I. Historical experience
Brief gradation of cybernetics systems
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.
Reasons for changing the governing model
What kind of model it has to be?
Technology of model designing
How it works
A little bit of history. Athens, the principal Greek democracy, practiced first a representative and later a direct democracy. Its cizens met, discussed public issues, and voted to express their preference. Rome affirmed the principle of representative government. “The Roman senate, although it represented only aristocratic class, was the forerunner of the senates of modern democracies.” [ Merit Students Encyclopedia. 1967]. The Roman tribune was appointed to represent the plebians, or lover class. The plebians’ method of voting was known as “plebiscite”, a term still used when all the people vote on special issues. The Roman also developed the idea that all citizens are equal before the law. Roman law codes became the basis of the law codes of most European countries.
In France Baron de Montesquieu developed the idea of a government composed of equally powerful executive, legislative and judicial branches. Voltair wrote numerouse tracts on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religeous toleration, and need for honest and just laws and law courts. Jean Jacues Rousseau criticized the existing governments of his time and urged a society in which all are politically equal.
In America, thinkers, such as Tomas Pain, Tomas Jefferson, and George Mason, stressed the idea of the natural rights of individuals and opposed what they considered an aristocratic leaning on the part of the Federalists. Mason refused to sign the Constitution because it contained no protection for individual citizens against the government, and later he was instrumental in securing the adoptionof the Bill of Rights, or first 10 amendments. Jefferson, the leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, supported the rights of the state in relations to the federal government and the political power of small farmers within the states. His Presidency is widely regarded as the first major afirmation of democracy in the United States.
It would be wrong to speak about Democracy and not to mention Socialism… Good idea was destroyed by monoparty system. Socialist countries with monoparty governing has serious fault: economics controlled by government. Controlled economics contradict to selforganising free market. Or this, or that. Controlled free market - is noncense. Centralised governing could be effective on short historical period only and never on long one. It is weak point of all socialist ideologies.
The more you study democracy, the more you believe that we are still on the way to democracy. During the centures we got able to visit the Moon but did not move far from Roman Senate at the same time. There is obviouse difference between state of things in people’s life governing and progress in other fields of human activity. To make this difference shorter we need at least try to use science for people’s life governing. Such a possibility exist.
DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION ALREADY MADE BY KOLLECTIV PRODUCTION OF THE BEST BRAINS MANKIND HAD. IT IS HIGH TIME TO CREAT THE BUILDING ITSELF
THE TERM “DEMOCRACY” DEFINITION
We already proved above that mono-party system or dictator’s regime use non-effective hierarchical centralized models. That’s why self-organizing market economics and democratic environment are out of discussion. Governing model can be built as regulator and all the recommandations of precize sciences can be used . As far as we want to build governing model for democratic society we need one and the only definition for designation “Democracy”. Without this it is impossible to define Aim Function for democratic society governing regulator. Without Aim Function we will not know what we expect from our regulator and how evaluate it’s activity. If you will study “Democracy” definition, soon you will see that there is no common definition. More of it, existing definitions are very differ from each other.
Let us try to study some of them from “how to use it for Aim Function” point of view.
Encyclopedia Americana: “DEMOCRACY. In modern word “Democracy” signifies that the ultimate authority in political affairs rightfully belongs to citizens”.
Which citizens? Do they represent the will of the minority or the majority of the society?
Stalin and USSR Communist Party Central Committee members were citizens of the Soviet Union and all ultimate authority in political affairs was belonged to them. Was it democracy, or was it one of the worst dictatorships? This definition suits both.
The “Encyclopedia Britannica” gives the following definition: ” DEMOCRACY, literally, rule by the people.
(1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy
As far as I understood, this form of government needs to gather the whole body of citizens to make each political decision.
(2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person
but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as
If democratically chosen representatives will execute the will of minority, but not the majority of citizens, will this government be democratic?
(2) a form of government, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restrains designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy”
I don’t ask how this definition could be formalized to use as Aim Function? I ask whether this definition guarantee the first priority to will of citizens majority or it is “exercise within framework”?
