[MG] Discussion and democracy

Ed Pastore epastore at metagovernment.org
Sun Jun 27 10:04:51 EDT 2010


On Jun 26, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Michael Allan wrote:

>> But again, your point about using "democracy" is reasonable. That
>> still leaves many other possibilities:
>>
>> Open democracy
>> Collaborative democracy
>> Internet democracy
>> iDemocracy ;)
>> Democratic governance
>> Universal democracy
>> Direct e-democracy
>> Inclusive democracy
>> Electronic direct democracy (in Wikipedia)
>>
>> I'm sure others can think of more.
>
> Maybe we should just call it "democracy".  Claiming that as the
> unqualified goal would send a clear message.

In a sense, I think that's brilliant. But I certainly can see issues  
with just saying unqualified... "democracy." People already have deep  
conceptions about what democracy is, and those usually seem to entail  
voting in elections and demonstrating in rallies (as if either of  
those have any substantive effect.)

But we could play on your idea with terms such as "real democracy" or  
"genuine democracy." That strongly implies that everything everyone  
else calls "democracy" is a poor imitation. And that really sums it up  
nicely, doesn't it?

As an aside, in looking up "Cooperative" in Wikipedia, I came across  
"participatory democracy," which seems like a good match as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
(Though note that I had participated in editing this article a couple  
years ago, which may explain why it sounds somewhat like me speaking.:)

> Between those two extremes, are places where ordinary people talk
> about the issues that directly concern them.  In talking, they gain a
> rapport and mutual understanding that, in turn, open up the
> possibility (here is where we can maybe help) of coordinated action
> and real effects.  Only in these places (I agree) can we hope to
> actually *do* democracy, rather than just talking (or screaming) about
> it.  And technically, we're ready for that (just barely).
>
> Maybe it's time for some reconnaissance?  I guess we could do it
> either individually, or in small scouting teams. (If anyone wants to
> join me, I know a few places to explore - and maybe we can think of
> others along the way.)

This is a great plan and something that every member of this list can  
easily participate in (though I will have trouble doing so very  
actively for another couple of months). The next step here probably  
would be to draft a basic set of suggestions for what list members can  
do to progress this objective.

Anyone care to take a stab?




More information about the Start mailing list