C U R I O U S M A N I F E S T O S(POLITISTICS)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, 2000 — — — — — CONTENTS* [ * All names of the parties /movements /etc. in Bulgarian original have abbreviations with three equal letters, which peculiarity isn't easy to maintain in the translation, so the letters are more often different. ] Foreword Manifesto of the DDD (Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship) Movement Addendum to DDD Manifesto of the EEE (Enigma of the Exploitative Elite) Manifesto of the ZSG (Zodiacal Significance Group) Addendum to ZSG Manifesto of the IIE (Initiative for Iterative Elections) Manifesto of the CCW (Corrupted Cadres Wing) Manifesto of the NNO (New Nomenclature's Offensive) Manifesto of the FCP (Forever Changing Party) Addendum to FCP Manifesto of the BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference) Addendum to BRD Manifesto of the USC (Union for Strength and Competition) Manifesto of the TTT (Tandem for Total Totalization) Manifesto of the FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation) Manifesto of the CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses) Addendum to CCC Afterword Supplement: Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)? — — — — — PART TWO MANIFESTO OF THE ZSG* (Zodiacal Significance Group) [ * Here, surely (as said before) in the original language were used three "z"-s, which are somewhere to the front of the Cyrillic alphabet (like Latin "c"), i.e. between 'e', then 'zh', 'z' (as in "zero"), and then 'i'. ] The history of all societies is a history of contradiction between the personality and the society, of incessant fights between the individual and the group, to which he belongs! From times immemorial the humans had aspired first of all to personal manifestation and prevalence over the others, and continually have tried to make career by way of, if one believes in the Latin origin of this word, just throwing down the others around them like stones in a precipice (confirmation of what may be found in similarly sounding words "career" and "quarry", which in Slavonic are exactly the same), only to climb up to the crest of power, no matter whether it goes about some real (and global peak) or about some small local height. This is a main law in our world and how the plants are heliotropic so the humans are "cratotropic" (i.e. longing for power, to put it in contemporary words), but inasmuch as the sun often does not suffice for all vegetation on a given place and most actively is used by those who have succeeded to clime on the top, so also the power can't "make warm" all equally, but only those on its higher floors. In relation with this, indestructible as the very life, longing for prevalence over the others from very old times people have applied the simplest and validated rule — uniting is some groups by interests, regardless whether organized on: ethnical, professional, religious, of property, or gender, or age, etc. principle, what can help them in their climbing up. On that thing is based the existence of political parties and the forming of special arena for their combats — an idea which receives significant development with the appearance of democracy in Ancient Greece, where it became popular not only between the privileged castes and strata of the population, but also between the whole nation. Immediately after the massification of parties, however, it turns out that this decision, generally said, is not a decision, due to the innate drawbacks of the very idea! In a sense that, as much as the parties allow the individuals to leap above the others, in the same extent they hinder him to reach this, and in this way the drawbacks of parties provoke also the drawbacks of democracy, because of what in the millennial human history incessantly have alternated periods of democracy with periods of dictatorship, or at least of some compromising form between the two poles. And because the parties does not give equal opportunities for their participants to manifest themselves and make a moderate career (non hindering the others to make the same, too), it turns out that the parties are used only and exclusively as means for making of career (in the same way as in hot weather, for example, one drinks more water, which, because of the lower concentration of salt in it than in his sweat, instead of satisfying his thirst, worsens even more his water-salt balance; this what one needs in very hot weather is not more water but more salts, but being not in position to get them he gets at least the water). And, really, the situation (whole 25 centuries) was just hopeless until our Zodiacal Significance Group (ZSG) has arisen, which at last succeeded to put each thing on its proper place with one precise intervention exactly in the weakest point. For the first time in human history we allow to various parties to become unions primarily of equally thinking individuals, and not of careerists, but not depriving the persons from the possibility (and by this equal for each member) to make career (with even greater chances than in the existing till the moment parties), and more than this — in one much more attractive way! But let us look at the things consecutively, beginning with the 1. Shortcomings of the existing till the moment parties. The inevitably inherent shortcomings of the existing parties are mainly of three kinds, namely: a) The probability for career making in a given party is in back proportion to the number of participating in it members, where the strength of it and its influence over the masses is in direct proportion to this number! This means that if someone chooses a small party in order to enhance his chances for progress in it, he, on the other hand, will have smaller chances for participating in the governing of state, because the very party will take small part in this activity (the parliamentarian quote). But in case of a strong and powerful party (one of the pair leading parties) it will have hundreds of thousands of members and the chances of the person between so much people will be very moderate. Put it otherwise, this gives something like the situation in which one falls when he must decide whether he has to become married or not, because, however one looks at this — so bad, and otherwise also bad, and the exact estimation depends on so much, and very fuzzy, too, parameters, that it is even not possible to find at least what is worse! b) The chances for career making for each person are in no way equal, nor are they measure for his abilities (more so for his abilities to rule or govern, something for which he applies), because nobody knows exactly to what he (or she) is capable until he makes it (and even after this there is no guaranty that this wasn't an occasional outcome and in another mandate, or by slightly different conditions, he will again succeed). In the same time, when one buys a lottery ticket, each ticket has the same chances to win, and if it wasn't so, but was known in advance which ticket what will bring, this would not have been a lottery but rather some auctioning for tax evasion, maybe. The interest, obviously, is in the uncertainty, especially by democratic governing, while the chances for political career, in any case, depend highly on the: ancestry, physical features, personal contacts, education, financial position, family background, et cetera. The chance is something from God, so to say, something that can't be established in advance, but which is necessary in life and what makes the very making of career more interesting than the brutal throwing down of stones, and the chance inside the political parties (not in the fights between parties) is reduced to minimum with the purpose of maintaining the party monolithic. But this deforms the conditions of competition between the party members and is something like faked die, or marked cards, or some other dishonest method of playing the game. By such non-uniform chances for career making, which exist in the present-time parties, most of the party members have, as we said, no other choice than to make career, and that is why the parties are filled mainly with careerists! c) The dependence of the events, put in a probabilistic jargon, or the influence on the career of previous successes or failures of the person (which don't need to be related at all with his real abilities, as we have already said), is the next scourge for the parties, figuratively speaking! Because of this many persons for long years "rest on their laurels" and cram the leading positions, where other young and more suitable ones don't have the possibility to try at least once. Some continuity, of course, is necessary, but only up to two mandates (what in many cases also exists), where one will hardly find a prominent political figure which, though having not begun his (or her) political career precisely on 20 years, will conclude it before reaching of pension age, and even this, most often, happens with his natural departure from this world. We from the ZSG think that whatever exceptions above the two mandates must be only exceptions, in order to be possible to ensure maximal independence of the chances for career making of a person, who has taken some ruling post, from the newcomer in the play, but who is burning with desire for self-manifestation, because if some relative equality will not be established, then the wish for career making becomes fixed idea for the young politician. This, said in technical jargon, means that the existing party system is highly inertial, and for that reason not only between parties, but in each of them, too, the political confrontations became substantive and lead to unnecessary revolutionary moments, instead of providing of one stable and slow evolution on the political arena, which alone can provide opportunity for moderate manifestation of each party member. Together with this most important hindrances for career making in the existing parties must be mentioned also some others, like for example: the overly seriousness, with which the wins or defeats are met, having in mind that the politics is, anyway, a game (as also all our life) and it is comical and childish if one begins to "weep" when he looses in it (in any way, nobody except God himself, maybe, can be really sure, that exactly his ideas are the right ones); the wryly understood necessity for long-lasting and unchangeable course in the politics, where in many other cases one often changes his views with his age (what he calls evolution of the conceptions); the non-interesting and low attractive character of the very career making, which needs some new ideas, some way of taking into account also the intervention of God, or the pure chance, consequence of which is our whole