Demostopheles

Voters guide How to use elections to start revolution 1

Cover and images: LDCG Rodrigo Salazar Mendoza The switch: Ilaria Bruciamonti – Diploma di Grafica. Liceo artistico Brera

Feedback, Corrections and Suggestions: [email protected]

version 0.7.1

2

Index Preface

6

For whom the manual makes no sense

8

The democracy comic

9

How to use destructivity

12

Why elections don’t work

13

The Bolero of double bind

14

The double bind

16

Is there really a double bind in electoral law?

17

Who gets advantage from a divided and confused society?

19

Where are we now?

21

The missing main ingredient

26

A bunch of imperfect examples

28

The instructions of double bind

30

This means the voter is impotent! ???

31

The electoral law we deserve

33

… but there are much more important things!

38

Repetition

39

The switch

41

Intermezzo and a few thoughts

43

The action plan outline

45

Action plan – specific actions

47 3

The first democracy in the world

49

Democracy’s starting point

52

Objections

54

Quick Reference

57

Second Phase

59

A word to Anarchists

60

APPENDIX Aphorisms

63

Governability

68

Since we know how politicans are …

70

The mandate bond

72

Party nominations and voter preferred candidates

73

The hurdle

74

Did the Greek really do it better?

75

Books and Authors

76

The grandfather of XXI century democracy

79

Etymology

80

The Republic of Weimar

81

Wikipedia

82

System intervention levels

83

Epilogue – A few words to politicians

85 4

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. (Robert S. Borden)

There never was true democracy, and there will never be (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

When we speak of democracy, we are cheating. Democracy means government of the people. If the people were ruling, it wouldn’t be us. We do it, because it is easier than self-administration, because it is easier. (Sandro Pertini)

The tragedy of modern democracies is, that they still haven’t become democracies (Jacques Maritain)

5

PREFACE Voting is terrificly simple: A cross, and it’s over! All the omnipotency gone in one breath! Why would the voter need a manual? One with some dozen pages? He needs one, because evidently there is something wrong with voting! Politicians are the loudest when it comes to be unsatisfied. They are victims of electoral lawas. Those laws they invented. Because constitutional courts often refuse them. Politicians are poor victims … of Constitutions. They suffer, because most of their attempts to cheat the Constitution are not successful. According to most Constitutions, the people are sovereign. How „sovereign“ do you feel as citizen? Some high percentage? Or some irrelevant ridiculous percentage? Du you sometimes or often have the feeling that your true role as a citizen is to pay taxes? If feeling sovereign never occured to your mind pehaps the fathers of Constitution exaggerated. Promised a paradise that will never exist. Anyway, Constitution is the most important Text of a Nation. That promised paradise is within your reach, because if it is there, you can claim for it! This manual hast the goal to explain you a few things that you don’t know, but should know. You will be confrotned also with a paradox: Without elections we cannot talk of democracy, but when you go to vote, you do harm democracy! You will also learn what attitude a politician concerned with democracy should have. The manual is important for such a politician, because it explains what he has to do for democracy. Democracy hasn’t started yet. Nowhere! 6

There is still a main ingredient missing. It hasn’t been recognized yet. Here you will know what’s missing, and how you will be able to make it be added! I wish you a successful revolution!

7

For whom the manual makes no sense The voter’s manual is not for every voter! Lots of voters will get no benefit from this manual. It is the group of voters who believes that you have to be a “realist” and get a personal advantage in exchange of your vote. To that voter everybody who doesn’t do the same is a moron. They are to smart to lean something new. They are immune to the idea that getting rid of them increases significantly the welfare of society. They tell themselves, that resources are limited, and it is an act of natural selection to take it from those who create. So, just enjoy your superior essence, don’t waste your time with this readings, because you won’t get any advantage here!

8

The democracy comic

DEMOCRACY – THE SCHOOLBOOK ILLUSION Constitution in this drawing is represented by the foot and the structure of the scale. The electoral law is the arms that secure the plates. Our schoolbooks transmitted the idea, that every voter puts his part of sovereignity into he plate with his vote, giving weight and power to parties, so they can rule and make laws for him.

9

SYSTEM CRITICS – 2011-2017 The spanish October 15th Movement and Occupy Wallstreet in 2011 mark the beginning of a worldwide phase of huge elecoral masses sensing deep incongruences in democracy and the realisation, that vote doesn’t allow to define our own society, because there is some cheating, some obstacle that obstructs electoral will from making things happen as desired. In the best case, democracy seems to be … detained. . System critics are limited to the knowledge, description and denounciation of injustice and malfunction. Generally the proposed political solution is to support new political forces, clean parties and candidates, and hope they will make the difference thanks to their good will.

10

SYSTEM ENGINEERING – METAPOLITICS – DEMOCRACY 0.9 To act on a political level menas to move within the system, walking the paths that are securing it. That won’t allow to change the system. It will only stimulate the system to react and attack the intruder. Many voters understand intuitively that good will, honesty and system critic has no political terrain. Therefore they don’t waste their time to go to vote. The system carries the label „legitimate“ visibly around, to justify ist acts. Doing metapolitics to get the right laws to get to democracy relase 0.9 includes exposing the fraud with the label, and exposing the system as illegitimate, inconstitutional and anti-democratic. It means to remove the obstructing stool that creates privilege, immunity and exploitation, expand the power of the elector and his elected, and protect society from antisocial interests.

11

How to use destructivity The majority of voters is faithless. And a good part of them has a destructive attitude that manifests itself when they vote the way it causes the biggest harm to established parties (in favor of some exotic or extreme party). Those who already resigned do something more proficuous on election day. The author of this lines has known this feeling all his lifetime. He suggests you to be skeptic but to remain open anyway. The insurance policy the exploiter club has is, to promote divisions among its victims and keep them weak. Er rät Euch, skeptisch zu sein, aber trotzdem offen zu bleiben. We are all probably more or less sour. We could throw acid on eachother, or we could join in looking at those who made us sour, and throw our destructive energy on them together. A little bit acid would slow down the coming oft he worse, a lot of acid could stop it! Having different points of view is normal and obvious. But it could lead to useless and pointless fights with the neighbor who is sinking with us on the same boat, instead of fighting together those power structures that sell the future of our kids.

12

Why elections don’t work This is going to be a very brief chapter. Elections don’t work the way you wish, the way you learned in primary school because of a very simple reason that is not that simple to explain. The problem are not elections. Placing a small cross onto a paper doesn’t originate any problem. The problem occurs after an election, after all votes are counted. The only true thing (assuming there is no cheating at different stages of the election and the counting) is the amount of votes candidates and parties got. But as you know, the numbers are TRANSFORMED into a percentage! And the root of all evil is the method used to make that transformation! We all know that lobbies, banks and money have priority. But that’s not a normal situation. The priority is not based on the quantity of votes this small groups can produce and get. So, allow me to say, that institutions are asserved to lobbies, because there is something fishy in the way votes are converted into power! In other words: Electoral law would contain something that makes high scale corruption possible and probable, protects and favors lobbies, and causes an injust society. Before weg o tot he next chapter, let me repeat it: It’s not corruption and egoism who obstacle democracy. It is anti democratic electoral rules that promote oligarchy!

13

The Bolero of double bind The purpose of this essay ist o be easy to understand and avoid to use difficult words and ideas. The Bolero refers to the musical piece composed by Maurice Ravel, where a melody is repeated over and over with different instruments and details. The idea the title wants to transmit is, that a situation called „double bind“ will be illustrated through different and similar examples, to gradually introduce you to the term. “Double bind” ist the concept that will constitute your new electoral conscience from now on. This guid is meant to create knowledge about it. We will start just now! Do you have children? Do you know the following situation? The ten year old boy approaches his father with a leaflet of supermarket offers in his hand: “Dad, can I buy this swiss pocket knife?” The father thinks, the knife would be a danger in his son’s hands, so he makes a proposal: “What would you say about going to see the new Marvel superhero movie? Or go for an ice-cream? If you prefer to stay at home, we could order a pizza … I would also help you to complete the amount needed for the lego set you are saving for, and go to buy it!” That’s our Bolero’s first round. I’ll only notice, that we met a selection menu. A multiple choice with the purpose to be “instead of” The father offers the choices, because he is not willing to fulfill the original request. The selection menu has the purpose to distract and avoid … SECOND CASE. Nearly the same … The 13 year old approaches his father. He has visibly problems to open his mouth. But finally he thows it out: “Dad, please stop drinking!” The father looks at him, making a concerned face. “Yes, I know I should be a better father! I could start by dedicating more time to my son … 14

Would you like to go to wath the newest Marvel superhero movie together? If you prefer to stay at home, we could order a pizza and watch Daredevil on Netflix. Or … remember the swiss pocket knife you wanted? Let’s go for it!” In reality the son wanted to add a few more requests. He wanted to ask his dad to also stop smoking. At least in the house and in the car. And he wanted to ask him to find a job, so mom could give up one of her three jobs and stay the weekend with them at home. And he wanted also to ask his father to stop chasing other women, since he got the best one in the country as wife. Something much better than he deserved. But dad made sure, through the offered choices, that none of this would be on the table. He didn’t even consider stop drinking. His son’s legitimate requests don’t matter to him. He avoids to face them and protects his right … to harm his family. The offered selections are a mean strategy to keep a harmful control over his relatives. THIRD CASE The son is of age, works and helps the family economically. “Dad, I know it is very hard to fight it, but you are killing yourself with drinking that much! I want to accompany you somewhere where they can help you to stop with it. Please listen to me!“ Dad obviously has experience with offering alternatives: “I could convince your mom to allow you to go to the rock festival. Or I could convince her to allow you to vacation with your still underage girlfriend. I want to help you with some money, to get a better car …” There is no doubt that the father is just a full asshole. Although hiss on is independent, and the father is no authority anymore, he uses that same strategy to keep on harming his family. You already got it, that the strategy is called “double bind”. Who gave it that name was Gregory Bateson, some sixty years ago. But it was only in the Eighties when our specific case was described by Richard Bandler and John Grinder.

15

“Double bind” wants to express, that a person that gets offered a menu of choices is in reality tied down twice. The double bind, namely the way a selection is offered, has the purpose to limit somebody’s movement range and reduce his options. What are the characteristics of a double bind? 1: It excludes refusal! Even if you decide not to take any oft he choices, you will not get what you wanted originally and there will not be any further consequences fort he one who offered you the choices. The topic is closed through the offering! Refusal has no effect. 2: It happens between two figures where one detains the authority, and the other one is subordinate. The inferior figure has no way to affect the range and the choices offered, so it cannot produce any significant change. Since the characteristics are really important, we repeat them with other words: 1: You take none of the choices? It doesn’t affect the system at all! 2: The one called to take a choice ist the inferior, subordinate and impotent one. A catholic repeats a formula called „Athanasian credo“ that consists of statements about what he believes. We could say, that the double bind also has a “credo”. It sounds like this: Who Who Who Who

doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t doesn’t

vote vote vote vote

doesnt count. accepts what others vote. has no right to complain. pays exactly as the one who votes does.

The substance of this formulas is to create a courtain of smoke that hides the mechanism that obstructs democracy from working. The trick ist hat good, that it has been working perfectly the last eighty years! A double bind embedded into electoral law may be hard to see, but ist effects are evident. Instead of leading where the electorate wants, the switch takes us where a few can make profit out of all of us. In popular terms, this is then described as if democracy doesn’t work, that democracy is a fraud, and voters have nothing to say. 16

Is there really a double bind in electoral law? Heavy accusations should never be easily uttered! The double bind described by Bander and Grinder is easy to detect. There is no problem to see it in the three examples we saw, and to identify the different roles of the people involved. You don’t even have full possession of your mental faculties to recognize that there are interactions between a superior and a subordinate person, and that the selection menu is a strategy to trick the inferior part. Political elections at the other hand seem to be free. There is no clearly visible superior part. And the passive vote advocates for an open system. Does it require a sick conspirationist mind to see a double bind in the electoral process? We better take very little steps together, to see if we really arrive at a double bind. Can we at least see clearly something that makes a dobule bind? Of course we do! It’s even official that „who doesn’t vote, doesn’t count!” We get this axiom served in all kind of dressings during our whole lifetime. So, the electoral process really displays one huge ingredient of the double bind: not voting has no kind of effect. Abstentionism is declared to be lack of interest, abdication, refusal to participate, and as futher isolating measure, it is preventively condemned. Since one element oft he double bind is present … could it be that chanves rises due to ist presence? That the other characteristics have it easier to appear? Could it be, that ignoring non voters creates a special protected and privileged space, and stairs to it? That from this space, out of the influence of what is an electoral result, society can be controlled, used, directed, and benefitted from? Could it be that from there it is possible to define the range of options that a society gets through elections? Yes, it would be possible! Do we know if there are people and organizations who want to stay outside or above law and rules, who push to get advantages and benefits at the cost of the weaker, even if that means that others have to carry with the cost of it, and even if that cost is destruction, death, financial disaster (Greece, Libya, Syria, Yemen)? 17

