FOREWORD
Direct democracy is supposed to be more humane and more rational than contemporary democracies. Why democracies today are not humane enough? I began to search for the answer by examining life within ancient, isolated, tribal cultures. They have been living cooperatively, sharing food and vital resources. Sustenance used to be equal right of every member of the group. Why is not so today? I continued exploring the evolutionary causes that created the present adversarial political era. Instead fully supporting life, now endangering the future of our civilization. An inescapable conclusion emerged: social morality should be improved to end the frightening growth of systemic injustices.
What is the root cause of this irrational, confrontational, coexistence? The answers emerged gradually through different aspects of communal coexistence. First, I found that human grouping is an imperative mainly to protect and enhance life. Then, the power of human intellect, through exceptionally talented individuals, began to create evolutionary changes. These changes took two different directions, one improved communal coexistence, while the other led to differentiation of society. These two aspects of the 'grouping imperative' eventually led to the creation of towns, cities, and nation-states. Instead 'class analysis of society', I found 'group analysis' more fruitful. It helped to uncover the various influences shaping society. I found that the common cause of major societal problems is due to the political form of governances.
Democracies are the best know systems, but they are also political governances, they are not true representatives of the people. Politicians are mainly delegates of special interest groups of power, not true and exclusive representatives of the people. I demonstrate this through many aspects of - that I call - the 'political era'. The last part of the book presents a vision of new moral democracy; Direct Democracy of the people. Lawmakers in legislative assemblies without career politicians.
My scientific education and engineering background directed my attention to 'cybernetics' systems. These are technical systems that are automatically controlling themselves. Similarly, 'socio-cybernetics' system design can implement self-governances of the people. This system is direct democracy, as ancient Greeks and the 'founding fathers' of the American independence aimed at, to a certain extent. This peaceful image of future governances is noble, and rational. An improved constitutional direct democracy could reverse the decline of our civilization. It could create a well-provided, cooperative, culture. Direct democracy - self-governance of the people - can be implemented in small towns or in a country, even globally.
A word of explanation is due about changes in the English edition of this book. I translated its first version, 'NEW DEMOCRACY; Apolitical Governance', into Hungarian. It was published in July, 1997, in Budapest. The editors changed the subtitle to 'Which way forward?' for two reasons. First, because Hungarians are becoming disappointed with their 'new' democracy, established after Soviet domination. Second, the word 'apolitical' seemingly negates all political influences upon public affairs. These concerns, and my intent to improve the manuscript, prompted me to change the title of this edition.
Apolitical governance by citizens does not mean exclusion of political influences from governances or outlawing political parties and political activism. It means that political parties and other special interest groups should not be members of lawmaking bodies. In my terminology, 'direct democracy' (DD) means self-governances, lawmaking executed by the people of a community. I often add the word 'participatory' to DD, to differentiate direct democracy of the people from others. Several organizations are calling themselves Direct Democracies, but they are aiming only for minor reforms within the present representative political systems. Some of advocates of DD even oppose the idea that people should directly control their own societal affairs.
I give a brief overview of the first two Parts of this book, for readers who don't want to read lengthy reasoning in detail. My 'group theory' and analysis has sharper power of resolution than the 'theory of social classes'. It helps in uncovering both positive and negative forces shaping our civilization. The analysis shows that future dangers facing humanity could be avoided through transformation of political democracies toward improved social conduct. Long-term sustenance mandates the adaptation of lofty-spirited and rational new societal ethics, referred to as 'survival morality.' Unlike religious morality, the norms of such new ethics could be enacted in constitutions, and enforced by laws.
Next, I examine the consequences of liberal implementations of rights, freedom, and equality. The assertion that 'all men are born equal' is questioned. We are physically and mentally different from birth. However, all people have equal rights and should have equal opportunities to secure the 'primary needs of existence.' In spite of the existing infrastructure that has the potential to share more equitably, modern civilization penalizes masses of people with enormous injustices. The momentum of this 'dual potential' gravitates the entire culture in a negative direction. Unless new norms and standards are introduced, long-term sustenance remains endangered. This could be achieved if the inherent paradoxes of political systems were eliminated (see Sec 3.3). The reference to 'sustainability' is often reduced to the natural environment. Sustenance in this book refers to the 'total' environment, including the human species. Transformations toward a moral and sustainable civilization needs good people. True democrats are seeking improved social coexistence, real justice for all, equitable social standards, and protection of the total environment. They will, hopefully, combine their talents for total sustainability.
The third part of this volume is a critical view of the forces shaping our political culture. Powerful special interest groups are influencing both positive growth and degradation of the culture. The most important special interest groups are political parties. Their primary functions are advancing their and their supporter's interests. Vital needs and interests of the people are, at best, secondary. Political governance regardless of whether it is municipal or federal, democratic or autocratic is self-interested and adversarial. Political parties, as lawmakers, are in privileged positions to promote their own concerns, create laws, and can set the rules of conduct for all other organizations and individuals. Many constitutional rights and freedoms are illusory, including the right to vote.
The last part, 'Theories of Good Governances', begins with an examination of rigid and more flexible social systems designs. The goal is to find the best design principle that enables all individuals to influence societal affairs. This is referred to as 'direct democracy' , governances of the people for themselves. Direct democracy is both moral and rational because the people can define their primary needs and common interests, and they can also make secure the future of civilization. Direct democracy would create general well-being, but would not harm healthy competition and higher rewards of positive achievements.
I refer to the most suitable system design method as 'socio-cybernetics' based self-regulation. Cybernetics is a scientific term, referring to autonomously functioning technical systems. Systems that are able to continuously correcting deviations from set goals through a feedback system. Direct democracy could benefit from socio-cybernetics based system design. All citizens would participate in self-governances, including political parties and special interest groups. But political parties would not be part of the legislative. They should be able to influence policy-making from the outside. Direct democracy is not hierarchical. The design principles applied are: the 'division of functions', and 'well-informed, unbiased, decision making'. Depicted are, educational parliaments, in which citizen delegates learn about issues, opposing views, through formal presentations. These quiet, listening and learning parliaments would replace the present battlefields of biased arguments and contemptible personal accusations.
During the past few years, a large number of DD associations were formed. In August 1998, The First International Congress on Direct Democracy, was held in the Czech Republic. The Preamble, adopted by overwhelming majority, emphasizes the right of citizens to govern their own affairs. The next Congress will meet in the year 2000, in Greece.(*)
September 1998, Winnipeg, Canada George S. Sagi
Part 1 1.1 THEORIES OF HUMAN NATURE
On Founding Assertions
"The formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, ... To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and mark real advance in science"
A. Einstein and L. Infeld The Evolution of Physics.
Social sciences should not be based upon the illusive notion of 'human nature', but should be based upon demonstrated 'behavior' patterns of individuals and masses. Extraordinary disagreements exist among religious doctrines, anthropologists, psychologists, biologists, social and political scientists about human nature. Theories of human nature are based upon limited information, therefore they cannot be relied upon completely. Such determinism is never warranted. To avoid this, first I examine societal affairs through facts and behavior patterns. Than I 'formulate problems', starting with fundamental facts of life and society and problems they create. My goal is to find remedial solutions.
Why do I reject theories of human nature? One of the oldest description of human nature can be found in the 'Old Testament', the 'Torah', and in the Christian Bible. "God created man in his own image". Judging from the 'Commandments' and other passages, man can be good and evil. In this respect, the scriptures are commanding people to be generous, forgiving, love their neighbors, and warn against selfishness, aggression, and murder with severe consequences. Religious teachings are not specific theories of human nature, but they assert that man can behave virtuously and can also cause great harm to others.
According to Judeo-Christian theology God defined human nature, and the purpose of our lives. Man was to live in Paradise on earth without want, and secured against all evils, as long as he kept God's commands. Man was not to taste the forbidden 'fruit of knowledge', but he did. Ever since committing the 'original sin', mankind is punished, and have to struggle in life. Interestingly, the doctrine of temptation by the Devil can be viewed with reference to 'knowledge'. Interestingly, Judeo-Christian theology may be interpreted so that possession of knowledge makes human life miserable.
True, all evil in society is created by the human brain. Unthinking species do not challenge God; they are happy, as they have been created. Not so for the thinking animal. Men and women are never satisfied, but continuously endeavor to change natural and societal conditions. Religious doctrines however, fail to include some practical theory and means to improve human conditions. In general, they are aimed at changing human nature. Unfortunately, facts demonstrate that human nature can not be altered by prayers and religious teachings.
Struggle, and strife were inherent parts of nature to 'Heraclitus' (circa 500 BD). Similar views were adopted by Thomas 'Hobbes' more than two thousand years later. He describes the "Natural Condition of Mankind" as being in continuous warfare. He claims that human beings would destroy each other without laws and a ruling power greater than them-selves to keep the laws for peaceful coexistence. To live in peace and harmony with one another, individuals should make a "social contract" within themselves and with a ruler, the "Leviathan", and delegate their individual powers to him to stop "Warre; as is of every man, against every man" (p. 185).
Hobbes is correct in that where there is no law, and no power to implement laws, no peaceful coexistence can exist and anarchy prevails. His noble goal was to create a theory of a 'just' society. However, his idea that a single benevolent ruler, his 'Leviathan', can assure a just society was wrong. That rulers have been autocratic is proven by historical facts. Hobbes himself described his theory as built upon "the infallible rules and true science of equity and justice" (p.10 Introduction). Again, infallibility is a rigid absolute concept. The power of scientific laws was taken as undeniably true, 'deterministically', by many people in the era of Newton, Leibniz and Shakespeare.
Unlike Hobbes, 'Konrad Lorenz' was a biologist, not a political scientist or sociologist. His observed the behavior of fish, birds, and other animals. Nevertheless, he developed a theory of human nature, describing human beings as having aggressive tendencies. Facts don't fully prove him. They demonstrate that human beings are peaceful cooperative creatures. Strife and aggression are part of societal life, but only one segment of the broad spectrum of human behavior. Later on, Lorenz himself corrected his earlier views about Man's aggressive nature.
'Freud', the founder of psychoanalysis, created a different theory of human nature. His theory was based mainly upon insight into the psyche of his troubled patients. To Freud, blind, inner impulses of the unconscious mind, the id, and ego, influence human behavior without a concept of morality. The urges of the subconscious mind conflict with the superego, which is the learnt part of human behavior, with all its moral and restrictive aspects. In extreme cases, permanent conflicts between the id, ego, and superego can lead to pathological behavior. Sound theories of human behavior cannot rely entirely upon neither Lorenz's observations of other species nor Freud's insight into the psyche of troubled patients.
B. F. Skinner's theory of human nature was based upon experimental data, mostly with rats, and pigeons. He observed their responses to various good and bad stimuli. Under crowded living conditions, and scarcity of food supply, experimental animals became highly competitive, and aggressive. By providing rewards, he was able to train his animals to perform certain new tasks. His experiments demonstrated the power of conditions and conditioning, learned aspects of animal behavior. Human behavior is also greatly influenced by societal conditions.
Skinner extended his theory to human behavior. He believed that conditioning can improve human society. He described "The Technology of Behavior" as a means to improve social conditions. He used the phrase, "engineering society". However, he never described the means of how to change human nature and undesirable societal conditions. The notion of 'behavior modification', and its 'technology' are cold, dispassionate, terms. They are invoking the notion of mind controls, changing human behavior by artificial means. Such methods may remind the reader to Aldous Huxley's novel, 'Brave New World.' Unlike Skinner's, a good theory should analyze human behavior, find the causes of ill symptoms society suffers from, and present, logical, compassionate, and practical means, that can remedy the illnesses.
'Karl Marx' saw the nature of man "in the totality of social relations". Among those, he found that ownership of 'capital' is the cause of exploitation of labour, and the suffering of labor classes. Marx, an 'atheist', saw human nature shaped by society, not as ordained by God. An opposite view was expressed by Sartre. For him no objective societal values exist, only subjective individual choices. His philosophy conflicts with his Marxist sympathies. It is difficult to understand his support of objective, liberal, social, standards. Sartre's view of individualism conflicts with his support of societal standards. Perhaps that was his reason to state that it is wrong to enforce social standards.
'Abraham Maslow', a psychiatrist, integrated the best features of the theories of biologists, psychoanalysts, social scientists, and behaviorists. His 'Theory of Human Motivation' combines genetical, learnt, and environmental factors in the formation of human instinct and behavior. He emphasizes that behavior is not rigid. It depends upon the social environment and the immediate situation a person faces. However, Maslow's theory of value and his 'basic' category combines human drives. Part of those drives, should, more appropriately, be separated in a 'tertiary category' of human 'wants', as defined in this book.
Undoubtedly, human nature is one of the most important factors in shaping our lives. Human nature however, is unknown. The only method to get to know the hidden complexity of human nature is through its actual manifestations, behavior patterns. Therefore, the task of conditional analysis is to study behavior. I found it necessary to discriminate between two distinctively different 'needs'. 'Fundamental needs' are essential for bare sustenance of life. Whereas 'basic needs' are additional needs imposed by society. The first task of objective studies to develop a value system related to human existence is to examine the circumstances surrounding life at its very beginning.
1.2 VITAL HUMAN CONDITIONS
The First Fundamental Imposition
Human existence has three 'Fundamental Impositions': life itself, survival instinct, and death. The first fundamental imposition is life itself. Every living creature is born without individual consent - we are all cast to life. Parents are only instruments, incidental contributors to the creation of life. Absolute knowledge about the origin of the universe, matter, and life, are beyond the present state of human comprehension and understanding. These great unknowns are sources of speculative sciences and religious doctrines. Humanly known reality is that all individuals are born to exist without their personal volition and consent. Birth is the first imposition upon human existence.
The fact of coming to be is divorced from how one feels about being. The imposition of life is simply a reality, regardless whether it is viewed subjectively as a blessing or considered to be a curse. Final and 'absolute cause' and knowledge is not subject to the foregoing inquiry. Birth, the beginning of life, is the same, equal, initial condition for all human beings: a founding condition for the foregoing societal studies.
In addition to the beginning of life, every creature is foreordained to live in accord with many other imposed criteria. Life can only be sustained under predestined, specific circumstances. Life is preconditioned from its very beginning. The initial attributes of life are not chosen, but imposed conditions. These preconditions have significant consequences which can be explored. Some of these are all bodily needs and functions: nourishment, protection from the elements and other dangers, and the reproductive drive. These and other preconditions are impositions on all forms of life. Confinement to earth and to exist within fundamentally given earthly conditions is also shared with all other living creatures of the globe. Everything in nature is a given without choice. Humanity is rendered to live in this unchosen environment, with fragile bodies and minds, with wonderful but limited powers.
The inescapable demands of the body, and the unalterable drives of the mind are coupled with the limitations of each. In humans, these compelling properties are conjoined with human self awareness, curiosity and creative ability. In sum, they are the fundamental imposition upon being, with all attributes and confinements. These unalterable impositions have a significant effect upon human conduct, and their societal consequences are far-reaching. The fundamentally important aspects of human behavior and new concepts of social morality arise from these unchangeable impositions.
The Second Fundamental Imposition
'Survival instinct' is the second fundamental imposition of nature. All living creatures are born with an instinct to survive. Even the smallest worm or insect will struggle to protect its life. The survival instinct imposes a compelling force, a drive to seek nourishment and protection. Survival instinct is also universally equal for all human beings.
The survival instinct has a main and an attributive component. One is the human infant's total dependency upon the support of life. Support and love of newborn babies demonstrate fundamentally compassionate, caring, human behavior. Other dependencies and the survival instinct are influenced by the natural and the social environments. Life is compelled to obey its demands to sustain itself. Individuals have only limited power to change their behavior within their social environment. Survival instinct may be analyzed in two ways. One aspect is the biological need to keep the self alive. The other is survival within a social group. In society, positive and negative forces effect human existence in different cultural, geographical, and historical settings. In this section, moral and societal consequences of the biological impositions will be considered.
In addition to the natural environment, societal conditions in a country, a person happened to be born or live, do effect survival opportunities. These conditions are influenced by many things and some of those, especially humanly created conditions, are controllable. But fundamental impositions and their consequences are unalterable. Survival can be secured by two main choices: cooperative or competitive behavior. Either can be manifested with various degrees of intensity in a variety of situations. Besides these two extremes are: neutral behavior and flight that neither help nor harm anyone. In the modern era, people have become completely interdependent and inter-reliant. They need peaceful conditions to support themselves and their families. But, paradoxically, a relatively small number of individuals and organizations are highly competitive.
Confrontational behavior between organized special interest groups and different nations are now endangering the life of the entire global community. Consequently, survival instinct mandates one rational choice protecting human civilization by choosing cooperative relationships.
The Third Fundamental Imposition
The third fundamental imposition is death. Every human being and all living creatures die. Aristotle's assertion that "all men are mortal" and his logical derivation, 'syllogism', that "Socrates is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal", was needlessly criticized by 'Bertrand Russell' and other philosophers. For death is the inevitable end of life that cannot be proven by logic, only observed. Philosophical attempts to verify immortality is futile. What is everlasting life? Is it 'forever'? The very notion of its logical proof is a paradox because no mortal could witness, only conjecture, an endless event.
Rare acts of suicide do not alter the basic fact that life must end in death. Again, it is not the purpose of this thesis to seek the cause or the causes of these fundamental impositions. Human beings have no other choices, but to best utilize these unalterable conditions of human existence. The nature of 'conditional truth' emerges when the fundamental facts of life are treated scientifically. Life, survival instinct, and death are the three fundamental impositions. Why fundamental? Because they also apply to all living creatures and impose compelling needs for sustaining life. This triad constitutes the fundamental facts of human existence. Rather then concentrating upon the unknowable that transcends human intellect, conditional logic focuses upon observable societal conditions.
Many people believing in God and a higher meaning of life, may find the term 'fundamental impositions' unacceptable. They believe in, higher than human purpose, transcendental revelations, and God given notions planted into the human mind, so called 'innate ideas', pure and absolute knowledge, and self-evident truths. Empirical and pragmatic philosophers have different views, particularly about life upon the earth, and the limits of human understanding. The celebrated John Locke did not believe in innate ideas and absolute knowledge. In John Dewey's opinion there is "... no genuine meaning and value of life" that one can discover (p. 27). In Dewey's opinion, people should make their own lives purposeful.
Life can be meaningful for three basic reasons. The first two arise from the 'fundamental impositions' which manifest themselves in the love of life and the biological imperative to sustain and to protect life. The third arises from the fear of death. The belief that life is a gift of God and that life has a higher purpose, gives solace and endurance to multitudes of people to suffer the hardships and trials of life. It also gives strength to face death, hope for heavenly rewards for earthly sufferings, and belief in resurrection and everlasting life.
Others, who do not see any direct interference from above in daily lives, are compelled to make their own lives meaningful. Many humanitarian thinkers are like Dewey. They make their own lives meaningful by choice. Their activity not only self-satisfying, but they endeavor to help others either directly or indirectly. Many of these are working toward noble goals that could make survival in society truly humane. They want to improve societal conditions that allow 'survival to the fullest' for human beings are the only species who can significantly alter their own living conditions. The fundamental impositions of life are inevitable facts. So are human drives, compelling every living creature to struggle for survival. Death is final, but it has no power to prevent the living to live life to the fullest. For modern societies this means not just bare sustenance of life, but a rational utilization of man's capabilities to reverse the decline of our culture, and change it from being confrontational to become peaceful and cooperative. Working toward these goals can make individual life meaningful.
The Bounded Nature of Life and its Limits on Freedom
Nature sets the limits within which life is urged to go on, driven by the second imposition: the instinct to survive. No living creature has personal freedom to choose either body or mind nor the manner in which they function. No living creature has a choice in the natural provision of personal attributes and of the environment into which one is born. Nor did they have a choice in what kind of societal environment their lives began. We all live in natural and social environments not chosen, but given. All people are truly equal only with respect to the fundamental impositions of life, and therefore they have equal rights to sustain themselves. These constraints on life I refer to as the 'boundary conditions' of human existence.
No even-handedness only randomness is seen in the distribution of individual attributes by which living organisms, among them human beings, can cope with the demands of life. No evenhandedness exists in the ability of learning how to coexist with the natural and human environments. No equality or impartiality, only randomness is seen in the distribution of attributes by which living organisms, among them human beings can cope with the demands of life.
Physical and mental characteristics are widely different. People have no choice about their personal attributes, and cannot choose a different natural environment. Growth, development periods, and properties, are also preordained for all species. Human existence is also bounded by time to become aware of the self, the existence of others, the many years of growth required to become independent of parents, and to learn to coexist with inanimate and human environments. All personal characteristics born with limit the chances of survival. They are preordained, not freely chosen, not willed, and not equal for all. These unequal conditions of life, as life itself is, are imposed. The fundamental impositions have inescapable consequences. Human independence is limited, and life must evolve within its boundary conditions.
In view of the growing inequalities between peoples and regions of the globe, and humanly imposed limits on freedom and equality, new theories of an improved society must be based upon objectivity. A scientific analysis of existing human conditions and social conduct is necessary to find the reasons for the threatening aspects of contemporary civilization. Despite the fundamental impositions, and despite the boundary conditions of life, a meaningful purpose can integrate the efforts to improve one's own circumstances and societal conditions.
Human beings are the only species who can significantly alter their own living conditions. The notion 'survival to the fullest' refers harmonious societal coexistence. For modern societies, this means more than bare sustenance. It mandates reversal of confrontational coexistence to become cooperative. A rational view of competitiveness is not to defeat or destroy others, but to excel, to improve one's life while also helping others for mutual advantage. The unique human ability to change the social environment can be both positive and harmful. Human creativity can make life well-provided, under enormously improved cultural conditions, but it can also lead, in a few decades, to the end of civilization. Un-curbed competitiveness is also harming the natural environment, consequently, it is of great concern. The frequently used term, 'sustenance', by environmentalists, also by political opportunists, must be extended to include the protection and appropriate measures to sustain human life judiciously. The future of the 'total' environment depends upon it.
Nature and Equality
Nature is neither evenhanded nor just. People are not born equal. Specific attributes of individual life are randomly distributed among all of the species. As Charles Darwin saw it, randomness prevails in the distribution of fundamental properties to living organisms including human beings, to help them cope with the demands of life. As discussed, beginning at birth, physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of each individual is widely different. There is no natural equality between individuals, except in fundamental impositions.
The fundamental attributes of life, the natural environment, genetical factors, and the society in which a person is born, have significant influences upon a person's ability to take care of himself or herself. These inequalities are not justifiable from the point of view of fundamental impositions. Accordingly, every individual has equal right to sustain itself until death. Idealist writers and philosophers have been speaking about the gift of life and the beauty of the world. Others have been talking about the cruelty and the burden of life, injustices, and indifference of humans and nature. Here, the analysis takes an objective view of both, and merely states that although people are not born equal, other than in fundamental impositions of life and survival instinct, but these can be taken as the basis of normative moral standards reasoning about the minimum 'norms of justice, and equality', in society.
Human compassion and cooperation are also part of human nature. Infants would not be able to grow up and survive if the compassionate aspects were not part of human behavior. Human beings are also moral creatures. People follow various moral teachings, religious doctrines and dogmatic philosophy. Moral commandments are to be followed without question. The present concern is social morality, and, unlike religious doctrines, they must be based upon rational justification of normative standards of behavior.
Nature has no moral standards or teachings, but communal life in society would be anarchistic unless acceptable norms of social conduct were adopted. Since every individual is equal in the fundamental impositions of nature, and that imposes certain fundamental and basic needs to sustain life, they are taken as a rational basis for the development of minimum norms of behavior. For this reason, the 'fundamental impositions of nature are postulated as a the basis for judgment of social morality'.
From this postulate, a moral concept of 'fundamental equality' can be developed. Equality for all of the people is a noble concept, but nature was not kind to grant everyone equal capabilities to support their own existence. For this very reason, and regretfully, only minimum societal standards can be derived to satisfy the postulated norm of equality. Accordingly, each individual is equal in his fundamental impositions, and therefore, has an equal right to life, and the right to exist in society. Consequently, 'good social morality mandates that no person should impose his or her will upon another human being in such a manner that can result in the cessation of that persons life, threaten life, or make life miserable'. It means that a just society is a moral society that has social norms and means, enabling every individual to exist and sustain itself acceptably.
The goal of the foregoing considerations is to demonstrate the need for sufficient societal standards for securing, satisfactory, peaceful, and happy coexistence. In addition to moral considerations and learning to make sound judgments, if modern society wishes to secure its long-term survival, then it must also develop rational standards. Rational norms would maintain, at least, a minimum yet sufficient level of livelihood for all members of society, despite fundamental individual inequalities. The new moral standards would not prevent the more capable members of society to benefit to a greater extent from their achievements. The theory aims to satisfy human needs beyond bare survival for the sake of peaceful coexistence and long-term sustenance of society.
1.3 HUMAN NEEDS, WANTS AND DRIVES Fundamental Needs and Drive
The fundamental impositions invoke additional human needs and wants. These belong to three different categories, 'fundamental needs', 'basic needs' and 'tertiary wants'. Needs and wants are manifested in human 'drives', observable behavior patterns, to satisfy the compelling urges of impositions. These categories are necessary because the objects of drives are changing under various personal, historical, and geographical, conditions. The study will go beyond the fundamental boundaries of human freedom and equality, into territories where human conduct is constrained by society.
Categorization follows the previous principles. 'Fundamental needs' refers to everything that affects individual survival. This requirement categorizes the need of an individual for 'sheer survival'. Every creature on earth is moved by the 'fundamental drive' to secure its own existence. The needs essential to support life must be obtained under all conditions, regardless of historical or regional circumstances. Whereas, basic needs and tertiary drives are strongly influenced by societal conditions. In spite of these differences, all three categories have gained equal importance in modern cultures, for they can affect life and death issues of individual existence and long term sustenance of the human culture.
The instinct of survival manifests itself through the fundamental drive. It is fundamental because it is common to all species. The fundamental drive is observable through the general tendency to acquire all needs of the individual to survive. For such compelling reasons, this drive is permanent throughout life and exists under all conditions. The fundamental drive is observable throughout nature from the smallest one-celled organism to Homo sapiens. It is obvious that peaceful coexistence can only be maintained if the fundamental needs of every member society are satisfied. Otherwise, the fundamental need to survive will drive those in need to aggression. Consequently, for the sake of peaceful coexistence, it is rational to secure the fundamental needs of every member of society equally. The foregoing draws attention to some root causes leading to violent acts.
As it was mentioned earlier, the moral and legal law, "do not kill", forbids only the act itself. It does not draw attention to underlying causes of violence, thus it does not protect human existence to the full extent. In addition to murderous acts, the fundamental needs of survival must also be protected. People could perish from malnutrition, lack of shelter, curable illnesses, and reasons other than by murder. A truly moral, rational, and just, society extends the protection of life equally. Peaceful societal coexistence is only possible if there are codified laws, not just against violence, but against all activities that can lead to the destruction of life. The principle calling for the 'total' protection of life is both self-interest and of common interest of the people.
In affluent societies, well-fed people are witnessing the death of millions of starving people. We are imperceptibly becoming immunized to such horrors through the mass media. Good morality urges everyone not to tolerate such horrifying conditions. Most mass murders begin, unnoticed, long before the moment of death. Bad leaderships, fanatical dictators, and evil-minded indoctrination, prepare these murderous events. Behind terrorist activities, one can always discover leaders who are more responsible for these brutal acts then the actual killers. Certain enterprises are also contributors to violence, producing products harmful to life, some knowingly, but deceptively denying it. Others are also contributors to violence and murderous acts, but are not going a distance to foresee deadly consequences. Even when physical harm is absent, and only the fundamental needs of the people are secured, they live at the very minimum level of existence. When the lives of large masses of individuals and the life of the natural environment is threatened then the life of an entire society is in danger of extinction. Rational thought can lead to the creation of minimum standards which can secure, at the very minimum, the fundamental needs of bare survival.
Basic Needs and Drives
The basic category of needs includes requirements that are necessary to maintain well-provided, peaceful, life in a society. In addition to 'fundamental needs' imposed by nature, basic needs are imposed by society. Basic needs are additional requirements, more than the bare minimum necessary to maintain human life. Basic needs and are powerful inducements for drives to secure the means of sufficiently well-supported existence within given societal conditions.
Long-term sustenance has two basic components. One is the biologically imposed 'sexual drive' that sustains, among other species, the human race. This study focuses on the socially imposed category of needs and drives to successfully exist in a given society. Most people, living in modern societies, are compelled to work for a living. They want to be able to share a 'sufficient portion' of society's resources. Sufficient means a level of material and cultural resources above the level of fundamental needs, living standards society can provide and the overwhelming majority of the people are satisfied with.
Material and cultural resources are uneven within different regions of nation-states as well as globally. Consequently, 'sufficient portion' cannot be the same presently because of regional differences of the availability of resources. In spite of the present unequal distribution of the earth's resources, citizens should be able to satisfy their basic needs, having a fair share of all important resources in any country and region. This inequality will, hopefully, change with rational improvements. Different needs also arise under evolving historical conditions, because of, scientific, technological, and cultural changes. Due to continuous changes in national boundaries, the resources base, and technology, the essence of basic needs are 'historically conditional variables'.
How can basic needs be interpreted and satisfied meaningfully? Today, the means of production and distribution of goods and services are highly developed. Science and technology is invading every work environment. Consequently, today, almost no one can hold a job or become an entrepreneur without being educated. Thus, education became a basic need. People have a basic drive to secure some means of earning a living, therefore they need to be educated. Global interdependence, and currency based exchange of goods and services also imposes the possession of money as a basic need. In modern society, without money people cannot support themselves and their families, regardless of the means of obtaining it. The level of individual income has a decisive influence upon a person's living conditions and his ability to benefit from the material and cultural resources of a nation.
The exchange rates of national currencies are highly dependent upon the economical strength of a country and its policies. These rates can be unfairly defined with respect to the 'real value' of exported and imported goods. This adversely effects the less developed and impoverished nations of the world. The rich nations need not increase their wealth by such monetary measures. Both forward looking rational views of the future, and moral considerations should eliminate these unjust policies. The recently introduced common currency of the European Union, the 'Euro', is a good step in that direction - in that part of the world.
In most democracies, the basic level of sustenance constitutes 'the minimum standard of living'. However, the foregoing concept of basic need is more extensive than the presently known minimum standard of living. The quality of a person's life depends upon the constraints of societal living conditions. The majority of people must work to earn money. A worker must have a job with a sufficient level of income for adequate housing, education for children, health care, transportation, a clean and healthy environment, access to cultural and entertainment facilities, and many other 'basic' things, in order to adequately sustain a family.
What is considered to be an appropriate level of "general welfare"(1) is a matter of judgment. As discussed before, judgment is relative. In the present case, judgments regarding what should be a satisfactory provision of basic needs are based upon the short and long-range sustainability of a society. Decision-making about basic standards is highly materialistic, and depends upon the wealth of a nation, its international relationships, and its political masters willingness to yield to reason and compassion. Beyond that, quantitative determination of basic standards, especially in view of long-term sustainability is a scientific task. Another part of such decision-making is ethical, political, decision. The foregoing thesis adopted improved moral norms, but satisfaction of basic drives is also a logical need to secure long term sustenance of humanity.
People living in poor underdeveloped countries of the world can only rely upon their limited resources to maintain their fundamental and basic needs. How people live within these countries is also determined by their geographical and climatic conditions, the suitability of the land for agriculture, the availability of natural resources, the size of the population, and the educational level of their citizens. In spite of these conditions, a great deal depends upon a country's political system and leadership as to what extent the means of satisfying fundamental and basic needs are accessible, and obtainable, by the citizens. They also depend greatly upon meaningful help of the developed nations. Regardless of how rational and moral the thought is, one cannot expect that the world's resources will be available on an equal basis to all of the people in the near future. However, it is quite rational and moral that the present injustices be gradually corrected. Corrections should also be done within developed nations with the elimination of unjust regional inequalities.
Constitutions and laws must declare more than rights but also must secure opportunities for the people to sustain themselves. A sufficient part of the all available resources must be made available, and accessible, to all individuals, their families, and those who are unable to provide for themselves. These are 'basic needs and requirements', in addition to fundamental needs, and are essential for sufficient, material, cultural, and peaceful, social coexistence. These goals can be accomplished in the near term in any region of the globe, regardless of its current conditions and resources base. Fortunately, societal conditions are changeable, and with foresight of the dangers to civilization and with determination of the people, noble and rational goals can be accomplished.
Tertiary Wants and Drives
Tertiary refers to individual 'wants' and drives to attain some targets of desire. Wants are not needs. They belong to a separate category, they generate drives beyond basic needs. The targets of desires wanted and striven for are not essential for a well-provided and cultured life. They are manifested in the forms of strong human drives to possess something or to achieve some goal. In addition to the primary satisfaction of needs, the fulfillment of wants usually causes heightened personal satisfaction. Tertiary drives can be extremely powerful, yet they are not essential to individual sustenance, but they have enormous consequences upon social coexistence. Therefore, it is important seriously consider both positive and negative consequences of tertiary drives.
Personal goals and ambitions are strongly influenced by cultural conditions and conditioning with far-reaching consequences. Their active manifestati-ons vary greatly in different cultural settings, and in situations that a person is encountering. The wants are observable as obsessive drives for wealth, power, and egocentric pride with respect to a huge variety of things. A solitary person isolated from society such as the food gathering human ancestors were would be free of most tertiary drives.
Clearly, Maslow's category, as mentioned earlier, is incorrect in lumping together the 'basic' and tertiary aspects of human wants and drives. In his theory the essential basic needs are lumped together with the non-essential tertiary wants. It is also interesting to note is that Mortimer Adler also developed a concept of 'need' as an objective biological necessity of life, differentiating it from 'want' as a subjective personal drive. He writes, "Whatever we need is good for us, there are no wrong needs" (p. 124, Moral Values). His views are not derived from biological impositions on life as is the present theory. Thus, Adler does not separate fundamental and basic needs, but, to his credit, he asserts that societal impositions can be as demanding in terms of 'wants' as biologically imposed needs. He writes: "wants lead us sometimes to seek what appears to be good for us at the time, but may turn out to be bad for us." Indeed, 'apparent good' may be devastating for the individual or society. He also supports the idea of "prescriptive truth"...goods "to which we have natural rights". His moral conclusion is similar to the foregoing thesis, advocating setting limits to "a scale of desirables" or wants.
The tertiary aspects of human behavior spring from the biological tendency to think and act creatively, to explore, to utilize, and achieve, something for one's benefit. In isolation, this great biological tendency serves only the primary interests of an individual, and, most importantly, without affecting others. In society however, tertiary aspects of behavior have enormous consequences upon societal conditions with both beneficial and adverse, even tragic, results. The most magnificent positive achievements of humankind as well as all regressive creations are consequences of tertiary wants. Some wants may be self-destructive, others can harm society. Excesses of tertiary wants such as alcohol and drugs, can be harmful for both the individual and society. Blind pursuit of money and profit may go beyond personal utility, and can be destructive. Whether societies progress, prosper, decline, or they are heading towards extinction, depend upon the extent freedoms and controls of tertiary personal conduct.
In addition to specific objects, wealth, and power, creative people want to create intellectual and artistic subjects. These intellectual drives have given rise to arts and sciences. Most people however, the majority of society, want various materialistic objects and services. When a segment of society is well-fed, adequately housed and clothed, and shares sufficient part of surplus resources, then societal life is peaceful. Arts and sciences usually flourish under such desirable societal conditions. Conversely, when people have to struggle for survival, when significant numbers of citizens starve, are homeless and uneducated, then societal life becomes hardly bearable and turbulent. Laws not limiting the excesses of tertiary drives, are actually responsible for these undesirable societal conditions.
The future of humankind may depend upon how soon nation-states will realize the need to limit the excesses of human wants and drives. Satisfactory provision of basic needs, and socially positive wants, are considered to be the'primary needs and interests' of all of the people. Considering the prospects of long-range sustainability of civilization, it is necessary to satisfy these vital needs and interests, All citizens should have equal opportunities to secure decent living and cultural conditions. This mandates the elimination of massive injustices and the prospect of self-destruction.
In order to find sound solutions and prevent decline and cultural catastrophes, a systematic investigation of societal affairs is necessary. Modern society is complex and difficult to analyze. Therefore, similarly to scientific investigations, beginning with simplified models of the complex, this analysis will go back to the earliest human societies. From this early case of communal life, the evolutionary development of the complex can be investigated. This analysis is presented in the next chapter, in the 'Group Theory of Society'. Similarly, step-by-step, in 'Leaders and Groups', followed by 'Group Analysis of Contemporary Society', solutions are emerging for the prevention of present decline of social morality. After detailed analysis, in Part 4, are the principles and means of improving contemporary democracy explored.
1.4 SUSTAINABILITY AND SURVIVAL
When men first crept from out earth's womb, Horace
Survival of the Fittest
Darwin's ideas, "struggle for survival", and "survival of the fittest", can be applied for the entire human race. Today, 'the fittest' uses his or her brain more than muscles. Human intellect has an increasing role in the struggle for existence and to gain extra personal benefits. The task of social science is not to decide whether human beings are the fittest among all other species. Instead, attention must be focused upon the struggles within our own society. The task is to uncover the causes of illogical, anti-survival, struggles within modern civilization now threatening both the individual and its society.
From the early days of civilization the means of survival was no longer acquired by 'tooth and nail' as in Horace's quote (above). Human ingenuity and creativity raised Homo sapiens from animal-like existence. Resourcefulness and inventiveness are helping more than sheer survival. Human inventions are helping to live comfortably, serving self-interests, while changing the social environment. Brainpower has been providing the means of survival needs with increasingly less toil. But human intellect has also been creating deprivation for an increasing number of people on earth, and enormous tensions for violence and new and devastating means of destruction.
Deprivation of people such as mass starvation, and organized mass murders are anomalies of human civilization. These are evil, negative manifestations of tertiary drives, caused by leaders, obsessed with ambition to reach their goals, regardless of the means they utilize. Leaders of huge enterprises, self-interest groups, political organizations, fanatical rulers, and governments, with exceptional powers are responsible for most tragic conditions and events. Darwin's theory, 'survival of the fittest', can be applied to the struggle between individuals, organized groups, and to the entire human race. The main question is no longer, 'who is the fittest to survive?' But can the human race survive? The future of humanity is uncertain. The ills of modern society are known and the threat of catastrophic aggression is ever present. Consequently, the struggle for survival mandates better, more appropriate utilization of human intellect. We must find the best principles and methods to radically improve democracy. A new theory of peaceful social coexistence is required, a demonstration that the human race is fit to survive. One important part of this mandate is a theory of significantly improved social morality.
Survival of Morality
Morality is a concept regarding good and bad behavior, usually judged upon the basis of some rational principle or religious doctrines. Presently, legal standards of social morality are based upon national laws, and a few international agreements, such as laws regulating the treatment of prisoners of war and crimes against humanity. In addition to principles and doctrines, social conduct is greatly influenced by customs and taboos. Religious moralities are commandments of God or revelations of other spiritual entities. These are seen as unshakable truths by believers that need no justification. Whereas, social norms of conduct are justified by rational principles, derived from human needs.
Some moral doctrines and principles can be in agreement. Such is the case in the condemnation of murder, forbidden by both 'The Ten Command-ments', and the foregoing moral principles. But advanced humane and logical reasoning can improve the scope of religious doctrines. For the sake of peaceful coexistence, it is rational to secure the fundamental needs of every member of society equally. As it was mentioned earlier, the moral and legal law "do not kill", forbids only the act itself, but it does not fully protect human existence as it should, by protecting the 'fundamental and basic needs of survival'.
People could perish from other reasons other than murder. Greed, ambition, and excessive drives for profit can lead to deprivation, illnesses, and death. Indoctrination, fanaticism, and incitement against races, religions, and certain other groups, can lead to murders. A truly rational just society extends the protection of life to include the 'full' protection of all 'primary needs and interests of the people' as societal ethics, referred to as 'survival morality'. This includes the full scope of right and wrong-doings.
Contemporary democratic constitutions and laws don't fully protect these vital needs of the people. In the developed countries, powerful economic, and other special interests prevent radical improvements. Elsewhere in the world, the root causes of human miseries are ruthless, immoral leaders and leaderships. These are sometimes even led, supported, and justified by religious leaders. Moral doctrines, written thousands of years ago, don't clearly specify economic and political morality. Some teachings even advocate passivity, humble acceptance of earthly sufferings. Beliefs in such doctrines can lead to toleration and even support, instead of condemnation of harmful societal conditions and conduct. In the long run, inadequate laws of social morality and lack of adequate social norms, can raise the Darwinian question, is humanity fit to survive?
In the 17th century, the belief was still common that the moral judgment of good and bad conduct, right and wrong behavior, were innate concepts of the human mind. John Locke argued that moral sense, what is being judged as just and moral, are not 'innate ideas'. Morality springs from the struggle for survival and existence in social settings, due to the rational capacity of human beings. According to Locke, "virtue is generally approved, not because innate, but because profitable" (pp. 78-9, 4). 'Confucius summarized his principle of good conduct in one word, "reciprocity". According to G. E. Moore, 'good' is an ideal, only specific instances of 'goodness' exist. The foregoing thesis supports such specific instances of goodness, and the ideas of Locke and Confucius. The laws of survival morality, and specific norms of goodness, are readily derived from the cardinal impositions of life, as discussed earlier. It incorporates the wisdom, 'what you do not want done to yourself, do not do onto others'. Survival morality supports this, but has an additional norm, by mandating support of human existence in its full extent supporting 'primary societal needs and interests'.
Moral judgments are neither neutral nor impartial, nor can they be absolutely objective. The principles of survival morality are not different either. However, if the primacy of life, its maintenance, support, and protection, are the common interest to of all of the people, then norms protecting human existence are viewed to be objective by the majority of citizens. Consequently, constitutional rights, guaranties, and guardianship of human existence, to the full extent, are supremely moral documents. Judgments, Standards, The Interest of All
The most crucial issue of our civilization is being in a 'state of dual potential'. The scientific, technological, and economical infrastructure has two potentials. The positive potential could create unprecedented general well-being. The negative potential could end civilization. Humanity must stop societal conduct responsible for the negative potential of our age. To secure survival and peace, we must enact constitutional guarantees and legal norms of good social morality. We must begin progress toward cooperative coexistence, and unprecedented material and cultural well-being. To achieve these goals, society must transform itself by discriminating the socially right from socially wrong conduct in order to secure enduring universal peace.
Skeptics maintain that human nature is bad, therefore we can never live peacefully. True, human nature is not different today than it was at the dawn of civilization. There is no realistic possibility to change human nature by either doctrines or theories. However, history demonstrates that human beings can create principles, laws, and normative rules regulating social morality. These laws can control human conduct in society to a great extent. The task, therefore, is a rational development of advanced laws and standards that can universally be accepted as 'good' rules of social morality. Such laws and standards should be based upon the principles of survival morality.
As stated earlier, societal morality has no absolute standards. Moral justification is relative. In this thesis, things that are judged as good, or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, are based upon the 'primary needs and interests of all of the people'. Judgments are human, the laws of nature are neutral, indifferent. Nature does not know either morally good or bad. Human laws, however, must consider the laws of nature because humans are inherent parts of nature. Consequently we must protect and sustain the natural environment. 'Sustenance' is not a narrow issue of protecting the air, water, animal and plant life. Human species should also be seen as being part of the total environment. The issue of sustenance, therefore, is the overall issue of sustaining human civilization. Primary human concern should focus on the decline of contemporary human civilization, which holds the threat of its own extinction. To reverse the decline we must adopt legal standards that protect the 'total' environment. These laws and norms are seen as moral laws of society.
The founding principles of survival morality are justifiable norms, and believed to meet these requirements for the following reasons:
Societal justice and legal enactment of standards can be derived from these principles. They should protect both individuals and society from unlawful behavior. Good and bad conduct should be judged with regard to their consequences, real or potential. Some wants may be good from a personal point of view and may be harmless to others. But some wants harm the primary needs and interests of the people. In view of this, the concept of legal good must also support 'the primary interest of all', in which phrase 'all' implies both single individuals and society.
The quantitative definition of various standards and norms is a difficult task. The greatest difficulty arises from the fact that the world's population lives in nation-states. Therefore citizens living in different countries have unequal opportunities to have uniform standards of living. As discussed, the availability of natural and human resources, climatic conditions, scientific, technological, industrial and commercial developments, also educational and cultural levels are different from country to country. Regretfully, codified standards can only be created under the given infrastructures, and prevailing societal conditions in each country. Under the present conditions, quantitative and qualitative definition of standards depend upon each nation's total resources and their develop-mental stage. Such situation should not be viewed as being permanent.
Within any country, and given national conditions, one of the most important criteria of internal peace is maintaining a satisfactory level of livelihood of the citizens. In spite of poor conditions in some regions of the world, the principles of survival morality can be implemented, and just societal treatment of the citizens can be secured. Good societal morality mandates constitutions, laws, and standards, that can secure a fair share of the available material and cultural resources for the citizens of a country. Laws can limit excesses of negative tertiary drives, the limitless enrichment of a relatively small number of individuals, while other citizens suffer, starve, and even die.
Universal laws should also control unbridled ambitions of a few fanatical leaders, and their supporters. These ruthless individuals whip up extreme nationalism, advocate ethnic, racial, and religious hatred, causing civil unrest and wars. New laws should protect the positive tertiary drives of those individuals that create wholesome developments, for both personal gains and benefits, and benefiting society as well. Such individuals deserve rewards above norms for contributing to general well-being. These types of equitable, just distribution of the available resources, can lead to gradual improvements, regardless of what developmental stage a country is presently in. These are minimum requirements to secure peaceful coexistence.
The gradual transformation of various societal systems, eventually, will create world-wide norms. This concept is aiming to stop the decline of the culture, the reduction of the widening gap between the rich and poor countries, and the gradual equalization of living standards. In all countries of the world, the principles of survival morality should guide legislative processes. This is also a logical mandate for long term sustenance. During the phase of transformations, the elementary needs of the people must be satisfied in proportion to the available resources within nation-states. The creation of such standards are realistic, from both logical and moral points of view. The resources of the world are sufficient to satisfy the primary needs and vital interest of all of the people.
Rights, Freedoms, and Equality
Demands of rights, liberty, equality, and brotherhood, has been part of all reform movements. These democratic ideals stirred up flaming emotions throughout history. The oppressed marched, shouting these slogans, waving red flags; the blood-soaked symbols of social revolutions. Radical humanism created these slogans, but without a realistic theory of 'means' and 'ends'. These have been only ideals of rights, freedoms, and equality.
Unlike previous revolutions, thorough preparations were made by the 'founding fathers' of the United States of America, a Colony of England at that time. The goal was to become independent, to be free from the yoke of the British Empire, and to establish the world's first constitutional 'republic'. Clear principles, practical goals, and strong determination, to carry their aims to fruition, were the main reasons for their success. After victory, the economical conditions in the USA improved steadily. The aim of republicans were, to have their own rights, independence, and freedom from the tyranny of the Emperor, not democratic reforms. Slavery was not fully abolished until 1865, and voting rights for women were not granted until as late as 1920. These are just the most obvious examples, showing that the democratic ideals of rights, freedoms, and equality, are not fulfilled in many respects, even today, in the United States and in other democracies.
Parliamentary and constitutional democracies are better than other political systems, but many facts indicate that their governing principles and policies should be improved. Those aspects of the representative form of political democracy that are now threatening the future were unforeseeable hundreds of years ago, and are not readily recognized today. The problems are two-sided. Firstly, rights, freedoms, and equality, are grossly limited for many people. Not all citizens have equal opportunities in education and getting jobs, women are not treated equally either, and money influence judgments in the courts. Many people have no proper health care, inequality in taxation, and face discrimination in other important societal areas. Secondly, a minority has special rights and freedoms. For instance, no limits or inadequate limits are set to the exploitation of people and natural resources, the manufacturing and sale of arms, products harmful to health, the freedom of expression, and the freedom of media - controlled by econo-political interests - just to name a few major concerns. The hot, emotional slogans of justice, freedom, and equality, are general, undefined terms. Their implementation must be defined. Examined by foresight and rational analysis, they should be extended in certain areas, and restricted in others.
Emotions and feelings must be guided by reason, not by flaming rhetoric. The concepts of democratic ideas originated in ancient Greece. A good account of its historical and cultural development, from Plato to Dewey, is given by Charles Sherover and other philosophers listed in the literature. The present concern is to learn from history and uncover the causes of the failure of democratic ideals in their implementation. A good start is the examination of fundamental relationships between inanimate nature and living creatures. Is any member of any of the species absolutely free without being limited by nature? The answer is 'no'. Nature imposes its 'boundary conditions' upon all living creatures, thus limiting human freedom.(2) Within the given natural boundaries, human beings can enjoy the benefits of limited freedoms, but are severely punished for violating the laws of nature. Ultimately, human survival can depend upon respecting both the blessings and the restrictions of nature. In addition to limiting human freedom, nature imposes inequalities. Human beings are biologically unequal. Plain facts show great differences in physical and mental abilities and in genetical disposition between individuals, from the moment of birth - as discussed earlier. The above preconditions of life are contrary to a doctrine, claiming that "all man are born equal"(3).
Natural inequalities exist between individuals, but the instinct of survival is imposed on all with equal strength. Consequently, only the combination of moral and rational considerations can resolve this duality. As it was also shown earlier, we are equal only with respect to our 'primary needs and interests'. Rational considerations for peaceful coexistence, must limit the adverse consequences of inequalities, by defining the extent of certain rights, and the limits of individual freedoms. Thus, both compassion and logic demand the establishment of equality, at least at the fundamental and basic levels. They should be guides for the definition of individual rights, freedoms, and equalities.
In addition to finding remedial measures to prevent adverse consequences of natural inequalities, modern science and technology gave rise to similar concerns about the future. Should the threat of mutual destruction limit irrational rights and freedoms? 'The principles of survival morality and grave concerns about the future, clearly define the ends to be achieved. Accordingly, the rights and limitations of freedom and equality should be in 'the primary interest of all of the people'. Specific means of this democratic ideal should guarantee that:
More than three hundred years ago, 'Adam Smith', 'the father of capitalism' wrote, that creative production, and profit arising from it, is beneficial not only to individual entrepreneurs, but can be beneficial to society as well. This view is correct under certain conditions. Free enterprise should not deprive the rights of others and should not render people to live miserably. J. S. Mill and Dewey also advocate liberty, but point out the need to "restraining men" from damaging the vital interests of others. Theoretically and practically, it is impossible to establish a social order in which every person has equal rights and freedoms. However, it is quite possible to establish 'basic' equalities and freedoms that can secure harmonious social coexistence. When the cardinal interests of the people are violated by some powerful minority controlling societal affairs, and even the basic levels of rights and freedoms are lacking, then peaceful coexistence cannot be maintained forever. 'Just' democratic ideal is to make vital decisions in interest of all of the people, not just in the interests of some. The constitutions of contemporary democracies grant certain rights and freedoms and contain noble ideals of justice, freedom, and equality, but also allow their abuses. These should be remedied before it is too late. Hopefully, they will be in the near future.
Summary of Part 1
The main purpose of this chapter is to address the primary needs, vital interests, and concerns of human existence. First, a few major theories of human nature were reviewed. I found that these theories are not suitable for philosophical, sociological, and political foundations of my work. Instead, I took the conditions imposed by nature upon every living creature, within which to survive, to be the foundation of theories. In addition to nature, society also imposes certain conditions on existence. From the dual impositions of nature and society are derived the minimum conditions of human sustenance.
Satisfactory level of sustenance is achieved when the means of 'fundamental' and 'basic needs' are obtainable by each member of a society. These are minimum standards of economic equality and justice in a truly democratic society. Above these minimum levels, positive 'Tertiary drives' for extra 'wants' are equally important because satisfaction of needs and wants can make life not only well-provided, but worth living, in a cultured, cooperative, peaceful, and pleasurable manner. However, wide-spread and excessive negative tertiary drives can make life miserable, pushing it to the level of bare existence. Negative human drives are responsible for the confrontational, inhuman nature of our civilization that, in this unique era of enormous mass destructive means, could lead to the destruction of life.
The infrastructure exists for the creation of a peaceful and contented civilization. But mindless extremes, in the name of individual liberties, are the reasons for being in 'the state of dual potentials' to flourish or perish. If the task of philosophy is, to apply wisdom and to help to cope with great concerns of existence, then it is both logical necessity and moral duty to apply new principles and work out the means that could lead to general well-being and harmonious coexistence of humankind. Justice, freedom and equality are constitutional rights in contemporary democracies. Questioning the liberal interpretation of rights and freedoms, and probing the meaning of equality may superficially appear to some people as blasphemy. But anything forbidden deterministically, logic must investigate. Centuries of fighting autocratic rulers for freedom of the poor, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, now surrounds the old concepts of liberty with an air of dogmatic sanctity. But the accesses, causing the decline of our civilization, must be bravely addressed.
The prevention of self-destruction mandates realistic norms of justice and equality, and for that reason, society must limit the excesses of negative tertiary drives. This leads to the logical conclusion that improved codified standards are necessary to reverse the decline of the culture, and to start a new era of upturn. Long range sustainability of the 'total environment', including the much neglected human environment, mandates constitutional enactment of new principles for a more humane democracy. In Part 1, the principles of 'survival morality', and the means of its practical implementations promise significant improvements.
Part 2
2.1 ANCIENT GROUPS The Weakness of Class Theory
The purpose of this chapter is to focus on the root causes drawing people into cooperative communal coexistence and what forces draw them apart. First, a brief illustration of the shortcomings of class analysis of society is given in comparison with group analysis. The study begins with ancient groups. It illuminates the evolutionary consequences of growing human intellect, ingenuity, and inventiveness. The positive and negative consequences of diversification and roles of exceptional individuals, referred to as leaders. 'Conditional analysis'(4) reveals why initially cooperative coexistence evolved into modern confrontational societies.
Classification and analysis of society, categorizing people on the basis of their economic status, and how they earn a living, do not completely reveal all forces shaping societal affairs. Social classes are conceptual classifications with vague, undefined, borders of demarcation. Whereas, when various organized group formations are distinct, their goals and methods of operation can be clearly seen. Consequently, their societal influences can be traced and their consequences can be demonstrated. The borderlines between social classes by levels of income and economic power are not precisely definable. Classifications, such as 'working class', 'middle class', and 'upper class' or capitalists are too broad. Enormous differences exists within a single class in levels of income, the way income is earned or came to possession, and in the strength of societal influence wealth could secure.
The notion of social classes have been used by theorists of political economy since Ricardo, Adam Smith, and Marx, to the Neo-classical Keynes, and contemporary ones like Galbraith and Friedman. Even today, most sociologist and political scientists classify social classes by the control of capital; one class is the controller of capital and the other is controlled by capital. Indeed, the control of capital has a profound effect upon the lives of people, but it is not the only factor. The affairs of society cannot be analyzed properly by using such a narrow criterion. Great differences exist within a broadly defined class with respect to living conditions, social status, and power of influence, between well-definable sub-groups within a society. Consequently, class analysis cannot penetrate deeply enough into the affairs of society and cannot uncover the role of powerful group organizations that influenced its past, and shaping its present and future.
The broadness and consequent weakness of the class concept is illustrated through a few examples. Several distinct groups exist within a class, with greatly differing living standards, social status, political rights, and influence upon society. For instance, many large, well-organized, and powerful trade unions exist within the working class. Their membership criteria are formal, with compulsory membership dues. Firm rules and regulations govern their affairs. Trade unions are headed by elected leaders and have well-defined goals. They also have membership organizers, specific strategies and tactical methods to achieve their goals. The power and influence of large trade unions is well known. In comparison, a significant number of people, classified as working class, are unorganized. This unorganized group works in small shops, and are unprotected by trade unions. Their wages, economic status, and influence are much lower than workers belonging to Unions. They don't enjoy the benefits of binding contracts with their employers, consequently they have no job security, paid vacations, or other social benefits. The third group within the so-called 'working class' is the group of migrant workers. These are still lower on the social, economic, and political scale. They are unemployed workers trying to get jobs, but cannot find any.
The capitalist class is also composed of gigantic multinational corporations, large banking and financial concerns, powerful industrial and commercial organizations. Lumped together with these are: wholesalers, medium and small manufacturing and commercial firms, retailers and other small enterprises. The largest ones in these groups are clearly discernible by their capitalization, global structure and size, and the number of employees they have. They usually produce or market a variety of products. They have significant financial strength, and their economical, societal, and political influence is enormous. Other entrepreneurs, have smaller capitalization and size, financial strength, and societal influence. All of these, including small private enterprises, are still classified as members of the capitalist class.
Many small business owners only a few employees or work by themselves. They take much greater risks in running their businesses than large corporations. A growing number of them go bankrupt, under the competitive advantages of large, powerful corporations and become members of the working class or forced to live on welfare. Classification of society into class categories does not have sufficient power of resolution to demonstrate the role and influences of the many informal and formally organized special interests groups upon societal affairs.
Advantages of the Group Theory of Society
The common character of social groups are the pursuit and protection of their goals and self-interests. Thus, groups can be defined as 'representatives of special interests'. This definition is valid for all kinds of groups, formally or informally organized, some with little or no influence upon society, and others with enormous power of influence. Groups have a wide variety of goals: pursuing hobbies and economic, social, cultural, and political interests. From a socio-political and economic point of view, even religious organizations, churches, industrial and commercial, enterprises, can be viewed as formally organized groups, all representing some special interests.
With the emergence of the industrial era, the number and influence of group organizations grew, and the borderlines of class categories gradually lost their clear meanings. The preceding chapter illuminated the narrow focus and broad generalizations of the notion of social classes. Class categories have to be broken down into fine sub-groupings. Focusing upon the activities of major group organizations provides a much clearer view of the forces shaping societal conditions than class theory provides. Modern society has become widely differentiated by group organizations. The largest groups are well organized and exercise enormous power and influence upon the affairs of nation-states and upon the global community. Comparing social class analysis with group theory, first of all, social group organizations are accurately identifiable. They are defined by a single definition, whether formal associations or informal groupings, regardless of the size of their membership, and the power and influence they have. Second, powerful organized groups and their leaders have great influence upon societal life, and their activities can be scientifically analyzed. Group analysis, therefore, is more suitable for studying, both positive and negative, and national and global consequences of the activities of well-organized groups, than class theory provides.
Some of the largest and socially important groups are the nation-states. Several powerful groups exist within each country, and those with the greatest influence operate globally. Fortunately, the scientific study of groups does not need laboratory conditions. Observation of the activities of formal and informal groupings lend themselves to reliable study. Analysis of activities of the most influential groups can uncover the useful as well as the undesirable consequences of special interests. The leaders and supporters of large group organizations have both positive and negative influences upon the future of human civilization.
Group categorization reveals also the role and influence of many well-organized, very influential societal groups. Some of these are: political parties, manufacturers organizations, trade unions, and other groupings by religion, ethnicity, race, and gender. There are also numerous environment protecting organizations, each one is promoting and defending its own special interests. The evolution of human civilization has been greatly affected by the influence of powerful groups. The largest and most powerful groups have a dominating effect upon both internal conditions of modern industrial states, and upon their international relationships. The definition of societal groups is clear, the pursuit of special interests have distinct manifestations. Their goals and methods can be identified, and the societal consequences of their activities can be studied. Group theory provides great analytical power, and helps to develop deeper insight into societal affairs.
Early Groups - The Grouping Imperative
The study begins with food gathering ancestors, the emergence of tribes, and an ever growing concentration of people into larger and larger groups. The analysis focuses upon:
Anthropology gives a credible account about the life of early human beings. The life of lone, isolated, food-gathering ancestors don't provide a basis for group analysis, but provides a sharp contrast to communal coexis-tence. The first, lone, food gatherers spontaneously began to gather into small communal groups. It is not important to decide which was more significant: the role of human instinct or intellect in the tendency to form families, and then to gradually gather into clans and early tribes. Very little is known about what goes on inside the brain. Intuition, insight, and cognition, are parallel internal processes. It is more important to recognize the fundamental imposition of nature in the tendency of grouping, the instinct of survival. This leads to the biological drive, 'grouping imperative'. This drive aims to secure the chances of survival under more secure and cooperative conditions than alone.
On a deserted island, a person's social drives are dormant or absent simply because social drives cannot manifest themselves in the absence of society. Food-gathering early ancestors lived in virtual isolation, free and independent of societal constraints. Only the fundamental impositions of nature set limits to their freedom. This was referred to earlier as 'the boundary conditions of nature'. Each person must look after himself or herself under isolated circumstances. Primarily, the individual is driven to satisfy the fundamental needs, secure food, shelter, and protect life. Secondly, the individual is driven by the basic impositions to seek sexual gratification, and seek means that could ease the burden of existence. Beyond the fundamentals are greater personal security, steady food supply, and the seeking of comfort and leisure. Gathering into cooperative communal groups increases these motivations. Using the terminology introduced in Part 1 of this book, early communal coexistence enhanced the 'primary needs and interests' of our early ancestors.
The struggle for bare survival was the dominating factor in the lives of early Homo sapiens. Human struggle for survival has been improved by cooperation such as hunting, sharing of food, resources, skills and knowledge. Survival was the primary reason for communal living, but life within ancient groups also increased general well-being and gave rise to a feeling of belonging to one's own enlarged family and being protected. These are the first elements of the 'basic' and 'tertiary' aspects of communal coexistence.
How can one be certain about the life within ancient societies? Fortunately, many isolated, primitive, aboriginal tribes existed in North and South America and Australia at the time of their discoveries. Some tribes remained in isolation until recent days in the huge rain forest of the Amazon in Brazil. An encyclopedia(5) gives a summary of social coexistence of Eskimo (Inuit in native language) tribes found in the Canadian north, Norway, Greenland, Iceland, and Alaska:
"Social organization among the Eskimo is a sort of primitive communism. Only raw materials, however, such as game and fish, are collectively owned; manufactured articles such as hunting and fishing equipment, domestic utensils, and clothing, are considered private property. The Eskimo have no kings or chiefs, no tribal organizations, no military or police, and no jails."
Evidences of much older communal living conditions have been unearthed since 1970, first by Mary and Richard Leakey and their followers, showing evidences of cooperative activities of early hominids, two to three million years ago(6). These protohuman ancestors were sharing food, had a distinct territory and a home base, hunted in groups, formed long-term mating bonds between male and one or more females. "They formed bonds, we call 'Marriage', involving reciprocal economic ties, joint responsibility for child-rearing and restrictions on sexual access."
The author of this authoritative study also demonstrates communal life within cooperative groups, studied in more recent times.
In comparison with food-gatherers, life in communal groups represents a new societal condition. In such communal circumstances, new aspects of the basic and tertiary drives emerge in addition to the fundamental drive that is present under all conditions. Today, we live in much larger communities, cities and nation-states, with total inter-reliance upon others for the provision of our needs and wants. Evolutionary transformations demonstrate that human beings gave up their independence voluntarily, and gradually became members of totally interdependent and interreliant societies.
These facts demonstrate that human beings are caring and cooperative creatures. Inferences drawn from archeological findings and more current observations and theories in the earlier chapters, bring the originating causes of group formations into focus. The feeling of supporting a home base with a sense of belonging, love of one's 'own country', speaking the same language, having the same traditions, are all indicators of the still present grouping imperative. The masses still feel and think being protected by the state and its leadership, and elect governances for the representation of their primary needs and interests. Are these feelings justified? Not anymore. The causes of the alienation of the leaders from the led will be explored.
In summary, the most important evolutionary reasons for early group formations were that they:
Growth of Groups
Life within ancient, isolated, group cultures were mainly harmonious. It is instructive to review disruptive factors that ended relatively peaceful coexistence of early human ancestors. As we have seen, anthropological studies assert that sharing and cooperation existed within primitive groups, as long as the group's survival needs were secure. The consequence of well-provided life is societal peace and harmony. It allows time for leisure, cultural development, and introspection. The population of tribes began to increase under these satisfactory circumstances. Growth led to need for increased food supply and the group's territory. Neighboring tribes also had to expand their territory. The expansion ended the era of isolated tribes and led to clashing interests and confrontations. These were the first negative consequences of tribal growths that ended the era of harmonious coexistence.
Tribal aggression was born out of increasingly vital needs and fears. Lack of common language, and fear of strangers contributed to hostilities. Intruders, uttering strange voices that cannot be understood, who do not belong to the community, and hunt in one's territory, reducing food supplies were seen as enemies. It is important to point out that the common root of hostilities was fear of losing livelihood and threat to survival. Intrusion into hunting grounds and threat to sustenance, caused early aggression for the protection of livelihood and life. Warring under such circumstances was defensive action, not inborn bloodthirstiness. The root of early tribal aggression was blind animalistic struggle for survival. Human beings do not prey upon other human beings. Aggression of otherwise peaceful tribes, was a consequence of new evolutionary conditions: growth of population and increasing need for larger territories with clashing interests.
Peace and harmony typifies group life, even within contemporary nation- states when livelihood is not threatened and fundamental and basic human needs are well-provided. When conditions change and deprivation sets in, then societal life becomes turbulent or violent. In hostile circumstances, human beings become gripped by fear and act defensively. Under such conditions, aggression can be mistakenly presumed, and may not be real. Paradoxically, peaceful, cooperative, human societies often fought each other for no real reason other than fear. Even today, these instinctive aspects of human behavior show that a blind survival drive can lead to anti-survival consequences. This paradox and potential tragedy, was not eliminated by reason, and is still manifested in modern cultures. Contemporary leaders can create unreasonable fear of an enemy, calculatedly, and start a so called 'defensive war' against another country or a civil war against an ethnic group.
The formation of families, clans, and tribes have been the forerunners of modern society. Originally, the tendency of grouping served the interest of all members of the tribe, fulfilling its 'fundamental' and 'basic needs'. It is significant to note that early human groups formed spontaneously to live better and safer. Our ancestors give up their independence, voluntarily choosing communal life, because it improved their own existence as well as serving the common interest of others. Unfortunately, contemporary group formations no longer serve the interest of all of the people. Parallel with the positive manifestations of human evolution grew its negative aspects. Today, the most significant groups are not formed spontaneously, but are organized for a purpose. The grouping imperative could be, and is being exploited through specific designs. As a result of indoctrination, traditions, nationalistic, religious, and other influences, individuals identify themselves with the particular group they belong to. The sense of belonging to one's 'own' protective group is a great contributor in holding nation-states in apparent togetherness. The foregoing is only a fast-paced review, illustrating the evolution of groups from spontaneous formation of families and early tribes to deliberate formation of groups. The tendency, the feeling of belonging and being protected by one's own group, led to the political era of nation-states, the era of confrontational coexistence that is threatening our future: the era of 'dual potentials'. Fortunately, rational plans and positive, deliberate action, could reorient the grouping imperative so that humankind could again live in harmonious coexistence.
The Increasing Role of the Brain
The ability to think and to act creatively is the most influential factor in human evolution. In addition to instinct, the human brain has been leading humanity from ignorant animal existence to mushrooming activities and interests, and eventually to the present culture. The most gifted ancestors recognized how to utilize the resources of nature and created utensils, hunting weapons, and other useful things for themselves and the community. They also learned how to draw special benefits from exceptional abilities. New things and eventually new services were created that had been, and are, creating new human 'wants'; positive and negative societal (tertiary) drives.
The purpose of this section is not to give a detailed evolutionary account of how human intellect helped advancing human evolution. The emphasis will be placed upon the dividing role of human intellect that changed cooperative cultures into confrontational societies. Ingenuity has been helping human existence from the rise of civilization until the present. The development of language and the ability to learn from others has benefited all members of early groups. Initially, the utilization of natural resources had been shared. It increased general welfare and the chances of survival. In general it advanced early cultures in positive directions. The invention of tools, utensils, hunting weapons, and the learning to build shelters were all communal treasures, shared by all and benefiting all members of the group. This evolutionary period can be seen as the era of cooperation. The peaceful period was upset by expansion of territories of formerly isolated tribes, and the growth of the human intellect. Although the ability to think and act creatively has been helpful in providing primary needs. It has also been creating extra wants and given rise to selfish negative drives.
Resourcefulness of the human species is unique among all living creatures. Even the least educated person is capable of learning through observing or communicating with others and is far more resourceful than any other primate. People learn through direct experiences and also from observations and verbal exchanges. They can also hypothesize, invent, and conclude or assume something through abstractions. The mind can infer from the known into the unknown. Language is one of the earliest of intellectual abilities, in spoken or other forms. The mind learns to associate specific meanings to vocal, printed, or other symbols. Verbal and written communications are uniquely intellectual human abilities.
The individual abilities to think creatively, or to acquire and perform physical skills are not on an equal basis. The spectrum of human talent is wide, from the ability to perform the simplest physical tasks to the most difficult undertakings, and from primitive minds to geniuses. Outstanding capabilities enable certain individuals to create privileged leadership positions(7) for themselves. Talent, ideas, inventions, and activities, can be either beneficial or harmful. Thus exceptional people can and do affect the life of an entire society.
Unfortunately, human intellect has increasingly been producing negative consequences. Negative 'tertiary drives' such as, ambition, greed, envy. These do not manifest themselves in isolation from society. Most societal problems can be associated with such negative drives. Gradual growth of human intellect has been increasing the objects and subjects of individual wants and desires. But many new targets have not been obtainable by people possessing less talent than the leaders of progress. This is a marked disadvantage for the majority of the people. The brainiest members of society have been able to use their superior abilities beneficially for themselves. Thus, creations by the human intellect have been leading to the differentiations of once coherently coexisting cultures.
Ancient, unified, common-purpose groups split up into smaller self-interested sub-groups, each pursuing and protecting its own interests. Differentiations of cooperative tribal life led to the present culture. Growth of knowledge and its application became and has been the driving force of human civilization. However, advancement of civilization has also been creating social, economical and political problems. Diversification of activities and differentiation of society into sub-groups grew human interdependency. The sustenance of individual lives has increasingly depended upon the contributions of others. This proves that human nature did not change, it remained cooperative. People have been building cities and industries, advancing science, technology, arts, and culture, at an accelerating speed and extent. Civilization has been advancing, led by intellect and inventiveness of leading individuals.
Survival has departed forever from tooth and nail struggle. The production of goods and services is growing exponentially. Increases in food productions has also been growing with the growth of population. Housing, sanitation, use of medicines, better clothing, and other improvements, increased the average length of human life about threefold in a few thousand years. These facts and many others, demonstrate the collective achievements of human beings, being led by tertial drives of a relatively small number of exceptional individuals. The leaders of evolving human civilization, have been gradually learning to draw special benefits from their talents. Although inventions, products, and new services, have been benefiting society in many ways, but the primary beneficiaries have been individual making these changes. Some of them worked selflessly, while others achieved much greater material benefits and power and rose into high societal positions and status.
The leaders of societal evolution have been responsible for the harmful aspects of progress. Besides positive things, they have been creating a broad range of negative ones, from harmful ideologies and organizations to weapons of mass destruction. A range of economical and political activities are harmful as well. The ultimate consequence of differentiations of once harmoniously living cultures led to the present highly competitive confrontational global civilization. It is an ironical duality, a paradox of the thinking and creative human intellect that is now threatening its own survival. Whether the human race is 'fit to survive' or not, depends upon our rational ability to eliminate this paradox and reverse the decline.
2.2 LEADERS AND GROUPS
Emergence of Leaders
The leaders of ancient groups emerged spontaneously. The best person that can secure survival and security, one who could coordinate hunting and secure food, became the natural leader of the group. The leader and the led had common needs and interests.
Regardless of the cultural period of evolution, physical and mental abilities of individuals differ within a group. Some people are not able to work or to defend themselves or to fight, such as infants, children, the weak- bodied, and the sick. Others are able to maintain themselves, but their capabilities are modest. In ancient times communal life within a group had several advantages. In the food-gathering and hunting periods, a leader emerged, it was the best person with the best physical and mental attributes. For the reason of self-preservation, the best hunter, the strongest and most capable person was instinctively followed and obeyed. The entire group benefited from the activities of talented leaders. Consequently, they have earned natural respect and special esteem. Leadership status and respect were the consequences of natural selection of the most talented individuals. It was obtained spontaneously by merit, not by inheritance money and propaganda or the imposition of power. Early leaders served the common primary needs and interests of all.
