Future revolutions

"Look, Bob," he said, "I don't think there's any school for Presidents either."

He said, "Let's announce it right now". He said, "I'll write out the announcement."

So he wrote out the announcement, we walk out the front door.

All of these television cameras and press , till hell wouldn't have it.

That's how Marge learned I have accepted. It was on television. Live.

Kennedy: All right, why don't we do some pictures afterwards? I've asked Robert McNamara to assume the responsibilities of Secretary of Defence. And I'm glad and happy to say that he has accepted this responsibility. Mr. McNamara leaves the presidency of the Ford Company at great personal sacrifice.

McNamara: That's the way it began. You know, it was a traumatic period. My wife probably got ulcers from it. May have even ultimately died from the stress. My son got ulcers. It was very traumatic, but they were some of the best years of our life and all members of my family benefited from it. It was terrific. (see the Internet)
McNamara had never served in Washington before, never held any political post, and never studied Finance or Defence. Elsewhere he admitted that when he came to Washington he didn't know the difference between an Atom-bomb and an ordinary bomb. Yet Kennedy appointed him Secretary of Defence, and never regretted it. Kennedy himself was in the same boat but - unlike McNamara - he knew that decision-making is not a skill but a role every normal person can fulfil.

No President is an expert on the options he chooses. Experts on the options explain to him their costs and consequences. All he has to do is to choose one. Choosing is not a skill that can be taught. It depends on priorities, not on expertise.

The current President of the USA (in 2007) George W Bush, while not extraordinarily bright decides USA's policies affecting much of the world. Many disagree with his policies but they blame his priorities, not his ignorance. Like all Presidents he too consults experts on the issues facing him and then chooses one of the options they offer. All citizens (by using SMS) can easily replace George W. Bush. Experts for the specific issues will describe the various options on TV but instead of Bush choosing an option all citizens will do it.

No rational argument can prove that their choice is necessarily worse than his. Moreover while a President's choice depends on one person's bias the choice of all citizens depends on a multitude of different personal biases many of which cancel out each other. This reduces the role of personal bias in politics.

Medicine, Law, and Engineering are skills. Doctors, lawyers, and engineers pass examinations and get certificates - issued by a university - allowing them to practice their skills, but no President passed an examination in choosing policies. No President has a certificate qualifying him to be President. This is not a defect but the nature of decision-making. If different people have different priorities then the same data will motivate them to make different decisions. We choose political representatives by their priorities, not by their expertise. If George W. Bush - whose expertise is somewhat limited - can be President of the USA, then so can most normal people since they - like him - are neither geniuses nor imbeciles. GWB's Presidency ought to dispel the myth that making political decisions requires expertise which most citizens lack. But this myth will persist, or politics will be denuded like the King in the fable where the boy shouts "The King is naked". If everyone can decide policy why not do it by all citizens sending SMS rather than by a few representatives. This is cheaper, and will eliminate corruption, conspiracies and ego-trips from politics.

Another common objection to direct democracy argues that if all citizens have the right to propose policies millions of proposals will clog up the political system.

This possibility is refuted daily in every House of Representatives. In all of them all members can propose laws and policies, yet the number of laws and policies actually proposed is far less than the number of Reps. There is not a single House of Reps where all Reps propose policies on the same day. The number of proposals depends on the number of topical issues, not on the number of Reps. As contents of proposals often overlap, many will drop their proposal if a similar one has been accepted.
Direct democracy, unlike any other political system, cannot be imposed on citizens. DD depends on citizens' active participation in policy making. It cannot work if most citizens are indifferent to their society. DD can be set up only if most citizens want it, and it can function only if they are active participants in it. If they are it means they are concerned to keep it going. So they will take care to protect it from abuse and eliminate whatever hinders its operation.
This brings us to the next common objection to DD, namely the argument that most people today despise politics and will not participate in DD politics. This is indeed the situation today (2007). The percentage of voters in USA elections is a good example. In most US presidential elections in the last 40 years some 50% of those entitled to vote did not vote. In most European countries the situation is similar. Lack of interest in politics, so the argument goes, rules out the DD option. This argument ignores the fact that current Representative Rule (RR) produces citizens' political apathy. RR requires citizens to be politically active only on Election Day. In the long period between elections RR wants citizens to "leave politics to politicians". Most Reps worry about their careers far more than about the needs of those who elected them. No wonder most citizens become indifferent to - and disgusted by - politics - in RR. This is bred by RR - not by Politics. Political apathy is not part of human nature. Politics shape society and individuality. The will to participate in this activity is dormant in most citizens but all varieties of Politics by Proxy (PP) repress it. It surfaces at times of crisis, emergency, or revolution.
The writer Colin Wilson, in his 2001 postscript to his unique book "The Outsider", wrote: "When human beings become bored they lose all sense of reality, and somehow find themselves in the passenger seat. They lose the sense of being in control of their lives, and slip into an attitude of passivity. Yet any crisis can instantly de-hypnotize them and make them realize that being in control, far from being difficult, is quite normal. When we are 'awake', the 'real you' takes over, and life is transformed." (THE OUTSIDER, London Phoenix 2001, page 305)
The most recent crises of RR were the French General Strike in May 1968 and the bombing of the World Trade Centre towers in New York in 2001. During these crises the behaviour of most people in these two societies changed dramatically. People volunteered to help others, began to really listen to others, volunteered for community service, made sacrifices for others, and even risked their lives for others. This contradicted their political apathy which politics by proxy (PP) induce by advocating: "Mind your own business and leave politics to politicians"
Where did the readiness to mind other peoples' business come from? It was latent in the social nature of individuality (see Ch.3), buried under heaps of selfishness, and apathy, dumped on it by an economic systems glorifying selfishness, and political systems preaching that representatives, and "Leaving politics to politicians", is an eternal, inevitable, necessity. Such attitudes vanish during emergency or revolution.

Citizens’ political apathy is cultivated by those that thrive on it. Why should political representatives encourage citizens' participation in politics when this threatens their roles? Political apathy produced by RR is no indication of peoples' attitudes to politics generally. DD encouraging citizens’ participation in politics will dissipate most current citizens’ political apathy

Another objection to direct democracy argues that it enables demagogues to shape policy by their ability to influence many citizens. A demagogue is a person with exceptional ability to influence people. Hitler and Mussolini were demagogues.
Demagogues can appear in every political system and constitute a general problem in politics. Hitler was a demagogue. Elections empowered him to represent all Germans. Once elected he abolished all other parties and stayed ruler of Germany long after many Germans realized his policies were leading to disaster. This cannot happen in DD where the demagogue has only one vote. He can influence people to vote for his policies but he never represents anyone except himself. Even if citizens vote for his policies he has only one vote. DD citizens can vote against the demagogue’s policies the moment they realize he leads to disaster. DD can respond to the danger of demagogues much faster than any other political system.
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 volcanoes - their eruptions can be treated but not terminated. They may reappear, and must be tackled in new ways.

 

Technical problems of DD stem from the right of millions of citizens 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. Control committees can do it, but they must be appointed by lottery and serve one term only. This will prevent the formation of elites controlling everything.

Appointment by lottery applies also to Committees for executing policies. Choosing policy depends on priorities, not on expertise; but executing a policy often requires expertise most citizens lack. Those appointed to execute policies must be drawn by lottery from pools of people with the required qualifications. They must be replaced regularly to prevent the formation of ‘expert elites’ influencing all decisions. Appointment by lottery prevents corruption and favoritism.

Inherent problems of DD originate from two sources:

1. The outcome of majority decisions is not necessarily ‘Good’.

2. Conflicts between overall majorities and local majorities are inevitable.

A decision can produce undesirable - even disastrous - results, totally unexpected by the decision-makers. This happened to popes, dictators, presidents, representatives, fathers, mothers, us - and majorities - everywhere. The chance that a Pope, a Dictator, a President, a General Secretary or Representatives will revoke their decision if it produces a disaster is small. Representatives refuse to admit they were wrong, as this undermines their credibility and their role as decision-makers. They always insist that the undesirable outcome of their decisions is not their fault.

In DD a minority of 1% of the citizens can initiate a new vote on a decision that produced undesirable results. This does not ensure that every bad decision will be revoked, but the chance of doing so in DD is greater than in a system ruled by representatives who insist on their infallibility.  Citizens in a DD need not suffer undesirable outcome of a bad decision, they need not wait for new elections, or start a campaign to replace a leader. They can renew the public debate on a bad decision and revoke it immediately.

 

Often policies proposed by a minority and rejected by the majority turn out to be good, while the majority's policies turn out to be bad.  Majorities often err and produce disasters. For this reason minorities must be protected from being muzzled by the majority. Conflicts between local majorities and overall majorities are inevitable. The best way to resolve them is by agreeing in advance which types of issues will be decided by an overall majority of all citizens - and which by a local majority of those involved directly. Although an overall majority can impose its decisions by using force, this is undesirable as it will motivate local majorities to use force too. This can lead to an armed conflict which is usually terminated by a compromise. To prevent armed conflicts it is better to reach a compromise neither side will like yet both will accept as the “lesser evil”.  A compromise must be accepted by both sides. Neither side should ever claim victory. Such claims motivate others to continue the conflict.

It is essential to prevent DD from becoming a "Dictatorship of the majority".

This can be done by a Constitution granting the minority certain rights.

 1.  The right of any minority (political,/ethnic,/sexual,/religious, or other) to express and promote its views - including anti-DD views, however repugnant they are to the majority - must be guaranteed, and protected, against any violation by any majority.

2.  A minority must have the right to veto specific decisions provided it proposes alternative policies to the one it vetoed.  The right of Veto does not apply to every decision. All citizens must decide which decisions can be vetoed.

3.  Some decisions will bind only those who voted for them, but not those who voted against them.    All citizens will decide to which decisions this applies.

4. The Constitution must clarify which decisions require a majority in a vote, and which require a majority of the entire electorate (including non-voters). Some decisions may require a preferential majority of 60% or more of all citizens.

5.   When 1% of all citizens propose to debate and vote on a particular decision, that decision shall be debated and submitted to a vote of all citizens.

Minorities must obey majority decisions but must be protected from bullying by the majority. Those in the majority must consider how they would respond if they were in the minority, and do their utmost to minimize minority’s discomfort. The spirit of DD is respect for the autonomy of others, including those in a minority. Majorities are fallible and must take care not to create situations where decisions cause irreversible damage. A critical attitude to oneself is preferable to over-confidence.

 

Direct Democracy is not a magic cure to all ills of society. There is no such cure. Whoever preaches such a cure sells illusions. DD abolishes political power and solves many political problems faster than all other political systems because decision-makers’ evasion of responsibility is impossible in DD.  In all other political systems, decision-makers can evade responsibility for decisions producing undesirable results by shifting responsibility onto others. This is a veil hiding the sources of bad decisions from most citizens. If DD citizens made a decision that had undesirable results they cannot blame others. They must confront their priorities, investigate them, and break the vicious circle where old priorities produce the same undesirable results over and over again.

 

DD replacing RR is - logically and historically – the continuation of Parliament replacing Monarchy. It extends citizens’ freedom by enabling them to live by their own decisions. It deepens citizens’ understanding of the problems of society.

It is not God, Nature, or History that cause problems in society but people living as a group. Until people discover the source of political problems within themselves, they will face the same problems again, being unable to overcome them.

 

Those voting for a policy are responsible for its outcome 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 respond, as it could 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 decide policies. Citizens whose decisions had undesirable outcomes do not lose their right to vote, and can admit - and reconsider - what made them vote for a decision that produced bad results. In doing so they may discover - and overcome - their former motivations and change their priorities. DD motivates people - more than any other system - to learn from their own mistakes. Disastrous decisions can be revoked to avoid more disasters.

In RR today most citizens cannot decide policy and change representatives whose policies produced disasters, but not their own motives to elect these representatives. Germans who supported Hitler considered his decisions bad only because he lost the war, not because he started it. If they could have decided policy after electing him, they could have replaced him long before his suicide and could have re-evaluated their own priorities, before being judged by others.
When dictators achieve power they abolish the means to replace them so that only they can decide all policies. After 1933 Hitler alone decided all German policies. He continued 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 stopped fighting and might never have killed millions of Jews and other minorities.  In dictatorship nasty decisions - and acts - must (and can) be hidden from most citizens, who would object to them. This is impossible in DD. Whatever must be hidden from most citizens cannot become a policy in direct democracy because a majority will rarely vote for a decision to hide something from itself.

Some critics argue that DD can produce a ‘crowd effect’, or ‘Bandwagon 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 via TV from their own home without joining any crowd. Mobile phones and interactive television enable people to see and hear privately anyone who wants to address them, and to vote on policies in the same way as people already choose films in cable TV networks, by pressing a key on a remote control.  This eliminates the ‘crowd effect’ or ‘mob rule’ in politics. It is no longer necessary to be in a crowd to propose policy - to debate it - or vote on it.

All decision-makers cherish their role of deciding for others more than their property and their status as decision-maker more than their income. They will oppose political equality as it challenges Power everywhere - in the Family, in Education, at Work and in the State. DD supporters must expect vehement resistance from every existing authority to any attempts to introduce DD. Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, Socialists and Communists, Religious and atheists, Monarchists and even some Anarchists will oppose DD.  Republicans and Democrats denounce DD as ‘populist’, Marxists denounce it as “Simplistic”, while some anarchists reject it as ‘centralist’. Actually DD has no “centre” but it accepts majority decisions.  Most anarchists reject majority decisions.
How can DD citizens be guided to make informed choices? Panels of experts - appointed by lottery - will discuss every policy on TV; explain its advantages, its drawbacks, its cost, and possible consequences of accepting or rejecting it. Panel members will answer questions phoned-in by citizens, and provide all with the necessary information to make a decision.  Experts advise - all citizens decide.
What about corruption in politics? Doesn't politics necessarily breed corruption? Contrary to popular belief corruption is not a necessary part of politics. It occurs only where some people decide policy for others. Seekers of favors from the decision-makers try to bribe them. Decision-makers themselves bribe supporters to retain their own role. US President (1945-1953) Harry Truman said:”If you want a friend in Washington - bring your dog”. This is true in all systems of RR. However, when all citizens decide all policies there are too many to bribe.

Appointment by lottery (of panels executing policy) renders election-bribes useless. Lottery fraud can be prevented, so DD greatly reduces corruption in politics.

Some believe that DD is far more complicated than rule by representatives. This is not necessarily the case. Reps tend to complicate political problems to enhance their image so they will be called to solve them. Politics by all citizens are simpler – and far more transparent - than Politics by Reps, but even if this were not the case most people prefer more freedom in a complex system, to less freedom in a simple system. Dictatorship is simpler than a Republic.  One ruler, without opposition or coalition, decides policy. Yet most people prefer a republic to dictatorship, as in a republic they have at least freedom to decide who will decide for them.
As stated earlier, a society can be run by direct democracy only if most of its citizens want to decide policies themselves. No minority can impose DD on society.  When most citizens participate in deciding policies all political representatives become redundant. Political representatives have no authority to represent those who refuse to be represented by them. In the past kings could impose their authority by force. In a modern industrial society authority to decide for others cannot be imposed by force, only by deception or delusion. In a modern industrial society whenever people refuse to let others decide for them anyone trying to be Mr. Big will lose authority. Mr. Big may try to impose his authority by deception and bribes but this cannot last for long (De-Gaulle in 1969). Unlike all other political systems, direct democracy cannot be imposed by force or by undemocratic means.  Any political system that can be imposed against the will of the majority cannot be democratic. Either the Demos decides all policies or someone else decides for the Demos.  In the parliamentary system representatives decide policies on behalf of all citizens (the “Demos”) but this is not “demos-kratia”. No Parliamentary system is - or can be - a Democracy. Rule of a few over the many is ‘Oligos-Kratia’, not "Demos-Kratia" even if all citizens elected those few. 

When the majority - in a school, municipality, borough, village, church, place of work, or in the entire country, will try to decide policies by itself, it will face fierce opposition from all those who currently decide policies. It is an illusion to believe that those with authority to decide for others will give it up just because the majority demands it.  They will oppose the decisions of the majority by all means possible.

Every DD activist must realize that while DD can be implemented locally, in a school, borough, village, or town, any attempt to implement it in the entire country will require a long and fierce struggle. DD activists must prepare themselves in advance - psychologically and technically - for this struggle. If they are unprepared for it they will be defeated.  Opponents of DD will use every known trick, and invent new ones, to defeat DD. Many tricks are deceptions and psychological manipulations designed to confuse and scare the majority. Many will be scared or confused but if the majority persists in demanding DD no minority can defeat it. 

