[Tup]

Some time ago, I created a post that outlined 13 reasons not to support democracy. The URL is: www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=95651

People who want power (for whatever reason) get into the positions of power, because by nature those who don’t want power don’t apply.

How much power do politicians actually have in a democracy? The politicians are mostly just puppets of certain larger social movements and/or of special interests. The sort of people that end up becoming politicians are those who lack principle, and who desire fame and status.

If a dictator or Monarch does a 'bad job' (like Mugabe arguably has) what do you do? There is no way to replace them or change their policies, and no way to ensure said policies benefit anyone in the country except said dictator and followers.

Why mention Mugabe, specifically? What about the leaders of all the other African countries? South Africa? Ghana? Do these countries have good leaders? What are your thoughts as to the government of Rhodesia before Mugabe came to power? Was it a better government? Was it a more democratic government? How did/would Rhodesia's government compare to those throughout Africa? Was Mugabe initially popularly elected? What does that indicate as to the wisdom of the masses?

Also, who is "you"? The electorate? What do you do if the electorate supports bad ideologies and bad leaders? By you, I mean you, Carpe Veritas. It is obviously not true that "there is no way to replace them [non-democratic governments] or change their policies". If it were true then democracy never could have came into existence in areas that were previously non-democratic (ie essentially the whole world). Furthermore, non-democratic governments have changed their policies dramatically, on many occasions, and have been overthrown and replaced by other non-democratic and democratic institutions. For example, the Peoples Republic of China is now very different from what it was in 1976.

If a democratically elected politician does a 'bad job' (and they usually do) we can get rid of them for someone else who may, or may not, be more efficient or representative instead.

Again, who is this "we"? And how do "we" "get rid of them"? How has this been working out lately?

Furthermore politicians in a democracy, being ultimately self serving, can protect and promote their positions by pursuing popular policies, and when they pursue unpopular policies their careers crash and burn *cough that sounds like Iraq*.

Massive immigration isn't very popular - especially tolerance of illegal immigration - what have the democratically elected politicians done about it? The huge bank bailouts in the US were very unpopular; will the politicians who voted for the bailouts be held accountable? Furthermore, do you think that the most popular policies are always the best policies?

People vote by self interest so thus it is in the politician’s interest to represent and promote what the population thinks is best for them.

What do you mean by "self interest"? Are you referring to the interests of the specific voter or to the interests of some group to which the voter belongs? Does every voter always vote for the candidate who would best serve their interests? For instance, is it true that all of those who voted for McCain in the US presidential election would have had their interests best served by a McCain presidency, and that all of those who voted for Obama are now having their interests best served? When the NSDAP won 43.9% of the vote in the German federal election of march 1933, all those who voted for the NSDAP were voting in accordance with their self-interests?

So we pick our leaders, compel them to our benefit, and replace them when or if they fail at provided. Thus democracy serves our self interest, serves our sense of fairness, and is the best system of governance available in the world for now… Thoughts?

In 1960, it has been estimated that China and India had roughly the same GDP and many idiotic analysts were predicting that India, "the world's largest democracy", would outperform China over the remainder of that century and beyond. Non-democratic China now has more than twice the GDP of India and continues to have a much higher GDP growth rate. In fact, China has the fastest growing economy in the world and appears to be heading towards having the world's largest economy. What do you make of this?

[DubiousDan]

Ombrageux :

Liberal democracy is the better of governments thus far experienced. It is not the only one possible however, nor the best possible. And do not mistake me, I treasure my "bourgeois" liberties, but it is hardly deserving of the pretensions of our leaders, nor is it incompatible with imperialism and militarism (eg. international despotism and terrorism).

Me:
In the summing up of its section on liberal democracy, the EB had this to say.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 CD Version.

The incompatible claims of the city-states ruined ancient Greece; the modern world may yet be ruined by the claims of the nations. If man, the political animal, is to save himself and his civilizations, he cannot yet rest from seeking new forms of government to meet the ever-new needs of his times.

Me:
Liberal Democracy is a propaganda term, by and large. The key element seems to be a constitution in some form or other and some means of checking democracy. There is a perfectly good word for this, republic. However, democracy has become a propaganda term, so they stick liberal in front of it, and it means good government, I.E. our system.

I am opposed to constitutions because I am opposed to law. Constitutions depend on law and judges. In the United States, the Constitution means whatever five political appointees decides that it means.
Law is a tool for the clever and the powerful. It is the whore of faction. The selective enforcement of law is one of the oldest tools of tyranny.
I prefer the concept of right and wrong which resides in the unspeakable. This is the distillation of culture.
With law, crime consists of the violation of law. If there is a loophole in the law, and usually laws are written with loopholes inserted, then wrong is not a violation of the law.
However without law, then the act itself is judged. The Citizens Committees of the old West judged the act. While they were imperfect, of those accounts which were written at the time, and not latter formulated by propagandists, the citizens committees did a far better job than the legal systems of the time. Yes, Bret Hart was a good author, but his work was after all, fiction. And of course, his story did not deal with a citizens committee, it dealt with a mob.

This is not to say that I favor direct democracy. Far from it, I favor representative democracy as far removed from the base as possible, but with a structure that is as immune to the media and finance as possible. To me, that is cellular representative democracy. CRD does not have a constitution, nor does it have formal law. Decisions are made on the basis of the innate sense of right and wrong as distilled upward though the levels. This, of course, leaves no room for lawyers. I, for one, will not fault their absence.

In the United States today, unless you can afford competent lawyers, you have no rights at all. Yes, the state will appoint a public defender. If you check those on death row, you will find the vast majority had, at the trial of their conviction, public defenders. On the other hand, we see the rich routinely get a way with, literally, murder.
However, in those cases where the state refuses to defend one from the excesses of the rich and powerful, a citizen needs to purchase legal aid, and of course, legal aid at that level is exceedingly expensive. Which means that the law is meaningless to the working class. Of course, for those who believe in theory over practice, there is no problem there. After all, the law protects. This ignores that fact that law does nothing without human action.

[grypo]

This system is very easy to implement. You don’t start out as a ruling party. You start out as a political party organized in PAGS. Political Action Groups. That’s the cells. Unlike the Democratic or Republican party, everyone participates and money is almost useless. The media is impotent. You could start out in a community, and take over the community. No force, no revolution, you just become the dominant political party. If the members vote consistently with the leadership, then they will vote intelligently and effectively.

I might have missed it, but are these PAGS based on a singular political belief, like an ideology; particular issues related groups, ethnic or community based; or is it a more open system which people organize for any number of reasons? Would these groups be able to increase numbers by joining together at the base and exert political pressure on other groups? Would there be a way to prevent that?

Besides those concerns, I like how this system effectively pushes power from below.

[Carpe Veritas]

Why mention Mugabe, specifically? What about the leaders of all the other African countries? South Africa? Ghana? Do these countries have good leaders? What are your thoughts as to the government of Rhodesia before Mugabe came to power? Was it a better government? Was it a more democratic government? How did/would Rhodesia's government compare to those throughout Africa? Was Mugabe initially popularly elected? What does that indicate as to the wisdom of the masses?

Just an example of a particularly bad, yet particularly resilient Dictator.

Also, who is "you"? The electorate? What do you do if the electorate supports bad ideologies and bad leaders? By you, I mean you, Carpe Veritas. It is obviously not true that "there is no way to replace them [non-democratic governments] or change their policies". If it were true then democracy never could have came into existence in areas that were previously non-democratic (ie essentially the whole world).

The elctorate is those who are entitled to vote in my system. Obviously I'm talking in broad terms my post was short, and any of these terms can be argued ad infinitum.

Though its worth noting you have actually just supported my point – the main way for a non democratic system to change is for it to change to democracy. Thus supporting that mechanisms for positive change rarely exist in non democratic government.

Furthermore, non-democratic governments have changed their policies dramatically, on many occasions, and have been overthrown and replaced by other non-democratic and democratic institutions. For example, the Peoples Republic of China is now very different from what it was in 1976.

Yes but this change was much slower than it would have been under a democracy, and has only been in economic sense not personal liberty, despite evidence of a desire for personal liberty in incidents like the uprising that led to Tiananmen Square and thousands of ‘dissident’ arrests each year.

[Carpe Veritas]

Again, who is this "we"? And how do "we" "get rid of them"? How has this been working out lately?

Well thanks. The British Public have got rid of all the leaders they’ve been unhappy with this century, and kept the ones on that they’ve been happy with by the system of general election. [Don’t prevaricate or be picky over words thanks, its not a good way to argue.]

Massive immigration isn't very popular - especially tolerance of illegal immigration - what have the democratically elected politicians done about it? The huge bank bailouts in the US were very unpopular; will the politicians who voted for the bailouts be held accountable? Furthermore, do you think that the most popular policies are always the best policies?

Politicians are accountable for their success and failure when the time comes to vote them in or out. If you feel your government has failed you in immigration or the Bailout, you vote for someone else you feel would do these things better. If your administration is considered a failure it is inevitably voted out - thus Failed governments do not exist for long in a democracy, yet in dictatorships they can last decades.

What do you mean by "self interest"? Are you referring to the interests of the specific voter or to the interests of some group to which the voter belongs? Does every voter always vote for the candidate who would best serve their interests? For instance, is it true that all of those who voted for McCain in the US presidential election would have had their interests best served by a McCain presidency, and that all of those who voted for Obama are now having their interests best served? When the NSDAP won 43.9% of the vote in the German federal election of march 1933, all those who voted for the NSDAP were voting in accordance with their self-interests?

I mean the simple fact that people vote dependent on who they believe best represents them and their interests. There are two key grounds that determine a vote choice – ideology and policy. If a candidates policies will benefit you financially this is a reason to vote for them. If their stated political views match yours, this is a reason to vote for them.

So in short yes most of the people who voted McCain though McCain was the best choice for them and their interests, and their countries interests as a whole.

In 1960, it has been estimated that China and India had roughly the same GDP and many idiotic analysts were predicting that India, "the world's largest democracy", would outperform China over the remainder of that century and beyond. Non-democratic China now has more than twice the GDP of India and continues to have a much higher GDP growth rate. In fact, China has the fastest growing economy in the world and appears to be heading towards having the world's largest economy. What do you make of this?

That best system is not a solely economic measure. Would you like to have been born in China under their laws? You would certainly not be allowed to post on this website if you had.

Also that if a Democracy it might not have taken untill the 90's for Chinese political and economic reform to start. That its starting now is a success, that it took so long to start is a failure.

[DubiousDan]

Grypo:

I might have missed it, but are these PAGS based on a singula
r political belief, like an ideology; particular issues related groups, ethnic or community based; or is it a more open system which people organize for any number of reasons? Would these groups be able to increase numbers by joining together at the base and exert political pressure on other groups? Would there be a way to prevent that?

Besides those concerns, I like how this system effectively pushes power from below.

Me:
The only ideology involved is Cellular Representative Democracy, if you want to call it an ideology.
The PAGs are a step towards converting the political system to CRD. That’s the goal, but it’s done by voting, not be armed insurrection. The political party in which the PAGs operate could be the CRD Party.
However, it doesn’t have to be. You could use the principal to form any kind of political organization. However, it works best with large numbers. Remember, I’m giving you the simplified version. The system was originally worked out for a Science Fiction novel and the people used an octal system so the cells held eight members. Don’t bother looking for the book.
Ten is really a poor number, 8 or 16 would be better.
There are tricks to deal with populations that aren’t powers of the cell number. However, let’s not go there.
Joining at the base is a problem. One member, yes, a large number, no. They would have to form their own PAGs. The highest level of the smaller group could elect a member and he would advance to a similar level in the large group. In other words if he was a kilo (Represented a group with a thousand members), he would join the larger group at the kilo level. His cell would then have eleven members.
If a large group representing an agenda wanted to join, they would have to form their own PAGs, then try to join the other PAG unit. If they were totally incompatible obviously that wouldn’t happen. However, they would then have (I hope) an exceedingly efficient organization to advance their agenda. Not only that, their group would be considerably smarter than their LCD, so by that time, the two PAG units might be more compatible.
This is a draw back to CRD, you can’t just pick up members. One, yes, a large number, no. They have to form their own PAGs and then merge at the appropriate level.
Unless you start with a fairly large number, growth becomes difficult. You have to organize in a parallel mode. To form two levels, you need a hundred, three, a thousand, and four ten thousand. If you got ten people together, you would have to wait for other cells to form, say probably five at a minimum before advancing your Dek.
One the other hand, it insulates your PAG unit at the base level. A larger number of new members can’t come in and take over at the base level. Your ten remains your ten. Your hundred remains your hundred, and your thousand remains you thousand if you already have a thousand. What happens is that somewhere up the ladder a ten becomes eleven. I’m using ten for simplicity. I would prefer eight or sixteen in actual practice. They are powers of two. That helps when you start getting fancy.

[Carpe Veritas]

Maybe I missed something but I don’t see any political and economic reform. Things have changed yes, but I would hardly call it reform.

You kidding? the transition to a market based system in the early 1990s was pronounced and sustained by the continuing policy drive - The reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s focused on creating a pricing system and decreasing the role of the state in resource allocations. The reforms of the late 1990s focused on closing unprofitable enterprises and dealing with insolvency in the banking system. After the start of the 21st century, increased focus has been placed on narrowing the gap between rich and poor in China.

Central planning for the creation of mechanisms to set monetary policy, a system of banking and capital markets all now exist, and they didnt in the 80's

China has been going through the biggest period of reform for it since the Communists came to power. Its been gradual and controlled but China is a massively changed place.

[DubiousDan]

Carpe Veritas :

You kidding? the transition to a market based system in the early 1990s was pronounced and sustained by the continuing policy drive - The reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s focused on creating a pricing system and decreasing the role of the state in resource allocations. The reforms of the late 1990s focused on closing unprofitable enterprises and dealing with insolvency in the banking system. After the start of the 21st century, increased focus has been placed on narrowing the gap between rich and poor in China.

Central planning for the creation of mechanisms to set monetary policy, a system of banking and capital markets all now exist, and they didnt in the 80's

China has been going through the biggest period of reform for it since the Communists came to power. Its been gradual and controlled but China is a massively changed place.

Me:
I said things have changed, didn’t I? So the Chinese have more rights and they vote, right? Yes, they have turned the hogs loose, that’s nice for the hogs, but what does it do for the people? Oh, you can come in from the country, and if you are damn lucky, they will let you become a contract slave in a mind rotting, soul stealing sweat shop. Freedom, isn’t it wonderful?
As for narrowing the gap between the rich and poor, the last time I checked, the Gini index in China has been going up, not down. From 40 in 2001 to 47 in 2007. (CIA World Factbook)
In the old days, the Government had an obligation to provide medical care. Now, if you get sick, either have money, or die.

[grypo]

I must admit being very intrigued by CRD. It solves a few problems I have with current rep democracies, such as the distance between voter and candidate leads to distortion and outside influence and the power more or less starting at top with political parties and working its way down. I think people would feel more involved even though they wouldn't be (at the final choice of ultimate leaders), just by the very nature of knowing who they vote for and having an open ear when problems arise. To me, the populous' understanding of being involved is the most important part of stabilizing a democracy, that doesn't guarantee success because democracies can be rather irresponsible, but the idea of power is more important than actual power in this case. I would increase the group size at the base level, just to create more choices and lessen the levels that form within each community. It's hard to come up with a magic number, being so new to the idea, and I guess that would depend on how far I'd want to distance the base from the end of each chain. 50 maybe? Base it on community population percentage? Either way, although not perfect, it has my attention.

[DubiousDan]

Grypo:

I must admit being very intrigued by CRD. It solves a few problems I have with current rep democracies, such as the distance between voter and candidate leads to distortion and outside influence and the power more or less starting at top with political parties and working its way down. I think people would feel more involved even though they wouldn't be (at the final choice of ultimate leaders), just by the very nature of knowing who they vote for and having an open ear when problems arise. To me, the populous' understanding of being involved is the most important part of stabilizing a democracy, that doesn't guarantee success because democracies can be rather irresponsible, but the idea of power is more important than actual power in this case. I would increase the group size at the base level, just to create more choices and lessen the levels that form within each community. It's hard to come up with a magic number, being so new to the idea, and I guess that would depend on how far I'd want to distance the base from the end of each chain. 50 maybe? Base it on community population percentage? Either way, although not perfect, it has my attention.

Me:
I don’t strive for perfection. I strive for better. A group of sixteen is almost too large for me. The idea is participatory democracy. I was once a Union Chairman. Fifty men in a Union Hall, and less than ten men will speak at a meeting. The next meeting, eight of the ten that will speak will be the same men that spoke at the last meeting.
Yet, if you sit on a jury, sooner or later, everyone will have something to say. This is what I seek, people sitting around discussing something, participants, not spectators.
If the same people show up, meeting after meeting, then they will grow used to each other and the walls will come down. Each, in his own way, will have something to contribute. Yes, there will be problems, but it will be in the context of a group of almost intimates.
In time, each person’s strengths and weaknesses will be known to every member from the perspective of each member.
In a large group, some people hide, others push to the front, but in a small room of ten people, where do you hide, and how far can you push yourself forward.
Remember, there will be a hundred in the base, ten groups, each selecting its Dek. Each Dek will be well known to the small group that selected that Dek. However, when the Dek moves up, he/she will carry the memory of the small group that picked him/her. If you have a hundred people, or even fifty people, people fade and you remember a few individuals. Wouldn’t you want your representative to know you well?
I am keeping everything as personal as I can, I am dealing in the Human unvoiced here. Not a world of words on white paper, but the total communication of which Humans are capable.
This is a system without written law, and that is for a reason. Decisions will be based on the judgment, both linear and nonlinear, of the individuals involved. On the deep merged sense of right and wrong as well as verbalized arguments which can only be well communicated in small groups. Yes, there those who can play multitudes like a conductor leading an orchestra, but that is really what I am trying to avoid here. The demagogue depends on numbers for his strength, emotions drive emotion.
Hitler may have had his charm, but would he have sounded the same in a small room with nine other men?

[Inexorable]

I would argue that despite the appeal of liberal democracy, almost all governments devolve into apathetic oligarchy. This was Robert Michels' thesis anyway. Thus the USA, despite its enduring prosperity and social freedom, has been in political gridlock for its entire history- a two party system, with the candidates only slightly changing in opinion. Does this mean we need to weaken the current Republicans vs. Democrats monopoly? No, because another monopoly will build. The Federalists got bumped off, the Democrats take the mantle, the Republicans pick up the slack, ad infintium. Every side accuses the other side of 'manipulating the media' but nobody is manipulating anything, its just popular opinion.

Over time the voting public will become increasingly apathetic to democratic participation, not simply because the political issues don't interest them, but because most don't affect their immediate lives. The US Presidents are becoming more like hotel managers, they just tweak a few things here and there (even the War On Terror is a minor blip in US history).

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

Cellular Democracy is basically a rip-off of Anarchist Federations, I take it. It sounds similar.

Both involve subdividing society into manageable and relevant groups, where all can participate (anarchist communes versus cells), however the cell would essentially be an isolated social group, where as communes could be towns, and therefore would give people a viable "opt-out" from the political process.

anarchist societies could federate on a mutually beneficial and horizontal basis, in order to facilitate larger organization. And from there further federation could exists.

The major differences, is that there is no opt-out from cellular democracy. In otherwords you cannot simply leave and live on your own, as you would still live in states, which, by their very nature expand to the seams and attempt to retain subjects to increase power. Leaving nothing left. Just like today.

Also, there would be no overt anti-authoritarian elements. I think Anarchists generally agree that within an anarchist society there would be a commitment to horizontalism: no capitalism, racism, castes, oppression, essentially no hierarchy. There's no reason why this democracy can't turn into something at least as oppressive as what it replaced.

You are incorrect. Nazis were leftists because they were oppressive totalitarians just like Stalin and communism. Just because the Left can't accept that truth does not change the truth.

Left and Right in normal parlance refer to economics, not necessarily authoritarianism.

If what you claim is true, most governments have been at least moderate left since WWII. And I’m Far Right, in that case, hanging with Anarcho-Capitalist who I disagree with.

Your statement is either propaganda (deceiving the reader by contradicting logic), ignorance, or IDK. Brainwashed by FOX?
I’m a Libertarian (Leftist). You’re some kind of moderately authoritarian right-winger. Ron Paul is less authoritarian, but perhaps more economically comparable to you. That’s how I and most I think would understand it.
And if you somehow think that American Conservatism (or even watching FOX lol, which is authoritarian in nature) is some kind of Anti-Authoritarian entity, you’re sadly mistaken. Contrast your opinions with those of an anarchist and you’d know what I mean.

[DubiousDan]

Northern-Anarchist-X:

Cellular Democracy is basically a rip-off of Anarchist Federations, I take it. It sounds similar.

Me:
You take it wrong. I am an Anarchist. I believe that Anarchism is the only valid form of political organization. Valid at the moment is not the same as effective.

Cellular Representative Democracy (CRD) has nothing to do with Anarchy. It was inspired by the Inca Empire. I conceived it in the early sixties before the IAF even existed. However, I treated it as a simple theoretical exercise until about 1985 when I realized that the next century, the 21st Century, would probably be Mankind’s final century. The technological acceleration is progressing at an exponential rate, political competence, if it is increasing at all, is increasing at a linear rate. The end result of this could only be the technological detonation. Other people have come up with similar theories, only they don’t call it a technological detonation, they call it a singularity. There really isn’t a lot of room for unmodified Homo Sapiens Sapiens in either a post singularity world or after the technological detonation.
However, while the smart people are aware of this, they are a politically insignificant faction. The dumb people who are either ignorant of this, or in complete denial, are a very politically significant faction.

CRD is not an attempt to create a morally superior World, it is an attempt to advance political competence. To create a government isolated from the factional idiocy that plagues republics today. To raise the very best in the political sense to the top on pure political ability alone. To give those at the top a governmental machine that can reach with precision to a single individual at the very bottom with a reasonable personal knowledge of that individual in the mechanism. To create a system were political decisions once made can be executed with the efficiency of a competent dictatorship. To create a mechanism to remove those at the top by those below without revolution or waiting for national elections.

These are not anarchistic goals nor do they pretend to be.
As I see it today, we have less than a century to get our act together, probably half of that, and that doesn’t leave us much time for games.
I don’t expect CRD to be implemented. I hope that somewhere out of the cybernation of the world, that something will come that will save humanity, but I don’t have a lot of hope. I buy lottery tickets but I damn sure don’t expect to win. Just as I buy lottery tickets, I trot out CRD for inspection now and then. I figure the odds are pretty close to the same.

[Quercus Robur]

I quite like democracy too People have a right to have access to the government and respect for rights is a decent way to concieve of social obligation which governments need in order to govern.

Also democracy gives voice to the ever-present doubt in our benevolent leaders - ever-present because of the nature of the necessary division between leaders and led. A nice alternative is to abolish government and that division but it isn't practical. A nasty alternative is to enshrine the division and then pretend (or maybe not) that the benevolent leader is perfect.

The problem is that the leaders in society aren't always the ones we appoint, or even if they are the appiontment process may be faulty. The nasty alternative has the edge on the nice one if you're trying to abolish those problems I think.

[El Gilroy]

Democracy is being romaticised as the best of all possible forms of government merely because it's marginally better than dictatorships or hereditary monarchy. Same with capitalism. We find them to doing better than their (even more badly-organised) predecessors, so we somehow assume them to be the end of things and it to be superfluous to keep looking for potentially better systems.
We admit that they aren't perfect, sure, but we act as if they basically are.

[LetsTalkAboutIt]

Plus, Berlusconi in Italy shows how little democracy can help if someone controls the media. Unfortunately, in ALL countries the media is controlled by ... rich people. Surprisingly, all or almost all political parties work mainly for the interests of this minority.

Then why not have the idea of putting the media under the control of the citizens?

The formal political process would be as is (meaning the same in the US) but the media would be a separate form of governance similar to direct democracy. The politicians should have the legal, hard power, the citizens should have direct control over all the informal and soft power in society.

Now what do people think about a citizen review board and their effectiveness?
These are boards currently used to investigate abuse of power by local police departments.

My idea is expand the power of these boards to very specific parts of society.

Since the collection and centralization of capital can create informal power in the hands of people who are not elected, thus giving them the ability to have an overpowering influence over elected officials, what do you think about the idea of such review boards being able to break down companies who get too big?

The bailouts for example. It seems the formal politicians are unable to do a proper investigation of all the shenanigans pulled by Wall Street who happen to have a big part in causing the current recession. If there is a suspicion the politicians are unable or unwilling to uphold the law, this is where the citizens review board would come in. They would put the politicians under investigation and would be able to put them on trial for
corruption. They would be also able to declare if a company is too big too fail or a corporation or person is too rich and is becoming too powerful because of it, would be able to knock the person down to size until they are no longer too powerful and unable to over power the political system because of their wealth.

This would also be useful for monitoring elections as well. In the US, the same two parties who run for election, also are the same two parties who write the laws for who is eligible for office, and are the same people who are supposed to enforce electoral law. Thats like letting the fox watch the hen house. With a citizens review board in place, (who by the way are not allowed to run in formal elections) the objectivity needed to enforce election law would be there.

I know a lot of you would point out the many flaws in this idea. The reason for these flaws is I have not been able to think beyond the basic idea. What I stated in the above paragraph is the basics. I would be happy if people said instead of saying "no it will not work", I would like suggestions on how to further develop the idea so it would actually be some what feasible.

[RonPaulalways]

I think CRD is very good. Some potential problems are that it would require too much time from average citizens in political participation, and the problem democracies currently face, the Chinese whispers effect, where people's political action, once it has gone through the chain of people to actually become policy, has morphed into something no one wants.

[sans-culotte]

Republic is made up from "public" or "the people" therefore the rule of law is powered by the people. This, of course, only works when the people are vigilant and keep their power.

So you agree that "rule of law" is a fictional concept.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
Republic is made up from "public" or "the people" therefore the rule of law is powered by the people. This, of course, only works when the people are vigilant and keep their power.

So you agree that "rule of law" is a fictional concept.

A republics Constitutional rule of law?...I think America did that fairly well for the first 100 years.

The exception being they had to make allowances for the South in order to keep them from seceding. Unfortunately they failed to elect the political will to end it as intended.

Also, I might add, a peoples rule of law is far more doable than a socialist or communist Utopia free of the personal interest of men.

[sans-culotte]

If "the people" in a republic are sovereign, there's no "rule of law", there's "rule of people". Make up your mind!

Also, I might add, a peoples rule of law is far more doable than a socialist or communist Utopia free of the personal interest of men.

Placing rulers under partial popular control once every few tears may be doable, but it's not "peoples' rule", it's partial peoples' control once in a while.