Should we advocate a Republic form of government instead of Democracy?
Kenneth Kopelson
Public
Seen by 70
== UPDATED VIEW ==
After looking into this further, considering the arguments of America's founders, and seeing their incorrect assumptions, I now believe we need some kind of hybrid governmental system. As a starting point for discussion, I'd like to propose a system where the individual and the collective are equal, where:
1) there is recognition of the individual as a one-person sovereign state, possessing rights of self-determination, security, life, and movement.
2) there is recognition of groups of individuals as multi-person sovereign states, possessing collective rights to democratic determination, with each type of decision having well-defined percentages for simple majority, and super-majority. All other rights of each group will be determined by democratic decision making processes. Under no circumstance can any decision be made that would abrogate the sovereign rights of any individual. Each group and individual must deal with all other groups and individuals in a diplomatic way, as ambassadors or heads of state would deal with each other.
3) because smaller groups can be part of larger groups, the decisions of larger groups must be compatible with the decisions of all encompassed smaller groups. If this is not readily possible, then a common negotiated agreement must be reached.
4) in the case of law breakers, their rights can only be removed by the unanimous decision of a specially convened jury, after having listened to all evidentiary arguments. The jury may then judge the law itself and whether the accused is guilty or not. The reason this is valid is because you have two sovereigns in disagreement (the individual accused and the group doing the accusing), to which the jury serves as arbiter.
This in essence combines the features of both democracies and republics, making the individual and the collective equals, and removing the idea that "majority automatically rules." Instead, the majority speaks more loudly, but it could also be that the single individual speaks more persuasively. If the majority speaks more loudly and persuasively, this will enable their rule in that instance. If the individual establishes an argument with more persuasive power, they can overrule the errant majority.
This is not THAT different from what we now have. The main difference I see is the group being required to negotiate deals with individuals.
In a pure democracy, nothing stops the majority from enacting laws that severely affect the minority in a negative way, and the problem with this is that it fails to recognise the inherent sovereignty of each individual. We are all born the same, we all function the same, and we all die generally the same. We are equals in essence and potential. Truth is not additive, where five true people are five times more true than a single false person.
Also, if you have a system where 6 out of 10 people can decide that the other 4 must die for no reason at all, that system is very dangerous. Even if you increase to a super-majority, where 8 out of 10 people can agree that the other 2 must be burned alive...that system is seriously flawed.
** OUTDATED VIEW **
I believe that a republic is far superior to democracy, and yet very few people truly understand the difference. At present NZ is not a republic, and from what I've seen, we here in NZ do not seem to understand the great benefits of a properly run republic, over that of a straight democracy.
In a democracy, 51% beats 49%, which essentially means that at any given moment in time, 49% of the population has no sovereign status. Democracy does not recognise the individual, but only the collective will of 51% of the group. This is really bad news for the minority, even though they are very nearly equal to the majority in numbers. All for the sake of a mere 1% of the population, individuals either win or lose. In this scheme, no individual is sovereign. Only the 51% is sovereign, and 49% are subject to them.
Contrast that with a republic, where each person is a sovereign. In this system, you have REPresentation of the PUBLIC, in a very clever arrangement of power balance. For example, in a republic, anyone can make laws under the common law. Anyone can be a prosecutor in court, claiming that someone has broken their law. If I wanted to, I could drag someone into court and claim they have broken my particular law. At that point, a jury of 12 other "peer" sovereigns then have the responsibility to not only judge the facts of the case, but also to judge the law itself. If they agree that my law makes sense, and that the accused has broken it, they can find the individual guilty. Of course this only works in a Common Law Court of Record, so it is important for people to understand the power they have in a common law republic, and to correctly declare their true status when they go into court. If they do not, they will find themselves in a civil court, which is quite a different thing altogether. The reason that a jury has to be unanimous is because each of those 12 jurors represents 1/12th of the population, and if even one disagrees, that means 1/12th of the population disagrees, and that is unacceptable when it comes to law making or law deciding. In a republic, each individual is just as important as the group. A person is sovereign as long as they don't hinder someone else's sovereignty.
When it comes to legislation, you have both a House of Representatives, where each state has the number corresponding to their population, and you have the Senate, which is not based on the population, where each state has the exact same number of senators. This means that even small states, with few people, have the same political power as the larger states with many people. This gives the minority power, and prevents the mob-rule features of straight democracy.
Another feature of a common law republic is that an individual may act within the government either through a representative or directly. People have come to incorrectly believe that they MUST act only through representatives, but that is just not true. The trick is to know how to act as a sovereign individual within the halls of government. This is no longer something they teach in school...hmmm, I wonder why that is?
Nathan Surendran Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:03AM
@kennethkopelson I think that a republic as you describe it is an interesting idea. However, I think the examples of functional historic republics are much smaller than the current nation states, which are, as Amanda points out using the US as an example, not doing so well..
I think, that the issue of monetary reform has a much better chance of being accepted as a policy than the issue of the form of governance - this will change anyway, as the monetary system convulses under the constraining influence of diminishing net affordable energy available to society. As contraction occurs, and the current configuration of finance and politics is shown to be impotent to solve the problems it has created, then local forms of government will appear that hopefully have some of the desirable characteristics you've helpfully outlined above.
I would question one point: whether it's actually desirable to have smaller states with the same political power as larger ones? Doesn't this create a driver for fragmentation, as people realise their town can declare itself a state and veto everything it doesn't agree with..?
There seems to be an underlying assumption that you're displaying, that the minority knows better, and that it should have more power than the mob?
My understanding of the issue is that majority rule is better from the fairness angle, if you have a small enough group of people and you can have a debate and achieve consensus. But in all 'democracies' globally, what we're witnessing is a capture of the mechanism of public debate (the mass media) by a minority, and subversion of that process.
I love that IMP has thrown open policy debate in the way it has, opening the possibility of a new forum for debate that gives the potential for something more like free consensus forming to happen. However, I think on this policy platform we're also seeing the limitations to this. Imagine if there were hundreds or thousands of commentators contribution on each of these discussions. Chaos would ensue...
kathryn shirley Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:09AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
is the oldest republic in the world..
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:17AM
@nobilangeloceramal I'm afraid you are the one who is grossly in error. First of all, I would suggest not using a simple dictionary when looking for a true definition of what a republic is. I'm an American who has studied these things for several decades in great detail, having also studied constitutional law extensively. Here is just one of many online sources that explains more fully what a republic truly is:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
I am explaining here what common law is, and no, it does not cause anarchy. It is a system that promotes constrained freedom. The operative word is COMMON when it comes to common law. We in COMMON are the law. As sovereigns we decide together what the law is...what makes common sense.
It sounds like you have "Stockholm Syndrome" in a governmental sense. It's like an inmate who is well-institutionalised saying "How in the world can we not have cell inspections? Think of the chaos that would ensue! What mischief could occur if people were allowed to have that kind of privacy! There would be riots, death and mayhem everywhere!"
You said "‘My law’ means individuals doing what they please unless a jury of twelve can be found who will vote their actions down–and the vote has to be 100%."
This is precisely how it works now. If I throw a rock through your glass window, you call the police and I get arrested. I then go to court, where they look at the evidence for your assertions. I can demand a jury, who must then sit and listen to the evidence. They then go into a room, discuss the facts of the case and the law itself. They then decide if I am guilty or not. They must agree 100% or it is declared a hung jury, and we must have another trial. This sir, is how the present system works for countries that have common law. This is also how society was run for many hundreds of years, and during the greatest time of America's progress and freedom.
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:21AM
@nobilangeloceramal Have you heard of Jury Nullification? Here is a document explaining how it works in general, and in New Zealand:
http://amicuslaw.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jury_nullification.pdf
Here is another good resource on this powerful aspect of juries that most people are not aware of:
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:23AM
@nobilangeloceramal Did you also know that any private individual can be a prosecutor in court? That's right, even here in New Zealand, you or I can actually launch a court case, where WE are the prosecutor in the case? No need to be a lawyer or barrister. You can read about it here:
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:27AM
@nobilangeloceramal Here is an official description from the Ministry of Justice website. The second sentence says it nicely:
"Generally speaking the branches of central government have the dominant role in most of the above, although a number of qualifications should be mentioned. Individuals retain the right to institute private prosecutions at the summary level in New Zealand; in jury trials, members of the public are the determiners of fact (albeit in a structure administered by the state); and private organisations or individuals often have an important role in the administration of certain sentences."
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 12:30AM
@nobilangeloceramal So even now, we must wait until a jury analyses the facts AND the law, and renders a unanimous verdict. That is our system, and it works. The problem is, however, that with great responsibility goes great need for understanding. Because we no longer teach CIVICS in school, young people are not being taught how this all works. This is a major problem that should be remedied.
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 1:02AM
@nobilangeloceramal Strange mathematics? Let's see...if you have a 50/50 split, where no majority exists, then no decision can be made. If we give either side 1%, however, that side wins. So, as I said, for the mere sake of 1%, either side wins or loses. In essence, 1% of the population gets to decide what happens. When there are clear majorities, this kind of power is not really needed, but when the direction is not clear, that 1% becomes very powerful indeed.
For example, let's take something divisive like allowing the government to spy on citizens. Suppose the decision was 50/50, where exactly half of the people wanted it one way, and half the other. In this case, it would only take one single person to determine whether we ALL got spied on or not. How is that fair? The 50/50 situation means that the issue is not clear in the people's mind. Half see the benefits of it, and half see the dangers of it. One person gets to decide. Whichever way it goes, the losers will feel like their rights have been blown away. On one hand you have the right to be protected from harm, and on the other you have the right to privacy in your home.
So, let's say that the 50%+1 winners are the ones who wanted to allow the spying. Great for them! Big party time! The people who will now be spied upon, however, feel totally violated, and disgruntled for the intrusion they must now endure. Where is justice in this regard? Where is the remedy that all laws must provide?
Here is where: a private member of society discovers that the GCSB is spying on her and decides to prosecute the GCSB in court for violating her basic rights to privacy. She goes into court, and presents to a jury her case. The government is also there, presenting their case. They cite how the law allows them to do this. She presents how the law allows them violate her rights to privacy in her home. She produces all kinds of convincing documents, from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other sources, such as those mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy_in_New_Zealand
Being the prosecutor, our individual citizen was able to participate in jury selection, and made sure that each member had a commitment to supporting all basic human rights. The government also made sure that each jury member was someone who valued safety in general. No jury member was allowed that had ever been a victim of terrorism, nor a victim of abusive government intrusion.
After hearing all the evidence, the jury goes into a room where they review all the documents that were placed into evidence. They spend days debating the issues about rights, and how to solve apparent contradictions when a particular action seems to violate one or more rights. They take several votes amongst themselves, each time, getting some to change their vote. In the end, they decide that the current carte blanch ability of the GCSB is not workable, and they even discuss a possible way things could be structured so that the GCSB is able to do their job, while ALSO protecting ALL the rights of the citizens. They vote, and find unanimously that the law itself is unjust, and therefore, they find for the prosecution.
The significance of this is that 12 people, who were vetted by each side of the argument, took the extensive time to consider all the facts of the case, and the facts of the law itself. After extensive debate, they unanimously decided a verdict. My contention is, this is a FAR superior way to determine justice as a second-tier mechanism to the legislative process. The parliament is filled with politics, favours, and lack of direct citizen involvement. It is the best we can do at present to allow laws to be developed on our behalf. Often, the MPs get it right. Sometimes, however, they do not. When that happens, we then have the secondary mechanism I described above. Once that decision is reached by the jury, it then becomes a precedent in the court of record. It has, in very real essence, become a modification to the law. The process was thorough, fair, and non-political. It is the ONLY remedy we have for short-circuiting unjust laws, or laws that are not favourable to the people in some aspect.
Notice in this case, the sentencing may be that the woman's house will be excluded from being spied upon, with a mechanism for her to ensure this is the case. It may be that the judge strikes the law down as "unconstitutional" which will then have a ripple effect, basically forcing the parliament to reconsider the law, improving on it so it doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Kenneth Kopelson Sat 5 Jul 2014 1:25AM
@kathrynshirley Thank you so much for that excellent link! Yes! San Marino folks! Take a look at what that small country has been able to achieve :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
This is what I'm talking about. They have been around since 301 A.D. Can you believe that? Read the article at Wikipedia and notice how they do things. They elect new leaders every 6 months, and they have the small nation divided up into small parishes. This is key I believe. You need to give the public the frequent opportunity to get rid of leaders who fail to perform BEFORE they get a chance to do too much damage. Elections, therefore, should become more routine, and less dramatic. Now, in New Zealand, they are too infrequent, which allows people to get too entrenched, which also makes it much harder for new blood to get into place.
Also, the United States IS a republic, but a number of things have happened over the years to thwart its effectiveness. The problem is not the states. Those are the GOOD thing. THE problem is the Federal government. They have neutered the states by giving them money in exchange for a loss of state sovereignty and power. When it comes to government, plurality is better than centrality, IF you want to preserve individual freedoms and justice. More smaller states/regions, means it is much harder to control the agenda for everyone. At first, the Federal Government was supposed to be of service to the states. Now, the states have become a vestige of the past when it comes to real effectiveness. The U.S. Federal government only exists in the 10 sq. mile region of Washington D.C. All of its influence over the states came through the offering of state benefits with attached conditions of capitulation.
Some states, however, have woken up to this, and are taking steps to reassert their state sovereignty...such as the legalisation of marijuana. Battles are being fought over this as we speak.
Nobilangelo Ceramalus · Fri 4 Jul 2014 11:54PM
There are so many flaws in this proposal it is hard to know where to begin to speak against it.
But it is riddled with wrong definitions. First, the dictionary does not agree with your notion of 'republic.' Then there is bland assertion that democracy is 51% against 49%, coupled with the strange mathematics that asserts the difference between 51 and 49 to be 1% when it is 2%. Sometimes it may be 51% to 49%, but it can also be 100% to 0%, or 70% to 30%, etc. To call that 'mob rule' is another sideslip of definition.
Democracy is not mob rule, it is rule by reason of laws arrived at by consideration and majority vote. It is not a perfect system, but it the best humans have been able to devise, except for having a wise and benevolent monarch.
But the fragmented, anarchistic notion of republic in this proposal is a recipe for chaos. 'My law' means individuals doing what they please unless a jury of twelve can be found who will vote their actions down--and the vote has to be 100%. Please! If 100% agreement could not be arrived at in the jury selected at that time by some undefined yardstick, the behaviour, even if decidedly inimical by normal standards, would be permitted.
No one would ever know till the jury sat whether an action was legal or not, and the outcome would be highly uncertain, so citizens would have to guess at the law for every action, which as many courts have noted, all over the world, is fundamentally unjust. So under this nonsensical proposal, justice would vanish.
The leaky ship of democracy would be replaced by the shipwreck of anarchy.