Lessons of democracy

We have divided this article into 4 parts.

1 a brief introduction, 2 an interesting article from the British weekly Economist, on the alleged "democracy" in the world, 3 our authentic democracy, and 4 our final considerations. We advise you to read it all, in all its parts, to understand the situation well, to understand our alternative innovation, and to understand why we are the only political force capable of changing and improving the world.

1. Introduction.

Democracy, a beautiful word, which everyone pronounces too easily, associating it with their own countries, which frankly, have nothing democratic about them.

The irrefutable fact, that even in countries that declare themselves "democratic", there is only an oligarchic party system, has caused us to receive criticism, often very harsh, from some of the "great political experts".

Our declarations are only reality, visible to all, and those who try to deny it in some way are only pretending not to see the truth, and are only complicit in the "theft of power". We challenge you to deny a single sentence of what we write, and have written up to now. Even in the future, you will not be able to dispute any of our statements. You all see the reality.

Even in the so-called "Western democracies", from the day after the elections, the power no longer belongs to the people, and is not at all managed by the people, as predicted by the very name of democracy. Immediately after the elections, power automatically and inexorably passes to the political parties and their political representatives.

We have talked about it in many of our articles, and we do not want to repeat ourselves in detail on this occasion, but we guarantee you that "representative" democracy is the greatest "scam" in the history of man.

Everything was done with a simple purpose: to make the traditional political forces and their political representatives hold power, who almost always act, with complete control, by rich, powerful people and commercial companies, and obviously influential. Therefore, we declare to you, assuming all responsibilities, that it is no longer the citizens who decide, and it is certainly not the political forces, and the political representatives, that you vote for. The economy and finance, with authentic democracy, would have no possibility of acting in complete freedom and without any control. In order to make laws in their favor, they would have to bribe the absolute majority of people, with the real risk of being discovered. With the fake "representative democracy", in order to propose, support and approve any law, to protect one's interests, in finance and the economy, it is enough to control, with every legal and often illegal means, only the forces policies, and political representatives, who win elections. Every time other parties and other political representatives win, things cannot change, the economy and finance, the parties and the people to be corrupted change, and they obtain the same results. Those who hold power propose, discuss, vote and decide the laws, which influence and determine our lives, in a positive or negative way. Those who decide on the laws, which we all must respect, practically write the rules, serving their own interests, and those of those who contribute, with a lot of money, to political success. And the citizens? Out of laziness, or an inability to understand, they delude themselves into thinking they are free and living in authentic "democracy". Power to the people, which makes up the word democracy, is just a mirage. The population, however, has traditional social networks, in which they can vent their frustration, their impotence, and their lack of desire to work concretely to change and improve the world. You are free to complain, in Western countries, in dictatorships, and single parties (so appreciated by those who don't live there), people can't even complain. But apart from complaining, and forming "political" groups, more or less noisy, and holding some demonstrations, nothing decisive happens to change and improve politics. All these groups, with some ideas that can be shared, and others that are not very intelligent, are confronted with the struggle for power, and with the selfishness and greed of their presumed leaders. The traditional political forces, the economy and finance, to maintain their privileges, only have to provoke internal struggles in the various groups, or promise important roles to the presumed leaders of the most "influential" groups, to make every attempt fail. to really change things. In some cases, we move on to actions that are not very loyal, such as the political use of the judiciary, and every now and then, with threats, often with tragic results.

In DirectDemocracyS, we have worked, work, and will always work, preventing any possible problem, and thanks to clear, detailed rules respected by everyone, there can be no problems of any kind. Many years, in which many people have worked hard to create a practically perfect international political organization. Therefore, internal struggles for power do not exist, and are not possible, for the simple reason that we have shared leadership, and ownership of each of our members, of each of our activities. Let's decide, about everyone, all together.

They tell you the tale, that the people, with their vote, decide who wins the elections. More than a fairy tale, it's a joke. Do you really believe that by voting, the political forces and their political representatives respect all their programs and all their promises? You voted for them to do certain things, and they, inventing all kinds of reasons, tell you that they tried. Either you forgive them, voting for them again, or you change the "orchestra", but the music remains the same. DirectDemocracyS not only decides all political programs, together with all its voters, but puts them into practice with shared power, in which voters decide everything, even after the elections. Who has ever done it so far, in the entire history of man? No one, not even the direct democracy of ancient Greece, was complete, in fact women and slaves did not participate in decisions, did not vote, and could not be elected. Politics was only for rich males.

In the history of man, the population, perhaps out of impotence, or simply out of "silly convenience", has preferred to let others choose the rules of their lives. Often with disastrous results, and with continuous disappointments, just think of how many times the traditional political forces do not keep their promises, on the basis of which they were chosen and voted for. Very often, the traditional political forces, and their political representatives, not only did not respect the programs, but were involved in scandals, corruption, theft of public wealth, and often, outright crimes. Everything, for the struggle for power, internal and external, to prevail over enemies. Not on opponents, but on enemies.

Everyone likes power, and money doesn't bring happiness, but it certainly helps. In DirectDemocracyS, we ensure that equality and meritocracy are always present over time, together with competence and honesty, justice and truth.

We had the pleasure of discussing, with some messages, with some important leaders of "traditional" political forces, who accused us of being: "anti-politics" and populism.

DirectDemocracyS is an innovative and alternative political force to all the rest of the traditional political forces. We are not, and will never be like the others, for the simple reason that all the others are profoundly unjust towards the population, and towards their own voters.

Having a "pyramid" system, with leaders who decide, often individually, with in many cases internal and external struggles to gain consensus and power, all other political forces are completely incompatible with us, who are all leaders , we have the same rights, and we decide everything together.

With electoral programs, which are almost never 100% put into practice, they not only steal power immediately after the elections, but they use electoral consensus to advance their own interests and those of those who directly control them, which are not their constituents, but they are generally finance, economics, people, and companies, rich, powerful, and influential.

With our internal direct democracy, and with total control by our voters, over their political representatives, before, during, and for the first time in the world, even after the elections, we are the only ones, who can give anyone , lessons of authentic democracy. We are the only ones who, with a simple but very detailed method, make representative democracy fair and honest.

2. The article from the British weekly Economist.

Let's first see a graph to understand what we are talking about.

How many countries in the world have democracy? And how many live in authoritarian regimes?

Like every year, the British weekly Economist has compiled a ranking of the state of health of 167 countries around the world, dividing governments into full democracies, imperfect ones, hybrid regimes and authoritarianisms. Here are all the data

As regards full democracies, we are around 24, Norway is confirmed as the best government in the world, with an overall score of 9.81/10. New Zealand was also confirmed in second place, while Iceland overtook Sweden to occupy the third step of the podium. Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Taiwan follow and complete the top 10.

How many "sincere democrats" are there? If we look at the number of the world's population, just 8% percent live in these 24 countries. However, the number of authoritarianisms remains unchanged, 59 in total. And that's good news. But only the latter.

The case of Russia. Putin's government recorded the biggest democratic decline of any country in the world, falling 22 places from its previous ranking to 146th place. Globally, the three worst-scoring countries are Afghanistan, Myanmar and North Korea. At the other extreme, Norway, New Zealand and Iceland are ranked as the most democratic countries in the world.

How does the democracy index work? This is a weighted average based on responses to 60 questions, each of which has two or three permitted answer alternatives. Many of the answers are “expert rated”; the report does not indicate the type of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employed by The Economist or for example independent scholars, nor the nationality of the experts. Some answers are provided by examining public opinion emerging from surveys in the respective countries. “In the case of countries for which a survey is missing, this is drawn from similar countries and expert assessment is used to clarify unclear points.

For each of the 60 questions, the experts assign a rating of 1 (corresponding to the answer "yes") or 0 ("no"), or, in some cases, 0.5 is also allowed (for unclear answers). In addition to the expert evaluation, certified national or regional surveys and parameters such as electoral participation are taken into account. In the end, each macro category receives a score from zero to ten and the ranking is drawn up based on the average score obtained. The results of the index are then used to position countries in one of 4 types of democratic regime: “full democracy” (score above 8), “imperfect democracy” (between 6 and 8), “hybrid regime” (between 4 and 6) and “authoritarian regime” (4 points or less).

