Recent Exercises in Swiss Direct Democracy

Swiss approve pioneering legal heroin program

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS – Nov 30, 2008
Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvPQobAzzd8b8rx5Ltg7TxMtz4bAD94PEKD80

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved Sunday a move to make permanent the country's pioneering program to give addicts government-authorized heroin.

At the same time, voters rejected a proposal to decriminalize marijuana.

Sixty-eight percent of the 2,264,968 voters casting ballots approved making the heroin program permanent. It has been credited with reducing crime and improving the health and daily lives of addicts since it began in 1994.

Some 63.2 percent of voters voted against the marijuana initiative.

On a separate issue, 52 percent of voters approved an initiative to eliminate the statute of limitations on pornographic crimes against children before the age of puberty.

Olivier Borer, 35, a musician from the northern town of Solothurn, said he welcomed the outcome in part because state action was required to help heroin addicts, but he said legalizing marijuana was a bad idea.

"I think it's very important to help these people, but not to facilitate the using of drugs," Borer said. "You can just see in the Netherlands how it's going. People just go there to smoke."

Parliament approved the heroin measure in a revision of Switzerland's narcotics law in March, but conservatives challenged the decision and forced a national referendum under Switzerland's system of direct democracy.

The heroin program has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s, supporters say.

The United States and the U.N. narcotics board have criticized the program as potentially fueling drug abuse, but several other governments have started or are considering their own programs modeled on the system.

The marijuana issue was based on a separate citizens' initiative to decriminalize the consumption of marijuana and growing the plant for personal use.

Jo Lang, a Green Party member of parliament from the central city of Zug, said he was disappointed in the failure of the marijuana measure because it means 600,000 people in Switzerland will be treated as criminals because they use cannabis.

"People have died from alcohol and heroin, but not from cannabis," Lang said.

The government, which opposed the marijuana proposal, said it feared that liberalizing cannabis could cause problems with neighboring countries.

"This could lead to a situation where you have some sort of cannabis tourism in Switzerland because something that is illegal in the EU would be legal in Switzerland," government spokesman Oswald Sigg told The Associated Press.

The heroin program is offered in 23 discreet centers across Switzerland that offer a range of support to nearly 1,300 addicts who haven't been helped by other therapies. Under careful supervision, they inject doses of carefully measured to satisfy their cravings but not enough to cause a big high.

The aim is to help the addicts learn how to function in society, with counseling from psychiatrists and social workers.

Sabina Geissbuehler-Strupler of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, which led the campaign against the heroin program, said she was disappointed in the vote.

"That is only damage limitation," she said. "Ninety-five percent of the addicts are not healed from the addiction."

Health insurance pays for the bulk of the program, which costs 26 million Swiss francs ($22 million) a year. All residents in Switzerland are required to have health insurance, with the government paying insurance premiums for those who cannot afford it.

The current Swiss statute of limitations on prosecuting pedophile pornography is 15 years. The initiative will result in a change in the constitution to remove that time limit.

Previously only genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and terrorist acts were defined under Swiss law has being without a statute of limitations.

The government had argued that it will be difficult to put the change into practice, partly because of the legal problems of determining the onset of puberty, which varies with each child. Also, the government said, it will be very difficult to prove such crimes in trials many years after the crimes are committed.

The proponents said in campaign literature that sometimes it only becomes possible years later to build a case against a pedophile when other victims "also finally find the strength to bring charges."

"It must therefore be only up to the victim to decide whether it should be forgotten or prosecuted," the proponents said.

NIGERIA: How about People’s Parliament at the Local Government Level?

How about people’s parliament at the local government level?

Thursday, 06 November 2008 00:14 Ebere Onwudiwe
Source: http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1074:how-about-peoples-parliament-at-the-local-government-level&catid=96:columnists&Itemid=285

In some emerging democracies such as ours, leaders tend to represent themselves and their cronies. Democracy becomes government of the leaders, by the leaders, for the leaders. In representative democracy, which in theory is what we practice in Nigeria today, the people elect their leaders, who are supposed to represent the people’s interests. This system of government is noted for accountability, constituency service and other forms of responsiveness when practiced by the book. But accountability and government responsiveness are hardly the trademarks of Nigeria’s representative democracy.

In our three tier federalism, the local government is possibly the least responsive and accountable even though it is the level that is closest to the people.

This column has argued recently that one way to ensure accountability at the state and local governments is to institute a policy of taxable revenue distributions (“The Alaska Option,” Business Day, 08 October, 2008.) Direct democracy at the local government level is another way of reaching the same goal. Direct democracy is not feasible at the federal or the state tiers, not even the modified version proposed here. But it is entirely feasible at the local government level.

In direct democracy, the people are the parliament. When the Greeks, especially the Athenians, instituted what is considered the origin of modern democracy, it was of this kind. The Athenians gathered at the Pnyx, a structure of concrete slabs, where they debated issues and made decisions. It was the ultimate manifestation of democracy as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

The same practice is to be found in many African villages even today. At the sound of the gong, drum, or some other percussive instrument, the people would gather at the communal meeting place. The village head would state the issues and the people would debate them vigorously, often rancorously. In the end, a consensus usually would emerge.

Sometimes, the consensus is reached through a series of compromises. Other times, someone would have a brainwave and come up with the ultimate solution.

Why can’t we use this democratic tradition of our forefathers to reform our local governments where direct democracy is feasible in a modified form? We will still keep the local councils and chairmen. But in addition, there will be a periodic assembly of the people (representatives of villages and communities under the local government plus any other resident who wants to attend) where today’s council chairman and his councilors will render an account of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do, plus deliver an account of local government’s funds.
It would be people’s equivalent of what transpires in the British parliament. Periodically, the prime minister appears before the parliament to render an account on a variety of policies and actions. The members of parliament then pepper him with questions.

