a genuine democracy would look like this:

it has a constitution that describes the way the nation works, whose every individual element has been supported by a majority of the electorate. this sets the limits, within which officers of state must work. in particular, there is a 'bill of rights' whose function is to allow people to live together peacefully by separating out the areas of life where diversity must be tolerated and the state must not go.

one element would be the establishment of citizen initiative power as the sovereign law. this protects against rogue ministers, and changing circumstances.

the ministries of state would be directed by persons elected directly by the citizens. this will get ministers with a track record of achievement, it will create a public record of what an aspirant minister plans to achieve, it will tell the electorate what his/her plans will cost. the activities of every ministry will be public, so the citizens can know they are getting what they voted for.

there is nothing new or experimental in any of this, california and switzerland have been doing things in similar fashion for a long time. by no coincidence, they are prosperous and peaceful. in fact, all the roughly half of the american states that have citizen participation are characterized by financial efficiency: government by referendum is cheaper than allowing pollies to cook the books.

This is an interesting approach Demos – frequently starting new threads on just about the same subject, while abandoning old ones that you have started even when posters are calling for you to respond http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=831#14545

I want to support your ideas Demos. I want to see true democracy as much as you do. But there are some fundamental problems:

“…whose every individual element has been supported by a majority of the electorate.”

I can’t agree. For this to be the right approach, you would have to assume that the constituency is close to 100% right all the time in its collective decision-making.

But they clearly aren’t. With the combination of short-term vested interests, apathy and lack of knowledge of the issues, the wrong decisions would get made to probably an even greater extent than with the current system.

Sorry, but citizen-initiated referenda or community consultation / voting on every issue just isn’t the answer. On some issues, if sufficient interest can be roused, maybe.

What we need is a strong government that is unbiased by big business or by the short-term desires of the majority of the community or by the need to show short-term results so that it can win re-election, and which has no other agenda but to make the right decisions for our medium and long-term future wellbeing.

DEMOS self confedence is often miss placed.
Your view is somewhat different than about 80% of the population me included.

ludwig, i prefer to offer ideas, not argue.

the notion that there is some 'group' of people better fitted to make decisions than the people is an ancient one. politicians agree with you, and go on to say: "and now it's us."

there is no such group, and your argument is exploded by the existence of peaceful and prosperous societies such as switzerland. democracy is possible, democratic societies are not perfect, but better: they are founded on the notion of citizen equality, while you are rewriting a call of submission to aristocracy.

go on your way in peace, ludwig, but i have little patience for children in search of a fairy godmother. oz needs democracy, if we are to stop looting our corner of the planet, and stop participating in america's determination to loot other people's corners.

i'll say more on this idea in future, and how to get there if anyone shows interest. but don't tell me it won't work. it has worked. i suspect ozzies are frightened of being responsible for their nation's future, but like teenagers everywhere, you have have grow up if you want to be a grown-up.

ok, soap box is open, put your two cents in, everyone.

“ludwig, i prefer to offer ideas, not argue.”

Demos; clarification, more information, a bit of substance behind the broad-brush objectives. This is what I was after in your previous thread, which you have apparently resolved not to respond despite my direct question and then follow-up request for you to do so. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=831#14330

If a discussion turns acrimonious or circular, then by all means leave it alone. But to abandon it at the point of a simple request for clarification is indeed odd. It really doesn’t do your credibility any good at all.

Afterall, there are millions of people who basically desire what you do in regards to true democracy. But how we may achieve it needs a lot of discussion, going into considerable detail. Simply offering very broad ideas doesn’t get us very far at all.