[pp.int.general] PPI platform for EU Election 2009

[Reinier Bakels]

It seems that you arer unfamiliar with the idea of "elites" in political 
science. While the term "elite" may sound like something undesirable, for 
political scientists there is a clear need for politicians acting as this 
kind of intermediaries to enable the political process, even though it may 
seem contradictory to the principle of the sovereignty of the people. It is 
a standard paradox for students: doe we still need a representative (rather 
than direct) democracy if technology (internet) enables votes every day? The 
answer is yes.
The Lisbon treaty is a perfect example. Because we had a referendum in NL, 
there was *no* debate by professional politicians who had analysed the 
specific issues. There were only propaganda flyers. After the rejection in 
some countries, there were many explanations - so it was unclear what should 
be changed to find a proper successor for the Nice treaty. Frankly, I still 
do not know.
But a referendum allows only two options: yes or no. Which leads to nothing. 
or at least not to improvements. Politicians will simply apply dirty tricks 
to push the same thing, under a different name (Lisbon Treaty instead of 
Constitution).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos Ayala Vargas" <aiarakoa at yahoo.es>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk" 
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPI platform for EU Election 2009


> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> the European Constitution/Lisbon treaty is too complex for the average 
>> citizen. No politician will ever admit this, but I as a lawyer am ready 
>> to admit that it is an utterlijk complicated thing
> The Lisboa Treaty is too complex for anyone. Too long, too many articles, 
> too poorly -maybe on purpose- written ... as you say, utterly complicated; 
> as I add, maybe deliberated complication.
>>> more usable, different contents in some issues, etc ... and of course, 
>>> having people ratifying it, like we in Spain 1978's Constitution was 
>>> ratified by *60 % of eligible voters* (not of cast votes, but of 
>>> eligible voters; and also with the /YES/ winning in all districts); 
>>> there are majorities and majorities, depending on their legitimacy, and 
>>> 60 % of eligible voters is indeed a legitimate majority-.
>> Referenda about the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty are not obvious. There 
>> are imho several reasons to be opposed against referenda:
>> * Referenda only work for relatively simple issues - that can be answered 
>> by YES or NO. The Swiss who have a long tradition of referenda 
>> demonstrate a proper use of this mechanism.
> Disagree. Again, Spanish Constitution was passed by referenda, and it has 
> been pretty stable during decades -it may need some reforms, though the 
> legitimacy of 60 % of eligible voters I think is undisputed (even by its 
> oppositors, which have to search for arguments different than legitimacy-.
>> * Professional polticians are bypassed by referenda, but they do have a 
>> role. Firsly, politicans have the task to make *consistent* policy, while 
>> referenda naturally are single issue only. To give a simple example: 
>> everybody would like the taxes to be lowered while government spending is 
>> increased.
> If that happens, it would mainly in my opinion be due to politicians; 
> because it's the politicians duty -or, in liquid democracy, the proxies 
> duty (actually, as representatives, politicians act like defective 
> proxies; i.e. not quite representative)- to explain people what happens if 
> expenditures raise while incomes lower. If they aren't unable to explain 
> it, it's their failure, though it's also the people's responsibility to 
> understand the circumstances -freedom of information helps a lot to make 
> people able to understand- and the consequences of concrete decisions.
>
> Because we talk about democracy, and democracy consists in us, the 
> citizens -by the way, the holders of sovereignty-, deciding what we want; 
> and as we are free to decide, that freedom also implies our responsibility 
> to assume our success and our failure, our right and wrong decisions. If 
> you want people to never be mistaken, maybe you prefer different political 
> regimes; we are all fallible, so I think you should get used to that human 
> bug/feature and assume it as part of the democracy environment ...
>> * Another role of politicians is to debate. Admittedly the EU Parliament 
>> does not have a strong tradition in this field. But politicians can 
>> articulate arguments and reasons.
> There are politicians in California too, and in Switzerland too, and in 
> other places which have referendum as an usual political tool.
>>> We in PIRATA also believe in liquid democracy -an issue dealt with in 
>>> the Berlin Conference-, so such issue -consulting people to know what 
>>> the society wants, thus, having the State branches doing it- is not only 
>>> related to left-winged or right-winged parties.
>> Frankly I believe that "liquid democracy" is pretty utopical. And state 
>> reform is a very complicated issue by itself.
> We in PIRATA do not pretend today to introduce that reform, but be 
> ourselves an experiment to show that it can work. It's not utopical, as 
> you already brought (Switzerland) examples of places where people propose 
> laws, even constitutional reforms, as a normal part of democratic life.
>> I am not sure whether PP should divert its attention to this realm.
> That's up to PPI member parties to decide it; at the end, if there is no 
> agree on it and we decide to not bring that issue for the international 
> scope -it would be a pity-, we still would be aiming for it at the Spanish 
> national scope.
>> In NL, the progressive liberals D66 were founded with the explicit 
>> purpose to further such reforms, but the political support is 
>> disappointing. Now the issue has been embraced by populists, who argue 
>> that the government *TOTALLY* ignores "ordinary" people. They are 
>> prepared to distort the truth in order to prove their point, e.g. by 
>> frightening people about the alleged threat of "islamisation" (in my 
>> perception, all interference between religion and politics is dangerous - 
>> Christian Democrats obscure the real political issues in many countries).
> Referendum is not the populist tool. Of course it can be misused by 
> populists, however any attempt of dismiss referendum because of that 
> misuse I would interprete it as an attempt to discredit the people's 
> sovereignty. I should make a question in this point: do you think people 
> is mature enough for democracy? I'm interested in your answer -actually, 
> in the answers from everyone in this list-.
>
> My answer is: yes, people is mature enough for democracy, though there is 
> a lack of freedom of information to truly allow people to be free to 
> decide -that's one of the reasons (though not the only one) for us to 
> create the pirate movement-.
>> I believe that political decision making is inherently slow - and 
>> disappointing to some people - because the essence of politics is to 
>> resolve controversies. And perhaps it even slows down (in NL at least) 
>> because there are lots of floating voters
> What you call /floating voters/ is called in Spain /non-captive 
> voters/ -in opposition to /captive voters/, which are roughly 20 out of 25 
> million people who usually cast their votes in general elections in Spain, 
> and who would never change their vote in spite of how badly the party 
> voted by them performs (as they will always think that /the other one/ is 
> worse)-; and I think that /floating voters/ are a blessing, as they don't 
> give easily their votes and try to objectively decide for each election 
> which is the best option.
>
> They are not a problem, they're good news; and if there were true freedom 
> of information, I believe that most voters would be /floating voters/ and 
> the percentage of /captive voters/ would be marginal. Why? Because voters 
> would punish poor, deceptive performances and would reward honest, 
> effective performances; those punishments and rewards would make the 
> parliaments composition variate from term to term.
>> and the support even of established major political parties varies 
>> enormously over time (according to opinion polls) - so politicians are 
>> desparately looking for ways to stabilise
> Stabilise, i.e., getting captive voters trying to make them don't think, 
> but just follow the leader.
>
> That's the opposite path of that wanted by PIRATA ... we want voters 
> become free and freely decide for each issue -specially as most issues lay 
> outside PPI core issues-. People with certain ideology die, people with 
> different ideology reach legal age to vote, others change their minds ... 
> changeability of the society as a whole, I think, is the natural state of 
> things and I like it; static societies, where there are two unchanged 
> factions or -even worse- only one ... I don't like such societies.
>> I agree, the fight over "Lisbon" is disgusting. But if the question is 
>> asked what should be improved, there is no unanimous answer.
> If what has to be changed is not unanimous, though that the change is 
> needed is unanimous, then let's gonna help people start that debate, the 
> debate of what should be changed. I think that the debate is such an 
> underused and powerful tool ...
>> In my opinion, a major problem is the communication. The EU is hardly 
>> visible at all.
> It may be hardly visible, though it makes itself pretty felt, as EU 
> directives have to be forcibly adapted to the national legal frameworks.
>> Few news programs on television spend attention to Brussels and 
>> Strasbourg: it is still mostly national politics. European elections 
>> effectively are national elections. For NL for instance, EU elections may 
>> show that our socialist (national!) minister of finance has gained a lot 
>> of popularity because he reacted very well to the present financial 
>> crisis.
> It is due to major parties feeling comfortable with current state of 
> things; the most important issues are decided in the EU, so as less 
> information flows about those decisions, more comfortable they feel to do 
> what they want. We should work to revert that scenario.
>> So, if anything, the PP should inform inform inform inform inform inform 
>> inform inform inform inform inform inform people!
> Not our only duty, though I also think it should be one of them.
>
>
> 
> Carlos Ayala
> 
> ( Aiarakoa )
>
> 
> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general