Ability to Establish, in Our Day, a Rational, Just, and Effective Political System

Lev Osterman

 

Summary

A concept of a political system free of the shortcomings of traditional democracy is proposed. Congress is eliminated. Legislative functions are carried out by the “Areopag” – a board of forty most esteemed citizens elected through cooptation. Power of the people is expressed as each of these citizens periodically reports to the people, and as earned trust backed by an overwhelming majority in the national election. Distrust means immediate expulsion from the Areopag, hence the “democracy of trust”. A gradual, unforced transition to the proposed political system is detailed.

--------------------------

 

Many civilized nations have chosen for themselves a political system

titled “Democracy”. From its origins in Greek, this word refers to the recognition of the people as the source of power. The power of the people is realized through the election of the head of state and the representatives of Congress through a free and direct national election with the secret ballot, as well as through solving the most difficult problems of communal life by the same system of voting on referendums.

It is possible to demonstrate that democracy is an unjust, ineffective, and therefore, irrational, political system.

 This will be done in the first part of the proposed analysis. The conception for a political system which responds, in the opinion of the author, to the title of the article will be presented in the second part. At first this conception will seem utopist.  However, upon reading the third part of the article, the reader may change his initial judgment. There, one will find drafted a way to gradually and naturally move from a democracy in the popular sense of the word, to the proposed political system which, in remaining faithful to the democratic tradition, is called a “democracy of trust”. Movement in this direction can begin even today. 

Part I. Critical Analysis of Main Democratic Institutions

1. Power of the People. The most direct expression of the power of the people is the referendum. The result is determined by the majority of participating citizen votes. However, it is common that this majority is comprised of people unknowledgeable in the matter at hand. For example: on December 12th, 1993, out of 56 million total votes, 33.6 million voted in favor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (according to the preliminary voting results announced on December 15th ). Out of that number, how many people carefully read the draft of the Constitution? I believe, not more than one million. What then did the others base their votes on? I imagine they relied on their trust and affection towards the man who proposed the draft, namely Boris Yeltzin. And nothing more!

When it comes to a nation-wide vote, the majority can be determined by far more unpleasant feelings: worrisome rumors, unsubstantiated fears of the possible outcomes of proposed reforms, xenophobia, and other similar “reasons”.

As a matter of fact, sometimes the approach of making decisions based on a majority vote can be an exercise of force by the majority on the minority, even while the amount of votes for both sides is practically equal (for example, 49% to 51%). Let us imagine that the topic of the national vote is the possibility of initiating military actions against insurgents, such as was the case, for instance, in the better-left-forgotten Chechen wars. The minority, which can be comprised of many millions, will have to accept the fact that young men from their families will be sent to war where they may perish.

Therefore, the decision-making process affecting the futures of individuals by means of the referendum, a process so popular in democracy, is, in effect, unjust and unacceptable.

2. Elections into Congress

For the purposes of this analysis, let us imagine that a country has 100 million people. Out of that number, 80 million are voting citizens, and with a 50% turn-out, 40 million end up voting. And they need to elect 400 people into Congress.

First scenario: Elections by voting areas
Each representative receives 100 thousand votes. It is clear that for the vast majority of voters the candidate for becoming a representative is practically unknown! What then determines their choice? The image of the candidate, his charisma during television appearances and his meetings with the voters, his published biography (deliberately incomplete), and finally, irresponsible promises, along with open bribery of the voters and the media, or administrative pressure.

The result: the election into Congress  of incapable and at times even immoral representatives, who are open to bribery and to multiple other ways of others manipulating their voice.

Second scenario: Election through party electoral lists
Here, there are more options to chose from, and candidates can earn more votes by working with the populations of local political niches, if they exist, and if they are worthy of the gratefulness of the voters. There is large-scale agitation coming forth in favor of the candidate for each party: through the media, fliers, and posters. The popularity of party leaders plays an important role here, as does the success of their television debates. Promises outlined in party programs and bribery of the voters both play the same role as in the first option, but here there is also the organization of various entertainment. After all, what matters is that the voter knows the leader of the party and two-three popular candidates heading up the election list. The other candidates from that list are nominated by the leadership of the party – mostly based on their dependability in terms of obedience to party discipline. But this leadership does not need independent thinkers, or competent and selfless members of their party in Congress.

