Category: News

Taking the Initiative

As this decade’s redistricting cycle begins, Republicans are licking

As this decade’s redistricting cycle begins, Republicans are licking their lips in anticipation. They already hold a sizeable 48-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. Thanks to their sweeping 2010 victories in state races, they will also have complete control over how 193 congressional districts are redrawn (compared to just 44 for the Democrats). In pivotal states like Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, Republicans will be able to gerrymander to their heart’s content — to protect their own incumbents and target vulnerable Democrats for electoral eradication.

Is there anything that Democrats (or fans of fair districts) can do to stop this onslaught? Wisconsin-style walkouts are one option, but even more promising are popular initiatives and referenda. Through the initiative process, available in about half the states, voters can place measures on the ballot that either impose strict criteria on how districts are drawn or transfer authority over redistricting from partisan legislatures to independent commissions. Through referenda, available in a similar number of states, voters can block legislatively enacted district plans from ever coming into effect. If the looming wave of gerrymandering is to be averted, both forms of direct democracy need to be used as aggressively — and as soon — as possible.

Not surprisingly, scholars have found that the policies advanced by initiatives and referenda tend to result in better district plans. University of Mississippi professor Jonathan Winburn determined that, in the 2000 cycle, redistricters were mostly unable to skew lines to their advantage when they had to design districts that were compact, respectful of political subdivisions, and attentive to geographic communities (all requirements commonly found in initiatives). Another recent study by political scientists at the University of Georgia and Michigan State University concluded that commission-drawn maps result in more competitive elections than plans designed by self-interested politicians. Analogously, the maps that voters have evaluated in referenda have usually been egregious gerrymanders (at least according to the parties that were harmed by them).

Despite these advantages, most efforts to improve redistricting via direct democracy have failed. After examining all initiatives of this sort from 1936 to 2005, I found that about two-thirds of them were defeated, usually because of the intense opposition of the state’s majority party. The measures were approved by the public only when some atypical factor — e.g., national scandal, Supreme Court intervention — reduced the effectiveness of the majority party’s resistance.

In recent years, however, the tide has started to turn. Arizonans voted for a redistricting commission in 2000. Californians followed suit in 2008 (for state legislative districts) and 2010 (for congressional districts). And, in Florida, a pair of successful 2010 initiatives established rigorous district-drawing rules for the legislature to follow. For whatever reason — rising disgust with politics as usual, better-designed proposals, savvier promotion, etc. — the American public seems more receptive to reform than ever before. In fact, according to a recent Columbia/Harvard survey, more than 80 percent of respondents with an opinion now want to take legislatures out of the redistricting business.

The moment is therefore ripe for action by both Democrats and good-government advocates. (Republicans have little incentive to shake up the status quo, since they are currently in charge of so many key states.) Both groups should immediately start drafting redistricting initiatives and then gathering the necessary signatures to place the measures on 2012 ballots. The initiatives could be modeled on the recent Arizona, California, and Florida provisions, all of which were carefully crafted and prevailed at the polls. Specific states that Democrats could target, because they (1) are fully under Republican control, (2) have numerous congressional districts, and (3) allow popular initiatives, include Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. Good-government types, who seek more sweeping reform, would want to add Arkansas (under full Democratic control) and Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, and Oregon (under split control) to the list.

Granted, it may have been better for these initiatives to have been on the 2010 ballot (prior to the start of the current cycle). By 2012, many states already will have enacted their district plans for the next decade. But initiatives could circumvent this problem by undoing the legislature’s handiwork and establishing better district-drawing procedures. The measures just need to be drafted to accomplish both goals. And, while the timing in 2012 may not be as convenient, the odds of success should be substantially higher. The next eighteen months will be full of stories about bizarrely shaped districts and partisan shenanigans. By the next election, the public should be primed to reject the dysfunctional status quo.

In addition to preparing initiatives, activists should be ready to launch referenda that could nullify the gerrymandered maps that are sure to emerge from many state legislatures. For Democrats, Republican-controlled states to target include Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. The good-government list would also comprise Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, and Oregon (all under Democratic or split control). Obviously, initiatives are preferable to referenda, in that they can make policy, not just reject it. But even in states that only allow referenda, voters can send the potent message — repeatedly, if necessary — that they will not stand idly by as politicians manipulate district lines for partisan advantage.

It’s true that initiatives and referenda alone cannot end gerrymandering. By my count, even if all states that allow direct democracy and that don’t already have redistricting commissions were to adopt them, these bodies would still be responsible for redrawing only 185 congressional districts. But 185 districts is a whole lot more than the 88 that are currently exempt from legislative manipulation (let alone the mere 34 that were exempt during the last decade). And, if a series of states were to embrace reform in rapid succession, it’s possible that Congress — which has the power to regulate redistricting nationwide — might be stirred into action. (Notably, this pattern of state experimentation followed by federal intervention is exactly how Canada’s boundary commissions came into being.)

Democrats and good-government advocates, then, have nothing to lose (and much to gain) by pushing for redistricting initiatives and referenda everywhere that they are available in 2012. At worst, these efforts will fail and the status quo will persist. But more likely, given recent trends, at least some of the measures will succeed. In this case, the Republican stranglehold on the House would be loosened somewhat, and a few (perhaps many) more of America’s districts would be redrawn the right way.

A version of this column was published in the New Republic.

Peoples’ will sets the agenda

As Switzerland gears up for parliamentary elections in October, political parties and lobby groups are turning to people’s initiatives to influence the debate.

Considered a cornerstone of Swiss democracy, the initiative system allows any citizen to call for a vote on any issue providing they collect at least 100,000 signatures in support of it.

 

As Switzerland gears up for parliamentary elections in October, political parties and lobby groups are turning to people’s initiatives to influence the debate.

Considered a cornerstone of Swiss democracy, the initiative system allows any citizen to call for a vote on any issue providing they collect at least 100,000 signatures in support of it.

 

Originally intended as a means for citizens to propose changes to the constitution, people’s initiatives are perhaps now the most effective instrument stakeholders have for setting the policy agenda in Switzerland.

In recent decades the number of initiatives put forward by political parties and interest groups has steadily increased. According to government statistics, there were proposals for 29 people’s initiatives between 1961 and 1970, compared with 82 between 2001 and 2010 (see graphic).

“Campaign weapon”

Andreas Auer, director of the Aarau-based Centre for Direct Democracy told swissinfo.ch popular initiatives have become a “campaigning weapon” for political parties, large and small.

“The main objective, at least in election years, is to be present in the political debate with an issue,” said Auer. “In this election year there are 14 initiatives pending now which is quite exceptional.”

Over the past 40 years, around half of the initiatives put forward by interest groups and political parties have been put to a nationwide vote. Of these, just ten per cent – 11 out of 121 – have succeeded at the ballot box.

But this is beside the point, vice president of the Green Party, Aline Trede told swissinfo.ch. The popular debate of an issue can be enough in itself to force parliament or the government to draft counter-proposals and change laws.

“Most initiatives you couldn’t win, but they changed something,” Trede said. “The pressure is there for half a year and people talk about it. You really see after a time the snowball effect.”

Radical debate

The diversification of the political spectrum, boosted by a wave of new parties that were founded in the sixties and seventies – there are 12 political parties represented in the national parliament – is behind the increased use of people’s initiatives, Georg Lutz, political scientist at Lausanne University, told swissinfo.ch.

“From a historical point of view the initiatives seem a logical instrument for parties at the left or the far right of the political spectrum,” said Lutz.

“The centre-right parties have no such tradition. Their initiatives often seem rather like desperate attempts to join the race of agenda setting and attention grabbing.”

Auer says the “radicalisation of political discourse” has been a driver behind the increased use of initiatives, particularly at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. As an example, he points to the People’s Party 2009 initiative to ban the construction of minarets on mosques.

“Issues put forward through the initiative process, even if they are not essential for the country… can mobilise people on easy topics,” said Auer.

“They prove to be very successful, not so much because they want to change the law but because they would like to have the benefit of it for the party at the next election.”

People vs government

Auer argues the success of people’s initiatives is proof of Switzerland’s “very weak government”.

“Switzerland is not really governed, it is administered by seven people who are very much occupied in their own ministries but who are not really governing the country,” said Auer.

“They are not really setting the agenda anymore, they are reacting to initiatives most of the time.”

But activists also use initiatives to react to events and issues, and citizens may also challenge laws already passed by parliament by calling for a referendum which could overturn them.

Trede said the Greens had planned action on the issue of construction of new nuclear power stations, but events in Japan pushed the party to move ahead quickly with a people’s initiative which it will ask party delegates to approve next week.

Tighter controls?

That people’s initiatives are now being used to influence debate and opinion rather than to seek constitutional change has given rise to concerns about potential conflicts with Switzerland’s obligations under international law.

This week the government released a report that, if the proposed measures are implemented, would give the parliament greater powers to reject initiatives that “violate the essence” of constitutional and international law.

