FAQ-En

It is not the randomly selected citizens who will create the laws. They will express their vision of what the law should represent, and lawyers will transcribe this vision into legal text under the supervision of the randomly selected citizens.

Amendment, means amending a law.

Summary:
Democracy is often perceived as being in crisis, or even non-existent, due to the disproportionate influence of lobbies, corruption, media manipulation, economic inequalities, and repression of dissent.

Some argue that it never truly existed, dominated by a ruling elite, offering an illusion of choice and manipulating public opinion.

Despite these criticisms, democracy remains reformable. However, citizen engagement is crucial to revitalize and improve current political systems. The goal is to promote a TRUE democracy through active and informed citizen involvement, as proposed by this site.

Detailed Version:
Democracy NO LONGER EXISTS!
1. Erosion of Civil Rights: Individual freedoms and civil rights are increasingly restricted by laws and security measures. (In general, anti-terrorism laws are used to restrict the individual liberties of the entire population.)
2. Corruption and Lobby Influence: Large corporations and interest groups have disproportionate power over political decisions, overshadowing the voice of ordinary citizens.
3. Biased Media: The media is often controlled by particular interests, limiting access to impartial and objective information. Hence, there is an absolute necessity to receive a plurality of information from all stakeholders.
4. Influences on the Internet: Fake news and conspiracy theories deal an extremely damaging blow to all countries worldwide, particularly democracies. To counter this, Decision-Making Citizens’ Assembly (DCAs) are obligated to receive a variety of information from all stakeholders, with speakers required to cite sources or justify what has been asserted, or clearly state that it is an impression mounting on the ground. Receiving clear and firsthand information will be a mark of quality vis-à-vis DACs and, ultimately, of trust.
5. Economic Inequalities: Growing disparities between the rich and poor reduce citizens’ ability to participate equally in democracy. Thus, within the framework of our democracy improvement efforts, there is a need for temporary social rebalancing among randomly selected citizens.
6. Repression of Dissent: Governments often suppress protest movements and dissenters, thereby limiting freedom of expression and assembly, leading some citizens to despair of ever seeing improvements.

Democracy DOES NOT EXIST!
1. Power Elite: Only a small elite truly governs, influenced by lobbyists, regardless of the popular will expressed through elections.
2. Illusion of Choice: Elections create the illusion of choice, but the options available to voters are often limited and controlled by the same economic and political interests.
3. Capitalism and Democracy: Capitalism’s dominance prevents true democracy, as financial interests dominate politics. (USA!)
4. Disconnect of Elected Officials: Elected officials are often disconnected from the realities and needs of ordinary citizens, making decisions based on their own interests or those of their funders.
5. Lack of Political Education: A poorly informed or misinformed population cannot participate knowledgeably in democracy. Hence, ADCs are obligated to thoroughly inform themselves at the beginning of the process.
6. Manipulation and Propaganda: Manipulating public opinion through propaganda and disinformation campaigns undermines genuine democratic decision-making. Companies specializing in mass manipulation use Big Data to target groups extensively through social networks. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this manipulation becomes personalized.

Reflections

The arguments put forward by those who say that democracy no longer exists or never existed highlight real and worrying problems in many current political systems.

• Democracy in Crisis: It is possible to see democracy as being in crisis rather than completely absent. In my view, only TRUE citizen involvement will save democracies from autocracies and dictatorships. The latter want to change global governance to be based on the oppression or domination of peoples instead of promoting individual freedoms, which are dear to democracies.

• Potentialities of Democracy: Despite the criticisms, democracy remains reformable and therefore, improvements are possible. Citizens can and must engage to correct the deviations and strengthen democratic mechanisms. This is exactly what this site proposes.

• Citizen Participation: Encouraging the broadest possible citizen participation to get as many people as possible to commit to TRUE democracy. Many of the current shortcomings will be addressed by citizens through the Decision-Making Citizens’ Assemblies (DCA). Engagement and hope for a better democracy are essential to maintain and vitalize democracy.

Declaring that democracy no longer exists or has never existed could also serve to mobilize efforts to create the reforms and improvements necessary for the creation of TRUE Democracy.

YES, because they should only focus on one topic. When I was around the yellow vests, I was impressed by the conversations they had.

Summary: Humanly speaking, politicians cannot know everything.
The people who are drawn will inform themselves in a comprehensive way, discuss it internally and get far better informed results than any decision-maker or party can do.

Detailed version: Parliamentarians and government have hundreds of different topics to deal with. Humanly and because of time constraints, they cannot properly manage all the files. Hence the lobbying of parties and parliamentarians.

Citizens drawn will receive comprehensive information on a given topic, which politicians cannot do for the hundreds of topics they have to deal with.

The draw can ask questions to the experts in real time. Then, in the second stage, that is during internal discussions, all points will be reviewed. If necessary, it is always possible to ask for clarification from those responsible for the searches on the Internet, or contact the speaker or another expert for additional information.