The result: Not much better than in the first scenario.

Third scenario: Election based on party lists, with the understanding that the winning party of the previous elections will make up the government of the country.
The population’s views of the actions of the government between Congress elections determines the result of those elections. But the outrage that is the drafting of electoral list by the leadership of the party winning in the new elections (the same party or a different one) remains. As does the extent of agitation, promises, and bribery of voters.

Result: Same as with the second scenario.

In the two scenarios of elections based on party lists, the presence of the 5% barrier in order for the representative to pass into Congress leads to the placement of some votes in favor of the party which the voters did not actually vote for.

Conclusion: With any of the three aforementioned scenarios, many representatives end up in Congress though they are unfit for lawmaking work and are open to lobbying and mafia bribery. In this way, the major achievement of a democracy, namely the freely elected Congress, turns out to be incapable.

3. Congress Functions
Legislation
Here again is the force exercised by the majority. Bills are passed by voting. It is necessary to have merely 50% plus 1 vote from the total Congress voters. This is the same scale of representation as with the national vote. For behind every representative there is, in our example, 100 thousand voters, and behind every losing party – millions! But the passed law affects the lives of the nation’s whole population. Constitutional amendments are passed by a two-thirds majority vote. This is a step in the right direction, but not a very effective one. For there are still millions of voters even behind one third.

A consensus of the 400 representatives in the case of standard elections is obviously impossible – different people and different views. The consensus of two or three parties is also very rare. Usually the result of the vote is based on the struggle between parties. If at the moment of the Congress vote based on party lists only two parties exist, the struggle is over quickly. However, if there are multiple parties and if on top of that, heaven forbid, there are a few “independent” representatives (if the elections took place in the worst possible scenario – partially based along party lines and partially independent of them) , then the struggle in Congress becomes severe. The result now depends on the formation of party coalitions and the tempting of independent representatives (who are not always selfless).

The benefits of being on the winning side of the struggle are obvious. Even if the winning party does not gain the right to form the government of the nation, it decidedly affects its makeup, as this makeup (on behalf of the people! ) must be confirmed by Congress. On top of that, passing or vetoing any law becomes, in effect, a prerogative winning coalition. This includes the passing of the budget and, more importantly, the distribution of budget funds.

Parties of the winning coalition can be sure to expect quite significant sums of money to appear in their accounts as a result of “lobbying”, or, simply said, bribery of these parties by large companies and corporations having personal interest in the passing of certain laws. This is an important factor in funding the very existence of any party, because due to low party memberships, their fees alone cannot support either the party apparatus or the primaries.

On top of that, the parties of the winning coalition (and especially the one party, if it makes up a majority in Congress) have at their disposition what is known as the administrative resource. The winning coalition in Congress, in its very essence, must be more or less permanent. It is easy to understand that regional organizations belonging to these parties and financed from headquarters in the capital, end up being more numerous and influential “on site”, be it at the election of governors and city council members or at the time of referendum votes, or even during the elections of Congress representatives of the next convocation.

This suggests that party struggle in Congress must be brutal and victory must be achieved by all means necessary! But one must not think that the losing party remains without means of survival. There are always those companies and “oligarchs” who are ready to sponsor these parties, hoping that they will win the next election if they are not satisfied with the division of power in the current Congress. Naturally, even the government of the nation can play the role of such a sponsor if the majority swings to the side of the opposition.

One should not overlook another quite significant aspect of a democratic political system. I am talking about “representative immunity”. (Apart from Congress, this immunity also applies to local government representatives). This immunity, obviously, is very attractive for criminal structures who try to introduce their people, if not into the immediate representative positions, then at least into the many officially protected positions of representative assistants. As a matter of fact, the involvement of criminal elements in the activities of the lawmakers (bribery, blackmail, threats, and sometimes their realization to the extent of murder) is so widespread, that sometimes the phrase “Congress mafia” is very applicable indeed.

