NSA Spying - helpless (incapable?, corrupt?) Politicians

The fact that President Obama has to make (small) concessions in the turbocharged spying program run by his 'security' agencies is welcomed in Western Europe. But the really sad aspect is the fact that the privacy of the citizens in the affected countries is not properly defended by their own politicians. Neither governments of individual countries nor the bureaucrats in the EU are willing or able to put a decisive stop to the activities of US spies.

No need to trust the 'Elites'

A system of Direct Democracy puts the ultimate power over all decisions into the hands of the citizens. There is not need for an ‘implicit deal between elites and the people’ (Martin Wolf, Financial Times). Today’s elites are mostly self-appointed and self-perpetuating under a thin veneer of pseudo-democratic rituals. But whichever party wins will pursue nearly identical policies and regularly ignore the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

Cry me a River Madame Trierweiler!

News that the French President may two-time his partner and so-called 'First Lady' throws light on a small detail in the way public money is wasted in our democracies. Apart from the fact that the role of the 'First Lady' is not written into any constitution it is a minor scandal that Madame Trierweiler is given an office and a staff of five in the Elysee Palace.

The wrong kind of referendum

Any referendum that is held at the pleasure of the government (such as this one in Egypt) - democratically elected or not - can easily be abused and manipulated. Only a referendum that is based on the right of the citizens to instigate one is legitimate. Arguments against this basic democratic instrument that are based on deficient procedures are invalid.

How not to run a referendum - Londoners support Crossrail 2

It may not be a referendum but this public 'consultation' is the closest that the citizens of London get to be able to have a say in this significant infrastructure project that may cost £ 12 billion (probably much more when the final sum is calculated). The problem is that this is the wrong kind of populist politics as the citizens will always be 'for' some initiative that looks to make their life easier - as long as they are not also asked to sign for higher taxes.

Unhealthy Concentration of Power

The urgent need for direct democracy is illustrated by the enormous concentration of power in the hands of individuals. While the fig-leaf of 'democratic' election seems to give Obama, Cameron, Hollande and Merkel the appearance of legitimacy it can be said that the constitutional superstructure in all these countries leaves a lot to be desired and gives way too much leeway to elected officials. Politicians should never have 'Power' per se as the ultimate say should always be with the Citizens by way of the availability of (binding) citizen's initiatives and referendums.

How to manage the State's Finances

The farce surrounding the Federal Government Shutdown in the United States has been a lesson in how not to manage the State's finances. Optional and mandatory voting in a referendum about all tax and spending legislation would make any decision regarding fiscal measures more rational. Politicians would still be in charge of most law drafting but they would be more careful with their actions - and often unkept promises - if they knew that they would have to defend their measures in a detailed debate that would precede any referendum.

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.