AUTONOMY AND FEDERATION


questions of loyalty, sovereignty and responsibility




A Study in Thought

sa050



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A pre-occupation with territorial instincts; a few questions about "national interests" or "national pride".
Why a leadership has to represent the will of the people.
A sordid history of strife and combat.
Lingering resentments.
The "right" of excercising power.
The struggle for power is becoming very costly.
The injustice of an "ultimate solution".
Slow progress towards a state of voluntary cooperation; federalism.
Multiple layers of conquests, defeats and annexations.
Questions of "right" and "wrong".
Independence and nation-hood.
The principle of non-interference in each other's affairs.
The enlarging sphere of concerns of the victorious conqueror.
What it means to be "sovereign adults" in our social environment.
Differences between the sovereign citizen and the sovereign national leadership.

If the leaders of our nations would not be so pre-occupied with their territorial instincts, which they hide, usually, under a concerned frown and such lofty phrases as "the national interest" or "the pride of the nation", they would be more inclined to behave like weary and faithful parents, who heave a sigh of relief, when they see their children finally reach maturity and independence.

Rather than displaying an attitude of scorn or fear, our leaders should be interested and informed, whenever a region within a nation starts to ask for a greater degree of autonomy. Why are leaderships always so strongly opposed to any move towards regional autonomy or independence? Who decides the size or the extent of an empire? What rights do leaders or groupings within a nation have to deny another section of the population a measure of autonomy or independence?

Let me not imply, that the answers to these questions are obvious, or, that these questions are mere rethoric. These questions are not meant to indicate, that each and every region, segment or group, wanting to be autonomous, should get autonomy or independence automatically, as a matter of birth-right.

Indeed, these are most difficult and perplexing questions, especially, if we analyse, carefully, all the reasons, why a nation occupies the territories it has under its control; why it includes the various ethnic groupings it has under its jurisdiction; whether or not a leadership is truly representative of all regions in equal measure; whether or not the various groups feel, that they are being treated equally and fairly by the leadership and by each other.

Obviously, such an idyllic situation of equal representation and fair treatment is seldom present, and, if an opportunity arises, especially, when there are few pressures from the outside, almost every nation will show a disturbing trend towards internal strife, bitter rivalries, and, sometimes, moves towards outright fragmentation.

If we try to answer the question, who is right, and, who is wrong, we run immediately into great difficulties. We have to look for the answers by examining the history of nations, and, if we do, we come quickly to the conclusion, that it is irrelevant to ask the question; who is right and who is wrong. Rarely, if ever, did a nation come-about as a voluntary federation of equal parts, where a number of regions, or a variety of ethnic groupings, decided, without military force or economic coercion, that it was in everyone's interest to join into a Federated State.

Almost always, a nation finds itself, somewhere, in a long and rather sordid history of strife and combat, conquest and defeat. These events change the factors of ethnic make-up and territorial control by brute force and dominance. Sometimes, a nation expands into an empire, but, at other times, we see the remains of a previously proud and independent nation that has decayed through fragmentation or partitioning.

Regardless of the past history of a society, invariably, a certain segment, a majority, or, at least, a dominant ethnic grouping has become the center of power. It forms the ruling elite and dominates the "national leadership". From a historical perspective, it is common to see, that a dominant elite excercises a measure of control over groupings that have a different ethnic background, because these different ethnic groupings have been conquered at some time in the past.

It is logical, therefore, that there exists a feeling of resentment, suspicion and animosity towards the dominant ethnic grouping, or the leadership in power, especially, if discrimination against the subdued groupings is still practiced in the form of a reduced or absent representation in the leadership, a reduced participation in government positions, or, a discrimination through repressing religious and ethnic sentiments or cultural manifestations.

It is not surprising, then, to see, that most nations existing proudly in a state of sovereignty and independence, still show the presence of a dominant group that suppresses other regions of the same nation and monopolises the functions of leadership and bureaucratic institutions. As a rule, the ethnic identities of these sub-groupings existed long before the boundaries of the present nation became established.

The "right" of a nation to its sovereignty and independence turns-out to be, most often, nothing more than the acknowledgement of a particular status-quo by other sovereign and independent nations. Similarly, the "right" of a certain leadership to be in power, is, most often, merely an acknowledgement of the fact, that such a leadership seems to be in control of a nation.

If the territorial boundaries and the ethnic make-up of a nation depend on historial accidents, or previous conquests and defeats, and, if the legitimacy of a leadership is nothing more than the right of might, how can we even ask the question, whether or not it is right or justified for a leadership to maintain control or dominance over the territories of other ethnic and cultural groupings? How can we ask, whether or not it is right or justified for a dissident group or ethnic minority to wrest itself free from such a dominance, whenever it gets a chance to do so?

Yet, we have to acknowledge, that it may not be practical, nor just, to let the forces of dominance and power decide, who wins this struggle. We see, too often, even, in modern times, how such a power-struggle between rivals for the leadership or rival groupings within the nation, can tear a society apart in such a devastating manner, that a large part of the population is reduced to severe poverty, or, even, starvation.

As is so often the case, those, who have nothing to do with these power-struggles, and, who work the land and try to raise a few crops or animals, are the people who suffer the most, as they are plundered from both sides, and see their lands and properties, eventually, completely destroyed. This is a gigantic crime of injustice and neither side of the warring factions seems unduly concerned about it.

The point is, that contemporary power-struggles are a continuation of the kind of events we can read about and study in historical archives. Neverthless, we have come to realise, that the "solution" of a tension by a struggle for power is only a pseudo-solution, unless the loser is permanently eliminated from the scene, as we see in the death of a prey, or the extinction of a species that has lost its possibilities of existence. However, in the struggles between societies, we rarely see such a complete elimination of the loser, and, it is logical, that the wounded loser still clings to the past and dreams of regaining, once again, a position of independence and dominance.

Obviously, the less than complete elimination is a more humane form of strife, and, no-one in his right mind would advocate such a "final solution", in spite of the fact, that we still see, occasionally, an attempt being made to implement such a totally ruthless method of obtaining a permanent solution to a long-standing situation of conflict.

Therefore, we have to find other solutions to situations of conflict than the ruthless struggle for power, and, we have to try to minimise and, eventually, abolish completely every situation of injustice, because the perception or interpretation of a situation of injustice fuels the drive to an armed struggle. To solve a situation of injustice, means, also, solving or resolving all feelings of resentment, including unjustified discrimination at any level of power or government. As we have discussed, so often, this can be done through an implementation of the principles of essential equality.

To transform, slowly and deliberately, a society or nation, reflecting the results of conquest and force used in the past, to a group of societies or ethnic identities that have "forgiven" each other their past wrong-doings, is a gigantic task, but, it is a necessary objective.

Only, if we see, clearly, all the reasons for the feelings of resentment and hatred, as well as all the historical events and happenings that lie at the root of a particular social or ethnic conflict, only, then, can we understand the motivations for rebellious behaviour, and the significance of beliefs and cultural institutions of people clinging to their past.

Only, if we have a clear and precise knowledge, how the present situation came-about, only, then, do we have a chance to design a cautious but consistent course of action, that will, slowly, transform a society from a haphazared togetherness, based on conquest and defeat, into a nation with mature concepts and cooperative patterns of behaviour, leading to a voluntary federation of equal partners in a common purpose of development.

You may want to ask me, here, an obvious question. "If the nation is found to consist of a dominant group, which has conquered a number of regions in the past and has dominated the leadership and the institutions of that nation, then, it seems reasonable, that we should simply dissolve such a nation and give each region back its former independence. Would this be an efficient way to correct the wrong-doings of the past?"

It would, indeed, be a help, if difficulties could be resolved in this manner, but, we see, immediately, that other major problems arise, because, almost invariably, the ethnic grouping that is now in a submissive or minority position, has a past history, where it, in turn, either displaced a previous population or dominated and amalgamated other ethnic groupings. In other words, it too, conquered and fought wars with its neighbours, just like the master-society under whose dominance it exists at the present time.

Perhaps, the group, dominating at the present time, was, at one time, under the heel of an ethnic grouping that finds itself, now, at the receiving end. In other words; from a careful study of history, we come to the conclusion, that national boundaries and dominant ethnic grouping are, almost always, a result of force and conquest, but, in addition, we see, that nearly every group that is now in the minority or is being dominated, has also a history of conquest, amalgamation and domination.

Where does this leave us with the questions of right and wrong? How far should we go in dissolving a nation, if so many minority groupings have minorities in their own social structure, which would or could clamor for freedom and independence, as soon as they got a chance to do so?

Then, there is the problem of "intermingling". If a nation has existed for a while, and, if a unity was enforced by a central leadership, a significant number of people move into different regions and this makes the independence problem even more difficult. Are we going to force everyone out, who does not come from a certain region? How far are we going to carry such a repatriation through? For one generation, or more? Who determines the rights of these people? Is it justified to inflict hardship on some people in order to satisfy the emotional demands of a regional majority or dominant grouping?

Obviously, repatriation, or the closure of any region to "outsiders" may be highly unfair, but, interestingly, these same questions also apply to regions that happen to be sovereign or independent, and call themselves proudly "nations", with their own national, independent and legal governments. What makes these nations legal, independent and sovereign? What rights do these nations have to treat the people living within their boundaries according to their own, perhaps, arbitrary standards of justice? What rights do they have, to bar people who are looking for an opportunity to make a living, or deport those who are not wanted?

Just as we run into difficulties, if we want to split a nation into its parts when trying to resolve injustices and wrong-doings of the past, so do we run into great difficulties, if we accept the legality, sovereignty and independence of any existing nation without asking further questions.

These difficulties are even more apparent, if we apply the questions of legitimacy to an existing leadership. Why should we, the peoples in other countries, accept a leadership as lawful or legal, just because it happens to be in power? Is it fair towards the people of a "sovereign" nation, if we apply a rather hypocritical "hands off" policy to the "internal" problems of a nation, and, if we abandon them to a cruel, unjust and unrepresentative leadership?

Would we stand idly by, if our neighbour mistreats one of his children, and yet, at the present time, we seem to glorify just such an attitude as one of the undisputed virtues of international diplomacy and acceptable international conduct.

This attitude is utter nonsense, and, what is more, it is not just ignorant nonsense and superficial hypocrisy; it is an injustice; an injustice by neglect; an injustice by virtue of the failure to get involved, whenever a situation of injustice has been recognised.

Let us look at a few other questions. So far, we have assumed, that, at least, the accent of being wronged was on the minority grouping. We have assumed, that the conquered society has been wronged by the presently dominating force or ethnic grouping within the nation, but is this assumption always correct?

After having gained power by force, we see, often, that the victorious segment of society begins to show a genuinely concerned and wise leadership, trying to be fair to all regions of the nation under its jurisdiction. Yet, such efforts are not always appreciated, recognised or reciprocated. Often, the hatred and resentment run so deep, that, any attempt by the dominant leadership to relax the grip of control only unleashes a series of actions revealing an attitude of blind hatred for a generous but dominant leadership.

Consequently, the national leadership is baffled and hurt, and, it re-imposes, quickly, an even firmer degree of domination and suppression, as the mutual hatred and contempt escalate into deep-rooted and nearly immutable attitudes of hostility. This points-out the fact, that the attitudes and actions of minority groupings within a national boundary or State are, often, narrowly egocentric and tenaciously hostile, and do not contribute to the mechanisms of progress and reconciliation.

In a way, it is logical, that the national leadership is primarily concerned with the interests of the nation, but, at the same time, it is reasonable to expect any leadership, even, the leadership of a "Sovereign State" to acknowledge the need to take the interests of other peoples and nations into account.

After we have become "sovereign adults" of our society, we do not become totally egocentric maniacs with an obsession for territoral integrity and dominance, and, it is somewhat strange to see, how easily, ambitious but short-sighted leaders seem to adopt just such an attitude. This attitude is partly designed to show the equally short-sighted members of their society, that the leader is "doing a good job", representing their interests, but, it is also a result of the fact, that the leadership of a sovereign and independent nation does not recognise any higher political authority with the power to regulate the behaviour of the nations amongst themselves.

Obviously, the responsible citizen of his nation does recognise such an authority, and, he behaves, therefore, much more ethically. He is concerned with the legitimate needs and interests of his fellow members of society, and, he has to adopt such an attitude, if he wants to stay out of trouble. In contrast, national leaders think, that it is their highest ethical duty to look-out for the interests of their nation. Do you think that the national leadership could learn something from looking closely at the responsible, ethical behaviour of well-integrated citizens?

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The need for a globally acceptable code of conduct.
The socio-centric orientation of nationalistic leaders.
Mechanisms of a deep-rooted resentment.
Beginning to get a grip over the problems of "nationalism".
A long learning period for the children of mankind.
The origins of a natural sense of justice.
Ambivalent and confused attitudes in affluent societies.
The genetic anlage for becoming good parents.
The functions of a "cultural veneer".
A review of early socialising mechanisms.
Cultural guidelines are vulnerable to decay.
The cohesiveness of a clump of dry sand.
Designing and maintaining, consciously, the conditions of justice.
The need to know ourselves.

We have been quite right to emphasise the fact, that a nation's leadership should have a good look at the ethical behaviour of its own citizens, but, we should also recognise the reasons, why international behaviour lacks a set of clear-cut ethical guidelines. The reason, of course, is the fact, that our ethical guidelines find their foundation in the social unit. This social unit may be a multi-cultural nation or a conglomerate society, but, these ethical guidelines certainly do not have their roots, as yet, in the concepts of a global society of mankind.

Since our leaders have absorbed the inspiration for ethical behaviour from their own culture and social environment, it is logical, that they behave "socio-centrically", while they believe, at the same time, to adhere most fully and sincerely to the ethical guidelines of their society. Therefore, they do not see, and, they are unable to see their behaviour as narrowly "egocentric", which it is, when seen in the light of behavioural requirements for a global society. (We are talking, here, about the "ego" of a society or a nation, and not the ego of an individual.)