Control Function of Congress
Congress’s committees, investigations, questioning of the government and reports at special Congress sessions where ministers and other highly ranking representatives of the executive branch convene, suffer from the same “illnesses” that have been described above in relation to the law-making branch. Therefore, to save time, we shall not dwell on this aspect of Congressional activity.

The conclusion that can be drawn from everything described above can be stated thus: Work in the democratic Congress cannot correspond to its declared purpose. The same can be said concerning the whole democratic structure.

The concept proposed below applies only to the cardinal change of the meaning of the national vote and the nature of the legislative branch. If the “nationally-elected” Congress and all of the decisions it reached through a majority established in the struggle of parties no longer played any role in the legislative branch, the resulting balance of power would more adequately fit the level of complexity that contemporary society has.

As far as the executive branch (Council of Ministers and the executive pyramid under them), and the judicial branch are concerned, their structure and codex can remain the same as in an ordinary democracy. But as the objectives before the two branches become more complex, the structure and codex may need to change accordingly.

Part Two. Outline of a Reasonable Political System
1.      President
This title does not necessarily signify the highest level of power. But in any case, it does signify a competent and responsible leadership (as, for instance, in the case of a corporation president). This is how the high-ranking executive, responsible for the external aspects of the nation’s activities, will hence be called. 

In the field of economics: The unrestrained growth of the population’s needs in “developed” nations. Needs that have long ago left the humble framework of necessity and in large part depend on the constantly changing fashion.

The replacement of the planned economy by the free market caters to those needs. However, the internal market cannot remain “wild”. The government must regulate it to some extent, but, naturally, not by coercive methods. But the free market has long ago stepped over national boundaries and has become a world market. This is in no small part due to the variety of natural resources in various nations. Because of this move, connections outside of economics and customs regulations of external trade have come to the foreground.

In the field of politics: The provision of national security in developed countries in the face of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism demands, on the one hand, the striving towards compromise in difficult situations between these very nations, and on the other hand, armed forces that are strong enough to withstand attack, but most importantly, the readiness for cooperative efforts to discourage aggression and to prevent arms dealers from providing the aggressors with weapons of mass destruction.

A single competent and responsible person should be in charge of controlling internal market regulations and the movement towards the world market,  guiding external economic relationships, and leading the nation in a collaborative effort to monitor international security, since all of these tasks are intricately linked. Let us call him the President, but without suggesting that he is the head of the nation or even of the executive branch of government (the prime minister will lead that branch). The President must also be the commander in chief of the armed forces. This follows that a national election of the President based on a majority vote is completely unacceptable, for reasons mentioned in the first part of this analysis. It should be up to the “lawmakers” – competent representatives of the people (who will be introduced below) to elect him out of their own ranks. During each presidential election or reelection, the elected candidate must be approved by a national election. If this does not happen, the results will be cancelled and the very same representatives of the people will have to consider another candidacy.

The result of the vote should be considered positive if no less than 90% of real individual votes are made in favor of the elected candidate. Such a careful election process is not possible in a normal democracy.

Some readers may doubt the possibility of such a voting result with the participation of 40 million voters. However, this possibility is confirmed by the results of the national representatives election in USSR, on the 26th of March, 1989. Yeltzin received over 90% of the electoral votes out of the 9 million in Moscow, with 85% of all potential voters voting. The mayor of Moscow, Uri Luzhkov, received the same results.

2.      Power of the People
The power of the people in the direct sense of the word is not intended to be used either in referendums or in presidential or Congressional elections.  

In the indirect sense of the word, it is realized in the expression of trust to each member of the small circle of lawmakers (40 people) and the President that they elect. This trust in affirmed in the national vote, when there is a 90% majority (of all voting individuals). Why 90 and not 100%? Because in any large-scale vote, some voters ( certainly less than 10%) chose to vote contrary to the majority, not so much because they do not agree with that majority, but merely to show their unwillingness to be “part of the herd”. The expression of trust should be defended against such forms of “protest”!

3.      Lawmakers
They are the ones controlling the activities of the Executive branch, the President, and the Judicial branch. For this latter – the Supreme Court.

Only 40 people with the highest moral qualities (this is most important!), exceptional intelligence, erudition, lack of ambition, readiness to selflessly serve the interests of their compatriots, and the ability to question their own correctness and to acknowledge the convincingly proved correctness of their opponent.

