On direct democracy

Direct democracy is the will of the majority. If the majority decided that a minority decides that would transgress the principle of direct democracy, like for instance a law that can only be amended with the approval of a majority over 50% plus 1 of the votes as is the case in the Spanish Constitution, meaning that the majority disagrees and the minority rules. “Article 167. Bills on Constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority of three-fifths of the members of each House.” https://www.boe.es/legislacion/documentos/ConstitucionINGLES.pdf

In direct democracy the power, capacity to transform or change, is shared equally among all citizens that are indistinguishable one from another, as all the votes are worth the same and the vote is anonymous to respect the will of the citizen regarding the revelation or concealment of his ideas, protecting from aggression from liars who disagree.

Who should be a citizen with the right to vote? The truth has no master and nobody possesses the truth or lie per se, everybody can be wrong or right. Therefore everybody willing to decide on the matters on contention should have a say, regardless of age. Who is right or wrong is determined by the apothegm “The truth is life and the lie is death”

Direct democracy protects from abuse of power as decisions are taken by all the citizens by majority, and the responsibility can not be dodged, not by a person or few people in government who systematically blame the opposition or else about their mistakes.

Politicians take decisions to perpetuate themselves in power, even if the consequences for society are harmful, as opposed to citizens in direct democracy who are always in power.

Liars fool liars. Are citizens who complain about the decisions taken by politicians willing to take the decisions themselves? Living as a victim of someone else is emotionally satisfactory for fools.

%d bloggers like this: