Politics Without Politicians
Introduction
All over the world today most
people mistrust most politicians.
Political scandals, conspiracies
and corruption occur daily in every
country and in every political party, hence most politicians are
mistrusted
even by their supporters. Many believe that politics necessarily breeds
corruption (there’s a well-known saying, “All power
corrupts”). No wonder many
people mistrust not only politicians but politics itself.
Many refuse to vote. They no
longer believe elections can make a significant change.
Non-voting for representatives is a
vote of “no confidence” on rule by
representatives.
Often people disgusted by most
Politicians’ duplicity seek trustworthy
politicians. If they find some, those too eventually disappoint them.
No wonder
some believe a dictator should replace parliament. Others, rejecting
dictators
but seeing no alternative, give up and leave politics to politicians.
This
makes matters worse as politicians concerned more with their power than
with
the interests of society are left to run society.
This booklet explains how to run
society by all citizens – not
representatives - voting directly on POLICIES rather than on
politicians. When all citizens
decide all policies politicians are
redundant
as their job is to decide for others. Politicians represent others.
Authority
to decide for others is “Power”, and it is this
Power - not politics – that breeds corruption. Abolishing authority to
rperesent others wil abolish
corruption. When no
one has the right to decide for
others, politics will be purged of hipocricy, duplicity, and
conspiracies. When
all citizens decide all policies themselves
we have a new political system called Direct
Democracy (DD). In
such a system no
one decides for others, no one is paid for deciding policy, so costs of
running
society are greatly reduced, yet citizens’ concern for their
society rises.
No political system can cure all
political problems. Belief in such a cure is a dangerous delusion. There is no such cure. Abolishing power
will solve many political problems but not all of them. When every
citizen can
propose, debate and vote on every policy no one has authority to decide
for
others so politicians’ power is abolished.
Political power works like a drug. Those who get it - in
any State, Church,
municipality, school, or family - become addicted to it. They should be
treated
like addicts who do anything to get their drug.
Many politicians crave power for
its own sake, but even the few who use
it to improve society will do anything to hold on to it.
DD abolishes political power by
forbidding anyone to decide for others.
In
DIRECT Democracy
no one decides for others. Every
citizen can decides directly every policy. Every
citizen has only one vote on every policy
and
represents him/herself only.
If a policy produces undesirable
results, those who voted for it are
responsible.
To prevent
recurrence of bad results voters must discover what made them vote for
a bad
decision and reconsider their motives. This enables people to search
for causes
of political
problems within themselves
- not outside them - to find and overcome them.
Direct Democracy can be summed up
thus: Every
citizen has, every moment, authority
to
propose, debate, and vote for, every policy. This
abolishes
the political power of representatives, their authority to decide
policy for
others. In DIRECT democracy no one decides
any
policy for others Every
citizen
has the right to propose, debate, and vote on every policy. Whether
citizens use this right - or not - is up to them.
[up]
ContentsIntroductionPolitics Decisions are
not conclusions. Priorities Politicians Society
The State Democracy Freedom Principle of Political Equality (PPE) Political Parties Direct
Democracy DD at the
place of Work DD in Education DD in the Family Basic Rules of DD How does DD Work? Problems of DD Replies to critics Promoting DD
[up]
1 .Politics
The terms
‘Politics’, ‘Politicians’,
‘Policy’, ‘Police’ all
originate
from POLIS, the title of city-states in ancient Greece. Each such city
created
its own laws, courts, money, army and foreign policy. There were
different
Poleis, each with its own special system for running the city, for
making its
laws, its policy, and its army. Some
cities were named after their founders:
the Emperor Constantine founded Constantino-polis.
Adriano-polis was named after Adrian.
Akropolis is the ‘high city’, the
hilly part
of ancient Athens.
What a Polis inten ds to do is
called ‘Polis-y’. “Politics”
was the
activity of deciding what the Polis should
do. Those
who decide policy are called “Politicians”.
People appointed to enforce the
laws of the Polis are called ‘Police’.
Nowadays we can replace the term
‘Polis’ by the
term ‘Society’, and "Politics" is the activity of
deciding what an
entire society should do.
In some Poleis dictators decided
what the Polis shold do, in others - the
elders or land owners.
In Athens all free men (but not
women and slaves) decided all policies.
This was known as ‘Demos-kratia’ because the
“Demos” (the entire community) had
"Kratos", namely – authority to decide what the Polis should
do..
What people call
“Democracy” today is a system where representatives
of
citizens - not all citizens themselves - decide all policies. This is
Rule by
Representatives (RR) not democracy.
Calling such a system “Democracy” is
false and misleading.
In Democracy all citizens decide
all policies, and no one decides for
others.
Politics means deciding what an
entire society should do. This is done
today by a few politicians. Everywhere today only a few Representatives
of
citizens - not the citizens themselves - decide all policies.
People accept policy-making by
representatives because they do not yet
see how all citizens can do so themselves.