From the indices of the five categories, all shown in the report, the average is then calculated which provides the democracy index of the nation. Finally this decides the classification of the nation like this:

Complete democracies (score of 8-10): These are nations where basic civil and political liberties are not only respected, but also reinforced by a political culture that contributes to the prosperity of democratic principles. These nations have a good system of government checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function well, and media that are diverse and independent. These nations have limited problems in the democratic machinery;

Imperfect democracies (score from 6 to 7.99): these are nations where elections are free and basic civil liberties are respected, but may have problems (for example violation of freedom of information). Nonetheless, these nations have significant flaws in other aspects of democracy, including an underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in political life, and problems in the functioning of government.

Hybrid regimes (score from 4 to 5.99): these are nations where significant irregularities regularly occur in elections which are therefore not free. These nations commonly have governments that pressure the opposition, a non-independent judiciary and extensive corruption, pressure on the media, weak rule of law, and flaws more pronounced than imperfect democracies in the area of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of political participation, and problems in the functioning of government.

Authoritarian regimes (score less than 4): these are nations where political pluralism is absent or extremely limited. These nations are often absolute dictatorships, they may have some conventional institutions typical of a democracy but of little importance; violations and abuses of civil liberties are the order of the day, elections (if there are any) are not absolutely free, the media are often controlled by the State or by groups associated with the regime, the judiciary is not independent, censorship is omnipresent and suppresses any criticism that concerns the government.

3. Our DirectDemocracyS is the only authentic democracy.

If the previous graph predicts the maximum vote of 10 out of 10, we certainly go further, for the simple reason that we put into practice true and complete democracy, the direct one, which allows citizens to decide, and their political representatives, to put into practice every decision of their constituents. Before, during, and for the first time in the world, even after the elections. We always repeat it!

All the other political forces propose electoral programs, also decided on the basis of the possibility of getting more votes, but which do not represent all the needs of the citizens.

With their "promises" they obtain the trust expressed by citizens, with electoral consensus, and with voting during elections. This vote, for experts of the old politics, allows a transfer of the power to decide, from the voter (who no longer has any power after the vote), to the political forces, and their political representatives. And all this, often for many years, in which the old politics decides, in the name of the people, and the population has no possibility of deciding, or modifying the choices, of the political forces for which it voted.

If it didn't often have tragic consequences, and didn't represent a real theft of power, we might say it's brilliant. The vote overturns the right to decide, which no longer belongs to the people, but to the political parties and their political representatives. This, for us, is unfair, and not ethically correct, because we move from democracy, directly, to an oligarchic party system.

In traditional politics, whoever is elected decides, and the population must respect all the decisions of those who have been voted for.

We simply reverse the roles, the voters decide, and our political representatives put into practice every decision of those who give us, through their vote, the power of representation.

The word itself, representative democracy, means that whoever wins the elections is the political representative of those who vote. But in reality, the representative, with the excuse of having received more votes, replaces the people, and decides, without ever asking for an opinion, from whoever gave them the power of representation.

In this regard, we respond again to those who tell us that we, in certain countries, would not be legal, because the Constitution makes elected political representatives free to decide, without being influenced by anyone. All these Constitutions were created to try to prevent dictatorial systems, but they will have to be modified in order to allow every political force to carry out every order received from its voters. Otherwise, all we do is make legal the theft of power, to the detriment of the people, by the old political parties.

An emblematic case of how traditional politics thinks.

One of the "leaders" of a political force, with whom we spoke, told us, in a derogatory way, not only towards us, but also towards his own voters, that we are anti-politics, and populists, because we take away from the political forces, power, to give it to our voters. Here, we certainly do more politics than in any other political force, and not only that, but it is also of a better, fairer and more honest quality. If "being populist" means being on the side of the people, of all the people, without any preference, we are proud to be populists.

But this party leader, who we are not naming, because he does not deserve to have his name, and that of his political force, in one of our articles, in addition to believing in a superficial and false way that he has offended us, said: DirectDemocracyS, it's very dangerous! He asked us, ironically: how does any housewife, or a simple person, propose, choose, and decide on the various political activities in the various institutions? According to him, we need political forces, and competent political representatives, and certainly not citizens, who are not competent in everything, and risk making the wrong choice.

It would also be a partially sensible speech if he hadn't said: "political forces and competent political representatives are needed", and therefore discriminating against every citizen from the possibility of engaging in politics and deciding. The traditional party leader was kindly invited by our political representative to make public the exchange of messages with us, to let each of his voters and all people know the low regard he has for them, and for their power to decide. The housewife, or the simple citizen, for this "political leader", only counts on the day of the vote, and then for many years, he and his political force decide, instead of the people, why the voters "would be" incompetent.

Are the traditional political forces, and their political representatives, all competent, and specialists, on any topic? If that were the case, we would live in a "heaven on earth", we wouldn't have any problems, and we at DirectDemocracyS might not even have to exist. Instead, if we look at reality, the serious mistakes and stupid things they do, both the political forces and their political representatives, who often don't even know how to speak correctly, don't have a minimum of culture, and often, not even the necessary education, we realize, that competence, equality, and meritocracy are almost always absent in other "traditional" political forces.

DirectDemocracyS has always used groups of specialists, with verified qualifications, to inform in an honest, loyal, correct, complete, free and independent way, not only all our political representatives (very carefully chosen), but also each of our members, to always decide, at any time, in the best way. Our experts, in addition to informing, present predictions on the consequences of every possible choice, obviously leaving the power to decide to our members.

We are ready to make a bet: the least competent of our members, with the help of our experts, is more educated, on every topic, than the most competent political representative, of all the other political forces.

Therefore, every choice we make is always the best, for the good of all, it is not made at random, but only after careful collective work. One of our rules obliges us to always choose, in the collective interest of the entire population, and not just of our members. And we respect all our rules.

When a voter votes, he decides whether to let one political force win, or another, and whether to elect a political candidate, or another.

When a voter votes for one of our political representatives and for DirectDemocracyS, he decides to maintain control and the power to decide directly.

We don't win, but all our voters always win.

If we think about it for a moment, the management of a country's wealth, with DirectDemocracyS, is used for the common good, for sustainable economic growth, for the good of all, always starting to help people and businesses, most difficulty. Each of our official members can control, at any time, through our groups, the management of every penny.

With the other political forces, "your" representatives, they manage all the wealth, and the power to decide for the population does not exist, and the control is often done by "bodies", appointed by the political forces themselves. And so, cases of corruption and waste of public money abound.

4. Conclusions.

When you choose who to vote for, think carefully about what we tell you and what others tell you. Think carefully about the promises, the political programs (which in DirectDemocracyS, are decided by the voters), and make a comparison between the various proposals.

When you choose to vote for us, and to join us, re-read this article, and all the others, and be the first to check that every sentence, and every single word, are actually put into practice, exactly, as we wrote it.

Time will prove us right, because we are sure that we are always on the right side, the side of all citizens, so we are always on your side.

Have we already told you that we want to change and improve the world together?

And that we always rely on logic, common sense, truth, and mutual respect for all people?

And that we have a politically perfect ideology, which takes and unites the few good things from every ideology, completely eliminating every negative aspect?

And that we are the exclusive property of whoever joins us?

And that there is not, and will never be a leader, but that each of our members, together with the others, create a shared leadership, in which we all decide together?

And that we work in groups, based on coordinated activities, based on skills?

That equality is always combined with meritocracy, and is guaranteed for everyone, forever?

And that we always divide the task of political representative from that of managing our political organization?

And that we will have new, young, honest, and competent political representatives, helped, in a loyal way, by experienced official representatives (who manage our political organization)?

Surely, we have told you everything, we have explained many things to you, and we have certainly made you reflect on the real situation of politics. Now it's up to you to choose.

DirectDemocracyS, is your political innovation, alternative, truly in every sense!