Hello
I would like to ask if anyone in the community is working or has intentions on creating a new world order with a new kind of political direct democratic party with a dynamical party program that could offer a cross border system of governance based on AE?
Thank you
direct democracy for everyone! blockchain does not know borders.
are you working on a political party or do you know such parties?
Yes Yani, I agree, complete direct democracy should be the only form of international governance, democratic socialism may suffice on this path, but social democracies fall short in this respect while upholding representative democratic mixed-ecenomy state systems.
My intention is to register a new political party in Norway in the next few weeks.
A differentiation must as such be made; there are parties with agendas working towards direct democratic “principles” in various nations (sadly labeled socialists or communist), and still there are other nations with semi-direct democratic systems like Switzerland etc or fake socialists like China all embracing free market economies.
My question was intended to clarify this; as the problem is not the “separation of powers” as is common doctrine of constitutional law, the issue is that in most representative democracies you would need one, two or even three parliamentary terms in order to change the constitution and legislate a change towards Direct Democratic order. Hence my intention is as following; use Æternity as the foundation for the governance of the party organization (fex like in Uruguay?) but more importantly, also as a direct democratic framework for its dynamic party principle program.
As such, a dynamic framework in this regard, would allow for a left spectrum program to commence, with timely program progression wherein the program itself as whole, due to member participation, and case point by point referendum, could change as an ideologically self-consistent yet ever changing party program moving further to center or right and back and forth as time progresses. This “dynamic delta function” would allow for an “infiltration” of any representative democracy by means of a decentralised blockchain foundation for party governance.
Now, the idea is factually viable for execution, if the goal is to implement direct democratic principles through slow majority gains until a final constitutional change could be carried out. The questions remains then; if this can be accomplished in one nation, then should we not consider such a political party framework formalized by the AE community and offered to anybody willing to deploy such a disruptive endeavour in their countries?
Ps. Yani, the above is theoretical slow speed social “reform”, can we touch base in private somehow? thank you in advance. Kind Regards
Hello @Publicae,
Actually, the next edition of Superhero League will explore these topics exactly - Ismael Arribas from Government Blockchain Association and Justin Graside from Digital Party Uruguay will discuss liquid democracy, DAOs and LAOs among other things.
In fact, Digital Party Uruguay was one of the first in the world to execute liquid democracy in practice with an internal vote on æternity blockchain.
I’d like to invite you to join tomorrow at 4 PM CEST - I am sure it will be of great interest to you:
Best,
Albena
Thank you for the invite, I was working nights this week so couldn’t join sorry. I would very much though appreciate to know in detail of what exactly the system for the party in Uruguay consist of and how its practical configurations are set in relation to liquid democratic principles. Also, to what degree is the system front end user-friendly, vis a vis a non-developer needs for a user application as opposed to what the LiquidFeedback software currently offers etc., and how much of the work to deploy it has been made by the AE team or those based in Uruguay themselves?
My concern is as following: a position of any long-term policy changes towards a main goal of direct democracy, must take into account some non-negotiable desired standpoints when any possible implementation of blockchain tech is advanced for political aims. As there indeed is a real and ideal difference, between Marxist end-goal dreams of Communism towards a classless, cashless and stateless society, as opposed to political ideals of justice as according to Plato´s ideal state wherein a hierarchic bureaucratic order remains operational in the state through “perpetuating class-division and class-domination”.
Too much discrepancy should albeit not theoretically induce cognitive dissonance in this matter, as Socialism as a governing system, was indeed intended to be upheld only temporarily on the path to Communism when at last property ownership would be abolished from the state which eventually itself would be dismantled altogether. This as opposed to Plato´s wish to abolish the institutions of property and family among only the ruling classes, to keep them incorruptible and dedicated to governance. The comparison may be irrelevant in the short term, yet the issue very much should be dealt with nonetheless.
Hence, an early policy framework, when it applies to a mindset with hope of the decentralized nature of blockchains in governance, and in governing of DAOs within representative democracies. These must in my view, organize not only internal processual tools for local politicians to conduct the process of legal drafting, but it should also create incentive-based access for educational participation in the knowledge transfer efforts by official public institutions through the system itself (i.e. ERP´s). Thus, as these systems with their aim of governance in direct democracies, at least in theory, demand that all eligible voters are expected to stay knowledgeable on all events and political issues, as to encourage participation, if not they might otherwise rather reach an inconsistent success point of being D.O.A. (dead on arrival). Hence the risk is, if not accurately configured, that they might be showing themselves as being inapt, not only as they would even widen the digital divide, but simply also become inadequate to deal with complex current instrumental policies and structural configurations of economic free market principles. There where the focus is far from prevalent by any regards, as to even fathom a justifiable replacement of the capital foundation witch blockchains for the ownership of means of production and exchange.
Even as the government of the Japanese city of Tsukuba has introduced an online voting system, powered by blockchain, to enable residents to vote for social development programs, these “votes” are only advisory and not legally binding as referendums as dictated by post-constitutional Lex specialis laws. Hence as the management of society, is the end goal of politics, extended through revisions to policy which is continually occurring between formally used planning methods. As such Habermas communicative rationality theory, which may be somewhat challenging to grasp in regard to policy planning, as it requires contributing efforts from the populations sadly remain mostly only advisory. These matters as I see it must be addressed, they must be resolved from the very start as meritocracy would otherwise remain a delegation hot bed for ignorance and continued top-down elitist specialists competence hegemony furthering a lack of popular engagement in the voting processes and absent empowerment of the social contract.