If you don’t see such things … you either live on another planet, or you do not look well on purpose! We really se predators, leeches, parasytes … united and perfectly organized! As freemasons, mob, lobbies and the financial elite. (European people recently lost the sovereign right to print their currency without being asked. Banks and credits have priority. In Italy it takes them 20 minutes to approve throwing first 20 billions, then 22 billions into putrid banks, but there is no way to help the victims oft he earthquake during a whole year. Every year taxes are increased (reaching over 70% on the total of an income), public services are reduced. We do not live in times of economic crisis but in times where the flow from taxpayers to the elites becomes thicker! There are privileges that cannot be touched and reduced. At the same time, the rights of the citizenship shrink and shrink. Did we get to the point where we agree, that no citizenship is sovereign? There is no place where electoral law doesn’t contain a double bind! So, take the time you need, but don’t miss to determine for yourself, if you feel, voting can change things, or rather a not clearly defined group has a fast lane to get huge advantage and dictate where to go. If you already realized, that governments worldwide, without the specific assignment of their voters have been busy adding more debts onto the shoulders of generations that have still tob e born, and suddenly the command came out to reduce that debts … If you noticed, that this change of direction accelerated the discounted sale of national patrimony, and the outsold future of the nations increases the richess of several banks, probably you also heard that a Rothschild of past times supposedly said “Give me control over the money of a country, and I don’t care about who will write the laws of that state.” Perhaps you already know there are projects to take from more countries their right to print and manage their currency. The Amero would become the currency for the USA, Canada and Mexico (that way, Mexico would become the North American Greece). And there is a project to united the petrol producing countries in the Middle East and give them one common currency. The New World Order mentioned a few times by top politicians is meant to have one sole currency worldwide. Resuming: 18

Electoral laws assure that not voting has no effect onto the system. If the political menu offered on elections doesn’t meet the requirements of voters, there is no consequence for those who offer that menu. This ist he visible part of a double bind. The second characteristic is, that society displays a gerarchical structure of power, and the biggest part of the electorate is in a disadvantaged position within it. It is nearly impossible to affect the interests of lobbies and elites through elections. This are the reasons, why we have enough elements to conclude, that the electoral law contains a double bind! Therefore, electoral laws fulfill the purpose to mislead people into believing, that being powerless and subject to the interests of small groups is the result of “democratic” elections. Since there is intentional cheating, it is paired with the narrative that the people detain the power. Check in your national constitution those paragraphs where your type of state is described. (it could sound like: “The country is a democratic federation …”). Perhaps it also contains something about the power. (All power comes from the people …) If you find such sentences, you can file a claim on behalf of them, since the electoral law doesn’t respect them!

19

Who gets advantage from a divided and confused society? You know the answer. Let’s see examples: Less than a decade ago some party came up with the proposal to switch from representative to direct democracy. In theory, that would really assign power to the people. So, it is a proposal that reveals, that the politicians behind it do want to change the system. Sorrily, up to now they didn’t deliver a time schedule and a step by step description on how they would do it. The italian version of it (the most radical, since it demands universal direct democracy to completely replace politicians and parties, and not just a version o fit similar to the one applied in Switzerland) came up with the vision, it would be after worldwar III. Most of us wouldn’t benefit from it, since politics always ignore people who dwell in cemeteries. Such proposals have a big disadvantage: They require to change the democratic system, and redefine laws, rules, institutions and roles within a different frame. A job that could be described as taking of a mountain from one site and rebuilding it with a different shape on another place. Direct Democracy shurely is a project that those who control the world like: Because it is easy to make it never happen! It helps to put subscribers to dream about it and stay quiet, while nothing at all changes! In the meanwhile, the opposite project is built up: To limit the possibility of movement of voters, and squeeze them. Other alternatives have been around for more time: marxism, communism, socialism, chavism, lottocracy (extracting people fort he Congress like in a lottery). They also require to rebuild the state, sometimes society, and surely a new constitution. On this few pages you are learning, that the formula of your electoral law is illegal, because it points again the constitution and against democracy, and that from inside the system it is possible to force the system to make a correction that transforms it into democratic.

20

There is no need to think out and build a new system. Just file a claim against the construction error you got knowledge of, and insist on immediate correction! The difference with utopic proposals and the solution shown in this guide is, that all other proposals are arbitrary and require a majority of voters being unite and asking for it, while correcting the electoral law as explained here is a must the system cannot refuse. There is no other solution at such an easy level, low cost and compatible with human psychology. The exposed doctrine has an additional advantage: She identifies an injustice, a non fulfilment of constitution, and places voters into the role of victims who suffered damage from it. The electorate suffers severely from being cheated and stolen of its constitutional right of self determination …

21

Where are we now ? It‘s important to have a complete view of the situation and to understand where we are right now. The project “representative democracy” was started some 200 years ago. At the beginning it already contained the idea of power separation ad constitution, and that justice needed laws valid for everybody. But our schoolbooks don’t tell as that the people chosen as representatives were no friends of rules that really placed the reins of power into the hands of the people. Those who seriously wanted the empowerment of people where just a few ones. Against much bigger groups of the wealthy, who did everything to keep theory and practice far away from eachother. The biggest concern of any elite is, that if society is in the hands of the people, it will end up in anarchy. It could be an excuse, but it deserves to be seriously answered. The construction of democracy was started in an environment of slavery and discrimination of women. Abolition of slavery and the female right to vote were two milestones in the later development of democracy. Talking about development introduces the question, if democracy is fully developed? Has representative democracy been been completed, or is it unfinished? According to experts, democracy is declining. This involves, that it was born, grew up, became old and then lost its force and started to die. Expressions like “post-democracy” (Crouch) or “death of democracy” (Keane) are leading concepts that condemn democracy and entitle to search for alternatives. Such alternatives have still little support. Most people never heard about the proposal to extract randomly the names of those who should represent us and govern (lottocracy). Many people prefer the strong guy or woman who can be trusted blindly. In Italy many voters like the idea of direct democracy that can be established after a world war, in an era called „Gaia“. 22

Others like the technological-political utopia called Venus Project. All of them have in common, that we are expected to renounce representative democracy and give space to the new. And while such proposals are being established, discover that the vultures of human species are still there, ready to find opportunities to eat our flesh. In other words: We are invited to give up the bone we have in our mouth and trust that behind a big fog lots of delicious food is waiting for us! We should understand one thing: Even if it is only the label what we really have, it implies that democracy assures us rights, liberty and self determination. We have officially valid deeds on it, and we would abdicate our property the moment we accept a change. So dear fellow voter, take it easy, don’t let others hurry you on alternatives that require geological times to be established. Stick on what you own! From there you have the law on your side to oppose abuse and prepare the cord for predators. We are currently not in democracies, but in the construction of democracy. Representative democracy was never put to work! It is wrong to imagine that the construction of democracy was done after a plan. It was rather on a principle. You better imagine boys who fix ball bearings onto a board and use it to run down the street. The next day they look for a way to add some kind of wheel, later they see the need for brakes, etc. The project evolves while the vehicle is being used. Sure! Democracy is in a bad shape! Whatcould be missing? A side? Like the “monitoring” identified by Keane? (Keane predicts, that the next decades of democracy will mainly consist of developing tools to monitor institutions and make sure they walkt he path of democracy.) What if the complete formula of democracy is not thought and written yet, and a main ingredient is missing? What if that ingredient is exactly what was replaced with a double bind?

23

How we are in reality: used, deceived, impotent.

24

The missing main ingredient Schumpeter and Schmitt bring up the topic, that speaking about democracy is not correct, while it is so easy to fool voters. Obviously they don’t mean that voters are stupid. They admit, that those in power have plenty of tools they can use to deceive voters. But we hopefully got near to be critical mass of voters who realized, that what has been served as democracy is a mix of shitty glitter, crap and heavy fleecing, with a performance society controlled by a government and elites who suck out a lot and give misery in return. The sentence “If voting changed anything, it would already be illegal” is usually attributed to Mark Twain, Kurt Tucholsky, Berthold Brecht and Emma Goldman. But in reality it’s first mention was on the Lowell Sun, on September 24 1976, in a letter written by a reader, a dermatologist named Dr. Robert S. Borden to the newspaper. The most interesting part of the letter ist he sentence before the well known aphorism. Dr. Borden comes to the conclusion, that elections are illegal because of the huge masses who do not vote! He intuitively understands, that ignoring them is a treason on democracy, years before Bandler and Grinder presented the specific case of double bind we discussed here! A similar intuition can be seen in some current proposals like the „mandate bond”. The proposal asks to bind politicians to their party, and deny them to join other groups or leave their group at the Congress or Senate. A party that really opposes the system has good reasons to ask for a similar rule. They are right to refuse the possibility of people elected within their group, weakening their opposition to the system, by leaving them and siding the system. (In Italy over 25% of members in Congress changed group in the actual legislation). It can be respected as good intuition, but it is not useful to repair democracy. It doesn’t affect the double bind, and there are no constitutional reasons to introduce such a kind of bond. The correct part of it is that it understands that democracy doesn’t work because politicians are free and unbond. 25

Politicians coule be compared to taxi drivers. You tell them where to go (obviously a place that exists and can be reached easily with the taxi), and you expect that in an acceptable time they put you down there. But this is a taxi driver! A politician is completely different. You enter the taxi, and he gives you half a dozen choices. You have to chose one. If you don’t, you can exit the taxi after you paid. Anyway, not onoy will you pay, the politician will also charge your kids and their still unborn children. You have no way to force him to stop spending that much on wars, and make life better for everybody. There is no bond, because you pay in any case! Instead, you are tied and cannot avoid to be held liable for their decisions! The double bind in the electoral law inverts the bonds. Those who should have the power are subordinate, and those who are elected to “serve” are given the possibility ti sell your shirt, your pants, your underwear and your ass without consequences. It ist hat easy and safe for them, that they already made debts for the generations that are still unborn!

26

A bunch of imperfect examples You get charged every month on your paycheck to pay all the restaurants in your town. This entitles you to eat in any of them. After some week you know them all. They all serve rancid food, lousily prepared, full of salt, overspiced and stinky. You also realized, there is no way to stop the charge. So you try to throw in suggestions. And you meet other people who do or did the same and got no rely and no change. You decide to complain. But there is no rule to force anybody to react to you. You and your complaint do not exist! The solution could be to define rules and obbligations, control instance to check the food quality, people who are there to sanction when rules are not followed … This increases the whole thing, and the charge inflates. It is cheaper and easier to handle it the way we know: Restaurants are on an open market. They are good? They succeed! They are shit? They go to hell! Having an open market means, offer and demand meet and negotiate. Restaurants have to impress their guests, let them feel like a king! If they fail, you can either take them off your list, or add them to your negative reviews on internet … That way restaurants are pushed towards their clients, and they make efforts to meet their client’s taste! In Mexico the independent state deputy Pedro Kumamoto made successfuly the campaign #SinVotoNoHayDinero (NoVoteNoMoney). Although it was a proposal in only one of the Mexican states, the campaign became popular in other states to. There was no way for Kumamoto’s collegues in the State Congress to refuse it, and on July, 1 2017 it was approved. Kumamoto announced, he will promote it in the whole country. The history of democracy can be compared to the empirical project of a twowheeled vehicle built with the purpose to move faster and transport small loads with less effort. The project starts with the two wheels, a framework, handlebars, brakes, lights, and adds a backmirror, toolbox, a gear system, etc. At a certain moment you think the vehicle is ready to be used. But you still move at the same speed and spend much more effort … pushing the bycicle. Somebody got unadvertedly into the saddle, and you are pushing. And if you would check better, you would also see that you are chained! 27

Evidently it is not done with contructing a bycicle! You have to make sure to keep the ownership and the exclusivity to ride it. You need to add a lock and be the only one who has a key! Without that Democracy can smoothly drift into Plutocracy … as you know! Democratic Constitutions love to say that the people are sovereign. It is the laws that come later who are never concerned with locking institutions to keep kidnappers out. David vs. Goliath. Our version. Our David doesn’t collect stones for his sling, to fight Goliath. He moves toward Goliath as if it was for business. Then he takes out papers and hands them to Goliath: “Mr. Goliath, I was assigned the task to conclude an open deal you have. The papers show that you sorrily forgot the payment of the sandals you are wearing. The seller insists in getting them back immediately, and as you can see, he sent police force to make sure you accomplish the order. I personally am very sorry for the situation, but I think we can do interesting business after you fulfill the order. I’d really like to leave only if we find a winwin situation that is good for everybody.”

28

The instructions of double bind The perfect cheat comes always with a tutorial! The best known instructions for voters are: You must vote! (to accept that you are liable for what is decided in your name …) Hold your nose and vote for the less worse! (Accept what you would refuse and call the choice of garbage “democracy”!) You have to vote to avoid the upcoming of the worst!! (The system consists only of bad choices. As designed victim you will be happy if you chose the nicest hangman for your execution). If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain! (If that didn’t make it to become a law, it is just because it is bullshit! Criticism is essential in a democracy to trigger improvements.) Democracy works more or less like the least common denominator in math. The maximum you can reach is the minimum that interests the majority. Bertrand Russell had a better description, formulated as negative: "The merits of democracy are of a negative kind: It doesn’t assure a good government, but it prevents specific evils."

If Russell had known about the fate of Greece, he would probably have reconsidered … (There is not much wrong to say that the worst evils are perpetrated by a small amount of subjects at the cost of all of humankind.) And it is not the lack of focus and preparation as citizenship that makes the work of government bad. It is the alien interest governments help taking advantage on richness generated by the people what makes the performance of governments that poor.)

29

This means the voter is impotent! ??? The goal of this manual is not to make you depressive! That’s the job of new politicians who have the simple message, that you cannot trust others, but you should trust them! Here you get introduced to the backbone that can be used to change the power relations in favor of human society. Prisoners and kidnapped people try to find a way out … As you remember from many movies, most exits are locked. And often the way to escape is to get to the main controls. The first weak point of the system is, that you could get proff, that the system is kidnapped with a technical trick. You are already there, and now you are a potential danger! I insist on this point of view: The weak link is not you. We voters are not weak! The weak ones are those who cannot show themselves publicly for what they are, and need to use puppets, stay in the background, behind the courtain, because otherwise they would risk to ruin the whole game they play! The path that leads to a neoliberal society is not the path of the warrior! It is the path of lawyers and bankers who act like Uriah Heep. All their strength consists in standing where they can push levers in their favor! You realize, the have an Achille’s heel? And … There is an Archimedean point and an Archimedean lever. We can move the world! Check your Constitution! Does it say anything about where the power comes from? About democracy? Voters can demand an electoral law that is democratic. Once it is public, that the electoral law creates privilege and subjugates the citizen, there is not much do-around that will help the elites to avoid a correction! The bigger thing you have to do is to join others and make a chorus of noise and protest to get the electoral law corrected! If your chorus is confused, it will fail. Therefore, take the time to understand exactly, what you should demand, and how. 30

Probably you know the David vs. Goliath tale. How David fought the heavily armed giant Goliath and defeated him with a slingshot. Malcolm Gladwell, an Author of five interesting books, who also writes on “The New Yorker” dedicated one of his books to this tale to teach us that: Who appears to be weak could in reality have a lethal advantage over an opponent that is considered invincible! The historical dscourse of Marxism is the “class struggle”. After hundred years of struggle … we are back to market economy and the dictate of financial elites! That’s enough time to allow the option of putting aside the whole idea of warfare! It is stupid to engage a war with an enemy who commands a huge army and has endless resources! We better change point of view. Instead of a giant, armories and weapons we better look on the people behind all: Weak, greedy brats with no conscience and ethics on a privileged platform, who cheat and spread lies, use political lackeys to do the dirty job. And we better put an eye on how they get there! There is a red carpet that conduces to the platform. And there is a thread at the end of the carpet … on our side. And suddenly we have the strong feeling, that if we push together on that thread, we dismantle the whole carpet, and there is no longer a way to get onto a platform …

31

The electoral law we deserve! Electoral law was always something that depended upon negotiations between parties. Only a few voters, typically fans of a party, take interest on the details of an electoral law. But there are a few countries where normal people got used to issues of electoral law, because parties don’t stop to tell them, that while a party cannot rule alone, reforms are not possible and the country suffers stagnation. Wahlgesetz war immer eine Sache, die historisch unter Parteien ausgehandelt wurde. Hold on and reflect: We have over 70 years of uninterrupted history and life of electoral laws (most countries have modified their law a twenty times in this period!). All this time no version of electoral law made this fabulous miracle! It is time the people start to take care of electoral law, or it will continue to remain bad for people and good for parties! How do you get out a double bind from electoral law? The main characteristic of double bind is that not voting has no effect. So, the double bind is gone, when not voting has consequences! That easy! Not voting should be have consequences and a cost … for parties! How could we do that? Germans were the only ones who once managed elections on the other side of the democratic line (we are on the opposite side of democracy). But when Hitler won the elections, he took the rules everybody else in the world had. In the Republic of Weimar, eight elections happened with unique rules. I use numbers to explain how they were done: Let’s assume they had 600 seats available in their Congress. And that the total of people called to vote was 30 millions. Dividing 30 millions through 600 is 50,000. 50,000 were the votes needed to get a seat! And that means, that they had several seats that remained unused! Not voting translated into not assigning all mandates. That reduced the monthly cost of the Congress, the cost of retirement of politicians, the amount of money parties received … Nowadays many countries apply a qualifying threshold to keep tiny parties out of Congress, because they wouldn’t have enough people to seriously work on projects. 32

The real result of elections would be parties over that threshold and others who don’t make it. This means that there are two numbers: The real participation on elections (let’s say 63%) and the percentage filtered out by the threshold. In other words: Congress would have a smaller percentage of seats occupied than the voter participation. Surely a few readers already jumped furiously to the roof! In their mind, such a scenario is the foreplay of anarchy! Because lots of voters would malignously use such a rule to harm politicians! And instead of getting a government, we would drown in chaos! First thing we make clear is that there is no fear of chaos and anarchy! What terrifies some people is that … there would be no protecting web. The web that protects society from being democratic! The web that creates privilege! In other words: The danger of democracy makes some people poop in their pants! It is so funny to hear, that democracy would begin the end of the world! Should we just fake and cheat on voters, telling them we have democracy, because those with lots of money (they know how to make profit on the back of others) should take the important decisions for all? What would you say? Are you that hot to see every seat in the Congress with an asshole sitting on it? You never noticed useless or harmful dickheads and pricks sitting there? In a few countries there is a discussion about reduction of the seats. But it would be only a democratic thing, if it is the voter who decides at every election, how many seats get an ass! That way to handle it creates a giant advantage: It transforms the whole thing into a market where voter demand creates political offer! Much better than a place where parties make an offer, and you have no way to refuse it all together, but you have to take the shit that doesn’t smell as bad as all others! They did it right in Weimar: You ignore every political offer that doesn’t convince you or looks unreliable. If necessary, the whol offer! You ignore politicians and parties. They pay for being lousy, not you! 33

Empty seats creates a new political conscience: That there is an unsatisfied demand that costs them money! It is an invitation to politics to move towards voters, ask about their concerns, and offer answers and solutions. Empti seats are an index that shows how bad the political show and performance is! What is the idea behind the claim, that doing it like in Weimar generates anarchy? It expresses the knowledge, that a bad political offer will be refused by the majority! 14292633 In other words: There is the danger that more than half of voters doesn’t go to vote! And as soon as we use real numbers, we get aware that a minority of voters cannot make a government valid for all others! The problem of not enough voters means that no power is given to politicians! The math is obvious: If more than half of the seats are not assigned, there are not enough mandates (power) to start a legislation and sustain a government! This really smells like anarchy! But as sovereigns, we can take it easy, and take our time to make a few considerations, and even find possibilities for solutions. Elections have the purpose to make a government and a Parliament with a majority than can produce laws. If most people don’t go to vote, the election was useless, and new elections are necessary. We could say that the parties didn’t make it for promotion (like at school), and they have to repeat the exams. It wouldn’t be exaggerated to fear, that without any change on this rule, it could result in dozens of elections where never a majority goes to vote! Tha would be a kind of anarchy, a knocking out of the country. But we are not that stupid to allow that such a cheap excuse is good enough to deny us a democratic electoral law (without a double bind)! In theory, it is a must to have the possibility to knock out “the State”! The people together MUST be more powerful than the State! So, if we imagine that at every election we get only candidates of the mob, we should be able to exclude them forever from taking control of the country! 34

But mostly we don’t deal with such extreme cases, and we can establish a few complementary rules to handle a situation where a bit less people than half of the total voters diddn’t go to vote! As you know, there must be a cost for that … What happens if a student fails the exams? He has to repeat the schoolyear! What could we do to politicians who didn’t pass the “exam”? We force them to take a rest for one round. And the round is a whole legislation! We don’t allow them to make their living from tax money for that time. They have to look for a job! That’s ugly, and we are serious about it! Politics should be made to improve the national welfare. We do not want to see lobbies, friends and friends of friends getting favors and benefits. Democracy is power of the people to benefit the people! The anarchy problem is therfor a lie: There is no danger of voters not participating to make the State fail. There is only the “problem” that voters will refuse to be cheated! The voter menace has the goal to scare parties from tricking on voters! But voters are not blind and unfair: There is no problem to keep out from that rule all parties who got a positive result (compared to the result at previous elections), although the total participation doesn’t make the elections valid. A party who didn’t get less votes than before (a tolerance can apply) is allowed to present the same candidates at the next election attempt. All other parties can send all their candidates to search for a job, and look for new candidates to present on the following elections. Elections cost a lot, and a good part when not all is paid by voters. In our own interest, we don’t want to waste on elections over several years. We can accept exceptions to the general rule. Like a grace period that accepts Congress and Government built with less than 50% of total votes. The grace period should not be too long. Perhaps two legislations (8-10-12 years). And obviously it is not a generous act! It will cost! My personal proposal is to allow things going on if at least 40% went to vote. But for every point below 50%, the wages of politicians and employes are reduced by 3%. 35

If participation is 47%, they all get 91% of the normal salary. If just 40% went to vote, they get 70% of the salary. (Participation is the total of valid votes before thresholds are applied. That means, that if 51% go to vote, just 47% could be the assigned seats because of the threshold. But it would be a regular government, becaue most people went to vote.) This proposals are meant to encourage to ideas on the same line. There should be a public debate, and surely very cruel requests will come to the table, but also intelligent ones that assure that “anarchy” will not happen. There is no advantage for us in mistreating politicians and parties, because if we did so for a longer time … we would demolish representative democracy! We just want to educate politicians and parties, while we also learn how to deal with democracy! It is obvious, but we better put it in evidence: In the Republic of Weimar they had 8 elections that created 8 times a congress. They didn’t get anarchy! That is a good argument against the claim, that a democratic electoral law would take us to anarchy! When people draw monsters to the wall, it is often because they want to prevent you from taking off an advantage they have!

36

… but there are so much more important things! It is like with videogames: To gwt to the next level you have to finish the current level first! Like at school: You get promoted, if you pass the exams! Without democratic electoral law you will never run a democracy! It is the one law that defines and manages the relation between politicians and voters. And politicians only put their hands on it for their profit! Without democracy you have no chance to influence topics that are important in your life. It happens quiet often that your party doesn’t keep a promise. To educate your party, you shouldn’t be forced to vote a party that is not on your line, just to take revenge on your party. (Should you discover, that your party cannot be educated by not giving it your vote, you should anyway reconsider, if it is a party meant for voters or for “friends”. Try with new parties instead!) If you sell your vote for a benefit, you want a society were talent and merit are not promoted. You want a society where parasytes blossom! Migration, refugees, the Euro, unemployment are much more important topics than an electoral law? You know perfectly, that those are things that cannot be solved with one law. And you didn’t put enough attention on what you were reading here … The actions described result in a change of legal position towards foreign countries and the obbligations your country has to others! Everything must be done step by step. There are fundamental steps, and if you don’t take them first, you will not move later! There is no reason to delay democracy anymore! Everything done toda in pseudo-democracy can be undone tomorrow, within a few weeks, in democracy. Lots of things pseudo-democracy cannot do, can be done quickly in democracy! A democratic electoral law is the basis to dissolve (after a democratic election) every institution, law, obligation and position. Every law must be either confirmed or reformed by a new democratic parliament and government.

37

Repetition The last chapter was very long. Let’s resume its most important part: If it is true that an electoral law is what decides, if a democracy is enacted, or an elite gets control over everything, one thing is of vital importance: ELECTORAL LAWS SHOULD NEVER BE THE BUSINESS OF PARTIES ALONE! Electoral law is property of the people, and must stay under constant surveillance! It was used until now to take the power from us, and let profit control our lives and our society. We know very well, how much damage the wrong electoral law can do to us! In future voters will jump up as soon as somebody talks about changing electoral law! Was that clear enough? At this very moment you should have stopped to repeat the mantra that “who doesn’t vote, doesn’t count”, and similar brainwash. If you don’t, you probably suffer from serious Stockholm syndrome!

38

The switch

Drawing: Ilaria Bruciamonti - Diploma di Grafica. Liceo artistico Brera

If the details made you confused, we repeat the main concept as clear as possible: In the evolution of human society the switch is not on the position “Democracy”

39

In theory it should be there, and we know more or less the effects democracy should have. But the goal was not reached yet. There was a kidnapping, and we are stuck on the position “Plutocracy”, the government of the rich. The hand on the switch? The only hand that is entitled by law to move the switch are we. That is our hand, and as soon as we want, we move the switch to the position we had envised some century ago. We have the exclusive right to decide and move the switch! We should be very loud and make public, that we understood where we are stuck, and that we demand for an immediate correction! The position “Democracy” is what Constitutions assure to be our right, so it is now our goal. Democracy is expecting us at a fingertip! Let’s move together!

40

Intermezzo and a few thoughts Convergence is inversely proportional to the grade of detail and the quantity of proposals. The more proposals and the more details, the bigger the chance of opposing reactions. If the goal is to reach the capital of the country, the most intelligent instruction is to meet there, and ask the invitees to suggest date, time and place. If the instruction is more detailed, like suggesting the train to take, the cathegory of train to take, a stop to do to go eat a beef at a specific restaurant on the way, etc., several invitees will lose interest to join. Those who prefer to go by car or by air will leave it for another occasion. Vegetarians and vegans will not feel at ease to be there, and all those who live in other directions will be estranged by the fact that the whole idea of the meeting didn’t consider them. If you want to change a system, the only thing you will focus on are the steeps that are necessary to do it! If you decide to fight Goliath, you won’t consult your smartphone to find a car to rent or a cheap hotel room! Every idea you add to the original goal will reduce the quantity of people who will go with you til the end! This guide doesn’t want to provide the perfect details and clauses for the “perfect” electoral law. It’s purpose is only to put in your head, that the double bind has to disappear from electoral law, and has to be replaced with very few rules to bind politicians and parties to voters, in order to reduce the space lobbies can take. If you ignore the lethal power of the double bind and leave things as theyr are, you give up the chance to take the control of society from the hands of the super rich! The goal here is to free the voter and bind the elected! That should be the common denominator that puts together all those who are dissatisfied with the system, and unite them to move the switch to the position that benefits us all!

41

It would be fool to be distracted by details on how we want to protect ourselves from politicians, how we want to punish them (cut in pieces, take off their skin, stretch their arms and legs, hang, boil or salt 😊). We better do very few things to go forward and change the world the most intelligent way. Parties should understand that promiscuity will end with a termination of their job. To center a target you have to keep your eye on it, know your archyou’re your arrows, take into account the wind, control your respiration, and estimate corrections you should apply befre shooting. You shurely do not start to imagine what fun it would be to center the rear of an enemy, how the surprise and the scream would be, how you could talk your way out and silently enjoy the hit. To many targets at once result in no hits. Our case is not easy, because we have to take aim and hit together. If we do not demand together for a democratic electoral law, they’ll feed us some rotten crumbs to shut our miuth, and they’ll charge a lot for it. Do not forget: Our target is not a good electoral law and having elections with it! It is everything that follows the law and the elections! But that’s another story, where we will debate, fight, call the opposite opinion stupid, and insist on more and less intelligent principles! Unity is essential only to get there! If we are divided, we will not be successful in getting Goliath’s sandals. And Goliath will easily beat us into the ground.

42

The action plan outline If Kumamoto made it all on himself to get all other parties to vote for something that is painful for them, an entire party, even if small, should also be able to get results by embracing projects that empower the voter. The secret consists in … convincing the electorate that the proposal is great for them! The voters in Kumamoto’s state Jalisco found his proposal fair, that parties should not get refunds and money for votes they never got, that means, for the votes that hey got refused! Voters in other states of Mexico heard about the proposal, and they also liked it. Why should politicians get money, if their service is bad and they didn’t get part of the votes? If you also like the reasoning … tell your party they should make this proposal! The more people push their parties for an initiative, the more difficult it will be for parties to simulate they don’t hear you! Nobody wants to satisfy his Ego. The question here are our kids! Everybody who supports the project is welcome! Differences on other questions don’t matter! What happens, if no party is interested in this act of self-castration? There are 3 tracks we can take: Inform as many as possible! The more knowing about it, the less politics will be able to ignore the growing pressure! File a claim at the Constitutional Court. The double bind present in electoral law breaks the warranties given by the Constitution. It is mandatory to have a constitutional and pro-democratic electoral law! Establish a political movement. A movement is less complicated than a party, it the program consists of only one point t oreach. Potentially such a movement gets the support of much more voters than a new party. And what’s treated here should also be a very interesting topic for veteran non voters! (As the author is …) Non voters can finally make a clear statement: It is not due to lack of interest or apathy that they don’t vote. It’s just because nobody deserves their vote!

43

The movement suggested here is different from movements like M15/Podemos or the Italian M5S. The Italian M5S has a complete political program … The interesting side of M5S is how it became successful. It got 25% voters at the first attempt, and spent very little thanks to the internet. The first thing done by M5S was not to reach as much people as possible, but to put together the specialists with the ability to reach huge masses within a short time. In another of his books Malcolm Gladwell speaks about how viral phenomena are built, and who participates in what manner to make it happen. The initiative presented on this pages has the quality to become such a viral happening. It will start, as soon as the right people come in to help!

44

Action plan – specific actions The present pamphlet has no ambition to enter the history of literature. It expects only to be distributed by everybody who gets a copy, and inform as many people as possible and stimulate their thoughts. Wordlwide. Make your distribution list! There are people with a huge social network, and others who know how to reach lots of people. Perhaps the guide gets into such hands … The reaction of an audience isn’t mainly related to the message. The speaker makes the difference. A trustworthy, charming and wellknown speaker has a positive response. An unknown one … has no response. That’s the reason why the author has decided to call himself Demostopheles, and abdicate the distribution of the message to people who are better in doing it. Everywhere there are lots of comedians who are trusted multiples times more than most politicians, and whose acts are taken very seriously. Normal people like me can participate in actions that don’t require big groups, and can be done from home. The goal should be to move as much as possible. And that could be by gaining people who have a huge leveraging potential, like politicians and celebrities, who often denounce the system and give the impression to oppose it. The democratic paradigm that is built around the double bind is completely unknown to the public. There is the option to use a website to organize actions to inform such personalities, and assign them tasks. The message to them would be: You, your party publicly criticize the system and condemn its negative sides. Attached you will find information, that explains how the Elite can be taken down from the throne without violence, and bring peace and fairness to the world. You occupy a strategical position because of you have the attention of the media, and you potentially reach very much people. That’s the reason why you are invited to do the following: The website would manage the mailing, and document if and what this people do. 45

Politicians and parties would be exposed, if they didn’t show actions compatible with their accusations against the system. The entire action is not openly a blackmail campaign, but it exercises pressure onto the selected candidates. Anybody worldwide can participate by sending in email addresses of adequate candidates, and by translating the whole material into languages that are not available yet. If this starts a revolution that remains in one country alone, it won’t make any difference in history. It will start a new era, if it spreads to the whole world!

46

The first democracy in the world The patient reader who didn’t jump parts of the guide already understood, that the aim of this guide is to be the spark that starts representative Democracy worldwide in a short time. Democracy doesn’t mean to have the right electoral law. The law is only the door to access democracy. It is like when you assemble a bycicle, and you finsh to add the pedal as last part. Democracy is not the bycicle, it is driving it! All acts within democracy are part of politics. What we do is “metapolitics”. We try to work outside, where politics cannot do anything. We try to take off a grain of sand that was intentionally placed to prevent democracy from working. That’s the reason why I make such a difference between a political party and a metapolitical movement. In the Appendix there will be some additional information on specific details, but I’ll anticipate something about the milestones in the development of democracy. Direct democracy in greek Athens was not the first democracy in history. There were democratic societies long before the greek one. But none was placed in such evidence and institutionalized, as the greek one. It endured for 200 years. Usually 6,000 free men voted, not far from the marketplace. In the eighteenth century a few people started to discuss about a new democratic model that would work for bigger areas and an unlimited amount of people. The only way to do it was to desist from wanting them all gathered at the same time on one place. To balance such power, they introduced the separation of powers and a codex of laws. If Athens was the first version of democracy, this was the second one: Representative Democracy, with a selected group of men who voted. And when slavery was abolished, the group became bigger. It included everybody only after women were allowed to vote. A few countries improved this version by including popular vore and participation (like Switzerland), and controlling measures or civil organization who monitor governments. 47

Identifying steps in the evolution of democracy is natural, but it is arbitrary how steps are chosen and placed. It often depends from the interpretation and point of view of the author. Keane talks about three steps: Athen’s direct democracy Representative Democracy Monitoring Representative Democracy The last steps sounds odd, because after two democratic systems you would expect a third one, and get a control system instead … Exactly as Keane does, the author of this much smaller work also dares to identify steps and assign numbers. Direct Democracy in Athens Representative Democracy XVIII century Male voting right (abolishing slavery) General voting right (including females) Elements of direct democracy (popular vote) Participation

-

Version Version Version Version Version Version

Removal of double bind and Pro-democratic electoral law

- Version 0.9

I hope the gap from 0.5 to 0.9 doesn’t piss off anybody

0.1 0.2 0.21 0.3 0.4 0.5

😊

Version 0.9 means, that electoral law is the last step before to be done before Democracy can start. The suggested metapolitic movement would have the purpose to push for making Democracy release 0.9 real. Greek democracy is seen as model (in a small scale) of selfdetermination of nations. Its limit is that it needs physical presence of all voters in one place. Electoral law has such an importance, because it was used to hide a double bind in it to cheat voters. If that hadn’t happened (like in Weimar) today you wouldn’t read about this topic, and I would do something better than writing about it. In reality, the missing ingredient of democracy is the bond between politicians and voters. It ws replaced with a formula that ties voters, and takes all power from them. 48

Resuming: The bond between elected politicians and voters is the main ingredient that is needed to enact democracy! Having an electoral law without double bind will be THE HISTORICAL STEP OF THE XXI CENTURY! The first country that cleans up its electoral law and creates the missing bond between politicians and voters, will be the first democratic country of history! It will have a very special among all the other countries who call themselves democratic, and it will surely invite the other countries to do the same step, in order to tak together as equals. I use the usual numbering common for software releases. Pre versions or incomplete versions get a 0.x numbering. The first complete version is 1.0. Starting with release 1.0 voters are fully responsible for the decisions and acts of their representatives. Contracts, agreements, debts, etc. made by previous “representatives” have no legitimization. They were made without a democratic assignation of mandates. Obbligations that arose from those processes are in the best of cases suspended, and require an explicit acceptance through democratic representatives. In most cases they will require new negotiations.

49

Democracy’s starting point New kinds of statements need special arguments and details … What would be the situation of a country that “repairs” its electoral law, and makes it democratic, after an election is done with that law? In a unique situation, that cannot be compared to any one we know! Having elections with 0.9 electoral law means REBOOTING the State! More or less like the reboot after upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 10. When the upgrade finished, people had to reboot the computer, and after that, everything was different … (Don’t take this as a bad presage! I just used this to illustrate the upgrade. Ignore that Windows 10 works worse than Windows 7!) The new Parlamentarians, Senators and the Executive get into a situation where they have a complete working order of laws, rules, procedures, relations, agreements, contracts, treaties and institutions, but all that was build without valid mandate!They were made in the name of the people, but “in the name” meant only, that the pople had to pay for all that. There was no democratic authorization for it. The newborn democratic state … has no obbligations towards third parties! (Tsipras and Varoufakis should get an orgasm at this idea!) Retirements of former officials, previous debts, public working contracts in the public administration? All that has to be decided from scratch! The voter determines, what he wants to take over. Probably normal Retirement (with exceptions), Healtcare, Education wil be accepted, but Institutions could be submitted to reforms. The good things will be moved to the democratich state, the other things will be checked and adapted.

