3.2.1         Association of the Policies

Generally, the origin of states has nothing to do with democracy. The people have almost never been asked in what state they would like to live. The states are the product of imposition of the needs of autocratic rulers. Needless to say, the solution is not the negation of the states because of their non-democratic origin. The solution lies in their maximal democratization.  

In present-day states the parliamentary form of democracy is prevailing. It is accepted by the society as the most democratic form of ruling the society. However, after the performed election of leaders, delegates, or a party, the man has no impact on the setting of the rules for collective acting. Delegated members in the parliament carry out an indirect form of democracy that easily declines from the election programs.  The present-day state is more or less a closed, authoritative formation that by a system of a stronger or lesser pressure maintains the coordination of alienated social actions. This kind of state produces the alienation, autarchy, exploitation, protectionism, nationalism, destructiveness.  

Elements of the present-day world politics and economy have achieved in the development of the society a great progress in terms of democracy and production; however, they cannot develop further and, therefore, are an impediment to the development of the society. The new mode of social behaviour in the commune finds a substitute for, and promotion of, all elements of the classical political economy and thus allows continuation of the political and economic prosperity. 

The author of this book hopes that it will arouse interest of a foundation, state leadership, a political party, associations and individuals who would spare no effort in contributing to further elaboration of the idea suggested by this book. The proposed political-economic system will require a comprehensive analysis by a team of scientists of all interested profiles, a theoretical simulation of a commune's acting, and once satisfactory results are established an experimental application of the system will be possible in a smaller social community that would by its free choice accept such a system by referendum.      

*** 

The commune is a part of the state as a sovereign social organization. The commune's delegates in the state assembly represent the interests of their respective communes. In this way, each commune participates in making state decisions in creating the external and internal policy as well as defence of the country.  Its internal affairs the commune defines alone by itself. Each commune is sovereign enough in terms that it can enact its own laws and regulations on its own territory if they are not in collision with the accepted Constitution and constitutional laws of the state.    

Also each commune is sovereign in the internal economic field if it does not conflicting with federal laws. The new commune will further have a closed labour market in relation to the state and independent economy. Workers from communes with existing system will not be able to freely apply for jobs in the commune with the new system. They cannot realize income in the community with the new system if they do not have past labour income-based points. Transfer of workers may be allowed in administrative way, if a worker in his commune sells his property and thus gathers a sufficient quantity of money so that he can buy the past labour income-based points in the commune with the new system. Such worker will also then be in an unfavourable position as it will be impossible for him to get the money in his commune for his own contribution to the building of collective ownership. Therefore, he will have a lower income and a smaller voting power than the worker who has realized an equally valuable past labour in the new commune.  Transfer of workers from one commune to another will be free only under condition that communes establish an equal system. Then the organisation of work would be performed on the level of associated communes. Regulation of the transfer of the value deriving from the past labour would be then carried out automatically.   

The described system of social acting would ensure the economic, social and political stability of the commune. It would allow a faster and more stable development of the commune in all necessary fields than any of the classical systems would do. This also means the people would be reaching greater conveniences than in the existing systems. When the experiment of the new system shows the positive results, it may serve as a model to other communes. Political parties of other communes will then accept such a model of organization of social operation, which will contribute to dissemination of the system's productive orientation throughout the world.  

By accepting such political model of social order by several communes, a possibility opens up for a higher degree of association of the communes based on implementation of the new political and economic system. In this way, the commune keeps a part of its political and economic sovereignty, and transfers a part onto the association of communes. The association will be based on the collective labour market and collective capital. Such association may bring direct conveniences but also it may bring inconveniences to the commune's population.  

Conveniences would manifest in a free choice of labour in associated communes. In this way, there would be more probability of finding a job in which a worker is interested, and of finding a suitable place of residence and, consequently, of realizing major conveniences. Further, associated communes are economically more potent and are thus able to achieve a higher prosperity in the society and greater certainty in business operation in the case of disruptions on the market.  

The population also may, for the same reasons, experience the association of communes in an unfavourable way. Namely, a larger number of workers create a stronger work competition and it may result more difficult to exercise the right to work in one's own interest. A greater stability of the economic system will inevitably require certain spill over of money between the communes for income, collective consumption and economic development needs, which will amortize instabilities of the free market and contribute to stability of joined communes. Such a redistribution of money the population may assess as unfavourable.  

Therefore the assembles of communes that would like to unite, will form a program that clearly determines the modality and defines the process of the association. Such a program will need to be accepted by the consensus of all assembly’s political parties in all communes that would like to unite. It is quite possible that such consensus will not be easily accepted but it is necessary for reaching a better and more stable future of society. Each decision against the will of minority is unacceptable because it creates enemies to society. Negotiations and mutual consensus built on optimal conveniences to all of the members of society leads to the best solution. 