These same considerations explain, also, why the attitudes and actions of a minority grouping may appear to an outsider so short-sighted, ignorant and emotional, while they appear to be quite justified to those, who take their ethical cues entirely from their own culture. Since the culture of a society determines the scope of ethical concerns and the range of identification, as well as the beliefs of right and wrong, we see, that such a "local nationalism" is sanctioned by the culture of the social environment, and, these attitudes are, therefore, considered to be the highest, most valued and most honourable form of behaviour.

This is the reason, why people, who are born, brought-up and steeped in the culture of an oppressed or conquered minority, are likely to acquire a deep-rooted hatred and resentment for the "master society", or the dominant ethnical grouping in their social environment, because such attitudes represent the highest ethical behaviour patterns of their local culture. We should, therefore, not be surprised to see these attitudes linger for generations on end, in spite of strenuous efforts on the part of a central or national government to compensate for the hard feelings and acts of injustice caused by past events.

We are beginning to see some of the reasons, why it is so difficult to eradicate the feelings of hatred and resentment that have grown between peoples in conflict, and, which are, in essence, a result of the vagaries of conquest and defeat. Communications between people from mutually hostile communities are extremely difficult, because the foundations for the concepts of right and wrong differ dramatically, and are, often, diametrically opposed to each other.

What is right and honourable for one group, is a source of deep resentment and anxiety for the other, and, even, generous attempts to be fair and to restore a sense of justice and mutual respect, are necessarily made from a position of superiority. Such a position of superiority in power is, often, interpreted as somewhat condescending, and, such a perception tends to infuriate people even more, especially, since they are bound to react emotionally, as long as they remain so dominated by a culture that glorifies the heroes and martyrs of the past.

We are beginning to see, why the problems and sentiments of hostility are so difficult to solve, and, we should be encouraged by this beginning of an intellectual grip over the problems of nationalism to dig deeper and probe further. In order to facilitate this intellectual grasp over reality, we should review, once more, the basic mechanisms of early socialisation.

We can observe a remarkable difference in the behaviour of individuals in a small group, such as a family-unit or clan, when comparing their behaviour with people in larger groups. In the family-unit, there is an "inborn" quality of ethical behaviour in the relationships between the members, because nature sharpened into the flexible animals attitudes of care and concern for their off-spring, but, in the larger grouping people are inclined to treat each other as "strangers", unless specific bonds of a cultural origin replace the feeling of strangeness with a sense of recognition.

We have discussed, how the possibilities for behavioural flexibility were explored by the mammals, and, in particular, by the anthropoid species', but, we have also learned, that this evolutionary development exacted a price from the species' that traveled this road. The youngsters of a behaviourally flexible species are relying heavily upon learned behaviour-patterns for their survival, and they remain, therefore, vulnerable for a long period of time, because they have to mature and learn the ways of the successful parental generations.

This trend reached a peak in the length of time the human youngster requires to reach maturity and viability. In modern and sophisticated societies, the requirements of viability and social success have shifted so heavily towards the acquisition of learned behaviour and the assimilation of "cultural tools", that the learning period exceeds the physiological time-span needed to reach maturity.

We all know the difficulties these trends have brought with them, and, we have outlined our ideas before, when we argued, that it is wrong and unjustified to keep youngsters for such a long period of time in an artificial learning environment. I am not arguing against such a long learning period, because the average, normal human being learns throuhout his or her life, but, there is no reason to sequester a youngster in a somewhat artificial school environment, until he or she is eighteen or nineteen years old. (If the youngster decides to follow an academic career, the period is expanded with another four or five years, and, during this period, the full impact of living and existing in society, does not make itself felt.)

However, let us come back to the observation, that nature had to sharpen the parental instincts of care and concern in the behaviourally flexible species', and, especially, in the anthropoids. Such a genetic sharpening of the patterns of parental care and concern was necessary, before it was possible to make behavoural flexibility a viable way of life for these species'. This is the reason, why a "natural" family, where the parents rely upon their common-sense and spontaneous, instinctive reactions, shows a remarkably stable environment for a youngster to grow-up in. There is a natural sense of justice, essential equality and openness, where the members of the family learn, from an early age, to "give and take". They learn, that there are limitations to what they can have or can get, but, at the same time, they learn to speak-up for themselves, whenever they see, that someone else is trying to take an unfair advantage.

Human parents are burdened with the continuous task of looking after their children for a period up to twenty years, and, normal parents do not have the means, nor the inclination, to suddenly abandon their offspring for a holiday or some other egocentric adventure. Only in affluent societies, where people are being taught and persuaded, that it is more prestigious to display an ostentatious life-style, and, that it is preferable for women to have a career outside the home, only there, do we see the disastrous and inevitable consequences of inconsistent and poor-quality parental care, since both parents are too busy earning money. The responsibility for such erroneous notions does not lie only with the female sex, of course, because these notions permeate society as a whole and are interwoven with other, primarily consumerist philosophies, but, women have a responsibiliy to recognise their biological and cultural obligations to their off-spring.

Affluent youngsters tend to grow-up in an ambiguous atmosphere of love and resentment. One moment, they are smothered by a guilty and oppressive attention, and, the next moment, they are left with strangers. One moment, the child is being dragged from one doctor to the next, or from one hospital to another, whenever anxious parents think that there is something wrong, but, the next moment, the child learns, that he or she was the product of a slip-up with contraceptive techniques. One moment, the child is being given everything it wants, and, even, what it does not want, but, the next moment, it may be wondering, how it ever survived the abortionist.

No, for good and stable parental care, we should certainly not look towards the rich and affluent pockets of society, but, we should look towards those people, who have a reasonably healthy way of life and still know, how to appreciate and work for the small comforts and blessings they are able to enjoy. There, we see natural parental attitudes at their best; free from neurotic doubts and ambivalences, free from a confusing clutter of psychological doctrines, free from the crazy rush to participate in a consumerist orgy of self-gratification.

It is not surprising to see, that, the generations, who have had a faulty and lax up-bringing, are even worse parents themselves. Yet, in stead of concentrating upon the decay of parental care, let us continue our train of thought, because the value of this excercise of recalling the virtues of normal and natural parental care, lies in the realisation, that, nature provided us, indeed, with a fairly precise package of genetically encoded instructions to become good parents.

We have discussed, on a number of occasions, that natural selection provided the human gene-pool with a set of behavioural instructions that made it possible to live together in a fairly small grouping. The behavioural guidelines for the inter-actions of a small group, perhaps, a dozen or so individuals, are present within the instructions of our biological heritage, but, an enlarging group begins to rely, increasingly, upon "culturally encoded guidelines", before it can achieve a measure of stability and viability.

A variety of cultural tools have become important instruments for cementing a large group into a socially integrated unit, because a complex structure of attitudes, notions, customs, rituals, beliefs and experiences bind people together in a cultural bond of kinship. These cultural bonds of kinship make it possible to cooperate with each other in a much larger grouping than would be possible with only the mechanisms of natural kinship. The cultural "veneer" makes people more easily recognisable, and, it makes their behaviour more predictable for each other.

However, we have also discussed the idea, that the development of a specific cultural "colour", or code, results in a wide-spread divergence between the groupings of the same species, which have then difficulties recognising each other as belonging to the same species. Indeed, we still find it difficult to recognise each other as organisms with similar wants and needs.

Cohesion, complex social structuring and large-scale social viability is paid-for with an increased sense of "strangeness" for another large group of the same species, because these groupings have often developed a different, or, even, contradictory or conflicting "cultural codes".

When the human species was still relatively sparsely spread over the earth, it was possible for a successful family-tribe or clan to split-off and drift-away into a neighbouring, essentially unoccupied territory. Therefore, there was no need to develop the complicated mechanisms of inter-actions at close quarters that are required by larger social entities, until the population had become so dense, that it became impossible to just "split-off" and establish a new tribe or clan, close-by.

As the population pressures increased, the fighting amongst human groupings for the best locations and most fertile lands, must also have increased dramatically. The beginnings of recorded history reflect the period in history when man began to experiment with the viability of such large-scale social units.

In a way, we may consider these events as a parallel to the earlier processes of socialisation. We have seen, how the process of "secondary socialisation", or, the formation of a small, nomadic group of interrelated mammals or anthropoids, was only possible, after the instinct of territoriality had been complemented or subdued with the mechanisms of hierarchical positioning. Some individuals learned, that it was more viable to abandon their territory and to seek admission to the territory of a stronger individual by submitting to his dominance.

By sacrificing the sovereignty and territory of one's own domain, an individual gained access to a territory that was larger and richer in existence possibilities, and, at the same time, an individual would gain the protection of a larger, more powerful individual. In return, the submissive member accepted the fact, that he or she "came second", and, that one had to give-in, whenever there was a conflict of interests.

The behavioural characteristics that made such a transition into a socially integrated way of life possible, were shaped by the forces of natural selection over countless generations, especially, for species' that were experimenting with the possibility of enhanced viability via the mechanisms of social integration.

The fusion of a number of small social entities, each with their own, somewhat varying cultural colours, is a process that fell, at least, initially, outside the capabilities of the voluntary will or conscious evaluating processes. Nevertheless, collective behavioural choices lay at the root of the events societies were subjected to, as we see in the drift towards hostilities and acts of warfare. Yet, there was little awareness of the fact, that collective attitudes and behavioural decisions could be held responsible for events that took place, years later.

Because of the increasing influence of cultural factors in the events of man, viability of the larger social units became a joint responsibility for the genetic code and the cultural code, but, with the fusion of various smaller groupings into a much larger "cultural mosaic", the demands upon cultural guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of a viable social unit were increasing all the time.

Cultural guidelines for behavioural choices are, however, extremely vulnerable to decay. This is in marked contrast with genetic guidelines, which are transferred intact from one gneration to the next, regardless of the quality of parental teaching or example. Genetic transmission is independent of the quality of the behaviour of the transmitting individual, as long as viability has been preserved and the genetic code can be transmitted without change.

Cultural guidelines are entirely dependent upon the quality of teaching, as well as the deliberate care taken to instruct a younger generation in a set of values and beliefs. It is not surprising, then, that the social coherence of a group of varying or divergent groupings is fragile and transient. We may say, without exaggeration, that the practical necessity of living together in large numbers has emerged at a much faster pace, than our insights about the need to make such a large conglomerate a viable and stable unit of social existence.

As a result, large societies have always resembled the cohesiveness of a clump of dry sand, falling-apart, as soon as the constraining mold or the forces necessitating a measure of cooperation, are falling-away. Immediately, the process of fragmentation resumes its devastating work, in spite of the fact, that it is obvious to most people that it would be much better to stick together, even, if the need to do so had become somewhat less clear-cut.

While the eternal round of strife, fragmentation, civil war and other upheavals, together with the need to start again from scratch, did not interfere, seriously, with the overall viability of the major groupings involved, we have learned to see, that this aspect has dramatically changed in recent times. For the first time in man's history, his destructive capabilities have become so great, that all-out warfare with all available weapons, will seriously threaten the viability of the human species as a whole.

For these reasons, we have to catch-up, intellectually, with the need to construct a viable society of mankind. We have to find a stable way to live together in a large, or, even, globally integrated social environment, otherwise, we will annihilate ourselves. The only way to avoid this catastrophe from happening is to design, collectively and consciously, a way of life we all can agree with.

We can only agree with each other, if we all feel to have gotten a fair deal, and, this means, inevitably, justice and essential equality on a global scale, as well as complete openness of all inter-human transactions, in order to make the monitoring processes possible, which will have to maintain the necessary conditions of justice and essential equality.

Now, we are back to our original objectives, because we want to analyse, why there are tensions between people, and, in particular, why there are tensions between groups of people, because we want to outline, eventually, a series of conditions able to give the human society a measure of stability and viability it has never seen before. In order to do this, we have to understand the nature of man as an individual, as well as a member of a socially integrated group, and, we have to know the many reasons, why a group of people behaves the way it does.

We have to know, why we can not wish-away problems by pious platitudes that explain nothing and only reveal ignorance. We have to be scrupulously honest in pursuing our insights, and, we have to follow these insights, regardless where they may lead us, and, regardless of the discomfort and anxieties we may feel, whenever our sacred beliefs and beloved prejudices are toppled and dismantled by the clarity of logic and the demands of justice.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A review of the "sense of justice".
A contract of "essential equality".
A cultural code has to satisfy the sense of justice, before it can become a viable guidance-pattern.
A cultural code reflects the collective responses of the past.
The changing sense of justice.
Fervent nostalgic and patriotic sentiments hamper a realistic appraisal of contemporary realities.
Developing a sense of relativity, as well as a larger sphere of identification.
A conqueror has to become more "civilised" in order to survive.
The need to secure a measure of cooperation from those, who have been subdued.
A final, fatal "accident of history".
A few more questions.
The ability to prevent wars requires stringent behavioural controls.
Complex events, and the variability of their interpretation.
Attempts to avoid a polarisation of attitudes.
Can we foresake the primitive instinct to seek a solution in violent conflict?

The sense of justice is, primarily, an emotional reaction, where we evaluate, intuitively, whether or not our position in society is in accordance with our vigour and sense of self-esteem; whether or not we are being impeded by others in our efforts to occupy a position we consider to be rightfully our's.

This is, perhaps, the most basic form of our sense of justice, which is later elaborated into a more conscious type of evaluation and judgement. When societies become much larger, it is also more cumbersome to establish the relative hierarchical positions of all the members. It is much easier to "equalise" a large majority of the members and conclude a pact or contract, where we agree to treat each other as equals. This means, that we, members of this large majority, want to be treated equally by each other and the leadership, and, any form of favouritism by the leadership becomes an affront to our sense of justice.

