I registered just now, after I saw that the circle of proposals has a "Democratize Europe" on the top, and no direct strategy to do that.
That consolidates an already consolidated narrative:
Democracy doesn’t work fine.
All we can do is find workarounds to make it less stinky.
Many people believe, that Orwell’s 1984 exaggerates when it tells, that a specific vocabulary can be used to hide history or reality and divert to a fake common ground.
So, any attempt to say, that the last 200 years of development did not culminate in terminating the construction of democracy at any time, and much less on starting one, doesn’t have any chance to be taken seriously.
Is there a way to prove such a weird and "anachronistic" claim?
Yes, there is! And it is pretty simple:
It needs only to focus on the electoral process, and show, that in order to turn on the motor of democracy, there is a part of it that mandatorily should be handled in a different way!
So, if you really want to send out an impacting message, focus on just one clear message to the whole world:
To assure, that people (the "demos"") holds the power and exercises self-determination, we must assure that its elections are a 1:1 force applied to society!
Democracy means, that the direction society choses depends on the expression of the will of its majority.
Reality is, that the direction is determined by "the markets", a label fabricated to hide a very small quantity of people, who use money to impose their will onto the world!
In reality, our modern world was built up to assure, that very few single people could use money as a lever to decide over life and death of entire nations, and the expectations humanity can have for the future.
Resuming: The fact, that money is much stronger than the will of people who vote, shows either that democracy is much weaker than money, or that there is an undetected trick that makes voting useless, or even a process that renews the subordination to capital (and those who control it).
If a vehicle doesn’t run the way it was meant for, and you hear hundreds of engineers putting together a 20-30 point plan to apply to the vehicle, to improve its performance, you get a strong feeling in your guts, that the whole engineering on the vehicle was a failure from beginning.
When you propose demarchy, you practically dismiss the whole idea, that self-determination is the right way!
In reality you never thought, that self-determination of a society is bad. You just noticed and accepted, that "on the way" there is some unexplainable "kidnapping", and the "self" of "self-determinations" gets lost. Always! So, your real purpose is to disturb the kidnapping entity, and make sure, a random agent gets in charge.
I could write onto a receipt of a doctor, how elections should be made.
But I know for sure, that a very very very few number of people will like the idea.
Those few people are people with intuition.
All other people are people who already accepted an "Orwellian" narrative and "vocabulary".
So, if you want me to continue, remember one thing: Most of you came to DiEM25 (or similar organizations) because you wanted to change Europe or the world.
(And several came to DiEM25 to see if they can get a salary at Brussels or in their national parliament!)
You perfectly know, what kind of things came together, and many of you are already dissatisfied with the outcome.
The bigger dissatisfaction comes from realizing, that just 6,000 people all over Europe reacted to DiEM25’s call.
If you still believe, the path you put together is the best possible one, you are telling voters, you seriously believe, having a few elected people in Brussels or national parliaments changes the world.
And that is absolute crap no voter believes anymore!
Just see the numbers "Demokratie in Bewegung" or "Deutsche Mitte" got!
If you approach voters, by explaining and showing them, why voting is useless, and how to make it the instrument it should be, several of them will listen. And if your goal is, to make voting work, to make it into a lever that applies the sum of sovereign power of individuals onto society, with a much bigger force any money can have, you will be able to put together lots of people. From any political flavor.
"Not right and not left" was a slogan up to now, because protest movements had and have no idea on how to change the system.
But it is an intuitive slogan, because systemic engineering has nothing to do with taking a direction.
To finish this introduction, I put an example:
If we imagine that democracy is a car, people will ignore your promises to do this and that, because they already got convinced, that there is no car and no driver. They feel they are on a train that is remotely controlled.
You have to show them, it is a car that can be driven by a conductor, but it always had drivers who take their instructions from an elite, because they are not bound to voters, although they are voted.
The technical problem is in the voting itself.
Voting expresses a preference, but it doesn’t translate into obligation!