Many politically conscious
people will probably admit the necessity to reform western party-based
"democracies" by increasing direct citizen participation in decision-making.
Many, even a majority might, however, raise practical objections. How can
a reform be achieved in systems dominated by party politicians (who are
hardly interested in radical change) and characterized by wide-spread political
apathy and the probably still prevalent belief that party politics is the
only viable form of democracy?
We believe that the transition to direct
democracy can be achieved by successively introducing elements increasing
the influence of individual citizens into existing systems. This process
has already begun. Several parties in the West are now giving voters the
possibility of personal election, namely a list of candidates forom which
the voter can choose by making a cross. (Although some parties overtly
reject this procedure and stick to their monopoly regarding the choice
of candidates, if the party as such has obtained a sufficient number of
votes.)
Another potentially democratic element is
computer voting and e-mail addressed to decision-making centra.
Replacement of manual voting by computer
voting has - as far as we know - not yet been considered by any political
party or government, although this type of use of electronic technology
has begun to be discussed by experts.
Continued development in modern societies
might, of course, induce certain foresighted party politicians to broaden
their views and to press for reforms involving direct democracy in spite
of the fact that the power of the organization would thereby diminish to
the benefit of the grass-roots. They might gain the insight that pertified
conservatism in this area could prove counter-productive and that this
might result in the collapse rather than the preservation of organizational
power. The fate of communist parties is a deterring example.
If such politicians come to the fore and
begin to initiate reforms involving direct democracy, either within the
framework of the respective party or perhaps by founding new parties, they
should, of course, be supported by all democratically minded people. Historical
experience shows, however, that reaching a position of power tends to result
in a change of behaviour. It is by no means certain that advocates of direct
democracy will actually introduce it after having climbed to the highest
echelons of an established party system. The result could be a stalemate,
in spite of all promises and good intentions.
Such a stalemate would probably not be permanent.
Development would continue. The problem, however, is that we are running
against time. The next few decades and, in extreme cases, perhaps even
a few years, will be decisive for the efforts to stop and reverse the rapidly
progressing destruction of natural environment - the conditio sine qua
non for the preservation of higher forms of life on this planet. For this
reason, we believe that we should not rely on the foresight on the part
of party politicians - components of the system responsible for today´s
critical ecological situation - but that there should be an independent
movement for direct democracy, consisting both of Brains Trusts and groups
of activists promoting democratic reforms by initiating and organizing
public debate. It goes without saying that all kinds of violence must be
avoided. Neither should such a movement try to again create rigid hierarchic
structures, as the case has invariably been until now. There should only
be flexible and shifting forms of co-operation. The
primary task of the movement should be to spread the insight that in order
to assure the survival of mankind, ordinary citizens must not only obtain
the possibility of making the most important decisions themselves, but
that they must also assume the responsibility for their implementation.
We can no longer rely on others to take care of us and solve our problems.
We must do it ourselves.