Referendums on the transformation to direct democracy, might start with Electricity Pacts in Europe, USA and OAS

What follows is an invitation to continue a generative dialogue aimed to define, for example, the two options of a referendum, which may be useful right now for the European Union negotiations with Greece, starting a transformation on the electricity sector. Such a class of referendum might also be useful, for example, for the United States of America in the case of Puerto Rico, for the Organization of American States in the case of Haitian immigration to the Dominican Republic, all based on the advanced findings for the Electricity Pact of the Dominican Republic which is designed for the global socio economic environment.

Referendums on the transformation to direct democracy http://t.co/zejM5BWwf4, might start with @PactosRD in #EuropeIN, #USA & @OAS_official

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 19, 2015

RT Referendums on the transformation to direct democracy , might start with in , & gmh_upsa: Referendums on the tr… https://t.co/upcX2VsPgk

— Paul Obean (@PObean) July 19, 2015

Thanks! @PObean Direct democracy for @OccupyWallStNYC #OWS begs referendum https://t.co/pa3e8waXNL to shrink representative democracy ASAP..

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 20, 2015

@gmh_upsa ya formas parte de mi web http://t.co/isTwDwk9ZH http://t.co/KZbm2odiV8

— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) July 20, 2015

With such an environment enabled by the generative dialogue based on the background of a long series of post (that are open to clarifications and enhancements), which have been pinned to the Twitter account @gmh_upsa, the sta[r]ting referendum suggestion is:

Vote YES: to start the transition to direct democracy that guarantees win-win opportunities to the people in retail electricity.

Vote NO: to remain in representative democracy that doesn’t guarantee win-win opportunities to the people in retail electricity.

Is simply what Nobel Laurate Joseph Stiglitz telling the people that their money was used to bailed out their countries banks as a result of systemic corruption available under representative democracy? While Stiglitz might be discredited as being on the left, let´s reinterpret the Greek referendum by one expert of the right, based on the article Greece’s Vote for Sovereignty, by Dani Rodrik, who is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Quoted in a translation by Pedro Silverio Álvarez at the beginning of his article Finalmente, la capitulación, next is what Rodrik wrote in his original article:

It is important to remember that the creditors in this instance are not a bunch of oligarchs or wealthy private bankers, but the governments of the other eurozone countries, democratically accountable to their own electorates. (Whether they did the right thing in 2012 by lending to Greece so that their own bankers could be repaid is a legitimate, but separate question.) This is not a conflict between the Greek demos – its people – and the bankers, as much as it is a conflict between European democracies.

That original quote can be considered to be written under the common sense of Fordism, which is based on representative democracy. A reinterpretation based on the common sense of Jobsism would introduce direct democracy to be able to address the separate question that emerges as a conflict between the people of the other countries of the union and their own government. This would be the initial version of the key question of the generative dialogue to support the referendum on each of the Eurozone countries:

Whether it was legitimate or not that their government did “the right thing in 2012 by lending to Greece so that their own bankers could be repaid,” would they prefer to shift, for example, from the privatization of the retail electricity market based on representative democracy to the deregulation of the retail electricity market based on direct democracy.

The above would eventually enable a Big Shift (maybe a 180 degrees turn around) in direction, from the current scenario towards the 2nd Middle Ages, to the scenario of the Golden Age of the ICT technological revolution. Such a Big Shift transformation would return the lost balance between the State and market institutions, away from Big State towards a minimalist State, and from win-lose mediocre markets towards win-win great markets.

The results of the Greek referendum shows that under representative democracy the Big State lent huge sums of money of the people of the other Eurogroup countries to Greece based on the Troika´s common sense of Fordism.  As has been suggested in the background posts, the main reason why Big State doesn’t work anymore for the people is because of systemic corruption that allows privatization businesses to even subtract value to retail customers under the protection of State regulations, which then increase the pressure to redistribute wealth instead of enabling innovations in the retail markets. In addition, by lending even more money to Greece under the common sense of Fordism, the Doom Loop will, for example, push the best brains of the country to go elsewhere, making matters much worse.

Pushing out of the country their best brains as a result of rampant systemic corruption in the electricity sector, can also be a thesis for Puerto Rico, whose population has had recently a sharp increase in immigration to main land USA, which is very easy for them to do as they are US citizens. Similarly, for both Haiti and Dominican Republic, the common sense of Fordism in the electricity sector is being proposed to remain as a Big State initiative, which can be seen in the “Fourth update. Just like the Haiti's Energy Roadmap is the DR Energy Roadmap truly Sustainable?,” of the post Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia.

Why not reduce the escalation between the Organization of American States and the Dominican Government on repatriations, by a referendum to all OAS countries to help Haiti document as soon as possible their citizens and to support a transformation of the electric sector as well in those OAS countries that join the effort. Under direct democracy, the people would enter contractual relationships that would let them “vote” with their wallet, for example, as introduced in the post Great electricity service, which people are not expecting but will love, as a result of the large systemic positive leverage available.