NO, the speakers, invited by the Decision-making Citizen’s Assemblies (DCA), have a very specific and targeted expertise in their field. They are imbued, live in their respective bubbles. They have interest in explaining clearly their vision. Ditto if they had to give the same explanations to parliamentarians*. So a certain competence in the popularization of the theme will be a plus for the speakers.

*In general, it is not specialists but lobbyists who explain to parliamentarians and parties the vision of large companies. This results in a biased view of reality, depending on the result expected by large companies.

If there is one, he will be inclined, consciously or unconsciously, to want to influence other members too much. Some will let go and rely on his theses, others will have a tendency to rebuff. In both cases, the results will always be lower than those of groups working without a specialist.

In any case, the specialists will still be involved, but only on invitation from the DCAs.

It is a popular belief that is tenacious and false. Of course, with the years of experience they gain political experience where the lure of profit and power becomes stronger and stronger. But in reality, what counts is not what we know or what we think we know, but to be attentive to those who have different and complementary specialized expertise. Then synthesize. This is the first two phases for any DCA. Learning and then internal discussions.

Politicians do not have the time or ability to do everything, so they rely too much on biased advice from lobbies. And that is no longer acceptable in a real democracy.

When democracy was created in Athens, five centuries before our era, the people were not elected but made decisions. There was no representative as such. (Direct democracy that lasted 300 years!)

The members of an ACD represent the diversity of the population, which is not at all the case of parliamentarians, who are also influenced by lobbying, money and party ideology. All its influences are detrimental to the good development of a country.
So the diversity of CDA members means that they are quite legitimate to make decisions, which are not influenced by lobbies, money and party ideology.
Listening to experts from all sides will shape the plurality of knowledge and the ensuing discussions will allow for the best decisions for the population, businesses and the country. This mechanism makes the drawn, as global “experts“.

The results provided by CDA are far better than decisions resulting from ideology (Chair) or guided by ideological constraints (Parliamentarians).

Finally, the quality and accuracy of the laws provided by the ACD must be far more important than the fact that the drawn ones are not elected.

Résumé : The Decision-Making Citizens’ Assemblies (DCA) allow citizens to become global “experts” on specific topics through a process of learning and deliberation.
This expertise makes DCA citizens more qualified than parliamentarians and government to make informed decisions, because they lack the time to acquire such in-depth knowledge and are influenced by lobbies and political ideologies.

Clearly, the DCAs have every legitimacy to have the last word, in front of parliamentarians and the government.

Detailed version: On the side of the Decision-maker Citizen’s Assemblies (DCA), after the information and learning phase, there are internal deliberations. These two processes will build a general, in-depth knowledge of the subject. Citizens of the DCA become global “experts” on the subject, thanks to this overview.

It is this expertise that makes them legitimate to have the last word with parliaments or government.

Given the above, the government and parliamentarians will never be able to claim such a level of expertise. The main reasons are:

• Time constraints will never allow them to follow all the learning from different DCA’s.
• Internal discussions not accessible to anyone outside the DCA. (Respect for confidentiality of discussions)

It is clear that the government and parliamentarians will only be able to have a partial view of each subject.

Let us not forget that today, the government and parliamentarians do not have the necessary control over the issues at all, which is why they rely on the biased advice of lobbyists, but also on party or government ideologies*.

However, thanks to the learning phase of the DCAs, parliamentarians will also be able to learn by reading the summaries of the briefings received by the DCAs.

*Note:
Politicians need to follow an ideology to know which trends or directions they will have to take. This is also how they lose contact with the population and find themselves above ground

This question would merit being asked at a Decision Making Citizen’s Assembly (DCA) to find good rules or framework in parliaments.

Assumption: For an amendment to be submitted to the DCA, it would need at least 10% of the members of parliament AND three political groups to support it.

The purpose of this approach is to avoid drowning the ACDs with thousands of amendments which, in most cases, have no real justification, only filibustering. In France, there are sometimes more than 100,000 amendments. These rules, which are somewhat restrictive, serve to reduce the number of amendments and improve their relevance and quality.

Some people will think that this assumption is too restrictive! Perhaps the ideal would be to find a middle ground, which is what an DCA can do.

If the block of laws, to which the amendment belongs, was accepted by the DCA at 80% or more, an optional referendum is still possible. (Request for a referendum, collect signatures and meet deadlines.)

If the block of legislation was accepted by the DCA with less than 80%, then there will be an automatic referendum. (No request or collection of signatures.)

These minor changes are handled by the permanent DCA.

However, if it was a DCA that created the offending laws, then there is a special process that will be put in place:
The people who were drawn and who had participated directly in the creation of the block where the laws to be amended are located, these people will be called to constitute a reduced DCA. Initially, a discussion will be held between the initiators of the amendments and the reduced DCA. If necessary, the DCA will call on experts to provide a new overview of the subject. Then the process will continue as for a regular ACD.

Short version: The group of citizens who have been members of the DCA and who have worked on the block of laws affected by the new amendment or modification will be convened to reflect on the problem. (This group will work as a one-time DCA.)

Follow-up with the detailed version: DCA elders are best placed to analyze the relevance of proposed changes, no one else. The DCA elders are like global “experts” on the subject they had dealt with. As such, they must be seen as a key value and have a significant influence on the final decision. The group can even become a counsellor to the Parliament and the Government in relation to the block in question.
You notice that I’m talking about the group and not the citizens. I insist on the word “group”, because citizens belonging to this group have always worked in collegiality and it must remain so. Because it is the Collective Intelligence (CI) of the group that makes their strength and not the individuality.

If you are not fully satisfied with this answer, see the FAQ “We will not create an ACD just for one or a few changes to the law? Gender fit.”

Small note:
The elders of an DCA will be happy to answer. This will demonstrate the seriousness and legitimacy of the DCA. Suddenly people will believe more and more in this new form of true democracy and it will strengthen the resistance of democracies to extremes. In the long run, with true democracy, extremes should either collapse or shrink to a skin of sorrow. They will no longer be a danger to true democracies.

This is what we call the logrolling of laws.

The Citizen House (CH) must watch over the grain, monitoring the creation of laws over several years. If there is a suspicion, it must respond by stopping new requests, to see whether or not to create a one-time DCA to address all the legislation on the subject in question, or continue with a permanent DCA.

Note: If laws had already been created by a one-time DCA, for this new one-time DCA, all citizens will be new.

No, I think it’s a bad idea. What bothers me is that we are once again entering into the ways of a parliament that cannot control all subjects. As is already the case for the current Government and Parliaments. To my knowledge, the only two specific characteristics of these citizens is that they know how DCAs work because they are all from DCAs and sit for less time than elected officials. This lack of control over the subjects, risks pushing them into the arms of lobbies if these are not banned.

YES, but the most accurate representation of the population in the territory where the DCA will be created is required. This representativeness can only be respected by creating quotas, which means that we are dealing with a “controlled or directed chance”.
For more information, see the FAQ “What is meant by “random” and is the draw representative?”

Example in the case of the citizen convention in France.
Initially 30,000 people were drawn. Of this sample, 6,000 received a text message asking if they would be interested in participating in the convention? 1,000 responded positively. In the end 155 were drawn. There were 5 more to deal with last minute disclaimers.

Yes, it seems too little. But if it is a small municipality, it could play.
For more information, see the FAQ “What is meant by “random” and is the draw representative?”
In Geneva, a citizens’ forum was organized with only 30 citizens for a population of just under 300’000 inhabitants!

Source in French : usbeketrica.com/fr/article/chambre-conventions-citoyennes-bon-outil-democratique
Random directed or controlled.

Summary: To allow a representativeness closer to the reality of the territory concerned by the Decision-making Citizens’ Assembly (DCA), the draw must be controlled. This will prevent some people, if they are few in number or tend not to want to participate, from being under-represented using the quota method.

In my opinion: Initially, the participants do not know what topic will be dealt with. But once the person has agreed to participate in any DCA, participation becomes mandatory.

Detailed version: A form of chance directed that Mathilde Imer, co-president of Open Democracy and member of the governance committee of the Convention Citoyenne, explains to us: If one wanted a statistically representative assembly, it would need more than 1000 people. That’s what the Belgian democratic platform G1000 did. The problem is that such a number undermines the quality of deliberation. By increasing to 150, the quota method still makes it possible to be representative.
…

“Without quotas, people who agree to be drawn would therefore be less representative.”

Although the resulting population is not perfectly representative, the selected casts are drawn from a much more diverse sample of citizens than parliamentarians. The French National Assembly has 76% of senior executives and intellectual professions, 4.4 times more than their share in the population, according to the Observatoire des inégalités. On the contrary, no member of parliament is today a worker, compared to 10% among citizens participating in the Convention Citoyenne, which is about the same proportion of workers as in the entire French population. (Article published on 3 July 2020.)

If the draw is therefore a progress in terms of socio-demographic representativeness, it says nothing about the ideological preferences of participants. … To prevent people from agreeing or not to participate in a citizen’s meeting, it is sufficient to make participation mandatory* for those drawn by lot. “This is the case for jurors drawn by lot,” notes Imer. “This would ensure maximum representativeness.”
*In my opinion, the draws should not know the subject matter of the DCA. Once the individual has agreed to participate in any DCA, participation becomes mandatory regardless of the topic they will be dealing with.

Summary: It is only after accepting the principle of participating in a any  Decision-making Citizen’s Assembly (DCA) that participation becomes mandatory.

