Libya, Egypt, Syria... ? Are they 'democratic revolutions' or they are just more 'political coups' in favour of the old-new power elite and an old-new tyranny?
A entire civilization including technics, culture and social order, was thought up sometime and by someone. Freethinkers and truly revolutionary ideas give to it a steady movement forward. Meanwhile, much of what is passed off as 'revolution' is nothing more than a change of signboard and 'icons'...
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the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle.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? Was it 'people's liberation revolutions'? And was it actually 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 arbitrary rule.
First 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democracy and liberty is not so much capitalism, communism or any other ideology, but rather their monopolism and the outdated paradigm of unipolar governance and authoritarian power that gives unlimited power and possibilities to "supreme" and makes other people their slaves.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').
|The French revolution:|
|The Liberty was present only on the barricades.|
The so-called "democratic revolutions" which are supported by popular discontent put forth new idols and "freedom fighters" with a "opposite" ideology and with the temptations of the "Gardens of Eden" and "Factories to the Workers!"* for the gullible majority. But with saving the old governance paradigm, this sort of "revolutions" that they instigate lead to the "revolution change" of the ruling top only (Why do you need such a "revolution"?). 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 for establishing their own monopoly and domination. The same impels ex-"liberators" to lower the "Iron Curtain", depriving the inmates of "the Reservation" of freedom of communication and of dangerous comparisons with the rest of the world. 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" does not bring freedom for this majority and stable equilibrium for the whole of society; the autocracy and oppression come back again. Were god-like "revolutionaries"-emperors Stalin, Mao and Ghaddafi the implementers and garants of people's hopes and freedom? Or of their own Tsarist ambitions?
* - In reality, the transfer of "factories to the workers" would mean loss of control over those and others, and of the monopoly on power in the upshot: the economic independence generates the political! It is exactly for this reason why 'communist' bonzes were so afraid of 'revival of private property'. This slogan is no more than the 'decoy duck' under the one-party monopoly conditions.
The suggestible majority naively believes that electing the 'right' political party and the 'right' leader will fix all its problems and will lead to a 'bright future'. The cult of the leader and domination of ONE party can forcibly redistribute National resources and provide a social minimum, but equally they oppress the freedom of initiatives and a competitive spirit within a society, concentrating only on own safety and privileges. The concomitant imitation of the natural, fully-fledged development by means of delusional campaigns and the propaganda bluff only sets back the nation back by decades. Suffice it to recall the results of 'Food Programme' in the Soviet Union and the 'Great Leap Forward' in China. (Blessed are those of 'Great Leaders' who doesn't live to see a senile dementia!) Secondly, the unilaterality and subjectivity of decisions heighten contradictions in the society and the economy. When the imbalance is accumulating, it provokes economic crises, loss of trust of the population and the subsequent change of a regime. At last, in the absence of the health-enhancing interparty competition one-party monopolies decompose from the inside, they are not capable for self-renewal and are uncompetitive. And the imposed political regimes die away together with their despotic owners leaving behind the poverty-stricken and backward country. It is a natural mode of work of the one-party monopoly. It does not work in a different way!
Again the same ascendancy of "God's chosen" at the cost of survival of the rest ... So wherein lies the revolutionism? And what next? Do 'We need a new revolution'? - for a next "liberator" and future tyrant? How to break vicious circle? Then the THINKING part of the former captives of a regime addresses to the historical experience of more free and successful countries...
What form of government is capable to function properly for the whole community, be adequately updated and finally bring peace and stability?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament which 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
|In expectation of the coming revolution?|
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 society. This form of government by descent is intended only for the elite which allows some freedom to the rest for its own safety.
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'. 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 "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 also not democracies, as Abraham Lincoln described it, that is to say "government of the people, by the people and for the people"!
Unipolar political systems and forms of government on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" were thought up for the elite-hereditary domination over other people, BE IT A CAPITALISM OR A "COMMUNISM". They are defective* and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a multiform and permanently changing society. Therefore protests and coups are repeated now and again ... * - Quality, balanced solutions for the whole society can not be one-sided, and business abilities aren't reproduced "by inheritance". While the fully-fledged development of the Nation is possible only with the FREE competition of all talents 'FROM GOD' (not 'from the elite', by the way!)
Despite the resistance and artful imitations of ruling elites, old and new, with purpose of keeping their own monopoly and privileges, the development of civilization makes the true democracy and the humanization of mankind inevitable. The best minds look for a new and effective form of state government that would adequately represent today's fast changing and multicultural 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.
The genuine revolution as the next development stage starts from a new look and the concept of governance. A multipolar democratic government comprising several independent parties, permanently motivated by competition for interests and votes of voters and with a movable centre of joint decisions, would put an end to discord and would bring society together. The President isn't present more. It means that the conditions for somebody's monopoly and bias also do not exist. A working multi-party system within the government guarantees multiculturalism, tolerance and social stability within community and creates conditions for the harmonious development of the whole society without social turmoil and economic cataclysms.
This governance revolution does not give 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)
Your support of Common Sense: