Economist's Journey to Life: elections

Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Day 203: The Mockery of Democracy Continues - Dead People Voting in Zimbabwe

"Two thirds of the six-million voters on the roll are dead," said Biti, discussing irregularities with the crucial list.

"But unfortunately those four million who are dead have had a tendency to resurrect on election day."

(Source: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-09-mdc-two-thirds-of-voters-on-zim-voters-roll-are-dead)

LOL! And this is why democracy without equal economic power is absolutely meaningless. Economic power is the only power that counts, because if you have money, you can control and manipulate everything and everyone - to the point where you can be voted back into power by 4 million dead people.

A political system where each one is assumed to be equal is meaningless if that equality is not solidified through ensuring equal economic power. Allowing inequality in the economy makes democracy a true mockery - a play - a show - to keep up appearances of our apparent 'caring' nature. It is done to appease the masses and suppress guilt. Whose guilt? Of those in power? Not really - as it is unlikely they have a conscience. But of us - we who see the crimes being committed in the name of profit - and do nothing, say nothing and tell ourselves things may get better with the next vote.

And yet we know nothing will change with the next vote because no policy so far has proposed to equalize economic power. Equality has become a fancy word that is being thrown around as though that is what Jesus intended us to do with his message - to preach it but not live it.

There is a reason the Jesus message is being taught to children in school - because it is how we would want our children to be - to grow up to be honorable people, caring people - and yet, except from telling them stories, we do nothing to be honorable and caring ourselves - to lead them by example - to show them what the Jesus message means and how we organize our society in alignment with these honorable principles.

We have nothing to show for ourselves and so every parent must be prepared to disappoint their child when they ask one day why there are children that don't have food, or why some people don't have a house, or why some don't know how to read. Can you then look your child in the eye and say 'I'm doing everything I can to change that' - or will you just deflect your gaze, sigh and say 'it's complicated'.

The thing is, it's not that complicated - you can read up on the simple solutions of Equal Money Capitalism at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/emc.html.

Monday, 3 December 2012

Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

This blog is a continuation within replying to a comment made in relation to 'Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System'.

The point of resources allocation will further be clarified within the next blog.

Credits within an Equal Money System is only a 'word' and only serves to facilitate the allocation and movement of goods -- credits will not hold any other intrinsic value as money or credit do currently (where money is used as a 'store of value'), but only have a mathematical and accounting function. The credits within the Equal Money System will indicate the available resources, what is available for each one and accordingly credits will be allocated and then get distributed.

The amount of credits and types of credits each on receive, will be based on a formula as set out within the Constitution, that we all have agreed on.

When you view your Life Profile where your available credits are displayed, you then either would indicate "Yes, this particular allocation I am going to use" or "No, I am not going to use this particular allocation". If you’re not going to use it, it remains in your main available resource ‘bank’ so to speak. Which is where your credits are ‘stored’. Note that you won't ‘own’ the credits, it’s purely available resources on Earth.

What I'm getting at: how would it work for local issues like where should a new water pipe be constructed in a certain specific small area if that change doesn't drastically effect everything else in the overall system?

Both global and federal/local levels will function within the same framework in terms of laws and policies. Implementation of policy will be region-specific which is where local administration comes in.

Implementation at a local level will be carried out by a local council, elected by the locals, which must regularly be substituted by new members. The point would be to make the local council an opportunity for each one to take a moment of responsibility within the system and to do their ‘civic duty’ so to speak. Therefore, each member will only serve one term. And within that one hopes to eventually have each person during a lifetime serving a term on the council, so that each one can experience what it means to work with a group of people.

Within this, education again plays a part. A person will not just be able to become a council member without first going through preparation, where one requires to go through a process of training and understanding in terms of what is involved – so that there is a smooth transitioning process within changing from council to council.

To apply for such a position, one would submit their availability and apply for a position. Once their term has ended, it is time for the next person. Unless there is no alternative, a person will not be allowed a second term; each one only gets a single term. This way, each one can get the opportunity of experiencing what it means to be a leader within a point of responsibility and within a point of distribution.

