True Democracy Community Forum Index True Democracy Community
A meeting place for all True Democracy believers
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Defining democracy

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    True Democracy Community Forum Index -> What is democracy?
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lpc1998
Admin


Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:48 am    Post subject: Defining democracy Reply with quote

For a truly democratic community, this is a critically core question and apparently there is no generally accepted definition of democracy. Members and readers are invited to offer their definitions here, if any, and to participate in the discussion.

So it is here we are going to define democracy for the TDC. We shall ascertain or formulate the essential democratic practices to be adopted for the TDC in another Category of this Forum.

As a starter for the TDC, democracy means the system of governance based on the Sovereignty of the Members who has the final say in all matters concerning the TDC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
landen99
New Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Location: Houston, TX USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Bill of Rights Reply with quote

In the topic, "Democracy is not the Tyranny of the Majority or Mobocracy," it was suggested that a bill of rights be constructed for true democracy. I would like to begin that process.

The foundation of true democracy and the intent of this Bill of Rights is the establishment that every human is equal.
1) Equality is both defined and established as the prohibition of discernment of gender, age, marital status, race, ancestory, region, religion, wealth/property, income, or profession by both the government and its laws.
2) The representatives and the government may only act by the majority support of their constituents, being defined by the current will of the entire eligible population.
3) Justice must enforce the law without interpretation of any kind. All judgments must be impartially and objectively based in restoring equality according to the kinds of proven, quantifiable damages.
4) Government must facilitate easy voter participation in efficient elections until a majority is founded on each issue from the final two strongest choices. Government must quickly facilitate the easy introduction, organization, and publication of choices and issues into elections by citizen initiative.
5) Citizens may change their votes on any issue at any time.
6) All laws require the periodic approval of the majority of the people or their representatives. Periodic is defined to be yearly.

Andy Landen
_________________
Andy Landen
The truth sets a man free forever.
(currently in Oslo, Norway)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
lpc1998
Admin


Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:33 pm    Post subject: Bill of Rights Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

I have now established a separate forum for the discussion on the Bill of Rights ( http://www.tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=19 ). This is to ensure that discussions on this very important topic are grouped together.

I have proposed 14 sections for the Bill of Rights for discussion that, I think, would cover your concerns on personal freedom, life and property. The other points raised in your post appear to me to be related to the constitutional provisions on the Organs of State and their functions and on matters relating to election, referendums and citizens’ initiatives.

Best Regards
lpc1998
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mk
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: What is Democracy? Reply with quote

I am planning to devote a whole separate site to this questions.
See its humble beginnigns at http://whatisdemocracy.net/.
How fast it will be filling up will depend on my free time and on the interest/suggestions of the visitors.

Mirek Kolar
http://democracy.mkolar.org/
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/
http://www.whatisdemocracy.net/
http://translationsforprogress.org/
Back to top
lpc1998
Admin


Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:11 am    Post subject: Re: What is Democracy? Reply with quote

Hi Mirek! It is good to see you here.

I have just posted my personal view of “what is democracy?” at your site ( http://whatisdemocracy.net/ ) It is good for the time being we have more sites asking the same question as not many people have a clear view of what democracy is. Let us hope the question and the discussions on it would cause more people to pause and think about democracy, its crucial importance in the well-being and survival of mankind and the necessary conditions for its viability in human society now and in the future.
_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tonguessy
New Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:08 am    Post subject: Democracy Reply with quote