The sessions, which are televised live, are often raucous and feisty. Sometimes they are jocular or even whimsical. In all renditions, they are an age-long method of keeping the prime minister in check. The mere fact of having a leader account for his actions publicly and in a verifiable manner makes him think twice about straying from the proper and just.

For local governments in Nigeria, the people would constitute the periodic parliament and they would ask the questions. The parliament could be convened four times a year (on a Sunday to maximize attendance) and as necessitated by events.

The sessions would work roughly this way: The council chairman and councilors would render reports that specify the total allocation and revenues received by the council. They would then specify what the funds have been budgeted for or spent on. The expenditure would reflect priorities the people’s parliament had established during the last meeting. A concise and understandable summary of the revenues and expenditures will also be distributed.

The people would then ask pointed questions about any discrepancies between the government’s revenues and expenditures or between the people’s priorities and the projects pursued. They would also ask questions about budget lines or expenditures that seem bloated or unrealistic. Minutes of the meeting will be taken, circulated among the people, and sent to government auditors and the EFCC.

The strongest point about the people’s parliament is that there is strength in numbers. A major reason for the wanton pilfering of government funds is that individuals are afraid to speak out. Brave souls who speak out often suffer major consequences; from occupational reprisals to threats of physical harm. In contrast, the people’s parliament has the advantage of strength in numbers. More people speak out boldly when they are with a crowd, and reprisal against the whole is less practical.

Also, requiring local governments to publicly declare their revenues and expenditures makes possible the informed scrutiny by many people. As the saying goes, if only one person saw a worm, it could turn into a snake; if several people saw it, it couldn’t. Government officials can bribe accountants and auditors, but they cannot bribe all of the people, certainly not all of the time.
Even the EFCC can do its job much better if the people are given the chance to scrutinize their leaders.

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

MEXICO: Questioning the Efficacy of Institutions

Democracy Under Construction

Filed under: Democratization, Latin America — Jason Lakin @ 12:58 pm
October 27, 2008
Source: http://www.harvardir.org/blog/?p=331

In 2006, when supporters of Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), then candidate for the leftist PRD, took to the streets to protest alleged vote fraud during the presidential elections, many carried banners that said “Democracy Under Construction.” The implication was clear: democracy at the institutional level, where elections were organized and votes counted, was not working. Real democracy was happening in the streets, where the people were organizing and raising their voices against these same institutions.

This “institutions versus the people” dichotomy in Mexican democracy is the most important legacy of the 2006 election. It continues to define the ideology of AMLO and his supporters up to the present. Last week, speaking about the energy reform which was approved by the Mexican Senate, AMLO said that what mattered was not what the legislature said, but what “we decide, the people.”

The logic is familiar to analysts that distinguish between republicanism (rule by democratic institutions, indirectly controlled by the people) and democracy (rule by the people directly). Though we most often use the term democracy in everyday discussions of regime type, what we usually mean is republicanism: rule by democratic institutions. No one believes that rule by institutions is a panacea. Advocates of direct democracy are correct to note that institutions frequently deviate from the will of the people, pursuing their own interests instead. On the other hand, advocates of republicanism presume, also correctly, that direct democracy is neither more realistic nor necessarily fairer than rule by institutions. Republicans point out that democratic publics are easily swayed by dangerous group-think, which, in the absence of institutions that force deliberation, can lead to the repression of minorities, and the prioritization of short-term gains over long-term development.

In general, the relevant question in a republic is whether or not republican institutions are legitimate. When institutions are legitimate, which minimally requires fair elections, then we tend to think that these institutions should be respected, even if we allow citizens to protest, file lawsuits, or lobby to change decisions made by them. What happens, however, when the institutions are not legitimate? This is the position taken by AMLO and his followers, who argued that the 2006 elections were illegitimate because the institutions that organized them were illegitimate, and because the process was not free and fair.

There is no question that AMLO’s attack on Mexican republican institutions is self-serving. However, whether AMLO is motivated by self-interest or not, many Mexicans do doubt the legitimacy and efficacy of their institutions. The only solution to widespread doubts about the legitimacy of institutions is the re-foundation of those institutions with renewed legitimacy, not, as Mexican conservatives sometimes seem to believe, to repeatedly restate that institutions are legitimate because they are institutions.

In fact, Mexico’s legislators are slowly achieving institutional renewal. The PAN (the president’s party) and the PRD were able to reach a consensus earlier this year to renew the leadership of the electoral institute (IFE), whose credibility was severely damaged in 2006. Although President Calderón was among the worst purveyors of the “institutions exist therefore they are legitimate” doctrine during the 2006 elections, he has pursued negotiation and consensus-building on key initiatives, such as fiscal and now energy policy. The result has been limited reform, but increasingly legitimate procedures for arriving at it.

The biggest threat to Mexico’s institutional renewal today comes from a different source: the spiraling corruption engendered by the war on drugs. Today, El Universal reports that officials working for SIEDO, a special government office dedicated to investigating organized crime, have been on retainer for the drug lords since at least 2004. These officials, who earned as much as US$450,000 per month, passed along government information to one of Mexico’s most notorious cartels, that of the Beltrán Leyva brothers. The revelations were the result of the government’s own Operation Cleanup, which means, of course, that they represent a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they should increase confidence that the government is functioning to police its own abuses. On the other, they reinforce the perception that the government is riddled with corruption, so much so that the war on drugs is doomed to failure.

