Home

Blog

Civil Liberty
Coalitions
Constitution
Courts and Judicial System
Electoral Reform
Election Promises
Engaging the Citizen
Europe
Experts
Government
Legislation
Lobbies and Special Interests
Media
Narrow Election Results
Parliament
Party Funding
Petition
Political Parties
Politicians
Politician's Pay
Recall and Term Limit
Referendum
Separation of Powers
Swiss Model
Third Party
Tax and Public Spending
Trust in Government


 

Party Funding

The introduction of Direct Democracy would not eliminate but at least severely hamper the influence of money in politics. More direct democracy and mandatory referenda would curtail the power of the politicians and make it less relevant how they gain their seats. The citizens would have the final say on any important decision.
At present, everything in a country is decided when the citizen makes his cross on a ballot paper every four or five years. In this form of pseudo-democracy too much is at stake which leads to a frantic race to win the election at any cost.
Direct Democracy would mean that the citizen has the right and the ability to influence all major legislation directly. This decentralisation of decision-making creates a useful check on the influence of money and donors in politics as it will be much more difficult to influence each and every referendum - especially as there will be a much more focused debate on the objective merits of each proposed measure.
In a decentralised state decisions will also be taken at the appropriate level of government which leads to a further diffusion of decision-making in the country.
At the same time and as a consequence of the reduced importance of rich donors, we predict that the countless (often ineffective) regulations relating to the funding of political parties would become superfluous.
The two methods to fund political parties are both not appropriate for a truly democratic political system. Neither state funding nor unrestricted private funding should be tolerated. Any party should be required to rely on donations from individuals and contributions should be capped at a modest amount. This would require parties to link up with the population in a drive to gather mass support, thus being a grass-roots organisation rather than the prolonged arm of the state of rich individuals.

More on Party Funding

Why you should support
Dirdem:

► Are you angry when people want to control your life?

► Are you angry when people want to live off the fruit of your work?

► Are you angry when people want to tell you what to think?

►If your answer is YES to any or all of the above questions then you should support our Movement.

DIRDEM
is more than a traditional Political Party. We do not see this Cause as a career choice - or stepping stone leading to a lucrative career in the private sector.

DIRDEM
is not a Think Tank that publishes lengthy reports that are only read by a few insiders and later disappear in some library of filing cabinet.

DIRDEM
is not a Lobby or Special Interest Group that tries to gain advantage at the expense of other groups of society.

DIRDEM
is not a Religion or Ideology and does not try to make people believe in something except in the belief that no one should be allowed to rule our lives.
 

Decisions you would be able to influence:

By giving the reader examples of recent policy decisions we highlight the dramatic impact the introduction of Direct Democracy would have on the political life of all countries.

All the following decisions where taken without the participation of the affected citizens. Some - if not most - were highly controversial and have a negative effect for at least some major parts of the country's population.

The present system of government not only leaves the citizens powerless in the face of a never-ending tide of legislation, it also inevitably leads to inefficient use of taxpayer's money and a steady erosion of civil liberties.

See what decisions the citizens could influence directly in a proper democratic system