| Author: | Imtiaz H Bakhash | Contact | 416 356 3926 | imi@izeinstruments.com |
|
People Power: In a democratic system power lies in the hands of public not politicians, therefore I believe Public should be directly involved in Law / Decision making & Policy Forming, However have you ever seen taking that place? |
| Home | Democratic (people power?)
system: Stretching limits Most democratic law making and policy forming system Undoubtedly candidates would call in at your door steps during election times and arrange barbecue sessions so they could trick you again as they have been doing so. If you bump up to your candidate please ask if your views and opinions are considered and incorporated when taking a decision or when voting in a parliament. They would make you believe as you are the sole decision maker. In reality, your job is only to airmail a representative, now you sit back and witness the loot and abuse of power. I’d like to bring to your attention an idea that’d reins politicians's decision-making PROCESS (notice, its process NOT decision making). It significantly reduces chances of your representative becoming a puppet. I believe public should have biggest role in law /decision making and policy forming whether it be at city, provincial or federal level. However I neve witnessed any involvement of the public other than choosing their representative every few years. How can public take full control over decision making & law/policy forming? Have you ever considered political systems? My head has been actively involved in analyzing political systems such as
How national/local laws are made? This system will help to bring power right down to the root level in our case to the constituents so that all policies are formed and decisions are made most democratically by vigorously consulting constituents. This system ensures that policies are formed and decisions are made by constituents and their pertinent representative only advocate those decisions at the relevant venue. I feel that it is about time when steps have to be taken to reduce gap between reality and fable. In order to find types of steps required in reducing such gap we have to touch base with principles of a democratic system by asking following questions; 1) What is a democratic system? 2) How does it work? 3) What are its domains? 4) Who are the decision makers in this system? 5) Is it really public that makes decision? 6) Is it a system where the power lies in the hands of constituents? 7) Are there any limits to this system? 8) Have existing forms of the system in various countries fully exploited its potential? 9) Are we getting best mileage out of this system? 10) Many other similar questions can crop up in many minds. Politicians' answers would be interrelated revolving around public, painting a perfect picture of an ideal world. However in reality the functionality of each seems as far as theoretically perfect communism from practicality.
If you are happy with the performance of an implemented system on any venue and if you believe that politicians are doing good (let alone great) jobs or couldn't do better, then you may stop here. As the folowing words would not interest you. According to this system your relevant representative has to consult you (constituents) at every single issue and would convey to the relevant venue (city hall, provincial/federal parliaments) only the decision you hand over to him/her. This system would ensure a true representation of the constituents. Why do we need to stretch limits?Many of us witnessed politicians making campaign promises that they neither keep nor they have any intention of keeping them (due to countless genuine or non-genuine reasons). Such most promises have always been and would always be purely parliament entry strategies with rare exceptions. Consider a situation when one candidate approaches constituents and makes promises (could be intentionally false or turns out to be impractical) and wins the election on the basis of those promises, which he/she does not intend to keep or can not keep after the win. It is also possible that a candidate merely advocating or conveying party policy promises which the boss would be reluctant to keep. Is there any law that can deal with such situation, annul results of such election because they were contested from a faulty platform, the answer is a big NO. If one makes false promises at a job interview or lies on resume and gets a job or a contract and upon failure to comply with those promises made or upon discovery of false documents/material/information one would loose ones job. Why would election result be different? Now we are stuck for at least five years with a lying, imposed, forced and falsifying winner whereas an opposite candidate by speaking truth about ground realities and by not making false promises looses the contest. 