Merit Student’s Encyclopedia: ”Democracy, the system of government in which final approval of public policy rests with the people.”
The Colombia Encyclopedia, 1993: “Democracy – philosophy that insist on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control institutions for their own purposes.”
Random House Webster’s Collage Dictionary, 1995:
”Democracy 1. government by the people: a form of government in which the supreme power is vected in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”
New Concise Webster’s Dictionary 1989: “ Democracy - a government or country where everybody has an equal right to choose the leaders, by voting.”
This meaning is the most in use.
There is also democracy as a principle of doctrine of government; there is democracy as a set of institutional arrangements or constitutional devices; there is democracy as a type of behaviour [Bernard Crick. Democracy. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. 2002]… The more I studied “democracy” definitions, the more I was persuaded that almost in all sources they define the way of election people to ruling bodies or whatever else but not the way people must be governed. The main sense of democratic government, as guarantor of peoples’ majority will, is omitted in all definitions (or I did not found). It looks like we still don’t understand what term “democracy” is meaning. To build a Governing Model for democratic society we need one and the only, short, clear, easy formalized definition for principal doctrine of governing. That’s why in further we will use the word “Democracy” in the following meaning: DEMOCRACY, a form of government in which elected by citizens ruling body executes the will of citizens’ majority. Will of majority becomes the Aim Function for democratic governing society
DO WE HAVE THE DEMOCRACY?
Now, when we have “Democracy” definition, can we ask: do we have the democracy? The perfect answer to this question gives Brigit Xogan, Vanderbilt University, biologist: “In today’s world, control on all the processes, including cloning of human beings, is in hands of those who have the money…” The fact is that those, who have the money, are an absolute minority of the Society. Democracy suggests the inverse situation: control of all the processes is in the hands of the majority. So, “Democracy”, as an acting model of the society, oriented on executing the will of the majority, is absent.
We used to call “Democracy” a democratic way of election and rather chaotic set of democratic rights and freedoms beginning from extremely important (freedom of speech, press and assembly) to absolutely senseless (right for prisoners to vote, right for women to go topless, etc.). Some antidemocratic laws we declare as democracy victory. For example, the same gender marriages. If in the country absolute majority are heterosexual, the same gender marriages can be discussed as antidemocratic law. If in the country absolute majority don’t want to increase amount of newborn babies the same gender marriages law would be quite democratic.
“Democratic freedoms” is wonderful thing, with meaning close to “main human rights”. In democratic society equality in human rights must exist to every citizen independently of his belonging to majority or minority, Muslim he or catholic, old or young. But if you start to build governing model it has to be oriented on the will of majority. Main democratic freedoms always will be among the citizens’ majority interests. “Those who have the money” and control on all the processes, don’t need nor the freedom of speech, nor the freedom of assembly.
DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS DESCRIBES THE LEVEL OF PROTECTION
AND FREEDOM OF EACH SEPARATE CITIZEN IN GIVEN STATE, WHILE DEMOCRACY IS THE WAY OF THIS STATE GOVENING
WHAT TYPE OF A MODEL OUR LIFE IS RULED?
The laws, under which we are living, creates the face of State governing model. The better laws – the better model, the better model – the better life in the Country. If we will make serious analysis the problems we are suffering most, beginning with military and social conflicts, and finishing with epidemic diseases, we will discover the same reason: something is wrong in the way we organize and manage our life. People stubbornly are using non-effective models naively considering that all the problems in Government cast. The historic examples support the idea, that, usually, changing the government cast can significantly change the state of things on better one only in following condition: together with government you change the governing model on better one, just like it was in Chile with Pinochet arriving and in England with Tatcher. If government change followed by implementing worse model, than previous, situation in country became worse (Russia in1917, all the Socialist Camp countries after World War Two). Improving governing model does not need nor extremely big investments nor additional natural resources, which makes it available to any country. Improving state governing models – enormous nonmaterial source of improving people’s life available to any country.
