A Celebration Society

Tag: Democracy

  • A Better Political System

    A Better Political System

    “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” ~Winston Churchill

    With all due respect to Churchill, that’s not quite correct. Democracy may be better than other present day systems, but a system once existed that led its people to world naval dominance, a culture that remains greatly admired today, and unbroken continuity of government and society over many hundreds of years.

    I’m talking about the Venetian Republic, which would have likely continued to this day except for underestimating Napoleon. It governed an area roughly the size of present-day Italy (including parts of Italy), and had some unique features; features that I advocate be incorporated into a Celebration Society (Note: the following is a simplified view of a complex system):

    Citizen as an office. Only Citizens could participate in the Venetian government, and the Parliament consisted of Citizens selected by lottery for single, staggered terms of office. (This simple measure is believed to greatly reduce the influence of money on politics, as well as effectively preventing the fractionation of the populace into political parties.)

    (Note: Citizen was long an office potentially available to all Venetian residents. Towards the end of its republic, Venice made Citizen a hereditary office. This was arguably a fatal mistake: newer and more worldly residents, newly made Citizens, might have better appreciated the threat of Napoleon and helped the nation prepare to resist him.)

    Leadership by unpaid, successful volunteers who renounced business dealings during office. The nation was run by a group of Ministers, appointed by and accountable to Parliament. Each minister held a portfolio, similar to how this works in present day parliamentary systems. However, they were appointed and could be fired by Parliament, not by a Prime Minister–for there was none. An even number of Ministers would always be maintained. Together, the Ministers would vote to decide matters extending beyond individual portfolios.

    The Doge Venice lacked a strong, central leader. Authoritarianism was therefore structurally impossible. The titular leader was the Doge, ordinarily the most revered man in the whole nation. He was an exemplar of virtue, and this was the source of his authority. The only power the Doge held was breaking tie votes of the assembled Ministers. He epitomized the concept of great influence and little power. I propose the same for a meritocratic royalty (NOT a monarchy in any respect).

    Other novel ideas. The Venetians had some other, brilliant, ideas. For example, anyone could file charges alleging that a crime had been committed. These charges were secret but not anonymous. The complainant needed to file the charges in writing, witnessed by a Citizen.

    If the court later found that the charges had been filed without reasonable cause and maliciously, it would apply the penalties against the person who filed the charges. This, presumably, kept such abuse of process to a minimum.

    My knowledge of the Venetian system is superficial, having arisen from a three hour conversation with a Venetian tour guide and supplemented by my own research. I strongly suspect that other novelties and superior ideas from the Venetian Republic await rediscovery, and possible deployment in a Celebration Society.

    Democracy can devolve into mob rule, as recognized by the US Founders, who specifically designed a constitutional republic with democratic elements for this reason. Democracy has a soft underbelly: the demagogue. Democracy gave Germany Hitler. It gave Italy Mussolini. Many would argue that it gave Russia a demagogue named Putin. It may well yield other demagogues in the years ahead.

    What, then of other systems now practiced? In my view, the most notable is China’s, which is called Communist. Actually, based on its mode of operation, it now has elements of oligarchy, fascism (in the generic sense, which need not include demonization of minorities), and traditional Chinese meritocracy. None of Karl Marx’s model appears to have survived Deng Hsiao Peng (famous for saying, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice”) and his successors, culminating in Xi Jinping. It is essentially state capitalism, with limited private ownership allowed.

    Many Chinese seem to prefer their system to democracy. However, it’s impossible to know actual sentiment, since dissent and publication are so heavily controlled. While the US has recently taken a position of advocating democracy worldwide, it has in past overthrown democratically elected governments deemed antithetical to US interests (e.g. Mohammad Mosaddegh, former leader of Iran).

    Excepting the Nordic governments, certain former British colonies and Iceland, most nations practicing democracy seem to view it as a transactional model chosen for its utility, rather than as some inherently sacred set of values.

    Regardless of one’s view of democracy, it therefore seems entirely possible that the result of the present US election will cause much of the world to decide that democracy isn’t such a great idea. What, then, will they consider as alternatives to replace authoritarian systems?

    Celebrationism limits democracy to the Citizen Initiative and Parliamentary voting, while also limiting the vesting of power to prevent demagogues. Perhaps it will become the alternative people are seeking.

  • The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    When the citizenry of a democratic nation loses control of its government, reforms are proposed. In the USA, multiple issues now enjoy supermajority (even 80%) citizen support yet are continually thwarted in Congress. One solution often discussed is a national initiative; similar to those available in states such as California and Colorado.

    US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) spearheaded such an effort, called the National Initiative for Democracy, or NI4D. The idea of NI4D is that “We the People” can adopt such a change to the government in a manner similar to how the original founding documents were adopted.

    Without debating the merits of such an approach, I do believe that in a Celebration Society an Initiative process should exist. No matter how well-crafted a structure of government may be, over time it can become dysfunctional. Indeed, as of 2012, the majority of the world’s democratic governments were dealing with gridlock.

    The Celebrationist Initiative process would be a “final defense” of the concept of government by, for and of the people. However, unlike existing democracies, the government would consist only of Citizens, and Citizen would be an office earned through an arduous process, not a birthright. Part of becoming a Citizen would be the demonstration of knowledge of how the government works; a requirement sadly lacking in many nations today.

    Citizens would be expected to know the Charter—the highest law of the land, without exception—and to be familiar with all laws of the land. While such a requirement might seem absurd in an existing nation such as the US, where the IRS code alone is thousands of pages thick, the Celebrationist system of government would rely heavily on nudges and other non-regulatory methods of stimulating appropriate behavior. Laws would be simple, and used only when societal values required them.

    While the actual mechanics of the Initiative process would be decided by the Citizens of a Celebration Society themselves, I would suggest the following as guidelines:

    1. Any Citizen could propose an Initiative for consideration. To force clarity and concision, it would be limited as to the number of words; perhaps 1,000.
    2. Upon some small threshold of Citizens, perhaps 5%, approving a proposed Initiative, it would be put to a vote by all Citizens. In the case of a change to law passed by Parliament, a simple majority exceeding 50% might suffice. For changes to the Charter, I would recommend a supermajority requirement.
    3. Voting on Initiatives might be limited to a quarterly or annual event. However, I would also advocate an “emergency” provision, whereby a Citizen could declare an “emergency” and get it considered and voted upon in a much faster timeframe.
    4. In order to prevent abuse of the process or excessive numbers of Initiative proposals clogging the system, I would advocate that each Citizen be limited to proposing one or two Initiatives per calendar year. Further, should a particular Citizen become known for proposing Initiatives others regarded as silly or otherwise inappropriate, one’s AI Butler could be instructed to flag all Initiatives proposed by such a person for an automatic “No” vote.
    5. Like changes to law made by Parliament, I would advocate that Initiatives have to be immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court for clarity, internal consistency, and word count. However, unlike laws passed by Parliament, which would be remanded to Parliament if nonconforming, Initiatives would be remanded to the Citizens as a whole. Further, to avert an obvious problem, I would advocate that Initiatives changing the Supreme Court be exempt from Court review.

    I believe that this is a sufficient start to discussing and designing an Initiative process. I would point out that the whole thing, like much of Celebrationist government (and as pioneered by Estonia), could function online. No physical meetings or papers would be required, though of course those could be used if preferred.

    I see the Initiative as being the original source of government. In my view, once we have a sufficient body of would-be residents, funding and agreements to take ownership of a body of land, the next step will be for those residents to convene and develop the following:

    1. The Charter for their society (and a bright line to separate Charter from other law)
    2. Specific processes for Initiatives (without a Supreme Court, initially)
    3. A process and set of requirements by which a resident may become a Citizen (I would advocate, at minimum, a Rite of Passage, a written exam, and an Oath of Office.)

    Once a body of Citizens has been created consistent with processes developed by the residents, it can in turn constitute the four branches of government and the system will evolve from there.

    Aside: Democracy would have a much more limited role in a Celebration Society than in existing democratic republics. Members of parliament would be selected by lottery, as would jurors. (While serving in Parliament, members would vote per rules established by Parliament itself.) One of the very few uses of direct democracy—perhaps the only one—would be the Initiative process.

    The purpose would not be to limit Citizen access to government, for Citizens would have access to all practicable aspects of the government. Rather, it would be to free Citizens from excessive need to attend to matters of government beyond their own interests. In effect, Citizens would delegate government to those fellow Citizens selected by lottery to serve, in the confidence that the Initiative process would protect them against any major mistakes.