- Beyond MAGA, towards a better Politics
- ∙Why a new Government mode (of Politics) is required: the incorrect conception of the Vote
One of the factors that allowed the left to conquer an absolute power in 2020 is the misunderstanding concerning the idea of what represents the “vote of citizens” (the elections).
● The fundamental right of the citizen is not the expression of the vote, but its direct participation in the entire deliberative process. <see>
● The federal government (“Washington”) is a sort of subversion of the “democratic government” that was at the United States Foundation: the idea of the current federal government was rejected by the Americans already in the 1900s, with the Election – in a Landslide Victory – by Thomas Jefferson. <see>
● The federal government was developed by T. Jefferson – although he had understood the danger that it represented – due to the impossibility of extending direct government by citizens to a larger territory than that of the Townships. Apglob but today this form of representative federal government has no reason to be, since the limits that had at the time of the foundation of unified states can easily be overcome with new technologies (and new forms of government by delegations). <see>
● Pressing that the end of democracy (of the Republic understood by the founding fathers) is to satisfy the needs of citizens,
– the over-local problems are only a very small part of the problems of which the national state today claims to deal with. The really existing over-local problems can be addressed in different mode from that of the Parliamentary Government
– only the locals are able to accurately identify the needs to be met in this place. Or there is no solution (really effective) that is not developed directly (at least in a form of direct participation) by the holders of the need to be satisfied.
.
The question is that when it is said that the vote is the foundation of Democracy we are in error:
it is not the capacity of the Citizen
to express his Will in the vote
to be the foundation of Democracy:
but it is the possibility of the Citizen
to actually participate in the whole “Deliberative process”
(the vote is only a passage of this process – see the chapter later).
.
∙US Democracy was born with the idea of not having a national government (anti-federalist)
This error in the conception of what the expression of the Will of the Citizen is, ie in the conception of the vote in its current configuration (vote as an election of a representative) emerges clearly if the origin of the US parliamentary government is analyzed (all Epoca of the United States Foundation).
In fact, in this case it appears clear how the concept of the current elections (representatives) cannot even be considered to actually democratic (in the original sense of the democratic term).
An analysis of the history of the US foundation shows us precisely as
the US Federal Government
(President and National Parliament)
was designed at a later stage
to the creation of the United States
(before the Revolution and in the phases immediately following them the colonies were Governed in radically different mode).
.
Deepening this analysis emerges facts of fundamental importance:
1) the idea of the current federal government was rejected by the Americans already in the 18th century, after the first two federalist presidents (the end of which was, precisely, a central government capable of imposing taxations and rules to states).
At the time of the United States creation the idea of creating a federal government was supported by the Federalist party that was opposed by an anti-ffederalist party: after two presidency mandates of the Federalist Party the Americans, decreing a Landslide Victory for the Anti-federalist party they failed the idea of the federal government “strong” (like that currently in force in Washington, ie equipped with power to impose rules to States that are not linked to war necessity). In this way causing the disappearance of the federalist party.
.
.
Therefore appears that
Today Americans
have forgotten their initial choice
of not having a government
capable of imposing taxes and laws.
2) The federal government (“Washington”) is a sort of subversion of the “democratic government” that was at the United States Foundation.
Indeed
The federal government
(as is set today)
CONTRADICTS THE IDEA
OF THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ITSELF,
in which the Demos governs himself,
proposed by the Founding Fathers
The way in which a democratic government (or republican: the two terms have been used to indicate the same type of government) was reiterated by politicians who played a fundamental role in the History of USA, as T. Jefferson, according to which You can only be a “government by its Citizens” (“Acting Directly and Personally, According to Rules”); or A. Lincoln: ‘Democracy is Direct self-government, over all the people, for All the People, by All The People “.
The most significant step of the descriptions of the founding fathers about the government that should have been established is probably that of T. Jefferson (the President that defeated the Federalists, that supported the current national government model) in the “Letter to John Taylor” , when he describes the danger that he ran his conception of Republic (“Government by Its Citizens in Mass, Acting Directly and Personally, According to Rules”):
“The Further The Departure From Direct and Constant Control by the Citizens, The Less Has The Government of the Ingredient of Republicanism” (“Letter to John Taylor”)
Note that T. Jefferson when describing the Republican government modes actually refers to the democratic model: a government by Citizen who operate “directly and personally” is actually the model of Democracy, in which, precisely, the Democs (citizens) govern themselves.
