Forum Post: Political Parties of Departmental Governance
Posted 11 years ago on March 29, 2013, 2:57 a.m. EST by Kavatz
(464)
from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You won't get all of Departmental Governance (DG) in one place for a while, but tune in and the concept will begin to manifest in your imagination.
It's a way to govern a nation under any social and economic system, as these things (systems) have always been modular. Some fit together better than others.
What's unique about it is there is no voting for political parties, no electoral system.
There are Political Parties though, just in a different form and for a different purpose. They are like Greenpeace, acting as the opposition to government and keeping it honest.
There is no one leader (president), but a cascade of leaders from the national to the local level. Governments are not separated by borders but by Departments.
Each Department operates without interference from others for the most part. Citizens choose which departments to belong to politically, often determined by public-sector employment but there are a few other ways to be affiliated.
Citizens choose how involved they want to be politically in their Department(s), ranging from observer to evaluator, activist to leader. High-level leaders change/make laws/decisions, are well known in their Department, and can be replaced in a minute by the people with the next best and willing contender.
The legislative process is actually interesting, highly public and interactive.
Leaders don't actually do much but legislate, study, write, listen, speak publicly, travel, and mentor. They are not paid too much by their Department: a percentage above their working wage or previous wage plus bonuses and perks.
Public-sector employees can run for a leadership position. They may take half of their workday paid doing the things that contenders do, which is most of what Leaders do.
The public sector cannot refuse a citizen employment.
But Political Parties are entities formed by concerned citizens, funded by the public sector and by citizen/corporate donation. If you are taking the role of Activist in your Department(s), you will be associated with one or more Political Parties. You will evaluate your Department Leaders like any other citizen but have more influence than other citizens in the legislative process.
So DG Political Parties are more like the benevolent nonprofits of today.
Ok, why?
They may take half of their workday paid doing the things that contenders do
Nevah.
Because it's leadership training. Most people are scared to death of public speaking for one thing. Another is that we as a nation are getting pretty stupid and lacking certain leadership qualities/virtues/habits/skills.
[-] 1 points by Kavatz (428) 0 minutes ago
Just curious, I'll delete this reply but when you say nevah, are you going for the batman scene? That's the voice I imagine ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Ha. No. I lifted it from slanguage that predates Batman.
So, reinvent the wheel? Why?
Fix systemic problems. Add big improvements. Make things more manageable and responsible. Save tax money, improve democracy, remove corruption.
How?
It's not reinventing the wheel, this is like upgrading to a solid state hard drive.
I think people don't realize we're in this mess not just because of the capitalism thing but because this type of government is set up to facilitate the evils of capitalism.
First we have the electoral process, with only two parties (which is basically one party) that can win. It's really not far off from nations with one party. It's an illusion of democracy we can't seem to see through.
Something I heard on a radio show a few years ago made a lot of sense to me. It's very irresponsible for us to vote for parties. I'm not even going into how politicians ALWAYS lie to win or how elections are rigged. Very few people actually can predict which combination of policies will work for the nation at a given time, or even know which policies the politicians want to implement. The whole spectrum of things involved in governance is way beyond any one person's comprehension. We "vote" for the person we are made to like, so basically the party with the most money.
A more responsible way is to divide the nation into departments, or domains of knowledge. Each person cares about something and not other things. Rather than making the pitcher also play catcher, all the bases and field positions, just have the pitcher do what he does best. Don't put the goalie on center ice. If I care about nature and little else, why should I involve myself with economics? If I'm an expert economist with little background in law, why should I be influencing the Justice Department, especially when I know there are experts who care about their departments as much as I do mine.
Consider how robust this government would be. If something devastating happened to the top leadership of one department, other departments should be able to continue functioning while the next best leaders are installed, which would be automatic and take less than a second (they are ready, willing and the replacement protocol is simple). And since leaders are not in power for a set amount of time, problems are solved just as quickly.
Corruption is not such an issue in this setup. It's a little hard to explain but should make sense when it comes together. Leaders are well known by their Departmental Constituency. They've worked in the same department as their evaluators and have a reputation. Leadership contenders (those people getting paid for leadership "training") make regular appearances and become more or less popular over time. Eventually more and more of the constituency could evaluate them, increasing their visibility and maybe even pumping them up to a real leadership position. When it comes to actual legislation, leaders who make bad moves will be heavily criticized, and with poor evaluations could easily slip below the next best contender. In a flash the constituency could pull a leader out and they wouldn't even have to select the next replacement - we'll already know who is next and next and next best.
Further to the corruption topic, DG Political Parties (AKA Activist Opposition) are also not in corporations' pockets. They are multitudes of concerned citizens coming together to solve problems or protect interests from irresponsible corporations and bad legislative decisions. They are highly influential and involved in the legislative process more so than other citizens.
On to saving money... you know how much tax money is wasted so Romney and Obama can put on their little show. With DG, not a cent is wasted on the electoral process. That money is diverted to whatever we want, like guaranteed employment by the public sector. Imagine how the taxation laws will change. People like Wolff are always saying stuff like "there is no money problem, it's an allocation problem". I won't elaborate on that. These are just two examples, I could think of more.
Did I miss anything? Should I elaborate on anything? Does anything not make sense?
The part that doesn't make sense, is the part where "That money is diverted to whatever we want," etc. You're saying that campaign finance that both the red/blue guys get from corporations (bribes, in other words) will also flow to DG, but will be used for "whatever we want".
You wont get the bribe money, if you don't deliver on the bribe. You might get it once, on a promise, but the next time you'll likely be getting a hot lead head injection.
That's the reality of the current situation. You're dealing with the mafiosa.
Well, that was pleasant. Unrealistic. Will never be implemented. Pleasant none the less.