The cultural guidelines within a social environment, in particular, the more complex notions, attitudes, customs, laws and regulations, developed, largely, to satisfy the conditions of justice and to maintain a satisfactory level of essential equality when inter-acting with each other.

Certainly, we consider some people in leadership positions to have, rightfully, more privileges than an ordinary citizen, just as we consider it fair, that, those, guilty of dishonourable actions or criminal offenses, should have less privileges than the average member. They will then occupy an inferior status in the hierarchy of society, while we want to look-up to our leaders at a higher position in the social hierarchy.

Every reasonably successful and durable culture has been able to develop a set of guidelines, as well as a way of life, giving its participants a satisfied sense of justice. This does not mean, that, we, as outsiders or students of such a society, would acknowledge such a status as fair, nor, would it necessarily correspond to our own standards of justice. We have to interpret the value and the effectiveness of a culture by examining, how a majority of the people living in a specific cultural environment, perceived and reacted to these guidelines.

We may disagree about their usefulness or rightfulness in the light of the eventual outcome of historical events, or, in the light of a contemporary outlook on the essence of human existence, but, let us not forget to examine, how the people at a particular time and place in history interpreted and reacted to their cultural guidelines. If it satisfied a sense of justice, regardless, how strange it may seem to us, now, we have to acknowledge, that such a culture did produce a condition of fairness and justice for this specific social environment, and, we have to acknowledge, that it had a significant, stabilising influence upon this particular culture.

It seems reasonable to assume, that, most cultural codes, in particular, those regional cultural guidelines that were around for a long time and centered around a specific ethnic grouping, have obviously been successful in cementing a specific ethnic grouping together. We can not argue with the fact, that such a culture contributed to the sense of togetherness, and, often, to a sense of militancy and vigour as well.

We are trying, here, to make a clear distinction between the usefulness of a local culture for a specific, local group of people, and, the less than desirable effects such a local culture may have had upon the peoples outside the group. The point is, that the local culture grew as a specific answer to an existential need of a particular grouping, and, this cultural code was maintained, strengthened or altered by the living generations of a specific social environment, according to the needs and circumstances these generations found themselves under.

If a local culture dominated life and thought completely, it is clear, that a defeat, or, any other severely stressful experience, would put the cultural guidelines under strong pressures. Such upheavals were nevertheless common, and, the fact, that it made people think about the relative validity of their cultural guidelines, is, perhaps, one of the few beneficial side-effects we can point to, when reviewing the miseries of human history.

Initially, people would only be able to see a defeat as the ultimate catastrope that could have happened, until they became aware of, and familiar with, the way of life of other cultures. These cultural codes used to be largely outside their sphere of awareness, but, after a defeat, these cultural guidelines of the dominating social grouping began to occupy a place in the cultural panorama of the subjugated ethnic grouping, while their own cultural guidelines became part of the cultural diversity of a much larger social environment.

Perhaps, it was possible for the first generations, who fought and lost a battle for survival or dominance, to experience a sense of justice in the fact, that their lives had been spared while they were being subjugated to a foreign power, but, their offspring, brought-up in captivity and saturated with the events of the past and its cultural heritage, experience no such sense of justice as long as they remained in a captivity or slavery.

A nostalgic reverence for the past becomes always idealised, and re-enforces sharply the admiration for slain heroes and martyrs. These developments were likely to induce a combative euphoria, where the highest morality and the ultimate goal of existence was found in an all-out battle against the hated oppressor.

We see, all too often, the tragic results of such emotional and impetuous behaviour. While we can understand the emotional fervor behind such attitudes and activities, we have to consider it deplorable and ignorant, if a dominated but proud society or ethnic grouping would indeed encourage the flower of its youth to indulge in such nostalgic sentiments, and start an ill-prepared rebellion that has little chance of success.

We deplore this course of events, partly, because it leads to unnecessary loss of life, suffering and renewed oppression, and, partly, because such a fervent resonance of nostalgic and patriotic sentiments hampers an appreciation of the opportunities provided by a forced intermingling of divergent cultures at close quarters.

In other words, a nostalgic and romantic pre-occupation with the glories of the past, the loss of independence, as well as the heroes and martyrs of yesterday, stifles opportunities for a rational and integrated type of behaviour, because these pre-occupied generations lose a chance to inter-act with the contemporary generations of other cultures in an atmosphere of emotional near-neutrality and common-sense.

While the hierachical relationships of society allow an individual to accept, graciously, the fact that one can not always win or dominate everyone, the hierarchical ordening of a number of local cultures within a national boundary lacks guidelines with an overall national perspective, and, it is therefore difficult to establish a similar insight of relative strength or weakness that comes with the grudging accomodation into a hierarchical order. In stead, submissive or dominated cultures remain a hot-bed of introvert and smouldering resentments, unable to accept the situation "as is", and, unable to generate an attitude, where the increased possibilities of existence are explored in an atmosphere of calm cooperation and rational discussion.

In summary; the reason, why these local cultures have a tendency to remain, for generations on end, such introvert, nostalgic hot-beds of resentment, is due to the mechanisms of psychological and cultural isolation, as well as the lack of overall cultural guidelines with a large-scale perspective, together with the idealisation of, and pre-occupation with, the events of the past.

If it is possible to bring the youngsters of these differing local cultures in contact with a strong, viable and meaningful overall cultural code that interprets the varying local cultures as so many members of a family with common bonds and interests, we may well see a slow transformation of the local cultures into a common culture with many viable variants. These cultural variations maintain a sense of identity and value for the ethnic sub-groupings, but, at the same time, these local cultures become less absolute and unquestioned, and, the outlook and sphere of concerns of its members has been significantly enlarged.

Of course, such a far-sighted attitude, or "culture of national unity" is often not present, because, initially, a conqueror seems hardly interested in the well-being of the conquered peoples and institutions. After a conquest, institutions of the defeated societies are, often, ruthlessly torn-down, and the people are equally ruthlessly exploited, until the conqueror or the dominant society begins to realise, that such primitive attitudes cause an intense resistance to such exploitative practices, making the tasks of administerting a large empire unnecessarily difficult.

There are, therefore, practical reasons, why a conqueror will begin to behave less ruthlessly and far more "civilised" towards the population groupings that have recently been added to the territories of an empire builder. Very quickly, the intelligent conqueror realises, that he can control a far larger territory, if he can get a measure of cooperation from the peoples who have recently been subjugated.

By leaving a conquered society largely intact, and, by making sure, that its leadership remains loyal to the conqueror, or is replaced by a leadership that is willing to cooperate, it becomes possible to dominate a far larger area. A certain effort and energy is required for the tasks of ruthless oppression, and, the desperate resistance of those, who have nothing more to lose than a miserable life, is able to tie-down a large military force.

It is much better to win, at least, a grudging cooperation from those who have been subdued, but, the art and technique of gaining this measure of support with the right combination of persuasion and force, requires an intuitive understanding of a large number of cultural and psychological mechanisms.

From these practical considerations, we see, slowly, an attitude of genuine concern and wisdom emerge, as broadly informed and far-sighted leaders of a large empire learn, quickly, but largely intuitively, how to deal with a variety of diverse cultures and peoples. These leaders must have been astonished to discover, how much people have in common with each other, in spite of their widely varying beliefs and customs. Slowly, these leaders learned to see the common denominators of human behaviour, and, slowly, the possibilities of contact, communication and mutual understanding were being developed and enlarged.

We can see, then, that there is a natural tendency for the culture of a dominant grouping to become flexible and wide in scope. Then, the cultural guidelines may be broad enough to become relevant, at least, to some extent, for each of the sub-groupings within its territory. With hard work and good fortune, we may, indeed, see the coalescence of a large empire into a varied but viable social entity, which has a tendency to keep expanding through the mechanisms of vigor and initiative, because confidence grows through such a successful process of cultural amalgamation.

Indeed, fortunate circumstances and the accidents of history determine, whether or not a particular amalgamation becomes a fruitful and rejuvenated social environment with its own cohesive culture; whether or not it remains stagnant and life-less, ready to fall-apart at the first opportunity. The accidents of history, the qualities of, even, a single leader, or, the outcome of a crucial battle may spell the difference between success and failure, but, as a generalised concept, it seems fair to say, that the formation and disintegration of societies has been a haphazard process, which has remained largely beyond the control of human manipulation and intellectual grasp.

Now, we know, that we have to gain more control over the life-cycle of social environments, as well as the behaviour of their memberships, because the accidents of history are becoming too dangerous and too destructive to let them take their course without intervention from our collective, conscious "will". Soon, we may have a fatal and final "accident of history", closing the book on the existence of mankind.

"What can we do", you will ask, "to take the "accidents of history" out of the mechanisms that determine the fate of societies? What can we really do to manipulate a society, or a group of people, in such a way, that they abandon their hostile suspicions towards each other and start working together for a common future? Is it not naive to think, that we can eradicate from history, from memory, or from a cultural code, whatever events have befallen its peoples in the past? How can we tell the people, that all this strife, those heroic acts of defense and sacrifice, or this glorious victory and conquest were unnecessary, and, perhaps, even, detrimental to the cause of justice for mankind as a whole?

How can you tell the relatives of a fallen soldier, that the death of their son or father was in vain, or, even, for a wrong Cause? Is the emotional investment of engaging in an all-out battle not sufficient cause for the perpetuation of the memories of those, who gave their lives?"

Indeed, this is a persistent problem, because each time a war is being fought, people on both sides give their lives to "The Cause", and, it is cruel and unacceptable to tell the surviving relatives, that these battles were wrong, and, essentially, in vain. We have, therefore, a very strong argument, here, in favour of preventing a bloody conflict from breaking out in the first place, because the emotional investment, made on both sides, inevitably hardens attitudes into rigid and unshakeable beliefs in the absolute righteousness of their sacrifices.

We are learning to prevent wars and conflicts with increasing efficiency, in particular, if we keep a firm control over our emotions, as well as over our leaders. We have to be very careful, not to be swept-up in a nationalistic and patriotic fervor, because, in spite of the overwhelming appearance that we are right and justified in our attitudes, we should not forget the lessons we learned, when studying other people in a situation of conflict.

When we look at people in conflict as a careful, but emotionally neutral observer, we see, almost always, a series of events on either side, which made it increasingly difficult to avoid an all-out confrontation. Yet, how often did we come to the conclusion, that one side was completely right, and the other side totally wrong? Did we not come to the conclusion that both sides were nearly equally to blame for the conflict, in spite of the fact, that we could often sympathise more with one side than the other?

The other lesson we learned, when studying people and societies in a situation of violent conflict, was the observation, that it was, often, extremely difficult to be sure, exactly, what happened, or what mechanisms played a role. Depending upon the emphasis we placed on one set of factors or another, we could easily shift the appearance of blame, guilt or motivation.

We should remember these lessons of history, whenever we become swept-up in a conflict-situation ourselves. Let us examine the sources we obtain our information from. How reliable are these sources? Are our governments manipulating, or, at least, "directing" or censoring these sources of information? If so, we can be sure, that we are only given one side of the story.

Let us be careful with our beliefs of right and wrong; our beliefs about what is honourable and what is national pride or national interest. Let us be weary of any attitude that glorifies the heroes of the past, in particular, when they are battle-field heroes and other militants, who fought with the weapons of force, rather than the weapons of argument and persuasion.

Let us be weary of any culture, that singles-out a certain group as "God's chosen People", or, as people, who have a divine contract for guaranteed salvation. Let us be aware for elitist attitudes and other forms of pride and prejudice, which make us look at a neighbouring society with an attitude of scornful neglect or ignorance. Let us be weary of anyone, who claims to possess an absolute truth. Chances are, that we are being misled and deceived, and, there will then be good reasons to suspect, that we are being manipulated into a position or an attitude, where we have no other choice than to fulfill our patriotic duties. If so, we will, once again, be continuing the endless round of killings and revenge killings.

"Can we really prevent this from happening? Can we really overcome these strong instinctive tendencies of man to do battle? How can we overcome the enormous attractiveness of absolute values, of an absolute truth and an unquestioned righteousness? Is there any evidence in the history of man for a tendency to reduce the use of combat as the ultimate solution to a situation of all-out conflict?

Perhaps, the fear of all-out destructiveness may inhibit us, at least, to some extent, to use the clumsy weapons of nuclear war-heads, but, does such a practical inhibition make us less inclined to use other types of force? Are we, indeed, willing to foresake the gains of a quick advantage and clever opportunity in return for mutual understanding and respect?"

These are all legitimate questions, and, we can indeed not make a convincing argument in favour of a lasting willingness by people all over the world, to foresake the primitive solution of a bloody battle. After World War II, it seemed, at least, for a while, that people were, indeed, inclined to swear-off the horrors of all-out warfare, because the generations that had survived the holocaust of this war, were weary and tired of battle.

However, this generation has largely disappeared, and those, who are powerful leaders, now, were only children, when the last major war was being fought. We see ample evidence, that the horrors of warfare are being forgotten again, and, it seems nearly inevitable, that man is getting ready, once more, for the same attitudes of belligerence and absolute righteousness, which have caused so many battles in the past.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

What can we do to minimise the chances of war?
A look at social and psychological mechanisms.
War does not break-out, if people do not want war.
We, ordinary people, have to teach our future leaders to become responsible citizens of the international community.
A review of the requirements and responsibilities of leadership.
Learning to scrutinise, carefully, all leadership behaviour.
The need to have access to information.
We still have a long way to go in educating ourselves.
Mechanisms of common-sense; comparisons with a family-unit.
The powers of "official-dom" in a dictatorship.
The mechanisms of silent exploitation.
A conspiracy against moral principles.
A thorough re-assessment of the goals of socially integrated existence.
A careful review and expert judgement of the events of the past is necessary, in order to solve contemporary frictions and hostilities.
The persuasiveness of a rational and scholarly review.
Demands for a greater degree of autonomy.
Let us be on our guard for a militant and fanatic minority.
Let us not use our cultural identity as a stubborn objective for total independence.
The land is not "all our's".
Inheriting a privileged position is fundamentally unjust.

