--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgoh...@verizon.net> wrote: > Good Morning, Kristofer > > re: (with regard to whether we have the stomach to require > that > legislators be maintained at a government > installation, > protected from direct access by lobbyists, to prevent > the > subornation of those we select to represent us in our > government.) > > Like you, I don't know if it will happen, but we should > consider it. We don't know how or when our political > processes will change. They may, as most rational people > would prefer, evolve slowly. If so, the need or lack > thereof, for such a course will manifest itself. On the > other hand, change could come quickly or violently. In such > a case, given our knowledge of the means by which the > original modern representative democracy has been degraded, > it is possible such a remedy could be imposed. In either > case, it is an option we should study and openly discuss. > > [Footnote on quick or violent political change. > We must note that, for such a change to benefit the > people, > it must transcend party lines. The American Revolution > was a > broad-based revolt, prosecuted by very diverse interests > not > least of which were geographical, maritime, industrial > and > agricultural. When such a change is partisan-inspired > (like > the Fascist Party in Italy, the Communist Party in China > and > Russia, and the National Socialist Party in Germany), > the > change redounds to the benefit of the party, not the > people.]
Some notes on protecting legislators from lobbyists. The first thing in my mind would not be to limit contacts between legislators and lobbyists but to limit too heavy bindings, maybe most notably monetary dependencies. One could limit e.g. second jobs, right to move to some commercial position, financing of political campaigns. (Montesquieu should have added more categories in his principle of separation of powers.) Some notes on slow and fast political changes. Radical changes are often problematic since people are not able to anticipate all the implications of the changes, and they often are too idealistic or optimistic (grass is greener on the other side of the fence). Sometimes fast changes work quite well. That typically requires that there is some well adopted model that serves as a basis for the change. One could think e.g. Estonia that regained its independence in 1991. Although times were different before the second world war the fact that there was some old model available surely helped a lot. Also reunification of Germany follows the same pattern. It is also possible that there is a recently developed common basis for the change but certainly these changes fail more often. When looking at Fascists in Italy and National Socialists in Germany they eventually got quite wide support among the citizens. One key point in how they got to that level was that they used all means, including violence, to silence the opposition. From this point of view it is maybe important to make sure that all opinions will always be given sufficient space to breathe. In summary - make the need to separate interests clear and well understood by all, and enforce it too where needed - avoid excessive fanaticism and idealism, but one can try also these proposals, first in small scale - allow sufficient time for the models to mature - have tolerance, even if "they are wrong", at least as long as "they" are not clearly destructive (in some more concrete sense than just spreading bad ideas) In addition - of course we want wide support, not only the support of the "elite" (ideological, moral, cultural, commercial) before implementing the changes - avoid dominance of strong leaders, and any other narrow basis, allow criticism and alternative model proposals (both within and outside the movement) - people tend to believe that they are right, and this is very positive, but dangerous, and this applies to societies too A well working society consists of models that typically have been built slowly during a long time. It is easier to let the system corrupt than to lift the system to a new level from where it is now (especially if there are no agreed models from the past of from outside or from some respected set of citizens). Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info