Chapter 1.2.

Chapter 1: In Search of "True Democracy" 

1.2. The impossibility of direct democracy

Parliamentary system (generally representative system) is also called indirect democracy. The term indirect refers to the indirectness in parliamentary systems, in which a member of the parliament receives a mandate in the form of a vote from the general electorate and executes politics as a representative.

However, this indirectness is a tricky thing; since legislators are not directly bound by the electorate, they are able to act freely from the electorate on a daily basis. Indirectness has its advantages as long as such free action makes sense, but the actions of legislators tend to be arbitrary and to induce profits for support groups and industry. Looking at the current state of parliamentary systems, there are very few countries in which the advantages of indirectness are truly utilized.

Such dissatisfaction with indirect democracy increases the appeal of direct democracy, in which voters directly assemble and participate in political decisions, rather than relying on a representative system like a parliamentary system. In doing so, the assembly of the citizens (Ecclesia) in ancient Greek city-state of Athens has always been modeled. In modern times, Switzerland's general assembly system at the cantonal level is often cited.

However, it is impossible to put this kind of direct democracy into practice in the true sense. Even in the popular assembly of Athens, which is said to be a model, participation was limited to adult male citizens, and women and slaves were not allowed to participate; in fact, this system can be regarded as a system of representation by adult men. Switzerland's cantonal general assemblies are currently only practiced in two cantons with small populations; the rest have a regional parliamentary system.

In this way, pure direct democracy can be practiced in relatively small political units, but even in such cases, there are often some restrictions on the qualifications for participation. Furthermore, while direct democracy has the advantage of allowing voters' will to be directly reflected in politics, there is also a risk that the logic of majority rule is more important than indirect democracy, leading to a majoritarian dictatorial ochlocracy.

The parliamentary system avoids these flaws of direct democracy while also attempting to increase directness within the framework of indirect democracy by electing members by direct vote, and in that sense it can be seen as rational. However, this actually encourages money politics and patronage politics due to the need to raise funds and to build a voting base, which are essential for winning elections.

In order to solve these difficult problems, we need to move away from the direct/indirect dichotomy and re-invent a democratic system that is based on a representative system and allows more ordinary citizens to participate as their own representatives (delegates).

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Chapter 1.1.

Chapter 1: In Search of "True Democracy" 

1.1. Deepening of democracy

Democracy has long been a global value. However, democracy is now fading away. Even in countries that claim to be models of democracy, parliamentary politics has become synonymous with money politics, and politics has turned into a place where the interests of the business and wealthy classes can be adjusted. At the same time, anti-democratic ideology has emerged in a radical form, especially in the Islamic world, in reaction to "democracy," which is often advocated as a cause for war and military intervention led by the U.S. and Europe.

The concept of the Commons' Convention and the World Commonwealth proposed in such a chaotic situation are based on the ideological foundation of pursuing and establishing anew "true democracy". "True democracy" is a clichéd phrase, but it can also be paraphrased as the deepening of democracy.

Democracy as the world standard at this point in time refers almost exclusively to parliamentary democracy. In some cases, a system of electing a head of state, such as a president, is added, but such a presidential electoral system can be considered "democratic" only if it is based on a parliamentary democracy.

However, as noted above, parliamentary democracy does not function in a truly democratic manner. It is not as simple as saying that it will function democratically if reforms are made. Originally, the parliamentary system was established in the course of overthrowing the ancient, feudal, princely, and aristocratic system of government through the civil revolution, and since the establishment of universal suffrage, it has done much to expand the scope of political participation through the electoral process, and to that extent it has been "democratic.

The reason why it is necessary to write in the completed form is that the era when parliamentary systems were democratic has come to an end. It is clear that the modern parliamentary system has become a prime example of moneyed-patronage politics where financial power and partisan connections are at stake, a system that reduces the general public to a periodic voting machine and keeps them out of day-to-day political decisions.

In this sense, the phrase "parliamentary democracy," which directly connects parliamentary system and democracy, is no longer accurate. So, we will henceforth avoid this term in this series.

That said, we must also avoid the hasty equation of parliamentary politics with dictatorship. Considering both the historical achievements and the current limitations of parliamentary systems, as pointed out earlier, it is appropriate to call parliamentary systems "limited democracies" - "parliamentary limited democracies" - but since it would be too complicated, it would be sufficient to simply refer to them as "parliamentary systems".

👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.

Preface

In my On Communism, I proposed, as a communist political system that is not based on sovereign and nation state system (hereinafter referred to as the State system), the World Commonwealth and the Commons' Convention that is a constituent element of the World Commonwelth. I have already discussed this general system concept in On Communism.

However, the system of the Commons' Convention and The World Commonwealth is very different from the various systems at home and abroad that we are familiar with, such as the United Nations based on sovereign states and the parliamentary system of nation states, so it is difficult to understand from a simple explanation. Therefore, I would like to write an independent series to discuss the ideological foundations and detailed design of the system, which I have not fully covered in On Communism.

To reiterate, the main reason why the idea of the Commons' Convention and the World Commonwealth is difficult to understand is that it seeks to break away from the familiar political system, the State system. Although the State system and its ideals had not existed all over the world, and were merely a political model created by modern Western political science, they were tools that were more useful to rulers than to the people. It spread all over the world and took root in non-Western countries as well. 　

The idea of anarchism emerged as a reaction to this, but humans are creatures that inherently seek order, and it seems that they cannot survive in a state of pure anarchy. In the end, anarchism became nothing more than an antithesis, and eventually faded away. As a result, the State system became common sense around the world.

As a result, all political ideas that do not assume the political unit of the State system are pushed aside and are no longer considered. The idea of a post-State system could be seen as a revision of radical anarchism.

However, as can be seen from the general description that I have already done, the concept of the Commons' Convention and The World Commonwealth is by no means anarchic, but rather aims for an order through means other than the State system. Therefore, there is a certain degree of continuity with traditional State institutions.

In the discussions so far, I have tried to draw comparisons with the current State system, but in this series, I will use such contrasts to highlight the limitations of current State system, and to present a concrete image of the Commons' Convention and the World Commonwealth. At the same time, it will be an attempt to deconstruct, rather than contradict, the common sense of Western modern political science.