The move follows the acceptance by the electorate of two highly controversial initiatives: the proposal to ban the construction of minarets in 2009 and of an initiative to deport foreign criminals last November – widely seen as a violation of both the Swiss constitution and international human rights law.

There is also discussion about increasing the number of signatures required to force a vote on an initiative to from at least 100,000 to 200,000.

Trede agrees that “tighter controls” are necessary to ensure basic rights are protected.

“I think people’s initiatives are overused by parties in government, and particularly by the right [wing] parties, which use them to make a majority out of the minority,” she said.

But Auer argues that initiatives are not overused and describes the government proposal for greater controls as a “bad idea”.

“You can’t talk about an abuse. They have the possibility to push an idea forward, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said.

“Human rights are a question that can only be resolved by judges or courts. To decide if a statute or proposal is violating a liberty, that is not up to a political body like parliament to decide.”

 

Sophie Douez, swissinfo.ch
(with input from Urs Geiser)

GOP goes from anti-tax to anti-voter

For more than a decade, the Republican Party has made it clear that any state legislator who votes for a tax increase, even a temporary one, will face the political death penalty – an immediate recall or removal from office in the next election. During my tenure in the Assembly (2000-06), Republican legislators who voted for taxes were defeated, typically in their next primary elections or when they ran for another office. (Two legislators, seeing the writing on the wall, simply quit.) Has the death penalty now evolved to apply to legislators who vote simply to place tax measures on the ballot?

For more than a decade, the Republican Party has made it clear that any state legislator who votes for a tax increase, even a temporary one, will face the political death penalty – an immediate recall or removal from office in the next election. During my tenure in the Assembly (2000-06), Republican legislators who voted for taxes were defeated, typically in their next primary elections or when they ran for another office. (Two legislators, seeing the writing on the wall, simply quit.) Has the death penalty now evolved to apply to legislators who vote simply to place tax measures on the ballot?

Apparently so.

This week, Republican lawmakers still are hanging tough in refusing to agree to Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed June special election that would extend current income, sales and vehicle license fee taxes. (Recall that voters rejected these extensions two years ago.) Brown is scrambling to find a handful of Republicans who might reverse course for June, and he is also now considering collecting signatures for a November ballot, when he could bypass recalcitrant Republicans altogether.

What is remarkable about expanding the political death penalty for errant Republicans is that it comes from a party that traditionally has argued strongly for voters’ rights and direct democracy.

During my tenure in Sacramento, Assembly floor debates on tax measures generally played out as follows:

Democrats: "No one likes tax increases, but we have to have them to avoid deep cuts in education and social services."

Republicans: "Taxes are already too high."

Democrats: "We’re just asking you to give voters a chance to vote these up or down. Just agree to place them on the ballot."

Republicans: "Voters have already spoken by passing Propositions 13, 61 and 218. They do not want new taxes and we have to respect their will." (Propositions 61 and 218 required voter approval for new local taxes.)

Democrats: "But Prop. 13 was passed nearly 30 years ago (in 1978). Prop. 61 was approved in 1986 and Prop. 218 in 1996. Shouldn’t we give voters the choice again? Most of those Prop. 13 voters aren’t even alive anymore!"

Republicans: "Voters have already spoken and we have to respect their will."

Granted, most Republican arguments against placing tax measures on the ballot relied on citizen-driven initiatives. But beyond that distinction, did voters in 1978, 1986 and 1996 have some special privilege that no longer exists? Apparently so.

What is strange about the current debate is that it is not about taxes but about voter choice. Even more bizarre, it contradicts the state GOP’s position as stated on its website: "Republicans believe individuals should control both their own and their government’s pocketbook – the people should authorize all tax increases."

In short, the people should authorize all tax increases. We just shouldn’t give them the opportunity to authorize them.

That convenient position may permit some lawmakers to avoid the political death penalty. But in its place, lawmakers are imposing a civic death penalty on voters, who no longer have a choice on the kind of California in which they choose to live.

Joe Nation, a former Democratic Assemblyman from Marin County, is a professor of the practice of public policy at Stanford University.

This article appeared on page A – 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Everyone invited to functional democracy

To the Editor:

The elections of fall 2010 are over, and the new members of Congress have recently taken their seats. However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

To the Editor:

The elections of fall 2010 are over, and the new members of Congress have recently taken their seats. However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole. This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the USA, must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy. This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves, while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara

Auburn, WA

At citizen’s expense

The elections of fall 2010 are over and the new members of Congress have recently taken their seats.