life; et cetera. Our further narration will clear in one natural way these moments and will show the positive influence on them of the elegant ideas of Zodiacal Significance Group, so that it is time now to make our 2. Proposition for changes in the political life. As far as the probability theory is an exact mathematical science for establishing of the characteristics of the whole group of events, when we can't, for one or another reason, take them good into account for each individual event, so we are bound to believe in it, if we want to stay near to the reality. This theory, and if you want the whole human practice, have postulated that it exists one and only method for increasing of the probability of a given event, without by this decreasing the probability of some other one related with it, and this is the so called conditional probability! This means that, instead of speaking about the probability of some thing, we will observe the probability for this thing, but under condition that some other thing has already happened (so, for example, the probability to guess six out of 49 numbers, as it is in Bulgarian lotto "Toto-2", is very small, it becomes much greater if we have already guessed the first three drawn numbers; or, if we return to the politics, then the probability somebody to be elected as President depends highly on the fact whether he belongs to the leading in the moment party). In other words, introducing of some condition of the choice is necessary, which has to diminish the group, but such condition that must split it in several smaller groups, where each of these subgroups represents good enough the whole group — this is something like breaking of a piece of magnet in smaller pieces! It turns out that such condition for splitting, in this case, must satisfy the following three requirements: a) to split the group evenly and, so to say, vertically, not horizontally, providing for each subgroup equal number of members in the different stories of hierarchy of each party (because in the parties inevitably exists hierarchy, even under democratic conditions, when single party hierarchy for the whole country is absent), otherwise we shall only sharpen the pyramid, depriving (and embittering) the greater part of party members of their chances for career making; b) to be precisely non-essential in political regard, because if we make splitting by a substantial criterion this will only give new fraction or disintegration of the party, and we from ZSG don't fight for ruination of the parties, taking into account their confirmed during the centuries usefulness in political life, but for turning them to a better place for sensible career making for each party member; c) to be permanently fixed and unchangeable splitting, because if each one can alone change it and determine his participation to different subgroups, this will contradict to the first requirement, but at the same time, while the participants in different subgroups remain the same, their part taken in the governing must be rotated somehow, choosing only one of the subgroups in each particular moment, where the other party members are to perform subsidiary functions to the leading in the moment subgroup, but in the next elections the groups have to change their places (what, if we use the analogy with breaking of a pencil in several smaller pencils, has to say, that in each moment we will write with just one pencil, while the others rest and "sharpen" themselves for their future use). In this way each party will not only not suffer from such decision, but will also strengthen its rows, because it will be not just doubled or tripled, but even multiplied, according to the number of echelons in which the party is divided! But is such exactly ideal goal not chimerical at all, isn't this some political machination, as one of the many finding place in periods of democracy? This isn't so at lest because we are not party but a group for reforming of the parties, and when so we are not fighting for taking part in the political life; and the very decision is simple and elegant, as discovery of the wheel in ancient times, and this decision has only one word: the (signs of) Zodiac! In addition to the requirements for even and non-essential splitting, they are once and for all fixed for each party member, and using one attractive procedure for choosing of the ruling for the mandate Zodiac they are also the very natural for the whole Christendom decision. Who wishes may believe in them, and who not — not believe, but they exist and are quoted almost everywhere in our life, giving one sufficiently even splitting of all people (if we go out of the statement that the humans, in contrast with many of the animals, don't have yearly established periods of enhanced sexual activity and, hence, are active the whole year). Besides, the zodiacal signs, certainly, are non-antagonistic groups, which can never accumulate in themselves so much contradictions for to separate as another parties or fractions in them, so that they are simply the ideal solution! And now we are ready to go to the question of 3. Fulfilling of the idea. The only minimal (but very important) amendment, which must be done in the Election Law, for to allow the idea of ZSG to throw roots in our political life, is the requirement from each of the candidates for whatever ruling political position (i.e. as MP, member of Municipal Council, President of the country, in the court and the prosecution, and with recommendatory character also in the Police, Army, and Boards of Directors of different companies) to demand that he /she be chosen from the previously established one or more Zodiacs! In this situation, naturally, we have all reasons to call the Parliament now Zodiament, and the Municipal Councils — Zodiacal Councils, because this better corresponds with their true substance. Together with explaining of the actual procedure of choice of ruling Zodiacs, however, we will give also some quantitative mathematical assessments, in order to be able, for one thing, to motivate our proposition, and for another thing — to establish the number of Zodiacs. First of all let us stress that it is better if the average continuity for the zodiacal signs, in probabilistic sense, is about 1.5 up to maximum 2 mandates, which will guarantee similar continuation of the period of political career for everyone, and this is figure about which, even in worldwide scale, exists consensus, only that in traditional parties this simply is not respected, where by us it cannot be omitted! And mark that the probabilistic sense is more justified and interesting than the fixed two mandates, because it guarantees the things on the average for long period of time, where the continuation of ruling of each particular zodiacal sign will depend, as it's said, on the "providence" and exists probability different from zero that some one of the Zodiacs can be chosen even in 10 consecutive mandates, for example (compensated by others for which there will not be such chance). What is important to stress is that we require not some simple drawing of a lot but one emotional choice, which in addition gives greater probability to be drawn out the old zodiacal sign than some new one. As usual, the simplest arrangements are the best one, and our proposition is to perform multiple drawing of one out of 12 Zodiacs (where it is even better if in the sphere are loaded two, but maybe also three, dozens of numbers, for it not to rotate nearly empty), where this drawing is repeated until some number will be drawn again for the second time, but only for the old Zodiac is taken that its number was already drawn once, so that with its first real drawing it becomes chosen. The number of this drawings, naturally, can't be greater than the number of Zodiacs, and the very procedure must be translated by the media and performed in formal circumstances in advance of one to two months before the proper democratic elections for the Zodiament, and for the Zodiacal Councils and the President the current Zodiac is to be used without new choice. Having in mind some singularities, which will become clear a while later, we propose below three similar variants. a) We shall consider first the one-zodiacal choice as single variant, i.e. the choice of only one zodiacal sign out of 12 by the above-mentioned procedure. The exact calculations, of course, we leave for the Addendum, because they require decent mathematical education, where here shall give only the end-results. It turns out that in this way the probability for repeated choice of the same Zodiac in the next elections is 0.33634, what with precision to the third sign after the decimal point equals 1/3, where the probability for choice of one of the new Zodiacs (in their sum) is respectively 0.66366 or 2/3, what divided by 11 gives probability for choice of one new Zodiac of 0.06033 or 6 per cents. Certainly the average probability for choice of one whatever Zodiac must be 1/12 = 0.0833333 = 8.33% (because the Zodiacs, anyhow, are 12). Here we must mention that the probability of 1/3 for repetition of the Zodiac gives, in fact (after some calculations), an average repeatedness of mandates of exactly one and a half times, what is good as measure for the continuity. This, what isn't very good, though, is the lower probability of choice of new Zodiacs, because 6% is somewhere about 1/17, and this means that if the mandates are by 4 years and our Zodiac is not the current one, then it will enter once in about 66 years, and in this case some of the party members have all chances not to have a chance at all for their Zodiac to be chosen while they are still living (though when it will be chosen it will remain such for on the average about 1.5*4 = 6 years). b) The next variant is two-zodiacal choice again as single variant, i.e. choice of one out of 12, but by two old Zodiacs. In this case the single probability for choice of an old Zodiac becomes 0.2760, but as far as there are two old Zodiacs their common probability is 0.5520, and for the new Zodiacs (now 10) the single probability becomes 0.044798, and the common — 0.44798. The average probability for one Zodiac to be chosen remains again 1/12, but as far as the common probability for repetition of Zodiacs enhances, then this for choice of one new Zodiac diminishes, so that this variant turns out to be the worst from the point of view of the rarest case of entering of a new Zodiac, where we get that this can happen only once in 4*(1/0.0448) ≈ 89 years. But this isn't so important because the choice isn't yet finished with the choice of only one Zodiac and there must be also second tour (in order to have always two old Zodiacs), just that then will be chosen between 11 Zodiacs (because one is