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.