.
It is taken into account that Federalists have made what have always made socialist intellectuals: they followed the popular revolution a coup with which an elite canceled the result obtained from the citizens’ revolt (at the time of the American Revolution Socialism did not exist still, so we can’t say if the federalists were socialists. However, we can say that the federalists had as a reference the French Revolution, which then became the reference for the various forms of socialism of the following two centuries).
.
The US problem is therefore that, despite the founding Fathers clarified that the National government should remain small and weak, without ever hiring powers higher than those of States, actually America suffered a sort of “Cancel cultures” which led Americans to forget most of those who are the Principles of democracy (Republic). That is the problem is that
The fundamental idea of Democracy was lost:
Citizens are sovereigns.
And therefore, by extension,
States are sovereigns
with respect to the Federal government.
The mistake of placing the focus on the Vote (the importance of the popular deliberative process)
In other words, US Democracy today does not work not because it has lost the idea of the value of the vote (as today they support the Republicans), but why
the idea of what is the essence of democratic government is lost: THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
(The conception of democratic government corresponds to that of the Republican Government in the conception of T. Jefferson).
.
Or the problem is that the memory of the fact that what matters really is lost, is
The possibility (right) of Citizens
to directly express their Will
in every government action
(Lincoln: “Direct self-government … by All The People” – Jefferson: “Government by Its Citizens … Acting Directly and Personally”).
.
The fact is that because there may be the real “Direct self-government” indicated by the founding fathers the exercise of the Vote is not sufficient – in the conception in which Citizens express their preference on actions that have actually already been defined upstream by politicians. But it is necessary
that the popular Will
can be expressed
with an actual participation of the citizen
to the entire deliberative process.
As we see in the next chapter, the deliberative process of Democracy is a process in which the vote has a minimum role: in it the Citizen initially identifies the need to be satisfied, to then define (insem to other citizens, and possibly with the collaboration of experts) a solution, and therefore follow the realization of this solution.
.
The problem is therefore that, in summary
The deliberative power of the citizen
now has been reduced to a right to vote
.
This reduction in the role of the Citizen has led to the gradual conquest of an almost absolute Power by the left, since in reality the right to vote leaves no power in the hands of the Citizens: in this case the Citizen can do nothing but confirm the choices Performed by the political class:
● In the case of the election of their representatives, Citizens actually have no choice: they can only indicate their preference between an extremely reduced number of people already chosen, upstream, from the parties.
● In the event of the definition of solutions for social problems, Citizens have no say in the matter, and politicians end up developing solutions tha lead no advantage to Citizens (who, indeed, are often in conflict with the interests of the latter ).
<see my text “The “Game of Modern Politics”: Citizens become an instrument (the specific interests of Politicians)“>
▫Limits and errors in the definition of the NATIONAL government
Democracy originally (in ancient Athens) did nothing but formalize the “Government” model that has already worked for centuries in the villages communities: the assemblies in which the inhabitants meet to find solution to satisfy their needs (obviously where Inhabitants were not dominated by tyrants).
Even in the case of the first modern democracy, that of the United States, people entrusted (initially) to the model that had very functioned until then in the colonies of North America (the Town).
.
But the Americans once obtained independence, have begun to think of a federal government body.
To understand how they have heard the need to resort to such a federal body we have to consider as:
.
1) The colonies already during the American War of Independence from the Kingdom of England had had the need to build an organism that coordinated the action of the States (Congress of the Confederation) so that the Union of States could work as a nation.
It is interesting to note that the Congress of the Confederation respected the Principles indicated by the founding Fathers: it did not ask for taxes, it did not impose laws to the States (then Colonies).
Furthermore it did not have a President, which is probably not a real need
.
2) Until the Revolution – for almost two centuries – Americans had always used only the government developed directly by citizens in townships (it is substantially of that kind of government that is defined by T. Jefferson as Republican: “Government by ITS Citizens” “Acting Directly and Personally”; and from A. Lincon as the basis of Democracy USA: ‘Direct self-government … by All The People”)
But when you want to go to a National government body you need to switch to another form of government, as
This form of traditional government typical of democracy is applicable only in the local area.
That is, as T. Jefferson noted, it was very unlikely that direct participation in the Assembly (from it however deemed to be fundamental) could be enlarged to a larger territory of a town (“I Doubt IF IT Would Be Practicable Beyond The Extent of In New England Township. “) [Jefferson’s quotes in these paragraphs are taken from” Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816 “].