50

The pyramid of power is a well known image … Not this version of it, that describes where a democratic elections will lead: Inverting the pyramid! Inverting is shown literally: The formerly upper positions get under the pressure of the very heavy base. Notice please, that the only ones standing on their feet are the previously oppressed ones! The eye, that was the only one knowing and understanding what was going one (because it determined what had to happen) will not survive … 51

Objections Objections to a thesis or new paradigm are of different kinds. Although some are superficial, come from misunderstanding or prejudice, others are intelligent and interesting. The most important objections are the ones that refute the motivation and the arguments of the thesis. The lethal objection for this paradigm would be, that in despite of having no account for non voters, there is no double bind in electoral law. In that case there also wouldn’t be a hierarchy, the voter would be sovereign, and parties and politicians would be tied to voters. It would also mean, that the voter can easily influence any level on the organization of society for the common benefit! It sounds weird, but I got such an objection, and I will talk about it! The counterargument sounds like this: When voting, a voter excercises his active political right. Although non voting is ignored, there is no double bind, because a voter still has a passive political right, and he is free to create a political alternative and offer it to other voters! To use the example with the restaurants, you are forced to pay, because you are free to become a cook, build your own restaurant, and offer better food! The objection is not bad. And I agree, that most people dislike it immediately after hearing it … Why readers feel that the objection is unfair is, because most of them distrusted the system before they took this small book into their hands. And this is obviously a complete justification of the system, because it means that the system is fair and fully OK. The first person we would expect to use this argument would be a politician, somebody we see at the opposite side. (Or somebody with political aspirations, that means somebody who hopes to make a living from politics). To refute the objection we first take note that the argument switches levels. It jumps from active to passive rights. It says, that the active right is OK, because there is a passive right … I expect that same person to say, that counting non voters would led to anarchy. And that ignoring non voters is to prevent the danger of anarchy. (If somebody supports the objection, but disagrees about the issue with anarchy, I’d really like to learn about his logical motivation!) 52

I’m lazy at the moment, and I will stick to the example with the restaurants: If all of them offer garbage, you cannot refuse to pay, because you are free to establish a better restaurant! And you would make good business with it! Does this “improve” the system? Aren’t we back at the beginning? The quality of the system depends upon the offer. Upon those capable of using their passive political right. The request to respect the Constitution and respect the sovereignty of the people is again left out! The voter who dictates and requires … is not allowed to exist! Anyway, the objection has zero support within the community of experts in political sciences. None of them would dare to utter such a thing! They openly discuss instead the fact, that voters are already disadvantaged against politicans, while they manifest their active right, because they depend on information that is factually influenced and fabricated by those who exercise their passive right! And it is also openly admitted, that politicians assured entering the passive right has an elevated cost! Years ago a study made in an European country revealed, that with an investment of at least 70-80,000 Euro and the support of a party you get the chance for a seat at the Parliament. If you calculate a threshold of 3% and 600 seats, it would be 1.2 Million Euro just for the seats. A 5% threshold is 2 Million Euro. Add what you need to build the party … With this values we try a translation of the objection into numbers: Ignoring non voters is not a double bind, because you have the option to use your passive political right. The active right requires you, a pencil and a few minutes. The passive right requires you, several thousand of other people who think like you, and tiny 2 Million Euro … The less you invest, the bigger the chance, that after spending lots of money you will not be able to open the restaurant and offer better food! I wouldn’t wonder if many people get angry after such a proposal, and think that it is worth to find a way to put them less food into the trough … Jumping from the active to the passive level seems to be a way to go around the problem to answer the question, if electoral law contains a double bind or not. 53

The objection says only, that IF the voter changed level, the voter would not be in a situation of double bind! (Sure, he would have switched sides and be the one who defines the range of offers!) Like: If you are tired of being the victim, become the aggressor! Let’s be serious again … The objection helped us to see, that to escape the double bind, we need lots of energy, resources and people. It shows, how strong the double bind is against us, and how it reduces our power! Just compare it with the easy option on the other side: We don’t go to vote, and it hurts a lot! You too remembered the father who offered tempting options to his son? The first one did it to protect his son. The other two did it to protect their chances to have advantages at the cost of harming others. (Our two bad fathers had only their families within reach, the elites have everybody within reach …) Summary: There are two possibilities: Either there is a double bind in electoral law, or there isn’t! The question needs an answer, not a slalom around it! Taking in other topics and giving them priority is such a slalom! The politician who draws circle around the double bind and refuses to take position … doesn’t want to change the system and emancipate people. He wants to keep democracy far away from us! Dear politician, Now you got an idea what some voters are conspiring against you and your fellows. Did you realize, what you should do to be seen as apart from “the system”? You will only look clean and pure, if you support actively the starting of democracy by showing real efforts to replace the actual electoral law with one without double bind! If you just stutter about democracy from the bottom, equality and participation and confirm that the voter is impotent, but are silent about the double bind, you are part of those who deny people the right to decide as sovereigns. You are fine with a system of impotent voters! What consistency do your accusations against the system have? None!

You’re a fraud! 54

Quick Reference The Twitter generation (and the US President) think, that everything longer than 140 characters is suspicious. That for the love of protagonism we want to stretch a thin soup. Or worse, that we are time robbers who are on the mission to take away the precious time they would otherwise spend to post philosophy on facebook! Other people need study titles and certificates to be sure you are qualified, certified and authorized t ospeak about a subject. Degree, Master, Doctorate, Specialization in Political Sciences … Because without your reasoning lacks authority and is pure fantasy … Are you really that insecure? Don’t you have that minimum of self confidence to decide by yourself, if you see the double bind you have reading about on over fifty pages? Do you need your President, King, Queen, the Pope, or mom? Do you expect a universal confession of politicians? Such lack of confidence is great, if it takes you to ask around the experts you can find, and induce them to give technical answers. Forward their answers to me! If they are right, I will retract and repent publicly! I spent five years checking if the thesis could be dismissed. It wasn’t, and it made me believe that sharing would be a good thing for humanity! Now let’s switch to those who need it all one one sigle page: The only strategy that promises to dissolve privilege above society within one or two decades and affordable effort, and push everybody and every interest under the decision area of society, is the strategy presented on this pages. It offers the possibility to create Democracy release 0.9, and we could call it Democracy 0.9 Movement. (Find a better name!) The recipe is simple. It is based on the discovery, that the electoral laws of all countries contain a double bind which makes them antidemocratic and unconstitutional. Most Constitutions, if not all, contain the necessary statements to file a claim against the double bind in the electoral law. The only objective that should be pursued is the correction of electoral law, (removing double bind means that not voting should have consequences for politicians) and tying politicians to voters. Seats and money only according to the really obtained votes, participation of 50%+1 required to have valid elections, and if less people vote, all parties 55

who got less votes than previously cannot use the same candidates (all back to work!) for a whole legislation period. A grace period of two legislations can be conceded where elections with 40% voter participation lead to a government (with reduced power and a reduction of 3% salary for every percentual point below 50%). To focus onto democracy, voters should leave out everything else and just support the required steps described in this manual. It is recommended to share this guide File a claim against the electoral law at the Constitutional Court (delivering alternative versions of it!) Involve celebrities and politicians who could help making the project viral Found a pro-Democracy 0.9 movement for the next elections. Remark, that EVERY non voter should support this in his own interest.

56

Phase Two There is a Phase Two. After a democratic election! Phase Two is politics with party programs, and each of us has different ideas. Probably you don’t share mine. And the reason why I give no details about my ideas of Phase Two is that I want us united on this step! As in every revolution, the goal is not the time after revolution, but removing obstacles! Replacing institutions happens only when there are no more obstacles. History teaches us, that the new power can be the old defeated power in new clothes, or irresponsible and ruthless powers. The Democracy 0.9 Movement dissolves as soon as the wanted electoral law appears. It will have accomplished its mission. You will have then the old parties, and some of them will have problems to understand that things have changed. They will try do run the same business they do now. Or try to restore and save parts of it. Other parties will understand the historical chance offered by switching system, and offer the voter to renegotiate everything in his interest. The voter who pushed for this change will be able t ounderstand the differences, and support all initiatives that are meant to make use of the full potential offered by democracy. He won’t trust any party that doesn’t offer a clear program. In any case, the degree of change and improvement will be decided by the voters. If voters are still scared by too much change, it will take longer. Take your choice! 😉

57

A last word to Anarchists Many non voters label themselves Anarchists. They say that it is impossible to manage huge groups of humans, and that a flowing society without authority is better and fairer. Regeln besser und fairer funktioniert. As proof they mention our closest relatives (apes), and remark, that their societies are limited to a few dozen of individuals. Anarchists believe their choice is rational. They are probably readers of Konrad Lorenz and Eibl-Eibelsfeldt on anmal societies and behavior, and of human history that shows humans as tangling with violence, cynism and insidiousness. I think they missed some other reading! Just very few they should consider: Jared Diamond Jared Diamond Charles Mann

-

Guns, germs and steel Collapse 1491

The first book shows that civilization, scripture and culture depend on easily available food resources that allow specialization within a group. The second one tells how cicilizations destroy themselves. The third shows, that without the ingredients mentioned in the first book, homo sapiens still prefers to build societies, and there he develops engineering skills for the benefit of the group that are amazing. It is not true that we are primates and cannot build big groups! Because it has ben more than 6,000 we are doing it! Some Anarchists think, alien civilizations are probable … Would you assert, that your anarchic theorem is valid for the whole universe? If it is hard to maintain the affirmation, why are you sentencing homo sapiens for all eternity? It could well be that becoming homo takes some day to a collectivity!

58

APPENDIX

59

Aphorisms

REFUSAL OF DEMOCRACY The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. (Winston Churchill) Weißt Du, was der wahre Grund für all unsere Übel, für unsere Traurigkeit ist? Die Demokratie mein Lieber, die Demokratie, die Regierung der Mehrheit! Wenn nämlich die Macht in der Hand eines Einzelnen ist, weiß dieser, daß er alleine ist, und viele zufriedenstellen muss; wenn aber viele regieren, sucht jeder nur die eigene Zufriedenstellung, und man hat die häßlichste und dümmste Tyrannei: Die als Freiheit verkleidete Tyrannei. (Luigi Pirandello) Demokratie ist das pathetische Vertrauen in die kollektive Weisheit der individuellen Ignoranz. (Henry Louis Mencken) Demokratie ist die Macht der Läuse, Löwen zu fressen. (Georges Clemenceau) In Italien gab es unter den Borgia dreißig Jahre lang Krieg, Terror, Verbrechen, Blutvergießen. Und sie brachten auch Michelangelo, Leonardo, und die Renaissance. In der Schweiz lebten sie in brüderlicher Liebe und hatten fünfhundert Jahre Friede und Demokratie. Und was haben sie hinbekommen? Die Kuckucks-Uhr! (Orson Welles) Demokratie bedeutet einfach die Unterdrückung des Volkes durch das Volk für das Volk. (Oscar Wilde) Der größte und genialste Betrüger aller Zeiten ist der Erfinder der Demokratie. (Andrzej Majewski)

60

PESSIMISMUS Demokratie gibt es dort wo niemand reich genug ist, um andere kaufen zu können, und niemand so arm ist, sich verkaufen zu müssen. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) Zuviel Menschen erwarten Wunder von der Demokratie. Das größte Wunder ist bereits die Tatsache, sie zu haben. (Walter Winchell) Demokratie ist nicht die Freiheit. Demokratie ist, wenn zwei Wölfe und ein Lamm wählen, was es zum Mittagessen geben soll. Freiheit dagegen entsteht aus der Anerkennung von einigen Rechten, die nicht verweigert werden können, selbst nicht mit einer 99%igen Wahl dagegen. Viele Liebhaber der Demokratie entdecken mit der Zeit, dass Demokratie nichts für sie ist. (Zarko Petan) Demokratie bedeutet eine Regierung, die auf Diskussion aufgebaut ist, die aber nur funktioniert, wenn man es erreicht, das Diskutieren zu beenden. (Clement Attlee) Demokratie treibt die Mehrheit an über Dinge zu entscheiden, über die sie keine Ahnung hat. (John Simon) Die Demokratie ist eine politische Ordnung, die nicht die Herrschaft des Volkes garantiert, sondern seine Ausbeutung. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe) Demokratie ist die Kunst, dem Volk im Namen des Volkes feierlich das Fell über die Ohren zu ziehen. (Karlheinz Deschner) Das Grundübel unserer Demokratie liegt darin, dass sie keine ist. Das Volk, der nominelle Herr und Souverän, hat in Wahrheit nichts zu sagen. (Hans Herbert von Arnim)

61

KRITIK UND WARNUNG Demokratie ist unmöglich, wenn man das Fernsehen nicht unter Kontrolle bringt. (Karl Popper) Heutzutage ist es schwer, Demokratie von Kleptokratie zu unterscheiden. (Fernando Menèndez) Propaganda ist in der Demokratie das, was die Keule in einem totalitären Staat ist. (Noam Chomsky) Demokratie ist nicht nur das Recht auf Wahl, sondern das Recht, in Würde zu leben. (Naomi Klein) Die Qualität der Demokratie ist mit der Qualität des Journalismus eng verbunden. (Bill Moyers) Demokratie bedeutet auch, eine akzeptable Dosis Ungerechtigkeit zu erdulden, um größere Ungerechtigkeiten zu vermeiden. (Umberto Eco) Ein Staat ist politisch frei, wenn er seinen Bürgern die Möglichkeit erlaubt, die Regierung ohne Blutvergießen zu wechseln, falls die Mehrheit der Bürger das wünscht. (Karl Popper) Ein gebildetes, erleuchtetes und informiertes Volk ist der beste Weg um die Demokratie zu promovieren. (Nelson Mandela)

REALISMUS UND INTUITION Um genau zu sein, hat es Demokratie noch nie gegeben, und wird es nie geben. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) 62

Die Behandlung für die Übel der Demokratie ist mehr Demokratie. (Alfred E. Smith) Unsere Welt, die der westlichen Demokratien, ist bestimmt nicht die beste der denkbaren oder logisch möglichen Welten, sicher aber die beste der politischen Welten, von denen wir geschichtliche Kunde haben. (Karl Popper) Die Fähigkeit des Menschen zum Recht macht Demokratie möglich, seine Neigung zum Unrecht macht sie jedoch nötig. (Reinhold Niebuhr) Eine der Tugenden der Demokratie, eine unumgehbare Tugend, ist die Tatsache, daß jeder so viel Meinungen wie möglich ausgesetzt werden muss. (Stefano Rodotà) Demokratie ist die Kunst, das Volk glauben zu lassen, daß es regiert. (Unbekannt) Demokratische Regierungen sind solche, die hin und wieder dem Volk das Gefühl geben, Souverän zu sein. (Benito Mussolini) Demokratie: Die Situation in der Du erlaubst, daß man Dir in die Taschen greift, und Du den besten Mann dafür wählen kannst. (Benjamin Lichtenberg) Wenn wir von Demokratie reden, sind wir alle unehrlich. Demokratie bedeutet Volksregierung. Wenn das Volk am Regieren wäre, würden wir es nicht tun. Wir tun es, weil es einfacher ist als die Selbstverwaltung, weil es bequemer ist. (Sandro Pertini) Demokratie ist die schlechteste Regierungsform, ausgenommen alle anderen. (Winston Churchill) Die Tragödie der modernen Demokratien ist, daß sie die Demokratie noch nicht vollbracht haben. (Jacques Maritain) In einem totalitären Regime erlangen Idioten die Macht mit Gewalt und Intrige; in einer Demokratie tun sie es durch freie Wahlen. (Gabriel Laub) 63

