What's new

jamahir Musings - Actual Democracy

jamahir

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
28,132
Reaction score
1
Country
India
Location
India
Inspired by following thread: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-develops-electronic-voting-machine.702447/

Step in the right direction.

Actually not. What Pakistan ( and rest of South Asia ) should be doing is establish actual democracy, not this multi-party confusion and the show-sha of five-yearly-elections.

Actual democracy would be party-less direct democracy guided by socialism. Where people at neighborhood-level will be really able to have their say in the affairs of the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Actually not. What Pakistan ( and rest of South Asia ) should be doing is establish actual democracy, not this multi-party confusion and the show-sha of five-yearly-elections.

Actual democracy would be party-less direct democracy guided by socialism. Where people at neighborhood-level will be really able to have their say in the affairs of the country.

Sorry but it doesn't make sense how an EVM goes against democracy. Would like to hear more on your thoughts on this "actual democracy"

As for a party-less democracy, Pakistan actually tried that during Gen Zia time and it was a disaster and the effects of those are still present today with parties formed later without any ideology or objectives except to gain power with any means possible.
 
.
Sorry but it doesn't make sense how an EVM goes against democracy. Would like to hear more on your thoughts on this "actual democracy"

A typical EVM in traditional "democracies" is meant for people to select between parties and not to elicit public views on specific issues. In certain "democratic" countries like USA, India and Pakistan the parties do not seek enlightened public opinion every time on issues at neighborhood-level or at national level and on issues that a country should project towards other countries. For example, in the latest elections in "democratic" USA neither the Democrats party nor the Republican party internalized the good ideas proposed by the 2011 progressive movement called the Occupy Wall Street movement. In my case, as an Indian I am not allowed by the Indian parliament to state that I want the country's annual income to be used to build a welfare system where there are free hospitals for the blind and the cancered instead of allowing the country's "leaders" to keep India being the world's largest importer of armaments.

In context of EVMs and so-called democracies I quote a section from Gaddafi's Green Book Part 1 :
PLEBISCITES

Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should express their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their "yes" or "no" vote.

What then, is the path to be taken by humanity in order to conclusively rid itself of the elements of dictatorship and tyranny?

The intricate problem in the case of democracy is reflected in the nature of the instrument of government, which is demonstrated by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The elections and plebiscites were invented to cover the failure of these unsuccessful experiments to solve this problem. The solution lies in finding an instrument of government other than those which are subject to conflict and which represent only one faction of society; that is to say, an instrument of government which is not a party class, sect or a tribe, but an instrument of government which is the people as a whole. In other words, we seek an instrument of government which neither represents the people nor speaks in their name.

There can be no representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud. If such an instrument can be found, then the problem is solved and true popular democracy is realized. Thus, humankind would have terminated the eras of tyranny and dictatorships, and replaced them with the authority of the people.

So what is the solution ? I continue from the Green Book :
POPULAR CONFERENCES AND PEOPLE'S COMMITTEES

Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.

Popular Conferences and People's Committees are the fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People's Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all people, however small the population, in one place so that they can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy, which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their political affairs.

These instruments of government - the individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and monopolized politics and authority for themselves.

THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, be they parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.

True democracy has but one method and one theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences and People's Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere.

First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select administrative People's Committees to replace government administration. All public institutions are run by People's Committees which will be accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the people's and the outdated definition of democracy - democracy is the supervision of the government by the people - becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.

All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People's Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferences and People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in the General People's Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees. Resolutions of the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.

The General People's Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees.

Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.
Please read the rest of the linked page.

The Libyan system was adapted by Hugo Chavez for Venezuelan conditions through the system of 'Communas'. I quote this article :
We met with Antenea Jimenez, a former militant with the student movement who is now working with a national network of activists who are trying to build and strengthen the comunas. The comunas are community organizations promoted since 2006 by the Chávez government as a way to consolidate a new form of state based upon production at the local level. She told us about the important advances in the process, as well as the significant challenges that remain in the struggle to build a new form of popular power from below.

Can you tell us about the barrio where you live and the comuna?

I live in a barrio in the north part of Caracas and work in a national network that is building comunas. Currently we operate in seven states; the majority of the comunas are situated outside Caracas.

We are working with the comunas to construct a political space in participatory way. It is a new experience in Venezuela. Above all, the comunais a political space, not like the State or a parish; it is created by the people for the people.

Currently there are many comunas in construction in the rural areas, where they are the strongest. Every comuna has its own reality depending on political culture and the form of production in the specific locale. For example, on the coastal zone the community is dedicated to fishing, while in a rural zone the production is based on the land.

We are working to discover which elements and principles unite these different experiences, which elements are the same despite the fact that the methods of production and cultures may be different. We organize national meetings where the comunas from north, south, east and west can share their experiences and learn from each other – the errors as well as the successes.

What is the main aim of the comunas?

The aims of the comunas are diverse, and take different forms. Before thecomuna existed there were all kinds of community organizations where people would participate looking for solutions to their problems, their neighborhood association, the municipal government, etc. The goal of the comunas is to build on these processes and consolidate them by organizing on the basis of territory where people live.

For us the comuna is a territorial space, but also a political space where the aim is to build socialism on a permanent basis, where the people take charge of their own education and political formation. We teach about “convivencia” (living together well) and elaborate a plan for a particular territory. What is new about the process is that the people are also elaborating their own plan of formation.

The people are very creative; the most advanced work with the other neighbors in this process to create a permanent space of formation. Civil servants, working for the state, who went to these spaces, quickly learned that the people were elaborating their own plan by and for themselves.

