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 FOUR MANIFESTO OF THE BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference) The history of all societies is a history of unity and struggle between opposite tendencies in the social area! And in this struggle, obviously, is important not the strength or weakness of each of the parts (tendencies) but their mutual situation, i.e. the difference between the opposing trends. When two people fight it doesn't matter whether they are strong or weak but who is the stronger, and so is also in the wars, in the competition between the currencies, or between the different wares on the market, or between the winds forming the climate or a given place, or between the bachelors competing for a girl (and the reciprocal, too), and in each competition or contest, etc., et cetera. It is the same also with the democratic "seesaw", where the prevalence of one party or coalition is shown in relation to the others, or relatively, not as absolute value (though this also, sometimes, has its significance). This, surely, is known, only that it isn't used properly but just pro forma. Because when the powers are only two and is applicable the rule that who is not with the one part is with the other (as it is by the pure two-polar democratic choice), the things, more or less, work also by the existing system, but the choice not always is bipolar, and even if it is such it does not work correctly (at least in our conditions) for it is reached then to the situation of "two hard stones", which, as our folks say, "don't mill the flour". Though even if we have only two parties let us not forget that in each (other) voting there are counted three kinds of votes: "pro", "contra", and abstained, where in the national elections it isn't so (for each party). And along with this in the politics, as also by other activities related to the popularity of a given person or tendency, the important thing is whether the public shows strong emotions, and not so much of what kind are they (because the extremities often switch from one to the other where the indifference is very hard to shake). And if some political power is found good by the population it is, still, not clear whether this is so because people like it, or because they hate the other powers (more than this one), but the followers of those other powers may hate even stronger this (liked) power, only that nobody asks them about this. In short — there's something "lame" in the system of democratic elections, something that can easily be bettered accepting the platform of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference (BRD), on what we shall dwell in the current Manifesto. 1. Main drawbacks of the democratic elections a) It is not voted also "against" but only "pro" a given party, where the choice of one party must not be established only by those who are in favour of it, but also by those who are against it. This is perfectly clear, but maybe because of some relative simplicity of the choice nowhere on the world is voted also against each of the parties. But if for the, say, "Party of Party Members" (PPM) vote 45% "for" and 40% "against", then when it comes to power it will turn out that for nearly half of the voted this is one bad choice? And it happened exactly so in Bulgarian nearly pure bipolar choice*, where voting for the, say, "Party of Non-party Members" (PNM) we only show our disagreement with that of the Party Members. Well, if the object of the choice is it to be exactly bad then the existing method is good. But we doubt that this is the aim of the elections. [ * As it was in Bulgaria during the first nearly 10 democratic years, and because of this the "king" later succeeded for 2 months to gather at once so much votes that was able to occupy the half of the Parliament. ] Do not think, however, that if we forbid somehow such choice, for example, accepting that for PPM are only 5% of the voters, i.e. the difference between those "pro" and "contra", so in this way the choice will be "suspended" and could not be performed. Then simply will turn out that the center, i.e. some third party, which is liked by few people, but also from fewer is hated, will win the elections. But what better situation than one good center party with moderate views to the things in a Parliament with "hard milling stones" may be wished for? It is possible, naturally, that in the first applying of similar decision may happen some differently enough picture, but it is also clear that, based on preliminary researches, will be obvious, as for the people also for the politicians, that neither PPM nor PNM (from our example) will do the work (and this already before the elections!), and the politicians should be forced to apply some thoughts in finding of suitable compromising platforms, in building of better coalitions, or in changing of their course. But as far as from Ancient Greece was known that the truth isn't on the poles but exactly in the compromises or the middle point, then only some such decision will help the population to choose a good party, forcing the politicians to be such as the folks want them to be and not on the contrary, i.e. the people to be made to choose the lesser evil! Well, the lesser evil, naturally, is better than the bigger one, but while we look at the political elections in this way it will never become good enough. Only the difference in the votes between "pro" and "contra", showing also those who are not so emotionally influenced or abstain, as much as to like as also to hate, can give one real picture of the opinions of the masses and to exercise reversed influence over the very political parties! The exact procedure of choice will be expressed below, but it can be depicted now in rough strokes. b) It is not considered the strength of emotion in the choice of a given party, because the strength is exactly in the difference between "pro" and "contra", and from the point of view of the difference is equally important in the Parliament to be represented parties with approximately equal difference, but with different sign! The negative sign (for example -5%) means that more people hate this party, but this very often, during its ruling, changes in reverse direction, so that not the sign is important but the absolute value of the percentage. Confirmation of this phenomenon of human perception may be found not only in Bulgarian political life, where in adjacent elections the people perform exactly this "changing of the sign", but also more generally by strong emotions, like love and hate, for example, which much more often change to the opposite and nearly never to indifference or objectiveness of the judgements. Of course, if isn't one and the same thing whether the feelings are of love or hate, and this must be dealt with in the needed way (which we shall clarify below), but it is important to grasp that the influence of a given political power is proportional to the difference of the votes for it, and the strongly hated parties must also be represented in a suitable way in the Parliament. In this situation there will drop out of it, as much these parties for which people are with contradictory feelings (the "hard stones"), also those for which people have not yet meaning (because they are insignificant for them — as it is also by the traditional elections). In other words, our proposition also excludes the weak, according to the conventional view, parties, but in addition excludes also those which later will prove to be incapable to function mutually, while it saves those which rouse the emotions of the public, i.e. which raise important questions in their platforms. c) The good and bad parties have equal rights in the Parliament and receive equal salaries. We can't imagine whatever (other) competition in which the winners and the losers receive equal golden medals and going with them sums of money, but this shrieking anomaly exists in each Parliament on the world and bothers just nobody! There might be clear the motives for discussions and confrontation of the contestants, but such formulation of the things makes the national elections meaningless and, of course, contradicts to the common sense! The defeated parties (coalitions and /or individual candidates) must have the possibility to state their voice, and it to be heard by the whole nation — this yes, but not to have equal rights in taking of significant decisions! And debates and discussions is not obligatory to be held in one hall and in this way, obviously, to hinder the very ruling, because all nations long ago are supplied with alphabets, so that the correspondence (via various communicative means, including the Internet) may be done effectively enough also by some dividing of the Parliament (what we shall explain later). Dividing in one natural way in: decisive body — the winning parties, and consultative or informative body — the losing ones! d) The concept individual candidate (IC) is set very fuzzy and performs mainly populistic functions. Such person isn't at all equal with the parties, and this not because the influence of one person can't be compared with that of a strong political power, but firstly, because setting his candidature in one region, as it is in Bulgaria, he (or she, surely) will hardly gather the needed number of votes (in Parliamentary elections), where in the limits of the entire country he will jump even over three or four times of this amount of voices, and secondly, he has no interest in a big number of voters and each vote above the necessary quote may be taken for directly lost, because he can not win two or more mandates. The society nowadays lives long ago not in closed rural communities, where people don't know one another out of them, and one National Assembly (our Parliament) is national institution, so that there is no need with insignificant reasons to negate the meaning of individual persons with original and unconventional platforms. However, it is clear that the IC must take part in one common for the whole country list, as also that they must be in position to use somehow the possibly additionally won mandates, showing their prominent followers. To recapitulate: the struggle between the opposites is hampered without equality at the moment of contest, i.e. the elections, but the state's engine comes in disorder if the equality continues also after the choice, which, in any case, must consider the difference in the votes between "pro" and "contra", not only the absolute value of the voted in favour of the political powers, because basing on the difference allows to eliminate in bud the meaningless friction in the system. How exactly must be performed the choice according to the Believers in the Reasonable Difference will see in the next chapter. 2. Our proposition for Parliamentary elections 2.1. Pre-electoral preparation The main difference in pre-electoral preparation for the voting consists in the requirement that all individual candidates are balloted on national level (i.e. they figure in the lists of all regions under one and the same code or number). We expressed the motives for this decision, but to avoid now the reverse possibility for advantage of the IC before the parties it is allowed also for each party (coalition) to take part, if it wishes, with candidates on national level, what means that the precise persons for the regions are not known in advance (but it is known which are the candidates for the party for the entire country; or even this isn't known before and they are chosen later according to some rating). The concrete MPs are regioned after the elections by the ruling body of such party, where their number is determined according to the results of voting in a way which we shall explain below. Such procedure for parties and coalitions has its advantages, beginning with the significant lowering of the costs of elections using one and the same electoral bulletins for the whole country, and even for different elections. But when this is just one formal advantage more important is that, if the balloting of MPs is intended for to maintain contacts with them during their mandate, so it is reasonable for them to be people who are not engaged also with other functions (like Ministers and so on), to which one, in any case, can not come through with months, because they just have no time for everything. The choosing of specific persons for each region, proportionally to the results of voting, may effortlessly be done also after the elections (or to substitute some MP for the region because of taking responsible position in the governing), and to involve not all MPs but only the less occupied of them, or as the party finds it useful. This eliminates the necessity for some prominent leaders to set their candidatures in several regions in order not to be left unelected. More than this, such important candidates may take part also as IC on national level, where their party maintains lists by regions in the traditional way. There is no need to require or think that the individual candidates are obligatory independent, because the practice (at least in Bulgaria) indubitably shows that they, in fact, are not such (but rather don't want yet to say on whom or what they depend). In any case BRD provides more freedom for action, where the final decision depends on the given political power. 2.2. Voting procedure In the national elections for Parliament (and with minor corrections also for the other instances) must be voted with two envelopes — white and black — for some of the parties (coalitions) or IC. In the white envelope are put the bulletins of the political parties for which one votes "pro", and in the black one — for which one votes "contra". In both envelopes may be from one to five bulletins, where this limitation is needed in order not to set difficulties, as much for the electors, also for the counters of votes. These envelopes are dropped in correspondingly painted (white and black) boxes and with this the election (for the voters) finishes. The bulletins for the parties (coalitions) may be with names for the regions, or may be also with central balloting (as it was said above), but for the IC they must be common for the country. Such mixing of the balloting by regions and for the whole country surely causes some difficulties but they can be overcome elementary and are entirely justified. This can be done, either with two kinds of codes — for parties (coalitions) with regional balloting, and for such with national (including IC) — where all political powers are merged in single lists during the counting (about what we shall speak a bit later) but the different codes are recognizable by something, or using common three-digit code on which, if the first digit is zero then it goes about parties with regional balloting, and if it is one — for IC or parties with common for the country list (supposing that there can't be more than hundred parties or IC in the election). Anyway, this is a matter of formal agreement. 