The Thoughts of a Peasant Philosopher
Volume I: Politics
Written
by
Jason
R. Werbics
Edited
by
Aaron
Taylor
Dedicated
To Nicole
My
Soul Mate And The Greatest Love Of My Life
PREFACE: By
Aaron Taylor
SECTION I: POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC CONSOLIDATION
The Structure of Today’s
Lie
The Little Lie That is
Representational Democracy
THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AND REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
From The Confines Of The
Nation State,
To The First Failed Attempt
Of The Global Economy
Political And Economic
Consolidation of The Mid to Later Twentieth Century
CONTINENTAL EUROPE,
CANADA,
The WTO And The Free Market
SECTION II
PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
The Individual Human Right
to Create Law
Redefining The General Will
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIBERTY OF REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY AND THE FREEDOM OF PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
Preface
By
Aaron Taylor
Marshall McLuhan was right
- we live in a global village.
But while he gave a lot of
thought to how we communicate, he could never have imagined what kind of impact
this idea would have on how we govern ourselves.
As nature tends to evolve
into bigger and more complex systems, so too does business and government tend
towards consolidation. Bigger institutions create a need for more complex
bureaucracies to manage them, bureaucracies that are faceless, nameless and
utterly indifferent to the human condition, a nightmare straight out of the
pages of Kafka.
Long gone are the days when
we think in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ While we stubbornly insist on defining
ourselves as people by increasingly regionalized folk cultures, corporations
are thinking in terms of global market share and government of the people, by
the people, for the people loses market share while becoming ever more protective
and interested in shrinking spheres of influence. The intricacy of individual
human interaction has given way to pandering to the lowest common denominator.
The individual has given way to Mass man.
The Internet however is
starting to change that.
Communication from one part
of an empire no longer takes weeks or months to arrive- it travels at the speed
of light. We don’t have any excuse anymore about not being aware of global
affairs in the most obscure corner of the world – the spark of individualism
flickers as we choose to acknowledge the world on our own terms and in our own
time.
The irony is while it might
be a global village, we still stick to our own neighborhoods. It’s also getting
harder and harder to tell one neighborhood from another as everyone - east and
west - bows before the twin ideals of democracy and the market economy. Really,
what does it matter if you live in the exotic east or the homogenous west, if
you pray to Jesus in the heartland of the north American bible belt or if you bow
to Mecca in the oil rich sands of the middle east when you can still get the
exact same ice cold Coca-Cola?
Previously, explorers set
out to discover new worlds and along the way encountered strange and alien
cultures. The trade routes were tenuous and treacherous. Lines of communication
were virtually non-existent. On maps, there were drawings of the known world,
with the ominous phrase at the edge that said, "Beyond here, there be
dragons..."
If nothing else, the
Internet has taught us that everything leads to everything else. There is a
feeling of sameness about the world now that’s different from the original age
of empire.
This aura of sameness has
also led to an increasing sense of alienation and disassociation - from
ourselves, from each other - helplessness and powerlessness in the face of
bigger businesses that pander to the lowest common denominator and detachment
from governments that grow ever less responsive to the needs and wishes of the
people. The only thing worse than knowing you’re not alone is knowing you don’t
matter.
Government, as the peasant
philosopher defines it, is at least partially the art of managing information.
The Internet is, if nothing else, the democratization of information. It is
quickly surpassing television and even radio as the breaking source of news.
It has also been used as a
tool of democratic action. The now infamous Battle of Seattle, in which a
meeting of signatories of the World Trade Organization was disrupted by an
eclectic group of activists without common ground other than to disrupt the
meeting, was organized through the Internet. The student uprising in China that
led to the Tiananmen Square massacre was spurred on by the Internet after the
authorities cut off other lines of communication.
But the world is no
stranger to revolution and rebellion. What is becoming foreign is responsive
government, private enterprise with a conscience and people who are interested
in taking charge of their own future. The only options are to continue down the
current path and willfully abrogate responsibility of our lives and our future
to the nameless faces walking the corridors of power, or to become actively
involved in determining the political and economic history of the world which
is the birthright of ever human being.
Slavery or freedom, the
choice is ours.
Democracy, free enterprise
and the Internet are a natural fit in that all three rely on a single,
fundamental principle - the freedom of choice.
While combining the
Internet and democracy is not a novel idea, the peasant philosopher provides a
philosophical basis for once more putting the ultimate power of democracy - the
power to make laws - back in the hands of the people.
Primary democracy is, at
its heart, a philosophy of freedom.
Philosophy is the noblest
profession. It is the ultimate endeavor in terms of honor and intellectual
achievement anyone may embark on. In the past, we looked upon the philosopher
with awe and with a sense of inspiration. We looked to the philosopher for
guidance and instruction in regards to the how's and why’s of our world. We
believed in what the philosopher was attempting to construct with his ideas.
But all that has passed.
Today we are confronted
with the argument that philosophy and the philosopher are relics of the past,
with no more importance than that of a historical footnote.
For some people, philosophy
is a very troublesome and frightening concept. Many people throw up their arms
in frustration and walk away when confronted with philosophy. This should not
be the case. When kept to the basics, philosophy can be understood by everyone.
There isn’t anything that
can’t be explained if you’re communicating clearly.
Philosophy rules everyone’s
life. The same rules of existence apply to the poor man and wealthy woman in
equal measure. It does not make sense that for something with such a hold on
ones existence the majority of people in this world don’t have a clue to what
it is. This apathy has not just captured the hearts and minds of the general
public but a majority of our academics, politicians and intellectual elite as
well.
How could we as a species
have all but swept aside that very human endeavor which has helped us out of
the jungles and fields, and into a modern and advanced civilization?
More than anything else
human existence and progress is best expressed through the development of
ideas. It is philosophy which is the messenger of these ideas.
Over the centuries,
philosophy has exposed us to the wonders of the universe. The means by which we
have forged an existence appear varied and, to a degree, somewhat
unpredictable. It would seem that very often progress for our species has been
one of luck and chance. But every step along that path, it was philosophy and
the philosopher that guided our way, changing and creating within it a varied
process of understanding and reason, a process that has as its ultimate goal
the achievement of truth.
We cannot give up dealing
with hard questions for the sake of expediency and easy answers, but we insist
on throwing away anything that we cannot understand. But in so doing, we have
left out a great part of our existence - we’ve stopped looking for the truth
behind an idea.
For me, life has never been
a simple journey that begins with birth and ultimately ends in death. There are
others who feel as I do, that life is more than something to be endured. For
me, life has shown itself to be a journey of understanding and intellectual
achievement that has led me down two specific paths. One, a quest to undo
certain wrongs of the past. The other, to understand the world in which I live
today, as realistically and objectively as possible.
I knew very early on my
life was different from anyone else. My ideas as a child grew rapidly and my
understanding of the world and my place in it followed in step. At certain
points, I found myself asking questions no one could answer to my satisfaction.
Therefore, I made up my own answers as I went along, continually testing them
against the status quo and my personal experience in an attempt to ascertain
their validity.
I keep asking what, or who,
determines the truth behind an idea for us?
Who is to say that this
idea or point of view is right and that one is wrong?
That has always been a
point of great contention for me. Do we listen only to the ideas the majority
of people agree upon? Or perhaps those who know the truth are the ones with the
greatest number of letters behind their name? Personally I have always looked
upon the letters Ph.D. with some skepticism.
In the past it was (or it
would seem) easier to bring forth new ideas or new concepts about the world,
challenging the status quo and thereby expanding the possibility of our understanding
of the world in which we live. In essence it was easier for philosophical
investigation than it is today. Perhaps this is because the free-flow of ideas
has become too politicized and in some instances the defence of politically
correct ideas has taken on a hysterical and shrill quality. Philosophy needs
openness and a free exchange of ideas. For at its very base of existence,
philosophy is nothing more than the concept of a question, with not an answer
as the final outcome of the philosophical process, but more questions.
It is this free discussion
of concepts which allows for further concepts to flourish. If we close off any
aspect of our investigations, we are limiting our ability to comprehend any
part of the truth of our existence.
Ever since I was a little
boy, my thoughts always focused on the metaphysical. For me, the metaphysical
seemed to harbor more interesting questions than anything else. Whether it was
the reason behind the existence of myself or of how I viewed the world, I
needed to know not so much the reason why, or how, but more so the
"what." It was never enough for me to know the reasons why something
existed, or for that matter the plain truth to the existence of a phenomenon.
To know what something is in terms of one’s senses is not a question of knowing
what it is. We are fooled by our senses into thinking that we can categorize
and name objects at will, and that is what they will be forever more. I needed
to go deeper in my search for understanding. I needed to know why the reason
itself existed. I needed to create more questions.
It was this need to always
go further that has been the corner stone to my existence in this world. Never
satisfied with the answers of the present, I searched for the questions of
tomorrow.
Shortly after I started
school I soon found out that the educational system I was forced into did not
make allowances for accommodating my interpretations of the world.
An educational system that
does not allow for new ideas? Anyone who goes to school can understand what I
am talking about. How many people publicly and privately educated have been
told "that question," or ones like it, will be covered next year or
next semester? Then, the following year, one asks the question again only to
find the same answer is given, until the time comes when one is out of the
educational system entirely, with no more teachers to answer questions and
ultimately, with no real answers.
But beyond this hand - me -
down approach to learning, the greatest difficulty I had with education was
what I was being told conflicted with what I believed deep down inside. What I
was being taught did not correlate to what my own intellect accepted as right
and true.
Of great concern to me was
the concept of equality. I saw that this concept held true only under certain
circumstances and not being applied in any way as the term was being used. I
was told individual members of the species were equal. I found this completely
false. The term lacked any real evidence to suggest this was true. Who is equal
to me? No one. Not because I am superior or inferior, but because I am unique.
I am an individual. So how can I be equal or the same as someone else, when
physically, emotionally, mentally, I am constructed differently than everybody
else?
It was this type of
incongruity that taught me the educational system is a closed system. It is a
system that leads itself to indoctrination and not education. It is not
interested in philosophy or the concept of questioning. School is not a place
for a truly inquiring mind to flourish. Certainly an educational system can
teach a great many things that are useful. But it only teaches these things one
way. It does not accept anything other than what it teaches. In essence, what
it teaches is not open for debate.
I have found that
everything in this world is open for debate.
I like to use the analogy
that all of existence, from the very beginning, up to and including the end, is
like a movie. The problem is we walked into the theatre with our popcorn in
hand and enthusiasm high, only to find we missed the beginning of the movie.
Now we have to piece together the plot from the remaining moments of the film.
If it is absolutely necessary, we can ask the person next to us what we missed
at the beginning of the movie. However, when it comes to existence and the
beginning of that great movie, we don't have anybody to ask. We are all forced
to pick up the plot as we go along.
Even if we do figure out
the plot at some point, we still don't know what happened at the beginning of
the movie. This problem does not preclude us from still making assumptions
about the past. But how correct are our assumptions?
Assumptions are nothing but
conjecture. As in a movie, the beginning does not repeat itself somewhere else
along the way. Nor does anything depict in any way the origins of the beginning
of the film.
For instance, did the
credits begin before the music? Was there music? Did the camera open up on a
picture of a tree or a building? When these types of questions are asked, or
more importantly examined from the prospective of our own existence, it shows
we are faced with some daunting problems. Did we have speech or linguistics
before we had the use of tools? Was existence formed by a big bang? Was the
human species born with self-consciousness or was it acquired latter?
All these questions have
answers, but they are also all conjecture from our perspective. Even though we
may not know which answer is correct, there is a truth out there. How can we be
sure there is a truth out there? Because just as when you go to a movie, it has
to have some sort of beginning, so to does our existence.
Truth and existence are the
same. Truth can only exist because existence allows it to. Truth is a combination
of human understanding and physical reality. It exists just as concretely for
those who believe in it, as it will for those who do not.
The key to understanding
truth does not come from our assumptions of the past, but only from our
complete understanding of the present. Everything you ever wanted to know about
existence can be gleaned from that very spot upon which you rest at the
present. It’s this truth that lies at the root of philosophy. Everything that
we know about the present tells us more about the past. It may not tell us in
what specific order things may have happened, but it certainly lets us know
that at some point what was there at the beginning. Furthermore, the better the
present is dissected, the more truth that it reveals. Truth only exists in the
present. It does not have any connection to history or the future. Every
fleeting moment that encompasses the present changes the truth of our
existence.
Aristotle believed in the
here and now. A chair was a chair and that was it. Zen goes beyond this simple
answer to question the very idea of its existence. It is not that the idea of
truth exists within the parameters of these two definitions, but rather that
truth exists outside these borders. For too long we have confined our questions
to those things upon which we are certain. It is time to begin our process of
questioning at that point where our certainties end.
A chair can exist today and
tomorrow, and the question of it’s existence can as well, but what it really is
only exits for the moment.
But before we can stand up
and say that we understand this truth, we have to be sure we understand the
present. And understanding the present only comes from understanding ones place
in existence. If our understanding of the present is incorrect, then we are no
better off than just blindly attempting to conjure up the past through our
simple assumptions.
Who is to say today’s
truths are not tomorrow’s falsehoods? This has been the axiom by which I have
lived my entire life.
I think my personal
uneasiness about the world and how it has been presented to me is born out by
the fact that any real questioning of the world and how it is presented is
always met with an incredible amount of denial from all respected and reputed
sources. This then tells me there are only two possible positions of a truth
one can take from this situation.
First, everything we
currently know is correct. When I say correct, I mean one hundred percent proof
positive, there does not exist any other form of reality and truth has finally
been revealed. We know all there is to know. The life each of us leads exists
exactly the way in which we are told it does.
Second, truth is a closely
guarded secret that exists solely for the convenience of those who can profit
the most from it. Now profit can mean a great many things to different people.
Profit does not necessarily mean money. It can mean proving the existence of a
theory to a scientist, an undeniable hypothesis to the physicist and an
indestructible idea to the philosopher.
For me, I believe in the
latter. If we really did know everything, and truth had finally revealed
itself, then the need for anybody not to question it would be the universal
fact of life. However, as we all know, this is not the case.
Is it possible that
everything we have been taught is correct?
From my perspective I would
say no. Certainly there can be improvements on certain aspects of our
interpretation of the world. It is with this endeavor that I put forth my ideas
to help in our quest for truth.
The following is a
collection of thoughts, ideas, and experiences that I hope will help us
understand where we have been as a species and where we want to end up. This
body of work (divided into volumes and topics) attempts not to ultimately
define what truth is, but expand on what is already known by fostering
inspiration in what it could possibly
be.
For without a better
understanding of what truth may be, we will forever be destined too
misunderstand the how’s, what’s, wherefores and whys of that great movie called
existence which we have as yet seen the end credits.
SECTION I: POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC CONSOLIDATION
INTRODUCTION
From time immemorial man
has struggled to free himself from persecution and slavery. No matter the age,
there has always been this struggle. It is as if we shall never truly be free
from persecution and domination from those who wish to control the world for
their own selfish and personal goals, which have nothing to do with the greater
good of humanity.