Obviously some comunas are more advanced than other ones. It is much more difficult to build a comuna in urban areas, for example, because they have no experience with [different forms] of production; for example, they have no experience with [non-capitalist] social relations with the land. There is a dynamic in the city that is very capitalist. But in the rural areas they have conserved many elements of what is “ours,” from our ancestors, the indigenous communities, the Afro-Venezuelan communities. These values are still there. For this reason it is easier in the rural areas than in the urban areas. While there are fewer people in the countryside, the quality of the compañeros is very high. Sometimes there is not one person who did not vote for Chávez; this is less common in the urban areas.

Can you describe your personal political formation? How did you get involved in the comunas?

I was a student activist in University. I was active in political movements before Chávez, but there was no relationship between the social movements and political parties. In 1992, when Chávez was released from prison, things began to change. We have always been involved in the grassroots of the popular movement; there were few political spaces to participate in before [Chávez’s release] so you would get involved instead in your neighborhood, in your popular organization, in your cultural group.

But since Chávez was released [and began to build a political movement for the 1998 elections] things changed. I got involved; it was our responsibility to help build the process and the movement in Caracas. I was involved in the Popular Coordinator of Caracas, and afterwards the initiative to create the comunas. Now we are a group that works on the comunas.

There are a lot of different ideas about the comunas, for example, between our network of activists and what Chávez has suggested. There are various ideas. We are building it from the people, not the government. We have had extraordinary advances; but the strongest advances have come when the people have been convinced that this is the path, when they have become active in their own neighborhood.

How do the comunas work?

Historically there were diverse organizations that came together to resolve the problems of the neighborhoods. Our idea was to bring these organizations together to start to participate with concrete issues. We organize workshops. Let’s say that a community does not have water. We will organize a meeting about water. The people say, “Ah see! We can solve our own problems.”

We look for a socialist solution to the problem. Not just to hire a private company to fix something, but to work with the government and the people to fix the problem. Working first from the basic needs of the people will inspire them to participate. We also work with them to think more about the future, how we can improve things over the long term.

Step by step we work together toward solving simple things, like living together. Things that just require norms, a little bit of effort that helps us live together better. The community might decide that “We can’t drink in the streets,” for example. Other people see these small changes and then join the struggle when they see the results. They see that collective organization is possible.

There is a network of promoters of the comunas that coordinates, but the participation of the people is fundamental. There are people of all kinds that participate in the comuna: people from the left, people from the right, people that don’t care about anything. The people get involved with a problem that touches their family, the school for example because it involves their children.

Not everyone is socialist. Actually, a minority of participants in the comunas are socialists. We have to attend to the issues that matter to them. This can only be done through practice, and this is the way people get involved.

What are some of the main problems that you face trying to build socialism from the neighborhoods up to higher levels?

There is one factor that impedes our work which is the electoral dynamic, which is very exhausting. Constantly being in campaigns does not permit us to consolidate the organic process at the neighborhood level. It is difficult to deal with the problems in the community when we have to focus on issues like the constituent assembly, then the referendum, general elections, then presidential elections, then elections for governor, etc. Currently we are in elections for municipal councilors. This constant electoral dynamic weakens the organic process at the local level because it distracts us from confronting the daily issues that people confront in their neighborhoods.

What are the main demands in the north zone of Caracas where you live?

The main problem in this area is unplanned urbanization. Most of the land is in the hands of a very small bourgeoisie and so the common people have had to build their houses on the hillsides near the canyon, areas that were originally left vacant [because of the precarious conditions]. There are 29 rivers in the area of Caracas, and every time it rains heavily the people who live in these areas are at great risk. Their houses get washed away. Many people die. For example in 1999 there was a disaster in which many people were killed. People want a resolution of this problem.

The other theme is physical security or insecurity. It is difficult to find a place to meet because people are afraid. It is a real problem. But the right-wing opposition and the media has exaggerated the issue, and made it the problem in the barrios. I think that there are more serious problems. Security is the issue of the opposition, the press covers it, so there is debate about this problem.


How has the quality of people’s lives changed since the beginning of the Bolivarian revolution?

One of the main changes is in the area of education with the missions, Mission Sucre, for example. Now anyone who wants to go to university can go. Before only 7% of the students in the UCV were poor people like me. And perhaps only 2% of the students in Simón Bolívar were poor. Now everybody is studying at night. In fact, sometimes it is difficult to find a time to meet because everybody is studying! We can only hold meetings during the weekends.

Another fundamental thing that has changed is that before 1998, there was no political debate in the barrios. I was part of a small vanguard that was resisting this, trying to raise political debate in the university. In the 1980s, it was only the students who would mobilize, come out on the streets. But now people are talking about politics everywhere, on the bus and in the bars. It is rare that two people having beers are not talking about politics.

Another important success is that people talk about socialism. Maybe they do not talk about socialism in a “scientific” way, like about what Marx or Lenin said. But they talk about socialism with familiarity. There is still some fear, but way less than before. For example, once we showed a film about socialism in a barrio in the 1980s or 1990s. People just repeated what they heard from the press, that the socialists will torture you and that all socialists are dictators. Now people associate socialism with democracy. Indeed, the very concept of democracy has changed. If Chávez was assassinated, which is a real possibility because there have been many plans to assassinate him, there would be a civil war.

But no matter what happens, the advance of participatory democracy is irreversible. We cannot go back to representative democracy. There could be another kind of left, but now the people always have to participate; participatory democracy is a fundamental part of this revolution. The people understand the importance of it, demand it, and want to do it.

And they notice the difference in how politics works. Before the political reality was centered on what happened in “Miraflores” (the presidential palace). Now there is a lot of political activity, there are important social movements. There is possibility, there is hope. Now people do more than just wait every five years to participate in elections. We have seven million people who are militants in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). There are millions of people participating in the communal councils.

This does not mean that everybody has a developed political consciousness or political experience; it is still a process in transition. There can be no revolutionary party without revolutionary militants. And the commitment to forming revolutionaries remains underdeveloped.

There are still problems in the Bolivarian process. There have been important economic improvements, for example, less unemployment, higher minimum salary, better pensions, but there is still a low level of political consciousness. People have to be able to handle political and economic theories if we are to advance further, like in Cuba, where the average person on the street has an analysis of what is going on in the country, in the world. In Cuba there is a high level of political consciousness. This level of [revolutionary] consciousness is still lacking in Venezuela. It is dangerous for the revolution. We have come a long way but we can still do more.

What does participatory democracy mean in the comunas?

There is a saying here that suggests that participatory democracy is not about what we are doing but about how we are going to do it. It means that we all build together that which we want to do, we decide what we want to contribute, our projects for improving our lives.

Participation has to be for everyone whether they are with the government, against the government, from the left, from the right. The only one who has authority is the assembly of citizens. It is the assembly, not an elected group… no, it is the assembly that decides on the development plan in each comuna.

When there are debates we try to reach a consensus, and if we don’t, we keep debating. When there is no agreement we break the issue down bit by bit to reach agreement on smaller parts. Participation for us is in the formulation of politics; we also participate in the execution of the project. For example, a community wants an aqueduct. The state says, “Ok. Here is the money. Now build it, execute the funds.”

But we do not participate in the formulation of national policy, not directly. The policy of the ministers is not decided by a participatory process. We have said, “But we should participate!” We participate at the local level, but socialism is not something that happens only at the local level. We need to weave together a web that brings together the local spaces, the territories, and the comunas, because the national and international levels have an impact on what’s happening at the local level. We can’t just be a socialist comuna, a little island in a sea of capitalism. After all, who are we going to exchange with?

There is a Ministry of Popular Power for the Comunas and Social Protection but there are no participatory mechanisms to set its policy. Right now this is happening with the indigenous communities. There is a Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and the communities are participating, they decide. They have a national council that makes policy. We have put forward a proposal to have more control over the Ministry for the Comunas, but it has not yet been approved. There is a lot of resistance.

You have to understand one thing. The comunas are a space of power. There are comunas that have executed more resources than some municipal governments. So, the comunas are constituted spaces of power; a majority of the comunasare formally part of the PSUV, but often Chavista officials at the local levels do not really want to share power. Instead, there is a confrontation between the comunas and the Chavista mayors and governors. Although we all stand with our arms together in the photo with Chávez, in practice there is a real confrontation. The governors do not understand this dynamic because the governors do not want to lose power.

The governors and mayors think that they are going to build socialism from their municipality, from their leadership. But we say, if a communal state is not born, socialism will not be possible. At the moment there is no perfect socialist comuna, where everything is debated, where there is an alternative, socialist, economic plan, where the teachers are also from the comuna, giving classes to the youth. This might be possible one day, but not now when there is another level of government that is deciding the overall budget. The project is to connect all these comunas at the national level; at the moment this is not viable because in most places we do not even participate in deciding the budget of the municipality. We participate in small projects, and the local government continues independently as if we were not in a socialist transition.

I only know of two isolated cases where this [participatory budgeting with the involvement of the comuna] takes place in reality: in the city of Torres in the state of Lara, and in Bolívar city in the state of Falcón. This is the case because in these municipalities the comrades [the mayors] are really from the left. The majority of the governors are not from the left. In most cases, the state is a bourgeois state and taking apart this state is the focus of continual conflict. This is taking a lot of political energy. The president is aware of these contradictions but I don’t think that he has found a way to overcome the problem. It is not simple. On the one hand you have people who are organized and making proposals and on the other hand people from the same party who are consolidating the bourgeois state.

What is the role of women in the comunas?

The majority of the people who participate in the comunas are women. I think that when we are talking about the advances of the process, this is a very important one. Right now there is a lot of participation by women and the grassroots level. But it ends there. When it is time to hold elections for positions with more responsibility, then it is men who are the candidates.

The president has put forward a number of initiatives to counter this tendency, and there have been many advances. In the party, for example, 50% of the candidates must be women. And when you go to the communities, the majority of those who are participating are women, and the majority of people who are studying in the missions are women. Historically in Venezuela and in Latin America, the societies have been very sexist and it has often been difficult for women to even leave the house. Before Chávez came to office, women’s participation was really rare. Women from the Left – from the vanguard – have always participated in social and political life. But now it is more widespread. I think that in the higher levels of the process, there are a number of valuable women doing incredible things.

There are some things that still need to change. Like the laws. For example, if I get pregnant I have six months of rest but my husband does not even get a day. One of the things that we have asked for is equality on this issue. I think that we will win on this issue.

Another limitation is that women are responsible for the children in Venezuela. It is difficult for women to participate, in the communal council, for example, because they have to leave their kids somewhere. This influences women’s decisions not to take political positions with more responsibility, especially if the position involves travel. This is a real barrier, although the level of participation in the communities is really high.

What is the long term vision for promoting participatory democracy from below through the comunas?

Here I have a different vision from the government. The vision of the government is that I show up in a community, starting from zero, and within half a week give workshops on politics. As I mentioned above, the level of political consciousness in Venezuela is still weak.

The process of building political consciousness, formation, can not be instantaneous. It is not like you can go to a school for a week and get a certificate. It has to be permanent. If you have a team constituted by the same people from the communal council raising the consciousness of people in their community, this is the way to create facilitators. It is a long process to learn about all of the different categories: anarchism, socialism and its various currents. It takes at least fifteen years. It is not just theory; it is also learned in practice. You learn in practice, but also through reading and reflecting. It takes a long time to figure out that certain social and political practices belong to socialism, while other ones are capitalist.

Some communal councils have higher levels of political formation than others. These organizations understand that the communal council is not just a space to receive resources. They understand that the council is a new “civil association.” It is a political space and a political exercise. Honestly, the majority of the councils do not understand it this way. We are still working with the councils to work on the idea that “hey, we can solve this problem in a capitalist way or a socialist way.” We want to solve the problems, but do so in a new way. But it is difficult when the companies that provide the services, for example, produce the materials for a house, are still capitalist. Housing is a good example because the problem of housing continues to be serious. Maybe we are making the blocks, but we have to buy the cement from a capitalist company. And then hiring the person to lay the blocks… It is not just solving the problem, but how we solve the problem… to build socialism rather than strengthen capitalism. We have 500 years of colonialism and exploitation, so this is a big challenge, to rebuild all of the socio-economic system. Building a new state is a big challenge.

For example, in some cases we have increased agricultural production. But the rice has been sent to a company that processes and packages the rice and sells it back at ten times the price. It makes me laugh, it doesn’t make sense. We have to take over the plants, take over the companies. But it is not easy to do. And the communal councils are not necessarily ready to take on all these tasks.

We find ourselves in a bit of a vicious circle. The only way to overcome this is to create relations between the communal councils, public institutions and the state. The councils are in the process of becoming stronger but it will take a lot to move to the next step.

What is the idea over the long term? Will the comunas continue to exist alongside the bourgeois state, or will they eventually replace it with new forms of self-governance?

This question makes me think because the revolutionary process has taken place through many kinds of organizations that got stuck on the path. The president mentioned once that the nucleus of endogenous development did not function well. The people often ask, “What kind of organization do we need, which is the adequate tool to help bring us what we want… acomuna, a cooperative?” And I explain what a cooperative is, a company of social property. The comuna is something else. We are doing everything to try to make sure that the comuna becomes the main instrument of social change because we are Marxists… it is the only way to build socialism, from below. In addition, in Venezuela there are historical experiences withcomunas. This is our original form of organization. It is not strange for us. Of course, because of colonialism all of this changed. But the original form in “Our America” was this one. This is the political form through which people collectively governed their lives.

We have also seen other forms of socialism that were constructed by the state, like the Soviet Union. When that state collapsed, everything was destroyed. So, something happened there. Did the people really feel like they were a part of this process? There were some successes but people did not really feel part of it. The experience of all the revolutions of the past, in Russia, in Cuba, in the other countries of the South, show that if the people do not really participate, the bourgeois state simply continues. Such a conception of socialism is not viable, because the bourgeois state is not of the people. We are working now to build alternative systems, of solidarity exchange and barter. The idea is that the comuna also starts to run the community radio stations, the TV stations.

We are discussing how the comunas will be structured. What will be the relations of forces, which powers will the comunasbe in charge of – judicial, executive, etc. All that exists now is the assembly for debate. But authentically socialist comunadoes not yet exist; we are still constructing the comunas. We are in comuna when we govern ourselves, when we do not need a judge to tell us, “This house is not yours.” Or let’s say you live in a neighborhood and you need a letter that proves your place of residence. You have to go to an institution that says this. The comuna could do this. Your neighbor can verify where you live.

Capitalism created a layer of people who are the owners of peoples’ lives. If you do not have a residence card, there are many things that you can’t do. Why do we need resident cards? The bourgeois state has created this class of administrators that we do not need, who pretend they know things. The popular layers of community at the bottom have to wait until they solve the problems. But the comuna can do all of these things, decide all of these things. Before the Spanish came, this is how we lived. But it is a long process to raise the consciousness of the people so that they can take charge of their lives. It is also not an “anarchist thing” where anyone can do whatever they want. There are norms of living together that one has to respect. There are norms that regulate working life that also have to be respected. People have to respect these laws out of consciousness rather than because there is a law that represses them.

Ultimately, whether President Chávez is here or not, the process depends on the people. At the moment, the process as a whole is too dependent on the president. He is seen as the guarantee that this process will go forward, and for this reason the reactionaries want to get rid of him.

If another government replaces Chávez it may no longer be possible to meet politically in the streets. With the right-wing governments of the past, you only had to have a single book by Marx, Che Guevara, or Fidel Castro, to be persecuted. •
PM Imran Khan should look at this experiment because he too wants to build a welfare system for Pakistan.

As for a party-less democracy, Pakistan actually tried that during Gen Zia time and it was a disaster

No, Zia was a dictator who gave power into the hands of the regressive mullahs. I quote the Wikipedia page for "Jamaat e Islami" which was a party he promoted :
Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan came under severe government repression in 1948, 1953, and 1963. But, during the early years of the regime of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, it served as the "regime's ideological and political arm", with party members holding cabinet portfolios of information and broadcasting, production, and water, power and natural resources
 
Last edited:
.
In my case, as an Indian I am not allowed by the Indian parliament to state that I want the country's annual income to be used to build a welfare system where there are free hospitals for the blind and the cancered instead of allowing the country's "leaders" to keep India being the world's largest importer of armaments.
You're free to publish your viewpoint through any medium, electronic print, or vocal way. When you can convince at least half the Indians you can win elections all over the country with that ideology and you can implement your ideas as you wish.
 
