C U R I O U S M A N I F E S T O S
(POLITISTICS)
— — — — —
CONTENTS
*
[ * All names of the parties /movements /etc. in Bulgarian original have abbreviations with three
letters, which peculiarity isn't easy to maintain in the translation, so the letters are more often different. ]
Foreword
Manifesto of the DDD (Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship) Movement
Addendum to DDD
Manifesto of the EEE (Enigma of the Exploitative Elite)
Manifesto of the ZSG (Zodiacal Significance Group)
Addendum to ZSG
Manifesto of the IIE (Initiative for Iterative Elections)
Manifesto of the CCW (Corrupted Cadres Wing)
Manifesto of the NNO (New Nomenclature's Offensive)
Manifesto of the FCP (Forever Changing Party)
Addendum to FCP
Manifesto of the BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference)
Addendum to BRD
Manifesto of the USC (Union for Strength and Competition)
Manifesto of the TTT (Tandem for Total Totalization)
Manifesto of the FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation)
Manifesto of the CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses)
Addendum to CCC
Afterword
Supplement: Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)?
— — — — —
PART SIX
AFTERWORD
The dictatorship is the only thing that may convince the people that there is something good in the democracy, as well as the democracy is the only thing that may convince the people that there is something
The only good point in the democracy is the fact that it is
With the dictatorship is possible to fight and the history is full with examples of falling of dictatorships (in the worst case with the death of the dictator, because we all are mortal and he is also a human), but with the democracy, using the means of the democracy, this, alas, is impossible (because the people are indestructible). The hopes that the democracy in some country can be changed with changing of the rulers, are based on nothing; if, with time, it still evolves, then this is because the
Every democratic election is, as a rule, unreasonable, and is, in a way, just
The democracy is the best known ...
According with the demos goes the -
The other name of the democracy is
Because it is known for a long time that the populace wants mainly bread and circuses, there exist: the dictatorship
It is
In most everyday problems the question, usually, is not what is the answer, but
There are just
A person can't be really great, if he (she) has no courage to laugh at himself; similarly, a
The knowledge is power, the simplicity — happiness; the wisdom is in the compromise between them!
The knowledge
The equality between people is a question that gives rise to many speculations because God or the Nature (scratch the redundant word) has made all possible to provide
The liberty is ... perfidious notion, because our world is a world
The main difference between the capitalism and the socialism (respectively communism) in economical area is about the question
The worst thing with the
When the
The politician is a person with
The politician is like a
The politician is
— — — — —
SUPPLEMENT: HURRAY, IS IT POSSIBLE?
*
(Government of the Reasonable Alternative)
[ * This is a later inclusion (from 2007), where the question is considered not so biased, but for all this also more sketchy, as is becoming for a draft version of project-proposal. It, however, is wholly realizable, if properly discussed and completed with necessary details. And one more remark for the translation in English: "Hurrah" in the original is "Ura", and these 3 letters are the initials of "Government of Reasonable Alternative". ]
1. Why?
The history of all societies
is a history of
counteraction between the masses and the rulers
, or between the lower and upper,
for
better and
moral
, justly
government
. This is so because there can't be no government (the idea that each person will alone know what to do is more than Utopian), but also every man has sufficiently good idea of morality and justice, because this is something
and operating on the basis of comparison with the others (so that if someone violates some moral or legal norms then this almost always is
because he, if of age, of course, does not know what is good and what bad, but because hopes to remain unpunished, something that even if it does not bring direct gains and pleasures to him at least raises his self-esteem). As a result of this counteraction is reached to finding of compromise between the wishes of the people and the interests of the rulers, which, in principle,
be antagonistic, but usually are exactly such, and what compromise most often is reduced to ...
(because the golden mean, alas, is unattainable for us), so that this is either some strongly centralized government, or some form of anarchy.
Well, if they are extreme, then neither the dictatorship (respectively, the tyranny — a matter of naming) can't last for a long time (there are many examples for this in the history), nor the anarchy (which in the end is reduced to one or another form of expression of people's wishes by at least minimal discipline, as it is under the democracy). We think that it is clear that the good decisions must be near to the center, which is generally accepted to be named democracy (though the idea of the democratic centralism is not very different — it defended /defends the interests of the people, but without so much circuses as under the Western, and now also Bulgarian, democracy). But it remains also the question about the moral, which simply is
to be present in whatever form of governing but, alas, from the time of Renaissance was thrown out of it — because it turned that it is aging much faster than the economic relations in the society and begins to hinder the government (which nowadays is also put on a good scientific base). The throwing of the moral out of the government, however, does
that it is not present invisibly in the people's minds (to remind you about the absurd, but realized in USA, dry law imposed by the Puritans), its power was just lessened a bit, whereas nowadays, when the influence of the church is already quite weakened (and, by the way, substituted by the media), and especially in countries with, on the whole, atheist population (as ours) it turns out that we must yet
the moral in the government (thing that the communists have done, according to their own views, of course).
The point, though, is not only about the moral but also about the intellect (or just the wisdom of the folks), which can, and must, oppose the (unavoidably) selfish interests or the ruling. In many Western countries, where the people are wealthy enough for to allow to their morality to say its word if they occupy ruling positions, or as the communists said it would have been when one begins to live for to work, instead of to fork for to live, and what was the rule for many centuries between the hereditary aristocracy (and what is the only excuse for its existence), the things may go better (albeit also in such cases not seldom problems arise), but not in poor countries like ours, or between not much religious citizens (again like ours).
And the point isn't only in the morality also because the population continues not to be proportionally represented, as one statistical variable, in the Parliament. Nor the ruling persons are chosen as good professionals; they are mainly prominent politicians (understand: rope-walkers, charlatans, at least good orators, and we are talking not only about our country but about any democratic one), and just then, if this sometime happens, also good professionals. Nor somebody tries to remove at last these obviously
(or defending private interests) party members, what makes us to think that the communist viewpoint for one party consisting simply of the best ones (the cream of society, in their view) was not at all unfounded (one should have just seen to what extent the politicians succeeded to vulgarize
idea, in our case that about the pluralism, for to believe that in the communist idea was much reason). And these are not bubble stories because, if we leave aside the economic problems, the democracy runs well in those countries where are
big
between the various parties, i.e. there, where the folks can change the politicians without changing significantly the policy — as the man alters his tie, which is only a decorative element in the garment, so that, in fact, one can do well without it.
2. How?
In view of this, and by a number of other, non listed here (but dealt with in other parts of this book) problems, we think that a reasonable government (the Government itself, or the Parliament, or the Supreme Authority), which is very suitable to be named in Bulgarian (or also in Russian) URA (or
GRA
in English), as abbreviation from
Government of the Reasonable Alternative
, must contain the following
elements, namely: a
House of the Rulers
(HR for short), a
House of the People
(HP for short), and a
House of the Sages
(HS for short). Let us discuss all of them in succession.
2.1. House of the Rulers
It, in principle, is the present-day Parliament or National Assembly, and this is the reason why we assert that the transition to such democratic model (basically, this is a kind of democracy, only that it is
than the existing forms) can be done also these days. In this situation, and at first time, we can assume that the party system, however rotten it is, may be preserved in the beginning, but later on must be devised some variant for selection of good
, managers or businessmen, who must be chosen
(not because we like their "mugs") and by them alone (not by whole nation of laymen!). It is better for them to be
100 persons
on a national level (at regional — according to the concrete decision, but maybe: 5, 7, or 9), and out of them to be chosen: the Ministers, the President, and the other ruling positions in the country, and the left majority of them to be allocated in different Commissions, as well as to take part in their mass by voting of important documents and decisions. As far as, and until, they are party members then the choice of
(the number of persons, or their percent) can be estimated via general election, though it is better for this purpose to be used the enlarged assembly of the HS (or HP and HS, where their average value is taken), what will not only be much faster, but will also allow
in the country (something that is absent from all contemporary Parliaments), where such establishing of the quotas is performed, say, each half year.
This isn't at all some fiction, because similar procedure
by the choice of the Pope (he is not elected by all believers, right?), by the election of referees for sporting competitions, in the Boards of various companies, on party level in most of the parties (i.e. iterative, by delegates), and elsewhere. So that this is real and possible and this is how it must be done, if we want to work properly, not only to throw dust in the eyes. But this is just
one third
of the whole Government,
its
, and the decisions of HR are proposals, which come into force only
after being voted
(which play the role of opposition), first (say) in HS and later in HP. The paradox, when one and the same group of people both, proposes and approves, here can't exist, and there are no grounds to expect to be confirmed things profitable only for the ruling in the moment, which later, when another Government takes the power, will be radically changed. Naturally, in the cases of decisions of various Ministries, they take effect after their acceptance by the persons in HR (in fact, only by the Ministers, but they may be more persons, a whole Commission), but
HS and HP
must
be allowed to cease each inappropriate decision
, if they choose to examine it and find it wrong.
With other words: till here nothing radical, only that the opposition is separated from the rulers (in order to work properly and to be no ways for incessant quarrels), but it is also rightly formed (as
, looking at the things from another positions, from those of the masses and the intellectuals, not of people who until yesterday have ruled and today just find flaws, or vice versa), where in addition exists one more level, third level, of dividing of the functions. Well, this probably will slow a bit the work of the GRA, but then, if one begins to think, the point isn't in the fast procedure but in the
and well thought one, and we have also good guaranties that the decisions will be well received by the people and will not be some next trash, which every more or less intelligent person could have marked at ones.
2.2. House of the People
It is this, what the National Assembly, essentially,
— a
as supreme judge (and not a place for talkings and blowing of bubbles, judging by the name "Parliament"). This is a new structure, but obviously necessary (the so called
— we discussed this in the other Manifestos), which is clear that has
to be chosen by
, where we propose here to be also
100 persons
, chosen by ordinary random selection by UCN, Unique Citizenship Number (equivalent of insurance number, an unique code for each citizen), of
by two persons
of each year of birth
from 20 years
inclusive
to 70 years
exclusive; it is necessary also to have
(chosen by the same procedure), and even 10,000 (if this will be find suitable), where each year (or half year) may be reelected anew one half of them, arbitrary chosen. This House must have also some initiative rights, if it has to put some question which is met with resistance from the HR, but it
this that makes the laws, it only adopts them or not.
It is true, that at a first sight it seems too risky to choose a motley bunch of nincompoops and to leave them to decide the destiny of the country, but these people just
whether this, what is proposed to them, is good or bad for them, and exactly this do also the jurors, so that we don't see especial problems in this case; after all, the uncertain person may choose somebody for a model (and the things go first via the HS), besides, it is normal to allow to each one of HP the right to refuse, if he /she wishes, to take the post (as far as the people there are chosen
them having applied, just supposing that they agree). This, that these people will
(i.e., most often jurists, judging by the actual Parliaments) and many things may be needed to be explained to them — well, that is precisely the purpose of the task: to adopt clear for the people laws, not just to outsmart one another.
2.3. House of the Sages
This House (or also of the Wise, or of the Elders, or also of the Judicious, Virtuous, Models for us, etc.) is now one
fundamentally
in the Government, missing from all contemporary Parliaments, though it can't be said that it is entirely unexpected one, because it is based on the idea for
choice from below
, choice incompetent, but
, rather for people who we respect, appreciate, trust them. Here is the place for the
, only not just for to fool the masses (with a new baby's pacifier), but for
, choice of people
only from the top (like: prominent scientists, artists, clergymen, and if you like also pop stars or footballers, etc.), but also of such from our intermediate surroundings (say: husband, father, mother, chief, and so on), where in each higher round choose
— in the same way as each respecting itself party does.
Generally said, this means that
on the first iteration
vote all, and not only for one person, this is too simplified, but
for five
(or ten)
persons
(
from parties, here are chosen personalities), making no difference about priority between them, where for each one (by UCN, and with computer, obviously) are added the voices of the voted for him (her) persons, later this list (for the whole country on national level, but the modern computers will not be hampered by this) is arranged in diminishing order of the received voices, and is separated its beginning, for example as 5 to 10 times (as it will be decided for each iteration)
than before the iteration. This procedure is applied also for the next iteration, only that (in addition to the fact that there vote just the people from the shortened list — a kind of delegates) by counting of the votes is added
for each voted for him, but
the number of votes
, which the latter has already received (i.e.
of the vote). Furthermore,
on the last iteration
, when there leave
1,000 persons
(or 1,200, with a bit of reserve), is necessary to gather these persons together face to face in one place (say, in a resort) in order to get acquainted one with the other as much as possible, which process must last at least one week. So at the end is chosen
HS
again
of 100 persons
, as also
an
. This choice also can be performed each year, via Internet, or using special terminals, and it is
, because there is no need to keep it a secret when we do not choose big chiefs but just people who we value and respect.
So these are our Sages or Elders,
people on whose
, not only intellect, but also
morality we
rely and
stake
. Well, it seems strange to learn how to behave, or copy morality, from pop stars, fashion models, or footballers, but, funny or not, such people, really, very often are role models for many of us (and this will also provide some "freshness" for the crew, so to say). But
even the persons from HS will
(we are not supporters of the Platonian idea that the country must be governed by philosophers — if not for other reasons then at least because the people will, neither choose them, nor understand them; and pop stars, for example, certainly shouldn't
govern us).
