Integral Theory of Democracy

Discussion

Johannes Heinrichs:

"Let us briefly draw the conclusions for an Integral Theory of Democracy.

1. In our existing democracies the whole system is governed from below, from the economic sphere and from a “capitalist” money system, which is quite dubious. Even if religion or serves as ideology of justification or diversion, the human basic values are not really leading the whole of society. And even if the money-system was in order, the governing of the system from below (“money rules the world”) basically cannot be accepted. Everybody knows that, but nobody knows how to change it – except many fanatics of another money-system. Even if they are right in their economic field, they are very wrong from an integral point of view. The whole of a society cannot be changed from the economic field alone! To try that means to repeat the historical mistakes of Marxists as well as of liberals and neo-liberals.

2. In our existing democracies around the world, the political parties are decisive. These parties bundle all problems (basic values of culture, foreign issues, inner politics, and the economy) and are chosen by their electors for all this – that means for nothing.

Apart from many other weaknesses of the parliamentary system these seem to be the most general and crucial ones. Now, the remedy of these weaknesses is not at all the abolishment (or a further weakening) of parliament (e.g. by direct democracy of plebiscites, which is either only an ornamental addition or totally inept for a big state), but on the very contrary, the further development and inner synthesis of direct and parliamentary democracy.

Let us briefly come to serious solutions which follow logically and rather simply from the above system analysis.

Ad 1: Governing from above, from the basic values instead of from below is possible by the differentiation of the parliament according to the system levels. That means four chambers of the parliaments with a hierarchical legislation-power.

Ad 2: The representatives must be elected for each chamber independently. In this way, the elections become at the same time matter-decisions. The parties (federations of candidates with the same aims) become matter-specific parties instead of power-parties which claim to cover all issues.

The decisions of the upper parliaments are binding for the lower ones. The existing second chambers, the House of Lords, the Senate, or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) could constitute the third level, safeguarding the cultural diversity of the partial states.

There must also be a circular feedback from the “lower” chambers to the upper ones. This can easily be provided by several parliamentary “lectures” in which the representatives of each chamber can publicly give their statements to any legislative project.

Taking into account the vote of the other chambers - as well as that of extraparliamentarian social groups - contains the circular feedback. If a clear majority of all three other chambers presents converging concerns against a bill, it would be factually as well as tactically unwise to ignore these concerns, even if by the hierarchical point of view this would be legal. So the votes of the chambers 1 and 2 undoubtedly have influence on the deputies in chambers 3 and 4 and vice versa. As the members of parliament must all four years (for example) face re-election, although not all at the same time, there is a feedback-circuit.

There are many practical questions concerning the rhythm of independent elections for each chamber, concerning the number of parliamentarians (which must not increase, on the contrary!), and concerning a possible corresponding division of the government and the administration in the proper sense, etc.

The real main question is: How to win the minds and hearts of people, especially the members of the political and economic class? Besides an already rather numerous agreement among “normal” people, there must be forerunners among the elite, people of influence, which have not only the intellectual capacity to recognize the unique value of this model, but above all the spiritual drive or motivation to stand for it. Still more than for truth-finding alone, it needs spiritual qualities for the realization of truth and justice. For there are too many privileged circles which are against such a big change, even though it would be for the wealth of all."

(https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Diamonds_of_Integral_Philosophy)

Source

* Book: Johannes Heinrichs. Value-Levels-Democracy. The Reflection-System-Theory of Four-Segmentation. 2018