News – Page 7 – The National Citizens Initiative for Democracy

Grassroots missing from this year’s initiatives – What about last year?

Nearly one hundred years ago, progressives succeeded in amending the Constitution of Washington State to provide for three powers of direct democracy: The initiative, the referendum, and the recall.

The purpose of establishing these three powers was not to supplant or replace our republican form of government, but rather, to give the people a way to get the gears of representative democracy turning in case they got stuck.

Nearly one hundred years ago, progressives succeeded in amending the Constitution of Washington State to provide for three powers of direct democracy: The initiative, the referendum, and the recall.

A century later, the reverse is happening. Corporations and wealthy interests are hijacking the initiative process and using it to force votes on schemes that would pad their profits or advance their agenda at the expense of the rest of us. And apparently, the Seattle Times has only just noticed this.

I say this because the Blethens’ mouthpiece published a strange editorial this morning halfheartedly bemoaning the fact that the three initiatives likely to appear on this November’s ballot were guaranteed placement thanks to the use of paid signature gatherers by the sponsors:

Business, labor or cottage-industry initiative writers are behind all three proposals. Consider, for example, the labor effort to boost training and payments for home-health-care workers, backed by the Service Employees International Union. Think, too, about, the Costco-backed measure to get the state out of the liquor business or the anti-variable-tolling measure, advocated by Tim Eyman and heavily underwritten by Bellevue businessman Kemper Freeman.

As Washington approaches the 100th anniversary of its initiative process in 2012, it is fair to say this year is no exception. The process has been shifting from bottom-up governing to essentially initiatives as part of bigger lobbying efforts.

“The process has been shifting“? We’d say the shift took place a long time ago. Where has the Seattle Times been?

We’ve been pointing out for years that Tim Eyman runs on big money, not small dollar donations. Nearly every single one of his initiatives has been underwritten by a single wealthy guy or a cabal of corporations, including last year’s Initiative 1053. The top donor to I-1053 was actually BP, one of the greediest and most irresponsible corporations on the planet. Other major donors included ConocoPhillips, Shell, Tesoro, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.

I-1053′s lack of grassroots support didn’t bother The Seattle Times. The Blethens and their editorial writers enthusiastically endorsed Tim Eyman’s unconstitutional plan to sabotage majority rule without disclosing to its readers who had paid for it. Nor did the Blethens register any concern about who had bought and paid for I-1082 and I-1100, two other measures we targeted as part of our StopGreed campaign. (The BIAW was behind I-1082; Costco was behind I-1100).

We can only conclude, then, that corporate hijacking of the initiative process really doesn’t bother them. If it did, it would factor into their endorsement decisions, and they’d be using their editorial page to advocate for initiative process reform.

Tellingly, the editorial they published this morning calls for no reform at all. It just ends by stating the obvious: The initiative process has become a way for powerful interests to force votes on laws they want passed.

The editorial that they’ve published might best be described as the written version of a shrug. It lacks conviction and concern.

The author suggests that the demise of the citizen initiative is a bad thing, but his or her response on behalf of the paper basically amounts to indifference.

What a weak commentary on a serious dilemma.

This entry was written by Andrew and posted on July 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 PM. Bookmark the permalink.

Politics of Marginalised can help building stronger Human Rights Institutions (HRIs) in India

Majority of 1.21 billion plus population in India have been drawn immensely, through different mediums to politics, music/film, and cricket. Among the three, politics takes a centrestage and captures mind space affecting our day-to-day lives. Politics plays a significant role in the lives of the people, ultimately deciding cost of living, price of drugs, daily wages, sensex, and stock market. Though being a signatory to Millennium Development Goals (MDG), crucial for addressing poverty and exclusion, India has yet to achieve it, which reflects the intention and direction of Indian politics. There is growing realisation among the majority of the population that state is using democratic institutions to legitimise its undemocratic decision- making process, reason being its failure to communicate with its citizens.

The onslaught of neo-liberal economic policies, which pampers corporates and pauperise the masses or policies that destroy jobs and livelihood and displace people at gunpoint, has generated two new trends in Indian politics. First, it has generated three types of parallel democratic confrontations. These are, (1) Mind game between the broken people and forces implementing neo liberal policies,(2) Religious fanatics are confronted by the liberal elements within their religion, and (3) section of upper caste joining dalits to dismantle upper caste hegemony. Second, in the wake of wide spread and increasingly documented cases of human rights violation, interest in reconciliation, as apolitical, juridical, and psychological construct is growing(Torture, Page. 72, Vol.21, No.2, 2011). While the former has immensely influenced the political trends in several parts of the country, the later has contributed in strengthening rule of law.

These trends in politics have not only affected the political parties, bureaucracy but also civil society groups and media. Intra organisational decision making process is under stress due to waves of democratisation of information demanding more transparency. All are in the line of fire due to lack of accountability and deficit of legitimacy for representing certain view. Pressure is building up on civil society groups to stand up to be counted for representing a democratic structure and implementing good practices like social audit in the organisations. The country is heading towards a politics that encourages participation to change and demonstrated will for initiating new age state craft.

Impact of ‘live’ telecast or broadcast has unnerved the dictators. In the one hand, it has greatly restricted the space and impact of manipulating politics through perception based information, on the other hand it provided more space for the growing agitation, people’s uprising, and dissent for protection of human rights. The arrival of information technology has strengthened the debate in favour of direct democracy. It has helped in questioning the representative character of politics and institutions. It exposed the design of the minority to keep the majority out of the process of participatory democracy in order to perpetuate their culture of impunity. Empowerment of majority is an evil dream for this section be they in politics, government or in civil society. The media has played an important role in breaking the silence of the majority marginalized population who have started questioning the right of this few self appointed leaders pretending to represent the majority and dare to negotiate for their future. These victims of the social system for centuries wish to ask their own question, and now demanding direct accountability from the state. Their politics has started establishing a culture where justice is not for the privileged few.

The effectiveness of human rights institutions depends on its communication with the victims, people and organizations who work for victims. The recent campaign by a section of the civil society groups to down grade the premier human rights institutions like NHRC has surprised many people in this country. One respects and accepts that this section in their wisdom concluded that NHRC has not delivered as per its mandate and up to their expectation. At the same time, some other sections which has benefited from the interventions of that institution believe that reform, not downgrading or shaming a national institution is good for victims of this country. These sections, representing the majority of the disenfranchised people certainly believe that NHRC, a quasi judicial body has taken suo-motto action on several occasions to provide relief to the victims who live in oblivion and for whom no one organizes press conferences. These majority sections cannot afford the expenses of cases that moves in an unlimited time frame in the court, thus prefer NHRC and other HRIs for relief. Agree, HRIs have its own limitations but they have their strength too. How many HRIs in the world, like NHRC, have opened their window to talk to their officers in the middle of the night to save the life of human rights defenders? This decision of NHRC should be welcomed and efforts should be made to push for more such decision through constructive criticism and public advocacy initiatives.

Limited effectiveness of NHRC and other HRIs, partly, remains in their mandate. What can NHRC do when the victims in its desperation to get relief, rightly so, appeals both to NHRC and the court. On several occasions, NGOs lose their cases in the lower court and then make appeal to the NHRC for relief showing the victim/s as human rights defenders. How can NHRC influence the already established investigating process, which the court also follows, for lakhs of cases it handles every year and at the same time not being accused of delaying in providing relief ? While some of the answers lie in an effective State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC), the fact remains that the institutions and its functioning are designed to keep the majority out of the net of beneficiaries. A pro people reform will harm the interest of the opportunists.

SHRC is undoubtedly a great idea to address human rights issues at the state level. But its functioning is harmed by two important problems, one, in majority of the states it is preoccupied with the unwritten responsibilities of shielding the present political dispensation, two, limited budget and lack of infrastructure affect its functioning. Looking from the point of financial viability, it is difficult to imagine SHRCs for small states. The state of District Human rights Courts are no different. Critics compare these courts with District Consumer Court where the lawyer, accused and the court connive to minimize penalty of the accused leaving the victims in lurch. A way out for some of these problems could be found in establishment of Regional Human Rights Commissions (RHCS) where appointments are done from an all India pool giving it a national profile. These RHCSs should be accountable to NHRC. Courts can also help in strengthening the HRIs by asking the victims whether any of the HRIs were approached for the same case and what is the status. While this will put immense pressure on the HRIs to remain on toes, the state will also realize its obligation in strengthening the HRIs.

Absence of victim centric politics in India has let down the HRIs, stalled legal and police reforms and increased threat of Human Rights Defenders across the country. The causes of marginalization of victims have never been in the political agenda of any party. No parliamentarian has showed concern to find out why for example, the report of The National Commission for Minorities were not tabled and discussed in the Parliament is a proof of policy makers concerns for the victims. How long can the poor and vulnerable sit on the fence between life and death and admonish their fate for living in the margins of the society. No amount of investment on their empowerment will recover the cost of sense of their vulnerability, suffering, and helplessness. It is time to PARTICIPATE to CHANGE.

Written by guest writer: Dr Mohanlal Panda, Advisor, People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR)

Left, Right and Wrong on ‘Reform’ of Initiative Process

By Joe Mathews

Journalist and Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, Fellow at the Center for Social Cohesion at Arizona State University and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010).

Mon, July 11th, 2011

The good news: reform of the initiative process is finally on the table in California. The bad news: the left and the right are getting reform wrong.

By Joe Mathews

Mon, July 11th, 2011

The good news: reform of the initiative process is finally on the table in California. The bad news: the left and the right are getting reform wrong.

There’s a whiff of hypocrisy on both sides.

The left, which rails against the rich in most contexts, loves the rich when it comes to the initiative process. It’s pushing bills that add regulations and restrictions on signature gatherers that will make a process that’s the province of very rich people and institutions the even more exclusive province of super-rich people and institutions.

The right, which claims to be worried about budget deficits and runaway spending, thinks busting the budget is fine if it’s done by initiative. In particular, conservatives are attacking common-sense changes that would force initiatives to live within the budget, by requiring spending cuts when a measure mandates spending.

Let’s look at the left’s favored legislation, which appears to stem from the belief that what’s wrong with the process are petition circulators. One bill under consideration would force circulators to wear signs that indicate whether they are a paid signature gatherer or volunteers. This is unnecessary – it’s no secret that almost anyone you encounter with a petition is being paid, since every significant statewide campaign for the last 30 years has relied on paid circulators. And, to the extent such signs make collecting signatures harder, the signs may be good for circulators, who are able to demand a higher price for signatures when the work is more difficult. (That said, I’d be tempted to support the bill if it were amended to require its legislative supporters to wear signs that said, "I Believe Direct Democracy Is Only for The Rich").

Another piece of legislation backed by Democrats seeks to bar paying circulators per signature. This has been sold as an attempt to limit fraud in the process. But there are two problems. First, moving to hourly pay would make the process even more expensive, and thus further limit the ability of anyone but the very rich to play the initiative game. Second, it’s far from clear that a change in payment method would limit fraud. The incentive to conjure phony signatures would remain in place even if circulators were paid an hourly or daily wage. If circulators making such wages don’t produce a large amount of signatures efficiently, they are likely to lose their jobs. The incentive for fraud also would be present unpaid volunteers, since they too face pressure in California to produce many signatures in a short period of time.

