Libya, Egypt, Syria... ? Are they "democratic revolutions" or are they just more "political coups" in favour of the old-new power elite and an old-new tyranny?
The "Russian October Revolution", Comandante Che, the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle. But why? And was it really revolutions?
The political revolution is not so much about kalashnikovs and passionate rhetoric. A democratic revolution should be seen as a new stage of humanity's development, primarily a new way of thinking and innovation in a system of social relations and governance. If it fails to do that then it is merely yet another ‘palace coup’ bringing grist to someone else's mill. In the absence of the new revolutionary governance model arab democratic revolutions ("Arab spring") were doomed to failure even before they started. Replacing leaders doesn't alters the system allowing arbitrariness.
|The French revolution:|
|The Liberty was present on the barricades only.|
The so-called "democratic revolutions" that support popular discontent put forth next idols and 'freedom fighters'. But with keeping old governance paradigm, the 'palace coups' that they instigate lead to the "revolution change" of the ruling top only. And now, a new power elite who began as "liberators of the people" once again impose their authority and bind the very same people hand and foot to rid themselves of any opposition and all potential rivals in order to strengthening their own monopoly and supremacism. As a rule, in the struggle for influence and power, many 'freedom fighters' themselves were becoming the 'enemies of the revolution' as were the cases in the baiting of Girondins by Marat, the social revolutionaries and Trotskyists in Stalin's Russia and in the Cultural Revolution in China, just to name a few. Ideological speculations "in the interests of the majority" and made by his hands does not bring freedom for this majority and stable equilibrium for all of society; the autocracy and oppression come back again. Were the "revolutionaries"-autocrats Stalin, Mao and Ghaddafi "conductors" of people's freedom? Or their own ambitions and egoism?
The ideological monopolism and masterfulness of any ruler oppress the democratic freedom and creative spirit within a society. And essentially, the coups d'etat that are part of the outdated paradigm of 'cult of the leader' and unipolarity in power only move away from the main direction of development of human civilization. Recall today's Cuba and North Korea for example.
So what's the revolutionism? ... And how to break vicious circle?
First of all it is necessary to understand that the chief nemesis of democracy and liberty is not so much capitalism, communism or any other ideology, but rather monopolism and autocratic rule with a fixed leadership that gives unlimited power and possibilities to "supreme" and makes others their slaves. In any of its masked forms, including the Libyan jamahiriya (so-called "direct democracy": 'Brownian ferment' of non-professionals under a professional 'puppet master').
Despite the resistance and artful falsifications of power-hungry elites, old and new, the development of civilization makes the true democracy and the humanization of mankind inevitable. The best minds tirelessly look for a new and effective form of state government that would adequately represent today's changing society. Meanwhile, the solution is near and the necessary resources to establish a new form of government are already available in the most of countries.
What form of governance is capable to bring freedom, peace, and to working for the whole society?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament that perseveres today that served as a 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, 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 competition for leadership and for leadership and for the voices of voters. At last, under proportional representation the minority 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, social developed society. This form of government by descent is In expectation of the coming revolution? intended only for elite.
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 'santa clauses'. What were once useful past political movements have degenerated into ruses. Now, with little effective difference in approach, the so-called "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo, 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 "society of equal opportunity"? Meanwhile, the healthy and intelligent nation is possible only when the honest competition and equal access of all its citizens to nationwide resources.
This are not democracies, as Abraham Lincoln described it, that is to say "government of the people, by the people and for the people"!
And the political systems and forms of government based on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" are unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a society. Therefore protests and coups are repeated now and again ...
A multipolar democratic governance that uses revolutionary decision making system and comprising several independent parties with a movable centre of joint decisions, would put an end to discord and would bring society together. It would also open a new, evolutionary way of development without social turmoil and without social and economic cataclysms. The President isn't present more means the end of bias and of the monopolism. A working multi-party system within the government guarantees multiculturalism, tolerance and social stability within community.
This governance revolution do not gives preferences to any of the political ideologies; that is a self-balancing democratic governance system, a step to collective common sense and a new civilization.
Real Democratic Revolution and Freedom are here: A multipolar democratic system.
With thanks to Vivian Davidson (Canada)
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.
'DEMOCRATS' elect the MONARCH 'for a time'. O Lord! Give them Sanity into the bargain!
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson
When capitalism and communism will become an anachronism, the messiahs of new political religions will continue to convert 'lost sheeps' to their faith and to set them at loggerheads for the purpose of their own coronation. But the chronic mistake of obsessed revolutionaries and freedom fighters provoking lovers of royal honors and arbitrary rule and leading the same freethinkers back to slavery, will remain unchanged...
The desire for a better life is inherent for people. And there will always be "chieftains and teachers" who wish to exploit this aspiration in the mercenary purposes and with a view to legitimizing their own domination.
Money is a powerful motivator and tool for economic development and the quality improvement of life of the separate person and his family. But the final goal of Milton Friedman's uncontrolled capitalism is evident: concentration of capital leads to a caste of “chosen by God” loafers, with unlimited possibilities, who use all others only as WORK HORSES and INTERMEDIATE STAGE IN CAPITAL INCREASE. Herewith the enormous quantity of what the rich, the people who run the mill, see as “unnecessary” people demands expensive social conditions, creates environmental problems, and even traffic jams. But it is also fraught with social revolution. So how do they get rid of humans whom they see as a waste, since machines have totally replaced them? Male sterilization? Step-by-step degeneration through unhealthy genetically modified food sold to the people via powerful advertising? Entrapment in local wars? Or Hitler-style death camps?
"We must increase the inequality between people by putting up impenetrable barriers. There will be the class of masters and below them there will be an anonymous mob, always the lowest ones. Still further down, there will be the defeated modern slaves, the foreigners. And above all these will rise a new aristocratic class of which I can say nothing to you yet." – Adolf Hitler
These two world orders are similar, isn't it? Find your "thriving future" in them, without self-deception. In Russian culture there is a religious rite to close the eyes of the deceased by means of coins. The unlimited cult of money and greed can 'close the eyes' of the whole of civilization in the end.
But can it make sense for mankind to reject capitalism and money as a source of fraud, to claim that it is only a case of false superiority and oppression of one biologi- cal individual by another after the example of Pol Pot's  "communist revolution" in Cambodia?
Drawn Paradise beckons as before, but he is far from reality ...
|Deportation of the Crimean Tatars and other people has laid the foundations of a future ethnic conflicts.
||Return of the serfdom to village: collective farmers worked for 'a tick' and have been deprived civil passports.
||Stalin Holodomor in Ukraine and Russia in exchange for imported machine tools has killed over 6 million people.
Communist romantics Thomas More, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, "The City of the Sun" by Tommaso Campanella, Revolution of "total equality", "all things common", "... to each, ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS" ... A six-time convicted criminal, Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) had right away understood what unlimited possibilities the imperfection of a new political ideology and 'The great kingpin' status near shared fund called "Commune" opens for the Power maniacs: "The Great Helmsman" Mao, "The Greatest Genius of All Times and Peoples " Stalin; enthusiasm in spite of eternal poverty and millions of victims deemed "enemies of the People" by "Communist tin gods" – emperors who were presumed to be the guardian angels of people's needs and hopes?
The 'living embodiment of God' here on earth.
"When war is declared in palaces, it will get to the huts a bit later."
- E. Sevrus
The 'Testament' by criminal 'Father of all times and the people' who lived and ruled the destinies as God, to preceding and future simpletons.
|Katyn massacre, the man-made famine in Ukraine, the forced collectivization... were shadow work of a godlike 'kingpin'.||GULAG, the White Sea – Baltic Canal: the sepa- rate "Paradise" for fans to think and to dig deeply.||The Middle Volga: a little victim of a big struggle for the Russian throne.