These people
, though, are the
strategists
, who must be able to tell
, what are the problems, on what matters must work in the HR, and whether the latter have well done their job. This is the House in which can and must be discussions, which can (and is preferable) to be followed by the public, not the left two Houses, and in it alone one may feel proud to be chosen, not in HR (where simply must be worked hard), and even less in HP (where the people are, in a way, the "kibitzers"). This House must have, together with the approving or not of the laws and other important documents, also primary initiative functions; it is, basically, also the opposition, but one reasonable opposition, exercising constructive, not destructive, critique (according to the rule that if something comes not from us then it is necessarily bad).
3. Whether to do it?
Well, roughly, this is the idea of the GRA, but isn't it just another utopia? Isn't it good only in theory, but in practice will turn out to be worse than the traditional democracy (though, looking at the Bulgarian democracy, it is
to imagine that there can be something worse than it — when even under the totalitarianism is was significantly better, at least in sense of standard of life for the people —, but we speak about the democracy in general, so that let us not fall victims to our emotions)? Now, it isn't likely to be worse, at least
speaking. Because the work of the HR will, maybe, be a bit less effective (for reasons of the enhanced control from the parts of HS and HP), but it, in spite of all this, may turn to be even more effective, because under separated from the "Speaking Hall" opposition the rulers will simply not have with whom to quarrel and will be forced to do their work; and they will also be not only ambitious orators (and wealthy enough for to apply for the job, or at least backed up by wealthy and, respectively, with dubious origin of their resources, circles), but genuine professionals in the governing (as much as it is possible at all to introduce exact criteria there, where the work is not only routine, but rather is an art).
Next, HP obviously will be one really representative choice of the population, one
Assembly; next, HS unavoidably will bring some morality and reason in the government (i.e., it is impossible to happen
ignoramuses in the Parliament, as it, I'm afraid, happens in Bulgaria now and then). And the
counteraction between
, not so much as the Christian Holy Trinity, but as in the spirit of the ancient Eastern philosophy expressed by the gods: Vishnu (the Doer, the maintenance, or the tactics for us, the HR), Brahma (the god who makes the things to buzz —
in Bulgarian —, the creator, or the strategist here, the HS), and Shiva (the Destroyer, that who will ... strike us —
in Bulgarian — with a stick if we don't obey, up to some extent analogue of the people or HP in our case, who are capable to destroy all things created by the rulers or the sages), is preferable to two Houses, especially to our unicameral Parliament; in this way the dialectical contradictions can better unfold itself! In addition to this the elections in different Houses must differ in the time, and if in the HR they are for four (or three, or even two) years, then the HP may be renewed to a half at least once yearly, and the HS can be elected once in one or two years, the President can be chosen half an year after the coming in power of the new HR, and so on.
And something more
on the question of morality
:
it becomes wrong
because it is bad to have moral in the governing (this is an obligatory requirement and we very well see that without moral we came to nowhere), but
when
has the right to
instruct
, when only one truth is good, only one religion is accepted and official — because then comes the
, where the moral marches on the spot while the perceptions of the people are changing. But under the governing of GRA this can never happen, because we elect strong personalities and
, about half of which are well known and succeeded in life, so then they, obviously have their
views,
, and they are different people, as by professions, also by habits, they are not united in whatever parties, nor have some common platforms (apart from this, what we call wisdom or virtue). So that by them can never exist one single belief, and, hence, can't be stagnation; they may form only this, what is right to be called
(beliefs, truths, etc.), and what, if it can be shaped, then ... well, praised be the God! Because this is the hardest thing in life of a given community — to achieve unified view on the main questions of life,
the various views of all different groups ans stratas. Seeking for a common view there, where each one, as the saying goes, pulls the rug to himself, can be reached to one
, which is to be applied to all, to be clear for all, and to be respected by all!
Well, it is true that in the contemporary global world is very difficult to introduce radical changes in social area in one isolated country, more so in such with population only ...
from the world's, but, as you know, a chain breaks at its weakest link, so that it is not excluded that we will be honoured to conduce this important experiment (initially, say, on a local level, in one town or region). After all, in later times is much spoken about civil society, but it
enough, if it existed, so that this can be our Bulgarian variant. Because if it will not be applied in our country we have to hope for this to happen, say, on Alaska, or by the tribe of Mumbo-Jumbo, or ... on the Moon. In any case, when something is necessary it sooner or later
, or, as our
(ethical minority around Sofia) says, "What is needed, it is required by itself", and the sole reason (according to the author) for which this can also not happen (at least in a near future) is that
the idea of GRA is entirely ...
.
But then, think for yourself: isn't it better to say GRA-hurray, than later to grieve that have not accepted one idea simply because it has turned to be more intelligent than us?
E N D
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/