VIETNAM: Legislature Delays Steps Toward Direct Democracy

Vietnam halts election project

Nov 15, 2008

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_302684.html

HANOI - COMMUNIST Vietnam's legislature on Saturday put the brakes on a trial plan to allow direct local elections next year, in a last-minute change before closing its autumn session.

The National Assembly instead voted to extend by two years until 2011 the terms of commune and district leaders who were indirectly elected in a process vetted by the Communist Party, a legislator and media reports said.

The original pilot plan, which had been discussed by legislators and outlined in a detailed assembly paper, would have mirrored the village-level elections introduced by neighbouring China 20 years ago.

The original proposal would have seen an April 25 vote next year in which citizens in 385 communes nationwide would have directly elected their people's committee chairperson, a post akin to town mayor.

However, in a last-minute change early on Saturday, lawmakers approved other local government reforms, but scrapped the pilot plan for direct elections at the grassroots level of the Vietnamese political system.

Mr Uong Chu Luu, the assembly's deputy chairman, said the introduction of direct elections and 'the development of direct democracy at the base should be introduced prudently, with appropriate steps'.

With debate finished on the topic, the assembly closed its session.

Vietnam's Communist Party keeps a tight grip on all political activity, both through cells in schools and workplaces and through the Fatherland Front, an umbrella group for mass organisations such as farmers' and youth unions.

Decision making in Vietnam has long been top-down, with missives spread through loudspeakers and mass mobilisation campaigns that inform people about party edicts on everything from new farm techniques to family planning.

The new pilot project had been proposed a decade after the ruling party issued its so-called Grassroots Democracy decree, which outlined ways to expand citizens' participation, oversight and transparency in local government.

That decree - summed up by the party slogan 'people know, people discuss, people do, people supervise' - was meant to help defuse local grievances following outbreaks of rural unrest in northern Thai Binh province in 1997.

In recent years, amid Vietnam's rapid industrialisation, the number of land disputes has risen in rural areas, with farmers commonly accusing local officials of corruption and taking their land without adequate compensation. -- AFP

Participatory Democracy for Social and Ecological Justice

Sharing insights on a range of issues

BEIJING EXPRESS
By CELESTE FONG

Source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/26/focus/2379810&sec=focus

PRIOR to the meeting of Asian and European leaders in the Chinese capital for the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) on Oct 24 and 25, more than 500 people from key grassroots, activist networks, and non-governmental organisations from Asia and Europe gathered at a three-day forum themed “For Social and Ecological Justice” here.

Since 1996, the Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) has been held every two years, normally before the ASEM, and AEPF participants gather to discuss a range of issues, exchange views and share insights.

For the Seventh Asia-Europe People’s Forum, the discussions were organised in three clusters: peace and security; social and economic rights and environmental justice; and participatory democracy and human rights.

With the onset of the current global financial crisis, the forum’s delegates called for a re-design of the global financial system, saying that Europe and Asia should take the initiative.

“So, once again we stand at a historical moment in a sombre mood, surveying the wreckage of crises that are both long-term and of immediate consequence; of crises that are both structural and conjunctural; of crises that demand not cosmetic reforms but a deep-rooted and sustainable transformation of how we shape the global order,’’ said Klang Parliamentarian Charles Santiago, one of the speakers at the forum’s opening ceremony.


Santiago: ‘Developing countries like China, India and Brazil could lead the world in re-setting a new financial rchitecture.’ — By Celeste Fong
Santiago, who is also director of Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation, called for ASEM leaders to tell the global community from Europe and Asia that the unfettered deregulation of markets has to stop!

“Developing countries like China, India and Brazil could lead the world in re-setting a new financial architecture,” he added.

In his speech, he said govern ments, regional organisations, and international institutions like the IMF and World Bank have “all scrambled in unseemly haste to bail out their benefactors through subsidies for the rich.

“How ironic that the ‘free markets’ are today totally dependent on state intervention.

“The capitalist state is fulfilling its historic task of providing all the necessary guarantees for the survival of property.”

What is peculiar about the 2008 financial crisis, said Santiago, is that it is taking place alongside a food, energy and ecological crisis.

“It humbled the world’s economic super powers. They are asking developing countries like China to help solve the credit crisis through coordinated interest rate cuts,” he said.

China’s recent move to cut interest rates twice in three weeks is widely seen as part of a global collaboration to counter the crisis and an important contribution to the rest of the world.

Heidi Hautala, an experienced Green politician and a member of the Finnish Parliament, told the forum that the whole world is now feeling the consequences of an unprecedented collapse of the financial system.

“AEPF has consequently promoted the replacement of blind pro-market policies by alternative people-centred policies,” she said.

“We noted in Helsinki that ASEM countries control over half of the world’s gross national product. Thus, ASEM could be a key mechanism to lead the world on a sustainable path.

“To us, it is very clear that ASEM can only succeed if civil society gets access to it.’’

At the opening ceremony, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi voiced his hope that the forum would play a positive role in promoting people-to-people exchanges and cooperation between Asia and Europe and in pushing forward the ASEM process.

“It (the forum) will also make a unique contribution to maintaining world peace, stability and prosperity and promoting human progress and development,’’ he said.

Yang said the recent turbulence in the international financial market has dealt a blow to the world economy and aroused the concern of the entire international community.

“No country in the world can expect to stay away from such issues as global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and the increasingly grave international economic and financial situation or address them on one’s own.”

After the three-day discussions, the AEPF called for a fresh policy agenda to address economic policies which take into consideration ordinary people, human rights and the environment.

The AEPF’s final declaration, including the call for a broadened agenda like governance and human rights issues, environmental sustainability and people-centred development, would be passed to the ASEM meeting which began on Friday.

Besides Santiago, who is also a member of the international organising committee of the AEPF, other Malaysian participants included Monash University School of Arts and Sciences lecturer Wong Chin Huat, PAS’ Capt Muhd Alimin Aziz, MBPJ councillor S. Ramakrishnan and other representatives from Malaysian NGOs.

SOUTH KOREA: Building Organizations for Participatory Society

Civic groups unite to address broad range of social issues

movement that grew out of the candlelight protests responds to the ‘crisis in democracy and the people’s welfare’

Source:http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/315196.html

» Representatives of civic organizations and opposition parties discuss the formation of a new organization to address political and social issues at the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy on October 9.

A solidarity organization representing the country’s progressives is being formed to carry on “the candlelight spirit.”

Representatives of civic and social movement groups like the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and Jinbo Corea, the umbrella union Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU, Minju Nochong), and the Democratic, Democratic Labor and New Progressive parties gathered at PSPD for an “emergency meeting” to agree on the formation of what will tentatively be called the “New Solidarity Organization for Democracy and the People’s Welfare” (Minminyeon). Organizers say they will officially kick-off preparations for the umbrella group on October 25 with the formation of a preparatory committee.

“Democracy and the people’s welfare have been in complete crisis since the start of the administration of President Lee Myung-bak,” said organizers at a press conference. “Laborers, farmers, netizens, intellectuals and political parties will come together to overcome this crisis with the New Solidarity Organization.”

Explaining the decision to include political parties, organizers, said it was made “in respect to the principle that we are going to seek very wide-ranging solidarity” and that parties might be included as having “observer” or other status.

The process that has led to the formation of Minminyeon runs parallel to the candlelight protests and the way the politics surrounding them dominated the political landscape.

“The ‘candlelight,’ that symbol of democracy, fell into difficulty when crushed by the Lee administration,” said Kim Min-yeong, PSPD’s secretary general. “Discussion about forming a solidarity organization originated in a sense of crisis, one that saw the crisis in democracy as directly related to the disastrous state of the people’s welfare.”

Civil society “elders” Paek Nak-chung, professor emeritus at Seoul National University, Park Won-soon of the Hope Institute and others met on September 24 and proposed a “consultative body that is organized with groups involved in a wide range of social movements.” The resulting organization was going to be a gathering of civil society groups that have felt the need for something like Minminyeon, Internet activists who were behind much of what became the candlelight protests, and a wide ranging scope of progressive political elements.

Part of the impetus for Minminyeon is the realization that there were going to be limits to what the People’s Countermeasure Council against Mad Cow Disease could do as an organization over the long term.

“We kept saying to ourselves that we needed an organization that could respond to the crisis in democracy and the people’s welfare, one that was more encompassing and went beyond the task force,” said Park Won-seok, the head of the task force’s “situation room.”

“We came to agree that we needed to be inclusive of all forces that share a consensus, including the labor movement and netizens,” said Park, adding that Minminyeon was the “broadest form of solidarity.”

Representatives of the groups present for the preparatory meeting adopted a declaration at the same “emergency meeting” October 9. “Each organization participating will respect each other’s diversity and act in solidarity where common responses are required,” it said.

“It was decided that we work with political parties because we are confident civil society forces have a leading role to play,” said Park Won-seok. “We believe that we can bring about change in the political situation as a whole, in the local government and National Assembly elections coming in 2010 and on to the presidential election, through solidarity and a loosely organized network.”