Let us come back to the question, what measures we can take to minimise the chances that people will opt, once again, for the solution of violent conflict. We should consider this question from several angles. We can look at a conflict-situation between large, sovereign and independent nations, and, we can analyse the reasons for the development of a conflict in general terms. We can look at the behaviour of leaders and peoples on each side of a situation of conflict, and, we can discuss what sort of measures may prevent the outbreak of war.

We should also discuss the mechanisms of tensions and violent conflicts within a social environment, whenever militant ethnic or political minorities try to throw-off the yoke of tyranny. We should, again, look at the leaders of ethnic minorities, as well as the leadership of a large nation in a state of turmoil. In conclusion, we should review the attitudes of the people; of the rebellious segments, as well as the rest of society. As a result of such a wide-ranging over-view, it should be possible to advance some suggestions about ways to minimise the likelyhood of violent confrontations, and, to sooth the tensions of hatred and mistrust.

The leadership of every nation has to become more aware of the fact, that, peoples, as well as their leaders, have common fears and aspirations everywhere, in spite of large regional and cultural differences, and, in spite of fierce conflicts of interest. They have similar needs and wants, similar rights and obligations, and, the leaders and peoples of our time have to realise, that it is not in their interest to look, narrowly, at the interests of their own nation.

Gone are the days, that the leaders of nations were able to engage each other in an all-out struggle for power. Leaders have to be taught by their own people, that, they do not have a mandate to behave this way. They have not been elected to lead a nation on a short-sighted, emotional and illusionary objective of self-righteous combat, or the defense of national pride.

We, the ordinary people of society, we have to teach our future leaders to become responsible citizens of an international community, where serious and persistent efforts are being made to give the people of each nation or region a decent and fair, if modest, standard of existence. Our leaders have to realise, that they have a responsibility, as well as a duty, to consider the interests of all the peoples of the world, and not just the interests of the nation they happen to be governing, and, certainly, they should not only consider the interests of the people who supported them during elections.

Because of the fact, that, more elected leaderships are coming to power, it is also likely, that more responsible and well-informed people are able to reach a position of leadership. More and more nations are using some form of elected representation to form the overall political leadership, and, this leadership has to account, therefore, periodically to the electorate.

Yet, we have to be on our guard, as leaders, as well as ordinary people. We have to be on guard against biased reporting, slanted information, or incendiary propaganda. We have to make sure, that we get a balanced view and reliable facts from our leaders and news-media. We are entitled to a well thought-out opinion, as well as a rational and reasonable evaluation of the events that are taking place in the world around us.

If our leaders tell us, what a terrible thing another leadership has done, what an aggression it has committed, or, how it has trampled upon the rights of its own people, we should examine, carefully, not only, the facts and figures our leaders and reporters have given us, but, we should invite the leadership of the criticised and accused society to come before an impartial judicial body of international stature to explain, what has happened. Through a tough but fair dialogue of questions and answers, it should be possible to get a firm grasp over the events and motivations of leadership actions and decisions.

We may be surprised to see, how the picture changes. We may be surprised to learn, how little we knew, and, how superficial our opinions were. We may learn to see the matter from a different perspective. We may want to ask even more questions from a number of people, who may have something to contribute to the understanding of a particular series of events.

It may well be, that, we, the peoples of the world, come, indeed, to the conclusion, that a leadership has mis-behaved. Perhaps, not only, the leadership that has been accused of an act of aggression, but, also, the leadership of neighbouring countries or societies that have been falling-apart into antagonistic and warring factions. Perhaps, we come to the conclusion, that a number of leaderships have lost touch with the will of the people, and, we may be able to make a number of recommendations to resolve tensions and incidences of injustice.

We may well come to the conclusion, that the country that has been invaded by a foreign power, should hold internationally supervised general elections to make sure, that these elections are conducted under acceptable standards of fairness and impartiality. It may well be, that, the warring factions have to be kept-apart by an international peace-keeping force, until both sides are able to accept the results of a fair and free election. It may well be, that, we, the peoples of the international community, have to supervise the drafting of a Constitution for such a divided and chaotic country, in order to make sure, that, at least, a foundation is being laid for a fair and truly representative form of government.

We have to teach our leaders, that we all have to start behaving as responsible citizens of the world, and, we have to point-out to each other, and our leaders, that an attitude of responsibility implies an ever greater degree of openness in our transactions, earnings and acquisitions. We should be able to know, what our neighbour earns or possesses, just as our neighbour has the right to know, exactly, what we are earning, what assets we have or can make use of.

Only, if we can check each other's assets and financial ties, only then, can we develop a measure of trust in our leaderships, governments and fellow citizens. Unless I know, who is getting what, who is being paid by whom, and, who is influencing whom, I can not be sure, that the business of public administration is carried-out fairly and competently. In particular, we should know, whether or not leaders, politicians, and other people in a position of prominence and trust, are, indeed, making decisions in the interest of the community; whether or not they owe allegiance to any one particular individual or grouping on the basis of financial obligations, or the acceptance of favours.

We still have a long way to go, before average and ordinary people realise, how important it is to monitor, continuously, those who occupy positions of leadership and responsibility. Most of us do not want to go through the trouble to familiarise ourselves with everything that is going-on. We rather sit-back, believe our trusted politicians and leaders, and enjoy ourselves with games, sports or music.

But, peoples of the world, we have to do, at least, a little bit of work ourselves, if we want to be confident, that we can, indeed, trust our leaders and our mass-media. If we sit-back complacently, in silence and ignorance, we can be sure, that, sooner or later, we will be deceived, once again.

It is not difficult to understand the most important principles we have been talking about. You do not hide anyting from your children, and, you do not want your children to hide anything from you, don't you? The same applies to the relationships with your leaders and governments. You do not want to hide anything from them, because you have nothing to be ashamed of, and, you do not want them to hide anything from you, because they should not have done anything to be ashamed of.

You want your leaders and government officials to be honest, and, you want them to use their office fairly and justly; for the benefit of everyone, and, not only, for the benefit of those, who pay officials a bribe or do them a favour, don't you? Well then, what makes sense to you, should make sense to your leaders as well, and, if they do not want to disclose, exactly, their earnings, holdings, practices, or their relationships with other people, then, you should be suspicious, and, you should seriously suspect, that they are corrupt, and, that they are abusing their privileged position to gain an advantage for themselves, or, their friends and relatives.

Ah, peoples of the world, you may laugh at me, and, you may think that I am naive. "How is it possible", you will ask me, "to force the leaders and powerful officials in government to disclose their assets, incomes and activities? As soon as I show an interest in these matters, they will consider me "nosy", and a threat to their security. They will persecute me, and take everything I have. Perhaps, they will put me in jail and torture or kill me. I am afraid to speak-out against my government officials, and, we are all afraid. And you tell us to go to them and to tell them that we want to know, exactly, how they get their money and property? You must be out of your mind!"

Indeed, if you live that much in fear of your leaders and government officials, you live in an oppressed society. Your live in a country that is corrupt to the core, and exploits its people. Its leaders and government officials are, probably, profiting from the neo-colonialist practices of more developed and dominant nations exploiting the resources of your oppressed societies. Your leaders and officials are, probably, receiving monies and military support from their neo-colonialist masters to keep you subdued.

Perhaps, the situation is, indeed, this dismal, and, you are going to need help from the international community, before it is possible to make the necessary changes. I hope, that you do not take the path of cynical resignation to a corrupt status-quo by joining those, who are corrupt, and, by suppressing those, who are rebelling against these corrupt attitudes and practices.

I know, that these things are going-on. Even in more advanced societies, where we pride ourselves of electing our leaders and representatives democratically, we encounter, time and again, cases of fraud, corruption, patronage or kick-backs, where the influence or silence of our politicians and officials is bought with sums of money, or acts of favouritism.

It is a sad spectacle, and, the corruption reaches, often, such gigantic proportions, that a large percentage of the people would feel threatened, if all financial transactions would be completely open for scrutiny. It is not surprising, then, to see, that no-one is anxious to introduce the concepts of a truly open society. Many of us prefer the process of silent exploitation, as well as the surreptitious conspiracy against the democratic principles of essential equality, because so many of us are profiting from corruption, in one way or another.

Yet, here, we touch upon an important contribution we all can make, if we are, indeed, serious about our desire to see justice, equality and peace on a global scale. Let us all make an effort to be honest with ourselves and with each other. Let us not be afraid to recognise fraud and corruption, whenever we see it, and, let us not be afraid to do something about it, if we can. Only, if we convince each other, that it is ultimately in everyone's interest to stop the practices of exploitation and corruption, only, then, will it be possible to elevate the level of trust and vigour in our social environments.

Let us tell our politicians, that they are completely in the wrong, if they think, that, economic prosperity and an ever rising standard of material consumption will keep the people happy and quiet. More and more people are beginning to realise, now, how dangerous this illusion is.

Let us tell our politicians, that none of us is afraid to cut-back and live frugally, if this is necessary to pay-off our national debts and to get rid of our destructive affluence, but, we want to know, that everyone is cutting-back, and, we want to be sure, that everyone is carrying the burdens of restraint equally and fairly. Without knowing this, how can you expect us to participate in voluntary restraints, or give our wholehearted support to a system of price and wage controls? Without fairness and equality, justice and openness, every society will, eventually, decay because of corruption and fraud, suspicion and hatred.

How do we deal with severe tensions between various ethnic communities and conflicting cultures? Again, a balanced approach is essential. Let us scrutinise, honestly, the events of the past, and, let us invite objective scholars, who are familiar with these events of the past, to inform us in a balanced and thorough manner. Let us see, what a different point of view will bring to light. Let us examine all the arguments about a particular happening or event, and, let us see, whether or not our ethnic community, our forefathers, or, we, ourselves, were indeed the victims of treachery, or, did we do something in the past, which we would not want other people to do to us?

Perhaps, it may, eventually, be possible to examine the history of our nation and culture with the detached eye of a scholar or a professional student, and, we may become more sensitive to the similarities between peoples, regardless of their diverging ways of life. Perhaps, we will then be able to reach beyond the comforts of our cultural roots and grasp the essential similarities of human existence. Maybe, we will understand our cultures better, and see, how the peoples of other cultures suffered, prayed and hoped, just like we did. Perhaps, we will, even, be able to see, how the proud and glorious moments in the history of our society and culture were, at the same time, moments of suffering and despair for those we conquered or subdued.

I certainly hope, that it is possible to foster a development in attitudes and behaviour along the lines we have sketched, here, because it will be a sure road towards a higher level of mutual understanding, an enlarged scope of vision, as well as a lessened insularity and parochialism of our behaviour.

As leaders or prominent citizens of an ethnic minority, we carry a heavy responsibility, and we face a difficult task, because we have identified intensely with the cultural heritage of our social environment, and, we will have a difficult time to understand the relativity of our own particular cultural heritage. Yet, if we want to avoid needless bloodshed, and, if we want to overcome the limitations of our point of view, we should make a serious effort to avoid pursuing the old dream of glorious independence, and, we should make an effort to lead our community as a responsible and thoughtful member of the family of mankind.

This does not necessarily mean, that, all efforts to obtain a greater degree of regional autonomy, or a change in the relationships between our community and the larger nation, are unwise, fruitless or narrowly patriotic. It may well be, that a greater degree of regional autonomy would be a much more just situation, increasing the efficiency of local government, and, it may not impose any form of injustice or hardship upon the peoples of the society at large.

However, just because we were, once, an autonomous nation, or, because we want to become one, does not make our goals necessarily and unquestionably justified. Certainly, let us be very careful not to play into the hands of a fanatic and militant minority within our societies. These fanatic minorities may not stop at anything in their attempts to seize power.

Fanatic elites contribute nothing to their own communities, nor, to the society at large. They are a scourge for their own peoples and others, and their legacy is hatred and bloodshed. They are ill-equipped to deal with practical problems, and, their only answer to a challenge is brute force. Let us be very careful not to replace the tyranny of an outsider with the tyranny from an uncompromising elite.

As concerned, intelligent leaders of a specific cultural or ethnic grouping, we carry the same responsibilities as leaders of a sovereign and independent nation, even, if we do not have as much power or prestige. Even leaders of sovereign nations can not see their nations, anymore, as completely autonomous and independent entities. They, too, have to accept the fact, that they will be required to behave as responsible citizens of a community of nations, and, they, too, are pressured by the circumstances to integrate their nations into a just and equitable federation of nations on a global scale.

In spite of the fact, that, as a minority leader, we do not enjoy the heady feelings of acknowledged independence and sovereignty, we should not let emotions overshadow rational conclusions and insights. Let us work, together with those who are leaders of sovereign and independent nations, and, let us lead the way in showing the potential benefits of attitudes that emphasise the common bonds of human existence and a willingness to cooperate with a variety of different cultures.

There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve our culture as a historical or cultural treasure, and, there is nothing wrong with our sense of belonging and identity. It is natural to feel a certain pride and well-being in belonging to our social environment. However, let us not use our cultural identity as a blind objective for the goals of independence and autonomy, oblivious for the rights and needs of others and blindly believing in the doctrine; "the land is our's".

This doctrine is still accepted and adhered to, quite thoughtlessly, by almost every nation in the world, but, it is a false and unjust doctrine. The fact, that we have been born into a certain nation or society, which happens to occupy a fertile and valuable piece of land, does not give our society the right to claim it as a birth-right or property. Neither is a fortunate human being, born into a wealthy and powerful family justified to claim the fortunes and privileges of his family as a birth-right.