This seems impossible. Finding out what millions of
citizens want looked
too complicated until recently.
Today
it can be done by electronic means.
In Direct Democracy every citizen
can propose, discuss and vote on every
policy.
Is this technically possible today?
Yes.
Is this desirable?
To some -
No. To
others - Yes;
To do politics is to decide policy.
What does “to decide” mean?
In politics there are two types of
decisions:
1.
What should society do?
(decisions of policy)
2.
How
should society do it? (decisions
how to
carry out a policy).
The next chapter discusses the
first type. A later
chapter discusses the second
type.
[up] 2.
Decisions are
not conclusions.
Many people confuse decisions with
conclusions.
Decisions are not
conclusions.
To decide
is to PREFER.
To draw
a conclusion is to
DIAGNOSE.
A decision is a preferance, a conclusion is a
diagnosis.
There are four differences between
a ‘decision’
and a ‘conclusion’.
1. To ‘decide’
is to choose
one option from a number of options. If only one option exists we
cannot choose
and there is nothing to decide.
To
choose is to prefer.
Preference is determined by a
priority.
So every decision is determined by a priority.
To "reach a onclusion" is utterly
different. Only one
right conclusion exists and we
cannot choose it according to our priorities. We must deduce it from
the data
by using logical reasoning and technical knowledge.
Data, reasoning and knowledge - not
priorities - determine a single right conclusion.
We must accept it even if we prefer a
different one.
2. A conclusion can be
‘right’ or ‘wrong’, (2+2=5),
but not ‘Good’ or
‘Bad’. There
are no bad conclusions,
only wrong ones. A
decision can be
‘Good’ or ‘Bad’, but not
‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
There
are no wrong decisions,
only bad ones..
3. Those making
a decision are
responsible for its outcome as they could decide differently - by a
different
priority - and get a different outcome. Those who draw a conclusion are
not
responsible for its results. They
could
not draw a different conclusion that is right.
They are
responsible only for the
conclusion being right, not
for its
results.
4. Data determines conclusions, it
does not determine decisions. The same
data forces different people to draw the same conclusion, but they can
make
different decisions on it because of
their different priorities.
To clarify further the difference
between a decision and a conclusion,
let us compare Hamlet wondering “To
be or
not to be?” with a doctor pondering “To
amputate or not to amputate? ” Hamlet has two
options and must decide which
to choose. Knowledge
and logic cannot
help him, as they do not determine what is ‘Good’
for him. On the other hand, a
doctor must solve his dilemma by medical knowledge and logical
reasoning
leading to the right medical conclusion.
If this has ‘Bad’ consequences the
doctor is not to blame.
A doctor is responsible only for
his conclusion being right.
Imagine a patient
suffering from a tumour in the leg. Analyzing test-results the doctor
concludes
that the patient has cancer and says:
“Amputation can enable you to live
longer; without it, you’ll die soon.”
By applying logical reasoning to medical data a doctor
draws a single
medical conclusion (‘diagnosis’). If the conclusion
is wrong it is due to
faulty data or reasoning but not due to the doctor’s priority. Medical data determines a
doctor’s
conclusion, but not the patient’s response to this
conclusion. The patient -
not the doctor - decides how to
respond to the doctor’s conclusion. The same conclusion
can lead different patients to make different decisions
due to different priorities. Some decide to die rather
than live as disabled, others decide to live as disabled rather than
die. Which
decision is “Good”?
Can the same
conclusion lead to contradictory decisions, both
“Good”
?
Can
two decisions that contradict each other both be
‘good’?
Surprising as it may seem the
answer is - Yes.
The reason is simple:
different patients have different priorities, some prefer disability to
death,
while others prefer death to disability.
Both decisions are ‘good’ in the eyes
of those who made them, as they
are determined by different priorities, not by facts, knowledge or
reason. Different
people have different priorities,
and there is no absolute priority enabling us to grade all priorities.
How does all this relate to
politics?
Are politics decisions or
conclusions?
Do politicians
‘decide’ or ‘conclude’ policy?
In politics people vote. Voting is
choosing. To choose is to prefer. We decide what
to prefer.
Anyone deciding policy - King,
Dictator, President, Prime Minister, Leader,
or ordinary citizen - chooses one option from a number of
options. We cannot choose a
conclusion. Answering “What to do”?
is always a
decision, never a
conclusion.
Decisions are determined by
priorities, not by data, knowledge or
reasoning. The same facts, knowledge, and logic, can lead to different
decisions due to different priorities.
Politics is decisions, not
conclusions.
We decide
political issues. We
don’t conclude
them.
Those who make a decision are
responsible for its results as they could
make a different decision (motivated by a different priority) and get
different
results.
Politicians whose decisions produce
undesirable results ussualy try to
evade their responsibility for such results by saying “I
had no choice” pretending their decisions were
conclusions. But
they voted. Voting
is choosing. One
cannot choose a conclusion.
[up] 3. Priorities
A priority is a
principle that determines preference. Without a priority we cannot
choose.
To
‘decide’ is to
choose one option from a number of options. To choose is to prefer. We
prefer
according to our priority. Priorities determine what we consider as
‘good’ and
for whom it is ‘good’.
Many believe
priorities are ‘natural’ or
‘self-evident’.
Not so. They
are arbitrary
assertions we make as without them we cannot make a decision.
Before World War I in Europe many
believed that ‘good’
means ‘Whatever is good
for King and country.’
In the United
States some believed that
‘What’s good for General
Motors is good for
the United States.’
But is the ‘Good
for General Motors’ also good for the Ford Motor Company? Ford employees may think
otherwise.
Human priorities are created by
people, not by ‘Nature’, not by
‘God’,
not by ‘History’, not by
‘Reality.’
Priorities are not imposed on us from outside, above, or
below. If they
were, there wouldn’t be political problems. Many people
believe ‘Survival’ is
the ultimate priority imposed on us by Nature. Hamlet refutes this. If
survival
were his priority ‘not to be’ cannot be an option,
as he must conclude ‘to be’
and has nothing to decide. But
for
Hamlet ‘not to be’ is an option, so he must decide,
not conclude. For Hamlet -
and many others - survival is not the ultimate priority. There is no
ultimate
priority.
A BBC survey conducted in 2004
showed that 71% of US citizens were ready
‘to die for God.’ They value God more than their
survival. Many value their WAY
of life more than life itself. Many prefer to risk their lives for
Freedom or
Honour rather than to live under oppression, or in shame.
‘Death before
dishonour!’ and ‘Freedom or death!’
motivated millions to fight against
oppression rather than submit to it.
Is submission to Nazi rule
preferable to fighting against Nazism?
Many replied - No.
Human society was not created by
Nature. It is an arbitrary creation of human
beings. By creating society people liberated themselves from total
subordination
to Nature. In Nature behaviour is dominated by biological needs. There
is
nothing ‘good’ in being completly dominated by
biological needs: it abolishes
freedom and reduces priorities to one - survival. Living in society
liberates
us from this enslavement by making the fulfilment of biological needs
easier. Society
frees us to choose
priorities set by us, not by Nature.
Life in society enables us to
choose our own priorities.
All political priorities can be
sorted into just five types by posing the
question:
“I want to do what is
“Good”, but for whom should this be good
”?
The five possible answers
are:
1. Good for me/my family (the
Ego-centric priority)
2. Good for my
King/Country/Nation/tribe
(the
Ethno-centric priority)
3. Good for Humanity (the
Anthropo-centric priority)
4. Good for God
(the
Theo-centric priority)
5. Good for all Nature (the
Bio-centric priority)
At any moment we have a single
priority. We need it as without it we
cannot decide.
We cannot have two priorities at
the same time, as we cannot prefer two
things. We may want two things but if we must choose one of them we
must prefer
by using our priority.
Each priority excludes all other
priorities. ‘Good
for King and Country’ excludes ‘Good
for me’; ‘Deutschland uber Alles’
excludes ‘Rule Britannia’; both exclude
‘Good
for Humanity.’
Many people use one
priority for one purpose and another priority for other purposes but at
any
given moment everyone has only a single priority.
Economic and political conflicts
originate from conflicts of priorities.
Ethno-centrism of one group comes into conflict with ethno-centrism of
other
groups and often leads to war.
Egocentrism of one person comes
into conflict with the egocentrism of all
other persons.
Ego-centrism, the priority
principle of Capitalism, contradicts
Anthropo-centrism, which is the priority principle of Socialism and of
Christianity.
Each priority has sub-priorities,
to decide what does ‘good’ mean. ‘Good
for me’ can mean maximum health, or maximum wealth, or
maximum power, or
maximum happiness, or longevity. Here
too we can have only one sub-priority at any moment.
How do priorities affect Hamlet and
the doctor? They
affect Hamlet but not the doctor.
Hamlet decides according to his
priorities but the doctor concludes by
applying logical reasoning to medical data, not by personal priorities. If Hamlet is religious
then his priority
makes him choose ‘to be’ as all religions forbid
suicide. But if his
priority is ‘good for me’, and if
he prefers death to dishonour, then he’ll decide
‘not to be’. A
doctor cannot choose a medical
conclusion. Conclusions
are not chosen
but imposed by the data and by logic.
What about politics? Is
“Politics” conclusions
or
is it decisions ?
Politicians vote .
One cannot vote for a conclusion,
so politics consists of decisions.
‘Good
for King and country’ was the priority
of most Europeans up to World War I, and millions of Europeans
volunteered to
die for that priority.
Two world wars changed
people’s priorities. Today most people in Europe
and the United States have another priority: Ego-centrism.
‘I do what is good for me’.
In his inaugural speech in 1961
President Kennedy appealed to the
citizens of the USA to change their priority.
He said
:
“Ask
not what your country can
do for YOU. Ask what YOU can do for your
country.”
He asked them to change their
priority from ego-centrism to
ethno-centrism. Very
few did so.
Priorities are programmed into
children by parents, teachers, leaders.
Once implanted, it is very difficult to change them - especially if
this is
done using authoritarian means.
People believe that their own
priority is ‘natural’,
‘self-evident’, ‘the
only sensible choice’. But all priorities are arbitrary. No
priority can be
justified ‘objectively’ as every justification is
itself based on a priority
which requires justification.
Despite Kennedy’s
request, very few Americans changed their ego-centric
priority.
Some Americans decided that
Kennedy’s priorities contradicted their
priorities and assassinated him on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.
This
event - like all wars - demonstrates that conflicts of priorities often
motivate people to kill.
[up] 4. Politicians
In ancient Athens citizens
concerned with the Polis were known as
‘Polites’. The “Polites” proposed
policies. Today ‘politicians’ do not "propose"
a policy but decide policy for all
citizens while the vast majority of citizens cannot do os. This
contradicst "Demos – Kratia".
To vote is to choose. To choose is
to prefer. In elections we decide who
will decide for us what our society should do.
We choose others to express our preference and expect them
to prefer
according to our priorities. They are supposed to serve as a mere
extension of
us.
In reality they impose their own
priorities on us.
Why choose others to prefer on our
behalf? Why
can’t we choose ourselves what we prefer
our society to do ? We
elect
representatives because to find out what millions of citizens prefer
was very
slow and difficult, while policies must often be decided quickly.
The easiest way to decide policies
for a whole society was to authorize
one person to decide for all. Therefore for many years, in most
societies, one
person (Chieftain, King, Emperor) decided what an entire society should
do.
Often, that person’s priority was to make authority to decide
for all into
property of his family. Eventually
people rejected such authority and elected representatives to decide
policies
for them. If one
politician represents
100,000 citizens, 500 politicians represent 50 million citizens. These
500 can
sit in a medium-sized hall to debate (‘parler’ in
Parliament or ‘congregate’ in
Congress) and vote by raising hands. Representatives make many
decisions daily
for those who elected them. This system is still in use as finding out
what
millions of people prefer, explaining to them the options and their
possible
results, setting up voting facilities, counting millions of votes, was
- until
recently - a very long and complicated procedure.
Nowadays all this can be done by
TV, mobile phones, or magnetic cards.
Many believe that politicians apply
the preferences of those who elected
them. Usually they don’t.
Nor do they
possess a special skill for deciding. Every decision is determined by a
priority, not by a skill.
Decision-making is a role, not a skill; everyone makes
decisions daily.
The Athenian philosopher Plato - who opposed Democracy - argued that
decision-making is a skill like that of a ship’s captain who
steers a ship in a
particular direction by using knowledge of ships and navigation. But society is not a ship.
All passengers on
a ship want to reach the same destination, but not all citizens in
society want
the same policy since they have different priorities. Politicians need
some
skills to get Power, like conspiracy (to defeat rivals); flattery (to
get the
support of superiors); and hypocrisy (to win voters) but they need no
special
skill for deciding policy.
Politicians decide policy according
to their personal priority like
everyone else.
The citizens of ancient Athens, who
invented Democracy, declared: “Every
cook can govern.”
We see this is true
when Arnold Schwarzenegger, a muscle man who became an actor, serves as
Governor of California. He can decide for all citizens without any
special
skill or training because all decisions are determined by priorities
not by a
special skill.
Arnold has priorities just like
anyone else. In
1980 Ronald Reagan, another Hollywood
actor, became President of the USA. Did he possess a special skill
required for
being President?
Not at all. No President has a
special skill required for being
President, Acting as President is a role, not a profession. It can
never become
a profession.
Anyone can act as President.
Whether he’ll be good (for whom?) or bad (for
whom?) depends on the
priorities of those who comment on his decisions.
Forecasting the outcome of a policy
does require knowledge and skill,
which are provided by experts who study the various options and their
possible
outcomes. Such experts explain to the President the various options and
their
possible results, but they do not decide which option to choose. The
President
decides. Experts rarely decide policy, but when they do, it is their
priorities, not their expertise, that determines their decision.
A President acts like the jury in a
court of law. Jury members are not
legal experts. They listen to lawyers, to witnesses, and the judge, and
then
decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. When witnesses
contradict each
other, jurors must decide whom to believe. They do so according to
their
preferences, not according to their legal knowledge.
Politicians
decide what society
will do.
The State
carries out these decisions.
This raises two questions:
1.
What is ‘Society’?
and
2.
What is ‘The State’?
[up]
5. Society
Margaret Thatcher,
Britain’s Prime Minister during the 1980s, once said: “There is no such thing as society, there
are only individuals and families.”
She said this to justify her policy of privatization,
arguing that coal
mines, railways, electricity plants, must be run exclusively for
profit, not as
a service to ‘Society’, which is - according to her
- a fiction, not a reality.
At first it seems she is right. We
see no entity called ‘Society’. We see only people.
But if she is right, then one can
also say: “There is no such thing as an
Army, there are only people wearing uniforms.” We know this
is nonsense. An
Army is more than people wearing uniforms. The difference between an
Army and
people wearing military uniforms is not in the way they look but in the
way
they behave. People wearing military uniforms as a fashion do not obey
orders
and do not act together according to a plan. They do not risk their
lives or
kill others, even if ordered to do so. Only
soldiers in an Army do so.
The difference between
“people” and “society” is not
in how they look but
in how they behave. A ‘society’
is
not merely people living next to each other but people behaving
according to
rules accepted by all of them. These
rules - known as ‘laws’ - are made to resolve
conflicts between people, and are
accepted by most people in a society.
Obedience to laws makes
“people” into a ‘society’. Different societies make
different laws, but
only when a group of people accepts the same laws do they become a
society. Not
everyone obeys every law,
but most of the time most people obey most laws.
Some do so out of fear of punishment, but
most people in most societies obey most laws because they know that
without
laws there will be constant strife and living together will be
impossible. A crowd
of people, each obeying their private
laws, as in frontier towns in the ‘Wild West’ of
the United States in the 19th
century, is not a society. It
is merely
a crowd without cohesion. Such
crowds
lack stability and viability. They live in constant strife, lack
communality,
and eventually fall apart. American Indians used to say the
“Wild West” became
‘Wild’ only after the whites arrived. It
became wild because each white immigrant obeyed only his own laws. When people obey
only their private rules
they constantly fight each other and ‘society’ does
not exist.
Before creating societies,
hominoids were just another species of apes
lacking speech and thought. Life in society produced speech and thought
thus
‘humanizing’ primates.
Speech and
thought are not produced by Nature but by Society.
If, as Margaret Thatcher said, Society does
not exist, then speech, language, and thinking, could not exist either.
[up]
6. The
State
As
we have seen, people living together and obeying accepted rules are a
society.
To make the rules
(“Laws”), to enforce them and defend them, people
created special systems. All of them together are - ‘the
State’. The
components of the State are:
1
Parliament - a group to discuss
and decide laws and policies for an entire society.
2. Government - a commitee deciding
how to carry out each policy.
3. Courts,
Police, and Prisons – people
trained and organized to enforce the
Laws;
4. An Army - people organized, and
armed, to attack other societies or
defend their
society from
others.
All these together are “The State”.
The content of the laws depends on
their makers. If one person makes the
Laws they will depend on that person’s priorities. If a group
makes them they
will depend on the group’s priorities.Peoples’
survival depended on society and
society depended on laws accepted by all. In
the past people attributed the creation of
laws to God. The laws were deemed to come from God.
Laws were engraved in stone to be permanent
and visible (n Hebrew ‘to make a
law’
means ‘to engrave in
stone’.) The
Bible story about God giving the Ten
Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai is an example of the belief that
the laws
by which a society lives are made by God..
According to the Bible Moses engraved them on two stone
tablets, but he
recieved them from God.
Mohammed too was convinced that God
dictated the Koran to him.
Actually it is people who make all
laws. Moses - not God - created the
Ten Commandments, and Muhamad - not God - created the Koran. Human beings, not Gods,
make laws and States,
and they can - and do
- change
them. Every State
is designed, created,
maintained and paid for by all the citizens and they have a right to
change it
whenever they so wish.
The basic issue of politics is: Who makes the laws and policies of
a society ?
Until four
centuries ago the answer was - the King.
Many citizens
opposed laws and
policies made by kings and decided to make the laws themselves. No King liked this. A violent conflict between
kings and citizens
started. The King
called for ‘Law and Order’
denouncing the citizens
as ‘outlaws’
and ‘lawless’. By ‘Law and
Order’ he meant his Law
and his Order. The citizens wanted
the “Law
and Order” they made themselves. The conflict between the
citizens and the king
was not conflict of ‘law vs. lawlessness’ or
‘order vs. disorder’. It was a
conflict of “King’s law” vs.
“Citizens’ law” and
‘King’s order’ vs.
‘citizens’
order’. Eventually
the citizens won,
but the issue, ‘Who makes the laws and who decides what the
Order should
be?’ Is
still with us today.
Nowadays ‘law and
order’ is decided by politicians, yet many citizens
disagree with many laws and much of this ‘order’. Today we can
have a system where all
citizens - not their representatives - decide what the laws and the
order should
be.
Such a system is a
Direct Democracy (DD). It
is a society
run directly by all its citizens. This will be denounced as
‘Disorder’ and
‘Lawless’ by those who prefer Rule by
Representatives (RR). A
system where
citizens are represented by others but can represent themselves
directly and determine the laws and the order themselves, is not a
democracy.
This raises the
question: What
is Democracy?
[up] 7.
Democracy
Democracy was invented in the
ancient city of Athens by Cleisthenes about
2,500 years ago. In Greek, ‘Demos’
means ‘the people of the
community’; ‘Kratos’ means ‘power’ or
‘authority to decide’.
‘Demos-kratia’ (Demokratia) means ‘a
system to decide what a group should do where all members have the
right to
participate in all decisions’. Nowadays we would
call this a
‘Direct Democracy’ as citizens themselves
- not their representatives -
decide all policies. In
Athenian
Demos-kratia all free adult men (but not women or slaves) decided all
the laws
and policies of their society. This was not ‘rule by
referendum’ asking
citizens to vote on questions set by others.
Every
citizen could propose every
law and policy, amend or debate it, and vote on it.
Denying women and slaves to propose
and vote on policy is a major fault,
but in most ancient societies also free men could not decide policy or
law.
Only kings or elders made all laws and policies. Athenian
demos-kratia was unique by
enabling all free men to vote.
Today we still admire
Egypt’s pyramids, but they are not something we can
use. Yet Athenian democracy is something we can use today.
‘Democracy’ is still
very much in demand, though its content and form have been perverted
beyond
recognition.
Athenian democracy produced the
philosophies of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle. It invented Theatre, Drama, Persona, Tragedy, Comedy, the
plays of
Aeschylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, and the method of proof by logical
argument. We still use them today. They were created in Athens, not in
Sparta
which was nearby but was run by two kings and a council of elders. Philosophy,
Theatre, Tragedy, Persona, grew
from the public debates on policy which took place before voting, in a
square
known as the ‘Agora’. Every citizen could express
his views in the Agora. On
controversial issues there was even a duty (called
‘Parhesia’) to express views
publicly - silence was punished by law.
All citizens debated and voted
directly on all laws and policies of
Athens..
In Athenian
democracy there were
no elections. Citizens appointed people to carry out policies. Such
appointments were made by lottery, not by election. Posts were granted
for one
year only. No one could serve two consecutive years. Each year new
lotteries
appointed new people and the outgoing ones had to account for their
deeds and
were punished for failures. Appointing officials by lottery prevented
the
formation of an elite and eliminated competition and corruption.
This is utterly different from what
we call ‘Democracy’ today.
Nowadays
‘Democracy’ means electing a few politicians to
decide for all
citizens.
This contradicts the meaning and
spirit of original democracy where all
citizens decided all policies, without representatives.
In
Demos-Kratia all citizens
decide all policies.
Politics without Politicians is the
authentic, original,
meaning of Athenian
Demos-kratia.
[up] 8. Freedom
To be "Free" is to live by one's
own decisions. ‘Freedom’ means
living by self-made decisions. Those living by their own decisions are
free.
Those who live - knowingly or
unknowingly - by other people’s decisions,
are not free.
Total freedom is impossible in any
society. It
is possible only when one lives - voluntarily
- isolated from all people. Living with others requires accepting,
occasionaly,
their decisions, and limiting one’s own decisions so they do
not harm others.
Even two people living together voluntarily have disagreements, and
each must,
occasionally, accept decisions of the other. If the same person always
accepts
others’ decisions, that person is oppressed. But if people
take turns in
accepting others’ decisions they limit their freedom -
voluntarily - for the
sake of living together. This occurs in most families, communities,
cities, and
societies.
In society people agree to obey
decisions of others if others in turn
obey decisions of theirs.
If the same person or group always
has to bow to decisions of others,
they are oppressed.
Total freedom for every member of a
group is impossible in any group,
even in the smallest anarchist commune.
Most people prefer to live in
groups such as family, tribe, society, with
partial, rather than total, freedom. However, there are different
degrees of
partial freedom. Living under elected rulers gives people more freedom
than
living under unelected rulers, as the ruled can at least decide who
will decide
for them. But those living under elected rulers have less freedom than
those
living without rulers. A society where every citizen can propose,
debate and
vote on every law and policy is self-ruled, and its majority lives by
its own
decisions. The minority must obey majority decisions but if the
minority has a
fair chance to become a majority it is not oppressed. These citizens
enjoy far
more freedom than those who live in a society where representatives
decide
every law and policy.
Politics without politicians
(Direct Democracy) allows the highest level
of freedom possible in any society. It is not total freedom, as
majority
decisions are binding and the minority must accept them. So the
minority is not
totally free. However, those in a minority on one issue can be in the
majority
on another decision. A minority that can promote its views and become a
majority is not oppressed. A minority prevented from becoming a
majority by
rules (laws) forbidding it - or restricting its ability - to publicize
its
views, is oppressed - but if it can publicize its views, gain votes and
become
a majority, it is not.
Direct Democracy enables every
minority to promote its views, however
disagreeable they may be .This stimulates public debates on policy,
increases
people’s concern for their society, and raises the quality of
life in society
as a whole and of each individual within it.
Indifference to society breeds
boredom and depression. By encouraging people
to participate in deciding what their society should do Direct
Democracy will
dispel their indifference to society and thus the boredom and
depression most
people suffer today.
.
[up] 9.
Principle of Political
Equality (PPE)
The American
Declaration of
Independence declares :
“We
hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
And women ? Are they
‘created equal’ with men?
The formulators of this declaration
did not consider women – or slaves –
as equals.
They opposed the idea that women
must have the same rights as men
As no two creatures are
‘created equal’ the declaration also contradicts
biological facts.
What ‘equality’
did its authors have in mind ? did they mean biologically
equal? Legaly equal? Economic equality? Political equality? These are different
matters. It seems they
meant legal equality - namely, that all laws apply equally to all
people,
whatever their origin, race, sex, creed, wealth or power, so no one is
above
the law. The dismissing of President Nixon in 1974 for his part in the
Watergate scandal demonstrated this equality, it showed that even a
President
of the United States is not above the law.
So much for applying
the law
equally, but what about equal authority to make
laws?
Do all citizens
have
equal authority to propose, debate, and vote ,
on every law?
Certainly not. Very
few citizens are authorized to vote on laws or policies. Those who do
so are
not legal experts but politicians. Applying all laws equally to all
citizens is
important, but equal authority to vote on laws is more important.
Authority to
vote on laws and policies is authority to make the rules which all
citizens
must obey.
Every citizen must have the right
to decide what laws society should
accept. After all, the purpose of law is to improve the life of all
citizens.
Shouldn’t those whose life is to be improved decide
themselves how to do it?
Apparently not, as in no society today are all citizens authorized to
propose,
debate and vote for the laws and policies of their society.
The Principle
of Political
Equality (PPE) asserts that even though no two citizens are
biologically
equal all must have equal authority to vote on every law and policy of
their
society. Only
those who have this
equality live by their own decisions - and are free.
When all
citizens
have equal authority to make laws, they can legislate other equalities.
They can decide
all
laws of society, including other equalities.
PPE must be applied to any group,
couple, family, tribe, nation, army,
place of work, school, and to society itself.
PPE asserts the right of every member of a group to
propose, debate and
vote on every decision of the group. Some will accept PPE as
self-evident.
Others will prefer to die rather than accept it. They will oppose its
application to society - but even more so to family, school, and work.
PPE
abolishes power and domination in every domain of society, in families,
schools, places of work, trade unions, and political parties. It
equalizes
‘leaders’ and ‘led’, dominators
and dominated. No political party leader, Right
or Left, will accept that all members of his or her party have equal
authority
to propose, debate and vote on every policy of their party.
Many
‘democrats’ denounce PPE for taking Democracy too
far, and label it
‘Populism’. They distort the meaning of original
Democracy and write it off as
‘dated’ or ‘unrealistic’. It is
a safe bet that hysterical campaigns against
PPE will erupt whenever demands for PPE will appear. The scope and
intensity of
hostility to PPE will exceed the hostility to Socialism, Anarchism or
Feminism.
Socialists
will oppose PPE no less
than Capitalists, arguing that what really matters is the Principle of
Economic
Equality, not of Political Equality (PPE). Socialists ignore the fact
that in
all the states based on economic equality (the USSR and the former
‘Eastern
Bloc’) only a handful of officials decided everything for
everybody, and 99.99%
of all citizens had no authority to decide anything, not even who
should decide
for them. No wonder such systems collapsed without bloodshed. Very few
of their
citizens supported them. Such systems were supposed to overcome
oppression and
exploitation caused by economic inequality but being based on political
inequality they produced greater oppression and exploitation by denying
their
citizens political freedom. Most people who grew up in former socialist
states
prefer economic inequality of capitalism to political inequality of
socialism. No
wonder.
The collapse of the USSR was the
historical proof that economic equality
is inferior to political equality - and cannot create it. Only political equality
can create any other
equality and is therefore far more important than any other equality.
Opponents of political equality
argue that most citizens lack the
knowledge to understand the laws they vote for, either their benefits
or their
drawbacks. But this applies to most politicians who vote on laws
nowadays. Most
of them are not legal experts, yet they debate and vote on new laws and
policies. They call experts to explain the consequences of proposed
policies,
then they choose the option that suits their own priorities. Every
citizen can
do the same. Citizens can listen on radio or TV to panels of experts
explaining
a new law or policy, and later vote on it. If a law or policy has
unforeseen
negative results, the citizens can always repeal
them.
All panels of experts must be drawn by lottery
and changed regularly.
[up]
10.
Political Parties
A political party is a group of
people acting voluntarily to promote a
particular policy.
A poklitical Party is not part of
the State. The
State can function without political
parties.
If some citizens want to promote a
particular policy they can form a political
Party to do so, but the state can function without them.
A large Party needs people to run
its offices, to publicize its views, to
organize meetings and talks, to raise funds, to create new Party
branches and
communicate regularly with Party members. To do all this Parties hire
full-time
employees, known by various names – officials, secretaries,
bureaucrats,
nomenklatura. The names don’t matter; what matters is that
these people earn
their living by running political parties and controlling their work.
They
decide what to do and how to do it, they influence nominations to Party
posts.
Many of these officials care more
about their Party job than about the
Party’s policies.
Each Party has its own policies,
but there can be different versions of
these. In most parties, different sub-groups advocate different
versions of the
Party’s policies. When a particular Party wins a majority in
an election - in
which many voters may not have bothered to vote – it starts
to run the State.
Its Head becomes President or Prime Minister and Party leaders become
heads of
government departments. This Party then runs the government and its
leaders use
their government posts to implement the Party’s policies. This is how all
‘democratic’ states work
today. Actually this contradicts the basic principle of democracy
authorizing
all citizens to participate in deciding all laws and policies.
It also contradicts the democratic
principle of nomination by lottery
only.
Party Rule is not democracy. In
‘Demos-kratia’ the citizens vote directly
for policies, not for political Parties. What is called "Democracy"
today is Rule by Representatives (RR). In Democracy Party leaders can
decide
only the policies of their Party, not of society as a whole. Parties
can propose
a policy to the citizens; but not decide it for
them.
A political party advocating a
particular policy contributes to
democracy, but a Party deciding all policies for all citizens is
blatantly
anti-democratic.
After World War
II, Political Parties
everywhere deteriorated in three ways:
1.
The officials
took over the Party from the policy-makers.
2. Parties began
to seek power
for their own benefits, not for the benefit of society.
3. Most Political Parties
have become
vote-collecting machines.
Today, in most countries, Party
officials run States (and Parties) for
their own benefit, not for the benefit of all citizens.[1]
Many people came to
believe this is ‘normal’.
[up] 11.
Direct
Democracy
“Politics’ means two things:
1. To decide what an entire society
should do.
2. To carry out
these decisions.
In a Direct Democracy every citizen
has the right to participate in the
first task, to propose a policy, to debate and vote on it. Public
debates on
policies are the core of Direct Democracy. In Athens these debates
stimulated
people to produce Philosophy, to invent the Theatre, Tragedy, Comedy,
and to
convince people by logical reasoning rather than by imposing
one’s authority. Public
debates on policies are genuine only
if facilities exist enabling every citizen to participate. How can millions
do so? Today
they can do it - by using TV for the
debate, and mobile phones, magnetic cards and touch screens for voting.
In
ancient Athens citizens debated policy in an open-air space called
“Agora”. The
modern Agora is TV where
every citizen can speak to millions of other citizens. In DD every
government
Department (Health, Education, Industry, Finance etc.) operates its own
TV
channel around the clock all year round. Tuning in to a channel will
show a
panel debating policies for this department.
Panel members must have knowledge and experience with
issues of the
particular department. They will answer questions phoned in by the
public. They
will explain the good and bad points of every proposal. Panel members
must be
drawn by lottery (not by elections) from a list of those with the
required
expertise. Panel members will be changed regularly; no member will
serve two
consecutive periods. Any
reward to panel
members will be a punishable crime.
The TV channel will display lists
of all proposed policies and the panel
will debate the pros and cons of each one. Viewers will be able to
phone in at
any time to question, criticize or suggest ideas. Every proposal will
be
allocated a discussion time (set by Constitution). When this time is up
the
proposal will be put to the vote. The public will have 48 hours to vote
on each
one. Any proposal receiving the required number of votes will be
submitted to a
second round of debates and voting. A policy gaining the required
number of
votes in the second round of voting will become state policy. If
citizens
demand a third vote, the proposal will be submitted to a third round of
debating and voting.
Public debates on policies, by
millions of people, are possible today.
Clearly, when ‘politics without
politicians’ is established, all citizens will have
to devise and adopt a
Constitution to decide all the procedures. Unforeseen problems will
emerge, but
‘where there’s a will,
there’s a way’,
especially with the help of TV, mobile phones, magnetic cards,
touch-screen
input and the Internet. What technology to use, and how, will be
decided by all
citizens when Direct Democracy is set up. For now it is sufficient to
realize
that by using electronic communication we can establish a political
system
where every citizen can propose, debate and vote on every law and
policy.
When a policy has been decided a
panel will be set up to carry it out.
Panel members will be drawn by lottery from a pool of all those with
experience
and knowledge of the specific task. They will be changed at regular
intervals. Complaints
about panel
members’ inefficiency or corruption will be invistigated
immediately - and
punished if it was the case..
[up] 12. DD at the
place of Work
Using TV for public debates on
policy raises the question:
‘Who
decides what to show on
TV ?’
| 