. . Subject: Centralized democracy ? . . . . . The communists always said they wanted a centralized democracy, without saying how that was to be done exactly - in typical marxist style who never say exactly what they want society to be (which is why we still have capitalism, fascism and so on). In my proposal for true democracy, the people form voter-groups of 50 persons, the elected delegates form 50 person councils and can regroup into 50 delegate-sections over whatever sized area/delegates, that elect one delegate each for 2nd order councils. The national government is nothing but the largest of these 2nd order councils possible. If you compute that through (which of course you won't, because socialists, communists, leftists and liberals never do their homework on anything), you might notice that this produces a 'people heavy' government, many quite large councils. The amount of representatives goes from maybe no more then 100 total in a city of 170.000 (current fraction democracy), to some 2000. Even a group of 15 streets may have a full 50 body person, which is big. Because it is so big, there is some chance of opaqueness for the sheer amount of councils, and people in them. This can result in chaos. It can be centralized easily by demoting the 1st order councils. That could cool the Government down. By chance I came to this when writing about an armed uprising http://www.socialism.nl/post/002/107-military-struggle The army organization adapted/proposed (from existing armies) I propose to have an internal democracy but without 1st order councils, because that is more orderly and less distractive during combat (the military command is in the hands of an by that highest council appointed General, by the way). The proposal for military uprising obviously spins through into using that military organization to keep order in case of chaos in society for whatever reason, and to combine the same organization blueprint with police training to form a police force, all of that can be brought out from the people in their living areas rapidly. Then going on: once it is all established that way, you'd be having said council democracy, it could break down from internal strife and chaos. The army and police who are more orderly (battalions, regiments, Sergeants and Captains, etc) then have a role to keep minimum order for the State to recover itself. If the State can not live properly from chaos, it could then also be like the adapted internal democracy system for the Army: no first order councils. I admit that such a system could be calmer and more transparent. Intermediate: the 1st order councils have an advisory to the 1st order councils role, only. In my mind, if the proposed Constitution is adopted (suddenly), it is at first only 'generally' ratified, and not all the details because these are unknown. You could also go through article 1 which circumvents the 5 year waiting period to change the Constitution, popular outcry allowing. If the council Government fails early for too much squabble, backstabbing or the sheer size of the political process, you can cut out the 1st order councils on short notice, changing the Constitution as not yet fully ratified and therefore open to sudden change, or going through article 1. (On the other hand, time allowing and this danger lurking, you could add a (temporary) additional article saying the 1st order councils get an advisory role or are disbanded by the national Government, if they are disorderly.) _3.1.d-2.3 1st order Councils failure, demotion All the 1st order councils in the nation get an advisory role, or are disbanded by the national Government, if they are disorderly and also produce an amount of chaos in society that is not sustainable by society. This order for 1st order Council demotion stands for no longer then three months after the next general election for a National Government, after which the 1st order Councils are restored to their proper role as local Governments, unless the new national Government renewes the order. This article _3.1.d-2.3 is retired from the Constitution if it has not been used for 100 years, and after 10 years if it is never used. When writing these things I noticed that I was describing a 'central democracy' system, which is what the communists always talked about. Maybe this is the final part that will make it all come together & work. One way or the other you'd have to admit that the whole system is strongly defended from all kinds of chaos, and can deal with the threat of chaos in several ways: robust and flexible in its response to chaos, both from street crime, hostile imperial forces, the Government itself, ... and the people. - You have the King Rule system for chaos, temporary for 1 year and after several for an entire reign (basically a dictatorship for one King term). - The 1st order cut out system to centralized democracy. - The Army and Police organizations, which are both strictly hierachically disciplined in their own right, yet internally they have a democratic system at heart so they shouldn't become a tyranny themselves. - The system is capable of distributed/local power of representative Government, police and army, making local order independent from the larger nation or yet other nations, who may be spreading chaos and corruption. - It has an overcomplete set of revolutionary schemes and tactics (economic, political, constructive-revolution, armed-uprising, and even armed-conquest), that can always again be brought out fresh to (re-)erect a failed system, thus dealing with chaos by re-revolution. How could we still screw all that up ? I am sure we will find a way. -- http://www.socialism.nl