This is from a colleague who worked for a number of years as a Management Advisor at the UN. M ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:19:42 -0230 From: Bob Olivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Cathedrals etc Mike: That was an interesting alignment you made with the internet/direct democracy issue. 1. Th. UN/Internet linkage is worth exploring as, of course, it is intended to reach out a lot further than most other institutions and has been hung up by the immutable barrier of its representatives being primarily those of Nation States. The NGO's are nibbling around the edges of the issue but it seems that the "bazaar" babble is not well served through that format. Direct democracy through the internet may NOT need electoral systems either, although the referenda approach may well serve in the interim if it follows the Swiss model of routine and regular (i.e. weekly) wide-spread voting and public comment on on common issues. It will, however, need a few of Plato's "philosopher kings" at the centre. Quis custodient ipsos custodient? The "bazaar" will need organization along the lines of geo-cities or a normal farmers market. Who will do this? Yahoo? "government"? UN+ ? 2. The issue of policy formulation being somehow "owned" by the political elite is a very real one. It is, of course, a power issue and aligned with secrecy etc to maintain bureaucratic and political elites. The discord created by the "policy" vs "implementation" debate is great and is exemplified at the Provincial level of Canadian government. Local governments have tried to isolate "Political" policies from "administration" and this has worked fairly well in city manager/commissioner arrangements. Policy formulation or even the setting of the policy agenda will not easily be wrestled from the hands of the power elites. (Witness environment policy, NAFTA, globalization etc etc) A major factor here will be self-interest and "turf" as well as broader "who get's what" and even corrupt practices of the "greater thief". As Bakunin observed "Property is theft!!" 3. Age/generational issues and demographics are VERY IMPORTANT in this situation and you are among the first to raise it publicly so far as I know. The Cathedral decision-making is on "send/transmit" and NOT "listen/receive" and is designed this way. Participatory actions such as so called "budget consultations" traveling "parliamentary committees" etc are mere window dressing that pay lip service to democracy. And, as you note, decisions have already been made in most case and, usually, based upon the "who get's what" school of democracy. This is aggravated by the values and ethics of the "boomers" or "me generation" who have little or no interest in public service or the overall public good and will be indifferent if the issue does not affect them personally but who fight tooth and nail against any measures that will infringe on their perks or threaten their positions. (Note the way cover-ups have become so prevalent in recent years (e.g Blood scandal, Somalia, Mulrooney Letter etc) 4.On your last point on risks - I don't see the risks. Accountability will, in fact, be enhanced through transparency and free flows of information. For example, what if we had complete access to the federal accounts and so called budget as to salaries, perks, expenses by region/riding - type of product - foreign aid spending compared to military purchase etc. What if we could play "what if" with the data? Well me son - we might have an informed electorate. Bob Olivero Fellow, Channing Chair in Public Policy International Centre Memorial University of Newfoundland 220 Prince Phillip Drive St John's, Newfoundland CANADA A1B 3X5 Tel: (709) 737-4040 Fax (709) 737-4330 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] .ca