Then the proponent of a program and professional services will by way of mass media inform the population about the advantages and disadvantages of such an act. As association of communes may bring both conveniences and inconveniences to the population, it will have to be carried out by way of referendum where all inhabitants will express their views. Association of communes is an important act impacting substantially the society. For this reason it would have to be accepted by a substantial majority of inhabitants. Let this majority be a 2/3 of votes in the function of the voting power of inhabitants who vote, and at least one half of the total number of inhabitants of each commune. That should not be a hard task after consensus of all political parties is accepted. 

It is to be assumed that the practice will show over time that association of communes brings a larger market that enables greater profits. States that would not be willing to associate themselves with other communes would become economically weaker than associated states. Beside that a larger-scale association enables higher productivity realized by a stronger work competition and more conveniences in operating results. A larger-scale association will result in a greater certainty in doing business in the case of any disruption emerging on the market. A larger-scale association of communes will form a larger accumulation of collective money, which ensures the meeting of a larger quantity of collective needs. A larger-scale association will allow more possibilities to the population to exert direct influence on the making of decisions of joint interest on the territory of associated communes. A larger-scale association will enable the population to assess the operation of any man in the region of the associated communes. Briefly, a larger-scale association brings more benefits to the community as a whole and, therefore, it may be expected that the population of the communes will aspire to such larger-scale association.  

***

Association may easily develop to the level of a republic or a state as a sovereign social organization on a certain territory. Unlike the commune, the state as a fully sovereign social organization enacts the Constitution and basic laws of the state. The state assembly or parliament and its professional services determine the amendments of the constitutive law. When representatives of political parties in the parliament form a consensus on the Constitution and its amendments, they will then forward the same to the population to vote about them by way of referendum.  

The population presents its votes by computer cards or applications via the Internet, by either accepting or rejecting each individual point of the Constitution or its amendments. Such votes are delivered to the local offices of the state in the communes where they are quickly sorted out by computer processing. The articles receiving at least 2/3 of votes in the function of the voting power and at least 1/2 of the total number of inhabitants in the state would be accepted, and the remaining rejected or subjected to further elaboration.  

With the development of democracy the population will also need to decide about the acceptance of basic laws and about most important decisions. Basic laws and decisions govern the rights and duties of citizens, and relations in the production and distribution. Such laws and decisions will have to be emphatically presented to the population via the mass media, with the comments of the bodies tailoring them. It will also be necessary to allow a public criticism of the proposed laws. After possible corrections, with a high degree of consensus of the delegates, the federal assembly or parliament defines the laws and submits them to the population for approval. Voters adopt the laws and decisions of general social interest equally as the Constitution with at least 2/3 of votes in the function of the voting power and with at least 1/2 of the total number of inhabitants in the. However, such decisions would probably not be hard to achieve after consensus of all the political parties is previously established. As the population decides directly about its own laws, it is interested in getting familiar with them. By accepting them with their own will the laws are no longer brutally alienated from the society.

Less important laws, regulations and decisions covering specific activities and not being of general interest for the population are accepted if they receive a majority vote of the delegates or deputies in the state's parliament.  

Amendments of the Constitution as the organic law and other important laws in the state have to be designed in that way to accomplish a majority vote of the inhabitants of all communes associated in the state. Such concept is achievable because the population of any democratic state generally agrees with the formulation of basic human, civil, ethical, territorial rights. However, differences can occur in the field of ideology, as well as in the area of regulation of the relations in production and distribution. 

If inhabitants of a certain commune would not accept the amendments of the Constitution, then the Constitutional Court needs to analyze the departures from the collective Constitution. If the differences do not conflict with the fundamentals of the state order, the Constitutional Court may accept a special status of such commune, and the state parliament may ratify such status. However, if the non-acceptance of constitutional changes by a certain commune disrupts the fundamentals of the state order and if, as such, it causes damage to the whole state, in such case the Constitutional Court and the federal parliament may not approve such special status. The assembly or council of the commune with special needs then desists from its determination, or insists upon its determination, and may realize it by a partial or full secession. 

As a general rule, disintegration takes places in the states with dissatisfied and irresponsible population, with leaders yearning for great privileges, which will not be the case in the new system. Although it is hard to expect that secession could occur in the new system, the democratic system needs also to allow, by its determination, the possibility of a partial or full disassociation of communes.  

*** 

Today, there are no international rules that might regulate the secession. Rules are not in place because world’s power-wielders would decide by themselves and according to their own needs which province or republic is or is not entitled to secession. Generally speaking, every independent country where the government does not allow control of the power-wielders will get a strong opposition that supports control of the power-wielders. If such an opposition would not be successful the government will be advised (ordered) to ask for self-determination right of the people in its republics and provinces. Naturally the opposition and separatists from such countries are strongly supported by the power-wielders until they take control over such states.  If both options do not give satisfactory results to them then comes an open aggression. The aggression on Yugoslavia was a clear example of it. A new aggression on Iraq it the same one as well.