Die Demokratie erlaubt Dir den Kandidaten zu wählen, der Dir am wenigsten missfällt. (Robert Byrne) Während sie die Freiheit des Einzelnen vergewaltigt, indem sie ihm glauben macht, daß er so viel wie nie zuvor hat, nur weil er unter vielen unterschiedlichen Marken von Kühlschränken wählen kann, erfüllt Demokratie nicht einmal den Willen der Mehrheit. Zwischen Demokratie und Mehrheit setzen sich die Oligarchien, die wahren Besitzer der Macht, die beide zunichtemachen. Wir sind nichts anderes als Untertanen. (Massimo Fini) Demokratie heißt eben nicht die Macht in die Hände des Volkes zu legen. Demokratie heißt dem Volk das Gefühl zu geben, es habe eine Wahl. (Volker Pispers) If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. (Robert S. Borden)

FABEL UND UTOPIE Demokratie ist Wenige im Dienst der Vielen und nicht Viele zu Diensten von Wenigen. (Prem Rawat) Wenn Wir die Direkte Demokratie einführen, brauchen wir keine Parteien mehr: Auf gleichheitlicher Basis entscheidest Du über alles Mögliche, sei es lokal oder auf nationaler Ebene. (Gianroberto Casaleggio)

64

Die Regierbarkeit Der Bürger ist seit Jahren mitfühlender Teilnehmer des Albtraums der Parteien: Die Regierbarkeit! Nach einer Wahl ist alles erst ein Tal voller Nebel. Wer weiß, ob es eine Regierung geben wird, und die Macht des Volkes delegiert werden kann! Die Regierbarkeit (ein Thema das in sehr vielen Ländern ständig diskutiert wird) offenbart, daß der Politiker befürchtet, die Macht auf Zeit nicht bekommen zu können! Am entgegengesetzten Pol von Regierbarkeit steht Repräsentativität. Also was die Stimmen wirklich waren. Es wäre ein Wunder, wenn eine Partei alleine auf 50% käme! Die Wirklichkeit erfordert also Regeln, die das Handhaben des Wahlresultats verwalten, wenn es keinen mathematischen Gewinner gibt. Und der gesunde Menschenverstand sollte uns sagen, daß die Regeln von der Wählerschaft festgelegt werden sollten, statt von Parteien unter sich verhandelt zu werden! In den öffentlichen Diskussionen über das Wahlgesetz ist der allgemeine Geist der, daß Regierbarkeit und Repräsentativität entgegengesetzt sind, und das Gehen in eine Richtung nur Entfernen von der anderen Richtung bedeutet. Und weil der Wähler Verständnis dafür hat, daß die Regeln zu einer Regierungsbildung führen sollten, scheint die einzige Frage die zu sein, wieviel Reduzierung der Repräsentativität er akzeptieren kann! Inwieweit also das Wahlresultat gefälscht werden darf, um dann zu einer Regierung zu kommen. Es ist eine Frage, die so viel Raum offenlässt, daß man nach jeder Wahl protestieren und streiten könnte, aber zum Glück gibt es bereits eine Erfindung, die ohne zu viel Regeln auskommt, und zum Resultat führt, das der Wähler wünscht. Ich denke an den zweiten Wahlgang! Damit kann man Koalitionen vermeiden. Koalitionen werden in manchen Ländern als Betrug am Wähler angesehen. In solchen Ländern wäre es am besten, wenn es Pflicht wäre, bereits als Koalition anzutreten. Der Wähler würde dann entscheiden können, ob er sie will. Dennoch könnte das Wahlresultat auch statt einem Gewinner (mehr als 50%) auch keinen Gewinner krönen. Dann hätte man aber sicher zwei bestplatzierte Gruppen oder Parteien. Und es wäre demokratischer, den Wähler in einem zweiten Durchgang entscheiden zu lassen, wer regieren soll. 65

Die diesjährigen (2017) Wahlen in Frankreich haben offengelegt, dass die Mehrheit der Wähler im zweiten Durchgang mit den Optionen unglücklich sein könnte, und nicht zwischen verschiedenen Übeln auswählen will. Mathematisch wäre eine Wahl nur gültig, wenn 50% + 1 Wähler eine gültige Stimme abgegeben haben. Es wäre zu überlegen, ob man das für einen zweiten Wahlgang stehen lässt, oder eine Sonderregel einführt. Auf jeden Fall sollten ja die Wähler der beiden Parteien, die in die Stichwahl kommen, wieder ihre Parteien wählen, und man möchte, dass ein paar Wähler mehr teilnehmen. Mögliche Mindestteilnahme wäre also - 50% + 1 - Summe der Wähler der beiden Parteien oder Gruppen - Summe der beiden Parteien oder Gruppen plus X Ich bin an einer Beantwortung hier weniger interessiert. Mit geht es nur darum, daß man die Stichwahl als brauchbares und recht gutes demokratisches Instrument in Betracht zieht. Wenn man es tut, braucht man nicht mehr hohe Hürden einbehalten, und würde an Repräsentativität gewinnen. Kleine neue Parteien würden mitmachen können, man könnte sie beobachten, und das würde mehr Optionen schaffen! Wenn man absichert, daß mit Regeln eine Regierung zustande kommt, darf man im Gegenzug verlangen, daß die Opposition auch kleinere Neuzugänge enthält, die frischen Wind (aber auch niedriges Niveau) einbringen. Der Wähler selbst würde damit lernen, mit Demokratie gezielt umzugehen.

66

Und weil wir ja Politiker kennen … Sonderfälle, manchmal recht oft auftauchend, mit denen man rechnen sollte. Was sollte man mit “Pilzgruppen” tun? Während einer Legislaturperiode trennt sich eine Gruppe von einer Partei, und bildet sich als neue Partei. Oder es entsteht aus Abtrünnigen verschiedener Parteien eine neue Gruppe oder Partei, die man gar nicht gewählt hatte. Und vielleicht schafft es die Neubildung sogar, die Mehrheit zu ändern, und eine neue Regierung mit anderen Teilnehmern zu schaffen! Was sollte man tun, wenn die Regierung fällt, verfassungsgemäß aber umgebildet wird, aber ganz anders, als von den Wählerstimmen bei der Wahl gewollt? Wenn also ein Mischmasch entsteht, und Kräfte zusammenkommen, die der Wähler vielleicht gar nicht zusammen am Steuer sehen wollte? Es wäre offensichtlich Verrat am Wähler. Mandatsbindung könnte das alles verhindern. Aber man würde damit die Gefahr verstärken, dass Parteien abflachen, Diskussion verschwindet, und die Macht sich vertikalisiert (ein paar Köpfe also alles vorlegen und den Rest zum Abnicken zwingen). Auch darüber will ich nicht urteilen. Man sollte lieber abwarten, und sehen, ob sich solche Sachen auch abspielen, wenn der Wähler gezielt abstrafen kann. Eventuell reicht die demokratische Wahldynamik aus, um Politikern solchen Verrat am Wähler unschmackhaft zu machen. Was wären “Pilze” aber Wert? Die Summe der Wähler, die die Mitglieder gewählt haben! Das sollte man beachten, wenn bei Neuwahlen die Pilzpartei antritt. Wenn dann die Mindestbeteiligung verpasst wird, könnten die Abgeordnete solcher Pilzparteien, wenn sie weniger Wähler haben, komplett abgesetzt werden! Wenn eine Regierung fällt, weil die Abgeordneten in andere Parteien abwandern? Dann käme die Opposition an die Regierung. Man könnte aber einen Abruf vorsehen, da nicht der Wähler sowas gewählt hat, sondern Politiker selbst ein Umkippen des Wahlresultats verursacht haben. Das souveräne Volk muss nicht akzeptieren, wie Politiker die Macht umbiegen. Politiker Migration ist in jede Richtung denkbar. Wähler sollten lernen, damit intelligent umzugehen, und wenn es sein muß, die eigenen Politiker abstrafen. Das wirkt sicher erzieherisch! 67

Die Kreativität der Schlitzohren kennt keine Grenzen. Manche könnten sich zum Beispiel bei jeder Wahl mit einer Neugegründeten Partei präsentieren, um so die Gefahr zu bannen, daß alle Politiker aussetzen müssen, weil man weniger Stimmen als zuvor erhalten hat. Warum aber jetzt schon jedmögliche Lumperei verhindern wollen? Die Stimmenthaltung ist eine Waffe, mit der der Wähler umzugehen lernen wird. So wie beim Übergang von einer geologischen Ära in die andere, Tiere und Pflanzen aussterben, wird er Übergang von der Oligarchie in die Demokratie schnell das Aussterben der Dinosaurier verursachen. Demokratie ist ein System, in dem der Beste belohnt wird (d.h., wer sich am besten verkauft). Sicher etwas besser als das bisherige System, wo man nur das geringste Übel auswählen kann, und es dann ertragen muß. Weil Demokratie eine völlig neue Erfahrung ist, sollte man lieber mit ihr Erfahrung sammeln, um am besten damit umzugehen, statt vor ihrer Einführung zu spekulieren, wie man Mißbrauch im Voraus ausschließen sollte. Da es Demokratie ist, hat man exponentiell mehr Möglichkeiten an ihr zu feilen, und Parteien und Politiker zu erziehen. Man kann sowieso gleich nach Einführung auch verlangen, daß Volksabstimmungen regelmäßig durchgeführt werden, und Gesetzesentwürfe direkt vom Bürger eingeworfen werden dürfen. So wie im realen Leben die Koabhängigkeit bei einer Sucht existiert (die Person, die sich nicht aus der Abhängigkeit eines Süchtigen lösen kann), könnte es eine Koahängigkeit des Wählers von einer Partei geben, so daß er akzeptiert, von einer Partei oder einem Politiker betrogen und enttäuscht zu werden. Demokratie wird sicher nicht den Handel mit Vorteilen gegen eine Stimme beenden. Kontrolle und Konsequenzen werden aber wenigstens zunehmen, und langsam werden auch die Wähler selbst großgezogen und erzogen. Es hilft auch daran zu erinnern, daß es keine gute Idee ist, in das Wahlgesetz alles einzupacken, was möglich wäre. Der Übereinstimmung zuliebe, sollte man wenige klare und einfache Linien ziehen! Sonderfälle kann man in einer späteren Phase gesondert behandeln!

68

Die Mandantsbindung Warum ist die Mandatsbindung schlecht? Die bereits telegrafische Antwort war, daß sie die Macht vertikalisiert. Weil sie den Abgeordneten fest an die Parteileitung bindet. Und, wie viele schon angemerkt haben, da es darum geht, daß eine Partei volle Kontrolle über alle Stimmen ihrer Abgeordneten hat, wäre es dasselbe, wenn sie einfach eine Direktion hätte, und für alle Stimmen dann den Knopf drückte. Es wäre dann bestimmt billiger, nur die Kosten für den leitenden/denkenden Apparat der Partei zu bezahlen, und jedem Knopfdruck der Partei die Anzahl Stimmen zuzuweisen, die sie besitzt … Bei Parteien, in denen ein Chef alles vorgibt, würde er alle Stimmen abgeben. Man würde schön sparen können, und man hätte die ganze Idee der Demokratie prompt fallengelassen, weil es ja darum geht, daß unterschiedliche Ziele, Argumente und Meinungen aufeinanderstoßen! Für den Wähler ist es weitaus schlechter, in der Hand einiger weniger planender Hirne zu liegen, statt lange Debatten auszuhalten, die wenigstens eine tiefere Analyse einer Angelegenheit versprechen, bevor man mit Aktionen startet. Die Mandatsbindung wird meistens von den Parteien befürwortet, bei denen das eigenständige Denken nicht willkommen ist. Da genau solche Situationen die Abwanderung verstärken, geht es darum, Stimmverluste unmöglich zu machen. Sicher gibt es Wähler, die solidarisch mit der Parteiführung sind, und sicher wollen wenige eine Partei, in der dann interne Strömungen das gemeinsame Verfolgen von Zielen unmöglich machen. Dann ist aber trotzdem die Bindung der Politiker an die Wählerschaft die bessere Lösung, weil sie dem Wähler im Nachhinein erlaubt, innerhalb einer Partei selektiv zu stärken und zu schwächen. Mit der Mandatsbindung bindet man den Gewählten an die Partei, nicht an den Wähler.

