LA ESQUINA CALIENTE (THE HOT CORNER) - A STUDY OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION AROUND THE WORLD

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY vs REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

We as citizens of the United States observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. We may endeavor to follow the news accounts of our nation's politics as they unfold, and of the consequences those political actions yield, but we have little power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. Perhaps we write an occasional letter to our senator or representative, but we almost inevitably receive a vague and impersonal response explaining why they will vote in our opposition.

Over the decades, our representative democracy has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. The system that the founding fathers painstakingly devised in order to best serve the interests and the will of the people has been corrupted and the systems of checks and balances on power that they instituted have been stripped away. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change, without any hope of instituting a new system of governance that would instead take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and would empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the places in the world where people are successfully bringing about that type of change in the face of similar odds, where an alternate form of democracy, which is called participatory or direct democracy, is taking root. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

Our system of representative democracy does not admit the voice of the people into congressional halls, the high courts, or the oval office where our rights and our liberties are being sold out from underneath us. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

In places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa, India, and the Phillipines, new experiments in grass roots community based governance are taking place. There is much to be learned from these and other examples of participatory democracy from around the world when we try to examine how this grass-roots based governance could begin to take root here in our own country in order to alter our political system so that it might better serve the American people.

In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…

LATEST ENTRIES:
Showing posts with label EUROPE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EUROPE. Show all posts

Monday, December 15, 2008

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.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

ESPAÑA: Sobre la Democracia Directa


Democracia directa

21.11.2008 -


Fuente: http://www.lavozdigital.es/cadiz/prensa/20081121/opinion/democracia-directa-20081121.html

Una de las críticas que suele hacerse a la democracia directa es que da lugar a políticas conservadoras. En esta forma de pensar late una profunda desconfianza hacia la voluntad de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas.

Frente a esta idea hay que decir que no es la democracia directa la que da lugar a posiciones conservadoras, sino que es la sociedad la que es conservadora o progresista. Los votos dieron sendos mandatos presidenciales a Bush y Aznar, que nunca han destacado por desarrollar políticas progresistas, y nadie ha puesto en tela de juicio las elecciones.

Lo importante, en la democracia directa, es que los ciudadanos y las ciudadanas debaten y deciden en todos y cada uno de los asuntos que les interesan, no sólo cada cuatro años y no sólo cuando se les pregunta desde el poder.

Javier Madrazo. Cádiz

Sunday, November 30, 2008

ITALY: TFF promotes Direct Democracy

Visit the Telematics Freedom Foundation website here: http://www.telematicsfreedom.org/en - Editor


Italy: TFF promotes Direct Democracy

Sepp Hasslberger
11th November 2008
Source:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/italytff-promotes-direct-democracy/2008/11/11

The italian-based Telematics Freedom Foundation promotes a more direct and participatory idea of the democratic process.

Some of the immediate targets are

- user-controlled telematics services

- self-management of democratic organizations and

- national and constitutional legislative changes

to support the widespread introduction of software-based democratic interaction.

Direct Democracy or ‘Continuous Democracy’ is promoted through the development of tools (software, methodologies and infrastructure) that make it possible for citizens to continuously discuss and to directly express preferences on important political questions.

A first concrete step to promote this change “on the ground” is the Lista Partecipata per la Democrazia Diretta, an electoral list based in Rome.

Their software for consensus-building, which allows simple democratic discussions and provides easy decision-making procedures is called Rule2gether and it is available under a GPL public license.

A proposed hardware solution to the problem of allowing those who do not have routine internet access to participate is a TV set-top box running free open-source software that would make communications possible. It is called the Freedom Box or Z-Box.

Friday, November 14, 2008

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.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

SPAIN: Participatory Budgeting Advances

New methodology to improve participatory democracy

nächste Meldung 07.11.2008
Source:
http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/informationstechnologie/methodology_improve_participatory_democracy_121862.html

Researchers from the Decision Analysis and Statistics Group within the Department of Artificial Intelligence at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid’s School of Computing have developed a methodology for improving participatory democracy that could be ready for the Spain’s next local elections due to be held in 2011.

Over 240 Spanish municipalities had a go at participatory budgeting in 2004, and it is estimated that by 2010 citizens will be helping to decide how to allocate 10% of the municipal budget. Until now, though, these participatory budgeting experiences have been carried through without the software to gather citizens’ opinions in real time and then clearly display their preferences as charts on politicians’ computers.

Organizing opinion via the Internet

The School of Computing’s research group, composed of computer scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, has developed this methodology using new technologies, particularly the Internet, as support for organizing and optimizing citizen participation. The methodology is now two-thirds complete and could be applied on the scale of either a municipality or a whole country.

The aim of this methodology is to add citizens’ preferences to political decision-making processes. This it does by establishing a number of questions that citizens answer over the Internet. Duly converted to statistical values, these responses indicate citizens’ opinions on the decision to be taken by politicians in the shape of a chart. A code system prevents people not on the electoral roll from participating.

The methodology represents participants’ beliefs and preferences, evaluating the different budget alternatives based on Dempster and Shafer’s evidential reasoning and ranking the alternatives using a notion of distance from maximum and minimum utility.

Participatory Democracy

Participatory budgeting is shifting the idea of democracy from representation, where citizens’ preferences are taken into account at election time only, to direct participation and discussion. This is an attempt at giving citizens a say in the decision on how to spend part of their municipality’s budget.

The Decision Analysis and Statistics Research Group has collaborated and is now actively participating in several research projects focusing on the development of software tools targeting e-democracy and, especially, participatory budgeting.

They include TED: Towards Electronic Democracy, funded by the European Science Foundation (2003/06); eDemocracia: Apoyo a la Toma de Decisiones Complejas Basadas en Internet (e-Democracy: Internet-based Complex Decision-Making Support), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (2004/07); Conceptos y Sistemas de Apoyo a la Democracia Electrónica (Electronic Democracy Concepts and Support Systems), funded through Madrid Regional Government’s IV PRICIT (2006/09); and Toma de Decisiones en Grupo con Imprecisión (Imprecise Group Decision Making), funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (2008/2011).

Friday, October 31, 2008

ESPAÑA: EB Insta a Impulsar una Ley de Participación en Bilbao


EB insta a impulsar una Ley de Participación y propone una campaña para desmontar "tergiversaciones" sobre la consulta

Dice que la sociedad debe poder "decidir su futuro en sentido amplio" y pide al nacionalismo que asuma "este reto" para resultar "creíble"

BILBAO, 28 Sep. (EUROPA PRESS) -
Fuente:
http://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-eb-insta-impulsar-ley-participacion-propone-campana-desmontar-tergiversaciones-consulta-20080928114249.html

Ezker Batua-Berdeak instó hoy al resto de partidos a apostar, en sus programas electorales, por la aprobación de una Ley de Participación Ciudadana en la próxima legislatura. Asimismo, propuso la puesta en marcha de una campaña informativa que "contribuya a desmontar las tergiversaciones urdidas" por PSOE y PP en relación a la Ley de Consulta, y acusó a ambas formaciones de "presentar como verdades lo que son burdas mentiras".

En un acto con cargos públicos y militantes de la formación en Bilbao, su coordinador general, Javier Madrazo, hizo público un manifiesto, denominado 'Participar es tu derecho', dentro de la campaña a favor del impulso de la participación ciudadana que desarrollará durante las próximas semanas y que tiene como uno de sus ejes principales la promoción de una Ley de Participación Ciudadana.

En este documento, que consta de diez puntos, EB reitera su compromiso "inequívoco" con la participación ciudadana como "un ejercicio de profundización democrática". En este sentido, reivindica que, en una "democracia real", la ciudadanía debe ser "agente activo y protagonista" en los ámbitos políticos, económicos, sociales, culturales y de género.

En esta línea, insiste en que la convocatoria de "una consulta no vinculante para exigir a ETA el cese por y para siempre de la violencia, y reivindicar el inicio de un diálogo democrático sin exclusiones" constituye "un derecho legítimo" de la sociedad vasca.

En este sentido, afirma que, aunque acata la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional sobre la Ley vasca de Consulta que "impide en la práctica llevar a cabo esta iniciativa", no comparte sus argumentos, que "obedecen a razones exclusivamente políticas y no tienen un fundamento jurídico sólido".

A su entender, "estamos ante una campaña política, jurídica y mediática que manipula y distorsiona el significado real de la consulta no vinculante" aprobada por el Parlamento vasco. De este modo, subrayó que "una consulta no vinculante no es un referéndum" y que esta iniciativa no es "rupturista, ni soberanista y mucho menos independentista" ya que, de lo contrario, EB "nunca la hubiera apoyado".

La formación que dirige Javier Madrazo denuncia "la hipocresía y el cinismo del Gobierno Zapatero y el PSOE", teniendo en cuenta que "en Cataluña y en Andalucía reconocen la competencia de las instituciones de ambas comunidades para convocar consultas populares, mientras que en Euskadi niegan este mismo derecho, reconocido en el artículo 9.2 del Estatuto de Autonomía de Gernika".

Asimismo, considera que, en el actual contexto de "recrudecimiento de la actividad terrorista" se hace "aún más necesario dar la voz" a la ciudadanía vasca para pedir a ETA su disolución "por y para siempre, y sin condiciones".

"¿Cabe mayor deslegitimación de la violencia, de quienes la practican y de quienes callan ante ella que ser conscientes en primera persona del rechazo que generan en la sociedad? ¿Por qué el Gobierno Zapatero y el PSOE pueden negociar con ETA, con atentados y sin ellos, y la ciudadanía, en cambio, no puede mostrarles su condena en una consulta no vinculante?", cuestiona.

Ante esta situación, Ezker Batua-Berdeak reivindica el derecho de la sociedad vasca a "plantar cara" a ETA en "todos los ámbitos de la vida pública". Según añade, "ha llegado el momento de expresar nuestro hartazgo ante la violencia y nuestro compromiso inequívoco con los derechos humanos de un modo rotundo".

ETA tiene que ser "plenamente consciente de que no representa a nadie y su única salida es su propia desaparición", afirma EB, que se muestra convencida de que, "si se celebrase una consulta no vinculante en este sentido, incluso la llamada izquierda abertzale mayoritariamente diría no a la violencia y sí al diálogo".

MODELO PROPIO

El manifiesto recoge además la apuesta por un modelo de democracia participativa "propio y diferenciado" que tome en consideración "la voluntad de la ciudadanía no sólo en el ámbito de la pacificación y la normalización política, sino en el conjunto de la actividad pública". En este sentido, insta a PNV, PSOE, PP, Eusko Alkartasuna y Aralar a incorporar a sus programas electorales una declaración expresa a favor de la aprobación de una Ley de Participación Ciudadana en la próxima legislatura que "regule y establezca mecanismos de democracia directa".

Ezker Batua-Berdeak censura "las posiciones de quienes hacen bandera de la consulta no vinculante, pero después se oponen a iniciativas igualmente legítimas y democráticas como son conocer la opinión de la ciudadanía en relación con debates tan relevantes para nuestro futuro como el trazado del tren de alta velocidad, la instalación de incineradoras y centrales térmicas en nuestros pueblos y ciudades, o bien el desarrollo de nuevas infraestructuras".

En su opinión, la participación ciudadana "no se puede limitar" al rechazo a ETA y al compromiso con el diálogo democrático, sino que es preciso "confiar en la madurez" de la sociedad vasca para decidir su futuro "en un sentido amplio". "Y el nacionalismo ha de asumir este reto con convicción para que su apuesta por la participación ciudadana resulte creíble", reivindica.

Por otro lado, emplaza al PSOE a que "marque distancias" con el Partido Popular y "recupere, de una vez por todas, sus señas de identidad" porque "la izquierda no puede renunciar a la participación ciudadana como expresión de democracia real". En un contexto en el que "todos los países de nuestro entorno avanzan en políticas de participación ciudadana", EB estima que "no es comprensible ni razonable la negativa del PSOE y su alianza con el Partido Popular en contra de la democracia real", que en Euskadi es "una demanda social mayoritaria".

ADHESIÓN

Finalmente, Ezker Batua-Berdeak realiza un llamamiento a toda la ciudadanía vasca para que muestre su adhesión a todas las iniciativas políticas y sociales que se lleven a cabo en defensa de la participación ciudadana y aboga por la puesta en marcha de una campaña informativa que "contribuya a desmontar todas las tergiversaciones urdidas por el PSOE y el PP, que juegan a la confusión y a la manipulación, presentando como verdades lo que son burdas mentiras".

La formación de izquierdas apela al desarrollo de "un trabajo serio y profundo de pedagogía social para que la ciudadanía sepa que una consulta no vinculante no es un referéndum y que el Proyecto de Ley aprobado en la Parlamento vasco es legítimo, democrático y legal".

"Presentar esta iniciativa como un acto rupturista, soberanista o independentista no sólo es falso; constituye, además, un fraude y un engaño a la sociedad, con el único objetivo de negar e impedir en Euskadi que la ciudadanía puede decir a ETA que se disuelva por y para siempre, y al conjunto de partido políticos que la solución a nuestros problemas pasa necesariamente por el cese definitivo de la violencia y el diálogo democrático", concluye.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

EU: Initiative Citoyenne Européenne - Toujours plus de Démocratie Directe !