The will of the people should be recognized by referendum. In Yugoslavia, inhabitants of all its republics, except those of Serbia and Montenegro, expressed their will for self-determination in referenda. Nobody asked the peoples of Yugoslavia as a whole whether they wanted disintegration of the country, because such referendum would probably not have been in favour of the secessionists. Presidents of the republics could not agree about the conditions for disintegration so that the republics seceded by force. The forced secession was first recognized by the Vatican and Germany, and then by the whole world. This was contrary to the Constitution of Yugoslavia and the Constitutions of the secessionist republics, which stipulated the taking of such decisions by consensus. The secession was also recognized contrary to the Helsinki Convention signed by the representative of all the European countries, which does not allow the changes of state borders in Europe by force. The secession is also recognized contrary to numerous UN principles. Therefore the recognition of secession was nothing else but an aggression on Yugoslavia.

All USSR Republics, except Russia, expressed their will for self-determination in the referendum. The population of Russia was not asked whether it wanted disintegration of the USSR. Also the people of the USSR together where not asked such a question. The former USSR republics got the right to self-determination by the will of Russia's president Boris Yeltsin to grip full power in Russia.  

In Quebec, Canada, the referendum on secession in 1995 got somewhat less than 50% of votes. However, the Canadian Prime Minister Jean Cretién declared that 50% of votes were not sufficient for the secession. He did not say what percentage would be enough, either.

The right of peoples to self-determination in the Basque country, Catalonia, Corsica, Northern Ireland, California, Palestine, Tibet, Kurdistan does not exist in any form. Referendum is not possible since such right of the people would weaken these countries. The people in smaller territorial wholes generally do not have the right to self-determination. 

*** 

I will take the liberty to offer a proposal for self-determination of peoples, which may be discussed. States have been originated as authoritative creations and have maintained such status regardless of some democratic elements they have introduced. Full democracy must allow re-examination of the status of the states, or checking of the readiness of the people to live in the state where such issue is raised.  

The right to self-determination needs to be vested in any republic, province, including the smaller territorial community of people, the commune in this case. For such a decision the assembly of the commune needs to draw up a program that will establish the exact disintegration procedure and which will be accepted by consensus of political parties. Then the proponent of a program and professional services will by way of mass media inform the population about the advantages and disadvantages of such an act.  

Disintegration is a process essentially impacting the commune and, therefore, inhabitants of the commune wishing autonomy need to gather at least 2/3 of votes of the voters who voted on the referendum in the function of their voting power, and at least 50% + 1 of votes of the total number of inhabitants.  

If referendum in the commune would confirm the will of the people for self-determination, then representatives of both interest sides would engage in the division of assets and liabilities, disintegration of the collectively acquired goods, including regulation of all obligations, claims and the newly established relations. On the basis of the agreement achieved referendum would need to be organized on the territory of the entire state. 

Established disassociation would be accepted if it were in the interest of at least 50% + 1 of the total number of inhabitants of the state. Since the commune has the right to self-determination, the state also needs to have the right to its self-determination that can prevent the secession of the commune. If referendum failed, the process may be harmonized and repeated. The process of disassociation would be difficult and if ever such demanded long lasting due to the fact that the enormous number of ties between and among communes, companies, inhabitants created from the establishment of the state, cannot be simply broken.  

Democratic approach to association of communes also requires freedom of disassociation and limited mutual links. The fewer authorities a commune assigns to the state, the more sovereign it will be, and vice versa. A higher degree of sovereignty of the commune will bring to its inhabitants smaller of greater conveniences and inconveniences, and the practice will establish optimal relations.  

One can assume by an objective analysis that the population will by its own practice reject the disintegration processes, as they cannot bring greater conveniences either in economic or in general social terms. Major conveniences and benefits generally result from integration processes. An integrated state with a new system may function in the same way as a commune does. This means that it can accomplish more conveniences to the society than the commune, because the richness of different determinations is greater, as are the possibilities of the associated economy and stability of the economic system. The new state will ensure to its population more freedom in accomplishing the conveniences and direct decision-making power of all inhabitants when collective needs are concerned, as it was described when talking about the commune. 

By association of communes the inhabitants get a possibility to autonomously give rewards and pronounce sanctions by assessing the protagonists of either favourable or unfavourable developments on the territory of the entire state. The assessments will to a little, however, respective manner impact the income and the quantity of past labour income-based points of workers, enterprises or communes and thus will ensure a highly productive orientation of the population of the state in its entirety.  

The proposed system is based on objective value categories and thus demystifies the authorities and overcomes the alienation. The life in such a system can suppress the importance of different ideologies to the benefit of the life in accordance with human nature. The proposed system allows each man to discover his own needs, to form them within the limits of his possibilities, and to satisfy them and thus accomplish the conveniences.  

The process of disalienation overcomes destruction in such a system. Conflicts are possible among individuals; however, the conflict will be in nobody's interest because all parties will lose by mutual negative assessments. Conflicts will be solved by mutual respect and joint agreement. The most important consequence of such a system is that nobody will be able to raise the conflicts of individuals to a social or national level, as each attempt will be sanctioned and because the progressive orientation of the society will not produce the followers who would support them.

 Back to Top