.
You're free to publish your viewpoint through any medium, electronic print, or vocal way. When you can convince at least half the Indians you can win elections all over the country with that ideology and you can implement your ideas as you wish.

Are "Democratic elections" really the way to govern a country ? How many decades do you think I will need to convince the current neo-rich ultra-nationalist middle class that India doesn't need 100 more Rafale planes or Vallabhbhai Patel's tallest-statue-in-the-world but needs to spend financial, material and human resources on setting up a welfare system where blindness can be cured without the patient spending a single penny, where there is no obscenity like presence of Ambani's 27-storey "house" in proximity to slums where four people live in one room, where other millionaires like Subrata Roy are not allowed to spend 500 crores on the twin weddings of his two sons while in the same country people die of hunger, where in "educational" institutes in year 2016, 69 years after independence, Dalit students are harassed by upper caste co-students or officials ? How many Indians, especially the IT and MBA middle class types will understand these dichotomies and injustices ? PDF Indians are a slice of India.

I want to stand in the speaker's position in the Indian parliament and ask things.
 
Last edited:
.
Are "Democratic elections" really the way to govern a country ?
What better way to find out what the public wants?

How many decades do you think I will need to convince the current neo-rich ultra-nationalist middle class that India doesn't need 100 more Rafale planes
It is not an either or situation. You can't supplement Rafale with Potatoes for defence, or Potatoes with Rafale for food for people. Both scenarios require solutions of its own.

or Vallabhbhai Patel's tallest-statue-in-the-world but needs to spend financial,
What's wrong with Patel's statue? It is a tourist spot that earns revenue and reminds people of Patel, the Otto Von Bismarck of India. Certain schemes are directly beneficial to the public, instead of spending money giving ration, the government should provide mechanisms where the public can fend for themselves instead of getting free services.

financial, material and human resources on setting up a welfare system where blindness can be cured without the patient spending a single penny
Eh! No. This really sounds fantastic but, say an eye specialist, he spend close to 50 Lakh for doing medicine, years of sleepless night to study it, then do MD which is again a similar amount of energy andmoney spend. And when he/she graduates, and starts practising, how do you expect him to give free service to the public?

The government cannot foot the bill of every citizen, at the expense of 36 Rafales. We don't have natural resources like Oil for a quick buck to try the Jamahiriya system. What else we do? Let capitalism take control and let the free market decide the prices.

where there is no obscenity like presence of Ambani's 27-storey "house" in proximity to slums where four people like in one room,
It's not like Ambani steals wealth from that slum and build the 27 storey house. Or did he? I have discussed this with you time and time again. You earn through hard work, when it pays off you make money from the market. When it doesn't, or if you are not working hard, you will be forced to live in the slum/poverty. It's really survival of the fittest.

Dalit students are harassed by upper caste co-students or officials ? How many Indians, especially the IT and MBA middle class types will understand these dichotomies and injustices ? PDF Indians are a slice of India.

I want to stand in the speaker's position in the Indian parliament and ask things.
The problem with people like you is, you have a problem and you have your own solutions to the problem. You have theories, you have ideas to solve those problems.

How practical are they? Be a realist, the Dalit class/caste issue will not go away without reform in Hindu societies, and also the perpetual politicising of caste issues. Communism or Socialism can't reform religions.

You can't stand in the speaker's position and ask because you are just a citizen of India as anyone else, everyone has their own opinions on how governance should be. Let's say there are 10 million Indians like you, how do you expect parliament to allow you? You may think your idea is superior and correct so does the other 10 million.

That's why I said, use a medium to convey your ideas, you can't impose an ideology on anyone just because you believe your idea is correct and perfect.
 
. . .
That's why I said, use a medium to convey your ideas, you can't impose an ideology on anyone just because you believe your idea is correct and perfect.

So what medium do you suggest ?

Why can't Indian PDF'ers discuss novel ideas here, like this economic system I have proposed, or about scientific agriculture, and these members discuss it off-line among their friends, family and acquaintances, making a few to become many ?

Let's say there are 10 million Indians like you, how do you expect parliament to allow you? You may think your idea is superior and correct so does the other 10 million.

Let us first start by understanding if the traditional, "representative democracy" parliament we have is actually a manifestation of true democracy. Bear with me. Below I explain the direct democracy that governed Libya until 2011. The system is universal and does not depend on whether a country has oil wealth or not. It simply is a progressive political system :
Firstly, there will be no traditional government. The governance will be by the people directly. The implementation of the communist desire of "Withering away of the State". Below is how :​
OK, let's see it from neighborhood level to country level :​
In every neighborhood the residents form themselves into a BPC ( Basic People's Congress ). From the BPC the residents discuss and elect a secretariat from amongst themselves. The secretariat is supposed to put forward these citizens' ideas at the next levels.​
The city is divided into such neighborhood level Basic People's Congresses and the collection of the secretariats of the BPCs is called Non-Basic People's Congress. You may call it MPC ( Municipal People's Congress ). So one MPC for a city.​
The BPCs consult amongst themselves and through the MPC elect People's Committees from among eligible people to carry out administrative activities in the city ( water supply, electricity, public transport, internet, housing, bank, security etc ). The People's Committees are directly answerable to the people through the MPC.​
Whenever the MPC meets, the agenda and feedback is directly done by the neighborhood level people through the secretariats of each BPC in the city.​
All the MPCs in the country form the GPC ( General People's Congress ) which will discuss issues of national and international situations. For example, building a water pipeline that starts from a river in one city and goes through other cities. Another example, setting the strategic security alliance with a certain group of countries. Another example, begin to replace all privately-owned personal transport vehicles in the country with taxis and buses. All these issues can go two ways : (a). Arise from a neighborhood level BPC and go to country level GPC, (b). Proposed by the GPC and go down to be discussed in all the BPCs.​
The traditional parliament is replaced by the General People's Congress. This way, issues and ideas are managed and discussed by the people directly without there being any political party existing, or any professional politician existing or the need to have any five-yearly election.​
Please read this thread whose OP is an article about Libya's pre-2011 Direct Democracy system in practice.​
Please ask if you need more clarification.​


