Chapter 3.2.

Chapter 3: Details on the organization of the Commons' Convention -part 1-

3.2. Two Types: federal and unitary

In the previous section, we discussed the complete equality of the General Commons' Convention and local Commons' Convention, but if we look at the relationship between the two in more detail, there are two types of relationship. One is the federated type, and the other is the unitary type.

The first type, the federal type, corresponds to a federal system in the current state system, in which multiple inclusive Quasi-Zones (Zonelets) are federated to form a single Zone. In this case, each Zonelet has a considerably wide range of autonomy similar to that of a Zone, and the Commons' Convention of a Zonelet is the most powerful local Commons' Convention.

In contrast, in the latter unitary type, a Zone is more integrated, there are no Zonelets, and the broader autonomous entity within a Zone is a Province. Although the provincial Commons' Conventions can also have their own charters, they do not have as broad autonomy as the Zonelets in the federal Zone, and the authority of the General Commons' Convention is relatively strong.

By the way, although the unitary type is the basis, in order to respect the ethnic and cultural uniqueness of a specific Provincial Area, it is possible to establish a system such as a Special Province that guarantees stronger autonomy than general Provinces. 

In the system of Commons' Conventions, since the General Commons' Convention and local Commons' Convention are on an equal footing, the difference between federal and unitary types is not as great as the difference between federal and centralized states in the current state system, and the difference is relative; there is no such thing as a "centralized type." 

In addition, whether each Zone chooses the federal or unitary type, and whether or not to establish the Special Provinces mentioned above, is left to the discussion and decision of the Commons' Convention of each Zone. The same applies to the powers to be granted to the Zonelets in the federal Zone, and to the authority relationship of municipal entities within Zonelets in the federal Zone and in the unitary Zone.

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

Chapter 3.1.

Chapter 3: Details on the organization of the Commons' Convention -part 1-

3.1. General Commons' Convention and Local Commons' Convention

In this and the next chapter, we will look at the specific organizational structure of the Commons' Convention, which is a system of semi-direct representation. First, if we look at the overall system of Commons' Conventions, this system is similar to a national assembly and local assemblies in a parliamentary system. That is, a structure is adopted in which similar conference bodies are set up in whole area and in local areas - a general Commons' Convention and local Commons' Conventions.

What should be noted here is that the Commons' Convention system does not assume a sovereign nation-state system, but rather a unitary or federal polity called a Zone, which is ultimately subsumed into the World Commonwealth. Therefore, "the whole area " or "general " here means the entirety of each Zone.

In this respect, while the national assembly and the local assemblies are organizationally in the sovereign nation-state system completely separate bodies and do not have any communication relationship with each other, the general Commons' Convention and local Commons' Conventions are part of a system of organically connected congresses. Therefore, they are in active contact with each other.

The relationship between the general Commons' Convention and the local Commons' Conventions is not a central-local hierarchical relationship based on the state, but a relationship of complete equality. Therefore, the general Commons' Convention cannot issue directives to local Commons' Conventions, and local Commons' Conventions cannot make binding demands on the the general Commons' Convention.

Local Commons' Conventions, like local assemblies, are established in each local areas. Although the nature of local autonomy is a separate issue from the organizational structure of Commons' Conventions, I have advocated three-tier local autonomy. In other words, there are three layers: a Commune as a basic local entity, a Regional Area (i.e., county) as an intermediate local entity, and a Provincial area (province) as wide-area local entity (see my article).

If the three-tier system of local autonomy is to be established, local Commons' Conventions would be set up in each of the Communes, Regional Areas, and Provincial areas, and these three-tier Commons' Conventions would also constitute a network connected not in a hierarchical relationship but on an equal footing.

In this way, it can be said that the the system of the Commons' Conventions is an organic system of administration that functions as a network of Commons' Conventions throughout a Zone and its three-tiers, each of which are established in every corner of a Zone.

The charter of the general Commons' Convention, which is positioned as the operating norm for the entire Commons' Convention system, is in effect a common norm equivalent to a constitution, but local Commons' Conventions may also voluntarily enact their own charters within the scope of this common charter (e.g., charter of the X-commune Commons' Convention, charter of the Y-regional area Commons' Convention, charter of the Z-provincial area Commons' Convention). 

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

Chapter 2.4

Chapter 2: Idea of the Commons' Convention

2.4. Differences between a Commons’ Convention and a Soviet system

In the previous section, we clarified the characteristics of the Commons’ Convention by contrasting it with the parliamentary system. Now we would like to show the characteristics of the Commons’ Convention from the perspective of contrasting it with the Soviet system, which was given to the country's name, the Soviet Union.

The Commons’ Convention is closer in character to the Soviet system in that it is a popular representative body, a parliamentary system. The Soviet system was originally conceived as a democratic system that went beyond the parliamentary system.

As is well known, the Communist Party was the sole governing party in the Soviet Union, and as such, the Soviet system, which could have been more democratic than the parliamentary system if it had fulfilled its original function, became a body that was subject to the Communist Party's approval.

To correct such distortions, party politics must be eliminated, whether in a one-party or multiparty system, in which parties intervene between the people and power. The Commons’ Convention, in whatever form it takes, must be essentially free of party politics. This is what is meant by the previous definition of a semi-direct representative system.

Furthermore, in the case of the Soviet system, although it is said to be beyond a parliamentary system, it has settled on a system in which its members are elected as delegates. Even if elections were to be held on a non-party basis, the method of elections in which voters cast their ballots collectively for the person of their choice would always have a partisan element, and if an electoral system were adopted, it would be similar to a parliamentary one.

Therefore, a Commons’ Convention would be based on a lottery system, not an electoral system. In other words, by incorporating an element of chance in the selection of delegates, partisanship is prevented. However, the eligibility of delegates would be ensured through certification of competence, such as through a licensing system.

In addition, although the Soviet was supposed to be a comprehensive governing body, the executive and judicial branches of government were also organized separately, albeit inadequately, making the system similar to a separation of powers, but the Commons’ Convention would ensure that the executive and judicial functions would be handled directly by the Commons’ Convention in an integrated manner.

More ultimately, the decisive difference is that the Soviet was still positioned as the supreme power organs of the state based on the institution of the state, whereas the Commons’ Convention is an organ of more direct rule by the commons without the state as a precondition.

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