Only the Master was deciding who's worthy to live under Stalin's communism. The rest had no right to live at all.
The common man will remain an abandoned and defenseless orphan under monopoly governance of ANY caste of "god-like" rulers, whether they call themselves capitalists or communists. This will continue as long as the interests of each voter (be honest, his voter's voice) will become an object of rival attention between several competing parties in a new, multi-party democratic governance system. Until then, when the actually accomplished work in the interests of the voters, in exchange for their support, will become the sole condition for competitive survival in the power of ruling political parties who are deprived of the right to the next pre-election self-promotion. Only a free choice and the business competition of several parties within a new, coalition government system for voter's voices will force them not 'to reign', pursuing their own interests, but actually work for all citizens. And you may be at peace knowing you and your children will have a safe and stable future.
Quote from Encarta (UK): "In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status. In practice, communist regimes have taken the form of coercive, authoritarian governments that cared little for the plight of the working class and sought above all else to preserve their own hold on power."
That is why in the democratic revolution of 90s the deceived and pauperized Russian people turned away from the communist “Fathers of the Nation”, who had 'forgotten' about the declared goals and severed the “umbilical cord” of voter feedback. The “partying” called ‘The Victory of Revolution and Communism’ had turned out inevitably to be only for the Russian communist elite, the ones who called themselves the “unselfish fighters”.
|Kremlin ration, special customer service, gold spinners for fishing on Baikal, the royal hunts in Zavidovo, etc.
||Galina Brezhneva's diamonds & partyings
|| The 'living relic's' greeting to the people.
|| The people is here. But this queue is no longer to the Mausoleum.
What's remained from the revolution's goals: "total equality" and other communist ideas?
The mistakes of the Lenin's democratic revolution and future "revolutions 21st century ":
1. Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of ‘The Supreme priest’ and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively.
2. The monopoly idea creates an imbalance in the society, and retention of its domination demands regular disinformation (the lie) and physical violence in Soviet Russia, such as the Kronstadt rebellion, the Gulags, Novocherkassk – June 1962′, Prague-68, the Iron Curtain*, among other flagrant examples of rebellions dealt with in a horrendously repressive way, and impels next "revolutionaries" to another, but the same useless "democratic revolution". (*The sole meaning of the Iron Curtain is the retention of own monopoly of power - for example, North Korea)
3. Self-preservation of a political monopoly and social privileges of the 'high priests' require the suppression of new political ideas. The lack of renewal and of healthy competition leads to degeneration. Unipolar [governance] systems are not self-sufficient, are incapable of self-development, and therefore, uncompetitive. The stagnation is their "acme of development".
4. The political unipolarity which controls autocracies leaves the possibility for shadow protectionism; corruption destroys the state from within. /Corruption can be minimized by means of cross-checking of several competing parties within a new, multipolar democratic governance system/.
5. The traditional, unipolar governance is too dependent on the personal qualities and ideological orientation of the leader and his "cheerleading group": in Soviet Russia, from authoritarian Stalin, who built (do justice to him!) a socialist super state based on criminal rules, to shortsighted , idle talker Gorbachev, who betrayed the fates of millions by one weak-willed phrase to the kulak werewolf and drunkard Yeltsin, who put the gains of the revolution up for clearance sale. That this governance system is unstable and unpredictable was thus proved! In addition, the foisted by violence collapses in the absence of that.
6. A new democratic society begins with a political reform of the means of power. The major mistake of the Russian Revolution: Lenin was to have bequeathed not a successor, but an innovation in political management; LEADERSHIP SHOULD BECOME MOVABLE inside a collective, democratic governance system (Counsil = Soviet), and right to it should be continuously contested! 'The development spiral' returns to an obsolete level without a new system of management!
In consequence of revolution mistakes Russia returned to monarchism; from a criminal idol of the blissfully believers to an self-crowned two-headed mutant marauding on ruins of a post-Chernobyl Soviet Empire.
