"Instead of 70,000 Riot Police, What About Public Debates and Plebiscites?"

I am reading in today's edition of the UK-based newspaper, The Guardian International, that the French government is sending 70,000 police throughout the country to "prevent civil unrest". They include elite "counter-terrorism" units!

France is not alone, however, as similar protests are expected in Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Albania.

Common causes are reported to be "declining public services, housing affordability, public sector budget cuts and the spiralling cost of living". There are also unproved allegations that protests launched by millions of people are caused by "agitators" and "terrorists".

Here's my initial reaction. When so many governments are opposed by so many people, it is preferable to hold public debates and plebiscites (online and offline) where divergent views can be expressed, discussed, and confronted. Proposals can be expressed, debated, and used to build consensus. They can be voted upon, to craft and adopt policies, and enact laws that reconcile divergent views -- and make riots unnecessary!

Fortunately, it is now possible for whole populations and electorates to use modern communications to express their needs, demands, and preferences just about any time. The old-fashioned practice of holding periodic elections is simply obsolete. So is the practice of different branches of government enacting contradictory laws and regulations, with no workable mechanisms for reconciling them.

And of course the practices of many political parties espouse ideologies and adopt platforms that are behind the times, in terms of what populations and voters need, want, and demand. Curiously, I have been intrigued by recent reports and research describing, and explaining, why people tend to dislike -- and even hate! -- political parties.

In my view, elected government leaders, starting at the top of the legislative, executive, and judicial power pyramids, should be on the lookout 24/7/365 to find out exactly what their constituents' needs are. They should ask them directly, and give them the chance to articulate and promote the policies and laws they need to live the lives they want to live.

In addition, government leaders can and should hold public debates and plebiscites, constantly. Divergent views can be surmounted by the results of the votes, which make it clear to them -- continuously in real time -- what they must do to serve the public interest. No more riots!

"Conservative Commentators Exclaim: The World is on Fire!"

Today's New York Times published a conservative opinion referring to protests occurring throughout Europe. The authors fear the upheavals and resurgence of extremist parties may be an omen of a "continent coming apart at the seams". Without mincing words, and with a worldwide magnifying glass, they claim we can all now agree the world is on fire.

The question I'm pondering is whether there may be encouraging signs lurking beneath these firestorms. For most protesters appear to be driven less by ideologies than by practical difficulties they face in paying for basic necessities, and, now in France, learning in modern educational facilities.

By taking to the streets, within and across nation-state boundaries, these young protestors may be exploiting the closest and most immediate channels for expressing their frustrations, anger, and even rage about problematic futures. They are lighting firestorms to demand actions by decision-makers who have the power to make systemic change. Time will tell.