PRIMERA PARTE:
SEGUNDA PARTE:
TERCERA PARTE:
PRIMERA PARTE:
SEGUNDA PARTE:
TERCERA PARTE:
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
6:53 PM
0
comments
Labels: Consejos Comunales, Democracia Participativa, LATIN AMERICA, PERU
The following article co-written by one of our editors currently in El Salvador highlights the role of youth participation in improving the electoral process in that country. - Editor
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
5:50 PM
0
comments
Labels: Democracia Participativa, El Salvador, LATIN AMERICA
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
2:21 PM
0
comments
Labels: Community Councils, FIJI, Participatory Democracy, SOUTH PACIFIC
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
11:57 PM
0
comments
Labels: AFRICA, NAMIBIA, Participatory Democracy
Las consultas de Madrazo
El consejero de Vivienda y Asuntos Sociales reivindica durante su viaje a Suiza la participación ciudadana en todos los ámbitos
11.11.08 - UNAI MARAÑA ENVIADO ESPECIAL AARAU (SUIZA).
Fuente: http://www.diariovasco.com/20081111/politica/consultas-madrazo-20081111.html
DV. El consejero de Vivienda y Asuntos Sociales, Javier Madrazo, propuso ayer en Aarau (Suiza) modificar la Constitución y el Estatuto de Autonomía para garantizar la democracia directa y la participación ciudadana de los vascos, aunque él considera que «no cierran la puerta» a esta vía. «Pero si hay quien lo cree, habrá que modificarlos», sentenció.
Madrazo rechazó que se empleen ambas normas y la violencia como «coartadas o excusas» para impedir esta vía política ampliamente practicada en Suiza. El consejero reiteró que «el mejor modo de deslegitimar la violencia de ETA es celebrar una consulta para que la ciudadanía vasca pueda decir a la organización terrorista que desaparezca para siempre».
El titular de Vivienda y Asuntos Sociales reivindicó la participación ciudadana en un sentido amplio, para todos los ámbitos: político, económico, social, medio ambiental y de género. No podía haber elegido otro lugar mejor que Suiza para hacerlo: los helvéticos son llamados cuatro veces al año a referéndum, y nueve de cada diez, según las encuestas, no aceptarían que les privaran de ese derecho.
El próximo día 30, los suizos tienen una nueva cita con las urnas. En la ciudad de Zurich se votarán catorce propuestas de orden local, cantonal y federal. Los ciudadanos podrán decidir, entre otras cuestiones, que los delitos de pornografía infantil no prescriban, flexibilizar la edad de jubilación, la elección libre en la compra de medicamentos o la prolongación del tranvía hasta el zoo.
El consejero considera a la confederación helvética un modelo y un referente, así como un «toque de atención para quienes niegan el derecho de la ciudadanía vasca a la participación política». Para Madrazo, la experiencia suiza demuestra que esta vía «no es una forma de distorsionar la vida pública, sino todo lo contrario: mantiene viva la política de un país».
El Gobierno Vasco, las formaciones políticas y los agentes sociales tienen la «obligación ineludible», según el coordinador general de EB, de mirar a Suiza como modelo «claro y concreto» de que la democracia directa «lejos de dividir, une, y en vez de provocar confrontación, permite avanzar en la convivencia».
En nombre del Departamento de Vivienda y Asuntos Sociales, Madrazo se comprometió a promover y desarrollar formas de democracia directa en su ámbito de actuación y competencia, desde la «convicción profunda» de que esta senda es «el futuro por el que hay que transitar y la única que permitirá superar la brecha existente y cada vez más profunda entre la política y la sociedad».
Labor opositora
En una reciente encuesta encargada por la Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, la gran mayoría de los guipuzcoanos entrevistados confesaron desconocer quién es el diputado general. En Suiza, el interés de los ciudadanos por quien les representa no es mucho mayor, pero en este caso se debe a que el nombre o el color de los cargos públicos tienen menor importancia.
El Centro para la Democracia de Aarau (ZDA), asociado a la universidad de Zurich, destaca que la labor opositora está más en manos de los propios ciudadanos que de los partidos políticos. Así lo demuestra el hecho de que más del 25% de las propuestas de enmienda constitucional realizadas por las instituciones han sido rechazadas por los electores.
En una encuesta elaborada por el sociólogo norteamericano Carod Schmid, el 70% de los suizos señalaron su sistema político como la principal razón para estar orgullosos de su nacionalidad. Madrazo destaca que la democracia directa permite que la sociedad civil helvética sea «activa, viva, comprometida y protagonista de su futuro».
El director del ZDA, Andreas Aauer, aclaró que el modelo suizo es el resultado de un largo y «fascinante» proceso político con raíces en el siglo XIX, por lo que considera «muy difícil transplantarlo a otro país». No obstante, estableció un «punto de comparación» entre la experiencia helvética y la vasca: la democracia directa «civilizó la política» en el país alpino, «muy violenta» hasta el siglo XIX.