For this reason, having Jefferson stated that at the base of everything you need a “government by its Citizens in Mass, Acting Directly and Personally”, to justify the creation of the current national government he is forced to force the logic of his reasoning (ie He is forced to betray the principle he had just stated as a fundamental), and to introduce a vaguely based model on “Shades of Republicanism” than
lead to the United States no longer a Republic
(direct government of citizens)
but – according to Jefferson –
only the “nearest” approach to Republic.
“Shade from this Pure Element [Real Republic], … [The Government] Should Be Exercised Each By Representatives … This I Should Consider As the Nearest Approach To Pure Republic, Which Is Practicable On A Large Scale of Country Or Population”
.
It is therefore necessary to carry out a couple of considerations relating to the definition, by the founding Fathers such as Jefferson, of the federal Government that contradicts those that had been defined as founding principles of the new Republic of the United States.
.
1) One of factors that determined the creation of a national Parliamentary Government was the lack of transport and communication technologies that allowed the coordination of States to be developed directly by Citizens: a problem that today can be overcome thanks to new technologies.
Given the territorial extension to be covered with the Federal government Jefferson could no longer think of direct forms of Citizens government (at that time the only way to move was with the horse carriage; and the only form of communication was the system Postal, horse-based).
As we see later, today progress has led to the development of technologies that allow forms of communication and transport which partly eliminate the problems that were in the 1900s; and led to the creation of effective international coordination bodies without fixed structures as it is a Parliament (it is a “governance by delegation” as the G8).
.
A further consideration to do about the definition of a Federal government that, over two centuries, has allowed politicians to transform the original “weak” government (compared to the power of States) in a strong power able to impose at It was their own rules (as we have seen, for example, in the HR1 law, “For the People Act”, of 2021 which leads the control of the elections from the states to the Washington government):
2) How can Jefferson committed the evaluation error in thinking that the federal government “weak” he conceived he could remain such in time?
Note that the characteristics of the government that should have adopted the United States – a government that cannot take a power greater than that of the States – had been clearly specified even in the institutional headquarters, for example in Article 1 of the Peace Treaty of Paris «To be free sovereign and independent States».
.
In defense of T. Jefferson we must consider that:
– He realized however the danger represented by a central government.
– He thought that the national government could continue to maintain extremely limited powers (to never be able to impose laws to the States), because he did not have the reference of a historical experience of him.
.
What is the evaluation error committed by Jefferson?
It is certain to understand this because in this evaluation error lies the current US problem: a federal government that requires its laws to States.
The current form of federal government was founded in 1930, with the measures for the New Deal defined by the Democrats, and subsequently with the Great Society Programs, implemented by the Democrat Lindon Johnson but evolved subsequently also by the Republicans; And then with the Federal Mandates, Obama’s school education programs, the Obamacare, the HR1 to regulate the elections, etc …
.
The fact is that Jefferson could not refer to historical experiences of a “weak federal government” as the one he conceived: the consequence is that
T. Jefferson committed the naivety of thinking that the political class would have continued to defend his “weak” federal government model.
In fact Jefferson had only the negative reference of the English monarchy that imposed his laws to American colonies.
.
Thinking that they could have a federal government that respected the principle of subordination with respect to States, Jefferson has failed to take into consideration a typical characteristic of human behavior, which tends, where he has the possibility, to accumulate power.
The problem that Jefferson underestimated is that of the “will of power”, of the man who wants to expand somehow what he has at the moment.
This in the size of the exercise of power – as is in government – materializes in the desire of the human being to expand the power it has already conquered (this can take place for merely personal interests, or because, for ideological reasons, it is thought that the Greater power obtained allows you to exercise more effective government, for the good of the population).
The problem that occurs in representative government is that a human being to which another human being (a citizen) allows a part of its power (as it takes place in representative democracy) inevitably tends to use this power to increase its level of power ( this occurs even if initially this power delegated is minimal). <see my text “Having even a small amount of power in a system allows you to increase that power“>
In summary, the problems of current federal government
Summarizing what previously exposed, we see some – necessary – considerations on the legitimacy of the current form of Federal government in the United States (on what is removed from the intentions of founding fathers such as T. Jefferson).
