Un article sur la démocratie directe

Répondre
Avatar du membre
cgelinas
Administrateur
Messages : 7780
Enregistré le : 25 mai 2010, 22:07
Localisation : Lévis, QC
Contact :

Voici un article que j'ai écrit pour Medium.com.

Vous pouvez le lire ici, gratuitement ou le lire dans Medium.com, avec ou sans abonnement mensuel.

C'est en anglais mais c'est un langage accessible. Ça parle de démocratie directe et pourquoi nous en avons tant besoin. Mon article est destiné au lectorat américain mais les Québécois aussi peuvent apprécier l'importance de la démocratie directe.

Bonne lecture...
Why direct democracy matters

There's hardly a single aspect of our public life, in the Western world, which isn't influenced by our governments' political action.

From collective rules to individual rights, the way we use our democracy makes a significant difference, for all of us.

Right now, democracy means using our voters' right roughly once every four years to elect a representative. Then, we go through that representative to influence outcomes.

Giving our power to a third party.

What could go wrong?

Well, a lot, actually.

By giving away our citizen's right to vote on issues makes us all depend on the representative we help elect. Or that other representative who won the all-important vote but who we didn't support. Whichever representative gets in office, we're going to have to hope he understands us enough to represent us.

While most representatives honestly strive for the best, as far as public policies go, they often get sidetracked by the establishment.

What is the establishment, you might ask?

Well, they're an asymetrical bunch of folks and groups who, among other things, make it their business to influence policies.

The establishment has an agenda and what little we, simple citizens, know of it usually emanates from a lobby. Either an individual lobbyist or a full-blown lobbying firm.

So, the establishment knows what's best for its own good.

Through lobbying, they convey their concerns to any and all elected officials who will listen.

And more often than not, our elected representative listens.

So much so that public policy ends up being nice and cozy for the establishment. And that's awesome for the establishment but is it also good for the general public?

Well, it depends because in some rare occasions, a need emanating from the establishment could be aligned with a more general need. Think about common sense issues like "less crime" or "better health services". Public policies favorable to those lines could end up benefiting both the establishment and the general public but as you already know, that isn't always the case.

In fact, since the lobbyists are so effective at conveying their patrons' demands for "better" public policies, from their "affluent and influent" point of view of the world, our elected officials end up spending most of their valuable time making the fabric of the establishment's public policy ideas into full-blown public policies which are then (and only then) shown to the masses.

It's at that precise moment that "the masses" get to see what the lobbying efforts were about. Perhaps the elected representative had concerns about certain dispositions of "the proposed ideas" but in essence, the final version of the public policy will nevertheless likely be a win for the establishment as so much of it comes… from them.

Citizens might find it hard to believe that their elected official, who they worked hard to have elected, would provide the establishment with public policies which end up favoring the few instead of "the masses".

Lobbys have a distinct tendency to tend to the few, not the many.

If lobbys worked more often for "the many", our public policies would be more aligned on their individual and collective needs but looking at how justice, education and health are structured, the public stands on the losing end of those important issues.

You doubt public policies favor the establishment?

Let's have a quick look.

For justice, Joe Public has to face a costly system while Rich-Pants Malone can hire all the expensive help he deems useful to ram any outcome he desires, through a judge who will try to stay independent but who might have to appreciate the barrage of legal arguments from the skilled legal eagles shooting from Malone's side. More often than not, when it comes to justice, money wins.

Establishment 1, the public 0.

Education, at all levels, is evacuating what's good for the student and integrating what's needed by the workplace. The establishment can keep "training expensenses money" if the public takes care of that bill, for them. Privatizing profits by plowing costs over the public's head. It's worked wonders at all levels, for the establishment and in education, it does too.

Establishment 2, the public 0.

Ah! Health. Second only to the military industrial complex in terms of sheer profit gouging, for the establishment. While the public might be asking for cures to end diseases, the establishment prefers a "disease diagnostic and management" approach which makes any sick individual a "client for life", of sorts. Curing said sick individuals would incur massive losses so, in turn, that wouldn't be good "for the economy", would it? So, disease management it is! The cure will have to wait. Sickness leads to more wealth, for the establishment. Why chance such a winning formula?

Establishment 3, the public 0.

Perhaps we'd need to use our common sense to appreciate how tilted the public policy tables are, in favor of the establishment.

Not because the establishment is inherently bad or evil although they can be, on occasion, but because they understand the following.

While the public votes to elect representatives, typically once every 4 years;

The establishment holds little interest in the election itself but then manages to vote up its own agenda with the political class, during the entire 4 years of office.

That's the major difference between the establishment and the public.

And that's how the public gets left with barking at the door while the adults are making arrangements inside, around the kitchen table, so to speak.

That's a rude image for anyone unfamiliar with the political process but for anyone who's been on the inside, that's pretty much how it's handled.

Should the public accept this?

Of course not!

This sad lay of the policital landscape has come about because the public has given away its power to elected representatives.

Then, the establishment bought the help needed to convince this handful of individuals.
And it works, very well.

So what should the public do, in the face of such lack of meaningful representation?
Many things having to do with keeping their power, starting with the election of a direct democracy representative.

A what?

Direct democracy?

Isn't "democracy" enough?

Why would I need it to be "direct"?

Well, direct democracy is the ultimate ace in the public's hand because anytime there's an issue to be discussed, regarding anything close to public policy, the public and / or an elected representative can ask that public consultations be held, followed by a public vote. And then, the representative votes in accordance to his constituents manifested desire for a given option.

Furthermore, a direct democracy is power by the people, for the people so all public policies must serve… the public.

Yep! You wanted something revolutionary? There you have it!

No more skewing public policies to favor the few. With direct democracy, it's all about serving Joe Public.

Since the establishment is composed of individuals who have a public side too, they also benefit from this Joe Public-centric approach. They'll pump in less (money, power… among other fancy things) but they'll end up living in a place where being a citizen means business because all citizens can participate in democracy, all the time, not just once every 4 years.

In fact, with a population which benefits more from public policies, even the establishment could end up on the winning side.

Wouldn't such a happier outcome be good for all of us?

Don't you think it's time we talked more about direct democracy?

If you do, say it. Don't be shy. Give a voice to your good ideas and make sure all public policies are aligned with the greater good, not the exclusive and unilateral benefit of the establishment.

In case you're interested and you're looking for a direct democracy example, look no further that Switzerland. It's working wonders for them. Why not for you?

Thanks for reading me and hopefully, thanks in advance for voting… for a direct democracy candidate, when the next election comes around.
Pour ceux qui aimeraient s'impliquer dans le succès de la démocratie directe, au Québec, je vous invite à visiter le site web du parti politique provincial Citoyens au pouvoir qui offre, justement, cette voie vers le pouvoir par le peuple, pour le peuple.
Fichiers joints
les-lobbyistes-au-travail-avec-nos-elus.jpg
les-lobbyistes-au-travail-avec-nos-elus.jpg (36.12 Kio) Vu 946 fois
Claude Gélinas, Éditeur
chaudiere.ca

Blogues: Montréal | Québec | Lévis | Emploi | Éducation | Placements | Transports
Dons: PayPal | DonorBox Web: Achetez vos noms de domaines au plus bas prix...
Répondre