What's wrong with Patel's statue? It is a tourist spot that earns revenue and reminds people of Patel, the Otto Von Bismarck of India.

Had Bhagat Singh been alive, had there been a proposal for such a construction of his statue he would have decried the making of his statue and instead would have spoken for investing that money in the real needs of Indians.

Don't you see the absurdity of spending millions on erecting Patel's statue ( the world's biggest statue ) while so many Indians remain blind and cancered not because there is no cure but because they don't have money ?

About those tourists to Patel's statue they mostly will be middle class, right-wing, misguided people.

Eh! No. This really sounds fantastic but, say an eye specialist, he spend close to 50 Lakh for doing medicine, years of sleepless night to study it, then do MD which is again a similar amount of energy andmoney spend. And when he/she graduates, and starts practising, how do you expect him to give free service to the public?

How do you think Cuba's world-renowned medical system operates ? Healthcare is free in Cuba. How does that happen ? For Cubans in Cuba education is free.

It's not like Ambani steals wealth from that slum and build the 27 storey house. Or did he? I have discussed this with you time and time again. You earn through hard work, when it pays off you make money from the market. When it doesn't, or if you are not working hard, you will be forced to live in the slum/poverty. It's really survival of the fittest.

Did Ambani earn his money being in isolation from Indians ? Did Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of money, suddenly appear before Ambani and gave him a boon of wealth ?

Ambani has a private temple in his 27-storey "house". When worshiping daily does he ever feel guilty of not giving back to that society who made him rich ? If you read the Wikipedia page for that "house" ( Antilia ) even fellow millionaire Ratan Tata has concerned words for it.

About "survival of the fittest", that is a rather ruthless sentiment especially during an era when we are supposed to be evolved. Remember that owner of Cafe Coffee Day who committed suicide because of socio-economic reasons ? Why are such suicides taken so lightly in India ? Why are they allowed to happen ? If like Indian farmers if 350,000+ Indian IT middle-class professionals would have committed suicide within ten years would you have not questioned why ?
 
.
So what medium do you suggest ?

Why can't Indian PDF'ers discuss novel ideas here, like this economic system I have proposed, or about scientific agriculture, and these members discuss it off-line among their friends, family and acquaintances, making a few to become many ?
I don't have any suggestion for you, and I don't believe in your ideology. It's best if you chose the ideal medium that would really instead of asking for a suggestion, and PDF is the last place for it.

In every neighborhood the residents form themselves into a BPC ( Basic People's Congress ). From the BPC the residents discuss and elect a secretariat from amongst themselves. The secretariat is supposed to put forward these citizens' ideas at the next levels.


The city is divided into such neighborhood level Basic People's Congresses and the collection of the secretariats of the BPCs is called Non-Basic People's Congress. You may call it MPC ( Municipal People's Congress ). So one MPC for a city.

The BPCs consult amongst themselves and through the MPC elect People's Committees from among eligible people to carry out administrative activities in the city ( water supply, electricity, public transport, internet, housing, bank, security etc ). The People's Committees are directly answerable to the people through the MPC.

Whenever the MPC meets, the agenda and feedback is directly done by the neighborhood level people through the secretariats of each BPC in the city.

All the MPCs in the country form the GPC ( General People's Congress ) which will discuss issues of national and international situations. For example, building a water pipeline that starts from a river in one city and goes through other cities. Another example, setting the strategic security alliance with a certain group of countries. Another example, begin to replace all privately-owned personal transport vehicles in the country with taxis and buses. All these issues can go two ways : (a). Arise from a neighborhood level BPC and go to country level GPC, (b). Proposed by the GPC and go down to be discussed in all the BPCs.

The traditional parliament is replaced by the General People's Congress. This way, issues and ideas are managed and discussed by the people directly without there being any political party existing, or any professional politician existing or the need to have any five-yearly election.

Please read this thread whose OP is an article about Libya's pre-2011 Direct Democracy system in practice.

Please ask if you need more clarification.
We already have that system, it's called Panchayati raj. There is a panchayat, ideally where people's matters are supposed to be heard. We elect our councillors and ward members up to the Parliament, they then elect their Mayor/President. The problem is designing a system involving thousands of elected members is one thing, Hoping they would work in a way you describe is whole, I mean WHOLE another thing.

In short, your system works if and only if we have everyone on board, the public, elected officials, bureaucrats. If we can do that, we can work wonders with the system we already have.
Had Bhagat Singh been alive, had there been a proposal for such a construction of his statue he would have decried the making of his statue and instead would have spoken for investing that money in the real needs of Indians.