Glad you thought it was pleasant, I'm surprised anyone actually read it!
I think it's as realistic as the system we have, it's not that weird. Maybe the system we have is the result of poor creativity, the most obvious path of least creativity. It only works for well the wealthy who had the power to design it and continue to rig it.
I was wondering what is unrealistic about DG? Besides that it probably won't happen, what are the flaws in this design from what I've shared so far?
You are right, I don't actually know how much tax money is used in elections, but I was just referring to that. I imagine you could say that other taxes are directed to campaigns. Corporations with their super tax breaks use that money to finance campaigns, but in DG that won't happen (the tax breaks, I mean).
I don't know either, but currently the big backers are buying both blue and red to cover their bets.
Seems to me that DG still needs to be pushing to get rid of the super-PACs, and level the playing field for all the candidates. If the red/blue guys want to pretend to be having a presidential debate again, invite them to real debate, and have empty chairs for them, and make it clear to the public that they couldn't be bothered turning up for a real debate.
There's always more than one way to skin a cat.
I just want to scrap parties and elections altogether. Systemic evolution.
Direct democracy works.
But are the people ready for it?
They are - but they do not understand that fact. Silly - Hey?
Considering that a small percent of people have seen an online forum, and a smaller amount would actually use them if they knew how, and that real information is not distributed by MSM... no wonder hardly anyone knows what it is.
The confused masses don't seem ready and united for anything.
Example; Our state Premier stated that there was insufficient funds available to purchase sat-nav security ankle bands for repeat sex offenders being released into society. State newspaper advertises an online poll, asking people what they think about the Premier's comments on having no funds for this seemingly simple device.
It took three days to get the required votes, to force the Premier to purchase these devices. All she had to say was, "the people of Queensland have spoken".
One minor flaw/mishap/oversight/inconsideration of the current PTB in the USA = there are over 250,000 veterans waiting for coverage. Many for over two years after application.
TPTB are mistreating the individuals that they are using to forward their cause of Profits over People.
This may well be the last straw to break the camels back.
From your reply below about DU exposure.
(quote) Now you have an Arab country which has a higher number of deformities or cancers than Europe and you need a proper epidemiological study. I'm sure the Americans used weapons that caused these deformities. But now you have a goodness-knows-what government in Iraq and no study. It's very easy to avoid to doing anything – except for some sympathetic crazy professor like me in London to try and achieve something."
In al-Hadidi's office, there are now photographs which defy words. How can you even begin to describe a dead baby with just one leg and a head four times the size of its body?(unquote)
The horror is here and now.
Denial doesn't make it right, and it's more than a war crime. It's the big G....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-children-of-fallujah--the-hospital-of-horrors-7679168.html
It is beyond horror what greed and acquisition will inspire people to do to other people.
I'm thinking that using DU was part of the plan to reduce the cost of caring for war veterans. Hopefully they'll die of cancer rather quickly.
What I'm seeing is that war vets should take their kit with them, because their chances of living rough or homeless, are more than five to one over non veterans.
Vets are finally getting recognition for agent orange - gulf war syndrome - etc.
Damn - how long since Vietnam?
TPTB do not take care of their resources - people.
DU ammunition a horror yet to be addressed.
They might be ready for it but most don't have a clue what it is.
It's not good enough. Departmental Governance has a variation of direct democracy built in. Works better than the boule or having a mass of typical citizens making decisions. They do a boule thing in China... the government selects a few hundred people or something to choose the leader.
Can you explain the DG variation for me?
Something called Legislative Court (or whatever name works better) is where decisions are made.
A Department's leaders use feedback from their constituency and announce when they will create or challenge laws.
The Political Parties associated with the Department are given sufficient notice to prepare their defense.
There are up to three rounds depending on how controversial the case is. If not resolved by the end of round 3, three special judges determine the outcome.
The sessions are public and live online. Citizens weigh in electronically but don't directly intervene (the Parties AKA Activist Opposition is in the ring). Citizen opinion will affect the round 3 judicial resolution though. And remember, if the constituents are mad, the leader won't last long. Poor decisions will not last long either.
Thanks. It would be good to see it in action.
Our Parliament is televised, and is generally considered to be like a bunch of squabbling brats, with a Speaker of the House continually calling for "Order, order!!"
Ya same. I don't think anyone watches it though.
I watched a Venus Project movie and realized how well DG might fit with it. At about 53:40 into the movie, you'll see how the government buildings are integrated into the system.
Jacque mentions Departments or "the disciplines".
In DG, whatever we decide the disciplines are, they are their own silos of government. Politically autonomous aside from interdepartmental conflict or cooperation.
I wonder what Fresco might think of DG, or if he already thought of it?
Don't you see? The problem is not really the capitalism. It's the foundational structure of our governance. It's the political system. This is what allows capitalism to perpetuate and flourish. The problem is not corruption, no, the problem is an easily manipulated, corruptible system
We are so stuck. Capitalism won't be removed until the framework of governance is retooled. Why? Because most believe this is democracy. What fools. Capitalism and the framework are the elite's sword and shield, food and shelter.
I want to take away the sword and starve capitalism. The 99% Conglomerate is the key. Then I want to smash the shield and torch the shelter. In the Conglomerate's Phase 3 maturity this will be possible.
I don't care if the new democracy takes the form of Departmental Governance. I'm fine with whatever the people choose, as long as the elite have no decision-making power.
Anyone else have the capacity to take this in? If not, good luck. Keep getting hooped blaming capitalism when that's not even the #1 issue. Keep voting like sheep. Keep the political process alive, you're spinning your wheels.
Forgot to mention that Political Parties can be associated with one or more Departments. Greenpeace would be the activist opposition to the Department of Environment, Department of Natural Resources, and probably others.
Make sense?