Political coups will occur as long as the egoism of one dominant point of view continues to strengthen the paranoia of a suppressed opposition through its arbitrariness or indifferent inactivity and pompous lack of talent. Today’s Russian marauders-swindlers were hatched out of the ‘moss-covered’ taboos and "bedsores" of the communist ideological monopoly.
The concentration of power in any single hands is dangerous. Under whatever tempting fetish: communism, the rule of Big Money, the super-nation according to Nazism, or the any other ‘ism’, will you entrust your future to the next charismatic, power-hungry maniac who will turn your reason into a zombie, and, with “bats in his belfry”, dispose of your destiny and life as it pleases him? – The traditional system of autocracy allows it!
Racial, religious, economic and social speculative barriers and prejudices oppress and break the constructive potential of all society and lead to decadence. Generally speaking, is it wise let the destiny of the entire multicultural community be predetermined by only one political party, which has frequently come to power by means of buffoonery, empty promises or fraud at the moment of the citizens’ very serious choice?
Finally, the reckless and speculative confrontation of the two ideological monopolies, imposed by the vanity of power-hungry men, call the survival of our entire civilization into question through the deadliness of modern weapons.
The 'Big Red Button' should not be in single hands!
The means to prevent this lie in a new democratic system of checks and balances which must be institutionalized within the governance structure, consisting of several independent participants without the “divine right” of an all powerful “king of the world”, but rather with a movable center of joint decisions, which is subject to change at any time.
Communists say that there is no democracy under capitalism, and capitalists have the same complaint about communism. So what is true democracy? Democracy is when the political system creates conditions for tolerant coexistence and productive collaboration is made possible through real competition between different political ideologies in the process of joint work within a single team, with the freedom for the citizens to choose between them. And the ideology of consolidation and emulative creation should become dominating.
The real democratic revolution, as an innovation and a new stage of development, is here: The multipolar democratic political system with a movable centre of joint decisions. The rest are futile “palace coups” within the confines of the outdated and dangerous concept of undivided authority and the domination of one political idea.
"And the battle is eternal [between you and me?] We can only dream of peace"? - Alexander Blok
Wisdom begins with the multi-polarity of views, and the true road is between the ideological extremes.
With thanks to Siv O’Neall (France), Mac McKinney (USA) and Nicolas Mottas (Greece)
Сделано в России Nicholas Popov 2010
1. As the customers who pays for ALWAYS MAXIMUM POSSIBLE PROFIT under the importunate 'altruism' of advertising.
"Total equalizing" of intellects according to Pol Pot.
2. The leader extreme-left Khmer Rouge Pol Pot has won the power in Cambodia in 1975. In the course of the class revolution and for accelerated transition to a fully classless society and “total equality” uncontrolled Pol Pot issued a decree on the abolition of money and blew up the national bank, so in one moment destroyed the entire economy of Cambodia. Cities as nurseries of evil, and the ancient culture were destroyed also. Political dissent and opposition were not permitted. Priests, doctors, scientists, teachers and all educated people were murdered. He entered an order that all residents must leave the city and move to the province to engage in agricultural activities. The "equal among equals"*, using the UNLIMITED POWER, deceit and the violence, it forced other "equals" to the slave labour for two bowls of rice soup per day and to dig their graves themselves. The combined effects of backbreaking toil, malnutrition, poor medical care, and perverted executions resulted in the deaths, according to different sources, from 20 to 40% of the Cambodian population. It’s the price of ideological speculation. The one-man-rule system and a paranoia forms a dangerous mix!
* - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell
3. After being expelled from the Tiflis Theological Seminary, the son of a cobbler and a houseworker found his way into a gang of militants involved in robberies and extortion. Later, he began transferring part of the stolen money to the Bolsheviks, and thus was able to befriend them. The organizational talent of the future leader was being displayed in preparing for joint raids with militants. The most known of these attacks was the famous "1907 Tiflis bank robbery" that killed two policemen, killed three and injured two Cossacks, and wounded 16 passers-by. On his way to a single-person rule and "a communistic deity", this talented manipulator was consistently eliminating former mates by Revolution, now political rivals, and carefully concealing his criminal tracks. He was thoroughly getting rid of direct perpetrators of his criminal plans, as well as their relatives and acquaintances as possible sources of information leakage. His participation in the political assassinations of Lenin and Kirov remain in question up to this day.