The incentive for fraud is created not by payment – but by time. California requires hundreds of thousands of signatures – and gives initiative sponsors very limited time – only 150 days – to do so. It stands to reason that if you didn’t have to get so many signatures so quickly, you’d be less likely to cheat.

That’s why legislation that makes the process more difficult and more costly may tend to create more fraud. The good news is: there’s a smarter way. Reduce the number of signatures required – and give people much more time than the current 150 days to circulate for signatures. The new European initiative process provides a year to circulate. Switzerland provides 18 months. California should be in that ballpark.

Adding more time also would create more opportunities for deliberation in the initiative process -and more space for compromise with the legislature. That would be healthy because California’s initiative process needs to be integrated with its representative government – and in particular its budget process. For decades, initiatives have been a way to circumvent checks and balances – and impose new spending or limit taxes in ways that help bust the budget.

But the right has portrayed legislative proposals that seek to make initiatives to pay for themselves as attacks on the initiative process itself. This is nonsense. Yes, one may argue with the particulars of specific legislative proposals; the conservative commentator Steven Greenhut raises a good question about whether the department of finance, which reports to the governor, should be one of the entities able to decide whether an initiative is self-financing – a feature of a proposed constitutional amendment in this area that is now before the legislature. But the goal of forcing initiatives to live by the rules of budgets and legislation is a valid one. Even more important are legislative attempts to make initiatives subject to legislative amendment. California is the only place on earth where a statute passed by initiative may not be changed without another vote of the people.

The wrong-headedness of left and right on this subject helps illustrate the two principles that should guide improvements to the initiative process.

The first principle is access. True initiative reform would open the process up, give citizens more time to gather signatures, reduce high hurdles and costs in petition circulation, and permitting the use of the Internet for gathering. This opening up of the process is actually a check on the process. The more people who can participate in circulation, the more time there is to consider a measure, the less chance of abuse.

The second principle is accountability. The initiative process is an unaccountable fourth branch of government that permits those with resources to circumvent the legislative and other branches entirely. If there are to be restrictions in the process, those restrictions need to force initiatives to be treated like normal laws – in that they should fit the budget and be subject to fixes and amendments like any other statute.

Unfortunately, because of the views of the right and the left, initiative "reform" operates on the reverse principle: limiting access to the process, and frustrating any attempt to bring accountability to initiative law. The left and right seek to give us the worst of both worlds. We should do the opposite of what they advise.

Limit the ability of initiatives to run roughshod over our government. But don’t limit access to the process.

The challenges of direct democracy

Shyam Ponappa: The challenges of direct democracy

India must weigh the pros and cons of various approaches to direct democracy and develop one of its own

Shyam Ponappa: The challenges of direct democracy

India must weigh the pros and cons of various approaches to direct democracy and develop one of its own

Shyam Ponappa / July 7, 2011, 0:59 IST

Direct democracy is alluring. The dangers to our society and economy from reckless governance as well as confrontational activists, however, are the undermining of institutions, and the unintended consequences.

Our governments have a carry-over of feudal and colonial attitudes and do not communicate unless they must. Change is accepted only under duress, and is not initiated through leadership. Mismanagement is tolerated, resulting in various scams such as the 2G spectrum scam and associated problems.

The current anti-corruption drive by Anna Hazare et al and their well-intentioned cohorts uses tactics that echo a righteous, anti-authoritarian and non-collaborative pattern of “us” versus “them”, combined with an insistence on their way alone. Yet, collaboration is essential for solutions that lead to an equilibrium, recognising the legitimacy of all stakeholders – the government and civil society – as well as the criticality of credible institutions and processes.

We in India are not alone in being drawn to direct democracy. Switzerland’s success in citizen participation combined with its federal structure is the epitome of a workable system. But this model cannot simply be transplanted without regard to cultural contexts. Consider the sobering example of California.

CALIFORNIA’S PREDICAMENT
California has been in a state of financial crisis for several years. In 30 years, the Golden State’s credit rating fell from among the best of the 50 states to the worst. Despite everything from Silicon Valley to agriculture, defence, aerospace, biotechnology and Hollywood, why can this state not manage itself? Why does The Economist quote labels like “dysfunctional”, “ungovernable”, even “failed” for this El Dorado (April 20)? To understand what happened in California, we must start with its direct democracy model imported from Switzerland.

THE SWISS MODEL
Since the 14th century, Switzerland has had a tradition of citizens participating in assemblies. Coordination among different sets of delegates, e.g. for building roads and bridges across different valleys, had to be approved by respective assemblies. On this canvas, Switzerland grafted America’s Constitution in 1848. It worked and still works because of its design, and Switzerland’s collaborative approach. Constitutional amendments require a referendum as well as a majority of votes by the cantons (states) in the legislature.

Thus, over half the cantons can overrule the popular majority in a referendum, because of the rule taken from America of two votes per state, even if they represent a minority of voters. After being approved in a referendum, the amendments go back to the legislature for redrafting. This enforces George Washington’s principle of “cool” debate outlined at the time of drafting the US Constitution, and embodied in Senate deliberations for dispassionate lawmaking. Initiatives for new laws by direct democracy go through the same process, but the legislature has the option to draft a counter-proposal. This process of engagement and negotiation is designed to avoid extreme outcomes and promote dispassionate solutions. As with America’s Constitution, this prevents two kinds of abuse: James Madison’s1 concerns regarding minority factions and their “swing vote” capturing outcomes (as in India, where minority factions become king makers), or a tyranny by the majority.

THE CALIFORNIA VARIANT
About 100 years ago, the Progressives in California brought in direct democracy from Switzerland. As in India today, the purpose then was to attack corruption, specifically, “The Octopus” of the Southern Pacific Railroad with its tentacles everywhere. California’s direct democracy was designed to achieve the opposite of the Swiss model. Switzerland emphasises compromise and consensus; California encourages confrontation, and the winners impose their will. Starting new initiatives (“propositions”) is easy; calling referendums on existing laws is difficult. In effect, California’s propositions are irreversible, because a retraction or reversal needs a two-thirds majority, which is virtually impossible because of minority factions and special interests.

For over half a century, there were no major problems. Then, in 1978, the anti-tax proponents initiated a property tax cap, Proposition 13. It limited state revenues (placing a ceiling on all property taxes at one per cent of the 1975 value, which could grow at no more than two per cent annually unless sold, thereby establishing a new value). There are contradictory views on the benefits of Proposition 13, with the defenders blaming opportunistic individuals, not the system, for problems. It is the old divide between tax-and-spend liberals versus cut taxes-and-services conservatives. The outcome, however, is that California went from being a liberal showcase with excellent infrastructure and services to a bankrupt state, cutting back on both.

WHAT INDIA CAN LEARN
India’s polity (at central, state, and local levels), at least now, must start creating systems that harness participation through all means available, so that the voice of popular assemblies is heard within the framework of our representative democracy, and acted upon.

The government needs to move away from the paradigm of “The Administration” against “The People”. Instead, the government must lead a process of collaborative stakeholder engagement for equitable resolution, like the one based on a lifeboat concept of shared interests and survival. As individuals, we need to move away from blaming routines (the government/everyone else is at fault, and I am a victim) to accepting the responsibility and discipline of institution building and processes.

WHAT INDIA REQUIRES

Discarding feudal/colonial notions of the durbar in political parties, among politicians and in government.
Channeling righteous public anger into the constitutional process with competence and discipline. Currently, there seems to be no effective way of demonstrating dissatisfaction except by taking to the streets.

We need institutionalised incentives and penalties to steer towards these effective means, and to abandon arbitrary and angry ways.

Technology allows this on an unprecedented scale, with perhaps 100 million Internet users in India already. To harness and channel this capacity, systems need to be developed on the lines of the Obama campaign2, vastly extended with the expertise and support staff to inform citizens and channel their participation constructively within an institutional framework. These systems will need to cover everything, from issue-based analysis and presentation to spelling out responsible choices with the foreseeable consequences, and collating individual inputs and preferences. If executed with vision, imagination and commitment, this could reduce the instances of people taking to the streets.

An Actionable Plan For 9/11 Truth And Justice

By Senator Mike Gravel

04 July, 2011
Countercurrents.org

By Senator Mike Gravel

04 July, 2011
Countercurrents.org

As each anniversary of 9/11 rolls by, the import of this tragedy looms ever larger in our history. Especially looming like storm clouds on the horizon of American politics are the unanswered questions about these events. And as new evidence and new whistleblowers come forward seemingly every week, the import of the 9/11 truth movement multiplies in historic significance. All of this points to the urgent need for a new, independent investigation with subpoena and other grand jury powers—a citizen’s commission that is truly free of partisan political interference.

As we approach 9/11’s tenth anniversary, we are reminded—each time we pick up a newspaper—that the government’s Ïofficial 9/11 storyÓ resulted in three interminable wars: Afghanistan , Iraq , and the War on Terror. The official line also conveniently set the stage for the Patriot Act that abridged so many of our liberties and civil rights, plus a long list of other abuses such as egregious torture of Ïterror suspectsÓ in the name of national security. Our dilemma ten years later reminds me of a prescient statement made by James Madison: ÏIf Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.Ó

The U.S. government’s investigations that culminated in the 911 Commission Report purported to set the record straight about the perpetrators of terrorism on our soil and the mistakes made by those whose sacred task is to defend our shores. But this 2004 report has since been called into question by a very long list of credible voices, not only within the United States , but throughout the world. Even the co-chair of the Commission, Governor Thomas Kean, admitted failure: ÏWe think the Commission, in many ways, was set up to fail. Because we had not enough money, we didn’t have enough time, and we [were] appointed by the most partisan people in Washington.Ó

Thousands of civic volunteers calling themselves the 9/11 truth movement have gone on to parse the events of that fateful day, offering scientific and rational arguments for why the government’s official account is inaccurate, incomplete, implausible, and in fact constitutes a flimsy conspiracy theory. This body of new evidence and argumentation, combined with the refusal of our political leaders to even countenance a new investigation—along with the systematic marginalization of 9/11 truthers by mainstream media—adds to our suspicions that something profound is amiss.

Direct Democracy: The Way Forward

Presently, our heroic 9/11 truth activists can continue to educate Americans and the world’s people with the hope of pressing the government to act; however, it is evident to me that the federal government simply won’t act to change the 9/11 equation—and the American people simply can’t act, other than to continue to educate and agitate. That’s because of one obvious reality: the way to meaningful change is blocked by the elites now in control of the mainstream media and of Washington (regardless of party), and by the fact that citizens lack any other recourse. We lack access to the legislative procedures needed to implement the central power of government––lawmaking––at the federal level. Indeed, this is true as well in most governmental jurisdictions of the United States . But fortunately there are 24 states that have some form of initiative lawmaking process .

A new activist organization I founded, the citizen’s 9/11 Commission Campaign, has been exploring the feasibility of utilizing the state initiative process by filing state ballot propositions that would create an independent 9/11 commission funded by the citizens themselves . This effort launches on July 4 because of its extreme patriotic import.
As my team and I begin this work, we are heartened by one unassailable fact: the 9/11 truth movement has grown and prospered for nearly a decade, gaining millions of supporters through outreach and education in one of the most remarkable grassroots movements in American history . Our effort builds upon the movement’s innumerable breakthroughs and hard-won lessons. We believe these lessons point to a new approach to our common goals based on citizen power.