The struggle for DD is the school preparing people for life in DD. It teaches them how - and why - to run society as DD.  This answers the criticism of DD opponents who argue that most people do not want to make policy decisions. This is true in RR, where rulers have a vested interest in staying in Power and deliberately cultivate the political apathy of most citizens. Using people's behavior in RR as an example to prove citizens’ political apathy in all circumstances is misleading: it uses what needs to be proved (inherent apathy) as an argument, and is logically false.

 Critics of DD argue that most people do not want to be in a position where they must decide all policies of society.  This is true about many people today but not necessarily in DD. Clearly, most citizens do not want to decide every policy.  In DD all citizens have the right to decide policy, but not a duty to do it. Most citizens will participate in debates and decisions that immediately concern them and perhaps ignore others, but when they have to obey decisions they do not like on issues that did not concern them, their response may change.

 

Some people oppose DD even though they agree that it is technically feasible. These are principled elitists. They abhor rule by all citizens. Elitists denounce DD as ‘populist’.  They believe majorities are swayed by moods rather than by knowledge and will make decisions that cause disasters. One such example is the majority that voted the Nazis into power in 1933. That event happened in RR and is not an argument against DD but against every system of decision-making. Hitler came to power in a parliament, through elections. This can happen in DD too, and also in a Monarchy.  DD is not worse than RR in this respect but in DD, unlike any other system, the citizens can revoke a disastrous decision immediately. Moreover, the more decision-makers there are, the less do psychological whims, phobias and a craving for power, shape political decisions. Decisions of one person depend on that person’s psychology. Decisions by many do not depend on one psychology, as decisions motivated by different psychologies often cancel each other. DD reduces the influence of personal psychology on politics.

No political system can protect society from decisions that cause disastrous results. However in DD decisions that produced disasters can be revoked at any time by all citizens.  In RR, citizens can replace representatives whose decisions produced disasters only during elections. Moreover, replacing representatives in RR does not replace citizens' motives and priorities. Electing new representatives due to old motives perpetuates the old pattern. Old priorities motivate election of new representatives who make the old decisions. This creates a vicious circle in politics. The point is to change priorities, not representatives. Only new priorities produce new decisions. In DD disastrous results of decisions motivates citizens to reconsider their priorities, not their representatives.

Many assume that today’s widespread selfishness, greed and political apathy in society will cause DD to be a ‘jungle’ ruled by the unbridled selfish instincts of most citizens. They believe these traits are part of "Human Nature". They are not.

Selfishness, greed, and political apathy are human potentialities encouraged by BB and RR who benefit by them. Each political system encourages human potentialities that suit it. Dominant traits are products of political systems, not of "Human Nature"

People can ‘succeed’ in a particular economic and political system only if they accept the norms of that system. Drawing conclusions from peoples' attitudes in a system dominated by BB and RR is misleading as it ignores the influence of that system on people's behavior. When this influence is taken into account, the argument of 'citizens’ political apathy' or ‘citizens’ selfishness’ collapses because, unlike RR, DD depends on citizens’ concern for society and encourages it.

Those fearing that direct democracy is "Mob Rule" implying "The end of civilized society" must be reminded - repeatedly - that DD is reversible. A DD citizen can propose return to RR. This is not against the rules of DD and may get a majority

The most important part of DD is the citizens' participation in the public debate on policies. Participation in this debate stimulates people's thinking, enhances their political creativity, motivating them to invent new solutions to old problems.

Citizens' active participation in shaping social reality is far more stimulating than passively watching “Reality Shows” on TV. Participation in policy debates activates peoples' mental faculties, stimulates their creativity, frees their imagination, deepens their thinking, challenges their prejudices, forces them to re-think much of what they took for granted. It can initiate an inner debate in people's minds leading them beyond traditional attitudes and thinking. It develops people's intellectual ability, intelligence, and personality. Direct Democracy is not merely a system for deciding policies – it shapes the personality, it creates new attitudes in individuals, motivating them to improve not only the material side of society but also its intellectual and moral side, that is - themselves. Deep down in all people are great resources of goodwill and creativity. They will erupt when all participate in shaping society.
For more info see: http://www.abolish-power.org