8. ABOUT e-DEMOCRACY

Basic institutions

IMAGINE A NEW scenario with a democratic system without political parties, managed largely through the Internet, is disturbing and could be considered irresponsible because it can give us the feeling that we are amputating something inherent to democracy. However, history shows us that the greatest undemocratic horrors had their origin precisely in a political party, and it would not be strange that, given the long crisis in which we are mired, the same thing cannot happen again today. Therefore, there is no direct historical relationship between political parties and democracy, but, unfortunately, the opposite happens, and not thinking about a new scenario is precisely the irresponsible thing.

On the other hand, to do without political parties does not mean to do without also political representatives and to fall into the naivete that direct democracy is feasible within a large state, even with the latest digital communication technologies. We must develop a new model of political management of the public in which the most active and committed citizens have facilities for greater participation in political decision-making.

But it would also be a question of avoiding the extreme that these same young people have to dictate the political agenda through their massive demonstrations and street camping, without possible global coordination that considers all the circumstances in the possible impact of their initiatives or rejections. It is simply about building a model of citizen participation that, being perfectly democratic, adapts to the new digital technologies. That does not have the defects of the current one or its limitations.

Of course, the fundamental institution of a democracy is the popular parliament or assembly, where citizens must have the greatest and most direct participation possible. Direct participation is only possible in small local or neighborhood assemblies, but it is necessarily indirect in those assemblies that cover many populations. During the democratic periods of ancient Greece, up to five thousand people with the right to vote came to the Agora, or popular assembly, to hear and vote on the speakers' proposals. Unfortunately, and this can be considered one of the weak points of democracy itself, not the fairest motions were approved. Still, those most eloquently defended would provoke a great interest in the sophist school of philosophy. The other flaw was that, as it happens today, a good part of the votes were literally bought, and the assembly was divided into factions in favor or against the most prominent citizens; that is, the richest. In fact, Pericles was an intelligent but populist politician who won the votes with all possible tricks. This was the main reason for the decline of this first democracy.

Therefore, from a certain number of citizens who have the right to participate in their assemblies' debates, it is necessary to appoint representatives. From this need, the main conflicts of popular sovereignty arise because it is essential that the election of representatives cannot be manipulated by anyone. It is possible to establish a direct relationship and, if it can be personal, between the candidate and his voters.

But, without the help of some type of organization, the candidates for larger local assemblies would not have the necessary means to publicize their candidacies and electoral programs. It is necessary to resort to expensive means of propaganda. Without this support, only those candidates with abundant financial resources could present their candidacy, as was the case with the inventors of democracy. Thus, there is always the conflict between renouncing representative democracy or accepting the existence of political parties.

So if we think it convenient to eliminate the political parties but without resigning the representatives, there is no other alternative formula than to change, precisely, the way of choosing them. By logical reasoning, it is induced that the only possible way for this the purpose is that it be those candidates elected directly by the local assemblies which, in turn, choose themselves and from among themselves, the candidates for assemblies in which it is not possible their direct election, since it is assumed that since they are our representatives, they also have our trust. This means that the candidates chosen for the local assemblies would choose the most representative assemblies, such as the provincial ones, these to those of the regional ones, who would finally choose those of the national assembly. This would be the only solution to maintain the citizens' will and their assemblies as effectively as possible without resorting to political parties. Another institution that must change is that of the government itself, which, as I have previously argued, must be replaced by a public management or administration body, whose initiatives and actions are not based on electoral promises, but on concrete actions with a social sense, or simply with "common sense." Above all, as a response to the real and priority needs to be expressed by citizens, and with a spirit of solidarity between citizens of the same locality, province, region, or nation. These initiatives or actions should have the majority approval of the different assemblies and the majority of the citizens involved in them.

This the procedure may considerably limit the capacity for innovation and an initiative of this institution, but, at the same time, it would avoid the current abuse of costly initiatives for reasons of personal vanity of its promoters or for simple national prestige, which causes inevitable conflicts between the will of the government and that of the citizens.

Of course, this institution must be a “management commission,” chosen by a person in charge or president, and made up essentially of independent professionals specialized in each of its possible competences.