Initiative Citoyenne Européenne - toujours plus de démocratie directe !

Institutions - 06-10-2008 - 16:05
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-38745-338-12-49-901-20081006STO38717-2008-03-12-2008/default_fr.htm

"1 million de voix. 1 message : mettre fin à la pauvreté".
La démocratie participative moderne pourrait-elle établir un rapprochement entre l'Europe et ses citoyens? C'est en tout cas ce à quoi aspire le nouveau traité de l'Union européenne qui, bien que toujours en attente après le « non » irlandais du mois de juin, inclut, pour la première fois à un niveau supranational, un droit à l'initiative pour les citoyens européens.

De quoi s'agit-il exactement?

L'Initiative Citoyenne Européenne (ICE), qui a été introduite par le Traité de Lisbonne, correspond à la première mise au point d'un instrument transnational de démocratie directe. Grâce à cet instrument, les citoyens pourront avoir l'opportunité de demander à la Commission européenne de proposer de nouvelles lois européennes après avoir récolté un million de signatures à travers un certain nombre d'Etats-membres.

Le but d'un tel accroissement de la participation des citoyens est de rendre l'Union européenne plus réactive, plus représentative et plus légitime. Il s'agit en réalité d'une forme de démocratie directe qui atteint pour la première fois un niveau supranational.

L'Initiative Citoyenne Européenne sera-t-elle mise en pratique ?

Le 18 septembre 2008, la commission parlementaire des affaires constitutionnelles (AFCO) s'est penchée sur la mise au point de lignes directrices pour l'exécution de l'ICE ainsi que sur la préparation du rapport de Mme Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (allemande, membre du groupe GUE/NGL) sur le sujet, en vue d'une proposition de régulation pour sa mise en vigueur.

Ouvrant le débat, le président de l'AFCO, M. Jo Leinen (allemand, membre du PSE) a rappelé que le but de cette initiative était de transformer l'Europe des Etats en l'Europe des citoyens. C'est de cette manière que sera donnée la possibilité aux citoyens de s'impliquer davantage dans l'Europe. Par ailleurs, M. Leinen a précisé qu'il espérait que le Traité de Lisbonne soit adopté avant les élections européennes de 2009.

Le Professeur Jürgen Meyer, ancien membre du Bundenstag (Parlement allemand) et de la Convention européenne (qui a travaillé sur le projet de constitution européenne) et appartenant au groupe de personnes à l'origine de cette initiative, a expliqué pourquoi le million de signatures à atteindre n'est pas un chiffre anodin car il donnera à l'initiative un certain poids. En ce qui concerne le nombre d'Etats-membres dont devraient provenir les signatures, il estime qu'il en faut au moins quatre mais pas plus de six et que la manière de les collecter devra être la moins bureaucratique possible et s'inscrire dans un laps de temps de un à deux ans.

Le rapporteur Mme Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann précisa que, contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait penser, il ne s'agit pas d'une pétition à grande échelle mais bien d'un nouvel instrument permettant de faciliter la démocratie participative supranationale. Par ailleurs, il s'agira d'une porte ouverte à la démocratie directe qui encouragera les citoyens à participer activement à l'Europe. Il est toutefois primordial que l'ICE s'inscrive dans les traditions juridiques (et culturelles) des différents Etats pour être légitime.

A noter enfin que les membres d'ONG ont également souligné l'importance d'un cadre juridique approprié pour l'ICE, incluant notamment la possibilité de faire appel en cas d'irrecevabilité. Ils ont également insisté sur le fait que tous les habitants de l’Union européenne, et pas seulement les citoyens, devraient avoir y avoir accès.

Le rapport devrait être voté en commission parlementaire en janvier 2009.

Monday, October 13, 2008

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.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

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."

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

SWITZERLAND: Direct Democracy Fuels Controversy

The right wing SVP in Switzerland has again launched yet another effort to use Swiss direct democracy to forward their radical views on cultural and immigration issues. All of their recent efforts have been defeated at the polls, showing that direct democracy serves well to strike a balance between factional radicalism and the general will of the majority. (click here to see our previous Switzerland posts for information on recent similar referenda). - Editor

Direct Democracy Against Dada

In Switzerland, a right-wing party is using local referenda to try to de-fund the avant-garde.

Source: http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/28297/direct-democracy-against-dada/

ZURICH—More than half the word’s referenda are said to take place in Switzerland, where voters are invited to weigh in on national, cantonal, and local matters up to four times annually. In large part this is because Swiss citizens can easily petition for a referendum; all they have to do is collect 100,000 signatures in 18 months and the item will be added to the national voting agenda. Generally the issues that get people most riled up are civic matters relating to the military, urban planning, health, and immigration, but several recent referenda have touched on the cultural landscape, and on the ballots this September are two votes that threaten arts venues, both initiated by the right-wing party Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP).

While the SVP views culture, and in particular traditional culture, as an important factor in the well-being of the country, the party campaigns against excessive arts funding and has taken a cynical position regarding contemporary art. Its first target this fall is Zurich’s publicly funded Cabaret Voltaire, the birthplace of Dada in 1916. Founded by artists and intellectuals Hugo Ball, Emmy Hennings, Hans Arp, Tristan Tzara, and Marcel Janco during World War I as a place where any form or tradition of artistic enterprise was welcome, the cabaret reopened in 2004, with significant funding from the Swatch group and the city, as a center for artistic experimentation. Having proved neither commercially viable nor entirely avant-garde, today it occupies a place outside the mainstream art world. The catalyst for the referendum was a controversial casting by sex therapist Maggie Tapert for sex “slaves” to meet the needs of her female clients; the event was moved to another venue and turned out to be a tame affair, but not before the vote was set in motion to determine whether the city should continue the center’s “wasteful” funding. Tapert has decried the vote, saying, “Those who are financing the Dada house want it to be a museum where nothing actually happens. The very things that honor the Dada tradition are frightening to those in power.” The SVP said in a statement, “The people of Zurich are already jaded about the waste of money [on cultural subsidies].”

The second referendum is to take place in the town of Uster, about 10 miles east of Zurich, where the Villa am Aabach faces a similar challenge. Initiated by the SVP along with the Schweizer Demokraten (SD), a conservative party with isolationist tendencies, this vote attempts to revoke funding for the local contemporary art space, allegedly for cost-saving reasons — and despite the fact that the SVP was represented on the jury that recently selected the center’s new artistic directors, Monika Bühler and Michael Gutscher. Bühler and Gutscher’s program was to start in September, but in light of the vote the Villa will remain empty until a decision is made, after which it might reopen in 2009. Since its inception as an art space in 2002, the Villa has hosted the local creative community but also emerging international artists including Ferit Kuyas, Johanna Näf, Rory Macbeth, Paul Harper, and Bettina Carl, and its incumbent directors have proposed a program that would create further links with the local community while maintaining the space’s international perspective. The September 28 referendum will either guarantee funding for three

Friday, September 12, 2008

UK: More Possibilities for Referendum

The following outlines a proposal by the Liberal Democrats in the U.K. that would expand direct democracy in that country somewhat by allowing people more say in some legislation. - Editor


Let the people have a say over bills in the Commons


If 1 million voters rejected an act within 60 days of its being passed, a referendum would be held, under a Lib Dem proposal

Bridget Fox Thursday August 28 2008 11:27 BST
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/aug/28/liberaldemocrats.houseofcommons

August bank holiday week, and it must be the quietest of the year for British politics. And one of the most exciting in the US. Whether you support Barack Obama or not, whether he wins in November or not, this week we are witnessing history in the making, a revived American dream.

Obama and Joe Biden may embody the dream, but they're well aware, as Bill Clinton told the convention, that, for many Americans, their dream is "under siege", with rising inequality and poverty in the land of the free market.

We like to think we do better here. But after 10 years of Labour we still have a postcode lottery affecting people's lives from the start: health, childcare, exam results.

Across Islington, there are improved exam results this year. Good news, especially given that the best-connected parents still tend to send their kids out of the borough (our local Labour MP included). Meanwhile Lord Adonis (Islington resident and unrepentant Blairite), is calling for a massive expansion of the academies programme.

Under Tony Blair it was made very clear to councils that academies were an offer they couldn't refuse. Now it looks as if that will continue under Gordon Brown. But Islington's best-performing schools aren't academies. So do academies really make a difference? Especially since the Building Schools for the Future programme means secondaries don't have to become academies to get better buildings.

If the government really believes its own rhetoric on localism, and believes that local communities should have choices around schools, that must include the choice to reject the academy model.

Next month I'm off to Bournemouth for Lib Dem party conference, where one of the issues for debate is improving direct democracy in the UK. Two of the most interesting proposals are for "people's bills" and a "people's veto".

With people's bills, the six bills that got the most petition signatures each year would be guaranteed a second reading debate in the House of Commons. It wouldn't mean the law would get passed - that responsibility would still sit with MPs - but it would mean that citizens could set the agenda.

With a people's veto, if 1 million registered voters petitioned against an act within 60 days of its being passed, a referendum would be held on whether to repeal it. That could give us a real national debate on nuclear power, ID cards, or a third runway at Heathrow.

The impact of having people - and politicians - aware that voters can really influence the agenda between elections could be revolutionary. A similar process already works in the US state of Maine. Their state motto is Dirigo (I lead). Where they lead, perhaps we should follow.

Party conferences are memorable for all sorts of reasons. I'll always associate the Harrogate conference of September 1992 with Black Wednesday. The day interest rates went through the roof, I was worried about losing mine. A group of us abandoned plans for a restaurant meal and contemplated life in negative equity over jacket potatoes instead. There was a chill in the air that had nothing to do with the north Yorkshire weather.

Now with falling house prices, but rising housing costs, it's happening again. Last year repossessions hit a 15-year high. More families are facing the horror of losing their homes – and joining the long queue for affordable rented housing.

So it's good to see that at this year's Lib Dem conference, Vince Cable will be setting out our plans for people who are getting left behind.

It's not about subsidising mortgages, but practical measures to help people stay in their homes with help from housing associations, and to help councils get more social housing too.

Once again Vince is providing excellent free advice to the government: but is Labour listening? Unlikely given the complacency of Ministers reported by the FT.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

EU: France and Other States Experiment with Direct Democracy

France and Other States Experiment with Direct Democracy

Source:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,568717,00.html

Paris recently moved to give its citizens the right to decide on major European Union issues like expansion. The move is just the latest in European experimentation with direct democracy.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy narrowly pushed through a reform to France's constitution last week that creates the prospect of more referendums in the future on the key European Union issue of expansion. The fact that the French now have the right to directly vote on one of the EU's most important issues could mean that the union's core project, expansion, will become unpredictable. Under the newly reformed constitution, narrowly approved on July 21, French voters will be allowed to have their say on issues such as future Turkish EU membership.

There are conditions on the new reform, though: Parliament, for example, can put the brakes on any EU referendum. In order to do so, members of parliament in both the lower and upper chambers -- the French National Assembly and the Senate -- must vote with a three-fifths majority either for or against a country's accession. Sarkozy sought to secure the power to decide whether voters should be able to hold a referendum or not for himself; but parliament refused to back down.

Following Ireland's referendum in June -- which saw voters there reject the Lisbon Treaty, the legaleze-filled document that replaced the draft EU constitution (which had in turn been rejected by French and Dutch voters) -- Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer also demanded that future EU treaty changes be decided by referendum. "We think any future changes to the treaty that affect Austrian interests must be decided in Austria by referendum," he said. His remarks, though, did little to save his wobbling government, which collapsed soon thereafter.

In Germany, the federal constitution, or Basic Law, doesn't envision referenda at the national level, but opportunities are increasing for direct democracy at the local level (more...). In Berlin, for example, voters recently rejected a referendum that called for Tempelhof Airport (more...), the historic site of the Berlin Airlift, to be kept open despite the city government's plan to close it.

SPIEGEL has compiled a map on the varying degrees of direct democracy in EU member states. You can click on the graphic above for more details.

dsl/spiegel

Friday, August 15, 2008

UNITED KINGDOM: Upcoming Conference on Participatory Budgeting

Our allies working toward participatory budgeting have notified us of an upcoming conference in Manchester. On September 15, 2008 activists will unite for a one day conference to discuss current projects on participatory budgeting and how to spread the trend. Please see their website for more information: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/events/national-participatory-budgeting-conference

While the group documents many case studies, here is one example.
Source:
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/case-studies/keighley-decision-day-bradford

National participatory budgeting conference

Source: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/events/national-participatory-budgeting-conference

We are hosting a one day national conference at the prestigious Midland Hotel in Manchester to showcase PB and look at how we can take PB to the next level.

This one-day conference is designed to explore the way in which PB can be developed as a powerful tool to engage citizens in decision making in a range of budgetary contexts across different areas of public spending.

It will:

- Set out the policy context in which PB is developing, particularly the 'duty to involve'

- Showcase the range of PB pilots that have already been developed across the country
- Explore the possibilities for using PB on devolved mainstream budgets and annual budget consultations
- Look at the first examples of using PB in the contexts of health and policings
- Think through how PB might be auseful tool in making decisions in Local Strategic Partnerships and around pooled budgets in development of Local Area Agreements

Highlight the opportunities and challenges involved in using PB across different tiers of local government

The conference will also demonstrate the range of resources which are available to help public agencies deliver high quality PB projects. These include:

The PB toolkit
- Values, principles and standards for PB
- ICT opportunities for creating dynamic public events around PB
- The developing regional PB learning partnerships for public agencies
- The support of the PB Unit and it's partners


Costs:

Private & public sectors: £200

Charities, voluntary and community sectors: £100

Early bird discount of £50 if booked before 31st July

Bursaries may be available

For more information and to book, please download our leaflet here

Click here to download our booking form

For more information and to book please contact Jenny Lazarus on 0161 236 9321 or email
mail@participatorybudgeting.org.uk

LINK:
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/

__________________________________________________________________________

Here is a summary of another recent event by Participatory budgeting U.K.:

Keighley Decision Day, Bradford

Bradford Local Strategic Partnership (Bradford Vision), decided to distribute the 2006/07 round of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF) in Keighley using a process of Participatory Budgeting.

Overview:

On “Decision Day” community organisations allocated a total of £130,000 to local projects using the participatory budgeting. The Keighley process was led by Bradford Vision’s neighbourhood manager for the area with the support of the senior team.

In March 2006 it was agreed that the Neighbourhood Partnership for Keighley could use PB for the 2006/07 round of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. Bradford Vision secured a total of £130,000 to be spent on Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities and the Environment to be spent only in areas of relative deprivation and therefore eligible for NRF funds. A reference group was formed comprising Bradford Vision staff, Keighley Voluntary Services, the council’s area coordinator and a representative from the UK PB unit. Priorities were established through community events and door to door interviews. Voluntary organisations and local groups were then invited to submit bits which were then scrutinised by a panel made up of local councillors, members of the PB reference group, and staff from local statutory organisations.

All residents involved in the bidding process were then invited to a Decision Day where all the projects were presented and voted on.

Organisation:

Bradford Vision, Local Strategic Partnership


Aims:
To involve local residents in the allocation of neighbourhood renewal funds (NRF) and the Local Area Agreement (LAA)funds.
To stimulate wider resident engagement with local participatory structures.
To develop greater resident understanding of budgeting processes
To increase cross-community working.
To encourage service provider receptiveness to resident knowledge.

Where:
In 7 processes in 7 neighbourhoods in Keighley, Bradford District Council.

Keighley is a town within Bradford District Council and consists of x number of wards. Bradford is a very urban area with an ethnically diverse population and a known history of unrest between different ethnic groupings.

How:
£130,000 was available for local projects from the Neighbourhood Renewal Funds.

Before the event a reference group was formed from staff at Bradford Vision, Keighley Voluntary Services, Bradford Council and the wider voluntary sector. Spending themes were prioritised by residents – approximately 400 responses were generated from door to door interviews and at community events.

Local groups were invited to send in proposals - to bid for the money. Bids were then reviewed by the scrutiny panel of local service providers and councillors. Invitations to the Decision Day were sent to all residents in the eligible areas.

At the event voting took place in 2 parts, 2 sessions in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. Participants were allowed 3 minutes to make their presentation and voting was carried out on paper sheets after every 5 presentations.

After the event funds were distributed to the successful projects by Bradford Vision. Support and monitoring was provided by Keighley Voluntary Services.

Who:
Staff from Bradford Vision, Keighley Voluntary Sector, Bradford Council and the wider voluntary sector.

What:
The process contributed to community cohesion as there was a coming together of different communities and a greater understanding of each others different needs.
Local people directed the allocation of NRF money for their area.
A new community role for elected members was highlighted as local councillors were involved in the scrutiny panel, in presenting the Decision Day and in the evaluation process.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

LATVIA: Historic Referendum Fails on First Attempt

Latvia joined the list of the many European countries that are expanding direct democracy in the form of more referendums. Although this historic referendum failed for reasons discussed in the following article, had it been passed it would have bestowed the people with further direct democratic powers by allowing them to initiate the dissolution of parliament. - Editor




Tuesday,
August 5th, 2008 @ 06:08 UTC
by
Elia Varela Serra

As blogger Julian Frisch said, “there are still referenda in the European Union that are not EU-related”. On the 2nd of August a referendum took place in Latvia, on amendments to the Satversme -Latvia's Constitution- that would make it possible for the people to initiate the dissolution of the Saeisma -Latvia's Parliament. This referendum is the result of a long process that was put into motion a few months ago for the first time in Latvian history. Asier Blas, a Spaniard living in Riga, explains it in his blog Cartas del Este [Spanish]:

El primero es reunir unas 10.000 firmas. Posteriormente, estas son comprobadas por Comité Central Electoral, y si estas son verificadas de forma satisfactoria, el Gobierno letón pasa a hacerse cargo de la recogida de firmas habilitando lugares de recogida de firmas en todos los pueblos y ciudades del país para que la gente pueda firmar a favor de la propuesta del referéndum. Si en un mes, el 10% del censo electoral firma, el referéndum se celebra. Al respecto, no está de más recordar que en Letonia hay aproximadamente 500.000 personas de origen ruso o descendientes de rusos que no tienen ciudadanía letona y por lo tanto, no tienen derecho a voto en ningún tipo de elección.

The first [step] is to gather 10,000 signatures. Afterwards, they are checked by the Central Electoral Commission, and if they are verified positively, the Latvian Government is then in charge of it providing facilities for the signature gathering in every town and village in the country, so that people can sign in favor of the proposal for a referendum. If in a month the 10% of the registered voters sign, the referendum takes place. In this regard, we should keep in mind that in Latvia there are approximately 500,000 people of Russian origin or descendants of Russians that don't have Latvian citizenship and therefore don't have the right to vote in any kind of election.

Those 10,000 signatures were collected during the fall and winter of 2007, during the demonstrations against corruption. The blog All About Latvia described one of those protests in a post from October last year titled “We've forgotten we're a democracy”:

Foreigners here observed that to make Latvians come out in such large numbers, you have to really piss them off.

And people are pissed.

When the government played political intrigues in the run-up to presidential elections and people protested outside the parliament and their calls fell on deaf ears, the people patiently took that in.

When the government have ignored signs of overheating economy from the Latvian Central Bank, international credit agencies and local macroeconomic experts, the people patiently took that in.

When the government decided to deal with the Loskutovs factor, attempting to circumvent the law regulating the anti-corruption agency that have been successfully fighting corruption, they’re pissed and they want blood.

Pēteris Cedriņš of the blog Marginalia was one of the 213 000 persons that signed in favor of amendments to the Constitution last April during the one-month signature gathering by the Electoral Commission. He justified it with the following words:

I signed… because I trust our people — our nation — a lot more than I trust our so-called elite. When the Government threatens us with “chaos” — the only response can be that the Government has long been dragging us into a half-light oozing lies and sinister lucre. As Laila Pakalniņa suggested, we — the people — could at least have an instrument with which to respond in extremity.