(1)
The current Republic
– based on the Federal Government of Washington –
according to T. Jefferson
(the first supporter of the Republic in the USA)
is not “just” a Republic,
but a “Shade of Republicanism”.
T. Jefferson: “Shade from this Pure Element [Real Republic], … [The Government] Should Be Exercised Each by Representatives”
That is, for the same admission of its Founders, that of the United States currently – being governed by a representative system – is not a real Republic, but an almost-Republic (a “Shade from the Pure Republic”). In fact, it betrays the fundamental principle indicated by the same Jefferson (and then by Lincoln): the direct participation of Citizens at the Government (Government “is more or less republican, in Proportion as it has in its Composition More or Less of this Ingredient of the Direct Action of the Citizens.” See in the previous chapter what the factors that have led him to incur this background contradiction).
Note that in the declarations by Jefferson the concepts of Republic and Democracy are substantially interchangeable because he defines the Republic as a “government by ITS Citizens” mode (“Acting Directly and Personally, According to Rules”). Definition that is, precisely, the description of the purely democratic government, where the Demos is sovereign, and it governs directly itself, as described also, among others, from A. Lincoln: ‘Democracy is Direct self-government, … by All the People “.
It is no coincidence that the first party was called Democratic-Republican Party.
.
(2)
The Pseudo-Republic
constituted by the current federal government
was created for a reason
that today no longer exists:
at that time communications and transport could not allow direct participation in the government by Citizens (which was considered to be the only form of legitimate government) beyond the territorial dimension of the Township (Jefferson: “Such to Government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population.” “i doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a new england township.”)
It is therefore due to the impossibility that thee had at that time to participate directly with the federal government that Jefferson has thought to adopt a “dangerous” variant of the actual democratic/republican government.
There were many to consider dangerous the federal government, which could have ended up being “oppressive” towards states.
Among the other Madison stated «Wherever The Real Power in A Government Lies, There is the Danger of Oppression.» «Although It Be Generally True as Above States That The Danger of Oppression Lies in The Interested Majorities of The People Rather Than in Usurped Acts of the Government, Yet There May Be Occasions on Which The Evil May Spring from the Latter Sources» Madison to Jefferson : New York, October 17, 1788
As Man in the HISTORY successfully ruled his community
To understand how a really democratic government (“Direct Government … by the People”) can work better than the current Parliamentary government (Govenment by Representatives) for the most extensive territories of the local one is necessary first to clarify with what way the Man in his History has successfully ruled its communities.
(It is a matter of seeing that this form of direct government has worked, and why, in the opposite, did not work the federal government conceived by the founding fathers).
.
Assuming that the Goal of Democracy (from the Republic understood by the founding fathers) is to satisfy the needs of Citizens, it is first of all to understand (1) what is the optimal way to satisfy the needs of a social community. And (2) what are those needs that cannot be solved locally (which we can define needs, or problems, over-local).
.
● Over-local problems are only a very small part of the problems of which the national state today claims to deal with.
And in any case
Really existing supra-local problems
can be addressed in different mode
from that of Parliamentary government
currently active in Washington: a method of organizations without a fixed structure of representatives, based on delegations (see the “Governance by delegation” in my Text “Federalism 2.0: Direct Democracy at the inter-local level (governance by Delegations)“).
Most of the supra-local problems treated today by the Federal Government of Washington are “invented” from politicians, in the sense that these are problems that can (and must) be solved locally <see my text “Real Democracy has always worked only locally“>
Already some centuries ago someone said that the task that the State is asked is to create problems (with its laws), and then to put themselves as the solution of them creating new laws.
.
● Only the local inhabitants are able to accurately identify the needs to be met (this occurs only when Citizens are able to participate directly to government, namely the definition of solutions).
Or there is no solution (really effective) that is not developed directly (at least in a form of direct participation) by the holders of the need to be satisfied. <see my text “The basic rules of Democracy: Democracy works only when citizens are directly concerned with government actions“>
The market also feels the need to integrate the customer in the product definition process. <see The problems of the current Market strategies: toward a crowd participated Marketing – Why does innovation fail today? The inability to understand in new Customer Needs>
.
Among the various factors that mean that only when the holders of needs actively participate in the solution design process:
– There are no “universal” solutions for a nation (which includes a territory in which very different situations are included: cultural, morphological, etc.)
– There is no solution that can be considered definitive, since all social needs satisfaction solutions are in progress (they must be continuously monitored, and set up).
.
We remind you that Citizens can resort to the same experts to whom representative government occurs: indeed, today on the Internet a network of expertise that supports local administrations largely on the internet.
beyond the conception of current federal government: towards federalism 2.0
Summing up,
The current Federal government
is the result of a compromise
that the founding fathers found themselves
having to implement due to the limits
of the form of government they indicated
as a fundamental:
“Direct self-government … by The People”
(Jefferson: «I Doubt IF IT Would Be Practicable Beyond The Extent of A New England Township.»).
The problem of this choice that has never been addressed with seriousness (although there were extremely serious consequences): the principle to the basis of the Constitution has been betrayed in essence, that is the fact that power should be exercised by the people – “We The People … Establish this Constitution for the United States of America.»
The implications of what was declared by the Founding Fathers is: the people are sovereign, ie it is above all (to the ruler no one can say what must do). And also, by extension, no organism can impose to rules States.
The unexpected consequence of this choice to equip the United States of a central government is that in
2021 has arrived at a situation
in which the Washington government
attributed to itself an absolute power,
and imposes its rules to States.
(It has become the sovereign, whose power can no longer be limited by anyone)
.
.
To understand how it is possible to find an alternative to the current Federal government that is in line with the principles of the real Republic/Democracy, it is decisive to understand how
the conditions that
led to the compromise
of the current federal government
today no longer exist:
and therefore the federal government of Washington in its current configuration
has no reason to exist.
That is, as we see in the next chapters, today
1) Technologies are able to eliminate – largely – the problem of citizens’ participation in government for a larger territory than that of a township.
2) New forms of coordination was developed between States (such as G8) that allow us to have a “weak” federal government as the founding fathers have desired.
∙● New technologies allow the recovery of governance “by The People” at national level
Technologies are able to eliminate – largely – the problem that has forced T. Jefferson to define the Federal government: that of the participation of Citizens at the government of a territory with a higher extension to that of the Townships.
But this opportunity is – deliberately – have been ignored for years, since this kind of solution would put power in the hands of Citizens (as it was still in the early years following the American Revolution).
.
.
The problem that led to the establishment of Biden to the White House without the popular consent, is generated by a factory defect of the current Federal Government System: problem that therefore it is necessary to address if you want to bring the United States back into a governance dimension real Democracy (“by the people”).
.
First it is necessary to remember that Federalism in its current version was rejected by the Americans who voted the anti-federalist Jefferson with a Landslide Victory (bearing in this way to a dissolution of the federalist party).
As mentioned above, T. Jefferson himself was convinced of the intrinsic danger in defining a central government, but had accepted the idea of it as he admitted not to see an alternative for political coordination of the States (it is taken into account that however the idea of that time was that the central government would have remained always subordinate to the power of the States).
Jefferson is very clear when he indicates how to be the government of the US “Government by its Citizens in Mass, Acting Directly and Personally, According to Rules“. And when he indicates the need to contradict the Principles as soon as exposed to him because he is unable to imagine the possibility of extending this form of government “Such to Government is evidently restrained to Very Narrow Limits of Space and Population at a territorial level. i doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a new england township [Letter to John Taylor]
.
The fact is that
Over the course of more than two centuries the limits with which he had to do Jefferson came less:
the development of communication technologies today allows to have the possibility of direct government of Citizens (“Acting Directly and Personally”) also in very vast territories.
The problem is that these technologies, due to a matter of convenience for the political class (for Establishment) not only are not applied to the development of solutions for really democratic government, but them are even applied to further reduce the power of citizens.
This is demonstrated, for example, by the case of Dominion devices, used to manipulate the vote of the Citizens.
.
To understand how technologies today are used in a manipulated way from the Establishment (the “Swamp”), you need to take into account the two factors related to them:
● Technologies can scale the status quo, bringing quality such as process transparency and the possibility for citizens to express their will in real time (which may differ from that expressed by the political class).
A significant example is in Italy, where the Video Assisted Referee (VaR) for soccer matches has only been applied recently, due to the resistors of the Incumpent Teams: in fact since the introduction of the VAR such teams fell into disgrace .
<see my text “The concept of Innovation (introduction to the Disruptive Innovation)“>
<see my article “Why the big companies cannot innovate within them (brief)“>
● Technologies, used appropriately, can be used to strengthen the incumbentes power position (as happens, precisely, with the Dominion voting system, or with the management of the censorship by social networks entrusted to “algorithms”, etc …).
