Direct Democracy in Telearea

Transcription

Direct Democracy
in Telearea
Demosthenes D. Kyriazis
Copyright © Demosthenes Kyriazis, tel.: ++30-210-2029666,
e-mail: [email protected]
All rights reserved.
Printed and Bounded by Skitso Co., Athens, Greece.
First Edition in Greek: Editions Patakis, Athens, September 2005
The vision of digital Pnyka
1
Drawing by G. Palis.
1
To Elpida and her friends
To the young people and to those who
feel and think like young people
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my honest and warm feelings of gratitude:
•
To Professor Nikos Alexandropoulos for his moral support
and for giving me the honor by writing the prologue of this
book as well as for his encouraging comments,
•
To Professor Theodosis Tassios also for his moral support
and for giving me great honor by expressing his encouraging comments,
•
To my colleague and friend, physicist and expert in electronics, Giannis Stamatopoulos for his important moral and
useful help to the publication of this book,
•
To my wife, physicist and expert in electronics, Gioula Kyriazi-Tzortzi who helped me and supported me to my effort
to write this book,
•
To Mrs. Eirini Tzortzopoulou who showed great interest in
studying the dissertations of this book and made the appropriate corrections and observations.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................. 9 Prologue of English Version................................................. 17 PROLOGUE ........................................................................ 19 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 21 PART I A different view on political power and on political
systems ............................................................................ 25 Subject: The power of individual and the power of the state .. 27 The natural and moral law of transformation ..................... 28 The power of the state .................................................... 28 Subject: The philosophy of Political Power Systems .............. 35 The inflows .................................................................... 35 The outflows .................................................................. 35 The black box of political power ....................................... 37 The classification ............................................................ 38 John Locke’s experiment ................................................. 41 Subject: The architecture of political power systems ............ 42 The building units ........................................................... 42 The architecture ............................................................. 44 Subject: The basic forms of political power systems ............. 48 Monarchies and Oligarchies ............................................. 49 Direct Democracies ......................................................... 52 Indirect Democracies ...................................................... 53 Subject: The case of Athenian Democracy ............................ 61 The view of antipopular and elitist political system............ 62 The concentration of political power ................................. 64 The contribution of slaves ............................................... 66 The view of an utopist and ineffective political regime ...... 67 The causes of ancient Greek civilization ............................ 68 Subject: The deterministic instability of indirect democracies 74 The Law of Entropy in Social Systems............................... 81 Subject: The three appeals of political power ....................... 85 The appeal of God .......................................................... 86 The appeal of country and society .................................... 86 The appeal of people’s power .......................................... 87 Subject: The overall quality of political systems ................... 92 Flexibility and concentration ............................................ 94 Transparency and concentration ...................................... 94 Stability and concentration .............................................. 94 Acceptance and concentration ......................................... 94 Arbitrariness and concentration ........................................ 95 Corruption and concentration ........................................... 95 Arrogance and concentration ........................................... 95 Subject: The wisdom of Messiah and the stochastic knowledge
of citizens’ set.................................................................... 98 Stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set .............................. 102 The wisdom of messiah ................................................. 102 Comparative evaluation ................................................. 103 The theory of the Organized Set .................................... 104 Conclusion ................................................................... 107 12
The big secret .............................................................. 109 Subject: The crucial choice ............................................... 111 Women’s strategy ......................................................... 113 Minorities and citizens’ power ........................................ 120 Democracy and decentralization ..................................... 121 Democracy and trade unionism ...................................... 123 Democracy and opinion polls ......................................... 123 PART II The intentional distortion of Democracy’s sense .... 125 Subject: Established conception phenomena ...................... 127 The established conception of the flat earth .................... 128 The established conception of the geocentric system ....... 133 The established conception of the stable time ................. 136 The established conception of today’s democracies .......... 140 A sketch of the relativity theory ..................................... 145 Subject: Intelligence of the citizens and political systems.... 151 Types of intelligence: IQ and EQ .................................... 152 Intelligence and civilization models ................................. 153 The equations of IQ and EQ .......................................... 155 Social schizophrenia ...................................................... 156 Subject: Democracy and modern physics ........................... 159 Ecclesia of Demos and logic of the total .......................... 159 Justice Administration and logic of total .......................... 160 Leaders and logic of the random .................................... 161 Subject: Prigogine's theories and the Athenian Democracy's
institutions ...................................................................... 167 13
Brief description of Prigogine work ................................. 167 Prigogine’s theories related to the Principles of Democracy .. 171 Instead of epilogue .......................................................... 181 PART III Digital technology as an opportunity and as a vehicle
for democracy’s expansion and regeneration ..................... 183 Subject: Technology of the Mass Media and political systems
...................................................................................... 185 Radio times .................................................................. 185 Television times ............................................................ 187 The oligarchic features of Mass Media ............................ 188 Subject: Digital technology of interactive networks ............ 193 The birth and the development ...................................... 193 The Internet................................................................. 197 The perspectives .......................................................... 200 Subject: Democracy and digital technology ........................ 205 The changes ................................................................ 206 Digital Pnyka ................................................................ 207 Digital time .................................................................. 209 Digital Isegoria ............................................................. 209 Digital informing ........................................................... 210 Digital tele-voting ......................................................... 211 Digital mentality ........................................................... 213 Subject: The digitalization of Pnyka ................................... 216 Simply democracy......................................................... 220 Globalization and Digital Pnyka ...................................... 221 A different revolution .................................................... 222 14
EPILOGUE ....................................................................... 229 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................ 235 15
Prologue of English Version
“Direct Democracy in Telearea” was published in Greek in 2005.
The main target of this book is the presentation of the idea that
the digital technology is an opportunity and a vehicle for the reorientation of today’s democracies to the principles and to the
spirit of the ancient Greek democracy.
Some colleagues and friends who are interested in this issue
but they do not speak Greek, encouraged me to translate “my
Telearea” in English.
Thus, it was created the English version of Telearea which has:
three new subjects (Intelligence of the citizens and political systems – Democracy and Modern Physics – Prigogine’s theories
and Athenian Democracy’s institutions), some other little additions and some further footnotes, related to the Greek edition.
The translation of all the above Greek texts was carried out by
the young lady Katerina Kamakari.
Ms Kamakari worked with interest and enthusiasm in order to
translate in English a difficult text. A text that includes many
meanings and terms taken from political sciences, applied
sciences and technology.
I would like to express to my friend Katerina my deep appreciation and my warm thanks for her effort.
Many people consider that any effort has its own value independently of its results.
I wish that this would also stand for the writing and the translation of this book.
Athens, September 2008
Demosthenes Kyriazis
PROLOGUE
This book, which could have also been suitably titled “Elpida in
the land of Telearea”2, constitutes an extension to the previous
book titled “The Regeneration of Democracy, the Vision of Direct Democracy in the era of digital technology”.
Both books aim to present and to argue the idea that the new
digital technology of computer science and telecommunications
can be used as a vehicle that will transform the passive “coach
potato citizens” into active citizens.
In our days, where new technology has actually become the
eye and the ear of “Big Brother” causing the justified feelings of
terror when facing the possibility of the complete disappearance of personal freedom, this book, which introduces the vision of a digital Pnyka, sends a message of hope.
The new digital technology has followed the same historical
course as all the other new technologies in the past; an historical course, which is exactly the same as that of the technology
of simple machines, of levers.
It is absolutely certain that the first time man used lever, he did
not do it in order to carry a block of stone but, instead, because
he wanted to break someone’s head and grab his quarry or his
wife.
Thousands of years passed since that moment until to understand and to use the levers for our own good. It was until Archimedes said the historical phrase: “Δος μοι πα στω και τα γαν
κινάσω” (Give me where to stand and I will move the earth).
The writer presents his ideas using the ancient Greek inductive
methodology through the discussions of a team of young students in the imaginary land of Telearea. The symbolism of the
2
In Greek, Elpida means Hope. Telearea (Τήλε-Area) is the hybrid name given
to the imaginary country where the ancient Greek spirit and the digital technology coexist (Author’s note).
19
name that he is using is obvious and in my opinion a successful
one.
The students that form this team were gathered together by
Elpida. She is the highly intelligent and beautiful girl with the
“blue-green eyes and red hair” that we met in his first book.
The important feature of these discussions is that they allow
the reader to formulate his thoughts and to give them a concrete sense regarding his possibly confused and very general
views on the contemporary democratic political systems. The
reader suddenly sees the obvious and wonders: Why I was not
able to see it all this time?
In this book, the writer for once more is trying to find out an
analogy between political ideas and physical magnitudes in order to make them countable. This is necessary in order to objectify these ideas and to avoid the potential result of a situation where two contrary opinions can be equally right or equally
wrong.
This effort, although indispensable, is still in pre-embryonic
stage. It is still at the process of conception. We have not even
reached yet the equivalent experiment of John Locke which is
described in the book.
Nevertheless, the writer is seeking the means that can be used
so as to be able to face the notions and the magnitudes described in the sciences of sociology and politics with the logic of
the applied sciences. The energy conception of political power
is an indicative proposal which may in the future be proved to
be something more important than coherence equivalence.
Athens, July 2005
Nikos Alexandropoulos
Professor Emeritus in the University of Ioannina
Corresponding member of the Academy of Athens
20
INTRODUCTION
Almost three years ago I published my book that contained
some thoughts and some views on Democracy, on the digital
technology and their interactive relation.3
This book was my small contribution, my mite, to the idea that
contemporary digital technology can be used, if people want to,
as an opportunity and vehicle for democracy’s expansion and
regeneration.
Until the publication of this book, I thought that all people –
experts, politicians and simple citizens – would be interested in
any idea which aims at the reinforcement of the citizens’ participation in the exercise of state power.
The circulation of the book became the cause to understand
that “The Vision of Direct Democracy in the Era of Digital Technology” does not represent a vision shared by the majority of
people. The majority of people were indifferent, even negative,
to the possibility of participating in the exercise of political power and of assuming the consequent responsibilities.
The pompous declaration of experts, politicians and citizens:
“the people rule” seemed like something that needed to be said
but it could not actually be achieved. The people should be
the ruler but without ruling. The people should have
power but without exercising it.
The main reasons given as the cause of this contradictory and
absurd situation were the following:
a. The intense doubting of the necessity and usefulness of
citizens’ participation in the exercise of political power. That
is, citizens believed that such participation would make political power to be exercised in a way worse than the exist3
The book with the title “The Regeneration of Democracy” and the subtitle
“The Vision of Direct Democracy in the Era of Digital Technology” was published
in 2002 by Patakis publications.
ing one into which only the representatives of the people
participate. Deep down they believed that only a good man,
a “messiah” could ensure the right way of exercising political power.
b. The intense doubting concerning the handling of the reactions that would arise from the ranks of the established order whose interests would be damaged by such participation. Those reactions are considered to have such a power
and to be so effective that any effort of essential participation from the part of citizens in the exercise of political
power could be described as a “lost case”, as a joke.
c.
The intense doubting as far as it concerns the possibility
that the new digital technology can ensure the necessary
circumstances for such an essential participation.
That means to ensure: “interactive digital information”,
the “digital isegoria”4 as well as flexibility, rationalism and
low cost of decisions; decisions that would obviously be taken
after “digital referendums.”
When I realized the difficulty in the objective approaching of
the aforementioned matters, being myself also someone living
in this world where the notions of the established order dominate, I asked Elpida’s help, the young student of Telearea who,
together with her friends, they studied the odd behavior of Teleareans regarding the exercise of political power5 .
4
Isegoria (Ισηγορία): The right of all citizens of Ecclesia in ancient Athens to
use the same amount of time for their speeches.
5
As it was mentioned in the third part of the book “The Regeneration of Democracy”, titled “The Democracy of Telearea”, Elpida is a beautiful girl with
“blue-green eyes and red hair” gifted by nature with high intelligence (IQ).
Even since the first years of her studies, Elpida was observing with great attention the behaviors of the politicians and of the citizens of Telearea.
“She could see that the people of political power were behaving in an arrogant,
hypocritical way while feeling at ease as if they believed that the citizens were
people of lower intelligence.
22
Elpida’s friends willingly and showing also great interest gave us
floppy discs and CDs with their recorded proposals and discussions concerning the above matters.
A selection of these discussions is included in the following
pages.
According to the wishes of the owners of the provided material,
there is no mention of the names of Elpida’s colleagues that
assume the role of the introducer neither of those of the participants in the discussions. As they told us, in that way the focus would be exclusively on the presentation and on the projection of the ideas and not on the people who bear the ideas.
Possibly this also aimed at the protection of Elpida’s colleagues
from the reactions of those whose interests could be hurt by
these ideas.
She could see all those considered to be the role models of knowledge and
morality –her parents, her teachers, the grown ups - behaving as if they were
hypnotized. As if they were addicted to those behaviors and being not able to
discern, the right from the wrong, the truth from the lie.
Elpida was puzzled and she was wondering:
How is it possible that these things happen?
Is it me the one who is mistaken?”
Elpida confided to her friends and colleagues her queries and her worries.
Slowly, all together they started discussing, studying and analyzing the problems of democracy in Telearea, in order to find some ways of solutions. Their
effort became more systematic when they founded an association which they
named “The Society of Friends for the Democracy Regeneration”.
23
PART I
A different view on political power
and on political systems
In the energy conception of political power the degree of
the power concentration constitutes the basic characteristic
of the political systems. The point of concentration comes
second in importance. Systems that have the same degree
of concentration while situated in different points are
equivalent ones.
Nevertheless, people do not pay attention to this physical
principle. They try to improve political systems by changing
the point and not the degree of power concentration, ignoring that when such principles are violated there is always a
major cost to be paid.
Discussion of 10th January
Subject: The power of individual and the power
of the state
Colleague- Introducer
With the term power of individual we mean the ability of
every human being to take decisions and to put them in practice while assuming the consequent responsibility and taking
the appropriate care.
The dual ability of taking and of implementing decisions constitutes the power of individual. The ability of taking decisions
without being able to implement them is meaningless. It is not
power.
In the rationale of the aforementioned definition the sense of
the individual’s power and the sense of the individual’s freedom
are concurrent. A human being has his individual freedom when
he has his individual power and vice versa. Consequently, it is
absurd to believe that we can assign all our political power –
even when we want to – to somebody else and still be free.
God and nature have planted inside us this power. And certainly
God did so wisely. Consequently, any “documented opinion”
concerning the need to improve or to transform this power constitutes a drivel if not a cunning trickery of the political, religious and intellectual established order which aims at the fulfillment of shellfish goals.
The aforementioned views seem to be justified to a great extent. They could be absolutely justified if a human being was an
“individual being”. In the contrary they could not be justified in
any way, in the case that a human being was a 100% “social
being”. That is, in case a human being was not an autonomous
being but only a member of a “greater organism” which is
called society.
So, human beings are individual beings or social beings?
The natural and moral law of transformation
Once upon a time, a human being was an individual being. With
the passing of centuries, the human being is evolving and is
being transformed into a social being whose member status
becomes equal and even more important than that of being an
autonomous person.
This transformation constitutes a spontaneous natural evolvement and, at the same time, an aspiration of every human being. That is, it represents the outcome of a natural and moral
law which it was produced the man’s domination on earth.
As a result, the transformations of the individual power within
the frame of this law should be regarded neither as drivels nor
as an act of transcendence or violation of the wisdom of Nature. They represent transformations and improvements of nature and man.
Erwin Schrödinger, the famous awarded with Nobel price physicist, states the following on the subject of the transformation:
“The achievement of going deeper into the innermost of our
organisms’ development, allows us to understand very well, I
believe, that in any case all our life should be a constant battle
with our primitive self.
…any personal life, any day in the life of a person should
represent a part, no matter how small, of this evolution. It is a
sculpturing, no matter how important, on the eternal statue of
our kind”6
The power of the state
The transformation of human beings into social beings resulted
in the development of a system of protection for the new organism which was called society. That is, something similar to
6
“Near to Man. My Cosmic Theory.” By Erwin Schrödinger.
28
the immunization system which was developed in the human
body.
This immunization system of society is – it should be – the state
power or, as it is more often called, the political authority.
The first political power systems that worth to be mentioned
were developed in the city-states of Ancient Greece. From the
word city (πόλη, pole), the place where these systems were
firstly developed, we formed the terms politics (πολιτική), and
politician (πολιτικός).
Consequently, these terms do not only refer to the communal
co-existence but they also point out the propulsion of the transformation.
At the beginning, the architect of the political power systems
was nature. The systems of nature – the natural political power
systems – aimed at the survival of the members of the community. We still observe “natural political power systems” in the
flocks of wild animals, in the flights of birds and in the swarms
of bees.
After passing of many centuries, the responsibility for the development of political power systems was devolved from nature
on man.
The political systems developed by man did not restrict themselves just to the securing of their members’ survival; they
moved on even further. They promoted the development of this
new organism which is called society.
This new kind of the social human being is the one that dominated on earth. The first kind of the individual human being,
did not dominate.
During the centuries, that the control in the development and
function of the political power systems belonged to nature,
there were not any serious problems to be faced.
The problems appeared since this control was devolved from
nature on human beings.
29
The presumptuous and narrow minded “wisdom” of people
changed the goals and the priorities of the political power systems.
The new goals set by the systems were mainly incompatible
with the law of transformation. Now, the goal was the protection of the individual political power from the unrestrained exercise of power by the other members of the society. This kind
of protection was necessarily identified with the limitation of the
individual power. But in most cases things got even worse. The
goal of the political power systems became the protection of
the system itself and not of the society’s members.
In the midst of the confusion created by these changes, the
completion of the transformation of man into a social being,
which had already been started by nature and people alike, remained forgotten and neglected.
The political power systems did not enable the transformation
of people into social beings but led instead to their transformation into individual beings with hierarchical political power.
Something that can not be found in the “organisms and societies of nature”, where there is hierarchical order in the
“operation” and not in the “political power”.
One of the few exceptions of this rule is the political system of
democracy in the cities of Ancient Greece and especially the
excellent example of the political system of Athenian Democracy.
In conclusion, I would like to mention a basic deduction which
would hopefully be yours too: Indeed, the individual’s power
truly constitutes a basic choice of Nature. But also, the power
of peoples’ set, the political authority constitutes a choice of
Nature and of people; the law of transformation expresses this
choice.
As a result, the view that in our days is very often supported
and suggested that “we should abolish political power because
is contrary to the laws of nature”, is false.
30
The problem of political systems authority cannot be solved
through its abolishment; it would be solved through its reconstruction, a reconstruction that would turn it into a vehicle for
the completion of the aforementioned transformation.
When this transformation reaches its completion, then the contrasts between individual power and state power would be
minimized because the individual power would coincide with the
state power.
The fulfilment of such a coincidence presupposes that the rulers
of the state would be the citizens themselves; in deeds and not
in words.
A Colleague
What is the individual power and that of the state which, according to your introduction, is governed by the laws of physics?
I cannot give to your extremely important and difficult question
a generally accepted answer. But if you wish to hear an opinion, I could say that individual power and state power is a form
of energy similar to the spiritual, psychic and mechanical energy of human beings. According to this rationale, the political
power is simply the total sum of the energies of its citizens. If a
state has N citizens and each citizen has, in average rate Po 7
Power, then, the Power of the state Ps would simply be the
total sum of the citizens’ power; that is,
Ps=N . Po
A Colleague
This definition of the state power leads to a certain conclusion
or is it just a different approach?
7
Power is the energy in the unit of time.
31
Colleague - Introducer
I think that the aforementioned logical and simple definition
makes clear that the power of a state is the total power of its
citizens and not the creation of a leader gifted with great spiritual, moral and other kind of potencies.
This easy to understand conclusion actually coincides with the
next conclusion reached by philosophers and politicians that
used different means of verification: “The potency of a state
is the total sum of its citizens’ consciousness and not
the ingenious creation of their leaders”.
A Colleague
Your view that the political power is energy seems reasonable
and it surely interprets already known conclusions that we
reached to through following different paths. But, is it possible
that this view is totally arbitrary and untenable?
Colleague – Introducer
Not exactly. As you are surely aware, energy is defined as the
ability to produce work. Nevertheless, this ability is a cerebral
deduction and not a product of our senses. By using our senses
we perceive a certain form of energy which in the science of
physics we call work.
Work and energy, at the bottom line, they constitute the same
entity. They resemble to a man who is constantly moving from
light to darkness and from darkness to light. When this entity is
in the light we see it and we call it work. When it is in the
darkness we sense it and we call it energy. That is the reason
why work and energy in the applied sciences can be counted by
using the same measuring units (Joules, KWh).
The work of political power exists. This existence proves the
energy hypostasis of political power.
32
A Colleague
If political, spiritual, psychic and mechanical potency of man is
energy, then how can the law of energy conservation be valid
as far as the mortal human being is concerned?
Once more time, I can only give you an opinion and not a generally accepted answer.
The man does not produce energy but he transforms the
existing energy into work. Man is leading the already existing energy from darkness to light and he turns it to work.
Based on this rationale, the law of energy conservation according to which “the energy cannot be lost and cannot be
created from zero, it can only be transformed”, is compatible with the reality of the mortal man’s existence. Likewise,
law of energy conservation is compatible with the dogmas concerning the soul’s immortality, the soul’s reincarnation, as well
as with the axiom that human rights cannot be transferred.
Maybe, one day it could be proved that the law of energy conservation was not discovered by the Physicists
but by the Philosophers and that it referred to the psychic energy of human beings.
A Colleague
If the potency of a state is the total sum of the power of its
citizens, then where the meaning of the necessity for leaders
and what lies is their contribution? The view shared by people
for thousands of years about the importance of the leaders’
contribution is a fallacy?
The leaders’ contribution exists and it is important. It resembles with the contribution of a catalyst to the realization of a
chemical reaction. In some cases the presence of the catalyst
has such a determinative character that the reaction cannot be
33
realized without its use. Apart from that, it is obvious that the
contribution of a catalyst cannot be compared with that of the
reacting elements. If the reacting elements do not exist the
reaction cannot take place. If they do exist and the catalyst is
absent, then the reaction can be realized by either changing the
catalyst or by changing its given conditions.
The contribution and the importance of the leaders is similar to
those of a catalyst.
34
Discussion of 27th January
Subject: The philosophy of Political Power
Systems
The philosophy of every system begins with the answer to this
basic problem: What does the system do? That is, what is its
purpose, which are its inflows (consumptions), and which are
its outflows (provisions).
Very often, in the applied sciences and in technology, the development of the philosophy of a system is being realized by
using the method of the Black Box. According to this method,
the system is considered as a black box that has an entrance
gate and an exit gate. Because the box is black, we cannot see
what takes place inside it. So, we have to restrain ourselves to
the study of the system’s inflows and outflows, missing at the
moment the study of the problem arising when asking HOW all
these, which constitute the architecture of the system happen.
It is obvious that the black box represents a simple deductive
way that enables the easy development of the systems’ philosophy.
The inflows
Based on the existing experience we can easily reach the conclusion that the individual power, the freedom of the individual,
are the inflows of the systems in question.
The outflows of the system will be created by consumption, by
burning freedom. The individual freedom is the only kind of
“fuel” in the political power systems.
The outflows
Although the subject of the inflows is simple and has one-way
solution, the subject of the outflows is complex and can be
solved with many alternative ways.
35
In order to be justified the existence of a system of political
power, its outflows should be more valuable than its inflows.
Still, what is the outflow that can be more valuable than the
utmost good of human beings’ freedom? Do such outflows exist? Is it possible, that the quest for them can be a utopian effort like the squaring of the circle?
The answer to the above basic questions is that the effective
freedom of the individual and the basic goods, represent outflows of equal value or of bigger practical importance.
Effective freedom of the individual constitutes a subtotal of
the whole, of the absolute freedom, which is exercised unimpeded and with no restraints, thanks to the care and to the responsibility shown by the state, by the political power.
It is obvious that in a society there must be found a way to ensure that the freedom of one will not become an impediment
for the freedom of others. This basic precondition, that is the
existence of social life, is ensured by applying the appropriate
restraints, without any discrimination, to the freedom of the
individual. The remaining freedom, which can be exercised with
no restraints and obstacles to be faced, represents the effective
freedom of the human being. I think that effective freedom is
called “rights” by the scientists of politics.
In essence, rights do not signify types of allowances given by
the political power systems but actually, they represent “restraints” of them which are expressed not by the individual
power that gets lost, but by the one which is saved.
Basic goods are the goods, that are indispensable for the survival of people and for that reason they are considered to be of
equal value with the freedom of people; freedom has meaning
only for those who are alive.
Basic goods are the men’s life and integrity safety. Basic goods
are also, the security that concerns the control and the conservation of people’s possessions, namely material goods that are
36
indispensable for their existence such as food, house, clothing,
producing implements of goods.
Apparently, the necessity to be ensured the effective freedom
and the basic goods, explains the sacrifice of a part of the utmost good of freedom.
All the above, are summarized in the diagram of the following
schema 1.
Outflows
Inflows
System of political power
Absolute freedom
Effective freedom
+
Basic Goods
Inflows = Outflows
Schema 1.
The black box of political power
By observing the above schema we reach the conclusion that
the following equation for the political power systems, is valid:
Absolute freedom=Effective freedom + Basic Goods
The above logical relation shows that the total sum of the effective freedom and of the basic goods remains constant. Consequently, the increase of the effective freedom implies with deterministic certainty the reduction of the basic goods and vice
versa.
The above equation8 cannot be used for the mathematical
analysis of the system because such an attempt demands the
conversion of the inflows and of the outflows into a common
8
In this formula we equalize forms of energy. Basic goods signify energy. Actually, some of them can already be counted with energy measuring units (calories).
37
magnitude with existing methods and units of measurement.
However, such possibility does not exist; at least until this moment.
Accepting that the promotion of people’s transformation into
social beings, is an act of equal value as the ability to ensure
the effective freedom and the basic goods, then the political
power systems should add to their outflows one more good; a
good that could enable the completion of this transformation.
We call this good “social power”, but we need to define it in
more clear detail.
Within the frame of these thoughts, the previous logical equation of inflows and outflows can be modified to the following
form:
Absolute freedom= Effective freedom+ Social power +Basic Goods
The above logical equation shows that the total sum of effective
freedom, social power and basic goods remains always constant. Consequently, the increase of one of the three outflows
determinedly implies the reduction of the other two.
In the contemporary political regimes, social power outflow
does not exist for all the people and it is not even included in
their aspiring goals. However, this outflow was taken into consideration in a political regime that existed 2.300 years ago; in
the political regime of Athenian Democracy.
The classification
According to the hierarchical order of the outflows, the political
power systems can be classified into three categories:
a. The systems that maximize the effective freedom.
b. The systems that maximize the basic goods and
c.
The systems that maximize the social power
38
The first systems are called liberal and they are based on the
dogma: First of all freedom. The rest will come.
The second systems are called socialistic and they are based on
the dogma: First the basic goods. Without them freedom
and social power have only theoretical value.
The third are based on the dogma: First the social power;
first comes the participation of the citizens to the exercise of
political power. Only this can ensure the catholic provision
of effective freedom and of basic goods; only participation
can complete the transformation of people into social beings;
into citizens.
Outflows hierarchical order, is indeed important. Even more
important than the hierarchical order, is the ability to ensure
the catholic provision of the outflows; the ability to ensure that
all citizens will equally be the recipients of the outflows and that
the people of political power will not be the only recipients.
The collapse of political power systems was rarely due to quality and to quantity of the outflows. Usually it was caused by the
unjust distribution of the outflows; by the non existent catholic
provision of them.
A Colleague
Why the studying method you presented, has not been used by
the scientists with expertise in this field? Is it maybe, because it
has no practical value?
The studying method in mind is, at least until today, of little
practical value. This is not due to a weakness of the methodology, but it is caused by the lack of measuring, inflows and outflows, methods and units. Due to this lack, we cannot use
mathematics to study the systems and we are limited to the
use of general logical approaches that can certainly be done
through other ways too.
39
As it is known, for most of the magnitudes related to the exercise of political power, it is not existed an internationally accepted agreement concerning the methods and units of measurement to be used.
Instead of measurements, we come across subjective estimations by experts and not experts, which express individual opinions rather than substantial findings for the object we study.
This is also the reason why we see extremely contradictious
estimations for the same fact; to call “black” that which somebody else call “white”. But, this expresses an absurdity because
there is no way that both estimations can be valid.
However, people still try to approach the truth by using
such a methodology; recycling thus the absurdity.
A Colleague
If that is the way things are, what is the point of our discussion?
There is a point.
The lack of methods and units of measurement does not determinedly shows a weakness in establishing them. Similar difficulties have arisen in physics but at least most of them have
been surpassed. The establishing of methods and units of
measurement in temperature is a typical example.
For thousands of years, people used to “measure” temperature
with subjective ways similar to those we use today to measure
the different magnitudes concerning the exercise of political
power.
The most common way of temperature measurement was
based on the feeling of cold or hot when touching a body with
our hands.
40
John Locke’s experiment
In 1690, the English philosopher, physicist and physician John
Locke (1632-1704) proved with the following experiment that
the estimations for temperature were obviously unreliable.
He took three vessels. He filled the first one with hot water. In
the second he put cold and in the third lukewarm (half cold and
half hot).
Then, he put his right hand in the hot water and his left hand in
the cold. After a while, he took both hands out of the hot and
the cold water and sunk them both into the lukewarm.
With great surprise he realized that his right hand “said” that
the temperature of the lukewarm water was different (lower)
than that “said” by his left hand. It was obvious that the subjective method of measuring the temperature was unreliable
since, for the same water, each hand was giving different estimation.
Since then, more than 300 years have passed. The measurement of temperature is no longer a subjective estimation. It is
an estimation “objective by agreement”, logical and reliable.
We had to face many difficulties until to reach this point; hesitations, excitements and disappointments. Still today, temperature estimations are reliable without contradictions or problems.
When I am watching the discussions between politicians and
experts in the “TV windows”, many times I get the feeling that
I watch something similar to John Locke’s experiments. Is it
maybe about time that simple people would draw the conclusions that politicians and experts refuse to?
41
Discussion of 7th February
Subject: The architecture of political power
systems
All political power systems, all political regimes are structured
with the use of the same building units and according to the
same architectural plan regardless of their goals and their priorities.
The building units
The building units, the subsystems that constitute a political
power system are only four: The power carriers, the functional
carriers, the laws and the receivers of political power, the citizens.
The power carriers take the decisions for the basic and major
issues that concern the state and the citizens and they have the
right and the potentional political power to implement them. If
they are not able to implement them, they are not power carriers. It is meaningless to take decisions without having the ability to implement them.
The most important issues for which the aforementioned carriers take decisions are: the laws, their observance and the policies to be carried. The term policies, defines the goals and the
necessary means of actions in order to be achieved, used by
the power carriers, the functional carriers and the citizens.
The functional carriers, look to the implementation of the
laws and of the policies that have been decided by the power
carriers. As a consequence, the functional carriers do not exercise and they should not exercise political power. Instead, they
have to minister and to serve the work of political power.
If citizens exercise political power, then the functional carriers
serve them also. If citizens do not exercise political power, then
the functional carriers do not serve them but they are being
42
transformed and what is more, in an anisotropic way. Towards
bottom, they are transformed into masters of citizens. Towards
the top, they are transformed into maidservants of power carriers.
The realization of this transformation is depended on the political power of citizens. If citizens do not have political power the
above mentioned transformation will determinedly take place
even if the “programs that require the respect for citizens” will
be implemented or if other measures are being taken.
In our contemporary indirect Democracies the power carriers
are being formed by the elected representatives of citizens and
the functional carriers by the officials of the Public Sector.
The Laws, on one hand define the outflows of the political
power systems and on the other hand they ensure the outflows’
catholic provision. That is, their indiscriminate provision to all
citizens.
Logically, morally and institutionally the laws are above all subsystems. They are situated above the power carriers, the functional carriers and citizens as well.
