Loomio
Sun 9 Nov 2014

How could we get there?

PS
Peter Schurman Public Seen by 439

In another thread, David Elsbree Jr., wrote: "If we could pool the Western democracies into a single nation, I think that would create great momentum." That's one possible path. What path do you think would make sense?

RT

Randy Thieben Sun 9 Nov 2014

Great question. I'm thinking out loud when I say that one way is to achieve gd is allowing every citizen of the world to have the choice at birth on if they want to be included in a new paradigm of being a citizen of the planet instead of a specific country. Mots about choice.

AM

Austin Mackell Mon 10 Nov 2014

In George Monbiot's book "The Age Of Consent" which is probably the most important work in this vein so far, the strategy to birng about a global democratic system hinged on an alliance between the populations of the world and third world governments.

BP

Brandon Peele Wed 12 Nov 2014

I think the governance issue hinges on us first agreeing upon values and metrics. What is optimal human potential for each human and ecological diversity for our planet? Until we have a cohesive narrative for our species and planet (and potentially Cosmos), and ways to measure our progress in this narrative, we won't have any agreement. I'm working on this piece of the puzzle at http://cdhi-hp.org.

JB

Jim Barton Sun 23 Nov 2014

This idea of a coalition of the democracies was broached by Clarence Streit, a NY Times reporter who formerly had the League of Nations beat, in his 1938 best-seller "Union Now". With numerous reprintings, the book inspired Union Now clubs.It is sad that there were so many people in France, the UK, and the US who were so Hitler-friendly or Hitler-neutral (all the same to him) who made an anti-Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo coalition impossible.

DU

[deactivated account] Sun 24 May 2015

For a further source of inspiration, have a squiz at the "Divine Plan" of the Baha'i Faith.

JB

Jim Barton Sun 24 May 2015

About the same time as Streit's book, Baha'i leader Shoghi Effendi wrote this:
http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/shoghi-effendi/world-order-bahaullah/#r=wob_en-3

BP

Brandon Peele Mon 25 May 2015

Great topic. A few things need to happen.

  1. We need a deep why. A compelling, pan-species threat / enemy, e.g. Hitler, that will certainly oppress / destroy us if we do not unify. I think we have this in climate change / social unrest / mass extinctions. For me this is enough to unify. However, merely extolling the horrific costs of industrialized capitalism is not enough for the whole species, witness the failures of the labor and green movements to unify the species towards a common goal. We need a more holistic and inspiring vision, one that calls us into a larger expression of ourselves, our planet and all of humanity, one that includes the wealthy and corporations, one that transcends, includes, improves and refines everything on our planet today.

AND

  1. A picture of what this looks like, the felt experience of what we would achieve through unification, both at the larger species level (political economy) and at the person level (how will this make my life better, vis Maslow's hierarchy).

AND

  1. A plan (if only a rough outline today) to get there. What are the levers to pull, the tactics to employ, reforms to advance.

I'm working on these presently, with planetpurpose.org ( http://planetpurpose.org ), a global movement to define the why, the vision and the tactics.

The short of it is that there is Declaration of Purpose, -the why and how we can use purpose discovery tools to improve the human and ecological condition, at every level of human cooperation. There is a book called Purpose Revolution being edited that flushes this out in greater detail, setting the context for personal, political and economic reform. Lastly, there is a movement beginning in August with a 21-day purpose challenge, to engage all of humanity (only eng. speaking at present) in a deeper conversation about purpose through proven purpose discovery exercises.

I have a couple of asks:
1. Join the 21-day challenge to deepen your connection to purpose, and realize its benefits - long, healthy life, better relationships, rewarding career, more just, sustainable, peaceful human presence on Earth.
2. Read the declaration and lmk your thoughts.
2.. Co-author the declaration. I'm seeking 6 volunteers from each region/demo (LatAm, EU, Middle East, Africa, Asia, Youth) to co-evolve. If this is you, or somebody you know, please apply on the site.

Thanks in advance for your time & wisdom!

Brandon

NS

Noah Skocilich Sat 10 Oct 2015

I don't think it's the right approach to build a coalition of people who happen to live in a 'western democratic' nation state (as opposed to those who don't).

My feeling is that we shoud keep our vision at the level of the entire planet, and envision it as a web of human communities.

And, generally speaking, I feel we should de-emphasize everything that has to do with a nation state.

AM

Austin Mackell Sat 10 Oct 2015

I think any serious effort begins with a compilation and effort to contact the many other groups with similar names and goals to ours around the world, including the various "world federalist" or "Global Citizen" initiatives, and an attempt to establish overarching cooperation between as many of them as possible. At the moment these groups are divided by matters as trivial as whether they communicate VIA email, facebook, loomio or whatever.

AM

Austin Mackell Sat 10 Oct 2015

Special note should be made of the Campaign For A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. This is the realest, most serious and most advanced effort to achieve meaningful global democracy. Generally I think smaller "start up" groups like this should make efforts to support and advance its efforts.

http://www.unpacampaign.org/ ( http://www.unpacampaign.org/ )

NS

Noah Skocilich Sun 11 Oct 2015

That is a great idea Austin, and one that rings deeply true to me.

Here are a few organizations and groups that I know of that I think match that description:

Daniel Pinchbeck's Center for Planetary Culture
planetaryculture.com

New Earth Nation
newearthnation.org

Planetary Art Network
planetartnetwork.info

Institute for Social Ecology
social-ecology.org

AM

Austin Mackell Mon 12 Oct 2015

World Citizens Association Of Australia
http://worldcitizens.org.au/ ( http://worldcitizens.org.au/ )
Contact: Dr Chris Hamer - C.Hamer@unsw.edu.au ( C.Hamer@unsw.edu.au )

NOTE: I know these guys will have contacts for other World Citizens and Global Federalist orgs.

Campaign For A United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

http://www.unpacampaign.org/ ( http://www.unpacampaign.org/ )
Contact: Andreas Bummel - bummel@kdun.org ( bummel@kdun.org )

The World Parliament Experiment (Formerly The Global Democracy Experiment)

http://www.tgde.org/ ( http://www.tgde.org/ )

Contact: Dr. Rasmus Tenbergen - tenbergen@world-parliament.org ( tenbergen@world-parliament.org )

Is there an integrated spreadsheet function we could be using with Loomio?

BF

Barnaby Flynn Mon 12 Oct 2015

This is one way. Please join us:

Press Release

Real Global Democracy Demonstration – Uniting and empowering anti-austerity, pro-democracy movements through co-creating global policy.

For immediate release: (12/10/2015) until (16/10/2015)

Photo opportunity. Location and Date: Parliament Square (grass), London, Saturday 24th October. 1-6pm.

Promoted by the new Global People Power campaign, the demonstration is being held in solidarity with twenty five events taking place across six continents as part of the Global Week of Action for a World Parliament. The
London demo has evolved to become a call for global unity among progressive anti-austerity, pro-democracy, environmental movements around the world by encouraging its’ supporters to co-create global policy. Demonstrators will also be invited to recognise and celebrate their common humanity in the face of a perfect storm of global problems.

The purpose of the day is highly ambitious; to debate, vote and find consensus on five provisional global policies to tackle global problems – problems such as climate change, mass extinction, war, gender inequity, debt-based economics and the divisive power that multi-national corporations hold over national governments. Decisions will be shared among the twenty five other actions through social media. The process is beginning now on e-democracy platform Loomio (link below).

Barnaby Flynn (Global People Power). “Global unity and international cooperation is needed to tackle global issues and to regulate multinational corporations. By acting together we dismantle threats to each nations’ economic security made by multi-national corporations faced with regulation - thus making anti-austerity political parties safer and more electable among mainstream voters.”

Laura Baker (Global People Power). “Let’s connect and empower progressive anti-austerity, pro-democracy movements around the world such as Podemos, Syriza, and supporters of Corbyn and Sanders through creating global policy together to solve war, poverty and environmental destruction.”

Speakers so far:
• Barnaby Flynn (Global People Power). “How multinational corporations hold nations to ransom.”

• Natalie Bennett (Green Party Leader). “TPP, TTIP and why global governance should be democratised.”
• Marina Prentoulis (Syriza London). “Global unity for systemic solutions to systemic problems.”
• Luke Flegg (Change the Future). “The e-Democracy Revolution.”
• Prisca Merz (End Ecocide). Proposal: End Ecocide.
• Stan Jourdan (Positive Money) Proposal: International Monetary Reform.
• 50-50 Parliament. Proposal: 50-50 Gender Equity Global Declaration
• Global People Power: Proposal: A World Without War
• Global People Power: Proposal: Climate Fair Shares

Background:

Why we need global cooperation and how multinational corporations hold nations to ransom: http://globalpeoplepower.weebly.com/why.html

Global People Power: http://globalpeoplepower.weebly.com/

Global Week of Action for a World Parliament: http://www.worldparliamentnow.org/events/

Global People Power’s Loomio group: https://www.loomio.org/g/0KBvTGY9/global-people-power

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Mon 12 Oct 2015

I'm excited by the growing demand for "we the people" representation and authority at the global level. Global People Power can help as can the UN Parliamentary Assembly campaign. However, without the Earth Constitution as its foundation, the UN Parliamentary Assembly is likely to have the same fate at the IPU (Inter-Planetary Union). The IPU, like the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly, consists of parliamentarians from nations -- but the UN only gave the IPU "observer status".

In short, without the Earth Constitution, the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly, the IPU, and the UN General Assembly are stuck with only the right to make recommendations -- while the undemocratic UN Security Council remains in full control of the geopolitical space, a fact that has brought the world incredible grief, and only getting worse.

Under the Earth Constitution' s structure the "UN Parliamentary Assembly" becomes the "House of Peoples," with the advantage of having the authority it will lack if activists rigidly stick to the fatally flawed UN Charter.

BF

Barnaby Flynn Mon 12 Oct 2015

Dear Roger

I agree the UN is, one could say fatally flawed. I will read the Earth Constitution. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

If you could do me the honour of reading the About section of Global People Power and giving your opinion of it then I would be most grateful. http://globalpeoplepower.weebly.com/ ( http://globalpeoplepower.weebly.com/ )

Kindest regards

Barnaby

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Tue 13 Oct 2015

Dear Barnaby,

I like your website. "Global People Power" is a strong theme, as is "One World Democracy."

You do a good job identifying global problems (crises) such as climate change, war, poverty, etc. You are correct in worrying about the domination of multinational corporations, Big Money, and TPP agreements which will favor corporations and override national environmental and economic laws. TPP will favor the 1% (and screw "we, the people").

Don't forget to list the need to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Also consider the need for enforceable world law so that we have a way of prosecuting individuals for world crimes -- such as secretly overthrowing governments, invasions, assassinations, torture, etc. Under the current UN world system, leaders from powerful nations are above the law -- no matter what world crimes they commit.

Your "15 global rules without global rulers" sounds good, but may not be as effective as we would like...much like the 10 Commandments help but aren't enough. We need enforceable law -- what the UN and its Charter lack, but the Earth Constitution provides.

We don't need world dictators or global rulers, let's use the Earth Constitution as our leader. (Think Magna Carta or US Constitution.)

I'd like to see you invite your participants to participate in the emerging Earth Federation under the Earth Constitution.

(If the UN is unwilling or unable to transform into a democratic world federal union, then activist will already have the Earth Federation Movement up and running citing the Earth Constitution as their moral and legal authority).

I'd like to see what happens on your website if you invite them to cite the Earth Constitution in their activist projects and goals, and invite them to join the Earth Federation Movement.

We must build a global peace system to replace the current geopolitical war system of which, unfortunately, the UN and its Charter are an integral part and therefore must be fixed or replaced.

Many Leftists and anarchists believe that we can make the world work properly without government. They are wrong. But we need the right kind of government, one that frees up local communities and the individual. That's part of what the Earth Constitution can do.

Best regards,
Roger Kotila

FBT

Fabio Bueno Tanaka started a proposal Fri 11 Dec 2015

Konsento.org Open Source Direct Democracy Closed Wed 14 Dec 2016

Since 2013 we are doing the open source project. We are almost near to lunch the beta test.

Do you want to try ir? put your e-mail on the website, you will receive the invite http://konsento.org

What is the software?
The congress process digitalized.

Results
Agree - 3
Abstain - 3
Disagree - 3
Block - 3
3 people have voted (6%)
FBT

Fabio Bueno Tanaka
Agree
Fri 11 Dec 2015

GP

Germà Pelayo Fri 11 Dec 2015

Agree. But I would like to know more. I am in train of exploring the website. I believe in a rich, plural, advanced world (cross-scale) democracy based in subsidiarity

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Fri 11 Dec 2015

Germa -- You are right about subsidiarity. The Earth Constitution is designed as a democratic world federal union government, hence subsidiarity is built right in:

Problems that can be solved locally or nationally, are handled at that level. Problems (like nuclear weapons, climate change, war, human rights) need to be handled at the global level (by either a "new UN" under the Earth Constitution; or by "we, the people" creating Earth Federation government under the Earth Constitution.

GP

Germà Pelayo
Agree
Fri 11 Dec 2015

GP

Germà Pelayo Fri 11 Dec 2015

Dear Roger. As far as I remember "Earth Constitution" designs a parliamentary system, with representatives, elections and political parties. Am I wrong?

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Fri 11 Dec 2015

Yes, that is correct. But world political parties have yet to
emerge. Peter Graves-Goodman out of Miami is working on this.

In a message dated 12/11/2015 9:28:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
notifications@loomio.org writes:

Dear Roger. As far as I remember “Earth Constitution” designs a
parliamentary system, with representatives, elections and political parties.
Am I wrong?

Reply to this email directly or view
it on www.loomio.org ( https://www.loomio.org/d/eCX7h9Lw/how-could-we-get-there?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-875125 ).
Turn
off emails ( https://www.loomio.org/email_actions/unfollow_discussion/48628/sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2 ) for this discussion.
Change your email
preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ) to unsubscribe from these emails.

GP

Germà Pelayo Fri 11 Dec 2015

Ok. So just to be sure. I am not for this kind of democracy. I am for real democracy. Even at a global level. Specially at a global level, but in combination with others. For me, real democracy means any from several combination of existing advanced democratic systems like direct, deliberative, participatory or by lot.

PS

Peter Schurman Fri 11 Dec 2015

Germa, Roger, Fabio, Barnaby -

I'm excited to see this discussion unfolding.

What do you think about Liquid Democracy?:
https://youtu.be/fg0_Vhldz-8

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Sat 12 Dec 2015

There are others, like yourself, exploring alternative forms of
elections. Dealing fairly with 7 billion people is not easy with many
people still short of computers, electricity, etc.

Computer approaches are not ready yet for prime time for a number of
reasons as the rigged Bush elections illustrate -- fraud is too easy, both
at the voting booth, and when final calculations are tabulated.

Rasmus Tenbergen was working on an "electronic World Parliament" but I
don't know if he's made enough progress. Probably, with computer surveys,
we will at least be able to let people voice their preferences (war, no war)
etc....but who decides what is placed on the ballot?

Anyway, direct participatory democracy will likely be most effective in
small groups. We are unclear how to apply it for millions of people:
Does each person decide what world legislation should be presented, or do they
break down into smaller committee's?

Even if what you call "real democracy" is technically figured out one day
in the future (not impossible), one still has the problem of who gets to decide
what world legislation is to be presented to the world to vote on?

What will be the wording? Who decides what gets to be voted on?

The Earth Constitution is open to amendments. If a better democratic
procedure better than representative democracy is developed, then we could
change the Constitution. But so far, no one has offered anything concrete
and real, and tested.

For example, some activists believe that 50% of the World Parliament should
be women, not just anybody elected from the 1000 electoral districts.
This type of change could be made at an amendment constituent assembly.
Some think the representative should be from NGO's.

-- Roger Kotila

In a message dated 12/11/2015 2:24:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
notifications@loomio.org writes:

Ok. So just to be sure. I am not for this kind of democracy. I am for real
democracy. Even at a global level. Specially at a global level, but in
combination with others. For me, real democracy means any from several
combination of existing advanced democratic systems like direct, deliberative,
participatory or by lot.

Reply to this email directly or view
it on www.loomio.org ( https://www.loomio.org/d/eCX7h9Lw/how-could-we-get-there?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-875294 ).
Turn
off emails ( https://www.loomio.org/email_actions/unfollow_discussion/48628/sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2 ) for this discussion.
Change your email
preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ) to unsubscribe from these emails.

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Sat 12 Dec 2015

Liquid democracy will probably work best in smaller groups. The Earth
Federation has advocated local people's assemblies to discuss issues, and then
pass their ideas on to their representative in the World Parliament, or to even
present a candidate for the Parliament.

There will be many people in Liqiud Democracy uninterested in keeping up,
or participating...or too busy doing other things. Should we make voting
mandatory?

I'd like to see a people's vote on war! Should we outlaw war? Should
those involved in war and war making be prosecuted as world
criminals? ...including defense contractors, especially those working on
nuclear bombs, cluster munitions, depleted uranium munitions, phosphorous, and
other weapons of mass mutilation?

-- Roger K

In a message dated 12/11/2015 2:35:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
notifications@loomio.org writes:

Germa, Roger, Fabio, Barnaby -

I’m excited to see this discussion unfolding.

