher Justice” is a high risk for any type of democracy.
• International law :– Human rights : which ? defined democratically ?
• Natural law : reason and revelation – Liberal natural law ( Locke, .. )– Devine Law ( Inquisition, Sharia,..)The imposition of a “higher justice” holds the danger of an exceptional and persistent tyrannical dictatorship.
In most cases this “higher justice” is characterised by granting privileges to a very limited group, .. Law interpreters, some categories of citizens, high priests ...
It is not the “Law” that imposes problems but the “interpretation” and enforcement of that interpretation by a powerfull elite, in some cases even appointed or payd by that same elite (for example the constitutional court in the US).
Criticisms of Direct Democracy
26
As an example we can look at the suggestions of the Social threefolding (source wikipedia)
They distinguished three realms of society:
• The economy• Politics and human rights• Cultural institutions including science, education, arts and religion.
They suggested that the three would only function together harmoniously when each was granted sufficient independence. This has become known as "social threefolding".
Examples: A government should not be able to control culture; i.e., how people think, learn, or worship. A particular religion or ideology should not control the levers of the State. Pluralism and freedom were the ideal for education and cultural life. Concerning children, all families, not just those with economic means, should be enabled to choose among a wide variety of independent, non-government or public schools, from kindergarten through high school.
Criticisms of Direct Democracy
27
How to go from here to there?
Politicians don’t want Direct Democracy and will do everything they can to prevent it from happening
The Trojan horse
brings Direct Democracy from within the representative system
28
Ultimate objective
Introduce a democratic system that has the approval of all citizens
Transitory state
Allows to adjust the system smoothly
Allows to make people know about direct democracy and how it works
Allows to bring Direct Democracy without the need for the approval of the representative system or a revolution
How to go from here to there?
31
E-voting
E-voting has been used successfully in official elections:
EstoniaSwitzerlandUK
How to go from here to there?
32
Voting by ProxyVoting by proxy (delegation)
It may be interesting that voting by proxy (delegation) be allowed whereby a citizen may cast a vote on behalf of another citizen, as long as there is an official and public (or accountable) agreement between the citizens, ensuring maximum participation.
The direct Member’s vote can always override the delegate's vote and a Member can change their delegate at any time.
Any citizen has the right to become a delegate.
Voting by proxy = part of Liquid democracy
How to go from here to there?
33
E-voting
Pros and cons
Speed Potentially the fastest means of policy decision-making
Could potentially be too fast=> prevents thorough debate
Cost Potentially the cheapest method Campaigns needed to explain
and convince could be expensive Representation
Maximum representation if citizens participate directly and vote via delegates
Could exclude people that don’t have easy access to computers
Reliability/securityCan allow real auditability Still some security concerns at the
level of personal computers Trust
Can be fully open and accessible to anyone’s scrutiny
People might not trust something they don’t clearly understand
How to go from here to there?
Pirate Democracy
● Party program. Has to attract as much people as possible.
Makes party discipline necessary
Democracy and an extensive program is a contradiction in itself.
● Party election candidates lists
Makes it possible for parties to enforce party discipline
● Political power makes it possible for the parties to financially reward “obedient” representatives.
Incompatibilities
Party program: basic (Participation, Transparency, revision patent legislation, freedom of speech, freedom of organisation, protection of privacy, free internet, individual human rights)
● Extension: Task Forces who initiate referenda or are working in support of citizens initiatives and petitions
● In abstention of Democracy, the party initiates local “liquid democracy” in accordance with the existing law.
● Example :
- The Pirates are against observation camera's in public places
- The Pirates supports the peoples initiative to make observation camera's with “face recognition” in public places subject to an obligatory referendum.
Pirate Democracy
37
Participation quorum
If the quorum is to high a quorum results in a boycott action
- unfair against the people who make the effort to vote.
- no theoretical justification whatsoever
- no comparable rule in the representative system
Therefore
We support the principle of the free mandate: everybody may vote if he wishes to do so, or give delegation to those who vote.
38
The fact that a citizens initiative can’t adjourn a political decision is very discouraging.
-> leads to a massive aversion of politics and politicians (Paust)
Adjourn a decision
39
No exclusion of subjects
• In almost all “Lander” (Germany) the council decides if a referendum is allowed. A lot of subjects are excluded by law => this procedure is not objective (Paust).
Therefore
All the subjects who can be treated by representative democracy must be allowed in Direct Democracy
40
Publication
• A legally arranged publication by the government, with an equal opportunity to express the arguments of all parties involved, is indispensable.
• The use of public money for unilateral propaganda must be prohibited.
• The brochures, like they exist in Switzerland and California, can stand as a model.
Also the Oregon type of information provision is a good example. (citizens Jury apointed by sortition)
http://www.healthydemocracyoregon.org/cir
42
Ratification
• The hold off of ratification or conversion into law, after a successful binding referendum, is another example of political tactics.
• There must be a strict ruling about timing and automatic consequences if not respected.
43
Counter Proposal
• If the government has the right to propose a counter proposal to an initiative that got the signature threshold, this counter proposal must be delivered within a limited time frame.
• At this moment (2011) the Swiss government is using his right to propose a “counter proposal” to stall an initiative, successfully launched in 2008.
44
Incompatibilities• The Party program has to attract as much people as possible.
This makes party discipline necessary.
• Democracy and an extensive program is a contradiction in itself
• The party election candidates list makes it possible to enforce party discipline if there is a renumeration to the function.
• Political power makes it possible for the parties to financially reward “obedient” representatives.
45
CONCLUSION
In a true democracy there is no authority above the people.
They decide by themselves, whenever they think it is necessary.
This includes the right of secession and free association in a "bottom up" organisation
46
Questions to debate
• What is our definition of democracy ?• Do we need to keep some sort of
representative system (sortition or elected)?• How do we see the combination of a “party
program” and democracy ?• Is the Trojan horse strategy a viable
approach? Which obstacles do you anticipate?• Would you propose another strategy to
evolve to a real democracy?
Top Related