Don't you see the absurdity of spending millions on erecting Patel's statue ( the world's biggest statue ) while so many Indians remain blind and cancered not because there is no cure but because they don't have money ?

About those tourists to Patel's statue they mostly will be middle class, right-wing, misguided people.
Well, Bhagat Singh did not get to live in post-independent India. You need visionaries, they can foresee instead of giving few rations, build a giant statue, let people from all over the country visit the statue, the government earns revenue, people get jobs running shops around the region and the economy is buzzing. Bhagat Singh is not a statesman, or we didn't get to know that side of him, unfortunately.

It doesn't matter if the visitors are right-wing left-wing or wingless, they pay hard money to visit the place.
3000 cr invested, 3 million people visit the place. That's job for thousands of people, revenue for the government.
How do you think Cuba's world-renowned medical system operates ? Healthcare is free in Cuba. How does that happen ? For Cubans in Cuba education is free.
I'm glad you dropped the communist heaven Venezuela, another Socialist experiment that went awry. Cuba is also a shitty communist experiment, they survive on subsidies provided by Venezuela, and other fellow commies they foot close to 13% of the GDP. If India was in a situation where another country is ready to spend $250 billion dollars every year, we can do all that. We don't survive on alms from any other country, do we?
Not to mention, Cuba is heavily depended on exporting natural commodities like Oil, Nickel etc... in fact Cuba has nothing to show apart from the fact that they subsidize healthcare and can't survive if Oil pipe or alms runs dry.

Why don't you take the example of Norway, another borderline retard(socialist) who runs their country on oil revenue? India has not much oil, if we had we would be experimenting with Socialism too, fortunately or unfortunately that didn't happen.
Did Ambani earn his money being in isolation from Indians ? Did Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of money, suddenly appear before Ambani and gave him a boon of wealth ?
No. He exported refined petrol to other countries and in India. They're one of the best refineries in India, and I love their petroleum products, if possible, I only fill up my car from Reliance gives me a good 17 KmpL while Indian Oil (Fair) or HP (the worst) gives me less. We don't have Reliance retail yet, so I still depend on local Supermarkets.

Ambani has a private temple in his 27-storey "house". When worshiping daily does he ever feel guilty of not giving back to that society who made him rich ? If you read the Wikipedia page for that "house" ( Antilia ) even fellow millionaire Ratan Tata has concerned words for it.
I have a private temple in my land only my family visit that temple. I'm not rich, we are middle class by Kerala standards and I don't feel an ounce of guilt when I pray there. Do you feel guilty when you go to the mosque in your car/bike and pray? You could've donated that to a poor person who walks to work, or a farmer he could use something to till other than his Bull. Charity begins at home. Right??

About "survival of the fittest", that is a rather ruthless sentiment especially during an era when we are supposed to be evolved. Remember that owner of Cafe Coffee Day who committed suicide because of socio-economic reasons ? Why are such suicides taken so lightly in India ? Why are they allowed to happen ? If like Indian farmers if 350,000+ Indian IT middle-class professionals would have committed suicide within ten years would you have not questioned why ?
That's the natural process of evolution. We had Neanderthals, not so smart or well equipped as Homosapiens and the nature picked Homosapiens to survive. Dinosaurs went extinct while some reptiles and water-bound species survived resulting in us Humans.
Cafe Coffee day, is very much a profit-oriented business much like Ambani, only that he's small-time compared to Ambani. And suicides are taken lightly, because we have deep socio-economic reasons that we need to figure out if we want to tackle poverty, suicide is not a priority now, we will tackle these social issues when we have sorted out urgent necessities.
 
.
I will reply to this today.

That's the natural process of evolution. We had Neanderthals, not so smart or well equipped as Homosapiens and the nature picked Homosapiens to survive. Dinosaurs went extinct while some reptiles and water-bound species survived resulting in us Humans.

Cafe Coffee day, is very much a profit-oriented business much like Ambani, only that he's small-time compared to Ambani. And suicides are taken lightly, because we have deep socio-economic reasons that we need to figure out if we want to tackle poverty, suicide is not a priority now, we will tackle these social issues when we have sorted out urgent necessities.

Socio-economic suicides in India whether by farmers or by students happen because of poverty.

In case of farmers they don't earn enough to repay their interest-based loans and these loans are generally micro-finance ones which are for some immediate need, nothing which will make them rich enough.

In case of student suicides the students won't commit suicide if after college they have the backing of family wealth and so don't have to do a job to even exist. In India the students are forced to exist in a high-competition so-called education system whose motive is to provide just enough technical skills ( many a time nothing sensible ) so that the student can get a job. A job to exist within a system where money is supreme. Some Indian students are simply unable to force themselves through this single-track-mind, high-competition system of mind-numbing exams and end up committing suicide. They may have other interests but their family and their peers are unable to help them achieve that interest, or most often it is the family that forces the student to the point of suicide. This is the Indian way unfortunately, though exceptions do exist where someone drops out of "education" and are able to carve out a space for themselves. Below's an interesting thing about Finland. India should follow this :
There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town. The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union.


About your point about evolution, even USA has farmer suicides. Not as extreme like in India but nevertheless existing. But is it at all possible for the American president to stand in parliament and dismiss their farmer suicides by saying it's all a matter of evolution ? Such a statement by him would create a furore. Why, even in India is it possible for the PM to dismiss Indian farmer suicides as being a matter of evolution, some to live, many to die ?