The doctrine of the right to inherit a privileged position is fundamentally wrong, and, such a concept will not be acceptable to a globally relevant and just Constitution of ethical guidelines and peaceful living conditions.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A review of the mechanisms and consequences of inheritance.
A few questions about natural parental tendencies.
We like, so much, to help our children along.
Sensible parents have learned not to "spoil" their children.
The need for a change in outlook; from wanting to favour our children, to letting all children start from a position of equality.
The principle of "equal opportunity".
Gifted youngsters will be rewarded with prestige and responsibilities.
Essential equality, means, an equal access to the basic necessities of life; not an equality in development, differentiation, or ability.
It is so difficult to give-up a position of privilege.
The need for openness and trust, and, the fear of being exploited.
A denial of the right to inherit a position of privilege applies, also, to the territories we occupy collectively.
Our insights about the need for essential equality are still dim and fragile.
Relationships between powerful and small nations.
Abandoning the principles of "inviolate national boundaries".
The ability to shame a blatantly egocentric attitude into silence.
The drive for autonomy is based, primarily, on a wounded sense of justice, rather than on an egocentric and opportunistic chance to exploit an advantage.
A few questions about the rights of those who seek autonomy, and those, who want to preserve an existing unity.
A question of "doing harm".
The hypocrisy of the principle of non-interference in each other's affairs.
The need to equalise the level of material consumption and standard of living.
Getting rid of un-representative, ignorant and oppressive leaderships.
On the road towards a state of global justice and inter-dependence.

Is it really so difficult to accept the principle, that we do not have a birth-right to inherit any of the privileges of the social environment we happen to have been born into? Is it really so strange to maintain, that the transfer of a position of privilege and power to heirs is essentially unjust? Certainly, it goes strongly against our instinctive inclinations to deprive our children from an advantage we would be able to give them as successful parents.

Is it not part of our parental instinct to help our children as much as possible, so that they can be secure and successful, and reach an even higher position in the social hierarchy? Is it not natural to transfer our unfulfilled dreams to our children, and, to do everything we can, to make sure, that they will realise, at least, a part of our own ambitions, which have already become an unobtainable ideal for us?

How many parents do not sacrifice a great deal of money, effort and time to give their children a head-start over others, or, to make them successful in their endeavours? Even, if our children are not particularly gifted or ambitious, we still have a tendency to make life easy for them, whenever we can. We do not want them to go through the same hardships as we did, in particular, if there are episodes in our own youth we still find frightening, and have not come to grips with.

Sometimes, we shower our children with gifts and privileges, partly, to sooth a guilty conscience, whenever we realise, vaguely, that we have been ambivalent in our attitudes towards them. In part, we are trying to buy their love and affection, when we feel somewhat sad about an apparent indifference or lack of affection towards us.

Regardless, how we look at it, it seems strange and unusual to make life more difficult for our children than we have to, and, it certainly seems unusual to deny them a competitive edge in life, if we are in a position to provide such an advantage to them. Yet, there are always a few examples, where couragous and strong-willed parents have done just that.

However, we see seldom an extreme pattern of disinheritance, where children from privileged and gifted parents are deliberately pushed back and reduced to a position of scrupulous equality with other children in the social environment. Many sensible parents have learned, however, that they should be careful not to spoil their children, because they know, be it largely intuitively, that spoiling stunts their growth, blunts initiatives, and cultivates an undesirable attitude of parasitic dependence.

Therefore, the actions of sensible parents towards their children may appear to approach the principle we stated at the end of the previous chapter, but, we see, clearly, that this is only a superficial resemblance. Sensible parents are still, nearly exclusively, concerned with providing their children the best possible environment or tools to succeed in a competitive society, but, they have learned, that the chances of being successful are actually diminished, if they engage in emotionally appealing attitudes of indulgence and thoughtless support.

Really, we are talking about a different motivation, here, because the desire to provide an environment of scrupulous equality in opportunity is not centered around the well-being of anyone particular individual, but caters to the requirements of the sense of justice for everyone.

Of course, no parent, not even "sensible" parents, or, people, who are idealistic and serious about providing a road towards essential equality and global justice, would advocate something that would be detrimental or harmful to a normally developing child. In order to give the cripple an equal opportunity to win, one does not cut-off the leg from a normal child, does one?

The principle of equal opportunity, means, that, all children, certainly all normal, healthy and potentially amibitious youngsters, are given a good education, as well as a chance to develop their potentials and seize the opportunities as they arise. Since our genetic endowments are different, we will still see quite a marked difference in levels of achievement. This is natural, normal and healthy, and, we have discussed before, why it is not at all necessary for the more gifted youngsters to enjoy a life-style of affluence or privilege.

Very likely, the gifted youngsters will, eventually, occupy the most responsible positions in society. While many of them will be called-upon to become leaders in one field or another, they will also carry a larger burden of responsibility than the average citizen. They will have the privilege of being well-known, admired and respected, but, they will also know the agonies of difficult decisions, as well as the chilling results of serious mistakes.

The principle is simple. We should provide social mechanisms and guidelines that give all normal and healthy youngsters an equal chance to develop their talents. Certainly, talents, nor results, will be the same, and, even, the circumstances and opportunities will never be exactly equal. Some youngsters may have exceptionally fortunate circumstances, such as helpful and understanding parents, relatives, siblings and friends, and, such fortunate circumstances may allow them to develop their talents in an unusually precocious manner.

Others, will have a much more difficult time, because they are not as well integrated, and, they do not relate as easily to other people and will not receive as much support. Such differences are unavoidable, and, they are, probably, irrelevant, because the "late bloomer", the personality with more difficulties than the easy-going, affable and well-liked personality, may still become a responsible and productive individual, later in life.

It is not necessary, nor desirable, that the family in which a child has been born, determines the quality of its education, accessibility to opportunities of development, or access to institutions and prominent people. Neither should it be considered right, or just, that some youngsters can indulge in a more luxurious life-style than others, just because their parents are willing and able to provide them with affluence.

Most of our affluent, contemporary societies are highly competitive, and, from the start, the accent is being laid upon success, achievement and security through a position of power and wealth. Under these conditions, it is in the interests of parents, as well as their offspring, to maintain a momentum of privileged conditions through the inheritance of wealth, access to privileged positions, or opportunities for advancement.

Most of us should be able to agree, that, at least, in principle, a society would indeed be better of, if we provided every youngster with an equal opportunity at the start of his or her life and career in society. Even most free-enterprise societies have adopted these principles, but, many people pay lip-serivce to the principles of equal opportunity. Most people feel, that it is the task of government to help the poor and under-privileged, while successful and busy people continue to devote their attention to the competitive struggle of making a living. In the mean time, they keep a somewhat anxious eye upon their youngsters, to make sure, that they do not fall by the way-side.

Many people may agree with the principles of equal opportunity, but, few of us are willing to give-up any privileges or advantages, and, very few people care to think about these concepts seriously and deeply enough, to understand the gigantic and awesome consequences flowing from a consistent and scrupulous application of the principles of "equal opportunity".

We have discussed, how the principles of equal opportunity should be coupled with a limit on the divergence in income or assets, and, we have discussed, also, why the right to inherit a significant amount of assets or property has to be scrutinised, very carefully, and, why this right will probably have to be abolished for the sake of fairness and the principles of equal opportunity.

If we agree, in principle, with the fairness of the concepts of equal opportunity, as well as the birth-right of each individual to have an opportunity to lead a decent existence and find a satisfying place in society, we still face the difficult task of implementing these concepts. We are immediately confronted with serious problems, if we want to transfer a certain amount of assets and privileges to the poor and under-privileged, because we mistrust each other so much, that we are afraid to be abused or exploited by other people.

In other words; if I consent to give-away a part of my assets, property, belongings or financial reserves out of the goodness of my heart, because I truly believe, that I should make a contribution to the state of fairness and justice in the world, I am immediately seized with a feeling of doubt and suspicion. Would my act of good-will, indeed, benefit a poor soul, or, would it only fatten the pockets of unscrupulous officials? This atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion is now so thick and persistent, that we first have to regain our confidence and trust in each other's behaviour and motivations, before we are able to carry-out a significant act of collective good-will.

We can only regain a measure of mutual trust by establishing a completely open society, in particular, a complete openness in financial matters. As we have discussed many times before, only, if we can satisfy ourselves of the fact, that everyone's income is honest and deserved, and everyone's assets are legally and ethically obtained, only, then, will we be able to regain this all-important sense of mutual trust and good-will.

Let us return to the concept, that it is necessary to abolish the right to inherit wealth; at least, we have to abolish the right to profit from a position of advantage, wealth or power on the basis of having been born into a privileged family, a fortunate community, or a rich nation. Certainly, there can not be any justification for the concept, that we own the land and all its resources by the mere fact of having been born into a certain area.

We will never be able to draft a satisfactory bill of human rights and create conditions of global justice, unless we agree, at least, in principle, that the earth and all its rsources and life-support systems, represents the common heritage of all life, and, especially, of all the members of mankind.

As long as we cling, narrowly, to local, regional or national rights of ownership, we are perpetuating a situation of injustice, as well as a source of chronic conflict and turmoil. Let us not make any mistake. Those, who feel wronged, may only ask and complain now, but, if the grievances are not rectified, and, if the inequality in human living conditions persists, the poor and under-privileged will, eventually, find the means, and the power, to displace the rich and the privileged. The cycle of bloodshed and misery will, then, have made another full turn.

It does not matter, what sort of arguments or excuses are found to justify a delay in the process of global and regional equalisation, because any delay perpetuates the status of injustice. It does not matter, how many real and imagined problems the rich have, or want to take care of, before they start to face-up to the responsibility of sharing their wealth. As long as they delay and forestall, the resentment and belligerence of the poor keeps growing, until the cataclysmic revolt of the oppressed will suddenly be upon us.

Yet, there are few, if any, genuine examples in history, where a group of privileged people, or, a privileged society, has voluntarily shared its assets and blessings with the surrounding poor. Ironically, the only way those poor usually got to benefit from the riches of a wealthy society, was after a period of conquest. After the poor and lesser developed areas had been annexed and exploited, at least, for a while, they were often given a chance to share in the wealth of their masters, because the country now considered itself "expanded", and included the territories of their former neighbours.

Therefore, it may not be such a strange or evil development, if the powerful and rich nations on earth would gobble-up and annex all their poorer neighbours. Then, a system of democratic representation and equal rights could start an equalisation process within a country or a nation. This process seems to take place, much easier, than an equalisation of riches and privileges between nations that are insisting upon a proud but short-sighted status of sovereignty and independence.

If I was a poor and small, but independent nation, I would, indeed, flirt with my big, powerful and rich neighbours. I would say; "Wouldn't you like to expand your borders? Would'nt you like to become bigger than you are already? Sure, we will become part of your country, but, we want to share in all the privileges of your citizenship, and, we will work together with you to equalise the living standards between our countries, or regions, as soon as possible.

If I was a big and powerful country, and, if I had to deal with a persistent demand from a part of the country for more autonomy and independence, I would cooperate with them and let them achieve as much independence as possible, as long as it did not infringe upon the rights of other groups or regions in the country.

If a region is very rich, and, if the motivation for independence would be a selfish desire to keep all the wealth or riches for themselves, I feel, that it would be rather easy to expose this narrow-minded and self-centered attitude in such a scornful way, that the seekers of independence would become a target for contempt and ridicule. A clever leadership, with a good grasp over the concepts of justice and essential equality, could shame such a minority into silence, just as it is not difficult to shame a whining and egocentric child into giving some consideration to the needs of others.

As a matter of fact, I am convinced, that such a self-centered drive towards independence for the sake of egocentric economic benefits, is relatively rare. It is far more common to see a strong and persistent desire towards independence and autonomy in a social environment with a distinct culture; with a long history of having been oppressed and taken advantage of; with a nostalgic and emotional pride in its past.

What do we have to lose, if we give these people a measure of independence? Their fierce and proud spirit means, that they are hard-working people, and, if their independence does not mean a lowering of the standard of living for others, what are we complaining about? If we react emotionally and refuse, only, because we feel it as a personal insult to our sense of national pride whenever a part of our social environment wants to break-away and set-up its own leadership institutions, we have to ask the question; what right do we have to deny them their aspirations?

What would be our reaction, as leaders and members of a proud and sovereign nation, if our neighbour, an even bigger country, would start to claim us as part of their territory? What claim, then, do we have over the various regions of our national entity? As we have discussed before, this "right" turns-out to be the right of might, or, the right of being powerful. If we have the right to resist the claims of a more powerful neighbour, a region has the right to resist the claims to jurisdiction by a more powerful national entity, provided, that the majority of the people in such a region wish to become independent.

It is not right, nor is it just, to argue, that the majority of a nation has the right to determine, whether or not a distinct ethnic minority, which has lived and settled into this region over a prolonged period of time, should stay within the larger national entity.

Any group or social entity, which feels that it wants to take the more difficult road of independence and sovereignty, should be allowed to do so, and, you will be surprised to see, how many of these minorities that form a democratic majority in their own region, will again be seeking some sort of federation or association, after they have tasted the heady wine of independence.

Let us give those, who want to try a life of independence, a measure of autonomy, provided, that they do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others. We also have to make sure, that regional autonomy remains an excercise in democracy, with a truly representative government. If a region threatens to fall into the hands of a dictatorship, all considerations of independence should be shelved, until such unlawful elements have been firmly rooted out.

As we mentioned before, I am convinced, that we have to abandon the strict principle of non-interference in the affairs of another nation. This principle is hypocritical and unjust, and, we should be able to distinguish, clearly, in the actions of any interfering nation, whether or not the interference takes place as a genuine effort to help the people get control over their own affairs; whether or not it is taking place as a result of the narrow interests of the interfering party.

Let us not be afraid for the principle of interference in each other's affairs, but, let us scrutinise, at all times, carefully and objectively, why the interference is taking place; what the objectives are, and, what the results have been, in the past, of such an act of interference.