However, he expressed his concerns about such amendments to the Constitution:

… the proposed changes are risky. As experts in the law and politics have pointed out, rallying the people to “throw the bums out” will probably always be pretty easy. The next time we choose from our 60-odd parties in a flurry of kompromat, slick advertising and shady financing, assuming that the people are given this power, it's possible that someone can fund a “throw the bums out” campaign the next day. In this country, smaller than many a city, “political technologies” can be employed like shots in the dark, from guns without serial numbers.

A few days ago Veiko Spolitis of the Baltic blog wrote a post about the pros and cons on the referendum, from a newspaper article that asked several politicians to give their views on the matter. He concluded by saying:

…so called political elite in this country with rather few exceptions really think that their voters are stupid, and thus the politicians are locked into their imaginary power bubble.

However, in spite of the general excitement about the referendum and the hopes that many Latvians had put into the positive change in the political scene of their country that it was supposed to bring, it ended up being declared invalid because of an insufficient turnout. For a referendum to have validity in Latvia, no less than 756,000 registered voters must take part in it, while only 627,530 voters came to the polls on Saturday. Vitaliy Voznyak of the blog The 8th Circle commented on the disappointing results:

The low turnout, around 40%, doomed the grassroots effort.

Nevertheless in a country with 1.5 million eligible voters when 607,901 of its citizens so directly register their discontent with political behavior of their politicians, those in Saeima better straighten out.

Even if they did not succeed, Latvians have laid out an example for others in the Baltic region and beyond on participatory democracy, an example that hopefully will be followed elsewhere.

Pēteris Cedriņš of Marginalia attributed the low turnout to the sunny weather:

Summer in Latvia is short and sweet, not conducive to traipsing to polling stations — many people head for the countryside on the limited number of balmy weekends. Still, with 995 of 998 precincts reporting, 608 202 persons voted in favor of the amendments, 18 831 against.

That means, however, that the “servants of the people,” as our Members of Parliament so love to describe themselves, can relax and return to misrule unhindered

A few weeks ago All about Latvia had already predicted the turnout dilemma:

…the August 2 referendum, when Latvians decide for what they care more – their country or their summer holidays. For holiday-loving Latvians, it’ll be a tough choice to make.

For Baltic Features, the sun helped avoid the worst case scenario for the government:

Thank god it was a sunny day on Saturday, which persuaded enough people to have a day at the beach instead of a day kicking the administration out.

Why? Because whoever is at the helm for the next few months is going to preside over the most painful period in Latvian history since independence was won back in 1991. Unemployment will soar, homes will be repossessed, prices will continue to rise and it’s now too late to do anything about it thanks to the government’s dithering.

It’s not pleasant to want the worst case scenario to unfold - real people will experience real pain - but unless it happens there’s a nasty chance the usual suspects may have been able to rehabilitate themselves by the time the next general elections come around.

Photo of the Latvian Parliament by khoogheem

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Switzerland: Direct Democracy and the Environment

As this article illustrates, environmental groups have been able to implement conservation measures using Swiss direct democracy. Initiative and referendum allow the populus to protect their environment and ecology when higher powers in government and industry may have no incentive or desire to do so. - Editor


Switzerland ranks No. 1 in the green index, scoring near-perfect marks.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143682

For a glimpse of primeval Europe, head for the high mountains of eastern Switzerland. In the wild scenery of the Swiss National Park, the authorities have sought to re-create the conditions that prevailed 5,000 years ago. No trees are felled, no meadows mown and no animals hunted. The ibex and the bearded vulture, once driven to near extinction, now flourish again after their reintroduction in the last century. Wolves have returned to the region, and so has the occasional bear.

A rare gesture to nature conservation from a nation famously devoted to commerce? Not so. When it comes to environmental protection, the Swiss can point to tradition. As far back as 1914, the nation created the oldest national park in the Alps or anywhere in Central Europe. And the tradition persists with a heap of legislation that establishes more than 20 new national parks. Small wonder that the country took first place in Yale and Columbia's Environmental Performance Index with a set of near-perfect marks.

It's an achievement that few would challenge. More than half the forests that cover 30 percent of the country have gotten Forest Stewardship Council certification, the international hallmark of good practice. In the EPI, Switzerland scored 65 in the effectiveness of its conservation measures, compared with an average of 25 for its neighbors and 51 for others of similar wealth. This is all the more impressive considering its population density—176 people per square kilometer, more than twice the figure for Greece, largely concentrated in the valleys and lowlands. The country has managed to juggle the needs of people with the needs of its wildlife, earning it more than double the average European score for biodiversity. "You can swim in any of our lakes, and turn on any tap and drink the water with pleasure," says Hans-Peter Fricker, head of the Swiss office of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Why such dedication? One explanation begins with history and the importance of the Alpine landscape in the national psyche. The four original cantons that came together to form the nucleus of the Swiss nation in the 13th century encompass spectacular mountain landscapes. "The Alps are part of the whole Swiss mythology," says Reto Soler, Swiss representative of the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps. "It is where Switzerland was born."

Environmentalists have taken advantage of Swiss direct democracy, which allows citizens to demand a referendum on the issues of their choosing. The current construction of the world's longest and deepest rail tunnel beneath the St. Gotthard massif in the Alps—to divert heavy freight traffic off the roads—follows a national vote. So, too, did moves to ban heavy foreign trucks.

More than 40 years ago Parliament passed laws to protect wetlands, meadows and Alpine streams and glaciers. Care for the environment is now written into the Constitution. An article added in 1996 explicitly obliges the government to promote sustainable farming and the upkeep of the rural landscape. New parks, seen as a boost for tourism and conservation, will be scattered across the country.

On the environment, this nation isn't standing still.

© 2008

Monday, July 14, 2008

Malta: Time for More Direct Democracy

The following article from Malta makes great arguments in favor of direct democracy and maintains an optimistic perspective regarding the possibility of instating it. However, it fails to accurately assess the conditions under which most of the worlds inhabitants currently live. There is still a huge income gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, complacent and desperate. While it is easy to say that all people are created equal, reality does not support that idea. Of course we need direct democracy to help us reconcile the dichotomy between scarcity and excess that divides the world, but the first step is acknowledging that these major differences between people do exist. Both theorists and activists must be capable of frequently removing themselves from the ideological world to take on the realities of the street, realizing practical solutions while inching towards idealistic goals. -Editor


Democratic blight

Source: http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=68262

by J. G. Vassallo

For the third time, the Maltese electorate faces a situation where its affairs are to be handled by a government propelled by a one-seat parliamentary majority. This time round, the ruling government has been propelled into office by less than half of the voting electorate. And, for yet another time, the politicians in office are raising the issue of constitutional amendments to save them from future embarrassment.

In Malta, parliamentarians put their heads together and take a vote in the House to change the Constitution.

On paper, Maltese electors are “masters in their own house”. In fact, they have no means of exercising what ought to be their prerogative: namely the endorsement or rejection of changes to their own Constitution.

Merits of direct democracy

This highlights the difference between today’s politics, which are becoming outdated, and the politics of this new century, which favours a shift from “representative democracy” to “direct democracy”

Modern democracy is giving more and more weight to the proposition that every adult person’s judgement about the conduct of public affairs is entitled to be given equal weight with that of every other person. All men and women have – or ought to have – an equal right to say how they wish to be governed. This is what the ancient Athenians meant by democracy.

Unfortunately, in most countries democratic development has been arrested, with every adult person exercising his or her political right every few years. Voters send their representatives to an elected assembly but, in the intervals between elections, which, in our case means anything between five years or so, it is these representatives who take all the decisions.

Convincing arguments

There are a few strong, convincing arguments why this must change. Among them is the growing inadequacy of representative democracy. There is a growing realisation that holding an election every few years is not only an imprecise way of expressing the wishes of voters (electors have to approve a package of proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis) but, to cap it all, voters have little control over their representatives in between elections.

The political agenda in democratic countries has been diluted with the triumph of pluralism over totalitarianism. The political scene is no longer dominated by a do or die confrontation between incompatible political and economic systems. The difference between the ‘Right’ and the ‘Left’, whether in the US, Italy, the UK or Malta, is about economic management, public spending, the environment and things like pensions and the health services. The contest between grand ideas and social classes is over, and the new politics are, relatively, about details, however discerning.

Another reason militating for change is the fact that there is no longer so much difference, in wealth or education, between voters and their elected representatives as in the past, when illiteracy was widespread.

There has been a relatively even distribution of prosperity with the middle class now forming the critical core of the electorate

The new democracy

Latter-day democracies will increasingly apply to themselves the argument they directed against totalitarian regimes. As people become better educated and better off, they will not be willing to let a handful of people from a party politburo take control of their destiny. It will be difficult to go on persuading people that they are fit only to put a tick on the voting paper every few years, and that the handful of MPs they elect are to take all the decisions.

More importantly, the reduced ideological confrontation will weaken the chief source of opposition to the emergence of the new democracy. This opposition comes from the political party machines that grew up under the system of representative democracy. These machines will be reduced down to size when direct democracy will gain its rightful foothold.

It has been rightly said that political parties are indispensable for the holding of elections when public opinion has to be mobilised. They are the building blocks of the parliaments chosen by the electorate. The introduction of direct democracy would, in a sense, diminish the importance both of elections and of parliaments, since the people through referenda would take most of the significant decisions. Parliaments and parties would not cease to exist. But the “representatives of the people” would perform the function proper to a legislature in partnership with the referendum.

Post-Cold War climate

In the post-cold-war politics, there is no cause for crusades in the name of ideologies. Class divisions have lost their meaning and most matter-of-fact issues are incapable of stirring excitement. This will make it excessively harder for political parties to resist innovation towards direct democracy.

This does not means that politics are about to become homogeneous. There will still be differences about how the economy could be best made to work, how to give expression to social solidarity at home and human solidarity overseas. In the less developed democracies, religious and ethnic issues will remain in the forefront. Once these issues cease to be dominant factors, it should be possible to organise politics in a less party-controlled, less vote-once-every-X-years way, and in a more directly democratic way.

Direct democracy has strong roots in Switzerland, and Australia. Some of the states in the US also resort to a vote by referendum every so often.

In Europe, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and France have all consulted their electorate.

The shift from representative to direct democracy calls for a knowledgeable electorate, well served by the communications media, and for a modicum of responsibility that goes with electoral maturity. The Swiss example proves that this change presents no insuperable difficulties.

Decisive argument

Decision by universal vote is not a flawless process. The electorate may find some burning questions too complicated – but there is no saying that politicians in Parliament are wiser than the mass. Lobbyists and the artillery of the media would subject the electorate to many a barrage. Individual electors are less vulnerable to this sort of pressure than politicians, because lobbyists cannot subvert the whole voting population

The decisive argument in favour of direct democracy is that a vote by referendum tells unambiguously what the people want on a particular issue, whereas one could not be sure, on a given issue, whether a parliamentary majority really reflects the wishes of the electoral majority. Moreover, it has been well said that direct democracy sharpens the ordinary elector’s sense of responsibility. It has also been well said that that the voter is the foundation stone of democracy – representative or direct. Anything that raises the elector’s level of political efficiency deserves the support of every democrat.

Direct democracy is the purest form of self-government, even though it may still rank as “the least bad form of government yet invented by man”.

Aristotle one said, “Democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers.” All the foregoing is encapsulated in this last sentence.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Swiss Far-Right Forces Vote on Minaret Ban

Shortly after they were soundly defeated by the Swiss electorate who rejected their last referendum aimed against the country's immigrant population, the far-right Swiss People's Party is at it again, using Switzerland's direct democracy in an attempt to push their discriminatory agenda against immigrant residents. This editor has little doubt that this referendum will be squashed by the Swiss people as well, again proving that Swiss direct democracy is functioning as it should, providing checks and balances based on the will of the majority, not the whims of politicians with their own radical agendas. - Editor


Swiss far right forces vote on minaret ban

Matthew Weaver and agencies guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday July 8, 2008 Article history


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/08/islam.race

Far right groups in Switzerland have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide referendum on banning minarets, the distinctive towers of Islamic architecture.

In what is being seen as a sign of growing Islamophobia in Europe, more than 100,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition to halt the construction of minarets.

Under Switzerland's direct democracy rules, that level of support is enough to trigger a referendum. The Swiss interior ministry today confirmed a vote would take place, without setting a date.

The petition was launched by Ulrich Schlüer an MP from the controversial Swiss People's party, which was accused of racist campaigning last year.

In a bid to get immigrants' families deported if their children had been convicted of violent crime, the party ran an advertising campaign showing three white sheep on a Swiss flag kicking out a black sheep with the caption: "For more security."

The president of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin, said the government would recommend that voters rejected the proposed minaret ban.

The organisers of the petition argue that the minarets, which are used on mosques, are a symbol of political and religious claims to power, not just a religious sign.

Schlüer said last year: "We've got nothing against prayer rooms or mosques for the Muslims. But a minaret is different. It's got nothing to do with religion; it's a symbol of political power."

