A new, MULTI-POLAR political system, as a revolution in governance, would be capable at last of bringing peace to the world and of opening new horizons for the development of a modern, fast changing society.
The nation is open to development if it's capable of creating its own ideas while perceiving and using the ideas of others. The technological and economic advantages will always belong to a political system implementing world's achievements and creative potential of the nation beyond any ideological speculations and prejudices.
Development and new technologies are impossible without freedom of thought and creativity. The more creators and freethinkers there are in the country, the closer it gets to achieving diversity and competition of views, sanity and thus to a democratic and civilized governance system. Democracy is a political system that works only if it has free and thinking citizens as was the case in ancient Rome.
The attitudes of a society towards democracy is an indicator of the intellectual development and civic sanity of the nation. The farther out Homo sapiens is from our primeval ancestors and tend to think independently, the less he needs the 'Great Teachers', who by using numerous 'only right doctrines' restore the cult of a monkey tzar into the flock.
Most people are busy with daily affairs and don't want to think about the things that fundamentally define their lives like basic rights and civil liberties. Upon doing so, they willingly believe in and rely on a mythical 'Supreme Mind' and 'Great Leaders'. And this is the turning point — if you don't want to think for yourself, then someone will do it instead of you. Sorry but this is not usually in your favor. The seekers of domination and privileges use this ignorance and passivity for their own gain. They substitute the proclaimed power of the people with the monopoly of vassals parasitizing on that created by others. Next the caste of hereditary rentiers gets rid of the thinking opposition and by means of religion (advertizing, propaganda) multiplies the flock of submissive and unthinking consumers and 'God's slaves' because they are easily manipulated and deceived. Similar counterfeits of democracy allow the dominating elite uncontrollably to use national resources for own goals; in order to rise above an anonymous mob, they suppress the creative potential and opportunities of the rest of the nation, thus taking it away from the mainstream of civilization.
In the absence of new ideas, democracy was used as a guiding star for a civilization yet it itself became another dogma and a subject of speculation.
The democrats of different countries fight against tyranny and tyrants, initiate political revolutions and create new universities in which they preach to the gullible parishioners their own delusions about democracy. And shortly thereafter the "winning" democrats again take to the streets with protests to the next 'guarantor of democracy', if he will allow it. The opponents of democracy and the protectors of own privileges blame it for all the wrongs and ills of the present society. Some are clearly disingenuous, others raise doubts about their sanity — all modern 'democratic' systems are unipolar and each political imbalance and injustice have a specific author: the late Gaddafi, Putin or Obama (Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton in the foreseeable future). Whereas common sense tells us that a political system with one ruler, even if he is elected by the suggestible majority, is a 'temporary' monarchy with a tendency to be continued (today's Russia, for example). The 'elective monarchy' of those who really serve the interests only of the dominant elite and their own ambitions, with all 'bats in their belfry', their 'noisy party', and despite shaky 'democratic superstructures'.
In a true democracy as a collective way of governance, the BALANCE OF INTERESTS AND THE CONTROL of different parts of society must be built in to the very system of government at the decision-making stage. And the competition for survival of their equitable representatives in the power is more objective and stable motivation than a 'kind whim' any of 'great leaders' or the news interest of mass media. And the influence tool is in their hands. A real democratic system can only MULTILATERAL, leaving no chances for someone's monopoly. For the world dominance and conspiracy - too.
The development and dissemination of new technologies makes the world more open and free. After their end, feudally poor communist regimes with lifetime monarchs, a caste of vassals and equality in poverty for the rest of the population are turning now to the democratic experience of more rich and successful western countries.
Which modern political system is democracy and capable of working for the whole society?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament which perseveres today that served as a democratic system of checks and balances for absolute rulers were primordially designed just to protect their own interests within feudalism. In addition, the over-crowded and unstructured nature of parliament is not conducive to the discipline, quality and speed of decision-making as well as an effective fight against corruption. In spite of subsequent modernizations (e.g. Glorious Revolution of 1688), this bulky and amorphous superstructure 'under the big boss' still is deprived of the opportunity to choose priorities and is not motivated by the inter-group competitionfor leadership and for leadership and for the voices of voters.
The dreams of the coming revolution?
At last, under proportional representation the minority political party can't have any significant influence on decisions. These innate defects do not allow "democratic parliamentary government" to effectively represent the interests of all parts of the population thus making it unable to adapt to the modern multicultural society. By origin - it is a rookery for loafers who raise their own status at public expense.
