|
The Green Book |
||
|
The
Solution of the Problem of Democracy |
||
|
"The Authority of the People" |
·
Class
·
Popular Conferences &
People's Committees
·
Who
Supervises the Conduct of Society?
·
How Can Society Redirect its Course When Deviations From its
Laws Occur?
The instrument of government is the prime
political problem confronting human communities (The problem of the instrument
of government entails questions of the following kind. What form should the
exercise of authority assume? How ought societies to organize themselves
politically in the modern world?)
Even conflict within the family is often the
result of the failure to resolve this problem of authority. It has clearly
become more serious with the emergence of modern societies.
People today face this persistent question in
new and pressing ways. Communities are exposed to the risks of uncertainty, and
suffer the grave consequences of wrong answers. Yet none has succeeded in
answering it conclusively and democratically. THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate
solution to the problem of the proper instrument of government.
All political systems in the world today are
a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of
government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among
classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the
victory of a particular governing structure - be it that of an individual,
group, party or class - and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine
democracy.
Political struggle that results in the
victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a
dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent
of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote
for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, this
political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a
minority. For when votes are distributed among several candidates, though one
polls more than any other, the sum of the votes received by those who received
fewer votes might well constitute an overwhelming majority. However, the
candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and
democratic! In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of
false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the
world today. They are dictatorial systems and it is evident that they falsify
genuine democracy.
PARLIAMENTS
Parliaments are the backbone of that
conventional democracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a
misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution
to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent
the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority
of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence
of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only
through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of
their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people
and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics
and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade
of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.
To lay bare the character of parliaments, one
has to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a
party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these procedures
are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that
one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or
millions of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that
a member keeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he,
like other members, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is
what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely
isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them.
Immediately after winning the electors' votes the representative takes over the
people's sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional
democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which
are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a
means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus
become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to
destroy such instruments - the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp
democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses
have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation
in lieu of the people.
If parliament is formed from one party as a
result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party
and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the
executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not
of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional
representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to
their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent
their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such
a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people.
Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by
exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses
that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant.
Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent
queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into
dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world,
whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party
system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.
Moreover, since the system of elected
parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in
the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are
unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the
rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary
succession do not fall under any form of democracy.
Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated
the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were
unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate
aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them
before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter
and protracted struggle to attain this goal.
After the successful establishment of the age
of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable
that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on
behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority must be in the
hands of all of the people.
The most tyrannical dictatorships the world
has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.
THE PARTY
The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship.
It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of
a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a
superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda
through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is
composed only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or
a shared culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same
belief. They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend
the dominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole.
A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its
program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who
constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs.
The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with
common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the
community, the party represents a minority.
The purpose of forming a party is to create
an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party.
The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept - the
domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party
presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and
assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory
justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter
how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.
The existence of many parties intensifies the
struggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the
people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presented as a
justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that an opposing
party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their struggle
but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle
which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the
society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the
struggle for power between instruments of government, for the destruction of
those interests supports the opposition in their argument against the ruling
party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party has to defeat the
existing instrument of government.
To do so, the opposition must minimize the
government's achievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those plans
may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the interests and programs of
the society become the victims of the parties' struggle for power. Such
struggle is, therefore, politically, socially, and economically destructive to
the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.
Thus, the struggle results in the victory of
another instrument of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of
another. It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy.
Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or outside.
Originally, the party is formed ostensibly to
represent the people. Subsequently, the party leadership becomes representative
of the membership, and the leader represents the party elite. It becomes clear
that this partisan game is a deceitful farce based on a false form of
democracy. It has a selfish authoritarian character based on maneuvres,
intrigues and political games. This confirms the fact that the party system is
a modern instrument of dictatorship. The party system is an outright,
unconvincing dictatorship, one which the world has not yet surpassed. It is, in
fact, the dictatorship of the modern age.
The parliament of the winning party is indeed
a parliament of the party, for the executive power formed by this parliament is
the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is supposedly for
the good of the whole people, is actually the arch-enemy of a fraction of the
people, namely, the opposition party or parties and their supporters. The
opposition is, therefore, not a popular check on the ruling party but, rather,
is itself opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. According to
modern democracy, the legitimate check on the ruling party is the parliament,
the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say,
control is in the hands of the ruling party, and power is in the hands of the
controlling party. Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of the political
theories dominant in the world today become obvious. From these emerge
contemporary conventional democracy.
"The party represents a segment of the
people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible."
"The party allegedly governs on behalf
of the people, but in reality the true principle of democracy is based upon the
notion that there can be no representation in lieu of the people."
The party system is the modern equivalent of
the tribal or sectarian system. A society governed by one party is similar to
one which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party, as shown, represents
the perception of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group in
society, or one belief, or one region. Such a party is a minority compared with
the whole people, just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has narrow,
common sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlook is formed.
Only the blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a party, and, indeed, a
tribe might also be the basis for the foundation of a party. There is no
difference between party struggle and tribal or sectarian struggles for power.
Just as tribal and sectarian rule is politically unacceptable and
inappropriate, likewise the rule under a party system. Both follow the same
path and lead to the same end.The negative and destructive effects of the
tribal or sectarian struggle on society is identical to the negative and
destructive effects of the party struggle.
CLASS
The political class system is the same as a
party, tribal, or sectarian system since a class dominates society in the same
way that a party, tribe or sect would. Classes, like parties, sects or tribes,
are groups of people within society who share common interests. Common
interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by
blood-relationship, belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Classes,
parties, sects and tribes emerge because blood-relationship, social rank,
economic interest, standard of living, belief, culture and locality create a
common outlook to achieve a common end. Thus, social structures, in the form of
classes, parties, tribes or sects, emerge. These eventually develop into
political entities directed toward the realization of the goals of that group.
In all cases, the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe, nor the
sect, for these are no more than a segment of the people and constitute a
minority. If a class, a party, a tribe, or a sect dominates a society, then the
dominant system becomes a dictatorship. However, a class or a tribal coalition
is preferable to a party coalition since societies originally consisted of
tribal communities. One seldom finds a group of people who do not belong to a
tribe, and all people belong to a specific class. But no party or parties
embrace all of the people, and therefore the party or party coalition
represents a minority compared to the masses outside their membership. Under
genuine democracy, there can be no justification for any one class to subdue
other classes for its interests. Similarly, no party, tribe or sect can crush
others for their own interests.
To allow such actions abandons the logic of
democracy and justifies resort to the use of force. Such policies of
suppression are dictatorial because they are not in the interest of the whole
society, which consists of more than one class, tribe or sect, or the members
of one party. There is no justification for such actions, though the
dictatorial argument is that society actually consists of numerous segments,
one of which must undertake the liquidation of others in order to remain solely
in power. This exercise is not, accordingly, in the interests of the whole
society but, rather, in the interests of a specific class, tribe, sect, party,
or those who claim to speak for the society. Such an act is basically aimed at
the member of the society who does not belong to the party, class, tribe or
sect which carries out the liquidation.
A society torn apart by party feud is similar
to one which is torn apart by tribal or sectarian conflicts.
A party that is formed in the name of a class
inevitably becomes a substitute for that class and continues in the process of
spontaneous transformation until it becomes hostile to the class that it
replaces.
Any class which inherits a society also
inherits its characteristics. If the working class, for example, subdues all
other classes of a particular society, it then becomes its only heir and forms
its material and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those from whom
it inherits, though this may not be evident all at once. With the passage of
time, characteristics of the other eliminated classes will emerge within the
ranks of the working class itself. The members of the new society will assume
the attitudes and perspectives appropriate to their newly evolved
characteristics. Thus, the working class will develop a separate society
possessing all of the contradictions of the old society. In the first stage,
the material standard and importance of the members become unequal. Thereafter,
groups emerge which automatically become classes that are the same as the
classes that were eliminated. Thus, the struggle for domination of the society
begins again. Each group of people, each faction, and each new class will all
vie to become the instrument of government.
Being social in nature, the material base of
any society is changeable. The instrument of government of this material base
may be sustained for some time, but it will eventual become obsolete as new
material and social standards evolve to form a new material base. Any society
which undergoes a class conflict may at one time have been a one-class society
but, through evolution, inevitably becomes a multi-class society.
The class that expropriates and acquires the
possession of others to maintain power for itself will soon find that, through
evolution, it will be itself subject to change as though it were the society as
a whole.
In summary, all attempts at unifying the
material base of a society in order to solve the problem of government, or at
putting an end to the struggle in favour of a party, class, sect or tribe have
failed. All endeavours aimed at appeasing the masses through the election of
representatives or through parliaments have equally failed. To continue such
practices would be a waste of time and a mockery of the people.
PLEBISCITES
Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy.
Those who vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their
free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as
they are not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a
system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should
express their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who
say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not vote
"no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their
"yes" or "no" vote.
What then, is the path to be taken by
humanity in order to conclusively rid itself of the elements of dictatorship and
tyranny?
The intricate problem in the case of
democracy is reflected in the nature of the instrument of government, which is
demonstrated by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The elections
and plebiscites were invented to cover the failure of these unsuccessful
experiments to solve this problem. The solution lies in finding an instrument
of government other than those which are subject to conflict and which
represent only one faction of society; that is to say, an instrument of
government which is not a party class, sect or a tribe, but an instrument of
government which is the people as a whole. In other words, we seek an
instrument of government which neither represents the people nor speaks in
their name.
There can be no representation in lieu of the
people and representation is fraud. If such an instrument can be found, then
the problem is solved and true popular democracy is realized. Thus, humankind
would have terminated the eras of tyranny and dictatorships, and replaced them
with the authority of the people.
THE GREEN BOOK presents
the ultimate solution to the problem of the instrument of government, and
indicates for the masses the path upon which they can advance from the age of
dictatorship to that of genuine democracy.
This new theory is based on the authority of
the people, without representation or deputation. It achieves direct democracy
in an orderly and effective form. It is superior to the older attempts at
direct democracy which were impractical because they lacked popular organizations
at base levels.
POPULAR
CONFERENCES AND PEOPLE'S COMMITTEES
Popular
Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of
government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is
undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will
remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the
end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.
Popular Conferences and People's Committees
are the fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences
and People's Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the
product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve
democracy.
Direct democracy, if put into practice, is
indisputably the ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather
all people, however small the population, in one place so that they can
discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy,
which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various
theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and
plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing
their political affairs.
These instruments of government - the
individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party
struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and
monopolized politics and authority for themselves.
THE GREEN BOOK guides
the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two
intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but
until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us
with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the
world will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is the
struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, be they
parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or
multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.
True democracy has but one method and one
theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be
democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the
people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences
and People's Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences
and Committees everywhere.
First, the people are divided into Basic
Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The
secretariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular
Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select
administrative People's Committees to replace government administration. All
public institutions are run by People's Committees which will be accountable to
the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its
execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the
people's and the outdated definition of democracy - democracy is the
supervision of the government by the people - becomes obsolete. It will be
replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by
the people.
All citizens who are members of these Popular
Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have,
therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences
in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic Popular
Conferences or People's Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular
Conferences and People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in
the General People's Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the
Popular Conferences and People's Committees. Resolutions of the General
People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the
Popular Conferences and People's Committees, which undertake the execution of
those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn,
accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.
The General People's Congress is not a
gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a
gathering of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees.
Thus, the problem of the instrument of
government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The
people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the
world is conclusively solved.
THE LAW
OF SOCIETY
Law represents the other problem, parallel to
that of the instrument of government, which has not been resolved. Although it
was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persists
today.
For a committee or an assembly to be
empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is
also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended
by individual, a committee, or an assembly.
What then is the law of society? Who drafts
it and what is its relevance to democracy?
The natural law of any society is grounded in
either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside
these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered
the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law,
and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.
The problem of freedom in the modern age is
that constitutions have become the law of societies. These constitutions are
based solely on the premises of the instruments of dictatorial rule prevailing
in the world today, ranging from the individual to the party. Proof of this are
the differences existing in various constitutions, although human freedom is
one and the same. The reason for the differences is the variation in the
assumptions and values implicit in diverse instruments of government. This is
how freedom becomes vulnerable under contemporary forms of government.
The method by which a specific modality of
government seeks to dominate the people is contained in the constitution. The
people are compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws derived from that
constitution, which is itself the product of the tendencies within particular
instruments of governments.
The laws of the dictatorial instruments of
government have replaced the natural laws, i.e., positive law has replaced
natural law. Consequently, ethical standards have become confused. The human
being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same everywhere. Because
of this fact, natural laws are applicable to all. However, constitutions as
conventional laws do not perceive human beings equally. This view has no
justification, except for the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument
of government, be it an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is
why constitutions change when an alteration in the instruments of government
takes place, indicating that a constitution is not natural law but reflects the
drive of the instrument of government to serve its own purpose.
The abrogation of natural laws from human
societies and their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental danger
that threatens freedom. Any ruling system must be made subservient to natural
laws, not the reverse.
The fundamental law of society must not be
subject to historical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the
decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and
individual rights and duties can be judged. Freedom is threatened unless
society adheres to a sacred law with established rules that are not subject to
alteration or change by any instrument of government. It is, rather, the
responsibility of the instrument of government to adhere to the laws of
society. Unfortunately, people the world over are currently ruled by manmade
laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending upon the struggle for power
among competing forms of government.
Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is
often insufficient. Plebiscites are essentially a counterfeit of democracy
since a "yes" or "no" is the only option. Moreover, under
man-made law, people are compelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conducting a
plebiscite on a constitution does not necessarily make the constitution the law
of society. In other words, the status of a constitution will not be altered by
a plebiscite; it will remain no more than the subject of a plebiscite.
The law of society is an eternal human
heritage that does not belong only to the living. Therefore, drafting a
constitution or conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery.
The catalogues of man-made laws emanating
from man-made constitutions are fraught with physical penalties directed
against human beings, while tradition contains few such measures. Tradition
lays down moral, non-physical penalties that conform to the intrinsic nature of
humanity. Religion contains tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a
manifestation of the natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic
social guidelines and answers to the fundamental questions of existence.
Most physical penalties are deferred to a
future judgment. This is the most appropriate law affording due respect to the
human being. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties, save in certain
compelling instances necessary to the well-being of society.
Religion contains tradition, and tradition is
an expression of the natural life of the people. Therefore, religion is an
affirmation of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws which are not
premised on religion and tradition are merely an invention by man to be used
against his fellow man. Consequently, such laws are invalid because they do not
emanate from the natural source of tradition and religion.
WHO
SUPERVISES THE CONDUCT OF SOCIETY?
The question arises: who has the right to
supervise society, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of
society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of
society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any
individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the
society, which is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a
whole. This can be arrived at through the democratic instrument of government
that results from the organization of the society itself into Basic Popular
Conferences, and through the government of these people through People's
Committees and the General People's Congress - the national congress - where
Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and the People's Committees convene. In
accordance with this theory, the people become the instrument of government
and, in turn, become their own supervisors. Society thus secures
self-supervision over its laws.
HOW CAN
SOCIETY REDIRECT ITS COURSE WHEN DEVIATIONS FROM ITS LAWS OCCUR?
If the instrument of government is
dictatorial, as is the case in the world's political systems today, society's
awareness of deviation from its laws is expressed only through violence to
redirect its course, i.e., revolution against the instrument of government.
Violence and revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments of society
regarding deviation, do not constitute an exercise in which the whole of
society takes part. Rather, violence and revolution are carried out by those
who have the capability and courage to take the initiative and proclaim the
will of society. However, this unilateral approach is dictatorial because the
revolutionary initiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new
instrument of government representing the people to arise. This means that the
governing structure remains dictatorial. In addition, violence and effecting
change by force are both undemocratic, even though they take place as a reaction
against an undemocratic prior condition. The society that revolves around this
concept is backward. What, then, is the solution?
The solution lies in the people being
themselves the instrument of government whose authority is derived from Basic
Popular Conferences and the General People's Congress; in eliminating
government administration and replacing it by People's Committees; and finally,
in the General People's Congress becoming a truly national convention where
Basic Popular Conferences and People's Committees convene.
In such a system, if deviation takes place,
it is then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the use of
force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social change and
treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the nature of
this democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside group who
can be held responsible for such deviation or against whom violence can be
directed.
THE PRESS
An individual has the right to express himself
or herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her
insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate
identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those
who share their corporate identity. Since society consists of private
individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual
of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are
insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual's character. Likewise,
corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the
corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it
produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the
company.
The press is a means of expression for
society: it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate
bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either
one of them.
A newspaper owned by any individual is his or
her own, and expresses only his or her point of view. Any claim that a
newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses
the viewpoint of that private individual. Democratically, private individuals
should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information.
However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even
irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional
sector, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social
group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public.
This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.
The democratic press is that which is issued
by a People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this
case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be
democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing
all its groups.
If medical professionals issue a journal, it
must be purely medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private
individuals have the right to express only their own, and not anyone else's
opinions.
What is known as the problem of the freedom
of the press in the world will be radically and democratically solved. Because
it is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the problem of freedom
of the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy in society as
a whole. Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy is
through The Third Universal Theory.
According to this theory, the democratic
system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic
Popular Conferences and People's Committees which convene in a General People's
Congress. This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society.
In summary, the era of the masses, which
follows the age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes.
But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses
and their happy emancipation from the bonds of external authoritarian
structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery,
and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and
party, instead of the authority of the people.
Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but,
realistically, the strong always rules, i.e., the stronger party in the society
is the one that rules.
Zurück: Die
Logik der westlichen Dekadenz
Zurück: Drachenwuts
Politikblog Themen