However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole.

This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

The elections of fall 2010 are over and the new members of Congress have recently taken their seats.

However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress and the two political parties as a whole.

This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country, who want and need to be more involved with the decision making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all of the decisions, which is very little power indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the USA, must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy.

This kind of governmental evolution would end, or at least substantially impede, the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger and apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High-level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government whose members are constantly bickering amongst themselves while ignoring the will of the people, cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara

Auburn, Wash.

 

A Middle East Warning: American-Style Democracy Isn’t the Answer

The entire world except for government leaders and politicians are thrilled with the revolutionary spirit moving through the Middle East. The leaders of authoritarian regimes from Tunisia to Egypt have fallen and the rest are threatened in every nation in the region.

The entire world except for government leaders and politicians are thrilled with the revolutionary spirit moving through the Middle East. The leaders of authoritarian regimes from Tunisia to Egypt have fallen and the rest are threatened in every nation in the region. It is my hope that your brave spirit of rebellion against one party rule and foreign backed puppet governments will provide encouragement to people around the world to stand up and follow your example showing how your fear of government tyranny is over.

Most governments ultimately rule and generate tax revenue by threat and force of arms and the only difference is the degree of violence and police state actions. While here in the West, we join you in solidarity for freedom and representative government, please understand that our history over the last 100 years clearly shows how democracy isn’t the panacea claimed by most establishment politicians. Thomas Jefferson described democracy as nothing more than "mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". Trust me, democracy can be just as bad and often less efficient than authoritarian dictators, fake monarchs and military rule.

Anthony Wile, chief editor of The Daily Bell has explained the problems of American, democracy better than anyone I know in his Middle East interview yesterday on Russia Today (RT) which broadcasts in English to over 100 nations around the world.

US-style regulatory democracy is a government-intensive approach that seeks to regulate almost every facet of human behavior and uses concerns for people’s "safety" as a justification for tremendous authoritarianism at home and I might add for our Middle East friends, a neocon military policy of aggression, occupation and natural resource control abroad.

The representative features of democracy also have major flaws because this model allows powerful domestic special interests at home or foreign power elites to easily buy off a majority of parliament members and control the government and monetary policies of the nation state. Just as your dictators or monarchies have been controlled by Western interests allowing the pillaging of your natural resources, it is a very simple matter to buy majority control of representatives who should be representing the citizens but instead sell their souls to outside interests.

The worst problem with US-style democracy is the illusion that individuals or voters have power or control over the government. Yes, you get to vote and protest which on the surface might appear an improvement over a government structure controlled by a few at the top but this brings up the fatal weakness of regulatory and representative democracy as is practiced in Europe and the West today.

In order to create the illusion of benefits to voters, these democracies have to borrow massive amounts of money to buy votes and benefits today and most of the burdensome costs are placed on future generations. Therefore sovereign-debt-financed democracy can only exist as long as investors are willing to purchase the treasury debt obligations to finance this kind of welfare/warfare state. Heavily indebted Europe and America are now rapidly reaching the end of this fatal debt Ponzi scheme cycle as the current and future tax revenues cannot service the debt.

The end of the debt spiral is here for the western democracies and this is why the world economy is crashing and inflation is now destroying the ability of the working poor around the world to feed themselves.

The Swiss Solution

A democratic model of representative government restrained by the people is the best solution to controlling politicians at home and to insure your congress or parliament represents the citizens rather than controlled by powerful elites in foreign capitals like Washington or London. It also provides the means for citizens to control government expenditures, deficits and debt creation as well as limiting tax increases and promoting programs which benefit citizens rather than only wealthy financial interests.

In Switzerland, the people still rule and have the ultimate right to decide decisions when the executive, judicial and representative branches of government fail to act in the best interests of the nation. Through the right of referendum they can cancel legislation and with the initiative they can pass or create legislative action on issues parliament refuses to act upon. The Swiss system of direct democracy and decentralized confederation style government protects minority interests and allows different ethnic, language and religious groups to rule themselves in accord with what is best for each community and area.

The Failure of American Style Democracy

Here in America, the electorate does not have oversight over legislation and unpopular government regulations or financial bailouts like in Switzerland. Neither can we initiate legislation to balance the budget, end the deficit or control our foreign policy. We have to depend on our "elected representatives" and as a group they always let us down because private contributions can’t compete with organized special interests.

Imagine if 4% of the American voters signed a petition requiring a nationwide vote "yea or nay" on the banking bailouts, invading another Middle East nation, auditing the Federal Reserve or on the trillions in new Washington debt added because of the financial meltdown? The United States would still be a decentralized republic with limited government if we still had we had the political option to control Washington and the special interests.

While it may not be too late for us here in the United States to return to our first legitimate government, the Articles of Confederation, it will be a difficult task against the powerful people which rule our nation. But for you in the Middle East today who are showing those of us in the West how to stand up to tyranny, elite rule, squandered resources and massive government debts, you have an easier job. But don’t stop with just throwing one corrupt leader out and replacing him with another and don’t buy the propaganda about American-style democracy.

If our system of democracy worked, America would have a balanced budget and we wouldn’t be facing national bankruptcy. Our dollar would be strong, our free-market economy prosperous and we wouldn’t be building empires, propping up dictators, controlling your oil or invading your territory.

The first step to liberty and freedom is to be willing to confront authoritarian regimes and this is happening in every nation in the Middle East now. Just today, police in Saudi Arabia opened fire on peaceful protestors and I believe their days are numbered. The House of Saud is just like all other authoritarian regimes held together by force but ultimately built only on sand which the tides of a people organized can overthrow.

Don’t exchange one dictator for another, one monarch for another or a one-party rule for another one just as controlled by foreign interests or domestic elites as you have today. You see, here in the United States, we throw the bums out every 2 and 4 years without ever changing anything. Don’t make the two mistakes we have made.

Build your system of government based on the successful Swiss model of Confederation government which gives the people the right to create and cancel legislation and laws when your legislative body or leaders fail to follow the majority will of the people. Today, forms of direct democracy, referendums and decentralized government like in Switzerland can easily be created using Facebook and other social media.

You have organized your freedom efforts with social media and these new internet tools can also be used to control a government you establish. Second, after 100 years of foreign intervention and manipulation of governments and leaders in your region, the tools of the Facebook color revolutions can also work to build freedom-oriented institutions and safeguard your freedom movements from foreign intelligence actions against your efforts.

Therefore take into account your religious and cultural traditions in creating a government model and don’t make the expensive mistakes we have made in the West as we like you have also lost control of governments. Your success just might provide the example we need to escape our own forms of political tyranny in the rest of the world

I wish you good luck, prayers and victory in your efforts but remember democracy does not guarantee either freedom or a government controlled by the people. With regret, our loss of freedoms is proof that American-style democracy isn’t the answer.

VANISHING CYPRUS By Andreas C Chrysafis February 2011

VANISHING CYPRUS By Andreas C Chrysafis February 2011 (No15)

VANISHING CYPRUS
By Andreas C Chrysafis
February 2011 (No15)

Election Fever…

VANISHING CYPRUS By Andreas C Chrysafis February 2011 (No15)

VANISHING CYPRUS
By Andreas C Chrysafis
February 2011 (No15)

Election Fever…

With razor-sharp tongues, politicians are getting anxious to protect their position against the onslaught of politically aspired rivals; they are all gearing up for a battle of words to secure a parliamentary seat at the next May elections. Promises and vague policies will be offered like candy to electors attempting to sweeten their palate and pave the way into people�s conscience for their valuable vote. Of course, like elsewhere in the world, none of those hopeful candidates (or many MPs for that matter) are trained for such an important job as running the affairs of the nation.

Most candidates, chosen by their political parties are not necessary chosen because of their wisdom, but rather how well the public knows of them and how big their family connections are in the community. Self-confident, the contenders will seek out to win a parliamentary seat, crammed with “fringe” benefits so befitting with the job. For career politicians, such influential positions are manna from heaven; it provides social status, power, prominence, financial rewards and lucrative business “connections”.

Accustomed to the politicians� proverbial “gift of the gab”, voters however, are not so easily swayed; people have wised up and can see right through the applied ancient art of “persuasion by nagging” and trivial shallow words! Eight out of 10 citizens say political parties are corrupt or extremely corrupt, while the civil service and parliament are considered the next most corrupt institutions. Views on corruption trends are most negative in Europe and North America, “where 73 per cent and 67 per cent of people respectively think corruption has increased over the last three years”. (Transparency International-2010)

Well conditioned, this prattling class of party loyalists appears to be far removed from the real issues affecting the public. It�s no coincidence they have lost the respect of the electorate! Plato often stated that: “political leaders and politicians are not men of more than average moral integrity and for this, the public should not trust them too much”.

The turbulent uprisings in the Arab World signify that political parties and various forms of governments, including pseudo-democracies are failing institutions. On the positive side, citizens� direct action proves that people have finally matured to reject the idea of being used as pawns for grandiose schemes and party political gains.

With the help of mass rapid transmission such as the Internet, Twitter, Facebook and international media access, citizens are well informed and can quickly sift out what is propaganda and what is not. Consequently, they no longer can accept or tolerate injustice and rampant corruption nurtured by elected dictatorships or despots. The vociferous mobilization of entire nations spilling into the streets and demanding their rights, it�s a clear indication of peoples� frustration. They have shown the world that governments and politicians must start to listen to the people�s wishes and not to be ignored once they are voted into office.

The ongoing geopolitical changes signify that direct action, single issue voting and referendums, (peoples� veto) on important issues and constitutional changes, may soon become part of a new political movement thus strengthening the democratic process.

Due to the availability of the Internet, the introduction of electronic direct democracy (EDD) is now considered as the strongest form of direct democracy, in which people are directly involved in the legislative function. The technology exists and when fully applied, it will transform the political scene forever. Switzerland, now partially governed by direct democracy, is making a progress towards such a revolutionary process to offer its citizens a true democratic system. New Zealand (considered to be the least corrupt country) is also making moves towards electronic direct democracy and so Australia.

This pioneering EDD process will ultimately clip the wings of petty political parties and possibly eliminate the dogmatic political stranglehold parties have on citizens. It will also offer the people a true voice in the affairs of the nation, without the fear of their vote being misrepresented for party political expediency. This is a positive move for peoples� democracy.

It has been said that, “a true statesman or a politician is a person who makes his constant object to improve rather than to please an audience”. Under those terms most politicians in Cyprus will fail miserably. Timocracy* on the other hand does not exist in the real world, but groundbreaking policies can be introduced to aim for a society based on the Rule of Law. Under those terms, nobody is above or beneath the law: not the president, not the politicians not the judges or the wealthy and powerful! Each and every citizen shall then be accountable for his or her actions under the law of the land, while the Judiciary ensures Justice is applied to all equally.

Such accountability in Cyprus is alien especially on the political scene; the very reason why people do not have faith their politicians! Worse, they behave as if they are untouchables because the system protects them under a clever loophole. That loophole is none other than political immunity! To this day no government official, politician, civil servant, judge or bureaucrat has been prosecuted for abuse of office, tax evasion, corruption, questionable business deals or wrongdoing in Cyprus. With that in mind, it clearly shows that democracy under the present conditions encourages bad leadership!

Political, State or Judicial immunity can be considered as another form of social oppression; it prevents victims from taking action against the very same people controlling the country, and that cannot be right!

There is a misguided doctrine that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is therefore immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. Because the state commands it, it does not necessarily mean it�s right; if a wrong command is applied, then it must answer for its misdemeanor under the Rule of Law.

Immunity must protect the office politicians hold but not the politicians. If so, it will indicate that the ruling elite can do no legal wrong! Politicians would certainly behave more responsibly if they were held accountable for misuse of their official authority. The combination of immunity from prosecution for a privileged group in society and unfettered personal power undermines the Rule of Law. Worse, it encourages injustice, elected dictatorships and corruption.

There is an overwhelming public view that the government in Cyprus needs to become more transparent; eliminate corruption; apply strict term limits of power; do away with the “old-boys” mentality and favouritism; constraint the right to immunity; revise the Constitution; initiate a more transparent democratic system and re-shape the nation and its institutions to meet the demands of the day, but above all else, start to apply and uphold the principle of the Rule of Law.

Cypriots will soon be faced with a dilemma: which political party to vote in parliament that may prove less likely to cause more harm to their livelihood and the nation? Past records indicate that the choices are limited! As for the politicians, for better or worse, voters shall soon decide and seal their fate, but as for the nation, there is a long road rocky ahead before things get much better.

However, when recently the president of the Republic instead of consulting the Judiciary, so decides to exercise his right to veto indiscriminately, (last veto was used 50 years ago on a serious constitutional matter) to override a parliamentary decision primarily on party political objectives, poses serious questions. To utterly ignore parliament�s overwhelming decision, such an act is not only undemocratic but the nation is treading on muddy waters towards an elected dictatorship and certainly that cannot be good for the country or for democracy…

*A government ruled by people who love honour and are selected according to the degree of honour they hold in society.

Withdrawing from the War on Drugs

GENEVA – Switzerland’s direct democracy allows citizens who have gathered enough petition signatures to challenge government policies and laws in nationwide referenda. After a spate of AIDS deaths during the 1980’s, the Swiss came face to face with a problem that has destroyed millions of lives in the United States, Russia, Latin America, the European Union, southern Asia, and other regions. Intravenous drug users – especially heroin addicts – had turned public spaces in Zurich and other Swiss cities and towns into needle parks.

GENEVA – Switzerland’s direct democracy allows citizens who have gathered enough petition signatures to challenge government policies and laws in nationwide referenda. After a spate of AIDS deaths during the 1980’s, the Swiss came face to face with a problem that has destroyed millions of lives in the United States, Russia, Latin America, the European Union, southern Asia, and other regions. Intravenous drug users – especially heroin addicts – had turned public spaces in Zurich and other Swiss cities and towns into needle parks. AIDS proved itself to be blind to affluence.

The Swiss did not respond with the kind of neglect that Russia’s government has shown so far toward its heroin and HIV epidemics – more than two million drug users and an estimated one million people living with HIV, over 60% of them infected while sharing contaminated needles. Nor did the Swiss react with a “war on drugs” and massive funding for more policing, more jails, and mandatory prison sentences.

That war is well and truly lost. The US now incarcerates more people than any other country, largely as a result of soaring drug convictions, with a disproportionate number of African-American and Hispanic prisoners. The war on drugs has enabled drug cartels to reap higher profits than ever and transform entire communities in Latin America into fiefdoms. Drug money is corrupting democratic governments and law-enforcement institutions around the world. Drug-related violence has consumed untold numbers of victims in Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia, the US, and Mexico.

The Swiss re-examined their government’s drug policies with a pragmatic eye. Health professionals took the lead in a campaign to press the government – through the mechanisms of direct democracy – to shift its focus from arresting and punishing drug users toward public-health policies that are based on scientific evidence of what works.

The Swiss implemented methadone programs. and, in order to prevent the spread of HIV, they created needle exchanges, including in prisons, and established safe injection rooms on a large scale. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health also oversaw an experiment in prescribing heroin to people who had lived with opiate dependency for significant periods.

The Swiss government’s careful evaluation of this approach demonstrated that heroin-assisted therapy is both feasible and cost-effective, and that it can bring patients significant health improvements. Moreover, it contributed to a startling drop in drug-related crime. The Swiss public was so convinced of the benefits of heroin-assisted therapy that, in two nationwide votes, voters endorsed the policy, despite domestic political opposition and criticism from the International Narcotics Control Board.

Switzerland is a conservative country. Trafficking in illicit narcotics remains illegal. In November 2008, the Swiss rejected a proposal for Dutch-style decriminalization of cannabis. And some policymakers question whether the Swiss approach has focused drug policy too much on public health and too little on dealing with the poverty and social exclusion faced by drug users.

Switzerland’s pragmatic approach to drug abuse has nonetheless yielded significant lessons that are applicable to the US, Russia, and the many other drug- and HIV/AIDS-ravaged countries over which they wield significant influence. So have similar approaches in Portugal, which only a decade ago led the EU in drug-related HIV/AIDS cases. Portugal’s decision in 2001 to decriminalize possession of illegal drugs led not only to more drug users in treatment (rather than in prison), but also a significant decrease in the number of drug users newly infected with HIV.

One lesson is the crucial importance of using scientifically rigorous investigation of new programs – rather than populist rhetoric, religious moralizing, and urban myth – to guide policymaking. This requires coordinating policing and health programs within a coherent policy framework, investing in research and public education on drug policy, opening new programs to independent review, and standing up to ideological criticism, both domestic and international, with evidence and pragmatism.

To convey these and other significant lessons, and to advocate worldwide for effective harm-reduction policies – and for broader public debate about more efficient and humane drug policies – we and other world leaders have initiated the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which held its inaugural meeting in Geneva in January. Our aim is to show that the war on drugs is lost. Switzerland, Portugal, and other countries have demonstrated that there is a better way forward, combining pragmatism and cost effectiveness with compassion and respect for human rights.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso was the president of Brazil from 1995-2003 and is chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Michel D. Kazatchkine is Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org

Direct Democracy Would Solve Problems


Direct Democracy Would Solve Problems

The elections of fall 2010 are over and the new members of Congress have taken their seats. However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress, and the two political parties as a whole.


Direct Democracy Would Solve Problems

The elections of fall 2010 are over and the new members of Congress have taken their seats. However, it still appears that there are openly hostile relations between various members of Congress, and the two political parties as a whole.