About the suicide of the owner of Cafe Coffee Day, that would not have occurred in a society where money is not supreme. Let me narrate an incident. I was buying the book Elon Musk from a second-hand book stall and my money fell to the ground. Immediately a young man near me picked up the money and gave it to me after touching the money to his eyes as a matter of religious ritual. Why is an artificial thing like money so respected in India, to the point of being religiously respected, to the extent of letting people live and die in misery for the supposed fault of not having that artificial thing ?
 
Last edited:
.
obscenity like presence of Ambani's 27-storey "house" in proximity to slums where four people live in one room, where other millionaires like Subrata Roy are not allowed to spend 500 crores on the twin weddings of his two sons while in the same country people die of hunger.
So government should be able to decide what an individual does with his own wealth - Quite an Ajeeb democracy you propose. How do you reconcile with Gaddafi's Palace then? or the billion him and his family stashed all around Africa and EU?
 
.
So government should be able to decide what an individual does with his own wealth. - Quite an Ajeeb democracy you propose.

1. Not the traditional, separate, elitist, classist government system seen in most societies but a "governance system composed of the people themselves". Please read post# 20 as to how.

2. "His own wealth". As I wrote later, a rich man does not get his wealth in isolation from society. His wealth does not appear magically hence he should have kept his wealth in harmony with the rest of society. The two people I quoted as examples were being grotesque and disharmonious in comparison to the rest of society. Even Ratan Tata spoke of this in context of Ambani's "house".

3. In this proposal that I make of a new, evolved economic system it allows a citizen to purchase goods of luxury even, but does not allow for a citizen to hoard money thereby preventing a citizen from becoming "rich". The various committees and congresses that will form the people's governance structure will not mostly interfere in what type of goods and services a citizen can acquire.

How do you reconcile with Gaddafi's Palace then?

He and his family lived in a building in a military compound called Bab al Azizia. I don't think that building was as vast as the American presidential palace and Buckingham Palace.

or the billion him and his family stashed all around Africa and EU?

Those monies belonged to the country and not his family. There was a project underway to create a single bank for Africa, a single military for Africa and even a proposal for the United States of Africa. These all had large investments by Libya.

Plus continuation of the Great Manmade River project which were pipelines of waters from Libyan desert aquifers delivering water to Libyan cities and other habitations.

Plus financial support for progressive movements in the world like FARC of Columbia.

I suppose other things too that I don't recall now.
 
.
1. Not the traditional, separate, elitist, classist government system seen in most societies but a "governance system composed of the people themselves". Please read post# 20 as to how.

2. "His own wealth". As I wrote later, a rich man does not get his wealth in isolation from society. His wealth does not appear magically hence he should have kept his wealth in harmony with the rest of society. The two people I quoted as examples were being grotesque and disharmonious in comparison to the rest of society. Even Ratan Tata spoke of this in context of Ambani's "house".

Again, no. What one does with his own wealth is his personal business, whether he builds a grotesque house or hire all female bodyguards. It's upto the individual, right?

3. In this proposal that I make of a new, evolved economic system it allows a citizen to purchase goods of luxury even, but does not allow for a citizen to hoard money thereby preventing a citizen from becoming "rich". The various committees and congresses that will form the people's governance structure will not mostly interfere in what type of goods and services a citizen can acquire.
Quite non-sensical. My money my choice, whether I buy cars, motorcycles, yatch, plane or a mansion. Who is any government to tell me what I can or can't do with my own money.

Those monies belonged to the country and not his family. There was a project underway to create a single bank for Africa, a single military for Africa and even a proposal for the United States of Africa. These all had large investments by Libya.

Plus continuation of the Great Manmade River project which were pipelines of waters from Libyan desert aquifers delivering water to Libyan cities and other habitations.

Plus financial support for progressive movements in the world like FARC of Columbia.

I suppose other things too that I don't recall now.
Sure , such as financing a bunch of terror outfits and not to mention Pakistan's Nuclear program....
 
.
Again, no. What one does with his own wealth is his personal business, whether he builds a grotesque house or hire all female bodyguards. It's upto the individual, right?

How do Ambani and Subrata Roy reconcile with the fact that the millions they spent on unnecessary whims could have cured blindness and cancer in thousands or more Indians, given that in a society like India the healthcare system is money-based ? Please read this Ketto ad.

Quite non-sensical. My money my choice, whether I buy cars, motorcycles, yatch, plane or a mansion. Who is any government to tell me what I can or can't do with my own money.

1. Why can't you hire a yacht for two days ? Why can't you hire a taxi for a romantic long drive with your beloved and the taxi being driven by a woman driver for your psychological comfort ? Read my economic system proposal I linked in post# 20. I repeat, the system allows a citizen to purchase goods of luxury even, but does not allow for a citizen to hoard money thereby preventing a citizen from becoming "rich" in comparison to others. So no rich no poor.

2. Again, I am not talking about a traditional, big brother government ( like in India, Pakistan, USA ) but about people governing themselves ( direct democracy - Libya, Venezuela. Even Switzerland to an extent ) and which was the "Withering away of the State" desire part of Communism ? Even Elon Musk too desires direct democracy for near-future Mars settlements.

Sure , such as financing a bunch of terror outfits and not to mention Pakistan's Nuclear program....

1. FARC is a revolutionary movement which desires a progressive system in Columbia. Libya also supported Mandela's ANC. Quite unlike America-supported FSA in Syria or Sanatan Sanstha in India.

2. Don't India, USA, France have nuclear weapons ? Let us call for global disarmament. At least start to minimizing nuclear weapons in South Asia.
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom