Manifesto for a true global democracy

Manifesto

a true Global Democracy

Or

Of democracy usurped

Yves Marineau

Version beta 1,2

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3

 

1- The economic 5

1,1- The environment 6

1,2- Health 8

1,3- Grants 11

1,4- Taxes 13

 

2- The cultural 16

 

3- The political 27

 

Conclusion 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All rights of reproduction, translation and adaptation without permission reserved for all countries.

 

 

© Qualitas Publishing, 2005

2146 Montgomery, Montreal, H2K 2R8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction.

 

Who says globalization of markets says global problems.

On global issues requires a global solution.

 

Political issues, economic, environmental protection and culture are now the same everywhere on the planet.

 

States are now competing direct financial (with subsidies, for example, or the low rate of corporate taxation, the anti-pollution standards, etc.) and must go against their wishes to avoid capital flight. When they should have common objectives to promote healthy competition financially respecting all citizens, their crops and the environment.

 

The economic dogma is now the new church of the ideology of the modern world. The scale of values ​​has now developed to reverse the economic front such fundamental values ​​as respect for life.

 

"Democracies" of representations, too largely financed by multinational, have contributed to excess this reversal of values.

 

Yet the vast majority of world citizens are supporters of direct democracy[1] International. All citizens of the world have advocated a true global democracy.

 

Is not this the best way to define tags within which the economy must grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1- The economic

The field of economics has quietly taken over the culture and politics since the French Revolution.

Everything is subordinate to it since the establishment of "democracy" representation.

 

Democracy

"Democracy" modern, "democracy" representation, has usurped to ancient Greece the term "democracy". In true democracy, democracy of ancient Greece, or democracy "ideal", they are all citizens who were entitled to rule on all decisions and pass laws.

 

Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie has replaced the monarchy with an elected representation, widely favored financially by the bourgeoisie, and now countries are run by parties financed by multinational.

 

Multinational

It is therefore not surprising that governments are subject to the guidelines of multinational. Some governments have no choice but to meet the needs of multinationals to be reelected. Today, political success depends first and foremost by the visibility, So by advertising, So the party financing. In some countries, the visibility provided by advertising alone is sufficient to focus attention on 1 or 2 parties financed by multinationals and to sink into oblivion third parties.

 

Programs of third parties, as the interests of individuals, So go second behind the interests of the representatives who want to be reelected, and their funding sources, or multinationals.

 

Therefore, any economic measure, Environmental, political and cultural life that unanimity among all citizens can not be implemented because, up to now, no authority could impose international standards.

 

Hence the need for a global power to frame tags for economic development.

 

By Who? But who should define these international standards? The World Trade Organization (WTO)? The United Nations (UN)? A representative democracy? Or be a True Global Democracy, direct democracy?

 

 

• 1,1- The environment

The environment is the big loser of the power of economic. As states compete with each other, rather than cohesive ties, no State would regulate too stringently or organizations, or individuals in their daily practices.

 

As it is urgent and that self-regulation of polluting emissions is a short-term failure, only coercion can be effective but, any State that would be too harsh face competition from other states would take in the foot economically. Any fight against pollution that would increase production costs would make any non-competitive company that would be in the country the most restrictive pollution.

 

States may therefore, or to harm their own economy, is to boycott products from polluting countries at risk of being themselves victims of economic reprisals or so, States must agree on respect for common international environmental standards and apply.

 

Unfortunately States, which parties are funded by multinationals, seem less committed citizens to move forward.

 

Yet it is a pollutant, or a level of pollution, banned in one country is less polluting in another? Il est moins and-nocif?

Faced with a serious pollution problem worldwide, which is amplified so exponential, is there other solutions that a global solution ?

• 1,2- Health

Not only the costs of health care in industrialized countries explode because of the aging population but, on top, near 20 million people die prematurely each year because of pollution according to World Health Organization. This means that tens of millions of new people are affected by diseases, respiratory diseases such, each year. With social costs that follow (medical expenses, productivity losses, loss of tax revenues for various levels of government, etc.) And these costs will grow exponentially if the level of pollution increases are predicted.

 

This means that we participate collectively so all the greatest genocide in history.

Never have so many people are dead "murdered" every year because of some individuals. If we kill 20 million people per year it means that we "execute" collectively, during an average life of 80 years, 1,6 Milliard of individus!

This means that each individual in the major industrialized countries is a murderer responsible, at different levels, death of a person during his life.