What do you think about Liquid Democracy?:
https://youtu.be/fg0_Vhldz-8 ( https://youtu.be/fg0_Vhldz-8 )

Reply to this email directly or view
it on www.loomio.org ( https://www.loomio.org/d/eCX7h9Lw/how-could-we-get-there?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-875303 ).
Turn
off emails ( https://www.loomio.org/email_actions/unfollow_discussion/48628/sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2 ) for this discussion.
Change your email
preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ) to unsubscribe from these emails.

GP

Germà Pelayo Sat 12 Dec 2015

Dear Peter,

I see liquid democracy as too perfect for this imperfect world. I think, among others, it wants to be a solution to the problem of not enough citizen direct participation, but it's not the only proposal dealing with this problem and by the way, this problem is not a big obstacle in itself in my opinion because just 15% of people participating in referendums, citizen conferences, participatory budgets, etc. will always be much more than 0,000...1% of people participating in a representative parliament, or 40 - 60% voting for others once every 4 years. The problem I see is that in liquid democracy system, there is a big possibility that parties always be the majority and engaged people with their own ideas the minority, so the latter won't be motivated to participate except as a way of making propaganda of these ideas. But this is what more or less happens in Switzerland with semi-direct democracy and in my opinion it is not enough. However maybe my prediction is wrong, so in fact I believe the best about LD is to try it first at a small level and learn from the process.

GP

Germà Pelayo Mon 14 Dec 2015

Dear Roger and friends, the idea I am working on as one of the proposals that I am including in a future book, is a combination of direct democracy for all the main topics, many citizen panels for deliberating on how to make more concrete the results of the previous referenda, and finally a Parliament with MP by lot, so without parties, in charge of translating into laws the results of both the referenda and the panels. This can be valid in my opinion for a medium-size country level. Probably global level needs more complexity because of interacting with regional, national, and local levels. And then other combinations are possible too (including by using liquid democracy as a part of it).

AM

Austin Mackell Mon 14 Dec 2015

Hi all,

Since the discussion has shifted towards democratic models, I'd like to suggest people read this excerpt from an essay of mine detailing a model quite similar to the Liquid Democracy models discussed above, but different in a few key ways which I think make it more easily scalable to the national and global levels, as well as less complex and more user friendly. That is here: https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ ( https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ )

However I also think that discussing this kind of detail at this stage is the wrong order of operations. The first thing to do, as I suggested above, is to try and coalesce all these different scattered groups with very similar aims into one global movement. Indeed as the discussion above demonstrates there are differences within these groups probably as large as the differences between them.

Of particular note is the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly or UNPA. If people take the time to check it out I think they'll be impressed by how detailed and progressed these efforts are. I really think that this campaign can serve to unify the myriad of small groups behind a single goal, and in doing so lay the groundwork for a more meaningful discussion of the particular parliamentary model most desirable at the global level - which I agree must be a more responsive, transparent and therefore more truly democratic than the legislatures we currently have at the local, state/provincial, national and regional levels.

I'm CCing one of the key organisers of this campaign, Andreas Bummel, in this reply in hopes of encouraging this collaboration.

Solidiversity to all.

DRK

Dr. Roger Kotila Mon 14 Dec 2015

Dear friends,

I have encouraged Bummel's UN Parliamentary Assembly campaign because
he has done really well attracting former and current Members of
Parliament to the concept of representation at the UN via a second
House.

Unfortunately, no provision is made for either the UN General Assembly
or the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly to have any decision-making
power that matters. Wars and world crimes will continue
unabated. Human rights will not be protected. Private corporate
power is elbowing its way in to the UN.

Nevertheless, the emerging Earth Federation
Movement will need these MP's to help support the Earth
Federation's Earth Constitution which calls for a World
Parliament with real "we, the people" authority. [The design of the
World Parliament may later be changed under the
Constitution's amendment process.]

And yes, people may be inspired to unite behind the notion of a "we,
the peoples" Parliament. But they will be disappointed if there is no
power except the power to consult and to make "recommendations" to the UN
Security Council (the fate of the UN General Assembly which has no power to
speak of).

Calls for "World Parliament Now" will be exploring the Earth
Constitution to determine what authority a Parliamentary Assembly at
the UN should have. As it stands, the UNPA will probably end up in the
same position as the current UN's Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
which consists of parliamentarians from different nations, but which has no
decision-making authority of any significance.

Unfortunately, the UN Charter is the problem.
It's defective: an undemocratic war system. (Think of the
undemocratic UN Security Council which keeps all of the power.) The
Earth Constitution was written by a worldwide group of world
citizens/world federalists realizing that the UN Charter could not do the
job.

In late December, in India, the Federation's Provisional World Parliament
meets.

-- Roger Kotila
Editor, Earth Federation News & Views

In a message dated 12/14/2015 10:39:32 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
notifications@loomio.org writes:

Hi all,

Since the discussion has shifted towards democratic models, I’d like to
suggest people read this excerpt from an essay of mine detailing a model quite
similar to the Liquid Democracy models discussed above, but different in a few
key ways which I think make it more easily scalable to the national and global
levels, as well as less complex and more user friendly. That is here: https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ ( https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ )
( https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ ( https://austingmackell.wordpress.com/democracy-without-elections/ )
)

However I also think that discussing this kind of detail at this stage is
the wrong order of operations. The first thing to do, as I suggested above, is
to try and coalesce all these different scattered groups with very similar
aims into one global movement. Indeed as the discussion above demonstrates
there are differences within these groups probably as large as the differences
between them.

Of particular note is the Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary
Assembly or UNPA. If people take the time to check it out I think they’ll be
impressed by how detailed and progressed these efforts are. I really think
that this campaign can serve to unify the myriad of small groups behind a
single goal, and in doing so lay the groundwork for a more meaningful
discussion of the particular parliamentary model most desirable at the global
level - which I agree must be a more responsive, transparent and therefore
more truly democratic than the legislatures we currently have at the local,
state/provincial, national and regional levels.

I’m CCing one of the key organisers of this campaign, Andreas Bummel, in
this reply in hopes of encouraging this collaboration.

Solidiversity to all.

Reply to this email directly or view
it on www.loomio.org ( https://www.loomio.org/d/eCX7h9Lw/how-could-we-get-there?utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment#comment-877231 ).
Turn
off emails ( https://www.loomio.org/email_actions/unfollow_discussion/48628/sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2 ) for this discussion.
Change your email
preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=sSaBwH7hPZ8YaSYVEtr2&utm_campaign=thread_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ) to unsubscribe from these emails.

AM

Austin Mackell Mon 14 Dec 2015

I actually agree with Dr Kolita's critique of the UNPA Campaign. Also have my own critiques about the lack of focus on social justice and issues of imperialism. I also have serious critiques of the Earth Federation Movement.

However I feel at this stage it is better to be focussing on what we have in common with other global democrats than focussing on the differences.

Again I would raise the suggestion that we focus on working to get all these different groups working together and talking to each other.

Perhaps it was foolish of me to highlight one of those groups as a focus.

Does anyone want to start a spreadsheet?

GP

Germà Pelayo Tue 15 Dec 2015

Hi friends, I agree that this is not the time for choosing among the several models or projects of world democracy existing. However, if it is about joining forces, the common ground in my opinion should be a "real" or advanced democracy for the world rather than a traditional parliamentary (either with parties or just national seats) system. I don't disagree with the UNPA campaign but I believe that something different should be done too.

GP

Germà Pelayo Mon 28 Dec 2015

What do you think about it? "democracy" is criticised around the world because of the large corporate co-optation and lobbyism at all levels (national, regional, global). But the main alternative existing nowadays, the Chinese-style one-party system, is same or even worst in terms of freedom, but they call it "democracy" too. So in my opinion even before going ahead on listing the existing groups, we should discuss what kind of democracy are we talking about when we think about global democracy.

NS

Noah Skocilich Mon 28 Dec 2015

It's a good question Germa, and I feel it's important to be clear and deliberate about these kinds of matters, regarding political theory and so forth.

Not for the sake of the theory, by any means, but insofar as theory is an expression of a very serious intent to serve the best possible organization and structure of human society.

To that end then, I think there is a great deal of very valuable theory and writing and even history of political models other than western democracy or stalinist dictatorship.

Namely, there is anarchism, (the serious political theory, not kids in black breaking windows), there is left libertarianism, social ecology, and on and on.

A book that I feel is a great introduction to the spectrum of political thought along these lines is 'The Next Revolution' which is a collection of essays by a man named Murray Bookchin.

