I. Historical experience 
Brief gradation of cybernetics systems 
Intermediate summary 

II. The leaders 
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler 

III. The Democracy 
The term «democracy» definition 
Do we have the Democracy? 
What type of a model our life is ruled? 

IV. The perfect model. 
Common conception 
Reasons for changing the governing model 
What kind of model it has to be? 
Technology of model designing 
How it works 
Organized crime 
Conception advantages 


I do not know, exactly, what attract people in politics activity: money, power, glory? May be all-together. It really was people, who gained this all. Some of great personalities indeed managed to create big empires, but no one of empires endured or Alexander’s, or Cesar’s, or Charlemagne’s, or Chenghis Kahn’s, or Timur’s, or Napoleon’s, or Lenin’s. That happened because it much easier to create empire than to rule it. All the emperors used direct centralized governing, which is especially harmful for big empires. But decentralized empire already not empire. I don’t know whether people need empire at all? Whether they need emperors? And do we need somebody (even talented, beautiful and clever) who will dictate us how to live?
People come to political business from different fields of human activities. As a rule, they are those, who failed to make fast career in his and do not believe in possibility to ocupy top positions in their field of activity. The more mature and experienced politic is, the worth specialist in his previous activities he becomes. At last he looses his qualities as specialist and becomes professional in intrigue. This quality is not valuable to anybody except to politicians themselves. Of course it would be wrong to say that they are all dirty willians. There are lot of charming and even genious persons. They are very bright and harismatic persons. Why Russians elected absolutely grey Putin with mentality of good and disciplined CGB colonel? Why Americans elacted Carter instead of such a prominent person as Lee Iacocca, who prooved his ability of big systems managing? Often people choose not the best of the best but one less harmful of two. Like that was when Russians had to choose between Zuganov and Eltsyn or Americans between Bush and Carry. 
Throughout the world, they seemed to have forgotten that Governmental, Financial and Economical management are self-connected, but different processes (as courting the girl and breeding a child). These processes are developed according to their intrinsic laws. Throughout the world professional financiers manage finance (not dancers, or philologists), professional economists manage the economy (not shoemakers, or geologists), but the countries can be headed by the professional actor (Reagan), the major general (De Gaulle), the builder (Eltsin), the chemist (M.Thatcher), the boxer (Peter Bota). So, our countries, which are extremely big systems with enormous amount of objects to be ruled, are being governed by what-ever-you-want individuals, except for professionals, who can manage the running of big systems with enormous amount of objects to be ruled. The question: is it safer for a child to be brought up by an ordinary nanny, than by a dog with gold medals? People do not need famous, nice, well speaking persons to be a President. They need one who will choose correct model of governing country. The less state of things in the Country depends on President’s personality – the better model these Country has. “The best leaders are those whose existence the people doesn’t notice” (Lao-Tszy, China philosopher). Extreme case: the model is so perfect that country is governing well without leader at all. Even if people are so luky as to elect or recogniz in some other way really the best Nations Leader they never know how it will end to the Nation. For example, Lenin, Castro, Aliende, Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin etc. They was mighty individuals, really the best of the best at given historical moment. Millions of people sincerely adore them. All of them brought a lot of misfortune to their nations. 
Compereson of people whose names are forever in history, helps us to understand which characters Ltader need to have, what people demand from Leader and does we need leader with practically unlimited plenipotence?


Genious Napoleon ruined thouthands of French soldiers and brought France to defeat because he did not understood some things obviouse to ordinary persons. Lev Tolstoi described Napoleon’s and Kutuzov’s behaviour on the eve of Borodino battle [10].
Napoleon was very active. He has meetings with military staff, discussed possible variants of battle, even himself cheked the guards.
Kutuzov all of the eavening spend lying on tha wooden bench near the stove. The main thought which circulated in his old head: how not to do something which could change the natural way of events. Because he understood that the natural way of events development will enavitably bring to Napoleon’s defeat. Will he fight or not, Russian winter and shortage of food will kill the Franch army. That is why he did not continue Borodino battle next day. He retreated, although Russian army was not defeated. He even left the Moskow all in fire.
Napoleon in vaine was waiting Kutuzov to bring capitulation act or at least start negotiations. Some days later Napoleon fell back to France. Thouthands of Franch soldiers died from cold and hunger. Partisans and even peasants killed those who still moved. And Russian army safe and sound entered Paris. Napoleon’s genious did not bring happiness to Franch people and far from being that famose Kutuzov saved thousands lifes of Russian soldiers, won the war and entered Paris without any battle.
125 years later Adolf Hitler – another distimguished leader – repeated Napoleon’s mistake and as a result destroyed the biggest European Country and led to death millions of his fellow citisents. If Hitler would have asked German people whether to start the war against Russia, I am shure they would remind 1812 Napoleon’s compaine against the Russia. 



I deliberately put them together because I see no essential difference between them, although they do have differences. But something makes them twins: 
all of them were ahead of mono-party regime. Mono-party system leads to dictatorship. Dictatorship leads to fascism. In England, Sweden, Spain they have monarchy, but they have no dictatorship, that’s why they have no fascism. But during, national-socialist and communist governing they had dictatorships and they really had fascism, because to fascism faith, belief, idea – is everything, person, citizen’s dignity – nothing.
They both, fascists and communists based their ideology on utopia (“utopia” means everything that can exist under some special conditions, which are unrealistic to create).
Fascist Hitler declared that he would build Nation of supermen and for supermen. It was utopia from the very beginning, because for realization this idea he has to eliminate the rest of the world or make them slaves. But his utopia finished by complete ideological downfall, demolishing mighty country and death of millions fellow citizens.
Communists promised to build a society, where everybody works as much, as he could, but takes no more then necessary. These idealized conditions will never be reached, because they are in direct contradiction to the human nature. Majority of people in the world can’t force themselves for morning exercises 5 minutes a day. How can they make themselves work, when nobody and nothing, can make them work, except for their own motivations. Will they continue to work hard, after seeing that others around them slack off? And so on.
Both communism and fascism demand the same way of thinking also. And thanks to God, this could not be realized, because unification of thinking is one of the worst things common to communists and fascists and people understood this.
Both of them used strictly centralized model of state governing – the best environment for fascists and dictators regimes.
Russian communists did not understand that country was under historical experiment on governing people. That’s why they two times tread upon the same rake.
It took 5 years for genius Lenin to understand his mistake: since 1917 the country used the wrong model. He declare “New Economic Policy”(NEP), which was nothing else than returne back to prerevolution market economics. And the country started to recover. But Stalin returned hierarhical strictly centralized model of governing and soon millions of people started to die from hunger.
Lenin showed himself as a good destroyer. Industrry was distroyed completely, havox in financial system, paralysed transport, almost completely eliminated qualified workers, intelligencia was partly destroyed, partly desperst all around the world, army of dirty and hungry beggers everywhere – that was the price for changing capitalist’s model to socialist’s centralised one declared by exelent demagog, cruel utopist Lenin. Stalin used the situation for grasp the power. 
Stalin was more of creator. !0 years past and all the world with admiration and horror discowered in USSR extreemely militarised mighty country. Till than Soviet Union has 303 divisions, 23 thousand tanks, 17 thousand airplanes, 40 thousand cannons, 220 submarines.
You can ask how it happend? The answer is: widly used very strong positive and negative stimulation. Stalin created special food and goods distributors for devoted oficials, prisons and camps for those who misbehaved on authorities opinion. You can be put in jail for being late to work or receive from 10 to 25 years for political anecdote. Actually it was life or death stimulating, the strongest one. Strong stimulation alloved to built mighty state in short period, but can it be enough good reason for concentrating unlimited power in Stalin’s hands? Result of this activity was millions of peoples killed in peace time by communists. I think, Stalin forewer can be nominated Guiness recordsmen on amount of fellow sitizents killed per time unit. Total amount of people killed due to Stalin’s repression was more, than 20 millions.
A lot of people was killed during The Second World War.
Stalin believed nobody. If he would have believed dosens of warnings, that on June 22 Hitler will attack the Soviet Union, near the million of soldiers would stay alive. Hitler concentrated enormouse army on the Soviet border. It was wonderful target for airforce attack. If Stalin would have started the war the day earlier (like Moltke did with Franch) mighty Soviet Aviation and artillery would have destroyed the most of German’s army and would have opened the possibility for advance Soviet Army in Euorop like rescuer from Nacis. That whas Just what Stalin dreamed about and prepared the Army for. At May 1941, on the Sun-Diego seminar, admiral Richardson anounced the following :”If Stalin will be first and through against Hitler his 200 divisions (actually Stalin has 303 divisions) and 10 thousand tanks, after two month Stalin’s army will be on Atlantic shore”.
Instead of this Hitler with one blow desroyed Soviet Aviation at their airfields. In first days of war Soviet Army lost amount of soldiers comparable with all the loses during the rest 4 yers war.
26 millions killed, 2trillions 500 billions of direct damage, 3 trillions military expenses - that was a price of Leader’s fault. If to add 15 millions died in prisons and camps, Stalin forewer can be nominated Guiness recordsmen on amount of fellow sitizents killed per time unit due to his activity.
Who was better – fascist Hitler or communists Stalin & Lenin? For sure I can tell – no difference. From the moral point of view communism is much more attractive, than fascism. But from the way of governing – the same.



For next example let us take very sympathik and nice American president Jummy Carter.
January the 4-th 1978 the U.S. ambassador in Iran William Sullivan made a
telephone call through the secure telephone line to the US secretary of State Cyrus
Vance and told him just that. U.S. should send an emissary to Paris to see the
Ayatollah, Sullivan had urged. Khomeini should be told that the main concern of the
U.S. was to preserve the territorial integrity of Iran and deflect Soviet influence; that 
the Americans did not want to see a pitched battle in Iran between the army and the
Islamic revolutionaries; and that once the Ayatollah was in power, the U.S. would
offer him the same military assistance and arms sales it had given to the Shah.
Sullivan was sure it was time for Americans to cut their loses with the Shah and look
to the future. Vance had agreed.
Weary, apathetic, and no longer willing to shed blood in order to stay in power, the
Shah had not even put up a show of reluctance [11].
Dutch Huster, the deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe, had arrived to
Tehran to persuade Iranian generals to support the new Bakhtiar Government in
Teheran. At this moment National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, after the
summit meeting in Guadeloupe was deep-fishing in Caribbean with President Carter. Bush junior started solving the same problem but in a much worth conditions:
1. Cold war winner, strong and united NATO, supported Father Bush. Bush junior
has key NATO figures in opposition. A la guerre comme a la guerre: ally in opposition is
called enemy.
2. Since than, The Tird World War was, in some way, officially annouced. This war
is going on simultaniously in different points of the globe. The war which goes on stealthily, from behind, at night, using stupefyed, ignorant womens and childrens. All this brings to nothing american armament suppeiority and make USA task more difficult.
3. Democrats immediatly used the situation and attacted Bush as a wolfe pac on wounded buffalo.
Tegran showed his gratitude to US by anounsing USA the first enemy of Islam. American Ambasy was destroyed.
The Bush (older) mistake already cost thousands of lifes and billions dollars. Cost of Carter’s mistake it is impossible to estimate. Nothing worse, than to put Iran in hands of Muslim extremists, was ever made in USA history. Help me God to be wrong!



The President Aliende was extreemely intelligent, polite and kind person. Everybody adore him he was really the best of the best.
He has one little fault: he believed that workers and peasants (people’s majority)will build a happy life if they will create their own party and take the power in their own hands. It seemed so natural. “THE BEST IN THE WORLD BRAINS”, like Lenin, Marks created smooth and persuasive theory, which shows how the dreams of working people should become reality.
Unfortunately he did not know the precise sciensies like Cybernetics or Common Systems theory. Otherwise he would have know that any monoparty system leads to dictatorship and any dictatorsship leads to fascism. The precise sciencies would have shown him, that monoparty system needs the centrlised governing, which sooner or later leads to economic disaster. Just what Aliende did.
Hungry housewifes enough persuasively demonstrated their realistic demands on Sunt Juago streets and finished Aliende’s career.
Augusto Pinochet could not be called charmingg person as President Aliende was. But he has another strong point: he was not under any ideology. Nothing could privent him to make right desision. He saw that countries , who uccepted American help (West Germany, Italy, South Corea, Japan…), made significunt success in their development. At the same time all Socialist Camp countries, including Chile, has significant dificulties in their economies. That’s it. He made desision and fight it firmely as a good soldier till the victory.
As a result, Chile moved from the last place, in Latin America, to the first place in living level. But this victory took human lives. 
Which Leader was better to the Nation? Was Pinochet a hero or a criminal? 