At current levels we will all be responsible for the death of a person and if the pollution levels continued to increase exponentially the number of dead could increase tenfold. This would mean that we may be responsible for the death of 4 people, each, in the 40 years. Needless to say, some of these people could be close, since pollution is higher in industrialized countries and one of his people might be ... oneself!

 

As there are emergency, and we can not wait 50 years to change people's habits the most conservative[2] should we not impose taxes on Harmful Products and Services (TPSN)? To reduce pollution to a level more than acceptable and, at the same time, pay the income of TPSN to fund health care required because of pollution?

 

Is it not normal that polluters pay for their damages? We can not still ask those who make an effort to reduce their emissions to pay for medical expenses caused by businesses and individuals "polluters-murderers" carefree, manipulated by advertising automotive example, s who "self-suicide" in their car to "Gino-in-self"? Or, to ask the citizens of the Third World to pay for environmental damage done by businesses operating abroad to take advantage not only of labor but cheap and more lax environmental standards.

But, once again, no state can afford to take steps that would make them uncompetitive and would move companies in countries where standards are more permissive. That would only relocate the problem without set.

 

Single international power would establish standards that do no more disadvantageous to the state over another and would ensure standardization of environmental standards around the world.

 

Although most companies are willing to pollute less, provided that their international competitors, do the same.

1,3- Grants. WTO and grants?

The WTO can not regulate itself. Let us take the example of subsidies, all multinationals would never consider abolishing them so that all citizens and governments oppose such practices.

 

All multinationals would never consider abolishing since, even to cover costs of research and development, Grants are all about cost savings that would have required a debt, with all the costs that follow, such interests. Subsidies thus avoid the costs for transforming the first productions of profits, and even some grants can turn into profits when research costs are lower than expected or illegally inflated.

If companies paid their share of taxes and duties, companies could, perhaps, require a fair return for what they pay. But, in the current context are individuals who pay the most taxes and who see these billions of dollars paid in "gifts" to multinationals.

 

While in a real international direct democracy all citizens and governments would oppose such practices, and subsidies would be prohibited. In the limit, States could invest in companies, provided to receive their share of the dividends as well as all shareholders with the opportunity to resell the shares issued. So as to recover the money invested in selling the shares at market price.

 

But until there will be no international power, there will be a dictatorship of international multinationals that perpetuate the "theft" of subsidies to citizens.

 

Third World

And the Netherlands who suffer most are the Third World countries would normally be the most favored in terms of economic development because of their low wages but are penalized because they lack resources. Poor states can not pay grants, it results in a vicious cycle that limits their development because, on top, local markets have an unemployment rate too high to create a regional market worth.

 

 

 

 

1,4- Taxes. WTO and Taxes

Same with respect to income taxation. There is no reason that the wealthy benefit from a tax rate lower than the middle class. In true democracy international direct, all citizens and governments would oppose such practices and tax rates for the wealthiest would equal or exceed that of the middle class.

 

But the multinationals take advantage now of the lack of international standardization and competition resulting between states seeking to attract capital in their country.

Even in the case of States or party financing by businesses is prohibited, governments are subject to international competition which gives no latitude in their economic policies. All citizens and all governments want to abolish subsidies to business and establish a corporate tax rate at least equivalent to that of individuals. But, no government can do if all other governments do not. If such a state increased the tax rate for corporations or if it significantly increases its anti-pollution standards, or, if increased taxes on polluting, such as oil and coal, or if abolished subsidies, it would be economically suicidal for any government. Becauseompanies were moving to the state most favorable to their economic interests.

 

While the end of subsidies and taxation of multinational enable States to withdraw the taxes to which they would normally be entitled and above would make the competition more healthy with small and medium enterprises (SME) that, they, in "snapped" against multinationals since they must pay taxes at individual rates. Making it much less competitive SMEs, profitable, and prevent them from growing as fast as multinationals, this leads too often to bankruptcy, to low wages, the depletion Regional, etc. This has the effect that the goods are exported from one end to another world by multinational corporations that pollute many times fatally instead of being produced regionally, thereby avoiding over-pollute.

 

And do you think that is favored by the taxation of small and medium enterprises at the rate of individuals? Multinationals! The very ones who fund parties which in turn promote the dictatorship of large industries and large landowners.

 

 

 

 

1,5 Of democracy in enterprises.

 

When will democracy in enterprises? When is that shareholders will vote the major administrative decisions, including salaries of executives? When will more democracy? Is there not no justice in this way? In the interest of shareholders and citizens? Rather than seeing everything be done first in the interest of business executives and majority shareholders?

 

 

 

 

 

2- The cultural.

