Any and all "Blueprints" for a Great Democracy must be a publicly voiced intention and directed activity to increase the public's access to the practice of an Actual Democracy, instead of perpetuating the limitations of democracy now being imposed.
The impetus for this page came from the idea fostered by the Common Cause group. The following comment and image came from this source: Highway One— Consulting, LLC
From Common Cause’s quarterly newsletter:
The Common Cause Education Fund is launching a major initiative to develop a vision and strategies for advancing reforms that will enable the United States to reclaim its place – and chart its future – as a great democracy. With generous long-term support from the Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund, Common Cause will convene an annual gathering of thought leaders, coalition partners and others to address democracy challenges, related particularly to the influence of money in politics and barriers to participation in our democracy.
On the surface, the "Blueprint for a Great Democracy" intent looks good. However, we need a closer examination. In so doing, it is of need to point out a bias under which the present comments are written: Let's get it through everybody's head that America's form of government is a LIMITING Democracy. But so are practiced forms of Communism, Socialism and Theocracy. All of them SEVERELY limit the amount of participation the collective Will of the people can have on developing laws, based on some rationalization substituted for reason. All of these ideologies expect vicarious Representations; in that a few assume the role of Representing the many via some process of accepted selectivity... some of which, like the American Electoral College used in the election of a President, are methods of reducing the Will of the people, sometimes called the popular vote... into a channel of negligibility. In other words, it is a means by which the Will of the People can be undermined.
The Will of the People should not be a convenience for one or another individuals or groups whose primary interest is themselves. The use of the Electoral College is a process of discrimination against the public by effecting a limited exercise of Democracy. But should the American public defeat this absurdity, it should not be used as a tell-tale sign that an Actual Democracy has been achieved. The amount of democracy being experienced by Americans is as minimum as their minimum wage. Far too many are without a living wage and yet are expected to pay, by way of taxes, for the higher wages and benefits received by government workers. The ridiculous minimum wage without it being a living wage, and the lack of benefits, including a comprehensive health plan, is just as stupid as the destitute form of democracy being provided to the whole of the public.
But America is not alone in the practice of a stingy democracy. It exists in Britain, Canada, China and many other countries. They use different words and different political stage-crafting, but they all limit the amount of actual Democracy that the public is permitted to exercise. The practice of an Actual Democracy is just as necessary as a National Health Care, Unemployment and Retirement systems. The practice of an Actual Democracy as a fully pledged social services program should be as natural as breathing. But this will require the adoption of a Cenocracy... a New Government with a Cenocratic formula.
For all its obvious good intentions and sincere efforts, Common Cause is not pursuing the agenda for actually increasing the type and level of Democracy the people themselves are to experience. Don't be fooled by the expertise of their speakers or how much money goes into their coffers. Common Cause is not advocating an actual change in the basic formula of governance which is needed for the public to experience a Greater Democracy. The American, British, Canadian, Chinese and others governments do not have the wherewithal to provide a fuller expression of a "Peoples Government", regardless of what label is applied. Very typically, excuses involving specific cultural attributes are used to provoke sentiments of Nationalism so that restrictive formulas of governance can be imposed by way of various deferments to patriotism invoked through propaganda aligned with sentiments towards tradition.
It is easy to claim that the United States practiced some former version of a "Great Democracy" if it is to be compared to lousier versions of government, but in comparing its own practices to a clearer definition of Democracy, we find that there is no former... and in particular, there will be no future Great, Greater or Greatest Democracy to be had... if Common Cause or any other well-meaning advocate of public needs and equitability are permitted to pursue changes which will amount to superficialities— if a more fundamental change in the underlying government structure is not taken. Common Cause's "Blueprint for a Great Democracy" amounts to a dim-witted hypocrisy to pursue something that has never actually existed, in America or elsewhere, and can not exist if its prospects are to be unilaterally diminished by those who use the word "democracy" to conceal persistent levels of a lack thereof.
America's present government, like so many governments, are inherently designed to severely restrict expressions of Democracy. It is a scaffolding tide to a Constitutional Blueprint that needs to be re-written by the whole of the public... or at the very least, discussed and voted on by everyone. Equal Rights For Everyone should be at the top of the list of a new Bill of Rights. No more of the business, political, or religious elitism which defines internalized privileges for members, and expects all others to abide by them without an expectation to deserve the same. The people the world over need a Cenocracy that will accommodate the social practices of Greater Communism, Democracy and Socialism... all of which are far from an expression of their truer ideals— ideals which converge into a symbiosis, but is unrealized by those who prefer to practice short-sighted visions.
We Cenocrats do not in anyway deny the well-intentioned accomplishments made by Common Cause and others, but to claim there is a striving for some presumed past Great Democratic model, is ludicrous! Just about any model of Democracy can be called 'Great' if you compare it to social practices with an even greater level of limitation. The usage of the word "Great" sounds strikingly like its usage in describing Britain ("Great" Britain) or Alexander (Alexander the "Great")... in other words, it expresses some egotistical nonsense. Again, America's model of Democracy is not now nor has it ever been Great. Whereas it has been better than others, there are other governing models of Democracy some people elsewhere might more readily favor. It is rather dubious for many to make a comparison without having had any personal experience with other models. And yet, then again, what definition of "great" is being used if not embellished by way of ego or culture-centricity?
This has nothing to do with loyalty to one's culture or nation. The plain and simple truth is that all governing systems have problems. None of them is perfect, and none of them are great... particularly when such words are used as an excuse to keep oneself from pursuing an enhanced model that present governing systems can not provide. America nor any other country has a "Great" democracy, unless you want to use such a word to describe a specific model of limitation as a cultural preference you have sentimentalized into a personification of some sought after accomplishment that is reached by adopting an illusion. Achieving the reality of such will require the usage of a new formula of social self-governance. Such an architecture will impact all of us because all social issues will become addressed by everyone, vote on by everyone, and thus supported as a greater workable ideal based on the practicalities of purposeful intent that embraces the trek along a truly greater future imaginable.
Not only are the words "Great" and "Democracy" problematic with respect to the form of definition being implied but not expressly conveyed, we have the word "Blue-print" to contend with. For example, the Declaration of Independence might well be referred to as a blueprint, since it was used as a point of demarcation from which the U.S. government was designed. Yet, how many people can say that they have read it, or that they were instructed to read and/or discuss it at length in a public classroom? Surely the contents of such an important blueprint should be widely known and respected, but we find that the very government from which it was drawn has soiled its contents. A stark example is seen in the attempt by the so-called Great Democracy to erase certain lines in the Independence Blueprint:
The so-called government of the people with its presumed Great Democracy has taken upon itself to adopt a law which prohibits the people from over-throwing the government (18 U.S.C. §2385), though such an act was clearly mandated as a Right in the Independence Declaration:
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
What good is establishing a blueprint for a Great Democracy if the government is permitted to obscure or deny a basic Right written in a plain vernacular. If 18 U.S.C. §2385 (and §2383, §2384,) are not to be rewritten to exclude the public in its expressed Will to create a better functioning State of affairs through the process of over-throwing the government... if need be, nor provisioned with an inalienable permit to rescind them by the Will of the People seeking to create a better government; then the people must invoke its Right to seize the government from any and all of its acting despots... like so many publics in the past have done so in other both historical and overlooked contexts; even though those in authority routinely think the public is without the concerted wherewithal to conduct such a protest against those who presume they have an established pedigree to do as they please for their own motives. Now, once again, the public is being placed into a position of teaching those in authority a lesson about a Declared Independence. It is not that so many in governing positions repeat history because they have forgotten it, but because they never really knew it and could not avoid the pitfalls of repetition.
The Independence Declaration begins with "We The People" which is meant to describe everyone and not just a select few... even though there were those who preferred neutrality or deference to the British government at the time the document was written. Yet, it was used used to create a sense of widespread agreement, though in fact such an agreement was never actually voted on and counted. This same mentality exists today. Many of us, including those at Cenocracy.org, have not taken a National vote... because there is no mechanism for such a method to take place. When ascribing the words "We The People", it is being used in the context of desiring that the whole of the public achieve their due right of self-Representation, by which course the adoption of a Peoples Legislative Branch will be a step in this direction. "We The People" have a severely restricted form of democracy to contend with. For example, even when voting for a President, voting takes place by communities and larger regions, and not in a true "National" sense. A person can not be just anywhere and vote, even though it should not matter where a person is if they are eligible to vote. Eligibility should be nationalized and not compartmentalized as a form of segregation. A national voting system has not been set up in order to accommodate frequently occurring large-scale discussion and voting methods so that the collective Will of the people could be routinely made known and public, no matter where they were in the Nation, or even the world.
The thoughts and considerations of the public are routinely dismissed so that a few can centralize the vision of the public on their views... even though such views may be biased or false. The Will of the People under the current Blueprint schematic of Democracy is typically muffled and channeled into the effort of some labor to prop up the construction, but have no say so even if experience, education and wisdom is cognizant of some error or fault in design.
The "We The People" phrase does not actually represent the type of government being practiced in various formulas of Democracy throughout the world. It is a particularly poignant point to make in a reference to America, since these words were used to introduce the Declaration of Independence in the 1700s, and used as a corner-stone upon which the edifice of American government was built. In most cases, the "people" refers to a select few either elected or chosen... because the structure of the government is drawn up to be exclusionary in deed, though inclusionary in word. In order for a society to practice a more enhanced formula of a "Peoples" government (a Great, Greater or Greatest Democracy), it must truly incorporate this intent in its design. We can not expect a greater practice for this to occur so long as reforms and reformers do not explicitly seek for this to happen. Common Cause gives us no indication of pursuing an actual Blueprint for a Great Democracy. Despite all its accomplishments, all its awards and back-patting, it falls short of trying to accomplish an actual Greater Democratic Ideal.
Date of Origination and initial posting: Saturday, October 3, 2015
Updated Posting: Thursday, October 8, 2015