Summary of topics (links to themes, their summary or articles)
Main theme : Debate democracy
Debate democracy
Thème principal
to complete.
To abolish the privileges of the media groups and search the reign of reason, I suggest debate democracy, with is a four powers democracy, the fourth power is the mediatic power. In which elected officials (intellectuals, associationists and trade unionsts) represent the diversity of public opinion with a right of expression. All journalists, from all media are strictly independent even of their hierarchy. Print and Internet subsidized garentir their pluralism. Subsidies are proportional to the number of readers. The output of the current crisis will be done by the affirmation of the expression of general wil, the search of the reign of reason and much better informed citizens. We deserves big and ambitious democratic reforms. The economic and moral crisis is the result of democratic dysfunctionals. We must contest them and claim a media democracy.
Currently information media is biased. Without being false, it is rather distorted. This is the world of appearances, beliefs. We call "images" or "opinion democracy" This bias is in the interests of these industry groups and the interests of its officers and direct customers (advertisers). To sell the "brain time available" to advertisers, we need simple media, who avoid making the consumers thinking too much. They are not informiming the citizens, as they should, but have become communication lines for big buisiness ! In a democracy where the people are sovereign, the quality of information is essential. The media must get out of this mercantile logic, stop being the relays of the powers of capital, to become a truly democratic tool. We must abolish these new privileges and seek the reign of reason.
A debate democracy is a new form of democracy, where mass media forms the fourth power.People express themselves in mainstream mass media, by electing wises, through universal suffrage, and representative of the diversity of opinion. They have the right of expression in mass media, and are build of three bodies of the same size, the intellectuals, the associative and the unionists. They compomse with stricly independent journalists, even of their hierarchy. They should search a certain objectivity, what is not the case of the wises. This objectivity is a moral principle which the journalists should use in their own conscience. This is freedom of the press, which has been confiscated by their hierarchie and big buisiness! An independent press, rather written and Internet, must exist. They are powers and counter-power. These medias must garenty democratic pluralism (the wises are also a source of pluralism).
The idea of elected wises to represent in the media the expression of public opinion. The role of intellectuals is to share knowledge, to make citizens think and organize debates. Their mission is to inform the citizens who are the arbiters, through universal suffrage. This logic, encourages debate and reason research-based policies. They will act as a the political counter-power. If a candidate begins to manipulate public opinion or not to keep its promises, they can "break" his image. They would ensure a guarantee for a proper functioning democracy, which implies a certain degree of frankness and honesty from them.They guarantee a good understanding of the political issues by citizens. We can philosophize about the pursuit of happiness and how institutions can create good conditions for it? Everyone has a right to happiness. I see misery and poverty as a serious obstacle to it and a problem that concerns us all.
The role of associations is to represent the themes dear to the public opinion. The fact of mediating theses issues makes democracy alive. Groups can create form them and political consequences are to be expected.
Most citizents must work to to meet their needs. It is these workers that unions represent in the media. It is a key issue for the vast majority of citizens. Work must be put to its real value, because the financial marckets have simply stollen too mutch!
We need a strict separation of powers. A political candidate (Government, deputy, senator) will no longer be able to candidate in media and vice versa. This will give strictly separate groups. Everyone has the right to choose once between a candidature as political or mediatic. It is obviously an explicit choice and current representants have the right to make that choice once, when both candidaturship are possible.
The council of wise may impose thematic choice to media. This is without a majority vote, with each wise influening these decisions. For example France 3 could have regional broadcasts, ARTE, a French-German cultural channel and TV5MONDE a Franche-Quebec international channel. It is the wises that define these choices.
In the mainstream media, wise and journalists are powers and counter powers to each other. Elected wise represent ideas that can be subjctifs whence the importance of debates. Journalists are garents of objectivity. Journalists are the holders of the freedom of press, not their hierarchy. Today the big media groups affect freedom of press, imposing their will on their employees.
The implementation of this constitution, give the people the opportunity to choose people who intervene in the media. Those elected peoples would choose their TV programs, documentaries and other cultural events. They will have a real control over whis essential part of democracy. And put an end to the single thought, and with this mediatic caste, who defend its interests first.
To exit the economic, social, ecological and moral crisis, it is necessary to implement democratic reforms. I propose my ideas, debate democracy. We are opposed to the "single thought" and we want to offer to present a diversity of opinions among us. Morally we can not reproduce another "single thought" and we want to make pluralism a reality. The output of the crisis will be the affirmation of the expression of the general will, the search the reign of reason and much better informed citizens.
Small examples of debate democracy
das Land von Goethe
Germany have and had very good artists and have a rich culture. The movement « das Land von Goethe » could claim German identity by
looking at their poets, their novelists, remember Marlene Dietrich and obviously Goethe. German cinema made good films this last years, « Good Bye Lenin »,
« Das Leben der Anderen », « Die Welle », and others. These films have had an international success. Berlin from after the wall make
nice architectural building. Their rhyme could be « 99 luftballons » from Nena, international success of the 80's. Germany must
build its identity on their artists and culture and show the world who they are. This implies cultural exchanges and contributes to friendship between peoples.
« das Land von Goethe » would naturally express itself in a debate democracy, because Germans love democracy.