A lot of today's democracies act as The 'Big Brother of everyone' while promoting their own elites version of "democracy" to the countries of 'the third world'. Is then really democracy? Or this is merely the export of hidden corporate claims to world economic and political domination and resources of other countries with the servile support of local vassals? To 'export' democracy it would be nice, as minimum, to have it.
By the way, and bipartisan "duelling" (two-party political system) is indeed a fascinating spectacle for the politically naive, and it does indeed distract from any kind of serious critique (dare we say "panem et circenses"?). The resulting winner will invariably favour the impresario, backed up by the money of the millions of simple-hearted sponsors. Everything becomes outdated without renewal. What were once useful past political movement with a working interparty competition have degenerated into a huckster's trick in the modern socially developed society. Now, with little effective difference in approach, the cunning "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo of the "Big Money", and is also cautious not to allow "strangers" into the powerful "club". This "closed joint-stock company" is intended not for "the rabble" who are creating the nation's wealth but only for the business elite that is appropriating it "on legal grounds" by its own laws; with that, the degrees of their freedom are separated by the thickness of a purse. The monetization of laws, health care, education, pre-election campaign, etc. puts citizens in obviously unequal conditions. What about a declaration of the "democratic society of equal opportunity"? A truly healthy and intelligent nation is again, only possible when honest competition and equal access to a nation's resources is granted to all citizens.
With all due respect to the US founders, the large size of corporations and their dominating influence on government was unforeseen by most of them. But this is hardly the same Democracy, as Abraham Lincoln said: "government of the people, by the people and for the people"! However, the slyness of a two-party system is a matter of civic choice and political exercise of Americans themselves.
Today the voices about the crisis of democracy are increasingly heard in the West itself as its mastermind. It is not a crisis of democracy that hadn't existed before. This is just merely the inevitable old age, the sunset and twilight of an era of precursors, of a strange mix with the monarchy, inflexible and inadequate for a modern dynamic society in the absence of new ideas.
Unipolar political systems based on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" were thought up NOT FOR THE PEOPLE but only for the elite-hereditary domination over it. They do not represent EQUALLY the various parts and subcultures of the nation, are deprived of the WORKING competition for interests (the voices) of voters within power, are prejudiced and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a diverse and continuously changing society. Be it a capitalism, 'communism' or any other ideological monopoly. Therefore, political protests and coups are repeated now and again with the aim of overthrowing these unjust systems.
Another of the many evils of obsolete unipolar systems is the fact that are the elitism and snobbery that leaders claim about 'the willingness of the lower classes to perform menial work which enabled the higher classes to move civilization forward'. It does not conform to reality, to say the least. Genetically unpredictable combination of free-thinkers and first movers can be born in any family and country. Precisely these gifted ones, and not hereditary parasites, are the driving force of civilization. The racial, religious, economic and other speculative barriers and prejudices imposed by egoists for the conservation of their hereditary monopoly of Power and National Resources suppress the potential of the rest of society and impede the free and full-fledged progress of civilization.The supporters of class division and superiority can rightfully expect a class struggle (and changing their status too).Communists say that there is no democracy under capitalism, and capitalists have the same complaint about communism. Both sides are right: a democracy cannot exist under any ideological monopoly. Democracy implies the competitive cooperation of different viewpoints and the freedom of choice between them.
The injustice and abuses of those in power impel freethinkers to seek new forms of government without anyone's domination, up to ochlocracy and anarchy. (And with the inevitable subsequent dictatorship!)
Genuine development is always about new ideas and technologies. How can the efficiency and resoluteness of one-man rule be combined with the diversity and breadth of views of democracy? How can a nation-state government be make unprejudiced and actually working for all its citizens without rejecting but using the organizing power of leadership and political parties? The answer is the idea of
A new, MULTIPOLAR self-balancing political system.
Obviously a new form of government should consist of as few as possible independent participants, each one being motivated by the interests of his or her group of voters. The governance system in which the 'permanent leader' or president aren't present more. While the decision-making process must become permanently adversarial.
A new, multipolar democratic political system of 5 independent political parties with a movable centre of joint decisions would be better organized, more broad-minded, competently enterprising, protected by party's sovereignty & by Collective intelligence and would fit into society more adequately. The five [views on a common problem] make up the minimum for self-balance. 5-pointed star is a symbol wisdom and protection in power.
"Equals with equals are most easily flocked together."
by Margaret Bassett (USA)
Collective interests of the whole society are presented in the governance of five Independent political parties simultaneously. In everyone there is a group of advising experts in different fields; the role of the party leader consists in creation of a professionally competitive team, preservation of its sovereignty and coordination of work and above all, the representation of voters' interests. The favorite of most voters will have initial 2 votes out of 6, but the 2-votes advantage will be "floating". The accepted decisions are the result of a balance of contradictions and compromises among the independent political leaders within a new democratic decision-making system.