His identity as a mythical genius and his farsightedness as the 'Father of all times and people' are based on a maniacal self-exaltation and on a banal plagiarism of other people's ideas. Stalin had usurped revolution idea of the collective search for solutions and decision-making (the Russian word "Soviet" means "council") and had proclaimed himself a genius by regularly appropriating the collective opinion of subordinate experts. Stalin's phrase "And what will marshal Zhukov say?" became 'winged words'. Immediately after the war "the genius" got rid of the talented and popular strategist and expelled the dangerous political competitor as far as possible from Moscow.
This former criminal did not possess the same gift of ingenuity and eloquence that a professional journalist like Trotsky had (that was one of the reasons for the morbid jealousy and dislike against him by his main political rival who, in addition, knew a lot about the criminal past of the "Leader"). Therefore, he spoke slowly and carefully selected his words to make his speeches affect the uninitiated more profoundly.
"The Great Genius", having seized the absolute power and afraid of intellectual competition, had destroyed nearly the whole of Russia's intellectual elite which lowered the standard of culture for all the country. Russian social revolutionaries (i.e. the creators of the Revolution, including Leon Trotsky) did not escape this fate as well. Alas, free-thinkers are condemned 'to bear this cross' under any authoritarian regime.
|Two leaders, two glances.|
Stalin, using Lenin's mistake of fixating of leadership in the collective decision-making system and creating a permanent secretary body inside the council of state, has single-handedly appropriated state power, has thwarted and hindered the noble plans of Russian revolutions 1905 and 1917 and has laid the groundwork for the criminal degeneration and redivision of Russia. In particular, he has brought collective property under the complete personal control and of the government obedient to him (centralization of governance system and state capitalism), and has revived serfdom in Russian villages which has again legally alienated workers from their means of production and from the output of their work. Under the same one-party monopoly in Russian political system, today's marauders in power should be thankful to their "progenitor" for the Russian "no man's" factories and collective farms.
After the unsuccessful assassination of the tzar and the execution of his brother Alexander, Lenin famously said "We will go another way" implying the overthrow of the autocracy as a political system. The February Revolution had made it possible. However, Lenin's mistake of assigning a General Secretary within the collective government had untied the hands of a pathological criminal and again brought Russia back to autocracy. Stalin had once confessed to his own mother that he had become the "new Russian tsar". The further fate of the "great revolution" and revolutionaries had been predetermined. ... Today, as well as 100 years ago, already next generation of Russian "revolutionaries" continues to fight against yet another autocrat and stubbornly puts forward new idols and future tyrants so that life didn't seem "boring" for grandchildren. "Down with Tzar Putin!"
4. The Kronstadt rebellion was an unsuccessful uprising of Soviet sailors, soldiers and civilians sparked by the reduction of bread rations, deterioration of an economic situation at the War Communism, the privilege and domination of Bolsheviks against the government of the early Russian SFSR in March 1921. Revolt has been suppressed, and its participants are executed or subjected to repression.
5. The Novocherkassk’s riots were a direct result by Nikita Khrushchev doubling the prices of meat and butter and reducing pay rates, as well as of shortages of food and provisions and the poor working conditions in the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Factory. This led to mass protests. In clashes with the authorities 25 people killed and and seven people received a death sentence.
6. With stubborn disregard of the ordinary citizen's needs from the ruling elite's side in pre-Gorbachev's Russia, the problem of price stabilization at incessant shortage of goods had been resolved by selling highly profitable vodka. This policy accustomed population to hard drinking but also withdrew a "surplus" of cash money and maintained the simulacrum of stability and wellbeing of the economic system. Gorbachev's "well-meaning" antialcoholic campaign had strongly pressed on this perverted way of economy stabilization without anticipatory compensation by means of other goods. Thievish directors of shops and trade companies took advantage of the rapid growth of the amount of money in the hands of population. Subsequently, under impotence of the weak leader and corrupted power, they have aggravated deficiency of goods by means of concealment and subsequent reselling goods at exorbitant prices. Clandestine manufacture and sale of false vodka from industrial alcohol also did a lot of shadow money. This has additionally redistributed money in the society in favor of sticky-fingered people.
Yeltsin to Gorbachev: "Cede the throne to me!"
Brezhnev's corruption and economic policy decline; the loss of communist ideals; as well as aggravation of lack of goods and deterioration of the ordinary people's life and growth of the shadow capital provoked by Gorbachev's one-sided, ill-conceived decisions that had completed disintegration of the political system (Russian "democratic revolution" of 1991) and furthermore dethroned verbiage, fruitless Gorbachev himself. "Simplicity is worse than robbery." - this is especially true for a National Leader.
7."kulak" – Before and after the Revolution of 1917 in Russian village "kulak" was the word meaning a wealthy peasant who gained his wealth due to the enslavement of his fellow villagers and who hold the whole rural community in his fist (his subordination; the fist "tight-fisted" = "kulak" in Russian). The "kulaks" earned money by means of arrogating the labor of other people, reselling and usury at enslaving terms. For disobedience and debts poor folks were punished by the law of the fist. When joining to communist party Yeltsin, being a Kulak's son, had carefully hidden his social origin.
When against the background of economic crisis and Gorbachev's helplessness resolute Yeltsin came to power, in the process of the "democratic revolution" it carried out a fraudulent privatization of the Russian national patrimony that has been created by selfless work and by victims of millions of people in favour of blatnoy elite,
|A commander of genius.
||Heroes - polar explorers, Chkalov, Stakhanov, Pasha Angelina...
|| DneproGES, Tselina, BAM ...
||Legendary 'Flying tank' designer.
thus turning from a "comrade" into "the noble owner -reformer". Yeltsin tried to ban the Communist Party and has replaced the "communist" monopoly by the kulak-bandit dominance. Each political leader brings into the society his own mentality and the society is doomed to tolerate it for many years...
The legendary Russian Bears triptych.
The new Russian owners, "lords" and "benefactors".
The "spiritual smile" of a National Leader leaves no doubt in the near "Renaissance".
The October Revolution has receded into history; the ordinary people were cheated as usually ...
One ideological speculation ended and gave way to the next one. Will there be it for a long time?
... and already new selfless, but with a short memory, freedom fighters will continue to throw themselves under the tanks and to copy previous "democratic revolution" mistakes, paving way for the next mono-ideological tyranny with its lies and its 'tin gods' ... and thus way towards their own unfreedom, alas. "The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history." - G. Hegel
This is a diagnosis for ever?
The MULTIPOLAR democratic governance system comprising 5 independent political parties with a movable centre of joint decisions, would be more adequate form of government for a modern dynamic and multicultural society.
...."As I would not be slave, so I would not be a master....... ......... ........ ......... This expresses my idea of democracy." Abraham Linkoln
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Woltaire
Each stage of society's development tends to generate a new form of government that reflects the changes in social relations between the citizens and their government. The emergence and rise of new elites collides against the monopoly and privileges of the old ruling elite. What in crisis times initiates so-called "people's revolutions" often leads to civil wars. But, because the new ruling elite maintain the paradigm of autocracy under the guise of democracy, such "democratic revolutions" only result in a transference of power from one group of elites to the next, something which is of little benefit to the well-being and development of society. And with each social movement, the process repeats itself again and again. Meanwhile, the real revolution with the potential to change the status-quo in governance starts with new, innovative ideas and a "eureka" moment.