As a species, we have the
uncanny ability to ignore the misery of our lives in favor of a lie that is
much easier to live with. We do this to get through the day, when we know to
acknowledge the misery would make life unbearable. By creating within our own
mind a place for ourselves, we can escape the reality of this world that could
only lead to depression and the loss of our own free will to live and survive.
Yet, even the world which
we try so hard to ignore is itself built upon illusion and masquerade. We
perform the routines of our daily lives without truly knowing what or who
causes our plight in life. Although the media claims only to reflect and mirror
the Gestalt of any given day, it none-the-less directs and influences its
citizens according to national and cultural direction founded upon
self-interest. This view of national existence does not necessarily hold true
from one state to another.
However, this is not the
case among certain nation states of this world.
Within a few, their
existence is similar, in regards to both the structure of their government and
that of their economy. Within these states, the lives of its citizens are
remarkably similar. These states are known as representative democracies. Most,
if not all, of these particular states are found within the western world. They
have existed for nearly two hundred years and each has been built upon a lie no
one can truly figure out.
That lie is who holds
power.
In the past, it was always
easy to figure out who our oppressors were. Two such organizations were the
aristocracy and the church. But who holds power today over the people of these
western representative democracies?
We are told by the
academics, the elite, the media, that it is the individual who has the right to
vote and is ruler, not slave.
Even though the right to
vote seems like a choice when viewed in regards to the consequence it
represents, this right rings hollow and meaningless. For instance, we find
ourselves bound to laws, regulations and rules that were never agreed to or
discussed publicly. Nor are our lives our own, when we are forced to seek
menial, undignified and part-time work, with the alternative being that we
starve and let our own families perish, when an adequate system of support for
those who fail in their attempt to better themselves does not exist.
The truth about today is
that the working poor and the middle class of the western world are caught in a
vice. With representational democracy on one side and an emerging global
economy on the other, each is exerting untold pressure on those caught in the
middle. Who are those that are caught in the middle? The same people who have
been at the mercy of the wealthy and well connected since our civilization
began, the working poor and middle class.
Politically and economically
life has become increasingly unbearable for these two classes. Life is no
longer one of simple existence, but one of struggle to make ends meet. From the
latch-key kid forced to fend for himself in the inner-city, to the over
stressed and over worked suburban couple with the dual income, life is no
longer to be savored but endured.
Compounding things even
more, is legislative gridlock on one side and the rise in power and authority
of investment law (economic globalization). It will not be long before those
caught in the middle of this vice will have no protection from prosecution or
exploitation.
But with the right to vote,
aren’t all citizens equal and masters of their own destiny? If we, the
electorate, the ones who can vote, are not the ruler, who is? Isn’t democracy
defined as government by the people for the people? Is that not what we were
promised at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries when the winds of revolution
swept away the aristocracy and the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire? Rule over
ourselves, the power to do with our lives however we please that is what we are
promised if we put our faith in the idea of democracy.
What about the concept of a
free market society? Isn’t that built on the idea of choice and the right of
the individual to have power over that choice? How can something which adheres
to the idea of the contract and a free market society be oppressive and in any
way subjugating? Yet the fact remains that those who put the most into such an
economy get the least in return. Today the corporation has equal standing in
the courts as the individual does. The right to choose from ten brands of
toothpaste is useless if there is no clean water to rinse ones mouth with.
Or what good is a high
paying job, if the majority of one’s wages only buys the necessities of life?
Those who take risks in today’s free market will never be truly rewarded. But
the fact remains that in a free market society the wages offered to the
majority of people who are forced to work, in order to have sustenance, is not
enough to live a comfortable life on.
Unemployment, although at
historical lows remains as high as ever for those millions in the western world
who cannot find work. Medical care is out of reach for those who do not hold
insurance, and even malnutrition for many of the working poor of these western
representative democratic states, is a fact of life.
If democracy, which has
been totted as the best possible form of government ever created is not what it
is held to be and the idea of capitalism is damaging to the concept of human
freedom, what is there left? Is it possible that we are incapable of creating a
political and economic system that cannot exist without some form of
subjugation of the majority of the people of this planet? Or have such great
ideas as democracy and capitalism been hijacked and corrupted by those who
could profit the most by their alteration in definition and meaning? If so, how
did all this come to pass?
The answers to such
questions do not necessarily live in the present, for the present is far too
saturated with the propaganda of those who control the western representative
democratic state. To search for the answer to today’s questions, it is
necessary to look to the past and how the fabric and meaning of today was manufactured
and by who. Only through an examination of the past is it possible to see that
the ideas of democracy and capitalism still ring true with the possibility of
freedom and prosperity for the individual of the nation state. By looking to
the past we can see how the philosophers and thinkers really envisioned
democracy instead of the lies perpetrated on the people of the western world.
By examining the past, one
will find that the definition of democracy has been altered and the idea of
capitalism has been distorted from its original foundations. Only through such
a shift of the definition of democracy was it possible to accommodate those who
wish to rule for their own sake. Capitalism, too, had its rules altered so
those which regulate it could take it in a direction it was never intended to
go.
But how did all this become
entangled in such deceit? And how does one go about reversing the damage done
and that is currently being done by the anti-democratic representative
democracies of the western world, and their capitalistic free market system? It
is these two question that this work attempts to answer and then address with
ideas of fundamental change that can alter and undo the damage that has been
done.
This work is divided into
two sections. The first explores how and why, this lie was sold to the people
of the western nation states. Once the lie that is representative democracy is
sketched out for all to see, this work then explores how and why the idea of
capitalism was allowed to grow beyond a simple economic model into a universal
code of law that today threatens the right of the individual to live a life
that is his or her own. From there it searches out the reasons why both ideas
of representative democracy and the free market system have worked hand in hand
to create a world of oppression that has never been seen before.
The second part addresses
the need to adjust and change this reality of oppression and subjugation, with
an approach that exemplifies the classical definition of democracy that adheres
to the principle and ideals that were set down by the original architects so
long ago.
The Structure of Today’s
Lie
The idea of politics and
economics is rooted in the concept of power. Each revolves around the central
idea of controlling the masses to produce a single unified approach to managing
the present and building for the future.
Politics exists within
every nation state upon this planet. Politics is the means by which humans
control one another in an attempt to co-exist together. Without politics, we
would still remain a savage beast, without regard for anything remotely
civilized. Economics is directly related to the distribution and the control of
goods and services that allow for human existence and prosperity. Through its
laws, regulations and rules it is the tool upon which politics relies for
stability and social control.
To better understand the
extent to which politics and economics have over one’s life, it is first
necessary to figure out what aspects of these two ideas directly affect you in
your position in the world.
I am sure, that there are
countless numbers of persons out there who have no idea about how to go about
describing their own current political and economic system. Is it a democracy?
If it is a democracy, is it a representational democracy? Is it a liberal or
non-liberal version? What came first, democracy or capitalism? What is the
difference between freedom and liberty? Why should I care about any of the above?
Now that last question no
doubt rings loud and clear for many. The apathy found within the populations of
today’s western nation states is at a level never been seen before. For most,
these questions are of little or no concern. The youth are too busy having fun.
The old too busy trying to stay one step ahead of bankruptcy. By understanding
and knowing the answers to these questions it is possible to get to the root of
today’s problems.
The answers to these
questions are the invisible wires that control your life.
They are the reason that
the single mother resides on welfare. They are the reason why it is impossible
to pay your bills. They explain why the youth of today have no future. Poverty,
crime, addiction, can all be attributed to each and every question that
concerns the make-up of today’s western representative democratic state.
But once these questions
are addressed, there exists another set of questions that become as equally
important. In particular, how and why did representational democracy and
capitalism become the all encompassing ideas that rule without opposition or
alternative today?
For the past century and a
half, there has been a war between four specific concepts in politics and
economics. On the one hand there is the idea of representational democracy and
capitalism. On the other side of the fence are the ideas of communism and
socialism. We have fought numerous wars to see who shall rule and have
dominance of the world and its people. In the end, it was capitalism and the
idea of representational democracy that won out.
With the fall of the Soviet
Union, the discrediting of communism and the socialist ideal here at the end of
the millennium, representational democracy has positioned itself as the main
system of government upon this planet, with the idea of capitalism clinging to
its coat tails. Certainly there are still tiny pockets of socialism and
communism left. There even exist a number of dictatorships and totalitarian
states that dot the globe with their archaic idealism. But when all is said and
done, the world as a whole, is moving or has moved into a system of
representational democracy and embraced the free market.
With the last possible
challenger to the ideas of representational democracy and capitalism vanquished
from the arena, these two ideas now dominate the world. Yet, many of the
fundamentals which comprise each have never been truly challenged. Certainly
when compared to the challengers of the past (communism and socialism),
representational democracy and capitalism were alternatives that not only
looked far more appealing, but worked much better when tested and put into
practice. But now that there is no challenger, how appealing are these two
systems which today dominate the world?
Even though communism and
socialism lost in the end, they did show with their own rhetoric that
capitalism and the idea of representational democracy have their faults,
especially exploitation of the worker and an underlying issue of limited
economic opportunity for everyone. Even at the height of the Cold War, the
rhetoric never really explored these faults to the level it needed to really
address the underlying oppression and subjugation that even representational
democracy and capitalism are built upon. Unfortunately, the debate here in the
western world focused more upon the economic model of each combatant, without
any real attention focused at the fundamentals of how each government, or style
of government functioned.
Ironically, if this had
happened, it would have been seen that both the communist system and that of
the representational democratic state were bound to a structure that utilized
the principles of democracy in a similar fashion. As an example, the Politburo
of the former Soviet Union was an elected body. It was elected along the same
lines and with the same principles as the United States Senate and Congress, in
essence allowing neither population of these two ideological systems any more
freedom than the other. Certainly there were the big differences in the levels
of individual movement, expression, and association. But the fact remains there
was a distinctive split in those who ruled and those who did not, those who had
wealth and those who did not, between those who have power, and those who do
not.
The reason for this is seen
only now, when there is no opposition to the ideas of representational
democracy and capitalism. For it is now evident that the structure and the
system of representational democracy is so well hidden and protected from
possible usurpation or political upheaval, that although it does offer a
somewhat open society, it is still a limited and controlled environment for its
people to exist by creating an artificial atmosphere of democratic process and
outcome.
Together with legislative
control and the domination of the wealthy through their economic stranglehold
found within the oligarchies and monopolies within the capitalistic free
market, there is no possibility of change within the western nation states that
are dominated by representational democracy and capitalism. There is a lock on
the power of the state that was placed there long ago, when the battle for
supremacy on this planet was just about to begin.
In today’s western world
there exist two major stumbling blocks to the eventual freedom of the
individual from persecution and oppression. The first is representative
democracy. The second and more ominous is a global economy. In particular, it
is what is commonly referred to as investment law which is the real threat to
individual freedom and fulfillment.
Today the western world is
a dark and bleak expanse in which millions of people live in squalor and
poverty. Addiction, abuse and violence are a way of life. The possibility of
economic survival dwindles as each day passes. Many of the individuals that
make up the majority of the population of western representative democracies
are confronted with much of the same, as those in the developing world in terms
of economic prosperity and access to venture capital. Yet, this was not what
was promised to the people of the west, nor to the world, if the ideas of
representational democracy and capitalism were allowed to reign supreme.
For many in the western
world, there existed in the past much in the way of a social safety net that
helped to ease the burdens of people who found themselves displaced and at a
disadvantage. Brought forth through socialist thinking in the early 20th
century, social spending was seen by some as a progression in human compassion
and caring for ones fellow human being. Everything from a safe and able health
care system to the possibility of a pension to carry one through ones
retirement years was introduced to much of the population of the western world
before the Cold War.
In fact, during this
specific time frame, even though the rich may have gotten richer, the working
poor and middle class thought of themselves as being better off as they saw
themselves slowly acquire a pittance of wealth and prosperity that they never
knew before. Their life was not one of misery as their ancestors had known it
to be. It was a life of reasonable comfort. In those early days of
representational democracy, power did seem to reside not only in the hands of
the rich and the elite of the nation states, but also in the people. The
governments of the day were given back to the people, in the form of social
programs and social spending.
Even corporate spending on
the employee was substantial in regards to the benefits and salaries paid to
their workers. Pension plans, health care and other such benefits were seen as
the standard of the day. Poverty was soon to be a thing of the past. The good
life was said to be right around the corner for all. All that was needed was
for communism and socialism to be defeated before the utopia of representational
democracy and capitalism could begin.
Well, communism and
socialism have been vanquished from the political and economic arena. Yet
today, there is no utopia found in the western representational democratic
states. The basic promise of prosperity and political liberty is not being kept
or enforced by today’s governments and economic bodies of authority.
In years past, the
oppression and subjugation people were bound too was hard to distinguish due to
the fact that much of what was being given to the population of the western
world was done so through subterfuge and deceit. It is only today that the
injustice and the lies upon which the western nation state is built are visible
to the naked eye. All that was given in the past was done strictly for the purpose
of securing for the
future a powerful and all
encompassing platform upon which the wealthy and well connected rule over the
western nation state.
In much of the western
world today, the millions who find themselves within the ranks of the poor and
middle class are finding that most if not all that was given in the past in the
form of social programs and spending is gone. Programs that once allowed for a
decent standard of living have vanished. Health care, a fundamental for living
in today’s world, in most western nation states has now become a luxury that
cannot be afforded by the middle class and is an impossibility for the poor.
Even the corporations and
the trans-nationals have turned their backs on the worker. Through their
skilful manipulation and marketing techniques, downsizing and right sizing have
become the buzzwords for corporate profitability. The pension is now all but
gone. Health benefits remain only for those white collar workers high enough on
the corporate hierarchical ladder that can demand them. Salaries have been
slashed. The idea of the raise exists no more. Lifetime employment is now
something only read about in the history books.
Despite the outcry of the
masses to what has taken place, the politicians of the western world dully
elected and supposedly governing with the will of all the people, continued on
this course of reversal, dismantling program after program which helped
maintain a decent standard of living for those who could not completely help
themselves. Across the west, billions have been slashed from social spending
budgets. But the carnage did not stop there.
Laws have been passed in
every major western representative state over the years to privatize and even
eliminate state run agencies which only enhanced the life of its citizens by
keeping the necessities of life affordable. Furthermore, other laws that were
aimed solely at the protection of the worker, especially workers who are
injured and could be forced back to work at an earlier stage in their recovery
not based upon medical advice, but rather company structured programs more
concerned with productivity than the health of the worker, have been
eliminated.
The trend continues. Much
of the western world is talking about going to a four day work week from the standard
five, slashing the already miniscule 40-hour work week to 35- hours, creating
even fewer full time positions within the economy in favor of part-time help.
The majority of jobs created in any western nation today are part-time where
employers are not required to pay benefits of any kind. Part-time work is now
the standard for much of the working world as it moves away from the needs and
wants of the full-time employee.
These are just a few of the
examples that can be seen in any western nation state founded upon the
principle of representative democracy and the free market. Where is the
protection of the individual from persecution from their own government? Where
is the protection of the individual from exploitation? It was there in the past
- the social programs, the social spending. Is it possible that this is just a
phase that all western representative democratic states are going through? Have
we elected the wrong people into power? What happened to the power that we all
supposedly had in our lives over our own destinies? Does that too just need a
new politician to bring it back?
Or is it, that we the
individuals of these states, never had any power to begin with? There is reason
to believe that the influential and the wealthy of the state have had it all
the time and it is only now when this new aristocracy has become so powerful in
both political and economic terms, that the poor and middle class of these
western representative democratic nation states are without recourse or
protection from slavery, subjugation and tyranny.
Unfortunately the answer to
this question is yes. Consumerism is not an ideology that can replace choice
and liberty. Within the current system, like the very one in which the people
were enlisted en mass to defeat, they now find themselves without choice and
liberty, forced to endure a life that others dictate to them, forced to live a
life that is not their own.
But how does one go about
changing such a system?
Many have tried and failed.
An entire ideology was defeated in the process of trying to undo the workings
of representational democracy and capitalism. With so many checks and balances
in regards to the structure of power in a representational democratic state, no
one truly knows who holds power, or who controls what. That in essence is part
of the reason why it is so difficult to undermine the authority of such a
system. Control the legislative branch, and then there is the bureaucracy and
the judiciary that stand in ones way. Maintain control of the bureaucracy and
neither of the other two, then one is cornered again.
This of course does not
even take into consideration the economic factor of the nation. The wealthy and
the influential and their power must also be factored into the equation. But
with this component one can never be too sure where and how it is used. In
today’s world of high finance and international dealings, one can never be too
sure who controls what and at what level either. With cleaver manipulation and
misinformation, those who control much of the direction and outcome of the
worlds financial affairs do so without opposition and unnecessary input from
the common people. It is not really possible to understand who rules over the
masses, but it is possible to explore and understand how it is done.
The key to understanding
and undoing the damage that is now being done in the present is knowing the
past and how representational democracy was brought in as a form of government
to compliment the emerging free market economies of the western world. Alone,
it would have been impossible for either representational democracy or
capitalism to survive. But working together, success was all but guaranteed.
The Little Lie That is
Representational Democracy
It is not my intention to
go back through history and explain the entire process by which many of the
western nation states developed their versions and definitions of democracy. I
will concentrate on one aspect of democracy that all western nations have in
common - the change in definition and the process by which democracy, as it was
originally envisioned, has been altered to a single unified version espoused by
all of today’s western representative democracies.
This change of definition
is the corner stone upon which the rulers of today govern the various western
nation states in the name of democracy, a change in definition that was brought
about without the consent of the population, a change of democracy so drastic
it amounts to nothing less than a lie. But the more that is known about how the
definition of democracy changed, the more that will be known that that which
passes today as freedom and liberty are not the principles and the vision of
philosophers and thinkers of the past, but are strictly controlled and limited
versions of such principles that exist only in name. Once exposed, this lie
will reveal to everyone that what exists today as democracy, is not a democracy
at all.
Even though there has been
great progress over the years to allow for greater individual growth and
development in representative democratic states, it is still possible to argue
that just the opposite has occurred. From this writer’s point of view, any
state that adheres to the idea of representational democracy, is perhaps the most
tightly controlled society in the world. Ask yourself this: how do states with
millions and millions of people refrain from falling into anarchy or conflict?
The only possible answer is the simplest one: state control and more
importantly, the rule of law.
Through the various
mechanisms that guide social behavior, to the very essence that is the rule of
law, those who rule today’s western nation states are guaranteed of a continued
existence of the status quo. The mechanisms and fundamental underpinnings of
the "free contract" were put in place in the past to control and
limit the amount of power any individual member, or group, beyond the
establishment of society may control in a representative democratic nation
state. What was achieved in the past was a dispersal of power among certain
institutions and individual bodies of authority throughout the legislative,
executive and judiciary branches of government that, although indirectly
accountable to the people of the state, are in a sense autonomous in nature.
Today the structure of
these institutions allows for a continued supremacy of power among an elite,
along with a continued assurance of the status quo, no matter who may occupy
the seats or positions within these pillars of power. It is like being the head
of a large corporation. You may be elected to the board as the chairperson and
you may decide that even though your company is in the business of making
radios, you would like to make automobiles. But, in the end, despite all your
attempts to change the direction of the company, you will still be making
radios. And all that will have happened is that you will be removed from your
position and someone who is only interested in making radios will once again be
elected chairperson.
What is not permitted is
fundamental change. The opportunity for dynamic change is not allowed or
tolerated. Growth and prosperity are not given the opportunity to flourish
within their own sphere of influence. This is how the structure of
representative democracy works. It is specifically structured to allow for
uninterrupted control over the state, in both political and economic terms.
The interesting thing about
today’s political reality and the original version of how democracy was defined
is how far apart they are from each other. The above example of the individual
who wanted to change the direction of the company from making radios to making
automobiles was known to the thinkers of the past. Certainly not is such
specific terms as the example, but the principles behind the example were
known. They were confronted with the same problem of government in their own
time as today’s western population. Government, when it is structured as such,
does not allow for change. Nor does it allow for all people to participate in
the process in an equal fashion.
That is why the ideas and
principles of democracy were defined as they were, to allow for greater access
by everyone on an equal level. But, it was also structured in such a way as to
allow for change to occur as the people of the state willed it. Democracy in
the past had always been defined as rule for the poor, by the poor. Many in
today’s society have forgotten this fact for the simple reason that democracy
is not defined like that today.
If one were to look around
the western world and the democracies which exist, this traditional definition
seems to have been replaced by something quite the contrary. Democracy has been
corrupted by a different definition that has as its credo less to do with the
poor of the state and more with the wealthy and politically well connected. How
could this have happened? The greatest concept in human politics itself
corrupted?
This deviation was brought
about early in the birth of the western nations as they embraced the economic
ideology called capitalism. Capitalism, founded upon great technological
growth, needed a system of government which would allow it the greatest
possible flexibility. This flexibility and ability to maneuver without
interference, was only possible if it could be cemented in law and continually
administered through the legislative and executive authority of the nation.
Capitalism needed the most unrestricted, yet legally binding, form of
government possible. It needed a form of government that could provide
protection for the wealthy and their investments on the one hand, while on the
other, provide the correct type of atmosphere that could get everyone into the
race equally, but still maintain the control and power over the masses.
Capitalism is built around
two very basic principles. The first is the need for all business to compete
with as little governmental interference as possible. The industrialists and
capitalists of the past knew, as those of today know, that any interference
from government in the free market system will weaken profits and greatly
diminish the possibility of growth. Second, capitalism needs a form of
government where citizens are given the right amount of liberty to allow for
their movement and ability to grow as individuals, yet without allowing the
masses in general to create enough capital and wealth to compete with those who
were already wealthy. This for the simple fact that it is the population or the
masses of the state which create wealth for business. Without the people of the
state involved in the economy to the fullest, not as competitors but
participants and workers of every kind, then it is impossible for capital to be
generated. Thus the beginning of the contradiction between the traditional
definition of democracy and the political system needed by the wealthy and
powerful of the time. It became necessary that in some way there become a new
definition of democracy.
Democracy and its
principles of openness and equality provided everything the capitalists and
industrialists of the time needed to start their economies, except of course
for one thing - the basic tenant of the traditional definition of democracy as
rule for the poor, by the poor. This was the problem. The capitalists and
industrialist knew back then that if the poor of the state ruled, there would
be no possibility of a capitalist economy. There would be no way that the poor
of the emerging industrialized nations would allow for their own exploitation
for profit. Thus what was needed was a system that could take the best of democracy,
from the view of the capitalist, and merge it with a system that could still
effectively guarantee political control in the hands of those that already ran
these western states.
Many of the western
democracies which exist today were liberal minded states long before they were
democracies. As power moved from the hereditary kings and queens to the people
en mass, much of the intellectual thinking of the time could be summed up with
three little words "liberty, fraternity, equality." It is this sentiment
which is the foundation of much of the liberal ideology. The liberal view,
although steeped in the rights of the individual and much of what was then
defined as natural law, offered quite a different picture in terms of political
invention. In particular, the liberal definition of democracy had little to do
with the needs of the poor and more to do with the politics of choice. It was
this fact that was the key to the successful change in the definition of
democracy from its traditional definition to what exists today. The key to this
new definition was that choice was seen more in terms of the collective or the
need of the group than in terms of individual ability. It was this liberal
version of democracy that fell more into the realm of political choice of the
party system than individual choice, that found favor with the capitalists and
industrialists. This came about from the liberal view that the collective is
the best and appropriate way of guaranteeing the rights of the individual. This
was the key for the capitalists, for it allowed for the control which was
needed in order to maintain their power over the masses, both in political and
economic terms.
Now, to a certain degree
there is nothing wrong with putting the needs of the collective before the
individual. The need to protect minority rights is essential to keep a society
healthy, vibrant and equal. However, the liberal view is far more reaching in
scope and definition. The liberal view imposes upon society the views of the
majority before the minority. The liberal view of democracy and its
artificially structured political process placed far more emphasis on the
politics of choice and that of the party system than rule by the individual or
the poor. It was an interesting spin upon the idea of rule by the majority that
the early liberal democratic states placed upon the central concept of
democracy.
In essence, it said to the
masses of the nation 'Here is your right to vote in the general election and
here are your candidates. Through these people who are your representatives,
the country will be run. So cast your ballet in total freedom of choice and
there your democracy shall exist.’
In the end, all that was
accomplished was that the individual of the state was bound to a democratic
process of choice consisting of a field of candidates affiliated with a
political party that had nothing to do with the poor or the majority. By
placing the political process in the confines of a party system, the wealthy of
these emerging industrialized western representative democratic states assured
themselves of total control by maintaining the power of the state, not in the
people or the majority, but within the structure of the political parties that
are controlled through the contributions and wealth of the political and
economic elite.
It is this very situation
which still exists today. As in the past, today’s democracies are not so much
rule for the poor, than rule by the rich to control the poor, making democracy
not a democracy at all and altering the definition of the most noble and
enlightened concept the human mind ever conceived.
It is this change in
definition from rule by the poor, to that of the rich over the poor, that
constitutes nothing more than a usurpation of the right of the individual of this
world to exist in relative freedom without oppression. This is the little lie
we have all bought in to. This is today’s lie of representational democracy.
THE FREE MARKET SYSTEM AND REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
From The Confines Of The
Nation State, To The First Failed Attempt Of The Global Economy
With the political
foundation of representational democracy laid, the free market could now expand
and grow. The free market is linked to the development of the concept of the
nation state and nationalism. If one can understand the development of the
nation state within the European context, then one can understand the idea of
the free market, and how it matured over the years into today’s greater system
of capitalism.
Although the origins of the
nation state can be traced as far back as the 16th Century, it did not really
take shape until the revolutions of the 17th and 18th Centuries in Europe and
North America. In European terms the nation state was the logical outcome of
European history. The French Revolution itself, perhaps more than anything
else, played the catalyst to a new era of European geopolitical history. From
the revolution, the idea of one people, directly linked to one another through
one culture, one language and one history, formed in essence the modern nation
state. From the example of the French, the rest of Europe - and the world-
followed in step.
With philosophers like
Hobbes and John Locke and their contributions to the enlightenment, their works
mainly refined what the people of the time had already known. But it was also
the fledgling capitalists that knew only through the nation state was it
possible to direct the national economy for his own interest. Slowly, as the
nations of Europe took shape in modern form, the old ways were swept aside for
the new. Mercantilism was replaced with the free market and the aristocracy and
royalty were replaced with representational democracy.
The wealthy industrialists
of the time knew that for the idea of the "free contract," the
cornerstone which capitalism is founded upon, to gain legitimacy it was
necessary to work within some form of system that made it possible to legislate
rules and regulations upon anyone who wanted to do business. Without such a
system in place, the free market would flounder amidst corruption and abuse.
Therefore, the nation state provided the perfect platform upon which the
wealthy of Europe could begin the industrial revolution.
Through legislative
control, the foundations were laid for the beginnings of the three major
systems of law that work throughout the western world - British Common Law, the
French Civil Code and American Constitutional Law. Although the American system
of Constitutional Law is now very prevalent and overpowering in many ways, it
is only a recent newcomer to the world stage in terms of influence and judicial
jurisprudence. It was not until the late19th and early 20th century that the
American system could be consider as influential as the other two.
Through these systems of
jurisprudence, the wealthy and the capitalists of the European continent laid
down the foundations of the free market system and the idea of the " free
contract" within the emerging representational democratic states of the
west.
The idea of the
"contract" was not only used within the world of business and
finance, but it served itself well within the political arena. Through the
concept of the contract, it was possible for the relationships between nations
to be forged in law, whereas in the past much was negotiated and agreed to
between families and based simply on trust. It was in a sense one of the key
steps in the creation of the nation state. By creating binding resolutions
between peoples of various cultural and ethnic origins the foundation of what
is today Europe, was brought about.
With the ideas of
representative democracy and capitalism, the wealthy industrialist and
capitalists of the time found the perfect platform from which they could
exercise their early control of the nation state. With each group or community of
people finding common ground and interest among one another, it was possible to
build a society that had both a boundary and the possibility of being
manageable. Without some form of cohesion for democratic political and economic
parameters, the idea of a society that could function as one as a capitalistic
representative democracy would fail.
The years between the
French Revolution and the Great Depression of the early 20th Century were an
incubation period for the fledgling free market system and Capitalism.
Throughout this period of time, much of Europe was thrown into turmoil as
culture after culture forged out its destiny in terms of the nation state upon
the continent as well as North America.
Within this time frame, the
nation states of the western world also continued to redefine their role in the
world in both political and economic terms. British Common Law and the French
Civil Code were extended to the far reaches of the world through imperial
colonization and empire building, while the American systems of Constitutional
Law was slowly taking shape in the United States. Within their own boundaries,
laws, regulations and rules were updated and created as the demands of the
industrialized economy required in the western world.
The establishment continued
to cement their control in both economic and industrial terms as financial
markets were developed as well as a central banking system. With these and
other socio-political and economic innovations, the nation state, through the
ever increasing role that economic development had, began to create a meaning
of its own.
All this was accomplished
through the increasing influence economies had on both the social and political
context of the nation. The rights of business were pursued and achieved at a
greater pace and even eclipsed the individual rights of man. Such developed
branches of legal study as economic law and contract law were legislated to
protect the growing investments and wealth of the elite of the nation state.
The first attempts at linking
individual nation states together economically did not occur until the first
half of the 20th Century. However, this did not work out as well as the
architects of the time hoped. In their haste, they built without consideration
for anything other than their own self-interest and national superiority. To
make matters worse, little was known in regards to proper economic monetary
policy, the need for proper banking and security regulations, or the risks of
inflation and deflation.
To many it was thought that
it was through competition and the dominance of the strongest nation state over
the weakest that the progress of the world was hinged. It was through this
great need to outdo other nations that the economies of the world were allowed
to grow and merge into one another. It was within this atmosphere of weak
regulation and control that eventually lead to the collapse of the futures
market in Chicago and the stock market crash of 1929.
The Great Depression was
the result of the world’s failed financial attempt at a global economy. With
the stock market collapse on Wall Street and the eventual collapse of all the
individual economies of Europe through the destabilization of the Gold
Standard, the world and the architects of the free market system saw for the
first time the flaws and major structural problems of what they built.
The wealthy and the elite
saw that even though they dominated in economic terms, it became evident that
they could not build haphazardly as they did. It would take more than just
sheer size and clout to merge the economies and destinies of various nation
states of the western world into one. But before the world could address the
problems and build the framework of a global free market system, the other
pillar upon which they constructed their power base was about to fall thanks to
the Second World War and the rise of the Third Reich.
In political terms the rise
of the Third Reich in Germany in the 1930s was as damaging to the continued
existence of the nation state as the collapse of the free market was to the
economy. It showed for the first time that there existed a gap in the power
structure which was so carefully manufactured because even though it was
possible to control the state through the many mechanisms, checks and balances,
there still existed the possibility of a political coup.
But surely two of the
greatest disasters for capitalism and the free market economy would be
rectified after the Second World War? A common attitude prevailed in the
remaining representational democracies - the mistakes of the past couldn’t be
made again. The cost was too high, in human lives as well as politically and
economically. But in the aftermath of the 1930s and 1940s, all that really
remained intact were the three systems that had held at its core the idea of
the "free contract," that being British Common Law, the French Civil
Code and the American system of Constitutional Law.
From there the rebuilding
would begin.
Political And Economic
Consolidation of The Mid-to Late-Twentieth Century
From the ashes of the
Second World War, the concept of the nation state and the idea of the global
economy took on a new meaning of cooperation and consolidation, in particular,
how politics and economics were to be utilized in the western nation states
that had just emerged victorious from the greatest conflagration the world has
ever known. The wealthy and political elite understood all too well that the
political and economic mistakes leading to this catastrophe could never happen
again. The price was just to high in terms of the human and material cost to
the world.
Furthermore, they new
implicitly the flaws of capitalism and representational democracy well,
especially in terms of electoral stability and the power base of certain
political electoral boundaries. As the capitalists set about to transform the
war-ravaged world from destruction and chaos to that of prosperity, a new world
order would have to be built to ensure that the mistakes of the past would
never be repeated.
Since the end of the Second
World War, the wealthy and influential have quietly consolidated power away
from the framework of the nation state into various bodies of authority. It is
not surprising then that when an election is called in any western democratic
state, voter turn out is, to put it mildly, abysmal. The reason for this is
simple - the people, en mass, have realized over the years their wishes and
desires will never be accommodated within the current political system. They
have been told for so long that others "know best," that a simple
change in government has no great effect on the possibility of change for the
masses of people who wish to have a greater say in how their lives are run. For
the electorate, voting has become something in which they are not interested.
It is no secret - nor a coincidence - that voter turnout has been on a steady
decline since the end of the Korean War. But the fact still remains, of all the
eligible voters in all the western democratic nations, more people every day
are inclined to stay away from the ballot box.
One of the greatest factors
in boycotting the political process is for too many years, the electorate have
heard their wishes dutifully accepted during the political campaign up to the
election, only to find these very same wishes are suddenly expendable and
unfeasible once the new government takes up office. Democracy for them does not
really mean greater political freedom or power. The needs and desires of the
everyday individual of the nation state are overlooked by those dully elected
to the legislatures of the western world. They are overlooked because what the
majority of people in these western representative democratic states crave is
not the same as what those who have power and influence want.
Representative democracy
and capitalism were developed hand in hand to compliment each other and create
a power structure which allows the wealthy and influential the ability to rule
without interference or opposition. But as the mistakes of the 1930s and 1940s
proved, even with careful planning and with the proper mechanisms in place, the
possibility of the usurpation of the establishment was possible.
Thus history showed the
need for reform would have to be twofold in nature. On the one hand, the
possibility of the representative democratic states becoming politically
unstable in terms of social unrest had to be curtailed and removed. Since the
gap between the haves and have nots continued to expand, it created a situation
where the majority of the population was in the have not category therefore
making them susceptible to rejecting mainstream politics in favor of more
extreme views. This continued shifting of governments from one political party
to another, each having their own distinct philosophy and ideology, created an
atmosphere of political and economic instability. Even though it was possible
to control the state through all the bureaucratic mechanisms and checks and
balances on which the representative democratic state had been built to insure
political and economic stability, there still existed the possibility of a
political and economic coup.
The second reason for the
consolidation of power was to create the environment and circumstances for the
possibility of a global economic structure. In essence, the need to bring about
a global trading block that had at its root core, a central idea or regime of
regulations and laws which everyone could follow, ensuring stability and
fostering growth. Through the creation of such laws, the base of power is
shifted from within the borders of nation states to something a little less
volatile which can be more easily controlled. It was within the realm of
economics where much of the power which once existed within the nation state
has been swept. Once the base of power and the ability to influence the western
representative democratic state could be exercised from abroad, the possibility
of actually losing control of the state became an impossibility. If the
policies and laws of sovereign nations could be influenced by outside economic
forces - if they could be blackmailed by business - then the government wields
no real power.
It was still necessary to
rule within the boundaries of these nation states, if for no other reason than
to maintain appearances. In essence, those who sat atop the hierarchical
structure of wealth and influence of their own nation state ruled. But if it is
law that the legislators of the world create for their own countries, it is
these same legislators who are creating laws that are slowly undermining the
base of power of the sovereign nation state, shifting it into something which
is untouchable and independent from the people of these very same nations –
undemocratic bodies of authority and ultimately the corporations.
In order to accomplish
this, it was necessary to steer national policies in a new and different
direction. The problems of the past were all to clear to the global
capitalists. The main culprit was the structure upon which the western
representative democratic nation rested. The possibility of a political coup,
upsetting the capitalists apple cart was still seen as very real. What was
needed was some way in which the power of the state could be curtailed into a
governing body, institution, or system, in which the status quo, or the power
of determining the outcome of a given situation could be controlled, without
interference from the political process of that state.
Even though the political
system of representative democracy was flawed from the perspective of the
wealthy and elite, it was still a necessary component to maintain the
atmosphere of growth needed for a free market system. It was the only reason
representative democracy was allowed to thrive. The problem was excluding
certain institutions within the state from the democratic process would not be
tolerated. Thus the need would be to find an alternative option.
One option was to steer the
power of the state into some form of greater political and economic system that
encompassed more than the fragile and limited existence upon which the
fledgling western representative democratic nation states rested. It was this
option, that of creating a much larger system that went beyond the borders of
any one country to take in everyone, that was to prove the method upon which
the wealthy and the influential would build their new world order. By
effectively removing portions of power of the state out of the hands of
sovereign governments it would be possible to nullify any real possibility of
any nation state from being overturned both politically and economically from
within. Their choice of system in which the power of the nation state would be
directed into was the burgeoning principle of investment law. If you couldn’t
legislate morality, then at least you could litigate behavior.
In the past, nations
controlled their own economic and political fate. But that was also the
fundamental flaw that caused the problems demonstrated in the 1930s and 1940s.
It quickly became evident it was impossible to build global consensus when
everyone lived by different rules and regulations. But before a global
consensus could be reached, it was necessary to do so among the western nation
states first. Economic law and corporate (or investment law as it is known
today) was used solely for building uniformity where there wasn’t any before.
It was through legislative authority and court precedence, that the power of
the state was guided into the realm of investment law. Today, trans-national
corporations enjoy the same legal standing as sovereign nations.
Once the base of power and
the ability to influence the western representative democratic states can be
exercised, the possibility of actually losing control of the state becomes
impossible. In essence, if sovereign legislatures succumb to outside pressure
which may be hostile to the establishment, then the legislature has no real
power.
It was along this line of
thinking the architects of the post war era thought it prudent to build upon.
It was necessary to take the remnants of what existed of the three forms of
legal jurisprudence - British Common Law, the French Civil Code, and the
American system of Constitutional Law - and merge them into a single and
comprehensible legal system that would exist independent of any one sovereign
nation. The foundation was laid while the allied leaders decided how post
Second World War Europe was to be carved up. As the leaders thought through the
political and social problems, the business elite also sought to set down the
framework for the economy of post war Europe. Much of this work was done at a
conference held in Bretton Woods in the United States, where the powerful and
influential of the financial world, many of whom bankrolled the war effort for
the allies, sat down to discuss their plans for economic domination through the
free market system. The key institutions which were established through this
meeting were the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Through these institutions
it would be possible to stabilize a fragile European economy while at the same
time provide massive loans on a scale never before seen to governments willing
to rebuild their economies to the liking of the industrialist and the
capitalists who dominated existing free market economies of the world. Through
the influence of the World Bank, it would be possible to set up a system that
had ground rules that could be easily enforced through the courts and through
other forms of tribunals that dealt with corporate and investment law. This was
the beginning of the global financial uniformity the wealthy knew they needed
to ensure the economic and political collapse of the past would not happen
again.
In sharp contrast, the
philosophy of Karl Marx, had taken root in many countries of the world,
especially Russia and Asia. This was the stumbling block to the goals and
aspirations which had been laid down in the Bretton Woods talks. With communism
spreading, any real global economy in which the trade of goods and services
could be offered without interruption or barrier was curtailed. Surprisingly,
if not somewhat ironically, is that amidst this competition between two
opposing ideologies, the greatest consolidation of power was occurring in the
western world. From continental Europe to the North American continent, the
ideas discussed and implemented at the end of the Second World War ran unabated
through the years the west was enlisted in an attempt to defeat the ideas of
communism and socialism.
This period of time saw the
introduction of the welfare state and the emergence of the social program as a
long and hard fought achievement upon the backs of the people of the western
world. It can only be seen as a token offered to the population of the western
representative democratic states for their help in the fight against communism
and socialism. Perhaps the question should be asked, would these programs which
do nothing for the rich, exist today if communism and socialism had not talked
about the need to protect the worker and their families from exploitation?
After all, it is easier to win if the population of one’s country is complacent
and comfortable.
In the end, Marx and his
theories were disproved and much of the communist world collapsed amid economic
and political ruin. With communism defeated it looked like nothing stood in the
way of the free market system being implemented on a worldwide scale. With the
preparatory work done years earlier, it was now possible to move forward into a
world where the global economy could finally exist and prosper in.
Today, trade agreements and
international rulings of all sorts have been passed around the world which has
taken power away from legislatures and placed it in organizations like the
World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. But beyond that,
there has been an increasing number of political developments both here in
North America and Continental Europe the likes of which have not been seen
since the beginnings of the revolutions ousting the aristocracies of the western
world.
Yet the most astounding
fact of all this consolidation and erosion of national sovereignty is that it
is happening and has happened in the last 50 years in the name of democratic
reform. With enthusiasm and cries of "Power to the People," the representatives
of the western states are creating laws and new institutions of power that
amount to nothing more than window dressing, a contemporary "opiate for
the masses," that offers nothing to the individual in terms of greater
power, meaning, and choice.
To better understand the
ramifications and the developments that led to this unprecedented consolidation
of political power, this chapter examines in greater detail the developments
that happened within Europe, Canada and the United States. Particular reforms
which have been tried or are currently in the process of implementation, which
attempt to address the need for greater accountability of the representative,
to the voting public, which in the end do nothing more than remove the power of
the state into something which exists beyond its borders, are explored and
exposed for what they are. These reforms to the economy and political process
are supposed to put more control in the hands of the general population, but
really do nothing more than further erode the power of the nation states over
their own affairs and turn the people of sovereign nations into puppets.
Of any region within the
western world, nowhere is the consolidation of political and economic power
more acute than on the continent. Yet to many who inhabit Western Europe, much
of what has happened has been accomplished without the input of the millions of
people who will be affected by such reforms. Most, if not all, the changes
occurring today in western Europe are being done through the use of treaties
and negotiated regulations through appointed officials who have little or no
accountability to the public at large. To best understand how this
consolidation occurred, it is necessary to comprehend the nature of Europe itself.
Europe embodies the word
multicultural. Diversity is the driving force behind the politics of the
continent. Whether it be the need of the French to solidify their position of
power, or the German need to unite and define themselves as one people, to the
English worries of becoming too much a part of that same continent, the needs
of these and the other ethnic and cultural entities that make up Europe have,
over the centuries, continually played one country off another to encourage and
pursue their own political and economic ambitions. It was through this very
process that the idea and the concept of the modern nation-state was born.
Although there are aspects
of the nation state that are limiting and out right disastrous in certain
circumstances, the eventual outcome was that the people of western Europe where
able to build a complex and highly technical society which, although demanding
a great many things from the various populations, raised the standard of living
for millions of Europeans.
However, with prosperity
came a price. With the nation state clearly defined, it allowed the elite of
each country to solidify power within their own communities. It also created
the framework from which a controlled society could emerge. Although the elite
ran the show, the structure and make-up of the nation state allowed room for
the people of the state to define themselves and their place in the world.
Without the ability of a given people to determine their own lot in life, the
possibility of even the individual attaining his or her own fulfillment is an
impossibility. Yet that is precisely what is happening to continental Europe
today - the dissolution of the nation state into a quasi European federal
state, that is neither accountable to the people, nor accessible by them.
Europe is on the threshold
of an era not seen since the rule of the Holy Roman Empire and the aristocracy.
This ever growing institution known as the European State or the European
Union, as it is more commonly referred to, is replacing the sovereignty that
once existed within the individual states of Europe into one Federal State in
which accountability and the right of the individual to participate in the
direction of the state has all but vanished. The consolidation of power on the
continent has not happened overnight. The process of consolidating the power of
the individual nation states of Europe into one institution, the European Union
has been a painstakingly slow process.
This idea of a European
Union is one which has long been on the mind of many Europeans in the later
half of this century. After enduring two world wars, it was the express opinion
of many that some solution would have to be found in order to establish a
certain amount of stability which could also guarantee economic prosperity.
Thus, initiatives were begun in the hopes of creating an institution that could
in one broad stoke, replace the failings that the representative democratic
form of government had shown itself prone to.
Although representative
democratic states were designed with a great many checks and balances in place
in order to maintain a certain degree of stability and uninterrupted opposition
to the establishment, the Nazis episode in Germany during the early thirties
and forties proved to many that there would have to be something which could
replace the power structure of the state in such a way that the scourge of
fascism, war and the resulting political and economic upheaval of the Second
World War could be avoided in the future. It was through this need that the
initial steps to a new Federal Union on the continent was begun.
The emergence of a unified
federal state has had neither public input nor public design. Although elected
representatives of the major powers of Europe were involved in the creation of
this new federal state, the extent upon which involvement was based was never
intended or created for the purpose of allowing greater political and economic
freedom for the majority of the population. Through a series of treaties signed
and ratified among the powers of Western Europe, the consolidation of economic
and political power of the individual nation states into the idea of a federal
state has been achieved
The beginning of the
European Union could be described as suspect at best. A simple treaty between
two European beurocrats (jean Monnet and Robert Schuman) over the rights of
coal, to form the European Coal and Steel Communities…would be key to the
foundation of today’s European Union. It was instrumental not only in the fact
that it was not driven by any real political reform, but was designed simply in
economic terms and negotiated without any public input, which in all respects,
has been the driving force behind the European Federal State.
From there came the Treaty
of Rome, March 25, 1957, in which the governments of West Germany, France,
Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, or "the Six" as they
are known, established the European Economic Community, (EEC) the forerunner to
today’s EU. That same day, the treaty to establish Euratom was signed by the
Six as well. This treaty was designed for the purpose of harnessing and
consolidating the nuclear programs of the six into one manageable organization
that could utilize and harness the emerging energy source of nuclear power.
The development of these
treaties began to forge new political and economic institutions that existed
outside the boundaries of the nation states. With these new treaties came new
laws and regulations that were enforceable, not through any legislature of the
continent, but through tribunals that existed outside the realm of public
accountability.
With the success of the
original treaties, it was not long before other treaties emerged based upon
this same framework and began to take a foothold within Western Europe. The
launching both of the common market and of the agricultural policy meant the
removal of tariffs between the member countries within a ten-year period.
Although this was an implicit deal between industry and agriculture, mainly in
France and Germany, the impact of such an agreement was to be felt across
Europe.
Next was the Single
European Act (SEA), which laid the groundwork for the next and final step that
all but ensured the authority and legitimacy of the new federal state and its
position of authority over any representative democracy. In essence it created
a single currency and a single common market, free of tariffs and other known
barriers upon which the free exchange of goods and services among the nations
of Western Europe would ultimately be based.
Then the Maastricht Treaty
was signed in 1992 advocating monetary and economic union and the establishment
of a Central European Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, coupled with the eventual
launch of the Euro dollar, a new level of government and power in Europe that
is neither accessible to the people of western Europe nor one that even
remotely resembles the principles and ideals that any form of democracy or
representative democracy espouses to was created.
These major treaties and
the many laws, regulations and rules that accompany them, form the basis of a
new constitution of Europe, enforceable by the new federal court of Europe,
that sits in Luxembourg. With its thirteen judges that are appointed from the
various nation states that make up the European Union, it enforces and applies
this new constitution within Europe, usurping any and all legislation that is
in conflict with the decisions that are passed by the new Federal State of
Europe. It also creates for England a situation in which, for the first time in
history, England is bound to a constitution that is written down, in specific
and unwavering definition, imposing itself on the English people where for the
last two hundred or so years, their constitution has been one that was tacit in
design.
Although there exists
within this new system a voice for the populations of this new federal state,
it is in all respects window dressing and a facade in democratic terms. A
European Parliament made up of 500 or so delegates elected by universal
suffrage exists. Yet the delegates are only allowed to offer opinion and
suggestion to any legislation or laws which are passed. These representatives
do not have the executive power or authority to pass legislation as was the
case in previous representative democratic governments. All these new
legislators of Western Europe can do is advise and recommend amendments.
The real power exists in
the European Commission, which has a total of seventeen members, two from each
of the largest states (Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain),
one each from the seven smaller states (Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Ireland,
Portugal, Luxembourg and Greece). Members are appointed to four-year terms and
later ratified by the council of ministers. The key point here is the power
which they wield within this ever growing European federal state. Once
appointed, the members to the commission cannot be recalled, nor do they have
any real political connection with their previous government. They are, for all
intended purposes, absolute dictators.
The council of ministers is
a creation of the governments of the various member states. This is the EU's
top legislative body. It is comprised of members who are appointed by national
governments. The council is empowered to act on proposals from the commission
and to reach conclusions that take the form of regulations, directives,
recommendations and opinions. Decisions of the council can be reached by
majority vote for procedural questioning, and by qualified majority for such
issues that have been so specified by existing treaties and the SEA.
This further illustrates
that the decision making process, although complex, is not made by the people
of Europe, but by a political elite. To fully comprehend the scope and character
of this new federal authority, all one must do is examine the process in which
legislation in the new federal state of Europe is passed.
Draft legislation goes from
the appointed EU commission to the European Parliament for debate, not
ratification. From there it goes to the council of ministers which itself is
comprised of appointed members, and then to the various representative
democracies of the continent which are controlled by the representative
democratic system of government that is bound to the party system. Nowhere in
the process of creating this new law, is the input of the public demanded or
even accepted.
Europe is positioning
itself to be the greatest democracy of the world. The proponents of this new
federal state would call it a great step forward for freedom and liberty and
the democratic process as a whole. This new European government will be a model
for the future. It will bring about the change and accountability which the
masses have been calling for in the past. It will open up new borders and new
frontiers of economic freedom. It will...
Or is it nothing more than
a consolidation of power among the elite of Europe, a bureaucratic monstrosity,
that will have little or nothing to do with bringing greater political clout to
the amassed poor of western Europe who only exist paycheque to paycheque,
wondering whether or not their job is safe or even secure in today’s atmosphere
of consolidation and economic greed?
Of any nation in the
western world, Canada has by far undergone the greatest transformation. Since
confederation in 1867 Canada has experienced nothing but continued
consolidation on both the political and economic front in terms of its
emergence from that of colonial whipping boy of the English, to its own
identity as a sovereign nation state. However, this consolidation has taken a
great toll not only on the Canadian psyche but on its development as a healthy
and prosperous nation as well.
Perhaps the strangest
consequence of this consolidation is instead of becoming more homogenous as a
nation, Canada has instead become much more fractured and fragmented, teetering
on the verge of collapse. Certainly within the last 15 years Canada has given
up much of its own control over its economy to outside organizations such as
the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. But the fact
is, as seen in Europe and the United States, with the continued removal of the
power base out of the hands of the individual and the various representative
governments that exist and into greater autonomous bodies of authority, much of
the consolidation that has gone on in Canada in both political and economic
terms has been internal, and even regional. This consolidating, which is still
going on, perhaps will be the ultimate demise of the Canadian federation as it
is known today.
Due to the complexity and
continued evolution of the Canadian political and economic landscape, it is
necessary to look at Canada from two distinct historical points of view. Those
two periods of time being 1931 - 1982, then from 1982 to the present.
Although Canada did not
secure full control over its own foreign affairs until 1931 with the passage of
the Statute of Westminster, it could be argued that Canada never really became
a county until it repatriated the constitution from England in 1982. Although a
county with a name and flag before this date, it still could be considered a
colony of England since technically, the Queen was still the head of state.
Then perhaps not so
ironically it could be said that between the years of 1931 and 1982 Canada was
feeling itself out for that point in time when it would become a nation.
In 1949, the Supreme Court
of Canada became the final court of appeal, thus making the Canadian judiciary
independent from its English cousins and allowing Canadians the right to choose
their own direction in terms of legal jurisprudence. What should have been a
moment of unity only wound up creating discord and served as the template for
future Canadian internal strife.
The Canadian Supreme court
consists of eight Justices and one Chief Justice. Their appointment consists of
no fewer than three Justices from Quebec and the remainder almost invariably
from eastern and central Canada. But other ramifications of this event were only
to be realized later on when Canada adopted a new constitution, empowering the
court and the Justices themselves with even greater power than they had before,
a shift in power which could only be described as monumental thanks in part to
this new constitutional structure and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Canada has always been
built around the idea of diversity and perhaps that will be its undoing.
Although built around the idea of two founding people, French and English, it
is the idea of multiculturalism that Canada is known for. In fact it was during
this time frame of 1931 to 1982 that the idea of multiculturalism was touted as
the political ideology that Canada would adopt as policy. But in terms of
political and economic consolidation, multiculturalism is an idea that does not
work in a free market, especially when the business and academic elite cannot
decide on what they want to be or where they want to go.
Of anything that has
emerged from these years of consolidation within Canada, how power is
distributed, is an issue that is still up for debate today. Unlike the
Americans with their civil war, and the Europeans with their grand idea of a
super state, Canada is still deciding on the merits of federalism versus the
idea of provincial control in terms of who shall control the Canadian political
and economic landscape.
Quebec has always been the
thorn in the side of English Canada. Not surprisingly, just the opposite could
be said of English Canada when one refers to Quebec. Since the 1960’s there has
been a concerted effort by the Quebec government, regardless of political
heredity, to gain control over their own affairs. From education and aid to
small business, to all the major industries and ministries that exist within
Quebec, provincial control is now a reality.
These ideas fly in the face
of what English Canada has tried to embrace for decades. From the rise of
Social Credit in Alberta and the CCF in Saskatchewan and with it ideas like
Medicare, English Canada has adopted a more collective ideology than their
French speaking compatriots in the east. This ideology over time has been
reflected in the federal government. However, due to electoral boundaries and
the distribution of the population, the federal government’s power base is in
Ontario. Certainly this idea of a strong federal government has been trying to
carry the day with national standards from everything from health care and
employment to taxation on fuel.
However, in Quebec the
intrusion into provincial affairs has never been welcome. The idea of Quebec
taking care of itself without the need or policies of the federal government
were clearly expressed to the rest of English Canada in the October Crisis of
1970 and the referendum on separation of the early 1980’s. These two events
underscored the great divide between what English Canada offered and what many
in French Quebec wanted, and how each saw Canada.
Underpinning this great
difference between English and French is the growing divide between the
regions. Of most noticeable concern is that of east and west. The idea of
Quebec independence was the greatest shot in the arm to the underlying
discontent and the feeling of isolation that many in the west have felt for
years. If it were not for the political energy of Quebec and their drive for
sovereignty, the dissatisfaction felt in the west may never have been realized
or acted upon. In essence the years between 1931 and 1982 saw the Canadian
political and economic landscape disintegrate into fragmentation and disunity.
From the Supreme Court to the FLQ terrorists, Canada had become unglued.
Not surprisingly then, in
1982 with the repatriation of the Constitution from England, another event that
should have been a unifying moment in Canadian history turned out to be a night
of the Long Knives. With the betrayal of Rene Levesque by his fellow First
Ministers at the bargaining table with their last minute back peddling on many
important issues to Quebec, this was seen, as English Canada’s utter contempt
for the culture and ideas of French Quebec. In fact, the repatriation of the
Constitution was such a non-unifying moment that it put the final nail in the
coffin to any idea that Canada would ever be a unified land with one set of
principles, ideas or ideology that all in the country could live happily by.
If 1982 is the year Canada
was to be truly considered a nation that came into being, it entered the world
both political and economically disfigured and mentally challenged. In terms of
consolidation, much of the power that once was invested in the House of Commons
and the Parliamentary system of Canada was moved out of the hands of the
representatives and into the hands of the Supreme Court.
From 1982 onward,
politically and economically Canada continued its path of disunity and
marginalization. With the coming to power of the Mulroney Conservatives, the
political landscape of Canada continued to change. With a lose knit coalition
of separatists from Quebec and old line conservatives from Western Canada and
Ontario, the Conservatives trying to undo the damage they felt was done through
the years of Liberal rule in Ottawa, set out to make changes that would best
help their interests that for too long had been neglected.
Beginning in the mid
1980’s, the Conservatives set out with their friends on Bay Street to create a
structure of commerce and economics that mirrored what was occurring in Europe.
With the signing of the Free Trade Agreement and the binding rules which that
agreement set down through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now
known as the WTO), the wealthy and political elite of the right further eroded
away the base of power in Ottawa, this time placing that power outside the
country in an organization that was neither accessible to the people of Canada
nor answerable to them for any decisions that such an organization may make.
The Mulroney administration
also attempted to change the Constitution which had just been repatriated. In
an attempt to bring Quebec into confederation, Mulroney and his executive
attempted to ease pressure from his Quebec caucus by reframing the
constitution, and in particular giving Quebec a special status and veto over
future constitutional and governmental decisions.
Discussed in private and
secret with all the Premiers of the provinces in the late 1980’s this
agreement, which took on the name of its place of discussion, Meech Lake,
turned out to be another attempt at dividing the remaining power that was left
in Ottawa. In the end, due to a great public outcry from the native community
as well as social activist groups across the country, the agreement died before
implementation due to non-ratification by both Manitoba and Newfoundland.
After Meech Lake came the
Charlottetown Accord. This political agreement, heavily discussed with all
organizations and the public, also attempted to rework the Constitution and was
initiated by the Mulroney Conservatives. However, it was flawed from the
beginning, attempting to address too many issues with too many solutions that
in the end went down to defeat in a national referendum.
Out of the disastrous
fallout that was the Charlottetown Accord, three distinct regions of Canada
which had always been there from the beginning, finally found expression in the
political arena.
The 1990’s saw the rise of
the Reform Party in the West and the creation of the Bloc Quebecois in the
East, thus setting the stage for the 1995 referendum on Quebec independence
which was just narrowly defeated by less than two percent. However, the
fragmenting of the Canadian political spectrum did not cease there. It was
further eroded by the drive by the native population of the country with their
belief in their right to self-rule and eventually independence. From the rise
of the idea of the urban reserves in the center of many Canadian cities, to the
land deals like the Nisga’a treaty in British Columbia it is only a matter of
time until other communities or racial groups within Canada will eventually
demand their own political and economic sovereignty from Ottawa.
In economic terms the
1990’s was just a continuation of the consolidation that occurred in the
1980’s. Economic power was further eroded away from Ottawa with the signing of
the North American Free Trade Agreement, and its binding rules of conformity enforced
by the IMF and the WTO. More and more businesses moved out of Quebec and the
rest of Canada as more favorable places of business were found south of the
49th parallel.
Overall, one must view 1982
onward, in both political and economic terms as a disaster.
With its continued policy
of multiculturalism and the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in favor of
aboriginal self-government, Canada is setting itself up for continued
instability and even eventual breakup. In economic terms, the consolidation
which has occurred with the signing of economic agreements such as the Free
Trade Agreement and that of NAFTA, have all but ensured that Ottawa has lost
its ability to control or even manage the economy. As proof, all one has to do
is look at the interim ruling of the WTO on the Canadian and American Auto
pact. In its ruling it has found that the Auto pact is an unfavorable subsidy
and it must go. And in going it will take thousands of jobs with it, a ruling
that Canada cannot dispute politically or economically without a severe penalty
being imposed.
Politically, Canada is now
a country with five political parties, each with its own regional power base.
The Canadian public has seen fewer and fewer avenues available open to their
political needs due to this regional schism of the political landscape. Quebec
remains out in the cold in terms of their desire or want to be a part of the
Canadian federation and the constitution. This clearly evident with their
threats that the next referendum is just around the corner. Eastern Canada is
looking at political consolidation among the provinces that make up the East
Coast for simple economic and political survival. The political right in the
west is disintegrating further creating a sixth national party, that is calling
itself the Canadian Alliance. With economic power all but gone from the halls
of Parliament, the representative is now just a shadowy image of the past.
Consolidation continues to accelerate and what power remains in the nation is
being devoured by various groups and organizations that find a way to seize
power through the Canadian legal system. In the long run it will not be greater
consolidation of a political and economic nature that should concern the
average Canadian citizen, but the eventual breakup of their country.
Around the world, power is
being consolidated into the hands of fewer people, including the United States
of America. Arguably the most democratic nation in the world, the U.S. has
gradually moved away from its representational roots. From the electoral
process of choosing the President right down to the economic buying power the
poor have with their dollar, the United States is slowly showing itself for
what it is, a nation built by the many in which only the few prosper.
Certainly attempts have
been made over the years to address the many problems that exist in the
American electoral process. With pressure from the civil rights movement of the
1950’s and 1960’s, the American government finally acknowledged that there were
major inequalities in the political process of the United States that needed to
be corrected especially along the lines of race with the passing of the 24th
amendment to the constitution and the signing into law of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
However, the passage of
this bill and the amendment to the constitution were token gestures that
superficially addressed the need of the black man to be able to participate in
the electoral process. That process and how it was defined still remains to
this day, unfairly prejudicial to those very people these amendments were
intended to help.
Certainly other measures
have been taken over the years since the signing of these documents, but the
fact remains that the electoral process and how it is implemented still favors
a select few in American society. Of particular concern is the lack of
attention and the shortsightedness of the American politician to the need for
effective electoral districts that prevent a disproportionate amount of power
being wielded by a few. Although addressed by the American Supreme Court in the
last few years with favorable decisions, the fact still remains that a majority
of the American population is overlooked and even purposefully neglected in an
attempt by the establishment to maintain its grip on power. Whether it be a
municipal, state or federal riding, many poor, working poor and middleclass
areas are not effectively being represented or heard when it comes down to
choosing the law makers of their time.
In part, this
disenfranchisement is because of the consolidation of power that has been
occurring since the end of the Second World War. A defacto status quo has
emerged over the past half century that has maintained the supremacy of power
of the two political juggernauts in America, the Democratic and Republican
national parties.
The past few years of
political scandal and needless debate over petty issues have shown the
political establishment of America for what it truly is, a system of lost
ideologies and grand gestures. The American people have had a much needed
insight into the real reasons their political system is unresponsive and
dispassionate to their needs.
It is no wonder than that
in recent years the legitimacy and the power that these two parties hold have
been questioned. Like the rise of political alternatives to the establishment
in Canada and Europe, The United States is seeing a movement by many who feel
that their concerns are not being heard by the established parties. Fuelled by
voter apathy and voter mistrust the American political scene has seen the rise
of a third national party known as the Reform Party of the United States.
If anything the election of
the Reform party Governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota should be a wake-up call
to the establishment of the United States that the people are finally finding a
way to express their dissatisfaction with the inequalities that exist and
dissatisfaction with established political tradition.
No greater example of the
inequalities that exist in the United States can be found than when one
examines the reality of the American economic landscape. To truly understand
the growing gap between the haves and the have nots of the American economy one
only needs to look at what happened in the last decade of the 20th century.
If anything could be said
about the wealth and the prosperity that was generated in the last half of the
20th century, is that it ended up in the hands of a very few. For the average
American, the economic miracle of the 1980’s and the 1990’s was something they
only read about in the paper and watched on television. Certainly if one were
to believe what the mainstream media in the United States was saying, it seemed
that the United States was just about to turn the corner from everything from
child poverty to the idea that unemployment in the United States had been
vanquished forever.
With talk about the new
economy, the new paradigm of economics, no more inflation and the wealth
effect, it sounded like the American dream could not be stopped. But
unfortunately if you where to look closely at the statistics generated, you
find that much of what was being reported overshadowed the truth and reality of
life in America.
Of the reported 270 million
people that make up the United States of America, there were roughly 237
billionaires created in the 1990’s. Prior to the 1990’s it is estimated that
there were fewer than 20 people who could be considered to be a billionaire.
That is only 257 people have more than $1 billion dollars in assets out of a
total population of 270 million people. Of the remainder of that population,
there are 590,000 people that can be defined as pentamillioniars. Those people
of a net worth more than 5 million dollars. Next is the fact that of the
remaining population, roughly 269 million people, only 7.9 million can be
described as millionaires and only 3.3 million of those, are households that
have a net worth of $1 million in investable assets.
So, out of a total
population of 270 million people roughly 260 million have a net worth of less
than a million dollars. But the statistics don’t stop there. Of those people,
the middle or median American household is worth just under $36,000. That’s an
incredible 130 million people. Astoundingly, half of this number have less than
that. Perhaps the worst statistic of all is the fact that it is estimated that
one half of all American households have amassed less than $1,000.00 in net
financial assets. Truly to this writer the American Dream should realistically
be defined as the American Illusion.
Internationally the United
States has also succumbed to the pressure and the ideas of a larger economic
model that would reside outside the borders of the nation state. Perhaps the
greatest example of this economic consolidation was in 1978, when the United
States Congress in conjunction with other reforms made by the IMF, formally
removed the United States from the Gold Standard on an international basis. It
was also one of the key principles in terms of creating a more stable economic
environment, since as stated earlier, it was the collapse of the Gold Standard
which was a contributing factor to the depression of the 1930s.
Furthermore with the
signing of agreements such as NAFTA, the Free Trade Agreement, and now with
many in Congress openly calling for the dollarization of much of Latin and
South America, the United States is continuing a pattern of economic dominance
through negotiated agreement. Enforceable through their continued drive for
more open markets by their unwavering and sometimes self-interested support
both politically and economically of organizations such as the undemocratic
WTO, the United States is becoming more and more the dictator of international
economic terms than any other nation on the planet. Realistically these
agreements do nothing for the country that finds itself competing with the
largest economy of the world. All that is accomplished is replacing national
sovereignty in favor of possible monetary and even economic union, with the
possibility that economic growth will secure prosperity and wealth for an elite
minority. In the short and long term, these agreements do little to help the
impoverished millions, in any country who work for and to the death when these
new economic agreements put in place.
The greatest change that is
occurring in the United States of America is the maintaining of the status quo
in terms of domestic politics and the consolidation of economic wealth in the
hands of a very few. However, there has been a broadening of this idea of
consolidation over the years, that has given rise to a new style of American
imperialism. With the continued strengthening of the American constitutional
legal system and the growing influence of corporate or investment law, there
has been a gradual Americanization of world trade in terms of how rules and
regulations are being interpreted. With much of the world economic system
geared around the ideas and the legal interpretations found in investment law
and all economic agreements between nations being forged through and arbitrated
by organizations such as the WTO.
There appears to be a bias
that is building up globally in terms of who will benefit most by liberalized
trade. With the WTO the sole executor in terms of negotiating agreements and
their global acceptance by nations as the sole outlet in terms of legal
recourse, more often than not, their binding rules of conformity and punishment
have found favor with the large American trans-national. In essence, it appears
that the American boardroom and the "nation state" corporation is
secure in its ability to determine its own future and dominance.
Perhaps of any country, the
United States demonstrates the problems which eventually arise within any state
which adheres to the idea of representative democracy too long. Those problems
include a widening gap between the haves and the have nots and a democratic
process which will forever become entangled in a myriad of laws, legislative
procedure and political pork barreling, that will never allow for real change
to occur. Some of the consequences include a splintering along geographic
lines, whereby regional governments will seek greater power, or even pursue a
policy of separation to go their own way. Perhaps the most daunting of any
problem will be an uprising within the ranks of the disadvantaged, creating
both political and economic turmoil.
Furthermore, the problems
which currently afflict the United States, are problems which will affect every
nation state which adheres to the concept of representative democracy. Time
allows for the development of an entrenched power base, which becomes
increasingly difficult to remove through any part of the political process that
a representative democratic state functions under. Such examples of a bloated
and dysfunctional government abound today. From the elected representative that
panders to the masses to get elected and then turns around and serves only the
goals and aims of their political and economic masters who work behind the
scene, to the creation of initiatives and political issues that are of no real
concern or help to the majority of Americans, the United States of America has
forgotten much in terms of what the principles of democracy were created for.
All that said though, the
United States of America, devoted to the concept of liberty, has a lot to be
proud of. Of all the nations upon this planet which call themselves a
democracy, the United States is the closet to meeting this definition. However,
it is still not a true democracy as was envisioned in the past. Certainly the
idea of the representative with the democratic process, has been extended to
its utmost possible limits within the United States. But the fact still remains
that power for the majority of the people who live in this state of representative
politics is just as elusive as it was before the great revolution of 1776.
The WTO And The Free Market
Today, the world is hurling
toward the largest free market system ever known. From Asia and the Pacific
Rim, to Europe and North America, global competition is now a reality. From
stock markets and futures markets to the sale of goods and services, the world
is now in a competitive race.
Just as political power has
been consolidated over the years, so too has economic power. It is this
consolidation of economic power, thanks to the increasing influence of
corporate and investment law, which forms the second half of the vice which the
working poor and middle class of the world find themselves trapped in. Through
investment law, a new and entirely unchallengeable level of government is
emerging that will eclipse not only the sovereignty of the nation state, but
that of the rights of the individual as well.
Who could have imagined
that the simple initiative to trade goods between European nations of so long
ago would turn into the worldwide phenomena it has. From a simple system of
free enterprise that existed mainly in two countries, to a worldwide system
that directs the lives of billions of people, the free market system has grown
into an economic giant that transforms economic power into political influence.
The traditional ideas of
the free market system and representative democracy were once ideas that
existed to help the majority of the people of the world. But today they exist
for the sole purpose of creating a super state both in economic and political
terms upon which there will exist no opposition and no threat that could ever
be mounted to challenge the status quo and the establishment. To a great extent
all of this has already been achieved. The world today has fused itself into
great trading blocks that speak as one in both economic and political terms.
With the monetary union of
Europe and the ever more increasing level of power which the European Union
itself is acquiring though the consolidation of Europe and to a lesser degree,
in Canada and the United States through NAFTA, the world is now closer to a
unified global political and economic system.
Investment law has been
created with its own structure of accountability and favors the trans-national
corporation. Investment law is in essence the law upon which business
functions. It is the business equivalent of the criminal code. It sets down the
rules upon which business is to function and the penalties a corporation must
pay if these laws are not obeyed. But investment law is creating its own legal
jurisdiction which overrides the highest levels of international law and even
the laws that govern sovereign nations. By creating its own separate and
distinct institutions of enforcement and adjudication, it is replacing existing
international institutions like the World Court and the United Nations as
avenues of discussion, appeal and punishment.
Even more disturbing, this
new area of investment law and its institution like the WTO are not accountable
to any single nation state. Those who are at the head of this particular
institution are neither public officials nor elected politicians. They are an
elite group of wealthy industrialists who are accountable to no one. The rules
which they are setting down today, are the equivalent of a world constitution
in regards to the global economy. However, these rules and regulations go far
beyond just merely setting down the ground rules for world economic
development. They have at their core a fundamental impact on such areas as
labor, the environment and other areas of public sector interest that have for
years been the domain and jurisdiction of the sovereign nation state.
To many people the WTO is
just another organization they do not know about. The WTO is an international
agency stationed in Geneva that joins 135 countries to assure the freest
possible flow of trade. Members agree to follow broad principles of openness in
their economies and to move away from such things as government supported
subsides of export industries. Created in 1994, the WTO is the result to the
51-year old GATT, a document that 23 countries worked out in 1947 to liberalize
trade after the Second World War.
The WTO rests on the
jurisprudence of international investment law that impacts the lives of people
around the world with its rulings. It has not only in theory but also more
recently exercised in practice, its ability to overturn the laws of the
sovereign nation. This is done solely on the basis that should a domestic law
be found to be in violation of the rules and regulations that the WTO has set
down, that law then becomes null and void and is no longer recognizable in any
court as being valid. Furthermore, in theory, it then becomes possible to argue
that some constitutional provisions that make the laws of sovereign nations
possible in the first place, are themselves illegal and may be overridden by
the WTO. IN particular the section of the Canadian Constitution that is known
as the Canada Health Act is just such a law that sits in the cross hairs of the
WTO. Under Certain circumstances this provision could be viewed as a subsidy.
In essence, declaring state run healthcare illegal under the WTO’s rules and
regulations.
Prior to the Second World
War, western nations could move their economies in whatever direction they
wanted to without interference or obstruction from other countries. The western
nations could begin their own initiatives to control employment levels and
interests rates. It was possible to maintain national standards in health and
education as well as industrial development and technological development.
Nation states could create legislation and regulations dealing with everything
from investment quotas to the amount of money a trans-national corporation
could take out of the country. But today, through the ever more emerging power
of investment law and the WTO, the right of any government to create such law
is now at risk.
Without the ability to
control its own economy, the sovereignty of any nation is in jeopardy. But more
importantly, the right of self-determination of the individual of the state is
also lost.
This is what happened in
Seattle, Washington, in 1999.
In the spring of 1998, the MAI
or Multilateral Agreement on Investment was due to be signed and ratified.
Brought together by a consortium of trans-nationals CEOs, economic and academic
elite, a select few of the world’s business and financial ministers set about
to cement in law, an economic model that would forever shape the direction of
world investment and trade. In essence what was being talked about was a global
constitution of economic rules, regulations and laws, within a new entrenched
system of jurisprudence based upon the precedent of investment law. Its power
and scope was so far reaching that in theory, the very idea of national
sovereignty was at risk and no law was safe from interpretation by this new
binding agreement. Furthermore, this new system had no real avenue of
democratic access or appeal for those most affected by its rulings and
decisions - the common man and woman.
It was, if it had been
signed and ratified, a document in scope and character that was as historically
significant as the signing of the Magna Carta, but a document that would have
had just the opposite affect.
However, due to the protest
and the outcry from people around the world and many NGOs (Non-governmental
organizations) this document was not ratified. It was due to their effort, this
document never made it off the table and into the legislators of the various
representative democracies of the western world.
It was known to many who
fought and defeated the MAI that those individuals who wanted such an agreement
to succeed, were going to use the WTO as the platform for their next attempt at
negotiating and ratifying such an agreement. It is only within the WTO that
such an agreement as the MAI can find foundation and administration. Thus the
importance of gaining a democratic voice at the negotiating table within any
trade talks or meetings of the WTO.
The WTO will be the
determining factor in the future in terms of economic and political power. This
influence will not only be on a global scale but one that is also localized, in
terms of the future sovereignty of the individual nation state. In particular,
it is taking aim at many of today’s representational democracies with their
subsidized economic policies and laws. The WTO’s power in determining the shape
of tomorrow’s political and economic landscape is still unknown, but its
ability to do so is unquestionable. Undemocratic, influential and typically
one-sided in its decision making process favoring the large trans-national
corporation and the needs of the wealthy, the WTO presents to the working poor
and middle class of this western world a time of unprecedented concern that is
shared by many around the world.
It is a concern that is fully warranted.
" Some form of association must be found as a result of which the whole strength of the community will be enlisted for the protection of each person and property of each constituent member, in such a way that each, when united to his fellows, renders obedience to his own will, and remains as free as he was before."
SECTION II
PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
INTRODUCTION
Today western
representative democracies are at a crossroads on the path to human freedom and
prosperity. At no other time in human history has the possibility of
enslavement and subjugation of the individual been as great as in today’s
western world. The challenges facing people in representative democracies are
two fold. On the one hand, there is the lie that is representative democracy.
On the other, there is the emerging global economy and the imposing specter of
investment law. Recent attempts at consolidating political and economic power,
are rooted in the past, when the free market economy and the principles of
representative democracy were first introduced into western society.