1) The first aspect of this modified democratic system would deal with such candidates / situations Secondly consider another situation in which a representative promises to, who is supposed to, represent the wishes of its constituents during his/her entire tenure. But how often has any one seen that taking place in reality. Although representatives make such promises during election campaign however representatives actually represent, solicit and support its party policies not the wills of its constituents because party executives form policies from remote locations on the basis of assumed beliefs and orientation of supposed to be majority of individuals. Policies made by executives are imposed uniformly on individuals terming it as constituents wish, whereas constituents' wishes, on particular issues, goes unnoticed until next election. Constituents delegate to have their wishes truly represented accurately on each and every issue, which a representative fails to do so. Although a candidate solicits party policies not his/her individual ones however a party claims to represent voters therefore they should govern, form policies and make law according to the wishes of voters. How often is it materialized? Democratically speaking final decision should be the one voters make. The only job voters have seems to be airmailing a zipped person whose control is in the hands of executives. For example if an issue requires debate it should be first debated at each constituents level by interested and keen constituents. If a policy is to be formed/modified or in law making/modifying process constituents must be consulted, therefore a final verdict delivered by the constituents is the one that a representative should convey to its venue (senate, national assembly, provincial/state assembly, at city hall) but it never happens. 2) The second aspect of this modified democratic systems deals with such issues as true representation. Consider a third situation in which a government employee is performing bad such as monkey police officers and judges playing biased for whatever reasons, complex government system does not handle such an employee effectively, too much internal formalities, politics, nepotism, bribery and links to high ranking people would render such an employee almost impossible to be fired. Such social diseases exist in all contemporary societies, somewhere less, hidden and subtle and somewhere are more blunt acts. 3) Third aspect of this modified democratic system handles issues that deal with government employees (police, judges, city services, foreign office etc). One would argue that judicial system is there to deal with such issues. Honestly has any one seen this happening ever? Did it ever go beyond inquiry? Answer is no due to many reasons and NO society is exempt from the following 1) Judges inability to perform fair 2) Nepotism 3) Bribery 4) Links to high ranking people 5) Absence or wrong or misinterpretation of law etc So what is this system? According to this system voters or citizens play an active part in forming policies, law making, decision making by means of debate and voting. 1) Constituents first elect their representatives normally. 2) Candidates and political parties agenda and plans are filed with election commission and are a written proof of promises they are making to win election and the plan they have to administer the country for the next term. The plan should include all the policies to administer infrastructure and each institution such as health, taxation, education, economy, forces management, transportation, international interaction, foreign/interior issues etc. 3) Whenever Voters feel that their representative is not performing or not adhering to their election campaign promises and declared policies they can vote him/her out in a similar manner they voted him/her in at constituent level in a local city hall at any time like an employee who is performing bad or not performing well. 4) Each debatable issue is presented to constituents by a relevant representative and debated normally by constituents at various venues (constituency, ward level through city, provincial to federal levels). 5) At the end of such debate constituents vote in favor or against. 6) The decision made at constituent level is the one that their representative must forward at relevant venue whether it be a local government (city hall), provincial/state parliament or federal parliament. 7) Representatives in all tiers of government (from local to federal) must vote on issues according to the will of people, whatever the constituents decide. 8) The representative is to advocate only and forward that decision of the local voting to its formal venues regardless its party position unless his/her election campaign promises say that only party position will be upheld at all levels which may or may not tune in or resonate with the voters wishes. 9) With similar voting, constituents can annul election results for whatever reason whether it be i) false promises or ii) Inability to keep any promise for any reason i.e. a) Change in ground reality or b) Circumstances or c) Bad governance, d) Corruption allegations, 10) Judicial courts can seal the public decision formally. This system would also most definitely minimize appointments of puppets. If a politician promised to reduce taxes during campaign, improve on health/education system, take certain actions to preserve environment then a politician must not be able to walk away from committed promises. If public wants to go to war on the other side of the planet then its public who decides not a monkey ruler through personal link which can endanger a whole nation for personal gain. Election results or any appointment must not be an automatic insurance for five years or life in office. Politicians, bureaucrats and civil servants have imposed themselves onto public now its about time public take back the control. Shummus suggests that MNA/MPA/Councilor must advocate only what constituents decide. Voters can vote any public representative out of office like they vote them in if a rep fails to perform as per campaign promises.
|
| Imtiaz Bakhash | |
| Shummus | |
| Resume | |
| Experiences | |
| Reasons | |
| Pictures | |
| Travel | |
| Interests | |
| Hobbies | |
| Activities | |
| Demand total democracy | |
| Demand total democracy | |
| Equal opportunity (merit based) | |
| Equality | |
|
one law
for all |
|
| Only possible with 'shummus' | |