A new, multipolar form of government is a further development of the idea of democracy (popular sovereignty and self-government), which is based on the advantages of collective thinking and self-regulation as one of the most important laws of nature. It is built on the feedbacks of internal checks and balances within the governance system, and uses the energy of equal and emulative collaboration of political movements for the good of the whole society.
Single-party predominance in previous forms of state governance through the inevitable caste egoism foists and accumulates misbalance in the whole society and economy, provokes crises and dangerous regime changes (political coups, dictatorship) and through the paranoia of power-hungry persons it causes wars. Concurrent subjective and irrational distributing and using of resources; economic, social, racial and other discrimination creates 'obstacles for' and suppresses constructive potential of another, larger part of the society. Innate lopsidedness and prejudice of the fixed one-party leadership dooms a society to never-ending skews, confrontation, political "revolution" and violence thus becoming a defective and dangerous anachronism. It is it's natural mode of work!
Does the phrase "Winner take all" mean that the rest are "the losing party"? On which side will YOU find yourself? Is it wise to give initiatives and decisions concerning the whole society to the one-sided point of view? -Objectivity and justness cannot be unilateral!
With the growing complexity of civilization, a democratic system of governance that uses a method of collective decision-making and takes into account multilateral aspects of problems, would be a more effective form of ruling a society. But the Athenian direct democracy of small communities (as well as E-democracy) and the usual representative democracy, speculatively1 built on inertness, incompetence and also on the sympathies of the majority of population for peechifiers and populists, doesn't provide a professional factor for selection the candidates for authority bodies and leads to an amorphous structure of nonprofessionals (or leads to 'diluting' professionals in it) which will inevitably be subordinated to a more organized structure or a strong leader, hidden or explicit. The overpopulated and badly controlled parliament, having no well co-ordinated and equally competing compact formations, panders to passivity of the ones and abuse of authority of the others. This makes traditional forms of democracy, the same as anarchy, inefficient and nonviable, and returns the democratic society to a greater arbitrary rule and lawlessness of dictatorship at crisis times2 (eg, Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government in Russia, Hitler and the Reichstag in Germany, the criminal/"democratic" revolution Russia of 1990s etc).
How can the promptness and resoluteness of 'one-man' rule be combined with the diversity and the inclusiveness of a wide range of views of democracy? How can a state governance be made objective and actually work for all its citizens, be emulative and constantly renew itself?
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 [view angles] 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!
1. "The day we stopped being "citizens" and started being "consumers" was the beginning of the End of Western Civilization." A good phrase. But the interests of the silent majority are far from the political battles. And this is normal and natural. It must be so. Everyone has to be engaged in his job. Unhealthy politicization of the population happens only at the time of power crises. And then the suggestible majority again falls under the "mantras" of charismatic "seducers who only increase their chains" (J-J. Rousseau). The monarchy comes back again. It would be more reasonable if a shoemaker be make shoes, while complicated political decision making to delegate to exactly the same professionals. Only it is necessary to organize them rightly, without the monopoly and the "divine right" of any of them. Therewith ordinary citizens can confirm their belongingness to the Nation by means of a good-faith participation in elections; a politically active part of the population can self-actualize in a free candidate as a sourse of fresh ideas and guaranteed renewal of power. It is a good power that doesn't forces a shoemaker to think about it. 2. Destructive radicalism finds mass support and becomes ever more dangerous with the approach of the New Troubles.
3. The mobility of leadership in a new governance model also rectifies a possible mistake of a choice of the majority of voters.
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 to 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.
Date: April 24, 2011
Whilst National Liberalism was once an important idea in 19th/20th Europe it is only now being rediscovered as an answer to issues of good governance. All around the globe we are beginning to see ‘green shoots’ of the idea taking root.
One such area is Russia, a country that threw off the shackles of Communism only to embrace a capitalism that primarily serves the rich and powerful. Whilst elections take place, it has fast become another ‘one party’ state. Not all however are prepared to accept the status-quo…
Whether only Russia needs Commonsense?
This is also and your future: