T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)

Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000

— — — — —

     Foreword
     About the Creation and the created

     About the woman and the man
     About the mankind

     About the intellect
     About the religion

     About the democracy
     About the violence

     About the justice
     About the population

     About the future
     Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland

           — — — — —

PART FOUR

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY

           I. Great And Unreasonable

      The democracy is the most significant achievement of mankind in the social area, because it contradicts to the common sense! Despite the paradoxicality of this statement it is true, because it, really, is something to what couldn′t have come one normal, i.e. average, individual in his judgements. The whole human experience during the centuries and in our days shows that the democratic choice, in fact, is not applied anywhere, where some work has to be done, say in the: army, police, education, healthcare, productive sphere, and so on. It is inconceivable to imagine army, in which the new recruits choose their commander between them; or the physicians to be appointed by the nurses and orderlies (and even the patients); or the teachers to be chosen from the students (and from their midst); or in some company to gather all common labourers, drivers, cleaners, and others, and ask them to choose director, or head of department, no matter what education he or she has. (And let us not confuse this with the democratization of management in many activities nowadays, which is only one auxiliary element, not main principle, and as such probably has existed also in the times of the pharaohs.) There are obvious reasons why this is not done, because each activity requires certain professionalism, which is proved on the basis of educational criteria and/or life experience, and this is decided by people with greater amount of knowledge in the given area, not from below, by the common people, and this the only way to make the right choice, i.e. from top to bottom, not the reverse, what will say that the democratic choice, from the point of view of the reason, is a pure perversity!
     Said more precisely, the democratic choice assumes that: people who don′t understand, choose such who they don′t know, and this not requiring whatever document for professional qualification! Let us explain this in more details. The masses don′t know anything about the area of governing, which isn′t so elementary as they think (if we have in mind the real ruling, not its ostentatious part), but exactly for that reason think that know everything — because the more limited is the knowledge of somebody, the more self-confident is he in his judgements. This is very old truth dating at least from the time of Pythagoras, who explained to his students why he, who knows so much, thinks that he knows a little, while they, because know nothing, think that know everything, resorting to the help of drawn on the sand circles, where his was the biggest, and theirs were very little, and everything outside the circles was the unknown, which is not limited from the outside; and because the biggest circle has greater contact with the unknown, for that reason he was well aware of his ignorance, but they didn′t realize theirs. On this occasion the Russians have their proverb saying (in translation) that: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-conceit!". Because of this people usually argue: either about sport, or about politics, or about women (men), because these are the most difficult questions, for which singular solution does not exist, but these discussions are only useless "babble", for neither the masses can solve them, nor someone will listen to them if they occasionally say something reasonable (inasmuch as people are not interesting in the reasonable arguments but in what they like!). But this phenomenon is justified from the point of view of life, because one always wants to be motivated somehow in his actions, and if he does not have much knowledge, then he must have at least higher self-confidence, which must compensate for his lack of knowledge, otherwise about 95% of the people would have suffered from inferiority complex, what surely wouldn′t have been right. This is why the children always think that they know everything, while with the age the self-confidence little by little diminishes (because their knowledge grows), until they become so old, that in order to be able to lead peaceful life (because their knowledge and abilities begin to lessen more and more), they become forced again to think that they know everything and the now young ones are simply silly (and for them each, who is younger than 50 or so is still very "green").
     So that the majority of people understand nothing about politics, despite their bold assertions, but they don′t know also the politicians who they choose. To know somebody means to can predict his behaviour in each possible situation, to know, so to say, the algorithm by which he functions. People live side by side for ten years and after this again turns out that they don′t know each other well and have overestimated or underestimated one another, so that it isn′t possible to know well a politician whom have seen a pair of times by TV, have heard or read something about him (or her) by other media, but these were only poses (because the politician is a kind of artist who plays before the entire population), not his essence, on the basis of which they could make objective mental conclusions. The population can know the car of a famous politician (or football star), can discuss the pluses or minuses of his mistress (or boyfriend), the menu on his table, or the suits which he (respectively, she) wears, to know where his children study, and the like, but these are all things that has a weak connection with his political qualities, especially if he is new emerging on the scene. The electors haven′t, and will never have, possibility for personal contacts and informal discussions with him (over a drink, as it′s said), at least because he represents thousands of people, which he has no physical capacity to know personally; neither they have been his colleagues at the place of work, for to know him from professional point of view.
     It would have been good if the electors required at least some document for completed political (or in political sciences) education, as it is custom for each profession; to were able to know some his objective intelligence quotient, or at least to have put him to some test or exam, by the results of which to take decision; to have had some way for checking of his adherence to principles and incorruptibility, for to be convinced that he is not just power-hungry individual who sets everything else in background and in the interest of his political career; to have had in their disposition some his psychical tests and conclusions of medical commissions that he is psychologically normal. If not anything else, were there at least age restrictions, as some true in the general set way for checking of his life experience. But all this contradicts to the main democratic principle that everybody can participate in the government, without whatever documents — for they can not correspond to the reality and may be fabricated by some political powers. In this way is come to the absurd called democratic election, in which everything is reduced to the ability of the leader to manipulate the masses, via finances, his appearance, talks, etc., advertising himself before them in the same way as one shaver is advertised, or a car, or prostitute, for example. Who succeeds best of all to deceive the people, that he is the best, he wins the battle, where the deceiving is obvious because neither the population can appraise him from below, not knowing the specificity of his labour, nor can it know well the leader, without personal contacts with him, nor can rely on ready results performed by others for assessment of his qualities. This is pure outsmarting deception and obviously unreasonable way of choice.

           II. Zero solution

     Well then, but how is it possible for such unreasonable way of choice, which is not applied anywhere else, where work has to be done, to be able to do work, because the democracy exists now about 25 centuries and especially in the last pair of them is the most widely used in the civilized world form of social government? How is it possible that people, chosen in this way, which should not work, they alone do the work? This is exactly the question which we must answer now, and, as it was marked long ago, the question most often is not "what is the answer", but "what is the question", i.e. by correctly set question, in many cases, is easy to find the answer. In other words, we have one incorrect and ineffective procedure of choice, by which people are chosen not according to their abilities for a given work, and in spite of this the procedure does work, and this is possible only when: either the very people don′t do (much) work; or each other of the alternative candidates could have done the same work; or some combination of the two things! This, surely, is so, because the politicians perform mainly strategic and representative functions, they say what must be done (say: cook me, wife, meatball soup, and you know how, or if you don′t know then look in some cookbook), give general guidelines (although they fulfill also some tactical tasks, by which most often make errors), sign documents (what everyone, who has started primary school, can also do), but the very work is done by teams of qualified professionals. The politicians, unquestionably, carry the responsibility (only that often transfer it from one to another, and nobody withholds from their salaries when they make errors), and for these risks they receive chiefly fame, which (at least for them) is valued more than money, but almost every politician from the other parties could have done the same work (and he does it, when comes his turn). So that the democratic choice, in fact, gives only one trivial and uninteresting decision!
     In the mathematics exist the term " zero solution" for the solution of a homogeneous linear system of equations. This is a sequence of equations, in the left part of which stay expressions like: "something" multiplied by x, plus "something else" by y, plus etc., until the number of unknowns runs out, and on the right part of the equations stay always zeros; if the number of equations equals the number of letters for the unknowns there always exists the solution: x=y=...=0, because whatever these "things" (the coefficients before the unknowns) in the equations are, when we multiply them by zero and add them, there is no way not to get again zero in the left part, which equals the zero on the right part! The zero solution, of course, is solution, too, but it isn′t interesting and does not require whatever efforts in order to be found, though such is also the democratic solution,— there always can be elected in this way someone, if he (or she, surely) will do only this, what any other competitor can also do, and even better if he does nothing important, but this isn′t reasonable decision, and there exist many other decisions, which would have been better!
      Exactly the fact, though, that this decision contradicts to the common sense, makes it genius achievement of thought in the social area, because it isn′t something about which everybody could have guessed and have used it, due to its triviality. But despite its triviality this decision has one very important psychological characteristic, namely that it turns to be quite convincing for the population, regardless of its illogicality (because the people are not such beings to be bothered by the lack of logic). The democratic decision is convincing because the people are asked about something and the politicians wait to hear their meaning (notwithstanding the fact that it isn′t of significant importance!), and later on, if something does not go properly (as it most often happens), it is answered them: "But weren′t you who chose your rulers?". In short, think who you will choose, because only you carry the whole responsibility for this.
     Is there any better way to " close someone′s mouth" than this to say that he alone has wanted this, what has happened? And any explanations of the kind that nobody want lawlessness, or high level of crime, or low standard of life (to have even nothing to eat), and so on, are things that always can be interpreted in two ways, and this only pours water in the mill of the politicians. Figuratively said, the remarkability of democracy is that it is the best known till the moment "baby′s pacifier" for the mouth of the populace, because it does simultaneously the following: creates illusion about satiety (they have asked us), does not allow the child (here the people) to cry, and preserves the mother′s breast (here the political system from unnecessary clashes with the "plebs")! This is exactly by the formula: "The wolf is fed and the lamb is intact"! That is why in Ancient Greece in that time was necessary for a tyrant (title of a ruler in that time) to intervene, Pisistratos, for to force the people to accept this miracle of miracles called democracy, for which they didn′t wanted to hear, because however restricted were the people in those times (as much as nowadays, by the way) they didn′t have thought seriously that instead of a ruler or king, who has all his life prepared himself to rule, could have stepped out one of the common folks before them all and begin to command them, and were afraid, maybe, that this is one of the successive tricks of the governors (and they were not much away from the truth, of course). But wasn′t this trick brilliant?!

           III. Conditional Advantages

     Better later than never, and that is why it is time now to give some definition of the notion democracy, as such form of social governing, by which the population (or the subject of governing) has possibility for reasonable influence over the governing body, including the choosing and changing of this body. Naturally, no stable system can exist without a feedback, and this was intuitively clear long before in the automatics and cybernetics have begun to speak about feedback, but here it turns to be the most important part of the system and the very governing body plays up to certain extent subjugated role to the subject of governing. But we are bound to stress that on the question of this, what is reasonable for the people, most often, the very people are not clear (because if they were clear then why is the whole government?). The people in their actions are like unreasonable child, who only wants to play and fill his stomach with something sugary (well, for the grown people some sex from time to time also wouldn′t have do any harm), and also like a child would have thought right, for example, to eat up a whole box of candies in one go, because the child (like also the people) can hardly recognize what is good for him for a longer period of time. So that let us accept that the reasonability is defined in view of the near and more distant future of the people, which reasonability may not be clear to the people as a whole, but must be clear to their leaders. Here, by the way, is seen that if the people don′t know what is good for them, and they choose their rulers, then also the governing, in its turn, will not be right or reasonable for the same people (not so much because the choice decides something, but because the politicians adjust to the desires of populace already before the elections). But this is unavoidable contradiction in the democratic system of ruling, and it will never be completely decided, we can merely move nearer to some relatively correct understanding of people′s interests!
     Despite the fact that the democracy contradicts to the common sense and is one zero solution of the question of governing, it has one unconditional advantage, which we mentioned, namely this, that it is the best silencer for the people (or stopper for their mouths). In addition to this it has also some conditional advantages, which originate from the possibility for debates and listening of the opposing meanings in the process of taking the decisions. These advantages are pretty relative and can easily be turned to disadvantages, if the matters are not approached gently, but they can be advantages in various cases, so that we must mention them.

      1. We will begin with the possibility for taking of relatively reasonable decisions from the point of view of the general set, i.e. the people, not only of some of strata of the population. The disputes can be a big hindrance (and they are very often) when they don′t lead to taking of decisions but only to "thrashing over old straw", as you say, but truth is born in a dispute, because our world is inevitably contradictory and the right decision is only a narrow strip of skillful balancing between opposing tendencies! And such balancing is impossible without listening to the views of opponents and without their real presentation before the governing body. Instead of the contradiction to take place concealed, by the democracy they are manifested in the open, what contributes for their resolving. But there, surely, is no guaranty that the disputes will not escalate and create wrong idea about the real situation, what could have been seen by one reasonable ruling body, but who can guaranty us that the ruling body is reasonable and will remain always such? As far as there is no such guaranty the democracy sets or relies on the unreasonableness of the ruling body, fighting with it in one reasonable way, but this means that the democratic ruling body is also unreasonable! Whether such decision will be really reasonable or not depends on the concrete democratic form and on the avoiding of some of the drawbacks of real democracy, on which we shall focus in the next chapter.
     By this governing is relied not only on the unreasonableness and corruptness, to which often comes each ruling body, because it is known long ago that the power spoils the individual (distorting his feedback link with the society), but also on the presumption for lacking of the best politician and the best party, what is a very reasonable setting of the things! This does not mean that you will hear some democratic politician to say that there is not a best party, but this is due to the manipulative character of the words of politicians, but the truth is exactly as we just explained it — for if there was a best party (or politician), even for the moment, then all other parties /politicians have nothing to do in the government, and, hence, the multiparty system becomes unnecessary and we are going to the situation under the totalitarianism, which is well known to us in Bulgaria. In order not to come to such extremities is useful always to remember that under the democracy: there is no best leader or party, the whole power can be corrupted and unreasonable, each ruling person is easily changeable, nobody can state the whole truth but just a part of it (the very word "party" comes from Latin "part"), and all politicians are biased, where exactly in this is the reasonableness of such a ruling — that it contains the unreasonableness in itself!

      2. The democracy maintains the evolution of society giving it possibility to renew itself without changing, i.e. to evolve on the spot, because it is flexible or adaptive form of governing! As far as each system of governing has the goal to preserve the status quo in the country, one system can change only if it contains the contradiction (leading to change) in itself, otherwise it can crash but not change. It happened exactly so with the totalitarian systems, which were very good and effective systems, but the ability for change was alien to them; they tried to change, initiated the changing, and after this collapsed. There is no such danger for the democracy, because it is one ineffective system without specific goal in the moment, and there isn′t such action which can ruin it, except its ineffectiveness (as it has happened many times in Ancient Greece, where were alternating periods of tyranny with such of democracy, and vice versa)! So that there are two sides on the coin, as they say, and the democracy can be suitable form of social government when there is absent a concrete, mobilizing the whole nation, goal (say, danger of war). By us, in Bulgaria, the transition to democracy began exactly when we have no concrete goal, i.e. the military threat (which was maintained stubbornly by the rulers as real danger, in order to justify with something the necessity of some kind of dictatorship) has long ago withered, and the totalitarian ruling has begun to skid in its unnecessary efficiency; but later on, during the transition, when we have accepted the ineffective and aimless democratic ruling, it turned out that there emerged quite real goal for surviving and preserving of the nation, which required something more effective than the traditional democracy, and for that reason our transition again began to skid!
     The ability for changing by the democratic model of ruling is illustrated best of all via the example with the swing, or rather seesaw — such kind of swing which is a beam propped in the middle on some elevated place, and two persons (here parties) sat at both ends, where in the middle can sit also someone (called here "center"). When the one part falls down it "slumps in the mud", figuratively said, and sticks there for some time, but then later on it begins to "cleanse itself from the mud" and to throw it to the other part, in result of what the latter in its turn also becomes "mudded", becomes heavier and begins to fall down, heaving above the fallen before part. This process is helped by the center, but also by the public (the population), which, when becomes bored to boo the fallen, begins to "throw with rotten eggs" also that one who is above, because he is more vulnerable there, and the atmospheric conditions (political winds) are stronger high above, so that there is no way for the seesaw to become quiet for a long time. In this way the democracy constitutes in the social sphere one working perpetuum mobile, something what is impossible in the mechanical systems! And mark, please, that the one, who rises above, does not do this because of his own merits, but because the other part is fallen down, i.e. the leading party becomes such not because it is with something better than the others, but because the others are worse than it! The existence of many parties does not change the things because usually the fight takes place between the first two-three of them (and if it isn′t so then corresponding coalitions are formed). Generally, till here all pluses of the democracy turn out to be potential minuses, and the next point is only a way of compromising of the democracy with the dictatorship, so that it even less can be taken for its advantage, but there is nothing to be done here — that is the democracy!

      3. The last good thing of the democracy, on which we shall dwell, is the possibility for adding of foreign elements in it! Such non democratic and unauthorized elements are, for example: the presidential institution, which is a kind of possible dictatorship (on declaring of martial law), or existence of strong hand, that can apply right of veto, even to dissolve the Parliament (in some countries); two-chamber Parliaments, where the different Chambers function on different principles, but the most democratic one, as a rule, plays subordinate role (with various national distinctions); combining of democracy with monarchical ruling, where the monarch symbolizes the undivided authority (although nowadays strongly restricted); admissibility, but also necessity of some moralizing the society body like official Church; impossibility for existing of democracy without some, as well internal, so also external, repressive or militarized apparatus (the police and the army); the possibility for extra-parliamentary control of the supreme body in the country (even may be stated that the biggest success the democracy shows then, when intervene not the official and paid bodies but some extra-parliamentary groups of people), and other variants. These are all possibilities for some improvement, but in the same time also acknowledgement of the imperfection, of the democracy!

           IV. The Real Democracies

     It is high time now to begin to make difference between the ideal and the real democracy. The ideal democracy is this, which in some way allows to the population to choose such ruling body, that will "play to his tune", so to say. Even in the ideal case we can′t require that this will be the best ruling for the people, but to be the best according to the averaged meaning of the population. In addition to this even in the ideal is not necessary to ask the people about everything (even if this may be possible), because there are questions on which the people can only mess the things, if the averaging is done by the number of people, not according to some other criteria (for example, there will hardly be found a nation, where, if the people are asked how much must cost the bread, or the cheese, or the meat, the drinks, the cigarettes, and so on, will not choose the lowest of the proposed prices, because these are goods for which consumers are the major part of the population, but it is obvious that this will not be the right decision, for by a free manufacturing the lower selling prices will be the surest way for disappearing of these products from the market). In other words, even in the ideal case we should not search entirely idealized solution, because it will not fulfill its functions, and is or not a given solution near to the ideal can be estimated in each concrete case according to some obvious, but also questionable, criteria. The real democracy, for its part, is each of the realized around the world democratic forms, along with their shortcomings, the most important of which follow below.

      1. The first main minus comes from the zero democratic solution, by which on ruling positions are chosen people nonprofessionals, without the necessary educational qualification, without checking of their psychical indicators and their moral qualities. It is very easy to require some document for psychical condition of the candidate, as well also some diploma for completed political college or higher education — the realization of these criteria is more a matter of desire then of resources. Regrettably, it is still considered (and not only in Bulgaria) that the best education for the politician is the legal one, where it has practically nothing in common with the management, or the work with masses (public relations, as it is called nowadays), and even an education in the sphere of advertisement would have been preferable than the legal one, because this, what the politician must possess, is the ability to persuade (or, rather, to manipulate) the masses that this, what he states, is in their own interest, i.e. to mobilize the masses for some common actions, in the necessity of which they doubt. In addition to this a politician must have sufficient knowledge in history (ancient and modern), in rhetoric, in economics, in military science, or some technical education (because it improves the logical thinking), at cetera.
     If by the examining of professional qualities of the politician can exist some (surmountable) problems, then there are no hindrances for applying of some elementary control for existence of life experience, because this, what the politician must know well (inasmuch as this is possible), is the life, and knowledge about it can be accumulated only with the time and the work, i.e. there is nothing easier than the requirement of age and length of service in the sphere of governing and politics. For example, could be required at least five years of service at ruling positions for applying for political work on local level, at least another five on the previous level — for municipal candidates, at lest five more years on this level for national candidates, and another five if it goes about the highest positions like President, Chief Prosecutor, Prime Minister (or Chief of Staff of the Army, or President of the Academy of Sciences, or the Holy Synod, and the like, where this, maybe, is checked). Also it is quite elementary to require age of at least 35 years for the lowest political posts, at least 40 — for municipal level, at least 45 — for national level (i.e. in the Parliament), and at least 50 years for the highest posts. If there is something, because of what one suffers most in his life, these are the errors of the youth, and the same applies wholly in the area of social governing! The ruling is not like the sports, or the sciences, or the giving birth to children, for example, where the younger one is, the better, but exactly on the contrary, because this, what the politician or manager needs, is the experience and moderation in life, otherwise there happen all sorts of, to put it mildly, "blunders". One basic feature of all dictators is their youth and wild wish for self-expression, and the situation wouldn′t have been the same if these positions were occupied by older people — compare the age on which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Lenin, or Stalin, and why not also Genghis Khan, or Xerxes, or Alexander Macedonian, and others, come to power, and you will find that hardly any one of them has done this over the age of 40 years. And if these people could not have come to power due to legal restrictions (and let us not forget that at least both, Hitler and Lenin, have come to power through a democratic election, and at the time of Napoleon was a law, according to which the First Consul could not have been under the age of 40 years, but Napoleon succeeded somehow to overcome it with some political maneuvers), couldn′t have the spilled in history blood be at least twice less?

      2. The next moment, which we have not touched till now, is the wrong method of choosing of the Parliament, not as representative sample of the people, but as sample of the political parties, what is one pretty indirect way for expressing of the will of the people, and is away from the primary source — the Areopag in Ancient Athens, where were chosen by 10 persons from the 50 genders, called dems, via lots or some voting in the dems. In this sense, the contemporary democracy (in the whole civilized Western world) is worse than that of 25 centuries before! The Parliament must be representative sample of the whole nation, if we want that it will in some way reflect the will of the very people! The representative sample is statistical term and it means that if between all of the voters those, say, on the age between 50 and 60 years are 15%, then so much (or very near to this) must be these people in the Parliament, too; if the people with tertiary education between the voters in our country are, for example, 12%, then so much must be those persons also in the Parliament; if the voters with Gypsy ethnic origin are 20%, so much must be they also in the highest democratic body; and so on. This is not provided, neither in Bulgaria, no in any democratic country, neither now, nor before centuries, but what is more important — no Parliament even thinks to make this in the near future, because this will be strong blow directly in the heart of party system! On the question of parties we shall dwell in the next point, but let us note here that if something can be done in order to ensure representativeness of the entire population, then this can be done only at the request of the people, not the politicians!
     Such democratic reform also is not a problem to be carried out — via random multi-parametric choice, or just random choice, from a computerized data base of all voters. More than this, this idea isn′t at all revolutionary or utopian, because in the judicial system, at least in the U.S. (as far as is known to the author), by the choice of the jurors for each law suit (or at least for these of criminal character) the situation is similar, and the role of the jurors and of MPs is, in its essence, one and the same — they must represent the people on the question of this, what is good and what bad in their view, for already from the times of Plato was clear that this is a very treacherous and inconstant matter, which cannot be put in narrow formal framework. The difference is only that in the judiciary the representatives of the people decide on the guilt of particular person, where in the Parliament they evaluate the suitability of a given law, i.e. one more abstract matter, but the nature of the work is the same! This does not mean that by such system there will not be errors, because the people very often can be mistaken, as we have already mentioned, especially if some unanimity is searched (as it is in murder cases in U.S.), but this is the true democracy, and everything else is only "dust in the eyes" of the populace "thrown" by the politicians, in order to justify their existence and the privileges of the power!
     For understanding of the possibility for such changes we must make some explanations, or rather to divide the legislative activity of the Parliament in: strategic, here related with the requiring and approval of the laws, on one hand, and tactical, or related with the creating of the laws, i.e. with the ruling through them. This isn′t a new element in other fields and is applied in all big companies, where the strategic body is somehow hidden or distanced from the very management — these are those who keep the money in the company (or also the wife in the family — see "About the woman and the man") —, and the tactical body is the Managing (Executive) Council of the company. By the democratic ruling bodies, of course, The Government and the Municipals are the tactical bodies, but also by the creating of the laws the things must be divided, where the Parliament must be engaged only with the approval of the laws and then it can (but also must) consist of nonprofessionals and not related with whichever part (i.e. party) persons. The tactical activity, or the creating of concrete laws, according to the directives of the Parliament (or the Peoples Council), is work for jurists and other specialist from various sciences, and with this can be occupied some, let us call it, Judicial Council. The whole mess in this case comes from the wrong practice these, who create the laws, they also to assess them, and that this is wrong practice must be obvious, because it is not applied anywhere else except by making of the laws (by all committees for whichever competitions always is controlled that the members of the jury do not take part in the competitions, and even are not related by financial or family relations with the competitors). Be that as it may, the things are pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to complicate them, because of their personal interest.

      3. Regarding the parties, then, if we proceed from Ancient Greece, they have no place in the Parliament, in the sense that they can be formed in the Parliament, but after its election! And even better if they go out in some separate, let us call it, Party Council, because they also have their place in the social life as consolidating units for mass manipulation of the people in their own interest (we discussed already that it is not in the abilities of the common folks to realize correct their own interests and someone cleverer than them has to help them)! In this sense the parties come up to a great extent near to the media, but the latter are directly ruled by the business, where the parties, even if they become some financial injections from the big business, are nonprofit organizations, so that they play the role of national institutions for public relations, what is a necessity in the contemporary society. In this way is resolved the contradiction between the first and the second point of this chapter (to which we deliberately paid no attention), because in the one we require professionalism from the politicians, and in the other — nonprofessionalism from the Parliament. If there exists one really national National Assembly (that is how the Bulgarian Parliament is called) for strategy and approving, one strictly legal Judicial Council for making of the laws, one really professional Party Council for maintaining of the relations between the governing and the masses, as also the corresponding tactical managing bodies, represented by the Government, different Ministries and the Municipal Councils, we could have spoken about real democracy in action. This is just one additional dividing of the powers, but what is the history of civilization, if not one incessant dividing of the whole power, with a view to specialization of the individuals and establishing of the ways for interaction between the powers (see "About the mankind")?
     But we can′t speak about the politicians and not to touch their moral aspect, which suffers strongly by the existing democratic way of choosing via self-advertising, because no politician can be chosen if he alone does not apply for the post, exhibiting only his high self-esteem, but not his modesty or his other moral qualities (because with his competency this, in all events, has nothing in common)! It is true that by each choosing for a given post the candidate must somehow propose himself, but this does not mean that he must trumpet on the left and on the right in the company how good he is and how everything "will blossom and fruit" if people choose him, and that all other candidates are "poor water", as we say. The modesty is non-inherent quality for the politician (because of the system of choosing), and when some boy chooses his future female partner in life he does not go to search for her in the brothel, does he? This is probably rather unpleasant comparison, but it will impose itself always while the pluralism expresses chiefly in chest beating and spitting on the political adversaries, and this is observed in all democratic structures for centuries. The radical decision consists only in debasing the role of politicians and their gradual exclusion from the executive and law-approving authorities! If the "piece of pie", for which they fight, is not so big they will not show such painful ambitions to catch it, but will do their work faithfully. However much we may speak about the moral it will not change until the situation, in which they act, is not changed, because the politicians, whatever one may say, are people, with all their human weaknesses, and the politics is a kind of game (like, say, the poker), and it may be interesting for all only by moderately high "buy-in", otherwise it turns into means for personal benefit, where all methods ale allowed.

           V. Utopian Models

     Till here we explained various drawbacks of contemporary democracy, as also some real methods for its improving, in which there was nothing utopian, though the utopias are not at all something bad and have their place in the social sphere, because their main quality is the reasonability. More precisely said, we may characterize one idea as utopian when its reasonability exceeds the level of reasonability of the circle of people who assess it! This will say that after a time there are no obstacles for some regarded as utopian idea to find its place in life, if the reasonability of the society (may God grant it) increases. In the left part of this essay we will propose some utopian democratic models, which improve some of the drawbacks of the real democracy explained above, or elaborate some of its advantages, maintaining the necessary attractiveness for the masses.

      1. On the first place we shall stop on the model of representative Parliament, which was touched in the previous chapter and which is the least utopian of all. It supposes: Parliament (or National Assembly) chosen by a computer between all "voters" (this term looses its meaning in this case, for they don′t "give" at all their voices); Party Council, chosen by the very parties within the quotas, received through voting in the already chosen Parliament; Judicial Council, which must be legislative body (rather law-making body, but which does not approve the very laws) and is chosen by the Party Council, proportionally to the parties in it, but this does not mean that the lawmakers must necessary be members of some party; Government, which is proposed by the Party Council as a professional committee, but is approved by the Parliament; and also President of the country with representative functions and as instance for "rapid response" (within the legal framework), who also is proposed by the Party Council but elected and approved by the National Assembly, which can also take him down from his post. In this situation the supreme body is the Parliament, but it performs mainly strategic functions and sets the tasks to the Judicial Council and the Party Council, approves the laws and intervenes with various directives in the work of the Government and the President, being able to cease some of their decisions, if this becomes necessary. The Party Council is go-between between the Parliament, on one hand, and the Government and Judicial Council, on the other hand, and maintains the relations with the masses. The Judicial Council makes the laws, which are reviewed by the Party Council and the President, but are approved by the Parliament. The functions of the Government and the Presidency are the same as by the traditional forms of democracy. On conceptual level everything is clear.

      2. The next model we shall call "democratic dictatorship", which, regardless of the shocking name, is an attempt to combine in the time the advantages of democratic and centralized forms of governing, with the hope to avoid their drawbacks! As we stressed above the democracy is a mobile and adaptive, but very ineffective form of ruling, while the dictatorship was and will remain the most effective, but also rigid form. This means that the democracy has its advantages in the choice of some goal for developing, taking into account various meanings and choosing the best possible from them, but later on the very realization of this goal must be done under the conditions of autocracy and without party quarrels. Exactly for these reasons in Ancient Greece were often alternated periods of democracy with such of tyranny (the dictators in those times were called Tyrants), where neither one of these periods have lasted for long time, because the democracy then was near to the ideal or pure democracy and in their General Assembly have existed a good representativeness (well, without the slaves and the women), though on a gender principle. The today′s democracies contain many foreign elements and because of this they stay longer, but in spite of this very often happen governmental crises, caretaker governments are appointed, martial laws are declared, and even totalitarian systems come to power, because, as Bulgarian, so called, shopp (around Sofia) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". The meaning of such alternating is that, when something near to the one extremity does not do good work, for the truth is in the middle, change to the other extremity is forced, but it also isn′t good, and then a returning to the first end becomes necessary, and so on, ad infinitum, or until better compromise between the two things is found. Yeah, but the people very rarely succeed to find the compromising variant, and then happens so that they find it in the time, and looked at from afar this oscillation averages exactly where needed! Out proposition now is, instead of to wait for these fluttering between the extremities to happen chaotically, simply to plan them, including them in one system capable to work in both modes.
     The period of democracy lasts three years, for example (but they might be also four), and during it exist all traditional democratic institutions, where there are no problems to combine this variant with the above-explained of randomly chosen representative National Assembly, separate Party Council, at cetera. During this period is lively discussed and is fixed some strategic goal for the next period of dictatorship, lasting five years (or again four, for equality), and in the end of this period is chosen the needed Dictator. There are no problems to name this Dictator also President, but he will not be mainly representative figure, like the democratic President, and will have all rights in the framework of law, where each political activity has to be frozen, the demonstrations to be forbidden, the Parliament, especially if it consists of politicians, ceases its work as supreme body and, either the Dictator dismisses it, or rules over it wholly and uses for some subsidiary, rather questionnaire, purposes. The dictator turns into reality the tasks set by the previous democratic government and two months before the end of his period appoints new democratic elections. Neither the democracy, nor the dictatorship can last more than one mandate, but each government can renounce his mandate, where the Dictator, for example can give the whole power to the Parliament (or choose new Parliament), if the goal for which he is elected can be performed also in democratic conditions, where the Parliament can in three days choose new, or appoint the old Dictator, if the country faces serious problems requiring individual management without possibilities for long disputes and disagreements. As long as in the contemporary democracies, anyway, exist rudiments of such forms of governing, there are no problems for this utopian proposition to become sometime reality.

      3. The next variant combines the ideas for representative sample with bigger attractiveness and really public participation in the governing. We shall name it "totalizational variant", and the single change in electoral law is the necessity for lacking of the names of actual physical persons in the electoral lists of the parties. Can exist whatever parties, bunches, groups, clubs etc., which take part in the elections, and if they succeed to collect voices for at least one quota in the Parliament or Municipal Bodies then after the general elections in each of these groups are held random elections (or whatever other form of choice is accepted there) for the concrete persons, who will enter in the corresponding bodies! This can be done easy, when for participation in each of these groups is bought some ticket with unique number in the group, and thereafter are drawn the corresponding number winning tickets (plus some reserves). The groups can be on ethnical, professional, of age, territorial, or property principle, based on interests and devotion to sports teams, or some other division, where the chosen after this persons are, really, common people, not politicians, but they will not enter the Political Council, they are chosen for the Parliament (maybe also the Municipals). There are no problems for a given voter to participate in ten or so such groups (provided he has bought the corresponding tickets), as also to vote for group in which he is not registered (though this is but an exception). While in all traditional democratic forms of ruling the common people have no chance to be chosen in the ruling bodies, here this chance is entirely real, and the elections become something like national lottery. But what is life, if not a lottery, too?

      4. Interesting moment by the democracy is taking part in the ruling bodies, as of representatives of the "goods", i.e. the won party or coalition, as well also of the "bad", i.e. of the defeated, and both groups have even equal rights (and salaries!). The important thing is that, in order to allow for free debates, there must be present all parts or, in fact, the ruling party and the opposition, but also the whole population (or extra-parliamentary powers), which have various possibilities for influence over the government. It doesn′t matter which is the ruling party, neither which is in opposition — the important is both parts to be present! In other words, there is no specialization in the parties, and each one can do the work of the other one, but the necessary element is their changing. In this situation there are no problems to separate these parts in two kinds of Parliaments, which we can name, respectively, Party Parliament and Oppositional Parliament, and assume that each one consists of equal number of people (say, 100), but the leading one is the Party one, where the Oppositional can only criticize and make propositions. As far as each politician, or person from the people, can fulfill equally well both functions, it doesn′t matter which one — which of them!
     It remains to establish how we will fill both Parliaments and how they will change and renew, for the things to remain dynamic. The best possible choice, in the sense of representativeness, is the random one, but in order the preference of each voter to show influence we propose here two stages of the elections. The first one is for forming of the dividing of all voters in at least three part, namely: Party, Opposition, and Folk (People), but in order to provide greater attractiveness is preferable to choose between five variants, for example, where have to be added also: Last (Old) choice (from the previous voting) and Next (or New) tour of elections. These five variants are coded with the numbers from 1 to 5 and each voter has to declare within one month via the established for the purpose bureaus one of these numbers, to which he gives his preference, only without knowing in advance which number what signifies. The deciphering of the numbers is done later on officially (via a lot) and in this way are formed the pools of the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk, where by existing of fifth number is conducted one more tour in the same way (only that by the second tour the fifth choice must be added to the Folk, for to be able to stop till here). The actual choice happens in the second stage, for which each one again has to declare one number, but this time from 1 to 10,000, for example, in order to get substantially smaller sample of people for each group, where thereafter is drawn the winning number (and, maybe, two more reserves). But till here the exact people are still not chosen, only their number is greatly reduced (to about double reserve), where in the end is drawn a lot for ordering between them and are separated the first to the needed number, and the left ones remain as a reserve. By the choice for President the final number must be now to 100,000, otherwise the things are similar, only that the President is chosen amidst the Folk.
     In this way the role of parties in the classical sense is reduced to zero, but the democratic model does not presuppose obligatory existence of political parties — they are additional and auxiliary element, and if we can do without them we shall lose nothing. The both Parliaments exist as the united traditional Parliament, and each person knows to which part he (or she) belongs and should he agree or criticize. Even the group of Folk (People) also can take part in discussion of the laws (but surely without right to vote), were it via some extra-parliamentary associations (say, by ... zodiacs), were it if there is formed a third, Folk′s Parliament. One more thing: here will be no abstained by the elections, because each one, who for one or another reason has not made his choice, will automatically receive the number zero, which later will be interpreted as belonging to the Folk. This model does not mean that parties can not exist at all, but they will not have that meaning as by the traditional democracies, and members of a given party may be present in both Parliaments and amidst the Folk. In other words, this model can be combined also with the first proposed variant, because it constitutes, basically, a procedure for forming of representative sample of the voters, and allows one additional level of dividing of the Parliament, in view of avoiding of direct debates and their substitution with summarized resolutions of both Parliaments and only some common meetings. By each successive choice is performed renewing of the three powers in the governing, but with some degree of continuity (enhanced also by the Last or old choice in the first stage). This variant can be named "forever changing Party" and it is very near to the ideal democracy, although it parodies the party system.

      5. The next variant is "new nomenclature", which does not require changes in the procedure of election, but proposes a way for forming of nomenclature cadres — something like specially chosen aristocracy, which main purpose in life to be the ruling of the people. Such variant is needed, because the centuries of human existence confirm some definitive pluses of similar social layer freed from worries about food and means for subsistence, but also freed from severe and unrealistic competition (in various cases wide more than ten to one). These people would have had for their life goal, either their own pleasure, or the happiness of the others, or the both things, and even the personal pleasure under a good provision and higher esteemed place in the society, would have reduced itself again to something useful for the others, like: arts, sciences, military distinctions, and the like (and not, say, to watching of actions on the video). After becoming conscious of these pluses many clever people have wondered what sorts of nonsense to invent only to make people listen to some personalities, who from their birth have been prepared to rule (because there was nothing else left to them). There were used the delusions of shamans and church officials, the power of the money, has been invented the tale about the blue blood, the fables about the predestination of each other, the ideological conviction, the belonging to different castes, the genetic heredity, and so on, but all these were only temporary decisions, because there have remained the basic drawback of aristocracy, namely: the wealth and benefits were transferred hereditary, and there is no reliable argumentation about the appropriateness of this! More precisely said: the aristocracy is a good thing, but in the hereditary aristocracy is hidden the dead element; it is good for one from child age to know whether he is destined for higher activities, but there is no logic in this that his children must also be predestined. But when the question is already set, then its decision is obvious — it suffices to perform random choice of small number of nomenclature cadres in the youngest possible age, where the belonging to the group of chosen ceases with the demise of the person!
     One concrete decision is each year to be conducted random choice between all live children with completed two and uncompleted three years, where this is performed always to one and the same date (say, 1 July). For Bulgaria suffices to choose by 100 children, what after about fifty years will ensure about 5,000 potential "nomenklaturists", who could have covered the needs of all higher officers in the country, including the Parliament, the Supreme Council, the Municipal Councils, and the such, but it is not necessary to employ them obligatory there (it is just supposed that they will be preferred), and can be required only a quota of 1/3 of the democratic ruling bodies to be reserved for such persons. Must be established and funded initially the corresponding institution, which has to care for the feeding and education of these cadres, ensuring for them the best possible on a world level, because they will be one ridiculously small number (about 1 to 1,000 for our country), and later on they, definitely, will find ways to support themselves alone, via deductions from the income of already occupying leading posts nomenclature cadres, as well also from voluntary contributions. In addition to this, because the state of nomenclature will not be transferred by heredity, after some time they will leave also significant property (excluding the personal, which may remain for their heirs) to this institution.
     The very choice can be made pretty attractive and watched by all parents, where the happy child will be directly taken in the corresponding boarding schools, for the parents will be ensured some lifetime support in the amount of one minimal working salary, for example, and till the completing of seven years of the child one of the parents can live with him or her receiving enhanced support. Afterwards the new aristocrats will have also some very decent incomes as a kind of aristocratic pension, plus provided house, transport, vacations, and others, regardless the fact whether they work or no. In other words, these new aristocrats will not at all be obliged to take leading posts in the country, and will be able to do this, what their heart wishes. Greater details are hardly needed, because the very aristocrats after some time (say, 40 years) will be compelled to make some moral codex, legal requirements, et cetera. The idea is to create each year new aristocrats, who till the end of their life will live "as kings", in order to be able to develop most fully their personalities, but without genetically fixing their rights. As is usually said: only pluses without minuses.

      6. The last variant we will name "sexual democracy", because by it is set on some natural differentiation of both sexes (see "About the Woman and the man"). As far as the woman is the born strategist or hidden ruler in the family, and in the same time the most mediocre personality, because stays between the man and the posterity, as well as in her destination, so also in her abilities, she is simply bound to occupy the whole National Assembly (no matter in its traditional form, or in some representative variant), and then it can rightly be named Women′s Assembly (or Council). This does not conflict with the party system and does not mean that only women can take part in a given party, but that only women can enter the Women′s Assembly and the Municipal Councils, while the men will do the other work. This other work is the real or tactical ruling in the Government and Presidency (especially there). In the Courts can be accepted the "Solomon" decision to retain their mixed staff. The woman is the one, who can bring more calm and finesse in the politics, and then why not do it? This, in any case, is worldwide tendency in the politics in recent tomes — here we simply validate it and lead it to its completed form.
     More concrete is necessary the introduction of some other requirements for mediocrity in the Women′s Assembly, like: average height, weight, chest measurement, income, education (secondary or one tertiary), age from 30 to 40, and others. Exactly opposite are the requirements for the President, who must be a real father of the nation, where is required, for example: height above 180 cm, weight above 80 kg, income more than 4 minimal salaries, education higher than tertiary (at least more than one tertiary), married with at least two daughters, age above 50, at cetera. Only in this way the social governing can become sexually balanced and harmonious, where each one gives what is put in him or her by God.

     In addition to these models can be proposed also various others, on which we shall not dwell here in details, but may hint at some basic points. So for example, by the national voting can be required choosing not only of one person, but up to five, as well also to be voted not only "pro", but " against", too (in white and black boxes)! This is entirely in the spirit of conducted surveys and ranking lists for prominent politicians and parties and will allow for more accurate estimation, as well also for measurement of the difference in the votes "pro" and "against" for each political power, where the choice is done on the basis of this difference. This will drive into "blind alley" those parties, which are as much loved by ones, so much also hated by others, and exactly these are the "sharp stones" which confuse the "grinding of the flour" in the political "flour mill". Then can be formed two lists — with positive and with negative differences — which are ranged and fill now two institutions: Parliament and Antiparliament, where the first one is the ruling and the other one is the opposition, without which there is no democracy.
     It can also be thought about performing of the only correct choice from below — the iterative choice! Meaning that the choice is performed for persons from the immediate surroundings, who everybody knows well; then one part (say, ten times less in the number of the people) of the first chosen vote in the same way (maybe for some of the already chosen); and so on in 3-4 iterations, until is come to one extended National Assembly of, say, 1,000 people, which now chooses with open voting the necessary 100 or 200 people, but it can every time be used also for other survey goals, as well for choosing of the President. There are no insurmountable problems for such voting, which can be done with voting bulletins, in the Municipal offices, with phone-cards from special machines, via Internet, and other variants, where is just needed to give some unique code for the person (personal identification or insurance code), and if by this it is conducted also openly (meaning that is known whose is the vote) then the similar personal code for the voter. When is voted for acquaintances there is no need to hide the votes, where this does not prevent the voting at the tops, too, i.e. for political leaders, but this is not compulsory, at least on the first iterations. By today′s computer equipment this will give possibility for exact tracing of the tree of choices (top-down and v.v.), so that will be known exactly who for whom (not necessarily directly) has voted, and who whom represents, in order to be made real contact between voter and representative.
     It can, in the end, also the politics be put on business fundament, where each politician builds his (or her) political company, sells chares and collects money for his activity in one legal way, for it is public secret that the politicians are supported by some or other business circles, or, at least, live from membership fees of their followers. Instead of to turn a blind eye before such facts it is better to allow open establishing of this, who from whom earns. In one company the strategy is determined by the General Assembly of the shareholders and why it should not be so also by the politicians? Or else: how are the politicians worse than the football stars, when the latter can be bought and sold but the politicians can not? Because if we take for granted that the money always spoils the things, then we must reject also the private property of the means for production, as it was decided by the communists.
     Surely there can be devised also other variants, or be combined some of the explained, but this is more than enough, and let us also not forget that the main difficulty in taking of decisions in the social area comes not from the finding of new decision but in the rejecting the old one!

     So that, if we summarize all said here, it will turn out that the democracy is a bad social organization, but because it contains the contradiction in itself and is open for various foreign elements, it turns to be dynamically the best of the known so far forms, where the bad thing in it forces it incessantly to enhance and evolve itself! The democracy is like the life — bad thing, but without it is worse —, so that there are all reasons to expect that in the future it will still remain the main form in the ruling of society. But it surely will be corrected and changed.