In terms of any form of abuse that may occur, anyone will be able to address and direct the point of abuse directly to the federal administration in reporting that there is a problem in this particular local council, where authority is being abused. If a person makes such an assertion and this assertion is based on some form of mental disorder, it will be addressed accordingly. If the abuse of authority is based on some mental disorder, it will be addressed and supported accordingly. The fact that a person goes into a mental disorder does not make them completely dysfunctional, and thus does not completely exclude them from participation. They are addressed, corrected and then receive a chance of forgiveness to correct their point. One will thus not be ‘branded’ as mental disordered – because it is simply part of the human condition at this stage. Currently, not enough is yet understood about how this all functions, and therefore, there is going to be some difficulties, where we need to address the mental disorder.

Once a person has proven their effectiveness within administrative responsibilities on a local level, they are eligible to submit their application for a position on a (more) global level.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Goods

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

Related articles

Sunday, 2 December 2012

Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System

Within the following blogs we'll be replying to a comment made in relation to 'Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System'.

How would new policy ideas be brought up? For example, if it came to be that the systems in place to provide for everyone's basic necessities became so efficient (many years down the road) that it was no longer necessary to have every human contribute 4 years to maintain it, how would it work to propose reducing the conscription period to, say 3 years and 3 months? Could individuals propose new policy changes or would they only be proposed by policy-makers as experts?

Within the stage of identifying policy-issues, everyone is able to participate, regardless of qualification or expertise. Each one will have a 'Life Profile', which is an online profile, like we are familiar with from networking sites such as 'Facebook'. This profile will be your main interaction portal with the political decision-making process, through which you can signal policy issues that require direction or alignment, as well as make your own suggestions as to how to correct the point. Therefore, the stage of the identification of policy issues is available to all, regardless of qualifications. Once policy issues have been identified and suggestions have been made by the general population, the next stage is initiated, which involves the policy formulation by experts.

It might be helpful to provide specifics on how these committees of law-makers will be assembled.

To answer this question we require to distinguish between the various participants within the law-making or policy-making process - which are:
- The general population
- Scientific experts
- The administration

In terms of the content of the policies to be decided on, only the general population and the scientific experts are relevant.

The role of the general population mainly pertains to the identification of policy-issues as well as the cross-referencing point in terms of voting on whether or not the proposed policies indeed adhere to the Constitutional Principles of Equality and What is best for All.

The role of the scientific experts pertains to the formulation of policy in adherence with the scientific and mathematical methodologies as laid out by the Constitution.

So - what role is left then for the administrators? The role of the administrators is a purely managerial function. They have in fact no more influence on policy-making than anyone else does. The type of functions administrators are to perform are for instance the convening of all identified policy issues by the population as well as their suggestions, the directing of all organizational aspects involved with bringing together a qualified committee of scientists with the relevant expertise in terms of the particular policy that requires to be formulated, the publishing of each step within the policy-making process, and so on. Their role is thus to ensure that the Rule of Law as laid out by the Constitution is followed without influencing the content of the policies themselves.

Members of the administration require to have a minimum set of qualifications and will be voted into office for 1 term. Ideally, each person will only be able to take office once in their lifetime to give each one who so desires, the opportunity to experience what is involved within taking in a position of responsibility in the world.

I'm assuming they will be payed beyond the basic income everyone is to receive in an Equal Money System- so does that mean they receive the same hourly wage as everyone else choosing to take part in work beyond the 4-year conscription period?

Your question shows that you're coming from an understanding of the Equal Money System based on old information. The Equal Money System proposal is one that goes through change and adjustment according to feedback and comments we receive (like yours). So, I suggest reading the Labor section on the EMS Wiki to understand that there will be no relationship between labor and the resources available to you. In other words, there will be no hourly, daily, weekly, monthly or any other type of wages paid out in an Equal Money System. Each one fulfills their 4-year internship, which forms part of each one's educational curriculum, after that - for those who wish to in some way continue to contribute to society, labor is voluntary. Everyone is equal within this point and Administrators will therefore not receive any type of special treatment in terms of receiving additional resources or support while they are in office.

The point of resources allocation will further be clarified within the next blog.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

Day 135: 6 Billion wasted on US Elections

http://americablog.com/2012/11/2012-election-spending-topped-6-billion.html

The 2012 elections in the US reached 6 billion dollars, which is the highest amount ever. Most of this money goes to media and communication. And also consider -- that voter turnout was only around 50%. That's a lot of money, to convince only half the population.

If we look back at Day 17: Starvation is Murder, where we had a look at priority spending in the world and looked at how much money would be needed to achieve universal access to basic social services in developing countries -- we can see that this 6 Billion could have covered basic education for all.

What about, instead of spending all this money on campaigning, which is basically advertising -- you go and spend money and so something real like provide all developing countries with basic access to education -- that would be real nice campaigning stunt.

What does this tell us about Human Nature?

In economics we have thing called 'opportunity cost' which was also discussed in Day 46: The Economic Problem:

"Within that, opportunity cost specifically, refers to the next best alternative one forgoes for the option which was chosen. So if you have $50 and you want both a jacket and a shirt – and you decide to spend the money towards the jacket – the opportunity cost is the shirt as the next best thing you could have gotten. A cost for economists is what you had to ‘give up’ to ‘get it’. "

This tells us something about our values, and what we are willing to forgo in order to get what we want. This is just one example of how we are willing to invest massive amounts into an election -- but will not use this same money towards creating a world that is Better for All.

Economics is often called the 'science of scarcity' -- and likes to emphasise the problem of having limited resources to achieve certain things. Yet, we are living in a world where we care fuck-all about scarcity and being able to do 'only so much' -- instead of doing something real, like making sure that everyone has universal access to basic requirements -- some parts of the population hog up all the resources at the expense of many. If scarcity is such a problem, then why are we not acting according to this problem -- and use our resources effectively and responsibly?

How many more natural disasters do we need to experience? How many more disturbing news stories to we have to read EVERY DAY? Before we realise that ENOUGH is ENOUGH.

If you agree that enough is enough -- check out www.EqualMoney.org, and inform yourself on how we can make this world a better place for all.

Monday, 1 October 2012

Day 109: Politics as a Double-Faced Game

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that if I change the face/the appearance of something, that that something actually changed.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that to change the form of something does not mean that that something actually changed.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that any political reforms can get away with changing the form/face/appearance of the government and way of ruling, but in its essential character can remain unchanged.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to be satisfied with numbers and superficial facts of how elections are being held in African countries and opposition parties are allowed to be formed, etc. - without looking further than the surface and actually investigating what the practicaly daily living reality is of the politics in Africa - where corruption and neopatrimonialism contitute the rules of the game.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that the international community is genuine in its efforts to facilitate the democratic transition in Africa instead of looking at what they have to gain from this change - where states and economies are being assimilated to the ones in the rest of the world, and so facilitating globalisation, which is a necessity for continued exploitation of the developing nations.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to question why the international community is turning a blind eye to these virtual democracies, where, despite international monitoring of elections, the results are often invalid and the result of rigging and manipulation - where the international community proves that they don't really care about the well-being of the local populations, but only care to uphold an appearance of care - allowing them to entrench themselves further in the policy making of foreign states, giving them more control over their economies and, thus, resources.

I commit myself to change the interaction between nations from being tricks and manipulation, to genuine communication and support.

I commit myself to encourage people to see the hidden agreements and interactions happening within politics.

I commit myself to stop politics from being a double-faced game where what it seems is never what it really is, as what it really is is always driven by self-interest and personal gratification.

Sunday, 30 September 2012

Day 108: Virtual Democracies

This Blog is a continuation to:
Day 106: Structural Adjustment

In the above-mentioned blog-post the main types of economical reforms that are demanded by the IMF and the World Bank from developing countries have been laid out. Though, the IMF/World Bank don't keep to only demanding economic reforms. They also demand political reforms. Specifically, authoritarian regimes are asked to install liberal democracies in their countries - and if they don't, they won't receive further aid.

Once this demand for political reforms was declared, many, if not most, African countries started holding elections, started allowing opposition parties, started allowing independent media and freedom of speech, etc. On the surface, it seemed like the whole of Africa had converted to liberal values and principles - however, how substantial were the democracies and to what extent were they just an image, a projection, to keep the rich nations happy and willing to continue providing aid?

The holding of elections in African nations has often being applauded as a sign of successful democratic transition. However, most elections were problematic and the validity of their outcomes sincerely doubtful. Incumbents regimes (incumbent means 'currently in power') in many cases manipulated the electoral process in any way they could to be able to remain in power. They handpicked partisans to serve on so-called 'independent' electoral commissions, they denied opposition parties access to state-owned media, they used state resources to fund their electoral campaigns, invented new electoral rules and qualifications to exclude critical segments of the opposition and used the police and other security agencies to intimidate and harass opposition candidates. This frustrating of the electoral process often led to the boycotting of elections and the rejection of election results.