Wir Europäische
Is german identity in fact european ? Germany wouldn't have existed after world war two, without european construction. Europe has saved Germany
as a political entity and let its economy boom. Europe has allowed Germany to unify. Germans have invested themself heartedly in european construction.
Maybe the Germans are in fact more Europeans. Their hymn could be "Hinter den Kulissen von Paris" (Mirelle Mathieu).
Britain and British
In this context I want to create an association with a mission to create television programming, where the memories of Britain are highlighted. We must teach the history, values and the love of the british democracy. Even if mistakes have been made Britain has been a source of inpiration for the world.
Indian Wisdom
Debate Democracy gives access to different groups, such as native Indians. They may create TV programs and have a cultural budget, if elected.
Having different communities expressing themselves, if a American democratic value. Inside the American nation, native Americans, may express their history, their suffering and face the injustices they put with.
Music goes to the heart. As culture the Indian Wisdom could play Indian and country music and show US and their identity.
Love from us
Debate Democracy allows movements to be elected in media and to get a budget. An example could be a patriotic cultural US movement. The aim is to show your national identity throw culture and to exchange with other peoples cultures. And so promote peoples friendship.
These peoples friendship values are similar to hippies peace and love values. Their music is an important part of US culture. And so it is logic that hippies play an important role in this cultural US movement. Peoples from outside the USA,see the US culture as cheep and invading. Giving hippies an important role sets these relations on mutual respect and show the world the very best from the USA.
Love from us wants to show US culture and so hippie, country, rock, jazz and all typical US music could be expressed in media and participate in international exchanges. US art and literature could be put forwards too.
Secondary themes
to complete.
 |
|
| |
I declare myself European autonomist. Europe is not democratic, peoples are deprived of their vote, the expression of the General will is not. I am a separatist, a federalist or a separatist with the what I wish an institutional compromise around my ideas. It is important to ensure broad autonomy to peoples and constitutional procedures must be provided. This is the case in the United States, I do not understand why this is not the case in Europe. A State that wants to guarantee abortion, is not fussed trick or Widget State who want to do the opposite and that block at the federal level. This does exist in Europe. I think it is important that the peoples, through their national representation (national Parliament), have rights (individual and collective). This is called the normally federalism! What is this authoritarian centralism that is just junk federalism. Those who govern Europe are some nicks jacobins federalists! If a people cannot have a right to block him alone, he must be listened to seriously and seriously opine. A veto and blocking collective rights come guarantee this principle to national parliaments. While individual rights gives these parliaments the right to actually influence the guidelines. This is a real bicameral parliamentary system for Europe with the European Parliament and parliaments of the peoples of Europe (national parliaments) as a centre of power. Parliaments elect and controlling the commission. This has many advantages. Each people is listened and his opinion taken into account. This system supports the compromise between peoples. Europe focuses on its common denominator, which includes the social and ecological Europe.
It is taking power in Europe, that peoples will definitely come out of the crisis and austerity, and put the social and ecological Europe in practice. Peoples should take power to the financial dictatorship and the European federation (we call it as you want), the expression of the General will.
What do these technocrats have to liberalize and to homogenize? Let the people speak. Come to know ourselves, show our differences, our cultures, our history. And ofcourse there is a common basis. The main common values are democracy, the social and the environmental. The autonomy or the principle of subsidiarity, must prevail on the draft common respondents to the principle of complementarity. These must be justified, and have good arguments, to be put in place. But then if the parliaments European starts a want to homogenize everything like that, if it does not seriously respect the right to influence the Nations of its guidelines. It will upset the national parliaments. And if too many members are angry, will take a veto in the figure. But what is it going to take as a veto in the face before respect parliaments national and do things correctly!
I have some idea of the France. France, daughter of the lights must assume its democratic and humanist vocation. It is the grandeur of the France for the what we must be exemplary. The European autonomism is part of this message and french vocation, respondents to the democratic shortcomings and the rape of the autonomy of the Member States, by this small band of diplomats and technocrats without no popular legitimacy. Me for example I did not vote for Merkel. Anyway, its mandate is not European. Why should I be?
I do not want to quibble but who said parliamentary regime unstable regime, it is the level of our media. Necessarily, this is not the purpose even if it is a lesser evil.
It should be a broad autonomy in Europe. Why Europe has just to annoy us with our regions. Has Europe just tamper them? Follow our departments. Follow our autonomy in as Member States, we will respect yours! Long live France, long live the Republic
to complete.
to complete.
Various Articles
The British monarchy
 |
| The British monarchy |
I might be a French republican. The paradox is that, due to different history and culture, the republic is to French democracy, what the monarchy is to British one. I believe that the British monarchy should play an active role in promoting democratic and human rights values. It should intervene in media to create debates, to explain and inform on democratic and human rights issues. Obviously, it should have the constitutional responsibility to guarantee these rights in the UK and should intervene when they are damaged or scratched. Being a French with a touch of patriotism, I understand that this democratic idea would please the British patriots.
Your comments
You can leave your comments here (preferably in English)
By continuing browsing on our site, you accept the use of cookies to secure your connection, facilitate browsing, offer you adapted offers and allow the elaboration of statistics.
Information on cookies and parameterisation, click here.
Last modified on vendredi 04 septembre 2020 à 19H49
