Participatory Democracy; How do we make better political decisions?

Article Summary

John S Veitch
The Network Ambassador

There's no easy way to make political progress. To be successful the thinking of both politicians and the voting population needs to be adaptive.
Too often the purpose of politics is to shut down that discussion so that the present group holding power can act without hindrance.
Most of our institutions have built in expectations. Sometimes the constitution of the organization states plainly that certain convictions are unchangeable.
Land, wealth and political power tend to run in families. This group is very adept in maintaining their wealth and influence through political power.
Much of the world is still ruled by principles that are 1000 years old. The right of the "Big Man" to exercise undisputed control over the community.
Modern communities have found better ways to choose leaders and to decide when and how to change leaders without open conflict.
Voting has been an accepted process used for several hundred years. But the process of voting itself is not enough.
The rules about how people are elected are almost always established to exclude third parties and minority group opinions.
A democracy that encourages strong active engagement of the population has two distinct advantages.
One, it enlarges the pool of ideas that are discussed with political purposes in mind.
Two, it makes it important for candidates to find out what people are really thinking and saying.
Money is a tool if you buy consumables or invest in assets. Monetary debt is a weapon used against you, if you can't pay on time.
The rich buy political power. That gives them tax advantages, access to inside information, government subsidies and ineffective regulation of their activities.
In most countries, the political right, representing landowners, business and holders of wealth are a relatively united group. Unity is strength.
Groups on the political left, trade unionists, indigenous peoples, social justice advocates and environmentalists for instance, tend to agree on very little.
In principle the law should favour neither the powerful or the powerless. But the law is written by the powerful to protect their own interests.
The alienation of indigenous people from their land demonstrates the process. Land or rights are stolen by a government by means that appear to be "legal".
Democracies based on "winner takes all" voting systems, default to two party systems and exclude the full range of political ideas from developing.
Proportional representation changes who gets elected and allows the minority voices into parliament. That changes the nature of the debate, enlarging the possible choices.

If you need the original article it's here.