69

Ernannte Kandidaten und Präferenzen der Wähler Zu was werden Kandidaten direkt von den Parteien ernannt? Oft werden Kandidaten vor den Wahlen direkt vom Parteisekretär oder Chef in der ihm genehmen Reihenfolge aufgestellt. Im Besten Fall soll das dazu dienen, eine politische Linie abzusichern, sprich, Strömungen zu verhindern. In Italien hat mancher Parteichef Kandidaten aufgestellt, die dann nie anwesend sind. Sie sind nämlich keine Abgeordneten, sondern Anwälte, die den Parteichef in Korruptionsprozessen verteidigen … auf Kosten der Steuerzahler! Es muß nicht, aber ernannte Kandidaten sind für sehr viele Zwecke gut! Ob für den Wähler selbst die Vorteile überwiegend sind oder nicht, ist nicht klar, und es gibt nicht einmal eine öffentliche Diskussion darüber. Was aber sicher ist, ist, daß mancherorts Wähler sehr unglücklich mit ernannten Kandidaten sind, und Kandidaten lieber selbst auswählen möchten, um Parteien selbst zu definieren. Präferenz bedeutet, daß der Wähler sich den Politiker aussucht, den er in einer Partei bevorzugt. Das Thema habe ich deswegen angepackt, weil ich auf eine Mischlösung hinweisen möchte: Man muß Parteien zuerkennen, daß sie wirklich ganz bestimmte Leute für die Durchführung ihres Programms brauchen, die nicht unbedingt fotogen sind, oder Begabung haben, in die Gunst der Wähler zu gelangen. Es könnten Strategen oder Fachspezialisten sein. Da der Wähler aber letztendlich das Sagen haben muss, sollte er die Mehrheit der Abgeordneten selbst frei auswählen können. In einer Mischformel könnte man Parteien zum Beispiel ernannte Kandidaten bis zu 30% der Gesamtabgeordneten erlauben, und die restlichen 70% wählt der Wähler selbst aus. Und damit es wirklich transparent ist, sollte die Partei ihre eigene Liste ernannter Kandidaten aufstellen, die nicht gewählt werden können. Der Wähler wählt niemanden aus dieser Liste! Parteien wird zugesichert, daß sie so funktionieren können, wie sie wollen, sie werden aber trotzdem von ihrer Wählerschaft abhängen, und nicht von der Parteileitung. Die Methode löst langsam Machtmafien innerhalb der Parteien auf …

70

Die Hürde Ich möchte auch bezüglich der Hürde einen Wert vorschlagen. Eine Hürde ist im Grunde genommen eine Versicherung der stärkeren Parteien vor neuen Konkurrenten! In anderen Worten: Eine Hürde steht der Demokratie im Wege! Sie zwingt den Wähler, seine Stimme im Interesse der großen Parteien abzugeben. Darum sollte man Hürden sinnvoll einsetzen, und niedrig halten! Eine 2% Hürde “schützt” das Parlament vor Paradiesvögeln und wertlosem Geschnatter, garantiert Gruppen, die groß genug sind um projektorientiert zu arbeiten statt nur um zu stören, und damit hätte der Wähler auch gleich die Möglichkeit zu sehen, ob seine Neuzugänge Tat auf Rede folgen lassen. 2% sind bei 4 Millionen Stimmen und 600 Abgeordneten 12 Sitze.

71

Taten es die Griechen wirklich besser? Vermutlich nicht! Und nicht nur, weil ausschließlich freie Männer wählen durften! Mein Nein begründe ich mit zwei Argumenten: Die Griechen hatten keine Gesetze! Heute konnten sie entscheiden, daß der Nachbar, der von rechts kam Vorfahrt hatte, und der andere die Schäden bezahlen sollte, und im nächsten Jahr konnten sie problemlos entscheiden, daß dem, der von Links kam die Schäden bezahlt werden mussten! Und obwohl ihre Demokratie 200 Jahre lang betrieben wurde, sahen sie nie die Notwendigkeit, einen Gesetzeskodex zu verfassen, um durch Regeln Ordnung und Gerechtigkeit walten zu lassen. Vielleicht erinnert sich jemand an die „Ostraka“ aus dem Geschichtsunterricht. Das war kein Recall wie wir es heute verstehen, sondern ein Mittel, um bestimmte Bürger ins Exil zu schicken. Das konnten Bürger sein, die zu einflussreich und mächtig wurden. Und von einer wählenden Mehrheit dann einfach aus der Stadt verwiesen werden konnten, um die Gefahr zu bannen, zu stark für die Mehrheit zu werden. Heute könnte man damit locker Frau Merkel aus Deutschland vertreiben 😊 Falls Ihr Thukydides gelesen habt, wißt Ihr, daß es auch damals Trumps, Berlusconis und ähnliches gab. Direkte Demokratie verhindert weder Eigeninteressen, noch Manipulation, noch Propaganda, noch Schweinereien. Das Witzige in Athen war, dass direkte Demokratie Pflicht war! Sofort nach Marktschließung wurden alle Wege aus dem Markt abgesperrt, und alle Wähler zum Wahlplatz gedrängt. Hätten sie das nicht getan, wären von den 6 bis 9.000 Wählern vielleicht nur 1-200 freiwillig zum Wählen gegangen! (So ist in etwa das Verhältnis heutzutage, wenn man Parteien untersucht, die frei über Internet Beteiligung und Wahl betreiben. M5S in Italien hat 9 Millionen Wähler, nur 140.000 sind auf der Webseite für Wahlen registriert, und nur etwa 30.000 wählen im Durchschnitt mit!) Der schlimmste Aspekt der Demokratie ist die Apathie, die durch die Freiheit möglich gemacht wird. Wenn aber Demokratie funktioniert, sollten die Teilnahmezahlen etwas besser werden. Schließlich sind einige an der Zukunft Ihrer Kinder interessiert! 72

Bücher und Autoren Colin Crouch: Post-democracy Der berühmte Titel des Buches ist bereits Teil der Pop-Kultur, und hat zusammen mit ähnlichen Begriffen die Idee gezeugt, daß Demokratie am Ende ist. John Keane: Life and death of democracy Keane hat ein grundlegendes Werk über Demokratie und ihre Geschichte geschrieben. Wahrscheinlich ist es das Referenzbuch zur Demokratie. Ich stimme aber nicht mit seiner Vision überein, daß die Demokratie der nächsten Jahrzehnte aus Maßnahmen bestehen wird, Institutionen und Macht zu kontrollieren! Malcolm Gladwell: David vs. Goliath Lektion: Der gigantische Krieger kann gut Schwachstellen haben, und der schwache Hirte hat sicher Vorteile, selbst wenn er nichts davon weiß! Malcolm Gladwell: The tipping point Aus dem Buch kann man mindestens zwei Dinge lernen: Das virale Phänomen entsteht nicht zufällig und es benötigt drei Kategorien Menschen (oder einfach drei spezielle unterschiedliche Spezialisten): Maven (der Ideologe), Connector (der große Massen an Publikum erreichen kann) und Salesman (der das Produkt passend verpackt und erfolgreich verkauft). Gladwell ahnte nicht, dass es ebenso erfolgreich ohne Ideologe geht, wenn Connector und Salesman ein strategisch-ideologisches Surrogat anbieten können. (Das ist M5S in Italien.) Wenn das virale Phänomen so verwaltet wird, daß durch Ausschlüsse das freie Denken unter Kontrolle gehalten wird, entsteht etwas, das einer Sekte gleicht, oder eine ist. Franz Kafka: Vor dem Gesetz Kafkas Parabel kann unterschiedlich interpretiert werden. Hier erwähne ich sie, wegen eines eigenen Finales dazu: Es steht nur der Wählerschaft zu, das Tor des Gesetzes zu betreten, um Gesetz entstehen zu lassen! Anders als in Kafkas Geschichte, schraubt aber jemand unbemerkt am Gesetz, wenn es die Wählerschaft nicht tut! Und es geschieht so, dass dadurch die Wählerschaft ausgepresst wird! Elias Canetti: Masse und Macht Canettis Werk nimmt viele Themen auf.

73

Eines davon sollte aus diesen Seite klargestellt worden sein: Der Feind der Wähler ist inzwischen klar identifiziert! Wer Systemkritik ignoriert, lebt nicht in der Gegenwart! Canetti erklärt, dass “Masse” zusammenfindet, kompakt wird, und Identität gewinnt, wenn sie eine klare “Gegenmasse” vor sich hat. Marxismus beschrieb einen „Klassenkampf“. Das ist ein Begriff, der heute die großen Massen eher irritiert und abstößt, als zusammenbringt, weil bereits ein negatives geschichtliches Urteil über Marxismus und Kommunismus durch die Medien in die Gesellschaft gebracht wurde. Der Begriff “Kampf gegen das System” ist dagegen neu, unverbraucht und reizvoll! Das System ist weiterhin in gewisser Hinsicht das Kapital, speziell der Neoliberalismus, aber der Gegner ist nicht mehr die Arbeiterklasse, sondern die ganze Gesellschaft als Wählerschaft. Seit einem halben Jahrzehnt wächst die gegnerische Wählerschaft ständig, und der „tipping point“ ist in Sicht. Es fehlt nur die klare Beschreibung des zu begehenden Weges, und dieses Büchlein hofft, diesbezüglich Hilfe geleistet zu haben. Giorgio Agamben: Homo Sacer – Logica della sovranità Agamben wurde mir empfohlen, weil ich auf der Suche nach etwas war, das mir erklärte, welche juristische “Erzählung” hinter dem Wahlprozess steht. Ich kann aber eher erzählen, was ich nicht gefunden habe: Niemand wagt bis jetzt, rechtlich zu begründen, dass der Wählerschaft Macht und Souveränität entzogen werden müssen, um sie übergeordneten Institutionen in die Hände zu legen. Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Carl Schmitt: Beiden Autoren begegnet man immer wieder, wenn man Abhandlungen über Demokratie liest. Das Interessanteste bei beiden Autoren ist die ehrliche Behandlung der Situation der Wählerschaft, der zuerkannt wird, dass sie keineswegs in der Lage ist, eine bewusste Wahl zu treffen, weil schon die Information fehlt! Steffen Ganghof: Reconciling representation and accountability Die Abhandlung hilft verstehen, dass es keineswegs Einstimmigkeit unter Experten gibt, was die Frage angeht, dass der Regierbarkeit Vorzug gegen Demokratie gegeben werden muss. Und dass auch Experten meinen, dass eine Synthese möglich ist, und bevorzugt werden sollte. Karlheinz Deschner: Thukydides:

Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, 10 Bände, Die Politik der Päpste im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert Geschichte 74

Deschners monumentale Werk und Thukydides verdienen die Erwähnung, als Sammlung von unzähligen Beweisen dafür, daß Politiker und Regierungen haushoch mit Verschwörung, Intrige, Betrug, Täuschung auf zynische Weise allzeit beschäftigt sind. Es ist eine Illusion zu glauben, daß das einmal in Vergangenheit bei Griechen … Römern, Franzosen, und allen anderen so war, und heute nicht mehr. Es wird weiterhin kreuz und quer unsere Haut und die unserer Kinder zynisch und skrupellos von unserer eigenen Regierung verkauft! Das Argument, daß Regierungen aus Staatssicherheits Gründen unmöglich transparent agieren können, hat seine Berechtigung. Keine Berechtigung hat aber die Ansicht, daß man die eigenen Bürger bespitzeln muss, daß man sie belügen und täuschen muß, weil irgendwelche Geldmachung damit gefördert werden kann. Die Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak, die Befreiung Libyens und Syriens sind nur hegemonische Kriegsmacherei gewesen, die niemals die Zustimmung der Wählerschaften errungen hätten, noch haben werden, wenn sie offen dargelegt worden wären. Die Mehrheit Bürger will keine Kriege in islamischen Ländern, und keine Terroristen zuhause! Dave Eggers: The circle Das Buch sollte dem Film vorgezogen werden. Die Erzählung selbst ist durchschnittlich. Der extrem interessante Teil sind die „Geschichten“ im Buch, die die Begründung für die Anwendung dubioser Maßnahmen liefern, die dann ausarten, und in der Vollkontrolle der Gesellschaft ausarten. Die Beweggründe klingen immer logisch und gut. Man kann aber „nebenbei“ dann die ganze Gesellschaft kontrollieren und steuern … Wir werden bereits alle wegen ein paar hundert Terroristen vollkommen überwacht, und morgen zu weiteren Regeln überredet werden, um uns vor Demokratie zu schützen!

75

Der Großvater der Demokratie des XXI Jahrhunderts

76

Etymologie Demokratie bedeutet “Regierung des Volkes”. So oder ähnlich überall zu finden. Demos wäre das Volk, Kratos die Macht. Beide Begriffe haben aber eine besondere Bedeutung, denn die klassischen Autoren benutzten den Begriff auf abwertige Weise. Bei Ihnen klang es wie „Diktatur der Versager“. Die Herkunft des Substantivs Demos ist nicht griechisch. Es kommt aus der minoischen Kultur. Dort war „Domo“ der Gutsherr. In biblischen Zeiten vereinigten sich Gutsherren als Interessengemeinschaft. Um 1200 v. C. aber verloren die meisten aufgrund einer Krise ihren Besitz. Und „Domo“ wechselte die Bedeutung und bezeichnete die Klasse, die keinen Besitz mehr hatte. Ein halbes Jahrtausend später meinte man bei den Griechen genau das: Freie Männer, die nicht sonderlich Besitz hatten. “Kratos” bedeutete nicht einfach “Regierung”. Man meinte damit eine rüpelhafte Tyrannei, die sich mit Kraft und Gewalt durchzusetzen vermochte. Demokratie war also beleidigend gemeint, und die beste historische Gegebenheit, die auf den griechischen Begriff passen würde wäre die Zeit der Französischen Revolution: Radikal, gewalttätig, gnadenlos, und von rachsüchtigen Versagern gesteuert. Obwohl wir den Begriff inzwischen mit Watte gefüttert haben, sollte die ursprüngliche Bedeutung zumindest daran erinnern, daß Demokratie UNSER Vorrecht beinhaltet, aufgrund unserer Kraft als Mehrheit, die Ausnutzung und Ausbeutung durch kleine Gruppen abzulehnen. Wenn es ein muß, dann auch ohne viel Federlesens! Der Hauptbestandteil der Demokratie ist gerade, daß wir Versager die größte Macht haben, und sie nutzen sollten, um uns nicht aushungern zu lassen! Wir sind nämlich auch die, die den Reichtum schaffen! Die Reichen schöpfen ihn nur ab! Die Definition harmonisiert mit dem Ziel, Kräfte zu einen, um uns gegen die zu verteidigen, die unsere Welt in eine digitale Sklaverei umbauen wollen, wo wir rund um die Uhr überwacht und gemolken werden.

77

Die Weimarer Republik Zwischen 1919 und 1933 wurde in der Republik Weimar acht Mal gewählt. Sitze wurden direkt im Verhältnis zu den erhaltenen Stimmen verteilt, so daß Sitze frei blieben. Die Tabelle unten stammt aus www.wikipedia.de, und man sieht die weibliche und männliche Sitzverteilung. Ganz rechts sieht man, daß die Gesamtzahl Sitze von der Wahlbeteiligung abhing. Damals ging es darum, demokratische Mathematik zu respektieren. Bei uns geht es um Demokratie, weil wir von der Doppelten Bindung wissen. Es ist also diesmal eine Emanzipation des Wählers, und ein Abschütteln der Klasse, die sich auf die Schultern der Gesellschaft parasitär angesiedelt hat. Dazu reicht die Weimarer Mathematik bei der Sitz- und Erstattungsverteilung, Plus wenige Regeln, wenn keine mehrheitliche Wahlbeteiligung stattfindet, alles im Geiste einer Bindung der Parteien an die Wählerschaft.

78

Wikipedia Auf der italienischen Wikipedia Seite gibt es auch interessante Einträge: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappresentanza_politica Unter anderem dieses Zitat: Nach P. Ardant, Die politische Vertretung, in Zeitschrift für Verfassungsrecht, Torino, 1996, 164-167, ist die politische Vertretung in modernen westlichen Demokratien inzwischen “gegen die eigene Natur” aus folgenden Gründen: • • • • • • •

Parteien haben die Machterhaltung als Ziel, nicht die Vertretung der Wähler; Parteien sind meist nicht demokratisch organisiert; Gewählte Politiker hängen von Parteien statt von der Wählerschaft ab (wodurch sie also eher die Partei vertreten, und nicht die Wähler); Die Gewählten sind meist weniger fähig und kompetent als möglich wäre; Die Abnahme von Parteien die eine starke und deutliche Identität haben, zugunsten Allgemeiner Parteien; Die Zunahme von ideologielosen, konturlosen, und formlosen Parteien, und von Regionalparteien, Ökoparteien und Korporationsparteien; Die Zunahme von Wechselwählern

79

Eingriffsebenen in das System Sobald man um Vorschläge und Visionen bittet, wie man die Zukunft der Menschheit verbessern könnten, kommen Vorschläge auf den Tisch, die qualitativ sehr unterschiedlich sind. Obwohl Kategorien meist willkürlich sind, ist es sehr hilfreich, aufgrund von bestimmten Merkmalen aufzuteilen. Ich schlage drei Ebenen vor. Ebene 3 Das sind Vorschläge, die enorm viel Erklärungsbedarf haben. Sie umfassen sehr viele Aspekte des Lebens, der Umweltpolitik, der Wirtschaft, der Gesellschaft und der Psychologie. Sie können eventuell enorme Investitionen verlangen, Umbau der Städte, Umgestaltung der Ökonomie (Resource-based zum Beispiel) und einen radikalen Wechsel in der Weise, wie man als Einzelner das Leben sieht und leben möchte. Der ideale Platz für solche Vorschläge ist meist die Science-Fiction Erzählung oder Film (was je nach Ausrichtung dann Apokalyptisch kommt, oder nach New Age aussieht). Man sollte solche Vorschläge nicht ablehnen. Sie sind durchaus brauchbar, um sich für langfristige Politik Gedanken zu machen, und großatmige Bewegungen in die Wege zu leiten, statt nur Von-Heute-auf-Morgen zu handeln. Oft sind aber solche Vorschläge elitär, und haben zu wenig Befürworter. Was ihnen sicher helfen würde wären graduelle Implementationsbeschreibungen, wo auch klargestellt wird, was die Kosten sind, wer sie übernehmen würde, und wer und wieviel dadurch einen Vorteil hätten. Ebene 2 Was diesen Vorschlägen “fehlt” ist die Voraussetzung, daß die Menschheit die Gesinnung ändern muß. Sie beschränken sich darauf, zu beschreiben, wie man die Mechanismen zur Festlegung der Vertreter und Verwalter der Gesellschaft ersetzen könnte. Ein Beispiel dafür wären die Direkte Demokratie, und die Lottoauswahl von Vertretern. Sie haben zwei Nachteile gegenüber Vorschläge der Ebene 1: Erstens, benötigen sie die Zustimmung einer Wählermehrheit. Die sollte über Modalitäten und Regeln einverstanden sein, und die Änderung wollen. Zweitens: Sie erfordern sehr große bürokratische und organisatorische Umstellungen. Es gibt einen dritten Nachteil: Sollten sie dann doch nicht funktionieren, ist es ebenso kompliziert, wieder auf den vorherigen Stand zurückzukehren. 80

Ebene 1 Dieses Handbuch handelt von einem solchen Vorschlag. Es geht um eine einfache Korrektur an einer Regel unseres Systems. Sie kann entweder durch Parteien durchgedrückt werden, vom Verfassungsgericht gefordert werden, oder in kollektiver Eigeninitiative durch eine Bewegung in die Wege geleitet werden. Der Unterschied zur Ebene 2 ist, daß sehr wenig Bürokratie und Umstellung erforderlich sind, daß das System selbst die Korrektur “verlangt”, weil es die Pflicht dazu festgelegt hat. Es geht darum, im System ein Prinzip unterer Ordnung zugunsten eines oberer Ordnung zu korrigieren, was dann ein Tor öffnet, das den Gang in eine Richtung möglich macht, die der derzeitigen entgegengesetzt ist. Von den drei Kategorien, sind die der Ebene 1 die, die am ehesten machbar sind. Die der Ebene 3 sind Möglichkeiten der fernen Zukunft. Der Zukunft, in der wir selbst seit langer Zeit im Grab ruhen würden. Auch die “Neue Weltordnung”, die vielleicht ein Dutzend Mal von unterschiedlichen Politikern angesprochen wurde, und von Verschwörungstheoretikern als ein zynischer Geheimplan beschrieben wird, der von einer Weltelite verfolgt wird, ist ein Projekt der Ebene 3. Sie hätte zum Ziel, Ordnung, Machtverhältnisse, Organisation und Denkweise der Menschheit zu ändern. Wäre sie ein reales Ziel, hätte sie sicher Vorteile gegenüber anderen Vorschlägen derselben Kategorie, und eventuell auch der Ebene 2: Es stünden gerade die dahinter, die das Großkapital und die Ressourcen des Planeten kontrollieren! Weil aber solche Projekte lange Zeit brauchen, und sich einschleichend durch momentane Gegebenheiten festbeißen müssen, haben Gegenmaßnahmen, die sich auf Ebene 1 abspielen seht gute Chancen, die Neue Weltordnung gehörig zu vermasseln, und stattdessen mit einem Richtungswechsel in die entgegengesetzte Seite zu gehen, wo Kapital und Reichtum den Beschlüssen der Wählerschaft unterliegen, und ihre Existenz dadurch berechtigen, daß sie den Wohlstand der Gesellschaft heben.

81

NACHWORT Ein paar Worte an Politiker Auf dem Markt gibt es mehrere mehr oder weniger durchgedachte Utopien, um die Gesellschaft zu verbessern. Gaia ist außerhalb Italiens wenig bekannt, aber immerhin wählen 9 Millionen Wähler für eine Partei, die bis zum Jahr 2054 die nationale Direkte Demokratie nach einem Dritten Weltkrieg einführen möchte. Das Venus Projekt ist dagegen international bekannt, obwohl es nur 300.000 Befürworter hat. Es gibt also Optionen, und sie sind schön unterschiedlich und bunt. Sie verlangen riesige Investitionen, was Politikerherzen schneller schlagen lässt, weil damit das Großkapital neue Anwendungsgebiete bekommt, und das Profitprinzip weiter blühen und wachsen kann, Das sind ideale Projekte für Politiker und Parteien, die sich mit einem futuristischen Image verkaufen wollen. Alles bleibt gleich oder fast gleich, solange man die Sessel im Parlament belegen kann, aber man hat Aussichten, mit denen man viel Stimmen fischen kann. Der Vorschlag, der in diesem Handbuch dem Wähler vorgelegt wird, ist keine weitere Option. Es ist eine imperative Pflicht! Wenn man das Venus Projekt mit dem Übergang von einem Betriebssystem auf ein völlig anderes, vollkommen Neues vergleichen kann, für das noch nicht einmal ein Pflichtenheft erstellt wurde, wird hier ein Vorschlag beschrieben, der einem „bugfix“ entsprechen würde, also einer Fehlerbehebung im Betriebssystem. Um das Beispiel abzurunden, wäre es sowas wie eine kleine Änderung im Programmcode, damit das System, das angeblich mit 64 Bit schnell arbeiten sollte, wegen des Fehlers aber in Wirklichkeit nur 8 Bit schnell ist, endlich korrekt mit 64 Bit arbeitet. Über ein bugfix verhandelt man nicht. Man legt Beweise vor, dass ein Fehler im Programmcode die richtige Funktionalität verhindert, und stellt Antrag auf Korrektur. Und es könnten sogar Schadensklagen wegen des Fehlers entstehen, weshalb dem Anbieter die Korrektur am Herzen liegen sollte! Gründung und Teilnahme an einer Bewegung, um ein Wahlgesetz zu erhalten, das einer Demokratieversion 0.9 entspricht ist kein Akt der politisch rechts 82

oder links liegt. Es ist eine Aktion am System selbst, auf einer Ebene, die vor der Politik kommt. Es schadet dem Projekt oder der Bewegung nicht im Geringsten, wenn es von Parteien auf der extremen Rechten oder Linken Seite unterstützt wird. Wer sich dagegen selbst diskreditiert ist der Politiker und die Partei, die beschließen, die undemokratische Manufaktur des derzeitigen Wahlgesetzes zu ignorieren, und wie gewohnt die Wahl Show wie bisher abzuziehen. Ein Problem verschwindet nicht, weil man es ignoriert. Und manchmal ist es unmöglich, es zu verstecken. Dieses Handbuch sollte bereits die Ahnung aufkommen lassen, daß für die riesige antisystemische Energie der Wählerschaft ein Nagel zur Verfügung steht, und eine Anweisung, um die dicke Machtblase zu stechen. Nur Politiker und Parteien, die MIT einem Wahlgesetz ohne Doppelte Bindung gewählt wurden, sind legitim, und vertreten in demokratischem Sinne die Wählerschaft. Wer dagegen mit Doppelter Bindung gewählt wurde und wird, ist eine Marionette im Dienste von Thronräubern. Er wird in Kürze für jede Zustimmung zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden, die gegen den Willen der Gesellschaft durchgebracht wurde. Systemkritik reicht heute nicht mehr aus! Es ist klar, dass Wahlen nicht dem Wähler, sondern der Elite dienen, um den Bürgern die Rechnung aufzudrücken! Untätigkeit aus Ignoranz ist möglich. Bleibt man aber untätig, nachdem man die Ignoranz verloren hat, wird man zum Komplizen!

83