GP

Germà Pelayo Wed 30 Dec 2015

Thanks Noah. This book is in fact in my list of near future readings, but I confess that I need to put some order to that list... however, if I had only one question to put you and the others, it will be how do we organize online at a global level for discussing the kind of global political system we want, so that we can include people from around the world using different languages, and to do this in order that later we could create a political participatory movement (not a party) that contribute to network the existing and future local-based campaigns around the globe.

GP

Germà Pelayo Wed 30 Dec 2015

Well ok, my 1st question is if my point before is understandable. 2nd question is if people in this list find it interesting, and only the 3rd one, should be, how do you think we can organize.

BF

Barnaby Flynn Wed 27 Jan 2016

Strategy to global direct/liquid democratic subsidiary unity:
See: http://globalpeoplepower.weebly.com/

Take part to unite and empower progressive anti-austerity, anti-war, pro-democracy, environmental movements and political parties around the world.

Do this by contacting your favourite well-known progressive politician or campaigner and invite them to propose a global policy on our new Represent e-democracy group. (Use this letter).

Policy examples: A World Without War, Global Renewable Energy Grid (GREG), Ban all Tax Havens, International Monetary Reform, a law to End Ecocide?

If you contact them, please also ask them to encourage their supporters and the wider public to debate and vote on those policies?

Our Represent e-democracy platform exists to co-create and harmonise a range of legally binding policies based on international cooperation and synchronised implementation - policies that work for the benefit of humanity and the planet.

This is in contrast to:
International goals, aims and voluntary targets which are so often missed.
Weak, flouted, unratified, unjust and even hypocritical international laws regarding conflict and weaponry.
Legally binding international laws created in secret (TTIP, TPP, TISA ) which override national democratic sovereignty and which prioritise the protection of corporate profits over that of society and the environment.

Why?
The above actions initiate our plan to ensure the movement becomes a coherent, strategic and systemic global force for justice, peace, prosperity and sustainability - just as coherent, strategic and systemic as those who preside over the present system which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the few, a system which fails to represent most people’s values.

Through increased global unity and coherence the movement will present itself as safer and more electable to more mainstream voters.

BF

Barnaby Flynn Thu 4 Feb 2016

Have I killed the conversation?

GP

Germà Pelayo Thu 4 Feb 2016

You haven't as far as I am concerned. I am busy these days but I promise I will react asap. Then, the opinion of everyone else is always welcomed and encouraged too ;-)

FBT

Fabio Bueno Tanaka Thu 4 Feb 2016

Have you guys check the beta test of http://konsento.org ? ;)

GP

Germà Pelayo Wed 17 Feb 2016

Ok. 1st thing I would like to say is, if we are not several between us, or many between us, participating here, this is not going to work. However, first I would like to ask Peter Schuman, the coordinator and probably the initiator of this forum, about the purpose of it, if only a place for debate, or also a place for self-organisation as far as the participants would like to of us, or even something that we the participants can decide along the way as a part of the game.

Personally I believe that independently of other’s reasons, I am here because I share a defined horizon -global democracy, which doesn't mean (or doesn't mean necessarily / exclusively) a representative system- and I believe that spaces of discussion like this one can be collective efforts of the global citizen’s constituent power contributing or heading to build a fair political system for the world, with clear social benefits and probably radical consequences in the organization of the economy, environment, etc.

My second point is, I would like to shortly summarize this thread later, in order that we can have a whole picture of where we are, so let me let start by a reminder of the question: “How could we get there?” (To “one global democracy”). And then in the subsequent comment Peter gives the example about one existing proposal of strategy, about uniting first the so-called Western democracies.

However, after a first part where the participants have explained and/ or give links to several initiatives more or less related with strategies for building a global democracy, the discussion has evolved toward some existing types of democracy, and some models has been described. Talking about types of democracy is in my opinion more related to “what kind of global democracy” we want, than to the “how could we get there” question, so I will like to conclude this comment by asking you what do you want to do:

a) Keep on talking about “how could we get there”
b) Moving to this other question “what kind of global democracy we want”
c) Opening this 2nd question in a new thread
d) Other ideas

I would like to hear also about what do you expect from this thread and this forum

a) A place for discussion only
b) A group that can decide further forms of organization
c) Let all possibilities opening in order to decide along the way.