Odd quantity (5) of participants and ‘floating’ 2-advantage in a new government system are necessary for flexible and prompt change of the leader3 for the purpose of an exception of ideological tendentiousness, and for blocking a ‘bad’ political decisions (for decision-making the initiator should make a compromise at least with one more participant, but their joint decision can be blocked by three other participants: the 2-votes advantage +1 = 1+1+1). The blockings mean that the question should be reconsidered from other positions or is closed till ‘the best of times’. But leadership can move only between 2 largest political parties with the greatest quantity of voters in order to not to harm to the majority of the population. In so doing the threat of negative evaluation (see below) and competitive survival (someone will leave the team in any case) compels any of leaders not to forget about interests of another big part of voters. Three smallest parties, taking one direction or another, play a stabilizing role and enrich the accepted decisions by means interests of smallest groups of the population inclusive, as a most vulnerable from the same negative estimation. The minority party will be finally get the opportunity to earn their popularity by means of actual work done for the good of the society.
Such quantity of participants in a new democratic government is already enough for extended field of variants and weighted decisions. The expansion of system is probably, but it worsens its controllability and rapidness. Besides, opposition parties ‘behind a fence’ are the necessary catalyst and a source of updating.
Decision making system in a new democratic governance.
The right to decisions doesn’t belong to anybody individually! Any participant of five has the right of initiatives. The realization of suggestions impels seeking allies and go to compromises. The decision can be taken at the half of the votes. If the solution is blocked by another half, the right of the new edition and the 2-votes advantage go to the leader of the second (regarding the number of voters) party.
In case of repeated lock, either:
1. The 2-votes advantage on the current theme goes to the communicator with a new alternative, which is supported by at least one participant from each block. Or, by mutual agreement, the conflict can be resolved using an ordinary majority of votes with the participation of only thematic experts of 5 sides. The leader has the right to refuse the made decision.
2. Final lock. The one provoking regular locks loses the right for initiatives, the three least (for the number of voters) parties can be updated from a reserve. In this case the culprit of locks is a turncoat.
The three least parties are not enough in order to take separate initiatives’. Control of “taken decision” is implemented by participants outside the resolution.
Two- or three- party alliance, that exceeded half of all decisions and locks, may claim only for one place in the future team. The compulsory new party / educatee is “the entrance ticket” to the Elections for the ruling veteran, a "rookie" may declare himself outside the Elections along with the mentor only. It is possible for a trainee to participate as an advisor. The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling teams.
Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited in the new democratic elections, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, opposition may publish an unaccepted version through the mass media. The advertising campaign of new candidates can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders.
A new democratic electoral system.
A ballot paper has 2 columns: Ruling Parties in descending order by the realized solutions rate only (an initiator earns two points, partners receive one, lock withdraws one and two respectively) and new ones, each presents its three basic purposes. If the voter trusts a former “mon ami”, he puts “YES”; if not, then he selects the new one with the most needfull priorities. He also has the right to say “NO” to the most negative of the ruling teams. The negative evaluation may take away up to half of the positive votes. The final grade of the “Old Fighters” in the elections is different between “FOR” and “AGAINST” votes, multiplied by the efficiency index (the ratio between implemented decisions and all the decisions taken) and the average objectivity index (the ratio of the participants who made the decision to their total number of 5). The sides not involved into decision making will have the objectivity index 1. For the party of lowest participation, its protege and a free candidate, the results will be increased by the reverse usefulness index (that is a ratio of a difference “FOR” votes “AGAINST” votes to “FOR” votes) of the leading four. If the usefulness index of the outsider is higher* than the average index of the four, the outsider gets two vacancies in the new team for the outsider itself and its educatee.
If nobody from the offered list doesn't suit the voter, he is free to add a name of one's own candidate to a ballot paper. Attention: this candidate is an indicator of an openness and democratic character of a new governance form! The "dark horse" of the majority of voters has a guaranteed place in the future government if it is not challenged by a number of voices from a useful* outsider! Two compulsory vacancies in the new government for the current ruling teams are a guarantee for the experience accumulation and power continuity. Votes counting should occur only during the live broadcast.
Democratic system voting is supervised by 3 sides: the party of the lowest participation in the decision making, one of four other ruling teams chosen by lot, and any of the new ones, also by lot, except the trainees of already selected observers. When levelling the voters’ number “the 2-vote advantage” must not be associated with the leaders of the two largest parties alone.
The new form of democratic government and five Independents in Power means freedom of initiatives and emulativeness; shrewdness; extended field of variants and balance of the decisions; mutual control; continuity in the policy and the openness to renewal! A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable.
The new democratic governance system can minimize eternal problems of the power such as corruption, infringement of rights and freedom under the imperfect legislation, etc. They are solved by cross check of several competing parties within the multi-polar democratic government: any blunders of the contender raises the rest participants' chances for survival in the power. Therewith the mutual competition of several competitors is more objective and constantly active motivation for fight against corruption etc. than the whim of any one 'National Leader'. Thus the health-enhancing competition of political movements can benefit to the whole society.
Initiatives and control must issue from the governance itself and not from the opposition "on a roadside" or the media. This is possible only with the competition of Independents and Equals within the power.
... With multipolar governance system, Stalin had not been allowed to "miss the boat" of Hitler's invasion, there would not have been "condition for" and fatal consequences of "the messiah syndrome", Breznev stagnation, Cold and Hot Wars (e.g. Vietnam War) and "Khrushchev's shoe" ... And let the Kremlin's star light up!
With thanks to Nicolas Mottas (Greece)
Сделано в России Nicholas Popov 2007 -11
Originally published in OpEdNews.com, on April 3, 2010. "Know-how" against Wars and Crises: a New Formula for Democracy. The new meaning of a 5-pointed star!
Modern democratic revolutions are doomed to failure initially by repeating the mistakes of Russian political revolution. A new ideology and democratic governance system that do not make citizens enemies and slaves.
I suspected that the condensed description of decision making mechanism of a new democratic system will be difficult to understand. This is due to the fact that this self-balancing form of state governance is constructed on inventive feedback.
Objective solutions can't be unilateral. The right of decision-making doesn't belong to anybody individually, only to the collective. Decisions should be a joint product of several possible, more different points of view, each of which aids in the reaching of a compromise to a solution that suits all interests and parties involved. And, in order for the democratic governance to be as impartial and flexible as possible, the quantity of participants and center of joint decisions should have the possibility of changing.
For a self-balancing system to be achieved, the minimum required number of parties is five. The decision-making process requires that the initiator should make a compromise with at least one other participant. However, their joint decision can be blocked by the three remaining participants (the 2-vote advantage +1= 1+1+1). This is necessary for the blocking of paranoid, unbalanced decisions. Hence, the minimum quantity of participants needed for decision-making is five.
Coalitions can't be continued for a long period of time: "Two- or three- party alliance, that exceeded half of all decisions and locks*, may claim only for one place in the future team." This forces a leader to change supporters or to expand their membership in order to promote more multilateral decisions. Under these circumstances, the leading coalition should be as tolerant as possible to opposition; priorities and alignment of forces can change over time. * This regulator is wittily movable, come to think of it.
Floating '2-votes advantage' allows timely to replace the leader and to correct a course "more to the left" or "more to the right" depending on a society spirit, without waiting following elections or political "revolution". The three smallest parties carry out the stabilizer function because they are the most vulnerable to the negative estimation of voters, and enrich decisions, doing their more many-sided and well-founded. Small opposition parties will have an opportunity to bring the maximum advantage. Besides, the mobility of leadership cuts arrogant leaders down to size, and disposes to constructive cooperation.
The composition of the participants is regularly updated at the expense of career growth within the governance system as well as at the expense of trainees and completely 'fresh blood', i.e. a newcomer** nominated by the people independently. Such approach combines the continuity and experience of the most effective veterans with the fresh vision of newcomers within the new form of state governance. ** Allow me to remind that this people's candidate is an indicator of the democratic character and openness of a new form of government.
This inventive scheme requires more attentive analysis. English National Liberals have sent my articles to the European Third Way think-tank. "As they are philosophically based I will be sending this to the Third Way 'think-tank' www.thirdway.eu for a possible article on your works. Incidentally your five-pointed star is similar to our idea of an extended coalition in power." Will experts of a 'think-tank' be able to understand the artful design of feedbacks of a new model of governance or will they put my article aside as a muddled puzzle? It is not a toy. The "five-point star" carries a new philosophy and technology to a society. It is a democratic revolution in the governance, a step towards common sense and consolidation. New paradigm of governance is more reasonable, flexible and effective than any that has preceded it.
This way of collective decision making is very simple if to understand a principle of its work once. But, your answer suggests to me that I can't find allies for the advancement of this idea until I don't explain the principles of how it works in more detail.
Your support of Common Sense: