[ As far as this is a whole book let me give here an idea about its . When you open it (and look from the back) it has the following view: on the left half, which goes to the back of the book, in its down part, is seen the world globe with the continents, around which there is a small ring on the Equator (like by Saturn), from which somewhere in the bottom part goes out continually broadening band reaching 2-3 cm. at the place of the fold of the cover, but later at the front (bottom) part of the cover this band broadens more reaching on the right verge width of about 10 cm.; in this band already is seen human crowd (on some demonstration) on a gray background, who are caring placards with three capital letters, on each of which, starting from the right (and frontal) broader end, can be read the following: “DDD”, “EEE”, “ZSG”, “IIE”, “CCW”, “NNI” (maybe also “FCP and “BRD”); the background of the cover is neutral (say, light-blue), and in the right (front) part there is enough place: above — for the title and the author, and below (under the band) — for the publishing house (and whatever else may be needed). ]
[ * 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. ]
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
Supplement: Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)?
The history of all societies is a history of changing of one ruling party with another! The parties have existed from ancient times, already before the arising of democracy in Ancient Greece, when was just taken decision to use somehow this social phenomenon. The root of the present-day word is the Latin “part”, what means some portion, group (of people), division (of the nation), which thinks and reacts in a different than the others way, going out of its (partial) interests, and in the intent to defend its own people fights for power and place in the governing of the country. The parties are necessary under the democracy, but even in periods of dictatorship there exist, in addition to the ruling party, also other (most often illegal) parties or different fractions (i.e. parties in the parties). There will always be parties, or at least until will not be found the very best party! But the fact that they exist already milleniums speak for the opinion that till now such party has not yet emerged!
And really, if the very best party existed, it would have succeeded during this time to take at least once the power and after this it will never have lost it, because (by definition) it is the best and most qualified (and if it can easily lose the power then it, surely, is not so competent). Most near to this goal were the totalitarian parties which, as the best possible ones, rejected all others (because nobody searches the worse when the best is already found), but they also failed because they were good only according to their own criteria and in practice they lacked first of all the possibility to change all the time, as we shall see later. The important thing for now is to come to the conclusion that the best party simply does not exist! This what exists, and can be reached for one, though narrow as a hair compared with the whole human history, period of time, is some more or less good party for the moment, because: panta rei (or everything flows), so that the people incessantly change their views on many things. And as it often happens, the lack of quality is compensated in abundance with an excess in quantity — something that lies at the basis of pluralism! In this sense the traditional democracy gives some decision, but it is not at all this, which we would have liked to have; it is better than nothing, but it is wide away from the best decision.
Let us now, after this introduction, try to see first of all how the ideal decision must look like, if it exists. The ideal party should represent the widest possible masses of the population, and not only some narrow layer; it should not have its own party interests different from those of the people, who have elected it (struggle for power and personal benefits, for example); should take into account all different meanings (of the opposition) and try to search suitable for all parts decisions, something that is basic democratic requirement (only that it’s not realized in practice); to give equal chances to everybody, who expresses the wish to enter in it and take leading posts without receiving whatever privileges; to be in condition to change itself fast and without crises when the situation demands this, i.e. to contain the needed modification in itself and not to wait when somebody beats it for to begin to change; to maintain, however, some continuity and not to change in such manner that nobody could recognize it; to enthrall the masses because it is interesting for them to participate in it or sympathize with it, not because somebody forces them to; and at the end, to provide emotions and give shows to the people. This party must literally live as everything living on this world, where each of its new generations must deftly balance between the rejection of the old and the requirements of the new! Hence, if such party existed, it must be the one and only incessantly improving itself Party (with capital letter, surely), which fully deserves to be named Forever Changing Party (FCP).
Such party, naturally, could not have existed without its Opposition (also with capital letter), because if the party is one, more so must also the Opposition be single and perfect, i.e. also to represent the widest possible masses of population; to be in it no party quarrels and interests; if the Party is the constructive element of the governing then the Opposition must be the destructive element or the eternal “contra” to everything what comes from the Party; to give also equal chance for everybody who wishes to be its member and make oppositional career; to be adaptive (like the Party) to the new conditions, but maintaining the needed continuity; to unite and enthrall all oppositionists and criticizers. In two words: whatever is the Party such must be also the Opposition, but as its negation! The new generation of the Opposition must be built in a similar way to the new generation of the Party, otherwise there will not be equal fight, will not be dialectical evolution, will not be incessant change and improvement!
And, of course, there can’t be Party and Opposition without the existence of the Folk with its sacred voice and right of choice, i.e. all who can give their voice (say, with 18 completed years), but who in addition are neither from the Party nor from the Opposition, because as it isn’t right for someone to be member of two parties, in the same way it is not right for one to be member of some party and not be its member. In this sense our notion “Folk” consists only of those citizens, who do not take active part in political life (but their interests are represented, though in different way, both, by the Party and by the Opposition).
Grounding element of our program is the real democracy, i.e. the possibility for everybody to be member: if he wishes — of the Party; if he wishes — of the Opposition, but if not — to be simply of the Folk (i.e. not to be a member of whatever party), and to be such as he alone wishes, with a bit of luck, of course. If the human being is universally advanced and perfect animal he must be allowed to change his activity with the time; if somebody is appropriate for the Party, he is equally suitable also for the Opposition, or as representative of the Folk. More than this, as much as the Party, also the Opposition, as universal parties for maximally wide circle of people, must be representative selections of the population of the country, i.e. to represent the interests of all its groups! Only then our Party will be the ideal decision, not yet reached in whatever from the existing Parliaments, will be the everlasting and non-destroyable Forever Changing Party. But is such decision possible? We insist that it is possible and it is as simple as everything genial.
As far as the Forever Changing Party is a party of entirely new type it goes cyclically through two distinct stages in its incessant renewing and these are the stages of: forming and balloting. We will look at them more precisely:
a) On the stage of forming of the FCP each citizen must determine his affiliation to the new generation of the Party, Opposition, or the Folk, in one free and democratic way — with personal participation and a bit of luck. In order to have more interesting and spectacular conducting of this preliminary choice, but also to avoid all conditions for faking and manipulation of the masses, there will be chosen some intermediate numbers which later will be related to specific values! Before explaining the exact procedure let us first extent the possible alternatives to five, namely: P for Party, O for Opposition, F for the Folk, L for those who retain their last choice (from the previous elections), and N for those who go to another (next) voting. It is natural to accept that in the first election the variant L will be considered as F, as also that in the second tour those who have chosen N must be added to F, because we stop the choice here (though there are no problems at all to have three or more tours by the same scheme).
By these agreements each one who has the right to vote must in an interval of one month go to the Municipality and choose one number between 1 and 5 inclusive, what forms his choice of affiliation, where this must be fixed in a centralized data base for the country linking his Unique Citizenship Number (UCN — or insurance number for other country) with his choice and the person receives the corresponding quittance. Those who, by whatever reason, have not made their choice in the said interval receive automatically the number zero, which later is interpreted as F. Then this choice for affiliation is announced publicly by the usual way where for each of the persons are written: UCN, names, address, this choice (from 0 to 5) and last choice (only P, O, or F). In two weeks after this, in most festive circumstances, takes part the official deciphering of the votes, where personally the President, for example, draws a lot for each of the five numbers. For those who have given the number which turns out to be N (next tour) is performed one more voting, this time in the next two weeks, where in the meantime those who wish can change their choice, and after this the numbers are again deciphered.
As you see there is enough time (a whole month) for performing of the choice, not just one day, and there is no way to distort the voices of the voters, because simply is not known in advance which number what will mean. This, certainly, is the ideal security and now it becomes a reality! And mark the fact that by these choice of affiliation there are not at all losers, because not only the Party, but also the Opposition, take part in the governing of the country, and even the common people from the Folk, too (as we shall see later), because the elections do not finish here.
Without falling in tedious calculations (which are given in the Addendum) we shall mention only that, because the probability for each of the five numbers are equal (nobody knows which number what means for to be some preferences), and with relation to the second tour and the old choice, it turns out that if there were 100 % voted (what isn’t a real situation) by about 31 % will have the P and the O, and the left are for the F, where in one real amount of 85 % voted the members of the Party and the Opposition will be exactly by 1/4 of the population, and for the Folk remains the other half. An important criterion is also the continuity in the ranks of the Party (resp. Opposition), which turns out to be nearly the half (48 % by 100 % voted, and 40 % by 85 % voted).
b) On the stage of balloting in the ruling institutions is needed, from the already formed Party and Opposition, to be chosen one representative selection, which must fill the so called Party Parliament (PP) and Oppositional Parliament (OP). The best representativeness, naturally, may be received by some arbitrary choice, by which all strata of the population take proportional part, otherwise unavoidably some distortion will arise, as it is in all contemporary Parliaments, where the sacred vox populi is simply substituted with the “voice partial”. Central point in understanding of the conception of FCP is the thesis that the politician is not professional, because nobody requires from him (or her, surely) obligatory to have neither tertiary, nor secondary, nor whatever, general or specialized political education, neither to be capable even to read or write (not that such knowledge impedes him somehow). More than this, if this was not so (i.e. if there was educational requirement, then the elections would not have been democratic enough, because some circle of common people would have been excluded from taking of electrve positions.
This conception has deep democratical roots and already in Ancient Greece there were discussions about the point that nobody (with the exception of gods, maybe) can know what is good and what is bad, and that this is something what neither can be studied, nor there exists unanimous answer. From the height of the flown 25 centuries we may now give more contemporary sounding of this assertion reformulating it so: there is no algorithm which can discern the good from the bad without the human individual! And praise be to God, say we from the FCP, because if such algorithm existed then the human would have been simply eliminated from each governing structure, as its most unreliable element! So that the members of the Party and the Opposition must be only people from the public, necessary to approve the laws, applying their own criteria for good or bad in the given historical moment (and not to create or analyze them thorough, what is task of the professionals — the corresponding Commissions to the Parliaments).
What concerns the number of people there we propose that the Party and the Oppositional Parliaments consist of 100 (hundred) persons, where 1/4 of them, chosen by lot, must remain in the next Parliament for to convey their experience in the performed work to the new members, so that at the stage of balloting there must be chosen only 75 new Representatives. In accordance with approximate calculations for our country, for about 6 mln. voters and about 25 % of them members of the Party /Opposition (what is the case for 85 % participation in the elections), must be chosen 75 persons between 1,5 mln. people. Here we propose one natural and similar to the choosing on the stage of forming variant, namely: in interval of again one month each, who already belongs to one of the two ruling powers, must declare in the Municipality one number from 1 to 9,999 (the number 0 is reserved for those who, by different reasons, will not make their choice) and receive the corresponding quittance. After this, again in most festive circumstances, the Chairmen of PP and OP draw one number from 0000 to 9999 (by way of, for example, drawing consequently, or simultaneously, its digits) and two more additional numbers, setting in this way with surplus the corresponding Parliamentary pools. By uniform distribution of the numbers we must have for our country 150 persons chosen with the first basic number, i.e. double reserve, but to be on the safer side are drawn also the additional numbers, because it may happen that many people don’t like to choose some number (say, 0013).
After securing of at least double reserve in the pools (when needed there may be drawn more additional numbers — this becomes clear at once, because the choice of everybody is known in advance, and how many people are there for each of the numbers) is performed sieving and ordering of the candidates, what is done again in an attractive way: in two spheres are placed equal amount of numbers which coincide with the number of people, where for the one there is already prepared and announced list of candidates ordered by UCN (or by names), and the numbers in the second one give the consecutive number of the candidates in the new formations, where each number above 75 is considered as current reserve for adding, what reserves exist also in the traditional Parliaments. That is how the link between the candidate and the place in the Parliament is done, where it must be marked that the drawn out numbers are not returned back in the spheres.
When for a given number happen to be very many candidates (i.e. more than 80 – 90, how much is the real need with small reserve, but in the average case they are twice more, and especially if occasionally falls the number 0000 of the non-voted) and their numbers fill very tightly the sphere, then they are firstly split in subgroups (say, by 50), according to some ordering, then for the subgroups is drawn lot for their ordering, after this in each of them is performed drawing by the explained method with two spheres, and at the end is performed merging of the subgroups. Because it isn’t right to interpret the ordering of the groups also as ordering for simple sticking of the lists one to the other (because then after the first two subgroups will not be any reason for drawing and this people will be discriminated), then the subgroups are visited cyclically (in the established order) taking the first number from each of them, then the second one, etc., till the end. Such drawing is performed also for each of the additional numbers (if we don’t have yet double reserve) and then the ordered list is appended to that for the previous numbers for to obtain the final list.
It is clear that this is applied to both Parliaments; and it is good to have some procedure for rejecting of participation in the governing, if someone wishes so, when in this case he receives each month during the mandate of the Parliaments by half of the due to him salary, and on his place enters the next reserve from the list. There are no big expenses out of state’s budget, we have guarantied fair and free elections (there is no possibility for them to be falsified), there are many emotions for the public, and the most important thing — the members in both Parliaments are really representative selections of the people, what is one triumph of democracy!
c) As the experience of all contemporary democracies, however, shows, it can’t be some real democracy without the consolidating role of the Presidential institution, and as far as the FCP makes many new arrangement in the electoral procedure we must clear also this question. It is good for the President to be neither of the Party nor of the Opposition and, hence, he has to be chosen between the Folk via direct choice by existing chance for everybody in similar way as by the choice for balloting in the Parliaments. As far as even for our small country one pool of about 3 mln. people is big enough we propose its first decreasing by choosing the Presidential Zodiac where the Chairman of the PP draws officially one out of 12 numbers. In this situation there will be left about 250,000 people candidates for President, each of which must in the already known way in interval of one month declare his (or her) choice of one number between 1 and 99,999 (this time), where the zero is again reserved for the non-voted. Thereafter similarly takes place drawing of one winning number (from 00000 to 99999) and two additional, and then is performed the sieving and ordering of the candidates, where the second person in the end-list becomes Vice-president.
The so chosen President (Vice-president) similarly must be allowed to reject the post if wishes (against the half of his salary), and then is chosen the next in order. And mark that the President again is not a professional (there is no Academy for Presidents, right?) but ordinary person from the population who has just have more luck than the others, but what else if not luck needs one nation under the democracy?
The activity of the new institutions is mostly similar to this of their current analogues, only that it is more perfect, because everyone does exactly this what must be done, namely: the Party Parliament approves the laws, the Oppositional Parliament rejects them (if it can), and the President rules and represents the country. The very making of the laws is done by professionals, jurists and specialists in the area to which refers the the bill in question. The task (the law to be made or corrected) is set by the Party Parliament, then after making the draft of the law it is shown firstly in the Oppositional Parliament and to the President for critical remarks and then in the Party Parliament for approving (and constructive corrections), after what it is returned to the professionals with the remarks of Party Parliament for possible corrections. This procedure is repeated up to two times, where the President also has the right to return once the draft, but the conclusive word, of course, has the PP.
Each of the Parliaments can take under consideration also the meanings of its electors, via some corresponding units (Commissions for public meaning), as much as the Folk, too, can take part in possible discussions and give the meaning of his members to whoever of the parts everyone wants. In this case the well known from the contemporary Parliaments situations of “eagle, crab, and pike”, figuratively speaking, will be simply impossible and, at least because the adversaries will not be in one hall, will be criticized only the discussed laws and the expressed meanings, not the persons who have expressed them! This is especially important because the aim of democratic governing and law-making is to grasp and incorporate in laws not the personal expression but the most actual in the moment idea.
Inasmuch as between the Parliaments and the President may sometimes arise contradictions they will be decided as explained below.
a) The president may dismiss both Parliaments only simultaneously, where this may happen: either single time for interval of up to 7 consecutive days; or multiple times up to 30 days in the expanse of the last 6 months, but again for not more than 7 consecutive days and with interruption of not less than one week; or permanently, but after having spent all temporary possibilities, in which case he is obliged in two months to fix new elections (where if in the moment of decision has not yet flown half of the time of the new generations of the Party /Opposition then is performed only the balloting, otherwise also the forming of the pool).
b) PP and OP for their part can dismiss the President of his (or her) post only permanently and by simultaneously taken decision approved with majority of at least 2/3 of the persons in each of them, where his place is occupied by the Vice-president and the place of the latter — by the first presidential reserve; in addition to this they have also the right to fix in one month time new elections for President /Vice-president out of the existing Folk, but can change his Zodiac, where decision for this is taken also by the stipulation for simultaneity and voting with qualified majority.
In order not to come to such extreme decisions in one and the same moment, as also to preserve the supreme power of the Parliaments, their decision comes into action at once, where the decision of the President, in case of permanent dismissal of the Parliaments, must be confirmed again by him personally not before 7 and not later than 14 days (if he is still on his post).
At the end let us mention some important advantages of FCP and the structure of social governing which it imposes, besides already cited fair, democratic, attractive, functional, and inexpensive elections, providing also continuity and renewing of the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk in each cycle, namely:
a) Very important peculiarity is the lack of national elections for municipal and magisterial institutions, because they are administrative and executive and require the needed dose professionalism, hence they are not at all place for political biases! The municipal Councilors will be appointed by the President on hierarchical (not democratical) principle, based on some competition, where each local ruler chooses and appoints his /her subordinates in similar way. The people from the Folk (grouped by Zodiacs, for example) may require changing of some municipal rulers, but these problems will be solved in administrative hierarchy. The choosing of judicial authorities will proceed also without national elections, but in an entirely democratic way, where the propositions are done by the very judicial organizations, some of the candidates may be rejected by OP, and in the end the accepting is done by PP, and as much as the Parliaments are representative selections of the population they represent its meaning sufficiently good for to be no need of direct elections.
b) In what extent is true the saying that the modesty adorns the human in that extent is true that there is not even one “nice” politician by the classical forms of democracy, because if one politician is modest he will never set his candidature! Only by FCP for first time is allowed to be chosen even modest politicians, because not they set their candidatures but the chance and kismet choose them. If there was only one capable politician in the country he can be chosen in PP, OP, or become President, where in no democracy in the world a politician can take the power if behind him does not stand, either political, or economical, or tyrannical, or nationalistic, or some other power.
The main advantage of the FCP, though, is its reasonableness, so that if once some nation begins to think also about the politics, the people there must unavoidably come to the necessity of Forever Changing Party — the ideal decision of the political phenomenon, as science for this how one can overcome not only his errors, even not the errors of the other people around, more so those of the staying at the top, but such errors that people have not yet shown, maybe because there was not have come their time.
FCP not only aims at the ideal equilibrium between the “three whales” of the democratic society — the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk —, but makes this ideal entirely realizable!
With the Forever Changing Party to the best, everlasting, and indestructible democracy!
To incessant renovation via the Forever Changing Party!
This Addendum contains the mathematical model of voting for forming of the Party and the Opposition. It has informative character and does not principally influence the expressed in the Manifesto ideas, where by shown desire for changes in the elections (which, surely, must be fixed in the Election Law) allows easy analysis of their influence over the preparatory (forming) choice
Let us first introduce some symbols and use, as it is accepted in the mathematics, single Latin letters, namely: p to signify the part belonging to the Party, o — to the Opposition, f — to the Folk, and v — the part of the voted, where these parts are quotient of the corresponding amount of people to all who have right to vote (not to the voted), i.e. to A (from all). So, for example, for the Party members (P in sum) will have that p = P/A. It is clear that the percentage is received multiplying the part by 100. In addition to this, because each tour is related with the previous (but different from it), we shall use also lower index for the current tour (i in general case), and to the part of the voted in the next tour we shall add a “prime” to the v. As far as the probabilities for each of the five variants (P, O, F, L и N) are equal so they are equal to [_ 20 % = 0.2 ] each (but if we want to model different probabilities we must choose between more numbers, for example: 10 with precision of [ 10 % = 1/10 ], or 20 for precision of [ 5 % = 1/20 _], and in the latter case, if for the Party we accept probability of 15 %, this will mean that belonging to it will be determined by 3 numbers).
By these agreements we shall have that the part of the Party members which will come from the voted directly with P will be 0.2*vi, and this of those who have chosen L respectively 0.2*vi*p~i-1~, and similarly for N (those who go to second tour) 0.2*vi*(0.2*vi’+0.2*vi’* p~i-1~) , or summed:
pi = 0.2*vi+0.2*vi*p~i-1~+0.2*vi (0.2*vi’+0.2*vi’* p~i-1~) =
= vi (0.2+0.22* vi’+0.2* p~i-1~+0.22*vi’* p~i-1~) = vi +
+ 0.2p~i-1~(1+0.2vi’) ) = 0.2vi (1+p~i-1~) (1)
where, of course, the same is also the value of the part of voted for the Opposition, i.e. oi = pi, and the part of the Folk is fi = (1-2pi).
In particular, if vi = vi’ = 1 we will have
pi = 0.2*1.2*(1+p~i-1~) = 0.24(1+p~i-1~) = 0.24(1+0.24(1+p~i-2~)) =
= 0.24 (1+0.24+0.24p~i-2~) = 0.24 (1+0.24+0.242(1+p~i-3~)) = …
= 0.24+0.242+…+0.24n(1+p~i-n~) ≈ 0.24/(1-0.24) ≈ 0.3158
because we get rapidly decreasing geometrical progression (plus something more multiplied by its last term), which can be calculated with sufficiently high precision as infinite (its third term is already just 1 % of the first). This is one very interesting conclusion which means that, no matter that there were initially 20 % for P, alter 3–4 tours of elections (and the same percentage of the voted in each tour) we reach to one settled value of the percentage, or that pi ≈ p~i-1~ ≈ 0.316 ! Who doubts in this may simply check that 0.316 ≈ 0.24 * 1.316.
Similar are the calculations for another percent of voted, where we shall now calculate for vi = vi’= 0.854, because this gives sufficiently well rounded result of 25 % for the Party and Opposition and exactly half of the votes for the Folk, when the settled value is reached.
pi = 0.2* 0.854* (1+0.2* 0.854) * =0.171* 1.171* (1+p~i-1~) =
= 0.2 (1+p~i-1~) = 0.2+0.22+…+0.2n(1+p~i-n~) ≈ 0.2/0.8 = 0.25
And also for vi = vi’= 0.725, we get again rounded settled result of 20 % for the Party (Opposition):
pi = 0.2* 0.725* (1+0.2*0.725) * =0.145* 1.145* (1+p~i-1~) =
= 0.166 (1+p~i-1~) = … ≈ 0.166/0.834 ≈ 0.2
Let us now calculate what is the continuity of the Party /Opposition in the choice for forming, i.e. what part of the Party members will be chosen again, marking it with the letter c (from continue). If we mark with pi^*^ this part of them (related to all voters), which we get only from the rows of Party members from the previous voting, then will have something similar to (1), but the added terms get from P and L are equal, namely:
pi^*^ = 0.2*vi* p~i-1~ + 0.2* vi* p~i-1~ + 0.2* vi* (0.2* vi’* p~i-1~ + 0.2* vi’* p~i-1~) =
= 0.4* vi* p~i-1~ + 0.2* vi* 0.4*vi’* p~i-1~ = 0.4* vi* p~i-1~* (1+0.2 vi’)
c = pi^*^ / p~i-1~ = 0.4*vi* (1+0.2 vi’) (2)
what for vi = vi’ =1 gives c = 0.4*1.2 = 0.48, for vi = vi’ = 0.854 gives c = 0.4*0.854* 1.171 ≈ 0.4, and for vi = vi’ = 0.725 — c ≈ 0.332 .
The steady-state values for belonging to the various groups and the continuity in the Party /Opposition, all in percents, are summarized in the table below, after which there follow three other tables with results from computerized modeling for 50,000 persons:
v | p = o| f | c |
_ 100| 31.6|36.8|48.0 |
85.4| 25.0|50.0|40.0 |
72.5| 20.0|60.0|33.2 |
Tab. 1. Steady-state values for different percent of voted.
No||____Beginning % for ___|| _ Ending % for || Contin . in % for ||
tour|| no |_P_|_O_|_F_|_L_| _N_ | | P | O | F | | _P_ | O | _F_ ||
Tab.2. Distribution of the votes for 100% participation.
No||____Beginning % for ___|| _ Ending % for || Contin . in % for ||
tour|| no |_P_|_O_|_F_|_L_| _N_ | | P | O | F | | _P_ | O | _F_ ||
Tab.3. Distribution of the votes for 85.4% participation.
No||____Beginning % for ___|| _ Ending % for || Contin . in % for ||
tour|| no |_P_|_O_|_F_|_L_| _N_ | | P | O | F | | _P_ | O | _F_ ||
Tab.4. Distribution of the votes for 72.5% participation.
The history of all societies is a history of unity and struggle between opposite tendencies in the social area! And in this struggle, obviously, is important not the strength or weakness of each of the parts (tendencies) but their mutual situation, i.e. the difference between the opposing trends. When two people fight it doesn’t matter whether they are strong or weak but who is the stronger, and so is also in the wars, in the competition between the currencies, or between the different wares on the market, or between the winds forming the climate or a given place, or between the bachelors competing for a girl (and the reciprocal, too), and in each competition or contest, etc., et cetera. It is the same also with the democratic “seesaw”, where the prevalence of one party or coalition is shown in relation to the others, or relatively, not as absolute value (though this also, sometimes, has its significance).
This, surely, is known, only that it isn’t used properly but just pro forma. Because when the powers are only two and is applicable the rule that who is not with the one part is with the other (as it is by the pure two-polar democratic choice), the things, more or less, work also by the existing system, but the choice not always is bipolar, and even if it is such it does not work correctly (at least in our conditions) for it is reached then to the situation of “two hard stones”, which, as our folks say, “don’t mill the flour”. Though even if we have only two parties let us not forget that in each (other) voting there are counted three kinds of votes: “pro”, “contra”, and abstained, where in the national elections it isn’t so (for each party). And along with this in the politics, as also by other activities related to the popularity of a given person or tendency, the important thing is whether the public shows strong emotions, and not so much of what kind are they (because the extremities often switch from one to the other where the indifference is very hard to shake). And if some political power is found good by the population it is, still, not clear whether this is so because people like it, or because they hate the other powers (more than this one), but the followers of those other powers may hate even stronger this (liked) power, only that nobody asks them about this. In short — there’s something “lame” in the system of democratic elections, something that can easily be bettered accepting the platform of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference (BRD), on what we shall dwell in the current Manifesto.
a) It is not voted also “against” but only “pro” a given party, where the choice of one party must not be established only by those who are in favour of it, but also by those who are against it. This is perfectly clear, but maybe because of some relative simplicity of the choice nowhere on the world is voted also against each of the parties. But if for the, say, “Party of Party Members” (PPM) vote 45 % “for” and 40 % “against”, then when it comes to power it will turn out that for nearly half of the voted this is one bad choice? And it happened exactly so in Bulgarian nearly pure bipolar choice/*, where voting for the, say, “Party of Non-party Members” (PNM) we only show our disagreement with that of the Party Members. Well, if the object of the choice is it to be exactly bad then the existing method is good. But we doubt that this is the aim of the elections.
[ * As it was in Bulgaria during the first nearly 10 democratic years, and because of this the “king” later succeeded for 2 months to gather at once so much votes that was able to occupy the half of the Parliament. ]
Do not think, however, that if we forbid somehow such choice, for example, accepting that for PPM are only 5 % of the voters, i.e. the difference between those “pro” and “contra”, so in this way the choice will be “suspended” and could not be performed. Then simply will turn out that the center, i.e. some third party, which is liked by few people, but also from fewer is hated, will win the elections. But what better situation than one good center party with moderate views to the things in a Parliament with “hard milling stones” may be wished for?
It is possible, naturally, that in the first applying of similar decision may happen some differently enough picture, but it is also clear that, based on preliminary researches, will be obvious, as for the people also for the politicians, that neither PPM nor PNM (from our example) will do the work (and this already before the elections!), and the politicians should be forced to apply some thoughts in finding of suitable compromising platforms, in building of better coalitions, or in changing of their course. But as far as from Ancient Greece was known that the truth isn’t on the poles but exactly in the compromises or the middle point, then only some such decision will help the population to choose a good party, forcing the politicians to be such as the folks want them to be and not on the contrary, i.e. the people to be made to choose the lesser evil!
Well, the lesser evil, naturally, is better than the bigger one, but while we look at the political elections in this way it will never become good enough. Only the difference in the votes between “pro” and “contra”, showing also those who are not so emotionally influenced or abstain, as much as to like as also to hate, can give one real picture of the opinions of the masses and to exercise reversed influence over the very political parties! The exact procedure of choice will be expressed below, but it can be depicted now in rough strokes.
b) It is not considered the strength of emotion in the choice of a given party, because the strength is exactly in the difference between “pro” and “contra”, and from the point of view of the difference is equally important in the Parliament to be represented parties with approximately equal difference, but with different sign! The negative sign (for example –5 %) means that more people hate this party, but this very often, during its ruling, changes in reverse direction, so that not the sign is important but the absolute value of the percentage. Confirmation of this phenomenon of human perception may be found not only in Bulgarian political life, where in adjacent elections the people perform exactly this “changing of the sign”, but also more generally by strong emotions, like love and hate, for example, which much more often change to the opposite and nearly never to indifference or objectiveness of the judgements.
Of course, if isn’t one and the same thing whether the feelings are of love or hate, and this must be dealt with in the needed way (which we shall clarify below), but it is important to grasp that the influence of a given political power is proportional to the difference of the votes for it, and the strongly hated parties must also be represented in a suitable way in the Parliament. In this situation there will drop out of it, as much these parties for which people are with contradictory feelings (the “hard stones”), also those for which people have not yet meaning (because they are insignificant for them — as it is also by the traditional elections). In other words, our proposition also excludes the weak, according to the conventional view, parties, but in addition excludes also those which later will prove to be incapable to function mutually, while it saves those which rouse the emotions of the public, i.e. which raise important questions in their platforms.
c) The good and bad parties have equal rights in the Parliament and receive equal salaries. We can’t imagine whatever (other) competition in which the winners and the losers receive equal golden medals and going with them sums of money, but this shrieking anomaly exists in each Parliament on the world and bothers just nobody! There might be clear the motives for discussions and confrontation of the contestants, but such formulation of the things makes the national elections meaningless and, of course, contradicts to the common sense!
The defeated parties (coalitions and /or individual candidates) must have the possibility to state their voice, and it to be heard by the whole nation — this yes, but not to have equal rights in taking of significant decisions! And debates and discussions is not obligatory to be held in one hall and in this way, obviously, to hinder the very ruling, because all nations long ago are supplied with alphabets, so that the correspondence (via various communicative means, including the Internet) may be done effectively enough also by some dividing of the Parliament (what we shall explain later). Dividing in one natural way in: decisive body — the winning parties, and consultative or informative body — the losing ones!
d) The concept individual candidate (IC) is set very fuzzy and performs mainly populistic functions. Such person isn’t at all equal with the parties, and this not because the influence of one person can’t be compared with that of a strong political power, but firstly, because setting his candidature in one region, as it is in Bulgaria, he (or she, surely) will hardly gather the needed number of votes (in Parliamentary elections), where in the limits of the entire country he will jump even over three or four times of this amount of voices, and secondly, he has no interest in a big number of voters and each vote above the necessary quote may be taken for directly lost, because he can not win two or more mandates. The society nowadays lives long ago not in closed rural communities, where people don’t know one another out of them, and one National Assembly (our Parliament) is national institution, so that there is no need with insignificant reasons to negate the meaning of individual persons with original and unconventional platforms. However, it is clear that the IC must take part in one common for the whole country list, as also that they must be in position to use somehow the possibly additionally won mandates, showing their prominent followers.
To recapitulate: the struggle between the opposites is hampered without equality at the moment of contest, i.e. the elections, but the state’s engine comes in disorder if the equality continues also after the choice, which, in any case, must consider the difference in the votes between “pro” and “contra”, not only the absolute value of the voted in favour of the political powers, because basing on the difference allows to eliminate in bud the meaningless friction in the system. How exactly must be performed the choice according to the Believers in the Reasonable Difference will see in the next chapter.
The main difference in pre-electoral preparation for the voting consists in the requirement that all individual candidates are balloted on national level (i.e. they figure in the lists of all regions under one and the same code or number). We expressed the motives for this decision, but to avoid now the reverse possibility for advantage of the IC before the parties it is allowed also for each party (coalition) to take part, if it wishes, with candidates on national level, what means that the precise persons for the regions are not known in advance (but it is known which are the candidates for the party for the entire country; or even this isn’t known before and they are chosen later according to some rating). The concrete MPs are regioned after the elections by the ruling body of such party, where their number is determined according to the results of voting in a way which we shall explain below.
Such procedure for parties and coalitions has its advantages, beginning with the significant lowering of the costs of elections using one and the same electoral bulletins for the whole country, and even for different elections. But when this is just one formal advantage more important is that, if the balloting of MPs is intended for to maintain contacts with them during their mandate, so it is reasonable for them to be people who are not engaged also with other functions (like Ministers and so on), to which one, in any case, can not come through with months, because they just have no time for everything. The choosing of specific persons for each region, proportionally to the results of voting, may effortlessly be done also after the elections (or to substitute some MP for the region because of taking responsible position in the governing), and to involve not all MPs but only the less occupied of them, or as the party finds it useful. This eliminates the necessity for some prominent leaders to set their candidatures in several regions in order not to be left unelected. More than this, such important candidates may take part also as IC on national level, where their party maintains lists by regions in the traditional way. There is no need to require or think that the individual candidates are obligatory independent, because the practice (at least in Bulgaria) indubitably shows that they, in fact, are not such (but rather don’t want yet to say on whom or what they depend). In any case BRD provides more freedom for action, where the final decision depends on the given political power.
In the national elections for Parliament (and with minor corrections also for the other instances) must be voted with two envelopes — white and black — for some of the parties (coalitions) or IC. In the white envelope are put the bulletins of the political parties for which one votes “pro”, and in the black one — for which one votes “contra”. In both envelopes may be from one to five bulletins, where this limitation is needed in order not to set difficulties, as much for the electors, also for the counters of votes. These envelopes are dropped in correspondingly painted (white and black) boxes and with this the election (for the voters) finishes.
The bulletins for the parties (coalitions) may be with names for the regions, or may be also with central balloting (as it was said above), but for the IC they must be common for the country. Such mixing of the balloting by regions and for the whole country surely causes some difficulties but they can be overcome elementary and are entirely justified. This can be done, either with two kinds of codes — for parties (coalitions) with regional balloting, and for such with national (including IC) — where all political powers are merged in single lists during the counting (about what we shall speak a bit later) but the different codes are recognizable by something, or using common three-digit code on which, if the first digit is zero then it goes about parties with regional balloting, and if it is one — for IC or parties with common for the country list (supposing that there can’t be more than hundred parties or IC in the election). Anyway, this is a matter of formal agreement.
Since the bulletins are in separate boxes the counting of votes is also done separately for each box. This, and the number of votes, increases the needed for counting time, but this isn’t substantial in comparison with the many other pluses of the proposition (because if this factor was crucial then it would have been possible to keep the whole election not for the entire population but only for some arbitrary selection of 5-10 thousand voters, what would have diminished the time for this estimation about thousand times for our country, though this is not done because the goal of the elections is, would be, for them to be good, and not necessarily fast and effective). By the counting, similarly to the existing Election Law, equal bulletins are counted for one, but the new element is that it is possible, and even advisable, to be present bulletins of several parties or individual candidates.
When there are votes in two kinds of boxes it is entirely possible to happen that someone votes for a given party with one and the other envelope, but this has the same meaning as abstention of voting by our system of measuring the differences (only that this will increase the number of votes, what isn’t important), so that no juxtaposing of the personal votes in both envelopes is needed to be done. But mark that some people can vote only “pro”, what gives the traditional variant of choice (i.e. our proposition comprises the used till now method, but gives also new possibilities); or only “against”, what means that people just don’t like whatever of the leading parties, what will forbid for them to be chosen, but it is also helpful for their rating.
By the counting, for each political power, together with its unique code and way of balloting (by regions or for the whole country), are entered in two columns the votes “pro” and “contra”, as also their signed difference in a third column, where the sigh is positive if the votes in the white box (i.e. “pro”) are more than the votes in the other box, and negative — in the other case. Later, when the votes are summed on national level (though this can be done also for each region, for additional information), this list is divided in two lists, where in the one of them, accordingly arranged in diminishing order of the signed difference, are included only these political powers that are with positive sign of the difference (the liked powers), and in the another — those with the negative difference. In these lists the political powers are mixed no matter of the way of balloting of the concrete MPs, but on national level there is no difference between them (though they can be easily separated when needed).
An important characteristic of our proposition is the existing of two kinds of Parliaments, which we shall call Parliament and Antiparliament. It is clear that in the Parliament will enter representatives from the list with positive difference, and in the Antiparliament (it doesn’t sound good to say “Antinational Assembly”, right?) — those with negative difference. As far as the number hundred is round and entirely sufficient as one selection of the population we propose the number of MPs to be 100 for both institutions, what means also that it is just the same whether we shall speak about percents or about number of people. Here is also necessary to have some minimal threshold for participation in the Parliaments and we propose the simplest or one percent, i.e. enters each power which has gathered votes for at least one mandate, what follows also from the equalizing of the parties with IC.
The exact procedure on national level is the following: the votes of all powers from the given list are summed and the sum is divided by 100 as integer division, i.e. there are deleted the two last digits, what determines an integer number of votes for choosing of one mandate, or the initial quota of the election. All political powers with as much or less difference in the votes (“pro” and “contra”) drop from the corresponding Parliament. After this the votes of the left political powers, which now surely enter in the institutions, are again summed and divided integer by 100 for to get the real quota with which they are chosen (by this method of calculation it is always integer number). Then is determined the number of mandates (seats) in a way similar to the used around the world methods, namely: dividing the number of votes of their difference (the sign now does not matter because in the given list all differences are with the same sign) by the real quota, and then the result is written as decimal fraction with three digits after the point. The whole part of the number of mandates gives the minimal (guarantied) amount of people who enter in the corresponding Parliament, and the decimal parts are arranged in diminishing order and added by one mandate to each political power until reaching of the total number (here 100 persons). ( If occasionally by some two parties is reached to the exact number of mandates, as real with three decimal digits, and this is exactly by the last mandate, so then, either the precision of calculation is increased, or are compared the so called quotients in division by module the quote, which are integer numbers. If even in this case the equality remains, which we doubt will happen in the near millennium, is allowed in the given Parliament to be exceptionally 101 MPs. )
When the exact number of mandates for each political power are determined there leaves only the regioning (fixing the representatives to the regions, if it is necessary) and naming the actual persons who will take part in the governing. For parties with national list of candidates for MPs the fixing of the persons is done by the ruling body of these organizations after declaring of the number, and IC, in case they win more than one mandate, must personally show other persons (or person) who enter in the given Parliament. Before naming of the persons each party (coalition) determines the integer number of mandates by regions (which summed give its entire sum of mandates), where the specific persons by regional balloting follow automatically from the electoral list for the region in the corresponding order, and by national balloting they are establisher according the regulations of the party. The determining of the integer number of mandates for each region is performed in a similar to the explained in the previous point method, but this time is worked with the votes for all regions for the given party (i.e. first, on the basis of real quota for the country, is determined the number of mandates as decimal number, then are given the integer parts of the mandates, and then the regions are visited in order of decreasing value of their fractional parts until the needed amount of mandates is filled). This, naturally, is done for both Parliaments.
In the same way how by the national elections the result of voting is determined on the basis of the signed difference of the votes “pro” and “contra”, so also in all kinds of voting in the discussed institutions must be used the same principle. More precisely we discern two types of voting in relation to the majority, namely: with ordinary and with substantial. The ordinary majority in the Parliaments, in principle, [* is +10 % ] , i.e. voting by which the votes “pro” are at least with 10 % more than those “contra”, but of all possible votes (here 100) and not of the present in the hall MPs (e.g.: 50 votes “pro” and 40 or less “contra”, and the left ones are either missing or abstained), and [ substantial is +30 % ] (e.g.: 62 “pro” and 30 “contra”). We say “in principle” because before each voting may be asked and voted with ordinary majority of 10 % some other lower threshold of the percentage of the majority for the specific voting (but only for it), though always in the limits [*of 5 to 30 %.] The lower limit of minimum 5 % is needed, of course, in order to exclude the eventuality of adoption of laws, as it’s said, “hanging on a hair”, what presupposes that they are not very good.
It is clear that by this method of voting in many cases will be impossible to take decision, but what is the purpose of deliberate including in the system of premature and not taught through laws? If some draft law cannot be adopted then the voting is postponed for a period of at least one month, after which it can be voted again in the same or advanced and improved form. This applies in cases when the corresponding institution has decisive voice (what we shall explain after a while), but otherwise, or with informative purposes, voting may be performed every time and about everything.
The supreme governing institution, as also by the traditional democracies, is the Parliament, which consists out of 100 persons MPs chosen according to the voting with positive sign of the difference (by the explained in chapter 2 scheme). It takes its decisions with ordinary majority, with the exception of the cases when substantial is required (for example by changes of the Constitution). The Antiparliament, for its part, is auxiliary institution, which has consultative and informative meaning, as much as for the work of the Parliament as also for the public, because one of the most important advantages of the democracy is the publicity and possibility to voice contradictory meanings. Denying the strong opposition in the Parliament we do not plead for rejection of the opposition at all, more so because it existed in some form also in the Parliament, where, practically, are different parties and, hence, differences in the meanings.
The adopting of the laws and other important decisions is performed by the following scheme: the Parliament discusses the problem and makes control or trial voting (not for adopting), after which sends the materials to the Antiparliament and the President for their meaning, which they have to give (if wanted to) in an interval of two weeks (or even one, if the Parliament sets this condition). If these instances do not give whatever meaning till the set period of time is taken that they don’t have such (but, of course, it is preferable for them to declare this explicitly and not by default). Afterwards the Parliament makes itself acquaint with the meaning of the Antiparliament (the voting there and the made remarks) and the President, discusses them (if finds this necessary) and/or makes the needed corrections. Only then the Parliament comes to the real voting with the corresponding majority, and if it can’t take decision (because of small positive difference in the votes, or if it is at all negative), postpones the voting for at least one month, when the question may be raised again. If by the second voting are made no corrections then it is not needed to forward the problem again to the Antiparliament, but otherwise the same scheme is followed again.
The separating of Parliament from the Antiparliament leads also to necessity of different salaries in both institutions, where the simplest acceptance is that MPs from the Antiparliament receive twice less than those from the Parliament, what has to remind them always for their place in the system. This, however, does not mean that some persons from the Antiparliament can’t take ruling posts in the government (say, as Ministers), or to be included in different Commissions by decision of the Parliament, and in such cases their payment is corrected in accordance with the work.
Having in mind some critical situations, which in the traditional Parliaments lead to their dismissing and new elections, is allowed after the expiration of at least half of the mandate of the Parliaments to be held in the Parliament (only) voting with substantial majority about the question of swapping of the places of Parliament and Antiparliament, with all ensuing of this consequences. In many cases, especially by bipolar model, this may lead to significant pacification of the masses and new emotions for the public.
The elections for Municipal Councils are done also with two kinds of envelopes on the principle of difference in the votes in the same manner as for the Parliaments, only that, as far as they have local purpose, the question with the kinds of voting vanishes and all procedures are done separately for each region. Another peculiarity is the number of Councilors, which is determined in advance depending on the largeness of the region, as odd number in the limits between 7 and 15 persons. The functioning of Anticouncils is also motivated, but they may be with smaller number of persons, where we propose for them to be, as a rule, with 4 persons less (i.e. for 7 people in the Council in the Anticouncil must be 3, etc.).
The taking of decisions this time is done with a majority of just one person (what by on the average about 10 people there makes again 10 %), where the decisive and executive instance is the Council, and the voting there is performed in the same manner, i.e. after initial trial voting follows forwarding of the problem to the Anticouncil for meaning (for one week time) and conclusive voting after this in the Council. Because of the odd number of the Councilors here usually (if all are present and vote) is not coming to postponing of the voting, what is entirely justified because the Councils are mainly executive instances and do not make laws. A possibility for swapping of the “good” and “bad” Councils we don’t find useful (at least because of the different amount of people in them).
The elections for President (and Vice-president) are national and are done also on the principle of difference in the votes between “pro” and “contra” with this singularity that, as far as the Presidential institution is mainly representative and consolidating for the country, here is not possible to speak about some “Antipresident”, so that is worked only with the positive difference. The president is chosen from the first time if the difference by the first in the list is at least 15 % (computed on the basis of the whole sum of voices “pro” and “contra” him /her), otherwise is going to a second tour where is chosen with at least 10 %, otherwise is going to a third tour with at least 5 %, and else the election is taken for failed. When the election for President fails then the existing in the country President continues to perform his functions for another 6 months, in which time a new election is done. If this time the election also fails then the Parliament has the right (and obligation) to name caretaker President for period of six months and to schedule new elections as many time as this is needed.
The Vice-president goes together with the President and is not chosen separately. The question with substituting of the President with the Vice-president in case of resignation etc. is treated according to the laws in the country. The Presidential mandate continues 4 years, where if it finishes in the boundaries of 3 month around the end of mandate of the Parliaments, then it can be enlarged by the Parliaments with up to 6 months. One and the same President can’t be elected in more than two consecutive mandates (but the Vice-president may). The rights of the President are determined by the laws in the country and can be corrected by the Parliament with decision taken with substantial majority, but this changes begin to be applied from the next mandate (i.e. President). Neither the President may dismiss the Parliament (or Antiparliament), nor vice versa, but the Parliament may change places with the Antiparliament, and the President may resign (where the Vice-president takes his post).
At the same time the President has right to declare Presidential power or martial law for period of two weeks to two months, during which the Council of Ministers and the Municipalities are given to his (her) direst subordination, and all the laws approved by the Parliament may be ceased or rejected by him, though he can’t make laws but only Decrees, which must not contradict to the Constitution, what is established by the Constitutional Court. Continuation of the Presidential power may be voted by the Parliament for period of to 6 months, but many times.
Similarly to the elections of the President also those of the judges are direct and national where it is worked again only with the candidates with positive difference, but they are arranged in diminishing order of the difference and chosen from the first time if they have at least 5 % difference between “pro” and “contra” from the common amount of voices for each of them (and if their number happens to be insufficient are performed additional elections). Their period of mandate is 5 years, where it can be prolonged by decision of the Parliament with up to 6 months when their elections fall in the surroundings of 3 months around Parliamentary or Presidential elections. Proposals for judges may be done from the political parties, as also by the very persons (what, in a way, is similar to IC), but the candidates must fulfill the established in the law requirements for professional qualifications and length of service. Other details are carried out according to the laws in the country.
In this Manifesto we explained the main ideas and necessary requirements for changes in the existing system of laws in order to better the democracy and heave it on the platform of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference, because we find that taking into account the difference in the votes between “pro” and “contra” in each important voting is the cornerstone on the way to the future democracy. All contemporary democratic models worldwide, we are bound to state this in the open, are only in some extend good (what means that they are also in some extend bad, and this latter “extent” is much greater than we should have wished)! Only BRD proposes weakening of the frictions, bettering of the used material, i.e. political parties, and eliminating of the paradoxes of democracy, but preserving its main ideas and principles.
If you are reasonable person then you are for the democracy, if you are for the democracy then you are for the reasonable democracy. If this is so join the BRD in order to make it such.
If you crave for the democracy then you crave also for the reasonable difference in the meanings, hence you are Believer in the Reasonable Difference.
If the future of the humanity is in its reasonability, then the future of the democracy is in the reasonable difference!
Here we show the results from one exemplary voting for Parliament (in Bulgaria) on national level, with the distribution of the votes, computing of the quotas and establishing of the mandates, according to the proposition of the Believers in the Reasonable Difference. We begin with the results of voting.
Code|Pol. power ||__Pro|_Contra ||Sign .diff.
Tab. 1. Results of the voting.
Then we take only these political powers which have positive difference in the votes and order them in diminishing sequence computing the whole amount of voices (all voices — AV) and the initial quota (IQ), what is given in the next table. The last party drops out of competition because the votes for it are less than IQ, after which we compute the valid votes for participating (VV) and the real quota (RQ). Then in the column “D.Man.” are given the number of mandates as decimal fraction (with two digits after the point, for brevity), then is given the order of visiting of the fractional part (Ord.), and in the last column is the final number of mandates (which sum gives exactly 100).
Code|Pol. power ||Vot .diff.|D.Man.|Ord.|Mandates||
007|(party)____ ||872,188| 31.79| 3|31+1=32||
006|(coalition)_|| 335,518| 12.23| _10|12+0=12|| AV=2,768,183
106|(par.leader)| |291,528| 10.63| 4|10+1=11|| IQ=27,681
011|(coalition)_|| 272,835| 9.94| 1|9+1=10||
108|(party)____| |243,283| 8.87| 2|8+1=9|| VV=2,743,777
004|(coalition)_| |225,397| 8.22| _11|8+0=8|| RQ=27,437
001|(party)____| |205,563| 7.49| 7|7+0=7||
103|(IC)______| |118,597| 4.32| 9|4+0=4||
115|(IC)______|| | 68,899| 2.51| 6|2+1=3||
120|(IC)______ | 68,079| 2.48| 8|2+0=2||
116|(IC)______| | 41,890| 1.53| 5|1+1=2||
114|(party)____|| 24,406| 0.89| ___|___|
Tab. 2. Positive list.
Similar are the calculations also for the negative list (where the sign of the votes is not given). The real quota here is the same as the initial quota (i.e. no political power drops out), and in two cases (codes 112 and 104) we have equal decimal part of the mandates (with two positions after the point) but their order is not important because both powers receive additions. On this example is seen also that some IC or party leaders may be also hated very much (as much as to enroll also many their supporters in the Antiparliament), what is, in its way, informative in real elections. Of course the example is invented, but inasmuch as it can’t be known in advance to what feelings the electorate may become prey in a real situation, then if we don’t want for the IC to occupy the Parliaments there may be made necessary some additions to the model. For example, to set the condition for maximal number of mandates taken by one IC, say, to 3 people, and for all IC who have more than this number to fix by 3 mandates, in which case must be repeated the procedure for calculation of VV and RQ only for the left participants (which are now less than 100) and again be calculated the fractional mandates and arranged and visited consecutively for additions.
Code|Pol. power ||Vot .diff.|D.Man.|Ord.|Mandates||
109|(IC)______| | 71,219| 4.09| 8|4+0=4|| RQ=17,432
009|(party)____| | 54,505| 3.13| 7|3+0=3||
102|(IC)______| | 42,979| 2.47| 4|2+1=3||
Tab. 3. Negative list.
By the Municipal elections, obviously, for calculation of the quota is divided by the needed number of persons there. By the Presidential elections is checked whether the first in the list has the required percentage of difference (in relation to all voted “pro” and “contra” him) for the corresponding tour of elections; and for the judges are taken only the first persons with at least 5 % positive difference till the necessary number of persons is reached.
The history of all societies is a history of demonstration of power and fight for domination of the stronger over the weaker! At least from the times of Babylon is known that almost always is very difficult (not to say impossible) to prove who is right and who is wrong, because there are not objective criteria for truthfulness in the social sphere, so that the absolute (or divine, if you prefer it so) truth leaves most often deeply hidden for the humans, and whatever position to take for right it flows some time and it becomes erroneous in the light of new knowledge, but this assumption, too, after a time turns again erroneous and one simply does not know in what to believe and in what — not to. But if it isn’t clear who is the right then it always can be established who is the stronger, and because of that from ancient times was accepted the rule that right is the stronger!
This “formula” has just no error, and for this reason nobody tries in critical moments to prove who is right but only who is stronger, after what the latter is taken for right and with this the problem is solved. The right of the stronger is main law in our Universe and the single thing one can do is to comply with this and accept it, making all possible for it to be applied at least honestly, i.e. to exist conditions for performing of fair inspection about this who is the stronger. The strength exists for to be respected (there is no other justification for its existing) and our concern is only to determine who is the stronger in order to listen and obey to him and live happy! The Union for Strength and Competition (USC) supports exactly this opinion and raises it in rank of primarily thesis in the politics. If till now in the governing of each country have occurred many errors this is only because the politicians have not yet known about the goals and tasks of our Union! Let us correct this fault.
From the said till now must be clear that we heave the strength and fair play directly in cult, as it was already in Ancient Greece, where in years of Olympiads were suspended even the wars, because if the wars have been checks only of the techniques of war then in the Olympic plays were examined the strengths in various sports disciplines; if in the wars the losses have been enormously big then in the sport looses only one insignificantly small amount of population, but win all, or “whole one nation”, if we cite our eminent revolutionist Vasil Levski! If right is not the right one (because it isn’t clear who he is) but the strong, then only via impartial or fair play (as this expression is used now worldwide, even in Bulgaria) may be easily and attractive proved his strength. If the democracy provides shows and evokes emotions in people then its natural conclusion is in the sportsmanlike fight. If the future of social governing is in the democracy then the future of democracy is in the realization of ideas of our movement, or in radical “sportsmanization” of the politics! When the democracy comes from Ancient Greece so there is where we have to turn our sight, if we want to better and defend it. Here are the main requirements from the politicians in order to guaranty this.
a) Men and only men, because it was so in ancient times, because only men may lead fair play (has somebody heard about women duels or knight tournaments — for to defend the honour and cause of a man, maybe?), because only men boast with their strength and take it for their rightness! We are not against women in the politics at all, but are against women in the highest politics, where must be proved the rightfulness of someone’s meaning or must be “coined” new laws. The woman has her place in life, surely, but the man is who must give her the tune and not vice versa, for otherwise it appears that we “put the horse before the cart”, as the English use to say, and then the state’s coach does not run properly. Anyhow, the Cesarean to the Caesar, and the manly to the man!
b) Age from 20 to 45 years, because these are wide enough limits for active sports activity and it is unrealistic to suppose that one 55 years old man will turn out to be stronger than one of 25 years in whatever sports discipline, and, hence, there is no place for such men in the governing of the country! This may be cruel to a heap of deserved statesmen but in the sports (and politics) wins the stronger, this isn’t place for courteous gestures, so that to such men there leaves nothing else than to look from side and enjoy the activity of younger generation.
c) Sportsmen or fair players, in sense that they should have no bans for unfair play (what is a question of lawful settlement), and if they have had such violations then must be flown the established by the law period of banishment from participation in the governing of the country — this must be something like “certificate for fair play” which has to be issued by specially authorized state institutions. The main, though not exactly specified by the law, requirement remains the necessity of some proof for active sports occupation: various distinctions like Master of sports, national, world and Olympic records, medals, awards and certificates from different sports competitions. Not every sportsman can become politician (this is unobtainable, because we defend the massive sport and in the politics there are not needed so much people), but each politician must be sportsman, and well known!
Well, and because in the light of fundamental principles of our Union some of the existing democratic instances are filled with new meanings, we propose also new and more suitable names, namely: Olympiament, instead of the Parliament, and Localments, instead of the Municipalities. And really, as in ancient times Olympus was the place where the gods sat, in the same way now in the Olympiament must be decided the fate of the country, and the questions of competence of local instances of government — in the Localments. As common name for these both institutions we propose the simplest — Sportaments, because these are places where function eminent sportsmen. And mark that this mnemonics not only represents their new essence, but also rejects the old one, which comes from the word parlare (or “speak” in Italian), where we from the USC have the ambition in the new organs not just to speak but to do useful work! How precisely will be done this we shall explain in the next chapter.
We can not imagine whatever ruling without debates of some kind, because the real democracy crystallizes only in result of colliding of different views, but we don’t think that these disputes must be only some verbal equilibristics and stings (for information of the readers Latin word “discussion” is build of “dis” + “kus” and means simply tearing of the problem in bites or cut “kusses”-pieces). Much more dignified for a high tribune is literally to debate, or lead battles, in which the rightfulness is proved via victory of the stronger part under conditions of fair play. When somebody has personal (or collective) meaning on some question, which differs from that of some other part, and when he is ready to insist that it is the right one, then let he defends it in a duel!
Wasn’t this the right way of behaving used for centuries and were not for this reason invented the duels or simply the fights between adversaries (even in very ancient times), and the wars, too, as last way out (or ultima ratio in Latin)? Could you believe some orator more than a man who is ready to fight (and even to risk his life) in order to defend his position? But we are not cruel and don’t want human sacrifices (when they can easily be avoided)! The bad thing in the duels from the gone away centuries were not the very duels but their lethal issue, though when the needed measures for protection are taken (as it is in all contemporary sporting disciplines), then leaves only the possibility for checking of the rightfulness and conviction of the politician. This is our opinion and it, obviously, is right, as proved in the centuries of human history. Even etymologically viewed the word “sport” is closely related with the word “controversy” (in Slavonic languages, where they are, respectively, “sport” and “spor”, but something similar may be found also in English where the word “contest” means also sports events), what speaks about the fact that people long ago have been unconsciously convinced that all controversies-contests must be decided by sporting-contests! We propose below the actual procedure.
When the person X insults the person Y and does not want to excuse oneself (i.e. this has not happened accidentally) then the person Y has the right and moral obligation to declare a duel, and if it makes this then the person X chooses in which sporting discipline they will contest. Everything is plain and clear, and there leave only some details to be fixed and confirmed with laws. First of all has to be made precise list with sporting disciplines in which may be performed such duels in the Sportaments, where they must be attractive and convincing, i.e. to be unquestionably clear who is the winner and not to do this by finding the mean value of debatable meanings of some highly professional jury. We will just mention that rhythmic gymnastics, for example, is out of place here (and it is, in addition, sport for women); the various acrobatic exercises on sporting tools are also not suitable; about the chess we can’t speak at all because it checks not the strength but the intellect, and in what country rules the intellect (?) — rhetorical question, because if such country existed then people there will shortly begin to be ruled by computers and we, personally, are not much exalted by such perspective —; the mountaineering, jumps with parachutes, deltaplanerism, paraplanerism, caving, ski jumping, et cetera, are also excluded. What concerns the collective sports so they may be used only by collective controversies or on official holidays and other special events.
There remain, though, wide variety of suitable battle sports, like the different kinds of wrestling, boxing, fencing (where winning by points has to be excluded), some knight’s tournaments, maybe, etc., and also different kinds of “out-playings”, like weightlifting, throwing of javelins, cannon-balls and other things, outrunning, outswimming, outjumping, motorcycle races, horse races, and other ‘out-’ games, for each of which sports there have to be special regulations for winning (or degree of supremacy), which must exclude the equality as outcome, because in the politics and sports is looked only for victory! In this situation the Sportaments, naturally, must have access to different halls, which are placed usually on the stadiums, and own some stadiums, too, but these are easily realized formalities, where initially the existing sports facilities might be used.
The next question which must be fixed in laws is the formation of special Commissions to the Sportaments as analog of the umpire institution in the sports games and we propose they to be named Commissions for Sports Ethics (CSE). These Commissions must have certain rights and obligations and only via request to them must be sanctioned and planned all political contests, which have to be officially registered and saved in the archives. No one politician has right even to give a slap in the face of his adversary, otherwise than using the specially determined for this purpose white silk glove, which he is obliged to carry always with him when working (on the meetings of Sportaments, or by the official combats), set in the upper pocket of his coat in place of a handkerchief! All insults and challenges must be achieved stylish, not with insulting words (how it is in the existing Parliaments), otherwise the CSE can penalize the person with sums of about 1/10 to 1/2 of his monthly salary. In more serious cases of violations these Commissions must be authorized to impose also temporary suspension (up to three months) from the Sportament with deprivation of salary for the period, where in cases of necessity for imposing of the same punishment for second time the person is permanently excluded and for him is written a ban up to four years for participation in the ruling of the country.
If it is not possible to entirely avoid the use of political qualifications like: “charlatan”, “swindler”, “traitor”, “bungler”, “nitwit”, etc., then there must be at least provided means for each political power to reject (or confirm) similar bad names in honest combat, where if the insult isn’t personal but of the whole party may be used collective sports like: football, volleyball, waterpolo, etc., not forgetting one especially suited , though not popular in our country male sport, like rugby.
More than this, as far as some political disagreements can provoke permanent conflicts (like, say, the question: what to do when your children want some milk but you have not a cow: whether only to look; or to begin also you to milk her, no matter that she is not yours; or to roll up your sleeves and after, so, ten years of hard work save enough money for a milk cow and, though you still have not the money to feed her but, anyway, will increase the chances for buying of your own cow, so that if not your children then at least your grandchildren could drink as much milk as then want; or to forget about the dream to buy your cow and spend your money to buy by little milk from those who have their cows and require as much as they want for their watered milk; et cetera) — so, if there are such permanent contests, then there must be some limitations in the number of combats, which can be carried out in the Olympiament on the questions.
We from the USC propose to be set the following limitations for insults of a given person or political power in the period of one mandate: only one encounter with a given weapon (i.e. in the given sport) on each question, and up to three combats on one and the same question but in different sports (and is it one and the same, despite the different ways of its presentation, is established by the CSE), where in case of two won battles from the one part the third is not carried out. In the same time, however, if the question is already completed with decision from previous combats must be imposed corresponding fines for new challenge; but in every new mandate, of course, the question may be raised again. The Localments can discuss only questions with local significance and are not allowed to debate global ones (like that about the cow).
To summarize: fair gentlemanly duels on every question, sports combats and defending the honour of personages or political powers at any time until the reasonable limit of contests is exhausted — this is the rightful and objective decision of USC! But mark, that we do not demand wherever for the duels to be executed personally by the insulted or insulting persons, this is a matter of honour and decision of each of the parties in the conflict. It is supposed that the choosing part will prefer the sport in which it is stronger, but nobody can require from the other part to fight in person in the duel, it may point also another one for its defender — because: what is the purpose for the electorate to watch, say, freestyle wrestling between world champion in this fight, from the one side, and jockey, or boxer category “feather”, or even Olympic winner but in swimming or running 100 meters, from the other side? People may want shows, but real shows, not showy things! So that each one can play in place of everybody, when wishes to defend the honour or credo of some of his followers, he must just state this earlier before the corresponding CSE. It is possible also that the insulting participant chooses specially the sport of the insulted person in order to make him to fight personally, but then the very insulting person may decide not to take part personally but to use a protector of his. In addition to this, no matter that there are obligatory arbiters from the part of CSE, each party in the duel can have also its seconds, but they have no decisive voice.
What concerns the exact motive for the fight (because people always look for some motive as an excuse for their detestation to other persons or ideas), let us stress that it is preferable not to look for a motive, at least for personal duels, but to use the silk glove for one light tapping on the nose of the adversary in public — were it on some competition, were it on the sidelines or at the buffet, were it during the meetings, but in all cases in official working circumstances —, than to make unprovable verbal attacks, unworthy of eminent statesmen! Even when the accusations can be proved before a judicial court we prefer the right of the power before the power of the right (at least because if there were not power then there wouldn’t have been what to legalize the law). Well, it is clear that all duels without motive are counted for one type and, hence, it can’t be more than one fight on this question, but, still, “everyone with everybody” is sufficiently big amount, so that there is no danger that sometimes the public will be bored by this.
As far as the main activity of the Olympiament, after all, is the adoption of laws, we feel obliged to explain our view on this question, because the existing (all around the world) procedure of voting is, really, not only unsatisfactory, but directly erroneous! It gives bad decision, because the choice between only three variants is highly restricted (imagine if in schools there were only three kinds of grades, namely: “knows”, “does not know”, and “I don’t know whether he knows”, without any possibility to determine the level of knowledge — here, the usefulness of the law), but it gives also erroneous decision, because this, what must be understood by the voting, is what is the power that stays behind the decision, and not the number of people, i.e. what is the quality, not the quantity!
In other words, here is needed some smooth solution, and such one that can evaluate the strength and will of the sportsmen. Our proposition satisfies these requirements and in addition is much more spectacular than an ordinary voting. This entirely sportsmanlike decision is … the pulling of a rope! We leave to everyone to think about this and convince himself alone in its advantages. Of course, we can in old fashion speak about voting instead of “pulling out” of the decision, though both expressions are permitted. And if by some exhausting votings (especially if there are different amendments, for each one of which must be done separate pulling) are imposed temporary interruptions of the sessions for reinforcement of the politicians this is fully in the order of the things, because the strong spirit resides in a strong (and well fed) body. For the public, though, remains the irreplaceable with whatever else show of this kind of voting — the atmosphere of fight and strength!
USC does not impose other changes in the existing elections of Olympiament, Localments, and President, except the mentioned in chapter 1 requirements to all high-ranking politicians, namely: to be men between 20 and 45 years and to have at the moment no bans for unfair play, where they can show by this convincing proofs for active sporting career. The formal renaming of these institutions was explained earlier. We think that all elections must be direct and general, as much as this lies in the foundations of real democracy. Let us note also that the very pre-electoral campaign in this case will be made significantly easier due to the wide popularity of the candidates, what will save sufficient amount of money in state’s budget.
More than this, in order to give more emotions to the people there might be extraordinary pre-electoral sporting events and the collected out of them money will go for sustenance (and maybe also self-sustenance) of the Sportaments. Instead of pre-electoral meetings where the public hears various speeches and cries “Huhh” or “Hurray” (in Slavonic “Uuhh” and “Urahh”, respectively, so there is hardly a big difference), according to the preferences of each one/*, we propose highly emotional sporting events, which, besides being triumph of the strength and sportsmanship, will give also a good orientation about the views of the sportsmen (in any case idols for many men and unspoken desires for a row of women) and will assist the ordinary person in the forming of his choice in one pleasurable way. Via invasion of the sport in the politics we will make the very elections to one sporting event in which wins the stronger and the braver — not that who promises more, but who gives more (positive emotions) to the population; not that who thinks more for his personal benefits and enrichment, but for the ideals of the pure sport and is stimulated only by the wish to win. This, naturally, does not hinder the politicians to win dividends (and other benefits) from these sports battles, but that is why the prizes in the sport exist — for to stimulate and distinguish the best!
[ * It seems that in this was the main difference between Bulgarian two leading political powers in the first decade of our democracy, i.e. between BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party) or the party of former communists, who call themselves now socialists, and address everybody with “dear humans” as modification of the former “Hurray” (for the Party, Government, etc.), for one thing, and the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces, SDS in Bulgarian), supposing that there are no other democrats at all except them, who liked to cry “Huhh!” and “Down!” and were “anti” to everything. ]
Specifically by the elections for President must be drawn first a lot for the sporting discipline, in which the candidates in the current elections will contest, as well as also their category (some of the heavier, surely). By one suitable regulation for really male sports like: wrestling (free, classical, eastern type), boxing, weightlifting, and others, may be expected very interesting pre-electoral fights which will draw the attention of the whole nation to the political arena. Only in this situation our President will sit like Zeus Thunderer on his throne and will be obeyed and respected by everyone, what unavoidably will show its positive influence over the progress of democracy in our country.
Let us in conclusion turn our attention to this how the sound fundament of strength and competition in the politics sets easily everything on their places and resolves a heap of unsolved problems, like for example: about the incorrect quarrels, because the most convincing defense of unconvincing positions is only the fight for their assertion; about the unreasonable partiality to ideas which truthfulness nobody can prove, and even if one does this, after some time it will turn out that he has made an error; about the advantages of the brave and dynamic positions of strength and youthfulness, and not of the experience of the old generation, because if we have relied only on the experience and wisdom we would have lived still in caves; about the correct voting via the strength and conviction of the MPs by rope pulling, not by simple counting of votes all of which are equal; about the cult to the sport and competition, as one of the ways for bettering of our life; and at the end, be it only for combining of the useful for the country with the pleasant for the people!
But the most important thing is that we don’t add new minuses to the democratical idea, because if for governing of the country is not needed whatever qualification (for such is not required), then our stipulations for strength and competition can’t worsen the governmental mechanisms! There are no reasons which will induce that one well known sportsman will show to be worse judge for the good or the bad (what is the work of the MPs) than one confined in his narrow domain jurist, or physician, or economist, engineer, etc., but there is a big conviction in the argument of strength, and even greater — of fair play —, and in spite of this such requirement does not exist in any actual Parliament! Only USC finds the right qualification for the politician, as well as the right place for the sportsman, because they both live for personal expression and to provide emotions for the public! Well, if it’s so, then let the emotions be more and pleasanter!
If the politics aims to make our society better, so the sport aims to make our body better. From ancient times the humanity has got to the truth that sound spirit can exist only in a sound body, for a long time it is in certain that sound society may exist only by good governmental institutions, but we from the USC for the first time got to the conclusion how to accomplish this! And in doing this we have not looked for something new but just looked properly in the history of humanity, and taking the best out of it we incorporated it in the democracy. In this way we created one better, or one newer democracy!
Via USC to well suited selection of statesmen and bettering of their demeanor!
To real political battles and duels only via the Union for Strength and Competition!
Give support to the strength, give support to the competition, give support to the USC!
The history of all societies is a history of victories and defeats, of gains and losses! The desire of everyone to win in whatever of his activities, either directly he, or through the victory of humans (or animals) who he supports or on whom he bets, is indestructible (i.e. it can be destroyed only with the human alone). This is the strongest emotion because on this world, as the saying goes, “man proposes but God disposes”, so that it can never happen that one only wins (or, God forbid, only loses) and this game will become boring for him. On account of this before 25 centuries in Ancient Greece was introduced the democracy as one political game, in each everyone (with small exception and many luck) can win — either he alone, or at least his people, who wining through him give him the hope (well, often illusory, but supporting the human) that later he, in his turn, may win with their help. This is the greatest intellectual achievement of civilization of those times in the social sphere which carries many emotions and shows for the population and satisfies the imperishable human desire for gains!
But is this achievement thought through, i.e. whether the contemporary democracy is the best and most spectacular, is there not omitted in it the most important element of our world — its uncertainty and arbitrariness —, does is not rely insufficiently little on the luck of everybody, and if there exists something better then is it attainable? In short, does it exist some way to better this show and if it exists then what is it? We answer affirmative to all this questions because we approach them scientifically and motivated! But in order to explain the things let us first have a better look at the democratic choice, for to find one main feature of it, after what to look how we can make it better, proposing one, not only more adequate, but ideal choice — the Total Totalization (TT).
The democratic choice, really, is one epochal achievement, because no one “normal” (i.e. ordinary, or on the average intelligent) human being could have reached alone to it (a person from the public may like one or another king, but he will never come to the thought to set his own candidature for a “king”), and that is why the democracy was not initiated by the folks but was imposed in the beginning from above, because this choice, in truth, contradicts to the common sense, and that is, maybe, its most significant characteristic! The simplest confirmation of this statement is the fact that such choice is not applied wherever, where really some work must be done, i.e. there is no enterprise where by the choice of a director or head of section they gather all common workers, porters, cleaners etc., and tell them to choose one between them for this position. It is not applied, of course, the democratic choice, neither in the army, nor in the organizations for law and order, nor in the learning institutions, nor in the health care, and even in the families one usually has the decisive word on given kind of questions, and they do not gather each time to vote (together with their infant children).
This is so because (if one decides to ponder a little about this) the democratic choice presupposes that: people who don’t understand (i.e. don’t know the domain of governing and have not finished managerial courses) have to choose persons who they don’t know (apart from having seen them a pair of times on the TV, but there some people live together for a decade and at the end it turns out that they have not known one another well, and what else leaves in our case), and by this don’t require from the candidates whatever document for qualification, i.e. for “driving of the state’s carriage”, nor subject them to some examination (say, in outwitting), and at the end they even don’t know for what position they choose them, save that they think they will like to be ruled by them. By this circumstances it is entirely obvious that in this way the choice of a person, who will be able to do the work, is simply impossible!
Notwithstanding this, however, the democratic choice does the needed work for millenniums, and especially in the last centuries is applied in more and more countries around the world! So that: how is it possible that people, who are not chosen to do some specific work, are still able to do it? Well, exactly in this is the extraordinary importance of this decision, in sense that not the Representatives of the People, but the very decision does the work! The important thing in this case is that the people are asked what they think (for to have no reasons later to be angry), but what they will decide has not critical meaning, where in practice is even one and the same who will be chosen! Such solution is called “zero solution”, because it is distorted, partial solution. Generally speaking, there are two ways how people, who are not chosen specifically for a given work, are able, still, to do it, namely: a) when not they do the work, but have enough competent assistants, who do the work instead of them; and b) when everyone else can do the same work, because it is not very difficult and whoever alternative candidate would have acted in the same way! It is possible, of course, also some combination of these methods. In other words, important is not the exact choice of the candidate, but the process of choosing, important is the spectacle of the choice or the show for the people!
But if the democratic choice is irrational it has to be at least maximally attractive! We may put it otherwise: when the reasonability of the choice is in its irrationality (as choice), so let it be at least really unreasonable in this sense and not “reasonably unreasonable”, because the existing democratic elections, in their intent to be reasonable (without understanding what exactly is the reasonable), only spoil the choice distorting the criteria so, that instead of some occasionally chosen unsuitable candidates there are chosen (very often) intentionally only unsuitable ones! So for example, if we cast a coin and bet always only on the head we can lose much more then if we set each time in some arbitrary manner, because, as the people have marked already in ancient times: what is the event, if not interference of God in our choice?
The choice by “reasonable” criteria unavoidably sets some filter over the candidates and in this way violates one major (though, alas, rarely met) element of democracy — the representativeness of selection. We would have had similar situation by the choice of jurors in the law suits in some western countries if have set requirements for them to be, say, only white, or not to be women, to be not older than 60, etc., where it is clear that the unique requirement in this case must be for them to be (arbitrary chosen) common people! Said in another way: the uniformly distributed random numbers are the surest method for eliminating of distortions in the democratic choice, because they move our unreasonable notions for the reasonable (from the point of view of particular individual) near to the divine understanding for the reason, as reasonable in the whole assembly, not individually. Resumed, this boils down to the allegation that the arbitrariness is necessary, and the necessity — arbitrary (something that each one, who has studied at least for a while the probabilistic theory, must have known)!
If we once arrive at the conclusion that must look for the arbitrariness or randomness as the most reasonable criteria of choice, there are no problems to make it more interesting, because the main factor that diminishes the spectacularity of the democratic elections is … the knowing in advance of the candidates! If one knows, for example, the result of a given football match, because it was already played, there are not many people who would have watched it (say, as video record); the situation is similar also in our case, and for this reason there are few elections in the world where vote more than 85 % of the population. Besides, one usually is interested not in the probability for somebody to win or lose, but whether he alone may be one of the winners! Now it becomes clear what must be done, because the situation would have been entirely different if people have not known in advance for whom exactly they vote (but, naturally, know that give their voices for “their” people) and if have a chance (even very small one) for themselves to be chosen — because, no matter that there are multiple reserves in the candidates by the existing elections, at most one person out of 10,000 can hope to be chosen. In other words, everywhere on the world people are, still, wide away from the ideal (but wholly realizable) decision for the choice and this is so because till now the question simply was not properly set. Only we, from the Tandem for Total Totalization (TTT), have found this decision, which we explain below.
The proposed by TTT new variant of democratic elections requires very insignificant changes in the Election Law and can be applied simultaneously with all left conventional parties and coalitions where the candidates are chosen according to the existing unreasonable way: by made in advance list of candidates, without educational (or whatever other) qualification, by the incompetent masses of citizens, and also without representativeness of the selection and without any chance for the millions of voters to enter the Parliament. This, what we require, is that in advance be known only the number of candidates but not their actual names, for to be possible for each of the electors who accepts our conditions and participates in some Tandem (there are no problems to exist various and different such groups — by age, professions, education, and so on) to have chance to be elected in the Parliament (or Municipalities, or for President, respectively). We give below the exact procedures in different kinds of elections.
The arbitrary democratic choice imposes two new phases, namely: of forming of the pool (or participants in the choice) for a given Tandem, in which phase is established the number of candidates, and ending phase, which is the most attractive part of the actual arbitrary choice, so that in sum (with the very election) we have three phases. They are performed as follows:
а) The forming of the pool is done for each election again and consists in official registration in the respective for the purpose bureaus of the Tandems, against paying of some minimal tax (because there are no reasons such expenses to be borne by the State Treasury, when each participant may personally win out of this democratic game). The registration may be done also by post, in which case has to be applied the quittance for the sent sum of money. After this in period of two weeks to the participants must be sent postcards with their consecutive number (it is the important thing) as official confirmation of their including in the pool. Two weeks before the election day these registration bureaus conclude their work and announce the total number of participants in them — let’s name it T. Because for each election is known in advance the whole amount of electors and the number of places for which is voted, is determined and announced officially the representativeness of one place, which we shall mark with N. Then we propose the number of candidates for MPs for the Tandem to be computed by the formula: 2*T/N + 3 (i.e. with double reserve, but not less then three persons).
For our country, if we take roughly 6 mln. voters for 200 places in the Parliament, we get N = 30,000. If now in our Tandem we have enlisted 100,000 participants then the number of candidates who it will propose for the elections will be [_ 2*100,000/30,000 +3=9.66 ≈ 10 ] persons, rounded according to the rules. Who exactly these persons are, however, will remain a secret for everybody, because nobody will vote for the Tandem if he knows that _he is not between the candidates, where by existing obscurity, but entirely real chance, each one to turn out to be one of them, he can succeed to persuade (till the last moment) some of his acquaintances, relatives, or members of the family, which are not officially registered in this Tandem, to vote for it. This makes the elections really free and democratic, where there are no problems this principle of unknownness of the concrete candidates to be applied also by each of the existing parties, because the voters, anyhow, vote most often for the party /coalition, not for personalities.
b) The official general election is performed in the known stile where the Tandems are taken for kinds of parties. There is nothing new here so that we continue directly with the next phase.
c) The ending phase of the choice, or the choice as such of the representatives from a given Tandem, is performed from three to 10 days after the day of elections and is shown by the National Television. Because each of the registered people have its own unique number is performed drawing of the established on the phase a) amount of numbers, but in a way which excludes all possibilities, as much as for falsifying, also for some clusterization, i.e. choosing of adjacent numbers. We propose to be drawn the digits of the number in reverse order of their writing! For our country the maximal pool can be at most with seven digits, but when it has less digits is drawn only the needed minimal number of digits, when each number out of the real borders is rejected and the choice is repeated again. Under this condition in the choosing sphere are loaded four groups of the digits from 0 to 9 (for not to rotate the sphere almost empty), where each digit of the number is taken out, it is written down, and is returned again in the sphere, and so on until the needed number of digits is drawn, and for every new number is performed new loading of the sphere (not because this in necessary, but in order to check again all digits). It is possible, of course, to do also simultaneous drawing of all digits in several spheres.
These numbers form with reserve one list of candidates, where for reasons of objectiveness of the choice, as also for greater emotions of the participants, we propose that the drawn numbers will not be treated as ordered in the sequence of their drawing, but will be use as basis for one more drawing — this time for ordering in the list. For this purpose the drawn already persons (the relation between the number and the person is made at once) are ordered in increasing order of UCN (Unique Citizenship Number), or in alphabetical order of the names (how it is established), receiving corresponding numbers. After this the sphere is loaded with all numbers from one to the last sequential number in this list and is performed drawing of all these numbers without return only for establishing of their ordering in the list, where the persons with numbers greater than the sum of won mandates (i.e. drawn later in this last drawing) are taken for reserves (how it is also by the classical elections).
Something more, in order to allow the possibility, if someone wishes this, to separate the winning from the work, we propose that each chosen in this way MP has the right to withdraw from actual participation in the Parliament, receiving in this case the half of the due to him (or her, surely) salary, and on his place enters the first next reserve which agrees to work for the left (here one half) salary, where this rule can be applied every time during the mandate and unlimited number of times with even more diminishing salary (say, by two candidates who have rejected their participation, the third will receive only 1/4 of the salary — as much as the second — but will be full MP in each other regard). In this elementary way the paid salary for one seat will be always one and the same. If occasionally, for different reasons, the made list is consumed (what is practically unbelievable in view of our double reserve), then there are no problems for drawing of more numbers (say, 1/2 of initially drawn), because the pool is enormous. This is how we may have: free and democratic elections, together with chance for everyone really to take part in the governing of the country, as well as representative and not distorted selection from a given Tandem, and, last but not least, extreme emotions for the population!
For them new forming of the pool is necessary, because the Tandems may be different (for example, on territorial principle), but as far as they are very similar and go through the same phases of the elections for Parliament we shall mention only some small distinctions. By the forming of the pool is clear that it will be significantly smaller and the representativeness of one place (N) will be different for each urban area, where it may fall up to about 5,000, but the formula with double reserve leaves the same. This diminishing, of course, means enhancing of the chances for winning and the emotions of the people! In the ending phase, again because of the number of participants, are drawn numbers with 5 or 4 digits, and the sixth digit may be needed only for the capital.
Here the things are a little bit more complicated because the point is to choose only two persons from a given party or Tandem, where firstly must be established the exact party. Of course, if the political power is already known it will be in position easily (by the preferred by it method) to show the required pair for President and Vice-president, so that the main emphasis falls on the choice of this power. Let is not forget that the people vote not so much for the person as for the party which stays behind him (because one must, somehow, base his decision on something, when he can’t know well enough the person), because of what we believe that individual candidates, i.e. people who have significantly different platforms for to be united with some of the existing parties, but have not enough influence for building of their own party, simply have no place as candidates for this important post. Under this condition the need for new general elections is eliminated, because may be taken that the quotas of political powers in the Parliament already solve the question with the choice of political power (though there are no problems for new voting, but only for the party /Tandem), yet direct applying of one such rule will make the things very boring and undemocratic, so that the right decision requires again some arbitrary choice, but such that will take care of the proportionality of parliamentary quotas, and will also provide good emotions. All other variants have their disadvantages.
And really, if the Parliament chooses the President personally according its meaning, this choice may reflect the meaning of the majority in the Parliament, but there is no guaranty that such is the meaning of the whole nation (especially if there are parties and not only Tandems in it, what distorts its representativeness; but also because the current meaning of the nation changes very fast, where Parliament remains one and the same during its entire mandate); and if the President is elected directly by the people then there is no guaranty that they know him well enough for to make reasonable choice (the folks may choose better advertised, but not more capable candidate, besides, the majority also may make errors, even more often, due to the so called instinct of the “herd”). In the same time by our proposition in help of the electors comes the event or chance (i.e. the intervention of God), as the most impartial arbiter, because all candidates are in their way good people from the masses! In any case we eliminate the possibility for lengthy and unreasonable debates, which often lead to deadlock, when happens something like the known from ancient times example with the donkey of Buridan, which animal was so intelligent that beginning to feed always has chosen the bigger heap with straw (for not to be duped by another donkey who will get the bigger heap), but once, seeing two perfectly equal heaps of straw, has begun to go around and around and to wonder from which one to begin to eat, and he went for so long that at the end … died of hunger, because did not succeed to make his reasonable choice.
So that the phases here are four, where the first three are to be applied on national level, and for this purpose are necessary some more changes in the Election law. Though related with the Tandems they don’t reject the parties at all, which may impose their own methods of choice of the concrete President /Vice-president (on the last phase), but require only the necessary measures for proportional random choice of the political power. Specifically for the Tandems new registration and payment are not needed because are used the numbers from the Parliamentary elections. Let us clarify more precisely these phases.
а) First of all must be formed the percentual Presidential pool for the country, which consists of 100 places (that is why we call it percentual), and in which each political power has as much seats as is its percentage in the Parliament. This means that if a given Tandem (or party) is present, for example, with 75 mandates out of 200 people in sum, it will have 37.5 %, which must be rounded to a whole number. There arises some problem when we are exactly on the middle, when we can do one of the following: either to give up to maintain the exact number 100 and round how is established; or to apply the “school” rule of rounding above (5 ^1^/~2~ is taken for 6 — in Bulgaria this is the highest grade) by the small quotas, when by this diminish the maximal quotas (consecutively in decreasing order, for not to harm only one party) — anyway, this is not so significant. In this way we obtain by one number for each political power, which let us name P (candidates for President), and on this the first phase ended.
b) The next phase is shuffling of the Presidential pool, what is needed in order to avoid clusterization by the choice, but first of all we have to order all party quotes (because here we have no successive numbers). This is performed when in the beginning give to each political power the needed number of places in some order, for example in alphabetical order of their initials (or their names) marking only this (say, from 1 to 15 — AAA, from 16 to 19 — BBB, and so on), and then draw a lot for ordering of all this transitional numbers without return until exhausting of the numbers (in accordance with what was said at the end of 2.1.c) ). This is how we get proportional random choice of the political colours.
c) Then follows the phase of choosing of the exact political power, which we propose to be performed in one attractive way, drawing not at once the winning number but only its parts, only that this time these are not the digits of the number from the previous phase, because they are only two, but first we take care to make them more, taking its binary presentation! As far as this is something very easy (it is taught in schools in the high grades in mathematics or computer science) and will be, anyway, officially announced with the shuffled Presidential pool, there is no need to explain how its calculation is done, but we shall mark only that for this purpose seven binary digits (i.e. 0 and 1) will suffice, and this even for up to 127 candidates. It is drawn only one number in similar way to the explained at the beginning of 2.1.c), via drawing of its digits in reversed order, or by using simultaneously seven spheres, only that here we will need 20 pairs of binary digits for to fill the spheres. When a number exceeding the whole number is drawn then the drawing is repeated. It is drawn only one number because we think that the President and Vice-president (as also one their possible replacement) must be from one and the same political power.
With this the choice for the traditional parties is finished, because each one of them has ready pair of persons. But let us stress again that the “colour” of the Presidential institution follows this of the governing (properly said, of the stronger represented) party /Tandem only probabilistically (i.e. on the average for many elections), but in each particular case are possible (and normal) exceptions, according to what decides the “providence”. So that the choice is both, reasonable, and the emotions are also big, or, as the folks say: “the wolf is satiated and the lamb is alive”!
d) The last phase is the choice of concrete persons, where here also, similarly to 2.1.c), first is formed the list of candidates for President /Vice-president from the given Tandem, where we have to take care their number to be not less than 3-4 (here may be used in the same way the formula P+3, where P is the number of places in the Presidential pool for the country and plays the role of T/N), after what a lot for their ordering is drawn, where the first two persons are counted as chosen and the left are reserves. Here also, naturally, is applied the rule for withdrawal of the post and receiving of the half of the salary, in which case enters the first next reserve.
After the transition to one general and full participation in the elections only of Tandems, as next and more perfect stage in the evolution of parties (or parts of the population with different interests), will occur also changes in the character of the exact elections. First of all there will be no need of general voting with bulletins of the candidates, pre-electoral promises and lies, electoral regions and sections, people for counting of the votes, defenders, etc., etc., because each one, who wants to take part in the elections will take care to register himself in some Tandem and in this way he, as a rule, will have made his choice in advance, and who has not done this then he does not want to vote. Insofar as many people will participate in several Tandems the total number of voters achieved by summing up of the members of the Tandems may exceed the real number of voters, but this isn’t important because every elector has only one vote, and the proportionality in the number of members of the Tandems will be preserved. Simply may happen that one votes for one Tandem but may be elected via another one, but this isn’t something bad (one may vote also for a foreign Tandem), but who will be registered in more places will increase his chances to be chosen.
All procedures of public drawing of numbers for forming of the lists of candidates, be it for MPs, be it for Municipal Counselors, be it for President, will remain, but they will be much more attractive than the traditional elections, will be at least ten times cheaper, and will be paid by the very electors so that they will cost nothing to the state! Even in the first entering of the Tandems in the elections for President already is absent the general (and mostly irrational) phase, where leaves only the drawing of the lot. Because the forming of Tandems can be done on very different principles: on regions or small neighbourhoods, on liking of different football teams, on possessions and wealth (they have good car, have just some vehicle, don’t have a car), on sexes, on professions (of housewives, students, building workers, technical intellectuals, pensioners, etc.), and other variants, is possible wide variety of cases and very interesting electoral games.
Notwithstanding the fact that on this world one can rarely take only the good without the bad in our case will be saved all pluses of the democracy, and not only will not be present its minuses (the difficulty to find reasonable decision on the basis of the unreasonableness of the traditional elections; the deformity of presenting the population in the Parliament; the partiality and non-objectiveness of the party members, which features can hardly have place in the Tandems because they are temporary groups of people with common interests only in the moment of play and have no moral obligations to hide and diminish the errors of their people; no chance at all for 99.99 % of the voters; etc.), but now arise new and obvious pluses, like: easy, attractive, cheap, and positively useful elections for forming of representative selection of all levels of the population, giving real chances to every participant to be chosen in the government of the country, where in this way, little by little, the unnecessary clamour of traditional elections will be replaced with the rational, merry, and interesting game, with the irreplaceable show of elections!
If the reasonable in the democratic elections is in their unreasonableness then the Tandem for Total Totalization is the most reasonable choice of the unreasonable, choice which (at last) returns the contemporary democracy to the source of Ancient Athens, where the uniformity of the selection was guarantied on generic principle (the co called “dems”), and in the genders often was drawn a lot, where we don’t restrict at all the principle on which the Tandems will be formed. We require only, when the choice is difficult or impossible, to entrust it entirely to the Event, and to leave for us the emotions of the play, because what is our life if not one game? But this game must be wholly democratic and accessible for everybody, not only for some privileged aristocratic, financial, ethnic, mafiotic, or some other hierarchy! TTT not only brings us near to the ideal solution — TTT is this solution!
If the democracy is chance for everybody, then TTT is chance for the democracy!
If the humanity can’t do without democracy, then the democracy can’t do without totalization!
To total democracy through the Tandem for Total Totalization!
The history of all societies is a history of fight between the exceptional and the mediocre! And in this fight very often wins the mediocre, because it is exactly in the middle, it is this, what wide population masses want, and what they can understand and accept. The exceptional, on the other hand, is supported and understood only by a minority, and it isn’t at all clear whether it is good or bad, until this question is not answered by the future (very often again not unanimous), because there are not objective criteria for this. In other words, there are no guarantees for disregarding of the mediocre majority in the name of some not known where leading minority! In the area of politics this means that the ruling positions must be taken exactly by moderate personalities, expressing most completely the aspirations of averaged folk layers, and “must” here means that if this is not so then these personalities simply will not stay for long on the political stage! This thesis surely is known, but till now it has not been explained convincingly. Only we from the Feminism Forcing Formation (FFF) have logically motivated meaning on this question which we express below.
Accepting as fundamental the above-mentioned principle of mediocrity we propose the following phases.
of the candidates according to certain criteria fixed, naturally, in the Election Law. Here the question goes about parameters like: gender, material conditions, education, physical characteristics, et cetera, which we will list precisely below. We can’t propose, alas, whatever intellectual selection, as long as (at least for the moment) it can’t be objective, because if it is, still, difficult for one to show oneself more clever (more capable in a given aspect, generally speaking), then he can easily make himself sillier, so that we are taking the risk to introduce in the governmental structures many uncommonly capable persons (who have very good pretended to be mediocre), but future achievements of psychology will possibly help us in this connection. So, let us formulate one filter for mediocrity of the candidates as conditions which they must obligatory satisfy in order to apply for ruling posts, namely:
a) Women — all candidates for ruling positions must be only women! It is obvious that from both sexes the women are most mediocre sex, if not for other reasons then because they are laden with the main task of propagating the gender, and God or Nature (strike through the redundant) would not have entrusted one exceptional individual with the major task of reproducing, having in mind that his exceptionality can after some time turn out to be wrong — in this most responsible case may be set only on the mediocre! Anyway, we think it is well known that by various parameters (strength, intellect, physical qualities, etc.) the women, as a rule, are mediocre, and that is why each exception of this rule is highly valued and attracts our attention. If till now the women have not taken their well-suited place in the politics this is only due to not understanding of the principle of mediocrity in the governing, and the main task of FFF is to overcome this irrational anomaly.
b) Personal income in the amount of more than one and less than three minimal monthly salaries (MMS) for the last calendar year. This is one suitable and wide enough criterion for moderate earnings, which in this way remains always actual because the MMS is continually corrected.
c) Secondary, college, or tertiary (but only one) education. The main reason for including the tertiary or university education here is the general tendency to devaluation of educational qualifications, what unavoidably leads to one “middle” high education. In this sense is possible after some time to argue for removing of the secondary education as already under the average level, but higher than one tertiary education, in any case, must not be allowed.
d) Age — from 35 (completed) to 45 (uncompleted) years to the moment of election. This not only forms the middle of the average life span for the humans (around 80 years, at least for the women in Bulgaria), but such relatively narrow interval excludes the possibility for participation in more than three (and usually two) mandates, what is sufficiently important for the renovation of the ruling posts in every party.
e) Tallness — from 155 cm (including) to 165 cm (excluding), measured barefooted to the day of election. This requirement, of course, is forced by the mediocrity of choice, but it corresponds also with commonly accepted aesthetical criteria.
f) Weight — from 55 kg (including) to 65 kg (excluding), to the day of election — the reasons are the same. Here deserves to be mentioned that the height and weight have to be confirmed with official measurement by authoritative commission under conditions of general publicity from one to three days before the election, and those who don’t meet the requirements drop out even in the last moment. There are meanings for imposing of the requirement this choice, which will be broadcast also by television, to be executed topless for women-candidates, and we can’t deny certain degree of reasonableness in this, for the people have the right to know as better as possible their chosen ladies, but for the moment we don’t think this must be made obligatory. Similarly it isn’t yet included selection on chest measurement (say, from 1.2 to 1.4 of the waist measurement), because in the age of mass applying of artificial feeding of babies, for one thing, and the great achievements of cosmetic medicine, for another thing, this isn’t very indicative for the mediocrity. In any case, it is always possible to add some correction to the Election Law, if this proves to be needed later.
As we already mentioned these are requirements only for the candidates for ruling posts in the country (MPs or Municipal Councilors) and don’t impose changes in the party structures. It is not necessary and is erroneous to come to the conclusion that in each party can enter only women, or that they have to be only between 55 and 65 kg, etc.; or also the vulgar understanding that each party member (no matter to which party belongs) must present himself (or herself) always naked to the waist on party gatherings — by unfavorable meteorological conditions this may turn to be harmful for the health! In other words, in each party can be, as well members men, also “memberesses”, but only women answering to the above-mentioned requirements can set their candidatures for participation in the governing of the country. If these requirement will lead to gradual withdrawal of men from the politics (in the was in which the appearance of automobiles in their time has led to shifting aside the horse coaches from their positions of means for transportation) — well, good, we do not object to this, we will welcome this, but we don’t require it! If such time comes this means that this is the natural evolvement of the things and it just has to be accepted.
for central and municipal organs of government. Proceeding from the principle of mediocrity in governing we think that it is necessary to cut out all possible cases when for one party (coalition) is obvious that it does not express the meaning of the middle of the population, i.e. from 1/4 to 1/2 of the electors. These situations are three, namely:
a) Low threshold for participation — we propose 10 % of places in the Parliament (or Municipal Councils), because if one party can’t gather at least as much percents then it in no case can express the interests of the average citizen and, hence, must drop out from the governing.
b) High threshold for participation — we propose 60 % of places in the Parliament (or Municipalities), because if one party wins more that this it gets obvious supremacy in the institution and suppresses each opposition! In this case the elections must be annulled, because this not only violates the principle of mediocrity, but also harms the foundations of democracy.
c) Correlational threshold for participation — we have in mind the difference in the number of places between the first and second parties with most votes related to all places in the Parliament, in percents. If they are very near one to the other it can’t be said which party is more mediocre, because the difference is within the limits of the error, where we think that this percent must be at least three, and if the difference is smaller, then again the elections are annulled (so, for example, by 100 persons in the Parliament, if the one party wins 37 of the places, and the other — whatever amount between 35 and 39 including, the elections are annulled). For the Municipalities, though, this threshold is not applied, mainly because of the small number of seats in them.
These requirements, by the way, are obvious, where the low threshold, in any case, exists in most of the Parliaments, the high one leads to dictatorship, and when the correlational is broken is arrived at the situation of “two hard stones”, for which our people have long ago said that they can’t “mill the flour”. More important is to add that, as far as here we may often come to canceling of the elections, they are performed up to three times, after what (by not satisfying some of the conditions) the organs remain in their old staff for another 6 months, when elections are performed again.
As far as by the elections for Parliament are chosen, in fact, only women we have all reasons for naming it Women’s Assembly, because this matches exactly the real situation; similarly the Municipal Councils become Women’s Councils. But let us explicitly stress that in Women’s Assembly the women only take decisions, i.e. they approve or choose, where the fabricating of the very law-bills is done in different Commissions to it, which are filled with good professionals (jurists), not with mediocre politicians, and in them, naturally, can take part also men (where this is even preferable). In this way the cherished desire of the woman to take decisions by propositions of the man, i.e. after he is already made all depending on the reason in order to reduce the things to ordinary choice between hardly discernible and insignificant alternatives (something like the choice of necktie, for example), and what finds its manifestation in almost each family (and even more so in relations outside from the families), becomes reality also in the politics, and this on the highest possible level!
Or you think it is in vain what people say that the man is the one who must propose and the woman is the other who must decline (or accept, respectively); or also that the man is the “head” but the woman — the “neck”? Put it otherwise, it appears one natural separation of the process of elaboration and analysis of the laws, from one side, made by competent professionals, i.e. by exceptional personalities, from the process of taking the decision by the people, or some of their chosen in advance commonplace (i.e. middle-valued) representatives, from another one. So that there is no danger, as cynically profess some enemies of FFF, to close the … man’s toilets in Women’s Assembly.
Nothing more different can be said about the Women’s Councils, where the work is primarily administrative and, when so, even more fitted for fulfilling by the mediocre and industrious sex; as also that there can, again, be different groups of men, which must think more profoundly, or perform the creative or tactical work, if this needs to be done.
Contrary to more of the expectations we propose here something diametrically different, because the situation, in this case, is opposite! The Presidential institution is mainly consolidating and representative, inasmuch the President does not accept laws but simply rules (as far as the laws and Women’s Assembly allow him this). He must, figuratively speaking, tear off the women when they “catch one another by the hairs”, must be man with authority, charm, charisma, emitting strength and power, man to whom each woman (or at least these from the Women’s Assembly) would have wished to obey, and that is why he is not allowed to be mediocre! The phases here are similar.
From the said just now follows that the Presidential filter must be filter for exceptionality, such that to find one patriarch, or “father of the nation”, and the conditions to which he must answer are the following:
a) Man, because only man President can balance sexually the governing of the country, only man President can pacify the Women’s Assembly, only man can rule with strong fist, only man can declare or terminate wars, when this becomes inevitable! The left subsections, in fact, specify more precisely which must be this Man (with capital letter!).
b) Personal income of more than 4 MMS for the last calendar year. The President should not be mediocre, and the poverty has never been respected (especially by women), so that there leaves for him only to be sufficiently wealthy.
c) Education — more than (one) tertiary, where some doctorate is preferable.
d) Age — at least 55 (full) years, because otherwise he simply can’t be named “patriarch”. Let us remind you that similar requirement is applied in various countries, though most often undeclared.
e) Married and with at least two daughters to the moment of election — it is entirely natural for a man who must deal with the whole Women’s Assembly to show that he can deal with at least three women.
f) Tallness — more than 175 cm (barefooted) — obvious requirement.
g) Weight — more than 75 kg to the moment of election. Weighing (in swimming trunks) will be performed similarly from one to three days before the election day and will be shown by national television — the show has never interfered with the politics yet only has helped it!
As far as he will work mainly with the Women’s Assembly we propose his choice to be performed via indirect voting in Women’s Assembly (there are no problems for direct general election, but this will only make the procedure more expensive, without making it more reasonable or spectacular). The choice terminates either from the first time, if one of the candidates wins at least 50 % of the votes; or (otherwise) are performed unlimited number of votings until will be gathered at least 1/3 of the votes, where by this also the difference between the first and second candidates is at least 3 %.
In relation with the thesis “The President — father of the nation” is necessary to be given to him also decent rights, for example: he must be allowed to set tasks to Women’s Assembly (what laws to accept and actualize) and to require reports for their execution; to have rights to punish and even dismiss from the post, when he decides, the Representatives from the Assembly or the Councils (where they are substituted with the next reserves from the list of the same political powers), but not more than 1/3 of their number in each of these structures for one his mandate; to have rights of veto on every question and by unlimited number of reviews (i.e. to be impossible to adopt whatever law if the President does not approve it, at least with his silence); to be Supreme Commander of the armed forces; et cetera. The supremacy of Women’s Assembly may be shown only through changing of the President, but such extraordinary event may happen only after double voting “pro” taken with qualified majority (of 2/3) and in the interval of at least one and not more than two weeks between the votings.
Starting from the principle of mediocrity, because the applying of laws is even more routine task than their voting (and in a near future might even be assigned to some computerized systems), and if so it is entirely of the competence of women, the judges should have also be chosen in similar way as the Councilors. But on the other hand in the whole human history there are practically no cases of women as judges (neither in the old religious books such are mentioned), what is explainable with their extraordinary partiality and emotionality, leading to non-objectiveness in the appreciation of events, so that the women should have been entirely excluded from the judicial system (how it really was for a long time). Well, we propose one “Solomonic” decision satisfying both sides, namely: the elections of judicial organs not to be subjected to feminization and to be performed according to the usual rules.
Although the Ministers are not chosen in democratical way from the public, because they must be competent professionals and perform the tactical ruling of the country, we think it is necessary to mention the major requirements in this case. The Ministers is rightful to be men, but this may be left only as recommendation and be allowed to have also women for Ministers, because these posts are in sufficient extent strategical (if we think that the real tactician are the employed officers in the ministries), so that here also is applicable the “Solomonic” decision. These people must be proposed by the political powers, with right of veto from the part of the President, and only to be approved by Women’s Assembly, but it has to be in position to reject or cease each of their decision, if finds it erroneous.
deserves to be mentioned that the participation of women in the governing isn’t something new, neither on a worldwide scale, nor in Bulgaria, and in the folklore of various nations finds its reflection the women’s wisdom in solving of many difficult situations, it is spoken about “women’s intuition” (as notion substituting the reason of men, and in many cases even more successfully), and so on, but till now all this has happened chaotic, arbitrary, and ungrounded. Only we from the FFF for the first time propose logical motivation for this situation and find the exact place of the woman in the governing.
But by doing this, however, we are not for emancipation of woman — neither in the commonly proliferated in Bulgaria meaning of this movement as “equality”, because there can’t be spoken about equality where exists the biggest difference between individuals (between the sexes), nor in the right meaning of “freeing” (what is the exact meaning of the word) of the woman from the ruling of the man, because this ruling, very often, is in the interest of the very woman! Nor are we pleading for approving of the other extremity — the matriarchy, as ruling of the woman over the man, because men are already the less enduring sex and it remains only to take away their right to command, for them to loose at all the interest to live fulfilled life.
That is why we speak about feminization, understanding by this dividing of the activities between sexes, namely: the militant, creative, risky, exceptional — to the man, and the routine, mediocre, everyday needed, fateful for the posterity and the people — to the woman. Man proposes, woman disposes; man rules, but woman chooses (by whom to be ruled); or, otherwise said: the Feminism Forcing Formation stresses on the extraordinary importance of the mediocrity of the woman, what exactly, makes her the ideal politician!
The strength of the woman is in her weakness, the weakness of the man is in his strength, the might of the FFF is in the reasonable compromise between the two extremities!
Without FFF there is no feminization, without feminization there is no sexual equilibrium and stability in politics, without stability in politics the society has no future, ergo: without FFF there is no future!
Force the feminization with our Formation!
[ * Here are three “z”-s in the original and this letter is also to the end of the alphabet (though not last). ]
The history of all societies is a history of compromise between the bread and the circuses for the people! This is formulated most precisely in the proverbial phrase “panem et circenses”, which we in Bulgaria translate not quite exactly as “bread and shows”. For the securing of the bread is needed centralized, very often dictatorial or at least one-party, government, where for providing of the circuses for the people in the area of social governing is invented the democracy, or the choice from below, which gives possibilities for outspeaking of various parties and for changing of those who have sat for a long time on the throne. The truth in this case, as also in many other situations, is in the suitable level of compromise between these both extremities, because the good centralization requires full subjection of the population to the ruling persons, in order to achieve peaceful life in the country, as much as the goal of each ruling is to maintain the status quo, but nobody can obey sufficiently good if he has rights to criticize and change those who command him. On the other hand, only the possibility for participation of wide population masses in the governmental processes, the discussions and confrontations of different views, realized in the democratic forms of government, can provide the so needed for the public political circuses, which together with this ensure also quick and easy changing of the line of governing when needed.
As it’s seen, these are contradictory requirements, and the contemporary democracy succeeds to remain for a long time in many countries because it is not that classical democracy from Ancient Greece (which, because it was pure democracy, or has provided mainly the circuses, has not stayed for more than a decade in succession in Ancient Athens and was changed with the next tyranny). Despite of everything, however, the present-day compromising democratic forms of ruling, though they contain sprouts of strong centralized power, set primarily on the democracy, and for that reason the providing of bread continues to limp, where the more poor the country is, the more tangible people feel the need of really stable power, and not only of circuses. But in order to appreciate properly our proposition let us first have a look at the
where they most often want things which, if they alone had to implement them into deeds, would have perfectly well understood their unjustification, and this, in turn, urges the leading party rare to give ear to their voices! This is psychologically well explainable, because one thinks in one way when he alone has to do this, what he proposes, and in entirely different way when he wants just to express his meaning but knows that, anyway, nobody will listen to him. That’s exactly this that gives the circuses, of course, but these circuses hinder the governing when they cease to be just circuses and allow possibility for influence over the governing. After the moment when one party wins in the elections it must be left to govern alone; there might be given advises to it and expressed requests, but not to expect that it will listen to them! And exactly then the ruling persons will listen more often to the circuses, because they may be interesting for them and the ruling ones may later say they were their own meanings (whether for the people is important to be well fed and the life be calm, not who exactly has proposed something reasonable). The ruling party must take the whole responsibility for its governing; it will have the possibility to listen to the voice of people when new elections come, but it should not be hindered during the mandate.
because they are afraid (and with reason) that the people and the opposition will begin to search ways to interfere with the pursued line of management and even to change them prematurely. When somebody isn’t convinced that the other one will listen to him and respect him, then he tries either to fool him or to disguise the facts, and when he can’t achieve this, then the governing becomes ineffective and begins to stall. Similar situation may be seen in contemporary families, where, as far as the deciding parts are exactly two, is obviously necessary unambiguous determination of the deciding vote, and if it lacks (as it also happens nowadays) than the family begins to fall apart. Similar is the fate of many democratic regimes, especially of the so called bipolar model, when emerge “two sharp stones” for which the folks say that they “can’t grind the flour”, because the most often reaction is simply to do the reverse of what the other part wants (in order to see who is the stronger). If the rulers are convinced that nobody will hinder them to finish their mandates then they will try (at least the cleverer between them) to fulfill the wishes of the opposition and the folks, for to be again elected the next time. As it’s seen, the simultaneous activity of the winners and the losers in the elections, on one and the same arena called Parliament, leads only to troubles, where neither the bread is good secured, nor the circuses are circuses.
because in the majority of cases the main advantages of the democracy occur under the influence of various extra-parliamentary associations, were they: movements for environmental protection, for protection of animals, for freedom of homosexuality, some female squads, pacifist movements, associations of pensioners, or of certain minorities, and so on, as well as from a number of prominent individuals, or extraordinary set up temporary associations, but not as a result of debates in the Parliament. Not that the Parliament does not at all provide circuses for the people, but the real circuses happen on the streets, and even if we imagine that it is possible to satisfy all wishes of the masses, and before they are yet expressed, then there also will be discontented people, at least because they will have nothing to what to object! Hence, all circuses must be gathered in one place, in one specially created institution, to which all who express a wish must have access, not only the official opposition from the Parliament.
which is important dynamical element in the present-day democracy. Such rule exists for the President, but he is only one person, where it does not exist for the parties alone, and in this situation some party may win the elections even in five mandates in succession, and the masses will be governed by the same people, because nobody will give up his post voluntarily, if his party continues to lead. Under the democracy there is not the best party, because if such existed it shouldn’t have been changed (as it was under the totalitarian regimes), so that each prolongated remaining in power unavoidably strengthens the centralization, but decreases the spectacularity for the people. It is needed, therefore, some ceiling for the duration of governing of each party (coalition), what will lead to more frequent change also of the very politicians, because, as in the families, so in the politics, the variety is the primary thing which makes life bearable.
From the already said it becomes clear that the contemporary democracy is one chaotic mixture of centralization and circuses, in which nobody bothers to set some limits where the one thing ends and the another one begins, and for that reason the circuses hamper the governing and vice versa, and the democracy exists because it can’t be a country without ruling and till now there was not known something that could have made it better. We from the Civilized Centralization and Circuses (CCC) undertake to correct this omission by offering
These structures are mainly two, which are pure incarnation of the two principles in the governing, where the first is called
This is the very government and there is no need to invent new names when this word is well known in the western languages (though in the other, not exactly “Eastern” ones, it is not used). The Government is the ruling body in the contemporary democracies, but together with the managerial functions of the Council of Ministers, which is part of the Government, here are included also the Municipalities, as regional governmental bodies, the Legislative Chamber, as analogue of the legislative functions of traditional Parliaments, as well as the Presidency, with representative and consolidating functions. These structures and their rights are established in accordance with the Constitution of the country, and their filling with concrete individuals is performed by decision of the Representative Council (RC) of the party which has won the elections. This Council consists of 100 persons Representatives of the People (RPs or MPs) from the leading in the elections party, which are estimated by summing of the voices only for the first party, dividing them by 100, and in this way is calculated the quota for one representative place in RC. Later, according to this quota, for each region is calculated a number equal to the amount of seats in RC for the region, where the votes for this party are divided to the quota. This number isn’t integer and because of that firstly is chosen the minimal amount of MPs according to the integer part of this number and then all regions are ordered in decreasing order of the fractional part of the same number and is taken by one person from each region from the beginning of the list in this order until reaching the required common amount of hundred persons, what guaranties justified rounding in favour of the greatest parts. The choice from below reaches to the establishing of the political power and its representatives, from then on starts the reasonable choice from above according to the decision of this power.
The leading party determines the various Ministers, but they are not so important persons as we are used to think and only helpers in the governing process, as says also the very word, which is derived from the root … “mini-”, surely, i.e. something small (where exactly in English the word “minister” means small priest, ambassador, and, in general, officer in some centralized structure; well, he isn’t so small officer because there are even smaller, added to him persons, who administer). The Representative Council of the ruling party appoints also the members of the Legislative Chamber according to certain professional criteria, approves the Municipalities according to the party lists for the regions, as also chooses the President and Vice-president, and this is the supreme authority of the country after initiating of the mandate, which can perform whatever changes in the Government and to cease (reject) decisions of various of its bodies. This, naturally, does not mean that in the Government can’t enter representatives of other parties or non-party persons, if they are good professionals, but RC is the instance, which has to approve them and takes its responsibility in case of eventual errors.
The Representative Council isn’t permanent body and it chooses between its lines one Coordinating Council (CC) from 12 persons as permanently acting body and with rights to cause congregation of the whole RC when needed, as far as the major part of MPs from the ruling party occupy some posts in the Government. The adoption of laws is done in RC, where each draft law can be subjected to prior discussion. The sittings of the RC are carried out, as a rule, by closed doors, where the decisions are taken by simple or qualified majority (according to the case) and announced officially. The same applies also to various bodies of the Government. The mandate of the Government and the Representative Council is according to the written in the Constitution (where we find that 4 years is an appropriate duration) and it can’t be prolonged, but can be terminated earlier by decision of RC taken with qualified majority of 2/3 of its members, and then must firstly be carrier out new elections in shortened terms (up to three months) and only after this to be handed over the power. The Representative Council can be called also by initiative of at least 1/4 of its members, but only it embodies the whole government and takes the whole responsibility. Any public debates hindering the governing are excluded from the Government, because it intentionally is separated from the circuses and the expression of will of the people, for which purpose exists another structure called
As it follows from its name this is a structure for providing of democratic circuses to the people, for discussions and expression of the popular will. Our presumption is that each comparatively mass movement must have some representation in the Circament, so that people could be in position to express themselves and their pretensions to be written and showed to the Government, if they receive positive resolution in some of the divisions of the Circament. This, of course, does not mean that the Government must pay attention to them, but each non-paying attention may then fall on the back of the ruling party, so that exactly this is the needed degree of compromise and of dividing between governing and circuses. In order to be fairly represented all strata of the population the Circament consists of three separate Houses, namely:
a) House of the Representatives (HR). This House is sufficiently near to the traditional Parliaments, or rather to their oppositional part, i.e. this is the official opposition, where it consists again of 100 persons but from all other parties excluding the leading one (which occupies the Government), and in addition to this these parties have gathered enough votes for to skip over some lower threshold (what is also traditional requirement). This threshold according to CCC must be five percent from the votes for the Circament, what, in fact, corresponds to circa 3 % by other Parliaments (because normally at least 1/3 of the MPs are from the first party, which here is absent). After throwing away those parties which do not skip the threshold are summed up the voices of these for HR and are divided similarly by 100 in order to find the quota of each of them, setting aside first the integer part, and after this the additions in diminishing order of the fractional parts. The specific Representatives are chosen according to the lists by regions, again first only the integer parts and after this also the additions for the decimal fractions. By the way, in this way is good to make also a list of reserves (continuing the visiting of fractional parts and, when needed, to begin again from the beginning), which to be used to supplement the HR if necessary.
b) House of the Anti-representatives (HA). This house is now a new element and has no analogue in the traditional Parliaments. It consists also of 100 persons, where here are represented these political parties which have not gathered the needed number of votes to enter the HR, where here, too, exists lower threshold of five percent. The calculations are entirely similar to those in the previous subsection, where here are excluded all parties up to the last represented in the HR including, only that, as far as this House already is of the minority parties, then they are represented in inverse proportion of their votes, so that those with the fewest number of votes to be “heard” best of all. This is one typical circus element and it, positively, will provide many emotions for the people during the debates in this House. More precisely said, this inverse proportion means that after establishing of the exact number of mandates for the parties these mandates are read in strictly inverse order where the first party gets the number of Representatives of the last in HA and vice versa, the second — those of the last but one, et cetera.
c) House of the Extra-parliamentarians (HE). This House also is entirely untraditional and consists again of 100 persons. In it enter by three persons from each of the non-presented anywhere else political forces from the participated in the elections, as well as from each other organization expressed a wish to be included (provided it is registered under the law for non-profit organizations), which can be represented in the moment. Let us make this clearer: because here can be represented at most 33 organizations this means that if they are more than this number is simply drawn a lot which of them may enter, where each force then names by three persons who are to represent it (first in the lists, if they have taken part in the elections), and in addition to this these persons choose one between them for Chairman (and to fill up the number to 100), where this force that has given the Chairman proposes one more on his place. It is maintained a waiting list for including of new organizations, where every six months these forces are updated (and possibly is chosen new Chairman) substituting maximum ten forces (if there are at least so much in the queue), and the determining of those, that are to go out, as well as those, that are to enter, is performed in an arbitrary way — via a lot! This is quite justly because in HE are represented forces with practically no importance for the governing (but important for the circuses), and there are no other reasons for the greater value for democracy of the whichever one of them, where in this sense the ordering in the queue gives no priority for inclusion. Besides, each gone out force can again stand in the queue, by wish. And, naturally, if there are less than 33 such powers, then HE will be in incomplete number.
The House of Extra-parliamentarians solved satisfactorily also the question with individual candidates (IC), because they can easy register some non-profit associations (e.g. “Ivan Ivanov and Supporters”) and just enroll on the waiting list, even if they have not taken part in the elections, in which case they will have very real chances to be represented (and though by three persons) in the Circament, and for at least 6 months. But may be proposed an alternative variant of HE, in which it consists of up to 30 parties by 3 persons and up to 9 individual candidates, plus the Chairman, where there are maintained two separate waiting lists — for parties and for IC — and are changed by 10 parties and 3 IC. Though let us mark, that the presumption for individual candidates is rather one more democratic confusion, because they are chosen by regions, not for the entire country, where one known personality can much more easy collect the required number of votes. And besides, what’s the purpose for one IC to win in three regions, foe example; or else, if he is chosen from the whole country, then to win, say, five mandates? Therefore, it is clear that they exist only for to conceal the political power which stays behind them, so that CCC thinks that they must not exist, and the corresponding persons take part in the government, if they wish to, in some other (easier) way.
As you see, the Circament is one perfect democratic circus, where are represented: the traditional oppositional parties — in the House of Representatives —, also the typical minorities, which take part in the elections but can not succeed to enter in the classical Parliaments, and even maximally spectacular — in the House of Anti-representatives —, and in addition to this also all extra-parliamentarian forces, which are absent from the traditional Parliaments and go about the streets hoping to attract attention of the public and the government — in the House of Extra-parliamentarians. These Houses are ordered by seniority or importance (in the order of explaining), and every common person may require access to the Circament, but from below and upwards, i.e. firstly to HE. If HE comes out with resolution that his opinion deserves attention, he may require access also to HA, and in the same way to HR. Surely each House may also deny access of this person, or reject his thesis as pointless or outdated. Similar is the way of corresponding of these Houses with the Government, where only HR has right of access to it, and this also not directly but via correspondence, to which, as we mentioned earlier, the Government is not at all obliged to pay attention. This is how the government can be Government, and the circuses — Circuses!
In the Addendum is given one detailed example for the distribution of seats in the above-mentioned democratic structures in accordance with the requirements of the CCC. Here it remained to look at one more structure, which takes temporary part in the governing and which is called
The General Assembly (GA) is called in the beginning of each mandate for a period of two weeks, which can be prolonged twice for the same period. In timely executed elections GA can be gathered even one month before expiring of the mandate of the old Government. In it enter the 100 persons from the Representative Council of the leading party and also the 100 persons from the House of Representatives from the Circament. It can take decisions only about questions for changes in the Constitution leading to changes in the structure of democratic authorities, for possible corrections in the duration of the mandate with regard of rounding, but less than plus /minus one year, or for redistribution of certain authorities. All decisions of GA are taken with qualified majority of 2/3 and until it completes its work the old Government continues to work. In the normal case two weeks are just a period for making acquaintances between the future rulers, for analysis of the expiring governing, and for transmission of the work in the corresponding structures from one party to another. It is possible also to decide that GA will be gathered after one year again for two weeks in each six months, for analysis and reporting, where after the second year to have rights to decide about early termination of the mandate and fixing of new elections.
The elections for the Government and the Circament are general, with bulletins and lists of candidates, as it is in the traditional democracies. The new moment here is the so called postponed mandate, what means that if one party /coalition occupies twice in a row the Government and if it wins for the third time it receives only the right in one of the following two elections to move up with one position, while currently it returns with one position back and is considered as second power in which case it receives stable majority in HR of the Circament! This moving up in the next elections, surely, is worthwhile only from second place to first, because this ranking can not change the percentage of votes for the party and, hence, this shows no influence over the HR, but it can be very significant sometimes, when the party lacks a mere percent to the first place. This postponed mandate is one very justified decision that satisfies the requirement for maximum two mandates for each party and in the same time it harms nobody else, but if instead of party we have coalition then this rule is applied to the whole coalition, so that if to the next elections even one political force comes out of it, then all left forces also lose their postponed mandate. In addition let us mention also that, as far as this condition remains valid only up to two consecutive elections, and is won also for two mandates, there is no possibility for more than one party /coalition to make use of it simultaneously.
Because the Municipalities are part of the Government there is no need for additional elections for them, and, besides, they are administrative units, or should have been such ones. If our country was divided in autonomous regions or States, with some separate territorial bodies and laws, then it could have been allowed in each State to perform also elections for local governmental bodies, but for us there’s no need for this. The separation of the Legislative Chamber as professional judicial body for making of laws solves also the question with professional incompetence of the political leaders, because the one who governs is not at all needed to know how to compose laws. The drafts of the laws are elaborated in the Chamber and are adopted by the RC of the Government, what does not exclude (and even presupposes) the possibility that the House of Representatives from the Circament expresses its meaning about each of the drafts, if RC or CC decides to send them with this purpose. HR, for its part, can decide to make other Houses also know this draft law, but the Circament takes no decisions and works under directions from the Government and in set by the later terms. The choice of the President ceases to be the next circus for the masses because his post is especially important for the state, and his professional qualities can be appreciated best of all by his colleagues from the party which leads the Government, and that is why he is chosen by the Representative Council of the winning party. In this way is excluded the possibility for existence of President from oppositional party, what can only weaken given government and force new elections.
As a rule CCC proposes that all mandates begin on Jan 01 of an year divisible by 4, where the elections are held three months before this time (i.e. in October), and even the General Assembly to be called in the beginning of December. The pre-electoral campaign begins normally 6 months before each elections (or from April 01) and each temporary ban on political parties, if such was imposed by the Government, is canceled in order that the elections run fairly, and later the next Government can again enact such ban, if finds it necessary, but only with resolution of Representative Council taken with qualified majority. Even in situation of martial law, or under premature termination of the mandate (again by decision of RC), the elections must be held normally, where in such conditions is allowed the pre-electoral period to be shortened, but not to less than three months.
Martial law can declare initially only the President but for a period of to 14 days, which can be prolonged ones more time. In case of military danger or serious internal turmoils RC has the right to prolong this condition also to the end of the mandate (i.e. after the elections and until the new Government takes the power). Anyway, all these things must be fixed in the Constitution of the country, by respecting the main ideas of CCC. It is right also to fix the remuneration of different structures where we propose the following gradation: HE of the Circament to receive only by one minimal monthly salary (MMS) in a month, HA — by 2 MMS, HR — by 3 MMS, and the staff of the Government and RC — from 4 to 7 MMS.
The Civilized Centralization resembles in some extent the known democratic centralism, only that under the latter there was only centralism and was no real democracy, because there were no party fights and genuine elections. By our proposition exists as well strong central power (which can forbid temporarily political parties, demonstrations, and other manifestations of public discontent leading to unrests in the country), as also real free democratic elections, where in the Circament are represented not only the parties won in the elections but also all other parties and strata of the population. Of course, not all have equal rights for interference in the governing of the country, but that is, after all, why the elections are performed — for to determine which political party what rights will have during the next mandate! And the rule for postponed mandate is just a necessity for all democratic forms, only that it is applied nowhere yet.
If we want adaptive and dynamic governing we must choose some form of democracy; if we want stable and dynamic democracy we must choose some way for centralization; if we want circuses and emotions for the people we must give them possibility for free manifestation and circuses. The Civilized Centralization and Circuses satisfies all these requirements.
CCC preserves everything precious from the democracy, centralizing and strengthening it, but in one civilized, not totalitarian, way. The civilized society requires civilized democracy, but the civilized democracy is the CCC.
The democracy incessantly develops and betters itself, or mutates and evolves. The newest mutation in the domain of democracy is the CCC.
If you value the circuses, if you value the centralization, if you value the civilization, then you value the Civilized Centralization and Circuses!
This Addendum contains one exemplary distribution of the quotas according to the votes of the electors. Let us have the following results of the voting of exactly 6 mln participants (given in thousands) and 27 parties, what is near to the real situation for our country.
Votes (ths)_ ||2,076|1,843|615|442|338|251|124|72.3|53.4|
Circament % ||—|46.97|15.67|11.26|8.61|6.4|3.16|1.843|1.361|
Enter in HR %||—|52.82|17.63|12.67|9.69|7.19|—|—|—|
HR mandates ||—|53|17|13|10|7|—|—|— |
Votes (ths)_ ||41.32|32.43|27.37|22.36|17.42|13.58|10.62|7.122|5.481|
Total percent ||0.689|0.541|0.456|0.373|0.290|0.226|0.177|0.119|0.091|
Circament % ||1.053|0.826|0.698|0.570|0.444|0.346|0.271|0.181|0.158|
Votes (ths)_ ||3.125|1.281|.847|.638|.594|.425|.351|.213|.123|
Total percent ||0.052|0.021|0.014|0.011|0.010|0.007|0.006|0.004|0.002|
Circament % ||0.080|0.033|0.022|0.016|0.015|0.011|0.009|0.005|0.004|
Tab.1. Distribution of the quotas by parties.
As it is seen from the above-given table for the Government have voted 2,076,000 voters, what by 100 seats in the Representative Council gives the quota of 20,760 people for one seat, where the concrete persons are chosen according to the lists by regions with the corresponding additions for the rounding. Then for the Circament remain other 3,924,000 votes with the shown percents of the voted for the parties on the 4-th row, where in the House of Representatives enter only those from P02 to P06. In this situation their percentages are recalculated (on the 5-th row) on the basis of the sum of voices for them, which are 3,489,000, what divided by 100 seats gives quota of 34,890 voices for one person from the HR.
Then we continue with the left parties for to establish the mandates also for the House of Anti-representatives according to the following table.
Votes (ths)_ ||124.0|72.3|53.4|41.32|32.43|27.37|22.36|17.42|13.58|10.62|
HA + HE % ||28.51|16.62|12.28|9.499|7.455|6.292|5.14|4.005|3.122|2.441|
Enter in HA %||33.23|19.37|14.31|11.07|8.69|7.334|5.992|—|—|— |
HA dir. mand. ||33|20|14|11|9|7|6|—|—|—|
HA inv. mand. ||6|7|9|11|14|20|33|—|—|—|
Votes (ths)_ ||7.122|5.481|3.125|1.281|.847|.638|.594|.425|.351|.213|.123|
HA + HE % _|| 1.637|1.26 |0.718|0.294|0.195|0.147|0.137|.098|.081|.049|.028 |
Tab. 2. Distribution of the left parties.
The calculations are similar, where for the HA + HE remain 435,000 votes and the parties from P14 and further drop out from the HA, what fives only 373,180, or divided again by 100 makes quota of 3,732 votes. The distribution of the of the final inverse mandates is seen on the last row of the first part of the table.
The left 14 parties enter in the House of Extra-parliamentarians composed by three persons from each of them, in which case there can be included also other political powers. By the real results for Bulgaria for the elections in 1994 took part even 47 parties, what would have exactly filled the HE, if was voted according to this proposition.
¤ 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!
¤ With the dictatorship is possible to fight and the history is full with examples of falling of dictatorships (in the worst case with the death of the dictator, because we all are mortal and he is also a human), but with the democracy, using the means of the democracy, this, alas, is impossible (because the people are indestructible). The hopes that the democracy in some country can be changed with changing of the rulers, are based on nothing; if, with time, it still evolves, then this is because the conditions in the country are changing, but this in a greater degree applies to different dictatorships.
¤ Every democratic election is, as a rule, unreasonable, and is, in a way, just procedure for approving of the unreasonableness! The assumption that there may exists something reasonable in this kind of elections will require to apply only this reasonable thing instead of the elections itself.
¤ The democracy is the best known … baby’s pacifier for the populace, because it both: preserves mother’s breast (the political system), and creates illusion for satiation (participation in the choice).
¤ According with the demos goes the –cracy!
¤ The other name of the democracy is vulgarocracy!
¤ Because it is known for a long time that the populace wants mainly bread and circuses, there exist: the dictatorship — to give the bread and the democracy — to provide the circuses! The bad thing is when these two parts do not coexist in the time.
¤ It is not the democracy that leads to a better way of living, but the better living standard is what leads to the need for democracy! It was so 25 centuries ago in Ancient Athens, it became so before about two centuries in the whole western civilized world, and it was so in our country (and other ex-coms) when we rejected the totalitarianism. But we still continue to put the cart before the horse.
¤ In most everyday problems the question, usually, is not what is the answer, but what is the question! Due to the great inertness of the social systems, however, there happens something different and in most cases the problem is not in finding of new ideas (to solve the problem) but in rejecting of the old ideas!
¤ There are just two ways to force someone to do something he /she does not want to do and they are: either by force, or by delusion (what is said in another way by the phrase about the “stick and carrot approaches”). But these ways have to be used, because otherwise we wouldn’t have had human society, capable to connect the different individuals in the time and the space. The dictatorship, as it’s well known, uses mainly the first method, and the democracy — the second one, but neither one form, nor the other, can exist for a long time, if they don’t use also the other method, because otherwise their palette would have been very poor.
¤ A person can’t be really great, if he (she) has no courage to laugh at himself; similarly, a democracy can’t be actual, if it does not include the possibility for the people to joke with its shortcomings.
¤ The knowledge is power, the simplicity — happiness; the wisdom is in the compromise between them!
¤ The knowledge disunites the people, while the simplicity is what unites them! The goal of the social government is, however, to unite the populace, and that is why it relies mainly on their simplicity.
¤ The equality between people is a question that gives rise to many speculations because God or the Nature (scratch the redundant word) has made all possible to provide for differences and not for equality, but we (due to human craziness, maybe) want awfully much that the equality exists. It is a good thing, however, that our wishes do not match our desires, because otherwise, we wouldn’t have been human beings (but, say, robots).
¤ The liberty is … perfidious notion, because our world is a world of the strong ones, hence, the only salvation for the weak ones is to unite to become stronger, but doing so they diminish their liberty! This is to say that all tales about the liberty under the capitalism (or call it industrial or postindustrial society, if you want) are invented just to deceive the populace, and, in a way, even under totalitarian rule there might have been (and were) more liberties (economical ones) for the masses.
¤ The main difference between the capitalism and the socialism (respectively communism) in economical area is about the question of ownership of production means. This difference, however, disappears when these means are considered from the point of view of their personal ownership by those working with them, because in the well developed countries about 95 out of hundred do not own the means with which they win their bread, hence it doesn’t matter much who owns them. And for the prosperity in the society is important not whether there are very wealthy people, but whether there are not very poor ones! The last, however, depends not on the policy but on the effective economy and organization in the country. What says that the new (i.e. old) forms of governing and ownership will be of dubious help for our poor country (Bulgaria).
¤ The worst thing with the bad ideas is that there exists something good therein (and that is why they grasp human brains and wishes), as much as the best thing with the good ideas is that there is something bad in them (and that is why, after some time, is possible for them to be changed with something even better)!
¤ When the “mundus vult decipi” (i.e. “world wants to be deceived”), as the Romans have said, then some social structure has to be provided, which has to do this. That is how the politicians have come into being.
¤ The politician is a person with[_high self-esteem, mediocre intellect, and primitive emotions! The first thing is needed for him to apply for the job, the second — to be understood by the populace, and the third — to give good show to the electorate. Whether we find this good or bad doesn’t matter — the democratic elections enforce it!
¤ 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!
[ * 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”. ]
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. In many Western countries, where the people are wealthy enough for to allow to their morality to say its word if they occupy ruling positions, or as the communists said it would have been when one begins to live for to work, instead of to fork for to live, and what was the rule for many centuries between the hereditary aristocracy (and what is the only excuse for its existence), the things may go better (albeit also in such cases not seldom problems arise), but not in poor countries like ours, or between not much religious citizens (again like ours).
And the point isn’t only in the morality also because the population continues not to be proportionally represented, as one statistical variable, in the Parliament. Nor the ruling persons are chosen as good professionals; they are mainly prominent politicians (understand: rope-walkers, charlatans, at least good orators, and we are talking not only about our country but about any democratic one), and just then, if this sometime happens, also good professionals. Nor somebody tries to remove at last these obviously partial (or defending private interests) party members, what makes us to think that the communist viewpoint for one party consisting simply of the best ones (the cream of society, in their view) was not at all unfounded (one should have just seen to what extent the politicians succeeded to vulgarize each idea, in our case that about the pluralism, for to believe that in the communist idea was much reason). And these are not bubble stories because, if we leave aside the economic problems, the democracy runs well in those countries where are not big differences between the various parties, i.e. there, where the folks can change the politicians without changing significantly the policy — as the man alters his tie, which is only a decorative element in the garment, so that, in fact, one can do well without it.
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.
It, in principle, is the present-day Parliament or National Assembly, and this is the reason why we assert that the transition to such democratic model (basically, this is a kind of democracy, only that it is better than the existing forms) can be done also these days. In this situation, and at first time, we can assume that the party system, however rotten it is, may be preserved in the beginning, but later on must be devised some variant for selection of good professionals, managers or businessmen, who must be chosen for certain position (not because we like their “mugs”) and by them alone (not by whole nation of laymen!). It is better for them to be 100 persons on a national level (at regional — according to the concrete decision, but maybe: 5, 7, or 9), and out of them to be chosen: the Ministers, the President, and the other ruling positions in the country, and the left majority of them to be allocated in different Commissions, as well as to take part in their mass by voting of important documents and decisions. As far as, and until, they are party members then the choice of quotas for each party (the number of persons, or their percent) can be estimated via general election, though it is better for this purpose to be used the enlarged assembly of the HS (or HP and HS, where their average value is taken), what will not only be much faster, but will also allow continuous monitoring of the political orientation in the country (something that is absent from all contemporary Parliaments), where such establishing of the quotas is performed, say, each half year.
This isn’t at all some fiction, because similar procedure is applied by the choice of the Pope (he is not elected by all believers, right?), by the election of referees for sporting competitions, in the Boards of various companies, on party level in most of the parties (i.e. iterative, by delegates), and elsewhere. So that this is real and possible and this is how it must be done, if we want to work properly, not only to throw dust in the eyes. But this is just one third of the whole Government, its tactical part, and the decisions of HR are proposals, which come into force only after being voted in both of the other Houses (which play the role of opposition), first (say) in HS and later in HP. The paradox, when one and the same group of people both, proposes and approves, here can’t exist, and there are no grounds to expect to be confirmed things profitable only for the ruling in the moment, which later, when another Government takes the power, will be radically changed. Naturally, in the cases of decisions of various Ministries, they take effect after their acceptance by the persons in HR (in fact, only by the Ministers, but they may be more persons, a whole Commission), but HS and HP must be allowed to cease each inappropriate decision, if they choose to examine it and find it wrong.
With other words: till here nothing radical, only that the opposition is separated from the rulers (in order to work properly and to be no ways for incessant quarrels), but it is also rightly formed (as other people, looking at the things from another positions, from those of the masses and the intellectuals, not of people who until yesterday have ruled and today just find flaws, or vice versa), where in addition exists one more level, third level, of dividing of the functions. Well, this probably will slow a bit the work of the GRA, but then, if one begins to think, the point isn’t in the fast procedure but in the rightful and well thought one, and we have also good guaranties that the decisions will be well received by the people and will not be some next trash, which every more or less intelligent person could have marked at ones.
It is this, what the National Assembly, essentially, should have been — a representative selection of the people as supreme judge (and not a place for talkings and blowing of bubbles, judging by the name “Parliament”). This is a new structure, but obviously necessary (the so called vox populi — we discussed this in the other Manifestos), which is clear that has to be chosen by arbitrary method, where we propose here to be also 100 persons, chosen by ordinary random selection by UCN, Unique Citizenship Number (equivalent of insurance number, an unique code for each citizen), of by two persons of each year of birth from 20 years inclusive to 70 years exclusive; it is necessary also to have Enlarged HP of 1,000 persons (chosen by the same procedure), and even 10,000 (if this will be find suitable), where each year (or half year) may be reelected anew one half of them, arbitrary chosen. This House must have also some initiative rights, if it has to put some question which is met with resistance from the HR, but it isn’t this that makes the laws, it only adopts them or not.
It is true, that at a first sight it seems too risky to choose a motley bunch of nincompoops and to leave them to decide the destiny of the country, but these people just estimate whether this, what is proposed to them, is good or bad for them, and exactly this do also the jurors, so that we don’t see especial problems in this case; after all, the uncertain person may choose somebody for a model (and the things go first via the HS), besides, it is normal to allow to each one of HP the right to refuse, if he /she wishes, to take the post (as far as the people there are chosen without them having applied, just supposing that they agree). This, that these people will not be professionals (i.e., most often jurists, judging by the actual Parliaments) and many things may be needed to be explained to them — well, that is precisely the purpose of the task: to adopt clear for the people laws, not just to outsmart one another.
This House (or also of the Wise, or of the Elders, or also of the Judicious, Virtuous, Models for us, etc.) is now one fundamentally new element in the Government, missing from all contemporary Parliaments, though it can’t be said that it is entirely unexpected one, because it is based on the idea for choice from below, choice incompetent, but not for professionals, rather for people who we respect, appreciate, trust them. Here is the place for the actual democratic elections, only not just for to fool the masses (with a new baby’s pacifier), but for iterative choice from below, choice of people not only from the top (like: prominent scientists, artists, clergymen, and if you like also pop stars or footballers, etc.), but also of such from our intermediate surroundings (say: husband, father, mother, chief, and so on), where in each higher round choose only those who are already chosen and only between the chosen — in the same way as each respecting itself party does.
Generally said, this means that on the first iteration vote all, and not only for one person, this is too simplified, but for five (or ten) persons (not from parties, here are chosen personalities), making no difference about priority between them, where for each one (by UCN, and with computer, obviously) are added the voices of the voted for him (her) persons, later this list (for the whole country on national level, but the modern computers will not be hampered by this) is arranged in diminishing order of the received voices, and is separated its beginning, for example as 5 to 10 times (as it will be decided for each iteration) less people than before the iteration. This procedure is applied also for the next iteration, only that (in addition to the fact that there vote just the people from the shortened list — a kind of delegates) by counting of the votes is added not by one for each voted for him, but the number of votes, which the latter has already received (i.e. the weight of the vote). Furthermore, on the last iteration, when there leave 1,000 persons (or 1,200, with a bit of reserve), is necessary to gather these persons together face to face in one place (say, in a resort) in order to get acquainted one with the other as much as possible, which process must last at least one week. So at the end is chosen HS again of 100 persons, as also an Enlarged HS of 1,000 persons. This choice also can be performed each year, via Internet, or using special terminals, and it is open, because there is no need to keep it a secret when we do not choose big chiefs but just people who we value and respect.
So these are our Sages or Elders, people on whose, not only intellect, but also morality we rely and stake. Well, it seems strange to learn how to behave, or copy morality, from pop stars, fashion models, or footballers, but, funny or not, such people, really, very often are role models for many of us (and this will also provide some “freshness” for the crew, so to say). But even the persons from HS will not govern (we are not supporters of the Platonian idea that the country must be governed by philosophers — if not for other reasons then at least because the people will, neither choose them, nor understand them; and pop stars, for example, certainly shouldn’t really govern us). These people, though, are the strategists, who must be able to tell what to do, what are the problems, on what matters must work in the HR, and whether the latter have well done their job. This is the House in which can and must be discussions, which can (and is preferable) to be followed by the public, not the left two Houses, and in it alone one may feel proud to be chosen, not in HR (where simply must be worked hard), and even less in HP (where the people are, in a way, the “kibitzers”). This House must have, together with the approving or not of the laws and other important documents, also primary initiative functions; it is, basically, also the opposition, but one reasonable opposition, exercising constructive, not destructive, critique (according to the rule that if something comes not from us then it is necessarily bad).
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 (though, looking at the Bulgarian democracy, it is hardly to imagine that there can be something worse than it — when even under the totalitarianism is was significantly better, at least in sense of standard of life for the people —, but we speak about the democracy in general, so that let us not fall victims to our emotions)? Now, it isn’t likely to be worse, at least a priori speaking. Because the work of the HR will, maybe, be a bit less effective (for reasons of the enhanced control from the parts of HS and HP), but it, in spite of all this, may turn to be even more effective, because under separated from the “Speaking Hall” opposition the rulers will simply not have with whom to quarrel and will be forced to do their work; and they will also be not only ambitious orators (and wealthy enough for to apply for the job, or at least backed up by wealthy and, respectively, with dubious origin of their resources, circles), but genuine professionals in the governing (as much as it is possible at all to introduce exact criteria there, where the work is not only routine, but rather is an art).
Next, HP obviously will be one really representative sample of the population, one National Assembly; next, HS unavoidably will bring some morality and reason in the government (i.e., it is impossible to happen only ignoramuses in the Parliament, as it, I’m afraid, happens in Bulgaria now and then). And the counteraction between three powers, not so much as the Christian Holy Trinity, but as in the spirit of the ancient Eastern philosophy expressed by the gods: Vishnu (the Doer, the maintenance, or the tactics for us, the HR), Brahma (the god who makes the things to buzz — bramchat in Bulgarian —, the creator, or the strategist here, the HS), and Shiva (the Destroyer, that who will … strike us — nashiba in Bulgarian — with a stick if we don’t obey, up to some extent analogue of the people or HP in our case, who are capable to destroy all things created by the rulers or the sages), is preferable to two Houses, especially to our unicameral Parliament; in this way the dialectical contradictions can better unfold itself! In addition to this the elections in different Houses must differ in the time, and if in the HR they are for four (or three, or even two) years, then the HP may be renewed to a half at least once yearly, and the HS can be elected once in one or two years, the President can be chosen half an year after the coming in power of the new HR, and so on.
And something more on the question of morality: it becomes wrong not because it is bad to have moral in the governing (this is an obligatory requirement and we very well see that without moral we came to nowhere), but when only one chosen group has the right to instruct, when only one truth is good, only one religion is accepted and official — because then comes the stagnation, where the moral marches on the spot while the perceptions of the people are changing. But under the governing of GRA this can never happen, because we elect strong personalities and role models, about half of which are well known and succeeded in life, so then they, obviously have their own views, not commonly accepted prejudices, and they are different people, as by professions, also by habits, they are not united in whatever parties, nor have some common platforms (apart from this, what we call wisdom or virtue). So that by them can never exist one single belief, and, hence, can’t be stagnation; they may form only this, what is right to be called intersection of all religions (beliefs, truths, etc.), and what, if it can be shaped, then … well, praised be the God! Because this is the hardest thing in life of a given community — to achieve unified view on the main questions of life, tolerating the various views of all different groups ans stratas. Seeking for a common view there, where each one, as the saying goes, pulls the rug to himself, can be reached to one moral minimum, which is to be applied to all, to be clear for all, and to be respected by all!
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?
END OF THE WHOLE BOOK
The proposed book is collection of papers of a genre called, according to the author's definition, â€œ/politistics/â€, which comprises all what can be said about the social policy â€” either a theoretical or scientific investigation, a documentary material, a satire, a pamphlet, some fiction etc, or any kind of mixture of the mentioned, as much as life itself is, in general, mixture off any, good and bad, things. To define is to delimit, as some people know, and that is the etymology of the word (meaning to make it finite, to set some limits) and, in this sense, some not strictly defined writing genre should not lose, but on the contrary may enhance, the reader's interest in a similar way as a good coffee blend, for example, has better taste than any one of the used sorts. The Manifestos presented in the book are too serious to be read in bed at night, but also too paradoxical to be seriously taken by the reader. But what are the paradoxes if not something that is placed outside of our knowledge and parallel to it, because this word comes directly from Greek Ï€Î±ÏÎ±Î´Î¿Î¾Î¿Ïƒ, meaning something unbelievable, contradicting to well accepted notions (usually because our knowledge is not sufficient to comprise them, too), and which is build from Ï€Î±ÏÎ± + Î´Î¿Î¾Î± where the first means â€œaroundâ€ and the second is a thesis, statement. They are as if parodies of the Marxian Manifesto (judging by the beginning of each of them), but this is only small formal similarity and in their core they are rather parodies of /all/ democratic parties, i.e. of the (multi-) party system, and therefore they criticize, respectively, the politics and politicians on the whole, the democracy, as well as the simplicity and vulgarity of the people (who in Latin are unavoidably vulgar). For one thing, they are very logical, if one reads them carefully, but for another â€” they are just Utopias. At the same time, however, some materials are highly ironical and instructive for those who are capable to find pleasure in things interesting from the so called /speculative/ point of view, i.e. as knowledge in itself and not because it is useful in their everyday life. One may take the Manifestos for political science fiction of a kind (in which there is more science and logic and less fiction as is usually accepted), or as popular treatise about democracy (something that in no way is superfluous in countries with insufficient experience in the area), or simply as political pamphlets (because is preserved the main element of the manner of speech of a politician, namely: to speak only /pro/ his part and /contra/ the opposite one). To some of them there are Addendums where is schematized the mathematical model of the proposed idea, which are very serious, but they may be skipped, if you find them difficult to read. Another ones are really comic, but this does not make them entirely inapplicable, if a reasonable approach will be applied. The common joining idea is that each one of them proposes some ideal (in a given aspect) model of democracy, which is /better than each/ of the existing democratic forms, what, for its part, gives right to some of the readers to name the book antidemocratic (just that the â€œantiâ€ is related with our naive and euphoric notions about the contemporary democratic forms, and not with the very democratic idea). Here the book is divided in two parts and below are the names of the parties / movements (which in Bulgarian original have abbreviations with 3 /equal/ letters) from the second part: FCP (Forever Changing Party) with Addendum to it, BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference) with Addendum to it, USC (Union for Strength and Competition), TTT (Tandem for Total Totalization), FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation), and CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses) with Addendum to it, plus some aphorisms in the Afterword, and â€œHurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)? â€ as Supplement: The volumes of the parts are: 182,000 and 211,000 chars.