already selected). The end-results appear very near to those for the next variant and because it is much more all-comprising than by simple doubling of the two-zodiacal choice we shall continue directly to it. c) The last and the most interesting variant is one combination of the former two, where there are performed two tours of choice, but whether the very choice will be two-zodiacal or one-zodiacal is established from the number of the old Zodiacs, when if in both tours is chosen one and the same Zodiac, then this means that the next time it will be one-zodiacal, otherwise it will be two-zodiacal! This model is much more abundant with variants so that we from the ZSG propose exactly it as final decision, and because the Zodiacs are many then the probability for them to happen to be different (i.e. two-zodiacal case) is much greater than by one-zodiacal (it turns out about 5 times), and for that reason the results are nearer to the two-zodiacal choice. To spare the multiplicity of figures we shall mention only that: the average probability on the whole becomes 0.15257 ≈ 15% (or entering once in 4*(1/0.15257) ≈ 26 years), the probability for one-zodiacal choice becomes 0.169169 ≈ 0.17%, and for two-zodiacal — 0.830830 ≈ 83%. In addition to this we now speak about probability for at least one old Zodiac (as measure for the repeatedness of the choice), which is 0.4267 ≈ 43%, and for at least one new Zodiac, which is 0.0714 ≈ 7%. The first will give (after some calculations) an average continuity of the Zodiacs 1.7443 times, and the second means that a new Zodiac will enter in the governing at the worst case once in 4*(1/0.0714) ≈ 56 years, but will stay then for average 4*1.744 ≈ 7 years. The very procedure of drawing in technical meaning is maximally simplified, but attractive, where for each new drawing in the limits of the given tour (first or second) the drawn out number is written and then returned in the sphere. How each party will choose the candidates for the elections is its own business, just that only people from the current Zodiacs are to be chosen. The both tours of choice of Zodiacs are of wholly equal value (when they are different, of course), where only by the elections of President is settled that he (she) must be from the first chosen Zodiac, where Vice-President is chosen from the second, and if later, but under the wing of the same Zodiacs, by different reasons, new elections for President must be performed, so they alternate (i.e., the next President must be from the second Zodiac, and the Vice-President — from the first, and so on). The modeled in this way different echelons for each party pretty well can name their candidates supposing that the pool is big enough, but if one party does not possess at least 12 times more members than candidates for the elections (at national or local level), it can confidently be stated that this is no proper party. On the other hand, if in a given party exists only a pair of prominent representatives, but they are not from the current Zodiac /Zodiacs and there are no other competent persons from the current Zodiac which can substitute this pair of competent persons, then this also isn't a proper party (but some administrative unite, dependable in one or another way by this pair of persons), because people who can't be substituted with others don't exist! In this way the questions are solved and there is nothing more left except to proceed to the Conclusion, where, surely, is necessary to put our Zodiacal Significance Group on its worthy pedestal, such that it be easy seen from each party and coalitions, and also from non-parliamentarian powers, because it well deserves this honor. The main moments on which we shall stress are the following: a) The democracy cannot be bettered until the parties are bettered, organizing them on the principle of mutually changeable echelons of party members from all levels, which are to be changed in some arbitrary way, so that all can get hold of some "greased morsels", as it's said, but while in the very echelons people may differ by their prospects for career making, then between the echelons must exist full equality. Such shrinking of the electoral pool for the moment frees the major part of the members from the futility of pre-electoral contest, but not excluding them from the party, of course, and in this way localizes their self-seeking ambitions only in the allowed time, yet for that reason this enhances their chances for success in the corresponding elections! But what better echelons than the approved for centuries zodiacal signs, as one psycho-physical division of humans in groups with non-substantial, but interesting, differences (in the similar way how the necktie, or the earrings, if you like, are non-essential — in functional sense — elements of clothing, but they make people nicer and our life more interesting)? b) If the demos continues to want bread and circuses, then all spectacular events, which don't hinder the acquiring of bread, are to be preferred in one democratic society. But what more interesting show than one Zodiament, where people, instead of dividing themselves on left, right, and center ones, will divide also according to their Zodiacs (carrying required and well recognizable badges on their lapels), and instead of political libels and slanders will exchange between them neutral and impartial zodiacal remarks about "Rams", "Crabs-cancers", "Virgins", etc., refreshing and pacifying the situation and avoiding saying of words which will be regretted by both sides? Add to this also the various horoscopes and the interpretations, that can be made for each of the ruling persons, the refreshing caricatures in the media, the propitious or not days for work of the Zodiament and the various commentaries by the gatherings and international meetings, the incessant influence of the zodiacality over the souvenir, textile, and other industries and over the fashion in general, and you will surely begin to feel the fresh air, which the ZSG pours in the everyday activity of the ruling authorities and life in the country. c) In addition to all this the periods of zodiacal ruling will become something like milestones on the historical way of our country, because they will mark in an interesting manner the time of ruling of given Zodiacs and people will speak not only that someone was born under the sign of the Ram, but also that he has married in the time of Leo and Virgo, for example, has got a son during the single Gemini, and so on, in the same way as even nowadays in some eastern countries they speak about the years of Tiger or Dragon. There may be instituted some interesting occasions which must commemorate each change of the Zodiacs, like, say: building of Zodiacal alley in each major town with figures of prominent politicians from the corresponding periods, shown (or not) the essence of their Zodiacs; issuing of jubilee coins, or of new money notes in general, with the coming to power of new Zodiacs; adding of stylized architectural elements to the public (and also other) buildings, erected during a given period; and other similar things. And sooner or later our small country will make its greater contribution to the whole Western world linking its name with one ever-expanding zodiacalization in the governing and public life of the planet, and the power that will change radically the world is our ZSG! If the future of the humanity is in the democracy, then the future of party system is in its zodiacalization, hence, the future of the democracy is in the zodiacal democracy! If you want to make political career, do it only in the solely appropriate for it zodiacally pure environment! To zodiacal turn with the help of Zodiacal Significance Group! — — — ADDENDUM TO ZSG This addendum contains partial description of the mathematical model of forming of the Zodiacs proposed by the ZSG. Despite its exactness it has illustrative character and does not show principal influence over the explained in the Manifesto ideas, meaning that if the zodiacal ruling will be applied this will not be because of this analysis. Nevertheless, however, the given calculations are true, where in addition is made also probabilistical modeling with computer program, what proves that the last thing that can be said about the Utopian ideas is that they are not reasonable, while the most important thing that makes them different from the real ones is only that they are not yet realized (but it has been so with the democracy, too, before Pisistratus have enforced it in his time). 1. We shall give thoroughly the formulas for computation of the probabilities for variant 3.a) for one-zodiacal choice out of 12 equally-probable Zodiacs, where the computations are performed via simple summation, by the number of drawings in one tour, of the probabilities in each drawing (obtained by dividing the favorable events to their whole number). Let us mark with P1O the probability for one-zodiacal (upper index) choice of one old Zodiac (lower index — from Old), with P1N — the probability for choice of one new Zodiac (lower index — from New), and for all 11 new ones — with P1NA (A — from All). For the old Zodiac we have that it can be chosen from the fist time with probability of 1/12 if its number is drawn at once; from the second time with (11/12)*(1/12), because this can happen only if the first time some of the numbers of the other Zodiacs is drawn (with probability of 11/12) and after this falls the number of the old Zodiac (with probability of 1/12), in which case, naturally, the probabilities are multiplied (as, for example, if we toss a coin three times then the probability to have each time the head is 1/8); and so on, for the n-th time (2 ≤ n ≤ 12) we will have (11*10*... *(11-n+2))/12n, what, when we sum by the number of drawings (from 1 to maximum 12), gives the following: P1O = 1/12 + 11/(122) + (11*10)/(123) + ... + (11*10 ... *2)/(1211) + (11*10 ... *1)/(1212) = 1/12 + ∑n=212 (11*10 ... *(11-n+2))/(12n) = ∑n=112 (11!)/((11-n+1)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (11!)/((12-n)!*12n) = 144619817/429981696 ≈ 0.33634 (1) where the exclamation sign after some number is the factorial, or the multiplication of each integer numbers from 1 to the number, and Σ means summing from the low to the high value of the index. Similarly for one new Zodiac we get that from the first time it cannot be chosen; from the second time this may happen only if both times falls its number; from the third time — when two out of three times falls its number and once one of the other 10 new numbers, only that for the first time the number of Zodiac may emerge either in the first drawing or in the second one (the last time, obviously, we must always have the needed number, because it finishes the choice favorably for us), so that we must multiply also by two; and so on, what we write as: P1N = 0 + 1/(122) + (10*2)/(123) + (10*9*3)/(124)+ ... + (10*9 ... *2*10)/(1211) + (10*9 ... *1*11)/(1212) = 1/(122) + ∑n=312 (10*9 ... *(10-n+3)(n-1))/(12n) = ∑n=212 (10!*(n-1))/((10-n+2)!*12n) = ∑n=212 (10!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (10!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = 25941989/429981696 ≈ 0.06033 (2) only that this time the summing begins from 2, but because of the factor (n-1) in the numerator we can write it in the end also from 1. The probability for all 11 new Zodiacs we get easily multiplying by 11 the last formula, what may be rewritten as: P1NA = ∑n=212 (11!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (11!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = 285361879/429981696 ≈ 0.66366 (3) In any case we must have that P1O + P1NA = 1, but we shall leave aside this proof from the reader giving only one table filled after modeling of this process on a computer, where for convenience is accepted that the old Zodiac is always N1 (and we don't give all new ones).
TAB. 1. STATISTICAL ESTIMATIONS BY PURE ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE. It has left also to produce the formula for computation of average continuity in number of mandates, which we will obtain in more general case for probability p, 0 ‹ p ‹ 1, and possibility for unlimited iterations, i.e. we must find the mathematical expectation M1p, for which we need the sums Sp и S*p , the first of which is usual geometrical progression, and the second one is relatively easy to get via a recurrent expression, namely: Sp = ∑n=1∞ pn = p + p2 + p3 + ... + pn + ... = p/(1-p) (4) S*p = ∑n=1∞ n*pn = p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ... + n*pn + ... = p + p2 + p3 + ... + p*(p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ...) = Sp + p*S*p (5) where from S*p = Sp/(1-p) = p/(1-p)2 (6) and for the expectation we get M1p = S*p/Sp = (p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ... + n*pn + ...)/(p + p2 + p3 + ... + pn + ...) = 1/(1-p) (7) Then for our case of p = P10 ≈ 0.33634, we obtain average continuation of choosing for second time the old Zodiac (in times, or number of mandates) M1p ≈ 1.5068. 2. In the case of pure two-zodiacal choice (variant 3.b) the corresponding formulas (without explanations) become: P2O = ∑n=111 (10!)/((11-n)!*12n) = 9889819/35831808 ≈ 0.27601 (8) where also P2OA = 2*P2O ≈ 0.5520, P2N = ∑n=111 (9!*(n-1))/((11-n)!*12n) = 1605217/35831808 ≈ 0.044799 (9) и P2NA = ∑n=111 (10!*(n-1))/((11-n)!*12n) = 8026085/17915904 ≈ 0.44799 (10) where the upper index in this case must be 2, and summing must be up to 11, because there may happen at most 10 new different Zodiacs by once and on the 11-th time there must fall either one of the two new or one of the old ones. Similarly also the verification P2OA + P2NA = 1 will be fulfilled. Under alike condition that 1 and 2 are the numbers of the old Zodiacs the table will look as follows:
TAB. 2. STATISTICAL ESTIMATIONS BY PURE TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE. We will not give the calculations for doubling of two-zodiacal choice in two tours because the next variant is much more interesting, but we shall stress that till the moment the choice is not finished, because in each choice must be two Zodiacs and we have chosen till now only one. 3. By the combined variant in two tours of one- or two- zodiacal choice depending on the previous Zodiacs the complexity of calculations exceeds the limits of popular explanation and that is why we will give here only one table and data from computerized modeling with generator or random numbers. Here the Zodiacs N1 and N2 are like all of others, and one-zodiacal choice is achieved on the diagonal.
TAB. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ZODIACS IN THE TOURS OF CHOICES FOR THE COMBINED VARIANT WITH 60000 RANDOM CHOICES. - - - - -
A) DISTRIBUTION OF CHOICES (NUMBERS) FOR BOTH KINDS
SINGLE CHOICES FOR ZODIACS (DOUBLED NUMBER): TOTAL=120000, WHERE OLD=62186, NEW=57814; PROBABILITY: OLD=0.5182, NEW=0.4818 Σ ON DIAG.=10272; Σ OUTS. DIAG.= 49728; PROBAB. DIAG.= 0.1712; PROBAB. OUTS.= 0.8288 REMARK: ELEMENTS ON THE DIAGONAL GIVE ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE. AVERAGE FOR CHOICE OF ONE ZODIAC [(DIAG.ELEM. + 2*OUTS.) / 12 FAVORABLE EVENTS]: NUMBER=9144.00, PROBABILITY=0.1524 B) NUMBERS AND PROBABILITIES FOR ONE OLD ZODIAC NUMBER= 10271, PROBAB.= 0.1712 [WHOLE CHOICE 1 NEW: NUMB.=10272, PROB.=0.1712] ONE NEW, SAME AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 1132, PROBAB.=0.1102 TWO NEWS, 1 AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 4621, Σ_PROB.=0.4499, 1_PROB.=0.0409 ONE NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 396, Σ_PROB.=0.0386, 1_PROB.=0.0035 TWO NEWS, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 4122, Σ_PROB.=0.4013, 1_PROB.=0.0073 NEW ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 1528, PROBAB.=0.1488 NEW TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 8743, PROBAB.=0.8512 AT LEAST ONE OLD ZODIAC: NUMB.= 5753, PROBAB.=0.5601 AT LEAST ONE NEW ZODIAC: NUMB.= 9139, Σ_PROB.=0.8898, 1_PROB.=0.0809 C) NUMBERS AND PROBABILITIES FOR TWO OLD ZODIACS NUMBER= 49729, PROBAB.= 0.8288 [WHOLE CHOICE 2 NEW: NUMB.=49728, PROB.=0.8288] ONE NEW, SAME AS SOME OLD: NUMB.= 7764, Σ_PROB.=0.1561, 1_PROB.=0.0781 TWO NEW, SAME AS BOTH OLD: NUMB.= 7590, PROBAB.=0.1526 TWO NEW, ONE AS ONE OLD: NUMB.=24593, Σ_PROB.=0.4945, 1_PROB.=0.0247 ONE NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 980, Σ_PROB.=0.0197, 1_PROB.=0.0020 TWO NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 8802, Σ_PROB.=0.1770, 1_PROB.=0.0039 NEW ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 8744, PROBAB.=0.1758 NEW TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.=40985, PROBAB.=0.8242 AT LEAST ONE OLD ZODIAC: NUMB.=39947, Σ_PROB.=0.8033, 1_PROB.=0.4016 AT LEAST ONE NEW ZODIAC: NUMB.=34375, Σ_PROB.=0.6912, 1_PROB.=0.0691 TOTALLY AT LEAST 1 OLD: NUMB.=45700, Σ_PROB.=0.7617, 1_PROB.=0.4165 [:1.8288] TOTALLY AT LEAST 1 NEW: NUMB.=43514, Σ_PROB.=0.7252, 1_PROB.=0.0713 [:10.1712] TAB. 4. LISTING WITH STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM COMPUTERIZED MODELING OF THE COMBINED VARIANT. — — — — — MANIFESTO OF THE IIE* (Initiative for Iterative Elections) [ * Here are three "i"-s in the original because "election" in Bulgarian begins with this letter. ] The history of all societies is a history of selection of public leaders! However strong and powerful one country is, if it is not well organized and governed, the society cannot demonstrate this, to what it is capable, the country is torn by internal confrontations and becomes easy prey for others, better organized than it, countries. And much more needed is the good organization if the country is poor and weak. But in the human society the organization is performed by the humans and, therefore, it reduces mainly to finding of most capable rules and setting them at the head of the power. In conditions of dictatorship this is performed from above, where in conditions of democracy — from below, but the problem remains, because it is very difficult to be solved and, usually, some decision is taken, but with no guaranties that it is the best one. Let us have a better look at this. Under the dictatorship the rulers are appointed by the dictatorial body (be it one person or some counsel), what is good, if this body is competent and honest, bus as far as this rarely happens the good dictatorships are also rarity in the history, and what is worse: when there come incapable rulers they compensate in abundance for all good, which their predecessors have done. Under the dynastic and monarchical forms of governing it is accepted that the choice of the new dictator must be done from the descendants of the old, because the "seed" is the same, but this, alas, guaranties nothing. The only plus of the choice from above is that the area for searching of rulers is restricted to few and related with some aristocratic or other relations persons having received good education and who can, more or less, be made known to the dictator, i.e. some diminishing of the pool of choice is achieved. Under the democratic choice (the choice from below) the things go well only if the group of voters is relatively small, and they can know good the persons whom they choose, but on a state's level this choice appears to be nearly as bad as the other one, with the single plus that the bad ruler can't state for long in power and can easily be changed with another one (usually as incompetent as the previous!). However small this advantage is, it, still, is something, so that we shall try to retain it, i.e. we will observe the democratic model, but let us not be mistaken that it works now good, because the problem of choice remains! This is the problem that when one chooses somebody, who is to rule him (or her), he must choose the more competent one, but for this purpose he alone must be competent enough in order to make the choice! In other words, one can choose only such boss for himself who is as good as he is (or worse), but not better one, by the simple reason that he is not in condition to assess him right! The things worsen even more because the managerial art isn't at all an area with which everybody is familiar (as, for example, the football), so that the ordinary citizen simply has no chances to be specialist in it. At any rate, this has to be obvious, because in each human activity there exist commissions for making of decisions about the abilities of competitors, and these commissions are more competent than the very participants, but in the national elections it is on the contrary! The choice from below can work only in case of very small difference in the abilities of the competitor and the commission, what can make it similar to the competent choice from above. For this reason the humanity from times immemorial applies the simplest rule of iterative choice, where small groups of people choose their representatives, which form another groups, where the same rule is applied, and so on, until the top level is reached. This is the main method of work in each party or group of people, where the democratic choice is applied. The only reason why this is not done in general elections is the difficulty for performing of such estimation, but only this is the right way, if we want to make good decision! We from the Initiative for Iterative Elections (IIE) have definite proposition, which we shall explain below, but let us first clarify the obvious minuses of the existing democratic choice, which are wisely hidden by all traditional parties, or, better, by the politicians on the higher levels of power. 