.
Note that the problem of the 2020 elections does not derive from Technologies itself, but from an unusual use of them.
The problems encountered in this case are at least a couple:
● The institutions and the mainstream media pass the idea that the technologies are infallible, so man can blindly trust them (see for example the narrative that accompanies the development of self-driving car).
Note that as in this direction with the “chemical technology” of the vaccine (for Covid) they are committing a possible error as the one committed for ‘AZT – The drug used for a few years to treat AIDS – which turned out to be the first cause of the death of the sick of this disease. <read>
That is, in this case it is omitting to apply the precautionary principle, according to which a technology cannot be used until its harmlessness has been demonstrated (the principle is sanctioned by the UN).
.
● Technologies are used to manipulate some processes that are transformed from “manual” in “computerized”.
Or the technologies instead of being used as an aid capable of making the processes more correct and obvious, are designed to make these processes obscuto (as happens in the case of the vote of Citizens, of the censorship exercised by social media: cases In which the algorithms used remain secret, inaccessible).
In this case the Transparency Principle is betrayed, although transparency is now also required in the supply chain.
And without the transparency the processes of democracy no longer have anything democratic.
Conservatives must be aware of the fact that today transparency is one of the most important quality of the processes: transparency becomes one of the most important weapons to combat the absolute powers of the left (remember that the Soviet Union has collapsed precisely because of Glasnost – transparency).
The problem of lack of awareness of which is a correct use of technologies
Today, ie the idea of which is a correct use of technologies, or use that leads to the advantages to the User (for example voters), and not to those who hold technologies.
Or today the “human factor” is not taken into account which must be the basis of a solution: in innovating a traditional “manual” process, the Technology must be at the service of the User (of the Citizen), supporting the essence of traditional processes (respecting originating principles and values).
And, in the case of governance processes,
the Citizen
must always have control
(and responsibility)
of the processes
Otherwise it is no longer in a democratic dimension.
The real innovation, which produces useful results per user, is a “conservative” innovation. Instead today innovation is developed in a “progressive” mode, in which technologies are used for the development of an ideological society.
The technologies must be literally at the service of the user, with transparent and controllable procedures, and not to be, having nowhere, a closed one-way compared to which the user has no “power” (with the new technological solution there must be a greater possibility Process control, while today the previous control possibilities are eliminated today in the new solutions).
An example of citizens’ measurement technologies, in which it can always have control of the process, is that of the possibility by the elector to check the vote by him expressed by him (and obviously he can intervene when it finds irregularities) .
<see my text “Not disruptive technologies, but disruptive concept (enabling technologies)“>
<see my text “The question of responsibility (and the proper functioning of the Society)“>
∙The “Bottom Up Reform Initiative” project: the technologies at the service of the citizen
Policy’s background problem is that the System of parliamentary policy has been tallely altered by ideologies pursued by the Establishment, and today it has become irrecorformable (this has been dwelling from the failure of Trump “Drain the Swamp”).
And it is therefore need, how you ca see in the Project Reboot of Democracy, recover the original dimension of Democracy with a path developed outside Washington’s policy.
The project restarting democracy is bacon the new SOLTA SA, among other things, on the development of technological tools that allow to recover that direct government by the citizens described to be indivated by people Come T. Jefferson and A. Lincoln. (See other documents the description the description of the “bottom up reform initiative”, and Open Government Platform – “Bottom Up Reform Initiative – A Project for the realization of a bottom-up Reform of Democracy).
<see my document “Synopsis of the Open Government Platform Project“>
Some possibilities for developing new government modes directly participated by Citizens
Thus, appropriately using new technologies, today it is possible to overcome those limits that have prevented the creation of a really democratic National government until now (“government from its citizens” “act directly and personally”) that have forced T. Jefferson to conceive the current federal government (“I doubt if It would be practicable beyond the extension of a new city of England”).
That is, with the new communication technologies it is possible to expand the direct government (or at least the participated direction) to a territorial extentence higher than the townships.
These are solutions concerning the areas of
● Direct governance.
● Indirect governance.
● Direct citizens’ activity
.
● Direct governance
The question of direct government (“Government by Its Citizens” “Acting Directly and Personally”) is fundamental because:
1) In a Republic/Democracy there is no legitimate form that is not Direct government (as also indicated by T. Jefferson and A. Lincoln).