Young democracies frequently struggle to renovate a large number of weak institutions all at once, but many do survive. The renovation of institutions is a tricky business, and there are plenty of reasons to worry that Mexico is not up to the task. But if there is one thing Mexicans proved during the twentieth century, it is that they are exceptionally creative at reinventing institutions. The one-party regime waxed and waned, but it survived intact for decades by adapting to radically changing international and domestic circumstances. Mexico’s leaders have demonstrated, since the crisis of confidence in 2006, a surprising ability to work together to avoid the worst. Many more surprises will be needed to push the country’s democratization forward. On this gloomy Monday, overshadowed by the disillusion of new corruption allegations, the country’s leadership may look down, but I wouldn’t count them out.

PHILIPPINES: Looking to U.S. Direct Democracy as Example

This interesting piece from the Philippines looks to the direct democracy of initiative & referendum at the state level in the United States as an example for the Philippines to follow. - Editor

Direct Democracy

Pinoy Kasi

By Michael Tan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:06:00 11/05/2008

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081105-170283/Direct-democracy

The media frenzy around the US elections has mainly focused on the presidential race, and for good reason, considering the role American presidents play in charting the world’s future. This election is also particularly significant because we just might see the first African-American president.

But I’ve followed the elections also because they show how democracies work. Beneath the glitter and glamour, presidential elections allow substantive discussions of issues that matter to Americans, and to the world.

Few people are aware of another important part of American elections, that of referendums which allow citizens in some states to make some very vital decisions. In the Philippines, we also have this system of citizens’ initiatives but it hasn’t worked out, so maybe we should look more closely at what goes on in the US.

Burning issues

The issues taken up in these referendums reflect the burning issues of the day for Americans. This year, the most hotly debated propositions to be voted on revolve around abortion and same-sex marriage but there are initiatives around taxes, education, animal welfare and energy. California, for example, has two initiatives around alternative energy, including one that requires utilities companies to generate 20 percent of its power from renewable energy by 2010, 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

The propositions also reflect how liberal or conservative a particular state might be. For example, 26 states have passed DOMASes or “Defense of Marriage Amendments,” which define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments are intended to block same-sex marriage, which is currently allowed in three states: California, Connecticut and Massachusetts. In this year’s elections, three states—Arizona, California and Florida—will be voting on a DOMAS (note that California already allows same-sex marriage so their new initiative is intended to overthrow that law).

Abortion has been legal in the US since 1973 but individual states have been looking for ways to impose restrictions. This year, there are three states with abortion-related initiatives. Colorado has a “Defense of the Person Initiative” which would bestow personhood status from the moment of fertilization, giving the fetus “equal rights of life, liberty and property.” If passed, this act would make abortion a crime equivalent to murder and homicide. South Dakota will vote on a constitutional amendment that will ban all abortions except for rape, incest or to protect women’s health. California has a proposition that will require parents of a minor to be notified, with a 48-hour waiting period, after that notification, before the minor can have her abortion.

It’s a powerful system of direct democracy—direct in the sense that citizens themselves make very important decisions, rather than leaving it to elected officials and legislators. At present, 18 states allow citizens to exercise direct democracy to amend a state constitutions, 22 allow citizens to initiate new laws or statutes and in 25 states, citizens can even overthrow or veto a state statute that has already been passed.

The process usually begins with citizens themselves gathering signatures for a petition to put an issue to a vote. The rules vary from one state to another, requiring a certain number for the petition to finally make it to the ballot. For example, California, for a proposition to revise a law, the number of signatures required to put it to a vote is equivalent to 5 percent of the total votes cast in the last election for the governor. To amend the constitution, the requirement is 8 percent.

Not all these initiatives begin with citizens. Some states have a system where the legislators themselves refer an issue to the public for approval.

It’s not easy to get these propositions to the point of a referendum. Gathering petitions is tedious work, and can be challenged by other citizens’ groups. Law suits have been filed against some of these propositions, effectively stopping them from being voted on.

If the propositions are eligible for a vote, the office of the secretary of the state has to put together materials to help citizens make an informed decision. Information materials (in print, and lately, even in audio for those who are visually impaired) are disseminated, explaining the pros and cons involved. This includes a discussion of the issue itself, but can go on to an extended examination of other implications, for example, the cost of enforcing the new law or lost income in terms of taxes. The materials also list people, groups, even newspapers that have endorsed or opposed the initiative. The main sponsors of the initiative are also put under scrutiny for possible vested interests.

Animal rights

There are many other initiatives that are going to be voted on in this election. As an educator, I was intrigued by Oregon’s Measure 60 where teachers’ classroom performance would determine pay raises.

Massachusetts has a Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, which would decriminalize small amounts (less than one ounce) of marijuana. Proponents say this would save $130 million a year in court and imprisonment costs, but those opposed, organized as a Coalition for Safe Streets, say such decriminalization would send a wrong message to young people.

Animal rights have become a big issue in the US and are reflected this year by three initiatives. California has Proposition 2, which requires that “calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.” Massachusetts has an initiative that would ban the racing of dogs, specifically greyhounds.

Then there’s Alaska’s Wolf and Bear Protection Act, which went up for a vote a few weeks ago, during the primary elections, and was defeated. This was a referral, sent by state legislators to the public, which would have prohibited “shooting of free-ranging wolf, wolverine or grizzly bear on the same day a person has been airborne.” The law was proposed because hunters have been using aircraft to spot the animals before going after them.

The Philippines has Republic Act 6735, which allows these citizens’ initiatives, but we’ve seen it used repeatedly, from Con-con to Con-ass, by politicians looking for ways to amend the Constitution so they can stay in power. The Action for Economic Reform website has a good, brief critique of the law as “defective legislation,” making the propositions “easy to initiate, difficult to pass.” The problem is informed choice: being able to get enough information and education materials out to voters, rather than letting them be manipulated by politicians.