Of this I am certain: the 9/11 truth movement is grassroots; that sovereign power lies with the people; and that our fellow citizens are now awakened to 9/11 truth in vast numbers. It is time for a winning approach to change: the method of direct democracy— the state ballot initiative .

Direct Democracy for 9/11 Truth

The cause of direct democracy has been my principal passion since my two terms in the Senate (1969–1981). I founded and served as president of the Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States through the enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy, that would, in essence, empower the American people themselves to be lawmakers. We have not achieved this goal yet, but the process of direct democracy still thrives at the state level. And that’s why, a t a gathering of 9/11 truth advocates in New York City in September 2010, I suggested a new path to 9/11 truth and justice: that of using the initiative process in several states as a vehicle to enact a law creating a new 9/11 citizen’s commission that would investigate the intelligence failures prior to 9/11, the events of that day, and the aftermath that resulted in wars and the disfigurement of America’s cultural values. My suggestion was well received at the meeting in New York and subsequently in talks with 9/11 truth activists across California , the state most known for its initiatives. My idea was not original in that it followed upon a campaign for an initiative under New York City law propounded by truth advocates, one that had garnered more than 80,000 petition signatures, only to be thrown out by the New York State Supreme Court.

Building on the New York experience, I approached the California Legislative Counsel in October 2010 for assistance in drafting a prospective law that would create a new investigative commission––independent of federal and state governments––but with the necessary powers to get to the facts (i.e., subpoena and oath taking). The vision of the commission would be to pursue an investigation wherever the evidence leads. No person would be immune from criminal implication, regardless of political station in or out of government (domestic or foreign).

I am convinced that the independence of the new commission can only be guaranteed if the appointment of its members is controlled by a 9/11 truth vision, rather than the customary commission-appointment process typically conducted by governors and legislators. The California initiative text includes the use of a Joint Powers Agreement whereby other government jurisdictions can endorse and participate by adding their powers to the powers of the California commission—when and if it is approved by voters on November 2, 2012 .

Key Considerations Point to Oregon , Massachusetts , and Alaska

California is, of course, a very large and complicated state. Additional legal investigations we are now pursuing have led us to consider other states with simpler initiative laws that may present fewer challenges than California . With respect to these states, we are especially interested in their statutes and constitutional provisions that govern the following key issues:

• their commission-appointment process

• rules concerning a ÏJoint Powers AgreementÓ

• the number of signatures needed to get on their ballots

We have since concluded that the initiative process in California is overly expensive and otherwise not ideal for a number of reasons, and that we should prioritize our work in three states: Oregon , Massachusetts , and Alaska . You will learn more about these considerations at our website, 9-11cc.org.

A primary objective is to build a nationwide grassroots movement in support of a new commission, especially once a new 9/11 commission has been authorized in the first state to pass one of our initiatives. We are especially focused on how to harmonize the powers granted to the new commission with the governmental powers of other political jurisdictions across the U.S. Through this harmonization process, other states and local governments would be able to geographically enlarge the jurisdiction of the new commission by passing Participation Initiatives or Resolutions of Support . Such votes would extend the commission’s authorized legal and financial powers to their jurisdiction—including subpoena power.

The Challenge Ahead: Building an Effective Citizen’s Campaign

The issues surrounding 9/11 are national and global in character. We can capitalize on that awareness by injecting the creation of a new commission as a wedge issue in the presidential contest in 2012 and all the key political races. This opportunity will not present itself again until 2016. Success or failure will be determined by the resources that can be brought to bear on our organizational efforts, the additional research, and the petition campaigns to qualify the initiatives, all culminating in the political drive to secure their enactment––but, of course, it takes money to fund this huge effort.

If we are able to raise the necessary funds for this undertaking, I believe there is no possibility of failure even if no initiative is enacted into law. A much bigger national debate on 9/11 advances our present goal––alerting more Americans to the problem, and more importantly, pointing to a solution. Again, our plan will encompass an exploratory effort in several initiative states, examining the legal possibilities of interrelating state (and local) jurisdictions to establish and fund the new commission for a citizens’ 9/11 investigation.

Fundraising will not be confined to the U.S. alone. This task will be pursued globally. Awareness of the need for a new investigation of 9/11 is guaranteed regardless of whether any initiative is enacted into law or not. We are adding an actionable goal to the existing mission of the 9/11 truth movement that may actually bring about the best tool for truth and justice: a new citizens’ investigation commission independent of federal and state governments.

Mike Gravel was a two-term Senator from Alaska (1969–1981), during which time he was best known for his lengthy filibuster that ended the draft, and for reading the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record , the legality of which was confirmed in an historic Supreme Court case. Gravel later founded and served as president of the Democracy Foundation, Philadelphia II, and Direct Democracy, nonprofit corporations dedicated to the establishment of direct democracy in the United States through the enactment of the National Initiative for Democracy. Gravel founded the Citizens 9-11 Commission Campaign in 2010. http://9-11cc.org/

Beyond the ‘European Dream’

BRUNO KAUFMANN

Today @ 09:23 CET

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT – Crisis, crisis, crisis. Once again political Europe is in the middle of an institutional turmoil. The possible default in Greece, bye-bye to Schengen and a European Summit with clueless leaders. And in the Guardian Martin Kettles offers the results of more than sixty years of the integration process: ‘The nationalist right and the global markets have won. The internationalist social and Christian democrats have lost’.

BRUNO KAUFMANN

Today @ 09:23 CET

For Kettle, this is nothing less than the end of the European dream of ‘a European federal state with an overarching, directly elected government (…) shared tax and social solidarity systems, common defence and security policies’.

Kettle may be right that this was the dream of a post-war generation with a deep belief in certain policies and the capacity of a few leaders to deliver on the one hand, and on the other a deep disbelief in the wisdom of the many and the potential of modern representative democracy to balance interests even at the transnational level.

It may be tempting to agree with Kettle’s assessment of the current winners and losers, given the undeniable fact that we are experiencing an ethno-nationalistic backslash in many countries – from Finland to Bulgaria and from Austria to Denmark. And the more so, as the recent global financial crisis has not delivered any shortcuts to a more democratic and just world.

However, the promise of genuine democracy has never been and will never be a guarantee that we can avoid all the bad things. On the contrary, what democracy may offer is not a list of policies, but a framework for collective learning, within which citizens are free to act together. Such a promise cannot be delivered by a few leaders; it must be lived up to by the large majority of people.

This is the big difference between the economic sphere of producers/consumers and the political sphere, where everyone is formally charged with taking responsibility, identifying problems and agreeing on solutions. And because of this difference a modern representative democracy must be based both on indirect-parliamentarian and direct-participative agenda-setting and decision-making principles and procedures.

In this respect, the Lisbon Treaty – the European Union’s fundamental rules of the game – does in fact acknowledge precisely this new, modern democratic reality and has introduced the first direct-democratic process at the transnational level in world history: from April next year one million EU citizens from at least seven member states will be entitled to propose new EU legislation – in a right of initiative equivalent to that of the European Parliament and European Council.

Against the background of the current multiple crisis – which underlines the weaknesses of both purely indirect and purely intergovernmental politics – this new opening for transnational participative democracy goes beyond the conventional ‘European dream’ of making war between nations obsolete, in addressing the much more complex reality of the 21st century.

280 days to go

Nonetheless, since there are less than 280 days to go before one of the most exciting chapters in the modern history of democracy is opened, the continuing ambiguity of the responsible institutions towards the European Citizens’ Initiative is disturbing.

On Thursday this week the EU Commission, which obviously has few plans for launching a pan-European information and education campaign around the European Citizens’ Initiative, will welcome representatives of all 27 Member States to discuss the final stages of the legal and practical implementation of the regulation governing the new instrument.

Only by 1 March, 2012 – just one month before the official start of the new initiative right – will member s have to name the ‘competent authorities’ responsible for certifying and verifying online signature-gathering systems and the actual statements of support. The risk that the opportunities linked to the European Citizens’ Initiative practice will be unequally distributed across Europe is obvious – and could effectively undermine the legitimacy of the ECI.

The question is whether at this late stage all the relevant stakeholders are really conscious of their ‘to-do’ lists ahead of 1 April? So the following can be seen as a friendly reminder. The EU Commission not only has to present the various tools envisaged by the regulation and its addendum – including an ‘online’ registration centre, a user guide and a well-prepared staff both centrally and across Europe.

From the Commission we also expect significant efforts and resources for a comprehensive information and education campaign. The same is true for the member states, in order to prepare ‘their’ citizens for the new important role as European agenda-setters. And there are all the other important actors, who are now requested not to miss this unique opportunity to make the European Union a pioneer in modern democracy.

What people like me, who have been working on transnational direct democracy for decades, are most interested in is a serious and constructive cooperation by all the good forces. What we need is a coalition of the willing European democrats, both inside and outside of the European institutions.

While technocratic projects such as the euro or the Schengen agreement may have been timely steps of progress in the late 20th century, this millennium requires much more: a courageous leap forward towards a much more political and democratic future. The European Citizens’ Initiative could be such a leap forward – if we are serious about it.

The writer is president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe

Making Direct Democracy More Deliberative

by James Fishkin

California has long led the nation in trying to involve the public directly in the making of laws – this year marks the 100th anniversary of California’s initiative process. Ever since that signature Progressive Era reform, the state has been the heartland of the nation’s political experimentation.

by James Fishkin

The voter initiative was a bold experiment that sought to give people a sense of authorship over the rules governing society, while diluting the power of special interests. As the state has grown and politics have been transformed by new communication technologies, those laudable aspirations increasingly seem to be just that – aspirations, rather than reality. Initiatives draw people into the lawmaking process, yes, but as an “audience democracy” of competing sound bites, campaign ads and now Facebook postings and Twitter feeds. Voters participate, but often exercising about as much deliberation as they might when casting a vote on American Idol. Special interests, meanwhile, have not been banished from the process, but instead play an increasingly prominent role, setting the agenda for what the public votes on, and financing the expensive media campaigns underlying each initiative.

Can the initiative process be reformed or re-invigorated? The core problem with audience democracy is not the competence of the public; it is that the public assumes the role of an audience, a vast one of millions. Political economists have a term for the problem – “rational ignorance.” If I have one vote among millions, why should I pay a lot of attention to the details of competing policy proposals, when my individual vote or opinion will not make much difference and when I have many other urgent demands on my time?

But what if people were effectively motivated to spend the time and effort to become informed and to consider the issues under good conditions? How might their opinions change? What if we could take a representative cross-section of citizens and ask them to really deliberate on a set of policy challenges, enlisting citizens in the legislative arena the way we routinely do so in judicial proceedings through juries?

Deliberative Polling could be the answer, a means towards meeting the Progressive yearning to involve a broad swath of the citizenry in the law-making process, while also deepening their engagement. That’s why, starting tomorrow, eight non-profit groups (including my center at Stanford University and the New America Foundation) will be conducting the first What’s Next California? statewide “Deliberative Poll” to chart a different path to possible structural reforms in the state.

What is a Deliberative Poll? In a conventional poll, each person in a random sample is asked to respond, and that is mostly the end of the matter. In a Deliberative Poll, the participants are brought together after the initial survey and divided into small groups where their voice matters. Instead of one voice in millions, they have one voice in a small group of 12 or 15 and one voice in 300 or 400 in the total sample brought together for the weekend. Their views are covered in the media and likely televised. They have every reason to think their voice matters. In projects around the world, we have found that when individuals are assured their opinion carries weight, they do a great job of dealing with difficult questions.

Those who believe ordinary voters are incompetent are wrong; voters are simply inattentive, disengaged and/or distracted, often for good reasons. What would happen if a good microcosm of the people deliberated and then provided an input for everyone else? If they set an agenda for dealing with the difficult structural reforms needed in California? We will see in What’s Next California?

Here is how it will work. The eight nonpartisan sponsoring groups and a large advisory committee have worked on a menu of 30 proposals, in four broad areas: the initiative process, the legislature, taxes and state-local relations. A discussion guide of nearly 100 pages details the proposals and the background for them, with pros and cons for each proposal that have been vetted for balance and accuracy by the advisory group. These proposals are public and transparent (for more details see http://www.nextca.org/).

A statewide random sample of 300 or more people is administered a detailed survey on policy attitudes, then recruited to attend. We will also have data from a sample of non-participants to compare the attitudes and demographics of those who come. But that is just the start. The idea is to put the whole state under one roof to wrestle honestly with hard choices. Participants will be assigned at random to small groups with trained moderators to discuss the proposals in detail, identifying key questions that they wish to pose to panels of competing experts as part of a larger session. The process simply alternates the small groups and plenary sessions until the four topic areas are covered. At the end of the weekend, they take another questionnaire with the same questions.

The weekend deliberations will be transparent and garner ample media coverage, but the real point of the exercise is to see which reforms have weight with the public once they really engage with the issues and become more informed about the arguments, pro and con (and not just the arguments that we can anticipate in advance, but also those arising from meaningful deliberation).

Deliberative polls have been conducted in 16 countries. In general, about 70 percent of all the initial questions asked have changed significantly after deliberation. It is also true that as people become more informed through deliberation, they are more likely to change their views.

You might ask what use such an effort is if most of the population will still end up participating in “audience democracy” under the current rules of the initiative game, informed primarily by sound bites and headlines. Our hope is that Deliberative Polling will offer a guide to responsible advocacy. Many of the proposals being considered are candidates for possible initiative propositions, and those that do emerge from this deliberative process should, in our view, carry more weight than initiative proposals advanced by a single special interest.

We have been involved in two previous Deliberative Polls before referendums – in Australia before a vote on becoming a republic, and in Denmark before the vote to adopt the Euro. In both cases, these national Deliberative Polls took place just a couple of weeks before the vote. In this case, the idea is to bring the people into the initial dialogue about what might make for sound proposals. With more than a year before the 2012 election, there is plenty of time to incorporate the Deliberative Poll’s findings into the political process.

Ideally, the effort will hark back to an ancient form of democracy. In Athens, a randomly selected microcosm of the citizenry, the Council of 500, deliberated and set the agenda for votes by the people in the Assembly. In California, the randomly selected microcosm could end up setting an agenda for votes by the people in later initiatives. This would add a strongly deliberative element to our direct democracy, bringing the public’s informed and representative views into the initiative – and that’s an aspiration the Progressive reformers of a century ago undoubtedly would have backed.

James Fishkin is director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University and author of When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation.

Is it time to reform California’s initiative system?

This year marks the 100th anniversary of direct democracy in California, which is made up of the initiative, the referendum and the recall. The most famous recall in recent memory is when Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Referendums are used occasionally to repeal unpopular laws the Legislature has passed. But the initiative is the real prize, with citizen measures showing up on the ballot each election.

Grass-roots and special-interests groups have been pros at collecting signatures to add initiatives to the ballot ever since Californians adopted Proposition 13 in 1978. But perhaps changes are needed.

Before the board editorializes on the topic, though, they’ve been meeting with both sides. Here’s a behind-the-scenes look at what often goes into the editorial board’s decision-making process.

Last week, the board met with consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield and Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. In May, they coauthored an Op-Ed, "Don’t give up our right to initiatives," to explain their position. It’s intriguing that the two collaborated, as they usually find themselves at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Here they are defending the current process. Click to listen.

Summary of argument

There’s a disconnect

People need more time to collect signatures

We need to know more about veiled propositions

Voters are smarter than we give them credit for

The board also met with Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, and Tracy Weston, the center’s vice chairman and chief executive. Here they are arguing for initiative reform.

There’s room for improvement

Four steps toward reform

The problem with the Internet

Voters deserve transparency on ballot

The supermajority

The Paygo System

State Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) would also like to see changes to the initiative process; the board will meet with him Friday. He’s authored several bills on the issue.

Let us know your opinion on ballot initiative reform and help us shape our position.

Direct Democracy in Italy

Direct democracy may not always be the best—or paradoxically even the most democratic—form of government, but sometimes it’s a great breath of fresh air. On June 12–13 Italians voted “yes” on four referendums in a resounding defeat for the Berlusconi government. It came just two weeks after the center-right was roundly voted down in municipal elections across Italy, and was a blow that even some of Berlusconi’s own colleagues think the prime minister cannot survive. But it was more than that. This was a vote that went far beyond parochial Italian politics: a vote in which citizens had their say on how to manage natural resources and energy policy, a vote against the neoliberal axiom that “private is better,” against industry lobbies and powerful insiders with euro signs in their eyes, against the view that some of us are more equal than others.

