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: 004 Fundamental Principles Of Democracy 1.0There are a few fundamental principles and cornerstones to Democracy 1.0:1. Ownership and Control of the Political System by the citizens. 2. Ownership and Control of all Political Authority by the citizens. 3. Protection of Future Generations. 4. Freedom of Information In Democratic 1.0 system it is the citizens, and only the citizens, who collectively have total, immediate, active and final control over all aspects of the political system and who hold all the political authority. It is their political system and their political authority. Anything less than that should not be described as being a democratic political system. Ownership Of The Political SystemOwnership Of The Political SystemThe citizens in a democracy have total collective ownership of the political system itself, and thus must have a method of changing that system if desired by the majority of the citizens (or by a specific percentage if set out in the Constitution 1.0), at any time whatsoever, without any possibility of interference by the politicians, by other individuals or any vested interest groups, or by any internal or external force or authority. This MUST be enshrined within the Constitution 1.0, both as a principle to be steadfastly upheld and a process or method which must be organised and in place and available to the citizens at all times. Therefore it should also include a method whereby the citizens can use that authority when so decided by them. This right must not be organised via the politicians but MUST be a case of a process bypassing them so the citizens have a direct method of changing the Constitution 1.0 - the set of rules by which THEIR political system is organised. What also follows on from that right is that there must also be a method whereby the citizens can also overturn any decision of the Supreme Court regarding an interpretion of the Constitution 1.0. This must also include the possibility of punishing those members of the Supreme Court who advocated that interpretation if it is considered that the decision of the Supreme Court was of such blatant disregard for the citizens of the Nation that it would have threatened the democratic process if it were allowed to be interpreted in that way. Possible punishments could be for example: fines, removal from office, being banned from any future public appointment, etc and if any form of outside collusion or influence be found, specifically with regard to the decision being beneficial to business interests at the expense of the freedom of the citizens, the death penalty.
Example (USA) - the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court In simple terms the US Supreme Court decided that large corporations should be treated as if they were a citizen and should have the same rights. In other words they could use the financial power of the corporation to help political candidates in an election. In effect the corporations could bribe politicians and abuse their financial clout to corrupt and distort democracy to the point where the individual citizen has no control over the political system. The politician who is owned by the wealthiest corporation will have a much greater chance of winning the election. This decision by the Supreme Court - to demolish the power of the citizens and transfer that power to the corporations - was about the most blatant disregard for democracy one could imagine, and demonstrated the level of contempt held by the members of that Supreme Court towards the ordinary citizens of the USA. I would presume that if there had been a process whereby the citizens could have overturned the Supreme Court's decision and also punished them for such an outrageous decision, the members of the Supreme Court would NEVER have dared to make such a heinous decision in the first place, thus protecting the citizens from a corporate take-over of the political process. A twisted interpretation of the US Constitution of that magnitude would certainly deserve the most severe punitive punishment, including but not limited to, immediate removal from the appointment to the US Supreme Court, their pension to be cancelled outright, and banned from any appointment whatsoever in the legal profession thereafter. Personally I would not regard the death penalty as being too extreme a punishment in this case. There would also be a method of investigating whether there was collusion between any member of the Supreme Court and any outside corporate influence. If any were found both parties in the attempted corruption of the democratic system would receive the death penalty. THAT would protect the citizens and clarify the thought process of the future members of the Supreme Court. Needless to say, there would be a method and process in place whereby the members of the Supreme Court could argue the case in public before the citizens passed final judgement. But such power, in the hands of the citizens, to amend the political system (and its wider resources) MUST be controlled and regulated (within the Constitution - NOT by the politicians) for the protection of future generations and also to prevent any extreme kneejerk reaction (and possible unjust punishment metered out). Keep in mind that future generations, state employees, and political appointees are also citizens. Ownership And Control Of The Political SystemThe citizens of this Nation own the political system itself and also the political organisation which governs them and therefore they must always have a reasonable collective direct method of changing their political system which includes this Constitution and all its provisions, and any other political institutions or arrangements without any hindrance whatsoever from politicians, or from any other persons, corporations or bodies (domestic or foreign), as and when they decide to do so, the only limitation being the regulations and controls described within the Constitution itself which are in place for the sole purpose of protecting future generations from short-term decisions, and preventing injustice for all those involved in the outcome. This right to alter the political system by the citizens must always ensure the citizens have final say regarding the Constitution and regulations pertaining to the political system. This therefore automatically extends to any decisions made by the Supreme Court or any other political or legal entities. This method must be thoroughly independent from any interference whatsoever including organised groups of citizens. It must be centered around the individual citizen and must enable individuals, as private individuals, whether they are citizens or not, to put forward proposals, to discuss the pros and cons regarding the proposals, and if a set minimum number of citizens agree to a referendum, to initiate a referendum to be held within a specified period, though with a regulated period of delay for the purpose of discussion and information dissemination, without any hindrance whatsoever from any source. Any attempt to hijack or manipulate this process, including but not limited to the use of incentives to members of the Supreme Court, is a direct attack on the democratic rights of the individual citizens, the citizens collectively, and the political system itself and the most severe and maximum penalties must ensue, up to and including the death penalty. This Article can only be amended if those changes to this Article do not create a condition which would in any way whatsoever prevent the citizens collectively, anytime in the future, from having the authority to amend this Article again and also from altering the political system again. The majority required must be above 75% of those eligible to vote. In other words, no matter what amendments are made to this Article, the citizens will always have a right and method as set out in principle, to alter the organisation of the political system without hindrance from any quarter. For example, even if the citizens decided, because of the circumstances prevailing at the time, to empower an individual to such a degree that it would, in effect, be a form of dictatorship, this Article cannot be amended to the point whereby the citizens can ever be thwarted from amending this Article sometime later to undo and cancel that dictatorship. In essence this Article cannot be removed nor diluted to the point where the citizens are denied their absolute right to sole total collective ownership of the political system itself. In most democracies around the world in 2013 the citizens have no direct method whatsoever of changing the very system within which they are organised. Not only that but the very system itself was ‘thrust’ upon them without any method, by the citizens, of having any initial input into the wording, regulations and spirit the original, or newly written, Constitution. For example, in Egypt in 2012-2013 the citizens had no input into the new Constitution and in effect are already suffering under a dictatorship. They did have a vote on accepting the new Constitution but they did not have a choice or say as to what was in that Constitution. This is a typical example of feudal democracy - being ruled from above. This is NOT an example of self-rule. This is NOT an example of real democracy. Egypt, and Nations like this, are NOT democratic. Plain and simple. Ownership Of The Political AuthorityThe fundamental principle of democracy is that power flows from the citizens to those appointed, by the citizens, to positions of authority within that democratic system so as to process the wishes of the citizens and organise the society in the best interests of the citizens. Unless the citizens can revoke that authority, at any time, they merely become subservient to that authority and end up being ruled within an undemocratic political system There must be sufficient regulations enabling the citizens to control, regulate and, above all, to LIMIT the power of the politicians and any other monopolies so that the citizens never become the victims of the political and financial system. Needless to say, it will also require strong regulations and limits to the power of the citizens so as to prevent them from abusing that democratic power and control which the citizens hold, in order to prevent any type of mob rule, and to protect both future generations and also minorities, from transient, temporarily fashionable, possibly long-term destructive, decisions in the heat of the moment. Ownership Of All Political AuthorityIn a democracy, the citizens, collectively, are owners of ALL political authority. Therefore in Democracy 1.0 there must be a method whereby the citizens can collectively temporarily assign that authority to specific individuals (politicians, the President etc) via General Elections and Presidential Elections; and subsequently the Judges and other officials via the Government or other appointment bodies, but the citizens must ALWAYS be in a position whereby they can collectively, via a majority decision, revoke that authority AT ANY TIME, without hindrance whatsoever. This power of revoking can be used with regard to an individual politician, the Government as a unit, or President, or any other political or public appointee, after a suitable ‘cooling off’ period of time to allow discussion before a referendum can take place if a sufficient majority are in agreement with that proposal. Although the judiciary are appointed by the Government, or legal profession appointment body, the citizens, as a matter of principle, must be empowered to revoke their authority as set out above but this ability to interfere in the system of justice must be regulated and controlled, within the Constitution 1.0, and possibly through legislation, so that individual judges are not under stress to become populist but must perform their appointed role (being a neutral supervisor of a trial). All legislation and regulations decided by the government, politicians and any other appointed bodies cannot come into effect until a set period of time to enable the citizens to discuss it and, wherever necessary, to cancel or amend it BEFORE it comes into effect. This is to prevent possible usurping of the citizens authority through legislation which may attempt to prevent the citizens from exercising their democratic rights to control the political authority at all times. Legislation brought in by stealth is thoroughly banned. This Article cannot be removed nor diluted to the point where the citizens are denied their absolute right to sole total collective ownership of the political authority itself.
