A new political system as a real Democratic Revolution.

Democratic revolution and a political coup: the difference.

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the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle.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 victorious "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. Remember Cuba and North Korea.

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.                   

Republicans vs Democrats

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)