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

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> It seems that you arer unfamiliar with the idea of "elites" in 
> political science.
I am not unfamiliar with it, I simply reject it. Of course there always 
are leaders, reference people who launches viewpoints on different 
issues and some people -for convenience, lack of time, etc-, rather than 
employing their time on analyzing the facts, prefer to trust those 
leaders for specific issues. However, and coming back to the liquid 
democracy idea, if those leaders fail and/or betray the people's trust 
repeatedly, people who delegate their decision power, as sovereigns, 
should have the chance of trusting other leaders, or even make the 
decisions by themselves -at least for trascendental issues like Lisboa 
Treaty-.

Thinking of leaders as a tiny group of people who would have the power 
to decide /on behalf of/ the society as a whole -even when they decide 
opposite from people's will- seems bizarre and unacceptable for me.
> 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.
We need a =>representative<= democracy only if it actually represents 
the society; if it doesn't represent the society, we in PIRATA strongly 
believe that a /new/ -not that new as simmilar approaches are currently 
applied in democratic countries like USA (e.g., California) and 
Switzerland- kind of democracy is required.

In Spain, in 2006 and for the /IP/ law, there weren't any NOs in the 
/overall/ ballot; however, *there are more than 3 million signatures 
against such law* for some reasons -e.g., levies, status of RMOs, etc-, 
and those 3 million signatures *would represent*, considering 25 million 
cast votes, *circa 42 MPs out of 350*; that is, at least 42 MPs *should 
have voted against /IP/ law, however it didn't happen*. Furthermore: as 
this issue is not deeply dealt with in mass media, I'm pretty sure that 
if all people were aware of, there would be more than 2 million 
signatures against. *Is there representativity when more than 320 out of 
350 -even without any /NO/s- vote against the people's will* -for data 
retention, for Internet censorship, for wicked author's rights legal 
framework, etc-? *I think it's evident there isn't.

*As RMS stated, it's seems pretty weird to expect traditional 
politicians behaving properly, without corruption, without betrayal of 
people's will, etc; if efficient counterweight, control tools available 
for the citizens are not enabled, this circus of stolen sovereignty will 
continue forever and ever.*
*
> 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.
As I said in my former mail, debate has been denied to citizens; 
specially for EU issues, mass media covers the issue in a silent way, 
simply remarking the /need/ -while there may be a need for having one 
constitution, I don't know who does have the need for having this 
concrete one- for having it passed.
> 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).
That's not people's fault, but traditional politicians fault. 
Traditional politicians find the /NO/ and don't think /hmm they reject 
it, which changes should we apply in order to have them accepting it?/, 
but think /hmm they reject it ... how can we disguise it in order to 
have them not complaining if we pass it *without consulting them 
again*?/ It's not in people's will but in traditional politicians wicked 
hearts -am I wrong, or Ireland is the only country out of 25-26 Member 
States already having cast their votes that has consulted their citizens 
through referenda?-.


                                                                                               
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                               
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                        
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman

P.S.: I'm not wrong about the Lisboa Treaty ratification process, and 
how the chance for people to decide has been denied, in all countries 
-including Spain, Netherlands and France-, except Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty#At_a_glance

P.P.S.: The current /joke/ is ... how many referendum will be needed, 
just in case /NO/ wins again in Ireland, in order to get the result the 
European Commission wants to? I thought that, if something is rejected, 
it required a transitional term and/or substantial changes in order to 
have the issue reconsidered ... however, when EC's will is on stake, it 
seems there are no rules countering it.