A new democratic political system.
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.
Free-reprint article.
This is also and your future:
