Does Venezuela need "Managed" or "Sovereign" Democracy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm borrowing here, ironically, from the Putin experience in Russia, but does Venezuela need "managed" or "sovereign" democracy to further the Bolivarian political and social revolution?

Imagine this scenario, not unlike Lenin's "two Bolshevik parties" idea ("However, eventually we will have a two-party system such as the British have--a left party and a right party--but two Bolshevik parties, of course"), Stalin's botched but rather sincere attempt at single-party but multi-candidate elections in 1946 (emerging out of the war with high popularity), or the official Popular Front governments in Eastern Europe back in the day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front#List_of_Popular_Fronts): a more or less four-party parliamentary system committed to "Bolivarian socialism" and "socialism of the 21st century."

The big populist party on the "right" appeals economically to the fringes of left-wing social democracy, but has the sense to nationalize the banking system and such. Think Die Linke. Socially, however, this big party is the relatively conservative "Party of Order," and would continue things like the ban on violent video games.

The big populist party on the "left" appeals more economically to the Yugoslav model, and might have Minsky and Meidner to tackle structural unemployment and working-class savings (including income-to-asset redistributions), respectively. Socially, this big party is the relatively liberal "Party of Liberty."

The third party stands in between the two big parties, and is in fact a "Labour" party - obviously one not trapped in dead ends like British Labourism (given my mention of Linke-ism as the most right-wing boundary) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dont-move-left-t141017/index.html?p=1855687). This "Labour" party's purpose is to serve mainly as a significant coalition partner to either of the two big populist "parties of power," like Ferdinand Lassalle's long-term orientation when faced with the choice of Bismarck and the bourgeois liberals, and like the more mainstream Green parties in Europe today (coalition partners to either center-left or center-right senior partners).

[EDIT: The "third party" position need not necessarily be a monopoly held be some "Labour" party. Green parties, IP reform parties, and other special-interest parties could occupy this position, as well.]

The fourth party or limited group of fourth parties are communist parties of various backgrounds. Most importantly, they can be traditional Communist parties in allowing non-worker intellectuals, self-employed consultants/artisans/generic service providers, sharecroppers, etc. in, or they can also be communist worker parties in not doing so, orienting themselves towards the proletariat or the broader strata of prole classes. These parties refuse coalitions with any of the three parties unless the minimum demands of the DOTP are met (full replacement of judges by juries, average skilled workers' wage, separate sovereign socioeconomic governments, instant recallability, militias, media democracy, etc.).

"Social-democratic" and further-right parties would at least be taboo or given more serious haranguing (or bans) by the Miraflores, much like what the Kremlin does to liberal opposition groups.

Thoughts?

[Q]

what's the point? You say "These parties refuse coalitions with any of the three parties unless the minimum demands of the DOTP are met", indicating that this system you're talking about is not the DOTP. So what's the point of devicing this pre-DOTP stage?

[Dimentio]

It is actually a quite good system in practice to reach goals and at the same time keep stability, but putinism has yet not been tested for any progressive goals, except for somewhat in terms of foreign policy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

what's the point? You say "These parties refuse coalitions with any of the three parties unless the minimum demands of the DOTP are met", indicating that this system you're talking about is not the DOTP. So what's the point of devicing this pre-DOTP stage?

This is for Chavez and his "acolytes" to enact, not for revolutionaries. Now, the opposing liberals might say, "But this is no different from other two-party systems!" But look at their hypocrisy! [Well, look at the hypocrisy of "socialist" implementation of "managed" democracy, too, but the key difference is more common ideological commitment on the part of all the parties.]

[Dimentio]

This is for Chavez and his "acolytes" to enact, not for revolutionaries. Now, the opposing liberals might say, "But this is no different from other two-party systems!" But look at their hypocrisy! [Well, look at the hypocrisy of "socialist" implementation of "managed" democracy, too, but the key difference is more common ideological commitment on the part of all the parties.]

As well as to ensure that the "middle" not waver to the right.

What Venezuela would need the most though is more neighbouring countries pursuing the same course and a closer integration with those which are doing it.

[Demogorgon]

It is almost impossible to manage a party system like that appearing because the process of forming parties takes some time and there usually has to be a few splits and mergers before the realignment is complete. The notion of banning other parties is also just silly. If you want to maintain a system with only four parties or so, you could implement a relatively high electoral threshold, such as the 7% one in Russia, but that leads to vast numbers of people wasting their vote and feeling disenfranchised.

Really though any attempt to "manage" democracy leads to a political elite emerging. Such a system would make it impossible for the policies of the fourth party you mentioned to actually be implemented, short of starting the whole revolutionary process over again.

I have myself wondered what a multi-party DOTP type situation might look like. I concluded that it would probably involve the two biggest parties differing on the speed and depth of the transition, one wanting to take a more slow and steady approach, and the other wanting to change things as quickly as possible. Amongst the other parties I presumed the largest would be one with an environmental focus, concern about pollution is one of those things that won't simply go away with a Revolution I am afraid. Apart from that I reckon there would be a fair number of other minor parties generally appealing to particular interests and such, that is a coming and going of parties promoting particular "issues" that happen to be in vogue at any given time.

I think that is a more realistic model as it is more likely to develop of its own accord and doesn't attempt to restrict smaller parties from forming.

[Dimentio]

It is almost impossible to manage a party system like that appearing because the process of forming parties takes some time and there usually has to be a few splits and mergers before the realignment is complete. The notion of banning other parties is also just silly. If you want to maintain a system with only four parties or so, you could implement a relatively high electoral threshold, such as the 7% one in Russia, but that leads to vast numbers of people wasting their vote and feeling disenfranchised.

Really though any attempt to "manage" democracy leads to a political elite emerging. Such a system would make it impossible for the policies of the fourth party you mentioned to actually be implemented, short of starting the whole revolutionary process over again.

I have myself wondered what a multi-party DOTP type situation might look like. I concluded that it would probably involve the two biggest parties differing on the speed and depth of the transition, one wanting to take a more slow and steady approach, and the other wanting to change things as quickly as possible. Amongst the other parties I presumed the largest would be one with an environmental focus, concern about pollution is one of those things that won't simply go away with a Revolution I am afraid. Apart from that I reckon there would be a fair number of other minor parties generally appealing to particular interests and such, that is a coming and going of parties promoting particular "issues" that happen to be in vogue at any given time.

I think that is a more realistic model as it is more likely to develop of its own accord and doesn't attempt to restrict smaller parties from forming.

Have a 18% threshold :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Have a 18% threshold :lol:

Didn't Greece actually have such a thing at one point? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

As well as to ensure that the "middle" not waver to the right.

What Venezuela would need the most though is more neighbouring countries pursuing the same course and a closer integration with those which are doing it.

You mean "the right" not waver to the right, right?

The "Labour" party should feel free to vacillate between the Bolivarian-Socialist Party of Order and Bolivarian-Socialist Party of Liberty. It is incumbent upon the first "party of power" not to go to the right. It is also incumbent upon the Miraflores (if we use head-of-state official workplaces like "the Kremlin") not to go to the right, either.


It is almost impossible to manage a party system like that appearing because the process of forming parties takes some time and there usually has to be a few splits and mergers before the realignment is complete.

United Russia was formed ad hoc. Rodina and its successor party A Just/Fair Russia were both formed ad hoc, too.


Really though any attempt to "manage" democracy leads to a political elite emerging. Such a system would make it impossible for the policies of the fourth party you mentioned to actually be implemented, short of starting the whole revolutionary process over again.

That's the point. The new political elite is or should be "the Miraflores," and the fourth party or limited group of fourth parties is meant to be a semi-permanent opposition party. From this "managed democracy" point, there's nowhere left to go re. going left but the DOTP.


Amongst the other parties I presumed the largest would be one with an environmental focus, concern about pollution is one of those things that won't simply go away with a Revolution I am afraid. Apart from that I reckon there would be a fair number of other minor parties generally appealing to particular interests and such, that is a coming and going of parties promoting particular "issues" that happen to be in vogue at any given time.

Maybe I should have fleshed out the "third party" position up above. Indeed that position isn't a monopoly that some "Labour" party is entitled to. :(

[Demogorgon]

United Russia was formed ad hoc. Rodina and its successor party A Just/Fair Russia were both formed ad hoc, too.
United Russia came out of a definite process though. Various politicians supportive of Putin coalesced into a new party. This was the culmination of a process that had been going on for a decade ever since Yeltsin's effective coup. Rodina on the other hand is a Potemkin Party that isn't ever going to amount to anything and is a pretty good example of how trying to artificially create these kind of parties doesn't work.

On another note entirely, but one I find interesting, you talk about this specifically in a Venezuelan context, but you also speak about coalitions forming and so forth. Does this mean you feel a Parliamentary system would be better suited to achieving socialism than a Presidential one?

[Demogorgon]

That's the point. The new political elite is or should be "the Miraflores," and the fourth party or limited group of fourth parties is meant to be a semi-permanent opposition party. From this "managed democracy" point, there's nowhere left to go re. going left but the DOTP.
Sorry, I had already responded by the time this bit was added and it deserves its own post anyway. At any rate, I am not sure I understand. You contend that a situation where you have a leftist Government faced with an even more leftist opposition that advocates full blown DOTP creates a situation where the only way forward on the left is the DOTP itself. I agree this is true, but I think you are missing the fact that such a situation will create a powerful incentive to those in power not to move to the left. Rather they will dig their heals in and simply remain where they are, which would still be an improvement over the current situation, but not quite what you are going for, or they could even move right. I don't think that is the sort of thing we should be looking for.

[Dimentio]

You mean "the right" not waver to the right, right?

The "Labour" party should feel free to vacillate between the Bolivarian-Socialist Party of Order and Bolivarian-Socialist Party of Liberty. It is incumbent upon the first "party of power" not to go to the right. It is also incumbent upon the Miraflores (if we use head-of-state official workplaces like "the Kremlin") not to go to the right, either.



United Russia was formed ad hoc. Rodina and its successor party A Just/Fair Russia were both formed ad hoc, too.



That's the point. The new political elite is or should be "the Miraflores," and the fourth party or limited group of fourth parties is meant to be a semi-permanent opposition party. From this "managed democracy" point, there's nowhere left to go re. going left but the DOTP.



Maybe I should have fleshed out the "third party" position up above. Indeed that position isn't a monopoly that some "Labour" party is entitled to. :(

The middle point of society is the point where the median voter is having his or her opinions. It tend to move to the right or the left dependent on a number of factors, which generally are independent from what the ruling political establishment is doing and generally affected by the global economic development. That is explaining the increasing collapse of social democracy in Europe for example.

[Die Neue Zeit]

United Russia came out of a definite process though. Various politicians supportive of Putin coalesced into a new party. This was the culmination of a process that had been going on for a decade ever since Yeltsin's effective coup. Rodina on the other hand is a Potemkin Party that isn't ever going to amount to anything and is a pretty good example of how trying to artificially create these kind of parties doesn't work.

On another note entirely, but one I find interesting, you talk about this specifically in a Venezuelan context, but you also speak about coalitions forming and so forth. Does this mean you feel a Parliamentary system would be better suited to achieving socialism than a Presidential one?

Actually, what I meant is that the "Labour" party, any potential Green party which I had to mention as an OP edit above ( ;) ), any other minor-issue special-interest party again mentioned as an OP edit above, could all serve as parties created out of influence by the Miraflores.

I think both the Parliamentary system and the Miraflores have equal roles to play in this.

Please flesh out your criticism of Potemkin parties, though, other than attempts to divert votes away from genuine opposition parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, I had already responded by the time this bit was added and it deserves its own post anyway. At any rate, I am not sure I understand. You contend that a situation where you have a leftist Government faced with an even more leftist opposition that advocates full blown DOTP creates a situation where the only way forward on the left is the DOTP itself. I agree this is true, but I think you are missing the fact that such a situation will create a powerful incentive to those in power not to move to the left. Rather they will dig their heals in and simply remain where they are, which would still be an improvement over the current situation, but not quite what you are going for, or they could even move right. I don't think that is the sort of thing we should be looking for.

The Party of Liberty might have incentives to move to the left. So could the "Labour" party and all the other parties in the "third party" position. The Party of Order could be kept in check by the Miraflores from moving to the right, while the Miraflores itself could be kept in check from moving to the right by the Party of Liberty and the third parties.

[Demogorgon]

Actually, what I meant is that the "Labour" party, any potential Green party which I had to mention as an OP edit above ( ;) ), any other minor-issue special-interest party again mentioned as an OP edit above, could all serve as parties created out of influence by the Miraflores.

I think both the Parliamentary system and the Miraflores have equal roles to play in this.

Please flesh out your criticism of Potemkin parties, though, other than attempts to divert votes away from genuine opposition parties.
Well I would have thought it is quite obvious what the problem with Potemkin parties is. Quite apart from the fact that they tend to act as decoys to channel away genuine opposition (incidentally any system we oppose has to have some kind of "safety valve" to allow those opposed to it to oppose it without bringing the system down, something else your system misses I fear, though that is another story), they are unable to actually present a credible platform because they are not genuine and exist to serve the interests of something else than their membership and professed ideology. Any new political system we advocate must involve the parties being democratic and controlled by their members.

As to my question about the Parliamentary system, I am still unsure where you stand. Venezuela currently has no Parliamentary aspects in its constitution, are you proposing they be added? I am keen to get an answer to this because it ties into something I have been wondering about lately and I would appreciate hearing some other views.

[Die Neue Zeit]

incidentally any system we oppose has to have some kind of "safety valve" to allow those opposed to it to oppose it without bringing the system down, something else your system misses I fear, though that is another story

I edited my OP again to be more flexible. If some spoiled, rich idiots want to form a liberal party under a Venezuelan "managed democracy," they can do so, but the four parties or groups of parties collectively should stack the electoral registration bureaucracies so that the capitalist opposition would be forced to file endless stacks of papers, go through long waiting times, etc. This is what the Kremlin does to the liberal opposition, anyway - and we all know the difficulties of third-party registration in the US.


As to my question about the Parliamentary system, I am still unsure where you stand. Venezuela currently has no Parliamentary aspects in its constitution, are you proposing they be added? I am keen to get an answer to this because it ties into something I have been wondering about lately and I would appreciate hearing some other views.

Isn't the National Assembly parliamentary? Isn't the "united front" between the PSUV and PCV parliamentary? What "parliamentary aspects" are you referring to, if not mandated coalitions? Here we've got Mr. Harper acting like he's got a majority, like Mr. Martin before him and even Mr. Trudeau way back.

The coalition system only works re. Bolivarian Socialism if there exists a pre-condition that all parties in the legislature are in practice committed to Bolivarian Socialism. From there, it's a matter of details.

It could also be, however, that there may be those odd elections where the Party of Order or the Party of Liberty could get an outright majority without partners, simply because of the ideological tightness. It could also be that minority governments might be the norm, again because of the ideological tightness.

[Demogorgon]

I edited my OP again to be more flexible. If some idiots want to form a liberal party under a Venezuelan "managed democracy," they can do so, but the four parties or groups of parties collectively should stack the electoral registration bureaucracies so that the capitalist opposition would be forced to file endless stacks of papers, go through long waiting times, etc. This is what the Kremlin does to the liberal opposition, anyway.

That is not a good idea in my view. Quite aside from support for democracy in principle, as soon as you start manipulating the electoral process, its legitimacy is called into question, people cease to support it and all of a sudden you have a supposed revolution that is in fact solely the project of an elite whose class interests will inevitably be different from those of the working people the revolution is supposed to be for. History should have made quite clear by now that that doesn't work.


Isn't the National Assembly parliamentary? Isn't the "united front" between the PSUV and PCV parliamentary? What "parliamentary aspects" are you referring to, if not mandated coalitions? Here we've got Mr. Harper acting like he's got a majority, like Mr. Martin before him and even Mr. Trudeau way back.

The coalition system only works re. Bolivarian Socialism if there exists a pre-condition that all parties in the legislature are in practice committed to Bolivarian Socialism. From there, it's a matter of details.

It could also be, however, that there may be those odd elections where the Party of Power or the Party of Liberty could get an outright majority without partners, simply because of the ideological tightness. It could also be that minority governments might be the norm, again because of the ideological tightness.
I am referring to the formation of a Government depending on Parliamentary elections, the Government being responsible to the Parliament and there being, to some extent at least, a fusion of powers between the executive and legislative authorities. Venezuela does not have that, the formation of the Government depends on the Presidential elections which are held at a different time and on a different cycle from Congressional Elections, further the Congress cannot bring down the Government and executive and legislative power is clearly vested in separate bodies.

Coalitions are rare in such a system because there is no need for them in order to form a Government, they can be useful to help steer legislation through Congress, but even then that is more readily done in the form of legislative alliances rather than Executive level coalition.

Coalitions are not a necessary part of the Parliamentary system either. Stephen Harper is Prime Minister because and only because the Conservative Party won the most seats at the election (plus the whole business about constitutional trickery to stop to opposition forming a Government together). At no point did he go up against Stephane Dion and Jack Layton in a public vote as to who got to be Prime Minister. Chavez on the other hand is President because he won the Presidential election. The position of his party in the National Assembly does not have any impact on that.

It seems from what you are saying that you believe a system should be adopted whereby the situation in the National Assembly should have a baring on the composition of the Government (a proposition I have some sympathy with), I am asking you to clarify.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is not a good idea in my view. Quite aside from support for democracy in principle, as soon as you start manipulating the electoral process, its legitimacy is called into question, people cease to support it and all of a sudden you have a supposed revolution that is in fact solely the project of an elite whose class interests will inevitably be different from those of the working people the revolution is supposed to be for. History should have made quite clear by now that that doesn't work.

Damn, I have to edit the post you replied to. I added "and we all know the difficulties of third-party registration in the US" after my Kremlin remark.


I am referring to the formation of a Government depending on Parliamentary elections, the Government being responsible to the Parliament and there being, to some extent at least, a fusion of powers between the executive and legislative authorities. Venezuela does not have that, the formation of the Government depends on the Presidential elections which are held at a different time and on a different cycle from Congressional Elections, further the Congress cannot bring down the Government and executive and legislative power is clearly vested in separate bodies.

Perhaps the presidency itself should be formed by the National Assembly, with term limits on the presidency and none for some other head of government (just so Chavez can relax "prime-ministerially" like Putin ;) )? I don't know.

The "managed democracy" should probably combine:

1) A pivotal role for the "managed" party system and coalition government system in my OP
2) A strong "national leader" role (in and out of the presidency), with the presidency itself perhaps being really responsible for things like foreign and military affairs, and also perhaps having the power of strong veto except when overridden by a legislative supermajority (only the US and Ukrainian constitutions mention strong vetoes, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#European_parliamentary_republics))
3) Grassroots democracy at more local levels - perhaps as informed, consenting tools for El Presidente / El Comandante / the Miraflores against annoying (or possibly even obstructionist) opposition majorities in some official provincial/municipal governments ( :D ). Yeah, perhaps the "national leader" should emerge from coalitions in the National Assembly, after all. But per below...


At no point did he go up against Stephane Dion and Jack Layton in a public vote as to who got to be Prime Minister.

What about Mr. Netanyahu, then? The head position can be held at different times from legislative elections, and is still held separately from them on legislative election day. Or is this a variation of the French model?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That wasn't the subject of this thread, and "workers control," unfortunately, has economistic connotations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(management)


Control is one of the managerial functions like planning, organizing, staffing and directing.

[Jayshin_JTTH]

As I understand it, the PSUV and 'Bolivarianism' is itself the 'popular movement' in Venezuela, or very close to it.

Venezuela has elections coming up this month, so that will really show if Bolivarianism is itself the popular movement, and struggle needs to happen within that movement (along the lines of Bolshevik and Menshevik, socialist and social-democrat), or without it, ie party politics.

I predict PSUV will retain it's majority, but the real question is how far the inroads of US imperialism and the bourgeois have made in the last five years. That will determine if struggle within Bolivarianism is the basis, or if party-politics must be supported for at least some more time to prevent the US lackeys taking control of the country.

It's always about the the biggest threat.

[Demogorgon]

Damn, I have to edit the post you replied to. I added "and we all know the difficulties of third-party registration in the US" after my Kremlin remark.
Well yeah, but if I may be forgiven for this remark, anything involving similarities to the American system in that sort of area is to be avoided like the plague.


Perhaps the presidency itself should be formed by the National Assembly, with term limits on the presidency and none for some other head of government (just so Chavez can relax "prime-ministerially" like Putin ;) )? I don't know.

The "managed democracy" should probably combine:

1) A pivotal role for the "managed" party system and coalition government system in my OP
2) A strong "national leader" role (in and out of the presidency), with the presidency itself perhaps being really responsible for things like foreign and military affairs, and also perhaps having the power of strong veto except when overridden by a legislative supermajority (only the US and Ukrainian constitutions mention strong vetoes, actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#European_parliamentary_republics))
3) Grassroots democracy at more local levels - perhaps as informed, consenting tools for El Presidente / El Comandante / the Miraflores against annoying (or possibly even obstructionist) opposition majorities in some official provincial/municipal governments ( :D ). Yeah, perhaps the "national leader" should emerge from coalitions in the National Assembly, after all. But per below...

You do favour a more Parliamentary system then? Perhaps a French style Semi-Presidential one? I know you are aiming for a more "guided" model while I am aiming for a more democratic one, but even at that though I must signal that I dislike the notion of Presidential Veto. The ability to ask the National Assembly to reconsider certain areas once is fine, but the ability to veto? I don't like it. Perhaps granting the right to withold consent to certain bills until approved in referendum if the President thinks the public should have a direct say would be a better idea though.


What about Mr. Netanyahu, then? The head position can be held at different times from legislative elections, and is still held separately from them on legislative election day. Or is this a variation of the French model?
You mean in 1996? Because Israel has moved back to pure parliamentary system now. Direct election of the Prime Minister proved to have some unexpected consequences involving the makeup of the Knesset.

Anyway the French system is one where the President is elected separately from Parliament and holds his position irrespective of who controls Parliament but must appoint a Prime Minister and Cabinet that can withstand Parliamentary confidence votes. That sounds a bit different from what you are going for.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well yeah, but if I may be forgiven for this remark, anything involving similarities to the American system in that sort of area is to be avoided like the plague.

I think Venezuela is an odd exception to the rule of avoiding anything to do with the "two"-"party" US system. I think I'll add a second section on "authoritarian" regimes in my work: the first is for cookie-cutter types, the second is for leftist-oriented "managed democracy," should populist opportunities for such crop up.

There's nothing offensive in what you said in the first place. ;)


You do favour a more Parliamentary system then? Perhaps a French style Semi-Presidential one? I know you are aiming for a more "guided" model while I am aiming for a more democratic one, but even at that though I must signal that I dislike the notion of Presidential Veto. The ability to ask the National Assembly to reconsider certain areas once is fine, but the ability to veto? I don't like it. Perhaps granting the right to withold consent to certain bills until approved in referendum if the President thinks the public should have a direct say would be a better idea though.

I suppose that "semi-strong" veto compromise is fine. Popular power and party power outside the legislature could be leaned upon against that legislature when necessary, just like my third element above on grassroots democracy vs. provincial and municipal establishments. I think this popular power stuff would indeed be necessary on things like war and peace (should be decided upon by plebiscite in the first place). In any event, the presidental veto would only apply to the legislature and not to referenda.


You mean in 1996? Because Israel has moved back to pure parliamentary system now. Direct election of the Prime Minister proved to have some unexpected consequences involving the makeup of the Knesset.

Thanks for that update. :thumbup1:

I'm nine years late! I thought my bubble was similar to Israel's, never knowing until now that they moved back in 2001.

[Demogorgon]

I think Venezuela is an odd exception to the rule of avoiding anything to do with the "two"-"party" US system. I think I'll add a second section on "authoritarian" regimes in my work: the first is for cookie-cutter types, the second is for leftist-oriented "managed democracy," should populist opportunities for such crop up.

There's nothing offensive in what you said in the first place. ;)

Hmm, well we will just note my reservations there and leave it at that.


I suppose that "semi-strong" veto compromise is fine. Popular power and party power outside the legislature could be leaned upon against that legislature when necessary, just like my third element above on grassroots democracy vs. provincial and municipal establishments. I think this popular power stuff would indeed be necessary on things like war and peace (should be decided upon by plebiscite in the first place). In any event, the presidental veto would only apply to the legislature and not to referenda.

Well obviously being able to veto referenda results would be absurd, but I dislike the notion of a veto in general. A President is by definition less democratic than a Parliament because a Parliament (provided it is elected by proportional representation as the Venezuelan equivalent is) represents the people in their entirety while a President can only represent those that elected him or her. The deliberated result of a properly representative assembly is always "better" from a purely procedural viewpoint than that of a single individual.

I dislike the idea of an Executive President in general though. I do not think Executive (or legislative power) should be conflated with the position of head of state. Indeed I dislike the notion of head of state full stop. It is the sort of thing that should be abolished in the long run towards the end of a DOTP period where the diplomatic functions cease to be needed and in the meantime it should be purely ceremonial and a Prime Candidate for being chosen by sortition. My own preference being for a randomly selected body to elect a President from amongst their own number who would do the sort of ceremonial stuff heads of state do but would have no participation in the Governance of the country whatsoever. The political leadership should hold other offices that cannot be used to give them any kind of "elevated dignity".

Back to the notion of a veto though. Where it is required to hold a legislature in check, the solution should be to have means to force a decision to referendum if needed.

Also as I have mentioned in passing before, I believe there should be a randomly chosen body to act as a compliment and check on the elected one. A fusion of demarchy and democracy basically.


Thanks for that update. :thumbup1:

I'm nine years late! I thought my bubble was similar to Israel's, never knowing until now that they moved back in 2001.
Nah it is gone. It is worth pointing out that when it was in place the fact the Prime Minister was being directly elected caused the media to forget about the Parliamentary election altogether and parties who were putting up candidates for Prime Minister felt campaigning for them was enough for both elections and gave their lists no publicity at all. Not a good situation.

For what its worth, here is a model I have been toying with lately. There would be a sort of two round election. In the first round a Parliamentary election would be held by pure PR with the process being as normal in a Parliamentary election. If a party or prearranged coalition got a majority or very close to that it would form the Government with no need for a second round. If however that did not happen there would be a second round amongst in any event the top two parties and perhaps others to determine who formed the Government and the winner would then be free to form either a minority Government or coalition as they preferred. It would remain a Parliamentary system because in any event the Government would have to retain Parliamentary Confidence, presumably through a means designed to promote stability like the Constructive Vote of No Confidence but if parliament did pass such a motion to give the Premiership to another party, it could not take effect until approved in referendum.

I think that may be a good compromise between the advantages of the Parliamentary system and not divorcing people from the process of choosing the Government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well obviously being able to veto referenda results would be absurd, but I dislike the notion of a veto in general. A President is by definition less democratic than a Parliament because a Parliament (provided it is elected by proportional representation as the Venezuelan equivalent is)

Chavez and co. rigged and gerrymandered it recently. The constitution says the National Assembly should be proportional, but obviously he's lost urban support. That's why this thread exists: so that he wouldn't have to do such legalistic crap.


Indeed I dislike the notion of head of state full stop. It is the sort of thing that should be abolished in the long run towards the end of a DOTP period where the diplomatic functions cease to be needed and in the meantime it should be purely ceremonial and a Prime Candidate for being chosen by sortition.

I honestly think heads of state should be scrapped at the beginning and not end of a DOTP period, but that's just me. ;)

Diplomatic functions can be handled by something like a ceremonial presidium, though I suppose the *election* of this ceremonial presidium by and from among a randomly selected body would be OK.


The political leadership should hold other offices that cannot be used to give them any kind of "elevated dignity".

Agreed, but again this thread isn't about the DOTP. ;)


Also as I have mentioned in passing before, I believe there should be a randomly chosen body to act as a compliment and check on the elected one. A fusion of demarchy and democracy basically.

You already know about my reservations re. the elected body. If there has to be a two-chamber system, both should be randomly selected. Ideally, though, like Burnheim I'd have one randomly selected chamber with authoritative power for each major area of jurisdiction (kinda like legislative committees today): war and peace, military industry, environmental affairs, education, civilian economic planning, etc.


For what its worth, here is a model I have been toying with lately. There would be a sort of two round election. In the first round a Parliamentary election would be held by pure PR with the process being as normal in a Parliamentary election. If a party or prearranged coalition got a majority or very close to that it would form the Government with no need for a second round. If however that did not happen there would be a second round amongst in any event the top two parties and perhaps others to determine who formed the Government and the winner would then be free to form either a minority Government or coalition as they preferred. It would remain a Parliamentary system because in any event the Government would have to retain Parliamentary Confidence, presumably through a means designed to promote stability like the Constructive Vote of No Confidence but if parliament did pass such a motion to give the Premiership to another party, it could not take effect until approved in referendum.

I think that may be a good compromise between the advantages of the Parliamentary system and not divorcing people from the process of choosing the Government.

You should discuss this PR model with Moshe Machover. It's distinct from the usual talk on PR, Condorcet for district elections, etc. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Discussion from this off-board equivalent:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/does-venezuela-need-managed-or-sovereign-democracy


Oh, I don't know. I'm thinking they need a workers democracy based on a socialist economy.

But since most so called socialist around the world are so starving for attention, a Nationalist Bourgeois democracy that uses a few socialist ideas will do.


Huh. I hadn't heard the euphemism "Managed Democracy" before. Live and learn.


Managed democracy controls society while providing the appearance of democracy. Its main characteristics are as follows:
1. A strong presidency and weak institutions
2. State control of the media
3. Control over elections allows elites to legitimize their decisions
4. Visible short-term effectiveness and long-term inefficiency
The result is an "unstable stability" based on the president's personality. He is actually a hostage of the system.

Who wants one in Canada? Hands up!


Do you buy your overblown rhetoric from Price Club, in the huge pail?

Anyway, so this is supposed to justify state ownership of media, and various other anti-democratic measures "in the name of the revolution", and "for the people's own good"??

See, this is a big part of why people, even here in North America, are so leery of the left. Most of the electorate really doesn't take to the idea of an all-knowing, all-caring Daddy State that knows what's good for us, even when we (apparently!) don't.


We already exist in a daddy state. It has all to do with how one brand is marketed at the expense of any other prospective guardian, and since broad based marketing and mainstream media are currently in the hands of deadbeat dads of capital, you can't expect a more caring and willing parent to receive positive references. Personally I believe they would readily take to another form of 'daddy' state as you describe, if equal representations were permitted with which to allow the electorate to make informed choices. Truth is denied at any cost however. As a result, the population remains exclusively accustomed and indoctrinated with the ways and means of self-licking lolly pops otherwise known as the current patriarchal structure, to the point where continental scale financial evisceration, endless warfare, famine, disease and environmental extinctions have become the routine normal that barely warrants being noticed under the prevailing stewardship. Unfortunately every imaginable or unimaginable portrayal of their destructive tendencies, even those written off as overblown rhetoric, happens to be frightfully true.

And finally:


When did the media factor in? I was referring mainly to the party system. Instead of the liberalized two-party and two-parties-and-a-half systems, you've got a more left-leaning two-parties-and-many-halves system.

[Demogorgon]

Chavez and co. rigged and gerrymandered it recently. The constitution says the National Assembly should be proportional, but obviously he's lost urban support. That's why this thread exists: so that he wouldn't have to do such legalistic crap.

My knowledge here is clearly inadequate. I would appreciate some more information as to what has happened.


I honestly think heads of state should be scrapped at the beginning and not end of a DOTP period, but that's just me. ;)Well if it can be I have no objections, but when the Soviet Union and its satellites tried doing that, they usually ended up giving their speakers of parliament (and equivalents) the ceremonial functions and before they knew it they had a ceremonial head of state just like West Germany, Italy and so forth. If it is going to happen anyway, we might as well make sure it is kept well away from the political class.

Agreed, but again this thread isn't about the DOTP. ;)

I actually meant that statement in general. It applies double for the DOTP but it also has great import for contemporary political systems. If you compare Britain and America for instance, both have pretty pathetic political systems even by the standards of contemporary polyarchies being less democratic than even other Western States, but one advantage that Britain has over America is that the Prime Minister can't hide behind the dignity of office. American Presidents are very good at fending off some attacks by claiming they need to have special dignity and there is all the outrageous nonsense of having to stand up when the President enters the room and so forth. The British Prime Minister doesn't have any of that. Of course the British Constitution gives the Prime Minister extraordinary power that the American President can only dream of but that is separate from what I am saying. I am just pointing out that even in political systems as they exist right here, right now, keeping elevated dignity away from those with executive power is greatly beneficial.


You already know about my reservations re. the elected body. If there has to be a two-chamber system, both should be randomly selected. Ideally, though, like Burnheim I'd have one randomly selected chamber with authoritative power for each major area of jurisdiction (kinda like legislative committees today): war and peace, military industry, environmental affairs, education, civilian economic planning, etc.

Yeah we differ on the mixed election, sortition model that I favour, though as it happens I agree with you that there should also be randomly chosen bodies for each area of Governance supervising the Minister responsible for the portfolio, but I also believe that there should ultimately be a central legislature at the heart of this. Incidentally I don't believe we need to be bound by contemporary rules as to what exactly a legislature is and how it should have exclusive jurisdiction in its fixed roles. There is also cause for other bodies as well to take on some of the current legislative roles. There should perhaps be a body specifically representing workers in the way the Soviets were originally supposed to that could check all legislation pertaining to that area to make sure it is in the interests of the working class. There are all sorts of possibilities.


You should discuss this PR model with Moshe Machover. It's distinct from the usual talk on PR, Condorcet for district elections, etc. :)
Unfortunately I know nothing about his views in this area, do you have nay links to articles or the names of books describing his views?

[Kotze]

If you want to maintain a system with only four parties or so, you could implement a relatively high electoral threshold, such as the 7% one in Russia, but that leads to vast numbers of people wasting their vote and feeling disenfranchised.A high electoral threshold does not imply that voters either have to put all their weight behind an established party or entirely waste their vote.

EXAMPLE METHOD

It's about parties not candidates and there are three rating slots: preferred, accepted, disapproved. The ballots themselves only need to have 2 slots, disapproval can be inferred from marking a party neither preferred nor accepted.

1. A party that gets disapproved by more than 90% of the ballots is disqualified.
2. Among the parties that qualified, your vote is divided fractionally among those you marked preferred.

So if you mark the qualifying party X as preferred, then also marking several non-qualifying parties as preferred doesn't dilute your vote for party X.

There could be another rule to further reduce vote wasting:
3. If none of the parties you marked preferred qualify, your vote is divided fractionally among those that qualified you marked accepted.

The disapproval scores could also be used for other stuff, like giving the party with the least disapproval some special privilege.

There needs to be an additional rule for the case no party makes it over the hurdle, eg. lowering the hurdle and a shorter time until the next election.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My knowledge here is clearly inadequate. I would appreciate some more information as to what has happened.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/09/21/1629729/chavez-bending-the-rules-in-venezuelan.html


But most believe the PSUV will maintain its control of Congress and perhaps even hold onto the two-thirds majority Chavez needs to rubber-stamp his initiatives. One reason is an American tradition: gerrymandering.

The government recently carved out several new voting districts that observers say maximize the pro-Chavez vote while sapping the opposition's.

While it will only take 20,000 votes to elect a congressman in the Chavez-friendly state of Amazonas, it will take 400,000 votes to elect one in the opposition stronghold of Zulia, said Luis Vicente Leon of the Venezuelan polling firm Datanalisis.

"The equilibrium of the national assembly will not depend on the total vote the president gets, but the geographic and regional location of those votes," he said. "Without a doubt, it's a system built to the government's needs."

In addition, a new law that changes the way candidates are assigned to various districts will leave some areas over-represented and others lacking.

"The constitution calls for proportional representation, and this system no longer provides that," said Luis Enrique Lander, the director of Ojo Electoral, one of four national groups monitoring the race. "Now it's a quasi-majority system. The winners won't take everything, but they will take almost everything."

Now:


Well if it can be I have no objections, but when the Soviet Union and its satellites tried doing that, they usually ended up giving their speakers of parliament (and equivalents) the ceremonial functions and before they knew it they had a ceremonial head of state just like West Germany, Italy and so forth. If it is going to happen anyway, we might as well make sure it is kept well away from the political class.

I've got no problems with that.


There are all sorts of possibilities.

Indeed.


Unfortunately I know nothing about his views in this area, do you have nay links to articles or the names of books describing his views?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003867

He's got maximum program footnotes on decision-making in communist society. Here he's talking about minimum program stuff.

[Kotze]

A non-monotone electoral procedure cannot possibly be truly proportional.Machover seems to have his very own definition of "truly proportional" there. When STV supporters say it is proportional, they usually mean that in the sense that a set of candidates ranked by a certain percentage of the voters above the rest will receive seats in accordance to the size of that percentage, even if the number of candidates in that set is much bigger than the number of seats for that set. This is true for STV, but not for the single non-transferable vote or cumulative voting, where vote splitting is a big problem, or systems where candidates get a fixed number of points according to their ranking position on the ballot. These methods, unlike STV, are monotonic, but I don't think that would be a worthy tradeoff.

Now, that's not what Machover is advocating either, he talks about party-list systems.
In the ‘open list’ variant, voters may indicate preference for a particular candidate in the list of their choice, and seats are allocated accordingly.Welllll, sure that's proportional in respect to parties and it can be done in a monotonic way. But with respect to currents within parties this isn't proportional, again you have the problem of undervotes and overvotes, a problem that STV to a large extent fixes (you can't perfectly fix it), which is why some people say STV is more proportional than party list systems. With lists you have to rely too much on parties functioning in a democratic fashion.

The big problem with STV in practice, which is also brought up by Machover in that article, is the small number of seats per constituency, since ranking the candidates and the counting get unwieldy with a huge number of candidates and seats. This can be addressed by using what I call streamlined STV: Each candidate provides a ranking on a set date before the election, the voter only marks one candidate, thereby supporting that candidate's ranking. Each candidate's ranking gets multiplied by the number of votes that ranking received, then the STV calculation is done with very manageable data.

It's good that there are other socialists who are into voting methods, even though he probably isn't as awesome as myself. I'll have a look at Machover's PDF "Collective Decision-Making and Supervision in a Communist Society" and will post my verdict tomorrow.

Verdict: Meh.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He and Paul have had debates here and there somewhere about random sortition. Moshe's still leaning towards elections. Ironically, this would make Mike Macnair himself the guy in the middle ground, between Moshe and Paul (Mike clings to elections for a Marxist minimum program of the DOTP, but considers random sortition as a maximum program thing (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004002)):


Under full communism, comrade Cockshott is correct that decision-makers should in principle be appointed by lot, like jurors. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, however, it is in the interest of the proletariat that the class interest of the petty proprietors should be openly expressed in the form of political parties and factions - and therefore there has to be some form of elective, representative institutions for decision-making.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lots more discussion from the Rabble thread:


Contenders for public office, no matter which affiliation, would have to take a vow or swear an oath before the electorate in order to obtain the official stamp of recognition as an approved candidate. The vow would include a committment to shun all corporate and special interest influence peddling before and after the election. Once the government and opposition are sitting, all corporate appeals to government should be held front and center at televised all party committees, where adversial questioning would be the order of the day. It would be rendered illegal for a politician to conduct dealings with corporations in private. All special interests would be compelled to conduct their business in public, on the rug, with each case being considered on merit alone. Elections would be funded entirely in shoestring fashion from the public purse, forcing the contenders to spend wisely in order to get their message across. I'd suspect that we would quickly discover which end of the political spectrum could thrive under such a construct, and which end would encounter difficulty. I'd imagine that those who have previously relied heavily upon the secrecy of backroom dealings with which to measure success would be hard put. Certainly, this model would benefit greatly from the attention of funded, national level alternative media. To that end, in this country at least, this would require the re-allocation of significant funding from the corporatist CBC model, which has been a failure for many years with its insistence on providing yet another microphone for the exclusive use of banality, incompetence and absurdity, toward other models that promise to better represent the broad spectrum of silenced voices in this society.


Okay, I was just going by what info I could find about "managed democracy".

But why the need to manage? If the electorate is unsatisfied with their choices, can't they be the ones to provide more?

Is the danger of a more right-leaning candidate the possibility that the people might vote for him/her? Or if it's not that, what's the problem??


"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams

Ruling class sponsorship and cultivation of ignorance is the problem Snert.


Okay. So then in a nutshell, if there are only leftwing parties for the people to choose from, they can be saved from their own ignorance ("cultivated" or otherwise)?

And if so, doesn't that kind of paternalism really require us to assume that anyone who believes other than we do must have had that belief "cultivated"? Is there any room in this for us to believe that those who disagree with us might actually just disagree with us? Because it seems to me that we kind of HAVE TO assume that those who disagree are being brainwashed (so we can save them from themselves)... yes?

Don't you believe that this is something for people to work out, not the State? And that it should be worked out by providing the electorate with options and information, not by denying them options?

And I say again that I think this kind of infatuation with State authoritarianism is why the Left keeps getting pigeonholed as wooley-headed commies. I don't think most Canadians are going to be too enamoured of a political movement that considers them too stupid to make their own choices, or patronizingly assumes they were "brainwashed" by "the elites" and wants to save them. Personally, it kind of reminds me of Charismatic Christians who want to pray for my soul. Thanks, but no.


I can't seem to find anyone in this thread campaigning for the imposition of one party state rule. This is the threadbare rag that the extreme right insists on waving in front of those it has already indoctrinated with fear, in order to equate the search for a better form of existence as a preference for life under the Hitlers, Stalins and Paul Pots' of the world.

[...]

Mark your X here, and we'll (wink) take care of things on your behalf. Modern capitalism at its finest.


Yes, I'm pointing out the restriction of choice. I'm assuming that that would be the "managed" part.

If all you want is MORE choice at the ballot then there's really nothing that you need to "manage", yes?

But just in case I've misunderstood, under the scheme you refer to in your OP, would a right wing (real right wing, not the rightmost left wing) party be permitted? Even if they aren't specifically committed to "Bolivarian Socialism"? That's a yes or no question. And if the answer isn't "yes" then that would be the restriction of choice I'm referring to.

And finally:


Despite our disagreements, you're the only one who's actually read the bulk of my OP. However, you didn't read the part towards the end, which answers your question

Perhaps a fate worse than taboos, haranguing, or bans by the Miraflores: a time-ordered series of united but Potemkin parties on the right ("social-democratic" and onwards), each of which shoots itself in the foot organizationally and politically because it is staffed entirely by those working for the Bolivarian state. :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

That the PSUV failed to obtain a two-thirds legislative majority, even after the blatant gerrymandering, should strengthen the case for a Putin-style managed multi-party system of the left.

[Paul Cockshott]

who is supposed to manage this? The opposition will not just vanish.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The executive is supposed to manage this. I'm pretty sure I said this when I likened my suggestion to the Kremlin's "manager" role: cracking down on Khodorovsky, pressing "judicial reorganization" re. courts dealing with constitutional law, cracking down on the liberal opposition, creating faux "parties" to divert opposition votes, creating seven "federal districts" for de facto oversight over the many dozens more numerous "federal subjects." The opposition won't vanish unless it's cracked down upon by the Miraflores (the presidential workplace). All the better if they were to receive political funds from foreign capitalists and their governments, since any existing law banning such funds (no such exists in Venezuela right now :( ) could be used to ban 'em.