This consolidation of power
and its effect on the people in the west can be directly attributed to one
factor - the right to create law has been held at bay from the masses in the
name of expedience and necessity. The act of legislating laws has been deemed a
privilege by those who use it to wield their power and influence over the
masses of the state in the name of prosperity and progress. But the right to
create law, is an inalienable human right that exists at the very heart of the
principle of democracy, which today resembles nothing of the great political
ideal that the philosophers and the academics of the past had envisioned it to
be.
In 1948, when the United
Nations passed its Declaration of Human Rights, it excluded the right to create
law. Although heralded as a great day in terms of human achievement and a step
towards the universal protection of the people from oppression, enslavement and
subjugation, the declaration is nothing more than a promise without conviction.
Without the right to create law, people are bound to some form of subjugation
and oppression, from indifferent legislators, petty tyrants and tin pot
dictators. The power to create law is nothing less than the embodiment of
self-determination and individual sovereignty. In other words, it is nothing
less than freedom.
This document is a reminder
we are not entirely free. There is still a monumental disparity between
government and the people. The United Nations declaration of human rights
sealed the fate of the western world, surprisingly with the consent and
approval of even the most hardened advocates of liberty and freedom. Whether
viewed as a beginning or as a compromise between those who rule and those who
represent the masses, the truth will never be known. What can be understood is
from that day forward, any right within the declaration, would exist forever at
the whim of those who control the process of creating law, and with it, the
right to control the lives of every individual upon this planet.
Today, as the people of the
western democracies strive to make ends meet and provide food and shelter for
their families, the wealthy and influential of these very same states continue
to increase their economic and political power. Certainly there has been a
great outcry from those who understand the realities of today’s world and how
power is being consolidated. From the push for Quebec sovereignty in Canada, to
various other political movements in Western Europe, those who see the reality
of the world around them, know and understand that an attack on the cornerstones
of today’s political and economic power structure is fully underway.
But so far the barriers and
mechanisms that exist to prevent this very situation have proven substantial
and effective. No mater who sits in the legislatures of the west, the ability
to change the establishment is nearly impossible. It would seem the
institutions and the political system of today have become what the aristocracy
of the past once was, a system of oppression and subjugation of the masses of
working poor and middle class by a group that almost rule as if it were a
birthright. It is a closed system that offers little possibility of change or
future empowerment to the majority of people who today find themselves
powerless.
The question now is how
does one regain control over his life in today’s ever increasing world of
global competition and oppressive legislation? The answers that have been put
forward in the past aren’t applicable in today’s world any longer. As recent
history has shown, the way in which power is held and how it has been
distributed over the last two hundred years is far different now than in any
period of human history. In the old days, power revolved around the control of
land and resources. Power in the past emanated from those things which were
easily accessible. But today, the pillars of today’s power structure in western
democracies have become so different, diverse and convoluted that it is
necessary to approach the problem of greater political and economic freedom for
the individual with new ideas and direction.
No longer is power rooted
in the old ways, in regards to the possession of land and people, as the
aristocracy was. Today, power emanates from one specific source in the west -
the law. From the rule of law and the ability to create it, those who control
and benefit most from such a situation, wield power and control over the state.
From simple legislation that is passed in the legislatures of the western
world, to the complex and all encompassing direction and power of investment law,
the fate of the working poor and middle class is determined.
With the control of the
legislature firmly in the grip of the party system and the ability to control
the economy of sovereign nations in the hands of world bodies like the IMF and
the WTO, the prospects for individual input in regards to the direction of
their own lives will become an impossibility. The changes occurring in the
world today are not a passing fad. The growing political power of investment
law to control and dictate the direction of any economy of the world, not to
mention the legislative dimension of power it has, are fixtures which, if not
dealt with now, will create a situation where the west will become nothing less
than fodder for an economic and political system in which war is waged without
mercy on those who can least defend themselves.
In order to deal with the
realities of today it is important to understand that change is possible, but
only if that change integrates today’s technological achievements, with the
classical definitions of democracy. Change must be broadly based and come with
the support of the people. To achieve this, change must be directed first at
the political institutions existing within today’s western democracies. Only
with the political process firmly within the grasp of the population and the
right to create law in the hands of the individual will it be possible to deal
with the ensuing threat a global economy has on the sovereignty and the ability
to govern today in the western nation states.
As seen in the failure of
socialism, the possibility of undoing or replacing a capitalistic economy is
all but impossible. What is needed is not so much a political revolution that
takes aim at the capitalist system or one that corrals the growth of a free market
system, but rather one where the emphasis is placed on the other aspect of
human bondage, that being the political system of representative democracy. It
is only through this avenue that the possibility exists for a greater freedom
for the people of the western world.
Once control of the state
is wrestled away from leaders and bureaucrats who usurp the right of the
individual to govern his or her own life, then it may be possible to deal with
the more ominous and controlling entity of the global economy. This can only be
accomplished through the creation of a political system where the individual of
the nation state creates law. Only then, will it be possible to maintain
individual freedom and the sovereignty of the western democracies in regards to
the capitalist hegemony which is replacing the time honored representative
democratic institutions in the world.
This part of this work is
devoted to exploring just such an idea, one that is a viable alternative to the
current political system and offers a real opportunity for the individual to
find and explore the freedom promised by democracy. Primary Democracy builds
its philosophical foundation on the principles of universal suffrage in the
creation of law and the right to execute law as an individual within a
sovereign state. This work details the possibilities that exist today for an
idea like Primary Democracy. Without reform and ideas like Primary Democracy,
the people of today’s western world will find themselves enslaved in a future
that they will not want to call their own.
Primary democracy is the
natural human right endowed within every individual of the human species, to
create and execute law. Primary democracy involves the process of transferring
power, or the right to create law, from a representative to each individual
member of society.
Primary democracy is a
political system more in line with the original or classical definition of
democracy, the idea of rule for the poor, by the poor. At its core, primary
democracy embraces the idea that each individual of the state has an equal and
unobstructed opportunity to create law. Primary democracy is concerned first
with the right of the individual of the state to create law, while secondly,
ensuring this right is defined as one that adheres to the idea of equality.
Primary democracy is not to
be confused with such ideas as direct democracy or electronic democracy, for
these ideas are still rooted in representative democracy. They only offer an
elected member of government to sit in a legislature on behalf of his
constituents who is empowered to vote on their behalf. These systems of
democracy do nothing to redistribute or create any real possibility of greater
political or economic freedom for the working poor and middle class of the
western nation state. Furthermore, the extent to which direct democracy offers
openness in regards to the debate or the creation of law is nothing more than
an exercise in public relations. The right to create legislation still remains
in the hands of elected representatives. Within the definition of primary
democracy, legislators are the people of the nation.
It is only recently that
the idea of primary democracy has become a feasible and practical alternative
to representative democracy. Thanks to modern telecommunications and the
internet, primary democracy not only has become a viable option, it is the only
option for sustainable government.
As with any political
system, primary democracy is concerned with the allocation of power. In the
past it has been necessary to create a split within the state between the
government and the people. Primary democracy makes no such distinction. Primary
democracy redistributes power evenly throughout the masses, allowing for
greater political input to those who never have had access to it before.
In the early days of
representational democracy, it was always argued it was impossible for the
farmer to be in the field and the legislature at the same time. That’s not true
anymore. Geography and time limited the choices of a political system, but the
logistics and limitations of yesterday’s world have given way to a new era
dominated by technological advances. The back roads of the countryside have
given way to instantaneous communication on the information superhighway.
In an age where wealth is
based on information, the world is slowly showing itself for what it truly is -
a world of communication. And what is government but how information and
communication is managed on a larger scale? Government is nothing more than the
managing of information. Politics was created for the purpose of communicating
ideas and desires with others.
In the past, it was
necessary for a select few to create law. But that past has been eclipsed by
the present. Primary democracy utilizes the technological advancement of
today’s electric civilization to allow everyone the right to create law.
Primary democracy exists
because the technology of today allows it to exist.
The Individual Human Right
To Create Law
There is no other concept
or idea that has more influence and importance to modern civilization than law.
Without law, the human species is incapable of existing in relative peace and
tranquility. When law breaks down, so does the civilized human society. Primary
democracy expands upon the idea and the definition of law and brings it back
into alignment with its original definition. Primary democracy is intended to
explore and expatiate upon the importance and the natural right of the
individual to create law without interference, coercion, or the threat of
reprisal. It is this natural right of the individual to create law that is at
the very core of the definition of primary democracy.
Today, the lawyer has
eclipsed the role the priest once occupied in terms of the keeper of a sacred
truth. As was the case when the Holy Roman Empire ruled without opposition, the
priest and the Church kept their knowledge wrapped up around a foreign tongue,
Latin, that was only decipherable by those few who were to lead the flock to
the alter. No one knew what was being said, or how one was being instructed. It
was left up to the priest to determine the amount of information people were
required to know. Today, it is the lawyer and the system to which he belongs to
that is the keeper of a new sacred truth. Written in its own language,
understandable only to those who are trained to understand it, the people of
the western world have now been enslaved to yet another dogmatic system. But
this time it is one that is not interested in controlling the destiny of the
afterlife, but ones existence in the here and now.
People have always had to
follow some code of behavior. From the rules laid down within primitive human
tribes, to the complex and intricate laws which are passed by the legislatures
of today’s representative democratic states, we exist in and by law that is
created by someone other than ourselves. Just like there are the haves and have
nots, there are also those who create law and those who do not.
Today, laws are created by
elected representatives, and interpreted by an appointed judiciary. The ability
to create and enforce law is the real power in society, not material wealth.
The law, on its own, is not a threat. It is law that fosters purpose and helps
to create meaning in both the individual and society. But this power remains in
the hands of a select few.
In today’s western
representative democracies, there is a protection or a right for everything
from religion, to the security of the person. Most of the rights which are
espoused to today, and that are honored by the western representative
democratic states, are found within the Declaration of Human Rights passed by
the United Nations in 1948. In it the Declaration provides protection for
"...freedom, equality, life, liberty and security of the person. Without
distinction according to race, color, sex, language, religion, political
opinion, national or social origin, birth, or other status." Yet there
exists no right anywhere for law to be created by the individual of the state.
The irony of it all is that
all human rights are secured and bound to the creation of law. If a right is
not held within the realm of the individual of a society as important, every
other right which exists and is espoused to, within any doctrine or treaty,
rings hollow. It will have no substance or authority. It will exist, but only
on the whim of the government, which can withdraw it at any time. If this were
not true, then why does every country which adheres to the principle of
representative democracy, hold within its power the right to suspend the rights
of any individual during a time of defined crises? For the sole purpose of
protecting the state? Or that of those who benefit most from this usurpation of
the right of the individual to create law?
The law defines our
relationships to each other. By the penalties it enforces, it teaches us how to
treat our fellow human beings. By detailing all the negatives of a
relationship, it supposedly teaches us proper behavior. It is from these
lessons that the foundation of a human relationship is born.
This relationship can also
be extended to the collective level. Controlling the right to create law, also
creates the destiny and direction of the state.
For too long western
democracies have been directed by people who are able to manipulate the
creation of law to pursue their own selfish interests and needs. Life or
meaning has lost much of what it is, not because there exists nothing more to
be explored or had, but that the meaning or direction in which the state has
been moving toward in the last few years, is one that is against the natural
will of the people. The direction of the state must always move within the
boundaries set by the people of the nation state. The fact that the majority of
the masses of many of the western representative democracies have lost their
political will is not because politicians have fallen out of favor, but rather
the system itself has lost its meaning.
For the people of today, in
a world full of information and choice, the fact that their lives are
controlled by a few with legislative power is of great discouragement. It is
only through the right to create law, in an equal manner by all, that the
population of the representative state will find fulfillment. For without it,
the meandering of the western worlds masses will continue, until their
disillusionment turns to the rage of the powerless and the representative
democratic state finds that the gap between the haves and have nots is so great
that the latter shall engulf the former.
And nothing can be done at
any level of today’s political and economic establishment to prevent such an
occurrence from happening.
PRIMARY DEMOCRACY: THE NATURAL MEANING FOUND WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE NATION
Redefining The General Will
Although many may not
agree, the invention of the nation state was the greatest political invention
the world has ever known. It not only allowed for the collective will of a
people to find expression and definition, but it also provided the structure
upon which the individual of that same nation could grow, albeit within a
somewhat controlled environment. The nation state allowed for individual
fulfillment and limited self-determination. Without the nation state, the
individual and the needs of people cannot be expressed or defined. Yet today,
the nation state is being eroded in favor of something new which offers little
in the way of fulfillment or sovereignty of the individual.
This new structure eclipses
not only the rights of the individual, but the collective will of any people
that finds commonality enough to define themselves as a nation. This new
super-nation state exists independent of the rules and the laws of today and
offers limited protection to the populations of sovereign nations. Investment
law and representational democracy are undermining the political and economic
sovereignty of nations, disenfranchising and marginalizing people in favor of
profit and power.
Many people in western
democracies see little hope or fulfillment in their lives. What little room
there is to grow and enjoy life is slowly being eroded because of political and
economic consolidation. Today, individuals of the western world are faced with
subjugation. Honor and like minded ideas, ring hollow within the minds of
millions. Necessity and responsibility for the western mind provide direction,
but finding fulfillment in life is more than just doing your duty. The
individual must find reason to move forward to the next day.
Without meaning in life,
the will to succeed and drive for achievement is sacrificed to expediency.
Meaning is a truth unto itself. Meaning is a many dimensional idea that is
wrapped in all of our conscious experiences and interpretations. But although
there are many different forms of meaning which come into play, when one tries
to describe meaning in relation to the existence of the human species, there is
one that is of concern here. It is a description that Jean Jacques Rousseau
spoke so eloquently about for the first time. It is what he termed the General
Will.
It was through his concept
of the general will and its expression through what he termed the social
contract that political meaning found within the state and within each
individual could best be exercised and elaborated upon through the ideas of
Democracy.
What concerned Rousseau
most was the need to address the general will in such a way as not to interfere
with the development of any individual within the state by injuring another in
the pursuit of ones own goals. It was his belief that democracy was the only
way in which this could be achieved. He understood what was required of the
state in order for individual sovereignty to exist and to be achieved. He
understood that there needed to exist just a concept as a State or Nation for
such an idea to find fulfillment.
The general will is that
which is found in the relationships between individuals. It is the duty and the
responsibility we owe each other and it marks the dividing line between the
rights of the individual and that of society in general. The general will
creates the purpose for which the people of any community, society, or nation
are willing to exert themselves. It is this exertion which in turn helps to
create ones own definition or meaning of fulfillment in life.
To many, Jean Jacques
Rousseau is considered the father of democracy. Yet today Rousseau is quoted in
a way that offers no evidence that his ideas are really understood.
Today, representative
democracy provides a purpose in life that is artificial and manufactured and
only benefits a select few who can prosper the most by this deceit.
Representative democracy
exists upon a lie. It does not follow the classic definition of democracy as
Rousseau and other like minded philosophers envisioned it. What it offers to
people is an existence dictated to them on terms which are not their own. These
terms are the foundation upon which the General Will, or the purpose and
meaning that one brings to life, is structured upon. Without living by ones own
understanding of the world or existing for yourself, then the meaning to life,
the General Will, is lost.
The meaning of life exists
within each individual of this planet, independent and unique. Without allowing
each individual the opportunity to grow and fulfill his or her own desire, life
is merely squandered. Only when everyone considers themselves and their will to
be free can their own existence take on definition and meaning. Individual
meaning and the wants and desires of the individual are lost today, in favor of
an existence forced on people through the rule of law, and backed up by
representational democracy.
The best example of
artificial purpose and meaning is the theory of maximization. This is a concept
that took hold in the 18th century and turned into the dominant ideology of the
19th century. It has yet to relinquish its stranglehold on the minds of the
business and political elite as we cross over into the new millennium.
Maximization is the idea
that everything that makes life worth living can be defined through the
maximization of ones own satisfactions, or the maximization of individual
utilities.
The idea of maximization
would have been a splendid idea if it actually worked for everyone. However,
the problem is no one gets equal reward for their efforts. Often quite the
contrary happens - many who do not exercise themselves to the fullest get most
of the rewards in today’s representative democracies.
Primary Democracy restores
to the individual the right to create meaning to life that exists independent
of outside control by taking legislative control out of the hands of
representative legislators and putting it in the hands of the individual.
The problem for centuries
was the individual has been at the mercy of others in regards to the individual
fulfilling the needs of others before himself or herself. From representative
democracy to socialism, from kings to tyrants, there has existed at one time or
another, a form of government that has had at its essence, placed individual
meaning behind the lust for power and the need to control.
No matter the system,
people have to suppress their desires in order to fulfill the lives of someone
else. The so called "good of society" has encapsulated much of our
past both through oppression and the use of social control. No matter what form
society has taken over the years, republic or feudal fiefdom the desires of the
ruling political and economic elite have had precedence over individual need.
What is needed is some system that truly offers to the people of the western
world that ability to adapt and change to the desires and wants of a
population.
It is only through the
nation state and the idea of primary democracy that this can be achieved.
Although it was not always exercised, the possibility of allowing the general
will of the people and the meaning that is found within the individual to
flourish existed quietly in the halls of power.
Certainly, the liberty that
was allowed to exist in many of today’s western nation states gave some room
for expression to the majority of the population of the nation. But it did so
in a manner that was beneficial only to those very souls who offered such
fulfillment. Nothing else that we have created in years past, or that which we
are currently building for the future, could allow for a people as a whole to
find fulfillment in the realization of the general will, yet still maintain the
meaning that the individual brings to life, that the nation state possesses.
Yet this very possibility of fulfillment is slowly being eroded away in favor
of a structure that is not interested in bringing meaning to the life of a
nations people, but is more concerned with cementing in the laws of our time
the status quo.
From today’s super-national
state, to the ever more growing sphere of influence from various world bodies
of authority, the meaning and the purpose that is the general will is being
replaced, with an ever more expanded version of the theory of maximization,
further eroding sovereignty and individual fulfillment.
What is needed, and what
primary democracy offers, is relief for the working poor and middle class, an
opening to create for themselves their own direction and purpose in life, with
a meaning that is distinct and separate from the needs and wants of those who
rule and profit most from their efforts.
By allowing the individual
of the nation state the opportunity to create law, this recreates the purpose
and meaning found within the state, thus allowing the general will and the
individual to find free expression. Through this freedom, individuals can find
fulfillment. It is their wishes and desires that create the relationships, that
make up the general will, genuine in nature and not artificially constructed
and imposed.
But the relationship
between individuals and the state holds the key to meaning. This relationship
determines the direction an individual, group, society, or nation will take.
This direction is a major building block to the meaning we each put into our
lives. In essence, it is not the relationship itself that is the driving force,
but the purpose behind the relationship that provides meaning.
Government creates the
rules which regulate our relationships with each other. We call these rules
laws. But by enacting legislation and enforcing laws, governments create and
decide the fate of a nation. By default then it is government which regulates
our relationships and manufactures our purpose. That in turn creates meaning,
which in turn produces the general will. There does not exist anything more
important than the relationship between each individual member of the human
species. Anything that limits these relationships and the development of the
individual in an artificial manner is not good for either the general will of
the people or of the individual.
To carry forward as a group
or even as an individual, it is necessary to have direction. Direction can take
many forms, yet no matter the form, in order to be most effective it has to be
structured in a way it can flourish. That structure is the nation state. Before
there is direction, there must be structure. The nation state provides for a
manageable and effective forum for both individual meaning and the general will
of the people to be fully expressed. The idea that a super state transcending
today’s nation state can offer people this idea of structure and direction is
an illusion.
Governments in today’s
representational democracies rule unjustly and without any right to the power
which they hold. The right for the individual to create law and execute law
cannot be denied or subverted. Nor is it a right which can be quietly replaced
with a deferral of power. Any interference of any kind against the natural
right of the individual to create and execute law and place a natural meaning
and direction to the concept of the general will and that of individual
purpose, is usurpation and should be met with a just response.
Within every definition of
democracy, there will always be found the concept of equality. Primary
democracy is no different. But equality within the primary democratic state is
one that finds itself bound to the realities and the technology of today.
It was Aristotle that once
said, " Man was not created equal,..."
If we do not exist upon
this planet as individuals - independent, isolated and alone - then how do we
exist among one another? It is this very variety and variation of the species
which is the foundation of the concept of the individual. It is the individual
that populates the western nation state, not any one group or culture.
Certainly many individuals may find themselves in a similar set of
circumstances and with the same plight in life, but that does not mean that
they lose any of their uniqueness.
Within the last few hundred
years we have become accustomed to two very different interpretations of
equality. The first is the classical version where everyone is viewed as equal
and given the equal right to a full and rich life for anyone who puts forth a
little effort. The second and more recent version is the liberal notion of
equality. In this definition, equality is based on a legal right of
opportunity.
Today, equality has more to
do with social engineering than creating and affirming ones position as being
equal in and under law. With ideas as affirmative action and pay equity in
North America and other similar programs in western Europe, equality has more
to do with statistical manipulation than the principle of each individual being
treated in an equal fashion in regards to the events of life, or for that
matter in terms of law. Equality has succumbed to the worst in today’s world of
politics and intellectual definition. Equality is now a principle that is the
sole property of the special interest group found within the nation state.
Much about the nature of
equality has been misunderstood, but nothing more so than how it applies to a
society of individuals in a technologically advanced civilization.
Representative democracy took the approach based upon the concept of the
"free contract," and then applied the same definition to everyone
within the state equally. With its various versions in legal jargon, it was
intended to protect all the people of the western representative democratic
states the same way. However, in doing so, it moved more and more away from the
strict definition that equality once had, into one where it seemed necessary to
interfere in the daily workings of the state.
The reality of the world is
that it does not treat everyone with an equality of opportunity. Nor can the
world be expected to do so. What is necessary is that everyone has the ability
to participate in a society equally. In order to do so, it is necessary to
allow society to function without interference or artificial manipulation. If
such things occur, it distorts any natural outcome of events that will, only
hinder more, those which this artificial intrusion is attempting to help.
John Stuart Mill knew much
about the negative aspects of such artificial intrusion into the development of
the individual. He understood implicitly that a society could only grow and
prosper if the individual of that society was allowed to develop unhindered.
Unfortunately, his work "On Liberty" has been much misunderstood, and
not appreciated for what it is attempting to portray to the world. Many for a
long time have set down strict limits and parameters to what society should or
should not do, in regards to the constraints placed upon its citizens. Much to
the contrary, "On Liberty’’ explored the idea of equality, in as much as
it could exist, within a world that still revolved around the need for a
division of power between those that govern and those that are slave. In such a
state it is necessary to have intervention within society, but at its most
limited version. When one deals with a state upon which there exists no
distinction between those who rule and those who do not, this intrusion, on any
level, not only becomes destructive, but undemocratic.
Human fulfillment, or the purpose
and meaning that ones life is made up of, is directly related to the right to
create law. It is through the creation and implementation of the law that we
derive our purpose in life. Thus, it is vital no one be excluded from this
right to create law.
Within Primary Democracy,
the concept of equality is defined along classical lines. If the right to
create law is not created upon the basis that every individual has an equal
amount of power in regards to decision and implementation, then all that will
have been accomplished, is yet another usurpation of the right to create law.
The liberal definition of equality posits that every individual, although
unequal in some manner, would best be served by addressing such inequality
through a balancing of power, through the artificial increase of some members
of societies right to create law. In other words, the liberal version would
have it that even though everyone could create law in a Primary Democratic
state, some should have a greater say since they are in some way unequal to
others in society. This version of equality just does not stand up, in regards
to the right to create law. Only if every individual has exactly the same
legislative power as his neighbor, exerting his or her will freely, than can anyone
say without hesitation that the process is equal.
There then is also the
issue of the democratic process. Each individual member of the primary
democratic state not only has the equal right to create law, but also the right
to participate in the process to create law. Given the number of people in
today’s nation state, it will no doubt be a daunting task to allow for the
process to be fair let alone equal in nature. This however, must be the case.
Without the possibility of the process being equal, then the whole concept of
primary democracy is unattainable.
In order for the process to
be equal, each individual must be allowed the right to participate in every
stage that exists in the creation of law. From inception to the proclamation,
the right to participate equally, on equal terms, is not only demanded, it is
mandatory.
If all have an equal
opportunity to create law and participate in the process in an equal fashion,
then the right to create law can be said to exist, in a just manner. If
everyone has an equal say in every law that defines his or her nation state and
that law was created with equality of process, then each individual of the
state can and with full conscience, state that the will or purpose of the state
is not artificial, but genuinely true.
It is only through this
truth found within primary democracy, that a natural purpose and meaning can
once again be established with authority over and within the nation state.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIBERTY OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE FREEDOM OF PRIMARY DEMOCRACY
To understand the
differences between primary democracy and representative democracy, one has to
understand the difference between freedom and liberty.
Today, freedom and liberty
are used interchangeably. However, freedom and liberty are two very different
and distinct concepts. It is this disparity that is also at the heart of the
difference between a representative democracy and a primary democratic state.
Each vision of democracy has at its core, a system of separating power between
the people and the state. In a representative democratic state, that takes the
form of the human right, often referred to and defined as liberty. In the
primary democratic state, this same division of power is called freedom. Each
system explores the same principle of human development without interference
from authority, but each approaches it differently. Liberty offers the
individuals a state controlled definition of existence. Whereas freedom, still
acknowledging its lineage and parenthood from the historical rights of man
originally entitled Natural Law. It allows the individual of the state to
define and control his or her own existence.
Liberty, has always been
limited in the sense that people are always working within a set of parameters
that are artificially conceived and administered by those who control both the
economic and political structure of the representative democratic nation state.
In essence, the authority a person has over himself without fear of
interference from the state is limited. In other words, how much power the
government of a nation has over its people is directly related to the amount of
liberty any given individual may have in the nation.
No doubt the greatest
thinker to expound upon the ideas and the concept of liberty, and the rights of
the individual versus the authority of the state to control that same
individual was John Stuart Mill, who wrote extensively upon this subject in his
treatise, On Liberty. It was this work that perhaps more than anything, shaped
the western representative democracies’ definition and limits of power over the
individual.
The early needs of the
wealthy and elite, in their drive to create economic stability and growth,
required the individual of the nation state to be endowed with a great amount
of liberty so that economic expansion and profit could be ensured. However,
there is a line liberty and the right of the individual must not cross in order
for such a system to remain productive. Its very nature creates such a
parameter. But it is this artificial barrier which prohibits the individual and
the nation from fulfilling their existence to its utmost potential. What is
sacrificed, is sacrificed in the name of expediency and profit for a select
few, while everyone else is left to dwell in an existence that is not of their
own making. Their needs and the needs of others like them are never addressed,
nor are they allowed to be addressed, for they exist outside of these
artificial parameters.
Liberty also carries with
it a deferral of power to those who govern. Even though an individual may enjoy
such rights as freedom of association, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom
from arbitrary search, in doing so they hand over direction and control of
their lives to the government. Even with all these freedoms, the power of the
state still hangs like a noose around the neck of each individual of the
country, for the simple reason that even though the individual of the country
may have liberty through certain guaranteed rights entrenched in law, it is the
government which wields power to control these rights through its ability to
create law.
It is incorrect to place
the word freedom before any human right, when discussing what is offered to the
people of the western world. Liberty today is incorrectly equated with freedom.
In essence what exists today is not the right to freedom of speech, but the
liberty to speak.
Within the concept of
freedom the right to create law is no longer a duty fulfilled by elected
representatives. It is a right belonging to every individual of the state. By
opening up the legislative process, power no longer rests in the hands of the
state, but rather in the hands of each individual of the nation, creating with
it a new set of freedoms and rights similar to those within the concept of
liberty, but much more broadly based and open to even greater interpretation.
Many, however, would argue
this is what exists today in the representative democracies of the world. By
electing ones own government, they say the rulers are the ruled. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The people have no access to the law or how it’s
made. This privilege only exists for the representatives of the legislatures.
Never does the creation of law, in the representative democracies involve the
masses of the general population, who are bound by law. The law says we have
liberty, but the freedoms permitted by liberty are governed by the law. The
law, in turn, is in the hands of the elite.
Freedom however is about
the right to create law. If the individuals of a state do not control or have
the right to create their own laws, then the rights of the individual are as
useless as the paper they are written on. Without the power to exercise a
right, the right has no use. Even though a legal system may exist that is bound
to uphold these rights, the power of the right may be usurped at any time by
those who govern in the name of law and order.
Liberty offers the
individual of a representative democracy not freedom, but a guaranteed
controlled existence. This is accomplished by placing the power of the state
not in the hands of the individual through liberty, but within hands of
government to create law.
Freedom offers to all the
individuals of a primary democratic state access to power by giving them the
ability to create law within the nation state, thereby allowing existence and
the rights of the individual to be unlimited in scope, yet controlled enough to
respect and protect each individual from harm. But most importantly it replaces
the set of artificial barriers that are found within liberty with a limitless
and open ended possibility of human fulfillment and achievement that cannot be
usurped by anyone wanting to harm a fellow human being. Furthermore, no rights
are sacrificed or lost in the name of freedom. This is accomplished by allowing
the direction of the individual, as well as the state, to be guided by all the
people, equally, and not just a select few. Thereby creating an active
environment allowing for the natural meaning of the state to grow unhindered
and free and devoid of artificial stimulus.
It is this freedom to
create law that is at the core of Primary Democracy and is the sole future for
the individual. Without the power to create law in the hands of each individual
of the state, the concept of the human right will never ring true with
significance and meaning. It is only through the extension and the continued
development of the human right that the individuals of the world can possibly
find fulfillment and self-satisfaction. However, it will not be through liberty
and its continued journey through the courts and the representative
legislatures of the world that will bring greater freedom to the people. The
only option available to the people of the world to experience greater satisfaction
in their lives will come through the concept of freedom and the idea of primary
democracy.