2.3. Counting of the votes Since the bulletins are in separate boxes the counting of votes is also done separately for each box. This, and the number of votes, increases the needed for counting time, but this isn't substantial in comparison with the many other pluses of the proposition (because if this factor was crucial then it would have been possible to keep the whole election not for the entire population but only for some arbitrary selection of 5-10 thousand voters, what would have diminished the time for this estimation about thousand times for our country, though this is not done because the goal of the elections is, would be, for them to be good, and not necessarily fast and effective). By the counting, similarly to the existing Election Law, equal bulletins are counted for one, but the new element is that it is possible, and even advisable, to be present bulletins of several parties or individual candidates. When there are votes in two kinds of boxes it is entirely possible to happen that someone votes for a given party with one and the other envelope, but this has the same meaning as abstention of voting by our system of measuring the differences (only that this will increase the number of votes, what isn't important), so that no juxtaposing of the personal votes in both envelopes is needed to be done. But mark that some people can vote only "pro", what gives the traditional variant of choice (i.e. our proposition comprises the used till now method, but gives also new possibilities); or only "against", what means that people just don't like whatever of the leading parties, what will forbid for them to be chosen, but it is also helpful for their rating. By the counting, for each political power, together with its unique code and way of balloting (by regions or for the whole country), are entered in two columns the votes "pro" and "contra", as also their signed difference in a third column, where the sigh is positive if the votes in the white box (i.e. "pro") are more than the votes in the other box, and negative — in the other case. Later, when the votes are summed on national level (though this can be done also for each region, for additional information), this list is divided in two lists, where in the one of them, accordingly arranged in diminishing order of the signed difference, are included only these political powers that are with positive sign of the difference (the liked powers), and in the another — those with the negative difference. In these lists the political powers are mixed no matter of the way of balloting of the concrete MPs, but on national level there is no difference between them (though they can be easily separated when needed). 2.4. Determining of the quotas and mandates An important characteristic of our proposition is the existing of two kinds of Parliaments, which we shall call Parliament and Antiparliament. It is clear that in the Parliament will enter representatives from the list with positive difference, and in the Antiparliament (it doesn't sound good to say "Antinational Assembly", right?) — those with negative difference. As far as the number hundred is round and entirely sufficient as one selection of the population we propose the number of MPs to be 100 for both institutions, what means also that it is just the same whether we shall speak about percents or about number of people. Here is also necessary to have some minimal threshold for participation in the Parliaments and we propose the simplest or one percent, i.e. enters each power which has gathered votes for at least one mandate, what follows also from the equalizing of the parties with IC. The exact procedure on national level is the following: the votes of all powers from the given list are summed and the sum is divided by 100 as integer division, i.e. there are deleted the two last digits, what determines an integer number of votes for choosing of one mandate, or the initial quota of the election. All political powers with as much or less difference in the votes ("pro" and "contra") drop from the corresponding Parliament. After this the votes of the left political powers, which now surely enter in the institutions, are again summed and divided integer by 100 for to get the real quota with which they are chosen (by this method of calculation it is always integer number). Then is determined the number of mandates (seats) in a way similar to the used around the world methods, namely: dividing the number of votes of their difference (the sign now does not matter because in the given list all differences are with the same sign) by the real quota, and then the result is written as decimal fraction with three digits after the point. The whole part of the number of mandates gives the minimal (guarantied) amount of people who enter in the corresponding Parliament, and the decimal parts are arranged in diminishing order and added by one mandate to each political power until reaching of the total number (here 100 persons). (If occasionally by some two parties is reached to the exact number of mandates, as real with three decimal digits, and this is exactly by the last mandate, so then, either the precision of calculation is increased, or are compared the so called quotients in division by module the quote, which are integer numbers. If even in this case the equality remains, which we doubt will happen in the near millennium, is allowed in the given Parliament to be exceptionally 101 MPs.) 2.5. Nominating of the MPs When the exact number of mandates for each political power are determined there leaves only the regioning (fixing the representatives to the regions, if it is necessary) and naming the actual persons who will take part in the governing. For parties with national list of candidates for MPs the fixing of the persons is done by the ruling body of these organizations after declaring of the number, and IC, in case they win more than one mandate, must personally show other persons (or person) who enter in the given Parliament. Before naming of the persons each party (coalition) determines the integer number of mandates by regions (which summed give its entire sum of mandates), where the specific persons by regional balloting follow automatically from the electoral list for the region in the corresponding order, and by national balloting they are establisher according the regulations of the party. The determining of the integer number of mandates for each region is performed in a similar to the explained in the previous point method, but this time is worked with the votes for all regions for the given party (i.e. first, on the basis of real quota for the country, is determined the number of mandates as decimal number, then are given the integer parts of the mandates, and then the regions are visited in order of decreasing value of their fractional parts until the needed amount of mandates is filled). This, naturally, is done for both Parliaments. 3. Functioning of the Parliaments 3.1. Types of voting In the same way how by the national elections the result of voting is determined on the basis of the signed difference of the votes "pro" and "contra", so also in all kinds of voting in the discussed institutions must be used the same principle. More precisely we discern two types of voting in relation to the majority, namely: with ordinary and with substantial. The ordinary majority in the Parliaments, in principle, is +10%, i.e. voting by which the votes "pro" are at least with 10% more than those "contra", but of all possible votes (here 100) and not of the present in the hall MPs (e.g.: 50 votes "pro" and 40 or less "contra", and the left ones are either missing or abstained), and substantial is +30% (e.g.: 62 "pro" and 30 "contra"). We say "in principle" because before each voting may be asked and voted with ordinary majority of 10% some other lower threshold of the percentage of the majority for the specific voting (but only for it), though always in the limits of 5 to 30%. The lower limit of minimum 5% is needed, of course, in order to exclude the eventuality of adoption of laws, as it's said, "hanging on a hair", what presupposes that they are not very good. It is clear that by this method of voting in many cases will be impossible to take decision, but what is the purpose of deliberate including in the system of premature and not taught through laws? If some draft law cannot be adopted then the voting is postponed for a period of at least one month, after which it can be voted again in the same or advanced and improved form. This applies in cases when the corresponding institution has decisive voice (what we shall explain after a while), but otherwise, or with informative purposes, voting may be performed every time and about everything. 