But another fundamental institution is still necessary, which without being above the various assemblies, has the capacity to discuss and propose concrete initiatives and actions to the assemblies that affect various localities, provinces, and regions; in other words, a “Senate,” or inter-territorial council, which would be made up of the presidents of the various commissions.




Therefore there would be a provincial council and a regional, autonomous, or federal council or state council.

Finally, a new fundamental institution is absolutely necessary, which would keep citizens in permanent and direct contact with those assemblies that have not been directly elected, whose mission would be to be able to intervene, on behalf of citizens, in their legislative deliberations, with sufficient power to block its approval, and whose characteristics we will see in another section later.

Therefore the basic political institutions of this new democracy would not be new, but as old as the history of democracy itself: an Assembly, a Commission, and a Council complemented by that of an Ombudsman.

The representatives of the local Assembly, the Commission's president, and the Ombudsman would be directly elected by the citizens from three different lists. The committee members would be elected from among those of the Assembly by the president-elect of the Commission, and the Council would be formed by the presidents of the various Commissions.

The members of the Assembly and the Ombudsman of the citizen would have the initiative in presenting motions and bills, depending on their territorial scope and competences; the Commission would have the initiative in the proposals of concrete actions, on its own the initiative, by that of the Assembly or, indirectly, by the citizens, also, according to its sphere of influence; the Council would have the power to ratify or annul the actions of the Commission and the Assembly, as well as to propose initiatives of special and solidarity actions. Finally, the Ombudsman would also have the function of allowing citizens to block or cancel regulations and present citizen initiatives directly to the Assembly or the Commission.

As we have seen, the fundamental principle of this new democracy must be that the entire process of choosing political representation takes place in a sufficiently small area. The candidates do not need the support of organized "supporters"; that is, political parties. But also so that candidates and voters have the possibility of getting to know each other better through a personal and direct relationship, and not through the electoral "propaganda" of the parties, which show their candidates mediated and manipulated by the techniques of electoral marketing, promoted and indirectly supported by those who finance them.

This means that the elections of representatives in which the citizens of this new democracy participate directly must be exclusively local or district in the big cities. Beyond this dimension, the candidates would be elected in internal suffrage by the same representatives.

The number of representatives for the elected local or district assemblies would also be proportional to that of their inhabitants, progressively increasing to many inhabitants. Thus, the locality of five thousand inhabitants could have one representative for every five hundred inhabitants; that is, ten representatives, plus those from the parish or neighborhoods, but one of twenty thousand could have only one for every thousand; therefore, twenty representatives, etc.

In this small electoral area, candidates would have a greater facility to make themselves known to their voters, the knowledge that, due to their human, the professional, or good reputation qualities, may have already been established before their candidacy.

The purpose of these first local elections is to elect the local or district Assembly members that constitute the foundation of this new democracy, from which the elected representatives can ascend to higher levels of representation. Simultaneously, create the basic and fundamental citizen representation structure, which would serve as a model for the formation of higher-level institutions, such as the provincial, regional, national or, even the European ones, as we will see you later.

If it is convenient to elect a small local Assembly of representatives from a certain number of inhabitants instead of, thanks to the means available on the Internet, allow the massive participation of all citizens with the right to vote in a hypothetical direct democracy, it would be to avoid falling into "assembly members," or an excess of citizen representation, which would make it ineffective. However, neither can citizens be allowed to resort to and reject any of these initiatives when they are mainly considered to cause great social harm. The independent institution of the Ombudsman would be with the capacity to block the most controversial initiatives. , or propose more acceptable alternatives.

Localities or villages with few inhabitants, or neighborhoods of large cities belonging to a single district would have citizen assemblies with direct participation, but limited to the capacity of the spaces where they were held, giving priority to representatives of citizen associations of citizens who were directly affected by the issue discussed in the debates. These assemblies would appoint a Management Commission, coordinated by a president, village, or neighborhood, the equivalent of the current district mayors, and would coordinate among themselves in the village or neighborhood Councils constituted with the presidents of the Commissions. To represent the localities where they were district or part of a district, the Council would appoint one or more representatives, proportional to the total number of inhabitants, who would join the local or district assemblies.




s.