However, this fundamental requirement is incompatible with
the fact that laws are created by the power carriers. That
means that this requirement equals to a transcendence of the
natural principle according to which “creators come above
their creations”.
A crucial factor as far as this transcendence is concerned, is the
degree of political power’s concentration borne by the carriers
that create the laws. The greater this degree is, the ability of
the creator is increased and thus the transcendence is hindered
and vice versa. The smaller the concentration, the ability of the
creator is scattered thus enabling the transcendence.
For example, in the regime of absolute monarchy this transcendence cannot take place. The monarch is always above the
laws even when there are laws that state the opposite.
43
The best circumstances for the realization of this transcendence
can be ensured only in the case that the power carriers are
formed by all the citizens.
It should be noted that in the cases where we observe a very
high degree of political power concentration, the principle of
the sovereignty of the laws cannot be changed. What will simply be changed are the laws that bother the high power concentration men.
The contribution made by the small degree of political power
concentration in securing the sovereign position of the laws, is
acknowledged by constitutional scientists and that is the reason
why they presuppose increased majorities when constitutional
provisions are about to be approved.
Nevertheless, some times the flexibility in changing the laws
greatly enables the dealing with unforeseen implications or
weaknesses that arose after the implementation of the laws.
On the other hand, a high degree of flexibility in changing the
laws can possibly become a means of downgrading their sovereign position.
The securing of the stability of the laws’ sovereign position and
the flexibility in changing them are two problems with opposing
interrelation. Usually, they can be faced by giving priority either to the stability or to the flexibility according to the problems that should be dealt with in given space and time.
The architecture
The building units mentioned earlier are structured in a unified
system, following the way shown in schema 2.
44
Laws
Memo
Actual connection
Power carriers
Theoretical connection
Functional carriers
Citizens
Schema 2
Typical diagram of the architecture of political systems
(general theoretical form)
The basic characteristics of this architecture as shown in schema 2 are the following:
•
Laws are situated above all subsystems and they are directly connected to them (theoretical connection). This connection symbolizes and secures the equal status of the subsystems against the laws.
•
Between the power carriers, the functional carriers and the
citizens, there is a connection in series (Actual connection)
that ensures a functional hierarchy and effectiveness.
•
Only the power carriers and not the functional carriers nor
the citizens have access to the creation of laws.
•
Citizens do not participate to the taking of decisions that
concern the laws and the policies and as a result they cannot be considered as power carriers. They are not attri-
45
buted the status of the ruler. Citizens have only the status
of those being ruled over.
A Colleague
If the political power systems have the same subsystems and
the same architecture why we have political regimes that are so
different to each other?
Obviously, each subsystem has its own characteristics; its special characteristics. By studying the special characteristics of
each subsystem, we observe that only those attributed to the
power carriers are fundamental and critical because they deductively define the special characteristics of the other three
subsystems; of laws, of functional carriers and of citizens. Thus,
any differentiation in the special characteristics of the power
carrier subsystem creates a different system of political power.
A Colleague
Which of these special characteristics of the power carriers is
the most basic and why?
Your question is an important one that cannot be easily answered. Still if you want a summarizing answer, I would say to
you that the most basic characteristic of the power carriers is
the transparency of their actions.
This view, it is based on the fact that transparency expresses,
in an indirect way, the systems’ entropy which constitutes their
most basic characteristic.
A Colleague
Which is the relation, between entropy and transparency?
46
The notion of entropy was initially developed in the thermodynamic systems and it expresses the measure of the system’s disorder (ataxia).9 Great ataxia means high entropy
and vice versa.
However, great ataxia means also less information about the
system. Thus, through a more general and philosophical point
of view, entropy expresses the reciprocal of the measure of
information. A lot of information means low entropy and vice
versa.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that transparency represents a factor
that leads to a greater provision of information and consequently to low entropy.
A Colleague
Is the existence of transparency a sufficient factor in order to
improve the performance of a system of political power?
Transparency is the most basic characteristic of the political
power systems but it is not the only one. Thus, the improvement of these systems is a more complex problem which can
be possibly discussed in an other meeting.
9
In thermodynamics, entropy S is defined by the equation S=KlnW where K is
the constant of Boltzman and W the parameter of ataxia.
47
Discussion of 28th February
Subject: The basic forms of political power
systems
According to the energy conception of political power, the most
important characteristic of the political regimes is the concentration of power.
By mention to a former discussion of ours, the potency of a
state PS is the product of a mass N of citizens times the potency
Po in the average rate that every citizen has. Thus:
PS=N . PO
(1)
If the state has Nε institutional power carriers, then in every
power carrier there is a power concentration equal to
Ps
NPo ⎛ Ν ⎞
⎟Po
=
=⎜
Νε
N ε ⎜⎝ Ν ε ⎟⎠
The ratio
N
, that is the citizens per every power carrier,
Νε
otherwise the citizens whose political power is managed by
each power carrier, expresses the power concentration C.
C=
N
Νε
(2)
For example, in a country with 10 millions of citizens (N=
10.000.000) that possesses only one power carrier (Nε=1), the
power concentration is 10.000.000,
10.000.000
⎛
⎞
= 10.000.000 ⎟ .
⎜C =
1
⎝
⎠
48
In the same country, if all citizens are power carriers
10.000.000
⎞
⎛
(Nε=10.000.000), the concentration is 1, ⎜ C =
= 1⎟ .
10
.
000
.
000
⎠
⎝
Finally, if in the same country there exist 400 institutional
power
carriers
the
concentration
is
25.000,
10.000.000
⎞
⎛
= 25.000 ⎟ .
⎜C =
400
⎠
⎝
We observe that the concentration can take a broad range of
prices; any price between 1 and N. Thus:
1≤ C≤ Ν
(3)
Any political power system with different and distinct
tration C constitutes a political regime.
concen-
This conclusion is compatible with the definition of a political
regime as given by the constitutional scientists. According to
one of these definitions10, “the meaning of a political regime coincides with the essential meaning of the Constitution”, that is any distinct Constitution represents a form
of political regime.
Monarchies and Oligarchies
In these political regimes, the power carriers are being represented by either one person, the monarch, or by a small group
of people.
Due to the small number of power carriers, power concentration C is extremely big. Its size is about equal to the number
of the citizens. For example, a country with 10 millions of citizens has:
• In case of absolute monarchy (Νε = 1)
10
The definition was given by the unforgettable professor of Constitutional law,
A. Manessis.
49
10 millions
⎛
⎞
= 10 millions ⎟
⎜C =
1
⎝
⎠
•
In case of oligarchy (e.g. triumvir Νε = 3)
10 millions
⎛
⎞
= 3,333millions ⎟
⎜C =
3
⎝
⎠
In such political regimes, the concentration C is depended on
the number of people and it increases according it in a linear
way. For example, the power concentration in a country of 100
millions of citizens would be ten times bigger than the equivalent concentration in a country of 10 millions.
The deterministic outcome of the high degree of political
power’s concentration is the downgrading importance of the
laws and the conversion of the role of the functional carriers
and of the citizens.
The Laws, in monarchies and oligarchies, do not possess the
sovereign position as it was mentioned in an earlier discussion
of ours (typical architecture of the political regimes schema 2).
The monarch or the oligarchic group, are practically situated
above all laws even when there exist laws that state the opposite.
Energy abides to the laws of Nature and not to the laws
of people, even if the latter are constitutional.
The functional carriers are not the deacons of the laws, nor
the servants of citizens. Due to the high power concentration
are being transformed in the mentioned above anisotropic way.
Citizens, completely alienated from their political power, as
time goes by, they are turned into “subjects” of power carriers;
at least most of them.
The architecture of monarchy and oligarchy does not have the
typical form of schema 2, but it takes the form presented in the
following schema 3.
50
Power carriers
Power carriers
(1)
(1)
Memo
Actual connection
Laws
Laws
Theoretical connection
(1)
Monarchy or Oligarchy
(2)
Anisotropic transformation
(3)
Transformation of citizens
of functional carriers
Functional carriers
Functional carriers
to subjects
(2)
(2)
Citizens
Citizens
(3)
(3)
Schema 3
Architecture of Monarchies and Oligarchies
(Actual form)
Observing the above schema we come to the following outcomes:
•
The power carriers do not depend on the laws and they are
not committed to them. On the contrary, laws depend on
them.
•
The functional carriers do not minister the power of the
laws but they faithfully serve the power carriers that are situated above the laws.
51
•
The citizens are not protected by the laws but instead they
are depended on the choices of the power carriers and
mainly by the choices of their maidservants. That is the
reason why they are converted into “subjects”.
Direct Democracies
In these political regimes, the power carriers are all the citizens
through their participation in their General Assembly, their Ecclesia.
In an ideal Direct Democracy, the number represented by the
power carriers is equal to that of the citizens. This leads to the
least possible power concentration c=1 and shows that:
•
There is no transference of the citizens’ power to other carriers and as a consequence we notice the absolute validity
of the axiom of “non-transferable of citizens’ rights”.
•
Concentration does not depend on citizens’ number. For
instance, in a country with 1 million citizens and in a country with 100 millions ones, concentration stays the same.
⎛
1mil 100 mil ⎞
=
= 1⎟ .
⎜c =
1 mil 100 mil ⎠
⎝
By virtue of the low power concentration we observe the securing of the following:
a. Of the stability of the laws’ sovereign position. Laws are
above everything else.
b. Of the ruler and of being ruled citizens’ status. The sustenance of this status constitutes the quintessence of Democracy.
c.
Of the stability of the role undertaken by the functional carriers that renders them to be the deacons of the laws and
the servants of the citizens.
The architecture of Direct Democracies in theory as well as in
practice, takes the form of the following schema 4:
52
Laws
Laws
Memo
Theoretical and
Actual connection
Power carriers
Power carriers (1)
(1)
Ecclesia
Functional carriers
Functional carriers
(2)
Leaders
(3)
(1)
Citizens as leaders
(2)
Citizens as ruled
(3)
Deacons and
Servants of laws
and citizens
Citizens
Citizens
(3)
(2)
Schema 4
The architecture of Direct Democracy
(Theoretical and Actual form)
The political system of democracy, which was developed in ancient Greece and more specifically in ancient Athens, presented
the architecture of the above schema and it was simply being
called democracy.
The term “direct” democracy started being used almost recently
when many people understood the important differences that
exist between contemporary democracies and ancient Greek
democracy.
Indirect Democracies
Within the framework of indirect democracies, most commonly
known as representative or parliamentary democracies, the
power carriers are being constituted by the citizens’ representatives. These representatives come out of the citizens, they are
being elected by the citizens and they represent them for a
specific period of time.
53
The relation between citizens and representatives, that is the
power concentration c, takes medium prices equivalent to a
⎛
⎝
small fraction of N ⎜ i.e.
Ν Ν
Ν ⎞
,
,
⎟
200 600 1000 ⎠
However, the absolute price of concentration is not the same in
all representative democracies. Usually, the bigger the country,
the bigger the power concentration gets. This happens due to
the fact that the power carriers, for practical reasons, cannot be
too many in number.
For example, if in a country of 10 millions of citizens there are
300 power carriers, then a country of 100 millions of citizens
should have 3000 power carriers in order that both countries
would have the same concentration. Something like that entails
many functional difficulties. In any case, the concentration in
indirect democracies is in the order of some ten thousands (e.g.
from 10 to 50 thousands).
In theory, these medium prices of concentration do not cancel
all characteristics of direct democracy, in the way it does in
monarchies and oligarchies, but they reduce the stability of the
system.
The status of the “ruler and being ruled citizen”, the laws’ sovereignty and the role of the functional carriers as deacons of the
laws and servants of the citizens, is feasible; but it has little
stability. The relevantly high power concentration, that very
often can become even higher, creates conditions of instability
and leads to an easy transition of the institutional form of
the political regime to other forms of a more compatible
character with the existing power concentration.
The little stability of indirect democracies is not symptomatic.
It is deterministic. It is due to the big power concentration.
It is due to the existing alienation between citizens and their
own power.
54
In indirect democracies, the citizens’ power is limited to their
right of choosing their representatives as well as to their right
to be also themselves elected as the citizens’ representatives.
However, when put in practice, both these rights are being significantly reduced even to the point of their annulment.
The election of the citizens’ representatives is being carried according to rules and most importantly, according to the use of
practices defined by the power carriers and not by the citizens.
Thus, the decisions concerning the citizens’ choices are predefined in a great deal by power carriers.
The theoretical probability of a citizen to become a power
carrier is very small (one to 1000 until one to 150000). But the
actual possibility, for the majority of citizens, is slight. It is insignificant. While as far as the majority of the citizens is concerned this possibility is of no significance, for a number of few
people, that possess a big personal of family prestige, it becomes very big. It is almost a certain fact. Therefore, if we aspire to the citizens’ acquisition of political power, we should
secure this through their citizen’s status and not
through their status as a citizens’ representative.
The architecture of indirect democracies, taking into account
their determinedly little stability, takes the form presented in
the following schema 5.
55
Laws
Power carriers
(citizens’ representatives)
Functional carriers
Citizens
Schema 5
Architecture of Indirect Democracies
(theoretical-summarizing form)
In order to increase the stability of indirect democracies and to
protect them from their potential transition to oligarchies, political power is being exercised not only by one, but by three independent power carriers: The carrier of legislative power (the
parliament), the carrier of the executive power (the government) and the carrier of the judicial power (the courts and the
judges).
The aforementioned separation of the total power leads to the
reduction of power concentration and to their reciprocal control
and balance between the three independent power carriers.
The separation and the independency of powers was considered to be such a fundamental institution that the article 16 of
the French Declaration of 1871 stated that “a state that does
not declares the separation of powers does not have a Constitution”, which actually means that it cannot be called a democracy.
56
Out of these three carriers of power, only the legislative power
–the parliament- can create laws. The other two, government
and justice, act according to the laws but they do not have
access to their creation.
On account of all the above, the parliament is considered as the
main power carrier, a fact that lead to the derivation of the
term parliamentary democracy.
The architecture of indirect democracies possessing the important institution of the separation of powers is being represented
in the following schema 6.
Laws
Parliament
Government
Justice
Power carriers
Functional carriers
Citizens
Schema 6
The institutional architecture of indirect democracies
The architecture of the people’s representatives’ power
Despite the important institution of the separation of powers, in
many cases we notice that the natural laws prevail against the
human laws, because of the existence relevant high concentration. Thus, very often, indirect democracies are turned into political regimes more compatible with the existing power concentration. Obviously, the more compatible forms of that kind are
the oligarchies.
57
The above phenomenon of transition is known as the crisis of indirect democracies.
A Colleague
From all the things that you said, we get the impression that
the characteristics of a political regime are almost irrelevant to
the existing laws. How is it possible to note the existence of
such a fact when actually it is completely contrary to the legal
sense of a political regime?
Colleague –Introducer
The Constitution and the laws of a country define the institutional and the theoretical form of a political regime and they
certainly have a great and crucial significance.
However, the stability of this institutional form depends mainly
on the compatibility of the institutions with the relevant natural
laws.
If institutions are not compatible with the natural laws, sooner
or later, the essential form will be transformed and it will become more compatible with the natural laws.
A Colleague
What is the reason why direct democracy is compatible with the
natural laws and as a result its institutional form has stability?
Direct democracy is the political regime based on the natural
law according to which all human beings possess power by nature and what is more, this power is non-transferable. But since
the political power is a necessary condition for the existence of
social life and since the individual power is non-transferable,
then the only remaining solution is the participation of all citizens to the exercise of political power.
58
According to this rationale, direct democracy represents the
most compatible with the natural laws political regime and as a
result, the most stable, regardless of its drawbacks.
A Colleague
According to your introduction, the power concentration is the
most important magnitude of political regimes. But how can the
power concentration be possible to exist since political power is
non-transferable?
Human beings’ political power is non-transferable in the same
way that their spiritual, psychic or mechanical powers are nontransferable to another man. I do not think that there exist a
man who believes that his mechanical, his muscle power can be
transferred to someone else neither if he wishes so nor if human laws demand it. However, peoples’ mechanical power can
be used in constructions ordered by someone else and not by
the possessor himself.
A similar thing happens with the political power of man. The
usurpation of people’s political power by the power carriers is
determinedly impossible. What is possible though is its management, its orientation and its control by the power carriers.
However, this possibility is not defined by natural laws.
It is defined by human laws that convert it into an institutional right and into force of the power carriers; a
force that obviously originates from the citizens and not
from the power carriers themselves.
A Colleague
I have the impression that your introduction represents an effort to explain familiar notions in a different way. Therefore,
does this effort hold an essential practical value?
59
Any view, no matter how important is considered to be, aims
always to the explanation of familiar facts and notions. That
also goes for my introduction. I think that any practical value of
this effort lies to the perspective that political power is energy
and as such we should deal with it. The use of this conception
would be an addition to the existing principles and methods
concerning the research and the development of political systems and to the principles and methods used concerning the
energy systems. These methods, by common consent, have
been greatly developed and generally acknowledged for their
reliability and their effectiveness.
60
Discussion of 7th March
Subject: The case of Athenian Democracy
The word Democracy is Greek. It was created by the synthesis
of the words Demos (Δήμος) and Kratos (Κράτος).
Demos in ancient Athens meant the total of the citizens. Citizens were the subtotal of the inhabitants of a city that had the
right to vote. That had the right to participate to the taking of
decisions about matters that concerned the city and its inhabitants.
Kratos in Greek, (aeolic kretos, sanscritic kratu) means power,
force, authority.
Therefore, Democracy means the power of Demos, namely
the power of citizens.
In Athenian Democracy, the only power carrier was the general
assembly of the citizens; the Ecclesia of Demos.
The Ecclesia represented the legislative, executive and judicial
power of contemporary democracies. That is, the citizens of the
Athenian Democracy had the power to create laws, to govern
and to judge; all political power was in their hands.
The functional carriers were called leaders (άρχοντες). The
word leader (άρχοντας) derives from the word beginning (αρχή)
and defined the citizens whose position was in front of an “organized formation”, those at the head, the leaders.
The leaders had no actual political power. They did not create
laws, they did not decide the policies, they did not judge. The
leaders were the deacons of Ecclesia and the servants
of the citizens. And this was not a theory or a verbalism, it
was a reality put in everyday practice. If the political power of
Ecclesia was exercised by a man or by few men, then the politi-
61
cal regime was no longer called democracy. It was called monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny.
The leaders were citizens chosen by the citizens either through
being voted or by being given an alternated term, or by drawing lots.
In Ecclesia, leaders and citizens had the same political power;
One vote.
The architecture of Athenian Democracy coincides with the architecture of Direct Democracy which was mentioned in an earlier conversation (schema 4). It is the architecture that secures
the citizens’ status as rulers and as ruled over.
Despite the aforementioned principles and philosophy of Athenian Democracy, some simple citizens as well as some experts
consider it to be an antipopular, elitist, utopist and ineffective
political system. A political system, whose creation was based
on the favorable circumstances created by the use of slaves.
Still is this view right? Is it simply a mistaken view? Is it a purposefully misrepresented view?
Let us attempt a brief survey of these views.
The view of antipopular
and elitist political system
By studying the philosophy and the principles of these political
systems, we easily come to the absolutely contrary conclusion:
Athenian Democracy was an original popular political regime;
the most popular regime than any other that ever existed in all
countries and through all the years. There are no objections to
this principle.
Thus, where lies the support to this statement for the antipopular and elitist character of this political regime?
This statement’s support lies to the existence of one of the laws
of Athenian Democracy. The law that defined to whom could be
attributed the status of the citizen.
62
According to this law, the status of citizen was being attributed
only to men.
Slaves, women, under aged men, metics and people convicted
for crimes could not possess this status.
The aforementioned view is based on the existence of this law
and specifically on the existence of slavery.
However, a political regime should be judged for its philosophy
and its principles and not for the existence of a good or a bad
law. Tyrannies created some good laws. But these laws did not
serve as the justification of the political regime of tyranny.
Laws usually express the spirit and the needs of a country and
of a specific era. That is the reason why they are being
changed.
When somebody asked Solon11 which law is the right one, he
answered: “For which country and for which era you ask?”
Still, apart from the relevant character of the laws’ righteousness, it is also interesting to mention the comparison of the
following institution in contemporary democracies and in Athenian Democracy.
a) Citizens’ vote
In Ancient Athens, citizens used to vote in order to exercise the
legislative, government and judicial power and to choose their
leaders.
In contemporary democracies, citizens vote in order to choose
the power carriers and not in order to exercise political power
themselves.
But even this limited power of citizens started being exercised
not earlier than only just 200 years ago.
11
Solon was a famous leader - legislator in ancient Athens (6th century BC) .
63
b) Slavery
In Athenian Democracy, by violation of natural and moral principles, slavery existed and what is more, it existed typically and
practically without any hypocritical excuses.
However, when this law was typically abolished in modern societies? When it was really abolished?
As far as its typical abolishment is concerned there is a clear
answer; but what about its true abolishment? Let our conscience give an answer to that.
c) Women’s right to vote
In Ancient Athens women were not attributed the citizen status.
They did not have the right to vote. Nevertheless, this violation
of natural and moral laws existed even in modern democracies.
For instance, women gained the right to vote: In Russia in
1917, in England in 1918, in Italy in 1923, in France in 1946, in
Greece in 1953.
Why we are stricter when judging the Athenian Democracy of
the 3rd century BC, than when judging the French Democracy of
the 20th century AC.? This does not represent an unfair and
biased judgment?
d) The other institutions
The deprivation of the right to vote for the under aged, me tics
and for those convicted for crimes, exists more or less even in
our days.
The concentration of political power
As it was mentioned in another of our discussions, an objective
index that expresses the spirit of a political regime is the power
concentration C. This is represented by the ratio of the number
of people N to the number of the power carriers Nε. Thus:
C=
N
Νε
64
In the case of the ideal direct democracy where all human beings are citizens and all citizens are power carriers, that is
N=Nε, the concentration C has the smallest possible price C=1
Because in Athenian Democracy slaves and women did not
have the citizen’s status, the concentration would not have the
price C=1 but another, higher price.
If we accept that every Athenian citizen had an average number of three (3) slaves – a relation compatible to the existing
information concerning the number of inhabitants and of citizens – then the concentration would be C=4 instead of C=1.
Likewise, if we accept that every Athenian – citizen or slave –
had one wife, then the concentration would be C=8 instead of
C=4.
We observe that power concentration in Athenian Democracy
was 8 times bigger than that of the ideal direct democracy. Also, estimations based on historical data about inhabitants and
citizens result in a power concentration 5 to 8 (inhabitants, including slaves: 250.000 to 318.000 , citizens: 31.000 to
55.000 ) 12.
Still, even this concentration is very small when compared with
the concentration in the political regimes of monarchy, oligarchy and indirect democracy.
Table 1 that follows includes the typical prices of concentration
C in a country of 10 millions of citizens for the four basic forms
of political regimes and for the political regime of the Athenian
Democracy. It is easy to estimate the prices of concentration
but they were already mentioned in a previous discussion of
ours.
12
M. Sakellariou, Athenian Democracy
65
Table 1
Power concentration in the basic political regimes
(typical prices in a country of 10 millions of inhabitants)
No.
Political regime
Concentration C
Notes
1
Monarchy (Nε = 1)
10.000.000
C proportional to N
2
Oligarchy (Nε = 3)
3.333.000
C proportional to N
3
Indirect Democracy
(Nε = 400)
25.000
C increasing with N
4
Ideal Direct Democracy
(Nε = N)
1
C independent to N
5
Athenian Democracy
8
C independent to N
By observing table 1, we come to the following conclusions:
1. Changes in the philosophy of the political systems, create
alterations in the scale (class of size) of power concentration
index, ( C = millions-thousands-units).
2. Changes in laws that do not modify the philosophy, create
significantly smaller alterations of it, which however do not
change the class of size of index (C=1 or c=8).
3. The power concentration class of size is:
o
In monarchies-oligarchies: Tens of millions (107-108)
o
In Indirect Democracies: Tens of thousands (104-105)
o
In Direct Democracies: Units (100-101).
The contribution of slaves
Some people claim that the political regime of Athenian Democracy was in fact a creation of the use of slaves. Without the
slaves, the Athenians would necessarily be preoccupied with
their survival and they would not be practically able to occupy
themselves with the exercise of political power.
This view is not absurd. But it leads to the following two questions:
66
1. Why other people who have used slaves, in the same or
greater extent, did not develop the regime of democracy
and the same civilization?
2. Thanks to technology, people nowadays have at their disposal “slaves-machines”, able to perform more tasks than
the “slaves-people” of the past. Still, why the citizens’ participation to the exercise of political power today is of no
significance when compared to that of the citizens of the
Athenian Democracy?
The Athenian Democracy is not a creation based on slavery. It
is a creation of the spiritual and moral power of the Athenians.
It is a creation of their culture.
Consequently, the view suggesting that the Athenian Democracy was an antipopular and elitist political regime is unfounded
and unfair. Possibly, it is not just a mistaken view. Possibly, it is
an intentional misrepresentation of truth that took place in order to support the oligarchic regimes.
The view of an utopist and ineffective
political regime
Just like any political regime, the Athenian Democracy presented functional problems and drawbacks. The most important
were:
•
The low flexibility and speed to take decisions. This drawback is specifically important in cases of urgent needs and
wars that require immediate decisions to be taken.
•
The difficulty in informing citizens of questionable spiritual
and moral powers as well as the questionable rationality of
their decisions, factors that determinedly exist in every set
of citizens, in every society.
•
The creation of leaders according to the institution of alternated terms or that of random election. This institution
caused the negative criticism of the political regime because citizens were assuming this role due to the fact that
67
it was simply their turn and not because they were the
most competent.
•
The existence of circumstances that favored the citizens’
demagogy and as a result the taking of wrong decisions
due to the aforementioned drawbacks.
The view suggesting that the Athenian Democracy was a utopist and ineffective political regime was based on these drawbacks. Still, although these disadvantages are true, the conclusions drawn are mistaken for two reasons:
(1) The assessment of a political regime should be based both
on its virtues and on its drawbacks and not only based on the
latter.
(2) The truth that lies in any estimation, in any theory regardless of its substantiating thoroughness, can only be verified
trough its practice.
At this exact point we face a big logic contradiction. The classic
Athenian civilization is undoubtedly considered to be unique
and unsurpassable. This civilization reached its zenith during
the years of the Athenian Democracy. Thus, how can it be
possible that the political regime that gave birth to the greatest
civilization ever to be considered as utopist and ineffective?
The causes of ancient Greek civilization
The uniqueness and the greatness of the classic Athenian civilization created the plausible question: Why only in Athens
and why only during that time in Athens, this civilization
was developed?
Many answers were given to this question. According to the
most well known, classical Greek civilization:
1. Constitutes the continuation of another great and unknown
culture that lies buried in the bottom of the Aegean Sea, in
the depths of the east Mediterranean Sea. This view was
68
significantly corroborated by the archaeological findings in
the Cape of Thira.13
2. Is due to the particularly favorable climatic conditions of
Attica which were the cause for “the open mind of Greeks”.
Some experts claim that the most significant difference between the Ancient Greek civilization and the European civilization is that the first was developed in open spaces, in environments created by nature and light and the second into
closed man-made spaces. The clarity, the simplicity and the
sphericity of the ancient Greek civilization stems from this
difference.
3. Was created by extra terrestrials that came once to Greece.
There is an attempt to support this view by using arguments taken from the Greek mythology, which is considered to be the blurred reminiscence of extraterrestrial
presence and not simply an imaginative creation of the ancient Greeks.
4. Was developed in Athens that time because it was during that time that true democracy existed in Athens. The
time coincidence of the peak of the classic civilization and
of democracy cannot be a random incident. On the contrary, it is a fact that answers the question about space
and time.
Thus, the view suggesting that this political regime was utopian
and ineffective is contrary to the historical factuality. It is a big
mistake. It is just hot air that it is not supported accidentally
but it aims to the creation of false impressions or to the support
of the political regimes where political power lies in the hands
of the few.
13
These findings belong to an era older than the historical years of ancient
Greece
69
A Colleague
Why contemporary political regimes use the name of democracy but they do not function based on the same principles that
the Athenian Democracy used to?
The main precondition for the development and the function of
a democratic political system, like the one that existed in ancient Athens, is the good communication conditions. The existence of such conditions, ensure the spreading of information
as well as the cooperation between the citizens; conditions that
are the basis of democracy.
Generally in ancient Greece as well as in ancient Athens, the
good communication conditions were ensured by the way societies were organized, namely in countries small in terms of their
expansion and of the number of their inhabitants, and by the
existing mild climate. Thanks to these two factors, Athenians
could easily move from one place to another and get gathered
together in open spaces that provided favourable cooperation
conditions.
That kind of conditions could not be found in the later countries
in Europe. The countries in Europe covered vast expanses
populated by big numbers of people and their climatic conditions were worse than those found in Greece.
Finally, technology until the last decade of the 20th century
could not secure a good communication environment equal to
that created by the actual gathering of people. That is, it could
not provide interactive, low cost and universal communication.
The above reasons lead to the need for the regeneration of
Democracy in its indirect form.
A Colleague
Is there another serious reason that lead to the indirect form of
democracy?
70
Indeed, there is. That is, people’s different cultures.
In Greece, since Homer’s years a political regime of a non formal democracy was already put in practice. Engels14 called it,
“Spontaneous Democracy of heroic years”. Spontaneous Democracy was alive for thousands of years and gave birth to the
“citizen culture” possessed by the ancient Greeks.
On the contrary, European countries have always been monarchic and feudal, creating thus the “subject’s culture”.
This difference in culture is equal to the different procedures
followed until the birth of the two democracies.
Athenian Democracy stemmed from the transformation
of Spontaneous Democracy, while Contemporary Democracy stemmed from the transformation of feudalism
and monarchies.
A Colleague
Which drawbacks of the Athenian Democracy, are they systematic negative factors in the functioning of similar political
regimes?
I think that systematic negative factors are the low speed and
flexibility in the taking of decisions, the diminished number of
initiatives taken by the powerless leaders and the citizens’
demagogy.
A Colleague
The underlying rationalism of the decisions does not constitute
an important drawback?
14
Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and theorist of socialism (1820-1895).
71
Is it possible that the decisions taken by those few that were
chosen by virtue of their knowledge and of their greater spiritual and moral powers can be as rational as those taken by
many simple citizens of Ecclesia?
Your question is very important but its phrasing can lead to
false conclusions. If we compare the rationalism of the simple
people with that possessed by experts with great spiritual and
moral powers (special men), obviously the latter prevails.
But there is no such comparison in practice. In practice, we
should compare the rationalism of a system of political
power based on the few chosen experts, true and fake special
men, with the rationalism of a system based on the knowledge
and on the wisdom of the many.
In the framework of a such comparison, we should also take
into account factors like the probability to choose true special
men, the transgressions of natural and moral laws that there
are in the two alternative solutions, the people’s acceptance of
the decisions taken by the few or by the total of citizens and so
on. Only, this kind of comparison can lead to reliable conclusions and not the one suggested prima facie by your question.
Nevertheless, the subject of your question is very important.
For that reason, we can possibly examine it in depth during a
next discussion.
A Colleague
What is the fundamental difference between the democracy
created by the ancient Greek spirit and the contemporary democracy?
In my opinion, the fundamental difference lies in the philosophical, institutional and mainly practical sense of the state.
72
In the Athenian Democracy, the state was identified with the
citizens15 and this can be presented briefly by the relation:
Κράτος (state)= citizens
In contemporary indirect democracies, despite the reasonable
maneuvers and appeals, the state is not identified with the citizens and this can be presented by the relation:
Κράτος (state)≠citizens
The fact that in contemporary democracies the state “springs
from the citizens and exists for them”, suggests a very interesting although indefinite relation, that does not constitute identification of state and citizens.