Hi All,
i've been lucky enough to have an interesting exchange of emails with Eric. I always appreciate his honesty and kindness.
We've agreed to expose our emails to this group with the hope that our ideas can be of help to clarify the meaning of democracy as social structure.
In my last email i wrote:
A very important point of disagreement is what democracy means. To me
democracy has historical value, to you it has hypothetical value ( "For
me, democracy has yet to be the winner. The so-called 'democracy of our
days' is feudalism or gangsterism with a superficial democracy veneer."
you wrote)
I understand what social and individual desires are, yet i must make
clear that opinions and facts have separate paths that rarely meet.
Thus no matter how "gangsterism and feudalism" a democracy is, it
remains a democracy, a social concept developped in ancient Greece and
adopted by modern countries to better suit their needs. Yes,
gangsterism. But that's just your (and mine for that matters) opinion.
Italy, USA, Germany, Brazil etc are all democracies, not gangsterisms.
Facts say that democracies were born to do exactly what they're doing: a
15% of population ruling 100% of the country, in ancient Athens like in
modern Washington. Any other social structure should not be called
democracy, or things would get chaotic, terms confusing and
misunderstandings become inevitable.
To make a different example: i can say that cars have never reached
their proper status. I know what REAL cars should look like and perform,
and i'm perfectly aware that any running car is anything but a car.
Do you understand what i mean?

Current social stratification of most countries is
called democracy; calling a different hypothesis of governance
'democracy' generates confusion and misunderstanding.
It also appears that none of us has a great opinion of current
democracies (cleptocracies or feudalism or gangsterism as means to
mantain the current level of concentration of capitals, or surplus, in
the hands of few). Such level of concentration is held in place via the
commitment of the military/scientific establishment. Which are superior
casts defending the interests of the superior casts only, while
pretending to defend the interests of the whole community.

Serge Latouche clearly says that "Eco-compatible capitalism is conceivable in
theory, but unrealistic in practice. A society based on economic
contraction cannot exist under capitalism." Nor under current communism
or socialism, i'm afraid.
"The foundation myth of modern society is that the trend is towards more
equal conditions."
I therefore think that we should first abandon the founding myth that
Time is linear and brings progress. This is the main problem in modern
cultures, and is heavily sustaining the whole "democratization" (via
gangsterism or cleptocracy) of the world.
The direction taken is certainly not towards "more equal conditions",
but towards more discriminations, more wealth for few and more misery
for many.

Best regards

Giorgio
_________________
freedom is a luxury good for slaves
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lpc1998
Admin


Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Democracy Reply with quote

Tonguessy wrote:

Hi All,
i've been lucky enough to have an interesting exchange of emails with Eric. I always appreciate his honesty and kindness.
We've agreed to expose our emails to this group with the hope that our ideas can be of help to clarify the meaning of democracy as social structure.


Hi Giorgio

Thank you for your kind words and thoughts. Yes, with your help, I do hope we would be able to clarify the meaning of democracy and to peel off the thick layers of myth, confusion and deception surrounding it. As a good philosopher, you can express thoughts and ideas better than many other people and let us also take this opportunity to discuss the common of perceptions of democracy.

And I also hope that, at the end of the discussion, apart from our time and efforts well spent, we would have contributed a little to clearing the path towards democracy (or by any other name if you so wish) as a political system of the ordinary folks.

Tonguessy wrote:

A very important point of disagreement is what democracy means. To me
democracy has historical value, to you it has hypothetical value ( "For
me, democracy has yet to be the winner. The so-called 'democracy of our
days' is feudalism or gangsterism with a superficial democracy veneer."
you wrote)


Nope. To me, democracy has a definitive, not hypothetical, value. “Demo” means “the people” and “cracy” means “the Rule”. So democracy simply means “the Rule by the People”. So any system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” is by definition falls short of being a democracy.

Tonguessy wrote:

I understand what social and individual desires are, yet i must make
clear that opinions and facts have separate paths that rarely meet.
Thus no matter how "gangsterism and feudalism" a democracy is, it
remains a democracy, a social concept developped in ancient Greece and
adopted by modern countries to better suit their needs. Yes,
gangsterism. But that's just your (and mine for that matters) opinion.


Nope, opinions and facts do not necessarily have separate paths. What usually have separate paths are opinions based on facts or empirical data and opinions based on premises contrary to facts or empirical data.

