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the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and people's hopes; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle.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 this 'people's liberation revolutions'? And was this actually revolutions?
Development of a civilization is caused by our cognition of the world around us, by change of idea of it, and by creation of new technologies with help which we change it and change ourselves. All the false and the ineffective dies off and fading into history, carrying away needless sacrifices and resources; the technologies of common sense represent achievements and the level of civilization now. Paying tribute to victims and to someone's ups and downs, it's worth noting that only the objective and forward development of technologies has a imperishable universal value to the civilization and our descendants. ... of technologies that save and develop variety of cultures and surrounding world, and expand possibilities of Homo Sapiens. Including a reasonable organization and management of society, outside of someone's current misbeliefs, ideological speculation and religions. Revolution, as a step in the general evolution — it is not change of ideologies and their owners, but changing the way of governance for the changed society.
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, that create conditions for the harmonious coexistence of different cultures and parts of society. If it fails to do then it is merely yet another ‘palace coup’ bringing grist to someone else's mill. In the absence of a new, revolutionary ideas of governance 'Arab democratic revolutions' (now and Ukrainian) were pointless and doomed to failure even before they started. Replacing leaders and 'religions' doesn't alters the system allowing arbitrary rule.
|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. 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! This is the second and main reason why 'communist' bonzes were so afraid of 'revival of private property', including the collective. This slogan is no more than the 'decoy duck' and unfeasible 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.
The 'Big Brother of everyone' and himself promotes his, elite controlled version of "democracy" to the countries of 'the third world'. Is it a 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 '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 is hardly the same democracy, as Abraham Lincoln described it, that is to say "government of the people, by the people and for the people"! This democracy is for elites. The democracy for the people can be established only by the people itself.
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!)
Racial, religious, economic and social speculative barriers and prejudices imposed by egoists in the power for a justification and retention of their monopoly, oppress the potential of whole society and impede free and fully-fledged development of a civilization.
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. But in a 'strange' way the democracy is developing in the direction only of external, auxiliary and therefore vulnerable limiters of autocracy: division of the authorities, independent mass media, etc., without eliminating a source and the prime cause of arbitrariness and imbalance in the society: the system itself of individual power and individual decision-making. Though according to common sense "democracy" with one ruler, even if it is selected, - this is a "temporary" monarchy with a bias in constant! In a true democracy of several equal participants the balance of interests of different parts of society and the control have to be built into the governance as early as the decision-making stage. And the competition for a survival their equal representatives in the power is more objective and constant motivation than a 'good will' any of leaders or the news interest of media. And the necessary tools are in their hands.
The chronic abuses of those in power impel freethinkers to modernize an old or to search for new forms of government without anyone's domination. But the history shows that less-organized forms will inevitably be subordinated by more organized. Therefore, unlike the potential dictatorships of anarchy, of direct democracy of the inert and suggestible majority and its electronic version is not rejecting, to the contrary - reasonably using the energy and the organizing role of leadership: A multipolar democratic government comprising several independent parties, which is built on the open and business competition for interests and votes of voters, with a movable centre of joint decisions and with an uncontrollable entrance for the candidate proposed by the people itself, would put an end to discord and would bring society together. The President isn't present more. This means that the conditions for somebody's monopoly and bias also do not exist. A working multi-party system within the government will convert the steam of political ambitions into useful work and will become a guarantor of tolerance, social stability and well being of the society.
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.
Every nation has its symbols. 5-pointed stars can be found in the symbols of many countries. What do they mean? The simple and understandable meaning of a five-pointed star is here: A multipolar democratic system.
With thanks to Vivian Davidson (Canada)
Coups are bringing back to huts, the Revolutions of Consciousness move Homo and Civilization forward. — Who are you and 'Quo Vadis'?
Your support of Common Sense: