C U R I O U S    M A N I F E S T O S   — excerpts!           (POLITISTICS)           Chris MYRSKI,     Sofia,   2000            — — — — —           CONTENTS*      [ * All names of the parties /movements /etc. in Bulgarian original have abbreviations with three equal letters, which peculiarity isn't easy to maintain in the translation, so the letters are more often different. ]      Foreword      Manifesto of the DDD (Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship) Movement      Addendum to DDD      Manifesto of the EEE (Enigma of the Exploitative Elite)      Manifesto of the ZSG (Zodiacal Significance Group)      Addendum to ZSG      Manifesto of the IIE (Initiative for Iterative Elections)      Manifesto of the CCW (Corrupted Cadres Wing)      Manifesto of the NNO (New Nomenclature's Offensive)      Manifesto of the FCP (Forever Changing Party)      Addendum to FCP      Manifesto of the BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference)      Addendum to BRD      Manifesto of the USC (Union for Strength and Competition)      Manifesto of the TTT (Tandem for Total Totalization)      Manifesto of the FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation)      Manifesto of the CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses)      Addendum to CCC      Afterword      Supplement: Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)?            — — — — —            PART SIX           AFTERWORD The dictatorship is the only thing that may convince the people that there is something good in the democracy, as well as the democracy is the only thing that may convince the people that there is something good in the dictatorship! That is the reason why neither the pure dictatorship nor the pure democracy can stay for a long time. The only good point in the democracy is the fact that it is bad form of government, but being such it may be perfected forever! The dictatorship, on the contrary, is, as it is well known, the best-organized form of government, and when it is applied there are two major variants, namely: it is either turned in the wrong direction and this is bad, or it is turned into the right one, what after some time makes the life dull and not exciting, because people lose their interest to make it any better, and that is bad, too! ... The politician is like a ... piece of meat, hanged on the hook in the butcher's shop — every fly may spit on it (him)! In this sense, the bad politician is that on whom no fly sits, and the best is, usually, the most spat at! The politician is resonator of the voice of population and that is why the good politician often ... resounds hollow!            — — — — —           SUPPLEMENT: HURRAY, IS IT POSSIBLE?*           (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)      [ * This is a later inclusion (from 2007), where the question is considered not so biased, but for all this also more sketchy, as is becoming for a draft version of project-proposal. It, however, is wholly realizable, if properly discussed and completed with necessary details. And one more remark for the translation in English: "Hurrah" in the original is "Ura", and these 3 letters are the initials of "Government of Reasonable Alternative". ]           1. Why?      The history of all societies is a history of counteraction between the masses and the rulers, or between the lower and upper, for better and moral, justly government. This is so because there can't be no government (the idea that each person will alone know what to do is more than Utopian), but also every man has sufficiently good idea of morality and justice, because this is something innate and operating on the basis of comparison with the others (so that if someone violates some moral or legal norms then this almost always is not because he, if of age, of course, does not know what is good and what bad, but because hopes to remain unpunished, something that even if it does not bring direct gains and pleasures to him at least raises his self-esteem). As a result of this counteraction is reached to finding of compromise between the wishes of the people and the interests of the rulers, which, in principle, should not be antagonistic, but usually are exactly such, and what compromise most often is reduced to ... sticking to the one end (because the golden mean, alas, is unattainable for us), so that this is either some strongly centralized government, or some form of anarchy.      Well, if they are extreme, then neither the dictatorship (respectively, the tyranny — a matter of naming) can't last for a long time (there are many examples for this in the history), nor the anarchy (which in the end is reduced to one or another form of expression of people's wishes by at least minimal discipline, as it is under the democracy). We think that it is clear that the good decisions must be near to the center, which is generally accepted to be named democracy (though the idea of the democratic centralism is not very different — it defended /defends the interests of the people, but without so much circuses as under the Western, and now also Bulgarian, democracy). But it remains also the question about the moral, which simply is obliged to be present in whatever form of governing but, alas, from the time of Renaissance was thrown out of it — because it turned that it is aging much faster than the economic relations in the society and begins to hinder the government (which nowadays is also put on a good scientific base). The throwing of the moral out of the government, however, does not mean that it is not present invisibly in the people's minds (to remind you about the absurd, but realized in USA, dry law imposed by the Puritans), its power was just lessened a bit, whereas nowadays, when the influence of the church is already quite weakened (and, by the way, substituted by the media), and especially in countries with, on the whole, atheist population (as ours) it turns out that we must yet insert the moral in the government (thing that the communists have done, according to their own views, of course).      The point, though, is not only about the moral but also about the intellect (or just the wisdom of the folks), which can, and must, oppose the (unavoidably) selfish interests or the ruling. ...           2. How?      In view of this, and by a number of other, non listed here (but dealt with in other parts of this book) problems, we think that a reasonable government (the Government itself, or the Parliament, or the Supreme Authority), which is very suitable to be named in Bulgarian (or also in Russian) URA (or GRA in English), as abbreviation from Government of the Reasonable Alternative, must contain the following three elements, namely: a House of the Rulers (HR for short), a House of the People (HP for short), and a House of the Sages (HS for short). Let us discuss all of them in succession. ...           3. Whether to do it?      Well, roughly, this is the idea of the GRA, but isn't it just another utopia? Isn't it good only in theory, but in practice will turn out to be worse than the traditional democracy ...      Well, it is true that in the contemporary global world is very difficult to introduce radical changes in social area in one isolated country, more so in such with population only ... one per mil from the world's, but, as you know, a chain breaks at its weakest link, so that it is not excluded that we will be honoured to conduce this important experiment (initially, say, on a local level, in one town or region). After all, in later times is much spoken about civil society, but it nowhere works good enough, if it existed, so that this can be our Bulgarian variant. Because if it will not be applied in our country we have to hope for this to happen, say, on Alaska, or by the tribe of Mumbo-Jumbo, or ... on the Moon. In any case, when something is necessary it sooner or later happens, or, as our Shoppe (ethical minority around Sofia) says, "What is needed, it is required by itself", and the sole reason (according to the author) for which this can also not happen (at least in a near future) is that the idea of GRA is entirely ... reasonable.      But then, think for yourself: isn't it better to say GRA-hurray, than later to grieve that have not accepted one idea simply because it has turned to be more intelligent than us?           E N D

 

---

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