Democracy 1.0 Section If this is your first visit to the Democracy 1.0 Section then please read this Democracy 1.0 Section - Notice first. List of Documents :: This Document Number: 003 Defining DemocracySo, what is democracy? Scenario: Island NationBefore I begin this journey of discovery of Democracy 1.0 it is necessary to find an objective example of a country in order to neutralise all your own subjective notions of what a democracy is. Most people reading this will have their own irrational viewpoint of what a democratic system is, based on the propaganda they were spoon fed while growing up. To proceed in a positive productive investigation this must be totally forgotten and thrown aside. You must start with a fresh canvas. So, for the purpose of objectivity, imagine an island with 100 individuals living on it. This will be our Nation. This will be our society. This will be our specimen to experiment on. There is no one above the inhabitants, ruling them. There is no other authority but themselves. Naturally, in order to prevent chaos and also for the benefit of each other they need to co-operate and organise themselves, in as rational and stable manner as possible. The Purpose Of A Democratic SystemThe purpose for having any political system at all is to organise the people within the ‘locality’ for their own benefit. In the past the political system was more tribally based whereas now it is more likely to be based on the notion of the Nation state. So one could define Democracy 1.0 as a political system based on an organised collective self-rule process, with the sole purpose of ensuring the best possible wellbeing of the citizens of that human group, where the citizens collectively have access to, and control of, the political system and the political authority - at all times. It is important to point out that merely being told that it is a system of self-rule is not sufficient. There must be processes and methods in place which give that term an actual reality, otherwise it is NOT a democratic system. In other words the citizens must have the ability, if they so decide, at any time (depending on the regulations and rules within the Constitution 1.0 - set by the citizens themselves), to alter the political system, or amend (or cancel) the decisions made by the temporary politicians. Most, if not all so-called democracies in place around the world in 2013 do not provide such features and therefore cannot be described as being democratic at all. The purpose and logic of a political system is to give MORE benefit to the individual by being in an organised system than if be lived in a random, unorganised and chaotic ‘free for all’. But it is important to understand that it is not the State, or the Nation (if those words denote the physical area inhabited by the citizens) which benefits from having a democracy but rather the individuals who live within the confines of that land area. In a democracy The State or The Nation IS the collection of individual citizens (including future generations), though that term may sometimes also include the land area covered by that political collection of citizens. So a phrase like “allegiance to the State” is allegiance to ones fellow citizens - NOT allegiance to a physical area of land; and certainly NOT allegiance to the government - as rulers. The Individual Citizen - The Collective (The State, The Nation)The most basic component, or element, of a democratic system are the individual citizens which make up the State - the collective entity of social, financial and political organisation. Wherever possible the individual element, the citizen, must have the maximum right of self-determination as is possible. This basic component includes future generations of citizens. The second element is the collection of all citizens, otherwise known as the State, or Nation - as distinct from the Country (the physical land area inhabited by the citizens). In general, the behaviour of any individual citizen must only be regulated if the effects of that behaviour have a negative impact on other citizens and end up denying those other citizens their own equal level of self-determination. The term State, or Nation, represents ALL the citizens within that country and should not merely represent, or signify, the majority of citizens. It should not automatically demand compliance from individual citizens merely because of a majority decision. There is no higher power or authority than the citizens collectively and thus the State has the right, and even obligation, to interfere in any matter (or activity) whatsoever that occurs (usually) within the State land area (Country), which affects the citizens of the State, and to protect and guarantee the continuance of their democratic system and the overall wellbeing of the citizens. In many cases sub-groups, or vested interest groups, are a significant danger to the democratic process and to the individual citizen's authority and MUST be vigorously controlled and neutralised to the greatest extent possible. For example, a Nation could legitimately decide to merge with a nearby Nation to become one Nation if it was in their interests (and that of their offspring). Unfortunately the reverse situation is not as clear-cut and straightforward as that (usually the majority would have to be of the new extended Nation). The citizens can also decide, if they so wish, to change the roles of President, Government and Parliament etc. The fact must always remain that the citizens, collectively, have full and sole ownership of the system - and nothing less. So, on our island, the sole purpose for having any form of political system at all is for the benefit of those 100 individuals and the future generations - their offspring. There is no other purpose. It is as plain and simple as that. (From this point onwards I will leave out the repetitive reference to ‘future generations‘ unless it is very relevant.) Not Majority RuleMany may jump to the conclusion that an ‘ideal’ democracy is a political system where the wishes of the majority always decides the outcome without question. This can be a very dangerous and unstable method of organising a political system. If one were to follow that reasoning then if it was the case that the majority of those eligible to vote were male they could legitimately decide to disenfranchise all persons of the female gender and argue that it was the wishes of the majority. This would be most unacceptable. So rather than it being the case that all decisions are based on the wishes of the majority, it must be more a case of: if a decision is required then there must be safeguards in place to ensure that the majority cannot disenfranchise the minority. The best method of controlling the possible abuses by the majority is via the Constitution 1.0. It is also a fact of life that majorities come and go and change over time. If it was the case that the majority ruled then that political system would be inherently unstable because of the variable and temporary nature of the make-up of whatever constituted the majority at any point in time. Instability is a destructive force within a political system and must be prevented as much as is possible and useful. In other words democracy is about considering the wellbeing of EVERY individual on The Island, as an individual, on the one hand, and every individual as a member of the COLLECTIVE unit - the citizens, on the other. There will be many times when the rights and wishes of these two entities clash and confront each other. That's where the grey areas cause trouble, but wherever possible the freedom of the individual, within their ‘personal space’ must be taken into the grestest consideration. Sub-groups of individuals within the collective total number of citizens, in effect, are vested interest groups and are to varying degrees a danger to both the individual and collective for they can, if not thoroughly controlled, distort the democratic process, disenfranchise the individual citizen, and cause instability. CapitalismA democracy should automatically have a Capitalist system for the simple reason that each individual has the right to persue bes own level of productivity - and reward for that productivity - and therefore bes own level of comfort and financial wealth. Nevertheless, because any form of sub-grouping of citizens can become a threat to each individual citizen and the citizens collectively, especially if the sub-group becomes more wealthy and would gain more authority over numbers of citizens, a democratic system must regulate these sub-groups with a ruthless determination using controls, legislation and wherever necessary with Articles in the Constitution 1.0.
Sub-groups and more so wealth sub-groups, especially those which end up being monopolies, are a dangerous threat to Democracy 1.0 and must be treated as such. So one could say that democracy allows wealth without restriction but rigorously controls the power and authority which that level of wealth usually creates. There is no power or authority greater than or above, the citizens collectively (note bene: the largest monopoly in a Democracy 1.0 IS the citizens, collectively) and the citizens have the right, and even obligation, to ruthlessly and vigorously enforce and guarantee that that situation always remains true and actual. There are people who lke to follow isms and political groups (herds), some of whom would accuse Capitalism for causing all the problems in the world today, especially the financial crises many Nations are experiencing at present in 2013. Childish and foolish presumptious knee-jerk jumping to conclusions will NEVER solve any problem. The problems in the so-called ‘developed’ countries today were caused by a feudal political system which allowed the feudal elite of the financial system break ALL the rules (which were in place to protect the citizens) because of their insatiable greed. Stringent regulations along with swift, sure and guaranteed punishments would have prevented most, if not all, of the present financial problems we face today. In a Democracy 1.0 those who threaten the financial stability of a Nation, especially but not limited to being on account of any illegal behaviour, WILL face the most severest punishment including the death penalty. It would be - not only a possibility - not only a probabality - but A FACT. Controlled Capitalism is a good thing - for the citizens and for the State. Attitude Towards The StateDemocracy 1.0 must give the individual as much freedom as possible while also taking into account the citizens collectively. If we all lived each on our own island there would be no need for a democratic system, or any form of political system, at all. It is because we gather into a community that we need a political system - a method of organising rights, responsibilities, accountability, and authority - a power and decision making structure etc. From the outset let me make this clear, especially to citizens of Nations which see the Government as being something to take from (as in Ireland for example). Democracy is not a political system where citizens TAKE FROM, but rather it is a political system which citizens PARTAKE IN. It is NOT a feudal system where handouts are expected from the feudal lord and elite. It is important to understand that. For example, one group extolling political change in Ireland (I won't mention their name) uses the phrase "only democracy will ensure the needs and wellbeing of all". I utterly and totally disagree with that statement. Democracy CANNOT guarantee that the needs and wellbeing of all will be met, and SHOULD NOT promise that. Democracy is NOT about that. Statements like that should only be uttered, and lied, by the feudal elite looking for simple-minded citizens to relinquish their portion of citizen authority and hand it over in the haste of gullable greed to those who will abuse that power transfer. If you want empty promises stick with the old feudal political system. Democracy 1.0 is about freeing the citizens so THEY can persue the means to supply their own needs and wellbeing, to the level they desire, with the minimum interference or hinderence. Democracy is about protecting the citizen from subjugation, control and abuse from an organised authority (eg feudal government, dictatorship, vest interest groups), and allowing each and every citizen as much power (self-determination) as possible over their own lives while taking into account the affect of their actions on others, and also providing for those with genuine needs, solely within the limits of the resources of the Nation. When I use the term Nation I am referring to the citizens collectively, not some external entity. Democracy 1.0. does not necessarily mean it will provide an easier or wealthier life for the citizen. Democracy 1.0 does not have a bottomless bag of wealth to dispose of. Rather, Democracy 1.0 is about the dignity of each and every citizen. It's about freedom, equality and justice for each and every individual, which also includes accountability and responsibility. And it is about the total and absolute ownership of the political system by the citizens themselves. Poverty (or lack of wealth), of itself, is nothing to be feared - it may be unpleasant but it does not tear at the spirit of the individual. Poverty though, which is directly caused by a third party, for example: the ruling and controlling feudal elite because of their greed, corruption and incompetence, and FORCED upon the citizen on the other hand is not something that should be seen by the citizen as something to be passively accepted as it strips the dignity from the individual, oppresses them, and makes them victims of that tyrannical political system. So, first and foremost you need to completely cast off and disregard all the propaganda not only about democracy but also about what it should provide for the citizen. In a feudal system there is an overlord and elites and the citizen begs for handouts, not based on what is fair and what is deserved but rather the whim and largess of those at the top. In a feudal political system one could describe the relationship between feudal political elite and citizens as that of giver and taker, respectively. The politician will give, but only on condition that be receives the donation of the citizen's vote. In a feudal political system the vote is used as a bribe to gain more than one possibly should have done. Whereas in a Democracy there is no feudal lord and no higher authority - just fellow citizens, and the collection of all citizens - the State. Handouts don't come from above but are literally taken from the hands and pockets of the fellow citizens and thus merit should be the only criteria involved and any corruption and twisting of a citizens power must be thoroughly defeated and prevented. As I've already stated - Democracy is something a citizen partakes in, is a part of, and not something to be taken from. The problem at present with citizens is that they have never been in a Democracy 1.0 and are still held in the vice-grip of typical feudal propaganda that a vote is something to be used for ones own benefit regardless of its effects on the other citizens and the Nation. How the Democratic system is organised should make great efforts to prevent that attitude and that process from continuing to take place.
... this page to be continued (possibly) Lou Gogan February 2013 |
|