Aauer señaló que la democracia directa «es una calle de sentido único». Una vez que se entra, «es imposible volver atrás», subrayó el académico, porque «cuando se deja en manos de los ciudadanos la decisión de las cuestiones importantes, ya no renuncian a ese derecho».
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
11:50 PM
0
comments
Labels: Consulta Popular, Democracia Direta, ESPAÑA
Impulsan diputados plebiscito y referéndum
Organización Editorial Mexicana
16 de noviembre de 2008
Fuente: http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n933996.htm
Víctor Godínez / El Sol de México
Ciudad de México.- El presidente de la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales de la Cámara de Diputados, Raymundo Cárdenas, aseguró que existe consenso entre las tres principales bancadas legislativas para impulsar en el actual periodo de sesiones las figuras del plebiscito y el referéndum.
Reveló que ya se elabora un dictamen de iniciativa de ley para aprobar estas figuras de la democracia.
Por su parte, el diputado panista Eduardo de la Torre Jaramillo dijo que este instituto político accederá a estas reformas.
Raymundo Cárdenas, presidente de la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales de la Cámara de Diputados, aseveró que existe consenso entre las diferentes bancadas de esta instancia legislativa, a fin de impulsar en el actual periodo de sesiones figuras de democracia directas como el plebiscito y el referendo.
En una reunión de trabajo realizada en el Palacio de San Lázaro, señaló que las tres fuerzas políticas más importantes en el país como son los partidos Acción Nacional (PAN), de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) y Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), han expresado su interés de abordar este tema.
Por tal motivo, reveló que en la Comisión de Puntos Constitucionales se elabora un dictamen de iniciativa de ley para aprobar estas figuras de la democracia.
Por su parte, el diputado panista Eduardo de la Torre Jaramillo dijo que este instituto político accederá a estas reformas, pero antes se deben resolver las diferencias, pues se tienen que estudiar los modelos utilizados en Latinoamérica y ver si son viables para aplicarse en la vida política nacional.
Sobre el particular, dijo que en el PAN se llegó a un consenso interno para estudiar e impulsar estos mecanismos de democracia directa.
A su vez, el diputado Salvador Ruiz Sánchez, del Partido de la Revolución Democrática, recordó que su partido siempre ha mostrado disposición para tratar los temas y proyectos con los que se pueda perfeccionar la democracia.
Sin embargo, negó que al promover el modelo de referendo se impulse al mismo tiempo la reelección electoral, ya que son temas que se tienen que ver por separado.
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
9:20 PM
0
comments
Labels: Democracia Directa, LATIN AMERICA, Mexico, Plebiscito y Referéndum
Swiss approve pioneering legal heroin program
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
12:41 PM
0
comments
Labels: Direct Democracy, EUROPE, Initiative and Referendum, SWITZERLAND
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
11:40 PM
0
comments
Labels: Democracia Directa, ESPAÑA, EUROPE
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
11:29 PM
0
comments
Labels: LATIN AMERICA, Lugo, PARAGUAY, Participatory Democracy
Los alcaldes hablan sobre la participación ciudadana
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
9:38 PM
0
comments
Labels: Democracia Participativa, ECUADOR, LATIN AMERICA
How about people’s parliament at the local government level?
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
9:18 PM
0
comments
Labels: AFRICA, Direct Democracy, NIGERIA, Participatory Democracy
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
9:40 AM
0
comments
Labels: Democrazia Diretta, ITALIA
Buscan consenso presupuesto participativo
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
4:57 PM
0
comments
Labels: CARIBBEAN, Democracia Participativa, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, LATIN AMERICA, Presupuesto Participativo, REPUBLICA DOMINICANA
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.
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
4:50 PM
0
comments
Labels: e-democracy, EUROPE, Internet Direct Democracy, ITALY
Vietnam halts election project
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
12:20 PM
0
comments
Labels: ASIA, Direct Democracy, Participatory Democracy, VIETNAM
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
12:16 PM
0
comments
Labels: BOLIVIA, Democracia Participativa, LATIN AMERICA
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
8:56 AM
0
comments
Labels: CANADA, Green Parties, New Brunswick, NORTH AMERICA, Participatory Democracy
Venezuelan Direct Democracy – The case of the Consejos Comunales
November 21st 2008, by Michael Albert and Adam Gill - ZNet
Source: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3967
In 2004, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez created a movement named the consejos comunales (communal councils) aimed at creating more responsive local governance by handing local budgetary and legislative power to the councils. This movement was seen by Chavez as one of the most important of the five motors of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution' in that they should influence policy from the grassroots upwards. Great interest in the councils was evident between 2004 and 2007 in that thousands formed quickly and $5 Billion was given to them during this period. Communal banks are a pre-requisite to receiving funds from the government so as to avoid clientalistic relationships of dependency.
Local councils have the power to vote on issues directly affecting their community and have used this to make significant changes. Major improvements have included building social housing and repairing roads. The local councils are formed with 200-400 families with members aged 15 and above and have an executive council and representatives of groups within the community.
I asked Michael Albert if he might be able to offer his opinion on this movement in Venezuela.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you feel the role of the Communal Councils is strategically and politically?
Well, I believe they are partly intended, in the present, to push forward the whole revolutionary process by increasing current participation, raising consciousness, etc.
But I also believe that for a great many folks in Venezuela, both inside and outside the government, the councils are the evolving infrastructure of a new polity. The idea is that people should govern their own lives, and in that context local councils are the proposed vehicle for doing it. As such, they are intended to become an alternative to rather than just being an adjunct to local governments of mayors and governors and the like.
Would you say the councils have created social change or more that their energies are being pulled in other directions?
I don't feel very equipped to answer this question, and I am not entirely sure, in any case, what you mean by "other directions." I can judge only from a very great difference and based on talks with only a limited number of people what the councils are up to.
My impression, and it is tentative, is that the councils are a vast and evolving experiment and project, by no means final in form and by no means fully up to speed, but coming along, though many problems still exist. First, for example, there is a population which - like our population in the U.S - has almost zero experience prior to this experiment with serious democracy much less participatory self management. So the councils and their members are learning in practice, and for many people that has ups and downs. But second, and less benign, there are obstacles as well having to do not only with past habits or current doubts, but also with real opposition, as in local governing and corporate elites not wanting this experiment to work.
Venezuela seems to me to be uniquely seeking a gigantic revolution in structures and relations - not just economically but also politically, socially, culturally - all non violently and even without much confrontation, none provoked by the agents of change. That is historically ambitious, to say the least.
So in one corner you have corporate media continuing, and corporate ownership in many realms, and governors and mayors and whatnot from the prior history of the country, all also still in place, nearly all still hoping to resurrect that prior history. In the other corner you have the Bolivarian activists, and Chavez, and a large proportion of the non elite population, instead trying to escape that past into something fundamentally new.
Venezuala is, in other words, a daily economic, political, social, and cultural cauldron of experiment and opposition - and thus a site of intense struggle. Or that is how I see Venezuela, at any rate, and in that context the local communal councils are partly a tool of the struggle but are also partly seeds of a new future being built in the present.
Should Communal Councils be free of political party influence?
This depends, I think, on what you mean by party influence. So, for example, it wouldn't make sense to say there should be no party influence. Imagine a council with people in it, of course. Some people are in one party, some people are in another party. The parties they are in influence those people's desires (and vice versa). The people then bring their desires to the councils, so through their members the parties influence the councils as well. That much is fine, in my view. It would make no sense to say that shouldn't occur.
So, for example, there are councils in communities that are very Bolivarian, and they have views and aims quite like those of the Bolivarian revolution. There are other councils in communities that are opposed to Bolivarian projects, and those councils reflect those opposition views. The parties are in part carriers of the views and the people form parties, in turn, influence the councils.
On the other hand, I think you might mean should parties as entities be able to themselves direct or otherwise impact councils, other than by the fact of their members indirectly doing so. Here I think the answer is no, they should not be able to do that.
Your question is a bit like asking, in the U.S., should local government (just imagine, for the sake of the discussion, that it was actually grassroots and participatory) be in any way at all subject to instruction or control by political parties (other than being impacted by the local members of the community who happen to be in parties)? Well, of course it shouldn't, and ditto for Venezuela. A party should impact councils simply by impacting the population that composes the councils, but not by some sort of collective or structural authority.
Do you think that party influence and political movements still operate as clients of central governments?
I am not sure I understand this question. In Venezuela, at present, the Bolivarian revolution is very much a manifestation of the ideas and will of President Chavez. We might prefer that the movement had bubbled up, instead, from the population, and that Chavez was merely one among many carriers of their intentions - but that isn't the case. In fact, Chavez is constantly trying to impact what the population thinks and wants, not just to hear from it. The government is not only administering Venezuela, as it is seeking to use state power as a tool to build social involvement and activism. It is very unusual, of course.
So in that context, the recently created revolutionary party Chavez is in is certainly affected greatly by him, as are the social movements whose members typically consider him a repository of valuable ideas and plans, as is the government. Again, this is arguably not an optimal picture, and it is certainly an unusual one - a president seeking to build movements that will replace authorities, including the old government structures, including himself - at least that's the current agenda - throughout the country - but that is what is happening, or so it seems to me, from my admittedly limited contact.
Can the Communal Councils in your opinion, become the only form of local government in Venezuela? What obstacles do you perceive to be happening now and possibly in the future?
I certainly think that is possible, and that that is the goal, not just conceivable, at least in many people's minds, including in the relevant political ministries. I sat in offices and heard them explain their hopes for these councils becoming the seat of governing power throughout the country, describing the 50,000 councils that were needed - with about 30,000 currently formed - and describing the gains in confidence and methods also needed within the councils, and explaining that yes, these would be above majors and governors and even the President. So, yes, having them be the primary locus of government power is the aim. Might that aim be swept aside as a goal? Sure, it might. But it also might come true as a reality.
Posted by
Democracy By The People
at
8:47 AM
0
comments
Labels: Community Councils, Consejos Comunales, LATIN AMERICA, Participatory Democracy, Venezuela
|
||||||||||||