As discussed earlier, with the growth of the brain's capacity, the days of ancient cooperative coexistence gradually eroded. Parallel with the growth of intellect, new leadership functions and roles emerged. The diversity of occupations have been creating sub-groups, and some were formally organized. The best thinkers and innovators have become new types of leaders. Special talents and skills have been propelling diversification and differentiation of society. This process characterizes the growth of civilization. In ancient times, as today, outstanding abilities, for better or worst, have been creating new leadership functions and positions. It can be seen that individuals whose activities have some significant effect upon the existence of others are leaders. And the sum total of major leadership activities have been transforming societies, influencing both positive changes and negative changes.
Although early leaders could take advantage of their superior physical and mental attributes. But they never took advantage of their positions to endanger the lives or destroy the livelihood of other members of their group. This assertion is based upon the previously discussed anthropological studies. Sharing and peaceful coexistence have been observed within primitive tribes, living in isolation from modern cultures. Early groups lived cooperatively and in general harmony. The relation-ships between the leaders and the groups they served in the early days of civilization, is in sharp contrast to the conditions existing in modern society. Today, some leaders of major economical activities are motivated by profit, regardless of its consequences. Political leaders and organizations are strongly influenced by special interest. In general, contemporary leaders and leaderships are no longer serving the interest of all, but the interest of a few.
Differentiation of Groups
The natural consequences of the 'grouping imperative', ancient cooperative coexistence and sharing did not survive very long. Why did conditions change so drastically? Why don't we live in peace and harmony any more? Paradoxically, the success of cooperative group-life, the growth of population and human intellect were the first reasons for eroding togetherness and harmonious coexistence.
Internal group harmony became gradually upset, most importantly, by rapid growth of groups. Scarcity was the basic cause of increasingly selfish conduct and clashes between neighboring tribes. During the time of safety and general well-being, negative societal drives were not manifestly present. Hunting territories were insufficient for food supply and other primary needs, thus physical power and special skills prevailed. In general, human intellect is overpowered by the imperative of survival. Negative drives prevail to satisfy one's vital needs ahead of others needs. Early human groups were easily led into aggression and violent acts concurring territories, robbing surpluses. Citizens of contemporary states led into wars for the same reasons.
The other major reason for upsetting peaceful coexistence can be found in the dual role of the human intellect. As the number of innovations increased, they were making everyday life easier with less toil. Human beings also learned animal husbandry and grew agricultural products thereby increasing food supplies and easing its provision. The production of food supplies and goods eventually led to a new era of civilization. The most significant changes were due to the creation of surpluses and private property. Agricultural land became the property of growers. The cleverest and most skillful individuals produced a variety of surplus goods and their possession led to bartering. Surplus goods are private possessions of the producers, they can be exchanged for other goods and thus become marketable. Production of marketable goods has differentiated the producers from others. The opportunity to benefit from property and possessions put the innovators into better positions and, to a certain extent into a higher status than the average member of a group. The increasing material well-being of a few with superior abilities, separated these leaders of the culture from those of the led.
Important to notice that differentiation in such an early society was due to a spontaneous, unorganized, process. It was caused by rising creativity and its consequent diversified activities. Early differentiation harmed no one, it rewarded true talents, but did not harm common interests. The natural emergence of the earliest skills have not created two different social classes with entirely opposite interests, nor did it separate the rulers from the ruled. Nevertheless, growth of the intellect, its inventions and discoveries, changed the previously existing, mutually advantageous relationships between the members of the group and the informal sub-groups of its leading individuals.
The most negative aspect of tertial drives was the separation of society into property owners and slaves beside tradesmen. The most unscrupulous individuals learned to take advantage of slave labor. Before the rise of the scientific, technological, industrial era, social classes were clearly identifiable. Adam Smith used the term appropriately and illuminated the positive societal aspects of private property and capital. So did Marx from the opposite point of view. Marx also gave a far more detailed explanation of historical evolution of society that made exploitation of labor possible.
The purpose of this brief overview is not to give a detailed philosophical or econo-political dissertation about evolutionary developments. The goal is to focus upon proliferation of groups, and to demonstrate the reasons for splitting up ancient cooperative group cultures into various sub-groups. Diversification of human skills led to subsequent differentiation of cultures into numerous special interest groups, each beginning to pursue its own self-interests.
The root causes for the split between the leading members of society and the rest of the people, have been due to both positive and negative tertial drives. The most resourceful members of society have been the leaders of changes and enabled them to take advantage of their talents. Different skills have been causing uncoordinated spontaneously developing transformations that mark the progress of human civilizations. Today, multitudes of special interest groups exist. Some are engaged in positive activities, others are pursuing mixed or entirely negative goals. The long progress of this evolutionary process is at a crucial phase. Society now has a dual potential. The positive can create a well-provided and cultured civilization, while the negative is now threatening the future.
The foregoing analysis reveals that cooperative life greatly enhanced the safety, survival, and general welfare of early groups. With the passage of time, the growing ability of human intellect has been transforming society. Progress, paradoxically, has been developing both positive and negative activities that have led to the differentiation of cooperative life-style, ending peaceful coexistence. The main reasons for these changes were:
The previous chapters and sections already discussed the spontaneous emergence of tribal leaders, and the emergence of new sub-groups and new leadership roles as the human culture advanced . The question arises: why to spend more time with leaders and leaderships? The answer is that they are inherent parts of group theory. A leader was defined earlier as a 'person whose activity has a significant effect upon a group or groups or a nation or the human civilization'. The definition of leaderships is essentially the same.
According to this definition, many types of leaders and leaderships exist in addition to the leaders of industry and commerce. Some have been organizing and leading political parties and rights protecting groups, and there are countless others down on the scale of social impact, to hobby clubs. Even church leaders and leaderships belong to these group organizations. Another category of leaders consists of creative individuals such as Nobel Laureates, outstanding humanitarians and philanthropists, famous scientists, inventors, engineers, doctors, chemists, industrialists, entrepreneurs, economists, and even leaders of the entertainment industries. Their activities have been having marked effects upon both the evolution of civilization and societal coexistence. The list is far from complete. Its purpose is to illustrate the broad concept of leaders and leaderships. It would be a monumental task to present a detailed account of the most outstanding contributors who had significant effects upon human culture. The goal of this analysis is to narrow the focus upon leaders and leaderships whose activities have either a positive or a negative effect upon societal life and societal coexistence.
At the top of the spectrum are leaders of governances, the leaders of nation-states, provinces, local states, cities, militaries, political parties, large national and multinational corporations, trade unions, churches, and various rights advocating groups, heads of the judiciary, owners and members of the media, leaders of environmental groups, peace movements, women's rights groups, consumer protection organizations, and many others, down the scale of importance. Collectively, these group leaderships are influencing the important affairs of contemporary society. Each of these individuals and organizations are pursuing some special interest. Some of these are responsible for the positive progress of society while others are negative. The harmful consequences are not readily foreseeable. Individual or corporate conduct may appear to be positive. But in the long run, they can have negative, and sometimes, devastating unforeseen consequences. That is why it is important to analyze the role of leaders, who have been organizing, managing, and controlling major groups, thus influencing society's affairs progressively and regressively.
The proliferation of groups also illustrate the evolutionary transition from ancient common interest cultures to modern adversarial civilization. Leaderships are organized in hierarchies. In these, talent or power is manifested by ranking leaders formally into positions and status. The effectiveness of individual abilities can be significantly enhanced by concentrating activities into formally organized groups and leaderships. Each organization is pursuing its own interest, and often compete or conflict with other groups for dominant position. Civilizations can flourish, and they can also stagnate, decline, and even disappear. In this process, powerful groups, leaders have significant roles. Next, the analysis will focus upon the ill manifestations of group activities, aiming for improved social coexistence and securing the future of civilization.
Another task of the analysis is to discriminate good leaders from bad leaders. In terms of 'survival morality', and from the logical point of view, activities supporting long term sustenance are morally and rationally 'good'. The moral principle mandates that good leaders strive to satisfy the fundamental and basic needs and the primary interests of the people. Logic also mandates that a good leader should also strive to create peace and harmonious coexistence within society. Today, unfortunately, adversarial, viciously competing and conflicting relationships dominate societal affairs. In this highly differentiated society, leaders and leadership groups pursue, primarily, self-interests that now negatively affect the common good of the people.
From Informal to Formal Group Practices
The mysteries of life and nature have been puzzling human minds since ancient times. The mind can create various abstractions; dreams, myths, spiritual beings, fictions, fantasies, beliefs. Primitive people imagined that various supernatural powers control the weather and other mysterious manifestations of nature. Many abstractions such as speech, writing, mathematics, geometrical axioms, scientific hypotheses and others, begin with imagining some applicability for them. Many of these imaginative possibilities turned out to be tremendously useful in everyday life and also in the sciences and modern technology. Abstract supernatural ideas also have important practical consequences, and have been leading to ceremonial group formations. Formal group practices have been customary in the life of ancient groups through various rites. Initially, these were spontaneously evolving, not formally organized activities, but they were the forerunners of religious group formations. The powerful and frightening manifestations of nature, were assumed to be controlled by spiritual beings. The sun, the moon, and the stars were also seen as powerful spiritual entities. The punishing powers of nature were feared by primitive creatures and believed to be appeased by these ceremonies.
Later, however, exceptional individuals, possessing vivid imaginations, claimed to understand, and explained the mysteries of the universe. Formal ceremonies and sacrifices were introduced by shamans, oracles, seers, pagan priests, priestesses, and prophets. These new leaders claimed to be possessors of mystical knowledge and magical powers, to foresee the future and destiny. They introduced formal sacrificial practices and magic, to invoke pleasant manifestations of nature or to predict the future. Fear and superstition, the creations of imagination, enabled these new special types of leaders to rise above primitive people, and to hold various group ceremonies. Gradually, driven by tertiary motives and recognizing new opportunities, elevated these leaders to formal statuses. Eventually they became organizers of formal group practices. First pagan rituals, and with the advance of civilization, religious practices, temples, and churches. Archeology provides ample evidence, and mythology is full of stories describing these practices.
Some of these leaders were gifted observers of human beings as well as nature. Observation of nature, seeing the consequences of incidental events and their consequences gave them special knowledge. Knowing the properties of herbs and extracts have gave them special power, earned respect, and distinct status. These medicine men and women were new leaders of progress. Special insight, thinking, observational and healing abilities, earned them distinct leadership status. Through a wide variety of thinking, observational, and creative abilities, many other cultural leaders emerged as civilization progressed. Healers, witch doctors, story tellers, musicians, actors, actresses, and dancers also became leading individuals. These were the forerunners of learned professional occupations.
The present concern is to study the power of human intellect, to create abstractions, and to indicate the power of imagination and its positive as well as negative consequences. The focus is placed upon the utilization of abstract ideas by talented individuals whose insights, power of imagination, and giftedness lend them special status and power, and leadership positions. With the advance of civilization, special abilities have been giving opportunities to achieve new statuses and new means of livelihoods, and have been splitting society into more groups.
Specific tradesmen began to organize 'guilds', agreed to control prices, arranged exclusive sales territories to reduce competition, set product standards and licensing requirements, and set the number of apprentice years to become a tradesman. Similarly, with the progress of civilization, teaching professions emerged, various churches formed, healing and other learned professions emerged with licensing requirements. Today, doctors, lawyers, professional engineers, chemists, scientists, and other professions have to be members of professional licensing associations. These are all formally organized groups. In essence, they are not different from trade unions, manufacturers associations, farmers federations, and countless other special interest groups.
From the Interest of All to the Interest of Some
Gradual enrichment of human knowledge and skills have split societies into innumerable groups. Groups of farmers, cattlemen, tradesmen, merchants, manufacturers, bankers, teachers, and other professions created their own associations to enhance and protect their interests. The days of the idyllic, cooperative general interest groups is now in the forgotten, distant, past. After millions of years of slow and gradual learning, in recorded history the growth of human knowledge became exponential. The last few thousand years gave birth to larger and larger concentration of people into city states, and finally into formal nation-states.
As powerful leaders and leadership groups play a dominant role within a single society, so do modern industrial states characterize twentieth century culture. The transformation of societies represents a monumental change from early groupings, sharing and living within collective interests, to an era of competing special interest groups. Yet the great majority of the people still live and works cooperatively. Every person sustains himself with total reliance upon others. All members of modern society rely upon a multitude of others for almost all of their needs. Such collective reliance upon others is one of the most characteristic indicators of the cooperative behavior of the majority of people. That is in sharp contrast with a minority of leaders and organizations who take extreme advantage of the peaceful cooperation of the masses.
Decline of Peaceful Coexistence
As we have seen, organized groups and their leaders have a marked influence upon the lives of people. The emergence of leaders and formation of organized groups, have been responsible for gradually ending peaceful, cooperative conditions and they are responsible for the present decline of human culture. Today, extensive internal division of interests exists within national groups and in-between nation-states. The age of undivided group interest, and collective group action, 'in the interest of all', is in the distant past. Modern societies are highly competitive, and human culture is becoming increasingly confrontational.
In modern society, innumerable groups exist with countless occupations, skills, and activities, all headed by some leader and managed by leaderships. There is a gigantic spectrum of group activities. Many of these are beneficial to the human race, but a relatively small number of organized group activities are clearly against the best interest of the human race. Modern society is typified by enormous proliferation of groups. These are, political parties, multinational companies, international trade unions, churches, manufacturer's associations, environmentalists, rights-protecting groups, down in importance to sport clubs and hobbyists. Each one stands for some special interest and the most significant ones use their collective powers to achieve their goals, and, if necessary, fight for them.
The primary force of the grouping imperative has been, and still is, responsible for most people living and working harmoniously side-by-side, but coexisting within highly divided interest groups. The majority of the people live in communities within nation-states. They are held together by a feeling of belonging, common interests, language, religion, traditions, and customs. A communal sense of belonging to one's 'own' nation is as strong as it once was for members of a tribe. The masses believe that the state protects their safety and helps to supports their existence. Since the rise of civilization, the community spirit of common people have been providing special opportunities to a few, who take advantage of others.
The evolution of contemporary civilization is going in two different directions. One is declining toward a cultural catastrophe. No single person is responsible for this anomaly, but the group structure of world and its political systems are mainly responsible for the decline. Spontaneous, uncoordinated progress propelled by gifted individuals and their powerful special interest groups suffer from blind, self-created, fatal flaws. The most harmful is the close relationship between powerful economic groups and political parties in governances. The collaboration of powerful corporations and political leaderships is responsible for the declining aspects of civilization.
A number of other self-interest organizations are also contributing to the declining aspects. Modern society can be characterized as being a gigantic battle ground of competing organized groups striving for growth and dominance. Positive tertiary drives have been giving continuously growing prosperity and progress to the human culture. Negative drives, however, have been making extra privileges available for leading individuals and their organizations. Besides progressive creations of talent and excellence, negative tertiary drives, such as exploitation, power, status, envy, and declining societal morality, has become increasingly manifest in society.
The overall consequences of progress have been the proliferation of the number and variety of self-interest groups, the exploitation of personal talents. The cooperative tendencies of common people have made these possible. The duality of progress is demonstrated best through the tremendous industrial growth and enrichment of the industrial states versus the poverty of underdeveloped nations. Progress by the twentieth century reached a crucial period. The negative potential of global destruction became unprecedented. This unique condition is paralleled by the human potential to live cooperatively and well-provided again, as our early ancestors lived. The implementation of enlightened, lofty-spirited principles and dedicated means, hold the only hope to stop the decline of human civilization and to transform the present confrontational society toward cooperative coexistence.
Part 3
3.0 GROUP ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY
3.1 POLITICAL GROUPS
Characterization of Political Groups
The origin of the Greek word, 'politikos', means 'citizens'. Modern interpretations of the word 'politics' either as an adjective or a noun have various meanings such as, wise, diplomatic, artfully designed, sagacious, and prudent. The same dictionaries call political activities, shrewd, expedient, artfully devised, cunning, unscrupulous, and manipulating. Kent defines political governances as "States or bodies of politic are to be considered as moral persons having a public will, capable of doing right and wrong." This definition is ambiguous, for the words moral, right and wrong, and what is meant by 'public will' has many interpretations. The presently used meanings of the phrases such as 'political groups,' 'political action,' 'political activities,' and 'political culture,' has to be clarified.
Usage of the words 'Politics' and 'politicking', in the foregoing group theory, means: manipulating, self-interested activities, regardless of how beneficially or adversely they may affect some people, as in the sentence: 'He is involved in politics.' The adjective, 'political', has a similar interpretation. A 'political group' is an organization representing special interests, like any other group. But unlike amateur and hobbyist organiza-tions, providing internal benefits exclusively for the members of the association, political group interests are both internal and external, serving selfish external interests. Political interests are often adversarial, disregarding some of the needs and interests of others. Although political methods and political activities are primarily selfish, serving special interests, some political action can have positive societal consequences. Nevertheless, political systems are not impartial, therefore they are not ideal forms of governances, nor do they serve the primary needs and interests of the people.
The above definitions indicate what is meant by, 'political culture', in this section. The political culture began a long time ago, when governing authorities, the rulers of larger groupings such as towns, feudal lordships, papal kingdoms, city states, and nation-states were formed. Since then most people have been living in the political era. During the past two centuries and presently, the most pervasive manifestations of the political era is the dominant roles of career politicians, political parties, political self-interest groups, and political governances. These have been serving, not only their self-interests, but a broad range of the special interests of other group organizations. Contemporary democracies are adversarial political systems and therefore, they are also part of the present political culture.
Rapid and enormous growth of the production of goods and services have been the root causes that have split undifferentiated early groups into political societies with countless special interest groups struggling to achieve some special goals. Gigantic industries, manufacturing and commercial enterprises, financial institutions, rapid transportation and communication systems were developed. Science and technology have been the main propellants of these changes. Growth and diversification continues at an exponential manner. In spite of the enormous changes, the reason for forming special interest groups is the same as it had been in ancient times. People form organizations for the creation, promotion and protection of their special interests.
Today, the significant differences are: first these organizations are not only diversified and differentiated but, they are fiercely competing for power and dominating positions. Second, they are being helped by governing authorities. Politics and economic power are in joint econo-political relationships. The most powerful economical groups are helping the most influential political groups to get into the seats of power, and in return they help corporate power. In democratic countries, the largest, and richest corporations finance politicians. They donate huge sums of money, in order to get their political supporters elected. These corporations pursue their self-interest, regardless of the consequences on others. They also compete fiercely with one another to achieve dominance.
This struggle changed cooperative cultures into confrontational societies. Civilization now has the potential to flourish and rise to high levels of general well-being and cultured life, but in the long run, it can also perish. This negative potential of the political era can be avoided through rational and moral transformations into impartial, non-political, governances.
Contemporary Political Groups
In this part, formally organized, powerful political group organizations will be discussed with respect to their economical and political power and geographical location. These highly organized groups use political methods for reaching their goals, with little or no regard as to how they are affecting societal conditions. The phrase, 'formally organized group', implies both appointed or elected leadership and both volunteer or hired membership. Formal also implies that members of the group are supposed to obey some rules and programs such as the organization's policies, company regulations, party platform, and documentation of the group's goals and membership requirements.
Formally organized political groups are engaged in a variety of activities. Their influences upon societal affairs can be factually demonstrated in detail, other than relying upon vague class concepts. They will be simply referred to as political or econo-political groups or organizations. Those special interest groups that are aided by governances and others who are influencing public affairs through political methods, are designated as 'political groups'. These groups include political parties, powerful business and industrial corporations, bankers' and manufacturers' associations, trade unions, environmentalists, rights protecting groups and many other political organizations. Aside from religious teachings and practices, some churches are also engaged in political activities, therefore they belong to this category. One of the most dangerous econo-political groups are arms producing and marketing corporations.
By analyzing the group's goals, activities, methods of operation, and their consequences upon societal conditions. The most powerful groups have the greatest influence upon the daily lives of people, economic, social, cultural, and political conditions. They are, usually, structured hierarchically. The leaders have specific functions and ranks, high financial and other non-tangible rewards, and clearly stated roles for effective promotion of the organization's self-interests. The most powerful econo-political groups have the greatest influence upon social conditions in a single country as well as upon all other nations on the earth.
Nation-states
Nation-states are the largest of historical group formations. All special interest groups are essentially sub-groups within nation-states. According to conventional wisdom, the state is the protector of the primary needs, safety, and security, of its citizens. This should be, indeed, the true function of the state, and all of its regional sub-units. But the fact is, that national and local governances are strongly influenced by the self-interests of the most powerful groups. They also have the greatest influence upon external affairs of the state. The political state is actually the top representative of economical and political special interest groups.
The ruling power of the state is divided into smaller governing authorities, provinces, local states, counties, and municipal authorities. Historically, most of these sub-units came into existence before nation-states were formed. It is not the present task to present a historical account of bloody encounters that united regional ruling groups into nation-states. The contemporary state controls the major affairs of a country. Although, the political orientation of several states are different, but they are all political organizations. States usually control internal and external affairs, armed forces, taxation, and the national budget. Huge amounts of moneys are spent on military supplies and facilities, public works, social services, judiciary, enforcement agencies, health, welfare, and many other public services.
Some nation-states are very small while others possess large land area and population. Nation-states can be described as a group of people, who are held together by common belief that the state protects their common needs and vital interests. The 'grouping imperative' have been the main force, and still is to this day, binding people into cooperative groups. Common language, race, customs, and religion, are also strong ties, but not the main causes of group formations. The discovery of America, and the subsequent creation of independent states in the United States, and Canada, demonstrate that the fundamental cause of grouping is driven by the instinct of survival.
Droves of people, belonging to different language groups, races, religions, and customs, from all regions of the earth, have been coming to the scarcely populated land of the new world, seeking a safer and better life. These immigrants spoke different languages, had different religions, ethnicity, customs, and traditions. The grouping imperative, seeking better and safer life, was the main force of motivation, and it is still holding people together as citizens of a nation. Living conditions can turn bad, causing large groups of citizens to live in poverty. In such adverse conditions unity suffers. Previously peacefully coexisting citizens of different ethnic groups and racial background, often turn against one another under bad societal conditions. Poverty can also alienate citizens from their state.
Several political states exist beside democracies such as, kingdoms, empires, monarchies, dictatorships, and republics. These are ruled by kings, queens, emperors, and dictators. These regimes exploit the fundamentally peaceful tendency of people to live in cooperative groups. If necessary, they rule by police and military support. Without peaceful and meek acceptance of the masses these leaders would be powerless. These autocratic leaders and their regimes are supported by economic and political groups. They have a marked impact upon societal conditions, and policies in all countries and, to a certain extent, even in democracies.
In many countries, regional and local authorities also have the power of taxation, and also attempt to influence the distribution of national budget in their own favor. The are engaged in political struggles with the central state trying to get new highways and other regional facilities. Competing regional political regimes are fighting to get special advantages from the central state. The constitution, laws, the supreme judiciary, military forces, the money supply, international affairs, and other major governing roles are in the hands of central governments. The division of administrative functions is logical because local people have greater familiarity with regional and local conditions. Regionalism, however, works against equal rights and freedoms. Political division of nation-states into local states or provinces are not justifiable because it works against the establishment of just conditions within the entire nation.
Before the introduction of modern communication and transportation systems, local states were useful from the point of view of providing easy access to local government facilities. But today, these facilities can be made readily accessible through local administrations. The laws and policies of the nation state should be just and uniform throughout the land. It is important to provide opportunities and facilities for citizens to supervise local and central administrations and central governance. If citizens had their own governances, then they would be able to express their opinions, suggestions, and requests, through modern communication systems. They would influence directly their own affairs. Direct participation of citizens in national policy making, however, is not part of contemporary political governances.
Regional authorities pursue their own policies, protecting local self-interests. Under truly democratic central constitutions, identical 'just' laws and policies would serve the primary needs and interests of all people. Consequently, there would be no reason to have different legislative authorities locally. This already is a pre-indication that under direct democracy, administrative sub-units of the central state would be sufficient to deliver identical rights, freedoms, and equitable standards for all citizens. This would eliminate the tremendous cost of duplicating services, their considerable cost, regional disparities, and political fights to gain advantage. Simply put, there would be no reason to have so many divided political governances in different regions in a country. The people have the same 'fundamental and basic needs, and primary interests,' regardless of where they live, and they should live under the same 'just' Law.
Resistance to establish direct democracy, even locally, is inevitable today because dominant economic power, money, and political influence can be used in favor of the representative form of governances. It is easier to establish direct democracy in smaller localities than to change the central authority. Citizens and most businesses located in small communities and larger cities suffer equally from the dominance of powerful economic and political forces. They can make relatively peaceful local transformations toward direct democracy. Small and medium-size businesses should make joint efforts to push out big businesses from local governances. They should put their own delegates into the seats of power in place of career politicians. An actual situation is discussed in Section 4.3, 'Direct Democracy in a Small Community'.
The modern state is a political instrument of powerful special interest groups. The most powerful of these econo-political groups influence societal affairs either autocratically or through more refined indirect methods, but in either of these cases, for their own benefit. From the point of view of social morality, these methods are harming the common interests of the citizens, and are therefore deplorable.
International Groups
In addition to economical groups such as multinational corporations, a number of international policy-making organizations exist. These are having increasing influence upon world affairs. The largest organization of independent countries is the United Nations (UN). The UN is also a political organization because it is a group formed by political states. The original noble purpose of the UN is to end all wars, to settle international conflicts by peaceful means, and to aid poor and underdeveloped countries to rise from poverty.
In spite of these magnificent goals, there have been hundreds of wars since of the formation of the UN in 1945, and the gap is widening between the rich and poor countries. Despite the advocated goodwill, the inherent nature of politics prevents this world organization from being impartial. Ultimately, self-interests of the most influential nations prevail within the UN. The UN also endorsed several armed interventions since its formation. On the positive side, this international body launched several health, food, education, and economic aid programs. These successes are due mainly to dedicated efforts of a few lofty spirited leaders, individual aid workers, and humanitarian volunteers.
Military alliances, although smaller in the number of participants, but much greater in power, are having greater influence than the UN. Nazi Germany formed such military group, the 'Axis', to win an aggressive war that they started in 1939. To counteract German military aggression the 'Allied Forces' were formed by England, France, the Benelux states, the USA, and the former Soviet Union. This military group was formed for defensive purpose against the aggressors. After the Second World War (WWII) the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organization', NATO, was formed against the Warsaw Pact countries. At this time of writing, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist, but NATO is accepting three former Soviet Bloc countries into its group.
Intentional military alliances are political groups, formed to protect, and if necessary, militarily enforce their self-interests. All wars are political, whether defensive or offensive, and in all wars, civil, tribal, or large scale, millions of people have been sacrificed, and are still dying daily, for the interests of a few. In addition to the most powerful military alliances, fanatical regimes, military and other dictatorships are an ever present explosive threat to peace. Fanatical dictatorships and extremists already possess and use destructive weapons. They are developing even deadlier means of nuclear, bacterial, and biological weapons. They also finance and support terrorist acts. These murderous individuals are the worst enemies of individual life and society. Society must get rid of these deadly enemies. Consequently, this issue poses an apparent moral paradox: 'the elimination of eliminators'. Paradoxes, in general, can only be resolved by reevaluating, restating, and resolving a problem. Accordingly, the elimination of eliminators requires realistic new principles and thoughtful measures of self-defense.
The ultimate cause of political struggles, and wars, are economic interests. The 'European Common Market' and the recently formed 'European Monetary Union' are primarily economic group alliances of political democracies. The purpose behind these is to ease and to increase trade between member countries and the increase of their competitiveness world-wide. The 'North American Free Trade Agreement' NAFTA, is a similar group, formed by Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico. They are working on extending NAFTA to include a number of South American countries. Japan, and more recently, China, have also been extending their influence in 'Pacific Rim' countries. All of these alliances are highly competitive economical and political groupings for the protection of self-interests.
Interesting conclusion can be drawn from the collapse of COMECOM, the trade bloc that existed between the former socialist states in Europe, and the Soviet Union. The collapse of trade caused a reduction of economic well-being in the majority of these countries. In Russia and elsewhere, shortages of food and consumer goods impose harsh economic conditions. These countries were far behind the industrial development of western democracies, mainly in consumer products. Nevertheless, people within the communist bloc were not deprived as much as they have become after the dissolution of economic cooperation between member states of the bloc. In contrast, a few individuals quickly recognized econo-political opportunities and became rich, mostly through shady political patronage.
After WWII, a number of international organizations were formed, basically to promote economic growth and to aid the development of free markets. The 'World Bank', the 'International Monetary Fund' (IMF), and the economically most powerful, the 'Group of Seven' (G7) nations are the most significant international organizations. None of these are charitable organizations. They loan money to the former Soviet Bloc and to poor countries, but the conditions of the loans impose stringent political and economic measures upon the borrowing countries. The loans help entrepreneurs, but impose serious hardships upon the people. The money, the World bank and IMF provide to poor countries, carry high interest rates. Also, the investments are wasted through bad advisors and crooked deals. Small nations also suffer from unfair, penalizing, conversion rates of their currencies into internationally recognized currencies such as the USA Dollar. The results lead to high inflation, corruption, polarization between the rich and the poor, and the decline of law and order.
Municipal Governments
Segregation of political groups continues down to the municipal level. The seats of power in most municipalities are occupied by lawyers, business representatives, and politicians. Most of them are representatives of powerful local economic interests such as real estate firms, land and housing developers, major contracting and consulting firms, and local manufacturers. Their elected representatives dominate the municipal scene of public affairs. Labor delegates are typically rare and in minority at this level.
The majority of the people pay municipal taxes, yet, citizens have very little or no influence at all on how municipalities are governed. Land zonings, residential, commercial, and industrial designation of land and buildings are vital profit motivating areas for land developers, contractors, and realtors. The decay of downtown and old central areas in many cities, both in Canada and in the USA, are direct consequences of these econo-political(8) interest groups. A few examples will illustrate the process. Land is plentiful and cheap around the outer areas of cities. Land developers buy huge portions of farm lands and have them rezoned for housing development by city councils. Once the infrastructure is built, land and building values jump considerably. Rezoning is accomplished through the representatives of special interest groups, town and city politicians. Land development follows, requiring the installation and permanent maintenance of an infrastructure.(9) The construction of these are very costly, and most often financed through municipal taxes, and in part only by the developers. After the completion of the infrastructure, the municipality has to provide transportation facilities, and may have to enlarge its water supply, sewage treatment facilities, street cleaning, snow removal, garbage collection, etc., and pay the maintenance costs of all these in the years to follow. Therefore taxes have to be increased.
Mass production of houses, under such ready-made conditions, means huge profits to developers. People who can afford to buy newly built homes with modern conveniences and migrate to the new suburbia. Large supermarkets, department stores, and modern shopping malls also get permits from city hall and build into the new residential areas. They attract customers from all parts of the city. The small mom-and-pop shops, corner groceries and other small businesses go bankrupt. Pollution is greatly increased by automobile traffic. The old homes become rented, and most of them become neglected. At the end of this process, they become vacant and vandalized.
The decay of downtown in American and Canadian cities are due to the political representation of major economic groups and their political representatives in their city governances. The process is like a fire that starts at a central point, then begins to spread through downtown, making old residences inhabitable, neglected, dirty, places of poverty, and crime.
Many other policies are not in favor of the residents towns and cities. Real estate and business taxes, the cost of municipally-operated utilities, license fees, fines for violations of local by-laws, fees for building permits and administrative services, give cities additional revenues. Decision-making about these rates and how the municipal income is expended is also decided by municipal political representatives. Consequently, taxation is biased in favor of big local businesses. Overall consequences are: high taxes and high cost of municipal services, decay of downtown, deplorable housing conditions, increasing crime, and bankruptcies of small businesses. Nothing should prevent citizens from stopping this process. They could select delegates through well-informed and unbiased methods from their own ranks, to govern small towns and cities. Thus, they could prevent representatives of special interests to continue ruling against their best interests. Citizens could stop favoring econo-political interests against the interest of the public. They could exclude egotistic drives, hunger for power, political and economical patronage, from their own governances and learn to govern themselves. Political elections, candidates selected and financed in running for office, and the resulting representative form of governance is not serving the public good. Egotistic drives and self-confidence and will to play a dominant role in ruling a small community, even with no economic interests are usually work against common interests. This is illustrated in Section 4.3, through a real example, including a method of self-governance, 'Direct Democracy in a Small Community'.
Business Associations
Profit-making is the main goal of business corporations. Manufacturers of similar products and businesses catering similar goods and services form trade protective associations. They combine their power into trade representative groups, and, using propaganda and political methods, they are influencing the public and governances in their favor. Essentially, these are trade-protecting political alliances(10) protecting and promoting their special interests by underhanded and deceitful methods.
For instance, since 1992, huge amounts were spent by the health-care industry and insurance companies, to influence lawmakers, and the public, to favor their special interests. The American Rifle Association has been spending huge amounts for propaganda and financing the elections of supporting representatives. In 1998, the alliance of the tobacco industry spent forty-million dollars on misleading and unethical advertising to defeat a special tax on cigarettes, proposed by the Clinton administration. The devastating effects of tobacco, the loss of lives, are well known. The enormous cost of treating lung cancer, heart and other ailments are a huge burden on taxpayers.
Professional groups also have associations, formed, they claim, for the protection of the public, but mainly to protect their own interests. Doctors, lawyers, professional engineers, architects, pharmacists, and many other profes-sions are allied in such groups. The protection of the public takes place in practice only when a complaint is filed against a member. Than they can launch an investigation. In those cases, professional associations have legal rights to discipline members for unethical or unprofessional conduct. Special acts for professional associations are unnecessary in democracies where civil rights are protected by laws. The laws should give ample protection against misconduct, malpractice, and illegal acts of any one, including licensed professionals. To a great extent, professional associations are also politically motivated groups protecting self-interests.
Trade Unions
Workers began to organize themselves into trade unions at the beginning of industrialization. Early industries were owned by wealthy individuals. Long working hours, low wages, employment of young children, and unhealthy workplaces, were typical in that period. These deplorable working conditions were the main causes of rising socialist theories and labor union movements.
Factory and mine workers united to increase their weak, individual, power through combined group action. Strikes against the owners were broken by the police, often by the use of force. Deprivation and the lack of protection by the law, demonstrate the sharp conflict between clashing interests of capital and labor. Lack of legal protection called for political action and labor unions began to fight for changing the laws. The labor movement and newly emerging socio-political theories, in that period, forced politicians to enact improved laws. These changes did not happen over night. The 'American Declaration of Independence', the French revolution, two World Wars (WW), the birth of the Soviet Union, and the great depression, speeded up these historical transformations, forcing tyrannical regimes into more humane representative political systems.
The birth of the first Communist state after the end of WWI, in 1917, and the great global depression during the period of 1930's were great warnings. Theorists of political philosophy and economy such as Keynes, and pragmatic politicians as Roosevelt, realized the inevitable need to enact social reforms. Capitalist states were forced to abandon classical capitalism, adopting socialistic measures. An increasing number of social programs have been introduced in reaction to the demands of new socialist and communist parties and organized labor. Especially after WWII, for fear of further confrontations, industrial states began to improve the lot of workers. Laws controlling working hours, minimum wages, paid vacations, and other benefits were enacted. Capitalism softened, became 'socialized' by introducing social welfare, unemployment insurance, health protection and pensions programs, and other so called 'social safeguards', thereby assuring the sustenance of its political system.
Today, large, well-organized labor unions have great political power and influence. Trade unions can stop services vital to a nation. Public transportation, shipping, postal, and other services, can be brought to a halt by a relatively small number of strikers. In the distant past, the labor movement protected the poor, defenseless, exploited workers. Today, powerful trade unions protect reasonably well-paid, comfortably living employees. In Canada, USA, and other industrial democracies, the original humanistic goals of trade unions are neglected.
In modern industrial democracies, labor unions are also political groups because they also pursue and protect their self-interests, as do any other organizations. The difference between capitalists and the labor movement is that labor demands are ethical, demanding satisfaction of the 'primary needs and interests' of workers. Union's self-interest is protecting the value of labor, whereas their employer's interest is increasing profit. Their struggle now is mainly dominated by egotistic tertiary drives, a struggle for sharing the fruits of physical and mental efforts. The deprived masses are unprotected because they don't belong to powerful trade unions, thus their concerns are getting little attention. The same lack of concern is seen when public service employees and other unions strike. Neither do the strikers, nor the employers seem to care about penalizing many other workers' livelihoods, and sometimes impose severe hardships upon the entire nation. These are old autocratic methods that polarize society, and at times of massive unemployment, can lead to major conflicts and violence.