JB

Jim Barton Wed 17 Feb 2016

Hi-
If people want to follow up on the idea of global democracy,
I can suggest a few possibilities:
A- A global skype call & chat. Sunday noon US Eastern was a popular time
when I was on some global Occupy Climate calls in 2012 (Nigeria, Vancouver, CA; NYC, the UK were represented, among others)

B- Joining the Global Demcracy FB group at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/243607095676447

C- Joining in the efforts for the 4th Global Week of Action for a Global Parliament this coming October 2016
http://www.worldparliamentnow.org

D- Joining (or creating) a national affiliate of the World Federalist Movement
http://www.wfm-igp.org

E- Doing a public showing of We Are Many- the film about the global anti-war protests on Feb. 15, 2003 when it goes up for release and streaming (later this year?). I donated to the kickstarter and hope to show it next month.

F- Downloading the executive summary of the Global Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance in your preferred language of those available
(Arabic, Chinese, French, English, Russian, Spanish)
http://www.globalsecurityjusticegovernance.org/publications-resources/report

Sincerely,
Jim Barton

PS

Peter Schurman Thu 18 Feb 2016

Germà -

Thank you for raising these excellent questions.

The purpose of this forum is to begin and/or advance the conversation, eventually toward action.

You are right that this thread within the larger forum was intended to focus on "how could we get there?"

There's another thread "What could a single, global democracy look like? How would it work?" within this same forum. Unforunately it begins with a rather lengthy entry, but that's more the intended place for the direction the conversation has been going on this thread lately:
https://www.loomio.org/d/a5FsmjBw/what-could-a-single-global-democracy-look-like-how-would-it-work

So, my suggestion is: (a) Keep on talking about “how could we get there”.

And it would be terrific to see the "what kind of global democracy we want" question discussed at the other thread, linked above.

And, Jim, thanks for posting those resources.

In addition, please consider "liking" the One Global Democracy FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/oneglobaldemocracy/

And thanks, everyone, for engaging in this important conversation.

  • Peter
GP

Germà Pelayo Mon 7 Mar 2016

Many thanks Peter, and sorry for my delay. I will reply soon in the other thread

DB

Daniel Blewitt Thu 31 Mar 2016

We've just launched our crowdfund, in the name of a unified humanity!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/30232828/the-unitary-republic-of-humankind-a-documentary

DU

[deactivated account]
Agree
Sat 9 Apr 2016

RSD

Richard Samuel Deese Sun 1 Jan 2017

Happy New Year.

I am inspired by this thread and hope that it keeps growing in 2017. I share Peter Schurman's conviction that we need to build one global democracy to deal with the myriad challenges that face our species. As a historian, I am working on a book about the history supranational democracy as both an idea and a political movement.

It's great to see Clarence Streit and George Monbiot in this thread, and it's also wonderful to see links to texts from the Baha'i faith. I'd like to add three other names to the mix, and I apologize in advance if they've already been covered on another thread:

Giusseppe Antonio Borgese, a brilliant and passionate antifascist who was the leading light of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution at the University of Chicago in the late 1940s. Wrote a great book right before his death called FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD REPUBLIC (1953).

Elisabeth Mann Borgese, youngest daughter of Thomas Mann and wife of Giuseppe Antonio Borgese. She edited the journal of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution (COMMON CAUSE) and went on to publish a book called A CONSTITUTION FOR THE WORLD in the mid 1960s. Beginning in 1967, she became a major force in advancing ocean conservation and helped to draft the Law of the Sea treaty, which was opened for signature in 1982. She advanced the principle that the vital resources of global commons must be protected from appropriation by nation states and/or private corporations. This principle, which led to the creation of the International Seabed Authority for the regulation of mining in international waters, is the main reason why right wing forces in the United States are adamantly opposed to US ratification of the Law of the Sea.

Finally, the most eloquent advocate in global democracy I have found in my research is Emery Reves. A friend and confidant of Albert Einstein and the literary agent of Winston Churchill, Reves had a front seat view of the primary intellectual and political trends of the early 20th century. He argued in his brilliant books A DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTO (1942) and THE ANATOMY OF PEACE (1945) that nationalism would inevitably morph into totalitarianism when subjected to the stresses of economic globalization. He saw it happen in Europe in 1930s, and we are very likely witnessing an analogous process in the United States today.

The situation of democracies around the world after the alarming developments of 2016 of course adds urgency to Peter's question: How could we get there? I don't know, but I think Streit had a good idea when he proposed a political and economic union of democracies. In his time, those countries were all western powers with significant colonial holdings. George Orwell recognized that as problematic and took Streit to task for it. In our own time, however, a union of democracies would include countries from every continent and culture, and would not be inherently "western" in conception.