Example (Ireland, and other Nations - the decision to bailout the banks) The lack of any method to overturn that decision demonstrates the difference between a feudal democracy where the citizens can only passively accept their financial subjugation and Democracy 1.0 where the citizens would have a method to overturn that decision and punish those responsible for that decision. Again, as in the previous example, if there had been a method in place then the government would not have dared to make such a vile decision.
Example (Britain, the USA etc - the decision to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)
Example (USA - Patriot Act, NDAA, The Police State, etc, etc) If there was a true democracy in the USA the citizens would have the power and method by which they could cancel the Patriot Act, the NDAA and force President Obama to obey the Constitution or face the consequences. As there isn't, all the citizens can do is await their fate at the hands of their feudal lord, as serfs had to do in the past. As we have seen in the last few years (2008-2013) in many Nations around the world if the citizens do not have the ability to either prevent or cancel regulations brought in by the Governments involved, the citizens can end up living in a Police State where demanding citizen rights is seen by those in authority to be an act of insurrection and terrorism. Powerless citizens can end up being burdened with huge debt which was created by private corporations which were acting not only irresponsibly but actually illegally. Unless the citizens can not only prevent or cancel these regulations but also punish those responsible for attempting to misuse the political authority which was temporarily assigned to them in the most severest extent possible they will end up being forced to be passive subservient servants in their own Nation rather than the owners of the political system. Being ‘allowed’ to demonstrate (though, in fact, the US police did come down with extreme force on those who did protest) is NOT a sign of democracy. In a Democracy 1.0 there will be little need for protesting because there will always be a method by which citizens can put forward ideas to be discussed openly and a democratic decision to be arrived at. There will be no authoritarian ruling elite to ‘force’ regulations on the citizens. In Nations like the USA where a Bill can be passed with multiple regulations and legislation ‘piggy-backed’ among the main purpose of the Bill with the effect that hidden and secret legislation gets passed without the citizens, and in many cases, even the politicians, knowing what is happening. In Democracy 1.0 this would not only be illegal and open to prosecution and severe punishment. Protection of Future GenerationsThis is not only a groundbreaking change in principle but must also be a thorough change in ATTITUDE not only by the politicians (those who are temporarily empowered by the citizens) but by the citizens themselves. This attitude will have to be a 100% turnaround from the attitude held by many during the feudal political system (that's why this truly IS a revolution!). Protection of Future GenerationsEach generation must be regulated so as it doesn't make decisions which, although beneficial and advantageous to that generation, will possibly have serious negative consequences for subsequent generations of citizens. This is especially important where the finances and resources of the Nation are concerned. I recall hearing of an example of how one generation can destroy the wellbeing and living conditions of later ones, in order to achieve short term objectives. In a village in South America, those who were in authority sold the local water rights to a company (mining company I think) with the result that future generations in the village suffered as a result - they literally had no source of water. This cannot be allowed to happen in a democracy. Therefore certain rights and principles MUST also be enshrined in the Constitution which protect future generations from short term decisions by the citizens in any preceding generation. Protection of Future GenerationsEach generation must be regulated so as it doesn't make decisions which, although beneficial and advantageous to that generation, will possibly have serious negative consequences for subsequent generations of citizens. This is especially important where the finances and resources of the Nation are concerned.
The most fundamental principle as regards protection of future generations (of citizens) can be summed up with this statement: Therefore, it must be strictly observed that the budget must be balanced each year, to the greatest extent possible. Specifically banned would be debts incurred for the general purpose of maintaining a desired standard of living or level of payment of either wages, salaries, allowances, pensions or social welfare, or any other day to day payments. This Article does not preclude borrowing for the purpose of infrastructure and long term projects, but MUST fulfill the criteria that future generations must also benefit from those borrowings, and that the result of the borrowing and subsequent use of that money does not cause inflation. The only circumstance in which borrowing for day to day living is allowed within this Article is that of famine or during a period of warfare (non-aggressive self defence), otherwise the borrowing should be considered as being unconstitutional and illegal. There must be public discussion and agreement before any Government can have the authority to borrow. This Article is a fundamental principle safeguarding future generations and the spirit of this Article (to prevent any generation for burdening later generations with debt), as set out cannot be amended no matter how large the majority, if it alters the spirit of this Article in substance or effect. One thing we can all be certain of and that is that in ALL feudal political systems around the world Governments borrow as much as they can, usually with the sole purpose of using that borrowed money for the betterment of their supporters, and to indirectly fund their next election propaganda (by being overly generous with increases in spending), or to purposefully ‘kick the problem down the road’ so as to make it appear they are making the right decisions and also using Public Funds wisely. Citizens in a feudal political system are left in a situation of waiting for the feudal elite to provide a good life not based on merit but on the ‘political contract’ between citizen serf and feudal political lord by which the citizen expects payment in return for political authority and where only those politicians and political parties who show largess will receive their votes. Thus the politicians and political parties borrow to provide a local service (for example: school or hospital etc), or higher pay (for example: pension, social welfare payments, public service salary, lower tax rate etc) which in actuality is borrowing in order to bribe the citizen serfs to vote for their political party.
This is thoroughly outlawed in a Democracy 1.0. There is no feudal lord. There are no feudal elites. There is no higher authority to dispense largess. This may seem a negative aspect to Democracy 1.0 but the freedom, the justice, the equality, the stability and the END OF WASTEFUL SPENDING, will more than compensate. Numbers Required To Alter ConstitutionAny Article in the Constitution should only be altered if the number of votes agreeing to the change is a true majority of the total number of the electorate - NOT the majority of those who happen to cast their vote. The logic goes like this. There is an initial Constitution, with its Articles - a set of rules, as agreed by a majority of citizens (it should have been a true majority). A certain number of people vote to change it. The number of those who did not cast their vote MUST be counted along with those who voted NO. The number of those who voted Yes to amend the Constitution must be a TRUE majority OF THE CITIZENS. In other words any change to the Constitution must be only on the basis of a positive assertion by the citizens that they wish for that amendment to take place. As to whether every citizen should be required to vote in a Referendum, a General Election, or a Presidential Election, will be discussed in another document in this Section. The most fundamental principles within the Constitution are so intrinsic to the Democratic system's very existence that it would have to be the case that a majority of 75% of all the electorate would need to be required so as to make an amendment possible. Numbers Required To Amend ConstitutionUnless otherwise stated within any particular Article a clear and total majority of the electorate is required for any Article to be amended. Freedom Of InformationThere is little point in having statements such as the citizens own the political authority and the citizens must be able to control the politicians unless the attitude towards freedom of information is altered dramatically. In a feudal political system it is the feudal rulers who decide the level of information the citizens are allow access to, in a Democracy 1.0 it is more the case of ‘all information is to be freely available’ with the citizens deciding what level of information should be kept hidden, solely for the purpose of protecting the National interest, NOT for protection of those in positions of authority as is the case at present. There will be a separate document in this Section on Freedom Of Information with examples of legislation and regulations enforcing the publication of how Public Funds are spent in the various government departments. Freedom Of InformationUnless otherwise decided by the citizens, as a general principle of a Democratic 1.0 political system, all information regarding the use (direct and indirect) of Public Funds, by the State and its appointees, must be published on a regular basis. Any attempt to prevent information for being published, especially if that information would reveal actions which are dis-advantageous to the citizens, or show a waste of Public Funds, will be punishable as punitively as possible. Any other information relating to or affecting the quality of the democratic system must also be published, taking into account the desire for individuals to keep their personal and private information private, and the possible misuse of sensitive information.
The general principle is this: Legislation can make specific regulations protecting commercially sensitive information for being published. ... end of document Lou Gogan February 2013 |
|