Ancient Athenian democracy is a form of true democracy ( http://tdcommunity.org/viewtopic.php?t=23 ) since it upheld “the Rule by the People”. What has evolved since then is the definition of “the People”. In ancient Athens in accordance with the cultural norms, values and practices of the time, “the People” mean male citizens not younger than a certain age. So it does not include women, slaves or foreigners. In modern societies with the advent of “universal suffrage”, “the People” means every citizen not younger than a certain age, but it includes neither children nor foreigners. What remains unchanged is democracy which still means “the Rule by the People”.

Tonguessy wrote:

Italy, USA, Germany, Brazil etc are all democracies, not gangsterisms.


Are you saying that in these countries, the system of governance upholds “the Rule by the People”? We must have the moral courage and the clarity of mind to call a spade a spade. Let us recognise false democracies for what they are.

Tonguessy wrote:

Facts say that democracies were born to do exactly what they're doing: a
15% of population ruling 100% of the country, in ancient Athens like in
modern Washington. Any other social structure should not be called
democracy, or things would get chaotic, terms confusing and
misunderstandings become inevitable.


Nope, you have got the facts wrong. In ancient Athens, only male citizens of not younger than a certain age were enfranchised whereas in today’s USA citizens (both male and female) of not younger than a certain age are enfranchised. The difference between the two is that there was “the Rule of the People” in ancient Athens where the voters have the final say in all matters concerning the people and the country, but not in today’s USA; i.e. the American voters do not have the final say in all matters concerning the people and the country.

Tonguessy wrote:

To make a different example: i can say that cars have never reached
their proper status. I know what REAL cars should look like and perform,
and i'm perfectly aware that any running car is anything but a car.
Do you understand what i mean?


This is a mistaken analogy. The more correct analogy is that of the wolf in sheep’s skin. A wolf in sheep’s skin still remains a wolf despite its outward appearances. In the ‘democracies’ of our days, democratic rights and institutions are often adopted for misuse and abuse.

At best, we should not call a horse-driven carriage a car because it is driven by a horse. A car has an internal combustion engine, and not driven by a horse. The ‘engine’ of democracy is ‘the Rule by the People’.

Tonguessy wrote:

Current social stratification of most countries is
called democracy; calling a different hypothesis of governance
'democracy' generates confusion and misunderstanding.


Yes, the current political system in many countries is called ‘democracy’, but is it democracy? Is there ‘the Rule by the People’ who have the final say on all matters concerning the people and the country? If there isn’t, then it is not democracy. Just because a horse-driven carriage is called a car, must we accept that it is a car? Democracy has been defined by the ancient Athenians as “the Rule by the People’.

However, you are right on this: “calling a different hypothesis of governance
'democracy' generates confusion and misunderstanding.” This is what it is: widespread confusion and misunderstanding on what democracy is. This is because something else, "reprocarcy" (the Rule by Representatives) has masqueraded as democracy for very a long time.

Tonguessy wrote:

It also appears that none of us has a great opinion of current
democracies (cleptocracies or feudalism or gangsterism as means to
mantain the current level of concentration of capitals, or surplus, in
the hands of few). Such level of concentration is held in place via the
commitment of the military/scientific establishment. Which are superior
casts defending the interests of the superior casts only, while
pretending to defend the interests of the whole community.


You are right here. The existing political system which is “held in place” by the military, police, internal security agencies and other agencies of the state is anything, but democratic, although by the intent and purpose of the Constitution it should be.

Tonguessy wrote:

Serge Latouche clearly says that "Eco-compatible capitalism is conceivable in
theory, but unrealistic in practice. A society based on economic
contraction cannot exist under capitalism." Nor under current communism
or socialism, i'm afraid.
"The foundation myth of modern society is that the trend is towards more
equal conditions."
I therefore think that we should first abandon the founding myth that
Time is linear and brings progress. This is the main problem in modern
cultures, and is heavily sustaining the whole "democratization" (via
gangsterism or cleptocracy) of the world.
The direction taken is certainly not towards "more equal conditions",
but towards more discriminations, more wealth for few and more misery
for many.


Yes, you are right: The existing trend is towards “more wealth for few and more misery for many” and certainly not towards a “more just and equal society”. Such a society is untenable in a democracy where the policy decisions must have the support of the majority of the voters, who consists of the miserable “many”.
_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tonguessy
New Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Eric,
thanks for your reply. It's always a pleasure reading your comments. Your anwer is structured in the first half of clear "nope" and the second half of equally clear "yes". I have the impressione that we can sort our differences out big grin
A very important point is the definition and the historical value of Democracy.
The second point is the current value and use of Democracy.

Eric:
To me, democracy has a definitive, not hypothetical, value. “Demo” means “the people” and “cracy” means “the Rule”. So democracy simply means “the Rule by the People”. So any system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” is by definition falls short of being a democracy.

Giorgio
well, at this point we have two possibilities: we either call the current 'system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” ' in another way (cleptocracy, feudalism, gangsterism, elitocracy etc..) or we call the 'system of governance that uphold “the Rule by the People”' in another way. This leaves room to a long philological debate.....

Pragmatically speaking i'm afraid that this commonly used word (democracy) has now reached a very reliable state, and it's used for whatever reason with the same exact meaning: people have the chance to vote and this is inevitably a very good thing (no matter how useless). Deputies, senators and presidents are the expression of the people's freedom of choice. A modern democratic state is therefore ruled by the people. There's no paradox in this simple logic, although we all know it correspond to a minimal truth.
The second choice is calling a 'system of governance that upholds “the Rule by the People”' something else. Should we opt for a complex definition like Direct Democracy, True Democracy, Popular Democracy, Democracy-Against-Elitism etc...things wouldn't be easier anyway. An adjective doesn't change the problem that remains: Democracy is a word that generates confusion. Why? Because democracy has always meant both a '"system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People”' and a '"system of governance that upholds “the Rule by the People”'. We should first understand who the "people" are to explain it.
In ancient Greece where the first democracy was born democracy meant a system of governance ruled by the people where the "people" were only the masters (male). About the 12% of the overall population (30,000 out of 250,000). The remaining 88% were slaves, women and metics, ie all the people that produced something like the GDP of ancient Athens. Exactly like today in ancient Athens a few people enjoyed the fruits of someone else's sweat and discussed about how to use such fruits. Having nothing to do all day long, those masters invented all sorts of modern "conveniencies" like democracy, philosophy, science, economics etc.... all methods to keep the situation under control while having fun. After 2500 years we're still here discussing about how good democracy is and how bad a few individuals (those who spoil democracies) are.
Democracy is exactly this, now like in ancient Greece: it's the governance of the few (yes, elected by the many in recent times) with the clear aim of controlling the system of divisions and rewards. The remaining people are the alibi justifying the crime.
A different story is the pre-marxist communism or anarchy. But i'm afraid that democracy has put solid enough bases to dodge such risks and to see those governances as a threat to democracy itself , judged the best of any governance possible.
In reality modern and ancient democracies are forms of oligarchies. The difference between a king and a prime minister or a president is minimal: their duty is assuring good profits to their casts and this can be done by keeping the people poor.
"more wealth for few and more misery for many" i think this is a good way to understand how deeply a governance respects concepts like social equity.
I judge a tree by the fruits it produces, no matter how people keep calling it.

Best regards

Giorgio
_________________
freedom is a luxury good for slaves
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lpc1998
Admin


Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Singapore

PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:58 pm    Post subject: Defining democracy Reply with quote

Tonguessy wrote:

thanks for your reply. It's always a pleasure reading your comments. Your anwer is structured in the first half of clear "nope" and the second half of equally clear "yes". I have the impressione that we can sort our differences out


Thank you. Yes, our agreements are many; our disagreements are actually few. We do agree on the critical nature of the global and national issues. We may disagree on the preferred solutions or on the names for them. I think one other important area is that we both have an open mind on the issues and the solutions to them. So we can respect our disagreements based on honest differences of views or judgement. We do not have an ideology, a religion or a final solution to sell.

