Internet Party Democracy
Are we agreed that democracy is disfunctional nationally, in the Labour party, in the Green party ?
How then are we to contest a democratic election in NZ ?
First we have to rebuild democracy, The only way we can do that is by example.
Here is my suggested democratic structure for the Internet Party.
Decisions are taken by the unanimous consent of three bodies, each body has a different responsibility and considers only that responsibility in giving consent. No body is ascendant if they cant agree then they have to talk more until they do.
The Members who generate and mandate decisions thru a democratic process of dialogue, information, and voting
The Party Organisation Operational and Political who must be convinced they can carry forward decisions in an organised, timely, coordinated, and legal manner. This group is a meritocracy
The Party Vision group who must be convinced that the decision does not turn the vision on its head or commit to any unethical act
This group consists of the party visionary, the general secretary, and others as they propose that recieve consent of the other groups.
There it is. A bare bones structure that i think is plausible.
Please consider that this is not just "off the cuff" for me. If you cant see why something is here have a think about it then please ask.
Stephen Bryson Fri 26 Sep 2014 10:13AM
What is a Politics 2.0 party?
Blair Robson Fri 26 Sep 2014 6:48PM
I think a lot of our members are perhaps confused about what the Internet Party stands for politically.
I agree wholeheartedly with Vikram's vision and that is that it DOESNT have any political stand per say. Other than following a technologically progressive direction it needs to operate as a political vehicle to collaborate and drive member engagement with all of the areas of policy creation.
It should be able to brand itself in such a way that it can harbour policies and ideologies across the entire political spectrum.
Perhaps even somewhere that OTHER political parties come to test their own policies.
The Internet Party needs to avoid being labelled a left wing party... Naturally if it stays true to its vision, it will attract support from both the left and the right - Depending on who is in government at the time.
There is no reason WHY the Internet Party policies HAVE to align with any of its partnerships such as Mana.
Blair Robson Fri 26 Sep 2014 6:52PM
Also - by remaining idealogy agnostic - It will protect us from being rejected by parties that DO hold a particular idealogy.
Fred Look Fri 26 Sep 2014 7:24PM
@stephenbryson also called "open source politics" it is the idea that social media and tools like this one allow us to work and share information and generate solutions directly rather then information and ideas being presented and disseminated from a few sources "top down". Also is the idea that in campaigning we can go directly to people thru social media without being filtered/distorted by the large media organisations
Fred Look Fri 26 Sep 2014 7:45PM
I also am glad that "non idiological" is a core value. It wont protect us from being rejected by parties that use polarisation as an election tool but it may just save us from falling into the same trap!
seann paurini Fri 26 Sep 2014 9:59PM
Two things, sorry if this is the wrong forum. Redirect me if this isn't it. I'm confused by all the words all over the place. 1. Are there ever face to face get togethers? I've emailed everywhere (as in internet party officials) for the last two months and I've never received a response. I want to meet open minded members not blinded by ideology (which is how I basically see the IP)
- Relating to that & democracy itself I was a member of Mana from its inception (transferred from Maori Party). I joined the Internet Party about 6 weeks ago because I could see there are some actually original thinkers (in a politics context) involved. The ideology that guides me and has since I was a kid is socialism, closer to social anarchism, but as a pragmatist who has to live in the world with all sorts of people I've stuck with the idealism without illusions approach when it comes to democracy in technological/capitalist economies/societies. My interest is a better society by establishing civilisation in NZ. I don't think we're there yet. There are a measly 4.4m people in this rich country and we have absurd levels of social degradation. We don't even have a real democracy because about 1m people still aren't engaged enough to be interested in contributing. I was attracted to the IP because I think it's members are capable of progressing/promoting social entrepreneurialism/ethical capitalism and social & economic justice/fairer redistribution of wealth alongside advancing the best about technological society (pref not spying). I'm really attracted to the IP because I think we can press for all of the above in a very human/connected to the people way - without imposing dogma 24/7 which is what the rest seem addicted to in their own ways. I'd like to see the IP remove itself from identity politicking too. I don't think it's governments business. I'm interested in living in the freest, fairest country in the world. Sorry for rave but I'm f'd off about the result. I want to stay with the IP, it's like a little baby full of hope and trust - like a 'blank slate' - not yet poisoned by extremes or pretensions about centre left-right etc. So I'm looking for a 21st C values party in a way. Equilibrium where I'm able to live well enough and max social freedom.
Stephen Bryson Fri 26 Sep 2014 10:59PM
@seannpaurini
Well said, I heartily agree.
As I see it the Internet Party has a fantastic potential for letting the voice from the internet come out into the light. We know that the internet cannot be the vehicle for any particular agenda and therefore it is difficult to see how any true internet party can ever hope to hold to any particular agenda in turn, irrespective of any previous definition such as mentioned above, digital economy, internet freedom, the environment, etc.
Yes, these are great start-offs and have established some core interests for the meanwhile but we would be doing all the greatest of disservice by trying to hold these only.
The internet won't allow it and nor should we.
And in respect of the party vision I don't see how it can be easily tied down other than being something that is ever expansive and at the same time wholly inclusive.
seann paurini Fri 26 Sep 2014 11:17PM
Thanks Stephen. I just can't see how we can carry on with the charade of NZ as it is.
Blair Robson Sat 27 Sep 2014 5:32AM
Awesome post Seann...Its completely fine to hold idealogical views...you have to sit somewhere...
With respect to the vision and using your arguments to build consensus through the platform... I think if the IP can nurture a culture of accepting the collaborative process then people with strong views either way will find it easier to concede and move on to the next thing...
Takes 2 good opposing arguments to drill down to a valuable solution.
Fred Look · Fri 26 Sep 2014 5:28AM
this is how Vikram saw the vision when he became our CEO ......"non-ideological focus on the digital economy, environment, privacy, and building a Politics 2.0 party"