あらゆる価値は政治の懐の中にしか存在しえません。しかし日本
は総理府の発表でも8割りの国民は「政治にはもはや何も期待できな
い」と考え、読売アンケ-トの結果では国民の78% は「政治に不満
」と考えておられます。平成11年には620兆円という先進国最悪の
債務、(米誌ビジネスウイークによれば1300兆、日経11.6.25)過半
数の方は選挙さえ「誰がなっても同じ」と思われておられます。投票
率の大幅低下は１割の声が３割の 議席を占めるという不条理を招き
ます。そうであるのに6時以降は無党派層が投票するとして、8時の
投票終了時間を6時にするというような案まで前向きに検討されてい
ます。これは正しく民主主義の崩壊の兆しです。

10年９月４日新進党の小沢党首は「国政にふさわしいと思って国会へ
出した以上、『金と票は出 すが、あとは自分の見識で存分にやってく
れ』という事でなければいけない。信頼して任せるべきだ」といって
います。しかし政治家は信頼出来ないと過半数の国民が考えているの
です。清潔を強調した中島議員が逮捕されました。ヒ素カレー事件は
「人は見かけや言葉で真実は分からない」ことを示しました。「主権
」は寝食以上に重要な国民の権利です。議案の議決に自らの政治意
思を直接参加させる事はデモクラシ-の基本です。忙しいとか、難し
いので誰かに「主権」を委任したいという 人々は間接政治制度を選
択し、直接政治に参加したいと考える方は直接政治制度を選択する
、主権在民の精神はこういう事であったはずです。

選挙という制度しか用意しないから、誰が作ったかさえ分からない「
公約」と「笑顔」を資料としてイヤイヤ投 票している方も多いのでは
ないでしょうか。選挙制度しか用意しないのは政治への参入障壁 い
うべきではないでしょうか。理論的にも外交政策はA党に同意し、教
育政策はB党を支持し、財政再建策はC党に賛同するということは十
分ありえます。議員は地盤の企業の許認可、補助金申請を行政に取
り 次ぐ のが第一の仕事ですから加藤前幹事長が言われたように「
行政に遠慮をせざるを得ない」しかも選挙の時の借金の返済、私設
秘書の人件費など歳費だけでは大きな赤字ですから、利権を探した
り、公共事業を企画したり、後援組織を見つけて「族」化しなけれ
ばならないのです。票にも金にも繋がらないのに許認可削減、情報
公開、人員削減等実効性のある改革 に本気で取り組まれるでしょ
うか。
政治の場に誰への遠慮も、圧力も受けない意志を参加させなければ
ならないと思います。憲法 の言う国民主権の為に間接政治一本とい
うシステムは時代に合わせて少しばかり補正されなけ ればならな
いと思われます。

そこで国会の議案採決の場に直接に参加したいと考える有権者は選
挙人名簿の抹消を申請し、代わり に「直接議決権」を取得し、関心
のある法案の議決の日に、電子端末器を用いて国会の法案議決の場
面に直接参入し 、代議士も賛否はやはり電子端末器を用います。代
議士は一票ではな く、選挙における得票数が加算 されます。

さて、真のデモクラシーの実現、ひいては環境と福利そして、財
政のための直接間接併存政治を実現するためには、この案を掲げ
る議員が国会の多数を占めなければなりません。このメーリング
リストはまさに、メンバーの皆様によって日本の過半数の人々に容
認頂ける磨かれた案にする場として用意致しました、アクティブ
な書き込みを期待します。尚案のホームページには過去の議論を
収録していますから、ご覧下さい。

このサイトの「設置者」へメール

Plan for Direct-Indircet Coexisted Democracy

I shall consider a new political system where politics and indirect politics coexist. For, there are some serious vices of the indirect politics. For example, if we are supposing that there are 10 bills coming up in the Congress, but about each bill there is an argument. In such case, is there any solution available? That means, even if there are 100 bills in the Congress, only a few bills supported by the ruling political party are always chosen, as far as we are to choose one candidate in the election. Therefore we cannot choose one bill directly of 100 choices.

That must be absolutely the fundamental vice of indirect politics. That seems to be a deposition of our lives in the sovereign authority. Could anyone be trusted only by one's appearance, words, smiles and handshakes? If so, we would not able to accept any human ethics or values. Moreover, in the indrect politics, minority groups have strong power. They always attempt to offer bribes in order to keep their own power.

Environmental, welfare and financial politics of the government, for instance, take huge influences by them. For that reason, a bill for the regulation of guns was rejected. In the election, we are given only a choice to elect a member of Diet whose interest is connected with that of some special enterprises.

In direct politics, people must make a compromise with such political situation, so we should by all means amend it for the true democracy. In other words, those who have great concern for the politics should be participated in political decisions. Namely, we have only to establish a system where those who have little concern for the politics entrust their rights to politicians, whereas those who have concern for it can select direct politics instead of indirect politics.

As for direct election, Internet can be useful. Then we will not need to choose some complicated bills. Participation in the Internet election can be free.... The decision of the bill is given as following: each person who participates in Internet election is given a vote, so that members of Diet try to gather as many votes as possible, making a great appeal to them for the bills they are supporting. Possibly the rate of the participants in the Internet election will be 20-30 % of all the voters. ------ Those are on the 1st stage of this system.

Indirect politics is becoming more old-fashinoned with widespreading of Internet. There a new political system for our new age is needed because there are some serious vices of the indirect politics. Precisely, our political action is highly restricted as a result of indirect politics, which does not work at all. The half of the people is against the bill for the poor budget. The same can be applied to the politics for the future of the country. Therefore direct election system is necessary abreast of the politics in the Diet.

Today, when worldwide solidarity is necessary, democracy makes possible the restoration of natural environment, world peace and human rights. In democratic system, every question is acceptable. Even the international direct-indirect coexisted system of politics is possible in democracy.

The purpose of this system is relieve our political consciousness from strong sovereign authority. It does not intend to realise a fundamental reform of our social system. Indirect democracy is also necessary to deal with urgent political problems. Governmental administration and dilomacy should be also survived for that reason. In this step, the voting rate of the participants of direct election would not be over 50 % of the whole. In fact, it would be probably within 30% of all the voters, because 70-80% of the people would be those who have no interest in the direct election. Nonetheless, politicians are requested to have concern with all the bills.

The second stage is the following : Those who participate in the direct election can also offer their own policy to the government. Politicians, civil officers, enterprises, NGOs or any other member of the groups can submit their own bills in cyberspace. Here the best 10 bills which had great concern of the people are selected out. During the election in cyberspace, people can participate in the discussion for the decision of the bill. The discussion term lasts 60 days and is over at all.

In the meantime all the contents of these 10 bills are thoroughly considered and discussed in the Diet, too. The general people can also join there. The decision is made at 10 o'clock at night. Members of Diet have votes for the people who entrusted their rights to them, whereas those who join in the direct election have one vote per person. It means that the latters' votes should be separated from the votes of politicians.

Here is a typical objection to this plan as follows: average people are folly and the politics would be poorer and worse if they join there. Nonetheless, we are given enough education and get much information through Internet easily. Everyone has good ability of judgment equally. Success and failure as a result of politics have nothing to do with democracy. The more often people experience the result, the cleverer they would be as much. They would not be discontent with the result, either. We welcome any question about this plan. We hope that this plan will be able to connect with worldwide democratic movements as well.

The International Political Association for Direct-Indirect-Combined Democracy (IPADD)