Tag: parliament

  • Why not make everyone a Citizen?

    Why not make everyone a Citizen?

    Some critics of a Celebration Society believe that everyone should be a Citizen. In my view, that diminishes the importance of the title and office.

    In modern democracies, citizenship is a birthright. As such, its powers and responsibilities often remain little known or taken for granted. While a society can force people to learn these–and, indeed, some do compel citizens to vote–in my view, coercion should be minimized in societal design. Citizenship as an earned office is much more promising.

    For example, in the USA, immigrants seeking citizenship must pass tests demonstrating their basic knowledge of documents such as the Constitution. Eagerly seeking the benefits of citizenship, they do so gladly. Such citizens vote much more regularly than birthright citizens; from pride, not coercion.

    There should be no penalty for non-Citizenship, though Citizens should be entitled to compensation for the duties of office in the form of a modest guaranteed income sufficient to meet their basic needs. (The government may provide something similar to residents, either based on need or universally. If so, I believe that Citizens should then receive something additional for their service.)

    The American founders were well aware of history, and as such understood that democracy has a soft underbelly. Mob rule and demagoguery frightened them. That is often cited as a reason why they restricted voting rights to male landowners, whom they viewed as more rational and capable than other people.

    Today, most of us no longer share that view. However, recent history shows that the risk of demagoguery remains strong in democracies across the world. How can such threats be permanently prevented, along with other threats to the body politic such as bribery of elected and appointed officials?

    The Venetian Republic had the right idea, though imperfectly implemented. Instead of democracy, they had a system in which Citizens alone could hold office in the government. Parliament voted on laws, but citizens were selected to serve in Parliament via a lottery. The term of office was singular, and followed by a term of non-service.

    By making Citizen a hard-won office, available to any resident following successful completion of an objective process designed to test knowledge and character, a Celebrationist government and society would meet Jefferson’s demand for an educated, vigilant populace. Parliament could then work as follows:

    • Any Citizen could be summoned at any time for a single, time-limited term of office as a member of Parliament, a member of the Administration or as a juror, with few exemptions.
    • After their term in office, each Citizen will leave government for a period of time at least as long as they had served. This will cause those in office to view government power and decisions differently than elected officials who make a career of such service.
    • Upon assuming an executive role in the government, a Citizen would have to place all business interests and assets related to that role into a blind trust for the duration of service.
    • Upon leaving service, a former Minister or other executive office holder would be prohibited from engaging in any activity that had been overseen by their governmental role for a fixed period of time. Likewise, anyone serving as a judge would have a similar prohibition.

    I do not see membership in Parliament, or service on a jury, as requiring a blind trust or any restriction of subsequent activities. However, I may be mistaken.

    By making parliamentary terms of office staggered and varying in length, and selecting members by lottery, the influence of money on politics would largely be eliminated. Political parties would become nearly impossible to organize or sustain.

    There would be certain additional changes:

    • By limiting laws to a maximum number of words and requiring a computerized test of comprehensibility, a legal system would arise in which people would rarely need lawyers to assert their rights in court or elsewhere.
    • By explicitly making the Charter the highest law of the land, never subject to amendment by law, there would be a codified set of values governing the whole society.
    • By reposing in the Citizens as a body the power to change any aspect of the government via Initiative, government of and by the People would be forever enshrined in the society.
    • By requiring either supermajority vote by the Citizens or complete agreement by all Branches of government to change the Charter, it would be less subject to mob rule. (An educated populace of Citizens would provide additional protection.)
    • The residents would create the initial Charter, thereafter trusting the Citizens to modify it on rare occasions when necessary. The residents might well specify in the Charter certain inalienable rights of residents, only modifiable with majority or supermajority consent of residents.
    • The residents would establish the original requirements to qualify for Citizenship. Thereafter, they would trust those Citizens to run the society. This would allow those not wishing to assume such responsibilities to enjoy many benefits of society without taking an active role in governance.

    As to Citizen being an office and thereby special, this is not to diminish resident or visitor (the other two classes of people in a Celebration Society). Each is equally valued as a person. Each has the same basic rights.

    By making Citizen an office, its powers are more likely to be treated with respect, and exercised.

    Many people are so set into a hierarchical, scarcity mindset that they see hierarchy where none exists. None exists here.

    Any resident can become a Citizen through a process of preparation, testing and service. If they fail, they can try again until they succeed. I expect that many residents will be wealthy or retired with a pension, so they won’t need the “job” of Citizen. If they prefer to simply let others voluntarily perform this service, that does not make them lesser.

    Any official actions by a Citizen serving a term in the government will be permanently recorded and available for inspection by any other Citizen. Intentional abuse of power would likely carry severe consequences—possibly including banishment from the Celebration Society.
    The pay given to Citizens will be received with pride and dignity, even when the Citizen only “works” several hours per week; generally including time off when desired.

    The net effect of all this and other measures to be added as necessary will be to assure that true Citizen government takes hold and remains in effect for so long as a Celebration Society exists.

  • 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.

  • Rites of Passage

    Rites of Passage

    Google’s dictionary defines a rite of passage as, “a ceremony or event marking an important stage in someone’s life, especially birth, puberty, marriage, and death.”  I think this is a very serviceable definition.

    One thing missing from our modern society is a complete set of these. Yes, we have marriage, divorce, birth, birthdays and funerals/wakes. But some of the most important of these events are not recognized in modern society. They were very much part of traditional societies.

    I should think that a Celebration Society would benefit from also recognizing these events: puberty, formation of a new House/family corporation, First Recognition (the first time one is acknowledged in a city-state wide celebration for one’s service), induction into the Royalty, becoming a resident, becoming an adult, renewing of marriage vows, adoption into a family, and others–most importantly, becoming a Citizen.

    Some rites of passage would be brief and private; others lengthy and public. Each would be designed by the Citizens as a whole to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the society; excepting those that are very private in nature, which would be designed by those involved (possibly using model examples from previous such events, as those participating may wish to share their libraries.) I envision the Royalty as developing a Rite of Passage for those inducted; perhaps something to finally integrate one’s shadows.

    The Oath of Office for a Citizen would be brief yet poignant, coming as the completion of a long, arduous journey in which the person’s character would be tested and found worthy. The entire Rite of Passage for Citizenship would, it seems to me, likely include something like this:

    Begins with a resident who is of age (perhaps 25, as that is when the brain matures), or who has special judicial exemption, formally petitioning the Parliament. This is the Application Stage.

    Parliament reviews these applications either as they come in or in batches. (It may delegate this process.) Each receives either Approved or Not Yet as a response. The latter comes with remedial preparation recommendations. The former comes with an agenda for the Candidate Citizen to follow. This will include some particular service(s) the person is to do, usually as part of a team. Such services will be those that Parliament has deemed important to the society or in service to another Celebration Society, perhaps one in its formative stages. This is the Service Stage. I would envision this Stage extending over months, though it will be a community decision.

    Upon completion of the Service Stage, the participants evaluate each other. Those directly affected by the service also evaluate them, and Parliament or its representatives (advisors, who accompany the Candidate Citizens in their service or at least regularly check in and available for consultation) does so as well. This is a formal process, which may be either anonymous or not. At the end of this Stage, each Candidate Citizen is either Passed or given a grade of Needs Review. If Needs Review is the result, they would have to repeat this Stage. If Passed, they would move on to the next stage.

    The next Stage, which might immediately follow the Service Stage or might be offered on a periodic basis, would be the Community Stage. This is by far the toughest Stage. Here, the Candidate Citizens are taken to live in primitive conditions for a period of time, perhaps a week, as a group. They are provided with minimal tools, clothing (or the means to make clothing), and the means to find or build shelter. Food is available, but may require significant gathering, preparation and even the figuring out of clues to find a stash or a source. Temperatures and precipitation may be challenging.

    In this stage,  the group would determine its own leaders and structure. It would determine if there were time only for survival activities or also some fun and games. (Possible games would be suggested by advisors.) There would be team building exercises, such as those on PSI 7, guided by the advisors, who would accompany the group. In quiet time, each participant would be expected to read and re-read the Charter until they had it memorized.

    If the people fail to cooperate, fail to work hard and long hours, or fail to uphold community principles, they will fail together. Some may become sick. On rare occasions, someone may die–though medical care and evacuation will be standing by. The point is that these people will experience, for once in their lives, the kinds of unremitting harsh conditions that many of our ancestors survived through backbreaking work, fear and pain. In so doing, they will learn their own characters and those of their neighbors at a depth and clarity not otherwise available. The point is that people who survive this test will be ready to accept the mantle of Citizenship, with all of its benefits, and also to cherish the duties that accompany the office.

    Also, a nation-state ruled by people who will never forget the hard lives of their ancestors is a nation-state that will never take for granted its own prosperity, ease of life, and celebration.

    At the end of the Community Stage, the survivors will evaluate each other. It may be private, public or both; a decision that Parliament will make and evolve. They will be asking themselves one question, ruthlessly: is this a person I would trust with my life, and the lives of my dear ones? They ask this of each fellow participant in turn, followed by asking it of themselves. The goal is to find objectivity through group process.

    Those who fail this stage will be invited to repeat it, after a suitable rest period. They may also be required to repeat the Service Stage, if there is a consensus that such would be important. The Citizen’s Rite of Passage is guided by this motto: Character is Destiny.

    The goal of all this is simple. When a group of Candidate Citizens stands together, dressed in their finery, palms upheld in front of a Supreme Court Justice or a member of the Royalty, that they will swear their Oath of Office together, without fear or hesitation–confident, joyous, eager, and prepared to be Citizens of a Celebration Society; proud to be pioneers of a new world.

    (An example of an abundance-based society that is missing such a Rite of Passage for Citizenship is The Mandalorian, Season 3, Episode 6. Aside: it shows robots displaying emotions that robots will almost certainly not feel. We need to remember that robots are and always will be dumb boxes, governed by essentially non-corporeal AIs.)