NIGERIA: Demanding Direct Democracy

The business of democracy in Nigeria

By Joshua Ocheja

Source: http://www.tribune.com.ng/06102008/opinion.html

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is basically of two types: Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy. Representative democracy is one founded on the principle of the people’s representatives, the representatives form more than one independent ruling body, vested with the responsibility of acting in the people’s interest but not as their proxy representatives, but with enough authority to take initiatives in the face of challenging circumstances.

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials. Where the assembly elects officials, these are executive agents or direct representatives, bound to the will of the people.

Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of people, usually on the basis of election. However, it is possible to combine the two into representative direct democracy.

In Nigeria today, we have striven for democracy for the greater part of our political history. Democracy is not a political buzzword but something definite, something we have relentlessly striven to attain, especially during the 29 years of military rule.

Those years were marred by the brazen ambitions of the military junta who were determined in retaining their leadership of the nation with detrimental repercussions. The contemporary Nigerian society consists of over 250 ethno-linguistic groups and is among the most ethnically-diverse countries in the world. The challenge our nascent democracy faces, is not the health status of the president or the number of ethnic groups, but the sheer politicisation and incorporation of ethnic diversity into national life.

Each ethnic group under the cover of relevance organises itself in the contest for national booties and view public policies largely from the prism of their sectional interest. Ethnic sentiments is at the heart of the perennial allegations of marginalisation by the different ethnic groups that make up the Nigerian nation

Democracy in Nigeria is a limited liability company where certain people have ownership and these people are conformist in that they feel Nigeria is not ripe to be listed on the stock exchange so the citizens can have shares via public offer.

The big question is how democratic is Nigeria? Nigeria is 48 years old. This is a company that has been in business for that long and remains a limited liability company whereas other nations that have not clocked 48 have become full fledged public liability companies, posting impressive financial result and giving its share holders(citizens) a reason to smile. But the Nigerian scenario is a different one. When an organisation stands as a limited liability company, their profit goes to the pocket of the few that are the owners. This is what our beloved country has become! You might want to agree with me that there exists a powerful cabal that dictates our yesterday, today and tomorrow.

These people have hypnotised us and they too have been hypnotised by their imagination. Their greatest worry is, when the spell eventually fades away what befalls them? Nigeria can not remain a limited liability company anymore; it has outgrown that status. Its citizens have a right to know who gets what, when and how.

The year 1999 marked a defining moment for Nigeria, I remember vividly when Obasanjo was being sworn in as president. He wore a facial expression, which I could not interprete. If only I could read his thought pattern. It was not easy but it was worth it, I believe Obasanjo will be telling his close aides in Ota farm. The task of ruling Nigeria is the most tedious in human endeavour. Aside the paraphernalia of office that are enticing, the rest is in the hands of God. You are for God or for the devil.

When Moses went to Pharaoh to deliver the heavenly message, Pharaoh in his earthly wisdom, dismissed it with a wave of the hand. The rest is history. This same scenario is playing out in Nigeria: Let us go, we keep saying! The ruling cabal is turning the deaf ear to our pleas. Nigeria is 48 and sincerely, we cannot tell our right from the left.

But I have a dream: that one day, we shall be free and free indeed! Nigeria will become a public liability company, churning out impressive result for its shareholders (citizens).

Philippines: Struggling with Direct Democracy

Valdehuesa: Ignorance makes ours a “bonsai” republic

By Manuel Valdehuesa
Monday, September 15, 2008
Street Talk
Source: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/cag/2008/09/15/oped/manuel.valdehuesa.street.talk.html

We’ve dealt with the barangay as a government, as a corporation, and as an economy. Anyone who doesn’t know why these three aspects are important or how each is supposed to be managed has no business demanding or preaching about good governance. And any official who doesn’t know how to make each one functional has no business staying in office.

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

It’s been over a decade and a half since the Local Government Code of 1991 became law. It was meant 1) to correct the imbalance of power between the national and the local, 2) to lessen excessive centralization at the top, 3) to devolve what properly should be exercised by the intermediate and primary levels of government, and 4) to empower the community by giving the people an official role in overseeing its affairs.

But while the first three are substantially operative, the fourth and most important for the proper functioning of democracy – empowerment -- has been ignored. The people are still uninvolved, powerless, unable to participate in governance. Instead they are controlled and manipulated by the barangay chairman and his cohorts. And it’s all due to ignorance.

Ignorance about the barangay as a government -- with a direct democracy and a parliamentary form -- has turned it into an oligarchy of mostly incompetent officials that feed on its income. Ignorant chairmen not only trivialize the role of the people, they arrogate their power and govern the community arbitrarily, turning the kagawads and the sangguniang kabataan into puppets. Equally ignorant of their role, the citizens are mere spectators instead of actors in local governance. Even civil society seems clueless; they’re focused on the upper governments.

The legislative governing body called Barangay Assembly -- the local parliament consisting of all adult residents -- does not convene or hold deliberations. The people themselves are ignorant of their role in it. Failing to meet or decide collectively, the community cannot determine let alone express its collective will. It cannot form a consensus on anything. Voiceless, they are helpless, vulnerable to manipulation by the forces of corruption.

Worse, the leading citizens surrender the community’s fate to power-obsessed little trapos. They reinforce the barangay chairman’s thinking that he is a little president/commander-in-chief when in fact he is a little prime minister presiding over a parliamentary government -- with the people as members of parliament; as such they’re supposed to be the foil against abuse by the chairman. It is a non-performing government.

Ignorance about the barangay as a corporation makes it rely on subsidies, mainly on the internal revenue allotment (IRA) -- which the officials spend like an allowance instead of as capital for development. Clueless about the barangay’s corporate powers, they don’t organize enterprises to generate their own revenues. They do not enter into joint ventures with other barangays or tap private equity to capitalize enterprises including cooperatives, micro-lending or even a modest public utility like a water system, a shuttle service to and from the market, to and from the school, or wherever people need to be ferried. The idea of a subsidiary company to develop profitable opportunities is alien to them. They have overseas workers interested in ventures to create employment or income for those left behind, but there’s no initiative to do so. It’s a non-performing corporation.

As an economy, there is no attempt to explore the development of their land, labor or capital. They don’t inventory resources. Rural barangays don’t exploit opportunities offered by their nature-rich and exotic areas -- for ecotourism, recreation, adventure, or agribusiness. There are tropical beaches, lush forests, rolling plains, winding rivers, and underground wealth that are neglected. If at all, these are exploited by economic predators who strip their environment and leave nothing for future generations. Even their forest products and herbal goods are taken right under their noses to be exported or patented, depriving generations of their present and future value. It’s a non-performing economy.

Urban barangays neglect the production, marketing or financing possibilities in their own backyard. Entrepreneurs, craftsmen and assorted talents in their neighborhoods cry out to be discovered or supported but are ignored. Their fate is left to opportunists that trawl the community and strip it of its human and other resources.

Barangays form the base on which our republic’s politics and economics is built. But ignorance about the people’s role in it and the failure to develop it is making it a “bonsai” republic!

Ask Arturo Sanvictores, Ed Layug, Ruben Vegafria, or Hernan Agpawa why this is so! #

A former UN executive and director at the development academy of the Philippines, Manny heads the Gising Barangay Movement and writes Mondays, Wednesday, Fridays.

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.

COLOMBIA: The Referendum that would Allow a Third Term for Uribe in 2010

In a recent post we featured a scheduled referendum in Colombia desiged to protect water rights. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. - Editor

Colombia's Uribe eyes one more run

Enjoying great popularity after suppressing guerrilla violence, Colombia's president has declined to discourage a movement to let him run for a third term.

BY JOHN OTIS
Houston Chronicle
Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/latin-america-and-caribbean-politics/story/708316.html


BOGOTA -- Will he or won't he?

Halfway through his second term, Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's wildly popular president, remains coy about whether he will seek a third four-year term in 2010.

Earlier this month, he strongly hinted he would sit out the next election and perhaps attempt a comeback in 2014. Days later, Uribe said he might run in 2010 if his political allies failed to unite behind a single candidate who would continue his hard-line security policies.

Uribe has done nothing to stop a citizen-based drive to change the Colombian Constitution to allow him to run again. For the moment, the charter prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms.

But this month, the Colombian Congress received a petition with more than five million signatures obliging lawmakers to consider a referendum on eliminating the ban on third terms.

''People say that he's doing good work and, if that's the case, he should continue in the job,'' said Carlos Alberto Jaramillo, one of the organizers of the petition drive.

RIDING HIGH

Many analysts believe Uribe would win if allowed to run.

Thanks to a string of military victories against the country's Marxist guerillas, Uribe is riding high in the polls. A Gallup survey puts his job-approval rating at 78 percent.

But critics warn that Uribe could damage his reputation and Colombia's close relations with the United States by seeking three consecutive terms.

Latin America has a history of military dictators. Thus, when democracy spread across the region in the late 1980s and early '90s, the constitutions of many of these nations were rewritten to prohibit presidential re-election.

Uribe engineered one constitutional change that allowed him to run for a second term in 2006. That effort led to allegations that members of his Cabinet had secured congressional support by promising jobs and other favors to legislators.

Going for a third term in 2010 ''would display an authoritarian tendency,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington. ``It would also hurt his legacy which, on balance, has been very positive.''

Uribe has been vague, keeping all of his options on the table and thus avoiding the handicap of becoming a lame-duck leader.

Speaking before a university audience, he said he preferred to promote new leaders and to improve national security during his remaining two years in office and that the reelection issue would be a distraction.

''I think it's much better that Colombians consolidate the policies of democratic security, investor confidence and social cohesion rather than worry about the president remaining in power,'' he said.
Shortly afterward, however, he indicated he would run should the campaign of the would-be successor from his political coalition falter.

But Uribe's maneuvering has prevented Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and other pro-government candidates from launching their own campaigns, which could provide an opening for the opposition.

First sworn in in 2002, then reelected in 2006 by a landslide, Uribe made his mark by improving security in a nation plagued by kidnappings and where left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries held control of huge swaths of the countryside.

ENLARGED ARMY

Uribe added more than 100,000 troops to the armed forces. They have captured or killed key guerrilla leaders while thousands of paramilitaries have disarmed.

The military's most spectacular feat was a July 2 operation that rescued 15 high-profile hostages, including former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors.

ECONOMY IMPROVED

Although the illegal drug trade remains robust, improved security has brought more tourism and foreign investment to Colombia and sparked six years of economic growth.

Still, everyone from Uribe's advisers to leading businessmen and his wife reportedly have urged him to step down in 2010.

''We shouldn't confuse the admiration that the business community has for Uribe with the danger of extending his rule longer than is advisable,'' said Luis Carlos Villegas, president of ANDI, an influential business association.

CLOUDS LINGER

Uribe has been weakened by a long-running investigation into ties between paramilitaries and his political allies in the Congress. Nearly 70 legislators, almost all of them pro-Uribe, are either in prison or under investigation, a scandal that has led to calls for the election of a new Congress.

In addition, Uribe has feuded with Supreme Court justices investigating the paramilitary scandal, has traded insults with former Colombian presidents and accused human rights organizations of working with the guerrillas.

''The president should consider taking a break to re-charge his batteries,'' declared a recent editorial in the

Bogotá newspaper El

Tiempo.

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

CANADA: Candidate Supports Direct Democracy

Unfortunately this candidate from British Columbia who is a strong supporter of direct democracy only received one percent of the vote in the recent Canadian elections which saw gains for the conservative party. - Editor


Seymour spreading awareness

Published: October 09, 2008 6:00 PM
Updated: October 09, 2008 6:21 PM
Source: http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/vernonmorningstar/community/30723499.html

This is the last in a series of profiles on Okanagan-Shuswap candidates for the Oct. 14 federal election.

Darren Seymour of the Canadian Action Party says Canadians need to turn off the television and learn what is happening in their country.

Running in the federal election for the second time, Seymour says Canadians should be aware that over the past 50 years, Conservative and Liberal governments have given control of the country over to multi-national corporations.

“The feds have handed over the most sacred, crucial responsibility that a government has and that is creation of money for the country,” he says emphatically. “ Most people don’t understand money has to be created and as country grows more money has to be created. It is the most vital factor that determines the health of the country.”

He insists the majority of the money is being created as debt by the private banking industry.

Seymour also believes Canada’s sovereignty is being destroyed with deals like Free Trade. He charges that the deal had nothing to do with free trade, but was a corporate bill of rights.

“Now there’s the Security Prosperity Partnership, which is being created as quietly as possible,” he says. “This is seriously going to destroy the ability of Canada to make decisions about its own future.”

Instead, Seymour cautions the country will be dictated to directly by the biggest corporations in North America. He says Canadian taxpayers are mostly unaware that they are paying for 20 working groups “that are integrating and harmonizing all aspects of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into a North American union, benefiting the biggest corporations and not benefiting small business or the Canadian people.”

Another key point Seymour says his party would address is the presence of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, something he says was built on U.S. administration lies perpetrated by large media outlets.

“There’s overwhelming evidence 9-11 was carried out by elements inside the U.S.,” he says. “People have to take responsibility to discover the truth if we’re going to take our country back.”

Seymour recommends voters visit globalresearch.ca before they decide how to vote.

A stock trader by profession, Seymour became interested in politics about 10 years ago when he delved into the banking system..

“It was my first awakening that things are not the way they seem. There’s lots of underlying stuff going on that we don’t know about,” he says. “It evolved from there, I became more aware and started doing research and learning.”

He says the more he learned, the angrier he got, and the more he wanted to get involved.

“I wanted to do something to engage in the world I live in.”

Seymour started an organization called Our World Community Collective, which was designed for people to learn collectively about their governments. He also designed a voting system that would allow voters’ concerns to be heard.

In his direct democracy system, members of the group identify their top concerns, with action taken on the issues most frequently addressed.

“If I am elected, I will donate 75 percent of my salary to the direct democracy system, where we can learn together and vote on what we want to do about it,” he says.

“The Canadian Action party is the only solution to get us out of this downward spiral.,” he says.

COLOMBIA: Upcoming Referendum on Water Rights

Enough signatures have been collected to put a referendum on water rights on the ballot next year in Colombia. This is the result of a strong grassroots effort. The referendum would establish water as a basic right and protect water resources from privatization. Another more contentious initiative that will be put on the ballot next year would amend the country's constitution in order to allow President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third consecutive term in 2010. When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela attempted to include a similar measure on term limits in a referendum package of constitutional reforms, he was widely criticized by his opponents as being an authoritarian dictator. Some are now levelling the same criticism at Alvaro Uribe of Colombia for his refusal to rule out a third term and denounce the referendum. Stay tuned, for we will be posting more about that referendum in the near future. - Editor

Over Two Million Citizens Supported Water Referendum

Bogota, September 15, 2008
Source: http://www.blueplanetproject.net/Movement/BogotaReferendum.html

Approximately one thousand people marched from the National University of Colombia to the National Registry in Bogota to submitt 2,044,267 signatures supporting the Water Referendum. A colourful bus full of children from different schools of the city, like guardians of their future, closed the march. Colombian music performed by young people in stilts gave it a joyful and carnival atmosphere. At 3 pm aqueduct workers, environmentalists, indigenous people, public service supporters, and men and women of various ages entered, like a water torrent, the National Registry, to submit the signatures to the National Registrar. Without speeches and with little formalities, the diversity of expressions supporting this Referendum were shown, through moving statements of women of various ages; a little girl, an indigenous women.

Rafael Colmenares, spokesperson of the National Committee in Defense of Water and Life read the letter to the Registrar.

This popular initiative started two years ago and has managed to join different local, regional and national initiatives in defense of water and life. The second period of collecting signatures started on March 14, 2008. It was a huge challenge; signatures corresponding to at least 5% of the people authorized to vote needed to be collected in six months, approximately 1.4 million signatures. During this six months it was necessary to go to the streets and rivers to carry out the task.

However, it wasn´t difficult to get the support of the people. How can someone oppose to water being considered a fundamental right? Who doesn´t want to protect strategic ecosystems? How can someone accept the threats of water privatization?

Finally, the task was carried out, the Colombian people answered the call for water. Every day, different people approached the tents located at big cities and the regional comittee in defense of water and life to join the campaign, to collect signatures and submit them. This was a way of stating "here we are and will be, we commit to water, to life and to the future of our children and grandchildren".

The National Registry will rule on this issue next month, so we are still alert to the challenges to the Referendum and the movement in defense of water and life. That small river born on February 14^th , 2007, is a huge river now, impossible to dam.

By Tatiana Roa Avendaño, www.censat.org.

ZAMBIA: Struggles Toward a New Era

We received the following press release from the Zambia Direct Democracy Movement. - Editor


Zambia Direct Democracy
Movement-ZDDM
P.O BOX 34553
Contact 0977-621364
Lusaka

8th October, 2008

Its Not Too Late to Save Zambia

Zambians are ill prepared for the forth-coming Presidential election and going ahead with it may have serious long term consequences for our nation hence our appealing to the listed institutions and key stakeholders to support our call that the Zambia Centre for Inter-party Dialogue-ZCID may initiate dialogue which can lead to the formation of a Government of National Unity which can simply bring all the contenders and other party leaders into government.

* Zambian Government
* MMD Secretariat
* PF Secretariat
* UPND Secretariat
* American Embassy
* British Embassy
* Swedish Embassy
* The Roman Catholic Secretariat

We believe that the forth-coming election to be held as stipulated by the current sick constitution can be set aside to allow reason to dictate because this will not only be an unnecessary waste of resources but an exercise which will not help to bring about the kind of change which Zambians desperately need.

Contrary to what some people may believe an agreement by all political parties at the ZCID followed up by a letter to Electoral Commission of Zambia, ECZ and the High Court is all that it needs to start a Healing process for our country. This can be the much needed Fresh Start towards Zambia becoming a Great Nation with the unfortunately lost vision already stated in our National Anthem.

Already for our young people and those who have suffered serious mental injury under the current government, the election is viewed as a chance to express their anger while for some it has been reduced to a situation where they will want to express their tribal solidarity.

The Mwanawasa era used excessive force by the police and courts to silence citizens for a long time and it is in national interest that a Government of National unity is put in place to defuse deeply rooted anger being harbored by many citizens such as the youth whose Themba's and survival efforts were destroyed, many retirees who have not been paid their due since 1991 when the MMD came in power, the suffering unemployed, those whose homes have been destroyed, and indeed many who feel that they have been victims of injustice etc. Holding elections at this point in time and using a constitution which the nation has already agreed needs a complete overhaul will defeat the whole purpose and reason of the exercise and reduce the election into a mere protest.

Already some citizens are threatening to withhold their votes if their immediate concern such as water and electricity load shedding is not minimized. ZDDM believes that the formation of a Government of National unity can help reduce the current tension in the country and pave way for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to visit all cases of alleged injustices stretching back to the UNIP era can be addressed as part of the healing process.

It would also pave way for establishing a genuine fight against corruption as compared to the current selective and politically motivated anti-corruption fight where some citizens are imprisoned for the theft of cars which nobody and not even the convicted, the police or the institution were the alleged theft was done are aware of.

Zambians have not enjoyed their freedom of expression because the public media is still controlled by government and the security forces have reacted with excessive force to discourage this mode of expression which has left many citizens looking forward to vent out their anger and frustration through the vote.

As already explained Zambia will be gambling with its future by going ahead with this election before serious concerns from citizens are addressed, a new constitution is put in place and those aspiring for Presidency explain their manifestos because all that the nation is getting from politicians right now are insults and demonisation of each other. The nation requires a massive education on why citizens should vote and promote a realization of the power of the vote and it is only when this is done and really appreciated that Zambians will be able to hold meaningful elections which can facilitate a common vision for Zambians to engage in a battle to save the nation from deepening poverty and address its serious social, moral, political and economic crisis which has been created by the now accepted culture of wasting valuable time and energy on pointing accusation fingers at each other.

In spite of our country being among the richest countries on the continent it is now listed among the poorest countries with among the highest poverty related death rate because of our failure to engage in serious and constructive dialogue. Our Movement believes that it is in national interest that the remaining 30 month of the term of office of this government can be utilized to making a deliberate effort to pave way for a Better Zambia.

It is against this background that ZDDM even at this late hour is mobilizing support that the ZCID can bring together its members contesting the election that they may save the nation unnecessary expenditure and acrimony by changing the future of Zambia through the creation of a Government of National Unity which can focus on a collective national effort to addressing the crisis facing the nation.

Our Politicians should acknowledge the fact that no single person or party can single handedly save Zambia from its current situation .This task needs the coordinated effort of every Zambian from politician to the simple villager in the remote.

We pray that the opposition parties will take heed of our advice this time because they are most likely going to regret if they ignore this advice as it is becoming very clear that the Acting-Vice President Mr. Rupiah Banda will win with a landslide due to the obvious mistakes being made by the opposition.

ZDDM just like many other Zambians is extremely disappointed that the country has been turned into a political battle field of insults and demonizing each other because this does not inspire hope or indeed save any constructive purpose. Zambians do not like what is going on and contrary to what those engaged in this crusade think-they are helping to draw a lot of sympathy and support for Vice-President Banda who is already being viewed as a victim of Satanic attacks. His reaction to the insults being hailed at him is already proving that he is mature and a very democratic leader who does not even need to rig the election results because Zambians are now apprehensive of what sort of government they may have if some candidates won.

While the opposition conduct is campaigning for the Acting President, Zambians should also ask themselves if those demonizing him will accept the landslide victory which they are building for him ?.

ZDDM believes that a time has come for Zambians to put their personal and partisan interest aside to serve a bigger cause which is Zambia as a nation. A government with Mr. Rupiah Banda, Mr. Michael Sata, Mr. Hichilema Hakainde, Mr. Nevers Mumba, Brigadier Miyanda, Mr. Enock Kavindele, Mr. Mundia Sikatana, Princes Nakatindi and all the opposition parties for the remaining 30 months can be very powerful and capable of healing this nation that the year 2011 can give Zambia a Fresh beginning full of hope.

Instead of having a winner and losers ZDDM and indeed the whole nation stands to win if all the political parties for once in Zambian history can put aside their interest and agree to work as one to heal our country and stop the current unnecessary widespread abject poverty .

United we Stand as a Nation
Divided we shall continue to fight and witness
unnecessary premature deaths

Edwin Sakala
National Coordinator for Zambia Direct Democracy
Movement-ZDDM

And at the same time
Chairman of Movement for African Unity-MAU
AND
Southern African Regional Representative for the
General Forum for Arab-African NGOs

EU: Lisbon Treaty Would Bring Trans-border Direct Democracy

The Lisbon Treaty, if approved, contains a provision that would see the current spread of direct democracy in the E.U. achieve a new dimension. If enough signatures are gathered, a referendum can be held on new or existing E.U. laws. This would be the first example of referendum trancending national borders as the votte would be held in multiple countries simultaneously. -Editor

Public to have more say with 1 million EU signature plan

Institutions - 06-10-2008 - 14:17
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-38745-338-12-49-901-20081006STO38717-2008-03-12-2008/default_en.htm

"1 million voices, 1 Message, End poverty": German Chancellor Merkel in June '07

Citizens could have a direct impact on EU law if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force if they can gather at least 1 million signatures from across the EU. The treaty would allow citizens to ask for new EU laws or a review of existing ones. MEPs recently discussed how the signatures would be collected, verified and what would be the legal obligation to act.

Discussions by MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 18 September come ahead of a report on the subject by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann of the GUE/NGL group. She believes the legal position needs clarification.

Democratic "directness" appreciated

The introduction of such a system by the reform treaty would make it the first example of direct democracy between several different countries.

MEPs heard from many NGO representatives who said the move would make the EU's institutions more open to people. Several speakers thought that not just EU citizens but people who are resident in the Union should also be allowed to take part.

One million signatures represents 0.2% of the EU population. There was some discussion about whether it should be exactly 1 million (for example is 970,000 acceptable?) - and how many countries it should come from.

Don't set hurdle of participation too high

Professor Jürgen Meyer, a former member of the Bundestag said that the 1 million mark gave it weight but did not set the hurdle too high.

There was also some debate about how to collect signatures, how they should be verified and how long people should have to collect them. Whether electronic signatures were acceptable and should people give their address were also issues.

The chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, German Socialist Jo Leinen thought the signature idea would lead to more involvement by people in the running of the EU. He hoped the reform treaty would be adopted before the European parliamentary elections in June next year.

Ms Kaufmann said the initiative opens the door for direct democracy and is a new legal tool. She also said that it was important to draw on the legal traditions across different countries and cultures.

The report is expected by January.

UK: Community to Imitate Brazilian Participatory Budgeting

CHAIRMAN AIMING TO FINISH PROJECT

Friday, September 26, 2008, 18:33
Source: http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/CHAIRMAN-AIMING-FINISH-PROJECT/article-357191-detail/article.html

VOTERS have returned Devonport Regeneration Community Partnership chairman Marc Gardiner to the organisation's board – where he will be joined by a new face.

And newcomer Tony Burton has already set targets: jobs and trees.

"I'm very flattered the people of Devonport have voted me into a position of trust, and I hope not to fail them," he said.

"My main interest is jobs. Given the economic downturn I'd like to see a lot of effort put into providing employment."

And trees?

More trees," he said. "For the aesthetics of Devonport. Years ago there were areas of Victorian houses with trees. They look nice and provide more oxygen."

Mr Burton lived in Devonport 18 years ago, but left for Beacon Park after suffering daily abuse and intimidation.

But now he's back and said Devonport has 'completely changed'.

"It's a wonderful, caring community," he said. "And I plan to keep it that way."
Mr Burton, who works in plumbing and home improvements, was voted in alongside Mr Gardiner, a board member since 2002, and Roger Wills and Anne Freeman, both re-elected.

Garry Edwards and Agnes Reynolds failed to be elected.

The election was the last for resident board members before the New Deal for Communities organisation, set up with £48.73million of public cash to regenerate the area, is wound up in 2011 at the end of its 10-year lifespan.

If any board vacancies occur from now on they will be filled with appointees.

Mr Gardiner said the board had the important job of seeing the project through to 'a satisfactory conclusion' and establishing a successor organisation.

And he also wants to use the final years to 'empower' locals to use their 'voice' en masse.

He said this could be done via 'participatory budgeting' an idea imported from Brazil.

"It's an example of direct democracy," he said.

Participatory budgeting would mean setting aside a fraction of the NDC's cash, allowing people to bid for it and present ideas, and then letting the populace to decide which to run with.

"I'd like to see DRC Partnership pilot that for the city," he said.

Miss Freeman was delighted to have the opportunity to see the regeneration project through, and wants to concentrate on promoting education and training.

She stressed: "It's not just about bricks and mortar, you have to regenerate the people and provide opportunities for them."

And Mr Wills said: "Education was my banner the first time I stood, and I stick by that."

He has lived in Devonport since 1976 and remembers times when it was like 'Beirut' – but not now.

"The regeneration that's going on is wonderful," he said.

The election's 17.91 per cent turn-out was down on the 25.73 per cent of eligible Devonport residents who voted last year and the 25.84 in 2005.

But spokeswoman Lynda Harris said the DRC Partnership was 'delighted' with the figure.

"Some NDCs have stopped elections," she said. "The fact that people are still turning out and wanting to vote says a lot."

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