Global Citizen: clever labelling, but what say do 'Citizens' have?

What should one read into the name of this organization? Do the 'Citizens' have any say? Who controls the money? What benefit do the performers enjoy? They may work for free or not, but in any case they should PAY for the privilege of being associated with what they consider a good cause (otherwise they have at the very least the benefit of free advertising). Apart from that, the easy access that promoters or NGO's and Celebrities get to politicians is cause for concern and another reason why Direct Democracy needs to be introduced as a safeguard to any potential abuses of power.

CNBC

Why are Politicians despised?

Some would even say hated. Given the endless reports of diminishing trust in policitians one might well think that there is something wrong with society. Maybe it lacks moral standards and this causes people to have less and less respect for their 'leaders'. But considering David Miliband's salary of US$ 600,000 as CEO or the International Rescue Committee (Charity!) there is no doubt where the blame lies! Given that every penny he gets too much is coming (literally) out of the pocket of the poor he is supposed to help this is a demonstration that there is an enormous swamp that waits to be drained - and only Direct Democracy has any chance to ever get on top of these abuses. Equally depressing is the part played by mainstream (corporate) Media - just now Miliband was pontificating on CNBC, and the fawning reporter there did not raise the question of his pay at all!

How to make Football more democratic

Democratic reform is not limited to the realm of government but has also to include the vast area of business and voluntary activity. A good example is Football where a small clique of officials in Zurich's FIFA headquarters runs the show without any input from the ultimate stakeholders, the members of individual football clubs and the supporters or spectators. When a prominent club manager demands reforms and calls for the inclusion of clubs, player, leagues and referees in the decision process it is remarkable that he makes no mention of the most important stakeholders at all. Associations such as FIFA - and the Olympic Movement  would be another one - today are also vast businesses and to a certain extent monopolies and this should be another reason why the wider public should have a commanding say in the governance of their activities. The existing constitution of FIFA may appear to be democratic - there are elections to its various boards etc - but the tiered structure of the organisation means that the existing members are to a large extend shielded from any proper supervision and elect their successors and supervisors.

Who governs FIFA?

Recent accusations about corruption have put pressure on FIFA to investigate some members of its executive committee. But the more important question is: who controls and supervises a self-perpetuating oligarchy at the top of organisations such as FIFA or the International Olympic Committee? Both organisations have tremendous power to goad independent nation states to spend billions to finance what is in effect a private hobby (but big business for the insiders involved in it as administrators, promoters or active participants). Both organisations are not much different from a monopoly and as such should be subject to strict supervision. In addition, members on the grass-roots level should determine who runs the organisations and - even more importantly - who supervises and audits their management.