           — — — — —

ABOUT THE VIOLENCE

           I. Necessity Of Violence

     The violence is necessary element in the "game" called life! This is trivial truth, not only because the millennial existence of mankind proves it, but also because the only way to overcome it is ... another form of violence, were it some police or army, illegal mafia, revolution, religious war, judicial investigation, et cetera. In this process, of course, it can′t be said that the character of new violence is of no importance, which can be more humane (in the usual meaning of the word), but it must be stronger, as far as it can be spoken about some objective criterion for its measurement, like human lives, or percents of one life as measure for inflicted serious physical or moral damages; or else it has to be expressed in another aspect. The reducing to the scale of human lives is especially difficult when the influence is moral, or of moral terror, in which case the usual human actions are changing for fear of further violence, in which situation the given action, although it has preventing effect, is a kind of violence against the person, and in this case the magnitude of global impact is determined by the broader layers to which it is directed, while its strength in each single case may be only about 1-2% of the accepted value of one human life. At any rate, this cyclical character of the fight against the violence via applying of another violence (more so because there is no other way), is a natural phenomenon.
     The violence can change its forms, where each new form usually differs in some parameter, or in the sphere of its action, i.e. in the scope of individuals, to which it is applied. In this process not only an exact quantitative evaluation is not possible, because of the relative character of the measuring unit, but almost always is not present the so called "control group", with which to compare the new form of violence with the old, if it has continued to exist by the control group, and the repeating of the things in the time never happens under exactly the same conditions. So, for example, it can′t be stated with certainty that the communist terror in the former Soviet Union (or in any other ex-communist country, with the conditional exclusion of Germany) has been a worse violence than the contemporary democracy, with inevitably accompanying it: national, ethnic, religious, and criminal bloodshed for the same period of time — because have not existed two equal by all parameters Unions, which were to be compared for a bigger period (say, hundred years) and evaluating the victims to make a conclusion about the more humane character of the one or the other form! All possible comparisons of different territories, with different population, and in different periods of time, are unavoidably nonobjective and can be used only by biased political powers to prove whatever they want (and based on one and the same facts).
     In any case, the violence has existed always in the history of mankind and there are no reasons to suppose that it will disappear sometime, no matter whether we like it or not — in the same way as, for example, we can′t make olives without stones (and if there exist citrus fruits without seeds, then they can not give by themselves new life). This is unavoidable as it is impossible to have life without death, if you want. But before getting the question in proper focus let us give one general and non restrictive definition of the notion "violence" as: very sharp form of compulsion, leading to serious physical and moral consequences, including lethal outcome, and having for goal to make separate individuals or groups of such to act against their wish. The important thing here is the unwillingness of the subjects to have the required behaviour and the serious consequences otherwise, because we can not consider as violence, for example, if somebody will be awakened despite his unwillingness to get up (even if one pours a cup of water over his head). But in the same time we don′t set any requirements characterizing the object, that causes the violence over the subject (to what we shall return at the end).
     More interesting, and unexpected for many people, side of the question arises with the statement that the violence is a reasonable reaction, as from the side of the object applying it in a given situation, as well also from the side of the subject of the violence, applying in his turn new violence to the object, or succumbing to the compulsion (as far as it is possible to speak about reasonable behaviour by the humans, what we shall clarify after a while). Here is the place to mention one basic characteristic of the organized animal matter and this is the inadequacy of the reaction, because for it the Newton′s law for equal and opposite reaction is not valid (see also "About the creation"). But inadequate is a weak statement, because it can be stronger or weaker, and we will try to concretize this law following one dynamically increasing action over the living matter (were it an amoeba, leg of a frog, particular individual, or social group). By very low-level stimulus there is still no reaction up to reaching of some threshold value, then reaction emerges and it usually is stronger that the action, and with increasing of the action the reaction also increases, but this continues up to reaching of some moment of maximum, after which with further increasing of the action the reaction begins to become weaker, and after some time it unavoidable ceases, because the subject of action has simply used all its energetic etc. abilities for reaction (where the object is supposed with unlimited, or at least very big, power, for to be in position to produce impact over the subject, especially violence, in what we are interested here).
     This experiment is conditional, but it is obvious that it is generally applicable, irrespective of the type of impact and the subject. The animal matter, especially one whole organism, under weak actions has strong reactions (say, if we pull the tail of a cat it will scratch us), by stronger stimuli by the by it becomes adequate to the stimulus (to the stick, according with the proverb), and by very strong — just refuses the opposition (i.e. the cat will curl itself and at most will begin to meow piteously). But this, what is valid for the cat, can fully be applied to the human, no matter whether one is being bitten or has just cut his finger (the slightest cut hurts most, ant the pain is a kind of response by the higher animals, which determines their next reactions). In the social sphere there is no need to go far for examples and we could have reminded ourselves the wave of strikes of the workers in system of education in Bulgaria (as relatively more intelligent) just after our November coup d′etat in 1989, but also in later democratic times, from what observation is seen that under lesser difficulties, shortly after the overthrowing (of our communist leader Todor Zhivkov), the strikes were most massive, but later on, when really hard times have come, and the average working salaries were significantly less, related to the subsistence minimum, the teachers striked less and less, until at the end they gave up at all to do this actively. The curve of this reaction can be different, but its character is always one and the same and is expressed in this, that by weaker impacts arise stronger reactions and vice versa!
     Some small analogy can be observed also by the reaction of vegetable matter, for example of bending by a strong wind, but in the moment of the wind the reaction does not differ in anything from the reaction of a slim metallic rode, which is due to the elasticity. But the difference between the metal and the tree is shown in the time (where the branch simply becomes tougher), and mostly in the future generations, after some genetic modification becomes necessary, while a metallic rode will never become stronger by itself. This means that some buds of inadequate reaction (and from here also of reasonableness, as we shall see after a while) exist also by the vegetable matter, but this question does not interest us now and we can leave it to the specialists, so that let us return to the reaction of the animals.
     Well, will somebody say, it may be so, but what reasonable exists in such reaction, and from whose point of view? Ah, it is very simple: the viewpoint is the preserving and prolongation of life, and the reasonable is exactly in this preserving, because by weak impact the stronger reaction more effectively helps the living body to free itself from the impact, while when the stimulus become so strong that it is either not possibly, nor reasonable, to counteract it, then the reaction weakens, with the hope that the impact will cease, but even if this does not happen, still, the reaction only needlessly exhausts the cell, organism, or the social community. Even from the point of view of the object of action (if it is reasonable) and the effectiveness of the very action is more reasonable for it to be stronger than necessary, in order to have better effect for the suppression of the reaction. So that the paradoxical character of reaction of the living matter to compulsion, or to the extreme form of the compulsion — the violence — is one more reasonable form, both, of action, and of reaction, than this of the nonliving matter, where the reaction is exactly equal to the action.
     It is another question, though, whether this is the maximal level of reasonableness, which one organized matter, especially in the social area, can show, and, surely, there exist more reasonable reaction, consisting in earlier positioning of the extremum on the curve, i.e. of predicting of unpleasant consequences for the living organism from the strong irritant without whatever necessity for it to become really strong! But, alas, this "bringing to reason" is very slow process and continues for centuries and millenniums and is practically not limited in the time, because always can be thought about better evaluation of the moment of ceasing or lessening of the reaction, reaching to the point even before the threshold value of the stimulus, what would have led as a result to the complete absence of the necessity for violence. Anyway, the violence is justified, if it can prevent the necessity of greater violence, and this is the only justification of the violence! This thesis might not have been formulated in this way, but it, positively, has been known for millenniums and is fixed in all legal acts nowadays, because the punishment is never equal to the crime. Not only by murder, where it is not in the power of man to return the life of some person, but even for a stolen hen, for example, is paid a fine at least as for ten hens, i.e. it turns out again that for slighter misdeeds the punishment is stronger, and for severe offenses — it is weaker, and in the toughest cases of taking of someone′s life the felon most often remain alive. But what is one judicial decision, if not a reaction to a crime, and what is one criminal act if not a reaction to the set for a given place and time laws?
     But, in any case, the violence exists and it is "doctored" with other form of violence, where to the minor offense is answered with more severe violence of punishment, in order to prevent its spreading, and to the severe violence of crime is answered with lesser violence (if the reaction is relatively reasonable), because the escalation of violence leads to no good, as it was remarked long ago, but just moves the moment of extremum to greater violences. We can name this law for brevity " law of necessary violence" (or more generally, "law of necessary impact"), what answers quite precisely to the core of the said above. But isn′t the main message of Christian religion, which says that when you are slapped on one cheek you must turn the other one to be slapped also on it, something else than a call to avoid unnecessary violence because of knowing of the above law? The message of Christ was necessary exactly because it contradicts to the normal human reaction, which is not sufficiently reasonable!

           II. Acts of Violence

     Now it is time to observe some concrete manifestations of violence in the society, in order for our review not to sound very abstract, but this is not a classification of the forms of violence, because some of them are contained in the others or cause them, but just an overview of the most significant points, which is intended to show the effect of the law of necessary violence (or of unnecessity of violence, if the social communities were in position to propose some more reasonable alternative).

      1. The first thing with which we shall begin is the war. It is the most massively applied form of violence, but here is interesting the general delusion (accidental or deliberate?) that, at least since Roman times and to the present day, the war has been considered for the final, or most powerful, tool (ultima ratio, in Latin), where it almost always was the first tool, because hardly ever has been sat down at the negotiating table before some military actions have taken place, where the only exceptions were when decisions were taken based on other people′s defeats, what has to say that there are, in fact, no exceptions! In the spirit of the said above about the reasonability of violence it comes out that the war, still, is reasonable tool for proving of someone′s supremacy, and that in it are done mass violations in order to prevent long-lasting violations in the next periods, but the bad think is that this is not reasonably enough, for there can be proposed various other means for reaching of the goal.
     As examples we can give the following: sports competitions (football, or other ball-game, fencing, horse races, athletics, etc.); intellectual combats (chess or checkers, for example); games of chance, which in all times have symbolized the intervention of higher powers; magics and auguries, which were often applied in the past (but there neither have been approved generally applicable to both sides "standards", no have they succeeded to prevent the battles, they have just created some psychological disposition for them); representative battles of equal in numbers (say, by hundred persons) fighting squads from both sides and in conditions of real war, i.e. on life and death; such fights but of only one percent of the military units; gladiatorial fights, if you want; and so on. The wars for economical reasons, for their part, could have been carried out with economical means (as we now try, but don′t succeed very much), and these for religious reasons — via religious disputes, ceremonial parades, confessions or discussions with priests, and similar things. Even less sense would have been in the civil wars, if there could have been reached one common for the whole country vision about the problems, not to act like two packs of wolves hunting in a common area. The main drawback of mentioned reasonable methods is that these would have been weak violations, and as such they would have not fulfilled their purpose! Though, of course, they wouldn′t have been weak if the masses have shown a bit more intellect and have predicted the unreasonableness of stronger impacts.
     But, still, in the wars of before a pair of centuries there was bigger dose of reason than in those of current days, because then has still existed difference between front and rear, and especially in Ancient Greece the soldiers have fought only on the battlefield (how the sports events are conducted now), and it was known in advance where exactly they will fight, so that in those times the wars have not differed much from current-day motor races, for example. During the 20th century, though, the power of the human has grown so high, that he, naturally, needs much bigger violences, for to be able with their help to reach the so wanted weak reaction — alas, these are the facts! In addition to everything else now the state′s organization is much more stronger, so that the wars nowadays are like the fights between dinosaurs — it is shed much more blood than when fight two gnats, for example. Else the people have not become more reasonable, neither intend to become such! The presumption about the sufficient armament is a nice thing from the point of view of the stronger states (because they, anyway, are strong and know what happens with the mentioned dinosaurs), but the weaker and left behind in industrial and military sense countries continue to seek some keen (and often dishonest) methods for achieving of dominance, what they can′t reach with restriction of the armaments. For example, it is very good for the states not to possess nuclear weapons, but it is good from the point of view of those who already possess it, and who will convince the weaker that for him it is better to remain more weak than the stronger?
     It is very easy to rise allegations that the violence is not necessary and is fruitless and that, say, there was no need for the town Dresden to be burned down, or for one significant part of the population of a multi-million city like St. Petersburg to become dead, or the atomic bomb over Hiroshima to be thrown, et cetera. But who can prove that such monstrous violence was not necessary in order to prevent even bigger violence, until we come to such escalation of the sufferings, that all nation could understand, at least for an instant, the Christ′s maxim about the turning of the other cheek? Isn′t it true that thanks to the Second World War the world lives now more than half a century (help God to be more) without (at least) world wars, and if the bomb over Hiroshima has not been thrown, would it not have been thrown till now somewhere some other, or more powerful, bomb? Cruel, really, but necessary violation, because the people continue to hit their breasts that they are reasonable beings, while they are only beings capable to think, but do this simply after they have exhausted all other unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal (contribution, maybe, of the author to the definition of homo sapience). It would have been very nice if the Americans, for example (as the most powerful country in the world), would have decided to give ten years or so by 5-6% of their incomes as help for the unemployed millions German workers in the 30s years of 20th century, or for the destitute population of the backward Asian country named Soviet Union in the 20s, and other examples, but they have not done it. It would have been very nice if the capitalism from the beginning of this 20th century was a bit better and has not generated conditions for emerging of the fascist and communist ideologies, but it was not. And because the mankind is not in position to show more reason than a jellyfish (see "About the mankind"), it reacts according to the law of necessary violence. This is the situation, as you see.

      2. Another typical manifestation of violence is the become "modern" during the 20th century term "genocide", but it is not invention of the century and exists for millenniums, only that earlier it was applied mostly on the level of a family or tribe, while nowadays it is applied on a greater scale and on the level of a nation. Otherwise, nothing new under the Sun. The necessity of applying of this kind of violence comes from the possibility to pass genetically the characteristics of the subject in the generations, and from the conditions, which this creates for the remained alive subject to use in his turn violence over the previous object, which violence, naturally, will be stronger than the initial one, if the initial was not strong enough. Clear and simple, isn′t it — each pear has its peduncle (as we say in Bulgaria)! This isn′t justification, for nothing can excuse the genocide (even not previous genocide) — this is just explanation. And if one begins to think how trivial is the solution, which might have been applied by the Hebrews, if they have wished, in order to prevent the genocide over them already as a germ (because they have had thousands of years to come to this decision, for have been persecuted from biblical times), one wants just to weep for this silly being called intelligent.
     And the solution, really, is simple, because the genocide is directed against the gene and, hence, if this gene is difficult to be discovered, than the genocide also would have had no grounds for existence! In other words, the solution is in the gradual assimilation of the Jewish nationality or, at least, in their rejecting the concept of the "chosen by God people", what would have eliminated radically the necessity for applying of violence over them. Nothing difficult or cruel — just the Hebrews should not have opposed with all their strength to the interbreeding with the other nations where they have lived. So, for example, has happened with the Thracians in our lands in the antiquity, and typical contemporary example for equal racial mixing, I think, is the Brazil. This is not losing of the gene, but its wider distribution on more fertile soil, what is preferable for genetic strengthening of the nationalities, because it is long ago known that by more distant family connections are born healthier children, but in the Talmud (which the author does not know, but have heard) are pictured many marriages between direct relatives. So that, really, the most clever is a bit silly, though this is not directly related with our topic.
     But we can look also from another angle at the things, because the concept of chosen by God race is a kind of violation over the people around, though weak (moral) one, and being such it, naturally, forces the necessity for stronger counteraction, what has been applied to the Hebrews in many countries in different centuries, but the "top" was reached under the fascism, which applied then unmasked genocide. Objectively looked, though, the fascists have not invented something new, they just "turned the rod" backward saying that if so, then they also are chosen, because were Aryans. Anyway, it is clear that the genocide (even the most humane) is damaging to the human society as a whole, for it diminishes the so needed diversity.

      3. Another kind of violence appears in the religious and ideological fanaticism. Inasmuch as the faith or conviction are something that can elementary be changed for less than a generation here the necessary violence is, generally, weaker than in the previous cases, but it unavoidably exists in the history of all religions and state ideologies. It deserves to be mentioned that in this case, too, there is easy solution of the disputes (if there were more collective reason), because each religion in its own way is progressive (well, regressive, too), so that there is not a big difference which exactly one will share (as it is so also by the choice of partner for creating of family) and the difference is only a matter of taste, i.e. it is something secondary and, hence, there is no reasonable necessity of strong compulsory impact! And really, there would have been no necessity of compulsion, if the subjects changed easily their religions, or if the priests have recognized the need for religious tolerance. Little by little, this is realized in current days, and in many countries coexist peacefully quite many religious beliefs, but to this state of things has come always after many needless bloodshed and not at all everywhere. Similar is the question also with the different ideologies because, although the religion has as its goal the happiness, and the ideology — the peace, in the country, they look alike as different forms of delusion (see "About the religion"), and because of the unwillingness of the masses to accept easily new delusions becomes essential for the law of necessary violence to be activated, in order to be possible later on the things in the country to go smoothly. Put it otherwise: the necessary violence could have been weaker, if the human stubbornness was not stronger!

      4. Another kind of necessary violence is the civilian terror, but it is direct consequence of religious or ideological causes, though sometimes it can be induced by other domestic unrest. The capricious moment here is that this terror often becomes stronger than the necessary level, in which case it, not only has initially the effect of weak reaction, but allows for accumulation of the discontent of the masses, so that later it happens that the strong impact has played the role of a weak one, generating stronger reaction after a time. This is very subtle moment and, as far as discontent of the masses exists always when change of some course of management with another one happens, it can′t be unambiguously said where exactly is the middle point of the violence. This is in sense that, as there were in old times in Bulgaria hard laws of Khan Krum, or in the young Soviet Union was CheKa (chrezvichaynaya komissiya, extraordinary commission), so in many other countries there were excessively inadequate to the crimes punishments, and such things happen also today around the world, because one must have "nonhuman" intellect, that is to establish the needed level of violence over the humans, i.e. this is practically impossible. In some extent in this aspect the things are related with the sadism, to which we shall come after a while, because are created conditions for massively applied legalized cruelty, but, we have to stress this, the terror often arises as reaction of the government to the disobedience of the population, so that guilty for the terror are as the rulers, so also the ruled ones.

      5. The next kind of necessary violence is the anarchism^*. Maybe the adherents of this movement think that they act in this way because, in their view, the anarchy is the best regulator (or at least one of the good regulators) of the human society, or that "the anarchy is mother of the order", because the order originates from the chaos, and so on, but they are simply in error. (By the way, this is a very old thesis, because the English, i.e. Latin, word for motive or "cause" is etymologically related with the word "chaos", which in its turn is of Greek origin, and this relation reflects the naive concepts of Ancient Greeks from 25 centuries.) And they have reasons to fall in error because the well-known idea about market economy uses exactly this thought, but our (Bulgarian), mildly put, unsuccessful attempts of the first democratic years, as also the worldwide experience in this regard, show clearly that betting only on one idea, without its counteracting, does not lead to anything good! The chaos isn′t a good regulator even in the world of mollusks, to say nothing about the human society; it can work in the world of atoms and subatomic forces, or in the other direction — on a level of galaxies — but by the humans not the chaos is what leads to some order (as a rule, of course). The anarchism has its effect not because of the chaos, which it causes, but because of the applying of necessary violence over small number, and often totally innocent, subjects, as also in conditions of peaceful coexistence, when this is as if inadmissible. In this way with little forces is achieved strong impact, or put it otherwise: the anarchism is the most bloodless war! This is the reason for existing and spreading of these methods also in current days on the whole world. The anarchist is not like the sadist, he kills people who does not know, but just as subjects of his action, and the "good" anarchists, usually, have their views about humane killing, however shocking this may sound.

     [ * Here we have in mind fulfilling of attentats, explosions, sabotages, and so on, aiming at creating of social disorders, bound to solve the problems, because the government can′t do this. Together with this view exists also another one, which comes from the times of French Revolution and is simply negation of the "archy" or authority (in whatever form), on account of the idea that the people, you see, were intelligent enough (or were on the way to become such), for to understand what is to be done and to do it, without any force, but (the author thinks) this is obvious utopia because, even if there were no objections from the part of the people, without planning nothing can be done nowadays. ]

     Said in other way, the anarchism is something similar to the strikes, only that with much more cruel results, but aiming first of all to attract the attention of domestic and international public to unsolved problems, and this violence in the case is the minimally needed, in order to achieve strong impact. The anarchism should not be confused with the organized crime or terrorism, which may use the same methods, but have entirely different goals. The anarchism is the weapon of the weak and it is applied when existing in the country atmosphere of terror against some of its citizens does not allow using of others (peaceful) means. If in this situation, at the cost of five victims, several persons succeed to engage five thousand policemen in their pursuit, and to attract attention of five million people to serious problems in the society, then the goal is achieved! In this sense, the strong impact here aims not directly at solving of the problems, as it is in a war, for example, but only at setting of the questions for solving (except when the attentat is directed to a concrete political personality, when it again does not solve entirely the problems but only assists in changing of the course of ruling). And again: this is not justification of the anarchism, but explanation of its appearance. And once more time: the anarchism is the possibly reasonable reaction of the weak, when the society does not propose them a better decision! The necessity of anarchism will disappear of itself, if the social reasonability reaches some level of organization higher than that of the jellyfish.

      6. Another kind of violence is the organized crime (or the mafia), which is just an addendum to the authorized instances for maintaining of law and order in the country, although it often acts against these instances in the struggle for establishing of dominance! More that this, it acts also through these security bodies, as there is present also the reversed process. It answers to the interests (though unacknowledged) of a considerable part of the population, serving them, because the police can′t do this, nor has such goals. When the police forbids the narcotics (or the alcohol, for example, or the prostitution), but the people, no matter that they deny them officially, want them, then who else is to propose them to the people if not some strong organization, or mafia? The forbidden fruit is always sweeter than that, which is generally available, so that, while there are prohibitions, there will be also people who will trespass them. This, surely, does not mean that there should not be any bans — such things always will exist in a society, because each organized group of people attempts to defend its interests and deny those of the others, and we can hardly imagine such liberal society that will legalize the cannibalism, for example, or will not try to protect the young and children from the mistakes of juvenescence, and so on. Though the society could be moral enough, so that to be no ground in it for organized crime, and this is something to what we can always strive (maybe because we can never reach it?). Except the elimination of the causes for this crime remains only one way — the necessary violation of the official punitive bodies to be such, that the reaction of the organized crime to be sufficiently weak (say, for it to be not possibly to organize itself). The legality and humanity here can do almost nothing — the point is: whose violence will be stronger, for to cause weaker reaction!

      7. At the end we will stop for a while at the cruelty and sadism, which are not so much forms of necessary violence, as examples for misunderstood violence, in which is applied not the minimally necessary, but much bigger one, what causes accumulation of the reaction in the subject, or in his close relatives, which leads to consequences that are not weak reactions. In this way we come to the phenomenon that a strong impact has shown itself as weak, what is not typical for the normal human activities, but the sadism, too, is not behaviour of psychically normal human personalities. The cruelty is not just violence, but excess of violence, which indication is caused by people with mental deviations (though it is difficult to assert that these deviation are rare, because many children, for instance, like to torture the animals, but this is explicable with their small knowledge of the world and with their not quite formed psyche). This, that the cruelty is inevitably related with the violence in each of its forms and manifestations, determines the possibility for its appearing in each of the above points, but, still, there must be made difference between the two terms in the presence or absence of emotional involvement for the object exercising the violence. In this regard the cruelty, and the sadism as its extreme form, are most often individual acts, where the violence is exercised almost always in groups and motivated. And let us stress that if the violence is unavoidable and necessary in our activity, the cruelty is entirely redundant and can be avoided! The minimal core of the definition of humanity consists exactly in this, that if, by various reasons, some violence must be exercised, it has to be applied without whatever cruelty. Contrary to the assertions of the humanists, though, this is so not because the people must behave like humans (for the humanity is very fuzzy and ungrounded notion and out of these positions we, for example, should have long ago given up eating animal flesh), but because the non humane actions do not agree well with the law of necessary violence.
     Somewhere since Freud got particular propagation the thesis that the failure to satisfy some (most often hidden) impulses and desires only worsens the situation, because it leads to accumulation and to their subsequent manifestation, so that it is better to offer some vent to the passions (were they erotic, were sadistic, or any others). This, naturally, is true in general terms, but to a certain extent, and the exaggeration of this thesis also leads to nothing good, as we gradually begin to grasp. The excessive liberalism does not lead to much freedom for the individuals, because if strengthens the contradictions between them when they are not reasonably constrained, and it becomes clear now that massively applied virtual cruelty is not so innocuous, for it leads to addiction and unavoidable desire to try it in reality. The situation is much alike to that with the alcohol and the narcotics, and it is logical in near future to be taken similar measures, i.e. to apply some necessary violence from the part of society, that must restrict the conditions for forming of cruelty and sadism. So that we again return to the question of violence.

           III. Conclusive Remarks

     Before we finish it is proper to turn our attention to this peculiarity in our definition of violence, that it does not require for the object exercising the violence (or, generally, the impact) to be necessary organized matter. So, for example, for the reaction of those buried by an avalanche in the mountain, and for those who have barely managed to escape, is irrelevant whether the avalanche has fallen of itself (i.e. as a result of natural laws), or was caused by some human, an outsider or some of the injured group; this may has its importance by judicial investigation, but not for the behaviour of people in avalanche areas in the winter. Similar is the situation also for other kinds of "violence" on the part of the nature, like: earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, infectious epidemics, environmental pollution, disappearing of animal species, et cetera. We may put the quotes on the violence when the object is not animated, but this does not change the character of the reaction of the subject, i.e. it is weak by strong impacts (or at least should be such), expressing itself in their avoiding, or in predicting of the strong effects even before they have occurred. For the believers in the hypothesis of God (see "About the Creation") there are no obstacles for endowing of the nature with some divine intellect and for accepting of the above-given examples as God′s vengeance, but we don′t need this. The important thing is for our reaction to be inadequate to the irritant, and even reasonably inadequate, as much as this is possible.
     And one more thing: each impact, the violence too, is factor for our learning. If there is not necessary a violence for to make us act reasonably, then let us not wait for this violence to be realized at all: were it not to fight with stronger adversary, were it not to create ground for anarchistic manifestations, or for genocide, or for religious intolerance, were it not to build high buildings in earthquake region, or to avoid big gatherings of people on one place as source for various infections, were it to observe some moral and physical hygiene in order to prevent contracting AIDS, and other examples. No matter how many times one has explained to a child that he (or she) has to stay away from the stove or electric plate, he will not assimilate this until it "punishes" him. In the same time, when one becomes tired doing hard physical work, then it is time to invent something that will make it lighter, because the ache in the muscles is a weak "violence" and people answer it with stronger reaction, as they don′t agree to do the unpleasant work forever but invent corresponding mechanisms for that goal. So that the violence is not only necessary element in life, but also life relies on it in its evolution, and the human being, left without some form of compulsion, begins to fall in rage and to wonder what to do (something, what is easy to be seen by small children and pet animals), so that in some way to receive the healing dose of penalty, which has to prevent him from extreme cases of violence! The whole subtlety here is to react intelligently to the various forms of compulsion and violence.
     But it turns out that in regard of the reasonable reaction the social community stays lower than the isolated individual, meaning that one will much more easier meet a person, who acts reasonably, than a nation, that does this, and for the mankind as a whole this is practically impossible! This phenomenon of the social community is investigated in the essay "About the mankind", but it reduces chiefly to this, that the society still has very primitive nervous system (especially a free society), similar to that of the mollusks, where the human being has also nervous system and ability for reasonable judgements (though he does not much use these gifts in difficult real situations). For that reason it happens that a bigger group of people is not more intelligent that one arbitrary chosen individual with average intellect, no matter that the latter is part of the group, so that the reaction of social communities, most often, is that of the jellyfish. We may not like this situation, but must take the facts into account. It would be nice to think that after some five-ten centuries the mankind as a whole will at last jump over this debasing for the "crown of the creation" level, but this is not much probable. Nothing hinders us, though, to hope that this will happen.

           — — — — —

Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/

Eng. № 3. D. Ten Cynical Essays

T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)

Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000

CONTENTS

PART FOUR

ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY

ABOUT THE VIOLENCE