Regional culture is threatened by economic. The dictatorship of multinationals being the primary cause, while the economy should be subject to cultural norms of each state-regional-cultural.

 

If the economic standards were decided by all citizens, rather than multinationals, multinationals pay taxes, they would grow less rapidly than SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) that, they, develop locally and respecting local cultures.

 

All agree, it is the cultural beacons which must govern the economic, not otherwise.

 

But the steamroller and uniformisateur multinationals would, here also, impose its diktat.

 

 

 

 

 

3- The political

The policy should govern the cultural and economic. But now the powers are reversed. These are the multinational, if the rich, decide which cultural and economic laws and policies.

 

While in a true democracy, would give all citizens the rule of law on winning political and cultural power of economic law.

 

But watch a true democracy would not be anti-capitalist. A true democracy would determine the limits within which capitalism can develop. And one of the first value is the requirement that life must take precedence over profit.

 

Life before profit. Economic development must be in compliance with the right to clean air before profit, respect for the environment, of Clean Water, etc.

 

Is the opposite of the "so-called current democracy," which can produce at the lowest cost rather than the cleanest and respectful of our environment is possible.

 

True democracy or "democratic dictatorship"?

 

On a scale of 0 to 10, or 0 mean a dictatorship and 10 a true democracy, direct democracy, we can say that we live (in occident) in a "democratic dictatorship".

 

A dictatorship where one can choose a dictator for a few years. The level 1 of democracy. In other words, a note 1 on 10, which means a failure of democracy.

 

And that is precisely what we see in our societies, called "democratic", disinterest or rather one of disenchantment with the political sphere in its current form is, representative democracy. All citizens want more democracy. And not a dictatorship to a democratic one advantage of a dictatorship, is the power to change a dictator it is too "bad guy".

 

Anyway, democratic dictatorship is a dictatorship or the interests of certain individuals takes place primarily, as political parties rely on the wealthy to provide funds to be used in their media exposure that will lead to their re-election and everyone's interest then passes.

 

Of democracy improved. Democracy could be improved in one or more of the following :

 

• 3,1 Proportional elections.

 

• 3,2 The ban on corporate donations, organisations, unions, and even individuals, since it is always the richest who fund parties with maximum contributions permitted by law. There are not many welfare recipients, students, of unemployed or low wage earners who manage to give a maximum contribution! Unlike the better-off.

 

• 3,3 Pour equal funding to parties or even better, equal to all candidates.

 

• 3,4 Equal visibility for all media.

 

• 3,5 The ban on parties. Not for the establishment of a single party, on the contrary, for all elected officials can vote freely on all issues and create a party on a bill at a time. Otherwise what is the point of electing representatives if they all vote as a single person or as party leader decides? If we elect more representatives, This is to ensure that they vote for good laws and that everyone can exercise critical judgments to introduce amendments that will enhance the laws. Not to follow the party line that is too close to one-party dictatorships. Better 100 elected to the critical spirit that modify the proposed laws for the better, than having a single opposition party.

 

• 3,6 Ban advertising and send to all citizens a summary of the program of all candidates in each county. For citizens to vote based on candidates' platforms, ideas, in a word, not the content of the container, visibility, advertising and posters on poles! Whether one last appeal to human intelligence to vote and that one takes more voters for idiots.

 

• 3,7 Have a minimum of referendums (together with the election, measure savings) on major decisions.

 

• 3,8 Have at least referendums to determine a normative law which must yield all leaders.

 

• 3,9 Or postal referendums on all legislative and administrative decisions and decisions on the Internet that are almost unanimously in polls. And possibly any, permanently, Internet when security permits.

 

A true democracy. What would be much simpler and efficient would be to, that all citizens want, be a true democracy. Where all could participate in legislative and administrative decisions and elect the executive.

 

All debates would occur in the population. The main issues would move the population much faster than when they are submitted and discussed in the parliamentary chamber only.

 

All citizens are increasingly concerned about the political and increasingly non-partisan. Increasingly disappointed with representative democracy and increasingly ready for a real democracy, direct democracy. And even if only 100 000 people were prepared to vote on an issue, on a population of several million or billion people, the vote could only be more representative than that of 100 elected officials who vote according to special interests in order to be reelected. 100 000, 1 million ou 1 billion people may vote only in the interest of all citizens and make almost impossible any form of bias or corruption legislation.

 

Some oppose the fact that citizens are less progressive than the elected, others might oppose that things are moving much faster when the debate is in the population. And it is better to a changing society in practice, in everyday life, in its practices and attitudes, only in its laws.

 

Reality changes more quickly and no elected government can never take the reality, the " Reason "[3], and the public can not follow that if the debate descends into the population.

 

Usurpation of democracy.

Pending, as we will not ask all citizens if they prefer to live in a direct democracy or representative, any constitution that has not been approved in this sense constitute a usurpation of democracy.

 

Because all citizens of the world's sovereign democracy in the type of food they want.

 

 

 

• Conclusion

 

The dangers to the rapid changes require quick decisions to counter the devastating and irreversible effects that may occur. The effects of pollution today on the greenhouse effect only become apparent in 35 years.

We must therefore provide at least 40 years in advance in order to avoid disaster.

 

We can no longer live in a "society of the precipice". We can no longer run to the empty and we stop at the last minute when we have one foot over the precipice, because the precipice comes to us 35 times faster than we are going to him. This means that the environmental, we should be back now rather than going faster forward.

Since only the most progressive people change their habits quickly, it will act quickly to ensure that all coercion to submit to the new realities that are changing too fast to wait for people to change habits that are outdated and, and will increasingly, disastrous for all.

 

As problems are now global, we must now adjust to the idea that only a true global democracy can help to establish standards with a new international law.

 

Should we wait for governments to set up an international normative power, or, all citizens should not they invest the power that is rightfully theirs?

Because if we look after governments to submit their legislative power in the hands of all citizens, we may wait a long time ...!

 

Enter now, in many, all questions of international referendum on the site www.referenduminternational.org

 

Make your voice heard on various major issues of the 21st century and centuries to come.

 

Governments that claim to democratic, and even other, will only accept the decisions taken by all citizens. Otherwise we will know what are the governments that are actually used false democracies that special interests, "democratic" dictatorships.

 

 

 

 

Some of the questions that you can vote : Questions and preliminary results 12 August 2005:

 

-Who should decide international standards?

All citizens? 87% An elected government? 13 % I do not know? 0 %

 

-Do you support the creation of world government with power to legislate international standards? Yes? 83% Not? 17% I do not know?0 %

 

-Would you rather live in a democracy Direct? 100%. Representation? 0% I do not know? 0 %

 

-Is that all governments must submit to the International Criminal Court? Yes? 100 % Not? 0 % I do not know? 0 %

 

-Are all the armies of the world must be under the aegis of UN peacekeepers?

Yes? 67 % Not? 0% I do not know? 33 %

 

-Does the international referendum on the Internet must be permanent and do all people can change their votes at any time?

Yes? 100 % Not? 0 % I do not know? 0 %

 

-All forms of business subsidies are prohibited in all Nations? Yes? 100 % Not? 0 % I do not know? 0 %

 

-All kinds of weapons and ammunition can not be sold as peacekeepers and police? Yes? 100 % Not? 0 % I do not know? 0 %

 

-The liberty of a person stops there or freedom of another begins? Yes? 100 % Not? 0 % I do not know? 0 %

 

And in a true democracy you can submit draft international standards, vote and ... change of ideas at any time on 24 24.

 

 

 

 

Instructions

 

1- Read the manifesto.

 

2- Indicate by email if you want to be a signatory to the manifesto?

 

TO : Email

 

-sure to indicate your name, countries and occupations.

 

3- All comments, Changes and suggestions, are welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

A financial contribution or volunteer site development www.referenduminternational.org would be much appreciated.

Don

Volunteers : Email

Thank you

 

 

 

 

 

Yves Marineau

Founder

International Committee for true democracy

 

 

N.B. If you want to translate or correction in your language please contact us.

Should we wait for governments to set up an international normative power, or, all citizens should not they invest the power that is rightfully theirs?

Because if we look after governments to submit their legislative power in the hands of all citizens, we may wait a long time ...!

Vote online at:

www.referenduminternational.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics is too important to be left in the hands of politicians.

 

 

It is high time that always(to)s the citizen(not)s are involved :

1- Email to all : http://www.referenduminternational.org

2- Post Free eBook version of the manifesto : http://edition.qualitaspro.net

3- Join the Facebook group : http://on.fb.me/ejrzFG

4- Invite all your friends on Facebook.

5- Follow me on Twitter : http://bit.ly/i1U5xy

and on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/h1hyna

6- Volunteer : http://bit.ly/hT1ZOc

7- Donate : http://bit.ly/gDyfLB

8- Contact us for your offer translation services : http://edition.qualitaspro.net/

 

 

Movement for a true global democracy

 

---