And, along with all of these qualities, the lawmakers must be known to the whole nation or at least to the great majority of its citizens. To underline the fundamental difference between this High Council and the familiar terms “Congress” or “Parliament”,  let us give it the Ancient Greek title “Areopag”. (By the way, the word “democracy” also came to us from Ancient Greece).

The areopag, first proposed by Solon (first half of the 6th century B.C.), is a council comprised of the most worthy former government leaders – the arhonts. They played the same role as the role described below of a “Council of the Forty Most Worthy”. To explain the reasons for selecting this title for the Council, I will allow myself to quote Plutarch: “Arhonts, upon completion of their term in office and given that the people’s council supported their activity, remained, for life, as members of the areopag – the government council which was responsible for making sure that laws were enforced and traditions kept. This council, also aristocratic in composition, was not granted power, but given the well earned authority and permanence of its members, played an important role of the court of public opinion.”

The Greek aeropag did not concern itself with law-writing, as, possibly the very first laws written down (on boards) in the history of Europe, were laws proposed by the very same Solon.

Functions of our Areopag
Besides the function of the “court of public opinion” mentioned by Plutarch, which is, in our day, more important then in the days of Ancient Greece, there are a few other central functions of the proposed Areopag. Namely:

1.                          Development of the Constitution and the addition, if need arise, of necessary amendments.
2.                          Creation and elaboration on the body of laws.
3.                          Reviewing of legal documents issued by the government
4.                          Reviewing and approving the budget put forth by the ministry of revenue. Putting forth corrections where necessary.
5.                          Overall control of the activities of Congress and the President. Reviewing and discussing their annual reports. If necessary, replacing the ministers, prime minister, or the President.
6.                          Monitoring all sphere of activity in both the Executive and Judicial branches of government (each member of the areopag will be responsible for one of such spheres).
7.                          Running national referendums to confirm the trust of the people:
a.       Personally towards every member of the areopag
b.      Towards the elected or nominated President. Trust is expressed in having a 90% vote of the voters in the referendum. In case the trust is not confirmed, that particular post is released.
8.                          Carrying out the role of the Supreme Court

Working Regulations of the Areopag
1.      Life-long membership, but exclusion can be possible by the decision of the Areopag itself. If the trust of the people is breached, then exclusion is mandatory.
2.      Decrease in Aeropag membership is supplemented by cooptation.
3.      All sessions (except those having to do with classified government issues) are open.
4.    The chairman position in sessions is rotating
5.      All decisions of the Aeropag are made unanimously.

Let us add that the formation of political parties in order to form the public opinion is not legally forbidden. But these political parties have nothing to do with the political structure or with the activities of the governing body.

The fifth point of the regulations needs several specifications. Doubts can arise: is it really possible to have a unanimous vote when forty people are voting? Yes, it’s possible! Science seminars and the Council of Scientists testifies to this, if its members are indeed scientists.

Have there been precedents of such a form of government later in history, beyond antiquity? Yes. The Council of Elders (aksakals) in Central Asia and the Caucases, and the “community tribunals”, forerunners to the Russian peasant communes.

 

Part 3. Transition from Democracy to a Reasonable Political System
This transition must be slow, gradual, without any elements of force, as is clear from its description. It begins with the possibility of accepting three initial assumptions, along with the approval of the proposal for a political system discussed in Part 2, by the president of the country who was still elected through the current democratic process. But first, before turning our attention to this beginning, I believe it is fitting to acquaint the reader with the first attempt at unifying the Russian liberal intelligentsia. This trial is interesting not only in its unique qualities of unification and the nature of its activities as described below (approach to power, election of new members, articulated goals and mission statement), but also in its first steps of its formation, mentioned in the very first excerpt below.

First Russian attempt to freely unite the free thinkers, politicians and member of “Beseda” (1899 – 1905)

 

( from “Memories of V.A.Maklakov, thrice elected representative of the State Congress (Duma)”,  Paris, 1936. pp. 291-296).

 
“Beseda” (“Conversation”), a club, formed initially in the early ‘90s from personal connections and friendships, became at a given point an organized center of elected social activists. The external manifestation of its life was publication.  The club published a set of digests of a particular ideological content: about the agronomic question, about the foundations of local government, about the constitutional structure of various countries, etc.

The main goal of “Beseda” was the conception of an “organization”. “Beseda” united many significant social activists from all corners of Russia. Almost all of the provinces were represented. There, information was brought forth about the daily life in each province as well as what they could have expected from above. “Beseda” was one of the sources that inspired local political activities. Even before parties were legally formed in Russia, the “Beseda” became the uniting and guiding center for the nation’s elite community. The fertile soil which united the members of “Beseda” and gave them the right to call themselves the nation’s elite, was the dedication to the concept of “self-administration”.

“Beseda” had another characteristic quality. To be a member, one had to not only support the idea of “self-administration” in theory, but had to also serve this concept in practice, on the level of city or local self-administration… “Beseda” did not accept either pure theoreticians, members of the intelligentsia, or even the third element – local self-administration employees. Writers, intellects, and journalists could write the articles and books that member of “Beseda” published, but they were not members themselves. The third element did not belong because their groups were considered organizations of local administration, and not self- administration.

“Beseda” was comprised solely of elected individuals – leaders, speakers, and members of local administration or simply outstanding local citizens; they were the ones practically expressing in Russia the idea of self administration… Thus “Beseda” became an organization of well established individuals, or, in the most current terminology, it had “bourgeois” attributes.

Until the very end, “Beseda” incarnated the youth of the Russian liberal community. There, the illusions, which later weakened, of a painless and peaceful renewal of Russia, were still alive. It hadn’t yet lost faith in power and was full of faith in the Russian society. By its very content it was a group of select individuals. It was made up of those, who are now called “the elite”. It valued its selectiveness, and did not strive to “democratize”…It communicated only with culturally aware and mature people and published only serious literature that was not accessible to everyone. It had not the least shred of support of the masses. There individuals thought and talked about the “good of the people” not the “will of the people”. There was seriousness, patience, and respect to disagreement; it did not aim to throw around slogans which were tempting to “the people”. It did not use many tactics of later “politics”.

The historical interest in “Beseda” is rooted in that fact that it fixed one of the stages in the development of Russian society, a time when this society still had not forgotten the traditions of the ‘60s, still remembered the collaboration between “power” and “society”, and prepared itself for that very thing. Regardless how negative the members of “Beseda” viewed the current political direction of Russia, they did not dream of a revolution, not seeing there the possibility to reinstate “legitimacy and right”. Originally they themselves were tied with the ruling class, to representatives of power, and believed that power can move in the direction of agreement with the people without cataclysms. Traditionally when the “Beseda” gathered together, the first day was dedicated to the “sharing of rumors”, that is, informing each other of what was planned and executed behind the scenes of the government, information that not everyone might have access to; but the future of Russia it saw neither in hoarding its benefits nor in an aristocratic or capitalistic oligarchy. Continuing in the traditions of the ‘60s, it envisioned this future in local administration, not predetermining the way the Russian “political system” would be formed”………………………………………………………………..

At the very end of the “Liberation Movement” the differentiation of the local administration camp continued to develop, and members of “Beseda” found themselves in opposing parties: the Cadet party, the October party, National party. These parties all began to battle amongst themselves, reaching a truce only right before the collapse of Russia into the era of the ethereal Progressive Block. At that point “Beseda” fell silent and died a natural death. After the 17th of October, it never met again…

The historical interest in this group remains, and may even grow, but its political role was finished then.

Keeping in mind the experience of “Beseda” we can finally turn to the description of the gradual transformation from a democracy to the proposed political system. But first, we will have to accept three quite realistic initial presuppositions:
 

  1. A nation has five people who know each other and who completely live up to all the demanding expectations of members of the Areopag. In order to have a real idea of such people (better said, about their moral image), I will give them the names of those who are no longer among us, so as not to upset any contemporary, but whose memory lives on among the people. Let them be: Saharov, Lihachev, Okudzhava, Cobchak, and Starovoitova.


Let us also assume that all of them approved the proposed concept for a political system, and decided to actively participate in its realization.
 

  1. During the second term, a relatively young but already experienced and level-headed President, whose personal qualities correspond more or less to the same requirements, and who was elected through the usual democratic process, heads the state.
     

  2. Let us assume that with the efforts of his forerunner and with his own efforts during the second term, the President was successful, within the framework of the political structure, to achieve a quite significant lowering in the levels of corruption and organized crime, as well as to raise significantly the average living conditions of Russia’s citizens.


Now we can turn to the promised sequence of stages for the gradual transformation from a democratic to the proposed model of a reasonable political system:


First Stage: The Five named above succeed in convincing the last democratic President of the real possibility and the benefits of our “conception”. The President forms his “Prospective Council” from these five highly qualified and already widely respected individuals, and places them in charge of raising the number of individuals in the Council to 20 persons through co-optation and unanimous election.

Within the next year, the Council works out a draft for a Constitution. During this time, members of the Council have no special benefits and are paid the national average income. This will serve to strengthen the trust of the people in the Council and later in the Areopag, where the same rules will apply.

Second Stage: At the same time, there will be a large campaign brought forth explaining and mass advertising the “conception”. The campaign is spearheaded by the periodical press, radio, and television, as commissioned by the President. Members of the Council as well as scientists and students invited by the President organize conferences, discussion groups, and public readings in provincial towns and villages.

Then, by the same means, national discussion of the Constitution draft is carried out. On top of that, the President encourages Council members to become fully familiar with all the functioning structures of the leadership. Each department is reviewed by one of the Council members, the same member who will later oversee it.

Concerning the selection of the five names above (the moral face of the future members of the Areopag!), the argument can be brought forth that out of those proposed, three do not have “enough political experience” as it is described in the list of qualities that the “forty lawmakers” must have. Technically, the argument is reasonable. It is probable that Areopag candidates will first of all have to be elected from governors, representatives, administrators, and so forth. But one must also keep in mind that science, literature, and other spheres of cultural activity will also be overseen by the Areopag. Also, it is quite possible for a person with an “exceptional intelligence” (which is also one of the requirements for Areopag members) to master all the subtleties of governing any sphere of national economy within a year, even if beforehand he or she was not familiar with it.

Third stage: At the end of his second term, the President carries out the first referendum:

a.    On the approval of the new Constitution, where the role of the Areopag is described. At this point, approval is understood to be a two-thirds majority vote of the voting members of the referendum.

b.      On the expression of trust towards the twenty-person Council (one on each line of the corresponding ballot. Here trust is considered to mean the same thing as in point a.) The conditions are softer than in the second referendum (during the 7th stage), which is natural, since the “Prospective Council” has just begun its work and the Areopag positions are not yet all filled.

A year before the referendum, information about each of the twenty Council members, their personal biography and achievements in work before as well as during their service in the Council, is spread throughout the nation.

Applicable interviews are shown, as well as televised responses to questions the public was able to put forth over the internet.

If the new constitution is not approved, then the work is entrusted to the next President who is elected by the laws of the former constitution.

Those members of Council who do not receive the trust of the people through the vote leave the Council and the process of co-optation continues.

Fourth stage: If the new constitution is approved, at the end of this term the President turns all the affairs over to the Areopag, which is what the “Prospective Council” comes to be called after this point.

During the last few months of the President’s term in office, the number of Areopag members is increased to forty people through co-optation. At the same time, ten to fifteen candidates for becoming members of the Areopag are chosen for expedient replacement of those current members who are leaving it. The resigned president automatically becomes a member of the Areopag.

Fifth stage: According to the constitution, the Areopag reviews the activities and work of all government departments and confirms the new Council of Ministers (or Head Administrators) and its chairman. The State Congress is dismissed.

Sixth stage: From within its own membership, the Areopag elects a President (in the new sense of the word), from this point forth answering to the Areopag.

Seventh stage: At the end of the four-year term, the Areopag carries out the second referendum:
a. on the expression of trust towards the whole Areopag (personally to each of its members)
b. on the approval of the work of the new Council of Ministers.
c. on the expression of trust towards the President.

Expression of trust is now determined by no less than 90% of the voting participants of the referendum, while approval is shown by a simple majority vote.

Eighth stage:  Based on its experience of leading the nation during the first few years of its existence, the Areopag reorganizes, if necessary, the structure of the Executive branch. It also reviews the makeup of its Judiciary branch with life-long tenure.

In this manner, the transformation from a democracy to a more reasonable political system is complete. Further functioning of this system happens as described in Part Two.

In Conclusion – two general points worth noting:


1. The concept of “democracy” needs to be more carefully reviewed. The first part of this analysis shows that in our day and age the idea of “democracy” is no longer an equivalent to the concept of the “power of the people”. During national votes, be it the referendum, the presidential elections, or elections for Congress, decisions are almost always made by an insignificant majority. And that means – not by the will of all people. On top of that, all elections (except for cases of reelection) have to do with the future, that is to say, are not founded on the familiarity with former activity of the candidates.

The functions of lawmaking, monitoring the Executive branch, and confirming its structure, are delegated to the Congress. Not only does this Congress not represent all the people, but even within itself it makes decisions based on the unjust rule of the majority vote. The decisions are the result of the sometimes selfish struggle of various factions, and the lobbying, and at times even direct bribery, of the representatives.

All of this does not tie in with the concept of the power of the people. But maybe the dynamic of the struggle itself is attractive?! I will not delve into such a “traditional democracy”.

In the proposed conception, the act of voting to show trust towards each member of the Areopag, the Ministers, and the President, with the inevitable resignation from office if there are not enough votes, is the inarguable expression of the power of the people. This gives me the right to replace the vague and cumbersome title “reasonable political system” with a simple and quite worthy title – democracy, or even better – democracy of trust.

The four years prior to the vote on trust is a long enough period for each voter to evaluate, based on his own life experience, the accomplishments and virtues of the individuals named above. All the more so because all of their actions are predetermined (for members of the Areopag, by the sphere that each monitors), and open. Ideally, political parties should assist in the people’s evaluation. Their help will be selfless and unbiased since the parties are not directly linked to the governing structures.

2. The transfer of all lawmaking power to the Areopag, the election of the Council of Ministers, and control of its activities as well as that of the President, who in turn heads the defense and international policy, can elicit protest and even the calling of such an unrestrained power a dictatorship or a monarchy .

However, it needs to be stated that, first of all, sometimes a dictatorship is not at all a tyranny, but an effective and noble form of government. For example, such was the case in ancient Greece under Pericles, in Rome under Augustus, and in more recent times in Russian under Catherine the Great and Alexandre II, and in the USA under Franklin Roosevelt...

Secondly, whether dictator or monarch, it is still just one person with his personal weaknesses, biases, and mistakes. But our Areopag is a mighty, collective mind and, because of the principles of its formation, it is a group of people with the highest moral qualities.

And finally, the monarch does not answer to anyone, and his governing continues without limitations. While the Areopag in its entirety comes before the court of the people every four years in the trust referendum, at which point it is possible to realize which member has lived up to the people’s trust and which did not.

But the political system which I’m calling a “democracy of trust” possesses one new and quite attractive quality: it must be to a large extent inaccessible to corruption.

Indeed, the Areopag cannot be bribed because it is made up of people who, by definition, are not susceptible to bribery. The same can be said of the highest position of the Executive branch, closely monitored by the Areopag, where corruption will not be able to penetrate. And further, or better said, on down to the lower administrative levels, a chain reaction eliminating corruption will spread.

For the existence of corruption on any level of the bureaucratic ladder is protected by the assurance that the same illness befalls the administration above. And fearing exposure of this corruption, the administration will always cover their subordinates.

Suppression of the corruption of government structures naturally leads to the cessation of their interaction with criminal elements, which in turn will lead to the suppression of the mafia.

There is no need to worry about bribery of the President and his administration, because the President is nominated from the members of the Areopag.

An important attribute of the “democracy of trust” is the elimination of the middle man between power and the people – the Congress! A large part of its members are people incompetent for the task. Lawmaking does not interest them much. They rarely appear in the conference hall – when televised, one can clearly see how the “representatives on duty” from each faction run up and down empty benches of other members of the same faction, pressing buttons for the electronic vote.

 

translated from Russian by Anya Ezhevskaya