PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICAL POLITICS


Democratic Socialism III





A Study in Thought

sa067



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Precisely enforced rules and regulations are an essential part of a package of basic human rights.
Campaign promises have to be governed by Constitutional Guidelines.
How to prevent a political paralysis.
The cohesiveness of a tribal society.
How to secure a smooth leadership succession and a continuity in guidance.
Accentuating a majority vote; regional representation.
The government; formed by a coalition of political Parties.
Problems with proportional representation.
The "waste" of minority votes.
Presidential elections with a run-off system, ensuring, that the overall political leader will get, at least, fifty percent of the popular vote.
The Prime Minister; leader of the ruling political Party.
Varying power relationships between the President and the Prime Minister.

Let us assume, then, that we have indeed opted, consciously and wholeheartedly, for the solution of a social contract, where we try to eliminate strife and foster attitudes of trust and cooperation by giving every member of mankind a basic package of security and equal opportunity. However, at the same time, we will not hesitate to enforce decisively the rules, safeguards, guidelines and regulations that protect, as a Consitutional Right, this set of basic rights and obligations.

The question is this; how are we going to convince suspicious and often hardened, egocentric voters to give us their support and vote of confidence, while we have to refrain from promising them the usual political "goodies", which our opponents in the race for a seat of political power are giving-out so freely?

Eventually, the practice of luring voters by promising special deals and privileges for one group or another, will be curtailed by Constitutional Guidelines, because such promises and their implementations contradict the terms of the basic social contract, but, as long as we do not have such stringent guidelines for political behaviour, together with a clear-cut outline of the permissible limits for making political promises, we have to live with the fact, that the political spectrum within a freely elected, democratic system of popular or regional representation, shows a perplexing array of contrasting and contradictory trends.

Those, who aspire to become political leaders, face the difficult task of capturing a significant portion of the constituents, and, many voters have quite different ideas about what should be done in society. In particular, if the mood is strongly egocentric, with an emphasis upon the attitude "which politician will give me the best deal", it is nearly hopeless to bring the public into a more conciliatory and broad-minded mood.

Many people may not even agree with the idea, that the elected representative should, or can, represent all the members of his constituency. Most political leaders come from specific, well-defined political factions in society, but, if this is the case, elected representatives merely represent the same divisiveness that exists amongst the people, and, if this divisiveness happens to increase steadily, and, if it leads to a polarisation of society, the elected leadership is powerless to do anything more than reflect this divisiveness in Parliament or the House of Representatives. If, in addition, one of the political Parties fails to get a clear majority, and, if there is no significant experience with forming efficient coalition governments, the process of government stagnates and society drifts into a state of chaos.

It will be clear to anyone, who has witnessed the paralysis and stifling inertia of a stagnated democracy, that a solution has to be found to prevent such a process of social decay, and, to prevent a democratic government from fragmenting into warring factions. Actually, it should be one of the primary tasks and responsibilities of a concerned, democratic leadership to prevent a polarisation or fragmentation from taking place in society, and, we are back, again, to the need for concise, clear and detailed guidelines for political conduct.

We need to guide and regulate the behaviour of everyone who seeks office, or, who has succeeded in getting elected to a position of leadership and responsibility. Before we can begin to outline such Constitutionally enshrined Guidelines, let us review, briefly, the various democratic systems in use, and, let us, then, proceed to propose a system for democratic elections and a structure of democratic leadership, which has a good chance of avoiding the chaos and divisiveness of a polarised social environment.

Politicians from contemporary democratic societies must be somewhat envious, at times, of the ease with which absolute rulers, in the past, or the present, could dictate what was good for society, and embark on a clear-cut course of action. However, there are other, more enlightened examples of leadership to look at. If politicians are aware of the various methods by which a tribe ruled itself and kept law and order, they must be surprised to see a remarkable blend between power and persuasiveness, transparence and authority, which makes the distinction between a democratic and an autocratic type of government, somewhat academic.

In a tightly-knit tribal society, the leadership is keenly aware of everything that goes-on, and, there is, therefore, a far more efficient feed-back of information from the membership to the leadership compared to, even, the best organised, large-scale, democratic societies of today. The tribal leadership is invariably clothed in an aura of sanctity, which lends a degree of authority and unquestionability to the leader and his decisions. This aura of authority and unquestionability is absent from the inquisitive mood of a restless, modern society, where we seem to go to the other extreme. We adopt the attitude, that we barely tolerate the democratic leadership, and, we are ready to criticise and condemn it, even, before we have had a chance to see what it can do for the social environment.

The blend of authority and instantaneous feed-back from a small community that is much less "individualised" or diversified than the larger societies, makes this type of leadership, autocratic, theocratic and democratic at the same time. The members of a tribal community would be surprised, if they were asked for their opinion in matters of rule, because, this is, after all, the function of the ruler and his council of elders, and, the transparence in such a small society makes it possible for everyone to see, and know, what everyone is doing. This ensures, that the leadership gives a good example and behaves according to the tacit expectations and obligations of "high office", and, these positions can, therefore, not easily be abused for selfish gain or deceptive purposes.

As we have argued before, the increased complexity of the large society, the inability for the leadership to know everything that is going-on, together with the impossibility for the individual members to know all the others and to "oversee" the overall structure of a large society and its leadership, introduce the need for a complex bureaucracy of leadership or government channels. All these factors contribute to the likelyhood, that, here and there, the attitudes and actions of "officials", or people in a position of leadership and responsibility, start to deviate from a stringent code of acceptable behaviour. This is the beginning of inertia and stagnation, as the feelings of injustice and suspicion gain the upper hand. It is clear, therefore, that the ideals and institutions of democratic representation have to be safeguarded against paralysis, polarisation and abuse, otherwise, it becomes an inviting target for some sort of military or revolutionary take-over.

In spite of the fact, that the democratic ideals have been with us for a long time and have surfaced, in one way or another, throughout history, it has always remained very difficult to give a democracy a long lease on life, and, one of the most difficult problems has always been the peaceful succession of political power; with an orderly transition of power from one leadership to another. The difficulties with an orderly transition of leadership are still reflected in the fact, that a number of democratic societies adhere to a "royal family", which is a vestige of the time, when the problems of succession were "solved" by declaring the position of ultimate power and decision-making to be "inherited" along the lines of heirship, or royal kinship.

One way to avoid paralysis in Parliament, is to "accentuate" a majority. This can be done by a system of "regional representation", where the society has been divided into a number of regions with a roughly equal number of inhabitants. After a political campaign, these regions each elect a representative. The candidate with the largest number of votes wins, and, he represents, at least, in theory, the interests of all his constituents. If a political Party has its strength more or less evenly divided over the entire nation, even, a slight majority over other political Parties will result in a "landslide victory", because the majority candidate in each constituency will get the seat in Parliament.

The votes of the minority Parties are "lost" in this system, and a Parliament of elected representatives does not reflect, therefore, the proportion of the overall popular vote for each individual Party. A minority Party can only get a seat in Parliament, if it is able to muster a majority of votes in, at least, one particular riding or constituency.

It is logical, that smaller political Parties are not in favour of such a system, because, often, their percentage of the popular vote is much higher than the number of elected representatives would indicate. However, once a Party starts to "break through" and comes close to capturing as large a portion of the popular vote as its rivals, it will suddenly make enormous gains in the number of seats it will occupy in the House of Representatives. It is true, that "votes are lost" this way, but, this system of regional representation has the advantage, that a majority becomes accentuated, and, it is, therefore, less likely that a Parliament is elected where none of the Parties can form a comfortable, majority government.

We see, indeed, that a nation with a system of "proportional representation" has often a fairly large number of political Parties in Parliament, reflecting much more accurately, and proportionally, the feelings and political opinions of the people. However, government becomes, then, frequently dependent upon the ability of a number of political Parties to form a "coalition". Certainly, if there is a large measure of cooperation and good-will, in society, as well as in Parliament; if the people really believe in the virtues of a truly democratic system of proportional representation, and, if there is a willingness to see each other as colleagues, engaged in the common task to plot the best course of action for the nation as a whole, then, such a system of coalition govenment works quite well.

The moment an atmosphere of "all-out war" grips the political representatives of such a system, the Parliamentary process comes to a halt, and, effective government becomes impossible. The political wrangling and infighting starts to overshadow all other activities, and the politician becomes embroiled in an ever more partisan conflict. The bureaucracy becomes secretive, unwieldy, autocratic and largely corrupt, creating a severe burden upon society. As a result, large segments of the population lose respect for their governments, and, some people come to the conclusion, that the present system of chaos and inertia will have to be replaced with an autocratic regime of the right or the left.

We should not give the impression, that, only democracies with a proportinal representation are in danger of becoming corrupt and chaotic, but, they seem to be somewhat more prone to these developments because of the difficulties associated with the formation of a coalition government, as well as the absence of an artificial accentuation of a political Party that has the support from a majority of the electorate.

There is another difficulty associated with the system of proportional representation; at least, in those circumstances, where the composition of a list of candidates for a seat in Parliament is entirely under the control of a Party hierarchy, without an input from the people; either from the Party-members, or from the voters in the nation as a whole. Once we begin to discuss a specific proposal for a form of democratic representation, we will come back upon this particular difficulty, and, we will discuss a variety of ways in which these criticisms can be met.

Let us come back to the system of regional representation for the formation of a national leadership. If we are considering the election of an overall political leader, e.g., a President, we see, that there are several other objections, in addition to the fact, that the "minority votes" are wasted in this system of regional representation. When there are more than two candidates for the post of elected representative, we may see that the winner, (the candidate who pulls in most of the votes), is still not the recipient of an overall majority of the votes cast. As a refinement to the system of regional or national elections, some nations have introduced the principle of a "run-off" election. If the winner in the first round of elections still falls-short of a majority of all the votes cast, he or she has to fight another election against the candidate who came-in second, and, if three or more candidates are close together, a series of "run-off" elections may be held, whereby the loser, the candidate, who comes in last, is eliminated before the next round of voting.

I believe, that this is a very worthwhile refinement, and, with the far greater ease of organising fair voting procedures in the future, I am convinced, that we will see a great increase in the frequency of voting by the members of society, either, for the election of official positions, or, to express an opinion in the many issues that will go to the public for an "opinion poll", or referendum.

In contemporary democratic societies a variety of systems are at work. Some have still a Constitutional Monarch, supported by a Parliament with a ruling Party, or a coalition of Parties. The leader of the ruling Party becomes the "Prime Minister", who is the effective overall leader of society. In many republics, we see an emphasis upon the nationally elected President, who becomes the overall political leader in conjunction with one, and sometimes two bodies of elected representatives.

Some nations use a combination of these systems, where a nationally elected President becomes, to some extent, the overall leader of the nation, but, there is also a Prime Minister, the head of the ruling political Party, who, together with his "cabinet" or group of advisors and experts, takes care of the daily problems of the nation. Sometimes, the balance of power between the President and Prime Minister is rather blurred and the relationships are, then, uneasy. In some republics, the President resides in the background, like a Constitutional Monarch, but, in others, the Prime Minister becomes little more than the titular head of the majority political Party, while the President makes all the major policy decisions.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The influence of the military institutions on the political process.
When there is only a "veneer" of democratic rule.
The freedom to criticise.
The Social Contract has to be defended against egocentric attitudes and activities.
The problem of "subversion".
How to keep a democracy in a state of good health.
An Upper House and a Lower house.
A plea for specialised roles for the two Assemblies.
Proportional Representation from a variety of Political Parties for the Lower House.
Regional Representation by individuals with a rather loose political affiliation for the Upper House.
Limiting the overall number of representatives to fifty for any one particular Party.
Saving money, when one Party has a large majority.
The Upper House, or Senate, functioning as a "Constitutional Assembly".
An emphasis on personal merit and individualised thinking.
Regional Governors.
Relationships between the two Houses of Parliament.

Let us make it clear, that an "elected Parliament" does not mean, necessarily, that the country is ruled by democratic means, or, that the President is also elected democratically. Sometimes, the President has come to power in a military coup and tries to give his rule a "veneer" of democratic legitimacy by allowing some of the functions of an elected Parliament. We, the public, should insist, that, all people in positions of political leadership are elected, and not appointed or self-appointed.

Even, if the President is elected democratically, it does not mean, that all his advisors and nominees for important cabinet posts have been elected to public office. In my opinion, this type of "hybrid democracy", may lead to serious problems, because the input from the people upon many important social and political events is diluted by the practice of elevating appointed members to cabinet posts.

The great variety of more or less democratic systems in use, and, the even larger number of countries, where democracy is, still, only a superficial veneer, is a good indication of the fact, that we have barely come to grips with the problems and principles of democratic government. The fact, that, many democratic nations slide easily into a stifling chaos, is another indication, that we have to refine the practical principles of democratic rule to a large extent, before we can be confident that democratic leadership has the necessary stability. It is certainly necessary to design a far more coherent and detailed structure of Constitutional Guidelines, before we can hope to create a truly advanced and stable Social Democracy.

Perhaps, it is, indeed, an opportune moment, here, to emphasise, that a democracy does not have to have an inefficient and vacillating leadership, and, that a democracy should certainly not be equated with a lax enforcement of rules and regulations. The affluent, Western democracies, who pride themselves to be truly democratic societies, are, by and large, ridden with crime and corruption, and, they are not very attractive models for outsiders.

Successful members within such chaotic societies may enjoy the freedoms they have acquired for themselves, if they have been wise enough to resist the numerous temptations to become enslaved to one financial obligation or another. The freedom to criticise our leaders and their institutions, as well as the freedom to proclaim, loudly, egocentric and elitist view-points, contribute to the chaos and confusion, but, as long as the society remains, at least, outwardly intact, it remains difficult for the successful members to acknowledge, that the situation of today, as well as the trends of tomorrow, are not conducive to a lasting stability, and, that these conditions do not reflect a situation of justice and general contentment.

Let us remind ourselves that the principles and practice of a universal right to vote are an inalienable part of this overall social contract, which ensures all members of society an equal opportunity to develop some of their talents, and, to make a contribution according to their capabilities. This social contract also ensures all members an equal status under the law, a basic minimum in living conditions, health and education, but, also, an equal and fair burden of the tasks and responsibilities that have to be carried-out.

While the essence of equal opportunity and equality in status, means, that all members of society have an equal right to express their opinion, we have to make a clear distinction between a dissenting opinion, a different philosophical or religious point of view or perception of reality, and, a course of action that is specifically designed to sabotage the social contract.

Anyone, who believes in the virtues of a social contract, can not sit idly by and watch it being destroyed by egocentric people, who hope to replace the democracy with a dictatorship of one sort or another. Democratic principles and the social contract of essential equality can tolerate a lot of variations, as well as every kind of questioning or debate, but, it can not, and should not, tolerate a deliberate subversion of its fundamental principles.

Certainly, what is considered to be subversive, has to be spelled-out carefully, and these conditions and mechanisms have to be encoded, eventually, as clear-cut Constitutional Guidelines. The acceptance of force to defend democracy and the social contract does not mean, that, any one particular Party or grouping, which considers itself to be the epitomy of social and democratic virtues, has the right to proclaim itself the sole defender of the nation or the Constitution.

Only a Constitutional Democracy, where every member of society, except criminals, have an equal voice in the election of their leadership, and, only a democracy that has crafted, carefully and openly, the Constitutional Guidelines of society, is entitled to call itself a true Social Democracy, and, it has the right to define, carefully and with due caution, what is tolerable dissent and what is intolerable subversion.

If a social democracy fails to enforce its standards of lawfulness and justice, it quickly digs its own grave, because, by allowing crime and subversion to flourish, the essential equality and justice of the social contract are destroyed, and, the usefulness and dignity of the democratic process has been undermined.

What, then, should such a democratic society look like, and, in particular, what should the leadership structure be, and, how should the electoral system be organised? How do we visualise the creation and maintenance of effective, efficient and transparent bureaucratic channels? How do we visualise to bring-about the required atmosphere of trust and concern, and, how are we going to enforce the necessary transparence and the rapid feed-back of all relevant information to the leadership? In particular, you may want to know, what mechanisms will let us construct, slowly and with careful, popular consent, this package of Constitutional Guidelines which will keep society healthy and stable.

After we have sketched these ideas, we will return to more practical concerns, and, we will examine several of the more common and persistent problems in our contemporary democracies. I will also try to outline a few ideas, how we can bridge the gap between an idealised future society and the realities of the present, because, after all, no future society is possible, except, as a slow evolution and transformation of contemporary societies, which are developing into societies and social organisations that are a little closer to the ideals of a globally enforced, social contract of essential equality and world-wide justice.

For a variety of reasons, several, if not most of the larger democratic societies, have two different Assemblies of Elected Representatives, but, sometimes, one of these bodies is quite redundant and is filled with political relics, or "has beens", who have been nominated to the Senate or the "Upper House" as a reward for past services, or, to make room for younger political leaders. In other societies, the Upper House or Senate is a body of duly elected representatives, which functions, then, more or less in tandem with the "Lower House", or the equivalent of a "House of Commons".

Neither of these situations seems to be wholly satisfactory or efficient, as they reflect a long historical development and a reluctance on the part of existing leaderships to change a familiar status-quo. Yet, the presence of two Assemblies provides a perfect opportunity to introduce a rational and useful division or specialisation of tasks for these two bodies of elected representatives.

We would like to propose, that the tasks of government be divided into two, broad categories, which may overlap to some extent. It seems reasonable to classify the problems a leadership or government has to deal with, into problems that are related to the short-term and intermediate problems of the "household of the State", including the numerous decisions and responses to happenings within or outside the society. This requires an "executive type" of leadership, with the ability to make agile, intelligent decisions, but, the responses and the plans of such a practical day-to-day leadership are, of course, under the guidance of the Constitution. Yet, intertwined with all the daily problems of a more practical nature, we are also faced with many aspects, questions, debates and problems that reflect a more fundamental concern, and, which we could classify as "Constitutional Questions".

I would like to see, eventually, the two Assemblies specialise, where the "Lower House" becomes the center of practical political activities, while the "Upper House" concerns itself with more philosophical questions that touch upon the Constitution. We visualise, therefore, that the "Lower House" is composed of Representatives who have been chosen on the basis of proportional representation, nation-wide.

A number of political Parties will campaign within the guidelines set by the Constitution, and, the electorate of the entire society will vote for the Party of their choice. However, in order to give the voters a choice in the question, who will become a representative in Parliament, all the candidates from each political Party should be presented on an alphabetical list to the voters, and the voters will have to indcate their preference for a specific candidate of this list.

This method is more complicated than a simple vote for the Party and, it requires the printing of several lists of candidates on the ballot that is going to look like a small booklet. However, this method ensures, that ordinary people will have a say in who is going to represent them in Parliament, and, it prevents a Party-hierarchy from deciding, somewhat arbitrarily, who will be high and who will be low on this list. It means, that, those candidates, who want to have a serious chance of being elected, will have to campaign actively, and, they will have to work for the voter's confidence. Certainly, the Party has some influence in this matter, because, some of their candidates will undoubtedly get more help than others, and, it is sensible to leave the initial selection of the candidates to the Party, so that their most talented members get a chance to be heard.

I would like to suggest, also, that the total number of candidates of any political Party remains limited to fifty, based on a Parliament with a maximum of one hundred elected representatives. It may happen, of course, that a majority Party will get many more votes than is covered by their fifty candidates. In this case, the number of votes required to bring a candidate into Parliament, will "go up", as the "numerator" becomes now the total votes brought out for the majority Party, divided by fifty. All other Parties will then also have to have this required number of votes per candidate, before they are entitled to a seat in Parliament.

The consequence of such a system is, of course, that a strong majority for a particular political Party will reduce the total number of representatives in Parliament. The majority Party will be represented by its maximum of fifty members, while the other political Parties will have a representation that is proportional to their popular vote. By reducing the number of members, we can save on the expenses of running Parliament, and, yet, proportional representation is safeguarded. I believe, that it is not necessary for any Party to have more than fifty members, because it will already be difficult to give each of these fifty members a meaningful job.

Obviously, the leader of such a majority Party will become the Prime Minister, and, he will choose his "cabinet" from the elected members of his Party. The members of the ruling Party who are not involved in the intimate decision-making processes of the cabinet, should be grouped into committees or special task-forces. This will ensure that they become familiar with the complex issues that are outstanding, and, that they can serve as "special advisory committees" to the cabinet, if necessary.

If none of the Parties elects the full fifty members, the Parliament will be "full", as the numerator becomes then the total number of votes divided by the number of seats available in the House. I believe that this type of proportional representation in a "Lower House", or, "Executive House", is preferable to a regional representation, because we want the Parliament to reflect, accurately, the opinions, feelings or view-points of the people, and, I think, that it is, indeed, unfair for a large minority opinion or vote to disappear or become lost, unless it has a chance to "break through" as a majority Party or a majority vote in a particular constituency.

As we discussed, proportional representation will encourage a fairly large number of political Parties, and, it increases the likelyhood, that a government has to be formed as a coalition of a number of these political Parties. We have hinted on several occasions, that the Constitutional Guidelines will provide a solution for the situation, when a "dead-lock" occurs, and, we have also mentioned, that Constitutional Guidelines for political behaviour should encourage all the Parties and elected members to cooperate in an effort to solve the common problems, because an atmosphere of ruthless confrontation will, not only, stifle or paralyse the functions of Lower House, but, it may penalise its members, as we will see.

The Upper House, or the Senate, which will probably be called the "Constitutional Assembly", should be an all-together different form of Parliament. It should not be dominated by political Parties and their elected members, but, I would like to see the Upper House to be an Assembly of members, who are elected by a process of regional representation; where the members are given a majority vote of confidence by their electorate on the basis of personal merit, and not on the basis of Party affiliation. Of course, it is impossible for these regional representatives not to have political views, and, it is not the intention to make them "a-political". However, these regional representatives should be strong, mature and natural leaders in the region, where they live. They will, indeed, represent more than just their own region, because they have shown, in the past, a great deal of knowledge and wisdom in the handling of public affairs or the settling of disputes.

We do not want these people to represent just a small area of the nation, which happens to be their constituency, but, we want these people to be elected, because they know the virtues and benefits of cooperation and compromise. These people have become skilled in settling controversial issues, and, they have become convinced, that the same attitudes of compromise and cooperation are necessary, whenever peoples on a much larger scale learn to live closely together, and negotiate their differences.

These members will form, together, the Constitutional Assembly or Upper House, and, they become a body of individuals who think and act independently; for the good of the entire society and all communities on earth. We see, therefore, that the House of the Constitutional Assembly is always "full", and, if a member dies, a successor will be chosen, as soon as possible, by a special, regional election, or "by-election".

The Constitutional Assembly does not have to "sit" full time, but we think, that, perhaps, three or four times a year, the House should assemble to discuss a number of questions and problems that have been placed on the agenda by a standing committee. The head of this standing committee will be the "President" of the Assembly, who has been chosen by the Assembly to function as a leader of the Upper House.

These Regional Representatives should also function as a "Governor" for their own territories. These territories have, probably, been subdivided into rural counties and urban municipalities, which elect a mayor and a council to discuss and manage the affairs within their jurisdiction, and, they serve, also, as a liaison between the Governor or elected representative in the Upper House and his constituents. The Governor will be assisted by a cabinet of advisors and experts, which he can choose from amongst the citizenry. These choices should be entirely up to the Governor and the members of his "cabinet" should, therefore, remain purely consultants and advisors, without any decision-making powers.

The Governor makes all the decisions for the region that falls within his jurisdiction. The Governor plays, therefore, an important role in coordinating the peoples within his territory, by making representation to Parliament for matters and issues that fall within the interests of the region as a whole. I visualise, that the Governor will work through elected members of the Lower House, or Parliament, and, it is clear, that he does not have a direct voice in its debates. Similarly, the Constitutional Assembly should not debate the practical issues that are being discussed in the Lower House, but this House of the Constitutional Assembly will have veto powers over the Lower House, whenever a two-third majority agrees that a decison taken by the ruling Party in Parliament, contravenes the Constitution and the best interests of the nation.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The role of the Constitutional Assembly.
The State President will be elected nationally.
The president of the Upper House will be elected by his colleagues.
The Prime Minister will be the leader of the Ruling Party in the Lower House.
Relations between the State President and the Prime Minister.
No distinction between Civil and Military Courts.
Mechanisms for the election of the State President.
Mechanisms to prevent a political dead-lock.
The political spectrum has to be defined by the Constitution.
The long-term goals of society are going to be a matter of concern for Constitutional Guidance.
Regulating the burdens of debt.
The problems associated with borrowing large sums of money.
The "lubricating" effects of putting more money into circulation.
Inflation.

The Constitutional Assembly should, indeed, limit its role to safeguarding and amending the Constitution; by acting as a watchdog to make sure, that the Constitutional Guidelines are not violated, and, by forming the main forum for discussing proposed Constitutional changes or amendments. The rules and guidelines for changing Constitutional Guidelines will have to be enshrined in the Constitutional Guidelines as well.

We do not want a Constitution that can not be changed at all, but, neither do we want a Constitution that can be changed quickly and haphazardly. Something like the following should guide the mechanisms of Constitutional change; a proposal to change a statue, or, to make an amendment to a specific Constitutional Guideline has to be made formally; as a motion by the House of Assembly. This amendment can originate, either in the Lower House, or, the Constitutional Assembly itself. It has to be approved in the Lower House by a simple majority and, it has to be approved by the Constitutional Assembly with a two-thirds majority.

Besides, any change to the Constitution has to be approved by the President of the State, (a function we still have to discuss), and, then, the amendment has to be "ratified" by a referendum or plebiscite, again carrying at least a two-thirds majority of the electorate. This will ensure, that no hasty changes are made, but changes are possible. We should probably stipulate a minimum time interval between the official proposal and the referendum of about a year, in order to allow adequate scrutiny and public debate.

Let us now focus our attention upon the role of a Constitutional President. I believe, that he or she should not take the place of a Prime Minister, who, together with his cabinet and the ruling Party, is concerned with the daily affairs of the State. Yet, I believe, that the President should be more than a figure-head. The function of the President should be to oversee the whole of society, and, to make sure, that society functions in the best possible manner. Therefore, the President should have veto powers over such important decisions as going to war and making changes in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the act of declaring war should be left to the President. Of course, the President can not declare war, unless the Parliament and Constitutional Assembly have recommended this, but he should be the ultimate authority in this matter.

As head of the combined Armed Forces of the Nation, the President is primarily responsible for making sure, that the morale and readiness of the armed-forces is in according with the Constitutional Guidelines. The top army leaders, such as the heads of the navy, the military and the air-force, should be nominated by the President and confirmed by both Houses. Lower ranks are to be filled by a regulated system of promotions on the basis of personal merit and careful scrutiny.

The President should also have the authority to review all Court cases, and, he may have an important input in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. There should be no distinction between civil and military Courts, except, that specific infractions of military discipline may be handled by specialised Courts that are familiar with the requirements of military discipline. No Court proceedings can be held secretly, and, the President may commute death sentences and issue pardons, only, if approved by Parliament and the Constitutional Assembly.

The President is the Head of State, and, he will figure prominently in official visits and functions, but, he can not interfere with decisions that are considered to be legitimate concerns for the political Parties, and, in particular, the ruling Party.

The President should be elected by a thorough, nation-wide campaign, where he will speak on many occasions about his views on society, and he will be placed, time and again, in a "hot seat", where he will have to speak "off-the-cuff", without aids or prepared texts, on the most difficult and controversial issues that are facing the nation. We want someone as President, who is capable of grasping the complexities of society and all its issues at a moment's notice, and, we want someone, who is capable of forming an answer, or outline attitudes and plans, that are satisfactory to a majority of the electorate.

Before the main campaign for the Office of the President starts, lesser known hopefuls should be given a chance to make, at least, one nation-wide public appearance with a speech, but the final campaign should be limited to the top two or three, perhaps, four contenders. A series of elimination elections will, then, be necessary, until one candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes. His or her term of office should be about five years.

Just as in the election of the regional Governor and the members of the Constitutional Assembly, we like to emphasise, that the accent is on personal merit and individualised views, and not on an affiliation with a particular political Party or ideology. Many of these features are already in use in a variety of contemporary democracies, and, we have put them together, here, in a framework that seems to offer the best possible chance to avoid a paralysing political dead-lock in Parliament. This type of leadership seems to emphasise the importance of Constitutional Guidelines, regulating, not only, the political behaviour of the leadership, but the conduct of us all.

We should, therefore, address ourselves, once again, to the question, how this system of a Parliament with its Prime Minister and the ruling Party or Coalition Government, can be prevented from deteriorating into chaos and anarchy, if and when a political dead-lock occurs. If the functions of Parliament become chaotic and stifled, (and, here too, we will need Constitutional definitions to help us decide to make such a judgement), the President should have the authority to dissolve Parliament and order new elections. As a caretaker of interim government business, the President will take-over the functions of the Prime Minister, and he will have to call the Constitutional Assembly into a permanent session, until a new Parliament has been elected in a few weeks time. If another dead-lock occurs, the President may, then, suspend Parliament for up to a year in order to let divisive political controversies die down, so that a fresh Parliament may be elected with a better chance to avoid the divisiveness of the past.

However, it is very unlikely, that such a drastic course of action will be necessary, because Constitutional Guidelines will regulate, far more extensively than in our contemporary democracies, what a political Party may promise or advocate. We will not see, anymore, the radical shifts in policies which are so characteristic for contemporary democracies; where a society is pulled and pushed, so often, into radically different directions. Sometimes, the emphasis is on private enterprise and fiscal restraint, but, invariably, such unpopular policies are replaced by a more "leftist" government, which, unfortunately, embarks, once again, on huge public expenditures and an increasing debt-load, bringing back the many evils of inflation and currency devaluation.

At the present time, we do not seem to have a clear-cut answer to this see-saw battle between conservative, monetarist policies and the expansionary or inflationary policies of the Socialistically oriented politicians. If one listens to opponents arguing on either side of the fence, we come to the conclusion, that they seem to speak a different language, and, that the arguments do not mesh or meet head-on.

We will come back to these practical problems in the final part of this essay, where we will make an attempt to outline practical advice for those, who are seeking a career in public office in our contemporary democracies. Let us first return to the question to what extent, and, in what manner, political activities will be guided and restrained by Constitutional Guidelines, and, how political activities of the future will differ from those of today.

The political struggle is, now, all too often, a "tug of war", where the Parties are pulling in opposite directions. Such a situation has confusing and polarising effects. The society is going nowhere, because the political activities of one Party are trying to undo what another Party has done before. This leads, quickly, to a paralysing dead-lock in Parliament, especially, when none of the major Parties has been able to win a decisive electoral victory.

Because their policies and objectives are so opposed to each other, attitudes become hardened, flexibility is lost, the Parties, as well as the divided electorate see each other, increasingly, as enemies, and, we do not have to repeat the contention, that such a disastrous polarisation spells the end of the democratic process.

The course of society, as well as its major objectives, will have to be enshrined in the Constitution, and, this means, that, Constitutional Guidelines safeguard, not only, the equality of opportunity and justice under the law for every member, but, Constitutional Guidelines will also spell-out the limits of freedoms and the forms of ownership that are allowed. Constitutional Guidelines will spell-out to what extent enterprises and industrial concerns can be owned or managed privately, and, in particular, we will have to regulate, very strictly, the fiscal policies of the governments, as well as the ability of individuals and business interests to borrow money and go into debt.

For example, the disastrous effects of a chronic burden of debt should, by now, have been recognised, and, this means, that extensive or long-term borrowing by the individual or the public should not be allowed. Just as each individual will have to learn to live within his or her means, so should society, as a whole, also live within its means. This means, that we will not see anymore unbalanced budgets and huge public debts, and, no individual will be burdened, anymore, by chronic long-term debts. We just have to find alternative means of reaching our objectives, because, only, if we have a society, where we are free from staggering debts, individually as well as collectively, only, then, will we be able to live frugally and sensibly; where we do not consume anymore than is needed or justified.

Perhaps, many of you will find the total abolition of long-term borrowing, irrealistic or impractical, because you see no other way to accomplish the many large projects that are needed to keep our industries going; to keep our energy-supplies in good order, to make work for people, etc. In short, our modern societies seem to depend, so heavily, upon the injection of borrowed or printed money that most of us, including those who are familiar with public life, will laugh at the idea of abolishing the tool of financial investment or borrowing. Let us review, what borrowing does.

Borrowing is, in essence, a form of consumption in the present that has to be paid-back, with interest, in the future, and, we all know, how easy it is to consume in a moment of thoughtless commitment, one's earnings for many years to come. The result is slavery; a chronic dependence upon a steady and high inflow of cash, with all the nervous tensions that are associated with such a situation.

Not only, are we enslaved to our creditors, but, a chronic demand for a high cash-flow makes us predatory or parasitic in our attitudes and outlook. We always have to have more; as much as we can get; by hook and by crook, and, it does not take much persuasion to slide into the slighly unethical or illegal route of "making money", whenever an opportunity presents itself. Financial enslavement makes us into egocentric parasites, who have little or nothing to contribute to society, except a nervous restlessness that comes with the interminable search for more money.

As a society, we are not much better of, if we are heavily in debt. Our leadership has to raise more and more taxes to cover the interest on borrowed monies, and, the public debt has a habit of creeping up and up, without ever coming down. It is no wonder, then, that the political leadership of such a society tries to stimulate, frantically, the economic momentum in order to increase tax-revenues.

In order to stimulate this old, tired, economic work horse, more and more money is pumped into circulation. In the beginning, such a "lubricating effect" of putting more money into circulation, tends to have the desired effect, because, indeed, the total or gross national product of society increases; everyone's level of consumption and income starts to rise, and, it becomes a little easier to cope with this chronic debt-load. Any slack in spending powers is quickly consumed by a public that has now become accustomed to steadily rising incomes and gradually declining monetary values.

Governments profit from inflation in a variety of ways. The higher cash-flow through society, as well as the rising level of incomes, allow a greater tax-return to the treasury, but, in addition, the effective debt-load of society, as well as each debt, be it public or private, is eased by inflation. However, this easing goes at the expense of the money-lender, who is frequently not anymore the millionair industrialist, who can afford to lose some money through an inflationary devaluation, but, the money-lenders are ordinary people, who are paying into pension-funds and other, long-term security plans.

For the average citizen, the process of inflation is an on-going fraud, because his real earnings are, not only, eroded from the moment a contract has been negotiated with the employer, but, all the delayed benefits, such as savings and insurances of one kind or another, are constantly undermined.

Constant inflation is one of the most devastating factors in the erosion of public confidence and trust in the social environment, including its leadership, in particular, if the spiral of rising expectations can not be sustained, any longer, with increasing levels of income and a real expansion of "the economy".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

A rapid halt to territorial and economic expansion.
Accepting the reality of declining standards of affluence.
Viability through psychological rather than physical adaptations.
Building-up credit during the tour of duty in the Civil Task-Force.
Borrowing to ease back-breaking tasks.
The wide-spread benefits of some technological innovations.
An increasing need to safeguard the environment.
The need for radical changes in attitude and outlook.
There is no "innate compass" for beneficial behaviour in the members of a large society.
We need Constitutional Guidelines for all existential concerns.
The Contract of Essential Equality will be regulating spending and consuming habits, financial policies, as well as the value of money.
The Sense of Justice.
An inter-twining of information and education.
The "right to strike".
Why a harsh but incomplete "therapy" is so counter-productive.
The tragedy of a simplistic monetary policy.
The "apparent freedoms" of competitive pricing.
No return to a policy of reckless public spending.

We have discussed on previous occasions, why the processes of territorial and economic expansion are now rapidly coming to a halt throughout the Western, industrialised nations, and, why these societies are facing, in many instances, an actual decline in productivity. The export-trade of many Western nations is on the decline and the level of output in manufactured goods is falling, primarily, due to increased competition from nations that used to be "lesser developed".

There is a need to come to grips with the problems of lost productivity and competitiveness, and, sooner or later, our governments will have to face the unpalatable task of reducing the level of public and private habits of spending and consuming. The level of consumption will have to fall to levels that are realistic and sustainable, reflecting the loss of a competitive edge, as well as allowing for a long-term program of equalisation in living standards throughout the world.

Especially this last objective of equalising living standards throughout the world, will reduce the level of consumption for those, who have been born into an affluent society. We have to come-down to a level of frugal but healthy existence, but, at the present time, this idea is completely unacceptable to the public and the politicians of every affluent society, even, if an individual in the affluent world can be shown, in the calm rationality of a sober evaluation, that, eventually, the problem of unacceptable disparities will have to be faced by us all.

The difficulties associated with turning an affluent society away from a high level of consumption, will be discussed in the final section of this essay. We do not really expect, that it will be possible to convince people, or their political leaders, that we should, voluntarily, come to such a program of global equalisation. There are many practical problems, and, strong emotions are being aroused by such ideas, but, we hope, that it will be possible to discuss these ideas seriously, and, to show the reasonableness and necessity of giving-up a high level of consumption.

A high level of consumption is not a basic right, nor, is it a human need. We do not need, physically, emotionally, or psychologically, this ostentatious and high level of consumption and debt-financing, but, to correct these aberrations of affluent existence, requires, first of all, a very careful study and analysis. Only then, will we have a precise grip over the mechanisms that play a role, here. We have to design a program of gradual change, reducing, rather than increasing, disparity and stress during such a difficult transition period towards a more healthy mode of existence. We have to get-away from the common situation, where the livelyhood of many people depends upon the unnecessary and wasteful consumptive habits by a large segment of the population.

To what extent, then, is borrowing permissible? The main point, here, is, that borrowing should have a good, solid reason, and, it should not be merely based on consumerist desires and wants; to be gratified now, without worrying about the consequences. Let us propose, therefore, that borrowing should be limited to half a year's income, and, it should not be extended beyond five years. This means, that every existing debt will have to be paid-back, in full, with a moderate and responsible rate of return, within five years, before any new borrowing can take place.

"How is anyone going to afford to buy a house?". There are several answers to this question. The ultimate solution will be, that the young people build-up a considerable amount of "credit" during their period of obligatory service in a Civil Task-Force, as we have outlined on previous occasions. This "credit" should not be taken as a right to a "fixed income" or a "cash value", but, as a right to receive assistance when building or renovating a home, whenever the members have returned home after their tour of duty. We have discussed, on previous occasions, how we visualise young people to go back to their villages and places of origin, in order to build their own homes or renovate existing ones, with assistance from the other members of the community, as well as from the members of the locally stationed Civil Task-Force.

Let us return to the main reasons for borrowing. Clearly, borrowing a piece of heavy machinery is extremely useful, if we look at a community that is trying to make use of a natural resource, either for its own use, or "for export". From its export earnings, other needed items can be purchased, which have to come from other parts of society. If a piece of land has to be cleared and brought into cultivation; if minerals have to be mined, the trees of the forests or the fish from the seas have to be harvested, it is clear, that the purchase of a large piece of machinery, such as a bull-dozer, a tractor, or a boat, will help the community or the individual to become much more productive. A back-breaking task is then eased; productivity is sharply increased, and, the returns from the "exploited resource" will quickly repay for the loan that has been necessary to buy or borrow such a welcome piece of equipment.

This principle refers back to the main purpose of living in a social organisation. The cooperation between people in carrying-out tasks and maintaining manufacturing equipment, or, in the production a variety of foods and other useful products, will allow a much more intensive "harvesting" of all kinds of resources than would be posible, if an individual would live alone or in a small, isolated community.

We have argued, before, that the single, most striking benefit of the well-coordinated, large social grouping, lies in the fact, that, it can tackle problems and harvest resources that are completely beyond the reach of the much smaller community. Even the cultivation of land, the harvesting of trees and other natural resources, the extraction of oil and minerals, the building of dams and irrigation projects, as well as the numerous pieces of sophisticated tools and equipment we have become used to, have been made possible by the fact, that, large groups of socially integrated people have cooperated and communicated with each other.

Without exaggeration, we can safely state, that the living standard of nearly everyone on earth, except those, who live in extremely depraved and isolated conditions, has been made possible by a cultural legacy of science, technology and communications, and, at the same time, we see, that the greatest threat to this standard of living, (regardless of the fact, that there are still unacceptably great disparities between the rich and the poor), comes from a break-down in social communications, the rise of suspicions and hostilities, and the outbreak of warfare.

We can still make great progress in harvesting the resources of our environment in a more responsible and sensible manner, and, this will require a continuation of the attitudes of cooperation, the exchange of tools and information, as well as outright mutual assistance, but, we can not continue to exploit the environmental resources ruthlessly and thoughtlessly, at an ever faster pace, just to satisfy the rising expectations of consumerist demands, and, to soothe and befuddle the treacherous and devastating consequences of deliberately inflationary fiscal policies.

Soon, our most sophisticated forms of communication and technological expertise will be used to safeguard standards of environmental cleanliness, fresh air, fresh and safe water, etc., and, these activities will not be used, any longer, for the purpose of producing the largest number of consumable items at the lowest possible price. We will have to change radically our outlook upon the environment in which we live, and, from a thoughtless exploitation of all possibilities, (just like any other living species), we have to treat our environment carefully, with an attitude of respect, keeping in mind our long-term existential requirements. From a tool to display our mastery and wealth, the environment has to become a carefully protected field of concern, because we realise, that the demise of the life-giving terrestial environment will also spell an end to our own existence.

From a tool to be exploited for a primitive game of competitive strife and ostentatious display, the fragile terrestial environment is going to be the common bond of concern that will unite us all. From an attitude of "how much can I get out of it", we will ask ourselves, "how long can it sustain us at a basic but essentially healthy level of existence?".

We may become enslaved to our pollution monitoring devices and corrective equipment, such as purifiers and masks, because, in the future, we may be unable to travel freely and unprotected in the terrestial environment. We may not be able to breathe the air and drink the water without giving a thought to the likelyhood of contamination or pollution, but, now, we are enslaved to our creditors and useless consuming habits, while ruining our environment and increasing the tensions of injustice and disparity.

Anyone, who thinks that the human individual has an "innate compass" for beneficial social behaviour on a large scale, is dreaming. We know, now, enough about the limitations of the natural behavioural instructions for socially integrated behaviour on a large cale, to state, categorically, that we need an explicit, carefully constructed, carefully and openly debated structure of behavioural guidelines, which regulates, not only, our behaviour in a world-wide, social contract of essential equality, but, allows us, also, to have truly efficient leadership institutions and bureaucratic channels.

After all, the package of Constitutional Guidelines will have to ensure the proper functioning of this basic social contract we talked about, and, it has to ensure a sufficient degree of transparence in society to allow everyone, leaders and members alike, to see, that such a social contract is working, and working well.

If we accept the premise, that the social contract and the Constitutional Guidelines should safeguard the principles of essential equality, justice, and basic but healthy standards of living, it is not surprising to come to the conclusion, that the Constitutional Guidelines have to regulate also our consuming habits and borrowing practices. Constitutional Guidelines will, indeed, concern themselves with the three major concerns of our existence. One of these concerns is the contract of essential equality in living standards, and, we have discussed, how our spending and consuming habits, as well as our borrowing and saving practices, have to be regulated, carefully, and, why they have to be safeguarded against abuse and exploitation. All these major concerns are inter-twined, but it is useful for the sake of discussing, as well as for the sake of classifying and categorising this Constitutional Package, to delineate the other two major conerns. These are the "sense of justice", as well as this entire complex of "information and education".

We will see the functions of the judiciary expand far beyond its present levels of concern. Its well-intentioned and thorough investigative techniques will serve as a model for future judicial functions. Our judiciary is, by and large, a good example of the possibilities that are opened-up by a thorough, expert and impartial investigation of a crime or a dispute, but, the pace of investigation, the gathering and presenting of information and evidence, is painfully slow, and the long waiting lists of judicial cases, create incidences of injustice by themselves.

In the future, we will see, that the process of judicial settlement will be extended, first of all, to this anachronistic and increasingly crippling practice of the "collective work-stoppage". In the strike against society, the social environment is held to ransom, and, the effects, as well as the principles that lie behind the use of a strike, or "industrial action", are increasingly condemned as archaic and intolerable.

Soon, we will have to take-away the right to strike from everyone, and, not just from those, whose functions are considered to be essential to society, because, if we would allow the right to strike to stand for those, whose services we can easier do without, we penalise the most valuable contributors to the well-being of society in an unfair manner. In essence, we would make them "second class citizens", while those, who can continue to use the strike as a weapon in obtaining what they want, would profit unfairly from their less essential position or line of work. At the same time, we also recognise the fact, that the weapon of the strike becomes less effective, as the service provided or work done, is less important to the members of society.

It will undoubtedly be a gigantic task to replace this entire process of collective bargaining by an independent judicial process, which takes as its guidelines the social contract of essential equality and social justice, when settling a dispute between workers and employers. A development into this direction can take place, and has to take place, if we want to halt the serious drift towards chaos and stagnation that is going-on in all major democracies.

Wide-spread strike-action, together with continuing inflation and high levels of unemployment, represent some of the most serious destabilising factors within our modern societies. All three problems of strikes, inflation and unemployment require effective and permanent solutions. Solutions are possible with the help of the social contract, but, the consequences are enormous, and, it will not be easy to convince people, that such a radical and permanent change in social organisation and direction of social development, is indeed necessary.

It is always difficult to get the patient to agree to a program of harsh medicine or difficult therapy, and, one has to be convinced, that it is the only real chance to get better, before one consents to it. This is the reason, why an incomplete medical therapy is so counter-productive, because it will fail to cure the patient, and, by its failure, the useful elements of the therapy will be discredited in the mistaken belief that the entire package must be wrong.

The tragedy of a simplistic, monetarist policy lies, therefore, in the fact, that, at least in part, the philosophy is sound, and, that reckless government spending and borrowing is the major cause for inflation, eroding the buying power of a currency. However, restricting, suddenly, the money-supply and letting the rest of society "adjust" to it by "natural means", is a highly naive approach, which fails, not only, to take other crucial factors into consideration, but, it fails, primarily, because these "natural adjustments" lead, nearly invariably, to increased disparities between the rich and the poor, and, they make the tensions within society worse, rather than better.

The monetarist philosophy seems to ignore the fact, that the erosion of the value of money is only, in part, due to an over-supply of money and irresponsible levels of public borrowing and expenditures. Prices and incomes are also going-up, whenever a situation of leverage or monopoly can extract a higher rate of return than would be possible under truly ideal free-enterprise conditions. At the present time, the proponents of a policy of tight money-supply seem to be ardent free-enterprisers, who put an unwarranted faith in the "natural market forces" to restore orderly levels of wages and prices via the mechanisms of supply and demand.

Many free-enterprisers fail to recognise to what extent the free-market forces have disappeared from the social scene. A truly free labour-market has long since disappeared because of the introduction of collective bargaining, but, a genuinely free competition between major industries and suppliers has also disappeared, nearly completely, and, the "price competition" at the retail level has become largely a sham; a cosmetic appearance to make people believe, that they can still get good value for their money.

In spite of anti-trust legislation and a semblance of free-market forces, competitive practices have a tendency to disappear, in particular from those areas that provide essential goods and services. It may be difficult for many to accept this contention, and, it may be somewhat difficult to prove, but, I am convinced, that, future historians will have a good grasp over the apparent "freedom" of competitive pricing, as well as the reality of tacit or implicit price-fixing by all the major industrial concerns, including governments and their "crown-corporations".

As a matter of fact, our governments are in the forefront of price-fixing, and, it is ironic that the monetarists try, on the one hand, to reduce inflation by strict monetary regulations, while, on the other, they erode, deliberately, the buying powers of the public by higher taxes on many consumer items.

Yet, in spite of all the criticisms of monetarist policies, we can not have much sympathy and respect for the philosophy that tries to solve the problems of unemployment and inflation by the old and tired methods of "increasing public expenditures and the supply of money". These free-spending politicians do not seem to want to acknowledge the reasons for, and the dangers of, inflation. Neither are they willing to risk affronting the militant labour-unions by telling them, that the time has come to abandon the vicious circle of rising expectations and increasing wage-demands.

Anyone who is afraid to take a hard look at the ravages caused by the factors we mentioned above, is not able to put an honest and well thought-out social or political solution on the table. Harsh therapy can be made palatable, if it is honestly and openly discussed; if all the advantages and disadvantages are carefully presented and considered, and, if the therapy is truly comprehensive in its approach and effective in accomplishing its aims. Finally, this corrective medicine has to be administered with scrupulous fairness, so that the burdens of taking the medicine, as well as the eventual benefits from it, are distributed fairly.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Labour disputes will be a matter for the Courts.
Satisfying the sense of justice.
The high price of a lack of transparence.
Applying old "band-aid" therapies.
The need to have some sort of agreement as a basis for discussion.
Intellectual confusion reigns supreme in chaotic societies.
An outline of the Constitution.
If rules make sense, they are much easier to live with.
A look back at family relationships.
Cultural and Constitutional Guidelines.
A slowly and communally forged philosophy of life.

Let us return to the Constitution, and the three major objectives that have to be met by these Guidelines. We have discussed, to some extent, the economic concerns with their guarantees for minimum standards of living and equal opportunities for individual development. These aspects determine, of course, the state of health of the sense of justice, as well as this entire complex of "information and education". We have discussed, how disputes between the workers and their employers will become a matter for the Courts, and, why the tool of the "strike" will become obsolete. The distribution of opportunities to work will become a matter of serious concern, as the jobs that have to be carried-out will be classified according to the degree of skill, strength and ability they demand, and, an effort will have to be made to distribute the burdens as well as the pleasures of work fairly amongst qualified people.

However, the sense of justice does not depend, only, on occupying a position in society that is commensurate with one`s abilities. It may also be satisfied, on many occasions, by the ability to ask questions and receive honest and complete answers. Therefore, the sense of justice is also closely related to the fields of information and education. We visualise, that future citizens will have access to a variety of sources of relevant information, classified and stored for easy retrieval by a network of computers, and, this will allow people to obtain the answers they are seeking.

If the information sought is based upon a suspicion that some people in society are not pulling their weight; that they enjoy secret or illegal advantages, or, that they are harming, hampering or destroying, in one way or another, the essential framework of the social contract, we will have to make sure, that such suspicions can, either, be allayed quickly in order for a sphere of confidence and trust to return, or, we should be able to substantiate these suspicions with solid evidence, so that charges can be laid, corrective measures can be taken, and a situation of justice can be restored.

Access to information will provide a level of transparence in society we can not imagine at the present time. It is logical, that these ideas will cause a haul of protest, because we fear, rightfully, that such a transparence will become an instrument of persecution, oppression or harassment, or, we fear unpleasant consequences, if all our actions, thoughts and plans, wheelings and dealings, assets and influence, would be open to intense and continuous scrutiny by everyone. Yet, if we think about it, we come to the conclusion, that there is no other way to enforce the conditions of a social contract. There is no other way to allay the lingering suspicions of abuse and exploitation, or, to maintain an atmosphere of trust and good-will. As we have discussed, these attitudes are necessary, because we are becoming increasingly inter-dependent upon each other. If anyone knows a better way to accomplish the objectives of large-scale social viability, I like to hear about it.

We only have to look at our contemporary "democratic" societies to see the high price we pay for a lack of transparence. Our societies are worm-eaten by the attitudes and practices of egocentricity and corruption, and, many ordinary citizens, in particular, in the crowded cities and suburbs, have resigned themselves to live in enclaves, where they group-together into small units, providing for their own security against the jungle outside.

Anyone, who fails to appreciate the momentum and impact of these attitudes of despair, hardened egocentricity, or outright corrupt and criminal activities, is just not realistic. Unfortunately, many politicians and civic leaders have adopted a rather curious "blind eye" to these problems, and, they keep repeating, to themselves, as well as anyone who wants to listen, that our society is healthy; that we have the strength and the will-power to become a great nation, again, etc., etc. I do not know, whom they are trying to convince, but, to me, such exhortations are pathetic, because they resemble the well-meant but completely irrealistic encouragements of anxious family-members, who are assuring their dying relative, that he or she is going to get well again.

It is about time, that our political leaders face the truth, and search for realistic answers to the root-causes of the problems in our affluent societies, but, if you ask me, whether or not we can, indeed, change the course of a dying society, I have to agree, that it is likely to be impossible. It certainly will not be possible, if we keep applying the old "band-aid" therapies, because it hurts so much to be a little more radical in our attempts to find out, exactly, what is wrong with our societies and apply effective measures to correct their ills.

If we continue to soothe our voters, and, in essence, deceive them, we only drift helplessly with the tide of social decay, but, if we have the courage to state the unpopular and make a genuine effort to educate the people about the need for radical social reforms, we have, at least, a chance to bring-about a change for the better.

In the future, if there is going to be a future for our societies, leaders and citizens will have a far more comprehensive picture of the realities around them, because they will have access to all the relevant information needed to build-up a comprehensive image of reality. Now, our perceptions are confused and haphazard, because of the confused and haphazard data that have gone into the synthesis of this reality perception. People, who are discussing essentially the same realities, such as, for example, the social and economic conditions of our societies, may be talking about different concepts all-together. There is no communication possible, because the participants in a discussion can not even agree about the most basic facts of their reality perceptions.

Politicians from different political orientations can not even agree about the number of unemployed, the role of money, the nature of inflation, the results of certain taxation measures, the effects of interest-rates, the wisdom of restraining the money-supply, or the advantages and disadvantages of stimulating economic growth. There is no agreement at all about even the most fundamental facts upon which a meaningful discussion or dialogue has to rest.

We have to recognise these fundamental difficulties, because, if we continue to ignore them, we are not making any progress towards a diagnosis, nor, to a solution of the problems. If we do not come to grips with the problems of creating a meaningful and intelligible dialogue, more and more citizens will give-up on politics, and, certainly, they will be disgusted with the confusing cacaphony of a modern democracy. If we want to halt the processes of polarisation, before they become irreversible and hardened positions of conflict, we have to give our voters a more intelligent political choice.

Time and again, the public is exposed to arguments from both sides that do not seem to make any sense, and, we can not expect the people to make an intelligent and informed choice between the various political and economic options, if the politicians from the right, and the left, can not engage in an intelligible conversation with each other. If it becomes impossible, even for an impartial outsider, to form a bridge between the diverging view-points, there is no chance that the right and the left, or the "center" for that matter, can form a persuasive policy in which the average citizen can believe and put his trust.

Intellectual and conceptual confusion reigns supreme in such matters as the economic and political direction of society, the needs and aspirations of the human being, his motivations and drives, as well as the methods that are available to solve conflicts of interests. This confusion has to be conquered and replaced with some sort of a coherent and manageable perception of reality, and, I am convinced, that, the viability of future societies is linked to the ability to formulate a set of more cohesive ideas about man and his societies.

The Constitution will, therefore, be an indispensible tool to help us formulate a coherent policy, and, the function of political Parties will be to vary the accent, or the priorities, of the problems at hand. However, it will not be possible, anymore, for political Parties to work in completely opposite directions, leading to social stagnation, chaos and decay.

It does not seem possible, at this time, to delineate with more precision, how such a Constitution will be formulated, and, in which way the Constitutional Guidelines will be presented, but, I believe, that a Constitution will have two sections. The first is a philosophical outline of the purpose and essence of the social contract, including the essential conditions and principles of human existence which have to be met and safeguarded. The second part will be a series of detailed laws and regulations, spelling-out, specifically, the rules of conduct for citizens in all sorts of circumstances and official functions. These Constitutional Guidelines will also spell-out the overall direction and development of society as a whole.

This specific part also includes a detailed description of the way the leadership structure and all the executive branches and channels of information have to be organised. This is the only way to prevent the pernicious and unbridled growth of bureaucracies. Nor will it be possible for leaderships to conduct an irresponsible fiscal policy and accumulate an unnecessary or unacceptable burden of public debts, bringing-about inflationary pressures upon the monetary system.

Before we leave the subject of Constitutional Guidelines, we should answer those, who may still have grave reservations about the feasibility, or the wisdom, of regulating human behaviour and the structure of society in so much detail, because many people will intuitively revolt against such an unending series of rules and regulations, and, many of us do not believe, that it is possible, nor necessary, to regulate our behaviour to such an extent.

Let us, first of all, agree, that it is not easy to live with a large variety of rules and regulations, in particular, if these rules "do not come naturally", or, if they are an affront to our instinctive judgements. Perhaps, these rules and regulations are going directly against our conscience and beliefs. However, if rules "make sense", and, if they are contained in a coherent structure, and, if they are based upon a clearly stated principle with which we can agree, I believe, that it will, not only, be possible to live with such a package of guidelines, but, we will actually enjoy a sense of freedom.

This may sound contradictory, but, let us go back to the sense of joy and freedom a happy child experiences within the confines of a good family-environment. This child is happy, because it feels secure and confident because of the protection it receives, and, yet, it experiences a sufficient level of freedom and stimulation to exercise its drive to explore and be active. The child does not realise to what extent it has been subjected to rules and regulations that protect its security, and, it experiences, as an on-going process of inter-action with its environment, the guidance and the limitations that have been set on its behaviour by watchful parents or guardians.

Without this shelter of protection, security and stimulation, the child would be far more anxious and defensive, and, it would experience a chronic fear, as well as a continuous inhibition of its spontaneous behaviour. If we ever want to see a clear-cut example, where liberty and happiness are found within the tolerances of a sheltered and protective family, we only have to look at the average, healthy and happy child. There is no reason to doubt, that the average, healthy and essentially happy citizen feels most comfortable, and most "free", in the ability to develop his or her possibilities, if one exists within the shelter and stimulating environment of a wisely organised and governed society.

If you still think, that the idea of a package of Constitutional Guidelines is something novel and experimental, I would like to remind you, that, in the definition, as well as the function, of the "cultural code", we see already a complex package of behavioural guidelines at work. This package is necessary to transform the larger society into a more or less viable unit. The one over-riding difference between a "cultural code" and a Constitution, lies in the fact, that a culture is a more or less haphazard, historically grown, package of guidelines, which is, at least, in part, intuitive or subconscious in nature, while a package of Constitutional Guidelines is a rational, deliberately crafted document of explicit guidelines, centered around a series of carefully elaborated philosophical or intellectual principles, embodied, collectively, under the term "The Social Contract".

If you still believe, that a large society can grow into, or remain, a viable unit without such a package of rules and regulations, I can assure you, that such ideas are not supported by any historical or contemporary evidence. However, if anyone thinks, that such a Constitution can be imposed lightly or arbitrarily on a population, either, by a political Party that considers itself the sole heir to an absolutist, dogmatic, social doctrine, or, by a small ruling elite that believes itself to be the sole heir to the cultural and moral heritage of a particular society, these erroneous assumptions will, inevitably, lead to strife and dissent.

The philosophy of social organisation on a large scale has to be a document that is forged, slowly and communally, by careful and thoughtful evaluations, together with a period of practical experiences. Such a document will have to be shaped by a considerate and careful leadership, which will check each clause with a national referendum, in order to make sure, that, at least, a large majority of the people agree, and, hopefully, understand, fully, what they are being asked to judge.

Once a majority of the people have abandoned the hope that democratic rule is the most desirable way to organise a society and its leadership, the society is inevitably heading for a dictatorship with its irrepressible tendency to slide towards tyranny and oppression.

Therefore, as long as a majority of society is firmly in favour of democratic rule, it has to make sure, that the society and its leadership are capable of enforcing the conditions of the social contract, swiftly and decisively. If a democratic leadership loses this ability, the road towards chaos, polarisation and a dictatorship, has already been taken.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Practical suggestions for political candidates.
The value of an accurate analysis of conflict-situations.
A close look at the historical background.
The devastation and suffering resulting from a violent conflict that has been lost.
We have to show our youngsters, what our belligerent attitudes may bring us.
Avoiding a desperate resistance by the privileged elite.
Let us be cautious in our judgements of right and wrong.
The potential for an attitude of good-will by the privileged elite.
Fighting the establishment by exposing corruption and nepotism.
We all contribute so easily, if unwittingly, to incidences of injustice.
The "speech".
A return to the basic choice; social integration versus armed conflict.

It is time to enter the final phase of this discusion, where we promised to give a number of suggestions, how contemporary, democratic politicians can convey, at least, some of the ideals and idealisms of an extended social contract to the electorate. Let us assume, that a political candidate is firmly in favour of the democratic way of life, and, let us assume that he or she is faced with this most difficult and dangerous situation, where the voters have already become polarised; where there is intense resentment, hatred and discontent, and the democratic principle of government is on the verge of being lost.

It is tempting to launch, at this point, into an actual speech to an imaginary political gathering, where a candidate for Social Democracy is about to make a passionate plea for cooperation between hostile groupings. However, such a speech has to begin with an accurate analysis of the tensions that exist in this particular community, and, the political candidate has to show, that he is thoroughly familiar with the prevailing opinions of the various groupings. He should know, and enumerate, the arguments and counter-arguments, the grievances and accusations of one group versus the other, and, vice versa.

His main task in the beginning of his speech should be to point-out, that, nearly every individual and grouping lives under a cloud of injustice and suspicion. Perhaps, the most difficult task for the honest political speaker, is to point-out, gradually and with numerous practical examples, how all factions, parties, groupings and individuals contributed, in one way or another, to this atmosphere of distrust and hostility.

If the confrontation is, primarily, one of disparity; of rich versus poor, where the rich elite has all the political and economic advantages, the ability to make a speech that is balanced and mentions wrong-doings on both sides, will be more difficult. Because the cause of justice is so heavily weighted in favour of the poor, there is an irrepressible tendency to side with the disadvantaged and denounce the elite as an enemy. However, we fan, then, the forces of armed conflict and civil war, and, those, who have lived long enough to have learned something about the history of man and his societies, will be aware of the fact, that a revolutionary over-throw of the elite does not necessarily usher-in a period of social justice for everyone.

It is difficult to remain objective and balanced, but, I believe that it would be far more beneficial to review, first of all, something of the history of the nation, and discuss, why a disparity between the rich and the poor developed. We should, then, review the ideas and concepts of a Socialist equality of opportunity and living conditions, but, at the same time, we should review some of the basic features of the human personality.

The audience is represented by people with different types of assets and belongings, and, almost everyone has something to lose. If we look at those, who have absolutely nothing to lose, we see, that they are either victims of conflict-situations, refugees, rebellious out-laws, or, they have made mistakes in the past and have been somewhat irresponsible in their behaviour. There is, of course, no doubt, that major disparities occur entirely beyond the fault of individual people or families, but, in a sober historical review, we can, often, come to the conclusion, that, those, who are destitute, refugees or victims of wars, belonged to a society that engaged in a struggle, and lost.

It is necessary to remind people, time and again, about the consequences of warfare, and, to teach those, who have no personal experience about the level of suffering an armed conflict brings-about. For a short while, we may bring ourselves into a state of euphoria by convincing ourselves, that we are going to defeat, demolish, or utterly destroy, our enemies, but, if the bullets start flying, our homes, crops and villages are burned, and, our sons and daughters are torn-apart by shells and shrapnel, then, it is too late to think about different ways of settling a conflict. Anyone, who has not experienced the horrors of warfare and the aftermath of utter destitution, starvation and being a refugee or a prisoner of war, at the mercy of the charity of others, should be taught, by a truly honest presentation of actual history and the results of past wars, what our attitudes of belligerence and the choice of warfare, may bring.

After this, the politician should come back to the present and point, again, to the relatively mild disparities that exist between the people, and he should, then, point-out, that, those, who possess something, will naturally resist any attempt to take their assets away from them. They may be far more inclined to share voluntarily, if they can be convinced, that it is proper and ethical to do so; if someone really needs their help, and is not out to deceive them. Also, it is natural, that the decision to share should remain with those who have something to share, and, that they should also determine, by and large, to what extent they will give-up some of their assets.

Any attempt to force "the rich" to give-up everything they own, must lead to a desperate resistance, because the rich are dependent upon their assets, far more so than the poor. You may argue, that there is a measure of unfairness in the fact, that the rich are more dependent upon their assets and luxuries, because it is merely an indication, how enslaved they have become to their luxuries and privileges. Certainly, this is true, but, let us look at ourselves, for a moment; we, the "relative poor". We are also dependent upon the comforts of our home, regardless, how modest it is, and, we too, are dependent upon small luxuries, such as a cigarette or a drink, and, we, too, would be uncomfortable and resentful, if we would be suddenly forced to give-up these little comforts.

This excercise in pointing-out some of the basic facts of human existence is not an excuse to leave the status-quo as it is, but, it is an important psychological tool of understanding. Such an excercise should convince every militant grouping with a legitimate argument against the status-quo, that we have to remain patient and understanding, while working, constantly, for a change towards a more just direction of development. Let us impress our audience, time and again, that the impatient route of armed conflict necessarily stiffens the resistance of those we consider to be our enemies.

Many people will, rightfully, argue, that the poor and oppressed, as well as any other under-privileged group, had little choice, but to excercise their military options. Many will laugh at the notion, that it is possible to change the minds or attitudes of the rich by non-violent means, and, I agree, that, in the past, the revolutionary over-throw of an established and privileged elite was, often, the only way to bring-about effective change.

However, let us also acknowledge, that, the revolutionary over-throw of an established elite, often led, quite quickly, to the establishment of a new elite, which engaged also in oppression, or the suppression of dissent, just like the previous elite. People have dreamt, generation after generation, that the revolution they were fighting and suffering for, perhaps, even, dying for, would be the last revolution or armed struggle, because, after this struggle had been won, the leadership would be a model of compassionate wisdom, and, everyone in society would live a happy and just existence.

Anyone, who is somewhat aware of the past, knows, that this dream has never been realised. Certainly, the situation improves for those who won, but the people and communities who were defeated, became often a miserable and oppressed minority, suffering from injustice and maltreatment, and, they would, eventually, rise-up again in a revolt, trying to change a situation of injustice.

Let us be cautious, therefore, with our self-assured judgements about, who is right, and, who is wrong, and, let us make sure, that our struggle to give equality and justice to the peoples of our society, applies to all; also to those, who are now in a position of privilege. It will surprise us to see, how much good-will there is amongst those who are relatively privileged, especially, if they are approached, not with an ultimatum, but with intelligent and broadminded arguments about the need to spread the privileges and well-being over a larger segment of the population. It will amaze many of the poor to learn, that the privileged have, often, made serious and honest attempts to improve the standard of living and education for those who are less well-off than themselves.

True, these attempts often backfired, or, they were unsuccessful, because they were made on too small a scale, were not sustained enough, or, these efforts were punctuated by disappointments and treacherous behaviour-patterns on both sides.

However, as a social democratic politician, we should point-out the fact, that the ideals of social equality, justice and a fair opportunity for all, are now well-known, and, these ideas and ideals are often enthousiastically accepted by the more idealistic and socially sensitive youngsters from privileged families. We should not alienate them, or drive them back into a defensive and conservative attitude, by treating all people who come from a privileged background, with suspicion and contempt.

The ideals of democratic representation in the leadership are now widely acknowledged and promoted all over the world. Ironically, these ideals are also advocated by leaderships that have not fully implemented these concepts in the form of politically diversified, democratic elections, but, through international contacts, and, with the help of extensive communications, it is becoming much more effective to fight a privileged elite by exposing hypocrisies and falsehoods, corruption and nepotism, by educating the members of society in the ideals of equal opportunity, than to opt for the simplistic solution of all-out armed confrontation.

I know very well, that it still seems such an up-hill battle, and, that our governments and leaderships are, constantly, placing the economic and political benefits of trade and contact above the moral duty of pointing-out to each other, where they fall-short in implementing democratic ideals and standards. However, the pressures of international opinion are mounting, and, we, who have the good fortune to live in a democratic society, can collectively exert a great deal of pressure upon our leaders to make them more honest and less selfish in their international contacts. But, we will have to set a good example in our own behaviour, before we can hope to accomplish such beneficial results. Look at ourselves. We are constantly shouting grievances at each other, and, we are always complaining about the injustices, we think, we are suffering at the hands of others.

However, can we honestly say, that we are not contributing to the injustices of other people? We tend to shrug-off our behaviour as "necessary to survive", or, we justify dubious practices and attitudes by saying that someone else will reap the benefits, if we do not do this or that, etc. Yet, we forget, that, we, ourselves, almost without exception, are contributing to incidences of injustice, at one time or another. These incidences may still cause only relatively minor feelings of hostility, suspicion and discrimination, but, they may escalate easily in the near future, and, eventually, they will lead to atrocities and assassinations, and, we are back, then, to a situation of all-out armed conflict.

"I am here, as your candidate of cooperation and compromise, and I reject, resolutely, any attitude or course of action, that will increase the polarisation that has already taken place. I am an independently acting and thinking individual. I do not owe any allegiance to any specific group, and, I am firmly committed to the solution of cooperation and compromise as a means of settling disputes".

"I will call injustices as I see them, and, I will do everything to correct these incidences of injustice, regardless, where they are found or who has to be held responsible for them. An armed conflict is never a justifiable method to settle disputes, because, I do not believe, that power reflects necessarily a situation of justice. However, the only time I will support the use of a swift retaliation and a ruthless oppression, is against those forces or groupings, which, deliberately and knowingly, try to destroy the democratic society by force".

"I believe, that it is important to teach any audience, even, if they are not yet so polarised that armed conflict is imminent, how dangerous and devastating, how cruel and unjust, how fatal and desperate the conditions may become, if we give-in to the temptation to fight a civil war or an armed "purge" against some segments of the population, which are considered to be subversive or elitist".

"I also believe, that it is very important to squarely point the finger at the attitudes of distrust, dishonesty, suspicion and poor workmanship, exploitation and the use of pressure-tactics, such as strikes or work-stoppages, as fore-runners of social decay and chaos. It is about time, that we learn to appreciate, how devastating these attitudes and practices really are, and, how society becomes increasingly fragmented into special-interest groupings, if we allow these practices to continue".

"We also have to acknowledge, however, that these attitudes can only be fought-off effectively, if we, political leaders, make a serious and effective effort to increase honesty, openness and competence in government, because, only then, are highly integer and capable leaders able to become an inspiration of good-will, rather than an envied symbol of privilege". So spoke the candidate.

The basic choice, which the Social Democratic politician has to place before his audience, time and again, is the choice between the Social Contract, together with this entire package of measures that is necessary to make it a viable contract, and, the choice of polarisation; the fight, the armed confrontation, and the process of social fragmentation and decay.

Every political faction that does not subscribe to the concept of a social contract as the basis for justice and harmony, has, in essence, opted, at least, tacitly, for the mechanisms of polarisation and conflict.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A summary of Social-Democratic ideals.
Excercising a confident and competent historical grasp.
When politicians remain fearful nobodies.
The ability to admit having made mistakes.
A series of questions and answers.
Defusing suspicions with an attitude of openness and honesty.
Excercising the ability to think for ourselves.
Apportioning blame for existing disparities.
Wide-spread injustices; in the past, as well as the present.
Anyone, who thinks that poverty is not "hard work", just to survive, should give it a try.
How to avoid an act of good-will from becoming exploited and ridiculed.
A healthy, free and frugal life-style.
A look back at irresponsible promises by political candidates.

If we may summarise the essence of the Social-Democratic candidate for public office, it would be as follows. The politician should have an excellent grasp of the problems, issues and opposing factions of his constituency, as well as the nation as a whole. He or she should have a good grasp over the history of society, as well as the outlines of human history in general. Above all, the politician should have a good grasp over human nature, including our basic motivations and the simple fact, that, a choice for the solution of violent conflict necessarily stiffens the resistance of our adversaries.

It is important to have the ability, and the courage, to point-out, that we all share in the blame for polarising tensions. The political leader has to explain, how our attitudes and practices, our suspicions and hostilities, can and do contribute to the situations and incidences of injustice. A Social-Democratic leadership will make it clear to the people, that it is impossible to create a just and harmonious society by continuing to adhere to selfish and suspicious attitudes. It is the task of the politician to show, how an increased transparence and openness in society will lead to a better performance of us all; how we can overcome the scourge of corruption, incompetence, nepotism, scandal and exploitation, dishonesty, disappointment and deception, by practicing a universal transparence.

You may accuse me of being a preacher, rather than a politician, and, you may tell me, that it would be politicial suicide for anyone to advocate such moral attitudes in a political speech, while seeking support from a broad spectrum of voters. Yet, politics has very much to do with leadership; with good, ethical leadership, and, we should rid ourselves, once and for all, of the notion, that we can continue to avoid these moral and ethical questions in our political campaigns.

Politics has very much to do with a natural, common-sense morality, but, if we continue to see politics, merely, as a cautious search for a vague, fluctuating and rather haphazard common denominator of sentiments, we will never be able to guide and lead people. Then, politicians remain fearful nobodies, trying to catch a favourable wind of public opinion, while drifting, then here, then there.

We can not be successful, beneficial and good political leaders without a backbone of moral convictions, and, the time has come to face the electorate squarely, and, tell them, that it is urgent to put a discussion about selfish attitudes and a fearful defensiveness back into the political vocabulary. Let us bring back the qualities of integrity and common-sense, and, let us call things as we see them.

In particular, let us refrain from this simplistic solution to put all the blame on someone else. We have to recognise the fact, that we may share in the blame for the problems we face, and, a balanced, rational approach, where we dare to admit our share of the blame, may open-up the channels of good-will and communication between us and our adversaries.

In contemporary political wrangling, it seems unfashionable to mention, even, the possibility, that political goals and objectives may be selfish and wrong. We can always blame the opposition for our troubles. Ordinary people have not quite lost the ability to admit their mistakes, and, they are, as a rule, able and willing to admit to a fair share of the blame for mistakes and wrong-doings. I can assure you, that, no political Party will be able to retain support from ordinary people, unless they behave like ordinary human beings, and admit, once in a while, that they were wrong.

Perhaps, you will find this approach to political leadership naive, and, you may argue, that the people can not simply be goaded to vote for you on the basis of an honest face, or the appeal of a high moral integrity. They also want to question you and some of the questions may be quite pointed and blunt. How do you handle a sharp an sophisticated audience that is not afraid to hurl a number of difficult questions at you?

"Why should we believe you? We have always been promised one thing or another. Now, you are promising us social justice on a scale we can hardly imagine. Why should we believe you anymore, than we believe the others, and, why should we not ignore you as an irrealistic dreamer? What guarantees can you give us, that you will not use a position of power and privilege for your own advantage, just like the others? We do not trust politicians, and, why should we trust you?

I would answer thus. "All through life, each one of us is called-upon to make judgements, and, these judgements deal, in a large measure, with the decision, whether or not to trust some individual or some group of people. The essence of being in a social unit is the fact, that we have to trust someone. Even you, who has obviously lost all trust in our political system and leadership, you have to trust someone. You trust your closest friends and relatives, and, even, if you take-up arms as a revolutionary to overthrow those in power, you still have to trust the members and leaders of your own group. Besides, you will never be successful as a revolutionary, unless you receive the trust and support of a significant number of ordinary citizens.

Whether you can trust me and what I stand for, is a decision you have to make, and, the beauty, as well as the responsibility of the democratic system, lies in the fact, that this responsibility to make an honest and free choice whom to trust and whom to give your confidence to, is given to everyone, and, not only to a Party-elite or the rich.

It is true, that, many politicians, who reach a position of power and privilege, become so anxious and defensive, that they start to look primarily towards their own safety and financial security. We do not condone this, nor, do we think that such a development is inevitable. We have to understand, first of all, why there is such a temptation to abuse a position of power. We all know, that a lack of supervision and control, a lack of correction and punishment for wrong-doings, as well as an atmosphere of tacit or explicit endorsement of corrupt practices, will lead to a wide-spread decay in society, and, this attitude and practice of decay spreads, literally, like a rotting fungus through a basket of apples.

We have to install, therefore, a set of stringent safeguards to make sure, that, those, who are given a position of responsibility, are encouraged, yes forced, to conduct themselves, and execute their tasks, with scrupulous honesty, and, with the highest standards of competence and efficiency. However, we also have to make sure, that we give them the means to carry-out their tasks properly, and, that they are protected from unjust accusations and harassment. No-one works well, if harassed or falsely accused. A greater degree of transparence will help us, the public, to see what is really going-on, and, it will give us the opportunity to judge the performance of our leaders fairly, without unjust suspicions and accusations, but, also, without deceit or a front of falsehoods.

Why you should trust me, and believe that my ideas are viable, valuable and worthy of support, has to be judged and decided upon by yourself. If you have a strong feeling, that these ideas are utopian dreams, then, I invite you to propose rational alternatives, and see, whether or not you can come-up with better ideas. If you still have fears and reservations about the consequences or feasibility of one or other aspect, I invite you to keep questioning me, as well as all those, who stand for the same philosophical answers to our social and individual problems.

Another critic may speak as follows; "I find it incredible, that you even dare to propose a major cut-back in economic activities and a reduction in our standard of living. Every other politician or political Party promises us something to look forward to. All you promise, is even greater hardships, less employment, less income, less chances to pay-off our debts and enjoy the good things in life. You give us a prospect of economic doom, as well as a high level of idleness and unemployment. At least, these seem logical implications of your call for a return to a basic frugality, where we do not consume anymore than we have to. Perhaps, many of us are interested to take note of your ideas, because they seem to be a novel and courageous attempt to reduce disparity, but, we can not help but feel, that you are so naive, and, that you have so little chance of success, that most of us will not think seriously about supporting your candidacy".

My answer would be as follows; "I agree with you, that the initial consequences of the policies we advocate, are not very palatable, and, I agree, that it seems foolish to vote for someone who promises you less, if there are others who promise you more, and, who are trying to convince you, that it is not necessary to cut-back on present standards of living. It is tempting to believe those who say, "Let the poorer nations work harder and build-up their own prosperity. Why should they not be able to gain a decent standard of living, just like we did? No-one handed us our affluence on a platter. We worked for it. We worked hard and we took our chances. For every enterprise that succeeded, a large number failed, and, for every tycoon who became a millionaire, hundreds or thousands have died in poverty".

"Let those under-developed nations get rid of their dictators and corrupt officials, and, above all, let them become more concerned about the plight of their own people. I find it ludicrous, that, we, in the affluent societies, are constantly stimulated to shed a tear of guilt over the poverty and deprivation of people and children in these poor countries, while we hear, on the same news, that their leaders are engaged in wars with each other, or, that they have embarked on a civil war with their own people. I find it disgusting to hear that many people in power exploit society and abuse whatever few assets these countries have left. Let them first put their own political house in order, and, then, I may be convinced, that my concerns and contributions will be of some use".

You know, if you argue this way, I agree with you, and, I agree, that our sentiments of good-will are being exploited by the merchants of misery, who use our ability to be moved, primarily, for their own egocentric gains. I agree, that, we, or, at least, our forefathers, worked hard to get what they wanted, and, they worked hard to be able to hand their rich inheritance to us. However, I want to remind you, that these assets have been accumulated, also, on the basis of great injustices. We have driven-off inhabitants, stolen and expropriated large territories that were occupied, at least, to some extent, by others. We have conquered and enslaved other societies and peoples, and, we have imported slaves from another Continent. We have killed each other in wars and feuds, and, because of a set of fortuitous circumstances, we were able to exploit and skim-off, quickly, the most easily accessible natural resources.

The poverty of poorer countries today is, indeed, in part, a result of their own, chronically corrupt leaderships. Their poverty and misery is due to ignorance and apathy of a population that suffers, not only, from a lack of schooling and poor political leadership, but, also, from mal-nutrition and diseases, dulling the mind and sapping all their energies. There is poverty and disease right around us in our affluent societies, and we know, how difficult it is to overcome the handicap of an illness, a drug or alcohol dependency, or, even, a neurotic tension of chronic frustrations.

Anyone, who says, today; let the poor and depraved work hard to pull themselves up by their boot-straps, is himself the heir to an easy and luxurious inheritance, and, such an individual does not know, by and large, what it means to work hard. These people can only anxiously shout this slogan, because they have become completely dependent upon their luxuries, and, they would not know, what to do without this cushion of affluence. Anyone, who thinks that poverty is not "hard work", just to survive, should give it a try.

It is true, that the leaderships of the under-developed nations are often incompetent and corrupt, and, we have a moral obligation to see, that the leaderships of all groupings and societies become beneficial for their own peoples. This is the reason, why we reject the facile excuse of "non-interference" in each other's affairs, which is often used to avoid getting involved and assuming a measure of responsibility.

Let us come back to the problem you have in believing, that this approach we stand for, is correct, and, that it is, not only, correct, but, the only long-term alternative available to us. Our premise is the following; if we continue to consume more and more, and, if we continue this economic momentum of today; if we continue to soothe our frustrations with luxuries and a high rate of consumption, we opt, in essence, for the status-quo, and, it is my firm belief, that this status-quo represents a drift into ever greater disparities, tensions and frustrations, which will continue the miseries of injustice and warfare.

Certainly, we can continue our present course, at least, for a while, and, if we do not neglect to arm ourselves adequately, and, if we continue to have the will-power to risk our lives defending all this affluence, we may continue the present course for a number of generations.

However, I ask you, at what price? Eventually, the pressures on our decadent life-style will mount, and, we are faced, then, with the agonising decision to let our position slip, bit by bit, reluctantly and with ever greater internal upheavals of chaos and injustice, or, we can get hold of ourselves and say; "We have to do something definitive". The individual, who has become a chronic alcoholic, faces the same dilemma, and, we know, very well, that, all the ills of dependence and enslavement need, eventually, drastic therapy, if we want to have a chance of getting rid of these dependencies.

Let me emphasise, once again, that we are talking about ultimate goals. We are not advocating, that, tomorrow, each and everyone of us should get rid of all his possessions in a hurry, in order to "solve the problems and injustices of the world". It does not work this way, because a precipitous action by a few idealists leads, invariably, to a disastrous exploitation of this good-will by others, and, the actions of good-will become a victim of ridicule and incredulity. No, this is not the way, but we think, that it is important to get, at least, an insight and a consensus in what direction we will have to move.

Once we have seen, clearly, where our present "social drift" leads us to, and, as soon as we have grasped the logic, and the beauty, of leading a simple, frugal, but healthy and informed, as well as "free" life-style, then, we can begin to work-out a gradual program of change, which ensures, that the sacrifices and burdens of a change in direction are born by everyone, and, that such a radical change in direction reduces the tensions of disparity, conflict and corruption within our societies, and does not increase them. As we have outlined, on many occasions, I believe that it is, now, really possible to change our consuming habits and life-styles in such a way, that we all benefit and bear equally the sacrifice of giving-up luxuries. It will require extensive and carefully crafted regulations, but, it can be done.

Let me answer your remarks about the promises of other political factions. Each political Party or politician who promises you "more of the same", is, in my view, the irrealistic Party, who refuses to see the ultimate consequences of our present course. Certainly, many of you will find it difficult to believe, that it is necessary to cut-back, because you hear so many contradictory opinions. I invite you, once again, to think for yourself.

Consider the world just like a family-farm, or, the small business-enterprise you are familiar with. Can you keep taking out, again and again, without replacing what you took out? No, soon, the assets will be gone, and, you are faced with bankruptcy. Can you neglect your land, factory or machinery? No, eventually, it breaks down, or it does not yield anymore. Can you keep cutting the trees or taking the fish out of the rivers, without giving a thought to the question how stocks are going to be replenished?

A large number of people are still poor and deprived, but, they are learning more and more about the excesses of affluent life. Do you think, that you can maintain this disparity without finding yourself under increasing pressures to give-up some of your luxuries and privileges?

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The world at large is, in essence, not any different than the small farm, community or business enterprise.
Opportunistic alliances and an egocentric outlook.
A few more questions and answers.
Learning to live with dangerous and frightening potentials.
The concepts of a globally acceptable philosophy will represent a logical extra-polation of historical trends.
Relativistic excercises.
Transparence can not be abused, if there is a truly two-way visibility.
Avoiding dominance by a small elite.
The dangers associated with a "priestly class" of Constitutional experts or "purists".
Mechanisms for Constitutional amendments.
A freedom that allows laziness or irresponsible attitudes, will eventually destroy itself.
The art and usefulness of a philosophy.
We have to be able to judge the quality of a reality perception.
Traveling on the road-ways of society.
A beneficial framework of tolerances and limitations.
There will always be the temptation to use an egocentric short-cut, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

The world is, in essence, not any different than a farm, a business or a small community, but the forces at work take much longer to build-up a momentum, or to show, clearly, their results and consequences. We have to learn to see the world as our own small community of mankind, and, we have to acknowledge, that we can not continue to ignore the disparities between the members of this community, without reaping the dreadful consequences of such a neglect.

The fundamental difference between us and the other political Parties, is the fact, that we seek the solution of our problems in a contract of social relationships on a global scale, and, we transcend, at least, in our philosophy, our national boundaries. Nearly all the other Parties are nationalistic. They want to solve the problems purely within the confines of the nation, and, the interests of the nation occupy, therefore, a central position. It is unavoidable, that the foreign policy of these Parties reflects this egocentric or socio-centric outlook. Foreign policy becomes, then, a search for mutually beneficial alliances beteen communities or nations, which see an advantage in "aligning" themselves, while their posture becomes hostile and defensive against foreign societies or challengers they fear.

I think, that it is possible to overcome these nationalistic trends and attitudes by encouraging a social development, that will, eventually, allow our national boundaries and sovereignties to blur and fuse into a workable, global society; a society that is democratically organised on the principles of proportional as well as regional representation, as we have outlined. Again, we invite everyone to study, closely, the principles of our political philosophy, and, we invite you to make a considerate and thoughtful choice.

Q; "Your political philosophy seems to require a high level of organisation, of information-gathering and data-processing, as well as an elaborate structure of guidelines for the behaviour of each and everyone in society, including the members of the leadership. This sounds fine, in theory, but, the experience with centralised economic planning and the inevitable emergence of corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies, makes one extremely weary about the feasibility of such a grandiose scheme. Even taking into consideration the fact, that, modern computers allow us a form of data-processing that was totally beyond our imagination, even, a short while ago, I fear, that this whole structure of good intentions and philosophical day-dreams will become a nightmare, and, that it will become a source of oppression and persecution, especially, if these computer networks, with their ability to monitor each and every individual, fall into the hands of a powerful and unscrupulous elite.

A; I fully agree with your fears, and, it frightens me, too, to think what the consequences of such an evolution towards a global society, could be. However, we developed atomic power and nuclear bombs, and we still do not know, what to do with a large portion of the nuclear waste. The emphasis in our imagery should be placed upon the idea, that, the living conditions and the life-style for the members of mankind is subject to a continuous process of evolution. Man has developed his technology and weapons almost always under the practical guidance and stimulus of a direct need. We have discussed, how the emergence of the larger societies at the beginning of recorded history, came-about as a result of the need for such aggregates of large social groupings. Man could not afford, any longer, to live in small nomadic groupings, living-off the land without giving any thought to long-term planning; without giving any thought to the question where the food was going to come from, or, how stocks were to be protected from pillage and attack.

We saw the evolution of agriculture, the domestication of animals, an ever increasing complexity of the cultural code, as well as the formulation of conscious guidelines and laws, as societies became larger and larger, and, people began to live ever more closely together. In a way, the presentation of the idea of a global philosophy, together with the ideas that describe a transformation of mankind into a global society, are a logical extention or extra-polation of trends that found their origin many thousands of years ago.

Let us look at our modern technology, as well as our contemporary problems, and, we see, clearly, that our ancestors, even, those who lived only a hundred years ago, would be completely overwhelmed, if they could see us today. Similarly, it is very difficult to see, for us, how people, several hundred years from now, will be living; what sort of problems they have to cope with, and, what sort of tools and technological aids they have at their disposal.

It is even more difficult to know, what sort of goals, dreams and aspirations will occupy the minds and thoughts of future generations. We find it somewhat strange to see the sort of problems and pre-occupations our forefathers concerned themselves with, because it is difficult to comprehend, how they could argue, seriously, about the question, how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle.

Similarly, we should be aware of the fact, that future generations, perhaps, not even all that far into the future, may have a totally different outlook on reality compared to us, today. Their familiarity with complex computer technology may be such, that they take it completely for granted that the society is globally organised; that it is totally transparent, and, that they can obtain any conceivable information or answer, at the touch of a computer terminal.

Just as we are familiar with the complex functions of our automobiles and household appliances, so may future generations be familiar with the complex Constitutional Guidelines that are necessary for our collective survival. Just as a pilot of the first World War would be totally confused, if he was asked to fly a modern jet, so would we be confused, and perplexed, if we could see, what social evolution accomplished in the next hundred years or so.

However, the principles that lie behind these developments are not difficult to comprehend, nor, are they completely new. The technical research and refinements necessary to "make it work", are often complex and time-consuming, but, there is no reason to believe, that the future societies will not be a logical extention of the forces and trends that are already visible today.

Certainly, this package of Constitutional Guidelines will take several, perhaps, many generations to put-together, and, many "technical refinements" will have to be made, before it will work smoothly and reliably. We have argued, many times, how the factors of transparence are the best possible safeguard against the trend towards domination by a powerful elite. A "scenario" of abuse and dominance implies a one-way transparence, where the elite checks on the rest, but not, vice versa. We visualise, that, future generations will be sophisticated enough to recognise such a trend early, and, we can easily imagine the hauls of protest that will go-up, if anyone even tried to establish a non-reciprocal or one-way street of social transparence.

Just as we are becoming increasingly aware of the fact, that, official positions of public office are not supposed to be used, and abused, for personal gain, so will the members of future societies have sufficient knowledge and insight to avoid such a hopelessly diseased form of social organisation. The dominance of society by a small, powerful and privileged elite, still so common today, is, in essence, a "diseased" form of social existence, and, it will have been eradicated, or, at least, it will be diagnosed so early in its evolution, that any development into this direction can be nipped in the bud.

Q; "It is still difficult to see, how such an extensive package of Constitutional Guidelines for individual and collective behaviour-patterns corresponds to the innate need of the human being to excercise his or her "will". You have explained, how the human being is heir, par excellence, of the evolutionary trend towards a measure of behavioural freedom. We fear, that an evolution of society towards such an extensive and explicit complex of behavioural guidelines, is, essentially, in conflict with our natural inclinations, and, that a society, so organised, is forever fighting dissenters and heretics".

A; Yes, there is certainly a grave danger, that a Constitutional package of rigid and explicit Guidelines may become a source of elitist dominance; a priestly hierarchy of "Constitutional Faithful", who assume a measure of prominence on account of a professed belief in, or adherence to, an absolute, Constitutional Truth. We have outlined in our ideas about a Constitutional Assembly, made-up of Regional Governors, how we think, that it is possible for the Constitution to remain an instrument with which all people, and not just a small elite, can identify.

We have seen, how a system of continuous debate and gradual change, together with frequent public referenda, ensures, that the Constitutional package remains firm, but flexible; a package of adaptable guidelines for our behaviour and our social institutions. However, the practice of holding frequent referenda, means, also, that the entire population is "forced" to participate in the processes of Constitutional change and amendment. People will have to become, and remain, informed about what is going-on, and, what kind of choices they have to make. This continuous participation in a truly democratic process of Constitutional Debate, will be one of the most powerful deterrents to the emergence of a divisive elite.

Indeed, I am convinced, that it is wrong to come to the conclusion, that, only a handful of the more intelligent members are able to contribute to the political and philosophical processes in society. If we allow such an elite to emerge, or, if we allow a majority of the people to "sink" into an attitude of apathy and unconcern, we are sowing the seeds of decay. Certainly, most people, including ourselves, are somewhat "lazy", and, we have always a tendency to "leave it to the experts", because we do not want to make the effort to think for ourselves and do things for ourselves, or, we may lack the confidence that we are able to do certain things ourselves.

It would be the wrong kind of freedom to allow such a laziness in concern for public affairs to develop. Just as we have already a compulsory program of education for our adolescents, so should we be able to design an appropriate, interesting and effective program of continuing adult education, which is designed, primarily, to help people make intelligent choices.

You are quite right. The human being is heir to an evolutionary trend, allowing us, every day of our lives, to make some sort of a deliberate choice. Many choices are crucially important for our survival, and, it makes sense to know something about the fields in which we have to make a choice. Man learned, a long time ago, that he can not be an expert in all fields of knowledge, and, the rapid development of many fields of knowledge and expertise has provided us with one of the most powerful tools to become mutually inter-dependent and forego some of our competitive instincts and acts of hostility.

However, specialisation in function and detailed decision making does not mean, that we are absolved from the need, and the responsibility, to have, at least, an overall grasp over our existence, the environment, as well as our social surroundings. The art and usefulness of a generalised philosophical over-view consists in providing a broad but comprehensible and overseeable framework of reality perceptions, which lets us place every awareness into some sort of a sensible relationship. This allows us to make a sensible decision, where, and when, we are going to rely upon an expert opinion, and, when we have to make a judgement ourselves. We are completely justified to let experts design and maintain the tools we use, but, how we are going to use a tool, has to be our own responsibility.

Most of us rely upon the presentation of an attractive, overall reality perception. Most of the time, this will be a religious interpretation of the realities confronting us, and, we assimilate this religious reality perception from the cultural environment in which we have grown-up, because we lack the expertise to design a perception of reality ourselves. However, we are not absolved from the need and the responsibility to examine a variety of reality perceptions, if there are a number of perceptions competing for our attention.

Ultimately, we have to judge for ourselves, what we think is true and what is not true, and, without going into the complexity of relativistic thought, we all know, that we have to make, constantly, a judgement about the question, whether or not someone's views or reality perceptions correspond with a "truth". We have to be able to judge the quality of a reality perception. We have to be able to judge, whether or not a reality perception is flawed. It may be flawed, either, as a result of the fact, that a group, or individual, presenting a reality perception to us, wants to influence or manipulate our attitudes and beliefs, or, because there may be important logical and common-sense discrepancies and arguments that are difficult to reconcile with each other.

We have to excercise our "will" and faculties of evaluation and judgement all the time, but, this does not necessarily mean, that we will have to rebel against rules and regulations that are putting a certain limit upon what we can do. If we are convinced, that it is to our benefit to obey the safety rules of the road, we will do so, and, by responding "automatically" within the framework of a completely acceptable set of rules and regulations for the road, we experience a remarkable degree of freedom. Just becuase we, as well as the other members of society, obey the rules of the road, we all experience the magnificent freedom, that we can point our automobile into any direction we want.

Are our travels through life, in the varied and intricate road-ways of society, really any different? Do we not enjoy, as children, or as members of our small community, the greatest sense of freedom, when we can relate in trust to each other? Are we not experiencing the greatest degree of freedom, when we know, quite accurately, if subconsciously, what we can do and what sort of behaviour our society will not tolerate? Life in the global society will not be any different, except for the fact, that we can plot a course through the road-ways of a society that extends over the entire globe.

The tolerances and limitations that come with any set of rules and regulations, are designed to guarantee each other's safety, well-being and essential equality, but, otherwise, we can go, wherever we want. The complex and explicit Constitutional Guidelines are really not anymore complex than this partially verbalised and partially subconscious set of cultural regulators, which, already, guides our existence to a significant extent. As a matter of fact, the Constitutional Guidelines will be so much easier to understand than the cultural regulators, because they are consciously crafted rules and regulations, while many cultural guidelines are more haphazard, more illogical, and, often, somewhat contradictory and confusing.

Besides, this package of Constitutional Guidelines will act as a globally accepted system of ethics, and, it will, therefore, be much easier to move from one area to another, or, to communicate with people over the entire world. Imagine the difficulties, if you, as a driver of your automobile, would have to obey a set of different rules and regulations, each time you enter another village.

Yet, with all the emphasis upon the freedoms that can be enjoyed, whenever a sensible package of guidelines is adhered-to by a large number of people, we should not forget, that the human being always has the option, (and, he will be tempted to do so, for a variety of reasons), to disobey these rules and regulations for social well-being. We see this, when the motorist is tempted, time and gain, to opt for an egocentric short-cut, obtaining an often temporary and short-sighted gain, nearly always, at the expense of his safety, as well as the safety of others.

People all over the world, and, in every generation, will experience the fact, that there is always this possibility to opt for the egocentric solution, in contrast to the social solution. Every viable society will have understood and safeguarded the basic existential needs of its members, and, as we have explained before, the whole idea of a Constitutional Package is to guarantee each member an equal satisfaction and fulfilment of these primary existential needs.

There is always the possibility, that some people, or groups, will grab more than their fair share. This is the temptation of opportunism, which is, indeed, most frequently, the result of laxity in the enforcement of rules and regulations, providing the opportunity to grab such an unfair advantage without penalties. We should learn to distinguish, sharply, this egocentric opportunism from the defensive or reactionary types of behaviour, where a rebellion is sparked by the conviction, and the experience, that a flaw in the social system or administration of justice has created a situation of injustice.

The forceful rebellion, as well as the opportunistic grab for power and privileges, are "acts of war" against the social environment. We are assuming, here, of course, that the rebellion is mistaken and unjustified. We will always have to live with the fact, that a small number of people are, for one reason or another, inclined to act in a way that threatens to destroy the fabric of social justice, together with the Constitutional Guidelines that regulate the sense of justice and well-being of everyone.

This does not mean, that an individual does not have the right to voice any opinion he likes. As long as dissent remains verbal, the "correction" will also remain verbal, but, if actions begin to destroy or encroach upon the rights of other people, swift and just corrective measures will have to be taken, which may mean the armed suppression of a rebellion, or the death-penalty for incorrigeable criminals.

We will always have to opt, deliberately and consciously, for a clear-cut choice; either, a solution of peaceful compromises and ordened transformations, or, the solution of a conflict by force. However, even, if we opt, deliberately and firmly, for the Social Contract, we have to be prepared to defend and maintain this Social Contract with a deliberately measured and just force, whenever necessary.

.......

Summary

1. Precisely enforced rules and regulations are an essential part of a package of basic human rights.
   Campaign promises have to be governed by Constitutional Guidelines.
   How to prevent a political paralysis.
   The cohesiveness of a tribal society.
   How to secure a smooth leadership succession and a continuity in guidance.
   Accentuating a majority vote; regional representation.
   The government; formed by a coalition of political Parties.
   Problems with proportional representation.
   The "waste" of minority votes.
   Presidential elections with a run-off system, ensuring, that the overall political leader will get, at least, fifty percent of the popular vote.
   The Prime Minister; leader of the ruling political Party.
   Varying power relationships between the President and the Prime Minister.
   
   
   
2. The influence of the military institutions on the political process.
   When there is only a "veneer" of democratic rule.
   The freedom to criticise.
   The Social Contract has to be defended against egocentric attitudes and activities.
   The problem of "subversion".
   How to keep a democracy in a state of good health.
   An Upper House and a Lower house.
   A plea for specialised roles for the two Assemblies.
   Proportional Representation from a variety of Political Parties for the Lower House.
   Regional Representation by individuals with a rather loose political affiliation for the Upper House.
   Limiting the overall number of representatives to fifty for any one particular Party.
   Saving money, when one Party has a large majority.
   The Upper House, or Senate, functioning as a "Constitutional Assembly".
   An emphasis on personal merit and individualised thinking.
   Regional Governors.
   Relationships between the two Houses of Parliament.
   
   
   
3. The role of the Constitutional Assembly.
   The State President will be elected nationally.
   The president of the Upper House will be elected by his colleagues.
   The Prime Minister will be the leader of the Ruling Party in the Lower House.
   Relations between the State President and the Prime Minister.
   No distinction between Civil and Military Courts.
   Mechanisms for the election of the State President.
   Mechanisms to prevent a political dead-lock.
   The political spectrum has to be defined by the Constitution.
   The long-term goals of society are going to be a matter of concern for Constitutional Guidance.
   Regulating the burdens of debt.
   The problems associated with borrowing large sums of money.
   The "lubricating" effects of putting more money into circulation.
   Inflation.
   
   
   
4. A rapid halt to territorial and economic expansion.
   Accepting the reality of declining standards of affluence.
   Viability through psychological rather than physical adaptations.
   Building-up credit during the tour of duty in the Civil Task-Force.
   Borrowing to ease back-breaking tasks.
   The wide-spread benefits of some technological innovations.
   An increasing need to safeguard the environment.
   The need for radical changes in attitude and outlook.
   There is no "innate compass" for beneficial behaviour in the members of a large society.
   We need Constitutional Guidelines for all existential concerns.
   The Contract of Essential Equality will be regulating spending and consuming habits, financial policies, as well as the value of money.
   The Sense of Justice.
   An inter-twining of information and education.
   The "right to strike".
   Why a harsh but incomplete "therapy" is so counter-productive.
   The tragedy of a simplistic monetary policy.
   The "apparent freedoms" of competitive pricing.
   No return to a policy of reckless public spending.
   
   
   
5. Labour disputes will be a matter for the Courts.
   Satisfying the sense of justice.
   The high price of a lack of transparence.
   Applying old "band-aid" therapies.
   The need to have some sort of agreement as a basis for discussion.
   Intellectual confusion reigns supreme in chaotic societies.
   An outline of the Constitution.
   If rules make sense, they are much easier to live with.
   A look back at family relationships.
   Cultural and Constitutional Guidelines.
   A slowly and communally forged philosophy of life.
   
   
   
6. Practical suggestions for political candidates.
   The value of an accurate analysis of conflict-situations.
   A close look at the historical background.
   The devastation and suffering resulting from a violent conflict that has been lost.
   We have to show our youngsters, what our belligerent attitudes may bring us.
   Avoiding a desperate resistance by the privileged elite.
   Let us be cautious in our judgements of right and wrong.
   The potential for an attitude of good-will by the privileged elite.
   Fighting the establishment by exposing corruption and nepotism.
   We all contribute so easily, if unwittingly, to incidences of injustice.
   The "speech".
   A return to the basic choice; social integration versus armed conflict.
   
   
   
7. A summary of Social-Democratic ideals.
   Excercising a confident and competent historical grasp.
   When politicians remain fearful nobodies.
   The ability to admit having made mistakes.
   A series of questions and answers.
   Defusing suspicions with an attitude of openness and honesty.
   Excercising the ability to think for ourselves.
   Apportioning blame for existing disparities.
   Wide-spread injustices; in the past, as well as the present.
   Anyone, who thinks that poverty is not "hard work", just to survive, should give it a try.
   How to avoid an act of good-will from becoming exploited and ridiculed.
   A healthy, free and frugal life-style.
   A look back at irresponsible promises by political candidates.
   
   
   
8. The world at large is, in essence, not any different than the small farm, community or business enterprise.
   Opportunistic alliances and an egocentric outlook.
   A few more questions and answers.
   Learning to live with dangerous and frightening potentials.
   The concepts of a globally acceptable philosophy will represent a logical extra-polation of historical trends.
   Relativistic excercises.
   Transparence can not be abused, if there is a truly two-way visibility.
   Avoiding dominance by a small elite.
   The dangers associated with a "priestly class" of Constitutional experts or "purists".
   Mechanisms for Constitutional amendments.
   A freedom that allows laziness or irresponsible attitudes, will eventually destroy itself.
   The art and usefulness of a philosophy.
   We have to be able to judge the quality of a reality perception.
   Traveling on the road-ways of society.
   A beneficial framework of tolerances and limitations.
   There will always be the temptation to use an egocentric short-cut, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

.......