Democracy is
praised as the best political system for humanity, and I am from those who
agree on this notion. However, as human inventions go, it is flawed. The
democracy of Athens flourished and fell because of the human factor. Because
along, populism rose and eroded the functionality of the system.
Sokrates
had a word to say that the farmers of the land can’t decide for the ships the
state should build. And this motto is a good starting point to examine the
flaws.
The problem
is not that the farmers lack the knowledge about ship making, but they lack the
recognition of this lack of knowledge—usually not one by one, however, as a
group. In a democracy, it is easy for people to move their personal
responsibility into the rest and clean their consciousness. In some way hence
the word idiot.
The way I
understand the problem is that democracies lack structure. In other words, I
suggest a fractal organization of the social network. It was inspired by Genghis
Khan's way of ruling. He conquered everything, moves hundred of thousand of
people, yet illiteral.
How can
this be? How he achieved such unification? By dividing his people into groups
of 10. The tens voted a representative. Then there was the first layer of
representatives, again divided into groups of tens and goes on. Until the ten
final representatives were facing Genghis Khan, that system provided one simple
advantage; if you had a problem, you needed five people to speak it to the ear
of the ruler.
Simple and
direct. I like it. I suggest the very same but with some minor and major
modifications. Let's start, consider a political party entity.
Assume we
group into 12 people. The point of 12 is the way I experience statistics. In 12
people, there is a high chance you find a volunteer to be enjoying a task you do
not want to do it yourself. Let's call these 12 people groups atoms.
- 1. The representatives are
representatives. They do not hold power. I will need to elaborate on how I
imagine it at the moment.
- 2. The highest layer of representatives
will hold certain autonomy; they can not ask the base (general population) for
every step. But the ladder of representatives holds the position of the upper
layer, and the base holds the power of every layer. Hence when the “presidents.’
cabin” acts opposing to the base notion. The base can revoke their position
in minutes. I presume at this stage, a phone app will be used to immediately
call a meeting between each basic element (a group of dozen).
This creates an inverse pyramid structure where actual power flows in the opposite direction. Hence balancing the structure. - This creates an inverse pyramid structure where actual power flows in the opposite direction. Hence balancing the structure.
- 3. Votes are divided into one per two
individuals within the structure. In the national voting system, one still has the
individual vote. Within the party, you vote with your buddy. This is to create a
specific notion within the structure. Basic communication can be resolved from
person to person and not the person to people. Groups create social pressure on
individuals and are seeds of populism.
Well
certainly is not perfect, but I think it is functional. I understand that populism
has two main mechanisms to drive it; scorn and subjective filtering. The fact
that decision-making occurs within a 12 people consensus, I think, can filter
out extended interference or an attempt. Giving time for a false impression to
be understood with the voice of rationality. One could argue that extreme ideas
can also be cultivated. However, I think eventually, a room of 12 people could favor a rational point of view because it remains personal. Additionally, even if the base group has extreme views, the next
level of representatives could bring feedback to rationality.
Higher-level of representatives will have the autonomy, and I expect them to distribute the positions according to professional relations. F.E., a group of dozes, could work in healthcare initiatives. Between 12 people, I think it will be sensible to choose the person with the qualifications instead of the person with influence. At the end of the day, the representative reports to his\her group and does not command. And each member reports back to the group.
The most interesting feature will be the bigger groups. The twelve people groups are the decision-making units; however, withing the party, people can be parts into debate groups if they have the self-motivation to do so. Hence delicate and sensitive matters can be educated within this self-assembly group that could be voices within the party. However, decision-making remains within the basic unit of 12 people. I would like to see such freedom since I believe it can be the feedback mechanism within the party. Let's call these groups molecules.
Choosing your buddy and your group is an interesting debate. I do not know what should be best, but I think geographical locality is necessary. There must be within the same city or state. Changing buddies should be possible but not trivial, either. I have no idea yet how this should be played either. Suggestions?
Veto should
somehow get implemented, I believe. I have not thought of a proper mechanism yet. Any
ideas?
I think this structure will serve the purpose of atoms in democracy, Atoms as in nature are the basic stable form of material in nature. The combinations of them into molecules or crystals (for simplicity) create the material world we experience. The number 12 is almost a random choice, but I think the upper limit too. A much larger group will be problematic for voices to be heard or distribution of responsibilities.
I think separating atoms into 6 and 6 people could be also an inner structure for smoothly improving communication and maybe also used as a Veto call. It bothers me how a veto vote should exist for the weak but not being abused by the stubborn.
Comments
Post a Comment