This comes at the expense of the great citizens of this fine country who want and need to be more involved with the decision-making of our nation, above and beyond merely voting for those who will make all the decisions, which is very little power, indeed.

We must remember that a functional democracy, at least in the USA, must invite everyone to join in the process of domestic governmental decision-making, and at least initially, will require a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy.

This kind of governmental evolution would end — or at least substantially impede — the bureaucratic paralysis and voter anger/apathy that has been present in our society for the past few decades.

High-level politicians must remember that an elected and divided government constantly bickering among themselves and ignoring the will of the people cannot forever last.

Ray Gattavara
Auburn, Wash.

Swiss not as democratic as they think

by Isobel Leybold-Johnson in Zurich, swissinfo.ch

 

Switzerland may be famed for its direct democracy but in a new democracy survey of 30 countries it has only managed 14th place.

The Democracy Barometer, co-authored by researchers at Zurich University and unveiled on Thursday, found that Denmark, Finland and Belgium had the world’s best functioning democracies. Britain and France were among the worst performers.

 

by Isobel Leybold-Johnson in Zurich, swissinfo.ch

 

Switzerland may be famed for its direct democracy but in a new democracy survey of 30 countries it has only managed 14th place.

The Democracy Barometer, co-authored by researchers at Zurich University and unveiled on Thursday, found that Denmark, Finland and Belgium had the world’s best functioning democracies. Britain and France were among the worst performers.

 

The barometer, developed with the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) and the first of its kind, shows the development of the 30 top democracies around the world over the period 1995-2005.

It uses 100 empirical indicators to measure how well a country complies with the three democratic principles of freedom, quality and control, as well as the nine basic functions of democracy such as rule of law, transparency and participation.

“I’m in fact not very surprised by Switzerland’s ranking,” Marc Bühlmann, from Zurich University and project co-leader, told swissinfo.ch.

Switzerland performed well in terms of individual liberties and governmental capacity, he said. But it had low transparency because there are no party financing rules or freedom of information laws.

 

Taking part

“The most interesting is the participation function because we have so many opportunities for participation but there is a bias – it’s rather educated people with high income, men rather than women, older people rather than younger people,” Bühlmann explained.

“This bias in participation is at the cost of the quality of participation because we think that an equal democracy should take into consideration all sides, all different preferences of citizens and in Switzerland this is not the case.”

Those who don’t take part in political processes don’t feel well informed enough, so political education, starting in schools, is needed, added Bühlmann.

Wolfgang Merkel, the other project leader from the WZB, said that Switzerland had long been admired for its direct democracy. This takes the form of people voting in referendums and people’s initiatives, such as the initiative in February on whether to ban army-issue guns at home.

“But the referendum alone does not make a brilliant democracy,” pointed out the professor. “Switzerland is a good democracy but it’s not at the top if we consider all these 100 indicators.”

 

Scandinavia top…

Four out of five top spots were taken by Scandinavians. However, even the researchers were surprised by Belgium (number three), which is currently in a state of political impasse and language divide.

Merkel said that Belgium’s democratic strengths outweighed its problems – it does not, for example, exclude people from taking part in politics as much as does Switzerland.

Down at the bottom of the barometer were Poland, South Africa and Costa Rica. But some large western European nations – two of which are Switzerland’s neighbours – also fared poorly: Italy (22), Britain (26), and France (27).

France, for instance, fell down on religious freedom and Italy on press freedom. Germany, another neighbour, did better than Switzerland (11th place) because more people turned out for elections and participation was less selective.

 

… Britain flop

Britain had weaknesses in individual rights and in representation of the people’s interests and the electoral results, Merkel said.

“If a party gains with 45 per cent of the votes more than 60 per cent of the seats, this is a disproportionateness in representation which is quite problematic because it violates the principle of one person one vote,” Merkel told swissinfo.ch.

However, being ranked low does not mean that Britain has a disastrous democracy. “There are weaknesses that we are used to overlooking and this instrument helps us challenge our attitudes,” said Merkel.

The United States, was as expected in mid-field (10), but democracy had seen a slight dip after the 9/11 attacks, the researchers found. Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy also saw a decline.

Predictions about the future were not possible, the political scientists said – 2005 is the cut-off date for the moment because of data availability.

But the political scientists said there was no evidence of a current crisis of democracy.

“If you look at newspapers or media you sometimes have the feeling that democracy is going down and confidence is low,” Bühlmann said.

“But we found that even the top democracies perform even better year after year, of course not all, but most have a positive development in the quality of democracy.”

 

Isobel Leybold-Johnson in Zurich, swissinfo.ch