The increasing ease of mass destruction is a real threat. That is one reason for using more intelligent methods than presently used econo-political and military measures. The less capable members of society should have a fair share of society's resources. It was demonstrated earlier, that in spite of general inequality, both moral and logical considerations mandate securing at least a reasonable level of livelihood for all members of society. The analysis shows that political groupings for special privileges create confrontational societies. Each group, including trade unions, is struggling for its own privileges. This is not a rational nor an information based method. This has to be changed. In an enlightened society, minimum living standards should be obtainable even by the presently disenfranchised, less capable, members of society. Talented people who make positive efforts and achieve more than the average person, deserve to earn greater benefits. The magnitude of higher rewards, however, should not prevent decent livelihoods for others.
Churches as Political Organizations
In this book, the word 'churches' means organized religious groups. The earlier definition and characterization of groups apply, regardless of the fact that such groupings may have no material goals to attain. Nevertheless, church doctrines and political activities of some churches have marked effects upon societal coexistence. Billions of religious people, all over the earth, are members of various church organizations. Among these are followers of good morality, but other groups in addition to teaching religious morality, also advocate hate and incite their members to use autocratic, even violent, methods against others.
Religions can enrich the emotional and spiritual feelings of the faithful. Religious faith can create peace of mind and charitable attitude. Most believers are good, peace-loving, moral people, but could easily be misdirected by anti-social rhetoric and clergy. Religious leaders are generally looked upon by their flock with great reverence. Therefore, the clergy and affiliates of the churches bear great responsibility for peaceful coexistence. Most church' activities have positive effects, but some have negative consequences upon societal affairs. Advocating peace and brotherly love are helping social coexistence. At the other extreme, religious leaders have fanatical political organizations and rule some countries. They established intolerant governments and pursue extremist policies. Other religious leaders may not rule but have been collaborating with oppressive political systems. Also immoral is preaching intolerance, prejudice, or outright hatred, toward other religious beliefs. Religious indoctrination and fervor have also created many bloodthirsty events in the past and present.
Judeo-Christian theology contains the biblical commandment: "Thou shall not kill." Survival morality goes further in supporting life then the 'Ten Commandments'. It extends the range of judgments of 'evil' and 'bad' beyond murder to teachings and acts leading to a broad range of aggressions, killings, and murder. Survival morality also condemns the political notions of rights that can destroy the livelihood of others and it advocates normative standards of equality. In addition to condemning murder, survival morality is against advocating intolerance, hate, violence, and all doctrines and acts that promote or could lead to, regardless how remotely, to deprivation, violence and death.
Life and rights of individuals, and the good of society, can be threatened and harmed in various veiled, indirect manners. Some harmful long range consequences of doctrines, theories, and activities cannot be readily foreseen. Survival morality extends our foresight by advocating adaptation of good, codified standards, supporting human existence. It limits, beyond individual acts of aggression and murder, all activities that could lead to the retardation of life and social coexistence. Either planning, advocating, directing or carrying out activities against peaceful societal coexistence and decent life should be seen and condemned as immoral.
The biblical commandment also forbids stealing, and desiring "... another man's house; ..., his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else he owns."(11) Survival morality advocates that even the least able persons should be able to secure for themselves sufficient level of livelihood. It condemns slavery, deprivation of people, and bad social conditions, causing envy, thievery, and crime. Many churches advocate and practice charity, giving alms, setting up soup-kitchens, provide shelters, and other assistance to the poor, the disabled, and helpless. Such help is commendable, but they are only just few drops of alms in the ocean of sufferings. In addition to charitable acts, churches should actively support social movements that could eliminate massive, systemic injustices, and could assure long range sustenance of civilization.
The foregoing survival criteria of morality may not be acceptable to some theologians, and is certainly unacceptable to autocrats and career politicians. But the true call of religion and philosophy is to apply wisdom to solve the burning issues of our age. The improvements aimed at human life and society, should be supportable by truly religious leaders and people believing in good morality. The moral standards and implementation of 'good' are in the primary interest of all people.
John Dewey addressed some issues of religion and society similarly. He believed that "religion can accommodate itself to...social institutions and remain vital." True religion must turn part of its attention from the heights of heaven toward the earth. The churches should not advocate meek endurance of earthly sufferings, promising heavenly rewards in exchange for it. Instead, churches should become 'vital' by helping to ease the plight of the weak and fallen, here on earth, and should advocate social morality as revelations from heaven.
William James identified a dualism in Christianity. He was sharply critical of Leibniz's idea: the 'City of God', and Francis Bradley's ethereal abstraction of the 'Absolute', for all the diversity which it embraces. James's pragmatism retains the religion of the rationalists and the factualism of the empiricists. He wrote, "When would philosophy learn to leave to religion these perplexing problems of another life, and to psychology those subtle difficulties of the knowledge-process, and give itself with all its strength to the illumination of human purposes and to the coordination and elevation of human life."
Fully agreeable in his view is philosophy's true call to focus upon 'elevation' of human existence. For that, churches should also reexamine and improve their socio-political programs such as the issues of unwanted children, overpopulation, birth control, sexual orientation, racial and religious discrimination, religious practices in public schools, claiming financial support for religious schools and special tax concessions. There have been encouraging political declarations by several church organizations. The 'United Church in Canada and the United Methodist Council of Bishops in the United States of America issued detailed reasons and declarations against war, aggression, and exploitation. Pope John Paul II has also spoken sharply against those who are responsible for the plight of the poor. Some of his criticisms (in Winnipeg Canada) matches the intent of the Communist Manifesto. In some regions of Mexico and South America, Catholic priests and nuns have been actively supporting political reforms. The social morality of these brave priests, surpass the moral doctrines of most religions. Such courageous clergy is seen by the authorities as rebels, and have been murdered by covert military forces of the oppressive regime.
The analysis demonstrates that the role of the church is not separable from society's economic and socio-political affairs. For thousands of years to date, part of the human mind has been preoccupied with unpenetrable mysteries of the universe and life. This is the reason for the rise and presence of organized religions. Through the adaptation of progressive societal moral views, religious morality can be elevated in support of democratic renewals; the improvement of human conditions upon the earth, and the protection of our civilization. These are common, noble, humane goals, that should be supported by all believers, and by all churches.
Rights, Environmental Protecting, and Other Groups of Influence
Besides nation-states, regional and municipal governments, international groups, large corporations, business associations, trade unions, and church groups, multitudes of other organizations influence the affairs of humanity. Some of these are progressive groups, while others are undemocratic. The present concern is, regardless of the goals, that they are all pursuing special interests and are using political methods to advance their goals.
Tens of thousands of special interest groups operate world-wide. Among the well-intentioned associations are environmentalists, various rights- promoting and rights-protecting groups, peace organizations, consumer advocates, and others. At the opposite end of the scale are extremist groups who advocate hate and use violence against, racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and against women's reproductive freedom, just to mention a few fanatical organizations. They all exert political pressure and forceful methods to advance their concerns. Few organizations focus on the burning issues of our age.
In spite of massive deprivation of the people, starvation, death, and wars, the notion of 'sustainability' is applied in connection with only the natural environment, as if the human environment was not an inherent part of it. Most organizations concerned with protecting the environment do not include social programs. To make it even worse, corporate executives and politicians often pay lip service only to this important issue. The term 'sustainability' has become a politically expedient term.
Unfortunately, truly concerned environmentalists and members of the 'green movements' are fragmented into groups. Most of them fight for isolated or limited aspects or single issues of sustainability. It is educational to list some of these troubling concerns. Air and water pollution, reduction of the ozone layer, deforestation, the extensive use of chemicals in agriculture, and in industry, the preservation of food, the exploitation of natural resources, cruelty against certain animals, the extinction of some species, and similar causes are separate, although realistic worries. Well-intentioned groups, for example, spend enormous amounts of money and efforts to protect laboratory animals used in medical research to save human lives. Considering the significance of mass starvation, bloody civil and ethnic wars, the plight of the poor, and the growing threat against human culture, the priorities of most of these concerns are misplaced.
Many concerned individuals are members of these groups and make real sacrifices. They are motivated by a strong sense of protecting the 'general good' of society. Indeed, most of them protect some part of the natural environment, but not in the order of societal importance. The attentions of the leaders who organize and run these organizations are either narrowly focused or, sometimes, their personal choice of issues is more important than their societal significance. Members of these groups can also misconceive the importance of shockingly tragic events of the world. Others leaders and group members may fear taking a stand and expediently choose to dedicate themselves to less monumental, less important, although worthy tasks. The threats to the long range survival of the human civilization are the greatest of all of the threats endangering the total environment. For in the first time in history, the human species can self-destruct, together with the extinction of all other species.
Besides environmentalists, other organized groups motivated by high moral standards are helping the disadvantaged and the poor. Among those are: churches, charity organizations providing food and shelter, health research related charities, women's shelters, human rights protecting groups, and many other charitable organizations. They are pursuing special interests for good causes. Nevertheless, none are dedicated to ease the overall burning societal issues of our age. It would provide tremendous help to humanity, if all lofty-spirited organizations could concentrate their efforts in the order of priorities. Such coordinated, large, and well-organized efforts of rational and compassionate people could work out top priorities of life and act on improvements. Through unified, or at least coordinated group activities, these organizations could identify the major causes harming civilization, work out the societal priorities of essential improvements, and continue their efforts for the 'total sustenance' of the human culture.
3.2 POLITICAL LEADERSHIPS
Contemporary Political Culture
Earlier characterization of politics and political methods, in section 3.1, already used the term 'political culture'. The culture of politics began when intimate ties between economical, political, and major special interest groups and the government of a country were established and have become wide-spread. In order to influence lawmakers and the public, all special interest organizations extensively use political methods. The political culture is worsening through proliferation of political groupings and the ferocity of political struggles to secure some special interests.
Every interest group has some specific goal or goals to pursue. Large sums of money and coercive methods are used to succeed. The most powerful economic interests have the greatest political influence. They can pay for and disseminate biased and misleading advertisements, 'commercials', through the communication media. They can hire lobbyists to influence political representatives and members of the political administration. They can sponsor political candidates to win elections. A broad range of econo-political interest groups belong to this category; large corporations, labor unions, and all special interest organizations.
Other political influences are motivated by strong beliefs in some causes. The objectives of these groups may or may not be shared by the majority, but the supporters believe in their causes. Many organizations belong in this category, from religious political groups to various rights-protecting organizations. Some of these also have relatively large memberships and sufficient finances, therefore, they can also influence politics and public opinion in their favor. When these methods fail, then some groups use more forceful methods to reach their goals.
Coercive political methods are used to influence public opinion and the political establishment, and also to intimidate opposing interest groups. Fanatical extremists even use violence and murder to make a point or frighten others disagreeing with their views. Here are a few coercive political methods in increasing strength and brutality: organized marches, public rallies, strikes, obstructing entrances to abortion clinics, shooting at individuals or blowing up buildings.
Either self-interest or increasing fanatical beliefs or both are inherent in the motivations of organizers and participants in these events. Fanatics and those who incite and exploit fanaticism have no tolerance. Yielding to the needs and interests of others stops when self-interests are either vitally affected or believed to be so. When vital economical or political interests are threatened they also become confrontational, even violent. These are some typical manifestations of the political culture. Political conflicts are the same in small communities or in entire states. Special interest groups compete with one another and also for the political support of the state.
In its overall effect, the political culture is inherently adversarial. Countless organizations use political methods to reach their goals. This struggle becomes hostile and aggressive whenever one group's self-interest is in conflict with the needs, interests, and desires of others. This assertion applies to all organized groups from the least powerful ones to nation-states. Today, all governances are political systems, regardless of their political orientation. The political culture is typified by the use of confrontational political methods. The freedom to use autocratic methods is different from country to country. All ruling regimes support the goals of their economically and politically allied partners. The nature and the extent of their collaboration differ from place to place. Nevertheless, it is present in all political systems; in dictatorships, with or without free market economies, as well as in various multi-party systems. The political culture is present in democratic countries in spite of their differences. It is present in the parliamentary democracy of Canada, in the democracy under monarchy of the United Kingdom, and in the democracy of the Republic of the United States. Similar political cultures developed, rather quickly, in the newly established multi-party democracies, may aptly be called 'instant democracies', in eastern Europe.
Political Careers
Politics have become the permanent occupation of a number of people in political states. The first ranks of these people have been the leaders and organizers of the various political parties. The most recent political careers were established in the formerly Soviet dominated states. Behind civil unrest and wars in the Balkans and elsewhere are also organized by power- hungry, career-minded politicians. Political parties are well-organized and well-financed organizations. Money is collected by individual donations, but most of it comes from businesses and other special interest groups. Politicians are sponsored by the party they represent, and their careers are launched through elections. Political parties also have volunteer, unpaid supporters, most of whom are planning and preparing their future political careers. Parties also have salaried staff, career promoters of their goals, and administrative employees. Politics became a career to make a living through political means, a non-productive occupation - in spite of the claim: 'serving the public'.
Once a political party is elected to legislative assemblies, leading party members become salaried lawmakers and many supporters and former volunteers are appointed into paid administrative political positions. In addition to monetary rewards, these political positions also secure other tangible and intangible benefits. Prestige, ambition, political power, and influence, are illustrations of some of the rewards of these career posts. Elected members of the parties are also appointed to be members of various committees and the most prominent politicians into chairman-ships. Each of these have additional financial and intangible benefits.
The remuneration of political posts is unique. Not the electorate, but the politicians themselves decide the magnitudes of monetary rewards and other benefits they receive. Elected members of the opposition parties benefit in essentially the same manner as those in government. Thus the anomaly develops; usually no-one opposes this self-rewarding method of political careerists. Some 'real statesmen' or 'stateswomen', either deserving the true meaning of these words or just wanting to appear high-minded for the public, speak out occasionally against pay increases. They are usually voted down.
Vaclav Havel the writer-poet, jailed for his humanistic views by the former communist regime in Czechoslovakia, now the president of the Czech Republic, got a bitter taste of the real nature of multi-party politics, and the selfish, uncaring, behavior of democratically elected politicians. In Summer Meditations he wrote, "Whenever I encounter a problem in my work and try to get to the bottom of it, I always discover some moral aspects, be it apathy, unwillingness to serve to recognize personal error or guilt, reluctance to give up certain positions and the advantages flowing from them, envy, an excess of self-assurance,
" Citizens in the former communist-dominated states, like Havel, are also awakening to the realities political representations. With Havel's words, there are the climbers and political opportunists who are seeking career "positions and the advantages flowing from them." Politics has a magnetic attraction for the unscrupulously ambitious career minded, those who climb into fat political positions of power and influence on the back of the public.
Political governances gave rise to a number of political institutions, so- called political 'think tanks'. Most of these are politically biased organizations, employing experts. These 'Political analysts', analyze societal issues, policies, foreign relationships, and advise political parties and the governing bodies on winning strategies and tactics. Jobs within these group organizations are also political career positions. Political programs are refined by these advisory bodies, and they also give greater intellectual depth to confrontational political struggles.
The immense web of econo-political interests also hire paid lobbyists and other influence peddlers. Political decision makers and the administration are under the continuous bombardment of various interests, either directly or through lobbyists. Contracts awarded for large public works projects, military supplies and armaments, government-supported research and development, and social programs are just a few illustrations of the biased nature of political representations and political carriers. This process also illustrates the close relationship between economy and politics. Free competition has been eroding by the systems of career politics. Fat contracts, research projects, grants, and subsidies, are regularly granted to political and financial supporters of political parties and career politicians.
Differing political interests often use questionable, unethical methods to gain economic benefits. Some of these have been so outrageous that it has resulted in the resignations of high ranking career politicians under the attack of the opposition. Politics has created the era of conflicts, ceaseless strategies and tactics and methods used to win, and regardless of the price the public has to pay for it. Career politicians have the power to make these decisions. They can use their positions to promote their own interests and the goals of their financial supporters. Very few politicians, if any, are true representatives of the cardinal interests of the public and when they are, they are yielding to public pressure. Surely, no matter how strongly they are attempted to be controlled by referendums politics wins.
Political Parties
Political parties are organizations of special interest groups aiming to get and retain ruling positions in a country. Disregarding their political orientation, all contemporary governances are formed by either one or more political parties. Usually, politicians with the greatest external support become party leaders. Support comes from economical and other special interest groups wanting to influence public opinion and lawmaking. The goal of these is to secure power and influence through political representatives. Competition and struggle for dominance has been increasingly confrontational between special interest groups. As discussed in Section 3.2, Contemporary Political Culture: this conflict is increasingly political. Ultimately, political control is exercised by legislative bodies that are formed by the party or coalition of the parties in majority.
Politicians in the seats of power are in exceptional ruling positions to promote their own concerns. They can ignore objections of the minority party or parties. They can make laws supportive of self-interests and in favor of their external supporters. Governing political parties are in an exceptional ruling position. They can decide the faith of a country. They can create laws affecting all citizens and all organized groups. In democratic countries, autocratic methods are somewhat tempered because opposition parties can make a lot of noise, in parliaments and through the media, against adverse policies. In the United States, the president can veto laws, but presidents are also politicians and thus biased. In less advanced democracies, citizens and special interest groups have diminished power against adverse rulings of the party or parties in power. Similar argument applies to regional and municipal governments where politicians rule or have representative systems. Due to the inherent nature of ruling political power, political parties cannot, and do not, govern in the primary interest of the people.
Political Governances
Governances, at all levels, have always been 'political', for one simple reason: they have never been true representatives of the primary needs and interests of the people. Great differences also exist between various forms of governances. Some are ruthless, while others are more benevolent, but none of the existing governances stands fully for the people. Significant differences exist even between contemporary democracies. One cannot find an exact definition. British democracy is a monarchy, the American is a republican form, while the Canadian is a parliamentarian democracy. Some are far more advanced than others. One commonality exists: they are all representative forms of political governances. They are more humane than non-democratic systems, but also representatives of special interests, beside representing, to some degree, the interest of the people.
Political governances are formed by design. Politicians don't emerge spontaneously like ancient tribal leaders once served the survival interest of all members of the group. Strong individual motives replaced cooperative coexistence. Nations are governed by adversarial political governances, formally elected politicians and non-elected autocratic leaders. In any of these cases, politicians are determined to play a leading role in the affairs of society.
Nearly 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527) in his famous book, 'The Prince', described the nature of 'statecraft', political ambition, the rules of power and politics. In his view, struggles for power and dominance have always been free from ethical, theological, and moral, considerations. He asserts that rulers have always been free from and should not be bound by ethical considerations. The sole purpose of leaders is to rule by taking advantage of their dominating power and position. However, Machiavelli also recognized the need for diplomacy. He advised his 'Prince', the ruler, that before turning to use armed forces, he should attempt to gain and retain power by diplomatic methods. His theory about the acquisition, preservation, retention and extension of political power, is as contemporary and as fitting today as it was in the past.
Unlike scientifically designed systems, political governances do not meet the same logical system-design criteria. Well-functioning systems on the technical, industrial, commercial, and economical fields are designed scientifically by highly trained experts in a cooperative environment. In contrast, most politicians are highly individualistic, they can exempt themselves from party rules and discipline. Instead of working in harmony to achieve the desired results, political governances are heavily influenced by antagonistic politicians, and conflicting interests. Currently, all nation-states are ruled by political governances at all levels. Organized groups, left out of power, often have to apply political pressure, even violent methods, to get attention. Political clashes are increasing in intensity, using unscrupulous, and unethical methods.
Political states are not, and cannot be, impartial representative of citizens. They are adversarial systems, and therefore cannot create permanent, peaceful, cooperative, or societal conditions. The 'rule of power' applies: the strongest power-group dominates in continuous struggles and confrontations with other powers of special interests. Democratic governances, at best, can create a relative balance between its major special interest groups. But no political governance can discard its inherent confrontational tendency, especially in foreign affairs.
Global politics are under the influence of the most powerful countries. It is unlikely that political methods can create long-lasting cooperative conditions between competing political states. Every country, large and small, spends huge amounts of money for armaments, instead of improving the lot of the people. Citizens are getting cynical about their politicians and government, but most still feel a sense of belonging to their 'own' state, and being protected by the state. These are misplaced beliefs. If the truth were to be recognized, people would be able to transform political governances into direct democracy. They would then be truly having a state of their own and be truly protected. They would then live cooperatively, in peace.
In summary, today, economical and social affairs are politicized in every community, every region, and in every country of the world. The major concerns of all citizens and group organizations, including private enterprise, are entangled in the web of politics. Individual sustenance, special interests, and corporate struggles, are interwoven with the policies of governances at every level. Personal sustenance, maintenance of economical, and political power are highly competitive. These competing interests influence governances in proportion with their power. Confrontational competition is an inherent systemic problem. The struggle is pervasive and adversarial, and becomes confrontational, even violent, when the participants interests are threatened.
3.3 PARADOXES OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS Symptoms of a Sick Culture
Social problems have been increasing world-wide. Growing polarization between the rich and poor nations is one of the symptoms of decline. In the industrialized states, increasing production and profit is becoming obsessive. The enormous wealth that profit produces keeps accumulating, and cannot be fully utilized personally by its possessors. It provides only tertiary benefits, and increased status and power. Leading individuals struggle incessantly, driven by aberrant tertiary motives for growth, for growth's sake. Theses are some of the sick manifestations of the political culture.
Recently, a newspaper heading predicted, "In a short time, Chief Executive Officers will run the world." Unfortunately, this is already true to a great extent. Growth of production and growing accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small number of leading individuals far exceeds their personal needs and capacity for personal enjoyment of wealth. These senseless drives are just boosting the egos and power of a small minority. These individuals are the leaders of the largest and most powerful economical interests, and boost their dominating influence through political representatives. The wealthy and the political state neglects poor citizens. Employment opportunities, housing, education, health care, and public safety are some of the major issues.
The industrialized nations use up a great percentage of the world's natural resources. The leaders of growth exploiting natural and human resources, are getting richer, and are failing themselves and failing to influence politics to provide meaningful assistance to poor countries. With the meager and inappropriate help they have been receiving, it is impossible to raise themselves from poverty. Lending money for unworthy entrepreneurs and wasteful projects at high interest rates is punishment, not help, especially under severe conditions that increases the burden. Merciful people, and shipments of emergency food supply and medicine is too late when millions are dead and dying. Continuous, misconstrued economical growth, limitless competition, and mindless egotism of a few, are leading the political culture toward future disaster. They are maladies that can be cured, and should be remedied.
Another sick symptom is mindless bloodshed. At the time of this writing more than thirteen countries are at war in the Middle East alone. Sixty countries sell billions of dollars worth of weapons into that region, and much more elsewhere in the world, including hostile dictatorships. This is accompanied by spying, overt and covert activities, terrorism, and intimi-dation. Nationalistic fights for dominating political leadership positions, internationally biased interference, suspicion, hostility, and violence, are indicators of an unhealthy culture of politics. Even the famous neutral countries, Sweden, and Switzerland, maintain modern armies and profit significantly from selling arms to warring nations.
The United States, Germany, England, France, Russia, and China are the world's major arm suppliers. Yearly sales of military supplies and armament is a multi-billion-dollar yearly business. Arms production and acquisition are the direct consequences of political systems of governances - regardless of whether they are democratic or not. Profiting from offensive weapons by the merchants of death, fuels regional and civil wars which are the worst symptoms of a sick culture of politics. The sickening odor of dead bodies, burning flesh, and blood, is being portrayed for the illustration of these deranged processes to move people, living in affluent societies, into action for peaceful coexistence.
Another serious consequence of the unconscionable struggle for profit and dominance, is a general decline in societal morality. Unethical business practices are growing in magnitude and number. Leading politicians, security traders, financial concerns, and many corporations have been involved in fraudulent businesses. For example, the multi-billion-dollar Savings and Loans fraud and recent international currency speculation of the largest USA securities firm. These firms were rescued by the political state at the expense of taxpayers. The recent collapse of markets in the Pacific region, Russia, and Brazil are also due, partly, currency and credit manipulations. Manufacturers produce products harmful to health and run fraudulent advertisements. The public suffers the consequences. In those regions of the world where people cannot secure their vital needs, unrest becomes common, lawlessness increases, and personal safety declines. Extremists such as racists, religious and other fanatical groups, find ready followers in such an atmosphere.
Another indication of the illness of the culture is the presence of armed organizations, even within democratic countries. Some of these are formally organized groups of misled individuals. These groups have fanatical leaders and members, plotting covert criminal acts against indivi-duals and other groups they hate. They are using increasingly violent methods, hold military style exercises, kill individuals and bomb buildings, to intimidate their perceived enemies. Other criminal organizations are held together by unwritten laws. Criminal organizations run illegal drug trade, prostitution, and gambling. They also use forced methods to collect, so-called, 'protection money' from legitimate businesses. The presence of these criminal organizations is a systemic symptom of a sick political culture that is unable to free itself from fraudulent and illegal activities.
Many other unhealthy features of the political culture are illustrated yearly by the Worldwatch Institute. Incessant growth for growth's sake, armament, terrorism, destruction of the environment, reshaping the global economy, racial issues, health care, the plight of the poor, and a large list of lesser concerns, such as abortion, rights of women, homosexuality, and other public issues are presented. Another book, 'A Call For Revolution', by Martin Gross, has thirty-three points of indictment of American politics. Parts of the most serious illnesses are:
"Article 5: There is no sound theory sustaining the present federal operation
"
"Article 6: The cabinet system is archaic and must be reshaped
"
"Article 18: Politicians have become a special class with selfish interests..."
"Article 31: Congress is too overgrown and philosophically corrupt to properly do its job
"
The United States of America is the leading power of the world, a symbol of power, wealth, and happiness in the poor regions of the world. Political leaders, especially in the former communist countries, have been emulating American politics. These facts and their recent problems may be eye-openers. They may reflect the real nature and the ailments of political democracies. The nature of politics may explain the collapse of the Russian economy, and anarchistic conditions. Clandestine methods, reminders of the era of 'robber barons', gave sudden rise to an enormously wealthy group in Russia, the plight of the poor, and deplorable so-called 'free-market' methods. These are testimonials of failure of the adaptation of uncaring, greedy, and foolish 'crash' methods that were advised by American economical and political advisors. These symptoms of illnesses are far from being complete, but serve as illustrations of systemic problems, inherent in the political culture.
The First Paradox
The first paradox of contemporary political culture is its potential to destroy civilization. At the beginning of civilization, the 'grouping imperative' brought people together to enhance the chances of their survival. Antagonistically, human creativity has been gradually reducing the effectiveness of the original motives of cooperative coexistence. It has been differentiating society into special interest groups, leading to the contemporary era of extreme competition, and confrontational coexis-tence. Paradoxically, grouping imperative created hostile nation-states and fiercely competing sub-groups within and among nation-states. The proliferation of groups and their blind pursuit of self-interests led to the present anti-survival tendency now threatening the future of civilization.
Unthinking citizens feel safe being protected by one's 'own' state. Factually, however, nation-states are self-interested group formations. They are characterized by adversarial relationships of fiercely competing interests. The power of states is dominated by the strongest organized groups internally and externally, thus confrontational tendency is international. Contrary to the beliefs, people are not safe and are not being protected by the state. The political era is declining in a blind, mindless, direction in many fields of human endeavors. In an extreme situation, the possession of atomic weapons and other means of mass destruction could create a global disaster. This threatening potential is a paradox of the biological imposition of survival instinct and common sense. Humanity has the potential to create general well-being and world-wide peace.
Darwin's theory, the "Survival of the Fittest" must be a warning and applied to contemporary human conditions to prevent a cultural disaster. The decline of civilization is similar to the growth of cancer cells, and the body that blindly supports the rapid growth of its own malignancy. In the end, the overgrown tumor destroys the healthy body that made its 'successful' growth possible. When the growth of the malignant part - 'the fittest' - is uncontrolled, then it destroys itself as well. This is an extreme analogy of the paradoxical growth of human civilization that may not be fit to survive.
The Second Paradox
The interrelationship between the led and its leadership is no longer in harmony. It is the second paradox of the present culture. A glimpse into the past shows that the majority of human beings want to live in peace. Cooperation and harmony characterize the natural state of social human coexistence. The consequences of growth, the increasing influence of the intellect, and consequent differentiation of groups, have been discussed earlier. Paradoxically, cooperative isolated tribal culture came to an end by its own success and became an antagonistic political civilization. The leaders and the led have no harmonious relationships.
Unlike tribal leaders, modern leaders are not serving the common interest of all of the people. They are responsible for the decline of our culture. The modern era began with the production of surpluses, and evolved through the proliferation of special interest groups, gradual development of trade, and the introduction of money and markets. Economical and political competition between organized groups became extreme. The interests of these groups and their leaderships are not in harmony with the needs and vital interests of the people. The clash of interests between the leader and the led is sharpened by politicization of society. The extreme consequences of this conflict is a paradox, a major contributor to the threat endangering long-term sustenance of human civilization.
Political leaderships has been shifting modern culture toward increasingly negative potentials. The future of human civilization is in the hands of political leaders, a relatively small minority, representing, mainly, powerful economic interests. The blind negative momentum of extreme 'tertiary wants', lacking foresight, now threaten society, including the leaders of the world. This threat must be recognized, the decline must be stopped and reversed for everybody's sake.
The economical and technological infrastructure has the potential to create material and cultural well-being for all members of society. Every person in the world could live under decent conditions and happily, if the existing positive potential would be utilized. Leaders could also continue to earn extra rewards for creating positive progress instead of negative growth. Today, the sad paradox is that leadership is not utilizing this infrastructure rationally for everyone's sake. Leaderships are not in the hands of the most gifted, but the most powerful individuals whose narrowly focused interests prevent them from caring for civilization. Rewards for many are extraordinary and not earned by merit, but by power, production of armaments, and, in many instances, through harmful products and unethical methods. This is a shortsighted, mindless paradox, for there is no actual need for this anomaly to exist.
The Third Paradox
The third paradox is the incessant struggles of groups for dominance. The magnitude of this adversarial competing relationship exist world-wide. Confrontational coexistence of special interest groups is an anomaly while the positive potential to create harmonious coexistence exists. As discussed before, this is a mindless condition because through rational means the world's population could be free of deprivation, while positive talent and creativity could satisfy extra wants, and 'tertiary' benefits, well above the satisfactory norm. Today, it would be possible to satisfy 'the primary needs and interests of all of the people' and the threat to long-range survival could be eliminated.
The struggle of major groups for dominance is now inherently reliant upon political methods. The positive potential cannot become reality as long as personal abilities, aided by the political system, are used for dominance, rather than relying upon rational competition. Modern technology opened up a unique historical opportunity to make profit and earn privileges in an ethical manner, no longer causing deprivation and harm to the people. It is a perversion of the human intellect to continue to go in negative directions toward disaster. The infrastructure exists, therefore society could eliminate most social ills that the political culture suffers from. This requires the elimination of confrontational group struggles internally and externally.
The Fourth Paradox
The fourth paradox is that armed forces became instruments of confrontational politics. The current state of group security differs greatly from defense, the ancient fear-motivated instinctual protection against wild animals and the defense of territory. The natural tendency of defense has been changing with the evolution of the culture and today it is an instrument of political aggression.
Historical accounts of the not too distant past demonstrate that militarily powerful countries have been aggressive, not defensive. The whole of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and parts of the Far East were colonized. The borders of nation-states were often changed by aggressive wars throughout the world, and many nations lost their independence. Although colonization is now over, one of its aftermaths, armed clashes and the slaughter of innocent people in wars between states and ethnic regions remains.
Self-interested political leaders and leaderships, confrontational group interests, and consequent bloody armed conflicts are the paradoxes of the political culture. Contemporary states spend huge amounts of money on armament and maintain large military forces. The livelihood of many individuals and the enrichment of a few, depend upon the industries of war, and destruction. The magnitude of destructive forces have become so great that it now threatens the future of civilization. Irrational thinking and behavior, anomalies of the human intellect, created a civilization that could destroy itself.
Yet this paradox exists, even though the intellect created a scientific-technological resource base that would be capable of creating peaceful coexistence. Many leaders of the economical and cultural superstructure, including military leaders and some politicians, have the intellectual capacity of evaluating and changing the current state of affairs. But they are caught up and swept along by the current of the present political culture. Embedded practices and political indoctrination are aimed at obscuring common sense. The media that is now owned and largely controlled by econo-political concerns has part of the responsibility. Some creations in the world of arts and entertainment also mirror this mindless state of human affairs. But negative creations and decadent art-forms, are also increasing in every field of art and entertainment. Growing segments of the music industry, the electronic and printed media, have valueless, decadent products, and violent productions, contributing to the mindless state of societal affairs. These tendencies mirror the illogical, declining, state of the culture. Indirectly, they also contribute to the maintenance of the senseless, viciously competitive, warring political culture.
The creation of new, harmonious relationships between the led and their leaders is still possible. The political era of confrontations, wars, deprivation, suffering, death, and the paradoxes of the culture can be ended. The armed forces can be turned into true defenders of the people and peace. There should be no doubt about the possibility of peaceful cultural transformations. True military honor implies defense of the people, not aggression. Peaceful coexistence will be possible when an improved democratic theory becomes the Law, protected by the people's true defense forces. Enlightened rational and moral individuals, including leaders of the military, must work together to eliminate the paradoxes of the political culture.
Sunset of the Political Era
If the paradoxes of the political culture are not eliminated, darkness could descend upon human civilization. Removing politicians from power and having citizens governing themselves could be the beginning of a new sunrise. Citizens, for their own sake would remove these paradoxes. They would also remove autocratic governments. They would improve democratic rights, freedom, and equality. Internationally, they would stop excessive use of natural resources and gradually eliminate the gap between rich and poor nations. They would eliminate massive deprivations, starvation, wars, and the growing threat of the dismal future. Yet, many people believe that the present representative forms of political democracies are the very best governing systems humans can design. This opinion should be corrected, and substantial democratic improvements must be made for a bright future.
Most countries having multi-party systems and so called 'free' market economy, are referred to as being democratic. Neither deplorable conditions nor severely curtailed civil liberties matter as long as these countries are friendly partners in business, and political and military matters. Economic and social conditions, opportunities to develop personal talent, law and order, cultural and educational opportunities, are different from one democracy to another. One thing is common to all democratic systems: they are representative forms of political governances. Truly democratic systems would have lofty-spirited governing principles to protect the common interests of all of the people. They would eliminate wars and terrorism, and create general welfare and peace on earth.
Unquestionably, democracies are far better than autocracies, but they suffer from the same fundamental paradoxes of political systems as all political governances. As discussed previously, these negative aspects of the prevailing political culture are due to the dominance of powerful special interest groups and their leaderships in internal and external politics. Consequently, a question of survival is: could contemporary democracies secure the future of our civilization? All symptoms indicate that the political masters of civilization are leading humanity in the opposite direction, thus endangering the future. History provides a warning. Too many wars were fought between states calling themselves democracies. Today, even the most democratic systems are essentially protectors, promoters, and representatives of powerful special interests.
Political systems cannot govern in the common interests of the people, and do not want to secure the 'primary needs and vital interests of all of the people'. This is true, regardless of the country and its political system. Politics and the pursuit of special interests are viciously competitive, and confrontational, therefore they have to be changed to preserve the future. Most tragically, the momentum of growth and profit prevents politicians and corporate rulers from seeing the growing darkness. The setting sun of unbridled competition casts a shadow on humanity, seemingly protected behind the mountains of modern means of mass destruction.
Could emulation of contemporary democracies by existing and former autocracies prevent future catastrophes? Witnessing so called 'democratization', economic and political events in the former Soviet dominated states and in Russia, could be instructive. These events can be viewed as experiments in a giant scientific laboratory, in which political theories and practices had been and continue to be tested. The newest results show, that in the growing shadow of industrial giants, no newly born political democracy can succeed anymore as expected. Instead, becoming prosperous, they became impoverished. Instead of heaving social justice, freedom, and equitable economic and cultural conditions, they are enslaved by crocked politicians. They are ruled by crime syndicates and a small, enormously enriched corporate elite - aided by western, 'democratic' econo-political collaborators. These symptoms show the beginning of the sunset of the political era.
Recent events in Europe, Russia, and in the former Soviet Republics demonstrate not only a collapse of communist autocracy, but they also show a disturbing shift toward extremism. Present democratic systems are unable to operate even under well-designed lofty spirited principles because econo-political pressures alter their implementations. The political state bends in negative direction under the strongest economical and political influences. The book edited by D. Meadows, "Groping in the Dark", illustrates this tendency. The liberal-minded Soviet and American writers of the book do not advocate discontinuation of the representative political governances. They suggest reforms, reducing ill symptoms, not the elimination of inherent paradoxes of the political era.
Progressive Eastern European intellectuals are also searching for new theories and practical means to improve political democracy. Among these concerned individuals is Vaclav Havel, the humanist writer and poet, now president of the Czech Republic. He had condemned communist tyranny from his communist prison cell. Seven months after his election to the presidency he wrote: I "...fear that we had taken on too much,.., a Sisyphus whose life had lost its old purpose and hadn't yet developed a new one." In Summer Meditations, he laments, "Society has freed itself, true, but in some ways it behaves worse than when it was in chains." The dreams of a poet-politician have turned into bitter realities of political life.
I was invited to present a brief outline of the first version of this book as part of commemorative celebrations of Hungary's 1100th birthday (12). Many people expressed great interest about ideas developed in my book, New Democracy; Which Way Forward? Subsequently they organized two seminars, followed by another, a year later. The members of these groups are eagerly looking for and are also producing new ideas that can improve living conditions in Hungary. A few of their publications were presented to me for comments.
I believe my comments may provide a glimpse into their thinking for my English language readers. The articles that captivated my attention are published in Ideology (Eszme), and an article in B.A.L., Self- governance or ruling by elite?(13) All of the authors are searching for solutions to improve societal conditions in Hungary. A single commonality is found in all: they are proposing partial improvements within the existing political system. No grand new visionary theory is presented. The socialist B.A.L. organization began organizing local revenue producing voluntary cooperatives and civil organizations. These are governed by the participants themselves without outside ruling power. The publication, Self Governance or Ruling by Elite?, stands against "total rejection
of the existing parliamentary (i.e. political) form of governance" (p.31). It calls for "partial rejection of the existing political system". These civic cooperatives are just islands of improved conditions. Unfortunately, self-governing civic associations are not able to change massive national unemployment, health and housing problems, rampant inflation or change its punishing consequences on old fixed income pensioners.
Catherine Samary's thesis "The Need for Self Governance" gives a thorough analysis, from both the socialist and capitalist points of views, about the rights to private property. She argues that the right of ownership belongs to the producers. However, the term 'producers', is not defined. Modern production needs capital, expert planners, administrators, physical and intellectual labor, and large infra and super-structures. These are all 'workers', 'producers' of useable values. Samary is correct if she included all these, not just physical laborers, as 'producers'.
She is also searching for improved governing principles. She writes: "It appears that self-governance is the only 'real' way out of the present critical conditions, even though it has no real model upon which one can build a better system." But she wonders about how to cope with different desires and wants and poses the question, "who is going to judge these needs and costs?" Hopefully, this book will answer some of Samary's and other progressive thinkers' questions.
Havel's disillusionment with politicians and political theories is not restricted to Europeans. For instance, Richard Rorty, a progressive American philosopher, writes: "
we stop assuming that the function of the intellectual is radical criticism
" He thinks that it would be better not to address issues "the way things really are but merely in a sense of containing fewer inequities." He abandons the chance of "spiritual renewal". He writes, "the best we can hope for is that have been taking place in the industrialized democracies since the French Revolution." He interprets the failure of social theories in implementations as "hopelessness... of theoretically based prognostication." Contrary to these arguments, he cannot suppress some hope for "a large theoretical framework that will enable us to put our society in an exiting new context." In my view, realistic theories and thoughtful system design could create better governing systems than present democracies. Politics can be divorced from governances, they can be moral, impartial. Ordinary citizens know what they need to live under decent economic and cultural conditions. They can listen to impartial experts advice as well as biased demands of special interests. They can learn from these and make good informed decisions for themselves and for the common good of society. Political methods cannot secure such rational policies. Lack of ethical competition, general well-being, and internal and international peace, are indicating the sunset of the political era that has to be changed.
The Prospects of Healing
Predictions are unreliable. Especially difficult is to predict the future of civilization. It is not likely, however, that economical and political interests will rise to the height of reason, tamper their ambitions and socio-political practices. Changes toward a moral democracy will likely be pioneered by theorists and activists of 'direct democracy' (DD) movements. 'The First International Congress On Direct Democracy' was already held in August 1998 in the Czech Republic. The Second Congress is scheduled to be in Greece in the spring of year 2000.
Efforts to humanize the political culture are taking place on several other fronts. Many activist groups call themselves direct democracy organizations. Most of these are advocating small improvements within the existing political systems. Using democracy with the adjective 'direct' by those who don't aim at full participation of the people in governances is misleading. Instead of substantial changes, some DD groups advocate only 'Citizens Referendums', 'Citizen's Reviews', 'Citizen's Initiatives', 'Sustainable Cities', and 'Proportional Voting' methods.(14) In essence, they are attempting to moderate the rule of political representatives in governances. Many of these have discussion groups through the Internet. Historical evidence indicates that in spite of gradual introduction of small social reforms, the representative form of political democracies could not stop and reverse the general decline of our civilization.
Small improvements will not eliminate the paradoxes of the political culture. They will not be able to change the representation of dominant groups, even in small towns. These progressive groups would be more successful if they joined forces with those organizations whose aim is true direct democracy and aim for full participation of citizens in their own affairs. Together, they can begin the elimination of political represen-tation. First, they may be successful only in small communities, but success could be country-wide, and, hopefully, even world-wide. Direct democracy is a promising idea for long-term, overall, sustainability.
The struggle for the sustenance of human civilization is the most delicate part of the totality of nature. A rational system would protect all the living and material environment. Consequently, it is illogical and retards progress to struggle for improvements through different organizations without a coordinating body. Progressive organizations should, at least, provide meaningful assistance to those organizations that are pioneering transformations toward direct democracy of the people. Good governances should be based upon good moral and logical principles that are likely be similar to those discussed earlier. The troubles caused by political systems would likely be eliminated by good system design and the application of truly democratic principles.
Most political systems were established without dedicated system design. Governing systems and methods evolved through struggles of opposing political groups, and through armed rebellions. Positive policy changes are mainly due to public pressure, influences by media and opinion polls. Unlike scientifically designed systems, political states are not functioning well. They are governed blindly with respect to the future. Short-term goals obscure the possibility of future catastrophes. The political culture is running fast in the wrong direction, and its leaders are unable to steer it in the right direction. The people would stop and alter its direction toward universal peace and general-well-being with the guidance of improved principles and dedicated activists.
There is a slight chance for improvement that may come from within the present system, due mainly to two dominant facts. One is that the possibility of global self-destruction may wake up the most powerful governances. They may develop new policies to save themselves, but these would save humanity as well. Second, the concentration of global power into super-blocs, will likely run into unprecedented problems of overproduction that could force them to extend their customer base. This could lead to the reduction of the gap between rich and poor nations and individuals. Keynes proposed such measures in 1930, 'to increase propensity to consume'. In essence it means more equitable distribution of profits. If production could serve the needs of the people, and producers are willing to share part of their profits with the people, then the political era could postpone or avoid global disasters.
The most optimistic scenario is that the world may become well-provided in a few decades, and will remain free of major armed conflicts. This could possibly be achieved if the giant multi-national corporations and regional super-blocs would cooperate. If the world's powers would recognize the need and create a strong global organization - stronger than the United Nations - with sufficient power. Such a powerful organization could eliminate oppressive regimes and all instruments of war. It could introduce a global trade agreement and currency and coordinate the production and distribution of goods and services. Under such universal treaty by the most developed industrial democracies, the abundance of global wealth would be shared more equitably than it is today. The era of conflicting interests, fierce competition and confrontation would then be diminished.
Such a new system is not likely to emerge. The pursuit of special interests defines politics and obscures foresight. Even if the dire need for establishing harmonious internal and external relationships was recognized, it is unlikely that the system of politics could transform itself and become cooperative. A more probable scenario is that concerned individuals will pioneer transformations, plan and design a new participatory system of democracy. This may lead to a better civilization. When such theory is accepted by a large well-organized group, then its program could be implemented by democratic means. In autocracies, changes may have to be made by stronger methods.
Injustices caused by autocratic rulers are not likely be solved peacefully. They are possessing modern means of mass destruction and powerful military force. They mercilessly execute anyone advocating democratic changes. They also train terrorists and finance terrorist acts. Removal of these autocrats poses an apparent moral dilemma: the 'elimination of the eliminators'. This is an apparent paradox, unless the citizens of these countries rebel against their tyrants. Political democracies have not been able to resolve this apparent paradox. They don't believe having legal or moral rights to remove tyrants from office. Moral democracy of the people would know how to deal with tyrants. They would have moral authority and legal power to eliminate the eliminators.
The moral paradox becomes non-existent if elimination is brought upon themselves by the eliminators. The protection of life invokes a moral and legal mandate for the creation of a new 'International Law and an International Court'. The court would not deliver a verdict but with either validate or dismiss charges. Criminals would pre-condemn themselves under the new Law. They would impose upon themselves well-known pre-determined punishments. Cold-blooded criminals would know that by committing criminal acts they would have self-imposed punishment. Such new universal Law and its moral armed enforcement could assure the removal of eliminators regardless of their societal status or political power.
It would take time before the inherited ills of the old political system could be remedied. Significant improvement would have to be designed thoughtfully and implemented in order of priorities. Like scientific analysis of faulty operations, when the sources of troubles are found, they are corrected in the order of their importance. Similarly, healing of societal problems must proceed by priorities. A general principle is learned from history: sudden revolutionary changes can easily create chaotic conditions that persist for a very long time. Therefore thoughtfully designed and gradual transformations are preferred. Recent events in the former Soviet states and Yugoslavia, illustrate bad consequences of rapid and shattering changes.
Does the foregoing analysis indicate good prospects of healing societal ills? Chances still exist to create a healthier, moral society, but the 'dual potential' of the present civilization is unprecedented. Enormous potential exists to create a peaceful, well-provided, and cultured coexistence. But the means of enormous mass destruction are already present and growing. Political systems are self-serving and short-sighted. They don't yet see the threats of long-term sustenance. One definite conclusion may be drawn from this analysis about the nature of the political era: representative political systems are outmoded. They are on a path of decline, therefore have to be changed before it is too late.
There is a slight chance that they recognize and eliminate this danger by implementing significant improvements. More likely is that the advocates of direct democracy will eventually succeed. Citizens eventually could form their own cooperative governances. The founders of the American democracy clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, that 'the people have the right to improve or change their government'. A similar grand vision should give thoughtful people inspiration. It is certainly possible to create better and much improved democracies than the present representative political systems. Long range sustenance of the human culture mandates radical improvements.
3.4 GLOBAL POLITICS
Rich and Poor Nations
During the rapid evolution of civilization, cooperative tribal cultures evolved into divided groups of nation-states. From Marshall McLuhan's point of view, the earth has become a 'global village'. But from the point of view of group theory, the earth consist of many 'hostile villages'. As a global culture, humanity lives in several hundred countries. These countries are political states regardless of their political systems. Politics, the representative systems of special interests, divided the world into rich and poor nations.
Each government is headed by a leader and leadership groups. The future of humanity is in the hands of a relatively small number of politicians. Another small group of scientific, technological, and industrial leaders are also supporting political systems with weapons developments. They are contributors to the confrontational nature of the present culture. The leaders of powerful economic enterprises, also a minority of the population, are aggressively competing for dominance and getting state support through their politician friends. Briefly, a minority of powerful economical interests and their political allies are responsible for the confrontational nature of our culture. These forces could, if they so decided, eliminate the gap between rich and poor nations.
Could the present injustices of the world be eliminated? Quick solutions are not very likely. But gradual improvement of social conditions can be achieved. In autocratic countries, democratization will likely be achieved by revolutionary changes or outside interference. Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom, indicates the thinking of some conservative economists and politicians. Accordingly, only when an economic crisis develops, and future of capitalism becomes endangered, then it should yield to public pressure and implement more humane social principles. The history of capitalism clearly demonstrates its flexibility by abandoning the principles of the classical theory and adopting new policies that have been advocated by humanists and socialists.
For a few decades, it will be possible to avoid serious consequences of ever increasing production capabilities and unemployment. New market opportunities exist in the former socialist states, Russia, China, and in the underdeveloped parts of the world. Helping these countries to transform into democracies and develop their own economic infrastructure, could postpone the development of a global economic crisis. Gradual elimination of great economic and cultural disparities that exist between rich and poor nations would certainly help and lengthen the life of the political era.
In spite of the flexibility of capitalism, several of its inherent flaws may prevent improvements. The political state is unable to eliminate sharp competition between political parties, large corporations, and powerful special interest groups, neither internally nor externally. Western 'help' given to the former East European socialist states demonstrates how multinational corporations took advantage of their vulnerabilities. As illustrated earlier, collaborating with corrupt political leaders, they bought-up the best factories and commercial establishments way below of their worth. The unethical enrichment of a few, caused massive unemployment and general deprivation of the people.
Loans provided by the World bank have been getting into undeserving hands. Payment, interest rates, and political conditions set on loans by the International Monetary Fund have been creating serious burdens. They have also been causing rapid inflation and drastic devaluation of currencies. This type of 'aid' created a large gap between the new elite and the impoverished masses. As living standards dropped, so did public morality and safety. Corruption, bribery, crime, organized prostitution, and the use of drugs have been increasing.
Moderating and eventually equalizing the great differences between the developed and poor countries, is not an easy task. Reduction of global economic disparities could extend the life of the political culture. But the warning signs discussed, are signaling the existence of fundamental flaws in the systems of politics. Bloody civil wars, led by newly emerging ruthless ethnic and nationalist leaders, are indications of the worst aspects of the political culture. Some of these are receiving help from tyrannical countries as well as clandestine western allies. Uplifting poor and undeveloped countries cannot be achieved by these undesirable methods.
In the past, military forces of the UN were unable to keep power-hungry, ambitious, leaders at bay, and cannot keep their armies apart. In these turbulent regions of the world, only a united action of the population can get rid of such evil leaders. With more appropriate help, poor countries could begin to build a better cooperative future for themselves. Donating food and medicine, are only topical, temporary, aids. The developed nations should help them develop their own resources, build their own industries, so that they could adequately sustain themselves and progress.
The realization of good outcome would require cooperation among the largest corporations of the world. But the fundamental relationship between these huge group organizations is competitive, not cooperative. Therefore, it is hard to forecast global harmony on the basis of this underlying relationship between these giant holders of power.
Growth may continue as before for a short historical period. The major reason for expansion are:
1) The 'third-world' is a large market, while the industrial nations are saturated with goods.
2) The cost of production is low in these regions, and the cost of creating the necessary infrastructure is also low.
The wages are low, the work force is disciplined, non-unionized, and there are many other factors such as tax exemptions and cheap land for their facilities, are in favor of these enterprises. Modern enterprises need to build a local infrastructure, and need to train an educated workforce. This necessitates building sanitation, transportation and communication systems. They also need to build modern manufacturing facilities and housings for experts to begin such projects. This includes the training of local experts and workforce before high-tech production could begin. From this narrow point of view, multinational expansion provides improvement in small regions. First of all, besides foreign investors, the local politicians and businessmen are becoming enriched. Secondly, formerly backward countries are beginning to become a little more prosperous, in spite of low wages. The fact that the benefits are small in comparison with the income of multinationals, does not change the underlying nature of positive consequences of multinational corporations.
They also create some benefits in affluent countries. Lower prices of imported goods are good for consumers. Multinational firms have great advantage in competing with smaller local enterprises. Small firms are pressured by competition, and taken over or become bankrupt. In any case, work performed by cheap labor abroad reduces work opportunities in well-developed countries. Thus in home countries, unemployment is an undesirable consequence of multinational expansion. It also reduces the purchasing power of the unemployed and, consequently, increases the accumulation of over-produced goods. This could be eliminated by lowering working hours while maintaining earning power as Keynes proposed in his well-known book, The General Theory of employment, Interest and Money.
New thinking and global measures can only solve these underlying economic and political problems in the future. Poor countries can improve the lot of their entire population and concurrently, could also serve the interests of the industrially well-developed nations. Agricultural and industrial machinery and other surplus products could be marketed in the poor and undeveloped regions of the world. But new favorable policies and concessions should be made to enable local production and consumption to develop. This would not lower living standards in the already developed nations of the world.
The capacity of the developed countries could help the poor nations to develop their own capacity to provide for themselves, become educated and to prosper. Milton Friedman's idea, to wait until a significant crisis develops, can have devastating consequences in a few decades. His theory of self-interest should not postpone real improvements until the politically undesirable as he wrote: "becomes politically inevitable". Long-range sustenance of the human culture calls for the creation of new rational policies. Free enterprises should act more ethically and rationally, in the interest of all of the people, including their long-term interests.
Rational measures, under new rules of assistance, could help underdeveloped and poor countries to become well-developed. They could also secure the future of humankind while allowing the fruition of human creativity and free enterprise in a positive manner. The most powerful industrial nations should not be blind contributors to and spectators of the serious problems and bloody encounters in the poor regions of the world.
More logical policies are required. It is relatively easy to destroy discredited political systems, but to build something better, needs careful planning and new, advanced ideas.
In a divided world, consisting of poor countries with scarce resources and other nations with enormous wealth, inequality cannot be maintained forever. People have the same 'fundamental' and 'basic needs' and 'primary interests', regardless of their fortunes or misfortunes, wherever they happen to live. For the sake of long-term sustenance, the conclusions drawn is that the existing democratic principles and practices should be reevaluated and replaced by new, more logical and more compassionate policies.
Economic Development and Politics
International financial institutions apply worn out political methods of aid. Political shortsightedness and hunger for profit have been motivating western policies in the former Soviet bloc and in Russia. A shift to the left, in recent multi-party elections in several of these countries, is a reaction to harsh conditions. Emulation of old political-economic policies, with no gradual transformation, decreased living standards and personal safety. It created shortages of local food production, increased unemployment, organized crime, and corruption. Former communist countries are now beginning to see the dark aspects of political democracy.
In recent history, there have been dozens of armed conflicts in various parts of the world(15). Large nations with global strength and many smaller countries are participants, apparently, in ceaseless acts of aggression. According to military experts, the only thing that has prevented a third World War, so far, was a fear of the atomic deterrent; fearing the end of civilization. Negotiations between the USA and the former Soviet state produced some progress in arms negotiations and reductions. But a growing number of other countries are also possessing atomic weapons. Still others keep developing and exploding them. They are also producing deadly chemical and biological weapons, having enormous power of mass destruction. Is the present reorientation of intercontinental missiles off their targets, by Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton, sufficient to guarantee that atomic weapons will not be used when the political climate and leaderships change?
A similar struggle is observable on economical fronts, especially between the leading industrial producers. The fear of a global collapse of the economy brings political leaders together in organizations like the I.M.F., the G7, and GATT, meetings. As discussed, these meetings are motivated by the self-interests of the most powerful nations, not by humanness or a long-term view of the future. The basic motivation is fear of radical consequences, therefore, they attempt to compromise. The most industrialized nations are compelled by the threat of a major crisis to coordinate economic policies and other key economic levers. They are compelled to control the value of their currencies and interest rates. These measures are in their own favor, but have also a controlling effect on the world's economy. When the agreed measures began to hurt a member country's economy, it resists full cooperation and attempts to free itself from the dominant partners. This is a fragile equilibrium, and, as the recent Pacific region's crisis indicates, the global economy could go out of control.
Introduction of more rational political and economical methods would be more effective and would also serve long-term interests of both corporate power and humanity. It should be recognized that cooperation and meaningful assistance to poor and underdeveloped nations is now of mutual global interest. A more humane, more democratic and effective methods of aid, free of short-sighted views, requires a less selfish attitude. It may appear to be a foolish sacrifice, but in long run, generosity would also serve long-term interests of the rich nations.
A few decades ago, the elimination of the 'gold standard' has opened a new, extended, opportunity for the richest nations to control the world's economy. The gold standard was not a fair measure of value, but at least it prevented artificial manipulation of the value of currencies. The lack of objective global standard of currencies makes individual speculations and selfish national policies possible. Thus inward looking econo-political institutions of the most powerful countries adversely effect poor countries and less powerful nations. The recent economical crisis in South America, the Pacific Rim countries, Russia, and elsewhere, has shown the shortsightedness of these policies. Paul Martin, the recent Canadian Chairman of the G7 nations, recognized the need for more efficient and less selfish policies. His proposals, if adopted, may ease the recent crisis. Another global problem is large-scale speculative currency trade. Enormous amounts of speculative money cross borders, and exchange hands with electronic speed. If this remains uncontrolled, it will further penalize the least protected nations, and could even crush world economy.
Ggreat disparity between poor and rich countries is related to the size of their territories and their resources. The area of good agricultural land, geographic and climatic conditions, the number of the population, natural resources, educational, cultural, and political systems, are different from country to country. These are undesirable evolutionary, and historical consequences of transformations of the human culture. Today, the existing scientific and technological infrastructure gives an opportunity to overcome these historical disadvantages through peaceful and rational methods, thoughtful design and cooperation. Although, this is not easy to achieve, under improved democratic conditions, humanity could live under more balanced, more equitable circumstances, world-wide.
The cessation of economic cooperation between the former Soviet bloc countries can serve as an example. In spite of the disparity between their territories and resources, and that the Soviet Union took undue advantage of her dominating power, people in that bloc lived better than now separated. In contrast, in Western Europe, small and large countries recognized the advantages of economic cooperation, and are developing close economic relationships. From next year on, they will have common currency, the 'Euro', thereby undue manipulation of the value of national currencies will stop. This is an example of wisdom and foresight, showing that economical disparities can be peacefully overcome to a mutual advantage.
'Economic blocs being formed in North America, Europe, and Asia. The former Soviet bloc countries should be accepted by one of these economic blocs. Otherwise they will be alienated from western democracies, thus may be forced to form a fourth economic bloc, wedged between Europe, and Asia. Economic blocs could rapidly increase living conditions within their regions. But in the long run, unless world-wide cooperation is established, these 'super-blocs' could become hostile, competing, confrontational groups that could lead to a major wars.
Cooperation is a better policy. For long term survival, the rich nations should build cooperative relationships globally. Helping poor and underdeveloped nations to establish their own self-sufficient, modern economy, would enhance long-term sustainability of civilization. If common sense could prevail, conditions would be improved world-wide even under the present systems of politics, at least for the next decade.
Powerful economical, political, and military alliances divided the world into strong competing blocks. At the same time, little progress has been achieved for the prevention of growing economic conflicts. Such large- scale and powerful disunity holds the danger of armed confrontations and growing terrorism. Only the future will reveal whether more effective measures could solve the growing problems of the poor and under-developed regions of the world. It remains to be seen whether national selfish interests will be subordinated to the long-term sustainability of humanity.
The Myth of Free Market Economy
The presumption that market economies are free is a myth, a notion leftover from the days of Adam Smith. Today, fiscal and financial policies of most states are controlled. The money supply, banking and finance regulations, the rights of organized labor, minimum wages, export and import controls, licensing of airwaves and cable and satellite communications, are either controlled or regulated by states. The states also spend huge amounts of tax money on public works projects, military research, equipment and supplies, health care, education, and social assistance. Most states exercise an ever-growing range of socio-economic controls. For instance Canadian federal and provincial governments have been controlling more than fifty-percent of the gross national income during the past few years.
The once dogmatically forbidden interference of the capitalist state in free-market conditions, has become common practice. Controlling methods of the capitalist state have become sophisticated. They are more refined and effective than central controls had been in the former communist countries. Regardless of the methods and their efficiencies, in essence, all state controls have two commonalties.
1) The market loses its absolute freedom when it is controlled - to any extent by the state.
2) State control is always biased in favor of special interests when it is exercised by the political state. From socio-economic point of view, the key issues are:
The interference of the political state into market economy has markedly different consequences for certain enterprises and entrepreneurs. Biased controls are in favor of the larger corporations. They adversely affect competitive abilities of smaller enterprises. Economic controls also have unequal consequences for certain groups of business concerns. Depending upon which industries are supported by the state, other unsupported entrepreneurs become adversely affected. When large sums of money is spent on military equipment, armament and supplies, other industries are relatively disadvantaged. The living standards of the population, the economic and cultural conditions also suffer from insufficient health care, education, and other social programs.
In the so called free-market economies, the most powerful special interest groups control the economy through the political state, but the capitalist state has no absolute control. In communist countries and other autocracies the political state is also controlled by special interest groups. In these, state controls are in the hands of the political or the military elite, and in a few countries they are in the hands of religious rulers. Democratic and multi-party state controls are generally better than such autocratic controls. Regardless of the extent and the forms of controls, they are in favor of their own countries. Beside different degrees of hardships internally, poor countries suffer the most from biased state controls of national economies.
In a direct democracy citizen lawmakers would not be influenced by powerful interest groups to act against their own interests. They would act fairly to benefit all citizens including entrepreneurs. Such unbiased state control would be serving 'the primary needs and interest of all citizens'. It would not be biased in favor of a select group. Fair, impartial governance does not yet exist at any level. One would have to be created to demonstrate the superiority of well-informed and impartial economic decision-making. Direct control of the people, instead of representative or autocratic controls, should be able to assure true freedom of talents and enterprise. Citizens would rely upon impartial experts. They would use scientific methods to make market conditions fair and more democratic. Citizens would be more rational and would establish fair economic policies with poor countries, in order to secure global stability.
All experts know, regardless of their social and political views, that modern economy must be controlled, and without it economic depressions would develop. The need for regulating the global economy is becoming increasingly important, but it is not likely to be achieved by self-interested economic powers and political systems. Citizen's governances of the world would recognize the urging need and reduce enormous regional disparities. In the more distant future, regulation of the world's economy could be achieved. Universal justice, equitable conditions, coordination of global economic affairs and thus peaceful world-wide conditions could be created by citizen's governances.
As a start, the rationality of citizen controlled 'direct democracy' can be demonstrated in small communities in upcoming elections. Citizens control would eliminate the biased nature of econo-political controls. They could control public affairs in small towns, cities, and even in retirement communities in which the present political type of voting practices are in favor of biased representatives. They would introduce fair taxation, ease unemployment by creating incentives, improve housing, education, health, social, and cultural affairs in small communities. These small-scale, direct democracies, would be able to demonstrate the soundness of the basic principle; the participation of all citizens in policy-makings replacing career politicians, and replacing biased political methods.
Leaders, Wars, and Politics
The worst consequence of the era of politics is war. Armed confrontations have been common occurrences throughout recorded history. The intensity of wars has reached enormous levels of destruction. Whole cities have been demolished by bombs. Political leaders have not only marshaled military personnel into wars, but lately, millions of unarmed people: men, women and children, have been massacred. The present use of armed power by political regimes is unprecedented. All governances, in spite of the great differences between their political orientations, become confrontational when protecting special interests. The politicians created an unprecedented historical condition that is a paradox of the human intellect. Human civilization could now destroy itself.
Political leaderships continue to spend huge sums of money on armaments. The economic burden of militarism is multiple. In rich countries, it imposes a financial burden on taxpayers, reducing the standard of living and retarding educational and social programs. In poor regions of the globe, it causes mass starvation and death. Militarism also polarizes society. Political leaders pursue their own goals at any price including death and destruction. Citizens have to risk and sacrifice their lives in armed conflicts. If citizens would govern instead politicians, as foreseen in 'Direct Democracy', a fraction of the military expense would eliminate world-wide sufferings and create peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
Tyrannical leaders are the worst enemies of peace. They also spend enormous amounts of money on military expenses while their citizens are unable to sustain themselves adequately. These tyrants launch wars against their neighbors and sponsor and train terrorists. Modern science and technology now empowers these misled and desperate individuals and terrorist groups, to seriously harm society. It is relatively easy to obtain enormous means of destruction. That should send a warning to democratic politicians in power. They have to eliminate this danger.
Ultra-nationalistic and ethnic leaders, also exploit the political era. They stir up civil unrest and lead armed conflicts against ethnic groups. Instead of creating law and harmony, their troops commit atrocities, rape, and destroy. The keen observer can see that powerful industrial nations are taking sides even support, although secretly, ultra-nationalistic ambitions. They also sell armaments for power-hungry leaders. The goal of ultra-nationalists is to gain econo-political power, regardless of loss of lives and the horrors of war. In contrast, in other parts of the world, people of different races, religions, and ethnicity, live peacefully and cooperatively. This contrast reveals the role of propaganda and conscienceless political ambitions of the leaders of unjust civil wars.
Wherever the pursuit of personal ambitions are unrestrained, in the name of liberty or under other pretenses, then deadly violence is the ultimate consequence. These types of political leaders and leaderships are now threatening the very future of humankind. This contrasts with the existing potential to create general material and cultural well-being and the opportunity to live in universal harmony. The use of weapons of mass destruction is an anomaly. It is immoral, unjust and also irrational because the productive capability of modern industry and agriculture is enormous and has the potential to satisfy the 'primary needs' of every person on this globe. In addition, this infrastructure could still support higher living standards for the leaders of progress. The danger of cultural extinction lies in the nature of political systems. Unbridled negative 'tertiary drives' of a relatively small minority is responsible for the confrontational aspects of the political era.
The war in Chechnia, and the ethnic wars in the former Yugoslavia demonstrate these dangers. After the breakup of the autocratic regimes in the Central-European and Mid-Asiatic countries, the new politicians established new constitutions, market economies and multi-party systems. They are attempting to emulate western democracies. However, these changes were made with crashing speed that does not allow quick success. These new governments work under continuous political pressure coming from too many economic, political, religious, and ethnic groups. They also have econo-political interference from the outside. Neighboring countries with a relatively homogeneous ethnic and religious population, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, are relatively fortunate in having no ethnic unrest also suffer, but have no armed conflicts. Other regions with different ethnic and religious populations, have quickly become victimized by ambitious political leaders. Several countries in these regions are having civil wars.
The conduct of many democratic political leaders, even at the highest levels of governances, also clashes with basic principles of good morality. In most cases, it even clashes with codified laws. Most politicians fight for political power, status, and enrichment. This is achieved through controlling a territory and its residents. The masses are the final victims of this aggressive minority. The foregoing analysis indicates the need to diminish 'tertiary ambitions and drives' of this minority. The 'thinking animal' should not be considered to be the most advanced creature on earth as long as it tolerates political dominance and threatens with self-extinction.
Political governing systems are adversarial and therefore, illogical. When career politicians don't fight with military power, they confront one another in legislatures. They fight to create privileges for one political party and its supporters against others. Separatist leaders in Canada, for instance, want independence for the Province of Quebec. This illustrates a bloodless struggle, so far, unlike what the American civil war was. French-speaking Canadians have suffered in the past, but have more privileges now then other Canadians. In fact, Canada is officially bilingual. Both French and English languages are equal in the Canadian Parliament, and By-lingual service is compulsory in all Federal and Provincial offices and in labeling food and drugs, throughout the country. The Canadian Dollar has by-lingual encryption. In contrast, the official language in Quebec is only French. English is restricted. Even shop-signs must be in French. Quebec separatist politicians in power have a total disregard for the universal principles of rights, liberties, and equality. Paradoxically, they have 'special status' by sitting in both the Quebec and the federal parliaments. They are receiving federal wages while working on splitting the country, wanting to become unrestrained rulers of Quebec. This could lead to civil war.
During the last decade, it became increasingly clear to a few political leaders that cooperation must replace confrontation. The irrationality and the ever present danger of self-destruction is having a sobering effect on a few leaders of the most powerful political states. Some rationality is seen in political agreements to reduce the number of atomic weapons, and they are no longer aiming intercontinental ballistic missiles against each other. Recent reports, however, indicate the inadequacy of these measures. Plutonium and enriched uranium have been smuggled out from the former Soviet states. They don't safeguard sufficiently nuclear facilities. Underdeveloped nations have also been joining the 'nuclear club'. In the USA, surplus Cobra helicopters and powerful rockets, instead of being destroyed, have been sold, indirectly, to countries aiding terrorism. Confrontational tendencies, readiness to use arms, are inherent in the global system of politics. Armed clashes between states, and civil wars are raging in many places on earth right now.
International treaties, therefore, can only provide temporary relief. Extremely dangerous weapons and technology is getting into the hands of dictators, as well as religious fanatics. The USA, Russia, England, France, Germany, Japan, and China, are suppliers of modern weaponry. These are sold to dangerous political regimes and fighting warlords. Some hostility is deliberate design, "divide and conquer", policies of the former colonial powers. In Africa, tribal chieftains and ambitious native politicians began wars. Secretly allied with many of these new rulers, are former colonialists, supplying them with armaments. It is paradoxical that people who have been living side by side for decades, can be misled against their best interests, inflamed against their neighbors, and drafted into armies to fight civil, ethnic, or tribal war. These facts indicate that the fundamental paradoxes of the political culture cannot be resolved permanently by temporary measures and treaties.
Present insubstantial help can only ease the weight of injustices. The ill features of the political era would likely cause serious problems in a relatively short period of time. Contemporary democracies support market economies. The rights to innovate, start new enterprises, using Kenneth Galbraith's words, helped to create an "affluent society" in modern industrial states. Predictably, after a few decades, world economy will be dominated by a few 'super-blocs'. The member nations of each economic bloc will cooperate internally to a degree, but global competition will likely increase between super-blocs. When the global market becomes saturated, the inherent tendency of unbridled competition could easily lead to global confrontation. Political systems may not be able to prevent this tragedy. The new era of non-political peaceful coexistence is likely to be spearheaded by direct democratic movements. Citizens have no reason to act against common sense and their common interests. Therefore, they could govern rationally and establish peaceful coexistence.
Transformations must happen within a few decades. In the meantime, images of starving and the dying masses enter into the comfort of living rooms in affluent countries. The mass media brings home daily, to the well-fed and well-housed, the sufferings and the mass murder of innocent people. Many people are becoming immune to such horrors, after being ceaselessly bombarded with news of barbaric, murderous acts. In democracies, the majority also witnesses the plight of the jobless, the disenfranchised, and the homeless. Many people fear for their lives, fear to go out at night, they lock their doors and keep guns at hand because they are fearful of crime. In the midst of affluence, alcoholism, drugs and crime, have become part of daily life. This situation is an anomaly, a paradox of the intellect and a failure of democracy, and in general, a failure of political methods and of governances.
Armed confrontations for dominance and power are the worst aspects of the political era. But political confrontation is all invasive throughout the entire group-structuring of society. Conservatives fight liberals, they both fight organized labor, and labor strikes back. Trade unions, racial and religious organizations, environmentalists, women's groups, consumer protecting, gay and lesbian organizations, and countless other groups are trying to influence politics. All organized groups have to use forceful political countermeasures to be heard and to protect and advance their interests. They have no rational means to settle conflicts of interest so they resort to political fights. Freedom to confront others is not rational. However, political interpretation of freedom is not result in social harmony. So group organizations turn to confrontational methods to be noticed and heard to achieve what they want. Contemporary political democracies are unable to cope with these inherent anomalies, arising from the political implementation of market economies, justice, and liberties.
For the first time in history, humanity now has the potential to change a fiercely competitive and confrontational world into a cooperative civilization. Thinking and acting appropriately, human beings should be able to alter these anomalies. In spite of the differences in available regional resources, a minimum criterion of peaceful coexistence could be met. Humanity could sustain the 'total environment', regardless of where people happen to live. Rational and religious philosophies view life as precious. Therefore, as a minimum, they should condemn wars and advocate and help to create direct democracy and to preserve the future. Existing governances have not been designed scientifically, but new, improved democracy can be designed rationally. Today's enormously complex civilization evolves rapidly in two opposite directions. The decline of civilization has to be stopped and reversed. The political system cannot change its direction by itself. Only the people could eliminate the maladies of the systems of politics.
Part 4 4.1 FLAWS, FAILURES, AND IMPROVEMENT OF DEMOCRATIC IDEALS
Checks and Balances, and the Division of Power
As the industrial civilization marches on, revolutionary ideals advocated by social and political philosophers three centuries ago, are showing up inherent flaws. These old theories were born in the age of single rulers, emperors, kings, czars, and monarchs. No electricity, atomic power, modern means of transportation, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and modern means of mass destruction existed. The economical infrastructure was insufficient to create 'general welfare' or an affluent middle class such as now exists in industrial democracies. Lofty-spirited ideals, 'justice for all, liberty, and equality' became revolutionary slogans, and, through bloody revolutions and peaceful progress elsewhere, they became enacted in the constitutions of newborn republics. Today, republican or multi-party governances are generally referred to as democracies. These are called 'political system' throughout this book. Now they pose new, political, economical, and social problems. The greatest problem is the threat to the future of civilization. For that and for other reasons, political democracies have to be improved. The flaws and failures of centuries old social, political, and economical, theories need to be corrected or eliminated.
With hindsight, these ideas were revolutionary in the period of John Locke, Montesquieu, and other philosophers, written more than three-hundred years ago. Their basic aim was to end the autocratic era of tyrannical rulers. They advocated the creation of political party representation in governances that they called 'republics'. One of their principles was, 'the division of power', that was aimed at ending the sovereign power of a single individual. They wanted to replace tyrannical rule with elected representatives of the people as lawmakers. These revolutionary thinkers believed that a government formed by political representatives, will be able to maintain a reasonable 'balance of powers' and protect public interests far better than an autocracy.
All political democracies are based upon these principles. By adapting such theories, they became far more progressive than tyrannical systems had been in the past and are still. Nevertheless, current conditions indicate, that the division of powers and the ideal of harmonious coexistence through the balance of powers is inherently flawed. Divided powers of conflicting interests can never achieve balance or harmonious coexistence. At best, when powers are nearly equal, they may compromise, but dominant power ultimately wins and prevails.
The principle of democratic 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' also fails as long as the people elect career politicians to the seats of power. Contrary to this standard, politicians and political parties mainly represent vested interests. Consequently, opposing political groups are unable to maintain a balance of power. Furthermore, politicians do not represent the 'primary needs and interests of the people'. Acting on behalf of the interest of a minority, leaves, at best, the interest of the majority to become secondary. Representing the tobacco industry in legislative assemblies, as opposed to protecting the health of the people, is just an illustration of the general nature of political representation.
Hot political debates can misled some people. They can create an impression of thoughtful and truthful deliberations. But the principle, settling societal issues in a fair and unbiased manner, fails. The arguments of vested econo-political interests are always biased in favor of the debating minorities, regardless of which one wins. In some countries, a single vote can determine which half wins, while the other half of the voters lose. Fair societal decisions could only be made by an overwhelming majority, by the people for themselves, and not by a small group of biased political representatives.
General welfare, happiness and peace, require cooperative living conditions. The adversarial struggle of opposing political forces can never achieve this. Two hundred years of history of the United States of America, the first republican political system of the world, shows that these ideals were not met. In spite of the fact that the ideals of "justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
" are laid down in the 'Preamble' of the Constitution. The classical ideals of 'justice, equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are noble, but general ideals that are impossible to achieve by political democracies. The standards and means of how to implement lofty-spirited ideals have to be defined, otherwise they become slogans. These flowery phrases can be seen and interpreted in the historical background of autocratic governments.
The goal of the Founder was to end single-handed ruling-power forever. The replaced it with elected political representatives of the people. In this manner they could reach decisions through rational debates of divided political powers and achieve general consensus. The original aim was moderation and a balance of powers through further dividing legislative authorities, the administration, and the judiciary. The present era of permanent confrontations of divided political powers were not foreseeable two hundred years ago. About one hundred years later, William James, John Dewey, and other philosophers began to see the negative consequences of the noble principles and ideals expressed in the American Constitution.
The creation of a republican government was a major factor in the tremendous progress in the United States and served as a template for other nations. The Republic, however, was not a democracy. It allowed slavery and did not grant suffrage rights to women. It took several amendments to the Constitution to make it more democratic. Over the years partly because of the pressure of organized labor, and partly for self interest as safeguards against rebellions, many social ideals were implemented in countries claiming to be democracies. Pragmatic political leaderships introduced economical and social measures to ease some of the burdens carried by the people. The USA is one of the most prosperous, most powerful, and most liberal of countries in the world. The American system is admired and has been emulated by many other nations. Most recently by countries under former Soviet domination, but, so far, they has not been as successful as the USA. Their conditions worsened and not likely to catch up with America. Conditions are even worse in many other countries of the globe. The deficiency to achieve centuries-old ideals is now visible in the United States of America as well.
The division of political powers did not produce harmonious social coexistence, balance, 'general welfare' and 'happiness'. Part of the population is still disenfranchised and extremes of certain liberties lead to the decline of social morality. The division of opposite powers and liberal interpretations of personal freedoms, has gradually led to a state of unbridled competition, permanent struggle, and internal and external confrontations. Econo-political powers are divided within national borders and throughout the world. The entire global civilization is permeated by various implementations of political representations of special interests. Today, civilization is a political culture, typified by continuous struggles.
The confrontational nature of politics, the representative form of governances, present the greatest danger to the world. The original ideals to create general welfare, happiness, and a free society governed by balanced powers failed. The political ideal of representative governance has failed. If less inward-looking policies and more universal social measures would be introduced in the coming years, then the political system would have a chance to sustain itself for several decades more without major catastrophes. However, the time is now ripe to think about new governing principles and to begin making radical changes for improvements. Humanity should not wait until growing and fierce competition will lead to global overproduction and to catastrophe.
The crucial question is how to create improved democracy? Before that question is answered, other flaws and failures of the present theories of contemporary democracies should be illuminated. The heading of this chapter uses the plural term 'Good Governances'. That refers to small as well as large communities. National, even global improvements, are not only highly desirable, but have life-saving aspects. The establishment of national and world-wide good governances may take several decades. However, it is now quite possible to establish direct democracy of the citizens in small communities, towns, and cities. The successes of these would demonstrate the practicality of the principle that excludes politicians from lawmaking functions. Political Elections and Voting
From a historical perspective, the practice of electing party representatives for legislative functions is a relatively new invention. The few centuries old theory of political election presumes that elected representatives will protect the public interest. In fact, politicians first look after their own goals and help others who helped them to get into the seats of power. The public interest is secondary, its importance pushed back, yielding to the pressure of special interest groups. After elections, the most powerful econo-political groups dominate all policies and priorities.
One of the basic principles of democratic elections is the 'rule of the majority'. This principle is not upheld by contemporary democracies, although they claim to uphold the principle of 'justice for all'. 'Majority' is presently not defined as an overwhelming part of the population. Instead it is fifty-percent plus one person the number of those who are voting for an issue or a candidate. In the first place, in legislative assemblies the voters are representatives. They are a small minority of the people. Secondly, by one extra vote, half of the politicians can make a decision. That is even a minority of minorities in legislative assemblies. In general elections, this principle is also unjust and undemocratic, also on for multiple reasons. Firstly, because the voters may not turn up in sufficient numbers, they may be utterly disillusioned about the choices they are faced with. Secondly, those who vote may be a minority of the citizens. Thirdly, even if one supposes that the majority of the people votes, half of them plus a single vote can disenfranchise the other half of the citizens.
The above critique is only about the fundamental flaws in the principles of present democratic elections. In addition, political elections also violate the principles of political freedom and equality. A relatively small group, the power-brokers of political parties, pre-select and promote candidates for statesmanship. They spend huge amounts of money to put their candidates into the seats of power. Freedom to raise money to support and to promote political representatives violates the principle of political equality. With no financial support, citizens do not have equal chances to run against candidates supported by huge amounts of money. In a truly democratic system, all citizens should have equal chances to have a decisive influence upon the primary needs and interests of absolute majority. Freedom is also violated because people have no real choice to choose the best people for political office. Their choices are limited to selections from pre-chosen representatives of special interests.
The method of present democratic elections and voting are archaic, unjust, and misleading. The techniques of misrepresentations are highly refined. Common forms of spreading false knowledge are propaganda and indoctrination. The mastery of the art of hiding the real purpose of political parties has grown over the years. Concealment of special interests has been accomplished by insincere declarations of political goals and promises. Even a true 'states-person' who is hard to find, and cannot resist econo-political pressure, and is carried along by the sweeping force of the surrounding system. Elections held for political office are not only undemocratic, but are outmoded because voting for unknown, promoted, representatives into high positions is based upon false information.
Political elections and votes are based upon nominations by select groups, a small minority, active promotion, party alliances, huge expenses, misleading and vicious propaganda, and election hoopla. Paid media advertisements, flags, placards, pamphlets, house calls, false promises, organized debates and the media, create a pre-election euphoria. Music bands, colored balloons, cheerleaders, entertainers, commentators, take part in these promotional rituals. A misleading atmosphere of real struggle is seemingly portrayed about real issues. Close scrutiny reveals that beside the principle flaws of unequal opportunity to run in elections and the lack of the freedom of choice, only a few real public concerns are on the agenda.
The fundamental nature of the ongoing election system is never questioned by politicians. Political party programs differ only in relatively minor issues. "Money totally corrupts our election system", writes Martin L. Gross, in his recent book. The candidates are career politicians. Once elected, they become part of a political machine in which merciless competition rules for special privileges and power. The representation of all of the people is a myth. The sad problem is that no party can offer real solutions to these fundamental problems. No politician worries about how to secure decent livelihoods for all citizens, long-range peace and sustenance. Voting for candidates and issues promoted in this manner is harming the primary needs and interests of the people. Consequently truly democratic rational methods should be introduced.
The right to vote, by itself, without further definition, is insufficient to fulfill its promise. As a principle, meaningful voting is supposed to be a process of informed selection, a matter of rational and of free choice. Also, every qualified citizen should have equal right to be elected or selected for office. Money and power should not influence elections and votes. True parliamentarians should emerge from the general population without the need to raise and spend money. Selecting something blindly or by following bad, misleading advice, can be the wrong choice. The first requirement of choosing rationally is to know the objects or subjects of choice. The principle of intelligent voting is no different than buying food for consumption. A person should not eat or select anything harmful or deadly. This is an example about electing between alternative choices on issues. Another issue is unbiased selection of people.
The principle of truly democratic elections must be based upon a well-informed electorate, impartial methods, and total absence of promotions. A well-informed public can make intelligent choices between issues and elect trustworthy and suitable people into leading positions. Unbiased election mandates presentation of facts and reliable data, the absence of underhanded influence and propaganda, secret balloting, and at least a two-thirds majority. Ideally all citizens, the total majority, would have to vote identically to make its outcome satisfying all voters. It is not realistic to expect an identical outcome even under the most unbiased methods of selections. But a two-thirds or, preferably, higher number of identical votes have a reasonable likelihood to be good for the vital interests of the people. To eliminate the consequences of wrong choices requires another principle: permanent public opportunity to make corrections. More will be said about these principles later.
In theory, elections based upon factual information and thorough unbiased knowledge, can only reflect real choices of the electorate. The capabilities and power of most individuals is too small to influence societal conditions, especially large political issues. The only possibility of increasing the power of average citizens is through the formation of equally strong non-political movements. This should be the top priority of civilization. Only powerful citizen's organizations can stop the decline of the culture. A non-political citizen's movement should be an organization that represents no special interests, but represents the 'primary needs and interests' of all of the people. In democracies, such an unbiased citizen's organization may have to become a temporary political party, run in elections and win majority votes. During their term they would change the Law and transform the system into a citizen's democracy.
People are unequal in many respects, only their 'primary needs and interest' are the same. It was demonstrated in Part 1 that every member of society, the total majority, must be able to secure the 'fundamental' and 'basic needs and interests' to sustain themselves and their families. It is very likely, having a near one-hundred percent mathematical probability, that the overwhelming majority of the people would vote identically to protect their vital needs. Political elections are totally different, biased, systems. A minority of political representatives with fifty-percent plus one vote can deny these fundamental and basic rights of the people, so neither justice nor equality is upheld.
There are no absolutely perfect decision-making processes. Nor can decisions satisfy all citizens. Nevertheless, far better systems can be found than voting in political elections. Court decisions, based upon a randomly selected jury system and absent from high-priced lawyer's biased influences, have reasonable elements of an ideal system. During a properly conducted trial, the facts are listed by both hostile and sympathetic witnesses. Complex matters can be illuminated by expert witnesses appointed by an impartial judge, not by highly paid lawyers of the defense or prosecution. In this manner, members of the jury would become well-informed about the facts of the case. They also would get further information from the judge regarding the applicable laws before making a decision. Jury decisions are made in privacy, without outside influences. Consequently, unbiased people selected by lot, can become well-informed, through conflicting testimony of witnesses and biased lawyers. At the end they have a high likelihood of making well-informed, rational decisions.
The jury system resembles ancient Greek democracy, the selection of citizens by lot into the legislative offices. However, only aristocrats were 'citizens'. Common people and slaves were excluded. Aside from this injustice, Athenian aristocrats had equal chances of becoming legislators. Under such circumstances, selection by lot was an unbiased method, unlike elections of the political elite, the contemporary 'aristocrats', of society. Even among these select groups, political debates can distort facts and produce bad results. Aristotle warned about the corrupting influence of the best orators, the propagandists of that age. Another principle can be drawn from these. To avoid biasing influences in balloting by randomly selected voters they should be well-informed, like a jury, but should have no debates. Once they become well-informed citizen jurors should cast their ballots silently on the basis of their own conclusions with no debate and influencing one another.
Absolute Rights, Freedoms, and Equality
The notions of absolute rights, freedoms, and equality are only ideals, impossible to achieve. Some additional aspects of these limitations will now be discussed. Ever since human beings have been living in social groups, their personal freedoms have been curtailed. Peaceful coexistence is only possible through the curtailments of rights and personal freedoms, otherwise anarchy would prevail.
The natural tendency of human beings is to live in cooperative and protective groups. Ancient food gatherers voluntarily gave up their independence for secured and well-provided cooperative coexistence. The same is required for modern society. It must grant equal chances for all members of society to make a decent living, but people must give up certain individual rights and freedoms. In modern societies, the regulation of individual rights and personal freedoms must be governed by laws. Without appropriate laws, 'negative tertiary drives' of a relatively small minority of the people, would create barbaric conditions.
In modern society human existence is maintained collectively through the production of goods and provision of services. This makes people totally interdependent and inter-reliant upon others to maintain their lives. Without appropriate laws, unbridled physical and mental abilities of a minority would seriously threaten the existence of others. Limiting individual rights makes peaceful coexistence possible and it also compensates for personal inequalities, to a degree. The question is, to what extent is societal coexistence harmonious? The degree and the future of peaceful coexistence depends upon the spirit, extent, and the implementations of laws. It is to be concluded that present social conditions, and the threats to human future, warrants curtailment of excessive rights and freedoms of a minority. The new Law must protect the rights, freedoms, the livelihood, and the future of the majority of humankind.
It is important, therefore, to determine what principles can best secure peaceful coexistence and what kinds of restrictions of personal liberties and rights a good society should enact. In principle, rights and freedoms cannot be granted by governments. They are natural, so they can only be restricted. Dewey was concerned about the excesses of human rights, and inequalities. He wrote, "The absolute ideal is a dogma of natural rights." Some democratic rights and freedoms have an adverse effect on harmonious societal coexistence. Global and national events demonstrate the decline of social morality and injustices are threatening the future of civilization. These are the consequences of certain unlimited rights in constitutions and laws. The excessive rights of lawmakers, politicians and socio-political groups, enterprises, and the media are harming peaceful coexistence, therefore should be reviewed.
The negative role of individuals and organizations that are creating the paradoxes and illnesses of the political era should be exposed and stopped. The laws should not allow any activities and open or concealed inducements that harm or have the potential to harm others or society. Good laws should not prevent others from exercising their rights, freedoms, and equitable, living conditions. Citizens would make improved democratic laws. Why? Simply, because good laws are common interest of the majority of the people.
The struggle for justice, equal rights and liberties, began against the tyrannical rulers of past centuries. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and other media, are natural rights and, as such, their limits should only be decided by impartial governments. Present democratic rights and freedoms are politically biased. They are harming individuals and society. Citizens would create better, unbiased, laws to protect peaceful coexistence and equal rights and freedoms for all . The old laws provide opportunities for a minority to harm public interests. These harmful excesses of rights and freedoms must be eliminated.
Part 3 of this book demonstrated many of these harmful privileges granted by political governances to their economic and political supporters. The once noble concepts of rights and liberties have been degraded. They allow narrowly focused and unscrupulous individuals, leaders and their organized groups, and the media, to use their freedoms that often harm the rights of people and society. Governments can exploit their power. The media, once the champion of justice, freedom, and equality, are now spreading innuendoes, lies, and have become the horn of paid propaganda. Organizations can use political methods, whip up hostile sentiments, instigate their members to prevent others and the public from exercising their rights and freedoms.
These tendencies are immoral. They violate the principles of justice and civil rights and are becoming more violent. Injustices of the system of justice are frequent. Justice is not protected by present democratic laws. Politically motivated laws support confrontational systems, preventing peaceful coexistence. Surely, if citizens would make laws, they would protect justice, freedom, and equal opportunities for all people, thereby also protecting their own future.
Truly democratic interpretation and application of civil rights, the concepts of justice, freedom, and equality, must be guided by the 'fundamental' and 'basic' requirements of life. Democratic lawmaking by all of the people affected would assure that no special rights and freedoms could curb the rights of others. If it was supplemented by a system that would allow continuous public monitoring and correction of the flaws and deviations from expected socially good consequences, it could guarantee a superior system of democratic governances. These principles should guide new enlightened governances. Direct civil participation in law and policy-making at all levels, would use the positive potential of the infrastructure. Creation of good governance and essential restrictions are of common interest. A good governance is characterized by its constitutional mandate to work toward the provision of the fundamental and basic needs of the people, harmonious coexistence, and long-term, permanent, peaceful conditions. These are common interests of the absolute majority (one-hundred percent). Good governance means an impartial form of direct democracy of the people in place of political governances.
Freedom of Enterprise and its Rewards
If modern society would want to live in harmony and secure the future, it would have to correct excesses of the freedom of enterprise. Restraints have been imposed for many years, but they would have to be more extensive to keep democracy viable. Large populations of the world live in deprivation, while others live in affluence. Such polarization could lead to major conflicts. Wars, mass murder and starvation are sinful and irrational in the presence of growing and uselessly accumulating wealth. The potential exists to eliminate this anomaly by limiting and restricting harmful enterprises.
The purpose of controls is not to destroy private enterprise. On the contrary. It would be common sense to prevent only its catastrophic econo-political and societal consequences. Growth of all positive enterprises would continue unimpeded and controls would not prevent free enterprise, the flowering of talent and creativity. New laws would be wise in restricting harmful enterprises, while encouraging the production of useful goods and services. Useful enterprises have been helping society to live better, healthier, and to become educated and cultured.
Rewards take many forms besides financial gains, position, and power. In an improved democracy, in addition to tangible benefits, individual and corporate excellence would also be rewarded through public esteem. Direct democracy of the people would not impede fruitful achievements from self-created rewards in any form. Profits earned from useful, enterprises could be well above the minimum requirement of sustenance. The economical infrastructure would allow decent and happy livelihood for all people, while talented individuals and corporations, through fruitful activities, could earn well above the average income.
The negative features of entrepreneurship would have to be restricted. Present laws allow false, unsubstantiated, misleading advertisements. They are not strong enough against unhealthy and dangerous products and enrichment by shady and dishonest means. Political favors can buy various licenses, use of land, permits to operate restricted services and licensing to manufacture dangerous substances. Governments spend taxes on the production of armaments and thus maintain profit-making enterprises from arms production and sales. Political democracies also award huge research subsidies to corporations and large public-works projects. Huge economic benefits are obtained by politicians and private corporations through influence peddling, corruption in high places, covert financial activities, and by countless other unethical means. These state policies are controls biased in favor of undeserving enterprises, against the wishes of the majority of people. So called free market conditions are controlled by fiscal and financial policies and in addition by the above discussed policies. In fact a minority of econo-political powers impose limitations upon the economic rights and freedoms of the public.
Political systems are unable to stop dishonest, manipulative, and corrupt entrepreneurship. They allowed the erosion of the centuries-old struggle of the press for the freedom of expression. The media have become politically biased and subservient to business interests. It features sensationalism, titillating and cheap entertainment, and undeserved richness and fame, degrading and misleading advertisements and commercials. Little attention is given by the media to the plight of the poor, inequality, lack of justice and liberty. It gives little or no exposure to contributors of real cultural values. Governances by the citizens would retard negative enterprises, and would also re-establish the true meaning of free speech and press.
Freedom should be a legal right and opportunity, in any field, as long as the enterprise is not curtailing or harming the freedom of others. The limits of creativity and talents need not be legislated as freedoms, for they are natural rights. The laws should, however, secure equal opportunities for all the people to develop their full potential.
The purpose of good laws is to set limits of rights and freedoms of socially negative activities, thereby preventing the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights and personal freedoms of individuals and the public. Citizen's governances would be free of politics and would allow profiting from socially positive activities while disallowing negative enterprises. It would adapt the principle of just rewards aiming for peaceful social coexistence.
In the future, fewer and fewer people will be able to produce all goods and services people need. Controls and limits of economic excesses will become inevitable. Limits will have to be set on working hours, minimum wages and on salaries of employees serving the public. Citizen legislators would consider common interests in regulating the exploitation of irreplaceable natural resources, protection of the environment, and many other facets of the economy. Incentives would have to be designed to provide educational and work opportunities. Contemporary political democracies are not the best system humans can design. Direct democracy of the citizens could be better than representative political systems. Even a small community could be governed without career politicians.
The prospects of international conflicts were discussed in section 3.4. One of the main causes of conflicts threatening the future is the unlimited freedom of enterprise and limitless growth. The accumulation of enormous and useless wealth in some parts of the world, while other parts are grossly deprived, makes the political system paradoxical, endangering world peace. Fanatical regimes have already begun resisting military might. They have been developing and producing atomic weapons, missiles, chemical and biological agents. The latter two agents can also be produced easily and cheaply even by poor nations. Freedom of enterprise should not be penalizing people in underdeveloped countries because they may rebel and use these weapons. In that case no military might and superb technology could prevent their use.
Education and Culture
Today, public education and cultural affairs are also political issues. The social environment is influenced by the political state and groups using political methods to influence education and culture. The churches, the media, the productions arts and entertainment industries, literature, and public institutions also influence education and culture. Formal education is provided by schools, colleges, and universities. During the most formative years, little thought is given to social morality, wholesome cultural values, honesty, and getting along with others. Increasing numbers of occupations require specialized education and training for skills. An increasing part of the young generation cannot find employment without computer and scientific and technological knowledge. The advancement of culture is determined by the quality and diversity of educational institutions and the opportunities to become educated. Culture is also influenced by politically motivated indoctrination of special interest groups, the media, arts and entertainment. These are all influenced by economical, social, and political conditions.
Improved democracy would provide better cultural and educational environment than contemporary systems. This means not just paper rights to have access to cultural treasures, but equal opportunities as well. Among these rights, people, especially the young, should have equal opportunity to be formally educated, and to develop skills and talents to the fullest. Reading, writing, and basic arithmetical knowledge, are the absolute minimum requirements of employment even at the lowest levels. Education to reach the highest levels takes more than two decades, and costs a lot of money. In spite of the need to be educated, a large percentage of the world's population is still illiterate. It is not that people are uneducated because their inability to learn, but because their social and economic circumstances prevent them from becoming educated.
The cost of higher education is especially expensive. Mostly, only wealthy families can only send their children to colleges or universities. Democratic countries grant equal rights for all citizens, including the right to be educated. But equal rights remain a principle only because rights cannot be freely exercised by people at the bottom of the economic and social strata of society. The political system is mainly responsible for social and material constraints, consequently many young men and women cannot become formally educated. Society loses potential value by not educating young talents. Wasting abilities to become educated is paradoxical because the evolution of human culture has been advanced and enriched by talented and skillful people. Society needs bright, creative thinkers and doers with forward-looking ideas. Only better educated people and strong determination can lead to the moral renewal of civilization.
True democracy of the people could improve all the previously mentioned aspects of education and culture. It would open up educational opportunities to all individuals. They would be able to have formal education or special skills according to their abilities to the highest levels. Improved democracy would aid the dissemination of high cultural productions and wholesome entertainment. It would see to it that dissemination of culturally negative materials could not invade society, but would be available for those people only who want them and would pay for them. In schools, young people would also be thought about societal values, respect for others, and other ethical and wholesome cultural values.
Law and Order in a Just Society
Protecting the safety and security of the people is one of the most important tasks of governance. An ethical concept of societal peace, however, involves more than control of common crimes and the conventional interpretation of law and order. In addition to common crimes, improved democracy would not justify bearing and the use of arms except for defense. It would not allow shady and underhanded practices neither in business or in politics.
Political democracy and political systems in general are unable to secure such ethical law and order. As seen earlier, the main reason for unlawful and unethical conditions is that political systems are inherently adversarial. Societal harmony, and law and order, are strongly influenced and frequently upset by organized groups with conflicting economical and political interests. For a harmonious future, democratic governances would create improved laws and protect the people from common crimes as well as from unethical economic benefits gained through political patronage. It would protect the people's personal and economical safety and political security.
Good democratic laws should also protect society against violators of the people's rights and freedoms. This principle is general, and should protect the people from the dishonest business practices so prevalent today. The sanctity of the market prevents the control of conniving methods of unethical and criminal business activities. Embezzlement of people's savings, stock market swindles, organized crime, influence peddling and briberies, are common occurrences. False advertising and fraudulent claims regarding quality of merchandise, drugs and health products, are commonplace. Manufacturers are knowingly releasing products with dangerous design flaws. Some maiming and kill people and face only civil suits. In an ethical democracy, these would also be violations of law and order and would be punished as common crimes. The more liberal a democratic political state is, the higher is the incidence of these crimes. Under improved democracy, unethical business practices would be outlawed, and severely punished.
The governances of direct democracies would be ethical. The new Law would not allow gaining benefits through underhanded methods. It would penalize all forms of patronizing between governances and econo-political or other special interests. The new governances would accommodate political representation of special interests in rational, lawful and just manners. Political party participation would have to be detached from lawmaking functions. Through an impartial system, citizen lawmakers could only introduce new improved laws to protect the people. They would extend the concept of unlawful activities to cover business crimes, as a matter of law and order.
Law and order is also upset by various rights protecting groups. They use forceful methods to protect their interests while violating the rights and freedom of others. Street protests and marches are organized and used against corporations and against individuals and other special interest groups. Some of these are violent, upsetting law and order and preventing individuals and large segments of society from exercising their rights and freedom. They block entrances to buildings and harass people attempting to enter, shoot and bomb people and institutions they don't like. Strikers can paralyze national economies, health care, transportation, and even police, fire, and ambulance services. These are violations of the rights of others.
Street protests, marches, demonstrations, and violent encounters between racial, religious, reproductive choice related, and other groups, are also frequent. In political democracies, it is permissible to demonstrate by taking over public streets and facilities. Under political oppression such methods are inevitable. In a direct democracy that protects the common interests of all, people would have no reason to use confrontational methods to be heard. Conflict resolution would be made through intelligent and peaceful methods. A relatively small incorrigible minority, those who would not accept the rule of new and truly democratic Law, would have to face severe penalties.
The current abuses of the freedom of speech are also abuses of the spirit of the Law and harm social order and harmony. The noble principles and fight for the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly were well founded. They were directed against autocratic rulers and laws that severely punished, jailed and executed anyone who dared to criticize their governances. These principles of freedoms are still valid. The people as well as the media should be able to express their views freely, ethically and factually. Unfounded accusations, innuendoes, harassing people and spying into people's personal lives, inflaming hate, and provoking violence, are against the noble principles of freedom. Good laws would protect equally the fundamental rights and personal freedoms of every member of society. The media and the press would have the same privileges and restrictions as any other members of society.
The crucial issue is: who should decide, and how should decisions be made about what is a particular fundamental right and freedom and what is not? Political representatives cannot make these decisions impartially. Political democracy has an enormous apparatus to fight common crimes, but it tolerates unethical economic and political activities and is lenient about their criminal aspects. Most media is owned and controlled by a handful of giant corporate interests. Once they were champions of the freedom of speech, and now they often serve their econo-political masters. They create news instead reporting it and manipulate public opinion. Various special interest groups can freely spread degrading and unfounded generalizations against races, religions, creeds, sexes, and beliefs. Violations of public rights and freedoms by fanatical individuals and malicious people through the media are commonplace.
Direct democracy would not tolerate transgressions of the rights and freedoms of other people and would be an impartial system of law and order. Of course, common crime and violence seriously affect law and order. They are problems in all countries, regardless of the nature of their political governances. People want to live in peace, without fear of any kind of criminal activity. In a true democracy, no person would be deprived, hungry, and homeless. Thus deprivation would cease to be inducement for committing common crimes. Social coexistence and harmony would be greatly improved under the extended concept of law and order. Direct democracy would likely penalize the remaining incorrigible criminals more severely than liberal democracy does. Proven cold-blooded murder, for instance, could imply self-exclusion of criminals from society's protection. New principles of criminal laws would assure true equality and swift and fair justice, so that people would be free to live without fear of any kind of criminal activity.
True democracy and peaceful life of the people can only be secured under strict moral laws, efficient and impartial system of justice, honorable enforcement practices, and severe penalties against criminal activities of any kind against the common interest of the people. Laws should not be biased in favor of the selfish economical, political, or other special interests. These principles can be much better secured under unbiased governing systems at any or all levels. Peace and order is greatly improved when people's living conditions are satisfactory. It can be best protected when laws are made by impartial citizens, and not by biased representatives of political systems. Impartial governing bodies should be designed so that cannot be pressured or coerced by special interest groups, political representatives, and politics.
An ethical democracy should be impartial and secure equal justice and freedoms for every citizen under the law. Under such just, unbiased, governance, there would be no need for violent demonstrations. Improved laws would not allow special freedoms to economical, political or societal self-interests. Nobody would be allowed to violate the freedoms of ordinary citizens and the right of the public to live in peace. Loose and politically biased interpretations of the freedom of speech and its present forms of expression would be revised. The media would have to respect public rights and freedoms.
Improved democracy would greatly reduce the need for street protests and disturbances. It would also improve society's well-being. No person or child would be neglected and no one would have to turn to crime to sustain themselves. The new laws would also restrict open or covert inducements that could lead to the violation the people's right to live secure in peace.
The use of arms and other means of mass destruction, by econo-political interests, are the worst violations of safety, security, and peaceful coexistence. A small number of dictators and ruthless fanatics have been and are responsible for violent global events, harming peace, law, and order. Desperate individuals and others misled by propaganda and fanatical regimes become terrorists. Political democracies are far better systems, but the lack of full moral authority to be arbitrators, judges, and enforcers against ruthless individuals and their regimes. The use of force by the moderately guilty against evil can be only justified relatively. Democratic justice would require impartial international laws and powerful enforcement.
Establishment of impartial international Law and enforcement is attempted through the United Nations, but it is far from successful. The reason for failure is that the UN is also a political body, a forum of political states, and, as such, it is not impartial. The UN is unable to provide impartial global justice, and moral and rational law and order. The prospect of creating international justice, global cooperation, peace, and an advanced concept of law and order, is presently not good. It is unlikely to achieve this monumental task before a powerful direct democracy would be born. This would also influence other nations to become direct democracies.
Direct democracy movements are already working toward this goal(16). The aim is material and cultural well-being on Earth and universal peace. The first transformations into self-governances will likely be achieved soon by citizens at local levels. The successes of direct democracies in towns and cities would demonstrate that governances can be improved without the involvement of career politicians.
4.2 IMPROVEMENT OF SOCIAL SYSTEM DESIGNS
Principles
The goal is to find improved constitutional principles that can secure:
No principles and methods of implementations can provide absolutely perfect ideal solutions to any real problem. However, good societal principles can improve civilization and they can be implemented in a satisfactory manner for the overwhelming majority of the people. Prior analysis of the impositions upon human life questioned the assertion that "all men are born equal". It shows that people are truly equal with respect to their 'fundamental' and 'basic needs'. These were referred to as being the 'primary needs and interests' of every human being.
Consequently, in answering the first and third principles: social peace can be secured when society satisfies the primary needs and interests of all of its members. However, these are only the essential minimum requirements to (1) to secure peaceful coexistence, and (2) to secure long term sustenance of civilization. Additional principles and methods are required (3) to secure societal justice, rights, and freedom these vital aspects of human existence in a society.
Neither peaceful coexistence (1) nor long term sustenance (2) can be secured unless the 'tertiary wants' and 'drives' of the people - especially the leaders of influential economic, social, and political groups - have rational limits. Part 1 demonstrated that positive human drives have been fruitful and beneficial to (5) economic and cultural progress of civilization. Higher level of material and cultural sustenance has been made possible by positive human drives for extra benefits. So they must remain intact. However, negative tertiary drives - of a relatively small number of leading individuals - prevent the overwhelming majority of the people from having a fair share of the available resources. They are causing deprivation, homelessness, hunger and death of masses by starvation. Negative drives of a small minority are responsible also for manufacturing offensive weapons, starting civil wars, sponsoring terrorism, and waging major wars. The 'negative potential' of the current culture led to adversarial coexistence that now endangers long-term sustenance of civilization. Therefore, a true democracy must secure the (6) exclusion of negative economical, social, and political activities harmful to humanity.
The analysis clearly indicates that only impartial governances could assure fundamental principles of morality, and secure (4) impartial societal justice, rights, and freedom for all of the people. Impartial governances would not allow biased individuals or political representatives of special interest groups to create laws. A fair system of truly democratic governance is based upon the judgment of the overwhelming majority of the people, not fifty-percent plus one person or a small number of political representatives.
7. Decision makers should be citizens, not career politicians. This principle excludes political representatives from governances and further secures the 4th principle. However, this requirement does not exclude political parties, special interest groups, and members of society to submit formal proposals or requests to citizens' legislative assemblies. The 7th principle is not sufficient by itself to fully secure all the previous requirements. Good governances cannot be established unless a governing system can guarantee well-informed and impartial decision making. Consequently another principle must be in effect:
8. Ordinary people could become well-informed and unbiased decision-makers and lawmakers by listening and learning from presentations, illuminating societal issues from all points of views. In this manner, legislative decision-makers would consider whether the presentations serve public interests or are against it or they may also be indifferent from a public point of view. This goal and none of the previous principles can be accomplished unless a good system principle and a method is used that can guarantee good governances.
9. This governing system principle is:
Rigid Control
The inflexibility of a system is either a natural phenomenon or is created by some humanly imposed constraints. The Solar System is controlled by forces unalterable by human beings. The rules of this magnificent system are rigid, governed by the laws of nature. Electrical distribution, water, sewer, and highway systems, are human designs. They are also rigid and unalterable by their users. However, the goal of the designers is to provide useful and acceptable public services. Although they are rigid designs and built without direct user involvement, they are utilized voluntarily because they are designed to be useful and to please the public.
The present concern is rigid control of society by human design. Governing systems, such as kingdoms, monarchies, and dictatorships, exercise rigid control methods that are imposed upon the people by their rulers. How well or how badly a rigid control system functions is, primarily, dependent upon the goals of the designers not the users. In the case of tyrannical societies, system design and control methods are very rigid. Citizens are unable to control or influence their governances. From the people's point of view, whose lives, living conditions, rights, and liberties are autocratically controlled by their rulers, such societal control systems are not acceptable. In summary, autocratic, governances are imposed upon the people. Consequently from both a humane and a rational points of view, rigid governing control principles and methods are not acceptable.
Dynamic Control Systems
Any working system whose mode of operation can be altered by various external or internal methods, is a dynamically controlled system. Such systems function in various modes. A dynamic system may stay in temporary equilibrium under the most dominant influence until some other power changes its condition and forces the system into some altered mode of operation.
For illustration, the ships of Columbus were subject to the forces of nature and men. The course of his sailboats were altered many times from their original path by the wind. But Columbus prevailed. He steered back his ships, storm after storm, and after much suffering he reached the 'new world'. Similarly, free-market systems are controlled dynamically by competing forces. In each segment of the economy, strongest controlling influences and the most adaptable prevail. Political representative forms of governances, including democracies, are also designed and operate under dynamic system control principles.
Under dynamical social struggles, some people are victims of the system. They suffer because the prevailing governing 'forces' are representatives of special political and economical interests. The American democracy has been designed by the principle of the 'division of powers' and a system control method of 'checks and balances' between opposing forces. However, dynamic control creates short-lived relative balance that ultimately tips in favor of only one of the dominant forces. The other weakness of the American design is that the balance is attempted between the powers of special interest groups. The majority, the citizens, are relatively powerless and have much less direct influence in controlling the system. Thus, the public, especially those without any influence, suffer various disadvantages.
In conclusion, from the point of view of justice, equal rights, freedoms, and morality, dynamical governmental control systems are not the best modes of societal system controls. The best principle of establishing 'just democracy' can only be achieved when society self-regulates itself. This cannot be achieved through representative system designs because representation is delegated to a minority as opposed to the total majority governing its own affairs.
Self-regulating System; Socio-Cybernetics
The term 'socio-cybernetics' is borrowed from the scientific theory of 'cybernetics' and design of self-regulating systems. The term refers to autonomously functioning apparatus, machinery, or an entire integrated technical system that can function automatically as designed to meet set operating requirements. 'System design' must assure: a) that the operating principles and goals will be met; b) that performance is continuously monitored c) that a 'feedback system' indicates the smallest deviation from the requirements to a control apparatus; and d) the 'control apparatus' will steer the system to maintain the set requirements, using the steady flow of feedback information.
One of the first cybernetics control system has been applied to maintain constant speed of steam engines through a rotating 'governor'. In the book 'Psycho-Cybernetics', Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon also borrowed the scientific term 'cybernetics', to describe the mechanism of human self-control. He describes how various experiences and the feedback of their affects the brain to control human behavior. In general, permanent feedback of performance data keeps technical and biological systems under autonomous or self-control. Governances for communal coexistence, at any level, could also function autonomously and cooperatively when their design follows socio-cybernetics principles.
Presently, all nation-states are governed either by rigid or dynamic control methods. Differentiation of society into nation-states, and within all states into economical and political interest groups, secures privileges for people of the power pursuing special interests. On top of this hierarchical order are the best organized groups, the best educated, most talented, together with the most cunning people whose services are vital to the system. In decreasing order are the less powerful groups. The least capable people of the political order are at the bottom the pyramid. The population is victimized to various degrees, depending upon the nature of the political system.
Socio-cybernetic system principles are not rigid, not pyramidal, but distributed integrated systems. As illustrated, a self-regulating system consists of several subsystems with distinct functions. These sub-systems are distributed, but integrated and working harmoniously together to maintain sound operations. Thus, self-regulating societies must involve the entire population in governing themselves. In order to achieve cooperative societal coexistence, self-governance should incorporate these design principles:
a) incorporate the "Principles" introduced in Section 4.2, thus the goal is to assure that common needs and interests of the people are fulfilled;
b) decision-making should be shared by the people
c) assure that the goals are achieved through continuous monitoring of public acceptance or dissatisfaction with unexpected consequences of earlier decisions;
d) have means through which the people can directly influence social conditions, i.e. a feedback system to their own legislative;
e) have a control system 'of the people, by the people, for the people' that can directly and continuously steer the system to maintain the goals aimed at, using the steady flow of feedback of public input.
f) decisions must be based upon factual knowledge in the interest of all;
g) decision makers shall be well informed
h) As stated in Section 4.2 "Principles" in point 9., No person should rule, but the Law shall rule;
i) The governing system must be impartial, free of conflict, guarantee that the public interest is upheld by an overwhelming majority and must prevent the abuses of the governances at any levels and in any functions. Self-governing principles and methods can be applied in a small community as well as in towns, cities, or countries. Optimistically, if human civilization won't destroy itself and manages to control its negative tertiary drives rationally, then it will begin self-governing itself during the 21st century.
Socio-cybernetic principles based governances are cooperative, unbiased, governing systems, unlike political legislatures. They are divided, biased, adversarial systems. Comparing political representation with self governance:
a) Representatives have different, not common, goals
b) They have only partial public monitoring, and cannot be influenced directly by the people, and are mainly influenced by special interest groups; c) The legislative, executive, and judiciary control apparatus is politically biased and has no direct public feedback and influence;
c) d) The political control apparatus has no firm direction, goals, set by the people. Therefore it is swayed by the 'dynamics' of econo-political pressures.
In addition to biased representation, political parliamentarians have power: a) to select and set priorities of issues; b) to debate issues; c) to make decisions; and d) enact laws. They combine and control these functions. These are carried out in a confrontational atmosphere by opposing political parties. Direct democracy would separate these functions and instead of biased decisions it would make impartial self-governances. One of the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States, James Madison, wrote about the "mortal diseases" of the representative 'Republican' political system. His penetrating analysis is similar to findings presented earlier in this book(17). He also saw the bad consequences of negative 'tertiary drives', that he did not call so, but described as "common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or the aggregate interests of the community."
In spite of his concerns, Madison recommended republican governance, believing that it can best balance the "conflicts of rival parties". Madison defined "Pure democracy" as "consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person" His rejection of democracy was two hundred and twenty years ago, when modern communication and transportation media was not yet invented. He feared that the influence of "mischiefs of fractions" and "obnoxious individuals" will dominate and harm the common good of all. His concern is essentially the same as Aristotle's about the possible negative influence of influential 'orators'. The present system design principles and methods can prevent negative influences in truly democratic legislative processes.
The most important is that the system must assure that the Law rules, not individuals and to insure that the common interest of all prevails.
That is one of the reasons that the constitution of the people's governances should adopt the main 'principles' proposed earlier. The following methods would further insure true democracy, an unbiased system of self-governances of the people:
1) In a small community or in a country, even globally, it means the creation of unbiased governing bodies. These should be composed of the members of the community;
2) Citizen policy-makers and legislators should get into legislative assemblies through impartial methods and not through political elections;
3) The new lawmaking apparatus must be free of direct participation of representatives of special interests;
4) Legislative assemblies would be separated into four different levels, each having different functions:
4.3 DIRECT DEMOCRACY; SELF-GOVERNANCES Design Principles for Self-Governances
Designs of Self-governances will follow 'Socio-cybernetics' principles. The first requirement is to state the purpose of the design.
a) The goal is to have common values: that is to secure the 'primary needs and interest of all of the people'. This goal can be achieved by any town, country, or the world's community. Common values are cooperative societal orders, peaceful conditions, satisfactory material well-being, and enlightened cultural conditions.
b) These goals are to be achieved: through self-governance of the people through continuously monitoring public acceptance of policies. The public and special interest groups should be able to participate in governing their own affairs.
c) Modern means: should be available, electronic communication facilities that the people can use and directly influence societal conditions. This system allows continuous feedback of public opinion and can be used for referendums and in elections. Without controls, all systems - technical or social - behave erratically or in the worst case, self-destructively. A well-functioning society must be controlled by the people and the best principle of control is a self-regulated cybernetics system.
d) The control system shall be unbiased: therefore it should have a legislative structure that cannot be corrupted by internal or external influences. It should be able to safeguard the principles and the goals by relying upon the steady flow of feedback of public opinion and votes.
Further requirements arising from the previous self-regulating system design principles are:
Direct Democracy in a Small Community
Readers of the Hungarian edition of the English manuscript 'New Democracy; Apolitical Governance' (the predecessors of this revised edition) viewed my ideas as well-intentioned 'utopia', impossible to implement it. These critiques prompted me to incorporate Dave Brown's(19) account, 'Politics in Sun City Center', which describes how egos, personal ambitions and desires of power, dominate a small community. Self-governance can replace personal drives and the domination of special interests anywhere, including small communities of any kind.
Sun City Center (SCC) which is a small community of retired people, serves as an example. Residents are all homeowners and have neither financial burdens nor business or special interests other than hobbies. They must be 55 years or older, so most of them are retired and more than 70 years old. They live in comfort and their main concerns are playing golf and pursuing their hobbies. They have about 80 hobby clubs, a small library, and almost all were started and are serviced by volunteers. One would think, why on earth do they have political type problems with their own self-governance?
Dave Brown's article explains: (I added my emphasis by underlining some parts)
"On the County and State level, Florida is almost as crooked as Maryland. Corruption is pervasive throughout the system - from the precinct level (yes, even in SCC) right up to the governor. Even the Republicans are crooked!"
"For Sun City Center, the governance problems stem more from incompetence and egos, than from corruption. Each SCC resident is a member of the Community Association (CA), which owns all of the common facilities. The CA is administered by a nine-member Board of Directors, which is elected by the residents. As candidates, they promise to do the will of the people. Once elected, they feel that they have been anointed by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to pursue their own agendas and the residents be damned!"
"We have a very nice library here which does a brisk business. Recently, the CA Board decided that outsiders (like those of Kings Point which is adjacent to SCC) should pay $12 for a yearly library card. The argument for the fee had some validity since they can use our library, but we cannot use theirs. On the other hand, many of these outsiders had contributed generously to the library during its annual fund drive. A grass-roots effort was organized to hold a referendum on the fee to let the CA Board know the sense of the community. The CA Board refused to allow our facilities to be used for such a vote, so... The ballots were printed in the newspaper.
The results were that 80-90% were against the fee, indicating a feeling that our library should be free to all. Even knowing the results of the referendum, the CA Board still went ahead and imposed the fee. So much for the will of the people..."
A number of similar autocratic rulings, and other bad decisions are listed by Dave.
"For example, the opening balance for one year doesn't always equal the closing balance from the previous year, expenses are not always posted to the proper accounts (which makes tracking difficult), reserves aren't handled very precisely, etc. I'm sure that this is just incompetence, rather than corruption aimed at personal gain. The CA Board tends to waste money, not only on projects of dubious value, but on lawyers who will support their decisions. This has been perceived by the residents, and consequently, all of the recent dues increases have been voted down."
"Actually, I understand that this sort of game goes on in almost all retirement communities where the residents own the facilities. A neighbor who lived in a nearby RV park (before moving to SCC) told me that the same sort of thing went on there, though on a smaller scale. Another friend told me that he had visited Sun City, Arizona. Had their newspaper not said Arizona, he would have thought it was a Sun City Center, Florida paper - based on all of the articles and letters about how incompetently the city was being run. Be forewarned: If you plan to live here
"
Sun City Center is a small new development, not an official town, but an incorporated retirement community. Del Webb, a land and housing developer, began to build its first homes in 1962. In about 35 years, the population of SCC reached about 10,000 residents. This brief history demonstrates parts of my 'group theory', especially the emergence of leaders, tertiary drives for power, and status with their negative consequences.
It also demonstrates the need to eliminate self-interests from leaderships, and the advantages establishing 'direct democracy' (DD) of the citizens. If the governance of this small community was DD, there would be more harmonious coexistence, and far more efficient management of communal affairs. The following is my addition to Dave's article. Governances of small communities and towns can use similar methods in implementing direct democracy.
Self Governance of a Nation
The implementation of the previously developed ideas and principles require improved constitutions. The constitution must restore true democracy and social morality by protecting the 'primary needs interests' of the entire population. The assertion is that satisfactory support of human existence is also essential for the survival of civilization. In the following, the new previously developed socio-cybernetics principles will be applied. Figure 1, illustrates a model of national self-governance that can assure peaceful coexistence.
Figure 1. is a participatory model of citizen's self-governance and unlike hierarchical models it is a relational, distributed system. Levels and functions are interrelated so that all citizens can participate in governing themselves. The governing Constitution, the laws and principles of justice, liberty, and the 'fundamental' and 'basic' standards of equality are protected by the socio-cybernetics system introduced earlier.
The Constitution in Figure 1 and the dashed line at the bottom of the model symbolize that direct democracy is built upon a solid constitutional foundation. Citizen's Forums (Forums) at the top of the Figure, are distributed throughout the country. They are in direct contact with Local Administrations. The dotted lines symbolize that an appropriate number of Forums and Administrations are distributed throughout the country in small districts. The circles are symbols of Public Access Electronic Communication Systems. A sufficient number of them are installed in every Forum and Administration.
The Forums have direct access to the Parliament of Priorities that is the first level of the Legislative. The democratic principle is unlike 'the division of power', but it is the separation of legislative functions and levels, with no powers within, as explained earlier(20). Recommendations are passed from the Parliament to the House of Implementations (House), from the House to the Senate, and from the Senate to the Presidency. Figure 1, also shows lines of interactions between Special Interest Groups and the Parliament. Similarly, all three levels, the Parliament, the House, and the Senate, could invite Unbiased Experts to make professional presentations on complex issues.
The Presidency is managing the country's affairs through the Administrative Branch and appoints members of the Supreme Court. The Judiciary and Law Enforcement and Defense agencies are sub-units of the Executive Branch of the governance.
Citizen's Forums and the public have direct access to the Executive Branch through the Local Administrations and the Electronic Communication System. The principles of 'Socio-cybernetics' principle of self-governance are fulfilled by this design. The legislative assemblies are filled by citizens instead of career politicians. The public could also influence governance directly through the Communication System, the Forums, and the Parliament. Another unique feature of the design is the integrated Law Enforcement and Defense in a single branch of the civilian governance. Thus a cardinal requirement is fulfilled; a peaceful society uses armed forces only for defensive purposes against internal and external violators. This constitutional system has the promise of securing harmonious and cooperative coexistence and a bright future.
Parliament of Priorities
The first legislative level of the divided functions of self-governance is the 'Parliament', shown in Figure 1. The Parliament would make recommendations about the importance of issues, proposals, and requests submitted. It would receive formal submissions from 'Citizen's Forums' and from representatives of special interest groups, including political parties. The importance of requests should be illuminated from different points of views by citizens, political, economic, and other interest groups. Citizen legislators would request advice from unbiased 'Experts'. The parliamentarians should just listen, learn, and draw conclusions from these often adverse presentations. There shall be no debates, political power conflicts, lobbyists, briberies, and unethical methods of influence. Citizen parliamentarians will be silent listeners to submissions. Their duties are to become well-informed and to set priorities of the issues on the agenda, on the basis of their common sense and acquired knowledge through the presentations.
The House of Implementations
The second level of the divided legislative functions would be undertaken by the 'House'. Legislators in the House would receive and study the recommended legislative priorities of the Parliament. They could re-rank the importance of the issues if they find it necessary. The House is to make decisions about the means and ways of implementing the issues selected by the Parliament.
The third level of legislative assemblies is the Senate, with the following functions:
In case of a referendum, the Senators should inform the public in a brief summary of the Senators reasons voting for or against the issue passed by the Parliament and the House. The media should be forbidden by the Constitution to spread lies and unsubstantiated publicity either for or against the issue of the referendum. In this manner, the whole nation would become well-informed. Public opinion and participation is important in all issues, as a basic principle of socio-cybernetics feedback and control systems. When a referendum fails to receive at least a two-thirds majority, the issue would have to be taken off the legislative agenda.
The foregoing governing principles would assure peaceful participation of the whole population in all levels of governances. This includes the participation of representatives of political parties, special interest, professional experts, legislative assemblies, Citizens Forums, and the public in self-governance. In this manner, direct democracy would protect the 'fundamental and basic needs and primary interests' of the people as far as possible and lay the foundations of a peaceful society.
The Presidency
The Presidency proposed is to be headed by the 'President' and two 'Vice-presidents', each one having equal voting power. The President should be the chief guardian of the 'Constitution', the laws, and the supreme commander of 'Law enforcement and Defense Forces'. The President however, should have no personal power beyond the authority given to him by the Constitution. Presidential decisions should be approved by the Vice-presidents with unanimous vote. The President should be the chief executive of the state and the head of the 'Executive Branch' of the government. The Presidency of self-governance should be the protector of the people and the supporter of the hopes and aspirations of the people to improve their lot.
It is advantageous to a country to be formally represented by its President. Contemporary democracies are heads of states. Direct democracy should also have a highly respected moral office, one that the people can trust as being the highest guardian of Constitutional rights, and one that executes the laws and manages the daily affairs of society. For these reasons, in addition to the information gathering, learning, selecting, legislative functions and divisions, governance should have one more level: The Presidency, headed by the President.
To insure these criteria, three highly respected, knowledgeable persons, being known for their high integrity, should be elected to be President and two Vice-presidents should be elected by similar method. They should not be aligned with any political, or other organized special interest group. The President and Vice-presidents should be well respected, true leaders, with prior credits and high public esteem. They should stand for nothing else, but for the common needs and interests of the people.
The fulfillment of such high expectations and their rational explanation of the need for such elevated positions is not an easy task. 'Group analysis of society' and historical evidence demonstrate that since tribal days, social groups, communities, and nation-states had always been headed by some leader and their leaderships. Good leaders symbolize the togetherness of the community. People should feel and be truly protected by belonging to their 'own' country. In the past and at present, in spite of having been misled and coerced by force, the people always followed their leaders.
Self-governance of the citizens needs a truly good leader and leadership. These considerations lead to the conclusion to establish three highly respected presidential positions, headed by the President, and aided by two equally honorable Vice-presidents. Again, these goals are hard to accomplish, but relying on the previous principles and system design could produce a Presidency with highly respected leaders. The Senate will call for a national election for the members of the presidency, not more than eight weeks before the date of elections. This is a relatively short period, but it allows sufficient time for the purpose. This time slot is in sharp contrast with the seemingly never ending electioneering today.
The presidential nominees would be requested to attend a formal informational publicity event, organized by the Senate. Delegates of the media could ask questions that each nominee would answer. In this manner, the public would become acquainted with the achievements and personal views of the nominees and their background. A nation-wide publication of questions and answers would be made during and after this event.
The public should be given one or two weeks to study and discuss the background and answers of the nominees, before the elections would be held. Naturally, the media would be free to complement and enhance the depth of public knowledge, in a factual and ethical manner. This system of presidential election would provide sufficient, factual information about the proper candidates, replacing today's years-long electioneering, distortions, lies, and accusations. The election should be held by secret ballot. Citizen's Forums
Citizen's Forums (Forums), in the top section of Figure 1, illustrates a widely distributed system that allows full participation of all members of society in self-governance. The people can directly influence social conditions through local Forums. The number of Forums depends on the size of the population in small towns and in small districts of cities throughout the country. Its officers should preferably be drawn by lot, in sufficient numbers, to represent public views on important issues. They could also be selected by secret ballots, without nominations, propaganda, or running for office. Lot is preferred because it is hard to prevent undue influences in elections by ballots, even when its forbidden by law(21).
Forums are the first divisions of national self-governance. Their main functions are:
The Forums would be in direct contact with the public, receive proposals and criticism, and attempt to resolve local issues. Complaints against the 'Local Administration' would be investigated and, when warranted, remedied quickly and efficiently. They would also keep an eye on the work of the administration in the delivery of municipal services such as: public health clinics, education, roads, transportation, traffic, police, fire, ambulance services, and the like.
Citizens' suggestions, requests, and criticism would have to be handled formally, in a brief written submission, followed by a hearing when warranted. Legislative concerns that the Forum cannot resolve would be sent to the Parliament. Cases requiring legal settlement would be referred to the courts.
Municipal policies would be provided by the Central Forums, similarly to town and city councils. They should not have political representatives. Citizen delegates of the Local Forums would form the Central Forum. They would review and approve local plans and yearly budgets, and determine the level of local taxes and the magnitude of local expenditures. Monitoring and feedback requirements would be extensive and continuous through the Forums and communications facilities as required by socio-cybernetics system design.
Policy making decisions of the local Forums would have to be in full conformity with the Constitution and national policies. The purpose of this principle is very important for the elimination of present injustices, different standards, regional disparities, competition, and conflicts.
The Administrative Branch
An important principle for a true democracy is that the Constitution applies everywhere in a country. It also mandates that laws, regulations, and policies be the same throughout the nation. This is not the case in temporary democracies. There are many regional differences because various jurisdictions create different laws and policies. Living standards are also different in different regions. And justice is served according to local jurisdictions. Sound system design mandates the application of just principles, laws, rules and regulations throughout a country.
Cooperative coexistence could only be established if regional injustices are eliminated. The historical roots of injustices are due to negative 'tertiary drives' , reinforced by 'grouping imperatives' that lead to regional political and economical divisions in countries. Canada has ten provinces and two territorial jurisdictions, thousands of legislators, and hundreds of thousand civil employees. They are housed in ten legislative buildings and thousands of offices. All twelve jurisdictions have different policies and laws, enormous differences in living standards, different educational requirements, language laws, delivery of health and educational services. A similar situation exists in the USA, except to a greater extent in fifty-two states of the Union. Other democracies suffer from the same injustices. These are negative consequences of the political system. For the sake of cooperative coexistence, self-governance will eliminate these disparities, will create justice, and make uniform laws.
The 'Executive Branch' will implement the same laws and policies of the citizens' legislative uniformly throughout the nation. National policies will be carried out through 'Local Administrations' in every town and city. The same 'basic' services and identical justice will be maintained throughout the entire nation. Educational standards and facilities, health and social services, minimum wages, and employment opportunities should be identical. The cost of administration will also be reduced significantly. The public won't have to maintain regional legislative buildings, support local political elite or carry enormous duplicate administrations. Thus, self-governance will be able to create cooperative conditions, in place of adversarial, unjust, and costly political jurisdictions. Conflicts of interest will remain between competing businesses and between special interest groups. However, they cannot delegate representatives politicians into the governances to lend them support. Business competition will be strictly a private matter. Concerns of other organized groups, such as race, gender, and religion related matters, will have to be settled through non-confrontational means. They can also influence governances through the Forums and Parliament as well as the Administrative Branch through the 'Public Access communication system'.
Conflict Resolution
In a peaceful society, the Law would not allow any person or organization to adversely effect the 'fundamental' and 'basic needs' and 'primary interests' of the people. The resolution of inherent conflicts that exist between various special interest groups must be settled peacefully by rational methods. Laws will not permit or tolerate the violation of the rights and freedoms of others and will not allow unethical practices in any field of endeavor. Laws won't allow the promotion of prejudice, hate, and intolerance against the primary needs and interests others. Organized mass rallies to promote special interests, will be echoes of the past. They can be held, for example, in rented arenas and fields.
The new system, as described, will provide ample opportunities to influence self-governance in a peaceful and educational manner by anyone or any group. Special interest organizations will be able to make their views known in a rational manner. Besides the ample opportunities described they can also influence self-governance through the media in an ethical manner. No subtle or open expression of hatred, propaganda, or violence would be allowed against races, religions, sexual orientation, and similar issues would be allowed. These have been fighting political methods in which the politically stronger powers prevailed. Mass demonstrations and violence are on the increase in the most advanced democracies. Surely there have to be better methods to settle conflicting interests than uncivilized, arbitrary, and violent methods. The entire political culture is based upon limitless competition for economic and political advantages. These are liberal interpretation of liberties, rights, and freedoms in which power prevails. But the system may self-defeat itself in the long run unless moderation wins.
In democracies, efforts of direct democracy movements could lead to orderly gradual transformations, improving societal conditions, and to reducing conflicts. Organized political and other representations would not be unlawful. As discussed earlier, the grouping imperative is a strong force that pulls like interests together. Therefore, they could not be eliminated or wished away or legislated out of existence. Instead, political party and other organized group conflicts would have to be resolved through civilized methods for the peaceful settlements of opposing interests.
In direct democracy, no one would have to fight for equal rights. Basic human rights would be strongly protected. Thus labor unions, race, gender, religious rights protecting organizations, environmentalists, and other special interest groups, would not have to fight for equal rights. The rights of all citizens would be equally well-protected. Thus, no one would have to use autocratic methods, nor should be allowed to turn to violence for special privileges. In today's totally interdependent society, a truly democratic governance must assure civilized interactions and competition in place of aggressive methods and intolerant views. In the future, neither public or private institutions and services or facilities, nor the streets should be taken over by a group or groups, to force their views and their will on the whole of society, or to prevent other people from exercising their rights and freedoms.
As in Olympic sports, the same rules of the games would apply equally for every citizen or group. Impartial laws and institutions would insure fairness. Consequently, the best persons and teams would emerge as winners. Civilized economic competition should also be characterized by excellence, not by biased and corrupt political methods, neither by the power of capital nor the power of the street, and certainly not by violence. Direct democracy of the people would establish equally just methods to peacefully resolve conflicts between groups.
Just laws and these measures would greatly reduce societal conflicts. The incorrigibly aggressive minority of society, those who violate the laws would face harsh punishments. The purpose of the civil Forums is to prevent the impositions of such punitive measures, and to settle conflicts in a fair and civilized manner, acceptable to all parties involved. The primary duty of the entire self-governing system is the protection of the cardinal interests of the whole population, thus the creation of cooperative, peaceful, conditions..
The role of the Judiciary would remain in force regarding civil and criminal laws, but with greatly improved efficiency, uniformity, and speed. Application of the tools of modern computer science and communications technologies would be extensively applied in aiding governances, including judicial processes. The delivery of justice would be nationally uniform and vastly improved. Today, equality under the law is only a written right. The new laws would have to protect the rights of people regardless of their financial resources both in civil and criminal cases.
The principle of providing equality under the laws is an important issue for direct democracy. The aim is to eliminate judicial injustices that favors the wealthy against poor and defenseless people. The political State supports its cases against those accused of criminal acts with all its power; police, investigators, criminologists, forensic scientists, medical experts, and a number of skilled prosecutors and attorneys. The poor accused does not have equal resources to defend himself or herself, and therefore does not have an equal chance for justice. In such cases, the innocent could be found guilty by the court even when a State appointed (and usually poorly paid) lawyer is provided free of charge for the defendant. In a reversed situation, a wealthy accused can hire more skillful helpers than the State. In that case, the guilty could be found innocent by the court and escape penalty.
Today, jury selections are not based upon truly random selections from qualified citizens either, but are manipulated by attorneys. A good judiciary system delivering justice must be based upon facts, and it must be free of legal manipulators, who either unknowingly or knowingly distort the truth. Another concern today is that in some cases, the guilty has more protection than the victims of crimes. For instance, abused children and women. The new non-political system of delivering justice would be based upon new improved principles. The main principle is to deliver equal justice for all, not just on paper, but in reality, regardless of the status or economic power of the accused or the accuser.
Selections of Lawmakers
Political elections as discussed, are not truly democratic. They are biased political events, promoting representatives of special interests into the seats of power. Professor Theodor Becker, a progressive political scientist, characterized elections as political 'entertainment'(22). Citizens are misinformed and made to believe that the elected minority protects public interests. In fact, the people are misled by propaganda, unable to make intelligent, informed choices. Direct democracy would replace apparent political voting choices with unbiased non-promotional selections of citizen legislators.
Several scientific methods can be considered that may be suitable for this purpose. Statistical or consensus-based methods should replace the influence of money, political power, propaganda, and lies. Utilization of modern communication media could assure direct participation of the people in selecting fellow citizens into legislative assemblies, holding national referendums and voting.
A few major principles and methods should guide the selection of citizens:
Random selection would insure that the common interests of the people is represented by the delegates. Why? Simply because vital interests of the people are common, and people having special interest and become randomly drawn members of the legislative will be a small minority. Consequently, they could not alter the will of the community. Ordinary people are continuously exposed to societal influences that surround undeserving individuals with fame or high esteem. Random selections is preferred, especially, at the first level, because it would nullify undesirable prejudices and influences in such small communities.
Leaders, and executives of economical, political, religious, and other special interest groups, and former lobbyists and career politicians, members of political 'think tanks' should not be excluded in random selections. However, in direct democracy they would be a minority in the legislative, and, in addition, they could not voice their opinion and influence voting. They would listen and learn like other citizen legislators, then vote in silence. Because of their relatively small number with respect to the total number of the population, their votes could not alter common interests. The selected citizens would be true legislators "for the people".
Transformations Into Direct Democracy
It is not easy to change political democracy into direct democracy of the people. Good system design principles and methods are essential pre-conditions, but their implementation requires a dedicated group of people. These individuals must be true democrats with high integrity. They should not aspire to gain power or special advantages. These pioneers should be moved by the urgent necessity to change the political system into self-governances of citizens.
To be successful, the right answers must be found for the following questions:
In answering the questions in order, the seeds of SMP have already germinated in many countries. Theories and models of improvements for establishing 'Direct Democracy' (DD) of the citizens already exist. Pioneering individuals and organizations held 'The First International Congress on Direct Democracy' in August 1998, in the Czech Republic. The next 'Continuing Congress' will be held in Greece, in year 2000(23). Several individuals and independent groups continue refining the foregoing theory to reach this goal.
Several real DD organizations exist, worldwide, with excellent leaders, dedicated to make progress, using peaceful methods, toward radical improvements. Other DD organizations, may be called 'middle of the road' movements. They also educate, start citizen's 'initiatives' and collect signatures for 'referendums' aimed at improving some adversity of present representative systems. An excellent summation of these movements and individuals is written by Dr. Jiri Polak, the Editor of WORLDWIDE DIRECT DEMOCRACY NEWSLETTER.(24)
In addition to written publications, many DD organizations use the Internet and other electronic means of communication, making their lofty-spirited goals known. These efforts must be magnified to be successful. Thus the question 'how to broaden these movements and getting support from existing organizations to achieve common goals?', must also be answered. To be more effective, all presently separate efforts should be coordinated.
Another important requirement is the dissemination of the advanced ideas of true democracy. Various means are available to educate people to see the great advantages of self-governance. People will see that the present, adversarial, econo-political system is not merely illogical and unjust, but it also threatens long-term sustenance of human civilization. Surveys already indicate that all citizens would vote for a system that assures food, housing, decent livelihood, good health-care and education, peace and law and order, in any country. These are 'the 'Fundamental' and 'Basic' needs and interests of the people'. This shows that the confrontational political democracies can be transformed into cooperative direct democracies. Thus education, on a broad front, is an urgent necessity.
Activism is another vital part of the undertakings. The creation of governances that would act in the common interest of humanity is universally acceptable. Multitudes of good, ethical people belong to organizations attempting to improve things adversely affecting everyone's life. A few illustrations show such common causes. Ethical governances, clean air, water, and sustenance of the natural environment, unbridled exploitation of non-renewable resources, rapidly increasing population, impartial justice system, the protection of children and women, ending racial, religious, and similar discriminations, improving human health and education, are such common needs and interests. The effectiveness of these independent efforts could be more successful if they were coordinated. In each country, it is important to approach good organizations to work in harmony with the forerunners of DD standing for self-governances of citizens. Joint and coordinated efforts would speed up systemic implementation of ethical concerns and the common interests of all. Activism and education should make it known that the SMP party stands for these common goals and thus gain supporters. This can only be undertaken by true pioneers, men and women of high integrity, true democrats, dedicated to establishing a strong movement for the common cause. Some ideas are already being disseminated through the media and are becoming known. For instance, participants of 'The First International Congress on Direct Democracy'(25) voted for the following resolution as a preamble to the statement of principles: "We (to be named) believe that all citizens have the right to directly perform all lawmaking and governmental functions in which they live. Therefore, we seek to develop and promote participatory processes which will allow people to exercise their right to manage their own government." The organization was not yet formalized and named, but meetings will be 'continuing' with 'The Second Congress' in Greece(26). The major participants continue working together, sharing ideas, and coordinating their local DD movements. They have Internet and direct connections and continue to extend and to link their WEB sites, with the other worldwide participants.
The last concern is that Leaders, in the seats of power could became corrupted. In the past, most revolutionary ideals were abandoned by leaders who used those as vehicles to get into the seats of political power. The previous principles and socio-cybernetics methods prevents corruption as far as practicable. This could also be further prevented with DD movements and future SMP parties, as far as possible.
The questions must be answered: how can it be assured that leaders of Direct democracy movements and national Social Morality Parties will not be corrupted? How to prevent the betrayal of the trust?
First of all, goals to be achieved and the principles adapted must be in the form of a binding 'Agreement', with a 'Preamble' as above. In each country, the leaders of DD movements should be bound by a contractual agreement to faithfully carry out their duties. These founding documents must be approved by the membership. Similar rules would apply for members of the 'Worldwide Direct Democracy Movements' (WDDM). Violation of the 'Agreement' would be considered to be a 'Breach of Contract' according to the laws of each country. Regardless of legal consequences, corrupted leaders would be expelled by the membership. Hopefully, these measures will never have to be taken by any DD organization. The non-conformists are working for radical improvements. They are honorable, trustworthy, true democrats, concerned about the present and about future of humanity. They are dedicated and rational individuals having high integrity. Several of them are sponsoring organizational expenses selflessly from their private means. Nevertheless, these safety measures would apply to all members, in order to provide strong protection against betrayal of trust, under the laws.
Politicians are not likely to give up their seats and positions voluntarily. In spite of this, 'middle of the road DD movements' will make small peaceful changes in democratic countries. Regardless of small improvements, the threat of war and the use of devastating means of destruction remain as long as the era of politics continues. DD leaders and organizations aiming for substantial improvements realize this threat and attempt to prevent it. These vanguard movements are advancing full participation of citizens in forming their own governances. Organizations advocating small improvements, such as citizen's 'referendums' and 'initiatives', are also calling themselves 'direct democracies' or use misleadingly similar names. They want to preserve the representative system(27). The Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement should gain the active support of the 'middle of the road' democrats, who not yet recognized the futility of working within the political system.
If they cannot get their support, they should not be associated with them. True democrats pioneering radical transformations should distinguish themselves and their organizations distinctly as working for self-governances of the people.
Real transformation into direct democracy requires replacing representative political democracy with non-political self-governances of the people. The vanguards of these changes are motivated by positive and unselfish drives. They are dedicated pioneers, without political ambitions and status. The power of their rational arguments, and high integrity and moral standards are aiming to achieve 'true justice for all'. They are also aiming for the preservation of the future. Consequently, they will gain overwhelming support of the people. Many civil rights and nature protecting groups, philanthropists, churches, humanitarian organizations, environmentalist, progressive foundations, and individuals will support the movement for true Democracy. When the people are convinced of the ethical and life-saving intentions of DD movements, they will vote for the Social Morality Party. Most private entrepreneurs and businesses are producing useful goods and services. They can also be convinced that direct democracy is in favor of ethical market-competition, and it wants positive, rational growth instead of destructive progress. Rationally thinking private enterprises will not oppose, but support such transformation. Those entrepreneurs who are relying upon their own skills to prosper, not lobbyists and political support, will help to preserve the future of civilization. There may even be a few truly democratic politicians, statesmen and stateswomen who will not oppose the citizens to make decisions about their own society and may even help them to succeed.
When a national DD movement has broad support it should use the political elections and compete with the traditional political parties. The 'Constitution of the Social Morality Party' should have similar legally binding safeguards as it was described earlier, to prevent betrayal of principles. The SMP should have a single term only. Its Constitution and its 'binding contract' guarding its ethical standards and goals, should show to the electorate that during Party's single term it would implement the preconditions to radical transformation. Before its mandate expires, the SMP would initiate the selection of citizens by lot for governances. Its members would officially 'Facilitate' sequestered meetings and secret balloting to reduce the number of candidates to an appropriate number for the 'Legislative'. After that it will hand over legislative governances to the citizens.
With good preparation, the SMP would have the support of all peace-loving, humanistic groups, including churches, religious groups, all racial, ethnic, gender, environmental, and other human rights protecting groups. The goals and the temporary role of the Party should be made absolutely clear to the voters, that its candidates are not position-hungry and careerist politicians, but ethical and dedicated founders of the self-governances of citizens. The new governing methods should begin improving the general welfare of all citizens.
Long before the election, the noble ideas of the SMP should be made well-known. People in all segments of life should understand clearly that the proposed changes are rational and if they succeed, the new just system will secure long term survival and a better future for the citizens. During the election campaign, Party members, DD movements and supporters would have to support their nominees with the same intensity as political parties do. Regardless of how distasteful and unethical the current electioneering practices are, the uplifting goals of the new Social Morality Party would have to be soundly advocated, in the most sincere and convincing manner, under the given circumstances.
To be effective under such conditions, the Party should be well-financed. It should have a permanent leadership structure and work hard to achieve its goals, like a well-organized large corporation. Membership fees, money from DD publications, and donations obtained by activism should secure these finances. DD organizations should be solidly behind the SMP. The Party's membership would select candidates by secret ballot to run in the elections, without nominations and electioneering. The Party should finance the election campaign. It cannot be expected that the candidates and full-time activists and officers of the Party could work without a decent salary. Of course, volunteers would not draw salaries. The same would apply to Direct Democracy organizations, whose activities of be continued as any other special interest group would operate.
Once a Party gains a governing majority, it should adopt the necessary changes to the existing Constitutional or create a new Constitution. This should establish the principles and operating system of self governances of the citizens. The various functions and levels of citizen legislative structures and methods outlined earlier would be voted on and modified if the majority found it necessary. Constitutional changes should include the selection of lawmakers by lot or by the impartial method.
By the time the Party's mandate expired, the new Constitution should be in effect. The new laws would end the old discredited system of elections and replace it with a new, impartial, non-political method of selecting lawmakers by the citizens themselves. After self-governances are in place and begin functioning, the SMP party would be dissolved. Its members would continue within the founding DD groups and they should remain as strong organizations as they had been before the elections. Their delegates should be attending Parliamentary hearings to continue safeguarding public interests. They should submit rational and educational presentations against harmful requests by special interests. DD organizations should counteract negative influences, if any, through the media as well. Media employees having high integrity and social ethics will support DD movements.
Delegates of the DD groups should be officially appointed before the SMP is dissolved to become 'Facilitators' during the long and gradual process of transforming the culture of politics. They should become employees of the 'Executive Branch' to facilitate the selection of citizens, conducting lots, and chair sequestered seminar sessions during pre-selections. When called, DD experts and Facilitators will be regularly requested to advice Legislative Assemblies. In general, DD organizations, and will facilitate the transition of the old system into new citizen's self-governances at all levels. Their roles in Citizen's Forums will be very important as well as establishing and running the citizen's modern communication systems. They should be assigned an impartial role and position in the re-organization of every public department and office to the lowest levels. Civil and civic employees should not lose their jobs as long as they are fulfilling their obligations under the new system.
Presumably, since the new governances would be humane and just, every public servant will endeavor to avoid bureaucratic methods. The principles of the new social morality mandate that appropriate respect and prompt service be given to every citizen. Those rare employees who fail to fulfill their duties will be reported to the 'Local Administrations' and subsequently to the 'Forums' for a hearing and possible discipline or discharge. Those who break the laws should face the courts. The new public offices, employees, and institutions, should serve the people, in conformity with the letter and spirit of the new laws.
Public employees should never act as if they were in a ruling position over the citizens. As a prevention against inappropriate treatment of citizens, every public office should have a computer terminal, a simple template on the screen for complaints and suggestions, with direct link to the Local Administration and Forums. Printed forms and mail boxes should also be available for the same purpose. The foregoing illustrations are far from being complete and exhaustive descriptions of the multitudes of complex undertakings new citizen's governances would have to gradually undertake. The purpose is to give the readers an illustration of the enormous and carefully planned and executed multilateral task that the long transitional period requires. Peaceful social changes are not always possible. For a brief illustration, more than two hundred years ago, wonderful potential conditions were foreseeable in the North American Colony of England. After extensive attempts for peaceful transformation a revolutionary decision was made against the British Monarchy. "The Declaration of Independence" resulted in a 'just' and defensive war for independence. The armed struggle against the British Empire was won by the revolutionaries, now referred to as the 'Founding Fathers of the Union'. These revolutionary pioneers created 'The Constitution of the United States of America', and changed the colony of England into an independent republic.
The forefathers of the American revolution constituted a united political movement, much like members of radical DD movements and their supporters. The spirit of the American revolution represented the aspiration of the people as expressed by the Founding Fathers. These noble principles sought a "more perfect union", "justice", "domestic tranquillity", "general welfare", "happiness", and "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." These ideals were not completely fulfilled, but they were instrumental in the tremendous achievements of the people in the United States of America. The modern industrial era created serious global problems and are now threatening the long-term sustenance of civilization, as clearly indicated by the 'paradoxes of the political culture'. True DD movements are aimed at preventing future disasters. Their goals are to implement the ideals of real democracy similarly to the ideals of the American revolution through peaceful transformations.
The main difference is self-governances of the citizens aiming at the elimination of the negative aspects of the representative system. The people in this century, have witnessed several bloody military takeovers of democratically elected governments and armed revolutions. One of the most significant was the Bolshevik revolution against the Czar of Russia. Recently, they have also witnessed a relatively peaceful reversal of the communist systems including Central European countries. The rule of autocrats, dictators, religious fanatics, vicious tribal leaders, and their cruel wars, are still present in the world. The spectrum of human suffering is wide, and the pain is becoming unbearable in some countries. What will happen in those countries and how radical improvements will take place from country to country are unpredictable. Bloodshed cannot be ruled out.
If common sense would prevail, all of these systems would change peacefully into cooperative, direct democracies.
Citizens in some countries will be able to establish direct democracy. Therefore serious thought must be given to how to preserve peace once direct democracy is established, and have internal adversaries and hostile regimes externally. This concern is similar to ending the rule of autocrats, civil and ethnic wars, and organizers of global terrorism. After successful transformation, the great dilemma is: how to protect direct democracy of the people from its enemies?
Every nation has the right for self-determination and self-defenses. Direct democracies of the people should have the same rights. They must be prepared to use the laws as well as armed forces to protect themselves from enemies. That is the reason for showing 'Law Enforcement and Defense' in Figure 1, shown earlier.
The defenses of self-governances should be strictly internal. Arms should only be used against armed violators of the laws and against enemy attacks. These are new noble roles for the armed forces. In democratic countries, they are subordinated under civilian rule, thus they are bound by their oaths to support the people's governances and the country. The loyalty of military personnel is pledged 'to defend the country against all enemies'. For true soldiers, honor, and service are pledged to the country and its people. True defense of the country means the protection of the lives, the security, and the 'primary needs and interests' of its citizens. Loss of sight of this fundamental duty has tragic consequences. Truly heroic soldiers are defenders of the common good.
In tyrannies however, armed forces can be both political and military masters of governances. Those countries need military leaders like George Washington to help establish direct democracy. From the point of view of social morality, the use of military forces is justified for defense of the people against internal or external armed aggression. Consequently, a considerable task of Direct Democracy organizations is educating armed forces to be prepared to defend self-governances.
Peaceful transformation of representative governance of a country into direct democracy of the people can only be successful with support of military forces true to their oaths. The military must have highly moral leaders who actually sworn loyalty to the people and not to politicians. Tragically, in the past, many good soldiers lost their lives fighting for the wrong cause. Risking one's life for political interests has no honor and glory. Risking one's life in defending 'survival morality', the protection of peaceful citizens, is the highest sacrifice. Such bravery requires high moral strength, integrity, and dignity. Rational military leaders can recognize the threats to human civilization, and thus support peaceful transformations toward direct democracy of the people, for peaceful cooperative coexistence.
Epilogue and the Current State of DD Movements
It is hoped that the ideas presented in this book will be instrumental in the elimination of the inherent ills of political systems, and create improved democracies of the people. If nothing more is achieved than restricting the representatives of special interests to propose laws and the people would vote for them or reject them, that would make a significant improvement. The more extended ends sought and methods introduced were:
This anomaly holds a deadly danger for the future, including the powerful minority that propels the decline. Dominant groups, controlling national and global affairs, are increasing economical and political power struggles. The struggle for dominance is now world-wide, threatening human civilization. The danger lies in the unprecedented variety, destructive power, and growing possessions of means of mass destruction as well as in the increasing ease of their use. These are compelling reasons for radical democratic improvements.
It makes no common sense to maintain this negative momentum. The present culture is uniquely new with unprecedented enormous positive potential for harmonious coexistence. Unfortunately, the anomalies and the extreme threat are not readily recognized by the leaders of competing groups and the public. Some important tasks of activists of the newly emerging direct democratic movements are:
The conflicting tendency of free enterprise is now global. Its danger for the future is either not yet recognized or its existence is denied. It is not easy to find appropriate methods to eliminate conflict from competition, and to transform such complex, trouble-prone interrelationships into more civilized coexistence. A relatively small number of corporate and society's leaders have to be convinced that the changes are inevitable to avoid future catastrophes. This gives some hope that rational considerations will make them cooperate with direct democracy movements and give them support voluntarily, to help make the necessary transformations.
Direct democracy of the people should not be seen as threatening private enterprise. Rational, fair, and ethical competition is sought through the proposed changes, meaning the discontinuation of preferential econo-political representation and support of special interest groups. Self-governances of the people would let private enterprises rely upon their own strengths and excellence. They would assure truly free, positive, enterprises and market conditions, not political patronage. Non-political governances would restore the true spirit and practice of free enterprise; competition without political power and methods.
The goal of good governance should be achieved by careful and rational design and implementation. This is the goal of all true direct democracy movements. 'True' is referring to citizen's governances, not representative political systems. The phrase 'direct democracy' (DD) was coined by pioneers, dedicated to transform 'representative' political democracies into impartial, non-political, self-governances. The socio-cybernetics form of self-regulating social order can also be called 'participatory democracy' of all of the people.(30) Many contemporary groups use the term, DD, or similar names for their organizations. This can be misleading.
Several supporters of DD and other organizations were represented at the 'First International Direct Democracy Congress', held in August 1998, in the Czech Republic.
Jiri Polak, one of the pioneer organizer of the Congress, and editor of the 'Worldwide Direct Democracy NEWSLETTER' writes:(31)
"I believe a distinction should be made between the Moderates or Mainstream and the Radicals. The Moderates say that they operate 'inside the representative system' without questioning - at least not explicitly - the legitimacy of this (actually existing) system. To them, Direct Democracy means, mostly or solely, the citizens' right to take their own initiatives by choosing an issue and gathering signatures in support of the issue in question being put to vote."
Among nation-states, Switzerland has one the most extensive, yet limited system, allowing citizen's 'initiatives', and 'referendums' in a few vital areas. Thousands of signatures must be collected for referendums to gain approval by the political authorities and only after and if it is approved can the public vote for or against them. However, after the activists tirelessly collected the required number of signatures, and pay for the cost travel and expenses, yet referendums can be ignored by the authorities in power.(32) Furthermore, powers behind vast economical and political interests have far greater resources to influence public opinion through misinformation and propaganda. The real solution is to radically improve this undesirable monopoly of a small ruling elite.
Efforts should be made to convince hundreds of DD organizations, all over the world, compromising to fight for referendums and other small improvements. Most of these have WEB sites on the Internet. 'Canadians for Direct Democracy'(33) (CDD-L) is one of those your writer is familiar with. Andree Carell, is a frequent contributor to this discussion group. He is the administrator of Rossland, a small Canadian city in British Columbia (BC), and a strong advocate of the Swiss system. Nick Loenen a former politician, member of the BC parliament, and author of a book 'Citizens and Democracy - A Case for Proportional Representation(PR)', is also a frequent contributor to CDD-L. He does not believe in true citizen's democracy, but a strong advocate of 'proportional representation' (PR).
PR is a minor improvement over the 50% + 1 vote gaining majority in elections. Phil Saxby, another career politician in New Zealand, sent his view to me through CDD-L. He wrote: "I have no sympathy with your efforts to change the nature of representative democracy by decrying what you call political elections." I did not respond to him, but Colin Stark, Vice President and owner of CDD-L's WEB site, responded to Saxby: "Our point is that PR is one of the five major principles of DD and that alone, any form of PR, no matter how perfect, is merely appointing a few more party leaders to the elite who currently ignore the wisdom of the people."
These examples are typical illustrations of misled but well-intentioned democrats. DD movements are infiltrated by hypocrites and carreer politicians, pretending to be democrats, but violently opposing direct democracy. The latter have no intention of changing the status quo, just the opposite. They use DD as a vehicle to stop or slow its success. The true pioneers of self-governances of citizens must make efforts to convince the honest members of these DD groups to adopt or at least support true democracy. They should also expose infiltrators who pretend to be true democrats. During the past decades a number of books were published contributing progressive ideas about the future, and suggesting improvements to democracy. These are listed in the References, including WEB sites on the Internet. One of the most progressive site and network was established and maintained by Professor Theodor Becker, Editor-in-Chief of 'Teledemocracy Action News Network'(34)
(TANN) and his associates. It has many 'live links' to other progressive writers' WEB sites, and DD movements. Other pioneers are Dr. George Kokkas of Athens, who reported on the development of an electronic voting system 'Pericles', and other progressive movements in Greece. He is the host-organizer of the 'Second International Congress on Direct Democracy' in Greece. The participants of the 'First Congress' and all interested democrats are warmly invited to attend. The Second Congress is tentatively scheduled to be held between June 22-25, in year 2000. Detailed information will be in the 'Newsletter' , and in the previously mentioned WEB sites. Mr. Seong, Simon, M. Won is another pioneer of DD movement. He is the Coordinator of the Korean Cyberparty, and has several WEB sites dedicated to DD movements(35) in both Korean and in English. He is also planning to establish a chat room for the WWDD Movement that maybe delayed, due to recent Asian economic problems.
These people and movements are the vanguards of a wonderful new era, when all able-bodied persons could find meaningful work, when every individual and every person would be well-nourished, healthy, and had a decent home. When competition would emulate the Olympic spirit. A new culture, in which true excellence would be admired, well rewarded, and would become the ideal of young generations to strive for. An era of abundance and peaceful coexistence is in the making. An era free of fears, with true justice and freedoms to develop one's talents. A new direct democratic civilization, in which violence and crime would diminish to the minuscule domain of the genetically imprinted few. A new era of impartial, just, governance guided by rational and moral principles is being pioneered. A non-confrontational system, free of the power and dominance of powerful special interest groups.
A new system of free enterprise is to be born, in which useful production and services will function in an ethical manner. Politicians, 'the representatives of and special interest groups' will no longer be making laws, influencing governances from the outside, not from within. The pioneers are working on transformations of representative governances into direct democracies of the people. Improved system of justice that protects the rights of all races, religions, genders, and minorities. The new system will give the outworn phrase 'sustainable environment' a new meaning; human sustenance in harmony with the natural environment. A new culture of general well-being, in which the arts and the sciences would also flourish. A highly educated population, rejecting, cheap, trashy, downgrading, publications and entertainment. A new era of the media, in which the real meaning of free speech is highly regarded. Efforts uplifting the human spirit and living conditions would be held in the highest public esteem. And service to humankind will be the greatest of achievements, rewarded by both tangible and intangible means. The positive potential of direct democracy of the people holds the promise of such unprecedented and enlightened culture.
LITERATURE
Adler: Mortimer J: Ten Philosophical Mistakes. Macmillan Publ. 1985
Aristotle: The Politics. Translated and introduced by Cames Lord, Univ. of Chicago, 1984
Attörés, Az Uj Gondolatok Kialakulása. Ed. A. Gromiko, M. Hellman, Dr. P. Hetényi,stb. The author's Translation of the Hungarian publication: Breakthrough, Soviet and Western Scientist For a World Beyond War. Országos Műszaki Inf. Kzp. Budapest, 1988
Bronowski J.: The Ascent of Man. Futura. Macdonald & Co Pub. 1982
Barrett, H.D. Aiken Ed. Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, 2
Vols. X, Random House, New York, 1962
Brown Lester R. Ed: The State of the World 1991. Worldwatch Inst. N. Y.
Camus Albert: The Rebel. Vintage Books 1954
Confucius, by Raymond Dawson. Oxford Univ. Press, 1981. p. 41
Darwin Charles: The Origin of Species. Mentor Book, New York, 958.
Descartes: The Project of Pure Inquiry. Ed. B. Williams, Pelican 1979.
Dewey John (1859-1952):
Durant W.: The Story of Philosophy. Pocket Books, 1962
Edwards Paul: Editor, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. . Vols.1 to 8.
Pub. Collier Macmillan, 1967, Repr. 1972
Flew Anthony: A Dictionary of Philosophy. Pan Books, 1983. 2nd ed
Macmillan Press, 1984
Friedman Milton: Capitalism and Freedom. U.of Chicago Press,
1982, Chicago, London.
Freud Sigmund: Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Mentor, 12th Pr.
New Amer. Libr. N.Y
Fromm Erich: Escape from Freedom. Avon/Discus, New York, 1965.
Galbraith John Kenneth:
Gardner H.: The Minds New Science. Basic Books Inc. New York,
Gorbacsov Mihail: Atalakitás és Uj Gondolkodás. (Perestroyka)
Kossuth & Pallas, Budapest 1987. Trans. S. Jozsef Nyirő
Groping In The Dark: Ed. D. Meadows, J. Richardson, G Bruckman.
Hungarian Trans.: Sötétben Tapogatózva, by Szabó Judit. Int.
Bródy A. 1986, John Wyley, New York 1982
Gross Martin L.: A Call for Revolution. Ballantine Books N. Y.
In Canada: Random House Nov. 1993
Hassett J: Psychology in Perspective. Harper, Row, New York, 1984.
Havel Vaclav: Living In Truth. Faber & Faber, London, 1990.
Summer Meditations, 1991, Excepts by the Globe and Mail,
June 13,1992. Canada.
Hobbes Thomas: Leviathan. Ed. C.B. Macpherson, Penguin Books
England. First pub.1651. 14th prt. 1984.
Hume David: A Treatise of Human Nature, Book One. Ed. D. Macnabb. Fontana/Collins, G. Brit. 1982. 6th ed.
Books Two and Tree. Ed Pal S. Ardal, Fontana Collins, G.Brit. 1982. First publ.: 1739.
Horace: Satires, Epistles, and Art of Poetry (cc.2000 y. ago). Trans. by Conington. 7th ed. p.12
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Univ.Toronto,
Held at Ryerson Polytich. Inst.
Social Implications of Technology (SSIT), Sustainable Society Conference. Toronto, Canada. June 1991
James William: Pragmatism and American Culture. Ed. by Gail Kennedy
DC Heath & Co. Boston, 1950 Intrd. and 13 articles by: W. James, Dewey, Mumford, Niebuhr, Adler, Hook Selsum, Heath and Co.1950
Essays in Radical Empiricism. and A PluralisticUniverse.
Ed. R.B. Perry, Longmans, Green & Co. 1942
Kant Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. F. Muller, Anchor 1966.
Locke John: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Ed. A.D. Woozley. Fount 1981
Lorenz Konrad: On Aggression. Harcourt, Brace, New York. 1966
Keynes J. M.: The General Theory of employment, Interest and Money, Original ed. London 1936, This ed. Royal Economic Soc.
Erwin Laszlo: Evolution. New Science Lib. Shambala, Boston 1987
The Limits to Growth, by authors of the Club of Rome: D.H. and D.L. Meadows, Jörgen Randers, W. W. Behrens Univers Books,
New York. Eight Prtg. Aug. 1972
Maltz Maxwell, M.D.: Psycho-Cybernetics. Prentice Hall 1960,
Pocket Books, May 1969
Marx and Engels: The Communist Manifesto. Washington Square Pub.
Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster 1964.
Marx Karl: Das Kapital, A Critique of Political Economy.
Ed. F. Engels. Gateway Eds.
Maslow Abraham H: Motivation and Personality. 3rd ed. Harper and
Roe, N.Y. 1987.
Toward a Psychology of Being. Pub. D. Van Nostrand Co.
2nd ed. 1968
Montesquieu: Spirit of the Laws. Trans. T. Nugent, New York, 1949.
Morris D.: The Human Zoo. Bantam Books of Canada, 1970.
Multinational Corporation: Economic, Social, and Scientific
Development. Ed. by R. S Jordan. Oxford U. Press,
New York, Toronto 1972.
Murray Charles: In pursuit of Happiness and Good Government.
Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989
Paine Thomas: Rights of Man. Penguin Books Amer. Libr. 1987.
First Pubd. 1791 in Great Brit.
Plato: The Republic. Penguin Classics, 1983. Ed. D. Lee.
Polanyi Michael: Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical
Philosophy. Academy Lib. Harper Torchbooks. 1964
Pope John Paul II: Speech by Controlled Media Communications
for the Archdiocese of St., Boniface, Winnipeg, Canada, 1984
Popper Karl: The Philosophy of Edited by Paul Schilp,
The Libr. of Living Philosophers, 1974, 2 Vols.
Rorty Richard: University of Chicago Magazine, April, 1994
Russeau Jean Jacques: The Social Contract and Discourses.
Transl. by G.D.H. Cole. Pub. by E. P. Dutton 1958, U.S.A.
Russell B.G. Russell:
Santayana: Reason in Common Sense, N.Y. 1911
Scepticism and Animal Faith VII, VIII
Scruton Roger: A short History of Modern Philosophy.
From Descartes to Wittgenstein, Ark Paperbacks, London, 1985
Sherover Charles M.: The Development of the Democratic Idea
Readings from Pericles to the Present.
Washington Sq Press, New York, 1968
Skinner B. F.: Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Bantam/Vintage Books,
1972. 9th printing
Smith Adam: An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Claredon Press, 1976.
The Wealth of Nations. Penguin, 1982. First ed.1776
Stebbing L. Susan: Modern Introduction to Logic, Sci. Lib.
Stevenson L.: Seven Theories of Human Nature. Oxford U. Pr. 2nd Ed. 1987
Thoreau David: Walden and Civil Disobedience. Penguin 1987.FirstPubd. 849 by Ticknor & Fields, USA.
United Methodist Council of Bishops: In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace. The United Methodist Rptr, May 9, 86
REFERENCES and INTERNET SOURCES * International Congress on Direct Democracy: http://www.messagezone.com/message
* Teledemocracy Action News + Network: http://www.auburn.edu/tann
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST CONGRESS ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY, Czech Republic, August 25-27, 1998:
Becker Theodor Dr., one of the organizers: becketl@mail.auburn.edu
Heami-Hildbrand Sabine: Sabine.hildbrand@droit.unige.ch
http://c2d.unige.ch
Kokkas George L. host of the 2nd Congress on DD: goal@eexi.gr
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/athens.asc
Nemecek Rudolf: zpravodaj@agri.ch
Polak Jiri Dr.: jiri.polak@swipnet.se
http://htm.home3.swipnet/~w-38823
Schmidt Marcus J: Marcus@sb.hhs.dk
Slaton Christa Dr.: slatocd@mail.auburn.edu
Won Muk Seong: simon@cyberparty.or.kr http://thread.cyberparty.or.kr
Elfer Michael: Michael_Elfer@compuserve.com
Carson Lyn: l.carson@econ.usyd.edu.au
Asunmaa Pentti: pentti.asunmaa@kuorevesi.fi
Dittmer Heiko: heiko_dittmer@be.ibm.com
Gravel Mike: mike.gravel@cogroup.com
Keskinen Auli: auli.keskinen@tukkk.fi
Ohlin Tomas: tomas.ohlin@sh.se
Pekkola Juhani: juhani.pekkola@pt2.tempo.mol.fi
Sagi S. George: sage2509@earthlink.net
http://www.pdda.ca/
Smajs Josef: smajs@phil.muni.cz
Takase Juichi: takase@nufs.nakanishi.ac.jp
Thomas Ron: ranthom@aol.com
Waters M. Dane: mdanewaters@iandrinstitute.org
Crosby Ned: jcenter@usinternet.com
Binka Buhuslav, publisher & activist: binkab@hotmail.com
Smaus Gerlinda Dr.: Petersburg 57, 666119 Saarbrucken, Germany
Monteiro Nuno: Rua Antonio Patricio 158-z, 4150 Porto, portugal
Valach Milan Professor: Masaryk University, Pedagogics, Porici 31,
603 00 Brno, Czech Republic
Koci Jaroslav Eng. CSc. Murmanska 9, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
White Stewart Dr. Inst. Of Tech. 7 Futures, Australian Technology Park,
Redfern, P.O. Box 123 Broadway NSW2007
Lenka Kucerova, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Kim Minseok: ms2030@cyberparty.or.kr
Davison Donald: donald@mich.com
http://wwww.mich.com/~donald
Suhr John: EledCity@aol.com
Jeffs B Daniel: conduit@primenet.com
Baurmann Stuart: stub@scrutable.com
http://www.pollite.org
Canadians For direct Democracy: cdd-l@cdd-l.bc.ca
Szasz Gabor Professor: cac@lsi.gdf-ri.hu
Robitaillr Antoine: arobitaille@sympatico.ca
Carel Andre: acarel@wkpowerlink.com
Sebesthen Gyorgy: sebi.gy@nko.bke.hu
Porter Phil: pnp4927@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Nieto Philippe: Philippe_nieto@tisfran1.ti.telecom.de
Kovacs Magdolna, Dr.: kovax@gdf-ri.hu
Botto Jose: jcbotto@protelsa.com.pe
Krausz Tamas: idi@isis.elte.hu
Weiszburg Janos, Dr.: globe@mtesz.hu
Rada Francisco M. Q.: fmiroqra@commercio.com.pe
Arcoragi Jean-Pierre: Global Democratic Council, Canada: http://www.total.net/~arcoragi
Romero Carlos, State Reform Venezuela: 3637878C.12FB@platino.gov.ve
Books and Articles related to democratic improvements.
Clement Bezold: Anticipatory Democracy . Introduction by Alvin Toffler. Vintage Books 1978. From page.329 the book has hundreds of references and addresses. Some noted articles in his book:
John Burnheim: Is Democracy Possible? University California Press, 1989
Hazel Henderson: Creating Alternative Futures. Berkeley Pub. Co. 1978
Paradigms in Progress, Knowledge Systems Inc. 1991
E. F. Schumacher: Good Work. Harper and Row, Colophone edition, 1980
(1) A goal, quoted from the Constitution of The United States of America, that also aims toward "general welfare and happiness"
(2) It was discussed earlier in Section 1.2
(3) As in the Preamble of the Constitution of The United States of America.
(4) Empirical view of given conditions, human conduct, and their consequences (C3). From an unpublished manuscript of the author.
(5) Funk and Wagnalls, V. 9, p153, 1975
(6) The Food-Sharing Behavior of Protohuman Hominids, by Glynn Isaac, Scientific American, Human Ancestors, Freeman Pub. 1979
(7) Leadership, as mentioned earlier, means some special personal ability that influences one's society for better or worst. A leader is defined as 'person whose activity has a significant effect upon a group or groups or a nation or the human society.' The 'definition of leaderships is essentially the same.
(8) Econo-political refers to representation of economical interests in legislation without open political party affiliation and representation
(9) Infrastructure consists of , water pipes, fire hydrants, sewer, gas, electric power and telephone, traffic signals, emergency systems communications, TV, ducts. and cable, pavement, poles, sidewalks, and street lighting, and traffic and street signs, and similar facilities.
(10) Major industries, tobacco and gun manufacturers associations, military factories and suppliers, steel, mining, oil, electronics, textile, clothing, lumber, pulp, paper, food (too many to list).
(11) EXODUS 19, 20 Deuteronomy 5.1-21, The Ten Commandments. Canadian Bible Soc. 1984-40M
(12) Held at Gabor Denes Collegiate, in August 1996, Budapest.
(13) Önkormányzás vagy az elitek uralma. See references in the LITERATURE
(14) Several of these sites and books advocating improvements within the existing political systems are listed at the end of this book
(15) Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and the Arab states, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, South Africa, Ireland, Falcon Islands, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, Angola, Nigeria, Korea, Vietnam, the former republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, and others, serve as examples of the life and death confrontations of ambitious leaders and their political groups.
(16) See References at the end of the book
(17) "The Federalist No. 10" one of a number of papers by the Founding Fathers of the USA
(18) As introduced in the previous section in point 4.
(20) Section 4.2 Improvements of Social System Design
(21) An actual situation illustrating the undesirable consequences of personal drives for leading roles and statuses was described in the section: 'Direct Democracy in a Small Community', including how a local Forum (CA) selected by lot would function.
(22) Editor-in-Chief, Teledemocracy action News + Network, URL: http://www.auburn.edu/tann
(23) See References
(24) Volume 1, (No.0) Assarhusavagen 64, S-24736, S. Sandby, Sweden; e-mail: jiri.polak@swipnet.se
(25) Held in the Czech Republic, between 25th-27th of August, 1998
(26) Scheduled tentatively, in June 22nd-25th June, 2000. See References:1. Dr. George L. Kokkas, 2. Jiri Polak's Editor of the Newsletter of Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement, 3. Professor Theodor Becker's, and 4. Simon Seung-Muk Won, Internet addresses and WEB sites.
(27) Some calling themselves DD or labels themselves so, are discussed in the Epilogue.
(28) Discussed in Part 1
(29) See the recent admissions of the tobacco companies about the deadly dangers of smoking, and continued production of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
(30) The author established a WEB site http://www.pdda.ca/ on the Internet, to promote 'participatory' DD, essentially the same as this thesis outlines.
(31) Quarterly Newsletter,Vol.1. Dec. 98. Can be ordered from: Assarhusavagen 64, S-24736, S. Sandby, Sweden. $10/year
(32) As Dave Brown reported above
(33) http://www.npsnet.com/cdd; e-mail address: cdd-l-request@alternatives.com
(34) http://www.auburn.edu/tann
(35) http://thread.cyberparty.or.kr
Last Modified : Dec/4/99
PDDA Home Page | Mission | Publications | Voting | Links | Discussion Forum
IMPOSITIONS OF LIFE AND SOCIETY
LIFE AS IT COULD BE
like worms,
Dumb speechless creatures, with scarce human forms,
With nails or doubled fists they used to fight
For acorns for sleeping-holes at night;
These principles arose from the 'fundamental' and 'basic impositions' of nature. They protect every person's cardinal needs and also help to secure long-term sustenance of our culture.
These principles of rights, freedoms, and equality, are not protected by the laws of contemporary democracies. In these documents, the noble ideals of political democracies are undefined terms and their spirit, can be, and are, unfulfilled. In some respects they are like the Biblical Commandment "love thy neighbors" which is a magnificent moral demand, but hard to obey - and it is not enforceable. Noble principle should be supplemented with well-defined means to reach desired ends. For long range sustainability of our civilization, constitutions and laws must be specific to assure the general well-being of the people and harmonious coexistence. These are in the primary interest of all members of a society. Love and respect for our fellow human beings must be expressed in factual, codified, norms. Thus the violators of social morality become accountable under the law.
A GROUP THEORY OF SOCIETY
Human ancestors began gathering into cooperating groups for the enhancement of their survival. This biological tendency is seen as a 'grouping imperative' for the protection and enhancement of life. Members within isolated tribes lived in relative peace with one another. Cooperation was common interest for the sake of survival. Tribal leaders emerged spontaneously by merit for mutual benefits. This ancient cooperative coexistence is in stark contrast to present adversarial relationships that typify contemporary civilization. Naturally, the question arises: Why don't we live in peace anymore? Studying the evolution of civilization, the proliferation of self-interests, beginning with cooperative coexistence, illuminates transformation into competing, and confrontational societies.
The fundamentally peaceful nature of human beings is demonstrated far more dominantly through early groupings than in the rare instances of human aggression. Cooperative, peaceful coexistence is still strongly manifested. People live side by side, work in large workplaces, obey the laws, and don't harm one another. However, social coexistence has been gradually eroding. Certain individuals learned to take advantages of their special skills at the expense of others. Today, powerful special interest groups play dominant roles in societal affairs, while the majority of the people live and work in togetherness. The human impositions and the grouping imperative hold modern states and group organizations together. Unfortunately, in the present political era, some group activities are threatening to life, and long-term survival of our civilization. Human evolution also led to the current paradoxical political era in which the largest group formations, nation-states, do not protect the common interests of all. The next chapters will trace the evolutionary shift from the era of peaceful coexistence to the present adversarial culture.
Types of Leaders and Leaderships
GROUP ANALYSIS CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY
Entrepreneurs enjoy a great deal of freedom in market economies, whereas entrepreneurship is either not allowed or strictly limited in dictatorships. Greater economic freedom and more refined control of market economy has been responsible for more rapid development of capitalist countries, compared with the slow growth of domestic economies in communist countries.
THEORIES OF GOOD GOVERNANCES
1. peaceful and cooperative coexistence;
2. long term sustenance of civilization;
3. the 'primary needs and interests' of all members of society;
4. impartial societal justice, rights, and freedom for all of the people;
5. freedom of fruitful and beneficial economic and cultural growth;
6. exclusion of negative economic, social, and political activities harmful to humanity.
Crucial is to answer the question: what type of governances can secure these fundamental principles of morality and impartial laws? How can such improved democracy be achieved?
Why citizen lawmakers? Because the 'primary needs and interests of the people', the public interest of the overwhelming majority, is identical with the concerns of citizen lawmakers. Also, from the point of view of the majority of the people, informed decision making by citizens is impartial, unlike the rule of biased political representatives. Such a truly democratic system would assure the participation of all groups of society in its self-governances, but would not give any one person decision-making or ruling power. The Law would rule. To find the best system control principle and method, from a scientific point of view, a brief review of governing system designs follows.
When politicians will be removed from legislative functions, the new parliaments will no longer be the houses of confrontational power struggles, and can become cooperative forums of all citizens through more refined methods. Citizen legislators will protect the cardinal interests of the entire community, and therefore will not suppress the rights and freedoms special interests, provided they will not harm vital public concerns.
This example shows hardships and injustices caused by nominating candidates who are running for office and political type elections in a small community. The application of socio-cybernetics principles in self-governance and the impartial measures listed above show the practicality and advantages of self-governance by direct democracy of the citizens.
FIGURE 1. A MODEL OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
This system would end vicious debates, confrontations, lies, innuendoes, distortions of the truth, lobbying, bribery, and other immoral practices, so frequent in today's 'representative' political parliaments. These practices would be absent forever from all levels of self-governances. In a direct democracy of the people, citizen representatives would naturally select and vote only for issues that are in their best interests, and vote against harmful proposals and activities.
This arrangement is a continuation of the educational processes through which legislators in the House would become well-informed about the implications of the proposed policies, and thereby could vote intelligently.
The Senate
No undue interference would be permissible before and during elections and referendums. Once the candidates are nominated by the public and passed through the legislative, factual data should only be publishable by the media, without any sponsors, to assure unbiased informational publications. Lies and innuendoes influencing the outcome of any selection or elections processes, including the presidential elections, should be against the law. Historical demands for the 'freedom of the press' should be highly respected by self-governance of the people. But now ongoing vicious and unethical competition of paid employees of contemporary media-barons should not be permissible. The media and others would have no freedom to distort the truth on behalf of political or other special interests.
After two four-hour daily discussions, the participants would read newspapers, books, watch television, or entertain themselves at will, within the confined quarters. The participants would get to know one another through daily discussions and communal living conditions. At the end of two weeks, the facilitator would hold an election. No nominations or discussion would be permitted. Votes would be taken by secret ballots, in ranked order of selection, thereby an appropriately reduced number of citizens would become Parliamentarians.
Peaceful transformations may not be easy, but are achievable in democracies. In recent history, several autocratic regimes were replaced, relatively peacefully, by multi-party political systems. Wherever it is possible to compete with traditional political parties, the formation of an ethical party could be the trailblazer of self-governance. Lets call this the 'Social-Morality Party' (SMP or the Party). After gaining majority, SMP could implement radical democratic improvements by peaceful and cooperative methods. The Party should spearhead real democratic transformations and not to use it to ride into legislative political positions and power.
The frantic and well-organized representation of special interests, regardless of its devastating consequences upon others, has become a dominating tendency. Econo-political group formations give tremendous advantages to a powerful minority, while the reverse is true for the powerless majority. Fundamental inequality(28) cannot be eliminated by any governing system, but in the midst of potential plenty, the deprivation of people and fierce accumulation of riches make no common sense. Growth for growth's sake, and enrichment beyond the limit of its personal utility is irrational, especially when it even deprives others of their livelihoods.
Many gifted people are caught up in the momentum of the pursuits of their own concerns. Others are pursuing the goals of organizations they work for, without becoming aware of the long-term negative consequences of their activities. Even those who are aware of the negative aspects of their organization's activity, dare not do anything about it, in fear of losing their livelihood. The leaderships of powerful economic interests, even when they recognize the organization's socially and morally harmful activities(29), cannot stop continuing them because of profit making. This is the nature and sole purpose of contemporary practices of free enterprise. Production and profit must grow continuously, corporations ethically or not, but must compete, therefore they ultimately confront competition.
Not attended at the First Congress but they are supporting the improvement of democracy and may join the movement.
(*)
The preamble of the 'Congress' and more information is published in a quarterly Newsletter and available through the Internet. See the References. My WEB page has links to other Internet sites: http://www.pdda.ca/
have live links to more information, and will have the Preamble, and the exact details of the Greek Congress on DD.