OVERALL POLITICAL GOALS AND PERSPECTIVES


guidelines for political conduct




A Study in Thought

sa063



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A definition of political activities and political leadership.
What is a "sovereign nation"?
The vagaries of conquests and defeats.
The territorial instincts of political leaders.
A narrow sphere of concern.
Class-division; ethnic and regional disparities.
Leadership problems resulting from a deeply divided society.
The short-comings of dominance by power alone.
A number of questions.
How people react to social conditions.
Is there such a thing as a "just society"; either in the past, or the present?
An excercise in the relativity of judgement.
Why a political leadership identifies, so often, with the "privileged segments" of society.
If the historical argument for the sanctity of a national entity is not valid, how, then, do we design a harmonious, just and durable social environment?
We have to know our needs and ambitions, before we can resolve tensions and disparities.

If you would ask me to define politics and political leadership, I would say, that, political leadership is the leadership of the "society as a whole", and, politics is the art of persuading others to see the need for leadership "your way". In addition, political leadership tries to make the society into an independent and sovereign entity, and, for this reason, it has to concern itself with a program of social objectives, security concerns arising from external threats, as well as measures to cope with tensions and conflicts between the various groupings within society.

Overall political leadership deals with a variety of problems arising from the inter-actions of the society as a whole with its neighbours and trading partners. There are a number of complex relationships between sovereign or independent states, such as economic and financial ties, political alliances and treaties, or, long-standing points of friction and feelings of mistrust. Just as an individual is surrounded by people who are friendly, indifferent, or hostile, so are nations behaving like people; with likes and dislikes, friendships and quarrels, jealousies and envies, which are manifested through the many forms of "propaganda".

However, if you are going to ask me, what we mean by a "society as a whole", the answer is more difficult. What, indeed, constitutes a "sovereign" nation or state? What is an independent country? More often than not, a country constitutes a variety of ethnic groupings with unequal relationships, where one grouping dominates and, often, actively suppresses the others.

The boundaries of a country that is sovereign and independent, as well as the concept of "society as a whole", turn-out to be merely a legacy of the vagaries of fortune and misfortune, resulting from past acts of warfare. The boundaries reflect the status-quo after a long series of conquests and defeats, where the fortunes of the various groupings are always changing, at least, when viewed over a long period of time. Sometimes, during a period of vigour and health, a society is expansionistic, conquering or dominating a number of social groupings in the neighbourhood, but, inevitably, such a period is followed by a process of decadence and decay, and then, a multitude of diverging interests and ethnical aspirations re-assert their claim to freedom and independence. The center of power gravitates, therefore, to a grouping that has reached a stage of exuberant confidence, growth and expansionist ambitions. We see this cycle of growth and decline, conquest and defeat, repeat itself, time and again, whenever we look at events in a broad historical perspective.

If we want a serious answer to the question, whether or not a nation or society has "any rights" to call itself a united and independent nation, we have to acknowledge, that such a "right" remains a matter of opinion, and, that not one nation can claim, in all sincerity, to be made-up, entirely, by a voluntary union of diverse ethnic groupings; without any form of coercion or conquest, at some time in the past.

Many countries still have active centers of dissent, where strife and friction, or, even, open hostilities and violence, testify to the fact, that the proclaimed unit of the society as a whole, or "nation", has not been recognised by all groupings within this social or political entity. Yet, the people who assume, by force, persuasion, or a combination of both, the political leadership of a nation, never seem to have any difficulties justifying the "rightfulness" of the size of the nation, or, the unity of the society they have assumed jurisdiction over.

Frequently, a political leadership will lay claim to a territory that is, so far, beyond its jurisdiction, and, a political leadership seems never to be lost for words and arguments with which to substantiate its claims. However, I have never encountered a leadership, either in our contemporary societies, or in the historic past, which would, voluntarily, argue, that the nation as a whole, or, the society as it now exists, is based upon an injustice; upon a conquest of one part or another by a dominant segment, and, that, therefore, the claims of certain sub-groupings or ethnic minorities to independence and sovereignty, are fully justified. Yet, every political leadership is quick to use "legal arguments", proclaiming the "rights of the people" when pursuing their objectives, and, the leaders are fully convinced, that they represent the moral and ethical virtues of their society.

Even, until the present time, the right that comes with conquest has not been seriously questioned. If one group invaded the territory of another, and, if it was able to displace the original inhabitants thoroughly or dominate them completely, the status-quo was, often, quickly recognised by its neighbours, and, even, now, political leaderships of most nations seem to be willing to recognise any form of leadership, as long as it can prove that it is "in control".

Whether or not such a leadership makes a genuine effort to represent the interests of all groupings within society, is rarely asked. Neither does it seem to matter to most political leaders, what methods were used to gain power, and, in what manner leaderships excercise control. It seems to matter little, even, to "democratically elected" leaderships that profess, at the drop of a hat, to be a champion of ordinary people, that many political leaderships emerging in nations all over the world, are the result of a fierce, armed power-struggle; a "coup d'etat", which has resulted in the dictatorship of a dominant minority, be it of the right or the left of the political spectrum.

In spite of claims to the contrary, very few political leaders in our contemporary democratic societies are genuinely concerned about the level or quality of democratic rule that is being excercised in other countries. Most leaders have their hands full governing their own peoples, regardless, whether they have been elected to their posts, or have grabbed power with the force of arms. Leaderships tend to shy-away, therefore, from "meddling in each other's internal affairs", unless the behaviour of a country affects seriously the security of its neighbours.

Political leadership is, therefore, still a rather primitive "juggling act", where the primary intention of the political leadership is to safeguard its positions against attack from within or from the outside. Attacks from within always lead to the temptation to secure a leadership position by oppressing every form of dissent. The need to muzzle critics leads, eventually, to physical harassment, detention, banning, or, even, the outright assassination of those who oppose the leadership in power. At least, in countries that do not have rigid Constitutional Guidelines guaranteeing the basic civil and human rights of their citizens, such a course of events seems nearly inevitable.

On the other hand, the prolonged bickering and strife between political activists, whenever a society tolerates a remarkable level of political diversity and personal freedoms, is often weakening such a society to the point of near paralysis and collapse. The road towards a democratization of political leadership is, therefore, not easy, because it becomes difficult to reconcile contradictory trends and factions within a society that allows a great deal of political freedom. Indeed, it seems, often, nearly impossible to govern such a society with democratic institutions.

Certainly, these bickering factions and belligerent attitudes between people and groups of people in a "democratic society", reveal, very clearly, the fallacy of the idea, that, the "society as a whole", as it happens to exist under a contemporary political leadership, is an entity that has grown by mutual consent and cooperation. Most, if not all societies are beset by deep divisions of mistrust, or, even, outright hatred between the various groupings. The lines of division may be along regional or ethnic lines, or, they may be a result of class-divisions between the rich and poor.

Often, both polarising mechanisms, ethnic diversity and economic disparity, play a significant role in the tensions of strife and conflict within the society over which the political leadership proclaims itself to be, so proudly, and without any hesitation, the "sovereign government", or the "sole, legitimate leadership". Indeed, every political leadership, as well as every reflective historian, has come to the conclusion, that a society, regardless, how homogeneous, will, eventually, decay into warring factions, unless held together by a measure of forceful persuasion. This decay starts immediately in the absence of a strong and decisive leadership.

Yet, every leadership that tries to give direction to a society and make decisions, has to go against the wishes of certain groups of people, and, often, when the interests of the various groupings have become mutually exclusive and completely irreconcilable, it becomes impossible to rule or govern effectively with the methods of common consent. Then, it will be unavoidable to impose a decision, forcefully, upon one or other segment of the population. Such a leadership will inevitably alienate a portion of the membership, and, if it is an elected type of political leadership, it runs the risk of being thrown-out of office at the next election.

On the other hand, a political leadership that tries to please everyone, is, nearly always, rudderless, confusing and vacillating, neglecting and aggravating problems that require urgent attention. Yet, such a leadership may win re-election, if the people are not sophisticated enough to see the need for some hard and painful decisions. Eventually, such a leadership is also thrown-out of office in disgust, and, rightly so, but we have to ask ourselves the question, under what circumstances a democratically elected government can work effectively, and, what sort of guidelines and regulations are necessary for the leadership, as well as the peoples of society, to make sure, that democratic leadership does not become paralysed by political strife and fruitless bickering, or the election of facile politicians who promise the moon to a gullible electorate.

Even, the best educated and most experienced societies still have great difficulties creating such an outline of effective Constitutional Rules and Regulations, and, we should not be surprised to see, that, most nations with litlle or no experience in democratic government, resort, time and again, to the use of military force, when trying to establish and maintain some sort of a political and social order. Dominance by force is so much more "natural" for human behaviour than dominance by persuasion and freely given consent, in spite of the fact, that we all have numerous examples at hand to show us the essential problems and short-comings associated with the practices of dominance by power alone.

Are there alternatives to the rule of the gun? Is it possible to re-define the "society as a whole", and, is it possible to solve, peacefully, the lingering tensions, injustices and frustrations that are a legacy of past conquests and defeats? Is it possible to make every citizen aware of the essence of society, and, can we make him or her willing to cooperate freely with a society that provides equal opportunities to all its members? Can we educate the people sufficiently, so that they will not use the power of their vote to create an unwieldy, fractional and bickering Parliament, with a variety of conflicting and opposing political Parties? Can we hope to formulate a uniform code of ethics for all peoples in the world, making it possible to govern societies effectively, without the need to oppress dissent by force?

Many people will find the implied optimism in these questions, rather naive, because they will point to the vast amount of historical evidence and say; "Every nation on earth has a history of wars, conquests and defeats. The only solid criterium for a "legitimate" leadership is its ability to rule effectively. Certainly, as peoples' ideas change, the leadership and its structures will slowly reflect these changes as well, but, if a society reverts back to weakness and chaos, (after an experiment with democratic rule and politicial pluralism has failed), then, most people are glad to welcome a powerful dictatorship that puts the country back to work. Most people have a lot to lose from unbridled chaos and anarchy, and, they are eager to accept a more dictatorial form of government in order to prevent chaos, even, if they agree, in theory, about the wisdom and desirabiliy of a democratically elected political leadership".

I agree with you, and, we can take this line of reasoning one step further. It seems quite correct to say, that, most people tend to accept the status-quo they find themselves in. Most people tend to accept the situation as they find it, when growing-up and becoming aware of their surroundings. Most people accept what their parents tell them about the relationships and circumstances in their social environment, and, they accept, by and large, the cultural interpretations, view-points and behavioural guidelines that are current in their social environment. People tend to accept authority as they find it, and, it seems to many people a rather abstruse excercise in historical research, or a somewhat esoteric excercise in moral thought, to question the validity, legitimacy or justice of the power relationships as they exist.

However, if we find ourselves heir to a culture that still remembers, vividly, how it used to be free, proud and independent, and, how the villain, the powers of today, destroyed this freedom and subjected us to their rule, then, we can not accept the status-quo "as is", and, we do not accept the cultural legacy of the recent past, because this rebellion against the status-quo is re-enforced by the memories of personal experiences. The incidences of discrimination, injustice and oppression become, then, a powerful factor in the orientation of our behaviour, and, we are likely to become a life-long rebel and opponent of the existing authorities.

Now, then, who is right? Are those people, who inherit a cultural legacy of recent and well remembered wrong-doings of their oppressors, right in resisting, with all means, the established order? They may argue, that the present status-quo and power-structure is obviously an injustice, because it is based upon a conquest, as well as upon the oppression of an ethnic grouping which does not consent to such a subjugation. If this is the argument, can they prove, then, that the status-quo of "justice in the past", as it is so fondly and fervently remembered, is not based, in turn, upon a similar conquest by their ethnic grouping?

The answer is always negative, because the "just society" of the past, whose culture we, as rebels, so fondly adhere to, was also the result of having displaced earlier inhabitants. History always shows a string of wars or feuds with tribes that opposed being dominated and conquered, and, our "just society" of the past consisted of territories that were conquered and inhabited by other people, who lived there, perhaps, for a long time, in the more distant past.

In essence, then, our defeat by a society that conquered us and dominates us, now, is not any different from the conquests "by us" of smaller or weaker societies that resisted our intrusion unto their territorries and their way of life. They resisted, in vain, being dominated by our forefathers, just as we resist, perhaps, also, in vain, being dominated by our present conquerors. It is a fallacy, therefore, to condemn the more recent conquest as an "outright injustice", while glorifying the "just past", because, invariably, the society that makes such claims, has been guilty, at one time or another, of similar conquests.

Where does this leave us? Does this mean, that we throw all arguments of legality and justice overboard, and, are we going back to the law of the jungle, where we acknowledge the right of the strongest powers? I do not think so, and, I do not believe, that we have to come to such a negative and gloomy conclusion, after we have argued the relative justice or injustice for any particular social, ethnic or territoral unit. These arguments show, merely, the fallacy of condemning an existing power-structure, while glorifying a previous power-structure that was more to our liking. These arguments are designed to make us reflect, soberly, about the questionable validity of any position or point of view. These arguments are also designed to show the fallacy of idolising our particular cultural or historic past, because it is so easy to interpret what is right and wrong, purely, from our own existential vantage-point.

I mean this; if we say, in essence, that the society of the past was the "just society", and, that the society that conquered us, is the "evil society", we are resting these judgements entirely upon the fact, that we belonged to the dominant or privileged segment of this "just society in the past", while we are now subjugated or second-class citizens in a larger social unit, by virtue of having been conquered by a stronger power.

Of course we resent this, but, let us not be surprised, then, to see, that, people, who now belong to the privileged segment of the present society, will also react strongly, if the status-quo of their privileged status and "their society" is changed or challenged.

As you can see, this is an excercise in the relativity of a judgement about good and evil, and, unless we see the validity of such a shifting system of reference, we will not be able to break through the vicious cycle of having to classify the people around us, as "friends and enemies". Let us, therefore, reject, categorically, the historical argument as a justification for considering a society an indivisible political unit. Neither can we justify, on historical grounds, the rebellion of a segment of the population against the prevailing authorities.

Yet, you will argue, rightly, that this historical argument is exactly what both sides use to justify their actions. The political leadership of the society as a whole, will, invariably, take as the basis for its authority, the fact, that this authority existed at the time it came to power, and, those, who oppose this authority, can always point-out, that this authority has been abused, at one time or another.

The overall political leadership, representing the "privileged segment of today", argues, that the status-quo should be taken as a starting point, and, that the past should be forgotten, but the under-privileged segments of society, be it a dominated or conquered ethnical grouping or an economically disadvantaged segment of society, will argue, primarily emotionally and subconsciously, that society, as it exists now, is not to their advantage. On the contrary, these under-privileged segments will feel exploited, and, they will come to the justifiable conclusion that they are better of without the existing social order. If the tensions and frustrations reach a boiling-point, they will embark on an all-out rebellion against the established authorities.

You may want to ask me the following question; if I reject, entirely, the historical argument as a basis for constructing and organising a society with less internal tensions, how, then, do I want to create a workable, harmonious society that can govern itself effectively, without running the risk of paralysing internal strife or the emergence of a dictatorial leadership? Indeed, this is a crucial question, and, it will have to be answered carefully, before we can even begin to discuss the requirements of successful political leadership.

We will first have to develop some ideas about the circumstances and factors that are necessary, before a group of diverse peoples with conflicting interests, are willing to cooperate with each other and live in relative harmony. If we can define the nature and the objectives of a social organisation reasonably accurately, we should also be able to define the requirements for maintaining a reasonably viable and successful social unit. We have to know, what developments will sour the relationships between people, and, we will also have to formulate a program of preventative measures that will keep a society healthy, harmonious and peaceful for prolonged periods of time.

If we know what a social environment needs, and, what individual people need, we will also know, what has to be done to solve the tensions and disparities between nations and regions over the entire globe.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

What makes people get along, and, what drives them apart?
A review of human developments.
Basic instincts of self-preservation surface, as soon as care and trust have been stifled.
Limitations of our biological heritage surface as soon as we try to design viable behaviour-patterns for the large-scale social entity.
Hierarchical stratification, and the problem of finding a "justified place" in the hierarchical order.
Loyalty and obediance in the healthy, naturally evolving grouping.
Mechanisms of "rough justice".
Qualities of natural leadership.
Essential transparence.
A short summary of small-scale social mechanisms.
Mechanisms that fortify or weaken the small-scale, social unit.

What determines, whether or not people get along together, and, what drives them apart into attitudes of suspicion and hostility? If we know and understand what is happening between a few people, we have a good foundation for understanding the mechanisms that play a role between the members of much larger groupings. However, we will see, that the problems for the leader or leadership of a small group of people, are quite different compared to the factors that play a role in the much larger societies, where entire sub-groupings, rather than individuals, jockey for a position in a social hierarchy.

It is important to remind ourselves, that we all are born as helpless infants, and, that we relied, completely, upon the care and protection given to us by our parents or guardians. If we had not received this basic care, we would not be alive today, but, many of us may remember a somewhat haphazard program of care and protection during childhood and adolescence, in particular, if we have grown-up in areas, where there was great gurmoil; in the slums of an affluent city, or, in the refugee-camps of a war-torn area, or, in any one of the many instances, where families are torn-apart by fighting, greed, sheer stupidity and blatant egocentricity, leaving children to grow-up more or less on their own.

Such a haphazard atmosphere tends to promote a high level of defensive instincts in these neglected children, who seek, intuitively, the best and easiest way to survive. Because there is no consistent parental guidance and virtually no transfer of ethical guidelines or other cultural influences from the larger society to these neglected and under-privileged youngsters, these children become "rats", lying and stealing, wherever they get-away with it. Their feelings of loyalty and friendship are reserved strictly for those, who live in the same conditions, while nearly everyone else is considered an outsider and an enemy.

These children learn, quickly, that no-one really cares about them, and, they can only survive and get what they want by stealing it from the people around them. Even so, the attitudes of hostility do not completely exclude all adults, because, in spite of the fact that these children have been grossly neglected, they have developed a few bonds with older people, here and there.

The point we want to make, is the fact, that the sphere of primary care and protection, as well as the later program of guidance and education, have been nearly completely absent in the unfolding of under-privileged and negleced children, and the basic instincts of self-preservation have been accentuated, but, also, strong, if primitive bonds of loyalty have sprung-up between peers who share the same difficulties.

This shows, that, even, in the absence of any signficant guidance from culturally or traditionally determined behaviour-patterns, the human being has a strong tendency to live and "work" within small groups, because it is the only way to have a chance to survive. Our biological heritage has, indeed, prepared us to live together in small groups, and, to consider everyone else as a potential enemy, because survival in a solitary existence has become nearly impossible, even, under the most favourable conditions of natural abundance.

Within such a small, natural grouping of socially integrated people, emotions and impulses play a dominant role in the relationships between the members, and, we note, also, how such a primitive grouping of neglected children, (or a tribe in the ancient past, when cultural guidelines had not been formed, as yet), has a strong tendency to settle into a stable "hierarchical order".

There is always a leader, and, there are a few dominant members, close to the leader, who may take-over some of the leadership functions. The entire group has become stratified into a hierarchical order, where everyone has his or her place. At the bottom of the hierarcical stratification are those who are weak, or, who are "new-comers" to the group. They will have to "earn" a place, and, they are, therefore, "tolerated" rather grudgingly.

Newcomers are often given an "initiation period", where they have to earn respect and acceptance by showing endurance and loyalty. These mechanisms occur naturally and spontaneously, and, they are certainly beyond the conscious awareness of the members, because the ability to think and reason clearly, has not been well developed in the absence of sophisticated cultural traditions. The members of a group of neglected children or adolescents live under harsh circumstances, where every day is a fight to find food and to stay alive. Such an atmosphere of neglect, indifference and violence, created by the adults around them, is not conducive to reflective thought or the development of refined behaviour-patterns.

The great advantage of such a natural hierarchical ordening in a small grouping lies in the fact, that disputes and conflicts are minimised. The most dominant member is acknowledged as the undisputed leader, because he or she has proven him- or herself, again and again, and the others feel, intuitively, that this leadership is beneficial to the entire group. If, for one reason or another, the leader disappears, dies, leaves, becomes too old, sick, or, begins to lack the qualities that are needed to make him or her a good leader for the group, he or she will be quickly challenged and replaced, just as in nature.

The relatively fluid relationships between individuals in such a small grouping are a great advantage, because the group is small enough for a clear hierarchical structure to be practical and functional, and, just as in nature, the "justification" for the occupation of a particular position in the hierarchical order is clear, and for everyone to see. The relationships are "transparent"; every position is "earned" and reflects natural capabilities; the ability to make a contribution, or, perhaps, just plain seniority. If some individuals gain in strength and ability, they will naturally "move through the ranks".

The existence of a hierarchical order, means, that "commands", given by those who are in a dominant position, will be followed without a trace of resentment, because it is "completely natural" to do so, and, at the same time, if a member gets into trouble, or is challenged by an outsider, the stronger, more dominant members of a healthy and natural small grouping will invariably come to the rescue.

Loyalty and obedience to the group and its leader, as well as the unwritten, largely sub-conscious guidelines for harmonious relationships blend with the attitudes of care and concern, which the responsibilities and privileges of a natural leadership position bring with them. Any break in this natural and unwritten code of ethics is severely punished and may lead to expulsion from the group, but the complete transparence in attitudes, feelings and decisions taking place between the members of such a natural grouping, provides a measure of stability and represents, in essence, the mechanisms of "rough justice".

The group will suffer severely, when a strong and dominant individual gains a leadership position without the necessary qualities of care and concern, because a poorly qualified leader begins to neglect the natural responsibilities that come with a position of leadership. Such an individal tends to become a whimsical tyrant, who relishes the excercise of his powers, without realising that a slow build-up of resentment and mistrust is taking place. The members are, then, becoming dimly aware of the fact, that the selfish capriciousness of their leader has become a danger and liability to the entire group.

An intelligent, flexible and viable leader will defend, not only, his group against threats and intrusions from the outside world, but, he or she will also explore, again, primarily intuitively, the possibilities given by the attitudes of cooperation and friendliness with strangers. While the intelligent leader is cautious in extending friendship, and will be on his guard for deceit, trickery or exploitation, he will also use the possibilities of advantage-taking and exploitation himself, especially, if it has been possible to gain a measure of trust and cooperation from an outsider.

Frequent contacts between leaders of different groupings may, eventually, lead to a measure of mutual understanding and respect, but this process is often painfully slow, as we can see, so clearly, on many occasions. The contacts between ordinary members lead much more quickly to mutual trust and understanding, and, we will see, later, why this is the case.

If there is a marked difference between the various groupings that are in contact with each other, there is a tendency for the weaker party to acknowledge submission to the stronger group, and, this is a fore-runner of the tendency for such groupings to merge. The weaker grouping has not much choice. It either integrates, or flees and seeks a new territory, whenever it comes into a situation of competitive strife with a much stronger grouping.

This is a short summary of the primary behavioural mechanisms that take place in a small, natural grouping, where "cultural" influences are minimal. We know, now, that the human being has been quite well prepared, by its evolutionary past, to function harmoniously in small groups, and, we know, that our biological heritage of intuitive and emotional behaviour-patterns makes it possible for such a small grouping to exist and survive under primitive conditions, virtually without any cultural guidelines. We have discussed the fact, that the quality of transparence in everything that is going-on, is essential for the maintenance of this natural sense of justice, where each individual feels, intuitively, that his or her role and position in the group is "justified".

Each member knows all the other members intimately. The peculiarities and idiosyncracies of each personality, as well as the justification of each member's hierarchical position, are well known, and, these positions are adjusted "naturally", if changes take place in the relationships or qualities of the members. Each member knows and can verify, intuitively, that everyone else is "playing by the same rules", and this "rough sense of justice" is acceptable and, even, satisfying to nearly everyone.

Besides, we should not forget, that the members of such a small grouping experience, almost every day, the need to stick together. This experience remains the strongest motivation to remain together as a group, and, any member who wants to go it alone can do so, but the lack of protection from, and cooperation with, the group is a strong deterrent to leaving the shelter and protection of the small social unit.

The small group functions reasonably well, because there is a clear existential advantage for the members to belong to the group, and, there is usually a possibility to leave the group or move through the ranks. The members are ordened into a hierarchical order reflecting, at all times, their strengths and abilities, as well as their prestige and respect, which has been built-up by past deeds and attitudes. This hierarchy is flexible and adjusts itself automatically, so that each member can "test" for himself the justification of the position he or she finds him- or herself in. The hierarchical order minimises disputes and fosters the possibilities for cooperation and coordination, leading to the efficient organisation of the entire group under the guidance of a beneficial leader.

Most important is the continuous transparence in attitudes and events within the small social grouping; the ability to know each other intimately, as well as the acceptance of mediation or the imposition of a settlement by the leader, whenever there is a dispute. Similarly, the viability of the group stands or falls with the qualities of the leader. If the leader is responsible, intelligent and flexible, his stream of decisions and guidance will lead to a harmonious, loyal and smoothly functioning unit that explores, intelligently and flexibly, a variety of contacts with people on the outside.

Such a leadership shows an intuitive sense of fairness in settling internal disputes; it accepts the responsibility to protect and guide the members, and, it receives, in turn, an attitude of loyalty. This sense of loyalty may reach extra-ordinary levels of intensity, and may reach the point, where the members risk, without hesitation, their lives for an admired and loved leader.

If the leadership comes into the hands of an egocentric bully, the results are literally disastrous. The members will become less loyal. Tensions build-up. There is bickering and a tendency to engage in secret deals. The unit ceases to function smoothly. The willingness to sacrifice for the good of the group disappears completely, and, the members begin to look for other ways to survive. This means, that the group tends to dissolve. We see, clearly, that poor leadership makes the group unviable, and, in the more flexible circumstances of the small and primitive grouping, poor leadership is quickly followed by the "death", or disappearance, of the small social unit, as the members seek, desperately, for a more viable and more trustworthy grouping or leadership.

If a group is blessed with an exceptionally wise, responsible, courageous and decisive leadership, the confidence of each member in his leader, his group, and himself, will increase enormously, and, this confidence is reflected in the daring, agile and quick-witted adaptative responses of the members, as well as the group as a whole. This high level of confidence may also lead to an attitude of trust and friendliness towards others. Outsiders are, not only, impressed by such an attitude of friendly trust, but, they have watched the group, already, for some time with a mixture of envy and admiration, and this makes them eager to join.

A healthy and flexible group under a gifted leadership has, therefore, a natural tendency to grow quickly in size and expand its numbers, but, with all the advantages that may come with a stronger and larger grouping, we see, also, a whole constellation of factors arise, showing us, clearly, that there are severe and nearly insurmountable limitations associated with the efficient management of a much larger grouping.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

What happens, if a social unit continues to get larger?
Problems with the hierarchical order.
Why disputes become more frequent.
A loss of transparence, and the tendency to form "sub-groupings".
Delegating leadership responsibilities; multi-individual leadership.
Ordinary people have no choice, but, to start building again, from scratch, after the devastations of warfare.
Solutions to social tensions; "the split"; a comparison with the mechanisms of cellular division.
Re-alignment around rival centers of power.
Evolutionary success, and the inevitability of rising population pressures.
Increasing difficulties for the processes of "social splitting".
Possibilities for clever opportunism and exploitation.
A contracted sphere of loyalty and friendship.
Man's success as a species, and the rise of competitive strife.
A review of the evolution of man's psychological characteristics.
The emergence of the larger societies with their diverging classes.
Combat, seen as a resolution of social tensions.
Possibilities for implementing the principles of justice.

What happens if the group gets larger and larger? First of all, a continuous influx of new members is confusing to the hierarchical order. In the beginning, every new-comer will dutifully take his or her position at the bottom of the social ladder, and, after an apropriate period of initiation and apprenticeship, the new member will integrate smoothly with the group. He or she becomes a full member and will gradually rise in the hierarchy, until one occupies a position that is commensurate with one's capabilities at that particular time.

If there are several new members coming into the group at the same time, or, shortly after each other, the newcomers tend to form a "sub-grouping", because they stick together and feel more at ease with each other, as they share the difficulties that are associated with an initiation period. Besides, a rapid accumulation of new hierarchical positions is confusing for the older and established members, as well as for the leadership.

We have seen, that, one of the requirements for a smoothly functioning hierarchical order, is the fact that each member knows his or her position in relation to the others, and, this implies, in essence, that each member of the group knows each of the others intimately, including their hierarchical positions and personal peculiarities.

The leadership also knows each member of the group intimately, and it uses this intuitive knowledge when intervening in disputes and settling conflicts. As the group grows larger, the hierarchical order becomes more complex. There are more and more happenings taking place simultaneously, and, it becomes increasingly likely, that some members remain virtual strangers for each other.

Disputes arise more frequently, and, hierarchical positions are "questioned" much more often, leading to frequent test-fights and an atmosphere of unrest. Tensions rise, the atmospere becomes clouded with suspicions and frictions, and, the leadership comes under a constant load of stress. These changes and complications in the relationships between the members of an enlarging grouping have profound consequences for the viability of this group, and these changes lie at the heart of the rapid transformations that take place in the leadership structure of the larger social units.

The members respond to the increased burdens of having to know each other intimately and feel comfortable with the group as a whole, by forming sub-groupings. Now, each member becomes again part of a much smaller unit, more like the original and natural size of a social organisation. Once again, the members can know everyone without any effort, and, this sub-group acquires its own hierarchy and leadership.

Initially, these sub-groupings blend smoothly within the larger social unit, and, the leadership of the sub-groupings, as well as the "internal organisation" or hierarchical ordening within these sub-groupings, remains subordinated to the overall hierarchical structuring of the larger grouping.

However, this trend towards the formation of sub-groupings leads to a number of important developments. A member identifies himself not anymore exclusively with the larger group as a whole, but, starts to identify, increasingly, with the specific sub-grouping he or she belongs to, and, this means, that members of other sub-groupings are becoming a little further removed from the sphere of familiarity and concern. The emergence of sub-groupings also leads to the likelyhood of rivalries between the sub-groupings, or, rather, between the members of different sub-groupings.

On the other hand, a clever and intelligent leader of the larger social unit sees possibilities in these developments, and, he has to make use of them in order to retain a grasp, or a measure of control, over the group as a whole. He will intuitively start to communicate, primarily, with the "leaders" of sub-groupings, and, he will delegate, increasingly, the responsibility of maintaining order and peace to them.

The major advantage of such a "delegation of responsibilities" lies in the fact, that it frees the overall leader from the necessity to know all the members intimately, or, to be familiar with all the events that are going-on, simultaneously, in the society at large. By delegating certain leadership functions and responsibilities to "deputees", we see the beginnings of a complex, multi-individual leadership arise.

Later, in the much larger societies, the complex demands upon leadership structures lead to the proliferation of bureaucratic institutions, trying to cope with these complexities, rivalries and the numerous contradictory trends that are inevitably associated with the larger and more complex societies.

Without a differentiation of the leadership structure from one individual to a large, multi-individual organisation of leadership, and, without an adequate organisation of "information gathering" and executive or "out-going command-channels", the tasks of governing large groupings would become quickly impossible. In spite of the proliferaton of leadership-structures, together with the many ingenious experiments of leaderships to facilitate their difficult tasks of keeping society a smoothly functioning and harmonious unit, we see, in the records of history, that these efforts have led, even, under the best of circumstances, to only temporary and limited periods of peace and prosperity.

Many examples of large-scale leadership have become, eventually, failures, and, they have led to a depressing succession of tyrannnical and oppressive leaderships, unending intrigues and political killings, wars and unimaginable suffering; yet, the ever resilient, ordinary people had no choice, but to start building again, from scratch, after the upheavals subsided, because, this was, and still is, the only way to survive.

However, we are running a little ahead of ourselves, because we like to trace, here, in more detail, what is happening, when a small, natural grouping becomes too large for comfort. We have seen, that such a natural grouping becomes a strain, not only, on the memory and adaptative capabilities of each member, including the leadership, but, the complex hierarchical order, the frequent disputes, as well as the rising tensions of conflict and mistrust, give the social grouping as a whole, an atmosphere of instability.

The most natural solution of this problem, is a split of the group into two, more or less equal groupings. Such a development solves all the problems, because now, each of the groupings returns to a more manageable size. The members and the leadership can know each other, again, intimately. Peace, tranquility and harmony return. However, this "solution" is only possible, if there is "enough room" to expand, and, here, we see, perhaps, the most basic reason for the existence of an expansionist drive in every healthy, growing and vigorous society.

When the species of man had just emerged and began to explore existence possibilities in a large number of small, natural groupings, a process of continuous expansion took place, because there was plenty of room to expand into. Man spread-out, slowly, over much of the earth, while living in small, natural groupings, and, the number of small, natural, nomadic groupings of human beings began to increase continuously.

We still see some of the same processes at work, if we look at the mechanisms of growth and decay of the "natural gangs" of youngsters and adolescents. These groupings tend to form, whenever a fairly large number of youngsters live, more or less neglected, and are left to survive according to their natural instincts. Here, too, we see that groups do not rise easily beyond a certain manageable size, and, it is clear, that, too large a grouping tends to split around rival centers of leadership. Certainly, temporary "alliances" are possible in times of extensive gang warfare, but, in essence, these small groupings remain autonomous and form only temporary, flexible, and, often, shifting bonds of cooperation.

We like to draw attention, for a moment, to the fact, that the splitting of a natural grouping which has become too large to be managed comfortably by a single leader or small leadership, resembles the process of a-sexual or mitotic cellular division, where a period of cellular affluence and growth initiates a program of cellular reproduction. We do not want to suggest, that cellular division is an "unregulated affair", like the falling-apart of a natural grouping that has become too large, but, perhaps, the pressures of competitive dispersion and re-alignment around rival centers of power, find a certain parallel in the mechanisms of cellular division.

Here, too, a large number of "physical factors" are at work, such as the competitive dispersion of similar and rival substances, as well as the natural tendency for biochemical substances to cluster around those regulators that control their actions and behaviour. There is also some evidence to suggest, that the actual division of a large cell is initiated by physical forces, rather than by genetically instructed, biochemical sequences. The separation of the genetic clusters and the elongation of the cell facilitate the cleavage of the cell into two, more or less equal parts.

After this aside, we want to come back to the many interesting phenomena we can see in the growth and break-up of the social groupings of human beings. As long as it is possible to solve the tensions of growth by division and dispersion, these mechanisms will be used, but, as the territories become scarcer and more difficult to live in, the resistance to such a "mitotic division" of the group will rise. Unoccupied territories become increasingly scarcer, because previous divisions of social entities have already led to the occupation of these areas.

There is, therefore, a continuous rise in the population pressures as a result of these enlarging and dividing groupings, and, there is also a tendency for smaller groups that have split-off, to penetrate into harsher territories, harsher climates, or, more dangerous and difficult regions. It all depends on the "balance of effort". It depends on the question, whether it is more difficult and dangerous to try to displace an already existing grouping, or, to expand into a territory that has not been occupied as yet, requiring harder work, as well as a more precarious way of life.

Looking back to the expansion of mankind, before the emergence of truly large groupings, or "civilisations", we can stafely state, that, the process of dividing a small, natural grouping would slowly become more difficult as the species of mankind increased steadily its population. Let us discuss the various adaptations that took place as a result of this slow build-up of population pressures, as well as the slowly increasing resistance to the methods of "group-splitting", which had always been the only definitive solution to the problems associated with the growth of a successful social entity.

If it becomes more difficult and hazardous to start a new grouping, it is logical, that, the immediate result of such a reluctance to "break-away", is an increased pressure upon the members by those who are dominant. If members are reluctant to break-away, it means, that they can be pressured and exploited to a far greater extent than was possible before, when it was still easy to break-away from the existing social unit.

Besides, the difficulties associated with a larger group will have to be tolerated to a much larger extent than before, because there is no easy solution, anymore, to the problem of rising population pressures. This chronically heightened tension within the social grouping accentuates the attitudes of "clever opportunism", within the limits of what is tolerated.

Indeed, a manipulatory pattern of behaviour emerges, where a small number of the members align themselves around the dominant elite. This "group" receives, then, special protection and favours in exchange for unswerving loyalty and services to the leaders and dominant members, especially, when these leaders have to "fight-off" a rebellion or an external challenge to their authority.

Attitudes and feelings of loyalty towards all members of the social unit disappear, and, the attitudes of loyalty and friendship "contract" to encompass, now, only a small sub-grouping of "trusted friends". The other members become potential enemies, and, they are only tolerated in the overall order of society, because the leadership and its "armed henchmen" have become powerful enough to occupy and maintain their privileged positions by force, and are able to keep the other sub-groupings in society "in their place".

The test-fights of before, in which hierarchical questions or disputes were quickly settled, rise in intensity, and, from an early stage in the development of the larger social grouping, these test-fights must have been replaced by a "fight to the death", or, the outright assassination of an opponent at an opportune moment.

If we look at the other flexible animal species' and their social behaviour, we see, that the practice of killing one's own kind or member of the group, is rare. Man seems, indeed, unusually vicious and violent. We have discussed the various reasons for this, and we know that this ferocity is partly explained by a reliance upon larger social units with the disappearance of the break-away. Survival depends, then, on the ability to "hold one's ground", and this encourages an attitude of ferocity and fearless courage; a fight to the death, because the alternative to a win is death, because the flight into another territory has become impossible. These evolutionary changes in the make-up of the human society also explain the fact, that man's success as a species, meant, that another man became man's most formidable enemy.

The increasing dependence on large game also favoured the attitudes of ferocity and fearless courage. They often spelled the difference between life and death, because the "easy game" had already been hunted to near extinction, and the large and populous groupings required a lot of food. The rapid rise in the level of intelligent manipulations and organisational skills, (as we see in the development of tools, weapons, language communications, and the ability to organise a group into an effective, offensive or defensive instrument), led, rapidly, to a situation, where man's most dangerous enemy was a rival grouping or tribe that had also developed these organisational and manipulative capabilities.

Big-game hunting, together with a state of nearly continuous warfare with neighbouring and competing tribes, accentuated a fierce and murderous instinct towards prey and competitor alike, but, at the same time, the complex requirements of parental care and guidance for the younger generations, as well as the prolonged vulnerability of the female members of the group, required a marked contrast in attitudes between man's enemies and those who fell within his "sphere of care and concern".

Since the larger groupings tended to fragment into smaller sub-groupings, which conformed more to the natural sphere of care and concern, we see, that, in essence, many members and groupings of the "main society" became silent enemies. Perhaps, they did not fully recognise each other as enemies, but, when suspicions and hostilities flared up, a ferocious and all-out conflict would easily erupt.

The "civil war" was born, far into the past, when man began to evolve into larger social groupings. This was the price that had to be paid for the fact, that man had become so successful. From now on, man was unable to live off the land in relative safety, while being organised into small, natural, nomadic groupings.

We have postulated, that the leadership of such a large, unmanageable, tension-ridden group, became easily defensive and was inclined to build-up an alliance with a "warrior class" in order to ensure its safety and impose order on an increasingly unwieldy social environment. However, the emergence of a special, privileged warrior class had profound consequences for the "sense of justice", because it destroyed, completely, the natural function and balance of a hierarchical order.

Those, who had been "passed by" and saw themselves demoted in the hierarchy, (because they were, perhaps, considered to be a threat to the leadership), felt, rightfully, that they had been treated "unjustly". They felt that their position was not in accordance with the status they could and did occupy in the hierarchical order on the basis of their own capabilities. Chronic resentment was the result of such disturbances in the natural hierarchical order, and, we have described, here, another major factor that led to social instability, rebellion and bloodshed in the larger societies of mankind.

If a geographical split between rival factions for the leadership position is not possible anymore, we see, that, eventually, a serious and all-out fight will result, and, the resolution of these tensions is not obtained, before one side has been completely or nearly completely eliminated. Certainly, the leading personalities of the defeated faction are likely to be killed, or, they will fight to the death, but, a few of the more peripheral and more flexible "followers" are likely to switch allegiance quickly, if they see, that their leadership is about to be defeated.

Let us remind ourselves, that such an all-out fight is a hazardous and energy consuming undertaking, and, it is only a "method of last resort". Therefore, the fight will often stop short of complete annihilation of the loser, who may flee before he is being killed and accepts, then, the difficult alternative to start somewhere else, from scratch. The loser may go into exile, waiting for an opportunity to renew the attack upon his rival. Therefore, a ruthless leadership fight extends, often, between rivals who are geographically far apart from each other, as each side employs the services of "proxies", or henchmen, to carry-on the fight.

It seems rather cynical to call these belligerent and violent mechanisms "adaptations" in the evolution of man's social units, but, they are in fact "solutions" to a situation of chronic conflict. Certainly, we are coming increasingly to the conclusion, that such a primitive method to solve the problems of competitive strife, is highly undesirable, because too many by-standers get hurt. This primitive solution is also unsatisfactory, because there are better ways to solve the problems of competitive strife in our modern times, and, we have come to realise, that the solution of warfare, when acted-out between large, rival groupings with an arsenal of sophisticated weapons and weapons of mass-destruction, will endanger the existence of us all.

Yet, when we look at history with a cool, detached and unemotional eye, we have to agree, that, time and again, the combat to the death was an effective solution, because it removed one side permanently from the scene, and, the conflict was, therefore, permanently defused. However, with our ever increasing awareness of the possibilities given by the principles of justice, we become, rightfully, dismayed and disgusted, if contemporary rival groupings in a situation of serious conflict, still opt for this primitive solution of all-out combat.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Resolving tensions by differentiation and inter-dependence, and the limitations associated with these mechanisms.
Cultural possibilities for task-differentiations, specialisations in function, and conditions of inter-dependence.
Cumulative energy requirements.
The "specialisation" of hierarchical differentiation.
"Cooling" the aggressive instincts of dominant members.
A sliding scale between loyalty and suspicion.
A brief review of basic psychological mechanisms.
Natural defense-mechanisms against opportunistic advantage-taking.
There is a "natural ethic" at work in the small-scale social groupings.
Mechanisms of hierarchical stratification.
The most unpleasant chores are given to those, who can not "pass the buck".
A blue-print for exploitation.
Relationships between unequal parties are governed by co-ercion.
An essential ingredient of social harmony; essential equality.

Let us now look at some of the other adaptative mechanisms that play a role in the ever-recurring problems of rising population pressures. There are, indeed, other solutions to the problems of competitive strife than all-out combat and the elimination of the loser. One of the most useful and powerful alternative solutions or adaptations is the "differentiation".

If two competitors start to diverge slightly in their requirements, or, if they "specialise" and concentrate their functions upon slightly different activities and objectives, the tensions of competitive strife are defused to a remarkable extent, and, these tensions may, eventually, be replaced with a measure of inter-dependence. Certainly, these developments are not always successful, and, there will always be some overlapping of basic needs and energy-requirements, but, the lowering of competitive tensions is indeed remarkable for those specialisations in function and behaviour that have found a measure of viability.

If two tribes are hunting for the same animals and gathering the same type of nuts and berries, it is logical, that they will have to regard each other as competitors. These tribes will easily slide into a territorial conflict that is likely to end with a large number of casualties on both sides. The survivors of the defeated group are, eventually, driven-off and flee to save their lives. If these tribes would be able to live from somewhat different foods, they could exist in a state of relatively "peaceful co-existence", because their needs and activities would not clash head-on. Unfortunately, such a differentiation in life-style, with diverging needs for food and energy are not possible for the human species, because man has already become "too flexible", and, a measure of competitive strife for the "easiest" food-stuffs or energy-sources will always come to the fore.

Nevertheless, the mechanisms of differentiation lie at the root of the splitting of a gene-pool into two different species', whenever different populations of a species begin to occupy different ecological niches. There are other forms of specialisation in function and differentiation between the members of a human social unit, which are more effective in alleviating the tensions of competitve strife. There has to be a beginning of mutual tolerance and understanding, before the adaptative mechanisms of task-differentiation and specialisation in function can become effective methods to reduce the tensions and frictions resulting from a situation of competitive strife.

The mechanisms of task-differentiation and specialisation in function play a crucial role in the growth of the larger social organisation. Such mechanisms are made possible by the hierarchical ordening of a the members of a social unit, and these mechanisms play an important role in the lessening of population pressures. However, we should not lose sight of the fact, that the mechanisms of differentiation and specialisation into different species', living in different ecological niches, are mechanisms that are genetically controled. These changes are associated with permanent physiological and anatomical differences, while the task-differentiations and specialisations of human beings are based upon the use of acquired skills, as well as a cultural transfer of knowledge and information.

The different skills and techniques associated with a cultural differentiation have been taught and learned, and, such mechanisms are, therefore, under the guidance of the cultural code, and, they are not associated with a permanent physiological and anatomical differentation. However, the mechanisms of differentiation are, in essence, the same, and, they serve a similar purpose; nl., to lessen the competitive tensions between similar or identical organisms with similar or identical requirements.

The process of specialisation into different ecological or social niches still requires a cumulative energy- or food-supply, because this energy requirement reflects the total number of living organisms involved. These cumulative energy requirements are met by a much more intensive harvesting of natural resources, as well as cultivated resources of food and energy, which is a characteristic of all the larger human societies.

Of course, there are other, less desirable adaptations to rising population pressures, such as the mechanisms of exploitation, or, even, outright predation, where one social grouping kills another and lives off the spoils of victory. If we enlarge the meaning of "predation" to its full biological definition, we see, that the human being, as a member of the animal kindgom, has no choice but to kill life in order to exist.

The mechanisms of predation and competitive strife, are different, at least, in their origins. Predation is one particular solution to the tensions of competitive strife, because an act of predation increases the source of an energy-supply and removes, at the same time, a competitor from the scene. We have discussed, on various occasions, the beginnings of predatory behaviour, and, we traced this solution all the way back to the competitive pressures between uni-cellular life-forms, prior to the emergence of multi-cellular organisms.

Let us concentrate, for a moment, on the various forms of task-differentiation and specialisation in function, which emerged in pre-human groupings, and, we will pay particular attention to the question, how such mechanisms contributed to an easing of the tensions of competitive strife. The first, and, perhaps, the most important and far-reaching differentiation that took place in the behaviour of pre-human animals, was the change from a strictly territorial behaviour, (where each adult male of the species stakes-out a territory that provides it with the basic necessities of life), to a form of hierarchical stratification, where the territories of a group of individuals begin to fuse.

The stronger and dominant members obtain, then, a much larger territory to "rule over", but, they protect, in return, the weaker and more submissive members from the full effects of competitive strife. The instinct of territoriality in the behaviour of the members of a species, represents, of course, the essence of the mechanisms of "competitive dispersion", which take place as a result of the existential pressures associated with the need to fulfill identical needs. These mechanisms have been discussed, before, and, we should not repeat them, here.

The process of hierarchical differentiation is, in essence, a form of "specialisation" in function, which depends upon a difference in behaviour and not necessarily on a difference in genetic anlage or skills. Nevertheless, the underlying differences in strength and personality are influenced by genetic differences. The process of hierarchical stratification gives the "average" and somewhat weaker members of the species a chance to survive, and, they may become quite "useful" to the dominant members by providing "help" or other "services" to them. Yet, the females are bred, primarily, by the dominant males, and, therefore, the off-spring is still centered, primarily, around the qualities and genetic contributions of the strongest members of the species.

The change from a "fight to the death", (when challenged by a stronger member of a species), to the ability to "submit" to the stronger individual and profit from his ability to protect against other challengers, is a very important and fundamental behavioural innovation. However, this change in attitude, which buys life, when there was almost certain death, is not made easily, and, it gives rise to chronic tensions and feelings of ambivalence. There is always the possibility, that the attitude of submissiveness disappears, and, that it is replaced by aggression and hostility, whenever a chance presents itself to the weaker members to get rid of a dominating tyrant.

Similarly, the aggressive instincts of the dominant members have been "cooled", at least, to some extent, by the act of submission of the weaker members, but, there is always the possibility that these aggressive instincts break loose, once again, and will be directed against those, who have submitted themselves. Therefore, a variable, whimsical mood of the dominating individual will keep a sense of uneasiness and "suspicion" alive between the members of a hierarchical order.

We see, then, that an easing of tensions is accomplished by a trend, where suspicions and suspended hostilities give-way to an ever greater degree of inter-dependence and mutual trust. How does this happen in nature, you ask? In nature, the attitudes of suspicion can change towards feelings of loyalty by the submissive partners, and feelings of concern or care on the part of the dominant individuals, provided, that the behaviour of the dominant members in a hierarchical grouping gravitates towards a pattern of parental care and concern for those who have submitted themselves.

We have fairly good reasons to call this trend an "instinct", because it is, in essence, the same drive nature sharpened into the behaviour of all members of the flexible species'; nl. the drive or instinct of parental concern.

We see, therefore, that animals can behave along two quite distinct lines of instinctive behaviour-patterns, but, we should recognise the fact, that, each individual can "flip", quite easily and frequently, between these two "behavioural tracks". These tracks, or instinctive drives, are the track of parental concern, elicited or evoked by an attitude of helplessness, trust, dependence and submission, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the track of egocentric concern for the self, leading to aggressive and exploitative practices. An emphasis on the egocentric track hampers the process of hierarchical integration, because it keeps the tensions of suspicion alive, but, an attitude that is based on an instinct of parental concern will be able to ease these tensions to a remarkable extent.

Certainly, a trusting, "parental" attitude by the dominant members towards those who have submitted to them, is potentially dangerous, because, in a fit of opportunistic aggression, the weaker members may kill the trusting leader, but, let us not forget, that the attitudes of care and concern are perceived by the weaker members as truly beneficial, and, this experience will stimulate, automatically, a strong instinctive behaviour of loyalty towards the leader and protector. The instincts of opportunistic aggression are, therefore, suppressed, as long as the group is small enough to let these mechanisms come fully to the fore.

We have spent some time on these mechanisms, because, in spite of the fact, that we have been discussing primary biological behaviour-patterns of an instinctive nature, which took shape long before we see the specific evolution of the human species, we can see the same mechanisms take place in each and every human grouping. The instinctive behavioural trends of loyalty and trust, on the one hand, and, the trends towards suspicion and opportunistic aggression or treachery, on the other, are clearly part of a biological behavioural axis, which the human species has inherited as an evolutionary package of instructions.

These mechanisms are all part of our "biological heritage". All these instinctive behavioural trends are quite strong and not easily influenced or subdued. Once a trend is gaining momentum into the direction of suspicion and hostility, a series of events takes place that fuel, rapidly, the feelings of distrust, while the trend towards harmony, loyalty and trust, are easily arrested, or interrupted, by an act of treachery or opportunistic and egocentric gain.

However, we should acknowledge, that the "primitive" or natural biological society has developed strong defense mechanisms against the disruptive trends of opportunistic advantage-taking. If tolerated, such attitudes would lead, quickly, to a total destruction of the atmosphere of trust and loyalty, which "cements" a viable social grouping, and, we can see, in our modern societies, how disastrous the consequences are, if, for one reason or another, such pernicious attitudes of egocentric opportunism and advantage-taking are allowed to persist.

In the small, homogeneous community, these attitudes are not allowed to persist. A "break" in the accepted norms of behaviour will create a strong reaction, and the offender is usually banned from the group. This means, almost invariably, death. We see, then, that there is a "natural ethic", even, in the pre-human social units. This "natural ethic" is the result of a blind and subconscious evolutionary search for a viable form of social behaviour and organisation. This trend is based on an activation of parental instincts, which may take place between members that are not necessarily related to each other, but, as we have outlined before, the origin of the social nucleus, arose, almost certainly, as a "family-unit", or a group with strong bonds of kinship.

Let us frankly acknowledge, that we do not know how hierarchical groupings came into being. We have only recently begun to understand some of the relationships that exist in animal groupings, and, we are developing some insights into the transitions that took place in the behaviour of such animals, when they changed from a behaviour of territoriality to a behaviour of hierarchical stratification.

We do not quite know, whether or not the accent of our interpretations should be on a "fusion" of territories between members who were, intuitively, seeking an alternative to the devastating processes of intense competitive strife. It may be, that we should interpret the origins of hierarchical stratification and social ordening as a "failure to separate", or, as a failure to complete the processes of competitive dispersion by members who were related to each other.

However, it seems quite reasonable to say, that the underlying mechanisms are based upon an evolutionary search for greater viability, and, they are, therefore, "behavioural adaptations", which occupied such an important place in the evolution of the behaviourally flexible species'.

From this most essential behavioural differentiation, where the members separate into leaders and followers, we see a large variety of further differentiations in function. Leaders need helpers, and, they also need the cooperation of the members to carry-out a number of tasks and chores, in order to ensure the safety and viability of the social unit as a whole. Therefore, in addition to biological differentiations in male and female, we see a genetically influenced differentiation in behaviour resulting from a hierarchical ordening of the members in a social unit.

In the non-flexible animal species', this differentiation in behaviour and function remains entirely under the control of genetic instructions, as we see in the organisation of many insect colonies, but, in the social groupings of the behaviourally flexible animals, the differentiation remains largely flexible, and, we see, therefore, no strong "inborn" trends to become either a leader or a follower.

Certainly, up-bringing and genetic background exert a strong influence, because the quality of up-bringing, as well as the likelyhood that potentials become well developed, are, of course, far more likely in offspring from "hierarchically highly placed" parents, compared to offspring from the "lower social strata". Let us not forget, that such mechanisms have been observed in animal as well as human social units.

If we shift our attention, now, entirely to the human societies, we see, that the differentiation of tasks and behaviour-patterns is very much linked to a hierarchical differentiation. In the larger societies, entire sub-groupings become ordened into a hierarchical stratification, and, we see, then, also, the emergence of class-divisions in society. Usually, a differentiation takes place into the priestly classes, the warriors and the peasants.

As always, those providing the most important basic necessities, are at the bottom of the hierarchical ladder, and, the reason for this is the simple fact, that the hardest and most unpleasant chores are "given" to those, who can not "pass the buck" anymore to the classes below them. They are, therefore, "stuck with the job". For this reason, the most back-breaking and least beneficial positions in society are ocupied by those, who have little or no say in society, and, they are often prisoners of war or imported slaves.

It is important to emphasise, here, that the mechanisms of task-differentiation and inter-dependence are, at least in the beginning, linked to a successful ordening of the group into a hierarchial order. The processes of "economic differentiation" are a much later development, and, they are based upon the very important innovation of an essential "hierarchical equality", as well as the freedom to carry-out a "voluntary exchange". As we have argued before, such a voluntary exchange of goods and services is only possible between people who are, in essence, equal to each other. A contact or exchange between "unequals" is dictated by the stronger party and can, therefore, not be called "voluntary".

The principles of modern, economic differentiations with their own hierarchical order, as well as the inevitable trend towards the destruction of this necessary ingredient of essential equality, are based upon a fundamental and consciously implemented innovation. This innovation is an ingenious solution to the problems associated with hierarchical stratification in the very large social groupings, and, this innovation will become the focus of our attention in the next chapter.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A "stroke of genius"; the principle of "essential equality".
A solution that suggested itself, time and again.
A "code of law" is, in essence, a tacit and pragmatic recognition of the principle of essential equality.
The rational acceptance of a contract of essential equality is a fragile flower of benevolent insight.
Many factors have a tendency to undermine the mechanisms of a social contract.
Mechanisms of social decay.
The role of all-pervasive transparence.
Why there is a need to scrupulously adhere to, and enforce, the terms of a contract of essential equality.
Constitutional Guidelines, and their far-reaching influence.
Short-comings of a Revolutionary Elite, even, if their ideals are based on a contract of essential equality.
The fragmenting influence of a divided populace.
Communism is too rigid, and Western Democracies are too chaotic and unstructured to function as a model for viable future societies.

We have touched upon many of the problems that come to the fore when a social grouping gets larger. The members have a difficult time knowing each other intimately, and, we have seen, that this knowledge is necessary before a hierarchical stratification can reflect, accurately, the relative capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of the members. What a stroke of genius was it, when a leader announced to his squabbling followers; "Look, from now on, I will treat you all the same, and, I expect you to treat each other as equals".

Certainly, this awareness would not arise so quickly or succinctly as has been stated here, but, time and again, harassed but successful and concerned leaderships must have come to the conclusion, that the settling of hierarchical disputes and the assignment of a hierarchical relationship between fighting members, was, in essence, a futile excercise and a waste of time. A harassed but successful leadership must have come to the conclusion, time and again, that the frequent hierarchical disputes were a severe burden and liability to the group as a whole. Time and again, the leaders must have felt, intuitively, that a true settlement within the larger community could only be made by declaring the existence of an essential equality between the disputing parties.

Already at the beginning of recorded history, when the growth of societies led, for a number of reasons, to the establishment of ever enlarging settlements, an elaborate and largely conscious "code of laws" must have sprung-up to make such a grouping a more viable unit. Certainly, "laws" are rather abstract generalisations, or statements of principle, and, we get the impression, that, initially, the process of judging a dispute relied, heavily, on precedents. Even now, the practice of law and the difficult task of interpreting a generalised principle of law, relies, heavily, upon precedents.

I am not a historian, nor a lawyer, and, I do not pretend to be an expert in either field. It is not my intention to trace the development of the principles of law, as we can study them in the documents of history. I only want to draw attention to the enormous significance of this "innovation"; the discovery of the possibility to settle a dispute by declaring the contestants to be in a position of essential equality, and, to extend this principle of equality to the equal treatment of all members of a social unit. After all, the application of a principle of law implies, at least tacitly, that all members exist in a status of "essential equality under the law".

Still, a certain stratification exists, because the leaders are, obviously, more powerful and influential than ordinary citizens, and, there is also a "lower" class of people; those, who are "new-comers", or, who have committed offenses against society. Or, new-comers may have been recently brought into the social environment as slaves or prisoners of war.

While the trends towards equal treatment under the law and a minimisation of hierarchical differences must have arisen, frequently, as a primarily intuitive solution to the problems of a complex and cumbersome hierarchical system, only, when the conscious mind of an intelligent leader was able to formulate the principles of equality as a succinct and verbalisable concept, do we see its real usefulness.

Only the rational concept of an essential equality under the law, or, under the leadership of society, provides a conscious, deliberate and acceptable alternative to the continuous search for the "appropriate hierarchical position". A human being is capable of accepting a conscious contract of equality under the law and equal treatment by the authorities, but, this acceptance is based on a fragile attitude of rationality, which can easily be destroyed, whenever the contract of essential equality has been broken, or, whenever people believe that it has been broken. Then, suspicions raise their head, and the strife for a competitive advantage resumes immediately.

In a way, the rise of special-interest groupings in our contemporary societies, the fight for privileges and improved wages or salaries, the search for a greater share of the "economic pie" and a more luxurious standard of living, are a powerful, emotional and primitive reaction of suspicion and anger against authorities and other, privileged segments of society. These privileged segments are perceived to have broken this contract of essential equality and fairness under the law.

When suspicions rise and the emotional turmoil becomes intense, the judgement of the people becomes emotional. Then, people are usually justified in concluding, that, somewhere along the line, corruption and egocentric advantage-taking by officials and privileged people have spoiled the relationships of trust, but, in their push for "reforms", demands easily escalate to a point, where the relationships of equality and justice between the various social groupings are torn-apart even further, adding more incidences of injustice than they solve.

The emotional and rebellious instinct of egocentric advantage-taking only breaks loose, after a prolonged build-up of frustration and anger, and, such a course of events is nearly always highly destructive and chaotic, creating horrors of injustice on their own. However, we have to acknowledge, that the storm-clouds for this rebellion were usually visible for a long time, and, that the failure to restore a measure of social justice and transparence by the authorities, was the immediate cause for a violent rebellion.

Why does it seem nearly impossible for a leadership to correct trends towards corruption and neglect, once they have begun? Why are so few leaderships capable of recognising the fundamental problems of their society, and, if they are able to recognise them, why have so few leaders the courage, or the power, to institute the necessary reforms?

We have answered these questions before, and, they have to do with the mechanisms of corruption and incompetence that beset the governments and bureaucratic institutions of every complex society. We will not pursue this line of thought, here, because we want to return to this epochal discovery of the possibility to organise a much larger grouping of human beings into a viable and smoothly functioning social unit, whenever the leadership is able to persuade the members to cooperate with each other, and with the leadership, on the basis of a "contract of essential equality".

Let us analyse, what this really means, because we can state, somewhat glibly, if correctly, that harmony between a much larger grouping depends on a conscious contract of essential equality between the members of a social entity, as well as the principle of "equal treatment under the law". However, let us examine, what sort of qualities are necessary before such a "contract" is possible, and, let us analyse, what is necessary to keep such a contract alive and well?

We will see, that the capabilities of intellectual comprehension by leaders and members alike, have to be far advanced. We know, now, that all members have to excercise a measure of control or self-discipline over their emotional and instinctive reactions, and, we see, also, that the leadership, as well as the members, have to acknowledge the need for a great deal of openness or transparence in everything that is going-on in society. Everyone has to be able to check, and see, whether or not everyone else is living-up to the contract, just as the member himself is making a genuine and honest effort to do so. In addition, there must be fair, effective and scrupulously impartial mechanisms of judgement and "law enforcement" to ensure, that those, who violate the contract of essential equality are quickly and efficiently brought to trial.

No justice is possible, and, no contract can endure, if the society loses the ability to seek-out rigorously, and without discrimination, all those, whose actions and intentions are harmful to the social contract, and, it is of the greatest importance that these mechanisms of judgement and law-enforcement are applied with scrupulous impartiality to all people, followers as well as leaders.

We all know, that this last condition is difficult to bring-about. How can we force a leadership, who has the power to decree the way society functions, to abide by the rules and regulations of a contract, in particular, when such rules and regulations, or their application, may harm their own existential interests? It is fairly easy to see, how a far-sighted leadership can persuade and impose upon its followers a set of laws or rules of conduct, and, certainly, many capable and natural leaders will intuitively acknowledge the need to give a good example and adhere scrupulously to the rules they have set for their people.

But, if there are conflicts of interest; if a leadership is coming under severe criticisms; if leaders are challenged or besieged, it is natural that they try to hold-on to their positions of power, and defend their status and privilege. The temptation to align with those who flatter, and, to act against those who criticise, is so natural and self-evident, that few people will see anything wrong with it, but, in essence, such a polarisation of the social environment between those who agree and those who disagree with the leadership, destroys the essence of the social contract.

If leaderships and bureaucracies start to discriminate in any way between those, who are considered to be loyal friends, and those, who are critics, the principle of equal treatment under the law has been broken. "What leadership does not discriminate between its friends and enemies?", you ask. What leadership will surround itself with people who are highly critical of its actions and decisions. Since governments and their bureaucracies have become major employers in many modern societies, they exert a powerful influence on employment, as well as the world of business enterprises, and it is logical, that, those, who speak-out openly and forcefully against a prevailing government or leadership, are always treated differently from those, who are "friends".

On the basis of Constitutional Guidelines, a leadership should be prohibited from persecuting their critics aggressively, but, we can not deny the fact, that any polarisation of opinion, for or against the leadership, has a tendency to undermine this principle of equal treatment under the law. Certainly, employment opportunities are less for those who disagree with a leadership in power, but, an effort is usually made, at least, in societies that have recognised the need to safeguard the rights of those who dissent with a prevailing power-structure, to separate the judiciary, (the body that deals with the judgement and punishment of criminal wrong-doings), from the executive leadership of a country.

This principle of separation between the judiciary and the political leadership, is essential, in spite of the fact, that a complete separation is not possible. The judiciary is, after all, an institution that depends for its funding, as well as for most of its appointments, on the government, and we see, therefore, that the judiciary tends to align itself with the prevailing power-structure, in particular, when "crimes against the State" have to be dealt with.

Now, we can appreciate, why it is so imprtant to have a generally agreed-upon set of explicit rules and regulations for society. This "Constitution" is, not only, more powerful and more authoritative than the arbitrary judgements of leaders or members of the judiciary, but, a Constitution should also spell-out the rules and regulations for criticising, challenging and replacing a leadership.

If such a generally accepted set of Constitutional rules and guidelines is not available, the succession to the seat of power will necessarily remain a rather chaotic and haphazard process, depending, in part, upon conventions and relationships with a predecessor, and, in part, scuccession will depend on contact with, and support from, the military, as well as the economic elite, or, "the rich".

On the other hand, a revolutionary elite can take power, whenever it is able to defeat the "reactionary forces of the right", but, the establishment of a revolutionary elite and a strict social dogma invariably alienates and frightens large segments of the population that did not belong to the most impoverished segments of society. Even, if the revolutionary ideology professes the ideals of a strict equality in opportunity and living standards for all, its lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions will, inevitably, alienate many people.

It is time for all of us, including members or supporters of a fervent revolutionary elite, to reflect upon the fact, that it is not possible to become the unassailable guardians of an absolute social dogma or the infallible executors of a lofty Socialist Ideal. The problem is, that such a revolutionay elite can only account to itself. As long as the ruling political party, e.g., a Communist Party, is dominated by integer, wise and far-sighted people, their rule will be beneficial for a large majority of the people, but, what happens, if the Party falls into the hands of an ignorant, younger generation? Infallibility is an extremely difficult dogma, which proved to be the un-doing of the unity of the Christian Church, but, the Socialist Dogma of infallibility can not even refer to a divine promise of support.

Regardless, what the virtues are of a strict Socialist Ideology, the rigid but well-meant objectives lead, in the long run, to a divisive alienation between the Party and the People. Certainly, many people, who are fervent believers in the righteousness and justice of the ethical and political ideals of strict Socialism, are, still, honest and good-willing citizens, but, their naive faith in the absolute validity of a social doctrine, coupled with their fear for a diversity of opinion and the inability to deal intellectually with dissent, is a serious and fundamental draw-back to their efforts to create a truly viable and just society.

Yet, many will argue, that a truly democratic input from a large number of divided and opposing factions in society, only leads to stagnation and chaos, and, that it makes effective government impossible. This is certainly true, especially, if the underlying causes of hostility, resentment and suspicion dividing a population into antagonistic factions, are allowed to persist and dominate. Indeed, one can not hope to govern by democratic means a completely fragmented group of people. The question is; do we unite the people first, by force, and, then, give them, gradually, very gradually, a measure of "self-determination", depending upon their "political maturity" and the maintenance of social order, or, do we "persuade" the people to become united by removing the causes of friction and strife; by providing exemplary leadership, and, by leading the people into a state of informed awareness about their civil responsibilities?

Most people will say, that the first method is the practical one, and, that the latter represents a hopelessly naive model that has no chance of success. If we look at history, carefully, and scrutinise, which leaders have made contributions to the viability of mankind, we come to the conclusion, that, the most viable leaderships always showed a mix of force and persuasion; of exemplary behaviour and strong idealism, but, also, of realism and the wisdom to know, that an ideology has to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

At the present time, it is my impression, that the social dogmas of Communism are too rigid to cope successfully with the many problems of relative affluence and prosperity that come to the fore, after a successul Revolution and a period of Communist Rule, but, the Western Democracies are too chaotic and unstructured to prevent a process of polarisation and decay into a rich, dominating elite, on the one hand, and a large majority of impoverished and ignorant people, on the other.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A combination of force and persuasion.
Tactics to unify a conglomerate social entity.
The more we have, the more "conservative" we become.
Sensitivity to the beauty of an ideal, when growing-up in a privileged, carefree environment.
Mechanisms that destroy trust and fan anxieties.
The need to curb egocentric and fearful behaviour-patterns.
Why are we against a condition of social transparence?
Transparence has to be a two-way street.
Transparence is an essential tool to maintain an attitude of trust.
The fallacy of the concept of "national security".
Preparing people for a position of leadership.
Hypocritical attitudes in inter-national relationships.
The behaviour of a complex social unit is, often, more primitive than that of its constituent members.
The need to have balanced information at our finger-tips.
Bureaucratic institutions; the central nervous system of society.
A mandate to govern is not a "blank cheque".
The civic responsibility to supervise social leaderships and their institutions.

Throughout history, leaders have used a combination of force and persuasion to unite an often diverse, unruly and arbitrary collection of peoples into a more or less viable and functional, political unit. Force was usually the "opening move" in their search for leadership and authority, and this force was, and still is, a combination of military power and shifting alliances. However, when the leadership had established itself, many rulers tried, genuinely, to be good and responsible leaders for their peoples; at least, for those, who did not oppose them.

The force of persuasion was used in a wide variety of efforts. There were attempts to elevate the level of education and awareness, but, until very recently, the educational effort was primarily religious in nature, and, it was used to enhance the prestige and legitimacy of the authorities of Church and State.

Often, people were united by being swept into a frenzy of communal hostility, or a "holy war", against a common enemy, and, we still see incredible examples of religious fanaticism and human sacrifice on the altars of warfare in our contemporary societies. Often, the foe was not so much an alien society, or a far-away Creed with strange and stringent demands, but, a group of "subversives", who dared to oppose the established power-structures or the prevailing social doctrines and religious beliefs.

The attention of the common people has frequently been side-tracked in an effort to make them forget their rightful grievances against the establishment, and, often, they have let themselves be goaded into communal hostilities against alleged subversives who were considered to be undermining the "national interest". It is still a favoured tactic for a beleaguered leadership to focus the aggression and hostilities of a frustrated populace upon their enemies, and, we see, therefore, even, in the more sophisticated and complex societies, a curious mixture of primitive emotions and instinctive drives, together with attempts to behave in a more rational manner.

The better a society has reached its goals and accomplished a measure of well-being for the great majority of its citizens, the more rational and understanding the atmosphere becomes, because a society that has a lot to lose, is, naturally, reluctant to pick a fight. We can state this generalised principle also in a different way. When people use their faculties of reason and insight, they become better informed and more confident. A position of security and confidence blunts the instincts of egocentric defensiveness, and, it may make people more sensitive to the plight of others.

Let us remind ourselves, that "the rich" may feel very insecure, too, and, they are likely to behave, therefore, extremely egocentrically. As a rule, the privileged classes do not contribute to the well-being of everyone in society, because their position of privilege depends, all too often, on the oppression or subjugation of the "lower classes".

Most people, who are reasonably secure, confident and informed, are sensitive to the beauty of the concept of a social contract of essential equality, as we see in the attractiveness of Socialist Ideals for young people who have grown-up in relatively privileged and sheltered conditions. However, this sensitivity for the beauty of the ideals of social justice and essential equality, is easily destroyed. Why? Primarily, because a period of relatively care-free adolescence in our affluent societies comes quickly to an end, and, it changes, then, into a rather intense, egocentric struggle for survival in a highly competitive jungle, whenever the need has arisen to "make a living". Many youths with a tendency to be idealistic Socialists become, unfortunately, egocentric and narrow-minded strugglers in the rat-race of adult life.

In the affluent West, we can make an ironic and tragic observation. In spite of all this affluence, there is a high level of frustration, insecurity and a wounded sense of justice amongst a great majority of people who have to struggle with never-ending anxieties and financial debts. We will not analyse the many reasons for this, because we have done so before, but, we want to emphasise the fact, that, security and tranquility foster a rational approach, as well as a willingness to engage in a "social contract", but, a chronic sense of frustration and insecurity makes people self-centered and oblivious to the problems of other people. In such a society, the behaviour of people gravitates, inevitably, to an emotional and primitive pattern, and, this destroys the remnants of this vague social contract of essential equality upon which much of the prosperity of Western affluence has been built.

Let us review, in a quick summary, the conditions, circumstances and developments that lead to a balanced, rational and trusting relationship between people and their leaderships, and, let us compare these conditions with the trends that foster a return to primitive egocentric and suspicious attitudes. We see, that the stimulation of the attitudes of parental care, loyalty and mutual trust are essential, but the much larger society develops these attitudes, only, after the "innovation", or break-through, of a social contract of essential equality. It becomes clear, that the ideals of the social contract have to include everyone, including the leaders, and, it is clear, that Constitutional Guidelines are necessary to regulate the behaviour of the people and their leaders. There has to be a genuine input from the people towards the election of leaders and the functions of society, and, there has to be a strict equality of treatment under the law for everyone.

There have to be channels of true accountability for the leadership, and, it has to be possible to prevent the emergence of a powerful, privileged elite, as well as erratic swings in the direction of social developments. In spite of the many and obvious difficulties, it has to remain possible to make sure, that, those in power adhere strictly to the letter and spirit of the law.

Until now, we do not seem to be able to prevent the emergence of a powerful elite that appropriates, eventually, a number of partially hidden privileges. These, apparently inevitable trends towards secrecy, corruption, the hiding of incompetence or honest mistakes, as well as the usurpation of powers and privileges for personal gain, are the main reasons for the process of alienation taking place between the people and their governments.

A periodic renewal of the leadership with the help of general, free and honest elections, with a measure of political choice, seems to be one powerful way to break this vicious cycle of inertia and corruption, but, the methods are still crude, and, the results are incomplete. Often, the bureaucracy is immune from such a political change, and, the elected leaders never get a real chance to oversee and streamline the bureaucratic channels they have to work with. On the other hand, if a new leadership brings-in a large number of "hand-picked" bureaucrats, we see, also, many possibilities for nepotism, incompetence and corruption.

The solution is, not so much, a periodic rotation of bureaucratic personnel, but, a trend towards transparence and efficiency in the complex bureaucracies of contemporary societies. Efficiency comes with transparence, because, if we can all scrutinise each other's work and form a judgement about each other's competence, then, there will be little opportunity or incentive to do a sloppy job, to shirk responsibilities, to cut corners, or, to take advantage of the position we occupy and the responsibilities we shoulder.

You may laugh at the idea of ever reaching such a high level of transparence in society, but, we should not be surprised to learn, that, technically, there are no serious obstacles any longer. Modern communications and computer techniques make it literally possible for each and everyone of us to listen-in to what is going-on around us. The main question is; do we want this? At the present time, many of us are too concerned with the rights of privacy and the possibility that modern listening devices and communications may be used against us.

However, if transparence hurts us, we have, by definition, something to hide, and, we are, then, engaged in something that is wrong, illegal, immoral, shameful, or, just a little dishonest. The only justification for secrecy may be the safeguarding of a certain "know-how" that is being used in a competitive struggle with other businesses, but, then, good patent-laws should be able to take care of such concerns.

We are still too pre-occupied with the specifics of our existence. We do not want everyone to know, how much money we make, what we own, how much we owe, how much we pay to others, and to whom we are indebted. We certainly do not want to live "under surveillance", where every move we make, the people we meet, the things we say, are recorded and scrutinised by government officials, or, by people who want to profit from this information. Such worries and attitudes are a sad commentary on the level of distrust that exists between people in our affluent societies.

Under the present circumstances, where most people and groupings live in a situation of distrust and competitiveness, transparence would indeed be abused, and, we would be at a disadvantage in the competitive struggle, in particular, if others could snoop upon us without our knowledge, and, without the reciprocal ability to look into the facts and circumstances of someone else, including the happenings and events taking place in a competing enterprise, a bureaucracy, or any form of leadership.

Transparence has to be a two-way street. Unfortunately, most of us react so emotionally to the idea of being watched and losing our privacy, that we fail to recognise the possibilities for social justice that come with a truly universal transparence in society.

Let us assume for a moment, that it is possible to increase the level of transparence, gradually, throughout society, and, let us assume, that we can concentrate, first of all, on a transparence in matters that concern us all. Let us assume, that we also have the ability to make sure that no-one can exploit information for egocentric purposes. Would such a transparence not be a fantastic way to oversee government dealings, leadership decisions, bureaucratic structures, as well as all other public affairs, financial transactions, including the behaviour-patterns of people, whose activities may be harmful to us, in one way or another?

We have discussed, many times, how important the concept of a social contract really is. This contract should describe a number of rights and obligations for everyone, in order to ensure, that everyone is treated equally; that everyone has the same opportunities and receives the same protection and treatment from the laws of society. This contract should spell-out certain basic rights and guarantees, but, such a contract is useless, if we have no way of ensuring that everyone lives-up to its terms. We will only be able to continue to trust society and believe in its essential fairness, including the promises of our leaders and their institutions, if we can verify, at any time, that leaders and bureaucracies, neighbours and business enterprises, are adhering to the terms of the social contract, and, that no-one is secretly exploiting the system.

Is there a better way to foster and maintain these essential attitudes of trust? We would quickly lose this attitude of trust, if we did not have the ability to check on everything that may be of importance and interest to us. If we have the privilege to scrutinise our neighbours and governments, and determine for ourselves, whether or not they live-up to their civil and official obligations, it is fair to expect, that our neighbours and govenments want to check-up on us, as well.

In order to have access to all sorts of information, we will have to be willing to provide, freely, all sorts of information about ourselves. If we think about it, clearly, we come to the conclusion, that it is really not such an awful price to sacrifice some of our privacy.

Why should we be concerned about letting "the world", or anyone interested, know, how much we earn, how we live, to whom we owe money or have obligations, what we own, whom our friends are, what, exactly, we do in life? Does it really matter, if everyone else has to disclose the same type of information? Does it really matter, if we can be sure, that, no-one can take an unscrupulous advantage of such information? How can we be sure, that nobody exploits us, you ask, and the answer is, simply, that transparence is, by itself, the most formidable weapon against it's own abuse.

Should we not know, exactly, what our leaders are planning? I think, that we should even have the right to know, what they are thinking and discussing amongst themselves. Why should they hide behind the concept of "national security" to keep a lot of things secret? Certainly, the level of transparence will have to be matched, at least, to a reasonable extent, by other societies. Peoples and societies all over the world should start a gradual but relentless program towards a greater degree of transparence in all social inter-actions and human affairs.

I agree, that this idea takes time to get used to, but, I am convinced, that, eventually, we will all agree, that this is the only road to travel, if we want to live in a state of peace and harmony. Many ambitious personalities, who gain access to power by persuasion, promises and fair elections, or, by the power of the gun, accentuate an unnecessary division between those, who are for or against them, and, by implication, for or against the national interest. These attitudes foster emotions of suspicion and hatred on a large, even, international scale, and, the underlying reasons for these divisive attitudes have to be clearly recognised.

We have to teach ambitious people, what their attitudes and role should be, before they have a chance to become leaders. People have to be prepared for a leadership position, before they are called-upon to care for a large nation.

The social contract of essential equality applies to all people, including leaders, because, in the future, we will understand, much better, that, all leaders, of each and every society, have to lead their peoples in accordance with a globally acceptable contract of social equality and universal transparence.

It is hypocritical for any nation or leadership that is proud of its democratic system, to accept and acknowledge a social leadership that has not been obtained by a mandate from its people. At the present time, most democratic leaderships do not even recognise the hypocrisy of their attitudes, because their concerns do not really extend beyond the borders of their own nation.

As long as it is possible to obtain resources and other benefits from these nations, nobody really cares, whether or not the leadership in another nation is truly in the interests of its own people. As long as the "behaviour" of these leaderships is "friendly" towards us, we will, not only, recognise them, but, we will actively support them in order to continue the neo-colonial benefits arising from such a cooperation, even, if it means, that we support a regime that is oppressive and unjust towards its own people.

We adhere to a false and hypocritical concept to justify this situation of gross injustice. This is the concept of "non-interference in the affairs of another nation", because another nation is considered "sovereign", and the people should "decide for themselves", how they want to be governed. Often, the people are poor, oppressed, illiterate, and, they do not even know that they are being exploited. Let us reflect, for a moment, on this concept of "non-interference". Do we really think, that we are not interfering in the affairs of another nation, if we support a regime that does not have the general support of its people?

By and large, political inter-actions in international affairs still reflect the law of the jungle, where each leadership seeks, egocentrically, what it can get, and, it will make alliances or support other regimes, as long as there is a benefit to be obtained.

Most leaderships are still so eager to send their citizens into the battle-fields, if the "national pride", or, rather, the pride of the national leaders, has been hurt. Even, the political leadership of an advanced and "civilised" nation is, often, so primitive and egocentric, that we have a long way to go, before we see a measure of truly ethical behaviour in the relationships between nations.

In contrast, such ethical behaviour is often present between individuals or small groupings. The reason, why the behaviour of a large group of people, or, the behaviour of the leaders of such a large group, is always much more primitive compared to the behaviour of a single individual, goes back to the fact, that the large society, considered, here, as a "single organism", is a far more primitive unit of behaviour, compared to the highly developed and coherent society of cells that constitutes the essence of our individual existence.

In order to make this tentative, poorly organised and barely surviving organism of the large social entity a more responsive, responsible and viable unit, we have to learn to create an adequate "central nervous system" for such large social organisations. Then, our leaders will have a better idea about what is going-on. They will have comprehensive and balanced information at their fingertips, and, they will be able to monitor, carefully, the effects of their decisions. Together with such enhanced behavioural capabilities of the leadership, we will also see a better awareness of the nature and purpose of overall political leadership.

It is useful to compare the leadership structure, together with its bureacratic channels, to the central nervous system of a living organism, and, we have explored this imagery before. Here, we want to emphasise the concept, that the behaviour of a leadership, as well as the formulation of its goals, or the nature of its existence, should not be a matter of chance; to be left to the discretion of the leadership that happens to be in power. Each one of us has to accept the responsibility to think about the requirements of beneficial social leadership, because it is becoming increasingly clear, that, competent and responsible leadership is only possible, if these leaders receive a precise mandate and clear instructions from the people and the social environment in which they have grown-up.

However, a mandate to lead is not a "blank cheque", where we, ordinary citizens, are relieved from the responsibility to be involved in government, after we have cast our vote. There should be a continuous contact and dialogue between the people and their leaders, ensuring, not only, that the leadership remains in contact with the people, but, providing also an opportunity for the leadership to excercise its influence; to teach the people the insights they have acquired from their experiences, and, to help the people reform, rethink and re-model, in a continous evolutionary process, the overall Constitutional Guidelines of society.

Just as the leadership is always tempted, once in power, to "go it alone", to make decisions, to utter statements, and, to issue policies on behalf of the people, without really consulting them or their elected representatives, so are the people inclined to leave the business of thinking, governing and making a decision, to a select few. Neither trend is healthy, and, either trend leads to serious difficulties in the long run.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A brief review of desirable leadership institutions.
Avoiding a dead-lock in social relationships by controling the mechanisms of suspicion and hostility.
Solving social tensions by listening carefully to grievances and correcting situations of injustice.
True cooperation is only possible between people in a position of essential equality.
Peace; a "frozen status-quo"?
Thinking clearly and honestly about the meaning of social justice.
A comparison with small-scale social attitudes and mechanisms.
Both sides always contribute to a dispute.
All leadership discussions should be carried-out in public.
A limit to the right to declare war and initiate hostilities.
The tool of exerting international pressures and sanctions.
Re-thinking the concepts of sovereignty and non-interference.
The question of "territorial integrity".

The political leadership of a nation should be elected by the people, either in a direct election, where the people vote for a number of candidates who are seeking a mandate to lead the nation as a whole, or, indirectly, through the election of delegates representing a number of political Parties. The leading political Party, or a coalition of political Parties, may then form a government, depending on the ability to obtain the support of a majority of the elected representatives in Parliament. I believe, that, either system is a viable form of elected leadership and popular representation, and, both systems have a number of advantages and disadvantages.

The main cause for failure amongst democratically elected governments is the lack of unity in purpose and perception, which stems from deep divisions amongst the population. If the nation is nothing more than a conglomerate of fragmented enclaves, political Parties, or ethnic groupings that are in a state of perpetual turmoil and conflict, short, perhaps, of open warfare, it is logical, that the elected representatives will reflect this divisive atmosphere. Under these conditions, a democratically elected leadership becomes paralysed and is unable to accomplish anything.

How are we going to avoid such a situation? Primarily, by reducing the causes for mutual hostility and suspicion, and, by teaching the people, that their future and survival lie in cooperation and not in fighting. Often, there are deep feelings of resentment beween antagonistic ethnic groupings, based upon gross injustices of the past. Perhaps, one segment of the population has been subjugated not so long ago, and, it is impossible for these people to accept the idea, that they should remain a part of the national or political entity.

Perhaps, a part of the population is poor and exploited, and, the power and privileges of an "upper crust" distorts the democratic process, because the power of money determines, so often, the chances of success during the electoral process. Logically, peace and cooperation are not possible until Constitutional Guidelines have come into effect, redressing the balance of powers and guaranteeing a truly democratic political leadership.

If serious attempts are made to solve, first, the many incidences of injustice, the grievances of many groupings against each other will diminish. If the practices of exploitation and domination are replaced by a truly effective application of the principles of justice and essential equality for all, individuals and groupings alike will find it possible to cooperate with each other.

True cooperation is only possible between equals, who have resolved the remaining tensions of hostility and suspicion, as well as the effects of previous acts of injustice. Then, reason and common-sense will prevail, and, I am convinced, that it is, then, possible to have even the most divergent groupings of people cooperate with each other. Then, contacts are possible across widely varying cultural codes and ethnic entities, as long as each party is convinced, that it is talking and communicating as an equal to someone else. As long as there are grave disparities, there will be injustices, and, there can be no trust and cooperation.

This is the reason, why there can be no cooperation between the rich and the poor. As long as leaderships and dominant elites exploit the people under them, there can be no solution to the problems of disparity. There will only be resentment and rebellion, and, democracy will not work.

Most people of good-will like to see, genuinely, a "Peace on Earth", but, they fail to understand, that the severity of existing disparities and injustices, means, that their wish merely represents a "peace", where the status-quo of a privileged position is frozen in their favour. As long as the privileged classes want "peace" by freezing an advantageous status-quo, they are deluding themselves, and, they are only unjust dreamers, who do not contribute one iota to solving the problems of social injustice.

As a matter of fact, these dreamers are contributing to a prolongation of the situation of injustice by blocking the forces that are trying to resolve, often by violent means, a situation of injustice. As long as we still accept, naively, that a position of privilege represents an absolute right or truth, we will not understand the meaning of peaceful co-existence under conditions of justice and essential equality.

We all share the responsibility to think, clearly and honestly, about the meaning of social justice. We have to ask ourselves, what sort of behaviour will be necessary to create and maintain a condition of social justice. For this reason, we have to teach our leaders, not only, the essence of being contributing and responsible citizens, but, we also have to give them clear guidelines how to behave. If they violate these guidelines, the right to lead society should be taken away from them.

As ordinary citizens and members of a family, we try to create an atmosphere of care and concern, but, also, of equality and transparence between the members of our family, and, we are perfectly justified to expect, that our national leaders will show exactly the same attitudes of care and concern, transparence and equality, towards their family of "the nation as a whole". If we can settle disputes with our neighbour in a peaceful and rational manner, by first trying to solve the dispute with a dialogue, and, if this proves impossible, by giving the dispute in the hands of a judge, we may expect our national leaders to do the same, when involved in international disputes.

We should make it perfectly clear to each and every political leadership candidate of every nation in the world, that, none of them has been given a mandate by their peoples to start a war. A political leadership should not be allowed to influence and manipulate the reporting of news. The temptation is too great for leaders to make their peoples believe, that the nation is an innocent victim of treacherous and unprovoked aggression. We, ordinary people, should know better. Every time we look, as an outsider, at a fight between people, we see, that a long series of events has led to a rapidly escalating attitude of resentment and suspicion. The accusations that fly back and forth are always partially true and partially false, and, every accusation represents only one side or one particular aspect of a situation of conflict.

Often, hostile propaganda distorts the truth to such an extent, that each side believes the other side to be entirely to blame for the dispute. We know better. We know, that both sides always contribute to a dispute. Certainly, one party may be more aggressive, or, it may try to exploit the weakness of an adversary, but, a thorough analysis of all the facts and events by an impartial outsider can produce a judgement, as well as a practical solution, that is rational and balanced. It may not be completely palatable to either side, but, in the long run, everyone should be able to agree, that the acceptance of a judicial settlement of a dispute is far preferable to an all-out armed confrontation, where each side will send its citizens into battle.

Whenever people are given a chance to digest balanced and soberly presented information about a conflict-situation in a calm and rational frame of mind, before attitudes have been hardened by a series of mutual hostilities, I am convinced, that no-one will opt for combat. After all, ordinary people will have to do the fighting, while the politicians and generals "direct the show" from their safe hiding places. Let us not be fooled by them any longer. We have been fooled long enough. Let us tell our leaders, clearly, in the form of explicit Constitutional Guidelines, that they are not allowed to engage in an act of hostility towards other countries, unless a two-thirds majority of the electorate has given them the power to do so, in a national referendum.

Political leaderships should not even have the power, or the right, to criticise another leadership or nation. If a critical stance or condemnation of the actions of another country is in order, it should again have the backing of a full two-thirds of the population, and, a complaint or critical stance should be referred, at the same time, to a competent forum able to initiate a process of international arbitration.

We should tell our leaders that disputes between nations have to be settled by judicial means, and, we should start to build a competent forum of international opinion to judge and settle disputes, even, if it remains difficult to enforce such settlements in an age of super-power rivalry and global spheres of influence.

All discussions between and within leaderships should be open, and, these discussions should be monitored by the news media. The news media should be able to analyse, carefully and objectively, all happenings and events, and, they should, of course, be completely independent from political pressures. However, these news-media should conform to carefully designed international standards of competence and objectivity, which have to be constitutionally enshrined, just like the duties of the judiciary and the functions of the political leadership itself.

If we say, that a political leadership is not allowed to declare wars, or, to engage in hostile acts of propaganda against another leadership or foreign nation, we do not mean to say, that political leaderships do not have the right, or, even, the obligation, to make sure, that each leadership is behaving according to international rules of conduct. Therefore, a leadership should not "tolerate", recognise, or deal with any leadership, unless it has a proper mandate from its own people.

Just as each citizen has a duty to report, if one is aware of practices of fraud or exploitation, so does each national leadership have the duty to report to the international community, if it is aware of violations in the accepted standards of behaviour by another leadership.

Does this mean that we are looking forward towards a standard global Constitution? Certainly, this is the ultimate goal, and, every leadership with a proper mandate from its people has a duty to engage in a continuous dialogue with its people to see, what the people think about such a Constitution. These leaderships should discuss the various Constitutional Proposals with each other in an international forum, and, they have to look for a common framework of ideas and guidelines, which could be acceptable to everyone.

Such a common Constitutional Framework will be impossible as long as there are great disparities, and, so many leaderships do not even have a true popular mandate for the powers they excercise. Once a great majority of the leaders have an acceptable popular mandate and agree about a basic Constitutional Framework, the other nations should be "persuaded", by international pressures, to enter into a serious dialogue about accepting such a package of Constitutional Guidelines for their own societies.

While we should be careful to avoid dictating to other societies a specific Constitutional Code, I feel, that we are perfectly justified in pressuring all leaderships to have, at least, a fair mandate from their people. Once all nations on earth have a good and honest dialogue going between the people and their leaders, we have already made a giant step towards solving the apparently intractable problems of disparity and social injustice.

Let us forget about the simplistic arguments of the privileged, who say; "We have worked hard for our possessions and affluence. Let others also work hard for the realisation of their material goals". I assure you, that there is no "harder work" than trying to survive in conditions of abject poverty, and, anyone who fails to believe this, should expose him- or herself to the living conditions of the poor, and judge for him- or herself.

It is obvious, that our contemporary concepts of "sovereignty" and "non-interference in the affairs of other nations", are ideas that will require a significant modification. Our present concepts are, by and large, shallow, and they are used and abused by political leaderships. The idea of absolute national sovereignty is, often, abused to give vent to anxieties and angry feelings, whenever leaders feel threatened in their pride or security, or, it is used as an excuse to do nothing when a "friendly government" is engaged in a power-struggle with its own people.

Under the guise of infringement upon territorial sovereignty, national leaders wage wars and send their citizens to the battle-fields. For what? Often, just to sooth a wounded pride. The idea of non-interference is largely used to shirk the responsibilities of taking a stand against a leadership that does not have a proper mandate from its own people, and is soliciting the support of powerful leaderships of other nations by acting in their interests. The end-result is, often, a gigantic exploitation of the peoples in poorer and under-developed countries, where a corrupt leadership reaps all the benefits. To maintain their positions of advantage and privilege, they often have to resort to a brutal suppression of all opposition and criticisms.

Let us take a sober look at the idea of absolute national sovereignty and the practice of non-interference in each other's affairs. You and I, as citizens of a nation, are we entirely sovereign? Can we do as we please and cry "sovereignty", or, "interference", every time someone else criticises us for our selfish and rude behaviour? Of course not. If we see one of our neighbours mistreat his children, are we going to adopt the attitude, that "we should not interfere in his affairs"? Of course not, because such an attitude is unethical, and, it would rightly be called a case of criminal negligence or criminal disregard for civil duties and responsibilities.

If we do interfere, we do so, entirely, because we feel, that someone else's rights are being abused, and, we do not interfere with the objective to gain a personal advantage. If we do, we are guilty of a crime, and, we should be severely reprimanded for trying to abuse the weakness and vulnerability of someone else.

Exactly the same attitudes should prevail in international contacts, and, if we teach and train our future leaders properly; if we select them carefully and weed-out those, whose prime motivation for seeking a position of leadership is a lust for power, and, if we have a set of clear guidelines for our political leaders, then, we can look with less anxiety at the behaviour of powerful national leaderships.

You may ask me, whether or not "territorial integrity" should be an inalienable right of a nation. Is a leadership justified to respond with anger and belligerence, whenever its territorial integrity or sovereignty are being challenged? In answer, I would like to remind you of the haphazard historical events of conquest and defeat, as well as the arbitrary status-quo of a nation that happens to be "recognised" as an independent unit, at a particular time. Any nation contains significant elements in its population that have been oppressed, conquered or exploitated, at one time or another. If a nation happens to exist, largely, by virtue of economic or military dominance, why should we consider such a nation as a legitimate territorial or national entity?

Unfortunately, the question of "territorial integrity" appeals to the most basic and strongly possessive instincts of leaders and citizens alike, and, we see, invariably, that many people are willing to sacrifice everything, including the lives of thousands of their country-men, whenever leaders, and the people, think, that the rights and pride of the nation have been trampled upon.

We have to tell and teach our leaders that they have no right to "appropriate" the territory that happens to fall under their jurisdiction, nor have citizens a right to advocate belligerent actions and attitudes of hostility, when existing territorial boundaries of the national entity are being questioned or challenged.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A discussion of territorial integrity and national boundaries.
A plea for large-scale national and territorial adjustments.
Abandoning the concept of claiming national or regional property rights over natural resources.
Those, who are successful have worked hard, but, the poor work even harder, just to survive.
We, the people, have to encourage the process of leadership integration by encouraging the principles and implementation of "global federalism".
Learning from common-sense examples.
Learning to distinguish between what we need, and, what we would like to have.
A frugal society, with an accent upon social justice.
Learning to manage economic affairs on a national and international scale.
A shift in basic motivations.
The entrapment of affluence.
Functions and requirements for future Constitutional Guidelines.
The inability to pay-off, or write-off, the debts of pollution and environmental deterioration.
We have a lot less to be proud of than we think.

National boundaries should never be considered immutable or unquestionable entities, because the vagaries of fortune and misfortune make a mockery of every legal argument. The other reason for disregarding the sanctity of national boundaries, is the fact, that the trends of future viability point towards an ever-increasing level of national inter-dependence, including the blurring of national boundaries in favour of large, federated Regions, integrating the members of mankind into a global society.

Territorial boundaries may have to change radically in order to re-dress long-standing grievances and injustices. For example, people, who belong culturally and linguistically to the same ethnic grouping, may have become scattered and divided between competing or warring neighbours. If there are still significant remnants of these people living in a particular area, these peoples should have the right, as well as the opportunity, to establish a national entity that includes the territories they occupy.

Many national boundaries are awkward and arbitrary, and, a broadly based referendum should be held in all territories and ethnic groupings, which have become divided over different political or national entities. As a rule, the belligerent and vocal national leaderships reject such notions of ethnic self-rule as outright subversive, as well as a betrayal of the unquestioned sanctity of their national integrity. Some nations have such a mixture of culturally and ethnically diverse groupings, that there is a good argument for breaking-up these nations into a series of smaller political entities that are racially, culturally and ethnically more homogeneous. Of course, every national political leadership will reject such suggestions fiercely, because it feels threatened, and, no leadership likes to see its position abolished or diminished in importance. Let us not forget, however, that ordinary people give the mandate of leadership to their leaders, and, if the people want to, they can also remove this mandate and declare, that the make-up of a national entity should be changed.

We see, then, on the one hand, a tendency for national entities to become fuzzy, and, a number of them should indeed fuse, break-up or re-constitute into a different pattern, in order to ease the tensions of injustice, past conquests, and current patterns of domination. At the same time, all regions, newly formed nations, and other social units, should develop towards a true world-federation, because the principles of justice and equality for all require, that the terrestial resources, as well as the environmental chores, will become a matter of joint ownership and shared responsibilities.

We should abandon the notion, that, we, as a group or a nation, have absolute property rights in and over the region we have established ourselves in. We have to relinquish the strong tendency to adhere communally to our territories, and, we should adopt an attitude of sharing resources and responsibilities on a global scale.

Certainly, things we have built-up, a farm, a homestead, or a house, as well as all artifacts that have taken a considerable effort to build or acquire, are much more rightly claimed as "the property" of an individual or a group, but, even, then, the principles of a world-wide social contract of equality will pressure us to share what we have, regardless, how hard we, or our forefathers, have worked for our property. As we mentioned, we should never forget, that those, who have survived severe poverty and deprivation, have slaved even harder, just to stay alive. They have suffered much more, often, through no fault of their own, but, merely, because of the misfortune to have been born into poverty.

We do not advocate, that the poor, once they have organised themselves and become powerful, should take, by force, from those, who have more. Such attitudes and practices only contribute to a new set of unjust circumstances, and, besides, they excite justified anxieties and a powerful resistance in those, who are fearful of losing everything they have worked for. We can not blame them, then, for defending themselves, and revolutionary impatience is, therefore, rarely a satisfactory or efficient method for just change.

We should persistently work for changes towards a greater degree of social justice, but, at the same time, we should not forget, that, those, who are chronically hungry, or live under severe tensions of injustice, do not have an inexhaustible amount of time and patience.

The real answer to the problems of unjust circumstances is, of course, to recognise them well before they reach a crisis point; to recognise them, and start doing something about them, well before we are forced to do so. This point seems to be lost on most leaderships, as well as most people, because it is so tempting to sit back, relax and do nothing, until we are forced to react to a crisis.

We have to recognise, much more clearly, that "management by crisis" is an extremely poor, primitive and inefficient way to deal with problems, and, we have to enshrine in our Constitutional Guidelines the obligation to make a serious attempt, at all times, to anticipate the major trouble spots or areas of friction within a social entity. Genuine and serious efforts have to be made on an on-going basis, in order to solve problems, before they erupt into violent confrontations.

Is it really so strange to question and challenge the concepts of absolute and inalienable territorial integrity and sovereignty? Look at our social "sub-structures". We all live, without any difficulties, with the fact, that municipal and provincial authorities do not have absolute jurisdiction over their territories, and, most of us would be highly up-set, if these leaderships would behave as if they had an absolute jurisdiction over their territories. We would rightly say to them; "You are overstepping the boundaries of your mandate. If you do not behave, we will remove you from office".

We should learn to look at our national leaderships with the same attitudes. We, the people, should transfer, gradually, the jurisdiction over our national territories to a "world-body" of public opinion, and, we should tell our national leaders to become concerned and civilised "world citizens". Just as we do not want to be told by municipal or provincial governments, that we can not cross this or that boundary within the confines of our nation, so should we, citizens of one world, pressure our national leaderships to start fusing into large, federated entities or Regions.

We should instruct them to begin serious work on a program to reduce disparity and injustice. We, who live in the pivileged and affluent sectors of the world, should recognise, that such a change towards real global justice and essential equality is going to require a significant change in our attitudes and life-style. Gone are the days, that we could dream of ever-rising expectations of material luxuries, and, that we could consume ever more goods and services. Just as a family is careful not to waste its supplies, whenever it sees a lean period or a harsh winter coming, so do we have to recognise the severe limitations in foods, resources, energy and other items, when we consider the needs of mankind on a global scale. We have to accept the principle, that the peoples of the world have a right to obtain a basic minimum standard of living in food, health, education and access to basic rights, as well as dignified treatment under the laws of society, before we, who are more privileged, can consume at a somewhat higher level of affluence.

We have to recognise, that an affluent life-style under current conditions of disparity, as well as the tendency to stimulate "the economy" in order to solve social tensions, are, in essence, aggravating an unjust situation of major disparities between the various segments of mankind. If we fail to recognise this, we are not going to make any progress towards a truly acceptable way of life all over the globe.

All our gestures of good-will, all our good intentions and expressions of concern about the peoples of the world and the future of human existence, are in vain, if they are not based upon a truly meaningful effort to reduce and eliminate the desperate disparities of poverty, ignorance and unhealthy living conditions.

Let us face-up, squarely, to the real problems that face us, whenever we look at the conditions of mankind on a global scale, and, let us recognise, that, any attempt to hold-on to a position of privilege is an injustice that is bound to end in warfare and devastation.

It is about time, that we learn to make a clear distinction between what we need to survive in a state of health, and, what we would like to have to make life more enjoyable. Our first objective should be to make sure, that everyone has, at least, a chance to enjoy the basic necessities of life, and, then, we consider what is left over, and, we will carefully consider the question, whether or not it is prudent to give ourselves a few luxuries.

Certainly, what are basic necessities and what are luxuries, will be subjects for a long debate, and, we will shift our priorities and view-points as we change the perception of the realities around us. Included in the definition of "basic necessities" will be a minimum standard of education and access to essential information. If everyone shares in a condition of informed well-being, we may lose this obsession to consume and acquire "luxuries".

In a frugal society, the accent of concern will be upon conditions of social justice. There will be no room for the wasteful consequences of unbridled free-enterprise. If you are the owner of a farm, are you going to tell your children, that, each one of them has to fulfill his or her duties, or, are you going to let them do whatever they like? Certainly, if they have good ideas, you are going to listen to them, and, ideally, the plans for the management of the family-farm come-about as a result of open and frank discussions between you and your children. In this way, everyone can experience the fairness and usefulness of the tasks one has been given.

It should be the same in the societies of the future, but, let us add, here, that governments and leaderships should not lightly take-over the tasks of managing a country and all its economic mechanisms, without first equipping themselves with the knowledge and expertise to do it well and efficiently.

We need, first, this essential central nervous system of communication networks and computerised centra for the gathering and processing of data, as well as the distribution of all sorts of information, before governments and their bureaucracies can be competent and know the consequences of what they are doing. Eventually, when extensive, world-wide networks of communication and the exchange of information have become a reality, we will see a globally managed and expertly directed world economy.

It is true, that our ability to explore ways of doing things on one's own initiative, is a powerful stimulus to innovation and progress, and, these factors have laid the basis for most human achievements, so far, but we should be able to recognise the fact, that the costs of such an individualistic approach to innovative behaviour are getting increasingly higher. The costs manifest themselves, not only, in the practice of consumerism, or the manufacture of many unnecessary products, but, we will also recognise, in retrospect, that the mechanisms of a competitive, free-enterprise philosophy, are, in essence, detrimental to the requirements of social integration. They are detrimental, primarily, as a result of the inevitable tendency to polarisation between the rich and the poor, or the successful and less successful, which comes with too large a measure of freedom in enterprising activities. In addition, the costs in resource depletion, pollution problems and unnecessary disparities have become intolerable, and, we can trace these problems and developments to the enterprising spirit of the individual, who sees an opportunity to "make money".

The incentive to work has to shift from an egocentric orientation with the lure of gaining personal wealth or privileges, to a more idealistic and socially oriented attitude, where insight and knowledge encourage the individual to cooperate with others; to be careful and frugal, and, to be willing to work hard and solve problems. We are becoming increasingly aware of the fact, that we have to behave in this way in order to survive.

These ideas may sound fantastic and utopian to anyone who has grown-up in the tacit assumptions of an affluent and competitive "free-enterprise" society, but, everyone should be able to recognise from experiences with a competitive team-sport, or, the efforts needed to cope with an emergency situation, that survival is a powerful and effective incentive to start working together.

The incentive of competitive free-enterprise was a useful "luxury" that could be tolerated under special circumstances. Those circumstances of nearly unlimited territorial or economic expansion have disappeared, and, we see, that the consequences of unbridled free-enterprise activities are always leading to a detrimental polarisation of the population in social entities that lack the possibilities for further economic or territorial expansion.

We have to acknowledge, that, a sudden, catastrophic devastation of human life is now a distinct possibility, whenever an unstable elite in a position of power, initiates, willingly or unwillingly, the nuclear holocaust. Perhaps, we have to have a "taste" of it, now and then, in the form of an accidental detonation of a nuclear war-head, an attack of nuclear terrorism, or the gigantic environmental contamination caused by an exploding nuclear power-reactor. We need such events to remind us about the reality, that man and his world are fragile structures, indeed.

We will not pursue, here, the images of a nuclear holocaust. Let us go back to the safeguards we can put into effect by regulating, carefully, the behaviour of our leaders, and, by making sure, that we all, citizens and leaders alike, learn enough about ourselves and our environment to realise the dangers we face.

It is sad to see the waste and ignorance in our affluent societies. In the midst of useless and unnecessary luxuries, most people live a life of chronic entrapment, because they have been lured by a generation of pernicious advertising to spend everything they earn, and, besides, they are deeply in debt. A large part of their income goes to paying-off these debts and their interest charges, and, we see the scandalous situation, where people in the affluent societies complain that they can not make ends meet with a weakly or monthly income that would buy a citizen in a less privileged country, a year of heavenly freedom from want.

Indeed, many people in the affluent societies, especially, in the cities, live as prisoners. They are enslaved to their creditors, and, their days go by in a monotony of chronic frustration and resentment. Yet, in the back of their minds, they know, that it is their own fault that they have been trapped, because they have let themselves be lured by the constant pressures of advertisement and consumerist propaganda.

Future societies will have recognised the dangers of continuously rising expectations, the falsehoods of advertising, and the needs of hungry, Capitalist enterprises. Yet, we see, that the appeal to basic instincts is so strong, that most lesser developed nations, including those living already with a strict Socialist Doctrine of essential equality, still fall prey to the glamour of consumerist entrapments.

Of course, these trends are understandable. If one member of a family has everything, and, if the others can only gawk and gaze in amazement and envy at the glamorous goodies of the "rich uncle", it is natural, that they want these goodies, too. Only, if everyone has the same, or, nearly the same standard of living, and, only, if disparities are rigorously controled and prevented from developing, will it be possible to live in a peaceful atmosphere of contentment and happiness, in spite of frugal, or, even, harsh conditions.

The Constitutional Guidelines of future societies will have to regulate, very carefully, the tolerable spread in living conditions between people within a nation or region, as well as between the various regions themselves. Capitalism, as we know it today, will have disappeared, but, we still have to safeguard against the burdens of borrowing. It should not be necessary for people, or societies, to borrow large sums of money for which they will have to enslave themselves for years to come. Neither is it fair to default on a loan, or to encourage an inflationary devaluation of a currency, because the lender will be robbed of his assets or earnings.

We should recognise, clearly, the long-term consequences of borrowing large sums of money and paying interest-charges. This is the reason, why Constitutional Guidelines of the future societies will curtail, drastically, the practice of large-scale borrowings, for the individual as well as for society as a whole. It will not be possible, anymore, for leaderships and governments to borrow and borrow, and, leave their successors and the following generations with the burdens of unpaid debts. The limit of an individual's debt, as well as a nation's debt, should, probably, be set at half a year's income.

The debts of pollution, of damage to the environment, and, in particular, the unsolved technical problems of disposing nuclear waste and other, highly toxic substances, are an unfair and irresponsible burden upon future generations. It is unfair, and irresponsible, to saddle them with a problem we have no solution for ourselves. Such a practice should be considered illegal and a crime. I am convinced, that, future generations will consider our present practices and attitudes as criminal. We are still adding to the burdens of unsolved problems, and, we have not even begun to acknowledge the real extent of the problems we have already created; burdens and problems, future generations will have to face.

While future generations may consider us criminally ignorant and selfish, they will probably understand us better than we understand ourselves, today, and, they may smile a rather rueful smile, whenever they recall our brazen confidence in technological progress, as well as our complacent acceptance of commercial "brain-washing", or "mind-pollution".

We have probably a lot less to be proud of than we think, in spite of the fact, that we have lived at a time of very rapid technological advances. Yet, at the same time, future historians will also recognise, that the beginnings of a change towards a more sensible life-style and a healthier approach to social problems arose, somewhere, in those same dark ages of social ignorance, greedy consumerism, and irresponsible pollution. At some time in the history of man, the voices of a different philosophy became more coherent and succinct, and, these voices led the way to a "quiet revolution" in political leadership and public awareness.

The technological explosion that made nuclear power-plants and war-heads possible, also discovered the possibilities of the micro-processor, and, with the help of this basic "chip", people constructed, eventually, this social nervous system that allowed the growth of a truly comprehensive information-gathering and -processing system. It also allowed a practical realisation of the ideals of a corruption proof bureaucracy and a universal transparence in all complex transactions and social events. These technological innovations provided the foundation for the spread of a life-saving insight and attitude, and, the philosophy of life can be summarised as an awareness of the need for social justice and frugal living conditions on a global scale.

Perhaps, the crux of a universally acceptable definition and practice of justice on a global scale will be an acute awareness of this fine distinction between the legitimate "fight" to correct a situation of injustice, and the precise knowledge, where this fight deteriorates into an opportunistic grab to get a little more than we deserve.

If we can learn to recognise this point, with precision, whenever we are fighting for our rights, we will have made a significant contribution to the reality of a globally accepted and implemented condition of "social justice".

.......

Summary

1. A definition of political activities and political leadership.
   What is a "sovereign nation"?
   The vagaries of conquests and defeats.
   The territorial instincts of political leaders.
   A narrow sphere of concern.
   Class-division; ethnic and regional disparities.
   Leadership problems resulting from a deeply divided society.
   The short-comings of dominance by power alone.
   A number of questions.
   How people react to social conditions.
   Is there such a thing as a "just society"; either in the past, or the present?
   An excercise in the relativity of judgement.
   Why a political leadership identifies, so often, with the "privileged segments" of society.
   If the historical argument for the sanctity of a national entity is not valid, how, then, do we design a harmonious, just and durable social environment?
   We have to know our needs and ambitions, before we can resolve tensions and disparities.
   
   
   
2. What makes people get along, and, what drives them apart?
   A review of human developments.
   Basic instincts of self-preservation surface, as soon as care and trust have been stifled.
   Limitations of our biological heritage surface as soon as we try to design viable behaviour-patterns for the large-scale social entity.
   Hierarchical stratification, and the problem of finding a "justified place" in the hierarchical order.
   Loyalty and obediance in the healthy, naturally evolving grouping.
   Mechanisms of "rough justice".
   Qualities of natural leadership.
   Essential transparence.
   A short summary of small-scale social mechanisms.
   Mechanisms that fortify or weaken the small-scale, social unit.
   
   
   
3. What happens, if a social unit continues to get larger?
   Problems with the hierarchical order.
   Why disputes become more frequent.
   A loss of transparence, and the tendency to form "sub-groupings".
   Delegating leadership responsibilities; multi-individual leadership.
   Ordinary people have no choice, but, to start building again, from scratch, after the devastations of warfare.
   Solutions to social tensions; "the split"; a comparison with the mechanisms of cellular division.
   Re-alignment around rival centers of power.
   Evolutionary success, and the inevitability of rising population pressures.
   Increasing difficulties for the processes of "social splitting".
   Possibilities for clever opportunism and exploitation.
   A contracted sphere of loyalty and friendship.
   Man's success as a species, and the rise of competitive strife.
   A review of the evolution of man's psychological characteristics.
   The emergence of the larger societies with their diverging classes.
   Combat, seen as a resolution of social tensions.
   Possibilities for implementing the principles of justice.
   
   
   
4. Resolving tensions by differentiation and inter-dependence, and the limitations associated with these mechanisms.
   Cultural possibilities for task-differentiations, specialisations in function, and conditions of inter-dependence.
   Cumulative energy requirements.
   The "specialisation" of hierarchical differentiation.
   "Cooling" the aggressive instincts of dominant members.
   A sliding scale between loyalty and suspicion.
   A brief review of basic psychological mechanisms.
   Natural defense-mechanisms against opportunistic advantage-taking.
   There is a "natural ethic" at work in the small-scale social groupings.
   Mechanisms of hierarchical stratification.
   The most unpleasant chores are given to those, who can not "pass the buck".
   A blue-print for exploitation.
   Relationships between unequal parties are governed by co-ercion.
   An essential ingredient of social harmony; essential equality.
   
   
   
5. A "stroke of genius"; the principle of "essential equality".
   A solution that suggested itself, time and again.
   A "code of law" is, in essence, a tacit and pragmatic recognition of the principle of essential equality.
   The rational acceptance of a contract of essential equality is a fragile flower of benevolent insight.
   Many factors have a tendency to undermine the mechanisms of a social contract.
   Mechanisms of social decay.
   The role of all-pervasive transparence.
   Why there is a need to scrupulously adhere to, and enforce, the terms of a contract of essential equality.
   Constitutional Guidelines, and their far-reaching influence.
   Short-comings of a Revolutionary Elite, even, if their ideals are based on a contract of essential equality.
   The fragmenting influence of a divided populace.
   Communism is too rigid, and Western Democracies are too chaotic and unstructured to function as a model for viable future societies.
   
   
   
6. A combination of force and persuasion.
   Tactics to unify a conglomerate social entity.
   The more we have, the more "conservative" we become.
   Sensitivity to the beauty of an ideal, when growing-up in a privileged, carefree environment.
   Mechanisms that destroy trust and fan anxieties.
   The need to curb egocentric and fearful behaviour-patterns.
   Why are we against a condition of social transparence?
   Transparence has to be a two-way street.
   Transparence is an essential tool to maintain an attitude of trust.
   The fallacy of the concept of "national security".
   Preparing people for a position of leadership.
   Hypocritical attitudes in inter-national relationships.
   The behaviour of a complex social unit is, often, more primitive than that of its constituent members.
   The need to have balanced information at our finger-tips.
   Bureaucratic institutions; the central nervous system of society.
   A mandate to govern is not a "blank cheque".
   The civic responsibility to supervise social leaderships and their institutions.
   
   
   
7. A brief review of desirable leadership institutions.
   Avoiding a dead-lock in social relationships by controling the mechanisms of suspicion and hostility.
   Solving social tensions by listening carefully to grievances and correcting situations of injustice.
   True cooperation is only possible between people in a position of essential equality.
   Peace; a "frozen status-quo"?
   Thinking clearly and honestly about the meaning of social justice.
   A comparison with small-scale social attitudes and mechanisms.
   Both sides always contribute to a dispute.
   All leadership discussions should be carried-out in public.
   A limit to the right to declare war and initiate hostilities.
   The tool of exerting international pressures and sanctions.
   Re-thinking the concepts of sovereignty and non-interference.
   The question of "territorial integrity".
   
   
   
8. A discussion of territorial integrity and national boundaries.
   A plea for large-scale national and territorial adjustments.
   Abandoning the concept of claiming national or regional property rights over natural resources.
   Those, who are successful have worked hard, but, the poor work even harder, just to survive.
   We, the people, have to encourage the process of leadership integration by encouraging the principles and implementation of "global federalism".
   Learning from common-sense examples.
   Learning to distinguish between what we need, and, what we would like to have.
   A frugal society, with an accent upon social justice.
   Learning to manage economic affairs on a national and international scale.
   A shift in basic motivations.
   The entrapment of affluence.
   Functions and requirements for future Constitutional Guidelines.
   The inability to pay-off, or write-off, the debts of pollution and environmental deterioration.
   We have a lot less to be proud of than we think.

.......