His career, as Russian President, Putin started in extremely good conditions. Young, with strong will, sportive, with good language and manners he was marvellous contrast to funny gallery of last generation of the Russian leaders. His rating was unbelievably high. 91% of Russian citizens supported him.Why? 
He was one of us. He lived in Leningrad – city with good cultural traditions. Putin finished the same ordinary school as all of us. Finished university with red diploma. Came to work at KGB, but not at 5-th department, that spied own people, but at 1-th department (International Intelligence Service). He never has big money or support of some famous relatives. He never occupied any Communist Party positions. All he gained was due to his own workability.
At the moment of his start as President typical phase of shock therapy (changing governing model period) was already in past. Russians blamed Gaidar and his team, blamed Yeltsyn, but this way or other the worst was behind. Putin inherited young democratic country with independent democratic television, newspapers and magazines. Free market economics have in Russia its start.
Yeltsyn was ill, vodka addicted men. Sometimes his behavior was shameful. He was criticized in every newspaper, in TV-show, in humor-contained concerts. But he never prohibited a single newspaper. He did not prevent self-organizing processes in society and economics, which is typical to democratic society. These Yeltsyn’s strong points were many times more significant, than whole his bad manners and drunk misbehavior altogether. The single thing I really can’t forgive Yeltsyn: he didn’t organized “The Nuremberg Process” to KPSU (Communist Party of Soviet Union). And didn’t install the date (every year), when on all television channels they would show the nightmares of fascism and communism. Than we’ll less afraid, that “Stalin will be taken back”, less worry, whom will vote this poor Russia people still with porridge in their heads. But Yeltsyn kept these cause of trouble for himself as well as for all of us. 
Putin did not seize the opportunity of favorable situation. The first big mistake made by him was creating his team on former KGB, but not modern economists, ground. KGB is not a style of work only it is a way of thinking. And this way of thinking pushed Putin in direction of centralizing power. Of course it was some good economists like Greff. But their opinion was never decisive. Uncontrolled enlargement of FSB (Federal Defense Service) and other Power services gives not economic damage only, but changing the way of thinking also. 
He did not fulfilled a single serious pre-election promises nor in economics, nor in education, nor in public health, nor army reform. From the first steps he choused a wrong pass. He started with enlarging and centralizing of all power structures. And it happened so that just in this new, mighty and centralized structures the worst things were happened. Let us take couple examples for illustration.
It happened fire on one of the biggest in the world Ostankino television tower. The fire appeared because it was something wrong with electric circuits. This was obvious but nobody dare to switch off the electricity. It took 3 hours for coordinating with different officials step by step up the ladder of powers from one official to another and at last it comes to Putin itself and he ordered to switch off electric power. Meanwhile half of tower was destroyed by fire because new shortcuts appeared and made new sources of fire (it is a good example how hierarchical centralized model works). 
Other story. People come to watch the musical “Nord-Ost”. Terrorists occupied the theater. Spectators became hostages. After long and deep thinking rescuers decided to use some sort of paralytic gas. They cleaned the theatre and all the terrorists, approximately from 10 to 14, were killed. The operation could be called extremely successful excluding little side effect: because of gas poison some refugees died. In proportion 10 refugees to one terrorist. 
One stories more. In small provincial town Beslan children with parents came together in school because of new school season ceremony. The school was seizure by terrorists. Soon came those who have to free the kids and relatives. But god knows why, they did not clear the space around the school from spectators, did not surrounded the school properly. As a result some of terrorists managed to escape the rest was killed. A lot of hostages were killed also. This time in proportion 100 hostages to 1 terrorist.
We can continue the list of stories about drown submarines, crashed aircrafts, blown up buildings together with people etc. The common for all the stories is one detail: they never managed to prevent the crime. And suddenly a great success! Militiamen discovered the car with explosives. Next looks like dark humor anecdote with transportation and substitution corpses.
So, they found a car with bomb and they found the driver also! The drivers name – Alexander Pumanet. Pumanet was extremely cooperative. He started to give testimony that he was working for some Caucasus guys that he had to put the car with explosives near Borodino Panorama, which was exactly on high guarded government rut. For interrogation gathered two dozens of different officers. It was 2 o’clock after midnight. Without visible reason precious and cooperative witness was bitten fiercely and long, almost until death. Then they called emergency. 
On the way to the hospital this poor guy was transported to another emergency car. In the hospital Pumanet died. The corps was shown to his wife and friends for recognition. But wife and friends without any hesitation told that it was not Pumanet corps. As a result, nobody now can tell whether it was Chechen plough or something else and what Pumanet was really told, and even whether it was Pumanet at all. Till now they cannot find him nor dead, nor alive. 
Each of shown above examples enough persuasively shows extremely bad level of organization of all kinds of power structures. It is hard to imagine something worth. If you would take a group of imbeciles from any mad house to fulfill the rescue operation in Beslan they would not be able to make that big mountain of corpses as FSB rescuers did. Quite obvious that Putin cannot swallow all the power he already gets. His mistakes occurred more and more often. Some of them - unique. For example, no president through whole history of international relations never congratulate the candidate who loose, elections, but Putin congratulated Yianukowitch two times, while The President of Ukraine was elected Iyuschenko. The best side of capitalism is in permission to anybody to become rich. The State is a guaranty of safety citizen’s money, because they understand that citizen’s money is part of Nations money. It looks like Putin want to build capitalism without capitalists. He started several legal processes against some of the most reach people. As a result multibillionaires Gusinsky and Berezovsky are immigrated, the richest Russian billionaire Khodarkovsky is in jail, lot of reach people immigrated to Israel. It is hard to foreseen the end of this extremely stupid act with Khodarkovsky. “Menatep Group” (the main UCOS shareholders) already started legal process against Russian State for loses compensation on common amount 28 billion of dollars. And that is only the first nightingale.
As a result of all this UCOS matter, Russian businessman prefers to keep money in foreign banks. It is impossible to imagine which enemy of Russia could organize such an economical diversion against Russia, which initiated so strong dollars flow from Russia (27 billions of dollars already crossed the border last 4 years). No other action can make a weak stream of investments even smaller. Nobody can invent better way for disintegration Russia than Putin’s decree, which throw away democratic way of governor election in regions and substitution for direct from Kremlin appointment. The day this decree was announced all the governors started to think how to separate their regions from Russia. Each of these regions, at least 10 times, larger than Chechnya, with which Russian army can do nothing during the years.
If USA wants to see Russia economically weak and disintegrated country, they should never criticize Putin. Let Bush continue to call him the best friend. Putin will do the rest himself. He will never change his course because he created around himself mighty surrounding - nomenklatura. They have a big lot of privileges and places for making money. They will never permit Putin to change the course, they will better kill him. So, to change the course he needs to eliminate nomenclatura first, as Stalin did. But Putin is not Stalin and the situation is not the same (it is much easier to let Gin out of the bottle than to push him in).
Russia has one and the only way for survival: to change governing model. Naturally, it will be the model of self-organizing system. This model will save not the economics only, but will protect the Nation from leader’s mistakes. 


next chapter >>



Vladimir Tsymbal, Democracy: a New Model