DIRECT DEMOCRACY

ΑΜΕΣΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ

Τα πνευματικά δικαιώματα είναι κατοχυρωμένα 2002©

DIRECT DEMOCRACY

In our days, capitalism is the economic and political system that dominates almost all countries. Its effects are infamous: unemployment, poverty, exploitation, increase of the gap between rich and poor, favoritism, inequality, lack of meritocracy, illegality, environmental destruction. Rich people and big companies are the only ones encouraged by capitalism. No other social class is getting the minimum attention out of the capital system. But if you take a closer look you'll realize that not even all the rich people favor capitalism. In the end the big fish eats the other big fish and big sharks are the only ones surviving!!!

The only options appear to be either to compromise with the status quo or to choose anarchy. We can't however, consider anarchism as a solution, as it doesn't make any proposals for a better governing system. Someone could say that mass protests can at least change the political status. But even so, the senseless crowd doesn't suggest any new political system capable to replace the existing one. On the other hand, population is intellectually castrated (TV is to blame for that) and doesn't care about politics at all. Skill specialization has lead to intellectual partiality. Putting it in simple words, population is totally uninterested in intellectual growth and politic matters. In countries that voting isn't an obligation (USA, France) there is only one small percentage of citizens that vote. However, it is USA that elects - having the so called citizen's agreement, through their vote - the president and world leader (in fact, he is nothing more than a puppet of the international corporations, oil companies and arm industries that create wars).

The despise of politics is a world wide phenomenon. Unfortunately, citizens realized that it's all about a fake game and politicians are just executing capitalists' orders. The worse part is that this despise is more common in young people, the most vital part of the population. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, referred to mankind as "the political beings", but today we are inactive citizens, having no will of our own... we have changed into obedient. Today's obedient insist staying in their role by not really getting informed about political matters (even TV is obeying the system's orders and brain washing the viewers) and by being superficial, when voting and electing capital servants and tyrants. Moreover, they don't actually oppose to the system that supports unemployment, social and economic inequality and environmental destruction. They could participate in active citizens organizations or just send letter and email protests to those in charge.

It turns out that today there might be a "louben proletariato", which means that the majority of the population doesn't have neither enough resources for living, nor politic conscious; In fact, today, a very small part of the population, in a few countries, protests (usually demonstrators are allowed to protest walking around the pavement like idiots). When the demonstration is spoiled by the violet actions of some brainless individuals, they are repressed violently by the police, making the protest meaningless. But even if the demonstration ends peacefully, mass media don't bother to show it because it's not catchy (mass media, like system's devotes servants, have turn into capitalized entities promoting anything catchy and cheap). There could be a change only if the majority of citizens of all countries protest against globalization, capitalism and environmental destruction, all together. But how can something like that be possible if the obedient (not the citizens) are totally indifferent? By the way, it's unacceptable for environmentalists to protest against environmental destruction, without stigmatizing capitalism and USA that supports it (after all, 25% of the gasses that pollute the air comes from US chimneys).

Capitalism has managed to corrode the social structure and dissolve every uniting bond between the obedient who have been separated into well settled-having wealth and those who don't, making it impossible to unite into one fight against iniquity. This is also been strengthened by people's individualism, which makes them hide into their sell (for some the sell is a golden-ivory tower) and be totally uninterested of what ever happens around. But even if the were united, they'd be like the "roman mod" (at least they had bread to eat, on the contrary to today that the only thing they have left is the spectacle of TV) having the mental perception of a young child (that reminds me that for US movie industry the main precept is to consider the viewer as children).

The only solution today is the direct democracy and the return to the ideals and values of the ancient Greeks, driven by a modern enlightenment. Ancient Athens, at 5th century B.C. (the golden age of Pericles) was ruled with direct democracy and with an interest for the suffering population (you can study Lysias), the poor (supporting them) and generally all the citizens (even the children of dead soldiers), is the right model that every modern society should turn to. But I have to admit that at this point I agree with the anarchic: we have to take down the meaning of "kratos", which even etymological means command (the greek word "kratos" given to the political athorities, has its root to the ancient verb "krateo/krato" which means "command/have power on", and in ancient Greece "Kratos" was one of the gods, "Bia's (violence's)" brother) and to replace it with "politia" which had been used in ancient Greece, having a dialectic relation with each citizent, like the one that a mother has with her child.

In my article "ATLANTIS. LET ESTABLISH THE IDEAL STATE", which you can find for free at www.globalisation.tk, I describe the ideal state, but according to the ancient Greek prototype. The same model, as I describe it, could easily be applied to the modern society and politics and every country could form an ideal state. Things are very simple. Of course, states' constitutions should be changed, but it's my belief that today's obidients have been so addicted to capitalism and to the rest tyrannical systems that even in direct democracy they'd refuse to take control. But even if they wanted to, they don't fulfill direct democracy's one and only condition: integral education, not just limited knowledge and intellectual partiality that characterizes the specialization required for a specific field. But even if the right education did exist, do you think that the powerful-well hidden dictators (international corporations, arm and oil industries, drug cartels) would ever allow direct democracy to any country? Politicians and lawyers would find thousands of solicitor evidences in order to prove that fascism, which has been renamed to "democracy" and rules ALL countries today, is way better than direct democracy!!! The worse part is that people would agree and all together they would put down their pants and bend showing their butts to the capitalists and dictators, not as an action of contempt, but giving the right to those stallions to go on!!!

Direct democracy is the only solution, and almost every law has to be changed as I describe in my article "ATLANTIS. LET ESTABLISH THE IDEAL STATE". In this article I talk about the ancient Greek model, which can however be ignored to let the substance of this article be applied in the modern societies. Here is something more simple: those of you who wish can find a political party that supports direct democracy and participate in the national elections or even in municipal - prefectural elections. There will be a time that those who are now inactive obedient, having no will of their own and searching to find their identity through mass media, will be more conscious and vote for that party. Regarding those foolish excuses of constitution lecturers, that the "democratic" constitution doesn't provide for direct democracy (!!!), my answer is: does the constitution provide for fascism?

The above suggestion, founding a political party, is the simplest one as it doesn't require the change of the constitution. If the party is elected, the party's president will become prime minister or president of the country, remaining however equal to all other citizens. According to direct democracy he will be representing the country at international conferences, but he won't have any privileges. He will be just the postman carrying the citizens decisions. Citizens will decide on their own about the governing matters of the country, and they won't need anymore representatives who worship the capital - which today is controlling everything. Of course, in order to establish direct democracy we'll have to change our law system so it can be in agreement with the new values. Moreover, direct democracy impose the continual education trough life time and generally speaking the essential integral education to all citizens, so they can improve their judgment and make the right decisions.

Someone could suggest that every citizen must have a personal computer and use it to participate in making immediate decisions, through online vote or just telling his/her opinion in special pages. This is indeed one solution, however online systems might be unreliable and I doubt if that could really happen (see satellite spy system Echelon), thus no one can guarantee that such results are unchangeable. It would be better if the citizens could gather regularly (monthly, for example) in amphitheatric places, where they could be informed about all the matters and all decisions they have to make. In those meetings, the citizens must allowed to say their opinion and then they should vote. The final decision will be made according to the sum of the votes of all those meeting around the country. In direct democracy, mass media would found again their right mission: to inform the citizens (the articles should be written by scientists) about all state matters, so they can have total knowledge of each subject and make up their minds.