| |
17. Problems of DD Direct Democracy, like all systems for deciding policy, faces two kinds of problems: 1. Technical problems, and 2. Inherent problems. Technical problems can be eliminated, but inherent problems are like the skeleton in a body - they can be treated but not eliminated. They may reappear, perhaps in a new form, and must be tackled in new ways. Technical problems of DD stem from all citizens’ right to propose, debate and decide every law and policy. Electronic communications provide the means to do this but procedures must be devised to protect the public from abuse of this right. Committees to decide such matters can do it, but they must be drawn by lottery and serve one term only. This will prevent the formation of elites controling everything. This applies also to the Executive Committees that decide how to carry out policies. Carrying out a policy often requires expertise which most citizens lack, but Committee members must be changed regularly to prevent the formation of ‘expert elites’ influencing all decisions in that field. Inherent problems of DD stem from two issues: 1. There can be no guarantee that the results of a decision will be ‘good’. 2. Conflicts between overall majorities and local majorities are inevitable. A decision can produce undesirable - even disastrous - results, completely unexpected by its supporters. This happens to popes, dictators, presidents, representatives, fathers, mothers, ourselves - and majorities - everywhere. The chance that a Pope, a Dictator, a President, a General Secretary or a body of Representatives will revoke their decision if it produced a disaster is small. They all refuse to admit they were wrong, as this challenges their credibility – and their role - as decision-makers. They insist that undesirable outcome of their decision is not their fault. By contrast, in DD a 1% minority can initiate a new debate on a decision that produced undesirable results and this may convince a majority to revoke that decision. This does not ensure that a bad decision will be revoked, but the chance of doing so in DD is greater than in any system ruled by those who insist on their infallibility. Citizens in a DD need not suffer indefinitely the undesirable results of a decision (like continuing a tax whose results are contrary to what was expected). They need not wait for new elections, or start a campaign to change a leader. They can renew the public debate on a bad decision and revoke it immediately. Conflicts between local majorities and overall majorities are inevitable. The best way to resolve them is by all agreeing in advance which issues will be decided by an overall majority of all citizens and which - by a local majority of those directly involved. Although an overall majority can impose its decisions by force this is undesirable as it motivates local majorities to use force too. This can lead to long armed conflicts, which are eventually terminated by a compromise. It is better to reach a compromise that neither side likes (but both accept as the “lesser evil”) before such armed conflicts. A clear victory of one side motivates the other side to prolong its resistence whereas a compromise is accpeted by both sides DD reduces the damage caused by demagogues. In any political system, demagogues can influence people to make decisions that produce disasters, but only in DD can this be remedied immediately. In DD a demagogue can only advocate a policy, not decide it. Demagogues can influence citizens’ voting but if this produces undesirable results the citizens can revoke their decision immediately, thus terminating the influence of the demagogue. In dictatorship the demagogue is ussually the dictator and must be removed from power before his decisions can be changed. This is not easy, and takes time. In Rule by Representatives citizens must wait till the next elections before they can change representatives, hoping these will make new decisions. This prolongs the suffering from disastrous decisions. Only in DD can disastrous decisions be revoked immediately. Direct Democracy is not a magic cure for all the problems of society. THERE CAN BE NO SUCH CURE. Whoever preaches such a cure sells illusions. DD abolishes power and solves many political problems faster than any other political system because evasion of responsibility for bad decisions by decision-makers is impossible in DD. In all other systems decision-makers can evade their responsibility for decisions that produced undesirable results by shifting responsibility onto others. This prolongs the solution of political problems. It works like a veil hiding the causes of a bad decision from most citizens. In DD those who made a decision that had undesirable results cannot blame others. They must face what motivated them and tackle it. This breaks the vicious circle where the same motivations repeatedly produce the same undesirable results. DD replacing RR is the logical - and historical - continuation of the process of Parliament replacing Monarchy. Both are steps increasing all citizens’ freedom by enabling them to live by their own decisions. DD deepens citizens’ understanding of the problems of their society. It is not Nature, God or History that cause problems to societies but people living as a group. Until people discover the source of political problems within themselves they will face the same problems repeatedly, being unable to overcome them. When all citizens decide all policies, no undesirable result of their decisions can be blamed on others. Those who made a decision are responsible for its results and if it produced a disaster they must find out where they went wrong, and why. This is not how representatives, dictators, popes, kings, presidents, or general-secretaries behave, as it would destroy their credibility and terminate their role as decision-makers. Only in DD, where deciding policy is not a temporary role but a permanent right of every citizen, can people admit their political errors without fearing that they will lose their right to make political decisions. Citizens who ‘made a mistake’ do not lose their right to vote, and can reconsider why they made a disastrous decision. In doing so they may overcome their former limitations and develop new abilities and sensitivities. Often a minority whose proposals were rejected by the majority turns out to be right, while the majority turns out to be wrong. Majorities often err and produce disasters. This happened in Nazi Germany in 1933 when Nazi members of the Reichstag (parliament), who had received 44% of the vote in the March election, bullied representatives of other parties to join them in passing a law to abolish all political parties except the Nazi Party. This gave the Nazis a free hand to carry out their murderous policies. Whether people learn from their mistakes - or not - is another matter, but DD - more than any other system - motivates people to learn from their own mistakes. Kings, Presidents, Party Leaders, Dictators, or Representatives cover up the causes of their disasterous decisions as this could bring about their replacement by others, but DD decision-makers cannot be replaced only their motives for disasterous decisions can be replaced to avoid more disasters. Today most citizens have no authority to decide any policy and will - at best - change representatives whose decisions produced disasters, but not the motives that led to those decisions. Germans who supported Hitler considered his decisions wrong only because he lost the war, not because he started it. If they had had the authority to decide policy after electing him as leader, they might have replaced him and could have discovered their own mistaken motives themselves, rather than be judged later by those who defeated them. When dictators achieve power they prevent all efforts to displace them so only they decide all policies. After 1933 Hitler alone decided all German policies. He carried on the war long after his Army - and most Germans - knew it was lost. If Germany had been a Direct Democracy it could have avoided war, or stop fighting it and might never have killed millions of Jews and other minorities. Nasty decisions - and acts - must be hidden from most people, who would object to them. This is impossible in DD. Whatever must be hidden from most citizens cannot become a policy in Direct Democracy. Some critics argue that DD can produce a ‘crowd effect’, causing people to vote like those around them even when they would not do so in private. Today electronic communication enables people to make political decisions privately, separate from any crowd. Today for the first time in history anyone can address millions (on TV) from their own home without joining any crowd. Mobile phones and interactive television enable everyone at home to see and hear anyone who wishes to address them directly from their own homes, and to vote on policies in the same way as people already choose films in cable TV networks, by pressing a remote control. This eliminates the ‘crowd effect’ or ‘mob rule’ in politics. People need not be in a crowd to propose policy or vote on it. |
|
