Media Populism creates Imbalance of Opinion

When President Obama is given access to the media (Marketwatch)to build support for an airstrike on Syria the absence of dissenting voices is a sign that governments are deriving a major advantage when they try to influence public opinion. A balanced media landscape would give the same amount of airtime to opposing views. This does not mean we are for or against any contemplated airstrike.

Media Twaddle: 'Britain may regret....'

'Britain may regret its vote on Syria' reads the headline in a major media service (Bloomberg). This encapsulates all that is wrong with politics and the media. Established media is dominated by a concentration of powerful - and unaccountable - conglomerates. Someone rightly said that freedom of the media means that 200 rich people have the right to say what they want. So the slow demise of traditional media can only be a force for good as it makes it more difficult for the established parties and lobbies to dominate the political debate. The choice of words has already a strong bias. In the above example it implies some sort of communal will, but the (sad) reality is that 'Britain' - if you mean the totality of its citizens - had no say whatsoever in the decision to bomb or not to bomb Syria.

Parliament reclaims Power?

Just because the UK Parliament has decided not to agree to the proposed action against Syria that was advocated by the Prime Minister one should not rejoice and think that 'Presidential' government has been rejected. This was more a one-off and other countries such as France - where President Hollande has resorted to sabre-rattling to divert from a desastrous economy - show that the power of parliaments is limited to say the least. No wonder as most countries have no proper separation of powers, and even where this separation is more pronounced - such as in the United States - not much good comes of it and the citizens - who should really have the final say in all decisions - are helpless bystanders.

Rich let the 'Civil Society' pick up the tab

Nothing is more infuriating than reading another homily from an extremely well (overpaid?) executive who sails effortlessly from job to job, starting in public 'service' and then moving into the private sector. So Peter Sutherland's sermon about the need for 'Civil Society' (he does not say you and me as ordinary taxpayer) to pick up the tab for any and all migrants misses out one big point: who has ever asked the citizens of the recipient/paying countries about their willingness to finance his largess? So far as I know only Switzerland has ever held a referendum that specifically addresses the question of immigration.

UK Newspaper caves in to 'Security' Bully Boys

Incredible but true - that some (anonymous) bully boys from the 'Security' services can just demand the 'pulverisation' of a computer belonging to a national newspaper in one of the oldest (pseudo) democracies is ample demonstration that a radical reform of democracy is required.

Protest in Turkey - just another country in need of more direct democracy

References to the supposedly excessive power that Prime Minister Erdogan - who is in office for ten years - has are a constant in all reports about the current disturbances in Istanbul. Just another example that the power of any individual, or party, needs to be checked by giving the citizens the ultimate say in all decisions made by government officials and bureaucrats.

EU bureaucrats negotiate in secret

Direct Democracy would prevent the ability of EU bureaucrats to negotiate in secret. How many citizens have ever heard of Directive 1049/2001? I would guess they would all fit into quite a small room.

German Court Judgement on Euro Rescue - End of Democracy?

Gunnar Beck sees Democracy in Europe under attack - but all this reasoning will achieve little if citizens are not willing to support our call for comprehensive Direct Democracy in the member states and in the EU.

No one needs to 'trust' politicians

One says, trust is good, control is better. This comes to mind when reading headlines such as this one (Almost no one trusts Congress, Gallup Poll). In a system of Direct Democracy the citizens have the ultimate say on all issues. Corrupt or incompetent politicians find it much more difficult to manipulate legislation or the administration of laws to the disadvantage of the taxpayer.

Philanthropy no substitute for a fair society

Attempts to push for more philanthropy as a substitute for a fair society miss the point. If a system is broken it is useless to patch things up with band-aids. The (purported) need for more charity by the 'haves' just demonstrates that something is wrong with the way the benefits of the economy are distributed. There will always be individuals that will need help but charities should not be a permanent and growing substitute for a better society that needs reform of the political and economic model.