Information Post 5
The ultimate goal of Gestalt Politics is to ensure the maximum voting rights not only in terms of the population but also in regard to individual policies on both local and National levels - with some essential exceptions where minority views on moral or security issues impinge on the safety and/or rights of both the collective and the individual citizen. We can look at the importance of this later.
To achieve this goal, it is required to eliminate the Ideaology of the Party-elite, which can’t be done without eliminating the Political Party from the equation.
The first policy then is to phase out the Political Party by redefining and restructuring the parliamentary system.
One way to achieve this is to replace the House Of Commons with a House of Independent Representatives, and the House of Lords with a National Citizens Council. The latter being a means by which citizens could challenge proposals or existing policies and laws seen to be detrimental to the welfare of groups or sections of society which could potentially be disadvantaged by them.
SomethingNew* - in theory - is ideally positioned to establish a working Gestalt, the only potential barrier being a Manifesto which is not necisarily conducive to promoting wider social inclusion.This is not because it is SomethingNew’s manifesto, as such, just that it is a Manifesto. The problem being that the public do not vote for Manifesto’s. Very often, in a Party voting system they vote as much against a Party as for another. Who is to say which is which?
Under the existing system people often are asked only to vote for the lesser evil. Of course, the new Parties are trying to change that. I am not questioning the sincerity of their convictions, only pointing out that all Party beliefs are not public beliefs, all Party “ Visions “ are not Universal Visions.
In the latter regard the Public’s universal “Vision” is no different today than it has been for thousands of years. To establish a society where those who rule do not in fact rule but serve the will of the electorate - wherever possible as agreed by universal and legally ratified decree.
The first principle then is that
“ Those who rule must serve “ , a view which is also hinted at but only vaguely understood in the Social Contract where Rosseau recognises that the Monarchy are the people, and the Monarch is not Vox Populis.From this it can be inferred that in a true Democratic or Social Monarchy the “ Ruling “ Monarch can have no voice in the political sphere but is duty bound to serve the will of the Monarchy or National Gestalt itself. It is a question of social duty and obligation. This principle of Noblese Oblige is recognised when Queen Elizabeth herself has acknowledged
“ With great privilege comes great responsibility “ or, as Christ put it,
“ Let he who would be great among you become - as a servant under task work “
The usurpation of the Monarch’s power by Parliamentarians has not established the Social Democracy or Commonwealth that Cromwell promised to deliver.
Like all Party promises it was used by power-seekers to establish the pseudo-Aristocracy that continues to rule today. At this point , I think it important to view this situation in perspective. British Parliament was founded on treason - not democracy, and was motivated by the will to power and manipulated by the greed of those hungry for that power.
To establish a true system of Social Democracy then requires first the establishment not of a theoretical Social Contract but one that is legally binding on all Parties. To this end the elected Independant Representatives would , although permitted to suggest policies for review , would have no power to promote or initiate those policies without direct consent.
Some publicly selected Independents would then be directly elected to Ministerial Positions either as a consequence of their acceptance of specific policies relevant to the position or other evidence that they were the right person for the job, an example of this would be a directly elected Chancellor of the Exchequer , chosen by public vote and not by Party committee or Ideaology.
Remaining Independent politicians would form a non-ministerial group , the purpose of which would be to review policy-proposals suggested by their own constituents for wider public appraisal and debate , but would have no power to promote them ( or dismiss out of hand ) twithout their being voted on by the public.
Gestalt Politics then involves the establishment of a directly elected House of Independent Ministers and a Policy Voting system in which the Citizens themselves have direct involvement to replace the Political Party voting system. This should be seen to have certain advantages to all sections of society but also for some it may be seen that they may be specifically disadvantaged. I believe the positives would far outweigh the negatives, and that solutions to most problems can be found where there is a will to find them.
The Policy Voting system would be established with direct interaction of M.P.s with their local and National electorate, and those locally elected M.P.s spending of necessity far more time in their constituencies than in Parliament.
The costs of more local involvement would be balanced by the reduced costs of a National parliament, as, for one thing, there would be no opposition Party there being no Ideaology to oppose.
There is an added advantage to this , in that, where there is no Political party there is also no opportunity for revolution, and/or political coups.
The current system is rife with corruption and serves only the vested interests of those with direct access to Parliament, vie Gestalt Politics that situation is intended to be reversed as much as possible.That, unfortunately also brings into question the concept of the “ Manifesto” .
Where said manifesto may be seen to be serving the interests or views of an alternative elite or minority, no matter how well meaning, it may only create greater resentment and mistrust from the public.which, of course means no votes for the New guys who do not seem to be offering anything new.Of course if said manifesto was itself presented as a proposal for public consultation and open to change by the public themselves, and that principle was legally binding on the Party and all it’s members, that is, where no single aspect of the manifesto may be deemed “ Mandatory “ without collective consent, then it ceases to be a problem. Therefore, I would suggest that the Manifesto could be used in itself to promote a Policy Voting system. I was not digressing by mentioning the Manifesto or dissing it.
How and in what way this could be used to promote SomethingNew I can cover in depth later. All I would ask , at present is for people to consider the advantages and/or disadvantages that could arise from that proposition, and that personal preferences do not prejudice the analysis.
As I have pointed out, previously, I am a very firm Brexiteer and I feel there is no other way for either Britain or Europe to go forward and help to establish a fairer and better world. I would be more than a little disappointed and dismayed if Brexit were not to go ahead, nonetheless, providing I knew it to be the consequence of the collective will of the British people, I would, no matter how I felt, reluctantly, but willingly, accept it.
The system I am discussing here can only work where all parties and all social groups come together for the common good putting collective need before minority want. It does demand both a greater transparency and a more active involvement of the citizenry, but also of Politicians motives. Such a system does not support personal ambition before duty. In that regard , I would also suggest that were such a system to be implemented , Politicians would be paid on “ results” and would not automatically receive a full salary .
If Productivity -bonuses are good enough for the working man , they are good enough for Politicians too.
The latter point is an example of the type of policy that the public would be asked to vote upon.
Well, that’s something to be going on with for the moment.