Detailed version: At the very beginning of the process, a lot of people are drawn to just find out if they would agree to participate in any DCA? Upon acceptance to participate in ACD, participation becomes mandatory.

As soon as the Citizen’s House (CH) wants to create a DCA, it will draw lots among all the people who had agreed to participate in a DCA. This will allow the process to start working only at 50%. The lack of knowledge of the subject to be treated, will have avoided that the drawn accept only according to the subject.

Reminder: there must NOT be any specialists or experts on the subject to be covered in the DCA.

To answer this question, let us take two concrete examples.

1) Geneva Citizens’ Forum (Switzerland), for a urbanism respectful of nature and to face climate change. Coordination by Professor Nenad Stojanović of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Geneva 2020-2021.

Source : https://forumcitoyen.ch/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/forum-citoyen_avis-final.pdf

The selection of citizens was based on a two-stage draw, called “stratified” draw.

The first draw selected 3,000 people from the municipal electoral lists. Then, 360 people have indicated their willingness to participate in this process. They completed a questionnaire to provide the following information: gender, age, commune of residence, nationality, owner or tenant, level of education, income class.

Based on these different criteria and the quotas of representativeness, a second draw was organised in public session to obtain a selection as representative as possible of the microcosm of the Geneva society.

2) Citizen’s Convention for the Climate in France. By the Harris Interactive institute in 2019.

Source : https://www.conventioncitoyennepourleclimat.fr/comment-sont-ils-selectionnes/

Method: Draw from a population of ~300,000. 15% landline and 85% text calls. In order to have 150 people at the end.

Representativeness criteria: Gender, with 51% women and 49% men.
Age, 6 age groups from 16 years.

Degree level: 6 levels were selected. Special attention is paid to the need for a fair presence of non-graduates.

Socio-occupational categories: reflecting the diversity of CSP (workers, employees, managers…). People in extreme poverty will also be present.

Type of territories: respect for the distribution of people according to the type of territories where they live (major urban centres, second crown, rural communes…). People from priority neighbourhoods (QPV) will also be present.

Geographical area: distribution of the French population in metropolitan (Region) and ultra-marine territory.
To ensure the impartiality of the draw, the process was subject to a bailiff’s supervision, under the supervision of the Guarantors and the Committee of governance of the Convention citoyenne.

Note: The representativeness of the members of this convention was much more consistent than that of parliaments. For example, no workers were represented in parliaments. The majority of parliamentarians are lawyers or doctors!

YES, because the members of the DCA represent diversity and are not influenced by lobbies, money or party ideology.

Deepening: 

In addition, the incredible luck of being drawn means that DCA members, with a unique sense of responsibility, will make it their business to do everything possible to succeed in the task assigned to them.

If the government or someone tries to influence citizens of the DCA, they have the obligation to report these actions to the Citizen’s House (CH). (As for the secrecy of the investigation.) The CH will not hesitate to file a complaint.

I’m sure you would react like that too. So why not think the same way for others?

RIC: Referendums and Citizens’ Initiatives. In Switzerland, Referendum and Popular Initiatives.
The question can be seen as two main reasons:

Summary: 1) People mistakenly think that the government is well aware and therefore voters (RIC) tend to follow what it proposes.

2) The population has only one month before the votes to ask for information. Because, usually, the media start to talk about it a month before the votes.

Citizen Decision-making Assemblies (CDA): They will increasingly have a positive influence on the population and people who vote in referendums (RICs) will more readily bring confidence to them than to politicians and the government.

Detailed version:
1) Politicians and government: The people wrongly believe that politicians know and can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, it is a hard-to-live belief. In reality they can never know everything, which is why it is relatively easy for lobbyists to convince parliamentarians, but also the parties. And let’s never forget that parties and parliamentarians follow ideologies, even if it can be against the people. In addition, parliamentarians must follow the guidelines issued by their parties. (There is virtually no independent parliamentarian.)

2) The population: during the voting, they have very little time to learn and often they are so busy in their daily life that they cannot go deeper. So she reads or listens to what the media and social networks say.
In articles or posters or advertisements, the explanations given are usually exaggerated as possible and suddenly the population seems that everyone seems to be right and confusion can set in. So, at the time of choice, it is sometimes more the personality of the speakers or personal ideology that can make the difference.

In some cases, if the government says something, many citizens believe that what they say must surely be right. And that is why people sometimes follow government guidelines, even if it goes against the common good.

The Decision Making Citizens’ Assemblies (DCA): In the future, the DCA will function radically differently from today’s politicians and governments.

Learning: The DCA will start by taking the time to learn as much as possible about the topic. Experts will follow one another and answer questions from the DCA. Stakeholders (experts) do not speak to the general public. However, at an DCA, they talk to citizens who are there for analysis work with the aim of creating laws that will impact the daily lives of their country’s citizens. So no question of using campaign slogans, but documented statements. In addition, the sorcerers are supported by scientific researchers who can confirm the statements of stakeholders and also answer questions that the DCA may have.