Tonguessy wrote:

A very important point is the definition and the historical value of Democracy.
The second point is the current value and use of Democracy.


I do have a clear definition of democracy as a system of governance as defined by the ancient Athenians: “the Rule by the People” which means the People are sovereign and being so they have the final say on all matters concerning the country and the people.

Yes, understanding the current value and the present use of democratic rights (not democracy in my point of view since I hold that what are often labeled as democracies are more accurately called “reprocracies”) is of vital importance to the awareness for the need of democracy and the true nature of democracy.

Tonguessy wrote:
lpc1998 wrote:

To me, democracy has a definitive, not hypothetical, value. “Demo” means “the people” and “cracy” means “the Rule”. So democracy simply means “the Rule by the People”. So any system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” is by definition falls short of being a democracy.


well, at this point we have two possibilities: we either call the current 'system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” ' in another way (cleptocracy, feudalism, gangsterism, elitocracy etc..) or we call the 'system of governance that uphold “the Rule by the People”' in another way. This leaves room to a long philological debate.....


You are right here that a system that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People” and a system that upholds “the Rule by the People” cannot and should not have the same name like apples and oranges are called differently. Since the “current system of governance” is, in fact, the Rule by Representatives or “Reprocracy” a new word coined by someone I have met. He has argued that it is important to have a word that describes truly and honestly what the “current system of governance” is so as to expose its false claim to be democracy and to clear up the confusion over the original and true meaning of democracy. What do you say of this approach?


Tonguessy wrote:

Pragmatically speaking i'm afraid that this commonly used word (democracy) has now reached a very reliable state, and it's used for whatever reason with the same exact meaning: people have the chance to vote and this is inevitably a very good thing (no matter how useless). Deputies, senators and presidents are the expression of the people's freedom of choice. A modern democratic state is therefore ruled by the people. There's no paradox in this simple logic, although we all know it correspond to a minimal truth.


You are right that, to most people, democracy is associated with the right to vote in the election of deputies, senators and presidents, but your assertions that the election of such representatives are necessarily the expression of the people's freedom of choice and that “a modern democratic state” is therefore ruled by the people are mistaken.

First of all, the right to vote has been equated with democracy. This has been an extremely grievous deception for centuries often propagated and sustained by the ruling elites and the anti-democratic forces in the country.

The right to vote is, but only one of the many democratic rights of the people, although it is at the core of democracy. Other critically important democratic rights include voting freely and effectively without fear or coercion, the freedom and security of the person, of speech, communication, association, etc and other rights. In essence, democracy means the people are sovereign, not just about democratic rights. So it is preposterous to claim in a democracy “to govern with the consent of the governed” as many political elites do justifying their rule over the people. A sovereign people governs and not to be governed under any pretext. Representatives, whether elected or appointed, are merely agents of the people who should act in accordance to the Will of the People as spelt out in the People’s Constitution.

The democratic right to vote is abused when it is used to legitimize the rule of dictators, tyrants, gangs or other usurpers or cheaters, suckers or betrayers of the people. Some prominent dictators like Saddam Hussein in their heydays used to be elected as the President of the country with more than 95% of the “popular” votes. They have such high percentages for the simple reason that voting against them has immediate and dire consequences. Such abuse of the voting right is certainly a good thing for the abusers, but a very bad thing for the people.

Tonguessy wrote:

The second choice is calling a 'system of governance that upholds “the Rule by the People”' something else. Should we opt for a complex definition like Direct Democracy, True Democracy, Popular Democracy, Democracy-Against-Elitism etc...things wouldn't be easier anyway. An adjective doesn't change the problem that remains: Democracy is a word that generates confusion. Why? Because democracy has always meant both a '"system of governance that fails to uphold “the Rule by the People”' and a '"system of governance that upholds “the Rule by the People”'. …..