If Schlüer's camp wins the referendum, the Swiss parliament must pass a law enshrining a minaret construction ban in the constitution.

Opponents say such a ban would violate religious freedom.

More than 310,000 of Switzerland's 7.5 million population are Muslims, according to the federal statistical office.

The UN expert on racism, Doudou Diene, has said the campaign is evidence of an "ever-increasing trend" toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe.

Monday, July 7, 2008

Direct Democracy in Germany: When Voters Have Their Say

This is a classic debate regarding direct democracy. Who will show up to vote? Will referenda remedy the indifference of the youth and the apathy of the general populace? Germany brings an interesting example to the table with a state reluctant to relinquish power, and a population on the edge of demanding it. -Editor




Direct democracy in Germany
When voters want a say

May 1st 2008 BERLIN
From The Economist print edition

Source: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11293654

If you thought Germany did not do referendums, think again

CAMPAIGNERS for Tempelhof airport lacked neither enthusiasm nor cash. Sky-blue posters urged Berliners to vote yes in a referendum to keep open the airport, a symbol of the Berlin airlift of 1948-49. In vain: too few voters turned out on April 27th to make it valid. Though 60% of those who voted said yes, at least a quarter of eligible voters had to give their approval. So Tempelhof will probably close in October. On the same day the citizens of Schwerin voted to oust their mayor for mishandling an investigation into the starvation of a five-year-old girl. And the Bavarian branch of the trade union confederation plans to start collecting signatures on May 1st for a referendum on a minimum wage. Direct democracy, it seems, is becoming part of Germany's political scene.

Germans lag behind the Swiss, who routinely take law-making into their own hands. Referendums and plebiscites still carry a whiff of Weimar and of Hitler's exploitation of public emotion. The constitution permits them at national level, but the Bundestag has never enacted further laws to make them possible. Yet in states and municipalities, direct democracy has taken off. Since unification in 1990, referendums in these two tiers have become possible in all 16 states. The number of local initiatives has jumped from a handful in the early 1990s to 300 a year.

To German business, this looks like a threat. Around 14% of initiatives seek to block private-sector investments, often mobile-phone towers or shopping centres. Power projects are also targets, increasing fears of a possible energy crunch. In November voters in Ensdorf, in the Saarland, blocked the construction of a €2 billion ($2.9 billion) coal-fired plant. In Brandenburg voters threaten to phase out lignite mining. “Almost every power project faces opposition from citizens' initiatives,” complains Michael Feist, president of BDEW, a club of energy and water companies.

Enthusiasts think direct democracy is spreading because the traditional type is ailing. Membership of political parties has slumped, as has trust in politicians. Nearly half of Germans think elections give them no say over government policies, according to one 2006 survey. Some 80% want referendums at national level. The young are indifferent to party politics but mobilise over single issues, says Gerald Häfner of Mehr Demokratie, a lobby group. In municipalities that may mean swimming pools and pedestrian zones. State-level initiatives deal mainly with education and culture (a referendum in Schleswig-Holstein rejected German spelling reform) or the mechanics of democracy (Bavaria voted to abolish its Senate in 1998).

Loth to share power, politicians argue that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with too much. Most states do not allow votes on such issues as spending and taxation. The type of quorum that doomed Tempelhof exists only in Germany, says Mr Häfner. The minimum number of signatures required to launch a referendum has been cut, but it is still a tenth of the electorate, on average. Even victory is no guarantee of success. Legislatures can sometimes overturn referendum results, as Schleswig-Holstein's did for the spelling reform, and courts have modified them.

Defenders of direct democracy insist that it improves decision-making. Switzerland's taxes and spending are lower than otherwise, and its labour productivity higher, because the Swiss can vote on fiscal issues, says Lars Feld of the University of Heidelberg. Resistance may be ebbing. The Christian Democratic Union, the most sceptical big party, was an enthusiastic backer of the Tempelhof referendum, notes Volker Mittendorf of the University of Wuppertal. Hamburg, where the party is forming its first state-level coalition with the Greens, will seek to make referendums binding on the legislature. Bavaria's ruling party, the Christian Social Union, credits direct democracy with giving citizens a way to disagree with the government on single issues without voting for the opposition. Tempelhof may close, but direct democracy will soldier on.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Bulgaria: New Green Party Advocates Direct Democracy

Bulgaria sees the creation of a new green party which among other things supports expansion of direct democracy within the country. Read the following article to learn more about the party and it's platform. - Editor

Bulgarian Greens Established




The newest green political party Zelenite (Bulgarian Greens) was established on May 18 in Sofia by a number of environmental non-government organisations (NGOs).

Among the party's founders are members of To Sustain the Nature in Bulgaria coalition; Balkani Wildlife Society (BWS); UNECO University Club for Environment; Green Policy Institute (GPI); Centre for Environmental Information and Education; Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation; Cooperation for Voluntary Service Bulgaria (CVS); Bluelink.net; Borrowed Nature; association Za Zemiata (For the Earth); organisers and volunteers of the national campaigns for salvation of Irakli Black sea beach, Strandja nature park, Rila and Pirin national parks. NGOs are not allowed by law to establish political parties.

Hristo Genev, a psychologist and has political experience in the past in the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union, was elected general secretary of the party. The three co-chairpersons are Andrey Kovachev from BWS, Petko Kovachev from GPI (no relation) and Denitsa Petrova, also from GPI . Zelenite’s treasurer is Julia Yordanova from CVS.

The non-governmental organisations’ members decided to form a political party despite their unwillingness to take part in the political life of Bulgaria, as, according to them, during the years of work in the non-governmental sector they could achieve only small changes in the way the state treats the environmental problems and small amendments to some laws on biodiversity and nature preservation. However, even being members of various working groups on environmental problems within the Ministry of Environment and Water Affairs and other institutions, the non-governmental organisations representatives had no right of vote and decision-making within those bodies.

By establishing Zelenite, they hoped to get into the political life and to achieve substantial changes by stimulating the civil society and opening equal possibilities for citizens' participation in the decision-making processes, working towards expanding the direct democracy, do changes within the legislative system, and working for achieving sustainability in different societies and regions, participants said.

Zelenite is not the first political party to adopt the 'green' rhetoric. One of them is Zelenata Partia (Green Party), which is the oldest and has existed since the communistic regime fell down in 1989. However, according to Zelenite members, this party is not functioning or if it does, it is not doing it on the most environmental way.

The other green party formed recently in Bulgaria is Zelena Bulgaria (Green Bulgaria), which reportedly is established by businesses trying to gain key positions in Bulgarian regions that are attractive for tourism and other investments. This argument is backed by the fact that the party appears to have extensive financing to campaign during elections, a trait that has never been typical for other local environmental movements.