One of the consequences is that because the incumbent regime was now apparently re-elected by the people, the authoritarian rulers were given a form of legitimacy, further anchoring themselves into their power-seats.

In terms of opposition parties - as has already been shown - they often did not have a real chance at winning the elections. One of the problems was self-inflicted, where every disgruntled elite and aspirant president formed their own opposition party. At some point in Zaire there were over 200 opposition parties. The opposition parties did not really have a clear agenda or standpoint, except that they were 'against' the current rulers - and thus they didn't provide any desirable alternatives. Also, any 'loss of votes' on the part of the incumbent regime were distributed amongst all of these different opposition parties, not allowing any of them to gather sufficient votes to stand as a real 'threat' to the incumbent regime.

The upholding and protecting of human rights is seen as an important part of democracy - yet, in the 'newly converted' nations, human rights have continued to be breached - where the rights of outspoken critics, members of the opposition and independent media to free speech, association and fair hearings were regularly denied - where they were even harassed and detained without charge or trial for extended periods of time.

Accountability to the population is what democracy is all about - yet this is often completely absent in the African 'democracies'. They are generally entirely insensitive of the demands and welfare of their citizens, corruption, clientelism and violations of the rule of law are the general way of doing things. Furthermore, to what extent can national governments be accountable to their population if their loyalties lie with international donors and agencies upon which they depend for money?

We really only mentioned a few points in this blog - but this alone should clarify how the newly reformed African 'democracies' are in fact still the same old authoritarian governments, dressed up in a democratic costume. On the surface they will play the game of elections and opposition parties, but when it comes down to it, any method is used to remain in power and do whatever benefits themselves.

Such hypocrisy is, of course, to be expected if change is imposed from the outside. I don't know what the international community was thinking in forcing others to adopt democratic 'forms' of government. Yes, the form has changed, but the content is still the same. Change must be sincere and driven from within to be valid and long-lasting. To say: become democratic or you are cut off is not going to give birth to true democracy - anyone can see that...

Source:
Osaghae, E. 1999. Democratisation in sub-Saharan Africa: faltering prospects, new hopes. Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 17(1): 5-28. Reprinted with permission from Dalro.

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?

This blog-post is a continuation to: Day 82: Government Failure, Day 83: Nationalisation and Privatisation and Day 86: Who Really Pays the Taxes?

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that politicians actually represent the population that elected them, without considering that the population only has a say when they cast their votes, and afterwards don't require - and thus, don't - consult with the population on matters of public policy - and thus, any representative democracy is really a fraud as voting is just done to make people feel like they are part of the decision-making - when, in the end, it is those with power and money who get to decide.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that bureaucrats are in quite powerful positions, able to influence the situation to suit their own needs, while they are not held accountable to/by the population in any way whatsoever.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that in a country/society where some have more money than others, it will always be those with the most money who actually run the country, despite elections, executive governments, parliaments and judiciary systems - because each official in government can be seduced and influenced by greed and thus, act in a way that benefits the few in spite of the many.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that, unless our monetary system is based within and operates according to the principle of equality, the public nor the private sector is suited to distribute goods and services - because, in the end, the distribution of resources is handled by individuals, who due to inequality, feel they have the right to abuse their position to distribute resoruces in a way that suits their personal desires.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that a monetary system of inequality and competition is directly responsible for the creation of crime - as all crime is an act of inequality, which is justified in the mind of the criminal by the acceptance and allowance of inequality by society as a whole.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that, unless all individuals are taken care of with the resources required to live a life of excellence in an equal way - no one can be trusted with the task of distributing resources - neither the government, nor private companies - because within inquality, the human is corrupted and acts accordingly in corrupt ways - therefore, only an equal money system can ensure efficient and equitable distribution of resources.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that taxes are not an effective way to redistribute resources among the population - by 'taking from the rich' and 'giving to the poor' - because the government is only able to specify who hands over the tax, but does not specify where it gets the money to be able to pay the tax - and thus, it is often customers who bear the real tax burden and not the owners or shareholders of the company, as companies, faced with having to pay higher taxes, simply raise their prices and, thus collect the money to pay their taxes from the customers who still require/want the goods or services they provide.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that any attempt to 'correct' market failure in terms of unequal distribution of resources will be negated by the market itself, as the whole economic system moves according to the principal of inequality, and thus ways will always be found to manifest unequal results that benefit some at the expense of others.