A new, MULTI-POLAR political system, as a revolution in governance, would be capable at last of bringing peace to the world and of opening new horizons for the development of a modern, fast-changing society.
::::::::
The nation is open to development if it's capable of creating its own ideas while perceiving and using the ideas of others. The technological and economic advantages will always belong to a political system implementing world's achievements and creative potential of the nation beyond any ideological speculations and prejudices.
Development and new technologies are impossible without freedom of thought and creativity. The more freethinkers there are in the country, the closer it gets to achieving diversity and competition of views, sanity and thus to a democratic and civilized governance system. Democracy is a political system that works only if it has free and thinking citizens. Conversely, the ignorant barbarians are unable to think wisely and behave in a civilized manner; they are superstitious, need and want the Supreme Mind over them and are therefore suitable only as slaves under the control their master and his stick - as it was in ancient Rome.
And the current pseudo-democratic monopolies in the assortment assiduously encourage a barbarian cult of absolute bellwether in the herd, simultaneously suppressing the dissent and creative alternatives in the society and impeding its fully-fledged development. In doing so a shameful anachronism leaves the door wide open for Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and other 'Great Teachers' and admirers of their own greatness and superiority over the feral masses and with inevitable ruins. Leaderism is a religion of slaves, the birthplace of dim-witted fanatics and the road back to barbarism!
Freethinkers and trailblazers have created a civilization and humanized it. Their discoveries and technologies are the driving force of progress. But now, in the absence of a critical look and new ideas, democracy itself, as a guiding star, habitat and creative workshop for Homo sapiens, became merely another dogma and a subject of ideological speculations.
The democrats and revolutionaries of different countries fight against tyrants and autocracy, actively participate in political revolutions and create new universities in which they preach to the gullible parishioners their own illusions about democracy. And shortly thereafter the "winning" democrats again take to the streets with protests to the next 'guarantor of democracy', if he will allow it. The opponents of democracy and the protectors of their own privileges blame it for all the wrongs and ills of the present society. Some are clearly disingenuous, others don't notice the obvious thing -- all modern 'democratic' systems are unipolar and each political imbalance and injustice have a specific culprit and despot, be it the late Gaddafi, Putin (Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton in the foreseeable future). While common sense tells us that a political system with one ruler, even if he is elected by the ingenuous and suggestible majority, is a 'temporary' monarchy with a tendency to be continued (today's Russia, for example). It's the elective monarchy of those who really serve the interests only of the dominating class with all its inflated self-importance, hereditary parasitism and pretensions to the national and world dominance and resources, and despite shaky democratic superstructures. And the outdated unipolar governance, as in ancient times, plays into the hands of only a few thousand egoists, but to the detriment of millions of other people.
Meanwhile, objectivity and justice cannot be unilateral while the democracy controlled by the hereditary elite suggests about the collective sleep of reason.
100 years ago, the October revolution in Russia has proclaimed Communism as a only right teachings, has got rid of dissenters and announced the building of a new society, free from any forms of inequality and exploitation. The 'shortest path to a brighter future' inspired a wave of imitations in other countries (including Cambodia 1975). But the Bolshevik revolution of leaderism over the 80% of simply unlettered majority hadn't rid the world of autocracy and tyranny. It merely confirmed that in the absence of the open and vivifying competition any political monopoly and empire are losing dependence on society and the ability to develop, getting bogged down in corruption and inter-clan intrigues and are disintegrating under a weak leader. And after the fall of feudal communist regimes with lifetime monarchs, a caste of nomenklatura vassals with special privileges, fictitious elections of one appointed candidate and equality in poverty for the rest of the population, their former serfs are turning to the democratic experience of more successful and technologically advanced Western countries with competitively elected and regularly updated government.
Which modern political system is democracy actually and capable of working for the whole society?
The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament that perseveres today that served as a democratic system of checks and balances for absolute rulers were primordially designed just to protect their own interests within feudalism. In addition, the over-crowded and unstructured nature of parliament is not conducive to the discipline, quality and speed of decision-making as well as an effective fight against corruption. In spite of subsequent modernization, this bulky and amorphous superstructure 'under the big boss' still is deprived of the opportunity to choose priorities and is not motivated by the inter-group competition for leadership or for the voices of voters. At last, under proportional representation the minority political party can't have any significant influence on decisions. These innate defects do not allow "democratic parliamentary government" to effectively represent the interests of all parts of the population, thus making it unable to adapt to a modern multicultural society. By origin -- it is a rookery for loafers who raise their own social status at public expense.
A lot of today's democracies act as The 'Big Brother of everyone' while promoting their own elites version of "democracy" to the countries of 'the third world'. Is then really democracy? Or this is merely the export of hidden corporate claims to world economic and political domination and resources of other countries with the servile support of local vassals? To export democracy, it would be nice, as minimum, to have it.
More to the point, even bipartisan "dueling" (two-party political system) is indeed a fascinating spectacle for the politically naïve who do not understand how it merely serves as a distraction from any kind of serious critique (dare we say "panem et circenses"?). The resulting winner will invariably favour the impresario, backed up by the money of the millions of simple-hearted sponsors. Everything becomes outdated without renewal. What were once useful past political movement with a working interparty competition have degenerated into a huckster's trick in today's modern socially developed societies. Now, with little effective difference in approach, this cunning "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo of the "Big Money", and is also cautious not to allow "strangers" into the powerful "club". This "closed joint-stock company" is intended not for "the rabble" who are creating the nation's wealth but only for the business elite that is appropriating it "on legal grounds" by its own laws; with that, the degrees of their freedom are separated by the thickness of a purse. The monetization of laws, health care, education, pre-election campaign, etc., puts citizens in obviously unequal conditions. But what about a declaration for the 'democratic society of equal opportunity'? A truly healthy and intelligent nation is, again, only possible when honest competition and equal access to a nation's resources is granted to all citizens.
With all due respect to the US founders, the large size of corporations and their dominating influence on government was unforeseen by most of them. But this is hardly the same democracy, as Abraham Lincoln said: "government of the people, by the people and for the people"! However, the slyness of a two-party system is a matter of political sanity and civic choice of Americans themselves.
Today the voices about the crisis of democracy are increasingly heard in the West itself as its inspirer and founder. It is not a crisis of democracy that hadn't existed before. This is just merely the inevitable old age, the sunset and twilight of an era of precursors, of a strange mix with the monarchy, inflexible and inadequate for a modern dynamic society in the absence of new ideas.
Unipolar political systems based on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" were thought up not in the interests of the people but only for the elite-hereditary domination over it. They do not represent equally the various parts and subcultures of the nation, are deprived of the working competition for interests (the voices) of voters within power, are prejudiced and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a diverse and continuously changing society. Under any ideological monopoly, be it the cult of money, a belief in the equality of the professor and scrounger, paradisiacal life after death or other political religion as an opium for enslaving the masses.
The injustice and oppressions of the monopolists in power are prompting freethinkers to seek new forms of government without anyone's domination, up to the ochlocracy and anarchy. (And with the inevitable subsequent dictatorship, because the history and nature show that less-organized forms will always be subordinated by better-organized ones.)
How can a nation-state government be make unprejudiced and actually working for all its citizens, flexible and adequate to the changing society, without rejecting but using the organizing power of leadership and political parties? How can a purposefulness, rapidity and decisiveness of one-man rule be combined with the diversity and breadth of views of democracy? The answer is the idea of
A new, MULTIPOLAR self-balanced political system.
Obviously a new form of government should consist of as few as possible independent participants, each one being motivated by the interests of his or her group of voters. The governance system in which the 'permanent leader' or president aren't present more. While the decision-making process must become permanently adversarial.
A new, multipolar democratic political system of 5 independent political parties with a movable centre of joint decisions would be better organized, more broad-minded, competently enterprising, protected by party's sovereignty and by Collective intelligence and would fit into society more adequately. The five [different viewpoints on common issues and challenges] make up the minimum for self-balance. 5-pointed star is a symbol wisdom and protection in power.
(An increase in the number of participants is possible, but it worsens the expeditiousness and controllability of the system. Besides, opposition parties 'beyond a fence' are the necessary catalyst and a source of renewal.)
Collective interests of the whole society are presented in the governance of five Independent political parties simultaneously. In everyone there is a group of advising experts in different fields; the role of the party leader consists in creation of a professionally competitive team, preservation of its sovereignty and coordination of work and above all, the representation of voters' interests. The favorite of most voters will have initial 2 votes out of 6, but the 2-votes advantage will be "floating". The accepted decisions are the result of a balance of contradictions and compromises among the independent political leaders within a new democratic decision-making system.
Odd quantity (5) of participants and 'floating' 2-advantage in a new government system are necessary for flexible and prompt change of the leader for the purpose of an exception of ideological tendentiousness, and for blocking a 'bad' political decisions (for decision-making the initiator should make a compromise at least with one more participant, but their joint decision can be blocked by three other participants: the 2-votes advantage +1 = 1+1+1). The blockings mean that the question should be reconsidered from other positions or is closed till 'the best of times'. But leadership can move only between 2 largest political parties with the greatest quantity of voters in order to not to harm to the majority of the population. In so doing the threat of negative evaluation (see below) and competitive survival (someone will leave the team in any case) compels any of leaders not to forget about interests of another big part of voters. Three smallest parties, taking one direction or another, play a stabilizing role and enrich the accepted decisions by means interests of smallest groups of the population inclusive, as a most vulnerable from the same negative estimation. The minority party will be finally get the opportunity to earn their popularity by means of actual work done for the good of the society.
Decision-making system in a new democratic governance.
The right to decisions doesn't belong to anybody individually! Any participant of five has the right of initiatives. The realization of suggestions impels seeking allies and go to compromises. The decision can be taken at the half of the votes. If the solution is blocked by another half, the right of the new edition and the 2-votes advantage go to the leader of the second (regarding the number of voters) party.
In case of repeated lock, either:
1. The 2-votes advantage on the current theme goes to the communicator with a new alternative, which is supported by at least one participant from each block. Or, by mutual agreement, the conflict can be resolved using an ordinary majority of votes with the participation of only thematic experts of 5 sides. The leader has the right to refuse the made decision.
2. Final lock. The one provoking regular locks loses the right for initiatives, the three least (for the number of voters) parties can be updated from a reserve. In this case the culprit of locks is a turncoat.
The three least parties are not enough in order to take separate initiatives. Control of "taken decision" is implemented by participants outside the resolution.
Two- or three-party alliance, that exceeded half of all decisions and locks, may claim only for one place in the future team. The compulsory new-party / educatee is "the entrance ticket" to the Elections for the ruling veteran; a "rookie" may declare himself outside the Elections along with the mentor only. It is possible for a trainee to participate as an advisor. The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling teams.
Advertising of the ruling parties is prohibited in the new democratic elections, their campaign can be supported with the work done only; opposition may publish an unaccepted version through the mass media. The advertising campaign of new candidates can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders.
A new democratic electoral system.
A ballot paper has 2 columns: Ruling Parties in descending order by the realized solutions rate only (an initiator earns two points, partners receive one, lock withdraws one and two respectively) and new ones, each presents its three basic purposes. If the voter trusts a former "mon ami", he puts "YES"; if not, then he selects the new one with the most needfull priorities. He also has the right to say "NO" to the most negative of the ruling teams. The negative evaluation may take away up to half of the positive votes. The final grade of the "Old Fighters" in the elections is different between "FOR" and "AGAINST" votes, multiplied by the efficiency index (the ratio between implemented decisions and all the decisions taken) and the average objectivity index (the ratio of the participants who made the decision to their total number of 5). The sides not involved into decision making will have the objectivity index 1. For the party of lowest participation, its protege and a free candidate, the results will be increased by the reverse usefulness index (that is a ratio of a difference "FOR" votes "AGAINST" votes to "FOR" votes) of the leading four. If the usefulness index of the outsider is higher than the average index of the four, the outsider gets two vacancies in the new team for the outsider itself and its educatee.
If nobody from the offered list doesn't suit the voter, he is free to add a name of one's own candidate to a ballot paper. Attention: this candidate is an indicator of an openness and democratic character of a new governance form! The "dark horse" of the majority of voters has a guaranteed place in the future government if it is not challenged by a number of voices from a useful outsider! Two compulsory vacancies in the new government for the current ruling teams are a guarantee for the experience accumulation and power continuity. Votes counting should occur only during the live broadcast.
Democratic system voting is supervised by 3 sides: the party of the lowest participation in the decision making, one of four other ruling teams chosen by lot, and any of the new ones, also by lot, except the trainees of already selected observers. When levelling the voters' number "the 2-vote advantage" must not be associated with the leaders of the two largest parties alone.
The multipolar form of democratic rule and five Independents in power means freedom of initiatives and invigorating competition; extended field of variants and informed decisions; mutual control; continuity in the policy and the openness to renewal! A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable.
This know-how would be able, finally, to minimize the eternal problems of unipolar power such as corruption, infringement of rights and freedom under the imperfect legislation, etc. They are solved by cross check of several competing parties within a new, 5-party government: any blunders of the contender raises the rest participants' chances for survival in power. And the mutual competition of several competitors is more objective and constantly active motivation for fight against corruption etc. than the whim of any one 'National Leader' or the news interest of mass media. Thus the health-enhancing competition of political movements can benefit to the whole society.
" Stalin had not been allowed to "miss the boat" of Hitler's invasion, there would not have been "conditions for" and the 'messiahs' themselves, World War II and Vietnam War, the Iron Curtain and "Khrushchev's shoe" "
PS: Today five-pointed stars can be found on the flags of many countries. What do they mean? A simple and useful meaning of a five-pointed star is here: A new, multipolar democratic system.
And let the Kremlin stars light up!
Nicholas Popov, Russia - 2016
Authors Bio:Born 1961 in Russia. In 1985 graduated from the Moscow State Technical University "MAMI". Design engineer, small business, the taxi driver. Interests: history, philosophy.
The Future: "a false responsibility of the one person /of a caste/ for the fates of millions or the Collective Wisdom of free Intelligences?"