For the democracy reformist movement, there are only 2 names among those in your list that are in contention: Direct Democracy (DD) and True Democracy.

Unfortunately, many in the DD movement are anti-representatives and insist on a strict compliance with the practices of the ancient Athenian Democracy where the voters voted directly practically on all policy issues. So they have slogans like “Every voter is a legislator”. They want to abolish the practice of having Representatives. This is impractical in modern societies with tens of millions of citizens with very complex social issues.

They miss the real problem which is the Rule by Representatives. As a result many people are turned off by the very mention of Direct Democracy which is, in fact, being promoted as a matter of faith like a religion.

Whereas on the other hand, True Democracy when it is properly defined has the immediate advantage of highlighting the fact that there are false democracies which do not fall within the definition of True Democracy. This simplifies the matter as a question of fact whether an existing democracy is true or false. Moreover, unlike Direct Democracy, having representatives who truly serve the people in True Democracy does not have an apparent contradiction in terms as “Direct” in Direct Democracy could have implied.

Tonguessy wrote:

….. We should first understand who the "people" are to explain it.

In ancient Greece where the first democracy was born democracy meant a system of governance ruled by the people where the "people" were only the masters (male). About the 12% of the overall population (30,000 out of 250,000). The remaining 88% were slaves, women and metics, ie all the people that produced something like the GDP of ancient Athens. Exactly like today in ancient Athens a few people enjoyed the fruits of someone else's sweat and discussed about how to use such fruits. Having nothing to do all day long, those masters invented all sorts of modern "conveniencies" like democracy, philosophy, science, economics etc.... all methods to keep the situation under control while having fun. After 2500 years we're still here discussing about how good democracy is and how bad a few individuals (those who spoil democracies) are.

Democracy is exactly this, now like in ancient Greece: it's the governance of the few (yes, elected by the many in recent times) with the clear aim of controlling the system of divisions and rewards. The remaining people are the alibi justifying the crime.


The above argument has the following flaws:

1 The fights for political dominion in ancient Athens were amongst the various male groups who had the votes; and

2 The winners enjoyed the bounties with their families including their wives, girlfriends, daughters, young children and other dependants who did not have the vote.

So you assertion that the 12% who had the votes enjoyed life at the expense of the remaining 88% is incorrect. A very substantial part of the 88% who were related to or connected with the controlling politicians of the day enjoyed life too, albeit at a lesser extent than these politicians, at the expense of the rest of society, especially the slaves.

Another point is the mistake that in a democracy everyone has the right to vote. The voters are those who are enfranchised: In ancient Athens, only male citizens above a certain age; in "modern democracies" only citizens who are above a certain age. The young still do not have voting rights and for good reasons.

Tonguessy wrote:

In reality modern and ancient democracies are forms of oligarchies. The difference between a king and a prime minister or a president is minimal: their duty is assuring good profits to their casts and this can be done by keeping the people poor.


Since these modern and ancient “democracies” are forms of oligarchies, they are therefore by definition not democracies. We should call a spade a spade. An oligarchy is not a democracy. Henceforth, we should cease to call these oligarchies democracies.

Ancient Athens was a democracy because the voters are sovereign with free and effective votes and had the final say on all matters concerning the people and the country. None of the other modern or ancient "democracies" have these attributes.

Tonguessy wrote:

"more wealth for few and more misery for many" i think this is a good way to understand how deeply a governance respects concepts like social equity.

I judge a tree by the fruits it produces, no matter how people keep calling it.


Are you equating social equity to democracy?


Related Posts

[Poll] To determine whether [Eagle] has a case on the casino issue
http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2118&start=50

Democracy in Social System – Collective Intelligence
http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2304

To whom the country belongs?
http://www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2041&start=50
_________________
Best Regards
lpc1998
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    True Democracy Community Forum Index -> What is democracy? All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group