1. Drawbacks of the democratic choice a) In the direct national elections people vote, as a rule, for parties, not for personalities! This is easy to explain because the parties live longer and are better cognizable than the personalities, and because it is tacitly presupposed that in the very parties the iterative choice is applied, but neither this can always be guarantied, nor the parties are just sums of their members. The parties are places for career making and receiving of personal benefits, what has to say that the party members have their own interests, different from those of the people who they represent. Besides, the party system contradicts to the democracy, because the democracy requires access to the power for wider masses of citizens, where the members of all parties in a given country usually don't exceed 10% of its population, what gives us reasons to speak about partocracy, or ruling of the parties! Anyhow, this is sufficiently clear, but all parties taken together resolutely keep silence about this (and this question, as it seems, is the only one on which they have consensus) and insist, each in its own way, that they are the best representatives of the people. The important thing for us here is to reach to the conclusion that the choice must be held out for personalities, and only after their choosing they may be united in some groups with similar views of the things, but this groups must not obliterate their singularity. b) The choice at the top, naturally, means not knowing the people and this leads to lack of objectivity and exclusion of the right decision. This follows from the mentioned in the beginning problem of the choice, and because of this it follows that leaders on the top must advertise themselves in the same way as, for example, one car model, or prostitute, is advertised, where is not at all necessary that the most popular persons are also the best ones. One cannot choose somebody in a democratic manner if this somebody does not volunteer alone, and with this he (or she) can demonstrate only his higher self-esteem, though not some other qualities. But when a young boy intends to marry he does not go in the public house to search there for his future bride, does he? The electors must vote for persons from their near surroundings, who they know, not for those from the political high-life — and this also is pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to confuse the things. c) The representatives of the people have no information about their electors, so that they, in fact, don't know who they are representing, and in this case they simply apply their personal (i.e. party) views, but not those of the voters! The single thing that they know is from which region they were elected but this is a pure formality, because the dividing of people in regions of habitations is not at all important feature of the voters — such characteristics would be, for example: the differences in ownership of capitals, or of age, or ethnical, educational, and so on differences. Besides, splitting by regions has no meaning on a level of our Parliament (the National Assembly), which is one national institution. If we direct our sights to the primal source of democracy — the Ancient Athens — so there were elected representatives of 50 genders (called dems), what for that time was a substantial sign of differences between people. But if the delegates of people don't know which strata of population they represent, then they are not representatives of the people at all! If they meet from time to time with "their" voters, then these people are not necessary exactly those who have elected them (because this can't be proved), but just people who want to use the position of a given representative in order to rise higher some question, or because they have no other things to do and on account of this go to these gatherings (but the same question they could have set also before representatives of some other political power). For these reasons the traditional elections are plainly procedure for lawful validation of the power of political oligarchy and for facilitating of its linking with certain business circles! The difficulty for choosing of persons from the near surroundings or everybody, just because of their abilities or moral features, here is changed with one electoral farce, intending "shutting up the mouths" of the general public, that they are, seemingly, those who make the choice. Only our IIE is able to fight with this wryly-understood democracy proposing the following 2. New procedure for democratic elections. Primarily requirement of the new procedure is the possibility for each one to vote for everyone, not because the latter have applied for but because the former thinks that he (or she, surely) can trust the chosen person with defending of his interests! Under the present-day development of the computerized technique this can be performed very easily where each person can choose up to five persons, including himself, if he finds that he is capable enough to, or at least will, take part in the governing of the country. The order in which the proposing is made has no importance, and the very persons are marked by unique number which for our country is the so called Unique Citizenship Number (UCN — or, then, the insurance number, or how it's accepted in the country), where in the subsequent processing erroneous numbers are excluded and doubling ones are counted once. At the first sight may seem that the requirement for everybody to know the exact UCN of the person for whom he wants to vote is an essentially difficult one, but this could have been so before half to one century, maybe, not nowadays, because each official candidate can together with his name make known also his UCN (this isn't an address, for to be afraid to tell it to all around). Besides, everybody would be allowed to ask his close friends or relatives about their UCN-s and write them on a piece of paper. On the place of work there are no problems for everyone when he writes his name (on the door or in some list) to write also his UCN, which, anyway, exists officially in the office. And why not to carry some badge on the lapel with his name and the UCN when some elections are in the near vicinity — maybe someone may find him worth liking when meeting on the street? But there are also no problems to have some officially available data bases (in the Municipal Councils or in the electoral clubs) of all persons from a given region or for the country, where by various signs like: some of the names, age, place of living, etc., to be possible to make the needful selection and find the UCN, if this proves to be useful. In this way we do not reject altogether the parties and the possibility to make choice on the top, because together with his near acquaintances one may wish to vote also directly for some well known leader (who can be a politician, or football star, or good professional in some area). What is important is that this choice must be done in iterations, where on each next stage there vote 10 to 20 times less people. In this case 3 to 4 iterations will suffice for the choice of Parliament, and even less for the Municipal Councils. It must be clear that in each subsequent stage vote only the corresponding number of the first in a list ordered by the number of votes received for them, but they can vote again for everybody (for now), with exception of the last time, so that some persons may enter in the list of elected in next iterations, too. In the last iteration, which must contain about thousand persons, must be provided possibility for them to meet personally and acquaint one with another, where here must be chosen persons only between themselves (in order to avoid inclusion in the last moment of arbitrary persons, or of possibilities for easy buying of votes). So that we propose the following variant of voting in our country. 2.1. Choice of Parliament a) First iteration: starting with all voters (about 6 mln.), each of which votes for each of these persons, till the first 300,000 of them with the most votes given for them, according to an ordered list of the chosen containing only UCN and the number of votes received for them. b) Second iteration: from 300,000 voters to the first 20,000 with the most votes given for them by the same rules. c) Third iteration: from 20,000 to 1,000 in the same way, where this time the choice is performed in the Regional Electoral Bureaus, because of the diminished number of the persons. d) Forth iteration: from 1,000 persons to the needed number in the Parliament, which we propose to be exactly 100 persons, where this time each one of them votes again for 5 persons but only between these thousand. In addition to this before this stage of elections there must be at least one month time, during which these people must succeed to associate with one another, staying for two weeks together (in some tourist resort, for example), having in their disposition various possibilities for personal contacts and expressing of their views for the strategy of governing in the given moment. This thousand chosen delegates may be looked at as one Enlarged National Assembly (Parliament) and as natural reserve for further supplying of the future one when needed. Here is permitted to arise division of this people according with their political views, or some other characteristics (age, education, etc.). The very voting finds place in the Central Electoral Bureau (or in the National Assembly), where it is preferable for it to be also open. In relation to the coding of the votes we propose it to be done on usual punch cards (the same that have been used in the computer centers before 10 to 20 years), where everyone may prepare his card when he wishes in an interval of two months in the corresponding bureaus to the Municipal Councils using there some data base for to be sure in the numbers of the UCN of the candidates. In the election day there must be such devices in the electoral bureaus, or to be used these in the Councils and in the bureaus to be accomplished only the voting. Together with this must be enabled also the potentiality for everyone, if he so wishes, to vote also in advance and openly , leaving one such punch card and receiving a copy of it, confirmed with the needed signs (of the administrator and his) and a seal of this institution. Mark that, when people vote for persons, there are no reasons for whoever to be afraid that he knows somebody and trusts him, more so, if these are not people from the top, as it is supposed to be on the first iterations! The processing of the votes should not be difficult (it is time-consuming, but that is why the computers exist — for to "work" in place of the humans), where it will consist in one preparatory phase of transferring of the records from all punch cards for a given section to a magnetic medium (no matter in what order), and subsequent filling of one file with two fields for each record: UCN and the number of votes for this person, which has to be maintained ordered by UCN. Afterwards, on regional level, these files (from different sections) are merged (united) maintaining them ordered by UCN. After merging also on national level this file is sorted by the field for the number of votes and is separated the needed number of records (persons) from the beginning of the file. (In case that the next several persons after the last chosen have the same number of votes like him they are also included, because the exact number is not important.) It leaves then to inform all these partially chosen for each level people that they continue the election. There are no problems for whatever checks and examinations from whatever political power of the files and their processing. 2.2. Choice of Municipal Councils Here the things are entirely similar, only that the iterations will be in other boundaries. If we take for granted that one Municipality has, say, 50,000 people, then on the second stage is enough if there vote 3,000, and on the third — 200 people. Only that in this case during the processing must also be sieved out the persons who are not registered in the region. There are no problems, though, if this processing is done on the same punch cards for the choice of Parliament, because they, anyway, are carried out by regions, so that the necessity of new elections (at least for the first iteration) may vanish. In addition must be noted also that there is no need of common elections for judicial authorities, because the masses, in any case, don't know them, and these elections may take place in the corresponding Municipality, where the candidates may meet in person and make acquaintances with the representatives of the people (or even with an enlarged number of them — those from the last iteration), instead of applying of one purely formal procedure. 2.3. Choice of President By the iterative elections there is no need for doing of separate choice of President /Vice-President, because this may be done in the very National Assembly, but if we so much want to increase the selection, then the thousand people who have voted on the last iteration may be used for the purpose. Generally speaking, this Enlarged Assembly may be used also for various other purposes (say, for inquiries), because it will be a sufficiently good representative choice of the population, something that is absent from all contemporary democratic elections. 3. Future evolution of the elections After the proposed by IIE variant of elections is applied several times and the citizens palpably experience its advantages there will be made necessary some enhancements and accelerations of the method. Here we will mention five more important moments. a) The elections will become open and clear! As we have already mentioned, when everybody votes for people from his immediate surroundings there are no reasons for fears to state openly his vote, what in effect will eliminate the possibility for falsification of the elections, because easily can be faked this, that can't be seen, where this, what is known and can be proved elementary, nobody will try to forge. But then this means that there is no need of one election day with the traditional commotion, and everyone will be in position to fulfill his choice in convenient for him hours in one reasonable span of time (of about a month), where the election day will be simply the last moment for the given stage. The open choice will require also entering of the UCN of the voter (for example, as the last one and preceded with the symbol "@"), but this in turn will provide possibility for demonstration of all other pluses given below. b) Everybody will be able to vote from his home or place of work, using the computerized network, doing in the same time all needful checks in the data bases. This can be done with sufficiently high level of protection and security using personal keywords (as it is done, for example, by getting money from the bankomats or cash dispensers). After that moment will be possible to require in each iteration to be named persons only between the voters for the given level, because it will be easy to make fast check whether the UCN in question is from the allowed ones, and if it's not so then to show some other person. It is possible also to do more iterations so that the diminishing of the pool each time to be only about 10 times (five iterations for Bulgaria), what will increase the accuracy of the elections. All in all, this means that elections could be done even each year, if this will be forced by the circumstances, and they will cost almost nothing to the state. c) It can, and must, be introduced weight of the votes for each iteration (after the first), because these (say, 300 thousand), which have been elected on the preceding level, have entirely different representativeness, i.e. number of people who have voted for them! In some open elections there are no problems in addition to the five UCN and this of the voter to enter one more field in the record for fixing of the weight of his vote, which on the first level is filled with one but for each next level will be automatically filled in the process of computerized processing, where for each chosen by somebody person in the field for the number of voted for him people is added not one but this number. Then will be possible rightly to say how much "costs" the vote of each one of the voters on every level of the elections, what in the last iteration will show exactly how much people have chosen, directly or indirectly, the given Representative of the people (and not only how much persons on the last level have voted for him). In this way will be reached the ideal variant of voting, where could be possible to be traced, when needed, the whole tree of the choice, as from top to bottom (who from whom was chosen), also from bottom to top (who which persons has chosen). And mark that here it goes about each one from the hundred persons in the National Assembly separately, not mixed for all candidates from the list of some party for which there are given some number of votes (but in one region the candidates are one, and in another — other people). d) It will be possible to make all imaginable statistical analyses of the voters. In the previous subsection we have hinted this but let us stress that in the nation-wide elections the question is not "who whom", but "who from what people", i.e. age, education, profession, ethnical identity, and other parameters, which can be extracted from some more accurate data bases for the country. This will help the MPs to execute maximally near to the interests of the real voters policy, as also to give ear to their meanings (via email, for example), because the meaning of one person is one thing, but the situation is entirely different if behind this person stay, say, 42 people! e) The society will unite itself and its conscious attitude to the elections will enhance. When everyone after the first level begins really to express the meanings of the others, and everybody before the last one will be deprived of the possibility to make career and take personal benefits out of the elections, then also everyone will begin to approach them more seriously and try to give all he can squeeze out of himself. The humans, surely, are egoists, but they are not imbeciles and each one aspires for supremacy if this can be achieved, but otherwise there leaves nothing else to him unless to think about the society, for the very reason that he wants to be admired by the others (who have trusted him with their votes). It is normal to suppose that the majority of the people, when they see that they represent more than a ten of persons, will try to find in some way (say, via a standard questionnaire) the views of these persons, with the aim that in the next elections these people could again express faith in them. And the ways for this will be quite available, because if today (about the 2000) in the developed countries nearly 10% of the population has access to Internet at home or in the office, then after some 10 years their part may become 1/4, and after 20-30 years this will be so accessible as the TV nowadays. Conclusion In the most of democratic countries the population looks at the politicians as at some elitarian stratum which is not approachable for the masses and is ready to bet on them as it is done in lotto on in horse racings. But this is so because of the lack of involvement with them, as also from the part of the latter to the masses which have elected them. Only IIE finds the right way for uniting of the society in one whole body, where each one carries his part of responsibility for the destinies of the others, and the more to the top we went the more heavier becomes this responsibility. The future of the elections is only in the open and iterative elections, based on direct contacts and possibility for expressing of one's own meaning about the persons for whom is voted. The choice on the top, especially of people related by tight and unifying party platforms, and not of particular personalities, erodes the foundations of democracy. The Representatives of the people must really represent the nation (or part of it) and not their parties, and such representativeness can be reached only with the help of IIE. Give support to our IIE, because we support the proved during the centuries iterative choice of gradually executed voting from below, solely able to overcome successfully the problem of choice. Show reason, show understanding, show initiative — choose our Initiative! IIE gives the iteration, the iteration betters the democratization! — — — — — MANIFESTO OF THE CCW* (Corrupted Cadres Wing) [ * Here the letters in the original are three "k"-s and wing is krilo.] The history of all societies is a history of continuous establishing of existing tendencies while reaching the required level of ripeness! It has newer occurred that something was settled and legalized in the society before it has arisen as a germ and has acquired some procreation, which has enforced the setting on the agenda of the question of its accepting; but this only has never been enough if the thing in question has not corresponded well in its degree of development or ripeness to the needs of society and mostly of its government. The first part of the above statement defends the thesis that in the social development can't be seen unmotivated ideas, which have not initially arisen as non-justified, or non-lawful, or heretical thoughts, because there is no way to fix something about which nothing is known (and the new things in the beginning are considered heretical), what is obvious. The second part of the statement requires some time for comprehension or maturing of the idea, until it becomes "palatable", i.e. for its establishing as principle in the social government, where the different ideas need different level of ripening for to be taken out of the sphere of unofficial practice and accepted as rightful in the official; dually viewed we may assert that the society has to ripen for to accept some new proposal. This, naturally, is only a qualitative relationship, but it suffices for our aims, as we shall see later. So for example in the foundations of slave order, surely, has existed the idea for giving more freedom to the slaves in the limits of some isolated place or island, where they could be in position to move freely but can't run far away, only there was needed much time till this idea has ripen in the form of owning of serfs (i.e. of attaching to the land, without which one could have not sustained his life in those times). Similarly has come the next freeing of population via substituting of the serfdom with setting the people in dependence only upon the means for existence, i.e. on the goods produced with their labour, which they can exercise everywhere, provided someone is ready to pay them for the work. Another example give us the measures for punishing of the heretics or the persons convicted to be possessed by evil powers — in bud there were present all possible measures, but were applied only those of them which were the most suitable, according to the taste of the rulers, and when some measure has "over-ripened" then it was rejected or substituted with another one. It can also be mentioned that the ideas of communism have existed in some form back in the times of Plato, but there were needed to pass many centuries until they could have ripen enough for to be applied somewhere, and, still, not everywhere, but in certain countries where they were proved to be most suitable for usage, otherwise, communes have existed long before the emergence of communism. In the same way we may observe also the appearing and legalizing of different social norms or civil rights, which are applied when this becomes possible. There exists certain analogy in the degree of ripeness of these things and the taste which have, for example, the tomatoes, or cucumbers, or melons, if you like, where nobody would have liked green tomato or overripe cucumber, and the capitalism usually is liken with the taste of the medlar because until it is overripe it's good for nothing (something in which we should have convinced ourselves from our experience in the last democratic years). What concerns the corruption, then it has existed from the beginning of the world, but till now its time has not come to be recognized in the governing, because it was still green, or the society was not ripe enough for to appreciate its taste. But the fact, that it is applied illegitimately and unofficially almost everywhere, says that there are many connoisseurs of its taste, as also that it successfully complements various lawful situations, where with the help of it often a right decision is reached. And, really, for that who gives a decent baksheesh to some governmental officer, for example, in order to compensate the unjustness of some law, or to "grease" some judicial institution, is just the same whether the decision is got after he has paid a tax to the state, or he has paid it to the officer; and for the latter is also one and the same whether he receives enough money from the state to defend the justice, or he defends it against an additional payment. As you see, if the baksheesh is in the interest of fairness it is morally acquitted, so that bad is not the corruption but the system of law and order which causes it, where it can be boldly stated that there is no law, which is always just, and even less so to be just for the mostly deprived and weak part — at the best case it can be right for the stronger one, i.e. for the state. Be it as it may, we expose these thoughts not in order to condemn the laws or the judicial personnel, but to acquit the corruption, if it is in the interest of something more important — be it some freedoms, be it more happiness for the people, be it more effective defending of these same laws. The very word "corruption", or the adjective corrupt in English, means pollution and comes from the Latin, but what is the pollution if not a certain degree of ripeness?! If we return again to the analogy with the melon then it (from the positions of the cucumber) may be taken for "corrupted" when people use it as food (as well as also the paradise apple, or the medlar, or the capitalism, according to the above remark), but this does not impede it to be tasty and nourishing. And isn't that animal called vulture, to which all look with great disgust because it feeds on decaying and decomposing food, at the same time be called also "sanitarian of the nature", because it fulfills very useful functions? And is there a country which may boast that it has succeeded to combat completely the prostitution, which is one typical instance of the decaying of the moral, but exists from the times of Babylon, and up to the current day, no matter whether legally or not, because it is needed for the society and has ever been needed (and will be, at least until the opposite tendency arises in some wide-away future)? So that the corruption should not shock us at all, but must make us to think when and where it is needed! We dare to announce that the corruption in the politics, obviously, is necessary and unavoidable (at least because it, anyway, exists), and the time has come to make it legal, because it is needful for the democracy, or the democracy requires it! So that let us begin. 1. Drawbacks of the democracy The real democracy has various drawbacks which could be eliminated, and here we shall stress on some of them which can be overwhelmed with the help of our Corrupted Cadres Wing (CCW). They reduce mainly to the inability for mutual help between the voters and the elected persons and are the following: a) The lack of direct contact of the chosen delegates with the voters and vice versa is one very important minus of all really existing democracies. If we look non-partially at the things we shall see that the anonymous choice makes the things very complicated, because no Representative of the people can know whether someone has voted for him (or her, surely) or not. More then this, he does not know what people on the average have chosen him — young or old, with secondary or tertiary education, employees or owners, from what ethnical groups, et cetera —, and this knowledge could have been of use during his activity, in order to know whom he defends. The meetings with the "voters" are not meetings with his real voters (and that is why we set them in quotes); it is not clear whether the people who try to find him personally have really voted for him, i.e. whether they have aided him and whether have believed in him, or want now to use his position, but on this world everybody wants to know who are his people, on whom he can rely. The anonymous choice is such because till now has not been set the requirement for it not to be such (at least for some parties), i.e. till now the situation has not have ripened, and the anonymous bulletins are just an easy way for choosing. Until, however, the voters and the elected ones can not know one another at least on paper (i.e. by name, or Unique Citizenship Number, or some document, which may confirm the choice) they will not act affiliated and united; until there is no way for them to lend hands (even not directly) before the elections, they will not lend them also after the elections! If under the democracy the ruling of country is done by Representatives of the people, so the former must know what people they really represent, otherwise the representativeness is a pure formality and demagogy. b) The lack of mutual help between the two sides in the democratic elections sets great difficulties before the individual (independent) candidates, which may be expressed both ways: the poor politicians, for their part, have practically no chances to be elected, because the electoral campaign costs big money (and instituting of property qualification, as it is in some countries, is anti-democratic element); the wealthy individuals or legal entities, for another part, can't legally enforce their choosing, or of their representative, with some kind of bribe or reward for the voters (who would have been only glad to receive something free), and when some people from the masses want something that makes nothing to the others it is entirely democratic to give it to them. With the parties the things are otherwise because they are supported by their party members, i.e. the parties, de facto, are bribed or corrupted, and for that reason they have money for pre-electoral campaign, as also for their post-electoral functioning! This, that the regular members don't give bribes to particular persons, but to some kind of "non-personal" non-profit associations, does not mean that these alliances are not corrupted in the usual meaning of the word, because the parties perform their activities in return for the party fees collected from the members dividing the money between the ruling body, but this is pure bribe, because it is given in advance, just that it is legalized and is not called so. Such procedure, though, does not exist for the individual candidates and it is time to make this also legal. c) The democratic elections are not controlled openly by the capital, what could have been good if we lived, say, under the feudalism, but in one capitalistic economy the important thing is the capital (for the English speaking persons this is obvious because this word means together with a big sum of money also a major town, and the root is Latin meaning a head). The bad thing is not when the capital forms the choice of the masses, but when the masses don't want this, what the capital offers them, yet there is nothing non-democratic if the people may win from this, influencing the choice via their capitals, or the other way round — when they may receive some capitals for their choices. It is, really, high time to come to the right understanding of this question, because the current situation is such that the capital, in any case, forms the choice of the public, but not at all in the interest of the masses! If some group of people, big enough to ballot their own Representative in the Parliament, or at least in the Municipal Council, wants to pay (something small, usually, because the persons are many) in order to have there reliable defender so this is entirely reasonable and democratic, as well as if one big company decides to pay something to the people who vote for its own individual (because if they vote for him or her then this means that such is their wish!), so this also is correct. The financial corruption in the elections is called so only because it is not fixed in the laws and legalized, so that we are for legalizing of the corruption, which in this way will vanish! 2. Proposition for changes a) There must not be required always secret voting and if the voter wanted to give his vote in the open, then he should be allowed to do this, where he will receive some document confirming his choice, which he may use later if needed. This does not require fundamental changes in the Election Law but some time from two to four weeks before the official date of the elections, during which those who wish to vote openly will be able to do this in the corresponding Municipal Councils, where their choice will be fixed in computerized data base and their names will be checked off in the electoral lists. In the existing law it is possible to vote by telegram but as a rare exception, if the voter isn't at the moment in the country, where we wish that this will be made a rule. In this way everybody (who wishes, of course) will be able to prove his choice, be it in order to guarantee easier access to some chosen person, be it to pretend later for some present by the person or company which stays behind him, be it to be entitled to ask for some responsibility from the chosen person, if he was, so to say, his "share holder" in his choosing — the specific form of mutual cooperation between the voters and the chosen persons will be established in each party or coalition, which accepts the platform of the CCW. In this sense there may exist different Wings for each of the cases, with their own regulations. b) There must not be required obligatory entering of the names of the candidates in the electoral lists of the parties, because for the choice alone is important the number of mandates for each political power participating in the elections (the seats in the Parliament or Municipality) and not the particular persons, who can be established according to the regulations of each of these powers also after the elections in a period of again two to four weeks. This will facilitate much the individual candidates — and they are the really democratic nominees — because they will be able to unite in some Wing, and on the basis of the received after the choice documents will become clear who exactly from them is chosen, as also with how many votes for each of the candidates. Such document could be one additional piece of the quittance given from the Municipality by the open voting (one exemplar has to be for the voter, and one for the archives of the Central Electoral Commission), in which the voter can enter the name of the actual candidate from the Wing and mail it or bring it on hand. In the central base will be kept data only for the parties participating in the elections, not for the persons, and everyone who has voted openly will have the duty to send this piece to his candidate. In this case the CCW will be able to jump over the threshold for participating in the elections (in Bulgaria it is 4 per cent) and each of the individual candidates having reached the needful number of voices will really enter in the corresponding instance, where these (supposedly many) of the candidates, for which there are not enough voices in the beginning, will be able to receive or give their voices to others (it doesn't matter whether we shall say "give" or "sell" because when one gives something he does this, either on account of some past, or some future, service, i.e. each favour has its price!), where only for one candidate will not be enough voices, and many will drop out, but shall win something from this via the initially received for them voices. In this way the necessity of individual candidates vanishes because they will unite in Wings and will become more powerful and able to compete with the parties, but each of the parties can also will benefit from this requirement because there is no need for some person to enter his name in 3-4 election lists (in different regions), and there is no need at all for each elections to make lists with the names of candidates because they, anyway, are from one and the same party and only its name suffices (what will make the procedure of elections much more cheaper). In addition to this the performed in this way elections for Parliament will become really national (because it is national institution) and there is no matter at all from which region the given person is elected, and if he wants to know by whom is elected then he could be able to find this by the pieces from the quittances for open voting (if the voted for him send them to him). c) There must be legalized the corruption between voters and chosen persons and be given publicity to all financial machinations accompanying the elections, because everybody has rights to know what person or party which financial backing and from whom has received for to conduct the elections, as well as after this, too, what receives or gives. If some firm wants to buy his representative in the Parliament giving to everybody who has voted for him by one share, then why not to make this in the open, instead of to search some "doors" in the laws or to throw unnecessary financial resources for advertisements (unnecessary because they don't enter into the pockets of the voted for its candidate)? If money drive the wold, then let us at least know how they do this! This corruption is needed for the people and, as far as it existed, is better to render it legally (because else it happens something like the existence of ethnical party in Bulgarian Parliament, which is not called so because this isn't allowed by the law, but this does not hinder it to be ethnical and to exist). Also, what is wrong if some region, or professional, or ethnical organization, wants to ballot its own person, who, though, is poor enough to organize alone campaign for his election, but each one of those people would have, with light hand and pure heart, donated some small sum of about, say, a pare of dollars? These people can simply become auctioneers of this person and choose him, and even collect later by, say, one more dollar, in order to give him the possibility to build himself some decent home, where to receive his voters. Instead of corruption only of the parties we want that everyone could be in position to corrupt himself, because this is an expression of democratic rights and freedoms, and the people must receive them! 3. Future evolution When the Corrupted Cadres Wing achieves the necessary influence between the population the elections will become one democratic share market, where wins the better politician, and from this, at the end, win the people. The politicians will begin to be bought and sold as the football stars, for example, but in what one politician is worse than a well-known football player? Does he not have an appearance, or the needed education, or does he not bring emotions to the people who, anyway, want not only bread but also circuses? The only thing that out politicians don't have is money and that is why they often are forced to harm the state (what means the people), but if they cost millions, and given voluntarily by their supporters (be it private persons or companies), then the masses will be more satisfied by their "play" (to say nothing about the very politicians). When the politicians become richer they will work even more productive for the happiness of the people (because will be legally well ensured), and this, that the capital will propel the things is not only justified, but will also include the common people in this play, because everyone will be allowed to support whoever he wishes and win by this. Every politician must be allowed to institute his own political company, which is to exist on the principle of joint-stock company and to sell shares to whoever wants to buy and win together with him! The shares of one politician will rise and of another one fall but they will be bought and sold, and these will be real shares, not some literal hyperbolas! Each one having given his voice for the politician will receive against payment one share, and the very politician could be allowed to buy in each elections from 10 to 50 of them (depending on the level of elections and some national rating), but later on, on a common assembly of share holders will be decided about the distribution of the dividends each year, as well as about emitting of additional shares. In each new elections, in which the politician takes part will be emitted new shares under the same regulations. The politician alone may have the highest number of shares in this firm of his own but this isn't at all mandatory; he (or she, surely) may receive some help from political parties or business organizations, but also from every common citizen who wants to do this; the political firm will make business like every other one, but will be engaged mostly with maintaining the image and marketing of the politician. But well, that is the life, that is the share market, that is the capitalism, where the talking about corruption is outdated babble of the defenders of our totalitarian past, when everything was done concealed from the people and later they were just informed about the taken decisions. With us everybody will have the real chance to win out of the elections and politicians, and this will be only beneficial for the people. Besides, let us not forget also the following important moment, which will be direct consequence of the activity of CCW, and this is the assertion that only proper business foundations in the politics will give good possibility for individual development of the politician and for complete manifestation of his abilities, what is namely the goal of each democratic society. The people choose the actual personality and the parties are only some linking and depersonalizing instrument and, in this sense, only via CCW could be reached real democracy, where is valued first of all the personality and singularity of the politician as representative of the public and not his devotion to some common ideas. The way to modern democracy unavoidably passes through the Corrupted Cadres Wing! To legalizing of political corruption in order to eliminate it from political life! Set the politics on business fundament for to better and elevate it! Ahead to real democracy with the Corrupted Cadres Wing! — — — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/