A period of interference or military occupation should, eventually, lead to internationally supervised general elections, as well as the establishment of a truly representative form of government.

If deep and nearly insurmountable divisions between the ethnic communities persist, the international community should not abandon its efforts to find a just and stable solution, until such a solution has been found. Once again, we come to the conclusion, that we have to abandon the principle of inalienable boundaries for an existing country. Sometimes, a country has an extremely difficult combination of ethnic groupings, and the peoples may be far better of, if the communities were segregated and the national boundaries re-drawn.

We still live in an era, where nations are so mistrustful of each other, that, they consider such a radical change in the contours of a country only as a sinister plot of neighbours to exploit the situation for their own benefit. In this respect, nations resemble a group of unruly, undisciplined and squabbling youngsters, who mistrust each other profoundly, and, who are ready to throw the most unfounded accusations at each other.

In summary, we may say, that, we, as an international community of nations, should be looking to ways, where we can equalise our standards of living, as well as the level of material consumption. A trend into this direction will make us much less suspicious and hostile towards each other. Dialogue and mutual understanding should improve to the point, that it would be possible to interfere in the affairs of a country for the sake and benefit of its people. A leadership that does not play by the rules of a fairly elected and truly representative government, should first be shamed into mending its ways, and, if necessary, be forced-out of power.

We should also be much less fearful about giving vigorous, hard-working ethnic groupings a chance to do more for themselves, while, we, as countries, should be willing to absorb poorer neighbours who have a slim chance of developing an adequate standard of living on their own. Let us absorb them into our nations and societies, and, let them share, gradually, in the privileges, as well as the responsibilities, that go with belonging to a large and complex society.

Societies are becoming more open, electorates and leaderships are becoming more informed. We will understand each other better, but, we will also be able to spot, immediately, anyone, who tries to exploit a situation for egocentric gain. If we continue to move into the right direction, we will be well on the road towards a society with a global Constitution and contract of essential equality, as well as a global network of autonomous Regions that have embarked upon a voluntary Federation of inter-dependent societies.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

"Popular Representation"; what does it mean?
The role of political Parties; maintaining a condition of social justice.
The role of a Parliament or Congress, where elected representatives gather and discuss.
Draw-backs associated with a strong political Party.
Encouraging the election of specific people, rather than emphasising the adoption of a political program.
The problems of being an "independent" member of Parliament.
Questions about "Party-discipline".
Politics, the art of what is possible.
Discrepancies between election plans and promises, and, the political realities faced by a leadership in power.
Elected Representation; a position obtained on the basis of personal merit and achievements.
Constitutional Guidelines, regulating the limits of political activities.
A political Party in the future; a loose aggregate of like-minded people.
The role of the Speaker of the House.
The Ruling Council or Executive Committee.
The need for stringent guidelines of conduct.
The role of the Elected Representative or Member of Parliament.
The nation's leader or President.
Some ideas about the inter-actions between the President, the Ruling Council, and the House(s) of Parliament.
The nomination of candidates for public office; mechanisms of election and campaigning.
The principle of "majority-rule".
It will be a pleasure to watch Parliament and the Executive Council in action.
Constituencies, and other Regions, will be autonomous, bonded together in a federation under a common Constitution and a governmental system.

We should consider, in some detail, what we mean by the term "popular representation". How are the people to be represented in government. What should a government-structure be like? What are the functions of political Parties under the guidance of an explicit Constitution?

In other words; let us consider some of the machinery that has to be in place, and has to be maintained, in order to achieve these most important objectives; a satisfied sense of justice, a feeling, that people are well represented by the leadership, and, that everyone has been given a fair chance to participate in the decisions of government; that the life-style of people all over the world is about the same, and, that all healthy and normal human beings, born into the world, are being given a fair and equal opportunity to unfold, at least, some of their potentials.

What do we need to achieve such ideal conditions, and, what sort of tools do we have to use, in order to maintain a situation of justice and well-being on a global scale? How are we going to prevent it from crumbling again into corruption and chaos?

Let us first consider the system of political Parties, because this is a topic that causes me great concern. There are problems, regardless, where we look; whether we consider a Parliamentary system, where the political Party with a majority of seats, or a coalition of Parties, becomes the "ruling Party", with its leader as the Prime Minister, or, the Presidential system, where government is divided between the office of the President and Congress. The latter is an institution with one or two chambers of elected representatives. In either case, we see national and centrally organised political Parties that nominate the candidates for public office from their own ranks. These candidates contest, then, the privilege to fill a position in Parliament, or the Houses of Congress, or, they take part in national elections for the office of the Presidency.

It is true, that a candidate, who is not supported by a major political Party can still campaign for a position as an elected representative, or, even, as a candidate for the presidency, but the power of the Party machinery, as well as the advantages that flow from being endorsed by a powerful political Party, are so overwhelming, that, for practical purposes, serious contenders are restricted to those, who are sponsored by a major political Party.

The more I think about it, the less enthousiastic I am about the current political system. If a Party can not find capable and suitable candidates for each and every riding, the candidates, who are nominated, may not necessarily represent the most dedicated and talented people available. Many people have a great deal of experience in public life, and, they have the background to make a useful contribution to society. I believe, that, they would be much more inclined to offer themselves as a candidate for public office, if they did not have to align themselves so closely with the philosophy of a major political Party.

Yet, these potential candidates for public office know, that it is a serious handicap to campaign as an independent, because they can not count, then, on the supportive machinery of an experienced political Party. They also know, that, under the present system, it remains extremely difficult to become an effective member of Parliament, if one sits, there, as an independent member, not affiliated with any one particular political Party. It is then impossible to get adequate speaking time, adequate facilities or access to needed information, and, because nearly everyone else belongs to a political Party, the independent member feels isolated and helpless, because one is unlikely to be appointed to any of the working committees.

The system of political Parties is accepted without much questioning, and, elected members, who campaigned as candidates for a specific political Party, are bound to vote along party lines, unless specifically absolved from Party discipline in a "free vote". To me, this is a mockery of the democratic process. Not only is it a mockery of the principle of the right to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and, the freedom to vote according to one's conscience and best judgement, but, the system of Party-discipline makes a mockery of the process of popular representation itself.

I am convinced, that a majority of people, who have been asked to choose between a number of candidates, do not look, exclusively, to the Party-label a candidate wears, but, they look, primarily, to the personality, the abilities, as well as the trustworthiness of the candidates seeking office. Most voters are not Party members or Party faithful, who would vote for a particular Party as a matter of principle.

Voters, who are so committed to a particular political Party have, often, just as poor a grasp of the reasons, why they vote for a particular Party as those, who adhere to a specific religious denomination. These people adhere to their religious beliefs because they have been born into a religious environment and have been brought-up with the current doctrines and practices. Certainly, it is also possible, that people have committed themselves to a particular political Party, because their jobs depend on their affiliation with the Party in power, or, they have received substantial financial assistance for their business-ventures on the basis of being a member or supporter of the political Party in power

The electorate may look, at least, to some extent, at the program of a political Party, but, it becomes clear, that there are often no major philosophical or practical differences between the political Parties vying for access to power. The accent may lie upon different priorities, but, since politics is the art of the possible, the political Party in power does largely what it has to do, in spite of the fact, that they promise the moon before elections.

The pragmatic nature of most political decisions, especially, in the routine, day to day business of the nation, is a surprise and a disappointment to most voters, who have been persuaded to believe, that a political Party in power can, indeed, change a society quickly, or, can change the direction into which society has been drifting within a few weeks or months after taking office. Time and again, the elected representatives of a political Party that has been voted into power, have to admit, that there is a discrepancy between what they said they were going to do, and, what they are actually doing.

To me, it makes much more sense to abolish the political Party as a powerful organisation. I certainly would like the political Party abolished as an organ that disciplines the voting behaviour of its members of Parliament, and, as an organisation that picks candidates in the constituencies of the nation. It would be much better if all citizens, in each and every riding, throughout the nation, would have an equal chance to become nominated as a candidate for the Parliamentary seat representing a particular riding or constituency. In this way, a number of citizens could present themselves to the public, primarily, on the basis of their own experiences and contributions to society.

After all, the task of an elected representative is to form a federation with all other elected representatives of the other ridings throughout the nation. By debate and discussion, they will learn, what major problems have to be solved, and, at the same time, they act as watch-dogs for the people who have sent them there; to make sure, that the resources and opportunities of the nation are fairly distributed; that all citizens enjoy roughly the same standard of living, and, that they are subjected to comparable duties and equitable obligations.

Once a candidate wins his riding, he becomes the representative of all the people in this riding, and not just for those who voted for him. It is therefore important, that all elected representatives receive an absolute majority, and, if the race starts-off with a number of candidates, there should be a series of "run-off" elections, until the people have, clearly, given an absolute majority of support to one of the candidates.

I believe, that it is unnecessary, and, even, harmful for a powerful political organisation to back some candidates and not the others. A political Party should not have one specific leader, who will become automatically the Prime Minister, whenever this party has been elected to power. A political Party should be nothing more than a loose federation of people, who have similar, but, certainly not identical ideas about the way the problems of the nation should be solved.

The Constitution defines the limits or tolerance for changes to the various mechanisms that operate in society, be they political, social or economic. This means, that there are limits to the programs candidates can offer as their solution to problems, or what they would do when elected. Control over the rate and type of change that can take place in society, is, therefore, taken-away from the political Party in power.

The Constitution outlines the overall direction of social and economic developments. It imposes limits on fiscal spending, and, it determines the mechanisms and institutions of government in great detail. We will outline, later, the methods by which Constitutional changes can come-about. Please, do not worry, that we will all be under the heels of a monolithic and immutable Constitutional tyranny. We will outline, how this Constitution has to be shaped, and, how it can be changed, and, believe me, it will turn-out to be a true excercise in informed democracy.

It is logical, that candidates can be grouped-together as people who agree more or less in the way a country should be run, or, how specific problems should be tackled. There is therefore nothing against an informal association of like-minded people, as long as such an association conforms scrupulously with the guidelines of openness and scrutiny, which the Constitution will impose on all associations and groupings within society. It should remain a loose aggregate of like-minded people, and, any idea of voting according to Party lines or a Party discipline in the House of Representatives, should be considered illegal under anti-trust laws, or, under the concept of free voting and a free conscience.

If a number of likeminded people agree, fine, and, there will always be shifting alliances as the members of the House of Congress or Parliament debate the problems of the nation. There should certainly not be any difference in the power, privileges or access to information between the members of Parliament or Congress. All representatives should have scrupulously equal rights, privileges and duties.

The Speaker of the House should, therefore, be an individual, who is a legal expert in the Rules of the House. He should not be an elected representative, and, his rulings should be considered as the rulings of a legal Court of Law. He is a judge, completely uninvolved in the political issues of the day. His only concern is to make sure, that the House functions as it is supposed to function under the duties and responsibilities laid upon it by Constitutional Law.

The main task of the House of Representatives will be, just like it is now, to debate, discuss and vote on the legislation that will be brought before it by the "Ruling Council", or the "Executive Committee". We will outline, how such a Ruling Council should be put-together. The main responsibility of the Ruling Council will be to bring legislative proposals to the House, but, individual members may also bring-up topics for discussion or submit resolutions for a vote. As a rule, these will be, primarily, concerned with specific, local problems.

For example, if a specific problem, inequity or situation of injustice exists, somewhere, in one of the constituencies, the elected representative from this area will be responsible to bring this problem to the attention of his colleagues and the Ruling Council. This is the true meaning of being an "elected representative".

We should not have to elaborate the fact, that it will be considered a criminal offense, if a member of the public offers a special reward to an elected representative in return for attention to a specific problem or a special interest. Similarly, it will be a criminal offense, leading to dismissal and renewed elections, if a member of the House accepts or solicits such rewards.

Candidates are under the same rules, and, as a matter of fact, all forms of bribery and enticement to induce a biased judgement or action, are to be considered an incidence of fraud and corruption. We will not pursue, here, the implications of such a stringent moral code for public and private conduct, because we have done so before. Let us return to the function and duties of the House of Representatives.

In addition to serving the interests of his constituency, the member of Parliament may also be asked to serve on a variety of committees. These committees may have been formed by Parliament, or the Executive Council, in order to study a particular aspect in detail, and, to bring a report within a specified period of time. It is obvious, that, all deliberations of the House, the Committees, as well as those of the Ruling Council, are completely open and fully recorded for future scrutiny and study.

Let us turn our attention to the Ruling Council; this body of men and women, which forms the main executive branch of government. I believe that the cabinet system now in use is fairly good, provided, that the structure and size of such a "cabinet" are regulated by Constitutional Guidelines.

The nation's leader, or President, whose election we will discuss shortly, will choose a specified number of elected representatives to serve as "ministers" or administrators in his cabinet. Each minister is responsible for a part of the tasks of executive management, and, he has, therefore, a department or sub-department under his jurisdiction. These ministers can be questioned, just as the President, each day during "question period", where any question may be asked from each and every one of the members of the Executive Council; in full view of the members of the House, as well as the public at large.

"How do we choose the President or national leader?", you will ask. Here, I favour a direct election by the entire nation, rather than the election of a leader by a political Party. I believe, that it is extremely important, that, any candidate for the highest and most responsible office in the nation, is elected directly by the people. It is important that this person has to campaign long and hard, so that the people can form a good idea about his or her personality, insights, capabilities and plans for the future.

The candidate should not be nominated by a political Party, and no individual should have the advantage to be backed by a powerful organisation. Anyone can become a candidate, but, in order to prevent people from trying to attract attention to themselves without having any real chance of becoming a serious contender, there will have to be a program of progressive elimination, before the actual election or the nation-wide campaign takes place.

First of all, every candidate for President should campaign in the riding of his residency, and, if there are a number of candidates, there will have to be a number of run-off elections. Even, if there is only one candidate in the riding, he will have to have a fairly significant endorsement of the people in his riding, before he can advance to a campaign on a national level. For example, we could stipulate that, at least, fifty percent of the eligible voters in his own riding will have to turn-out to vote, voluntarily, and this candidate must get, at least, fifty percent of the votes cast.

If there is no local candidate interested in becoming a contender for the presidency, the constituency does not participate in this preliminary selection process, but, on occasion, it may be considered wise by a candidate, who has already advanced to the national level, to test public opinion in a series of ridings; somewhat like "primary elections", where a true election is organised, and held, rather than a sophisticated "poll".

However, if we are dealing with a large nation or Region of several hundred million people, with, perhaps, a thousand ridings or so, we could still have several hundred candidates, who have been able to get the necessary endorsement from their local ridings. It may, occasionally, be justified to seek the nomination outside one's native or residential riding, but, the primary hurdle remains the fact, that each candidate must have been able to get, at least, fifty percent of the vote in a particular riding, and that, at least, fifty percent of the eligible voters took him serious enough to bother to vote.

If we have several hundred candidates, they all should be given a chance to come across in an interview of perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, where they can give a short summary of their ideas and plans. At the same time, a panel of objective scholars will summarise the achievements and career of each candidate. All these profiles and summaries will be broadcast over national radio and television, as well as other communications media, and, the public will be asked to make a list of their favourite candidates. For practical reasons, the number of candidates on this list may have to be limited to four or five, and, maximally, ten.

It will be extremely important, that all these preliminary candidates receive scrupulously equal treatment and exposure, but each citizen will be able to receive, on request, a series of video-tapes of the interviews one is interested in. In this way, the public can study, over a period of a year or so, the individuals, who are offering themselves for the highest office. At the end of this period a national referendum will establish officially the top five candidates.

The last round of the Presidential election process would be an extensive campaign on a national scale, with access to the national media, as well as speaking engagements throughout the nation, where each candidate is given an equal number of exposures on the media or in public appearances.

The public will, once again, be given a chance to study these appearances, carefully, with the help of video recordings, and, then, without any further campaigning or last minute appearances, the public will be asked to vote in a nation-wide referendum on the President of their choice.

Voting will be repeated, until one candidate receives, at least, fifty percent of the vote and fifty percent of the electorate has voluntarily voted. If it becomes difficult to get fifty percent of the eligible voters to cast their vote, the leadership better find out, why there is such an apathy in the nation!

The President, as well as the elected representative, is chosen completely without any pressures or strings attached, and, the President's cabinet of ministers are chosen from amongst the members of the House, but, in addition, the President may appoint a specified number of personal aids or advisors. He works with his staff in an office that is part of the House of Representatives, and, he has a daily meeting with the members of his cabinet, after which the entire Executive Council faces a barrage of questions in the "question period" of the House.

We will not repeat, here, the arguments about the need for an extensive information service. Let us merely say, that, we visualise all members of the Executive Council and Parliament to have nearly instantaneous access to any kind of information they want, and, we visualise debates to be precise, to the point, and based upon factual information about which there is no disagreement or doubt as to its validity or reliability.

It will be a pleasure to watch Parliament and the Executive Council in action, as it quickly and expertly summarises the problems, concerns and measures taken that day; as it evaluates the trends of the past few weeks; as it seems to have a firm grip over what is going-on within the nation, as well as in other nations around the world.

There will not be narrow, partisan, Party politics; there will not be wasteful, useless bickering or mud-slinging. We will not see interminable debates about speculations or rumors no-one is sure about. We will see crisp questions that are to the point, and, these questions will not be designed to cast a slanted light upon anyone. The questions will have to be true questions, which the President and his cabinet should be concerned about, and, which have not been dealt with before, or can not be answered by the computerised information services.

Again, the answers will be crisp and to the point, with a clear delineation between what is known and what is hypothesis; what has been done, and, what is going to be done. The answers should convey a clear distinction between the facts that describe what has happened; the trends or possibilities of what may happen, and, what the likely implications are going to be of the various events that may take place in the near future.

All questions and answers should be as serious and objective as possible. They should be designed to inform and deal with the problems of the nation and the concerns of the people. They should be honest and complete, and, they have to show competence and expertise, if the participants in these public "question periods" want to avoid severe criticisms.

However, let us not indulge in futuristic speculations about the manner in which such a leadership and governmental system may work. Let us return to the main theme of this essay, because we want to discuss the possibilities for autonomy and independence between equally placed individuals or social groupings, as they try to form a workable and viable confederation.

Let us consider, in the next chapter, whether or not such a system of regional representation with a House of Elected Representatives and a nationally elected President, is, indeed, capable of realising the concepts of justice and essential equality. Let us see, whether we can, indeed, consider the ridings, constituencies or regions as fairly autonomous groupings of people, honouring the principles of autonomy in a position of essential equality and maximum independence within a voluntary federation of common objectives.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The concepts of autonomy and federation will fuse in the societies of the future.
A parallel with the concept, that the highest levels of personal freedom, achievement and fulfilment come to the fore within a framework of voluntary association with others.
A trustful specialisation in function.
Society, seen as an "ecological niche".
We are still living an unbalanced way of life.
Rapidly rising levels of injustice, exploitation, corruption and fraud.
Every species has to live in a way its environment can sustain.
An increasing dependence on sophisticated technology and psychological insights in order to maintain viability.
Each human being will know, eventually, that one is receiving as much autonomy or freedom as is possible under the global contracts of justice and essential equality.
Accepting limits on our desires for the sake of freedom and justice.
The problems associated with a system of "proportional representation".
An absolute majority at every level; run-off elections.
The role of the "vice-candidate"; the runner-up to the winner.
A House with a thousand Representatives.
Regions with appoximately one hundred million people.
A Federation of forty or fifty Regions.
The House of Regents, with its internally elected chairman.
We can not force people to belong to society, but we can make it attractive to do so.
Granting a measure of autonomy that does not harm anyone.
There are no sound legal reasons for the existence of national boundaries.
Sweeping problems under the "critical rug".
The essence of Federalism.

Is it not remarkable to see, how the concepts of autonomy and federalism are coming together? Is it not another reminder of the fact, that we have to be so careful in our conclusions, whenever we are dealing with apparent contradictions or apparently intractable problems? Who would have thought, that, a viable and coherent federation of groups of people, or, even, large societies, would only be possible, if we abandon the idea, that people, groups, or societies, have to be forced into a unity against their will?

Yet, these conclusions run parallel to a line of thought we have developed and discussed before, when we saw, how the process of individualisation, (the divergence of people into different personalities with different capabilities and complementary functions), was only possible, when people were given a measure of security by their social environment. Only within the stability and security of a fair and just social structure, was it possible for people to trust their environment and embark upon a specialised development of personal inclinations, which left them, at the same time, vulnerable to dramatic changes in this social environment.

Few people realise, what it means, (in terms of viability), when they trust the stability of existing conditions and specialise in one capability or another, but, most of them ask themselves, at one time or another, how they came to be trapped into the situation they find themselves in. Most people are eager to trust their social environment, because it leaves them free to concentrate on those avenues of individualisation they like and see a possibility to make into a success.

It is ironic, as well as a sign of shallow insight, that so many people are recklessly counting on social stability; e.g. they commit themselves to pay-off a mortgage over ten or twenty years, and, yet, they behave in their work environment or social contacts without any sense of responsibility for this quality of social stability everyone is counting on. So few people seem to be aware of the fact, that they will have to make a contribution to this quality of social stability, if they want it to last.

In a way, many people react to social circumstances in an intuitive or "evolutionary" manner. By this, I mean, that they start adapting to social circumstances as if these circumstances constitute an "ecological niche". Just as the non-thinking organisms of life have no idea, that they are, in essence, responsible for the deterioration of their own ecological niche, (by exploiting it ruthlessly), so does the human being rarely consider the overall effects of his exploits upon the social or natural ecological niche in which he exists.

In the last few decades, we have learned to think a little more about the consequences of exploiting natural resources and taxing the absorptive capabilities of our planet to the limit. We know, now, that we are depleting many natural resources, and, that we are still far removed from an "ecological balance". Our collective existence is still unbalanced in respect to the natural environment, meaning, that we are still impoverishing and polluting the earth, because the terrestial conditions can not cope with the effects of collective human existence, as we are living and behaving, now.

The consequences of an instinctive and thoughtless attitude to exploit, ruthlessly, the ecological niche of a social environment, are even less clear for most people, in particular, when they live in large and chaotic social aggregates, where they get the impression that their life has little significance or impact.

If people keep clamoring for ever-higher wages in an effort to combat inflation, or, to satisfy their rising expectations, they are exploiting their social environment, in particular, when their wage-demands are pushed through with work-stoppages. Yet, people refuse to accept, at least, part of the blame for a deterioration in social circumstances as a result of such short-sighted and ruthless attitudes.

Our leaders and politicians do the same. In order to get elected or re-elected, they promise, recklessly, to anyone who wants to listen, and, when in power, they run-up large deficits by over-spending and poor fiscal management. Yet, their grasp over the long-term consequences of their actions is so poor, that they keep exploiting the possibilities for economic stimulation in order to sooth a frustrated population and keep themselves in power.

Quickly, the exploitative mentality spreads to all layers of society, and, the process of decay is then in full swing, as the entire social structure is being undermined by a rapidly rising level of disparity, inflation, injustice and fraud.

Just as a densely populated colony of living organisms spoils its natural habitat, quickly, whenever its rate of consumption and accumulation of waste-products is out of step with what local environments can tolerate or absorb, so is a social environment rapidly contaminated by attitudes of exploitation and mistrust, and, it begins to decay due to a lack of common-sense and cooperation.

The cardinal principles of operation to which every life-form will have to adhere for the sake of long-term survival, is the balance between its demands upon the environment and the capability of this environment to sustain these demands. In every inter-action between living organisms and the ecological niche, the environment quickly "fights back", whenever it is over-exploited. The food-sources are rapidly drying-up, and, the possibilities of existence suffer a massive set-back through starvation and disease.

Man has escaped, in many ways, from this natural balance, because his scientific and technological capabilities have developed to such an extent, that he can consume and gain access to energy and other resources at an ever-faster rate. As a result of the massive consumption of energy and resources in the mechanisms of industrialisation, a gigantic pressure has been placed upon the atmosphere and other terrestial eco-systems. All these changes in terrestial conditions will make man increasingly dependent upon sophisticated technologies for his survival. Very soon, man will be so vulnerable, that he will be unable to survive, if he ever has the misfortune to lose a large portion of this technological expertise.

We are just beginning to learn about all these delicate balances between intricate force-fields, and, we are beginning to understand a little more about the checks and balances we have to bring into our social organisations, in order to transform these amorphous and tension-ridden aggregates of human life into viable, flexible, lean and productive, intelligent and resourceful social units.

In these intelligent social units, members will have to be convinced, that they have just as many opportunities to satisfy their needs and develop their potentials as anyone else. Each human being will have to be able to acknowledge the fact, that one is receiving as much "autonomy" or freedom as is possible under the rules of global justice.

People will know this to be the case, because their education will have been thorough, and the channels of information will be completely open. Not everyone will have the same intellectual capabilities and interests, and, a majority of people will be happy to trust their leaders and leave the problems of society to them, especially, if they have found a reason to trust their leaders.

On the other hand, everyone has to be aware of the limits that have to be placed on behavioural freedoms. There have to be limits about what we can do, if we do not want to infringe upon the rights of others, and, if we do not want to be a cause of injustice. We have to know, why we can not do everything we want, why we can not satisfy all our demands, and, why it is so important for everyone to have the same opportunities.

The moment we forget these insights, or, as soon as we do not want to think and reflect upon them, we are sowing the seeds of destruction, once again. Those, who can not see the reasons for ethical behaviour, will have to learn to stay within the boundaries of what can be tolerated, and, those, who remain a serious and unacceptable menace to others, will have to be eliminated.

Let us come back to the structure of the political leadership, as well as the details of elected representation, as we have sketched in the previous chapter. Many people, in my time, have reservations about the system of elected representation from ridings or constituencies. They object to the apparent loss of votes that did not back the winning candidate, and, if the candidates are organised into political Parties, it may indeed be a long struggle, before a small political Party is able to file a candidate, who will attract a majority of the votes in a particular constituency.

From this point of view, it seems reasonable to propose a system of "proportional representation", where the people throughout a nation are asked to vote for a political Party. Political Parties then gain a number of seats in the Hourse of Representatives, depending upon their percentage of the popular vote. While no votes are "lost" this way, a number of questions come immediately to the fore. Who draws up the hierarchy of the Party members? Obviously, it depends on the position on the Party-list, whether or not a candidate is likely to get a seat in the House of Representatives. Yet, the people would rarely know, whom they are voting for, and, the people would certainly not have any control over the drawing-up of this list of the Party hierarchy.

We have already outlined the draw-backs of a tightly controled and organised political Party, because the ideals of diverging points of view are not tolerated within the structure of a political Party. It is no surprise, then, that I do not favour a system of proportional representation as outlined above. (In a later essay, we will discuss, more in detail, the possibilities of combining the concepts of regional and proportional representation.)

We should not abandon the concept, that people should be represented regionally, and, as we have outlined, we should do everything we can, to make sure, that candidates win on their own merits, and not through the support of a powerful organisation. Yet, we should address the question, what happens to the votes that have been given to other candidates.

By ensuring, that the winner receives an absolute majority, we already minimise the number of "lost votes", and, by insisting that a member represents all people of a certain region, and not just those, who voted for the winning candidate, we create another mechanism, whereby people do not have to feel isolated, whenever they have given their vote to someone who lost in the elections for becoming a Representative in the Legislative Assembly.

It seems reasonable to propose, that a strong runner-up to the winning candidate is given the opportunity to function as a "vice-candidate" to the winner. The runner-up becomes the most natural deputy, or pathway, through which the winner can keep in touch with the wishes, aspirations and problems of those who did not vote for him or her.

The same principle should apply to elections for President. I believe, that the choice for the post of vice-president should not be left to a political Party, or, a candidate for the presidency, in spite of the fact, that both candidates campaign as a team and people will know, before they cast their vote, who will be the candidate for vice-president.

The strong runner-up to the winner in the elections for the Presidency, (provided, that he receives at least fifty percent of the votes given to the winning candidate), should become the vice-president. What exactly his role and duties should be, will have to be spelled-out by the Constitution. If, however, a winning candidate for the presidency sweeps the country with such an overwhelming majority, that the runner-up does not even get fifty percent of the votes cast for the winner, then, the new president-elect should make his own choice for vice-president.

It is clear, that, ridings or constituencies, should have roughly an equal number of people; e.g. one hundred thousand. If we visualise a House with a thousand elected representatives, we see that these thousand members represent about one hundred million people. As we will discuss later, this number of people seems to justify a separate body of government, including a President, as well as all the bureaucratic machinery needed to keep a complex society in good health.

Let us look ahead, briefly, to a global society. It may, indeed, be possible to divide the population of the world into Regions, each with roughly one hundred million people. Each Region would then have a House with one thousand elected representatives, a President, as well as an Executive Council, and, of course all the complex but efficient machinery needed to take care of the business of governing.

Yet, we do not visualise these Regions to have complete autonomy. They should form a Federation, where the forty or fifty Regions of the earth are represented in a "House of Regents". Here, a certain number of delegates from each Region forms a permanent council, with its own internally elected chairman. Their task will be to discuss, on an on-going basis, all matters of concern, frictions and problems that exist between the Regions.

We anticipate the Constitutional Guidelines to be very similar from one Region to the next, but the structural organisation of government should be flexible enough to accomodate for regional peculiarities, in order to safeguard the principles of justice and essential equality. We should not develop these ideas any further, here, because we will devote an entire essay to the structure and function of a "world federation of nations".

We want to come back, here, upon the main theme, where we are trying to show, clearly, that the processes of autonomy and federalism are going hand in hand. It is clear, that we do not have a chance to create a globally just society by suppressing strong and persistent demands for a large measure of regional autonomy and independence, especially, if the groupings clamoring for autonomy are ready for the task of looking after themselves. This means, that we have to abandon the idea that the borders of sovereign nations are immutable and inviolate. We can never create a sense of harmony and justice, if we force a group, or an individual, to belong to a particular social environment.

We have seen, that the demands for autonomy and independence are, often, rooted in an emotional and nostalgic past, where wrong-doings have found a tenacious sentiment of resentment and hatred. If a group or society can be given autonomy, without endangering the rights of other peoples and without endangering the quality of leadership or form of government, then, such a society should be given all possible encouragement to grow into a mature and responsible, self-governing society.

We know, that a taste of independence and the justification of past struggles will be the quickest way to get over a lingering nostalgia, and, it will be the best way to make sure, that a society faces up to the practical realities associated with life as an independent nation. Quickly, the independent nation will realise, how vulnerable it is, and, it will be glad to participate in a Federation of Regions as a full and respected member.

A forceful suppression of the desire for autonomy is, not only, counter-productive, but, an injustice as well, because, what right do we have, as a leadership, or, as a member of a dominant society, to impose our will upon another society or ethnic grouping, if the aspirations and life-style of this society do not infringe upon the rights of essential equality?

Just because we happen to live in a country with a certain boundary, does not mean, that there is an inalienable right to adhere to or defend those borders. In particular, when we review, objectively, the history of a number of nations, including our own, we come to the sad conclusion, that all borders are merely reflections of wars and diplomatic power-struggles in the past, and, it becomes clear, that we are hard-pressed to find convincing legal or moral arguments to claim ownership over any one particular territory.

Sure, I am quite well aware of the fact, that my views are still not shared by many people, and, it is obvious, that most citizens are inclined to adhere to the doctrine of unquestioned national interests. It is understandable, because the thrust of our emotions, feelings and cultural values has always centered around the sacred unit of "our country". Yet, these unsophisticated attitudes, as well as our willingness to be swept-up in a patriotic fervor, are largely responsible for the many wars the nations of the earth have been fighting with each other.

It is time to break-out from these superficial sentiments and largely erroneous concepts. It is about time, that we begin to examine, soberly and with great honesty and intellectual precision, the conditions and requirements for social stability, justice and harmony on a global scale.

We should be able to realise, by now, that, any attempt to solve problems regionally, or limit the field of concerns to a sphere that is less than global in scope, is a non-solution; it is a temporary postponement of the ultimately necessary conditions of justice and stability. Such attempts are nothing less than superficial efforts to sweep social problems under the "critical rug"; out of sight; at least, they will be out of sight for a while.

We all know, that we can solve problems, only, if we do everything we can, to do it "just right". Sometimes, we have to make a considerable effort to search for the way "to do it right", because we may have come to the conclusion, that the way we thought was right, is not really good enough. We can be sure, that we are not doing a good job, if we know, that the results will be mediocre. We are still searching for the best possible way to construct a fair and just society, because, in many ways, we can not yet agree amongst ourselves, what we mean by the words we use, or, what we should do in order to achieve the desired results.

Allright, let us search and think. Let us debate and look seriously for definitive solutions. If we sit-back and do nothing, because, we are doing fine, at least, for the time being, and, if we do not really care about the problems of other people, then, we know, for sure, that we are not solving any problems. We are not even postponing problems. We may not even know, what the problems are, and, what sort of consequences we will have to face for doing nothing. Then, we can be sure, that the situation is going to get worse, because the incidences of injustice are increasing in scope, intensity and frequency.

Autonomy is based on essential equality in existence, far-sighted responsibilities in a condition of freedom, as well as the ability to do what is necessary and right in order to create and maintain a condition of justice.

Federalism is the common-sense conclusion, that we share most of our problems and needs, as well as most of our ambitions and dreams. Federalism is based upon the knowledge, that we can only reach our goals of essential equality and independence, if we work together to make it possible, and, that we only aggravate our problems, if we start to fight with each other.

If, for one reason or another, the path to emotionalism and resentment has been taken, once again, and, if our emotions are fueled by an accumulation of injustice, corruption and fraud, then, reason disappears from the scene, and oppression and rebellion will replace the voluntary federation of autonomous peoples and societies.

Let us forget about trying to find legal arguments for a perpetuation of our privileges. It will amount to nothing more than sophistry. In stead, let us look at the responsibilities we all have; to support a condition of justice, a contract of essential equality, a respect for each other, and an openness in our transactions. Once these concepts become clear, the solutions will suggest themselves, and, after we have improved the atmosphere of openness and created the attitudes of mutual trust, the measures, necessary to correct our ills, may turn-out to be not as bitter or unpleasant as we feared.

.......

Summary

1. A pre-occupation with territorial instincts; a few questions about "national interests" or "national pride".
   Why a leadership has to represent the will of the people.
   A sordid history of strife and combat.
   Lingering resentments.
   The "right" of excercising power.
   The struggle for power is becoming very costly.
   The injustice of an "ultimate solution".
   Slow progress towards a state of voluntary cooperation; federalism.
   Multiple layers of conquests, defeats and annexations.
   Questions of "right" and "wrong".
   Independence and nation-hood.
   The principle of non-interference in each other's affairs.
   The enlarging sphere of concerns of the victorious conqueror.
   What it means to be "sovereign adults" in our social environment.
   Differences between the sovereign citizen and the sovereign national leadership.
   
   
   
2. The need for a globally acceptable code of conduct.
   The socio-centric orientation of nationalistic leaders.
   Mechanisms of a deep-rooted resentment.
   Beginning to get a grip over the problems of "nationalism".
   A long learning period for the children of mankind.
   The origins of a natural sense of justice.
   Ambivalent and confused attitudes in affluent societies.
   The genetic anlage for becoming good parents.
   The functions of a "cultural veneer".
   A review of early socialising mechanisms.
   Cultural guidelines are vulnerable to decay.
   The cohesiveness of a clump of dry sand.
   Designing and maintaining, consciously, the conditions of justice.
   The need to know ourselves.
   
   
   
3. A review of the "sense of justice".
   A contract of "essential equality".
   A cultural code has to satisfy the sense of justice, before it can become a viable guidance-pattern.
   A cultural code reflects the collective responses of the past.
   The changing sense of justice.
   Fervent nostalgic and patriotic sentiments hamper a realistic appraisal of contemporary realities.
   Developing a sense of relativity, as well as a larger sphere of identification.
   A conqueror has to become more "civilised" in order to survive.
   The need to secure a measure of cooperation from those, who have been subdued.
   A final, fatal "accident of history".
   A few more questions.
   The ability to prevent wars requires stringent behavioural controls.
   Complex events, and the variability of their interpretation.
   Attempts to avoid a polarisation of attitudes.
   Can we foresake the primitive instinct to seek a solution in violent conflict?
   
   
   
4. What can we do to minimise the chances of war?
   A look at social and psychological mechanisms.
   War does not break-out, if people do not want war.
   We, ordinary people, have to teach our future leaders to become responsible citizens of the international community.
   A review of the requirements and responsibilities of leadership.
   Learning to scrutinise, carefully, all leadership behaviour.
   The need to have access to information.
   We still have a long way to go in educating ourselves.
   Mechanisms of common-sense; comparisons with a family-unit.
   The powers of "official-dom" in a dictatorship.
   The mechanisms of silent exploitation.
   A conspiracy against moral principles.
   A thorough re-assessment of the goals of socially integrated existence.
   A careful review and expert judgement of the events of the past is necessary, in order to solve contemporary frictions and hostilities.
   The persuasiveness of a rational and scholarly review.
   Demands for a greater degree of autonomy.
   Let us be on our guard for a militant and fanatic minority.
   Let us not use our cultural identity as a stubborn objective for total independence.
   The land is not "all our's".
   Inheriting a privileged position is fundamentally unjust.
   
   
   
5. A review of the mechanisms and consequences of inheritance.
   A few questions about natural parental tendencies.
   We like, so much, to help our children along.
   Sensible parents have learned not to "spoil" their children.
   The need for a change in outlook; from wanting to favour our children, to letting all children start from a position of equality.
   The principle of "equal opportunity".
   Gifted youngsters will be rewarded with prestige and responsibilities.
   Essential equality, means, an equal access to the basic necessities of life; not an equality in development, differentiation, or ability.
   It is so difficult to give-up a position of privilege.
   The need for openness and trust, and, the fear of being exploited.
   A denial of the right to inherit a position of privilege applies, also, to the territories we occupy collectively.
   Our insights about the need for essential equality are still dim and fragile.
   Relationships between powerful and small nations.
   Abandoning the principles of "inviolate national boundaries".
   The ability to shame a blatantly egocentric attitude into silence.
   The drive for autonomy is based, primarily, on a wounded sense of justice, rather than on an egocentric and opportunistic chance to exploit an advantage.
   A few questions about the rights of those who seek autonomy, and those, who want to preserve an existing unity.
   A question of "doing harm".
   The hypocrisy of the principle of non-interference in each other's affairs.
   The need to equalise the level of material consumption and standard of living.
   Getting rid of un-representative, ignorant and oppressive leaderships.
   On the road towards a state of global justice and inter-dependence.
   
   
   
6. "Popular Representation"; what does it mean?
   The role of political Parties; maintaining a condition of social justice.
   The role of a Parliament or Congress, where elected representatives gather and discuss.
   Draw-backs associated with a strong political Party.
   Encouraging the election of specific people, rather than emphasising the adoption of a political program.
   The problems of being an "independent" member of Parliament.
   Questions about "Party-discipline".
   Politics, the art of what is possible.
   Discrepancies between election plans and promises, and, the political realities faced by a leadership in power.
   Elected Representation; a position obtained on the basis of personal merit and achievements.
   Constitutional Guidelines, regulating the limits of political activities.
   A political Party in the future; a loose aggregate of like-minded people.
   The role of the Speaker of the House.
   The Ruling Council or Executive Committee.
   The need for stringent guidelines of conduct.
   The role of the Elected Representative or Member of Parliament.
   The nation's leader or President.
   Some ideas about the inter-actions between the President, the Ruling Council, and the House(s) of Parliament.
   The nomination of candidates for public office; mechanisms of election and campaigning.
   The principle of "majority-rule".
   It will be a pleasure to watch Parliament and the Executive Council in action.
   Constituencies, and other Regions, will be autonomous, bonded together in a federation under a common Constitution and a governmental system.
   
   
   
7. The concepts of autonomy and federation will fuse in the societies of the future.
   A parallel with the concept, that the highest levels of personal freedom, achievement and fulfilment come to the fore within a framework of voluntary association with others.
   A trustful specialisation in function.
   Society, seen as an "ecological niche".
   We are still living an unbalanced way of life.
   Rapidly rising levels of injustice, exploitation, corruption and fraud.
   Every species has to live in a way its environment can sustain.
   An increasing dependence on sophisticated technology and psychological insights in order to maintain viability.
   Each human being will know, eventually, that one is receiving as much autonomy or freedom as is possible under the global contracts of justice and essential equality.
   Accepting limits on our desires for the sake of freedom and justice.
   The problems associated with a system of "proportional representation".
   An absolute majority at every level; run-off elections.
   The role of the "vice-candidate"; the runner-up to the winner.
   A House with a thousand Representatives.
   Regions with appoximately one hundred million people.
   A Federation of forty or fifty Regions.
   The House of Regents, with its internally elected chairman.
   We can not force people to belong to society, but we can make it attractive to do so.
   Granting a measure of autonomy that does not harm anyone.
   There are no sound legal reasons for the existence of national boundaries.
   Sweeping problems under the "critical rug".
   The essence of Federalism.

.......