Unlike those heated propositions on state and local taxes so familiar to Americans, these were national referendums on matters that all but define the term “public interest.” Two of them affirmed the principle that water is a collective, public good and may not be privatized or subject to automatic profit-making. A third said no to nuclear energy, a pilaster of the Berlusconi government energy policy even after the Fukushima nightmare in Japan. The last referendum abolished the special privilege the prime minister had granted himself and members of his cabinet to delay criminal trials by claiming loosely defined “legitimate impediments,” i.e., government and political duties. The legitimate impediment had already been partially struck down by the Constitutional Court. But apparently the voters felt it was important to assert that all Italians, even members of the government, should be equal before the law, just as the Constitution stipulates.

The vote was a triumph for word of mouth, above all. In order for a referendum to be valid in Italy, 50 percent plus one of eligible voters must go to the polls. And the government did everything to block that quorum. Berlusconi and his Northern League ally Umberto Bossi announced they didn’t intend to vote, reckoning the quorum would never be reached if their followers stayed home. The referendums were slated for a separate, third, poll date following the two-stage municipal elections in May, never mind the huge extra cost and the inconvenience for many of having to go to the polls three times in a month. Berlusconi’s Mediaset TV channels and the government-loyal main public TV channel RAI-1 gave very poor coverage to the upcoming vote, the latter actually announcing the wrong election dates during one news program. (To add insult to injury, the RAI-2 channel, controlled in part by the Northern League, also made the same “mistake” during one of its news reports.) Numbingly dull public service announcements—in dense bureaucratese “with an information content close to zero,” in the words of distinguished legal expert Stefano Rodotà—seemed designed to make the issues inscrutable.

Never mind. The resourceful referendum promoters found inventive ways to get their message across. During the Italian Cup soccer final, Greenpeace suspended a giant yellow and black “Stop Nuclear” banner in the stadium, a message visible on live TV for more than a minute and much seen in subsequent coverage. Scores of appearances by performers around Italy, impromptu concerts, street theater, nude runs, you name it, helped publicize the referendums. On Facebook, you could book a free, volunteer-driven “taxi” to the polls. Bars and restaurants offered discounts to all who had been to vote and could show the poll stamp on their voting certificate. Referendum voters could even get a half-price tattoo at one tattoo parlor in Bologna.

It worked: 57 percent of eligible voters went to the polls (that’s right, about the same as in many recent US presidential elections). And needless to say, given the government’s “stay home” campaign, each referendum got 94–95 percent of yes votes. But not everyone on the center-right stayed home. The Futuro e Libertà forces headed by Gianfranco Fini and a number of Northern Leaguers, among them Veneto governor Luca Zaia, went to vote—against the government on some if not all issues. Catholic voices from the Italian Bishops’ Conference to the news magazine Famiglia Cristiana also supported the vote, particularly on the water issue.

Certainly the government’s most stinging defeat came with the vote on nuclear power. In the days after the disaster in Japan, Berlusconi had insisted he would plow ahead with his plan to buy technology from France to build new nuclear power plants, saying the evident public revulsion was just “an emotional reaction.” When it became clear this was less a wave than a tsunami of emotion, the government quickly suspended the nuclear program, hoping to thus invalidate the referendum. (In a revealing aside to French President Sarkozy in April, Berlusconi told him not to worry, that the moratorium meant that “after a year or two we can go back to talking about it with a more manageable public opinion not influenced by Fukushima.”) In May, in the very days when Germany and Switzerland were announcing they would wind down their nuclear programs, Berlusconi—spurred by who knows what interests—was sneaking a clause into an unrelated bill that would allow Italy’s suspended nuclear program to be revived. Despite two appeals to Italy’s high courts, however, the government was unable to block the vote against nuclear power.

“That you have referendums like this that give citizens a chance to express their views on vital issues shows that Italy is ahead of other countries when it comes to direct democracy,” said French sociologist Alain Caillé in a recent interview. That was a bold claim, in a country famous today for being a backwater of democracy under Berlusconi. And yet, as in so many other matters besides democracy, Italy is somehow both a backwater and a forefront.

The direct vote has an illustrious history in this country, where in 1946 a solemn referendum (in which women voted for the first time) abolished the monarchy that had ruled Italy since 1861 and established a republic. A historic vote in 1974 roundly rejected a Catholic-sponsored referendum that would have struck down the new law permitting divorce. Since 1997, however, the voters have been called to the polls six times for numerous referendums, and a quorum has never been reached.

But this time, the issues caught fire. Verona-based missionary and activist Padre Alex Zanotelli, the man behind the referendum drive leading to Italy’s far-sighted decision that water must belong to “the commons” and be managed in the interests of all, was inspired by a similar, path-breaking referendum in Uruguay in 2004, as well as by a 2008 constitutional amendment in Bolivia establishing water as a fundamental human right (thus progress traveled from south to north). Meanwhile, experience in Italy with some rapacious private water companies—which took profits while making no investments in a system of pipelines so decrepit that nearly 50 percent of pumped water can go to waste—had persuaded most Italians that privatization was a mistake. But the issue went even deeper. Referendum number two stated that investors in the water system would not be guaranteed any profit. There was no way the message could be clearer: Italians no longer accept the Thatcherite view that all things are better managed by the private sector. There is such a thing as society—and some resources belong to us all.

After the center-right defeat in the May municipal elections, columnist Michele Serra wrote that “the Eighties, the longest decade in world history, is finally over. The politics of stage makeup and face-lifts…of escorts…of fake-fun hedonism and vulgar ignorance that pretends to be popular wisdom, is finished.”

The decade of neoliberalism, he might have added. Could benighted Italy’s decisive vote in these referendums be a harbinger of better choices for us all?

Frederika Randall for The Nation

Lawmakers must focus on will of the people

The elections of fall 2010 are over, and the new members of Congress have been in their seats since January. Nevertheless, 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 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.