In temporary democratic countries legislative, executive and legal powers are playing nation’s life regulators role. The laws for these social regulators are the same as for regulators working in technique . That opened enormous possibilities for social regulators improving, because it permits to use experience, which science and technique accumulated during construction and exploitation technical regulators. For Social systems the aim of regulation process can be fulfillment of some task, which the Nation is going to achieve during current historical period. Positive and negative stimulation could be used as stabilizing drawbacks. Aim function and stabilizing drawbacks presence are common demands for any other regulator on Earth or in Space.
Let us use the possibility of estimating social regulator’s work for evaluation of model’s quality in common. Our brief analysis is related to democratic countries. There is no sense to analyze totalitarists regimes because they used non-perspective, centralized models, while our task is to raise quality of social systems regulators but not to make them worse.
1. There is no means to force the Government (all the branches) to execute the Will of Citizen’s Majority. The National Goal, approved by citizen’s majority and verified as separate document, does not exist at all. It is substituted by pre-election promises, which could be undone without any punishment.
The consequence: Not only evaluation of Government’s work is absent, absent even
criteria of this evaluation.
2. The Government Official’s salary neither directly depends on the final results of their work, nor on the state of affairs in a Country as a whole.
The consequence: Common irresponsibility. Very weak possibility for Government activity regulation. The country can go to hell together with whole economics and no one member of any branch of government officials will receive a penny less.
3. The lack of economic and other means of stimulation to benefit the entire Nation’s interests leads to the situation when Government Officials’ political, religious and other interests could be stronger than the Nation’s interests.
The consequence: Absence of the common Interest Vectors between the Government and the Nation, which significantly reduces the Nation’s creativity and productivity, keeps the constant source for social conflicts.
4. All contemporary branches of State Powers are regulators of social and economic life. That’s good. But they are practically, uncontrolled regulators. That’s bad. Uncontrolled regulator is nonsense. The main task of regulation and control is to reduce level of entropy (chaos, disorder). Uncontrolled regulators can raise entropy level as well as reduce it.
AS TO CONTROL AND REGULATION PROBLEM IT IS HARD TO INVENT SOMETHING WORSE, THAN THE WAY OF GOVERNING WE HAVE
SOME RESULTS OF USING THE WRONG MODELS
Executive power. The size of this book does not permit deep examination of all the consequences, which brings using the wrong model in people’s life governing. We will concentrate your attention on only one defect of contemporary governing model: uncontrolled Powers, and use for example mostly one of the best democratic countries - Canada. Canadian’s newspapers quotations and registered documents used only. Let us start with Government Immigration Policy.
“One of the main principles of immigration policy after Trudeau – almost uncontrolled enlargement of amount of immigrants from underdeveloped countries... We should pray to God that at least their children are able to participate in the social-economic life of Canada”.
“Immigrants from “second” and “third” world are voting for Liberal Party because liberals feed for free this army of spongers”. “Between 1986 and 1993 number of black prisoners in prisons of Ontario increased by 204 %”. “In previous times, - says candidate for Toronto Mayor position Mr. Andrews, - if there was a hole on the road, road repairing workers immediately appeared. Now they do not appear. Money spent for buying ethnic communities voices.”
For more than 10 years Canadian Liberals are on power. Since than everything became worse in Canada: living level, job places, medical service... In annual research of International Economics Forum Canada’s competition ability falls from 9-th to 16-th place during one year only, but due to ethnic community voices The Liberals win elections again and again. Uncontrolled Government can bring country to one party monopoly. One party monopoly has only one direction of development – program-controlled centralized model. Let me repeat: it was this model abided diligently by Socialist Camp countries, which ruined their economy, but not the Socialism as political phenomenon.
Let us descend to Municipal level and take one of the best cities in the World – Toronto.
3 000,000 city residents of Toronto produce around 9 000, 000 ton of garbage annually. Eliminating 1 ton of garbage cost $51 or $459 000,000 per year. Most of expenses are because of long distance garbage transportation. Garbage could not be eliminated in Toronto area by combusting because of harmful pollution.
“The Inviro-Waste Alfa Inc.” proposed to eliminate garbage using high temperature pyrolis technologies because they permit not only decomposition on molecular level but synthesis of new products also. On February 2001 this technology has been exhibited at the International Innovation and Investments Exhibition in Moscow and has been recognized with the first Prize, Gold Medal and First Degree Diploma. Business Plan and all the calculations showed that project will reduce expenses on garbage elimination no less than 100 000,000 per year are still under the table of municipal workers. Experienced people hints that some very important person has millions each year on garbage transportation. As long as he stays on Power no other way of garbage elimination will come through.
It is well known that throughout the World there are thousands of officials who put the brakes on excellent projects because of self-interests reasons. It is actions against the citizen’s will. It is against the Free Market economics actions, because Free Market demands free competition environment and hate party or definite person dictatorship. Uncontrolled Government prevents Free Market economics development In mankind’s history there was times when one persons knowledge’s was so universal that could be compared with Academy of Science: Leonardo Da Vinci, Michael Lomonosov… Since than the Sciences became so large and complicated that it is impossible to find scientist with universal knowledge at list in one scientific direction: chemistry, or physics, or medicine… The same could be told about governing. Contemporary National Economics became extremely complicated. It is impossible to find government, at least one government member, which could know, at least understand, everything which is going on under their governing, may be excluding Ministry of Sports. First of all, because they have not such universal professionals, second, if they was good professionals, they loose their skills as much, as long they stand out of their professional activity, the third, far from always they give ministry positions to professionals. For example, during 2005 spring, unbelievable scandal took place in Canadian Government. The Government has to resign its office. The Government fate depended from one voice vote. Prime Minister Paul Martin made a proposition to The Senator (Belinda Stronak) from opposite party to change her Conservative Party membership on Liberal Party membership and vote against Conservators. Instead she was proposed some ministry post. She agreed. Liberals preserved Government. She could be good person, good manager, but I am not sure that for just that moment it was vacancy for ministry post just the field she is great professional in for successful and qualified governing of ministry position in such a big country as Canada. If not - the question is: do we need such fresh baked ministers and such “high morals” government?
Legal Power . Legal Power it is something special in a long line of governing problems. Legal Power is extremely important as feedback stabilizing the life of society. Moral climate of society depends on belief in justice. Unjustice Legal Power is absurd. This absurd is spread on all sides of our life. Especially on economics, because it depends on how Legal Power defends the right of citizens and enterprises. We can build the best Governing Model possible but it will not work without Legal Power support. Unfortunately, there is no sin our judges does not have. Couple of examples from only one of hundreds books about legal power problems .
“Joe Roy Spiser was his name, and by default he acted as the Chief Justice of the tribunal. In his previous life, Judge Spicer had been a Justice of the Peace in Mississippi, duly elected by the people of his little county, and sent away when the feds caught him skimming bingo profits from a Shriners club.”
“The Honorable Finn Yarber, age 60, in two years with 5 to go for income tax evasion.”
“Hatlee Beech was the third member of the tribunal. He’d been a federal judge in East Texas, a hard-fisted conservative who knew lots of Scripture and liked to quote it during trials. He had political ambitions, a nice family, money from his wife’s family’s oil trust. He also had a drinking problem, which no one knew about until he ran over two hikers in Yellowstone. Both died. The car, Beech had been driving, was owned by a young lady he was not married to. She was found naked in the front seat, too drunk to walk.”. If you want to be acquainted with other sins our Legal Power soldiers are posses I can recommend other 13 books John Gresham has published plus hundreds of other. About Russian justice there is nothing to write about. It looks like, there is no justice at all.
The worse of all is bribery problem. Because, if the system has no enough strong protection against bribes, there is no reason for higher-level appeal for justice. Bribes elimination keeps the citizen’s possibility for justice.
We don’t need to fight against Legal Power as a system. As a system it’s O’K. We have to fight with thins, which possess a definite Legal Powers official. It can be done by individual approach to this or that person using a set of negative and positive stimulators. Here is one of thousands of examples how it can be done.
Correct stimulation is the main point for successful governing model. It is a good task for scientific-research team. I am not jurist, I can’t take responsibility for universal recommendation, but for sure I can say that skilful stimulation can solve the problem. Below I propose one of possible solutions.
Let us suppose that somebody proposed a bribe to judge. Let us suppose also that regulations permit the judge to keep part of bribe to himself if he puts the grafter in prison for bribery. For example, amount of the bribe is 1000,000. Judge can leave for himself 250.000 and give 750.000 to special fond. Let us call it “Decent judges support”. This fond will permit to support decent judges after they stopped to receive bribes. The question is: will the judge take full bribe and risk career or take a part without any risk, and further possibility to receive through “Decent judges support” may be even more, than he invested in fond? If it does not work let us, rise judge’s part to 50% - 50%. If not, than judge can leave to himself 750 000 and 150 000 for fond investment. We, cybernetics, who create the model, are not interesting how much this or that judge will earn money; we are interesting to make bribery senseless to grafters. If it will not work we will add negative stimulation, for example, 10 years in prison for taking the bribe. Increasing positive and negative stimulation we can make our Legal Power excellent working regulator.
With Legal Power we have one problem more: how to make each official to be interested in defending State interest even if they are against judge’s national, religious, party or other interest. This is system problem, which needs system approach to be solved and we will settle it below together with other state officials problems. But for now judges take bribes, avoid taxes, participate in sexual scandals… What for such a legal power?
The legislative power. From material above it becomes clear that no one of existing parliaments has definite aim, which achievement makes the main sense of their work and can serve as criteria for parliament activity evaluation. Our countries, which are extremely big systems with enormous amount of objects to be ruled, are being governed by persons, who have no slightest idea that governing super-big systems has it’s peculiarities which needs definite knowledge of cybernetics. Who can better manage the country Lee Iacocca or Shwartseneger? Similar questions never rose because majority of citizen did not see the problem: super big systems could not be ruled the same as small ones. They did not understand that people do not need future president to be famous, nice, well speaking person only. 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 this Country has. During parliament election none of the candidates is going through the same as claimant to presidency professional test: how to rule the Country as a system with an extremely big amount of objects under control. Lack of slightest scientific erudition brings to serious mistakes in country governing. It is well known that to make economics stronger it is more important to make strong horizontal links: producer – supplier of raw materials – trading agent, than vertical one: president – governor – province representative. But, we already know, the more disaster they make, the more they want to centralize the governing. The more they centralize the governing, the more complicated systems they create. The more complicated is the system, the more it unreliable and the more difficult it becomes for governing and control. At the same time the more unreliable it becomes the more the governors want to centralize the governing. Even successful President Clinton was ready to make this mistake, but republican parliament did not allow him and by this way helped him to be elected for his second term.
For super big countries there is one and the only successful solution of problem – using self-organized model. Successful steps toward decentralization of governing in USA could serve as a good example for first steps towards governing based on self-organizing principals. But there is no one Parliament in the world, which is developing legislative base for transition country to self-organizing principals of governing. Even discussion of this task, or declaration that denationalization must not finish on industrial enterprises and companies, still looks strange.
One more serious fault of contemporary legislative powers: representatives of legislative powers do not stimulated to fight against corruption. It does not bother them, that corruption makes senseless laws produced by legislative power, because shows simple and reliable way to ignore the laws. If you will look through the world newspapers, you will hardly find a day without corruption scandal. Criminal persecution did not omit even Prime Ministers of several countries.
In June 2004 San-Francisco court jurors unanimously affirm guilty former Ukraine Prime-Minister Pavel Lasarenko on all 29 positions of accusation, one of which is laundering 114 millions dollars.
The same month in Milan restarted process on corruption meter? Connected with saling in 1985 Italian food concern SME. Prime-Minister Silvio Berluscony accused on bribery Rome court judges.
In July 2005 Moscow prosecuting magistrates declared that they started investigation against former Prime-Minister Michael Kasianov who was accused on illegal acquirement of property.
In March 2005 United Nation chief Kofy Anan presented a huge program UN reforms the main of which is struggle against corruption. That is the sign that corruption problem walked over the borders of separate Parliaments. And so on…
In conclusion we can say: if Legislate Powers cannot solve corruption problem then this Power is completely powerless. The laws they are produce are good for nothing because they can be ignored and everybody knows how to do this.
Who needs such laws and such legislative power?