Whether Minminyeon will be able to overcome the differences among the groups that were part of the task force on mad cow disease remains to be seen. Minminyeon already encompasses a diverse range of groups and approaches, from those that want to adopt an“anti-dictatorship stance” to those that insist on an “loosely organized network.” Organizers say the differences will be overcome with the principle that issues will be decided “from the bottom up.”

“We have to organize quickly so that we can move together and decide how intense we are going to be, since the welfare crisis is so serious,” said one organizer.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

Direct Democracy in Taiwan and China

Taiwan needs change in parliamentary majority

By Dennis Engbarth
Taiwan News, Staff Writer
Page 4
2008-10-14 12:59 AM

Source: http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=762247

A researcher in the development of referendums, initiatives and other methods of direct democracy since the 1970s, Professor Theo Schiller of the department of political science at Phillips University in Marburg, Germany, is chairman of the supervisory committee for the Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) - Europe.

After convening a major conference on "World Direct Democracy" in Aarau, Switzerland, Schiller discussed the potential and the problems of direct democracy methods for "democratizing democracy" in Europe and Asia, including Taiwan.

Q: Some proponents say that direct democracy can do everything that representative democracy does and does it better. Do you agree?

A: Representative democracy must provide the foundation for any democratic system. Direct democracy cannot replace representative democracy, but direct democracy methods can improve and supplement the political processes in representative democracies; and inject new life into representative systems by providing procedures which allow citizens to raise issues on decision-making agenda without the mediation of political parties through "popular initiatives" that may become referendums; or to settle an issue by a direct popular vote through referendum instead of parliamentary procedures. In representative democracies, there are always some areas that are overlooked or neglected so there is always a certain lack of responsiveness in representative systems. In these neglected areas of political life, direct democracy methods can help to articulate the interests of minorities or neglected groups of people, and such people can use direct democracy to push for improvements and innovations.

Q: Most European countries incorporate some forms of direct democracy, but is there any potential for the use of direct democracy at the EU level?

A: The European Union political system is not yet a complete representative democratic system, but a deficit or a secondary representative democracy that is far less representative than the systems of EU member countries. At present, we cannot see how the European political system can develop toward full-scale representative democracy and therefore there is even more need for direct democracy in Europe on the European level than in the individual national democracies. Ideally, we would need direct democracy on the European level in two forms. First, we need the right of popular or people's initiative and the institution of "optional referendum" through which EU citizens would be able to affirm or reject legislation on a EU level. However, at the current phase of political development in the EU, we will not get these rights. However, the proposed "European Citizen Initiative" which is contained in the proposed Treaty of Lisbon is a very first step. The ECI will be only a kind of "agenda initiative" through which one million people can put an initiative on the political agenda through their signatures on an initiative petition and is a very small first step to begin a development toward more direct democracy on the European level. I believe it is very important to get the Treaty of Lisbon, which has been stalled by its rejection by referendum in Ireland in June, ratified and the ECI implemented so that citizens in the EU will be able to use this first truly European transnational instrument of direct democracy.

Q: What lessons can we learn from the experience of the Swiss system of direct democracy?

A: Switzerland is a special case with a long history of direct democracy. In most other European countries and other parts of the world, we are still a long way from formulating the rules and to have the courage to give access to these methods of direct democracy not just to majorities or large minorities but also to small groups so they can initiate and put new issues on the agenda and stir up new debates and deliberations. And there must also be much time for discussions by citizens on initiatives or referendums in society because only on the basis of thorough discussion and debate can the quality of direct democracy methods be developed.

Q: What is your assessment of the prospects of direct democracy in the new democracies in Eastern Europe?

A: Instruments of direct democracy were introduced in Eastern Europe, especially in those countries which strived for independence such as the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as well as Slovakia and Slovenia. In connection with gaining independence, they had a concept that democratic transformation was a process of the whole nation and therefore they set the rules for using people's initiatives very high because they felt that initiatives or referendums should only be used by large majorities so as not to allow any small group the right of initiative. But this belief has proven to be wrong. These high thresholds now block the use of direct democracy instruments which cannot have any utility beyond consolidation of power. Unless these countries lower or eliminate unreasonable thresholds on petitions and turnout quorums, it will be impossible for direct democracy methods to realize their most important function, which is to give the right of people's initiative to minorities so that they can articulate neglected interests and values.

Q: What is your evaluation of the experience of Asian countries with direct democracy methods?

A: In a general way, the experience in most Asian countries has been similar to that of Eastern Europe, but in Asia, there are also several countries with rather authoritarian systems in which the transformation of the power structures has not even begun, including places like Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, not to mention China or Burma. Other countries, such as Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines, have instruments of direct democracy, but the context of the transformation of the whole power system has yet to be developed further.

Q: Does this pessimistic evaluation hold for Taiwan as well?

A: If you look at Taiwan comparatively in terms of democratic development, what is surely necessary is one or two changes in the parliamentary majority. So far, we have had two periods in which the president and the executive branch were controlled by a different party than the traditional power but in which the parliamentary majority did not change. What is very important is that there should be a change in the parliamentary majority because such a change in the parliamentary majority is a necessary condition for a genuine democratic transformation. In that period, it may be possible to deal with some issues in the reform of direct democracy and the current referendum law, but direct democracy may even be a factor bringing this process forward. However, changes of power in the Executive branch are not enough. Unless there is a change in the parliamentary majority, the democratic transformation will remain incomplete. However, it is clear that external factors and external relations can greatly influence the internal chances for such a transformation.

Q: Taiwan had two referenda together with the January legislative elections and the March presidential election that were nominally initiatives but promoted by the then governing Democratic Progressive Party. How do you evaluate their significance?

A: People's initiatives from the bottom that lead to referendums are in the last analysis more important than plebiscites or other referendums from the top down in securing democratic transformations. Even if referendums initiated by the people from the bottom up lose, they are very valuable as they activate participation of the citizens. Even if the two referendums earlier this year did not gain valid passage, they still have a legacy of having activated citizen participation and so they can contribute to the process of the development of democracy in Taiwan.

Q: What are the prospects for direct democracy in the People's Republic of China?

A: Before anything else, China needs to have guarantees of fundamental human and political rights and the rule of law and guarantees that citizens who are molested by the government or other authorities can gain redress in court. These conditions are not fulfilled in the PRC but if they do not exist, you cannot really begin to act politically as a free citizen. Until guarantees for the free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly in public places, freedom of forming political associations and other basic rights are realized, there will be no room for having any meaningful democracy.

TAIWAN: First Civil Referendum to be Held

Kaohsiung to hold island's first civil referendum

Publication Date: 10/16/2008 Section: National Affairs
By Ellen Ko
Source: http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?CtNode=122&xItem=45219

For the first time, a referendum initiated by a civil group rather than a political party will take place Nov. 15 in Kaohsiung City. Voters will be asked whether to cap primary and high school class size at 25 students, according to the Kaohsiung City Election Commission.

The referendum, initiated by the Kaohsiung Teachers' Association, aims to reduce the average number of students in primary and high school classes in the city from the current 30.8 and 33.8 respectively to 25 by 2011. As the first referendum held by a local government and initiated by a civil group rather than a political party since the passage of the Referendum Act in November 2003, this event is considered a landmark in Taiwan's history of direct democracy.

Three national referenda on six proposals have been held since the Referendum Act was first passed. All were highly political issues proposed by the two major political parties, and none achieved the 50-percent threshold of participation to validate.

At the "World of Direct Democracy" global seminar organized by the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe Oct. 1-2 in Switzerland, Hwang Jau-yuan, professor of law at National Taiwan University, called the case a good start of direct democracy in Taiwan. "The referendum in Kaohsiung is a demonstration of bottom-up democracy, which is a good sign for its development in Taiwan," he said. It is worth observing whether the referendum can pass the threshold of 50-percent turnout, he added.

The teachers' association began its campaign in January 2006. It first submitted the collected signatures in January 2008 in the hope that the referendum could be held in tandem with the presidential election in March. But the Kaohsiung City Election Commission reviewed the names and concluded that the association failed to garner enough valid signatures to meet the requirements for public endorsement--54,643 names or 5 percent of the eligible voters in the city.

The association quickly re-submitted a new list of signatures. On May 23, the commission announced that the case had officially qualified for a referendum.

By law, a turnout of 50 percent of registered voters, around 570,000 in Kaohsiung, is required to validate a referendum, and half of the votes need to be favorable for the proposal to pass. The association's referendum is expected to cost the city government an estimated US$855,000.

Kaohsiung's Education Bureau has voiced its opposition to the proposal, saying it will increase the city's financial burden. If the proposal is passed, it would mean adding 281 classes and providing 490 more teachers, as well as spending another US$984,600 per year on staff, not to speak of the money needed to build another 874 classrooms, said Chen Chin-yuan, deputy chief of the Bureau. Furthermore, it was argued that the referendum was pointless because the goal of 25 children per class would eventually be achieved through the declining birth rate.

Renn Hwai-ming, director of KTA Education Policy Center, said that the referendum is significant in terms of grassroots democracy as well as educational reform. However, he also admitted that the association is rather pessimistic about the prospects of the referendum. "We missed a great opportunity by not holding it jointly with the 2008 Presidential Election. Though our campaign gathers momentum each day, the interest for public issues and the drive to vote are simply unparalleled during election times," he said. Furthermore, limited by budget, the number of polling stations for the referendum is set at 203, far less than the 848 provided for the 2008 presidential election and the 839 for the last city mayor election, he added, stressing that the turnout would be seriously affected by the commission's arrangement.

"Should the referendum fail, by law we will not be able to raise the same issue again for the next three years. But we think it is still worth trying. At least, we have demonstrated to the public a constructive way of discussing public issues and the real essence of democracy," Renn said.

Write to Ellen Ko at ellenko@mail.gio.gov.tw

INDIA: Referendum in Maharashtra

Two articles about a recent referendum in Maharashtra state, India. - Editor

INDIRECT POWER

Wednesday , September 24 , 2008

Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080924/jsp/opinion/story_9875581.jsp

India is a democracy of a specific kind. It is an indirect democracy. The other form of democracy, the direct kind, in which every citizen participates directly in all decision-making, was known to exist in ancient Athens, but most modern variants of it — like in Switzerland — have been abandoned. In India, it has had a revival in the Raigad district of Maharashtra where a referendum has taken place on the special economic zone proposed by Reliance Industries. The referendum covers 22 villages whose inhabitants have grave reservations about parting with their land despite the compensation being offered. This referendum is an exercise in direct democracy, since all the people who stand to lose their land because of the project are being asked to vote. There is no other issue save this, and unlike in an election the people are not voting for a person or a party, but saying aye or nay on just one given issue. The experiment is unique, and it marks a radical departure from the principles of indirect democracy.

The experiment induces a degree of scepticism. For one thing, an extension of this experiment could lead to a complete stoppage of all industrialization projects. All industrial units need a certain amount of land, and this land can only come from people who own and use the land. Some degree of disaffection is embedded and inevitable in the process. But if this disaffection is always to be reckoned with through direct democracy, the overall consequences for the community and the economy may not be beneficial. Any democracy has inherent within it the contradiction between the individual and the collective. The collective is allowed to prevail in a democracy, but in an indirect democracy it does so through elected bodies and not through referendums. If the logic of referendums is accepted, the question could be asked about the use of this instrument only in the case of land disputes. It should be used logically for all issues. This would, of course, lead to a complete collapse of governance. When the Maharashtra government decided to conduct a referendum on the SEZ, it actually took the soft option. As the elected chief minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh has to decide if his government is in favour of industrialization or not. If it is, he needs to put in place the necessary conditions for industries to begin and flourish instead of abdicating responsibility.

__________________________________________________________________________________

22 villages ‘vote’ in SEZ referendum

Rahi Gaikwad
Source: http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/22/stories/2008092255951200.htm

Pen (Raigad district): In a first referendum of sorts, 22 villages in Pen taluka of Raigad district in Maharashtra cast their ‘vote’ in connection with Reliance Group’s Mumbai Special Economic Zone (MSEZ). They gave their opinion in writing on three parameters — have objections, no objection and others. They could give their point of view or demand.

Forty-five villages are part of the SEZ. Of these, 22, which fall in the Hetawane dam area, do not wish to be part of the SEZ.

They have waged a three-year battle, comprising 40 andolans, culminating in this referendum. The government had sent notifications for land acquisition under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (and not for the SEZ).

Section 6 allows for acquisition for a public interest project. “On August 6, we got a letter from the government asking us to seek the opinion of the people. We waited until now only for the Ganesh festival to get over. The farmers can state their opinion, whatever it may be,” said land acquisition officer Sameer Kurtkoti.

“Villagers who had land titles in their name and their subsequent heirs were nominated to give their written opinion. The lists were prepared when we sent out the notifications. We are referring to the same lists. We have allowed each and every person to vote, even those who may have already sold their land to the company,” said Kurtkoti.

Around 28,000 farmers, including the heirs, were slated to vote, said activist Vaishali Patil of SEZ Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti.

The impromptu nature of the plebiscite showed some cracks. Farmers in Wadhav village were miffed that the process took around 30 minutes per person.

“They have not included the names of the heirs in the list. It just mentions the name of the landowner and says ‘others.’ We have to prove that we are part of the others. This takes time. If one person takes half an hour, when will all the people finish voting in time? There is no stamp of approval. How can we prove whose signature it is? This is just a ploy by the government to thwart the process,” said Praful Mhatre of Wadhav.

Confusion

The confusion over the stamps festered and the resident Collector had to intervene. He assured the farmers that the forms would be taken back to the tehsildar and would be stamped. However, as proof of voting, the forms or statements submitted were signed by officials.

The polling exercise had no formal application forms, only a format. Two kinds of forms were seen in the polling exercise. One set of pink and red forms was prepared by the Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, which is staunchly opposing the SEZ. Many farmers were seen carrying these.

A small number also had a different form. This one carried a list of demands from increasing the compensation package to one crore, looking after the health and education of their children. Some villagers held that if these demands were fulfilled, they were ready to part with their land.

Those who opposed the SEZ said the SEZ would rob them of their livelihood. They also distrusted the promises and packages. “If they take our land, where should we eat, where should we go and what do we do? Our land is our life,” asked Gajanan Zemse of Borze village.

Balaji Narayan Mhatre (who has reportedly won three prizes in agriculture) of Vashi village spoke of the variety of flora in the village, the fish which is transported to Mumbai and Pune and the abundant harvest of Pen.

With the SEZ, all will be lost. He also pointed out that apart from the farmers, tribal in the neighbouring hills and other talukas also depended on the land for labour.

Green zone

There lies a deep pride in the produce of the land. Raigad is a rice cultivating area and farmers speak of good harvest. The erstwhile saline soil has been converted to fertile arable land over decades.

“Generations have toiled on this land and today it is called a green zone. No one can take this zone,” averred M.N. Thakur of Kaleshri.

Amidst the general stance of opposition, there were some dissidents. Janardhan Thakur from Borze said that earlier he had supported the andolan against the SEZ, but it fizzled out. “We saw that people were giving land at Rs. 10 lakh. To intercept this we placed our set of demands for increased compensation. If Reliance agrees, we are ready to part with the land. However, if the vote goes against the SEZ, we have no objection. We will welcome it.”

“People who have sold their land have done so because of personal adversity. This number is low,” said Laxman Zama Thakur of 24 Gaon Sangharsh Samiti.

Those who have sold their land had infertile land, said some.

Reports of agents giving commissions of Rs. 5,000 per voter were also within the earshot.

While MSEZ caused much bad blood, the Hetawane dam project on the other hand is seen with equal approval. Villagers do not mind parting with some part of the land for canals which, they believe, can only do them some good. With more irrigation, farmers will be able to cultivate rabi crop in addition to the current kharif crop of rice. Zamse, who has already given some of his land for canal building, has no grouse.

Hetawane, a Centre’s undertaking, covers 54 villages. It is aimed at providing drinking water and irrigation. Rows of cement pipes are lying in the villages.

However, not all is well there. Said Patil, “The government, hand-in-glove with Reliance, is planning to divert this water to the SEZ. This is another of its ploys.”

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

PHILIPPINES: Barangays need to Practice Direct Democracy as Prescribed by Law

Valdehuesa: All we have is a caricature of democracy

By Manuel Valdehuesa
Street Talk
Friday, September 12, 2008

Source: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/cag/2008/09/12/oped/manuel.valdehuesa.street.talk.html

TO INSTITUTIONALIZE true democracy, it is important to ensure that it is operative at the grassroots, the primal base of a political system, whence emanates state sovereignty and all government authority.

To speak of the grassroots is to refer to one's community - in our case, the barangay. It is our basic political and economic unit.

What's your take on the Mindanao crisis? Discuss views with other readers

One wonders whether anyone knows that governing a barangay means giving due attention to its three dimensions -- as a government, as a public corporation, as an economy.

Unless these three elements are recognized and appreciated, all we have is a caricature of democracy at the grassroots and a non-performing base for our national economy. Only in the barangay is it possible to exemplify democracy as "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

How is the barangay a government OF THE PEOPLE? Before 1991, it was merely an appendage to the municipal/city government, with no powers or resources and no legal personality. Its officials were basically coordinators, with a quasi-official role and no real authority.

Today, it is a full-fledged government with power to tax, to police its jurisdiction, and to exercise eminent domain or expropriate private property for public use).

Like the municipal and upper levels, it has three branches: executive (office of the chairman), legislative (sanggunian), judicial (lupon). And its officials are elected by the people.

Thus it is a government of the people. They create it through their votes, just like the higher levels.

Is it a government BY THE PEOPLE? Here one encounters serious difficulty; because in fact it is not the people who govern but their presumptuous servants.

In the context of the local government code, "government by the people" means it is a direct democracy -- like the canton in Switzerland and the kibbutz in Israel -- the Athenian model of direct democracy. There all villagers convene periodically to discuss and decide how to manage or regulate their affairs. They pass laws or ordinances, or approve them directly -- meaning the people govern directly.

It is the same in our case as stipulated in sections 384 and 397-398 of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code). Barangaynons are supposed to govern directly. They do this as members of the Barangay Assembly, which is supposed to convene periodically to deliberate on community concerns, to initiate measures for its welfare, to approve its budget, to ascertain the will of the community on any issue, and so on.

But in no barangay is this happening. On one hand, the officials are illiterate, ignorant, or mindless about the law; on the other, the residents are unaware or ignorant of what the law binds them to do. Thus neither the rule of law nor democracy is operative in the community.

Is it a government FOR THE PEOPLE? Despite the claim of the officials, it is not. It serves their purposes more than the people's. Except for token benefits derived from the pork barrel of their political bosses, which they distribute to gullible segments of the community, the officials spend most of the barangay's income to cover their own allowances/expenses. They serve their personal and family interests more than the people's. The allowances they allocate are for their own pockets. The jobs they create are for their sycophants or supporters.

The benefits they distribute are for the gullible, the naïve or the squatters -- people who pay back such "generosity" with their votes. They don't even clean or cover the neighborhood canals, or build sidewalks so people with no vehicle are safe and comfortable. Their reading center or library, if any, is laughable. There are no skills development programs, nor the cultural or educational sort.

Go over the substance or efficacy of ordinances/projects they initiate, which they claim at election time as "achievements;" mostly political gimmicks! Rarely, if ever, do they consult their constituents. What little good they do advances their interests more than the people's.

This portrait of governance at the grassroots is but a caricature of democracy, a make-believe arrangement, where the sum total of a citizen's participation is to cast a vote on election day, only to be forgotten till the next election.

Much of this can be blamed on the elite classes who leave the fate of the community to incompetent but politically savvy sectors. More on this topic in subsequent issues. But if you can't wait, talk to Bencyrus Ellorin, James Judith, or Fr. Nathan Lerio of Camaman-an.

A former UN executive and vice chairman of the Local Government Academy, Manny heads the Gising Barangay Movement. He writes Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays. valdeman_esq@yahoo.com

THAILAND: Who Holds the Flag of Genuine Democracy?

LET IT BE
Who holds the flag of genuine democracy?

SURANAND VEJJAJIVA
Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/010808_News/01Aug2008_news21.php

Who holds the flag to genuine democracy in Thailand? Is it the government of the ruling People Power Party (PPP)? Is it the opposition Democrats? Or is it the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesting in the middle of Ratchadamnoen Avenue in downtown Bangkok?

The question reflects the classic debate in political science classes around the world, on the virtues of representative and participatory democracy.

The ruling PPP is an offshoot of the now defunct Thai Rak Thai party. Widely popular due to programmes initiated by former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, the PPP won an astounding 233 seats in the 2007 election with 100 (out of 135) from the Northeast and 48 (out of 77) from the North, plus about 20 party-list seats from both regions.

The PPP claims that they democratically won the election against all odds - since the present constitution and the election were skewed in favour of the opposition, being manipulated by the military junta. The people had spoken in their favour and given them the legitimacy to govern.

The opposition Democrat is the oldest political party in Thailand. Its stronghold is limited to the South and winning Bangkok in the election.

But they are seen as taking sides with the PAD by the majority of the people in the North and Northeast, so in those regions the Democrats can barely find credible candidates to run under their banner, let alone win any seats.

The challenge for the Democrats is to break out from being perceived as a regional party and regain the national stature they had in their glory days.

The PAD began as an anti-Thaksin pressure group. Claiming credit in overthrowing the "Thaksin regime," they latched on the present PPP government with a vengeance. The PAD accused the PPP of election fraud through vote buying, and said the government was actually a "Thaksin nominee" defending ex-PM Thaksin's interests, not that of the people.

The PAD's success is rooted in its being able to build a strong community of support from people who distrust ex-PM Thaksin in particular and elected politicians in general. Utilising modern communications techniques and outspoken words through cable TV and internet websites, the PAD reached directly to the frustrated population.

Prominent academic Thirayuth Boonmi recently commented that the PAD had now increased its level of activity to the point that it must not be considered as a mere "protest group" but a "political movement". The PAD is working on its "New Political Model" and contemplates transforming into a political party.

So, is it representative democracy through political parties, or participatory democracy in the streets PAD-style the genuine democracy in Thailand?

In a representative democracy, people elect someone to act on their own behalf. An ideal member of parliament would take the initiative in setting issues to be pursued, while at the same time spending time listening and building consensus before making a stand for the benefit of constituents and the nation as a whole.

Sadly, that connection between those elected MPs and the voters is sometimes lost in the Thai political process.

Of course, MPs do spend time in their districts, usually to hand out patronage of various government services which provide comfort and help out their constituents in mundane affairs. That is deemed enough to get elected next time around.

With such an attitude, politicians had a free hand. Political parties became gatherings of people looking for vehicles to power. And that political power, together with the related wealth, is shared within a few groups of elite consisting of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and the top echelons of the military and the police.

This is a structural flaw in Thai representative democracy. It is the kind that creates distrust of politicians, political parties, and politics in general, that fuels pressure group movements like the PAD.

But PAD-style democracy also has its shortcomings.

A society cannot be in a continuous protest mode, especially one that invites retaliation in the streets. The recent clashes in Udon Thani and other provinces signify street participatory democracy getting out of hand.

The way out is to reform the present representative democracy system to be more inclusive.

Political reform must include campaign finance reform and a comprehensive indoctrination of democratic principles.

Political parties must become the ideological and platform consensus-building body they should be. They must not be regionally biased.

Pressure groups are also useful tools in a democracy. They provide checks and balances. But the channels to air their grievances must be within the boundaries of democracy, not anarchy through street rule.

Creating a proper balance between participatory and representative democracy will lead to a more genuine democratic political system for all Thais.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.

INDIA: Where Stands Ghandi's Dream of Participatory Democracy?

While the following commentary presents a rather pessimistic assessment of the state of participatory and direct democratic practices in India, there have in fact been advances in recent years in the expansion of the participatory models of Gram Swaraj and Panchayati Raj. See our other posts on India and the India section of our links resource page for more information. While Ghandi's dream of participatory democracy still faces many obstacles, a movement is afoot to revive that dream and it is slowly making progress. - Editor

Gandhi’s worst fears have come true


Source: http://news.in.msn.com/columns/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1408819

The Father of the Nation wanted to disband the Indian National Congress once it had outlived its raison d’etre of driving the British out of India. He felt that the best form of governance for India would be `swaraj’ (self-rule), by which Gandhi meant governance not by a hierarchical government but self governance through political decentralization and community building. But other political leaders of the time were least impressed by Gandhi’s idea of disbanding the INC or adopting Swaraj. Rather, the Congress Party went on to rule India ever since, except for an interregnum of 12 years when non-Congress combinations were in power. Contrary to Gandhi’s wishes, the Congress party’s leadership was usurped by the Nehru dynasty, which held the Prime Minister’s post for 33 out of 49 years when the Congress was in power. You can safely add four more years to the Nehru dynasty’s 33 year’s rule, given the fact that a member of the dynasty, Sonia Gandhi, is now the de facto prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh being just her `mukhouta’ (mask).

Gandhi considered direct democracy as the best form of governance for India out of his conviction that a nation of India’s diversity, largely illiterate population and sparring leaders (Gandhi himself was heartbroken by the fights between Nehru and Patel) cannot successfully run a parliamentary democracy of the British Westminster model.

Perhaps, the biggest `achievement’ that we can crow about is the very survival of democracy in the country. Though Indira Gandhi suppressed democracy by clamping national emergency in 1975-’77, India never plunged into military dictatorship as Pakistan did.

Our economy is growing at 9 percent, but what is our record on `roti, kapda aur makan’ (food, clothing and shelter) after 61 years of freedom? A 2007 report by an official agency states that despite significant economic progress, 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, live on less that Rs20 per day. 300 million people live below the national poverty line(Rs10 per day). India has the highest rate of malnutrition among children. 170 million people in India live in slums, which account for 63 % of all slum dwellers in South Asia and 17 % in the world. The number of unemployed in the country has crossed 30 crore. India is home to the largest segment of illiterates in the world.

What throws a spanner in the works of the Government’s poverty alleviation and welfare measures is the rampant corruption in administration. Transparency International places India at rank 72(among 146 nations) in the global corruption index. Some Rs21000 crore is estimated to change hands in the form of bribery in India annually. The parallel economy is growing faster than the GDP. Black money not only deprives the government of tax revenues, but also prevents the resources allocated for public welfare from reaching the targeted sections.

The second biggest threat to the body politic, after corruption, is the criminalization of politics. To modify a Samuel Johnson quote, politics has become the first refuge of the scoundrels in India. The will of the people is subjugated by money and muscle power. Criminals gain legal immunity and respectability by getting elected to Parliament and State Assemblies. The politician-mafia nexus has turned the nation into a hotbed of terrorism.

Is this the freedom Gandhi fought for? The freedom to loot the nation’s wealth for personal benefit? The freedom to imperil national security by harboring criminals? The freedom to hold monopoly over wealth creation?

Well, Gandhi would have stirred in his Raj Ghat samadhi had he come to know of how we used and abused the freedom that he attained for us from the British!

CHINA: University Experiments with Direct Democracy

Chinese uni scopes out democracy

Andrew Trounson September 03, 2008
Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24287222-12332,00.html

IT is a far cry from the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy movement led by ill-fated university students, but it seems some Chinese universities are moving to introduce more direct democracy in their student unions.

Beijing's Tsinghua University is aiming to have its student union president directly elected by the student body by 2011, the year of its centenary. It would be only the second Chinese university to do so.

Accordingly, a group of Tsinghua student union officials were this week visiting Melbourne University's student union to learn about running elections.

Currently elections at Tsinghua are more indirect, with classes voting for class representatives who then vote for the student presidents of each of the 28 faculties. These presidents then vote for the overall student president.

But while Tsinghua university students appear keen to experiment with wider democracy on campus, they have no ambitions to change the national political system that is dominated by the politburo of the Communist Party.

``The system now is working fine and the people are happy with the system and all we want is stable and prosperous development,'' 21-year-old Tsinghua law student and student union vice-president Cao Feng told the HES.

Unfortunately the delegation will miss out on actually observing Melbourne's student union elections next week as they will be heading back to China.

In the wake of an end to compulsory student unionism here, student union members at Melbourne now amount to around 4700 out of a student body of 38,000. The organisation is in the process of transforming itself by necessity from being primarily a service provider to more of a political organisation.

Tsingua University http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/eng/

NEPAL: An Optimistic Perspective Towards Participatory Democracy

Election of new Nepali PM
Let the new dawn turn into a bright day

Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=50753

THE election of new Nepali prime minister augurs well for Nepal in more ways than one. Firstly, it has ended a long political deadlock following the general election which gave the Maoists a clear majority. Secondly, it will, one hopes, prepare the way for a multi-party democratic order in a republican Nepal. Perhaps most important is the election of a rebel leader as the prime minister and the way an insurgent group has got the opportunity of integrating within the body-politics of Nepal, after ten years of violence and disturbance. This reflects a new found maturity in Nepal's polity.The positive aspect of the political development is that the Himalayan Kingdom can look forward to the completion of transition from blood stained politics of the last ten years to participatory democracy. What causes concern though is the time that was taken to overcome inter-party and intra-party differences before the election of the prime minister could be held. If the main agenda of the new administration is economic and social transformation, that must be carried out without engendering apprehensions in the minds of the other political parties of autocratic behaviour, a concern that is reflected in the comments expressed by Debua that the opposition will keep a watchful eye for any transgression of democratic behaviour on the part of the new government. Any totalitarian bent will only hamper the run of democracy. One understands the inherent difficulty in embarking on a path that is totally new to what the country was moving on. The traditional monarchy of the last two hundred fifty years would have given rise to a mindset of particular order that the old guard would need to cast off. By the same token, the Maoists would also have to discard the intimidatory nature that their deportment have acquired due to the way they operated before giving up violence and returning to the conventional political path. Even though the new prime minister might retain his nom-de-plume of “Prachanda” or the 'fearsome one', his attitude must never be reflective of that characteristic. The 'new dawn', as the new Nepali leadership has termed the recent political development, must turn into a bright day.

VIETNAM: People's Councils for Direct Democracy

Pilot project aims to offer direct voting that’s free from favouritism

Source: http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01COM270808
(27-08-2008)

Deputy National Assembly Chairman Uong Chu Luu spoke with the Vietnam News Agency about a project that would allow citizens to vote directly for representatives at communal level People’s Committees.

Why didn’t we speak before about letting people vote for those positions when the Law on the Organisation of the People’s Committee and People’s Council was first developed?

This is indeed a reform in the local administration. In fact, relevant agencies have discussed this before, but at that time we were highlighting a representative democracy [involving the selection of Government officials by the people being represented] in which a collective decision was thought the best solution. Now we are implementing administrative reforms which focus on the responsibilities, positions and roles of chairmen of People’s Committees at the commune level, and so we decided to run a pilot project.

The Government has assigned the Ministry of Home Affairs to develop the pilot project. Do you think this will be better than the previous method, where the position was elected by the communal People’s Council and approved by a higher level?

I think the new way is completely reasonable because the organisation of the People’s Committee and People’s Council as well as direct democracy [a political system where the citizens actively participate in decision-making] and representative democracy have been discussed at many meetings. Now we have decided to pilot the system for several years, and then we shall review the system’s effectiveness before issuing a law.

Many big clans are living in communes and wards. Do you this will lead to conflict when the head of a People’s Committee also represents a big clan?

This is also a big concern. The pilot project will try to avoid favouritism in some localities where the majority belong to a single clan and vote for their clan member without considering the common good.

What should we do to avoid formalism?

Letting people directly vote for their head will help them express their desires. Based on the requirements for the position, people will be able to use their ballot to select an appropriate representative.

Who will give final approval for the position in place of the former People’s Council?

The project will provide guidance. It is based on the realities of these localities. — VNS

THAILAND: Referendum Bill Progresses

If passed, this bill would allow Thais to vote in refererendums, but they will not have the power to initiate them. This power would be reserved to the Prime Minister. While this would be a step towards more participatory democracy, a more substantial and deeper adoptation of the initative & referendum process will be essential if the Thai people hope to obtain truly direct democracy. - Editor


Referendum bill progresses

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

Friday June 13, 2008


Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/13Jun2008_news13.php

A 42-article draft bill on a referendum, which could open the door to constitutional amendments, passed its first reading in the House yesterday after seven hours of debate. Government and opposition MPs voted unanimously to accept the bill, drafted by the Election Commission (EC), for review.

An extraordinary committee comprising EC representatives has been formed to vet the draft legislation which must be enacted within one year after promulgation of the charter.

Before the draft bill was tabled for a vote, EC member Prapun Naigowit briefed MPs on key points.
The draft bill empowers the prime minister to decide on the topic to be put to a referendum, and whether a referendum is held to help give the government an overview of public sentiment over a critical issue, or to find a resolution.

If a referendum is organised to find a solution, a majority vote will be valid when more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes.

Where a referendum is held to obtain an overview, the majority vote will be valid when one-fifth of eligible voters cast their votes.

Even though the government and opposition MPs accepted the bill, they are still likely to lock horns over its content.

People Power party MP Sukhumpong Ngonkham opposed a provision about the required number of voters.

He said the draft bill seemed to give more attention to those who did not cast votes than those who did.

Democrat party MP Chinnaworn Boonkiat said the bill represented true participatory democracy, and he agreed with the required number of voters.

But he questioned whether the bill was drafted to appease Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej who proposed a referendum to decide whether constitutional amendments should proceed.

Democrat MP Warong Dejkiwikrom said having a referendum over the simple question or topic alone was not enough.

TAIWAN: Referendum Process Needs Strengthening

Although a Referendum Law was passed in Taiwan in 2003, it has yet to take hold as a common form of participation. While referendums have been held on important issues, participation has been weak and the legal validity of each referendum was compromised because of low turnout. The lack of public participation may be a symptom of an over-worked population, or it may be the result of little confidence in the veracity of efforts by untrustworthy public officials, but the ultimate consequence is a perpetual cycle of disconnect between government and people that must be addressed in order to make the referendum process an effective mechanism for direct democracy. As the author states, all players should be making a concerted effort to strengthen the process. - Editor

Working to strengthen the role of plebiscites

By Chen Lung-Chu

Sunday, Jun 22, 2008, Page 8

Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2008/06/22/2003415371

Before the Referendum Law was passed in 2003, Taiwan had already held referendums at the local level. Since a committee protesting the construction of a fifth naphtha cracker plant by CPC Corp, Taiwan in Houchin, Kaohsiung City, held the nation's first referendum in 1990, there have been other referendums on various public issues.

In 1994, a referendum was held on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao Township in Taipei County. In 1995, another referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and a referendum on road construction in Sijhih (¦Á¤î) were held in Taipei County. Other referendums that year included another on nuclear power in Taipei City, one on the construction of Yongkang Park in Taipei City and one on the exploration of Daliao Township in Kaohsiung County.

In 1997, a referendum was held on the reconstruction of Liaoting Community in Chiayi County and in 1998 a major investment project proposed by Bayer AG was put to a referendum in Taichung County.

The same year, a plebiscite was also held in Tainan City on Taiwan's future.

All of these referendums lacked a legal basis, however, so the results were not legally binding. The results of the referendum on the construction of Yongkang Park, however, were recognized by the Taipei City Government as binding.

Since the Referendum Law was passed, six nationwide referendums have been held. In 2004, two plebiscites were held, one on increasing the nation's purchase of anti-missile weaponry and one on negotiations with China on the establishment of a peace and stability framework. In January, two referendums were held in tandem with the legislative elections: the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum on recovering the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets and the KMT-proposed referendum on giving the legislature investigative powers.

Two more plebiscites were held in conjunction with the presidential election in March, both on seeking UN membership.

Although the results of each of the six referendums were affirmative, all were invalid because the total voter turnout fell below the legally specified minimum.

Before the Referendum Law became reality, it was impossible for the public to directly communicate their opinions on important issues to the government. It was not easy to pass this law. Without the efforts of academics, experts, civic organizations and the general public, legally binding direct democracy would never have been possible. However, the referendum system has repeatedly fallen victim to vicious political power struggles, which has led to boycotts that have taken advantage of the high threshold for valid results.

This has shown the deficiencies in the legislation, which must be amended in order for the act to serve its purpose: allowing the public a vehicle to communicate their will on crucial matters.

The government, political parties and the public each have an important role in deepening the nation¡¦s democracy. The government has the obligation to promote referendums and inform the public about them in a fair and transparent manner. Political parties need to throw their weight behind an amendment to the legislation rather than boycotting referendums for their own ends. The public, meanwhile, has a duty to exercise its rights when there is a plebiscite.

Together, the government, political parties and the public should strive to expand the role of referendums in the nation's democracy.

THAILAND: Strengthening People's Power on the Streets

In the wake of the Sept. 2006 bloodless military coup in Thailand, large street protests have been organized in the name of democracy. The following article gives one viewpoint from one group the PAD. Whether demonstrations be pro Thaksin or anti Thaksin, it is important for the people's voice to be heard, on the streets if necessary, in the absense of a direct democratic forum for expressing the will of the people. - Editor







Strengthening people's power

Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Jun2008_news31.php

Demonstrators generally come from only a few groups with similar interests, writes Piyaporn Wongruang

While the asphalt surface of Ratchadamnoen avenue can turn hot under the burning afternoon sun, the same road, if it rains, can also bring the temperature down so quickly it can leave one shivering. For over 15 days, supporters of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) have experienced such tormenting weather conditions.

If they find the conditions too harsh and unbearable, they just disperse temporarily. When things improve, they regroup to continue their struggle to unseat what they claim is an immoral government.

The PAD, which took to the streets on May 25, is demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his government as they view that those who are part of the current government are just nominees of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The protesters have accused them of being absolutely corrupt, causing divisions in society, and interfering in the work of agencies investigating the alleged wrongdoing by Mr Thaksin and his cabinet members.

Just like any other demonstration in the past, the biggest challenge facing the PAD is to make its supporters stick together and remain united. Since unity is strength, failure to do so would certainly bring cracks into the movement and cause a serious setback for the protesters.

This is much easier said than done. Since people don't think alike most of the time, even if they happen to be on the same side during a street protest, collective behaviour is what determines which way a public gathering is heading.

There have hardly been any specific studies on this in the country, say mental health and public health experts.

''We have so far only loosely observed the mental condition of those participating in demonstrations, but we have not conducted any scientific study of crowd or mob psychology yet. Since demonstrations these days have become more intense, we think the time has arrived for such a study,'' said M.L. Somchai Chakrabhand, chief of the Mental Health Department.

A study made in 1997 by Col Pongskorn Rodchompoo while he was pursuing his doctorate degree suggested some of the motivations behind demonstrations by people here.

His report on ''Political Participation of Thais and Factors Affecting a Prolonged Demonstration'', covering demonstrations after the 1992 military coup for a period of five years, concluded that demonstrators generally came from only a few groups with similar interests.

They tended to have their immediate priorities achieved rather than any ideological goals, according to the research.

Although this can help organisers of a demonstration to control the crowd more easily, it was found that the bond among demonstrators themselves was quite weak, making them vulnerable to any enticing government offers, it added.

This also left little room for analysing the concerned structural problems and finding long-term solutions to the demonstrators' woes. And that was the reason why direct democracy was developing at a very slow pace, the research noted.

While participating in a rally, demonstrators put their trust in the leaders and the organisers, particularly about their safety.

This, he wrote, reflected how passive Thai people were in general in demanding that they be allowed to look after their own affairs under democratic rule, and thus were often taken advantage of, the research concluded.

In order to strengthen people's power and fill a gap in representative democratic politics, Col Pongskorn suggested demonstrations be lifted to a new level, with closer connections between city dwellers and rural people through wider issues such as decentralisation of power, and development of shared ideological goals rather than immediate benefits of particular groups.

Suriyasai Katasila, coordinator of the PAD, seems to realise these constraints and opportunities well.

Although the psychological state of the PAD crowd has not yet been much understood, the organisers have tried to eliminate any conditions that may promote violence or cause the protest to crumble.

Despite the physical hardships, the group, which has at least 20 organisations lending it support, has agreed to stick to the principle of non-violence in its demonstration, now in its second week.

Mr Suriyasai believes that with such a clear principle, provocation from any ill-intentioned people would not succeed in unsettling the protesters.

During the ongoing rallies, the PAD's key leaders have often reminded the demonstrators of their stand on non-violence, meaning the protesters should not respond to any external violence, and even lie low if they were attacked.

To ensure the demonstrators' safety, the PAD leaders have also come up with their own security guards.

The organisers have also taken their fight to a new level with a new political goal of ''rebuilding the country'' after getting rid of what they call ''the Thaksin regime''.

''People can see that we have resorted to a peaceful demonstration and tried to be as patient as possible,'' said Mr Suriyasai.

''Our society has reached a turning point as we believe that the present democracy is at its lowest point, under which power is directed by interests of those winning an election, not true public interests. We just can no longer sit back and repeatedly convince ourselves to believe that democracy comes from an election,'' he added.

Kamonchanok, a 43-year-old Bangkok resident from the Sathon area who joined the demonstration on the very first day, said she and her friends sometimes feel very angry when inaccurate information is passed on to the demonstrators. ''For instance, the government seems not to care about the plight of the people, but only its allies.''.

However, they were rational enough to think and decide for themselves what was appropriate and what was not.

''Most of the demonstrators here have now realised what is going on in our country, and that to resort to violence is not the answer,'' said Ms Kamonchanok, who recently closed down her family's grocery shop after a modern convenience store opened nearby.

''It is time to protect each other from bad influence. And we now have the space here that is truly opened to us to do so,'' said another protester, who refused to disclose her last name.

Uthan, a 22-year-old master's degree student from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, who joined the demonstration after learning about it from the internet, said the demonstration was lively and sometimes provocative.

This should be seen as more of a challenge than anything else.

All you need is a little understanding of the present political situation among the public at large, said the student.

''I was sometimes offended by my friends who asked me why was I here and for what,'' said Uthan, a new face at the demonstration.

''I think it is our right to come here since our democracy cannot fulfill our needs anymore.

''Unfortunately, many people just don't give themselves a chance to use their rights and learn the other side of the story.'

Sri Lanka: Politicians Must Go

From Sri Lanka we hear of the common shortcoming shared by so many other governments, that of being systemically incapable of responding to the demands and the will of the people. This editorial demands a new constitution be written by a constituent assembly due to the fact that politics has become more of a rent-seeking venture than a system to protect and serve the population. However, it is also necessary to note that a new constitution does not necessarily in itself ensure a more transparent government or increased public participation, only through the dedication of a committed population will any society be able to completely revamp the system for effective and enduring participatory practices. -Editor

Needed: A Constituent Assembly and a new Constitution

by K. Godage
Source: http://www.island.lk/2008/07/14/features9.html

"Let us all co-operate to give our people prosperity and a better future," stated Sri Lanka’s first Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake. Sixty years on, our politicians have yet to agree to co-operate to usher in prosperity. They are instead selfishly pursuing their own personal interest at the expense of the national interest. They have collectively ensured the ruin of this country, even the image and influence we had abroad fifty years ago has been brought down to near zero.

The original mistake that was made, to my mind, was when the Soulbury Commission did not take off from the Donoughmore Constitution but took the easy way out and conveniently introduced the Westminster model. The Donoughmore Constitution may have had its drawbacks or shortcoming but at least we had worked it for more than a decade and knew of its shortcomings; the necessary amendments could have been introduced and the system refined. Instead the Soulbury Commission threw the baby out with the bathwater. Its greatest merit was that cooperation and not confrontation was the basis of the constitution. The Soulbury Constitution introduced confrontation of a form we had never known before; after 60 years it has spread hatred and left this country divided at every level of society as never before.

What passes for Democracy in this country is a mere shell of the real thing; the kernel has been removed by our politicians over the years. The political culture of this country has been built on adversarial, confrontational politics without regard to the national interest. Our politicians have missed the wood for the trees. This is the unfortunate tradition which they seem to want to perpetuate. The cement that has held this form of confrontational politics together has been, the vulgar pursuit of political power, for with it goes the opportunity to mount the gravy train and get rich quickly. In the process have we not become a morally degenerate society? Could anyone deny that?

Politics in this country is today a blood sport-governed by the rules of the slum---where the criminal underworld rules and where the scum of our society predominate. Politicians were for some years the patrons of the scum but the wheel appears to have turned and the scum from the slums, with their values, have begun to lord it over the politicians. Some have even become politicians and we citizens are the victims.

The two main parties seek to outbid each other for the Sinhala vote. This has been why we have not been able to reach a national consensus on any major issue including, what we could offer the Tamil people. The consequence of this competition and the fact that hard-line ‘organised’ Sinhala groups were not prepared to share power in any effective way with the minorities (no proportional representation on an ethnic basis at national or cabinet level) has resulted in our present predicament. It should be mentioned that after the late GG Ponnambalam left the Kotelawela Cabinet, there was only Chelliah Kumarasuriyar in Mrs Bandaranaike’s government and Lakshman Kadirgamar in the last administration. Tamils have been significant by their absence. There was almost a permanent exclusion of the Tamil minority from power at all levels. This exclusion it was that resulted in the struggle for Tamil rights which has ended up in the insurgency. To flag another forgotten fact –the Tamil Congress stood for sharing power at the centre and the Federal Party for sharing power on a regional basis. After the Tamil Congress faded away, the FP came to the fore and after they faded away we have the separatist Eelam parties taking up the Tamil cause. These separatist groups emerged only because of the failure of the Sinhala parties to ‘accommodate’ the Tamil people and address their grievances and, more importantly, because of the refusal to share power at the centre or with the province or at district level with them.

We must reject majoritarianism, it is not democracy, and at the same time we must reject divisive racial or ethnic politics and ethnic political parties forever. Confidence building measures must be arrived at through the consensual approach. It is within a democratic framework, where power is shared and merit the deciding factor, that we can find the necessary space to rise again.

It is indeed time for a group of our constitutional experts to compare the merits and demerits of the Executive Committee system with that of the system we have at present. After 30 years of Cabinet government and 30 years of this post 1978 mixed system there seems little doubt that the two systems have only resulted in confrontation, consequent hatred, centralisation and concentration of power and has not worked to the benefit of our country. It is imperative that President Rajapaksa think in terms of establishing a Constituent Assembly to consider a new constitution based on the Donoughmore principle which would restore participatory democracy and true self government for the people of this country.

For the present the President would need to have the 13th Amendment amended to make a reality of devolution. There is no doubt that we would encounter many difficulties when it comes to the matter of sharing power, from sharing budgetary allocations and sharing resources, to deliberate attempts by vested interests to sabotage any peace process or agreement based on power sharing. We would need to create new institutions that would secure the peace---yes, radical new thinking may be needed but the price is worth it. For instance, since mono-ethnic regions would only exacerbate the ethnic problem, we must consider carving out new regions. Perhaps the country can be divided into three or four regions. That would make sense, instead of the present nine provinces, with nine governors and nine chief ministers and cabinets––a structure which is today an absolute liability.

We may be multi ethnic but we are one nation. In the words of a recent song "This land belongs to you, this land belongs to me so let us live in harmony". Sharing power has become vital to manage a society, nay a country, which is pluralistic and divided such as ours. The majoritarian form of democracy (it does seem contradictory for ‘majoritarianism’ cannot be democratic) did not make for decision making by consensus and this is where we fell short. If, on the other hand, we share power that implies that whatever segment with whom power is shared will have a significant say in decision making and with it a sense of autonomy.

Under the Donoughmore system legislators, regardless of their political party, shared in the executive function of government and thus avoided bitterness. They were all involved in administration too; this is important considering the nexus between the politician and the people. In this country, the people, particularly in the rural areas, take all their problems to the MP. Government would be brought close to the people and the elected representatives of the people would be far more sensitive to the needs and demands of the people. Under the Donoughmore Constitution governance became a collective effort and the responsibility of all those who had been elected.

In recent years we have seen Ministers Professor GL Peiris, Karu Jayasuriya and Dinesh Gunawardena all advocate the restoration of the Donoughmore system and the sharing of executive power not only at national level but at the local level, from the Provincial Council down to the Municipal Council and the Urban Council. I recall that Professor Peiris very lucidly spelled out the advantages that would accrue from the adoption of the Executive Committee system. I do hope that these three influential Ministers would, in the national interest, revive this initiative, for this system is very much in keeping with our cultural heritage and is absolute necessary considering the conditions that currently exist in our country.

We need to deal with the sense of alienation which has enveloped the minorities in this country; they feel they do not belong here; we MUST restore their confidence and sense of belonging and with it, the organic character of our society. This feeling of being alienated could be remedied only by bringing them into the mainstream. If for a start the system is introduced in the Eastern Province Provincial Council it would most immediately help diffuse the explosive situation that exists in the province, which outside elements could exploit to the country’s detriment.

I do hope this plea would find support among political parties and civil society.

South Korea: Candlelight Vigils Spark Participation

The following interview gives great insight to the scenes on the street in South Korea where people are protesting a trade deal that would allow US beef to be imported. But that is not the only issue being addressed. Candlelight vigils have brought millions into the streets and continue to connect activists and common citizens. Using the internet and cell phones to communicate, the protests have brought thousands and at times a million protestors into the streets. As they demand the a voice in government policy, we stand in solidarity with them and all those struggling for popular power all over the world. -Editor


"We’ve Got the Power” — Candlelight Vigils to Street Rebellion: A conversation with a South Korean Organizer at the G8 Protests

Source: http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1648

An interview with South Korean activist Dopehead Zo, by Sarah Lazare, Marina Sitrin, David Solnit and Asha Colazione.

The anti-G8 mobilizations have been bringing together inspiring organizers and activists from all over the world. Japanese precarious temp workers, calling themselves “Freeters”, South Korean anti-military base organizers, Spanish media activists, Farm workers from Via Campesina, Australian human rights activists, German direct action organizers, and many others from North America, Asia, and Europe, have all come together to share stories, struggles, ideas, and to network and plan actions. At The Counter G8 International Forum in Tokyo, we met one organizer whose story is so compelling we needed to share it as soon as possible. The following is a selected transcription of our conversation.

Dopehead Zo is an activist who has been heavily involved in the South Korean demonstrations against the US beef import deals. Beginning in late May 2008, mass protests have rocked Seoul and other cities in South Korea, bringing hundreds of thousands, and at times over a million protesters together into the streets. These are some of the biggest mobilizations South Korea has seen for over two decades. These are both mass demonstrations and places for the creation of new social relationships between people. As one flyer put out by activists there reads: “Candlelight Vigils Evolving to a Street Rebellion Calling for Direct Democracy – We’ve Got the Power”

At issue is the decision taken by the new South Korean president – Lee Seok-haeng – to ease restrictions against US beef imports, most of which had been banned in 2003 after mad cow disease was discovered in the United States. The ban was a blow to the US beef industry, as South Korea was its third largest importer of US beef. Critics see the lifting of the ban as an effort to appease the United States at the expense of South Korean public health, and the trade deal has awakened broader feelings of discontent with the government’s pursuit of neoliberal reforms and close relations with the United States. The overwhelming public response has virtually paralyzed Lee Seok-haeng’s government and has caused him to start backpedaling on the agreement. Meanwhile, protests, rallies, and candlelight vigils continue to fill the streets of Seoul. Perhaps other forms of democracy are on the people’s agenda.

Dopehead Zo spoke with us for hours, sitting on the floor together after the forums of the day had finished. He shared his experience protesting in the streets of Seoul and described a new kind of social movement that is taking form. A movement comprised of, as he calls them, “common people.” He describes forms of mass democracy in the streets, and the joy of being together to create new ways of relating to one another. He also explains what all of this has to do with the G8 protests and places it in the context of an overall struggle for social justice.

Q: Can you describe what it is like right now on the streets of Seoul?

A: People are holding candlelight vigils every night, with a minimum of 10,000 people in Seoul and several thousand in other cities. On weekends, we have 50 thousand or 100 thousand people participating. When it began, it was anti-US beef imports by the Korean government. The newly elected, right-wing neoliberal ex CEO South Korean president, wanted to give some good gifts or presents to the US. The first thing the new South Korean president did was to visit the US and beg for a good relationship, and for all kinds of things. Or go to Sarkozy. I hate to mention the president’s name. The gate to the US beef industry was the imports of US beef, every part of the cow – spinal cord, intestines, heart – the parts that other people usually don’t eat. I am a vegan myself, but many Koreans cook these parts and then they eat it. According to most calculations, the US beef industry would massively profit from beef imports, and once South Korea opens its markets to beef imports, other Asian countries will do the same. Talks between the two presidents took place in April, and before the talks, the two governments made an agreement and then it became known to the public in early May. As people heard more about the details of the agreement, they realized it was really unfair. Everyone could tell it was for the profit of the US beef industry, not the health of the South Korean people. If mad cow disease is in the US, there is no way to stop it with the import of US beef.

The agreement was really messed up. The general public found out about it and started a candlelight vigil. South Korean people started to pressure the government by taking to the streets every night with candlelight vigils. The government didn’t listen to us, of course. At first it was 2000 people then 20,000 then 100,000 … and then more and more people … People got angry and took to the street.

Eventually the government listened to it. The pressure got bigger. The Korean government knows how to control the movement people, because the resistance or the movement has been going on for 20 or 30 years, so there is kind of a pattern as to what we do when we do rallies or demonstration. Riot police know how to respond to these situations. But this new candlelight vigil – police do not know what to do. Because when police try to stop the rally, they don’t stop. They continuously move to another street. Before, back then, we had one clear target. Let’s say it was the US embassy in Seoul or the police headquarters or the presidential residence.

Now, people, common people, who didn’t actually know about the free trade agreement before or hadn’t heard of neoliberalism, like young couples with a babies, they come out into the streets with their baby in a stroller, or old people come out. So, you can see a whole new demonstrator. And there was no set pattern for when they were blocked by the police. The tactic that police used to block a road so that people cannot go in the path that they want to. In May and June, the people just started to flow, and the police realized they couldn’t contain the demonstrators if they used the ways they were used to, so they brought out a new way – water cannons. We haven’t seen water cannon for 5 or 10 years.

Q: Water cannon against the candlelight vigils?

A: Yes. Not only water cannons, but batons, shields and physical violence against people like me, with nothing – no weapons, no helmets. They also use fire extinguishers. Tear gas was kind of banned.

Q: What does the fire extinguisher do?

A: You use it and then demonstrators cannot breath so we have to pull back and disperse. The fire extinguisher fills the whole area instantly. We couldn’t do anything on the police buses. Some of the direct action we do is that we paint a lot of graffiti on police buses or the streets. At first the police started to arrest people, and beat people, and then it got such bad media coverage because like you said, it was a nonviolent protest, and so then the police responded with civil violence and they were criticized very badly. So then the new strategy that the police started to use was to block the whole area where any protesters could go. The streets of central Seoul became neutralized every night. No traffic at all.

Q: Could you describe a little bit of what it is like in the streets when there are hundreds of thousands of people, do they sing together, talk together, are they friends, what does it look like?

A: We try to do everything. I am a singer myself, so I perform three or four nights a week, five or six hours each night. I get exhausted. I sleep all day and then get up again in the morning. People who have never met before talk to each other and start talking about what we should do to make our voices heard. Amazing things have been created, like huge squares or spaces. We cook, we talk, we make a speech, and when we rally, we do that kind of thing too. And we dance.

Q: Can you talk a little more about the dissatisfaction with the relationship to the US and what that might have to do with the G8?

A: The newly elected right wing president had a big wish. They think that the neoliberal way is the only way, and the market is their god. The president is the ex CEO of Hyundai. He thinks that a working economy means that there is construction, buildings being built. Environmental activists think this could be a disaster. It was this new administration that made the general public realize that everything is related in the name of neoliberalism… We are taking this opportunity to spread this ideology – the idea that in order to become a leader we have to receive ideas in the name of neoliberalist policies. In the name of neoliberalism, we have to open our markets. The reason we have to open our Korean markets is that if we don’t do it, we will be a backwards country. That is a term that the ruling class loves to use. At first it was the US beef import issue, but then it was the government trying to impose its neoliberal policies at the same time. The president was rushing to realize his dream. The right wing loves him. These policies could affect peasants lives, or farmers lives, or small businesses.

Q: Does it feel like people are talking about that, like in grocery stores or schools?

A: Yes. It’s very natural for Korean people to talk about the US beef issue, and once you start talking about US beef the subject becomes linked to other related issues, like opening markets through FTAs [Free Trade Agreements], like with Japan, Korea, the EU, Chile, with the US, with China and privatization, because that is the big plan for the government. The government is promising that we are going to go “forward”. That’s the major policy.

Q: How are things organized at night? Are there political parties? Unions? How do people know where to go?

A: The internet is amazing. I am really addicted to it. Internet is the main tool that we have been using. Text messages. Since the beginning, it was middle school and high school students who constituted the demonstrators, like ten thousand high school students and middle school students in their uniforms, and what they do is exchange text messages, like two thousand text messages every day to everyone: “tomorrow, 2:00, city hall square, let’s go, be there with a candle.”

Q: The image that sometimes people have on unions or political parties taking chare is not true?

The candlelight vigil started with normal people and then they realized that no matter what the people did, the government would not listen to them. And then when the crowd began to take more to the streets, that is when the labor unions got involved. KCTU [Korean Confederation of Trade Unions] is a big labor union with about 700,000 union members and university student activists. They wanted to join and then some of them wanted to become the leaders of the movement and wanted to control the flow of the actions or rallies and then the general public started to yell at the wannabe leaders – “who do you think you are to try to control our movement. It is a people’s movement, not the movement of the elitist union members”. It is for the common people. Every time professional activists try to regulate or suffocate the energy, the vibe, they fail. Miraculously, people succeeded in continuing their actions every day and every day. They didn’t get exhausted. Why, because they have never experienced something like this. When we have marches with big unions, it is often really boring, with all of us marching in line and the same old songs being played.

I play new protest songs. Those professional organizers get exhausted. They think it is not fun if you have thirty consecutive days of street demonstrations. But for these hundreds of thousands of people experiencing this, it was fun. Every day they realize something. Some of them even voted for the right wing president, when he said that he would make them all rich. But then they realized it was all lies. Then they got more angry and tried to find ways to make their voices heard.

The presidential residence was protected by a high mountain and armies of police. But then people started to infiltrate those blocs and then later we succeeded in gathering in front of the residential place. We could not do anything three miles near the presidential place. Accidentally on the part of the police bloc, we opened it, then lots of people went through a small hole, and then later, we gathered. It was early in the morning. It was thirty thousand people in early June it was first a large crowd demonstration in front of presidential palace since the people’s uprising in 1960.

I have been long-time activist since early 1990s.

Q: Does this feel different?

A: For me, not really different. I have been active in the movement for a long time. I don’t have any bad feelings regarding my comrades, but the way we do it is different. I am an anarchist myself, and the political movement in Korea has been influenced mostly by Marxism and the way that they organize.

Q: Do you think anarchism makes more sense to people now?

A: Definitely. Union leaders and organizers have been using their conventional ways of organizing and want to use them on the common people. People feel it is authoritative and don’t like it. If you have someone telling you what to do, you say, we don’t want that. In that sense, these are conventional movement people who think this new situation is anarchistic. We don’t use the term anarchist or anarchy. I can tell the way they do it is anarchistic, but it doesn’t matter, the ideology that you give yourself.

The president and the whole government, they are not willing to step down or anything, and the day before I came to Japan, police brutality was really incredible. Now the government and the whole right wing have made up their mind to crush the “violent” uprising. They say it is violent because we take over the streets. The government is using scare tactics – six water cannons at the same time – it is really scary. Fire extinguishers are used and it makes it hard to breath. Participation has been smaller after June 10, the nation wide day of action, when the government started to oppress us really heavily. The ministry of education, for example, sent orders to every school that no students could participate in the candlelight vigils.

Q: What are the demands of the people in the streets?

A: First, renegotiation with the US about beef imports, which the Korean government denied, they said that if we renegotiate, the credit of South Korea will be hurt in the international market. Lots of trade experts pointed out that it was all lies. It would not harm the Korean government if we renegotiate with the US. That is the first demand that we are still asking. The legal process is over, and now Korean importers are inspecting the US beef. The first demand is still in effect.

Second demand: the president publicly apologize or resign. Now it is becoming more and more for the resignation of the government.

The whole cabinet offered to resign to the president, but the president did not accept the resignation.

Q: Is there any formal organization of demonstrations?

A: There is a temporary organization of organizations.

The committee of all the organizations has a broadcasting truck with a big speaker, and when the rally begins, the truck plays protest music or they say something. If the police respond and approach the demonstrators, then the committee truck says something. If the common people don’t like it, like if the truck says ok, we have to pull back, and then it’s just gone, then the people do not leave, they just stay there.

The thing is, nobody knows what’s going to happen. For 30 or 40 days, the police didn’t do anything and just let the people do whatever in the open space, and then people started to talk together about tactics, “do we use violence or nonviolence?” Every day, some people try to pull down police buses so that we can make our way to the presidential place. Some people yell that harming police property is a violent thing, or that repercussions from mass media will be big. Other people say police presence is violence itself so we should remove it.

There are some really exciting tactics that those organizers have never thought of, like making a styrofoam mountain so that we can cross over the police buses. It is decided in open meetings, every night, in small groups and large groups.

The sandbags – that was an amazing thing we witnessed one week ago – There was a huge construction site three miles away from where we were. Of course we were surrounded by police buses. We were talking about how to deal with this situation, and someone said, “ok, three miles away we have a construction site with huge piles of sand”. Someone said, “how are we going to carry huge piles of sand?” We lined people next to each other from the construction site to presidential residence, then they carried sandbags, passing them from each person to each person. After three hours, we piled three huge mountains of sandbags and then we could go over the police buses.

Q: Did you go over?

A: No, because once you get to the roof of the police bus, they hit you with water cannons. Many people got over with their flags. Symbolic resistance.

Q: What about food and water?

A: It’s incredible. People just pitch in money. Water, tea, coffee, sushi, kimpa, free every night. You can eat as much as you want. Street cafés open. Like one person drives a truck near the people and says this is a candlelight tea house and anyone can have cup of hot water or tea, and there is a cash jar and anyone can pitch in. For bathrooms we use nearby buildings or bathroom trucks.

Q: What would be your dream scenario?

A: The president steps down, and then, I don’t know. I don’t have a big dream. If everyone has his or her own small dream and we have our own small dreams and we can think about our way to make our dreams come true … I don’t picture a large model of society. It is created together. It is the kind of thing you can imagine through cooperation. The small group I have been working with is called blood sisters. I sew cotton pads and we sell reusable, washable menstruation pads, with organic cotton.

For the last ten years, I have been working on many issues and things that I think are really important that would affect people’s lives. For example, we try to get the word out about the FTA. We have been trying to spread it, we wished that people would know about it, but we couldn’t – we couldn’t control people’s thinking. But then, after the autonomous voluntary movement, people started to figure out everything by themselves. It was really, really amazing. Somehow it was a kind of miracle. Everything we talked about came true – all of a sudden.

This article is reproduced from ZNet