The problem that T. Jefferson had, is that in representative Democracy, not being the Citizens able to monitor and modify the work of their Representatives, a class of policy professionals gradually is created, and those Politicians
– come off the life of “normal citizens”, and they are therefore no longer able to conceive solutions that produce a good quality of life in Society.
– increase the level of their power (or by pure personal interest, or for the ideological belief that in this way they can improve society). <see my text “Having even a small amount of power in a system allows you to increase that power“>
2) Government direct today is possible thanks
– the availability of new technologies
– to new forms of “new forms of governance for delegations (illustrated in the next chapter).
.
That is today it is possible to create new solutions that allow citizens to deal directly with government.
<see my text “Solutions for Participated Government and Administration (Welfare 2.0)“>.
● As in the referendum cases that can be used continuously, since the cost of such consultations is minimal (it is possible to establish various forms of direct expression of the popular will: public preliminary investigation, instances and petitions, popular initiative proposals, class Action, etc …).
● recalling that Democracy is based on a Citizen participation in the complete resolution process (and not only to the voting phase), with new technological solutions Citizens can effectively participate in the phases of conception of ideas, project processing , administration of works and services.
Furthermore, these solutions can allow citizens to be directly involved in the development of solutions, in voluntary mode.
● Indirect governance: “Direct representation” and “SPENDING REVIEW OF THE CROWD”
The definition of forms of “compromise” between direct and representative government is necessary if nothing else for the transition phase between the current form of representative democracy is that practiced directly by the Citizens.
For this reason the “Bottom Up Reform Initiative” project also defines a government solution of direct participation by Citizens to the process of government of their representatives.
With this solution (Representation 2.0) Citizens can interact in real time with their parliamentary representative (to make proposals, for a monitoring of her activity, etc …).
This type of citizens interaction also lends itself to evolutions of the current forms of politics, such as a policy for citizens’ lobbies <<see my text “Politics by “Lobbies”: a Citizen Associations Politics“>
<see my text “Some “participated solutions“>
.
It is also possible to create solutions that allow – already in the current political context – to develop a Crowd action that leads to a monitoring and contrast of politicians. One of these is the spending review of Crowd: a platform with which citizens examine government costs (developing a widespread communication of the results of the survey very effective: think of an app on the smart phones that allows the citizen to know – via bar code – how much it spent for a public work that is observing).
.
In reality with new technologies you can do much more: it is possible to gradually set up “private” institutions of government (directly participate by citizens) for the management of institutions or public bodies (remember that in a democratic dimension Citizens have the possibility of option-out, and therefore that these institutions concern only the part of the Citizens who decided to adhere to the initiative).
● Direct citizens’ activity
We must not forget that in a real democratic dimension services and public works are not only option-outs, but they are also often created in voluntary mode.
Some examples: Corvee for the management of public goods, forms of “assistance” of volunteers (take into account that before the Government created the current monopoly of public health, the workers were served very well from cooperatives who with the cost of a day work guaranteed to them medical assistance for one year). Or totally private services that replace current public servants, such as the accompaniment to school of children, which can be developed by private media from parents groups, land patrolling systems, etc.
But perhaps more significant example is that of a service necessary to get out of the current cultural situation imposed by the left: that of Parental schools, which allow citizens to create valid alternatives to state education.
■ A new form of national government (Federalsim 2.0)
As illustrated in other documents, with new technologies it is possible to create a new form of federalism closer to the original concept (that of anti-federalists like T. Jefferson):
a Federal government
actually subordinated to the will of citizens.
In this way it is therefore possible to overcome the factory defect present in the form of current Federalism, a defect that has allowed the development of a government in a stateist direction (socialist).
.
The new form of Federalism that today it is possible to develop is actually national government in its original conception of T. Jefferson: “A coordination of the States” subordinated to local authorities (remember that the first version of federalism was the Congress of the Confederation, which did not have a president, nor current powers).
<see my text “Federalism 2.0: Direct Democracy at the inter-local level (governance by Delegations)“>
<see my text “Federalism 2.0: the new model of Participatory Democracy“>
.
Take into account that to understand how it is possible, it is necessary to point out the fact that, as it illustrates in other documents,
The Supra-Local government is
for the vast majority of cases
an invention of the “federalists”
<see my text “The impossibility of having a real Democracy at the national level > A new form of representation at national level”> <see my text “Real Democracy has always worked only locally“>