3.2. Interaction between the Parliaments The supreme governing institution, as also by the traditional democracies, is the Parliament, which consists out of 100 persons MPs chosen according to the voting with positive sign of the difference (by the explained in chapter 2 scheme). It takes its decisions with ordinary majority, with the exception of the cases when substantial is required (for example by changes of the Constitution). The Antiparliament, for its part, is auxiliary institution, which has consultative and informative meaning, as much as for the work of the Parliament as also for the public, because one of the most important advantages of the democracy is the publicity and possibility to voice contradictory meanings. Denying the strong opposition in the Parliament we do not plead for rejection of the opposition at all, more so because it existed in some form also in the Parliament, where, practically, are different parties and, hence, differences in the meanings. The adopting of the laws and other important decisions is performed by the following scheme: the Parliament discusses the problem and makes control or trial voting (not for adopting), after which sends the materials to the Antiparliament and the President for their meaning, which they have to give (if wanted to) in an interval of two weeks (or even one, if the Parliament sets this condition). If these instances do not give whatever meaning till the set period of time is taken that they don't have such (but, of course, it is preferable for them to declare this explicitly and not by default). Afterwards the Parliament makes itself acquaint with the meaning of the Antiparliament (the voting there and the made remarks) and the President, discusses them (if finds this necessary) and/or makes the needed corrections. Only then the Parliament comes to the real voting with the corresponding majority, and if it can't take decision (because of small positive difference in the votes, or if it is at all negative), postpones the voting for at least one month, when the question may be raised again. If by the second voting are made no corrections then it is not needed to forward the problem again to the Antiparliament, but otherwise the same scheme is followed again. 3.3. Other moments The separating of Parliament from the Antiparliament leads also to necessity of different salaries in both institutions, where the simplest acceptance is that MPs from the Antiparliament receive twice less than those from the Parliament, what has to remind them always for their place in the system. This, however, does not mean that some persons from the Antiparliament can't take ruling posts in the government (say, as Ministers), or to be included in different Commissions by decision of the Parliament, and in such cases their payment is corrected in accordance with the work. Having in mind some critical situations, which in the traditional Parliaments lead to their dismissing and new elections, is allowed after the expiration of at least half of the mandate of the Parliaments to be held in the Parliament (only) voting with substantial majority about the question of swapping of the places of Parliament and Antiparliament, with all ensuing of this consequences. In many cases, especially by bipolar model, this may lead to significant pacification of the masses and new emotions for the public. 4. Other elections 4.1. Elections for Municipal Councils The elections for Municipal Councils are done also with two kinds of envelopes on the principle of difference in the votes in the same manner as for the Parliaments, only that, as far as they have local purpose, the question with the kinds of voting vanishes and all procedures are done separately for each region. Another peculiarity is the number of Councilors, which is determined in advance depending on the largeness of the region, as odd number in the limits between 7 and 15 persons. The functioning of Anticouncils is also motivated, but they may be with smaller number of persons, where we propose for them to be, as a rule, with 4 persons less (i.e. for 7 people in the Council in the Anticouncil must be 3, etc.). The taking of decisions this time is done with a majority of just one person (what by on the average about 10 people there makes again 10%), where the decisive and executive instance is the Council, and the voting there is performed in the same manner, i.e. after initial trial voting follows forwarding of the problem to the Anticouncil for meaning (for one week time) and conclusive voting after this in the Council. Because of the odd number of the Councilors here usually (if all are present and vote) is not coming to postponing of the voting, what is entirely justified because the Councils are mainly executive instances and do not make laws. A possibility for swapping of the "good" and "bad" Councils we don't find useful (at least because of the different amount of people in them). 4.2. Presidential elections The elections for President (and Vice-president) are national and are done also on the principle of difference in the votes between "pro" and "contra" with this singularity that, as far as the Presidential institution is mainly representative and consolidating for the country, here is not possible to speak about some "Antipresident", so that is worked only with the positive difference. The president is chosen from the first time if the difference by the first in the list is at least 15% (computed on the basis of the whole sum of voices "pro" and "contra" him /her), otherwise is going to a second tour where is chosen with at least 10%, otherwise is going to a third tour with at least 5%, and else the election is taken for failed. When the election for President fails then the existing in the country President continues to perform his functions for another 6 months, in which time a new election is done. If this time the election also fails then the Parliament has the right (and obligation) to name caretaker President for period of six months and to schedule new elections as many time as this is needed. The Vice-president goes together with the President and is not chosen separately. The question with substituting of the President with the Vice-president in case of resignation etc. is treated according to the laws in the country. The Presidential mandate continues 4 years, where if it finishes in the boundaries of 3 month around the end of mandate of the Parliaments, then it can be enlarged by the Parliaments with up to 6 months. One and the same President can't be elected in more than two consecutive mandates (but the Vice-president may). The rights of the President are determined by the laws in the country and can be corrected by the Parliament with decision taken with substantial majority, but this changes begin to be applied from the next mandate (i.e. President). Neither the President may dismiss the Parliament (or Antiparliament), nor vice versa, but the Parliament may change places with the Antiparliament, and the President may resign (where the Vice-president takes his post). At the same time the President has right to declare Presidential power or martial law for period of two weeks to two months, during which the Council of Ministers and the Municipalities are given to his (her) direst subordination, and all the laws approved by the Parliament may be ceased or rejected by him, though he can't make laws but only Decrees, which must not contradict to the Constitution, what is established by the Constitutional Court. Continuation of the Presidential power may be voted by the Parliament for period of to 6 months, but many times. 4.3. Elections of Judges Similarly to the elections of the President also those of the judges are direct and national where it is worked again only with the candidates with positive difference, but they are arranged in diminishing order of the difference and chosen from the first time if they have at least 5% difference between "pro" and "contra" from the common amount of voices for each of them (and if their number happens to be insufficient are performed additional elections). Their period of mandate is 5 years, where it can be prolonged by decision of the Parliament with up to 6 months when their elections fall in the surroundings of 3 months around Parliamentary or Presidential elections. Proposals for judges may be done from the political parties, as also by the very persons (what, in a way, is similar to IC), but the candidates must fulfill the established in the law requirements for professional qualifications and length of service. Other details are carried out according to the laws in the country. In this Manifesto we explained the main ideas and necessary requirements for changes in the existing system of laws in order to better the democracy and heave it on the platform of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference, because we find that taking into account the difference in the votes between "pro" and "contra" in each important voting is the cornerstone on the way to the future democracy. All contemporary democratic models worldwide, we are bound to state this in the open, are only in some extend good (what means that they are also in some extend bad, and this latter "extent" is much greater than we should have wished)! Only BRD proposes weakening of the frictions, bettering of the used material, i.e. political parties, and eliminating of the paradoxes of democracy, but preserving its main ideas and principles. If you are reasonable person then you are for the democracy, if you are for the democracy then you are for the reasonable democracy. If this is so join the BRD in order to make it such. If you crave for the democracy than you crave also for the reasonable difference in the meanings, hence you are Believer in the Reasonable Difference. If the future of the humanity is in its reasonability, then the future of the democracy is in the reasonable difference! — — — ADDENDUM TO BRD Here we show the results from one exemplary voting for Parliament (in Bulgaria) on national level, with the distribution of the votes, computing of the quotas and establishing of the mandates, according to the proposition of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference. We begin with the results of voting.
TAB. 1. RESULTS OF THE VOTING. Then we take only these political powers which have positive difference in the votes and order them in diminishing sequence computing the whole amount of voices (all voices — AV) and the initial quota (IQ), what is given in the next table. The last party drops out of competition because the votes for it are less than IQ, after which we compute the valid votes for participating (VV) and the real quota (RQ). Then in the column "Dec.Man." are given the number of mandates as decimal fraction (with two digits after the point, for brevity), then is given the order of visiting of the fractional part (Ord.), and in the last column is the final number of mandates (which sum gives exactly 100).
TAB. 2. POSITIVE LIST. Similar are the calculations also for the negative list (where the sign of the votes is not given). The real quota here is the same as the initial quota (i.e. no political power drops out), and in two cases (codes 112 and 104) we have equal decimal part of the mandates (with two positions after the point) but their order is not important because both powers receive additions. On this example is seen also that some IC or party leaders may be also hated very much (as much as to enroll also many their supporters in the Antiparliament), what is, in its way, informative in real elections. Of course the example is invented, but inasmuch as it can't be known in advance to what feelings the electorate may become prey in a real situation, then if we don't want for the IC to occupy the Parliaments there may be made necessary some additions to the model. For example, to set the condition for maximal number of mandates taken by one IC, say, to 3 people, and for all IC who have more than this number to fix by 3 mandates, in which case must be repeated the procedure for calculation of VV and RQ only for the left participants (which are now less than 100) and again be calculated the fractional mandates and arranged and visited consecutively for additions.
TAB. 3. NEGATIVE LIST. By the Municipal elections, obviously, for calculation of the quota is divided by the needed number of persons there. By the Presidential elections is checked whether the first in the list has the required percentage of difference (in relation to all voted "pro" and "contra" him) for the corresponding tour of elections; and for the judges are taken only the first persons with at least 5% positive difference till the necessary number of persons is reached. — — — — — MANIFESTO OF THE USC (Union for Strength and Competition) The history of all societies is a history of demonstration of power and fight for domination of the stronger over the weaker! At least from the times of Babylon is known that almost always is very difficult (not to say impossible) to prove who is right and who is wrong, because there are not objective criteria for truthfulness in the social sphere, so that the absolute (or divine, if you prefer it so) truth leaves most often deeply hidden for the humans, and whatever position to take for right it flows some time and it becomes erroneous in the light of new knowledge, but this assumption, too, after a time turns again erroneous and one simply does not know in what to believe and in what — not to. But if it isn't clear who is the right then it always can be established who is the stronger, and because of that from ancient times was accepted the rule that right is the stronger! This "formula" has just no error, and for this reason nobody tries in critical moments to prove who is right but only who is stronger, after what the latter is taken for right and with this the problem is solved. The right of the stronger is main law in our Universe and the single thing one can do is to comply with this and accept it, making all possible for it to be applied at least honestly, i.e. to exist conditions for performing of fair inspection about this who is the stronger. The strength exists for to be respected (there is no other justification for its existing) and our concern is only to determine who is the stronger in order to listen and obey to him and live happy! The Union for Strength and Competition (USC) supports exactly this opinion and raises it in rank of primarily thesis in the politics. If till now in the governing of each country have occurred many errors this is only because the politicians have not yet known about the goals and tasks of our Union! Let us correct this fault. 1. Requirements from the politicians From the said till now must be clear that we heave the strength and fair play directly in cult, as it was already in Ancient Greece, where in years of Olympiads were suspended even the wars, because if the wars have been checks only of the techniques of war then in the Olympic plays were examined the strengths in various sports disciplines; if in the wars the losses have been enormously big then in the sport looses only one insignificantly small amount of population, but win all, or "whole one nation", if we cite our eminent revolutionist Vasil Levski! If right is not the right one (because it isn't clear who he is) but the strong, then only via impartial or fair play (as this expression is used now worldwide, even in Bulgaria) may be easily and attractive proved his strength. If the democracy provides shows and evokes emotions in people then its natural conclusion is in the sportsmanlike fight. If the future of social governing is in the democracy then the future of democracy is in the realization of ideas of our movement, or in radical "sportsmanization" of the politics! When the democracy comes from Ancient Greece so there is where we have to turn our sight, if we want to better and defend it. Here are the main requirements from the politicians in order to guaranty this. a) Men and only men, because it was so in ancient times, because only men may lead fair play (has somebody heard about women duels or knight tournaments — for to defend the honour and cause of a man, maybe?), because only men boast with their strength and take it for their rightness! We are not against women in the politics at all, but are against women in the highest politics, where must be proved the rightfulness of someone's meaning or must be "coined" new laws. The woman has her place in life, surely, but the man is who must give her the tune and not vice versa, for otherwise it appears that we "put the horse before the cart", as the English use to say, and then the state's coach does not run properly. Anyhow, the Cesarean to the Caesar, and the manly to the man! b) Age from 20 to 45 years, because these are wide enough limits for active sports activity and it is unrealistic to suppose that one 55 years old man will turn out to be stronger than one of 25 years in whatever sports discipline, and, hence, there is no place for such men in the governing of the country! This may be cruel to a heap of deserved statesmen but in the sports (and politics) wins the stronger, this isn't place for courteous gestures, so that to such men there leaves nothing else than to look from side and enjoy the activity of younger generation. c) Sportsmen or fair players, in sense that they should have no bans for unfair play (what is a question of lawful settlement), and if they have had such violations then must be flown the established by the law period of banishment from participation in the governing of the country — this must be something like "certificate for fair play" which has to be issued by specially authorized state institutions. The main, though not exactly specified by the law, requirement remains the necessity of some proof for active sports occupation: various distinctions like Master of sports, national, world and Olympic records, medals, awards and certificates from different sports competitions. Not every sportsman can become politician (this is unobtainable, because we defend the massive sport and in the politics there are not needed so much people), but each politician must be sportsman, and well known! Well, and because in the light of fundamental principles of our Union some of the existing democratic instances are filled with new meanings, we propose also new and more suitable names, namely: Olympiament, instead of the Parliament, and Localments, instead of the Municipalities. And really, as in ancient times Olympus was the place where the gods sat, in the same way now in the Olympiament must be decided the fate of the country, and the questions of competence of local instances of government — in the Localments. As common name for these both institutions we propose the simplest — Sportaments, because these are places where function eminent sportsmen. And mark that this mnemonics not only represents their new essence, but also rejects the old one, which comes from the word parlare (or "speak" in Italian), where we from the USC have the ambition in the new organs not just to speak but to do useful work! How precisely will be done this we shall explain in the next chapter. 2. Activity of the Sportaments 2.1. Polemics and debates We can not imagine whatever ruling without debates of some kind, because the real democracy crystallizes only in result of colliding of different views, but we don't think that these disputes must be only some verbal equilibristics and stings (for information of the readers Latin word "discussion" is build of "dis" + "kus" and means simply tearing of the problem in bites or cut "kusses"-pieces). Much more dignified for a high tribune is literally to debate, or lead battles, in which the rightfulness is proved via victory of the stronger part under conditions of fair play. When somebody has personal (or collective) meaning on some question, which differs from that of some other part, and when he is ready to insist that it is the right one, then let he defends it in a duel! Wasn't this the right way of behaving used for centuries and were not for this reason invented the duels or simply the fights between adversaries (even in very ancient times), and the wars, too, as last way out (or ultima ratio in Latin)? Could you believe some orator more than a man who is ready to fight (and even to risk his life) in order to defend his position? But we are not cruel and don't want human sacrifices (when they can easily be avoided)! The bad thing in the duels from the gone away centuries were not the very duels but their lethal issue, though when the needed measures for protection are taken (as it is in all contemporary sporting disciplines), then leaves only the possibility for checking of the rightfulness and conviction of the politician. This is our opinion and it, obviously, is right, as proved in the centuries of human history. Even etymologically viewed the word "sport" is closely related with the word "controversy" (in Slavonic languages, where they are, respectively, "sport" and "spor", but something similar may be found also in English where the word "contest" means also sports events), what speaks about the fact that people long ago have been unconsciously convinced that all controversies-contests must be decided by sporting-contests! We propose below the actual procedure. When the person X insults the person Y and does not want to excuse oneself (i.e. this has not happened accidentally) then the person Y has the right and moral obligation to declare a duel, and if it makes this then the person X chooses in which sporting discipline they will contest. Everything is plain and clear, and there leave only some details to be fixed and confirmed with laws. First of all has to be made precise list with sporting disciplines in which may be performed such duels in the Sportaments, where they must be attractive and convincing, i.e. to be unquestionably clear who is the winner and not to do this by finding the mean value of debatable meanings of some highly professional jury. We will just mention that rhythmic gymnastics, for example, is out of place here (and it is, in addition, sport for women); the various acrobatic exercises on sporting tools are also not suitable; about the chess we can't speak at all because it checks not the strength but the intellect, and in what country rules the intellect (?) — rhetorical question, because if such country existed then people there will shortly begin to be ruled by computers and we, personally, are not much exalted by such perspective —; the mountaineering, jumps with parachutes, deltaplanerism, paraplanerism, caving, ski jumping, et cetera, are also excluded. What concerns the collective sports so they may be used only by collective controversies or on official holidays and other special events. There remain, though, wide variety of suitable battle sports, like the different kinds of wrestling, boxing, fencing (where winning by points has to be excluded), some knight's tournaments, maybe, etc., and also different kinds of "out-playings", like weightlifting, throwing of javelins, cannon-balls and other things, outrunning, outswimming, outjumping, motorcycle races, horse races, and other 'out-' games, for each of which sports there have to be special regulations for winning (or degree of supremacy), which must exclude the equality as outcome, because in the politics and sports is looked only for victory! In this situation the Sportaments, naturally, must have access to different halls, which are placed usually on the stadiums, and own some stadiums, too, but these are easily realized formalities, where initially the existing sports facilities might be used. The next question which must be fixed in laws is the formation of special Commissions to the Sportaments as analog of the umpire institution in the sports games and we propose they to be named Commissions for Sports Ethics (CSE). These Commissions must have certain rights and obligations and only via request to them must be sanctioned and planned all political contests, which have to be officially registered and saved in the archives. No one politician has right even to give a slap in the face of his adversary, otherwise than using the specially determined for this purpose white silk glove, which he is obliged to carry always with him when working (on the meetings of Sportaments, or by the official combats), set in the upper pocket of his coat in place of a handkerchief! All insults and challenges must be achieved stylish, not with insulting words (how it is in the existing Parliaments), otherwise the CSE can penalize the person with sums of about 1/10 to 1/2 of his monthly salary. In more serious cases of violations these Commissions must be authorized to impose also temporary suspension (up to three months) from the Sportament with deprivation of salary for the period, where in cases of necessity for imposing of the same punishment for second time the person is permanently excluded and for him is written a ban up to four years for participation in the ruling of the country. If it is not possible to entirely avoid the use of political qualifications like: "charlatan", "swindler", "traitor", "bungler", "nitwit", etc., then there must be at least provided means for each political power to reject (or confirm) similar bad names in honest combat, where if the insult isn't personal but of the whole party may be used collective sports like: football, volleyball, waterpolo, etc., not forgetting one especially suited , though not popular in our country male sport, like rugby. More than this, as far as some political disagreements can provoke permanent conflicts (like, say, the question: what to do when your children want some milk but you have not a cow: whether only to look; or to begin also you to milk her, no matter that she is not yours; or to roll up your sleeves and after, so, ten years of hard work save enough money for a milk cow and, though you still have not the money to feed her but, anyway, will increase the chances for buying of your own cow, so that if not your children then at least your grandchildren could drink as much milk as then want; or to forget about the dream to buy your cow and spend your money to buy by little milk from those who have their cows and require as much as they want for their watered milk; et cetera) — so, if there are such permanent contests, then there must be some limitations in the number of combats, which can be carried out in the Olympiament on the questions. We from the USC propose to be set the following limitations for insults of a given person or political power in the period of one mandate: only one encounter with a given weapon (i.e. in the given sport) on each question, and up to three combats on one and the same question but in different sports (and is it one and the same, despite the different ways of its presentation, is established by the CSE), where in case of two won battles from the one part the third is not carried out. In the same time, however, if the question is already completed with decision from previous combats must be imposed corresponding fines for new challenge; but in every new mandate, of course, the question may be raised again. The Localments can discuss only questions with local significance and are not allowed to debate global ones (like that about the cow). To summarize: fair gentlemanly duels on every question, sports combats and defending the honour of personages or political powers at any time until the reasonable limit of contests is exhausted — this is the rightful and objective decision of USC! But mark, that we do not demand wherever for the duels to be executed personally by the insulted or insulting persons, this is a matter of honour and decision of each of the parties in the conflict. It is supposed that the choosing part will prefer the sport in which it is stronger, but nobody can require from the other part to fight in person in the duel, it may point also another one for its defender — because: what is the purpose for the electorate to watch, say, freestyle wrestling between world champion in this fight, from the one side, and jockey, or boxer category "feather", or even Olympic winner but in swimming or running 100 meters, from the other side? People may want shows, but real shows, not showy things! So that each one can play in place of everybody, when wishes to defend the honour or credo of some of his followers, he must just state this earlier before the corresponding CSE. It is possible also that the insulting participant chooses specially the sport of the insulted person in order to make him to fight personally, but then the very insulting person may decide not to take part personally but to use a protector of his. In addition to this, no matter that there are obligatory arbiters from the part of CSE, each party in the duel can have also its seconds, but they have no decisive voice. What concerns the exact motive for the fight (because people always look for some motive as an excuse for their detestation to other persons or ideas), let us stress that it is preferable not to look for a motive, at least for personal duels, but to use the silk glove for one light tapping on the nose of the adversary in public — were it on some competition, were it on the sidelines or at the buffet, were it during the meetings, but in all cases in official working circumstances —, than to make unprovable verbal attacks, unworthy of eminent statesmen! Even when the accusations can be proved before a judicial court we prefer the right of the power before the power of the right (at least because if there were not power then there wouldn't have been what to legalize the law). Well, it is clear that all duels without motive are counted for one type and, hence, it can't be more than one fight on this question, but, still, "everyone with everybody" is sufficiently big amount, so that there is no danger that sometimes the public will be bored by this. 2.2. Adoption of laws As far as the main activity of the Olympiament, after all, is the adoption of laws, we feel obliged to explain our view on this question, because the existing (all around the world) procedure of voting is, really, not only unsatisfactory, but directly erroneous! It gives bad decision, because the choice between only three variants is highly restricted (imagine if in schools there were only three kinds of grades, namely: "knows", "does not know", and "I don't know whether he knows", without any possibility to determine the level of knowledge — here, the usefulness of the law), but it gives also erroneous decision, because this, what must be understood by the voting, is what is the power that stays behind the decision, and not the number of people, i.e. what is the quality, not the quantity! In other words, here is needed some smooth solution, and such one that can evaluate the strength and will of the sportsmen. Our proposition satisfies these requirements and in addition is much more spectacular than an ordinary voting. This entirely sportsmanlike decision is ... the pulling of a rope! We leave to everyone to think about this and convince himself alone in its advantages. Of course, we can in old fashion speak about voting instead of "pulling out" of the decision, though both expressions are permitted. And if by some exhausting votings (especially if there are different amendments, for each one of which must be done separate pulling) are imposed temporary interruptions of the sessions for reinforcement of the politicians this is fully in the order of the things, because the strong spirit resides in a strong (and well fed) body. For the public, though, remains the irreplaceable with whatever else show of this kind of voting — the atmosphere of fight and strength! 3. Elections USC does not impose other changes in the existing elections of Olympiament, Localments, and President, except the mentioned in chapter 1 requirements to all high-ranking politicians, namely: to be men between 20 and 45 years and to have at the moment no bans for unfair play, where they can show by this convincing proofs for active sporting career. The formal renaming of these institutions was explained earlier. We think that all elections must be direct and general, as much as this lies in the foundations of real democracy. Let us note also that the very pre-electoral campaign in this case will be made significantly easier due to the wide popularity of the candidates, what will save sufficient amount of money in state's budget. More than this, in order to give more emotions to the people there might be extraordinary pre-electoral sporting events and the collected out of them money will go for sustenance (and maybe also self-sustenance) of the Sportaments. Instead of pre-electoral meetings where the public hears various speeches and cries "Huhh" or "Hurray" (in Slavonic "Uuhh" and "Urahh", respectively, so there is hardly a big difference), according to the preferences of each one*, we propose highly emotional sporting events, which, besides being triumph of the strength and sportsmanship, will give also a good orientation about the views of the sportsmen (in any case idols for many men and unspoken desires for a row of women) and will assist the ordinary person in the forming of his choice in one pleasurable way. Via invasion of the sport in the politics we will make the very elections to one sporting event in which wins the stronger and the braver — not that who promises more, but who gives more (positive emotions) to the population; not that who thinks more for his personal benefits and enrichment, but for the ideals of the pure sport and is stimulated only by the wish to win. This, naturally, does not hinder the politicians to win dividends (and other benefits) from these sports battles, but that is why the prizes in the sport exist — for to stimulate and distinguish the best! [ * It seems that in this was the main difference between Bulgarian two leading political powers in the first decade of our democracy, i.e. between BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party) or the party of former communists, who call themselves now socialists, and address everybody with "dear humans" as modification of the former "Hurray" (for the Party, Government, etc.), for one thing, and the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian), supposing that there are no other democrats at all except them, who liked to cry "Huhh!" and "Down!" and were "anti" to everything. ] Specifically by the elections for President must be drawn first a lot for the sporting discipline, in which the candidates in the current elections will contest, as well as also their category (some of the heavier, surely). By one suitable regulation for really male sports like: wrestling (free, classical, eastern type), boxing, weightlifting, and others, may be expected very interesting pre-electoral fights which will draw the attention of the whole nation to the political arena. Only in this situation our President will sit like Zeus Thunderer on his throne and will be obeyed and respected by everyone, what unavoidably will show its positive influence over the progress of democracy in our country. 4. Conclusive remarks Let us in conclusion turn our attention to this how the sound fundament of strength and competition in the politics sets easily everything on their places and resolves a heap of unsolved problems, like for example: about the incorrect quarrels, because the most convincing defense of unconvincing positions is only the fight for their assertion; about the unreasonable partiality to ideas which truthfulness nobody can prove, and even if one does this, after some time it will turn out that he has made an error; about the advantages of the brave and dynamic positions of strength and youthfulness, and not of the experience of the old generation, because if we have relied only on the experience and wisdom we would have lived still in caves; about the correct voting via the strength and conviction of the MPs by rope pulling, not by simple counting of votes all of which are equal; about the cult to the sport and competition, as one of the ways for bettering of our life; and at the end, be it only for combining of the useful for the country with the pleasant for the people! But the most important thing is that we don't add new minuses to the democratical idea, because if for governing of the country is not needed whatever qualification (for such is not required), then our stipulations for strength and competition can't worsen the governmental mechanisms! There are no reasons which will induce that one well known sportsman will show to be worse judge for the good or the bad (what is the work of the MPs) than one confined in his narrow domain jurist, or physician, or economist, engineer, etc., but there is a big conviction in the argument of strength, and even greater — of fair play —, and in spite of this such requirement does not exist in any actual Parliament! Only USC finds the right qualification for the politician, as well as the right place for the sportsman, because they both live for personal expression and to provide emotions for the public! Well, if it's so, then let the emotions be more and pleasanter! If the politics aims to make our society better, so the sport aims to make our body better. From ancient times the humanity has got to the truth that sound spirit can exist only in a sound body, for a long time it is in certain that sound society may exist only by good governmental institutions, but we from the USC for the first time got to the conclusion how to accomplish this! And in doing this we have not looked for something new but just looked properly in the history of humanity, and taking the best out of it we incorporated it in the democracy. In this way we created one better, or one newer democracy! Via USC to well suited selection of statesmen and bettering of their demeanor! To real political battles and duels only via the Union for Strength and Competition! Give support to the strength, give support to the competition, give support to the USC! — — — — — |
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/