Debates: In a second stage, the DCA will debate internally by group on different issues to finally ask lawyers to «translate» their visions of what should be the law into laws.

As we have just seen, the full learning process is mandatory for CDAs. However, it does not exist among politicians, the population and popular assemblies. Discussions may well take place between politicians and lobbyists and among the public themselves, but they are not based on a solid and comprehensive basis. This difference in approach is fundamental to understand, as it is also what explains why CDA members become global “experts” on the subject being discussed. What politicians, the government and even less the general public will never be.

In the future, the population will have more and more confidence in the work of the DCAs and the people will tend to follow the proposals of the DCAs rather than those given by the government, parliaments and the «pub» on social networks.

All of this means that the DCAs will be in the best position to create, amend or repeal laws AND restore confidence in policy.

YES, if the request comes from the Ideas (SI) site, but also in case the parliament or government would ask for small changes over several years to avoid a general reform. In the latter case, another heading is to be seen: “What would happen if politicians were to divide changes of laws into several parts, in order to avoid the creation of a one-time DCA to settle the whole thing?”

Summary: From the Site of Ideas (IS).
Two conditions. 1) the idea must be constitutionally compatible and
2) the idea must be voted for by citizens within a specified time. (To be defined.)
If both conditions are positive, the Citizen’s House (CH) will create a DCA.
See below for more details, in case it is a change of the constitution or not.

Detailed version:
From the Ideas Site (IS), the project must be… :
1) …constitutionally compatible unless the purpose is precisely to change the constitution.

2) …voted by the citizens within a given time. It’s kind of like a collect of signatures. (The number of likes and the time frame are still to be determined.)

3) If the two above conditions are positive, the MC will act as follows:

• A) If the bill does not change the constitution, then the CH will create a DCA so that the change of laws can take place.
• B) If it is a change in constitution, then the CC will create a DCA to correct or create the constitutional articles.

If the author of the bill accepts the work done by the DCA, then in the end the people will vote to decide whether or not they accept the changes in the constitution.
If, on the other hand, the DCA and the author of the project cannot agree, then the project is cancelled. (The author can always create an Initiative to try to get the people to vote.)

• C) If the vote for the change of constitution is accepted by the people, then the CH creates a new DCA, to revise the laws already in force and bring them into conformity with the new constitution.

Liquid democracy is a democratic government where, for each election in the parliament, the voter has the option either to vote directly or to transfer his voting rights to a delegate of his choice. This principle is also valid for each delegate.

Summary: The main differences from my system are; Ordinary citizens can directly vote on laws or make a proxy to a delegate, the way of informing themselves for citizens is quite different and the impossibility, for delegates to know everything, as is already the case today for government and parliamentarians. This will restore the importance of lobbyists. Parliaments will no longer be needed. Parliamentarians will be replaced by delegates. Theoretically, anyone can become a delegate. It is enough for them to register as a delegate. It may even be that lobbyists and influencers become delegates!

Detailed version:
The main difference with my system is the knowledge citizens acquire at the end of the process. In a Citizen Decision Making Citizen’s Assembly (DCA), there is an obligation to inform oneself in a comprehensive manner (Learning). In the liquid case, citizens can vote directly or through a delegate with the knowledge that each one may have. No citizen or delegate has received prior information from the subject’s stakeholders in a structured and comprehensive manner as is the case in the first phase of an DCA’s work.

Ordinary citizens, like delegates or parliamentarians, cannot know all the subjects. That is why parliamentarians are so easily manipulated by lobbies. But citizens, like delegates, will be influenced by the information on social networks, which is partly provided by lobbies. It may even be that lobbyists and influencers become delegates. In my opinion, full transparency on delegate revenues should be put in place.

See the table of differences between a liquid democracy and the democracy advocated by this site in French.

In my view, both types of democracies are
DIRECT democracies

Additional information:
My system changes several democratic characteristics. Therefore, it is the whole that forms a whole. It is possible to improve the system in two steps, A then B, in case all of a sudden, would be too many changes! See general graph, under Doc Summary or overview.

I hope this brief explanation has helped you to better understand the main differences between the two systems.

They are already banned in public buildings. It is not possible to ban them completely, because of the right to differences of opinion dear to democracies and which must be preserved.

It is very difficult to prevent misinformation! And what criteria could we be based on?

The right to diversity of opinion is our wealth, but it can also be our weakness. It is precisely here that the powers of money (to enrich themselves even more) and the totalitarian powers, play a big part in destabilizing democracies from within… 

Only our common sense can save us.

As is already the case in autocracies or dictatorships…

A small example of what could happen to us, as in China, Russia (or even Hungary**? (2024)) where the mere fact of giving an opinion contrary to that desired by the government can be seen as sufficient reason to lead to the descent into hell, socially speaking, or in prison if the person does not recant.

**In relation to Hungary, Brussels launched on Wednesday 7 February 2024 an infringement procedure against a law incompatible with our common values of democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law. [… ] This would give the government «draconian tools that can be used to intimidate and punish people whose opinions are not shared by the ruling party» Fidesz.

Sources : Falun_Gong
Forced organ harvesting in China

Parliamentarians earn a basic salary and are full of bonuses.

Then YES, the drawn ones must receive an allowance, but under certain conditions.

All randomly selected persons continues to work at 50% from Monday to Wednesday morning and the balance will be paid by a no-gain insurance. To «reduce» the social differences between participants, some may receive an allowance inversely proportional to salary.

Not to lose sight of the fact that such work is a true dedication to the nation and must be recognized and supported.

For more information, see «What does the allowance inversely proportional to salary?»

Reminder: The randomly selected persons work 50% and the rest of the time, it is for the Decision-maker Citizens’ Assembly (DCA)

Answer: Let us assume that the compensation is 3,000 € per month. (4,000 CHF for Switzerland)

If the gross salary is higher than the allowance, the person randomly selected will not receive anything.

If the gross salary is less than the allowance, the person randomly selected will receive:

Allowance received = Allowance minus gross salary. (The allowance received will be divided by 4 so that it is received at each beginning of week.)

All justified expenses will be refunded to all participants.

NO. In any case, much less than the cost of representative systems. In addition, there are the costs of demonstrations and strikes that representative systems cause (by their non-representativeness among the people) in many countries.

But what is really important to remember is that through Decision-maker Citizens’ Assemblies (DCA) extreme ideas or ideologies will not be able to develop.

Fundamental freedoms and respect for citizens,
ARE PRICELESS.
They can only be secured through just and constructive laws for the nation.

Only citizens, DCAs can guarantee civil and political rights. Including the rights to physical integrity, freedom of thought, expression and assembly, the right to privacy and family life, the right to fair trial and the right to participate freely in political life.
Source: Fundamental rights: understanding and protecting essential freedoms. (In French)

Summary: NO, because they will be well informed, which is not the case for politicians and government. The randomly selected persons must denounce all pressures, wherever they come from.

Detailed version:

NO, because the people randomly selected to do so, they get a comprehensive information at the very beginning of their (public) mandate. Then the internal (secret*) discussions will put order in the ideas and solidify the achievements to finally do the best for the most fair laws possible.
*As in the judicial system where there is the secrecy of the investigation.

In addition, any pressure must be denounced at the Citizen’s House (CH).

Politicians are the ones who are influenced because of their inability to control all issues. On the one hand they must obey the party ideology, which allowed them to be elected and on the other hand they can accept to be influenced by the lobbies. The latter playing on two sides, parties and parliamentarians.

In this improvement of the political system, lobbies will be banned in public buildings. The population and politicians will be able to receive all information that the members of the Decision-maker Citizens’ Assemblies have received.

NON, car les tirés au sort, s’ils ont de la chance, ne pourront que travailler pour la vraie démocratie qu’une ou deux fois dans une vie. Pour ceux qui ont beaucoup de chance, ce sera trois fois ! De plus la corruption étant interdite, les tirés au sort y mettront un point d’honneur, à dénoncer toute tentative. Dénonciation qui sera faite à la maison citoyenne (MC) et elle décidera de la suite à donner judiciairement. Les privés, l’État et les politiciens risquent trop gros pour prendre un tel risque.

Politicians are corruptible because they make it a professional career and their position gives them some power. As such, corruption is good for making more money and gaining more power.

Almost everyone gets opinions on almost everything.

For those who may fear that they will not be up to the task, free courses will be offered to enable the population to participate actively in REAL democracy. In addition, secure hardware will be made available anyway. (Smart phone, laptop, mailbox, software, etc.)

Yes, that would be good. But actually NO! The people who are randomly selected must be able to speak freely, even if they have to say nonsense without feeling bad because they would be filmed or recorded.

The opponents would be happy to discredit the Decision-maker Citizens’ Assemblies (DCA) by making public and out of context, any disturbing statement. The DCA should not be pressured. They must feel free to be effective and deliver good results.

Abstract: Colonial history is fraught with abuse of all kinds. The martyred peoples do not just need excuses, but above all they must be accompanied by tangible facts, equal to equal, in order to allow poor countries to really recover.

See how to do this by searching for the keyword «Sankara», in the FAQ.

Detailed version:
There are more and more people who refuse the idea, as we would have behaved badly during the multiple colonizations. The colonized have suffered so much in their flesh that such denial makes any reconciliation impossible. But like the USSR, then Russia have always supported the rebel groups of independences, Russia has a very deeply rooted soil of sympathy.

China does not have this historical advantage, but thanks to its dollars and the desire to invest, some countries are opening up to China. In a show on Arte, an African said that the railway built under French occupation was built in blood. On the other hand this new railway was built by the Chinese in «collaboration» with us. I put collaboration between quotation marks, because the Chinese bring their workers from China and do not use local labor! This means that no financial fallout is made in the country’s economy. It is difficult to talk about collaboration or win-win in these conditions.

In short, all this to say that as long as we do not act in the sense of a real recognition of our harmful actions of the past and as long as we do nothing to raise the countries of poverty, then the West will be seen as profiteers who want to keep countries in poverty so that they can better continue to exploit them. A kind of looting of wealth that fills the pockets of shareholders and keeps prices artificially low, in our country, in the West.

It is true that the colonies were not created by democracies, but by kingdoms or dictatorships. For on the whole, although several colonial powers had parliamentary or constitutional institutions, they were not complete democracies, because political rights were reserved to a minority. Colonialism itself was in contradiction with democratic principles, because the colonized populations generally had no political rights and were governed in an authoritarian manner.

Democracies came much later. While they were learning to act democratically in the West, they continued to behave as dictatorships in the face of colonized peoples. It is this contradiction that makes democracies responsible for the problems and why they are frowned upon.

I will let you see how to try to overcome these harmful attitudes by doing a search in the FAQs with the keyword «Sankara».

Finding:

The root of these discontents comes from disastrous colonial attitude of our past. The only remedy is a true awareness accompanied by genuine respectful cooperation and therefore equal to equal.

See below, under the “Democratic Vision and Political Program of Thomas Sankara“, how to put into practice this real cooperation that will become a restorative cooperation of the past.

Detailed version:

In the wars of aggression or influence between Russia and China, democracies are destabilized from inside and outside. Mainly due to past attitudes that consisted of not wanting to leave our colonies and abusing them. Could we not resolve this human and financial dispute by asking the right questions that upset? But above all by responding to it with real, sincere and concrete actions:

• Why do the colonizing countries and Europe as a whole not take their responsibilities and recognize that we have enriched ourselves on the backs of these countries while deliberately creating lasting harm?

• Why do we not sincerely and with heart, pardon?

• These pardons must be accompanied by compensation for these countries by building, by the population and not necessarily by companies (to reduce the risk of corruption), infrastructures, health clinics, schools, etc.? (With strict expenditure control)

• And above all, why do we not revise commercial contracts on new bases, from equal to equal, thus paying the raw materials at a fair price?

Let us resume our relations on a good footing and denounce the contracts that bind us with these countries and which had been signed under the duress of blackmail during decolonizations. 

One bad (far too widespread) and destructive way of doing things is to keep countries as poor as possible and to put them in the poorest debt. Poor people will not want to stand against the oppressor and against the huge class difference that fuels greed and creates a breeding ground for crime and gangs. So it is difficult, under these conditions, to unite against the oppressors. Moreover, excessive indebtedness is a new form of colonization.

We must stop doing that and accept that these countries can develop properly, while promoting a healthy democracy. Why not, the real democracy contained in this site.

China has understood this and is using a very different approach to ours. The “winner-winner” one, buying the wealth of these countries in a more equitable way.

TWO ICONS AND THEIR VISIONS
Nelson Mandela and Thomas Sankara
How democracies could achieve a more humane approach:

The two emblematic figures acted for the good of their respective peoples. The former fully used the democratic tool, but not the latter!

Mr. Nelson MANDELA had achieved the unthinkable: to get out of apartheid while reconciling, not without difficulty, whites and South Africans. His main vision was to eliminate all racist laws at once to avoid an inevitable frustration in the face of the small steps wanted by the president Frederik de KLERK at the time.

Another emblematic figure, Mr Thomas SANKARA from Burkina Faso. Big failing, he came to power by a coup! But I mention it here to show how the West could do this in order to really support Africa effectively and at a low cost. If western democracies REALLY give themselves the means to succeed, in partnership with African countries, the image of democracies would change and they could become respectable in the eyes of the peoples of Africa, as opposed to Russia and China.

Democratic Vision and Political Program of Thomas Sankara

He was against ballot papers, but supported the handvoting in villages for decision making and elections. His opposition to the ballot papers was practical. Because there were more than 94% of the population who were illiterate. In these circumstances, ballots are unusable.

It is not comparable, but in Switzerland there are also two cantons that vote by show of hands.

Mr Sankara used to say, about the training of soldiers: «A military WITHOUT political training is a CRIMINAL in power».

For four years he pushed his political agenda, including by suppressing some trade unions and opposition parties [which should never be done].

Its political agenda is:
• A national emancipation policy using the internal forces of the country (its motto: preach by example. Rely on the population to build what the people need and not necessarily on companies),

• development of the country (roads, housing (one year’s rent offered), schools and health center were built by the populations themselves),

• Environmental protection (first politician in the world (1983), having become aware of climate change caused by humans. He emphasizes the sacredness of the environment in the action of the country. Ten million trees planted in fifteen months),

• de lutte contre la corruption (la bonne gouvernance devient l’un des piliers de sa politique et sa lutte anticorruption devient l’une de ses priorités),

• Women’s Liberation (called the feminist (me too), he appoints women to key ministries. According to him, It is inconceivable to succeed by depriving oneself of half of humanity. Thousands of motorcycles are offered to women every year. There is the woman’s week and the day of the market obligatory for men),

• Education (enrolment rate increases from 6% to 25% in 4 years. People who can read and write must teach several people).

• He is successful in eradicating hunger in the country, a fact that has been welcomed by international bodies.

For more information on Thomas SANKARA, see this site or the documentary of Genevan Christophe CUPELIN «Captain Thomas Sankara» in French.

Some quotes and visions, to understand, through “practice”, how to improve our relations with Africa effectively… :

«What is democracy for you?
Democracy cannot be conceived WITHOUT the transfer of all forms of power to the people, economic, military, political, social and cultural power.”

Thomas Sankara and true-democracy.info

«Any economic action must have an ecological component»

Thomas Sankara

«We do not make fundamental transformations without a minimum of madness.
In this case, cella becomes non-conformism, the courage to turn your back on known formulas, that of inventing the future…»

Thomas Sankara

«My salary reveals a net of 138’736 CFA francs per month. (about 230 Euros)
I also own three guitars. I quote them because I value them highly.»

Thomas Sankara

Speech by Thomas Sankara to the 25th Conference of the Organization of African Unity in Addis Abbeba, Ethiopia, 29 July 1987

«Debt cannot be repaid!
If we don’t pay, our funders will not die. Let’s be sure.
But if we pay, we will die! Let us be sure.»

Speech by Thomas Sankara

Speech by Thomas Sankara to the UN General Assembly in NY, 4 October 1984 (partial text)

“… I’m not just speaking for Burkina Faso, but also for all those who are hurting somewhere.

• I speak for the millions of people who are in ghettos because they are black or from different cultures.

• I suffer on behalf of the massacred, crushed, humiliated and confined Indians for centuries in reserves [USA]…

• I speak for women around the world who suffer from a male-imposed system of exploitation… Only the struggle frees and we call on all our sisters of all races to come up to the assault for the conquest of their rights.

• I speak for the mothers of our poor countries, who see their children die from malaria or diarrhea, unaware that there are simple ways to save them that the science of multinationals does not offer … We decided to adopt and popularize the WHO and UNICEF recommendations.

• I also speak for the child. The child of the poor who is hungry and sneaks into the abundance amassed in a shop for the rich. …

• My thoughts go to all those affected by the destruction of nature and to those thirty million men who will die as every year, killed by the formidable weapon of hunger.

• I speak on behalf of artists (poets, painters, sculptors, musicians, actors), [good men] who see their art prostituted for the alchemy of show-business prestidigitations.

• I protest on behalf of athletes around the world whose muscles are exploited by modern political systems or stadium slavery traders.

• I shout on behalf of journalists who are either silenced or lied to avoid the harsh laws of unemployment.

• I am speaking on behalf of the unemployed in a structurally unjust and cyclically distorted system, reduced to perceiving life as only a reflection of that of the most affluent.

• I vibrate naturally on behalf of the sick who anxiously scrutinize the horizons of a science monopolized by the canon merchants.

• Militar, no puedo olvidar a este soldado obedeciendo órdenes, con el dedo en el gatillo, y quién sabe que la bala que va a salir solo lleva el mensaje de la muerte.

• I rise here on behalf of all those who vainly seek in what forum of this world they will be able to make their voice heard and taken into consideration. [I am one of those who vainly seek to make my voice heard. No media in French-speaking Switzerland has disdained to be interested in my voice, my message. Not even a weekly in Geneva (GHI), known for its independence and not afraid of the truth or controversy. Only the monthly of the commune of Meyrin (Geneva Switzerland) was interested, but without any explanation, it did not happen. Despite my multiple reminders… My goal was not to talk directly about my citizen political improvement project, but just about a trip (in French) I made from Geneva to Ukraine by scooter 125cc to bring my modest help to a people in distress. ]

• Finally, I want to be indignant thinking of the Palestinians who have chosen to replace another people, once again martyred at their leisure. …

My country is a concentrate of all the misfortunes of peoples, a painful synthesis of all the sufferings of humanity, but also and above all of the hopes of our struggles.” [of our actions. ]

Speech of Thomas Sankara

Official full version of the speech at the UN. (In French)
Full version, but containing only the part of the speech seen above. (In French)