A failure or success?

Egypt is a headache for democracy supporters worldwide.

We enjoy free elections.

President Mohamed Morsi,
who won the election, was overthrown by a military coup.
We don’t like that.

At the same time, we supported the 17 million secular Egyptians demonstrating against Morsi, even though they are a minority in a country with more than 80 million inhabitants.

If democracy is merely a way to elect the leader, large groups will be oppressed; but there are tools in a modern democracy for the extended right to take part in politics. Everyone can do it, but most are not interested. Voting has three alternatives: yes, no – or the most comfortable; to abstain. Even if a majority abstains, a decision must be valid, as long as everyone is informed and have the right to vote.

My view is that President Morsi should be reinstated, but his power should be restricted. There should be a public debate and the activists should be rewarded with greater influence. For example: if a ten-million-minority protest against a new resolution a popular referendum should be held.

Although the military may have the best intentions, they’re better to stay away from politics. Arguments and votes should be political weapons rather than soldiers and arms.

Not surprisingly, the United Nation’s climate conference in the oil city of Doha failed. We still don’t have a plan for how to reduce the greenhouse effect and prevent the heating of the earth. Now we must realize that the UN is unable to make the required decisions. No existing organization can do it, because the environmental problems are long-time and global, while the world’s countries and global companies are ruled by short-time self-interest. We need to create a democratic organization that is authorized to legislate on a climate change agreement that all nations are bound to follow. Our mission is to create a directly-elected, representative, transparent and democratic world parliament with the right to pass global laws.

The world’s most important issues (war, environment, human rights, economy…) are all global. We will need a democratic world parliament so that the people of the world are able to influence these worldwide issues. Opponents to a democratic world parliament suggest that such an organization would limit a nation’s sovereignty. However, it is precisely this self-interested sovereignty that is at the root of the problem. Opponents also argue that it is impossible to have all nations cooperate peacefully. If the concept of democracy works at the city (municipal), state (province), and national levels – there is no reason why it can not work at the global level.

Avaaz has made global political engagement much easier. The next step is to give all Internet users a renewed political influence through a global referendum, see Rescue Plan for Planet Earth. Let’s organize the world’s first global referendum as a chain letter – meaning that once a person votes – that person makes sure that at least 2 other people vote. If a majority of the world’s citizens (over 16 years) participate in the referendum and at least 2/3 of them support the idea the resulting referendum will be legally binding, if not politically compelling. If we organize a huge global internet referendum we can really change the world. The plan is not at all hard to execute, it’s just big.