Citizens realize the above difference and for that reason they
usually identify the state with the name of the leader of the
governing political party. For that they say: the state of Karamanlis, the state of Papandreou.
In those times they used to say: the Athenians’ state and not
the state of Athens or the state of Pericles’.
The title of Aristotle’s’ book: “Αθηναίων Πολιτεία” (The Athenians’ State) is a written proof of the above view.
Another fundamental difference produced from the above, is
the next one: In Athenian democracy, transparency was
an objective characteristic of the political system, while
in contemporary democracies this is a subjective characteristic of the few true power-carriers.
15
In ancient Greece the name of the state was defined by the name of the
citizens and not by the name of the country. They should call it: the state of
Englishmen and not the state of England.
73
Discussion of 28th March
Subject: The deterministic instability
of indirect democracies
The instability of a natural system depends on the concentration of energy and it is proportional to it. The greater the concentration, the bigger the instability observed in the system. If
the energy concentration is constantly increasing, the system
becomes deformed and consequently transformed to a different
system that gets eventually destroyed in an intense and sudden
way.
What it is valid for the natural energy systems goes also for the
people’s political power systems, for the political regimes; their
instability is proportional to the power concentration N/Nε.
Within this logical framework, oligarchies constitute political
systems of great instability, indirect democracies of medium
instability and direct democracies of minimum instability.
The power concentration of oligarchies and direct democracies
takes extreme and specific prices. The concentration of oligarchies is maximum and of direct democracies minimum, in theory as well as in practice. The extreme and specific price of
concentration, render the prediction concerning their evolvement easy comprehensible.
On the contrary, in indirect democracies, the figure of concentration is blurred and ambiguous. Concentration in practice is
different than in theory.
Let us attempt to enable the understanding of the above view:
We will suppose that in a country of 10 millions of citizens
(N=10.000.000) and of 4 hundred representatives (Nε=400),
the majority has 260 deputies and the minority 140.
74
Let us now try to estimate the power concentration that exists
in theory as well as in practice.
In theory, the sovereign power carrier is the parliament where
the deputies decide in a free, unrestrained and autonomous
way. Thus, the concentration of power is considered to be the
same for all 400 deputies and its price is 25.000
⎛ 10.000.000
⎞
= 25.000 ⎟ .
⎜
400
⎝
⎠
Obviously, the political power possessed by the majority group
and by the minority group is:
Group
Power of group16
Majority
260 x 25.000 = 6.500.000
Minority
140 x 25.000 = 3.500.000
Total
10.000.000
Nevertheless, the aforementioned theoretical distribution does
not exist in practice. In practice we observe a different one,
which approximate to the following:
Group
Power of group
Majority
10.000.000
∅
Minority
Total
10.000.000
That is, in practice all the state power is accumulated to the
majority party; in practice, the minority party has no power.
“The first takes all and the second nothing”, the philosophy that
stood for the feudal states concerning the children’s rights in
inheritance. The first- born son inherited everything.
16
The political power of the group Pg is proportional to the number N of the
citizens represented by the group
75
But let us accept that the above distribution is extreme and that
a closer in practice distribution of political power to the groups
is the following:
Group
Power of group
Majority
9.000.000
Minority
1.000.000
Total
10.000.000
If the power of the majority was equally distributed to its 260
members then the concentration of force would be increased
⎞
⎛ 9.000.000
from 25.000 to 35.000 ⎜
≈ 35.000 ⎟ .
260
⎠
⎝
However, is it possible that all deputies can decide in a free,
unrestrained and autonomous way? Do all the deputies of the
majority possess the same force?
Such a claim could cause an ironic smile even to the least informed citizen.
It is known to everyone that the political power of the majority
group is practically concentrated to very few institutional and
non institutional carriers. An indicative price of the actual concentration could be drawn out of the acceptance of the fact that
the 80% of the majority’s political power is in the hands of 10
people.
Such an acceptance equals to the existence of concentration
⎛ 0,8x9.000.000
⎞
≈ 720.000 ⎟ instead of the theoretical of
720.000 ⎜
10
⎝
⎠
25.000. The actual concentration is too bigger than that estimated theoretically. In the case of our example is 29 times big⎞
⎛ 720.000
ger. ⎜
≈ 29 ⎟ .
⎠
⎝ 25.000
According to the energy conception of political power, a political
regime with such a great concentration is situated closer to the
76
oligarchies than to the democracies (see table 1, discussion 7th
March).
This modification of power concentration results in the downgrading of the role of the parliament and in the upgrading of
the role of the executive authority; that is the government.
Who does not know that the laws and the policies are being
exclusively created by the government according to the decisions taken by the governing majority which is also the majority
in the parliament?
Who does not know that the laws and the policies are being
systematically approved exclusively by the deputies of the government party while being voted down by the deputies of the
opposition parties?
All these demonstrate the institutional architecture presented
in schema 6, the architecture of all representatives’ political
power, does not take place in practice.
The architecture of schema 7 represents what actually happens
in practice. That is the architecture of political power of the majority’s representatives.
77
Laws
Government
Justice
Parliament
Power carriers
Functional carriers
Citizens
Schema 7
Actual architecture of Indirect Democracies
Architecture of political power of the majority’s representatives.
In many cases, the deviation from the institutional architecture
is even bigger that that represented in schema 7. In those
cases, the sovereign power carrier is not the institutional carrier
of government. It is a blurry and difficult to define carrier which
constitutional scientists call “governing majority”. It includes
the people who really plan, construct and control the majorities.
In this case, the architecture takes the form presented in
schema 8.
78
Laws
Governing
Majority
Parliament
Government
Justice
Power carriers
Functional carriers
Citizens
Schema 8
Actual architecture of Indirect Democracies
Architecture of political power of the governing majority
The existing power concentration according to schemas 6, 7
and 8 is 25.000, 35.000 and 720.000 respectively.
Still, what is the underlying structure of indirect democracies
and how do they function in most countries?
According to the architecture in schema 6, in schema 7 or in
schema 8? True political power belongs to the citizens’ representatives, to the majority’s representatives or to the “governing majority”?
79
The above question can get a reliable answer only if we take
into account the data of space and time; when this question
refers to a specific country and to a specific period of time.
Without taking into account that data, any answer can be
equally reliable and unreliable.
A certain answer is that all three architectures stand true but
with different probability of existence for each one. The architecture in schema 8, which represents the final outcome of the
transitions, has bigger probability. The conclusion that indirect democracies have a deterministic instable foundation is certain.
The cause of the aforementioned instability is the high power
concentration that is created in practice despite the contrary
institutional commands.
Sooner or later, indirect democracies have to proceed to actions
of “propping up” the system in order to acquire the necessary
stability.
For many years, this “propping up” is being attempted through
the use of the basically same two ways: through violence and
lies; through threats and the use of violence and through the
creation of untrue perceptions and untrue expectations.
The “propping up’s” philosophy, has not changed through the
thousands of years. That has changed is just their aesthetic
“wrapping”.
Nowadays, the propping up has more sophisticated aesthetics
that it used to have. It uses, the aesthetics attained through
the practice of the ambivalent science of communication politics.
A Colleague
You are mentioning very often in your introduction the view
that the instability of indirect democracies has a deterministic
character. Who are the arguments that support this view of
yours?
80
The Law of Entropy in Social Systems
This view is based on the existing experience and on the law of
entropy.
Experience teaches us that all social procedures lead by principle to the increase of power concentration and not to the repatriation of it to its natural carriers, to the citizens.
The law of entropy that stands for all systems and consequently
for the political power systems, teaches that “ all spontaneous
procedures that place in nature are orientated towards the entropy’s increase”.
Still, an increase in the power concentration equals to the increase of entropy no matter if the latter is defined as the measure of ataxia or as the reciprocal of the measure of information.
Thus, the law of entropy as far as the social systems are concerned can be phrased as follows: “All spontaneous procedures are orientated towards the increase of the power
concentration”.
Consequently, the increase of concentration is deterministic.
It is useful to remind that the law of entropy has statistical validity.
A Colleague
Your arguments are appeared rational. Still, how can we explain
the fact that most people, simple citizens as well as experts,
ignore to a great extent this deterministic aspect? Is it just a
view of little reliability which is called deterministic in order to
strain after effects?
It is a fact that statistical laws have small prestige and their
acceptance is actually very limited.
81
This small prestige is due to the opinion that the outcomes of
the laws should possess a deterministic certainty and not just a
high probability. Besides, until recently there was no such sense
as a statistical law. This sense was created by modern physics
in the 20th century after the formulation of the principle of uncertainty.
The above reason explains why most people when they talk
about laws they have in mind a deterministic form of them
where the outcome has an absolute and argumented certainty.
That is the reason why people outspokenly and fearlessly ignore the statistical law written on cigarettes’ boxes: “smoking
can cause serious damage to health”. Or its more recent phrasing: “smoking kills”.
A Colleague
You suggested that in practice, indirect democracies have one
of the three power architectures: of the people’s representatives, of the majority’s representatives and of the governing
majority. Which one is implemented in practice?
To get a reliable answer you have to add to your question the
data of the country and of the time period. Without them your
question is indefinite. The transition of indirect democracies
from one architecture to the other is taking place in fast speed
and in many cases we observe a different architecture at the
beginning and a different one at the end of the power period of
the same leader.
Personally, I believe that during our days the most usual architecture for indirect democracies is the one of the governing majority; the one presented in schema 8.
A Colleague
You mentioned that in the framework of contemporary democracies all the force borne by the citizens is transferred to the
majority’s party in the same way that in feudal systems all par82
ents’ holdings were being transferred to the hands of the first
born son.
Nevertheless the control of those that are governing is within
the competence of the minority’s parties. You do not consider
this control competence, as very important and as a factor that
constitutes a form of political power?
I consider this ability to control as important but I believe that
it does not constitute a form of political power in the contemporary democracies.
Political power is the ability to take and to implement decisions.
The minority does not have this ability.
An outcome of the lack of power in minorities is the modification of the goals of the aforementioned competence. It is crystal clear that in our days the exercise of political control does
not take place in order to improve the state’s decisions but instead, due to the minority’ s aspirations to conquer the political
power.
Control is used to conquer and not to exercise the political
power. This explains the fact why the minority is systematically
considering all decisions taken by the majority as false and
catastrophic, while the latter presents them as wise and saving.
The few exceptions do not cancel the rule.
However, it is not possible that both views stand at the same
time. Beyond any doubt, one of them - either that of the minority or that of the majority – is a lie or an absurdity.
That obviously means that both parties’ attempts contain an
average 50% of lies or absurdities that do not aim at the exercise and at the control of political power but rather to its preservation and conquering.
Nevertheless, citizens do not believe that deduction.
83
Some of them believe that what the minority claims is 100% lie
or absurdity and others believe the contrary.
This absurd situation was summarized by a great politician in
the following historic phrase: “Telearea became an enormous
mental hospital”.
A Colleague
According to my perception, the instability of a political regime
depends on the power concentration and it is being improved
through the latter’s reduction.
Still, the quality of a political regime is not defined solely on the
basis of its stability but also through the estimation of other
indicative magnitudes that all together form what we call in
technology the overall quality.
My question is what is the impact on the overall quality when
the power concentration is reduced?
Your question sets the problem to the right basis. You reached
to the heart of the problem that concerns the political power
systems.
Nevertheless, your question will serve as the subject of a future
discussion. I suppose of the one following our next one.
84
Discussion of 4thApril
Subject: The three appeals of political power
The power carriers are aware of the fact that they do not possess power but they just manage citizens’ power.
They are also aware of the fact that they can never appropriate
the citizens’ power and that this determinist weakness stands
as the cause of the instability that exists in the systems that
they manage and exploit.
Nevertheless, the truthfulness lying in these facts is something
that people should not learn and should not believe. People must believe in something that can put their mind to bed
and that will generate feelings of hope, fear and excitement.
Only these feelings, and never the mind, will enable the carte
blanche assignment of people’s power to others.
All political regimes, where there is alienation of citizens from
their own power, are determinedly instable.
In order to be achieved an acceptable stability it was necessary
to invent and to use effective “propping ups”.
These “propping ups” systems, fabricated very soon; thousands
years ego. They were the calls for help, the appeals: to God, to
Country, to Society and to the political power of People.
Through these appeals, the power carriers succeeded in becoming in people’s conscience a closed group of people, a
caste, of human beings, that possess special spiritual and moral
abilities; to become a caste of experts in expressing, in serving
and in securing: The will of God, the society end country needs
and the people’s power exercising.
85
The appeal of God
According to this appeal, the power carriers are the creations of
God’s will and not the creation of people’s will. God’s will lead
to the “monarchies by the grace of God”.
In some cases, God’s will proved to be an insufficient “propping
up”. Thus, a stronger one was invented. The power carriers
became themselves Gods as, for instance, Egypt’s Pharaohs. In
other case, they just had to compromise to the position of
God’s official representatives. They undertook the role of Messiah.
With the use of this appeal, the decisions taken by the power
carriers became infallible since they actually represented God’s
will. Any attempt to doubt or to criticize them, constituted a
crime and a blasphemy.
As it was expected, this concept put the importance of political
power’s carriers above any law. The laws had value and validity
only if they abided to the choices of power carriers, that is to
God’s will.
The functional carriers should serve the commands and the
wishes of Godlike power carriers and not of laws.
Finally, the citizens could only hope to the protection of power
and functional carriers. The protection of laws became powerless, almost non existent.
A second important outcome of this appeal was the transformation of religious officials into not formal power carriers. Not
formal but essential ones.
The appeal of country and society
According to this appeal, the power carriers have as first and
dominant goal the therapy of the serious and urgent needs of
the country and of the society. The management of people’s
power has to aim at this therapy. The rest could follow.
This appeal is evolved in two phases:
86
In the first phase, all citizens should understand the great dangers that the country and the society face. There always exist
such kind of dangers. If not, they can be invented.
In the second phase, all citizens should acknowledge the special spiritual, moral, bodily or other abilities possessed by some
people who can quickly and effectively cure these needs.
After the completion of the second phase, the presuppositions
for the effective support of an oligarchic political regime are
already created.
The appeal of the country and of the society fills the citizens
with feelings of nobility, altruism and excitement that, by principle, will not be used for the support of the country and of the
society but contrary, for the support of the system of political
power.
Through this appeal, all the decisions taken by the political
power are justified since they aim to the therapy needs of the
country and of the society that have the first priority. Any
doubting of them represents the scorn and the hostility towards
the country and the society. It is considered as a treason and a
crime. The end is above everything. The end justifies the
means.
The appeal of people’s power
This appeal forms the most perfect and the most effective
“propping up” invention made by the caste of the professional
managers of people’s power. It also constitutes the “propping
up” with the highest aesthetics and the greatest safety.
Who can dispute the political power of the people? Who will
choose to fight his own self?
In the political regimes where the citizens’ power constitutes an
appeal and not a reality, their essential form has an oligarchic
character. But it is not only that. The worst thing is that in
these political regimes strengthened the notion that the power
carriers are in reality irresponsible. Those responsible are the
87
citizens that every four years they are supposedly choosing the
programs, the policies and the representatives –power carriers.
The power carriers and the political systems are logical, moral
and institutional irresponsible ones.
When seeking those who have the responsibility, we are limited
to a garrulous and ineffective criticism; just to have something
to talk about.
The people’s power appeal is evolved in two phases of relatively
big duration; bigger than those concerning the appeal of the
country and society.
The first phase includes the creation of the perception that the
exercise of political power by the people themselves constitutes
a determinist weakness. Something like the second kind of forever moving which although accords to the first law of thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, is contrary to the
second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
The second phase includes the creation of the perception that
only suitable representatives of the people can successfully
exercise their own power. If political power is exercised by people with high moral and spiritual powers and yet is proved to be
problematic, then what are the problems we observe when political power is exercised by simple people? by people, who do
not care and do not want to participate in the exercise of political power? by people, who do not want to undertake the responsibilities their representatives undertake?
The ability given to simple citizens to exercise their own political power, with no need of hard work, with no responsibilities
to undertake and in an excellent way, just by choosing once
every four years the most competent and the most virtuous for
this job, it is indeed a very great invention.
The effectiveness of this appeal was proved to be great in practice; greater than that of the other appeals.
These favourable features multiplied the appeal’s appearances
and improved its structural and functional details.
88
Some people claim that its perfection was accomplished during
the last years thanks to the technology used by the Mass Media. Still, the forecast of its value and of its abilities has taken
place many years ago.
Here is what has been written by the Italian politician and political researcher Nicolo Machiavelli (1449-1527) some 500
years ago:
“The ruler has to take great care in order that every action to
which he proceeds to seems as an outcome springing out of the
people according to the commands and with the consent of the
latter while still using such a way that is not the people that
governs, people just remains as a point of reference for every
political power”.
Another statement relevant to the third appeal is the one made
by the deputy and former minister Red Blooman who, sincerely
and courageously shed light to the way through which citizens
choose their representatives in Telearea. The statement was
made in the summer of 2005 and goes as follows: “My seat in
the parliament belongs in reality to the president Blue Greenman and if he thinks that this is wrong, he can take it back”.
This statement, although it is contrary to the dominant perception that the seats of the Parliament belong to the people, did
not bother and did not cause a problem to any of the experts,
the politicians or the simple citizens. Without to have worries or
scruples, they all kept talking about simple citizens’ power and
by extension about their responsibilities; they kept giving
statements, in loud voice, about the past and the future decisions of the “people-ruler”.
In despite of the great effectiveness of this appeal, its philosophy is absurd and not compatible with the natural and moral
laws.
I do not know exactly the reason why but this whole matter
brings to my mind the following humorous little story: Two men
are travelling with the train that goes from Athens to Thessalo89
nica. They are seating in the same wagon but the first is seating looking towards the direction of Thessalonica and the second looking towards the direction of Athens. At some point of
the run, the second traveller asks the first traveller:
-
What is your destination, sir?
-
Thessalonica, he answers.
For a moment, the second traveller gets upset. He stays
thoughtful for a while and then, full of joy and satisfaction, he
says:
-
Oh dear. I took the train in Larissa and I travel to Athens. I seat
in front of you and I face the direction to Athens. In this way,
you will go to Thessalonica and me to Athens.
A Colleague
Is there a corresponding relation between the forms of the
political regimes and the forms of the appeals?
There is a corresponding relation that its standing has not a
certain character but a great probability.
By principle, God’s appeal is used by the monarchies, country’s
and society’s appeal by the oligarchies and exercise people’s
power appeal by the contemporary indirect democracies; at
least by many of them.
A Colleague
The election of our representatives, the programs made by the
political parties, the candidates’ “contracts with the people”, the
candidates’ “promises and commitments” to the people, all
these things that take place in our contemporary democracies
are considered to be just hot air? They do not represent a form
of the people’s power?
90
All the things that you mentioned can represent the real power
of the people but they can also represent just the appeal of
their power.
A reliable estimation can only be done for a specific country and
for a specific period of time.
My general estimation –the estimation of a simple citizen- is
that in most contemporary democracies all the things that you
mentioned as tokens of people’s power, are simply hot air and
they have nothing to do with logic of the system but instead
they are outcomes of the appeal’s aesthetics.
A Colleague
By listening to your introduction we come to the conclusion that
all political regimes are founded on the basis of an appeal. Is
there a political regime that does not use that kind of support?
Indeed, there is. It is the political regime where the political
power does simply spring out of the citizens but it is exercised
by the citizens. In such a political regime there is no need for
an appeal. It does not have a reason of existence. Such a political regime was the Athenian Democracy where political power
was exercised by the general assembly of the citizens: The
Ecclesia of Demos.
91
Discussion of 11th April.
Subject: The overall quality
of political systems
The overall quality characteristics of a political regime are
many. Still, the most important of them are the following:
(1) The rationale of its decision. The ability to take right decisions, based on the collection and logic process of all data
included in a problem.
(2) The flexibility. The ability to take decisions in a short time
after the appearance of a problem or of an alteration of its
given data.
(3) The transparency. The existence of circumstances that
secure the easy, full and objective provision of information
to all citizens alike.
(4) The stability. The stable character of institutions. The accordance between the spirit and the letter of institutions. In
case of low stability-instability-, we observe an alteration of the institutions’ spirit and not of their letter. It is
their essence that changes and not their typical form.
(5) The acceptance. The spontaneous and unforced acknowledgement of the institutions’ prestige
(6) The arbitrariness. The violation of the institutions’ spirit
and letter; the decision making based on rules different
than the institutional ones. According to this definition the
instability is equivalent to semi-arbitrariness.
(7) The corruption. The purposeful damage and distortion of
institutions and rules that aims at the gratification of the direct and indirect interests of power and functional carriers.
Usually, the distortion is much greater in the essence of
the institutions than it is in their typical forms. Corruption
92
and instability have many similarities as far as their
results. They present differences only as far as their goals
are concerned. Corruption is driven by wrenched intentions
while instability can be possibly driven by well-meant ones
(8) The arrogance. The uninterested and scornful facing of
the citizens by the power carriers and functional carriers.
It is self-evident that the quality can be improved when there is
an increase of the characteristics (1) to (5) and a reduction of
the characteristics (6) to (8).
It is also concluded from the above definitions that the stability is strongly correlated with the arbitrariness and the
corruption of the system; that the stability is a mandatory characteristic of the system.
In the same way that goes for other systems, the overall quality
of political systems is expressed by the balanced sum 17 of the
above (1) to (8) quality characteristics.
We will not attempt to estimate the overall quality in this discussion. Nevertheless, we will attempt to assess the existing
relation between the power concentration and the aforementioned characteristics.
This relation easily results from the prices that these characteristics take within the framework of the two political regimes
that present the minimum and the maximum power concentration; the political regime of direct democracy where the concentration takes the minimum price (C=1) and the absolute monarchy where the concentration takes the maximum price
(C=N).
But let us attempt to assess all the above characteristics apart
from the one concerning the rationale of the decisions, which
17
Such a summation presupposes the existence methods and units of measuring the characteristics, as well as the sanction weighing factors for each of
them.
93
will be separately examined in a future discussion as it constitutes a more complicated problem.
Flexibility and concentration
Flexibility is maximized in absolute monarchies (maximum c)
and it is minimized in direct democracies (minimum c).
This logic relation has be expressed allegorically by the well
known proverb: “too many cooks spoil the broth”
As we will see in the followings, flexibility is the only quality
characteristic that gets improved by the increase of political
power concentration.
Transparency and concentration
Transparency, as well as all the rest quality characteristics gets
improved by the reduction of power concentration.
Transparency is systematically maximized in direct democracies
(minimum c), because all citizens are power carriers and as a
consequence, they are “sources” of information.
In direct democracies the limitation of information has neither
meaning nor practical possibility, so the transparency is maximized.
The contrary is being observed in the political regime of absolute monarchy (maximum c) where transparency is systematically minimized.
Stability and concentration
The stability of political systems gets improved by the reduction of power concentration, as it was mentioned in detail
during our previous discussions. “My power is the love of
people”, kings used to say and the reason why is obvious.
Acceptance and concentration
The reduction of power concentration equals obviously to
a bigger participation of people in the taking of decisions and
that leads to the systematic increase of acceptance.
94
Arbitrariness and concentration
In the ancient Greek, arbitrary (αυθαίρετος, αυτό-αιρετός)
means the one who has been elected by himself. In direct democracies arbitrariness, in the ancient Greek sense of the term,
has no reason of existence since the power carriers were all the
citizens alike. Therefore, the decisions taken by all citizens cannot be arbitrary.
Still, even if we consider the term in its contemporary sense,
arbitrariness is obviously minimized when there are many power carriers, each one of them possessing little force, and it is
maximized when there is only one power carrier possessing the
biggest possible force.
Consequently, the reduction of power concentration results to systematic reduction of arbitrariness.
Corruption and concentration
In direct democracy, the institutions’ distortion which aims at
the gratification of the rulers’ interests cannot have a substantial meaning since all citizens are rulers and ruled ones at the
same time. Such a distortion could actually constitute a modification and not a kind of corruption of the political regime.
The contrary goes for the political regime of absolute monarchy.
Consequently, the reduction of concentration results to
the systematic reduction of corruption.
Arrogance and concentration
Arrogance is created when there is a great difference between
the power of the citizens and that of the power carriers and
functional carriers. If we do not observe such a difference, arrogance has no reason of existence and in the case that we do
observe it cannot be considered as arrogance but instead as
ineffective slowness.
95
In direct democracy this difference is eliminated and as a result
arrogance is annihilated or at least minimized.
The contrary goes for absolute monarchy. In that case the difference between the power of the monarch and the one of the
citizens is the biggest possible we can observe and that is the
reason why the arrogance is maximized.
Consequently, the reduction of power concentration results to the systematic reduction of arrogance.
A Colleague
If I understood well, you claim that the reduction of power concentration determinedly leads to the improvement of the six out
of the eight quality characteristics that you have already mentioned, namely the transparence, the stability, the acceptance,
the arbitrariness, the corruption and the arrogance.
Still, the dominant perception for many centuries suggests that
these characteristics are innate and they only be improved
through man’s spiritual and psychic culture. Thus, their existence depends on the right choices of the ruled ones and on
the culture of the rulers and of those ruled over.
Which of the two is valid?
You understood well. Indeed, I think that the power concentration determinedly shapes the quality characteristics that we
examine.
However, I also think that the dominant perception that you
mentioned is equally right. The validity of the first does not
cancel the validity of the second.
Still, the problem is not which of the two ways of quality’s improvement is theoretically the right one. The problem is which
of the two ways is easier and more effective in practice.
In my opinion the enactment of the proper power concentration
is a more practical and easier way than that of culture. Besides,
96
small concentration is deep down inside the insurance of favorable circumstances as far as the further cultural improvement
and the innate quality characteristics’ evolvement are concerned.
A Colleague
From our discussion until now we have not yet reached a clear
answer to the following crucial question:
Which are the political regimes that possess the best quality?
Those, that are based on the few who bear great spiritual and
moral power or those that are based on all citizens who bear
normal ones .Those where the power concentration is high or
those where it is low?
A Colleague – Introducer
You are absolutely right. Your crucial question has not yet been
answered.
Obviously, in order to answer it we need to know the relation
that exists between the power concentration and rationality.
However, this is the subject of our next discussion.
Therefore, I think that it is better to stop here and to continue
our questions to our next discussion.
97
Discussion of 18th April
Subject: The wisdom of Messiah and
the stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set
The people who compose the organized set which is called society do not possess all the same spiritual and moral powers.
Some people have very small (vs), others small (s), normal
(n), big (b), or very big (vb), spiritual and moral powers.
The fact that people have all these different qualities of powers, the “quality data of distribution”, is known to everybody.
However, the “quantity data of distribution” are not very well
known. That is, how many people – if we consider them as percentages of the total- have very small, small, normal etc, spiritual or moral power.
The distribution functions18, known also as distribution curves,
answer this question.
But what is a distribution curve?
In order to get a simple and tangible answer to the above question, we will suppose that through using a certain way (e.g.
through measuring, through mathematical calculations) we estimated the number (the quantity) of the people in a society
that has the aforementioned five power qualities and that the
outcome of that estimation is included in the next table.
18
The distribution functions were developed for the study of problems that
arise in the applied sciences (error theory, kinetic theory of gases, etc.). Nowadays, they are used for the study of political and economic problems.
98
Table 2
“Quality ” versus “quantity” in a social set
Quality
(power size)
Quantity
(% of total)
Very small (vs)
5
Small (s)
10
Normal (n)
70
Big (b)
10
Very Big (vb)
5
Total
100
The prices of the above table shape the column diagram of
schema 9. If, instead of five qualities of powers we set a big
number of qualities, then the column diagram becomes a continuous line, like the curve in schema 9. This curve is called distribution curve and its mathematical expression distribution
function.
Y 80
n
70
quantity %
60
50
40
30
20
s
10
b
vs
vb
0
vs
s
n
b
vb
quality
Schema 9
Column diagram and curve of normal distribution
99
X
The most logic, and the most probable form of distribution is
called normal and it is the one presented in schema 9.
The characteristic traits of a normal distribution are summarized
to the following:
•
The majority of people (e.g. 70%) possess normal spiritual
and moral power.
•
A small percentage (e.g. 10%) possesses big power and a
same percentage (10%) possesses small ones.
•
An even smaller percentage (e.g. 5%) possesses very big
power and a same percentage (5%) possesses very small
ones.
It should be noted that the percentages (70, 10 and 5%) are
indicative but the form and the organization of the curve is actual. The curve always peaks at the normal quality and it is always symmetric to the normal quality.
•
The characteristic traits of normal distribution have the validity
of a statistical law19. That is they have a very big probability but
not a determinist certainty to stand.
•
The points of the horizontal axis (coordinates x) express the
quality of the powers while the points of the vertical axis (coordinates y) express the percentage of the mass that possess the
quality we put in question. The coordinate y also expresses the
probability of the respective quality to appear in a man out of
the total who is chosen in a random way.
19
In modern physics, laws are divided into determinist and statistical. The first
ones define an outcome that bears a consequential and absolute certainty and
the second an outcome with very high probability. For example, the fundamental law of mechanics F=ma is determinist because it defines with absolute certainty that if in a body of a mass m we apply a force F, the result will be an
acceleration a .On the contrary, the law of entropy, namely that any natural
alteration leads to an increase of entropy, is statistical because its validity is
very probable but it does not bear a consequential and absolute certainty.
100
For instance, within the framework of such a choice, there is a
70% probability to observe the existence of normal power and
only a 5% probability to observe the existence of a very big
one.
•
The above percentages are being determinedly decreased when
quality increases (or decreases) in relation to normal quality.
•
The quality of the set is expressed by normal quality.20
During our following discussions, we will define the terms “stochastic knowledge of citizens” and “wisdom of messiah” and we
will attempt to compare them objectively, by virtue of the help
provided by the determinism of normal distributions.
The following schema 10 presents a typical curve of normal
distribution identical to the one presented in schema 9. The
wisdom of messiah corresponds to the point M of the curve, the
stochastic knowledge of the citizens’ set to the point N and the
wisdom of the organized set to the point G21.
20
Due to the symmetry of the curves, each quality pair with the same difference (bigger-smaller) from the normal price is being reduced through the counterbalance to the normal price.
21
The term “wisdom of the organized set” is clarified in the following discussions.
101
Y
quantity (probability) %
YN
N
G
YG
YM
M
Xn
XG
XM
X
quality
Schema 10
Quality and quantity data corresponding to the stochastic knowledge
of citizens and to the wisdom of messiah
Stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set
According to our previous discussions, the quality of citizens’ set
stochastic knowledge is expressed by the normal quality ΧN,
which exists in the percentage YN, namely in the majority of the
citizens.
The existence probability of normal quality XN, namely the
probability to observe the existence of normal quality is YN (e.g.
70%, schema 10) in the case of random choice only one member of the set. But when all the members of the set participate
the quality of the set is XN with a 100% existence probability
(certainty).
The wisdom of messiah
In our discussion, the term messiah does not have the sense
attributed to it in theology. In our discussion, we consider as
messiah any man with spiritual and moral power much bigger
than the normal power possessed by the majority of people;
any man of genius.
102
Any hint of irony contained in the use of the term does not concern the messiah. It refers to the people who, for thousands of
years, believe exclusively to the effectiveness of a messiah ignoring their own stochastic knowledge.
According to the determinism of normal distribution, the wisdom of messiah possess an exceptionally big quality XM which is
always much bigger than the stochastic knowledge of the citizens’ set, XN.
Still, the probability to observe the existence of the wisdom of
messiah is extremely smaller than the 100% existence probability of the citizens’ set stochastic knowledge.
The quality and the existence probability of a “messiah”
are magnitudes that are being determinedly altered in a reciprocal way. Big quality has small probability and vice versa.
Comparative evaluation
On the condition that the choice of an original messiah is a certain fact, the quality of the wisdom of messiah XM is always
much bigger than the stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set XN.
(see schema 10).
However, this comparison is misleading because it refers to two
different things; to a 100% probable expectation and to a
slightly probable expectation.
In order to consider this comparison as an objective one, we
have to take in account both quality X, as well as existence
probability Y 22.
In any case we consider as a safe conclusion that:
22
The comparison of the product , Quality X Probability , gives us more data
because the product XM.ΨΜ in mathematics, expresses the quality that corresponds to the 100% probability ΧΜ.(ΨΜ%)=(ΧΜ. ΨΜ).100%. This means that the
equivalent to the set’s quality messiah’s one, is not ΧΜ but ΧΜ ΨΜ
103
•
The stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set presents an expectancy of normal quality and a very high (≅ 100%) existence probability.
•
The wisdom of messiah presents an expectancy of very
high quality and a very small existence probability.
The above conclusions have many similarities with those concerning the Stock Market. Similarly, the shares that present big
profit expectancies have big risk (small existence probability)
while the shares that present small expectancy, have small risk
(big existence probability).
All the above explain the ancient Greeks trust and preference to
decisions based on the logic of the total and of random that is
being used in modern physics. For this issue we will have a
separate future discussion.
The theory of the Organized Set
In normal distribution’s determinism, the stochastic knowledge
of citizens constitutes essentially the algebraic sum of the qualities possessed by the “neutral” members. That is, by members,
like the molecules of gas, that are lacking, or we consider that
they are lacking, in abilities of self-organization.
Still, what happens when the set consists of living creatures, of
human beings that possess will and abilities of selforganization?
An answer to this question is given by the theory of the Organized Set (Gestalt) which was developed by German psychiatrists and philosophers. According to this theory, the abilities of
an organized set G are bigger or equal to the resultant of the
abilities possessed by the members that constitute the set.
Consequently, if we represent the quality of an organized set of
people with XG, it would be bigger or equal to the resultant
quality possessed by the members that constitute the set,
namely the XN. However, the existence probability YG is smaller
than that of YN (see schema 10). That is
104
XG ≥ XN and
YG ≤ YN
A Colleague
Could you give as an example of a society that acts as an organized set?
Any society whose performances are bigger than the normal in
the field of collective – democratic action, can be considered as
a case of organized set; as a Gestalt case.
I suppose that the Athenian democracy in the classic years and
the community of Ampelakia in the recent years are typical examples.
The inhabitants of the village Ampelakia in Thessaly developed,
mainly during the period 1770-1811, an astonishing collective
and co-operative activity of producing and trading the famous
red threads. These threads were made by the cotton produced
in the plain of Thessaly, they were dyed red using natural colors found in the area and they were sold not only in Greece and
in the other countries of the Ottoman Empire, but also in Austria, in Germany, in France, in England, in Russia, in Italy.
The above activity was an achievement of the “Mutual Fellowship of Ampelakia”, that is of a democratic power carrier
that was managing all this great effort; a carrier similar to the
Ecclesia of Demos.
In our days, such efforts can be supported by technology and
by the knowledge of experts who studied in well-known universities. However, the product of these efforts is not as great as
the achievement of the “Mutual Fellowship of Ampelakia”; of
the simple farmers who lived in Ampelakia village. This fact
proves that the superior stochastic knowledge of the organized
set is not just a theory but a reality.
105
Conclusion
From all the above, we come to the conclusion that the comparison between the wisdom of messiah and the stochastic
knowledge of citizens should be done in a very cautious way
because in essence, it is a comparison of four and not two
magnitudes. It is the comparison of a big expectancy with small
probability and of a normal (medium) expectancy with a very
high probability (≅ 100%).
The error that people systematically commit is that they ignore
the validity of this determinism and they think that they can
surpass it just by making successful choices of messiahs. It is
the same error committed by the gamblers of the Stock Market.
The deterministic relation of expectancy versus probability is
known to simple citizens and is being expressed with the saying: “who is going to get the many lose the little”
The problem presents some aspects similar to those concerning
the function of simple machines where “what we gain in force
we loose in the course”, we do not gain energy. A similar principle goes also here: “what we gain in expectancy we
loose in probability”.
In the long run, the wisdom of messiahs and the stochastic
knowledge of citizens are equal. They have the same medium
price of rationality because even in the total of messiahs there
also exist messiahs of all qualities; the big ones and the small
ones, the true and the fake.
Nevertheless, people ignore the conclusions drawn by expected
qualities and probabilities and they decide upon the exclusive
criterion of expectancy. They remember the deeds of the
big and true messiahs and they forget the deeds of the small
and fake.
A Colleague
Once more I cannot understand.
Which should be the basis of political systems? the wisdom of
messiah or the stochastic knowledge of citizens?
You have right to insist on the clarification of our subject. Your
question constitutes the big dilemma that people face for many
thousands of years.
Let us attempt all together to find a reasonable answer to this
dilemma.
Let us suppose for a moment that we do not care about flexibility. Which should be the basis of political power systems and
why?
A Colleague
I think that you gave us a simple problem. In this case, political
systems’ basis should be the stochastic knowledge of citizens
because:
•
The inherent rationality in the stochastic knowledge of citizens‘ set is in the long term equal to the one observed in
the wisdom of messiahs,
•
Transparency, stability, acceptance, arbitrariness, corruption and arrogance are being improved within the framework of the stochastic knowledge of citizens’ set. They are
being improved when there is a small power concentration.
Your conclusion is a right and understandable one. Still, this
goes for the theoretical conditions. Flexibility is a crucial quality
characteristic which cannot be ignored in practice. Problems
and people have limited time of existence, they cannot wait.
However, flexibility gets improved in an opposite way from all
the other characteristics. It gets improved through the increase
of power concentration.
How can it be solved such a problem of optimization?
108
A Colleague
In such cases there is no absolute optimization. Still, there is a
relative improvement; Improvement through compromise.
Indeed, we found a logic solution; compromise; the compromise whose goal is to ensure the smallest possible power concentration as well as the acceptable flexibility in
practice.
The big secret
I have the impression that our discussion led us to the revelation of a big secret.
For thousands of years, people trust messiahs because they
believe that their wisdom is too bigger than the stochastic
knowledge of citizens. Nevertheless, this is not truth; people
are forced to trust messiahs in order to ensure an acceptable flexibility in the taking of decisions. That is
the big secret.
Popular wisdom is aware of this secret. Therefore, in the well
known popular saying “too many cooks spoil the broth”, it is
clearly mentioned that the reason why the broth is spoiled is
not one cook23, but the existence of too many of them.
Thus, we will compromise in order to ensure the smallest possible concentration, with the provision of the flexibility we need
in order to meet our needs.
A Colleague
Is it possible that what you called as a big secret is a verbalism
with no practical value since the flexibility of decisions was and
23
In Greece, cook considered as the animal with very little brain. The term
“cook brain” man, means not clever man.
109
it still is the most important quality characteristic of political
systems?
Your observation stands for the societies, where informing and
decisions’ taking through referendums of citizens is forbidden in
practice due to the extremely big cost and time. That is the
reason why such political systems functioned only in the small
states-cities of ancient Greece.
However, nowadays that thanks to technology “world has become a village”, nowadays that the “information’s society” is
being built, does your observation still stand? I believe that this
secret has a big as well as a practical value for the people in
information’s society.
This compromise, this crucial choice will be the subject of our
next discussion.
A Colleague
What you mentioned as a big secret is a random fact, a false
conception of people or another important appeal of the established power order?
This secret is possibly created by a fallacy or by an appeal
made by the established power order. Still, this is not the problem. The problem is to shed light to these secrets; to know the
truth.
110
Discussion of 9th May
Subject: The crucial choice
In our previous discussion we came to the conclusion that the
improvement of all quality characteristics of a political system is
not feasible. However, what is feasible is to choose a system
with such a small power concentration that will lead to the
creation of significant improvement in transparency, stability,
acceptance, arbitrariness, corruption and arrogance while providing an acceptable flexibility.
A Colleague
Your conclusion is reasonable. But how can we actually attain
such a power concentration?
In direct democracy, the power concentration is minimized, but
flexibility is unacceptably small.
In indirect democracy, the number of representatives cannot
be too much increased because that would downgrade flexibility without even providing the certain improvement of the other
characteristics.
What is your proposal?
In our discussions, we have accepted that all the power of
citizens can be exercised: either by the citizens themselves (direct democracy), or by citizens elected by citizens (indirect democracy), or even by “self-elected” men (monarchy, oligarchy).
In all these cases of full power assignment, power concentration is expressed by the relation:
C=
N
Nε
111
(1)
Where: N is the total of citizens and Νe the total of power carriers-citizens’ representatives.
However, it is obvious that we can have a political system
where citizens exercise directly a percentage K of their total
power while the remaining percentage (100 – K), is being assigned to their representatives in order to be exercised by
them. The K power – I wish to be named Klesthenes’ power would be directly exercised by the citizens’ set through referendums24.
In such a case, the concentration C is not given by the relation
(1) but instead by the following relation:
C=
N 100 − K
⋅
Nε
100
(2)
Where K is the Klesthenes’ power; that is, the part of the total
political power which is being exercised through referendums.
The relation (2) leads to the conclusion that concentration C
does not only depend on the magnitudes N and Νe but on K
too. Consequently, if we increase the price of K we can obtain
any price of concentration we want, without changing N nor Νe.
It is useful to point out that in indirect democracies, Klesthenes’
power K is essentially zero.
The above way of decreasing concentration is absolutely compatible with the natural and moral laws, since it is based on the
participation of all citizens.
A Colleague
This way is reasonable and understandable, but is not given the
impression that its documentation is a bit shallow? These ideas
do not seem similar to the ideas concerning the second kind of
24
Klesthenes, politician and low reformer, is the father of Athenian Democracy.
Thanks to Klesthenes’ lows, the Ecclesia of Demos was rendered the sovereign
and unique power carrier (6th century BC).
112
forever moving25 that we once believed that it was feasible because it abided to the principle of energy conservation and later
we discovered that it was determinedly utopist?
Experience has proven that this way of decreasing power concentration is feasible. It is a way that has been used by women;
by our mothers and wives for thousands of years.
Women’s strategy
Women, in order to ensure a small power concentration and an
acceptable flexibility, resorted to the following simple and practical choice: They accept the fact that many and small issues
are being dealt with big concentration (big flexibility) by themselves or their husbands, but when it comes to few and big
issues, they plant their feet firmly to the ground because these
demand a small power concentration. They demand their participation too.
And they have right. Flexibility is not an important factor in all
issues alike. It is more important when taking many and small
decisions than when dealing with the few and big ones.
You have possibly heard the typical anecdote: One husband
was asked whether he takes the decisions that concern his family issues by himself or together with his wife, and he answered:
“Some few decisions, like those concerning the family budget
and the children’s upbringing, are being taken by both of us.
However, the decisions that concern the country’s foreign affairs or the policy platform of President Bush, I take them myself”.
25
As second kind forever moving we consider the machines for which the law of
energy conservation is valid but the law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) is not.
113
This simple way used by women, all politicians, experts and
simple citizens alike, ignore it, or they pretend to ignore it. So,
it was prevalent the concept that any idea of citizens’ participation in the political power exercising is good and noble but notapplied. Consequently, these ideas are not similar to those
concerning the second kind of forever moving. Do you agree
with that?
A Colleague
I agree. I have no further questions.
Let us discuss now on the subject of referendums.
You are certainly aware of the fact that citizens participate in
the taking of two categories’ decisions. In decisions that concern the election of power carriers or functional carriers (Elections) and in decisions about other important issues (Referendums).
In indirect democracies, citizens’ decisions have been actually
limited to the election of representatives despite the fact that
laws provide the taking place of referendums in cases of decisions that concern important issues.
If my memory serves me right, during the last seventy years
only two decisions have been taken by citizens through referendums. All the other decisions have been taken by citizens’
representatives. They have been taken without the participation
of citizens.
This choice, although it ensures a big flexibility in the taking of
decisions, it also creates determinist aggravation conditions of
all the other six characteristics.
It is possible that this choice could have been justified until recently because the direct and indirect cost of a referendum was
too big while also the updating of citizens was difficult and onesided. Still today, in the era of digital technology and in the society of information, the above arguments do not stand.
114
If we adopt today a strategy similar to the one used by women
and if we use technology’s potentials, we can expand democracy to the point where the two principles that everybody accepts
in theory could also stand in practice. So that: Citizens rule and
are being ruled while leaders are deacons and servants of citizens’ power.
The above have to take place soon. If not, then we face
the risk of democracy’s death.
New technology’s force is very big and for that reason it
can also be dangerous if only few and not all citizens
use it in the exercise of political power.
A Colleague
At first sight, your views seem reasonable. Still, they contain
the following reasonable contradiction: They support the view
that the potentials of a small number of people who have been
elected on the basis of their higher spiritual and moral powers
are equal to the potentials of the citizens’ set which includes
people of any category of spiritual and moral powers. Such a
claim does not constitute a contradiction and an absurdity?
If the two totals were identical and if they were functioning according to the same rules, then undoubtedly the potentials of
the small total of our representatives would always be bigger
than those of the big total of citizens.
But are the two totals identical? Do they both function according to the same rules? Is it right to compare disparate totals?
A Colleague
I think that the two totals do not function according to the
same rules. Our representatives function mostly according to
human rules than to natural rules. The contrary goes for the
total of citizens.
115
And what is your opinion about the similarities between these
two sets?
A Colleague
I think that the two totals are not the same. Deep down they
are different because their composition is different.
The composition of our representatives’ total, in percentages of
women, workers, farmers, pensioners, is much more different
than that of the citizens’ total.
Thus, since the two totals are not the same and since they do
not function according to the same rules, then our conclusion
that the chosen representatives’ rationality is in long term equal
to that of the citizens’ total , is neither contradictory nor absurd.
What is absurd indeed, is an outcome drawn out of the comparison between two different things.
A Colleague
Earlier, you mentioned that citizens’ representatives and citizens
themselves constitute two different totals due to the fact that
the percentages representing women’s participation is also different.
Still, equality between women and men is determined by nature
and not by people.
If this is true, then how is it possible to call the two totals different when they are composed by elements that are equal to
each other?
The fact that women are equal to men does not imply that they
are also the same. Women’s biological, spiritual and psychic
characteristics are different then those possessed by men. It is
foolish to identify women’s and men’s characteristics and to call
116
this a precondition of equality. Men and women do not constitute same entities but supplemental ones.
Inequity between women and men is possibly based on the
false conception that in order to consider the two sexes equal
they should also be the same. This is possibly due to the fact
that only men participated in the exercise of power.
The non-equal participation of women in the rulers’ group does
not simply represent an element of differentiation. It is also
an “insulting”– according to the ancient Greek sense of the
term26 – differentiation.
In ancient Greece they believed that when human beings were
first created, they did not look as they do today. Human being
was a resultant of man and woman. In that time, human being
has four legs that provided an excellent support and a big flexibility of movement; four hands for a very big agility, two faces
for full control of space and genitals that provided an autonomous recreation. Still, this creature possessed the psychic, spiritual and biological powers that men and women together have
today.
Nevertheless, this creature was considered as a threat to the
power of Gods and semi-Gods. It was obvious that, equipped
with such abilities, very soon human beings would compete
Gods and settled down semi-Gods.
As a result, one day Zeus threw a thunder and separated this
all-mighty creature into two, forming man and woman. Consequently, first human being’s abilities were divided in two. Half
of them went to man and half to woman.
This myth of the division of the first autonomous human being
can be found in other people’s tradition, like for example in Hebrew’s tradition. As you know, Eve was created by Adams’ ribs.
26
Insult (hybres, Υβρις) in ancient Greek means any action contrary to the
natural or moral laws.
117
However, the reasons of the powerful unified human being are
not the same in all myths. The true reasons were discovered by
ancient Greeks, in the same way they did for so many other big
issues.
Many people support that if human beings possessed their first
unified form, then things would be much better than they are
today. Their aspirations would be wiser, simpler, more effective
and wars would be fewer.
Human being’s unification, in his initial form, can possibly happen again in million years. Maybe it will never happen again.
Nevertheless, political power can still be exercised today
through the use of the unified human being’s spirit and power.
It can take place through the participation of all citizens alike to
the exercise of power. Nature cannot be fooled by cunning human laws like those concerning the decree of men’s and women’s percentages in the ballot papers of our candidate representatives.
A Colleague
It is generally accepted that today, citizens take many false decisions despite the fact that these concern a single subject,
namely that of their representatives’ election, and that they are
not very frequent; they are taken every four years.
It is reasonable to hope that in the future better decisions
would be taken although the issues to be faced would be more
numerous and more complicated and the frequency of decisions
making bigger?
Cannot this be considered as an absurd expectation?
Your question is based on the accepted fact that a decision
concerning the choice of the right people is much easier than a
decision on a different subject.
118
That can of course be right when it refers to a choice decision
of any kind. The taking of such a decision is very easy as far as
its procedure is concerned. It is limited to the choice of a ballot
paper out of the already existing ones. It seems like the decisions that include a pre-choice; like frying pre-fried potatoes.
But when talking for the right choice, then it is a very difficult
one that has to be taken after estimating data of controversial
validity. After estimating data of “programs”, “candidates’ contracts with the people”,” commitments” and “promises”.
With these data reliability, a decision of choice can be considered as a very difficult to face issue, even within the framework of a dissertation for a PhD.
For instance, which one of the two decisions you consider as
easier?
a.
To decide for the exclusive or not vocation of representatives and for the reasonable increase of their salary, or
b.
To chose the most appropriate representatives that will
give best solutions to our citizens’ problems;
I am not aware of your opinion. Still, I know that in contemporary democracies the second decision is being considered as a
very easy one and that is the reason why it is being taken by
the citizens’ set, while the first one is being considered as very
difficult one and due to that is being taken by citizens’ representatives.
As far as it concerns the question related to the difficulties that
stem out of frequency’s increase in the taking of decisions nowadays, I think that this increase will finally become a decisions’ improvement factor since citizens will acquire more experience and will be more familiarized with similar activities.
Citizens do not get dizzy when thinking what to decide. They
get dizzy when they listen to contradictory views concerning
problems where they have no power when it comes to their
119
solution. They get dizzy because they listen to so many things
with no reason.
A Colleague
Could you tell us a case where the decision taken upon a citizens’ referendum is different and more appropriate than the
one taken by the chosen and, by inference, more expert representatives?
I think that there exist many such cases, which are being deliberately downgraded or concealed by the established order of
representatives.
In my opinion, typical examples of them are the recent referendums in Cyprus, in France and in other countries. By these referendums, citizens’ set trivialized the “verbose arsenal” of representative’s international established order and they thunder out
in their face a loud NO, despite the pressure and the threats for
their decision’s consequences.
Minorities and citizens’ power
A Colleague
Do you think that it is possible to protect the rights of the minorities in a country where big decisions are taken by citizens?
You do not worry that these would be formed based solely on
majorities’ aspirations and will?
I realize the spirit of your question and your worries. Still, I honestly believe that they can be protected because citizens’ intelligence and sensitivity is not smaller than that of their representatives.
Furthermore, it is understandable that such decisions will not
be taken upon a simple majority, but instead on the grounds of
120
a reasonably increased majority of the citizens. The same goes
for other crucial decisions.
In my opinion, these worries are being intentionally magnified
because they contribute to the support and to the sustenance
of contemporary power systems; because they contribute to the
sustenance of the conception that “although people are the
rulers, still they should not rule”.
Democracy and decentralization
A Colleague
It is easy to understand that citizens’ participation to exercise
political power results to a decrease of power concentration and
to whatever this entails.
Still, it is not possible when we use decentralization to get the
same outcome we have through participation?
Let us first define the meaning of decentralization.
The power of a country is being exercised to a large extent in
the national level where laws and policies are being decided.
Nevertheless, a power’s percentage is being exercised by the
prefectural and municipal power carriers.
Consequently, we do not observe problems of power concentration only in the central power carriers but also on the regional
ones.
The existing prefectural or municipal power can be concentrated to one or many citizens.
The related power concentration27 of regional carriers can
get very high values; values equal or bigger than those of the
27
The related power concentration refers to the responsibilities of the regional
power carriers.
121
central power carriers. There exist cases where mayor’s arrogance is bigger than that of the prime minister.
There is only one way to decrease concentration and to improve power quality characteristics; citizens’ participation in the
taking of prefectural and municipal big decisions.
However, this participation today is non-existent in institutions
and in practice as well.
Nowadays, there is no “Ecclesia” functioning anywhere; neither
in state, nor in state’s regions or even in regions’ municipalities.
And we can maybe accept this fact as far as states are concerned; But what about the municipalities that have fewer citizens? The municipalities28 that democracy owes its name? Even
within their framework citizens’ participation in power’s exercise
should be zero?
Nowadays, we have completely forgotten that municipality
meant the total of citizens who had the right to participate in
the taking of decisions. By virtue of that reason, municipality’s
name was defined according to citizens’ names and not to that
of the city. They used to say Municipality of Athenians and not
of Athens like we use to do today.
Maybe this change in the name constitutes an element of modernization in order to interpret the existing reality. Today, citizens participate in the exercise of the municipality power to
the same extent that buildings and trees do.
Decentralization can only increase flexibility. It cannot improve
power’s quality because it does not reduce power concentration. Quality improvement can be achieved only through participation.
28
Municipality in Greek is Demos (Δήμος).
122
Democracy and trade unionism
A Colleague
Many people believe that the pillars and the seedbeds of democracy’s growth are the “organs” of collective action; the association, the co-operative, the union, the confederation, the
general confederation.
Still, we have not mentioned this matter in our discussions.
Why? What is your opinion?
My opinion is that every organ of collective action constitutes a
pillar of democracy and a seedbed for the growth of democratic
conceptions and practices, by one inviolable condition:
The organ’s action should be democratic. But this realized when
all members of the organ participate in the taking of major
decisions and not when representatives of them participate.
If such participation does not exist and things happen in the
same way that decisions are being taken today in the state, in
regions and in municipalities, then they cannot be considered
neither as democracy’s pillars nor as seedbeds of democratic
conceptions and practices. Instead of that they are the pillars
and the seedbeds of the central power’s model, where citizens
are limited to their representatives’ choice and what is more,
through the system of pre- selection, which is not made by citizens but instead by other power centers.
Democracy and opinion polls
A Colleague
In my opinion, citizens nowadays participate in the taking of
decisions. Only that this participation is indirect and not direct.
This results from the current interest and frequency of opinion
polls.
123
You do not agree that the latter also represent a form of indirect citizens’ power?
Indeed, I do not agree. On the contrary, I think that they are
one more appeal of citizens’ power. Opinion polls constitute a
method of collecting and analyzing data for the purpose of
forecast and estimation people’s opinions. They are a tool of
forecast like the simulation or the development and use mathematic models.
However, this tool is not being used for the exercise of power
by citizens. It is being used for the exercise of power by citizens’ representatives; by the established order in general
This is the result we get when reckoning the time and the way
used by opinion polls and more specifically by those who order
their carrying out and typically pay the related cost.
Still, deep down inside, the cost is being paid by citizens and
what is more, this happens not on the grounds of the latter’s
acquisition of information, but instead for their manipulation;
for the promotion of the present or future power carriers’ interests.
Power’s exercise by citizens, does not take place through opinion polls. It can take place only through referendums that
constitute an institutionalized way of decisions’ taking.
Such referendums today, thanks to technology, can be carried
out in a fast and reliable way that also has low cost.
If Reality Shows’ producers can carry out such “referendums”
for meaningless matters, then certainly, the state also is able to
carry them out for the major issues that concern its citizens.
My colleague, opinion polls have no relation at all with citizens’
power. Only the way through which power carriers comment on
the favorable or unfavorable for them results, is enough to
prove their purpose and reliability.
124
PART II
The intentional distortion of Democracy’s sense
•
The researchers of ancient Greek Democracy had to face at
the same time the reactions generated in the ranks of the
established power order as well as the difficulties concerning the consolidation of such a concept; the difficulties
concerning the understanding of a political system for
which there was no previous experience or knowledge
about it.
•
The problems that they had to deal with were very much
alike to those faced by Galileo when he attempted to refute
the geocentric conception as well as to those which aimed
to refute the conception that the earth is flat.
•
The aforementioned researchers had never truly believed
in the spirit of ancient Greek Democracy; in the citizens’
state. They always believed that citizens and state are two
different things.
Discussion of 23rd May
Subject: Established conception phenomena
It is a certain fact that all our discussions until now created the
following question: Is it possible that, for so many years, so
many people – experts, politicians and simple people – commit
the same mistake? Namely, to believe that the best feasible
way of exercising power is to choose capable and moral leaders
to whom we will transfer all our power to be exercised by
them? To believe that the possibility of being exercised by citizens themselves the political power, is just a noble but nonetheless utopist goal?
Certainly, one more problem arose: As far as those who exercise power and the recipients of it, everything is ok. They surely
have reasons to support the aforementioned view; But what
about all the others? Philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, intellectuals, simple citizens behave in the same way?
Why they do not practically and ideologically support citizens’
participation in the exercise of power? Why an elderly communist who fought for all his life in order to create a brighter future
for the generations to come, who had never won one penny by
betraying his ideals – like so many others did – told me one
day:
“All this is fine, we also wanted it but it can never be fulfilled”
I suppose that something else is happening; something which is
more powerful and more effective than the aspirations of those
who exercise power.
We observe that in the history of natural sciences there exist
some phenomena very much alike to the established current
conception regarding the way power should be exercised.
These phenomena are called phenomena of the established,
dominant, sovereign conception.
The basic characteristic of these phenomena is that they are
attributed an “obvious truth” and that is the reason why any
doubting concerning them is simply regarded as absurd or picturesque.
Based on that fact, we will all together see if the way through
which people perceive democracy today, constitutes “an established conception phenomenon”.
In order to proceed to this attempt, it seemed useful to present
three examples of undoubted established conception, to understand the causes of them and to finally come to a conclusion: If
the way we perceive democracy constitutes a phenomenon
formed by the established conception.
Our examples were drawn out of the field of natural sciences
where the existence of the phenomena is absolutely obvious
and undoubted.
Such examples can also been drawn out of the fields of all
sciences; philosophy, medical science and sociology.
The established conception of the flat earth
In older times, people used to believe that the earth was flat
like a pan with a pie, having a top and a bottom side. All
people, human beings, animals, plants, existed on the top side.
At the bottom side there was nothing in the same way that
there is nothing at the bottom side of the pan.
This view was supported for thousand years, despite the fact
that some people doubted it and started claiming that the earth
is spherical.
This established conception is of course demolished, it is vanished. Nowadays there is no single human being who believes
that the earth is flat. Still, in the past, this view was supported
by everybody for thousands of years; experts and simple citizens alike.
Today we understand the reasons that created and preserved
this conception. It was the knowledge and the supervi128
sion of little earth areas where the vertical directions are
practically the same. That is to areas of a relatively small extent, in a village, in a town, the direction of the vertical is the
same in any given point. This experience, which is proved to be
correct under the condition of the small extent of the areas,
took a more general form. People believed that the vertical direction is the same in all given points on the earth. That it was
stable all over the world.
Still, the conclusion of the stable vertical was absolutely compatible with the conception of the flat earth. In a flat earth the
vertical is everywhere the same as it is shown in schema 11.
Κ Κ Κ Κ
EARTH
Schema 11
In flat earth the vertical K has everywhere the same direction
However, the experience of the stable vertical is incompatible
with the notion of spherical earth because its direction on the
upper hemisphere is opposite to the one of the bottom hemisphere, as it is shown in schema 12.
129
Κ
Κ
Κ
EARTH
ΓΗ
Κ
Κ
Κ
Schema 12
In spherical earth the vertical of the bottom hemisphere will have an
opposite direction to the one of the upper hemisphere.
Nonetheless, people had the experience that the vertical direction starts from head to toe and that objects were falling down
accordingly.
That was the reason why they claimed that it was not possible
that the earth was spherical because in that case:
1. People of the bottom hemisphere should have been walking
upside down with their feet facing the sky and their heads towards the earth.
2. People, animals and objects of the bottom hemisphere had the
risk of falling into space, as it is shown in schema 13.
130
Schema 13
If earth was spherical people of the bottom hemisphere
would be falling into space
The above conclusions-arguments for flat earth nowadays seem
laughable and make people at least to smile. Still, these arguments preserved the conception of flat earth for thousands of
years.
If you think thoroughly about these arguments, you would see
that they were not completely mistaken. In essence, they included only one mistake; that the vertical was stable. Everything else was fairly reasonable and could stand in the case of a
stable vertical.
Nowadays that we are in a position that allows us to supervise
big areas on the earth, that we travel all around the world, we
know that the vertical is not stable but it is different in any given point on the earth. Its direction coincides with the straight
line that relates the given point to the center of the earth. It
coincides with the earth radius as it is shown in schema 14.
131
K
K
K
EARTH
K
K
K
Schema 14
The vertical in spherical earth coincides with the earth radius
According to your opinion, what was the reason that led to the
creation of the established perception that the earth is flat?
A Colleague
I believe that it was due to insufficient experience. People did
not have the possibility to understand that the vertical direction
is different in every given point on the earth. On the contrary,
they were finding out that it was the same in approximate
points.
Is there any other reason?
A Colleague
I think that a second reason was the established intellectual
order that supported the conception of the flat earth by using
the laughable arguments that you mentioned. Certainly, these
arguments nowadays seem laughable. Still, during that time
they seemed wise and that is why they were proved to be effective.
132
I agree with you. I just want to add that the established intellectual order had nothing to gain from supporting the conception of the flat earth. It just did not have the possibility to see
the truth.
Our final conclusion is that the established conception of flat
earth was created by the limited experience of people and by
the mistaken still not purposeful opinions expressed by the established intellectual order.
The established conception of the geocentric system
Since ancient times until the 17th century, people believed in
the geocentric system of the planets. That is, they believed that
the center of the planetary system was earth, considered as the
most important in every way planet. On an orbit around the
earth, they were moving the sun, the moon and all the other
planets.
The reasons that led to this conception were:
a. The Everyday experience
People were seeing everyday the rising, the climax and the falling of the sun, the moon and of all the other stars. They were
seeing them as moving all around a motionless earth.
b. The scientific established order
Based on the above experience, the Greek astronomers Apollonios and Ipparchos developed a model of laws prevailing on the
motion of all planets around the earth. This model was completed and improved by the also Greek astronomer Claudius
Ptolemeus (100-168 AC. approximately) who was born and
lived in Egypt.
133
In Ptolemeus’ model29, there were many and detailed data concerning the planetary motion and it could be used in order to
make forecasts about the most important happenings of the
planetary motion such as the eclipses and the planetary “synods” (meetings). These possibilities given by the model obviously constituted an indirect proof of the validity of the geocentric system.
c. The theological - political established order
According to the Old Testament, earth was the first interesting
creation of God. After the earth, there were created the sun,
the moon and the stars. The mission of all of them was to serve
earth’s needs.
These claims were sacred and they were accepted with closed
eyes by the theological and political established order of those
times.
Under the aforementioned empirical, scientific, theological and
political circumstances, the geocentric system became the most
characteristic and the strongest phenomenon of the established
conception. Any attempt to subvert this concept was not only
considered as an absurdity contrary to this experience, it was
not only an act contrary to Ptolemeus’ opinions that supported
reliable forecasting, but it was also considered as an act of
blasphemy against God. It was a heretic act that was being punished by “death in fire”.
The subversion of the geocentric model started with the works
of Copernicus (1473-1543).
Copernicus studied theology and at the same time mathematics
and astronomy. Very early he started studying carefully the
work of Ptolemeus and became an admirer of him. Nonetheless, very soon Copernicus reached to the conclusion that Pto-
29
It is included in Ptolemeus’ book “Megisti” which was burned in the fire in
Alexandria’s library. It reached us nowadays through its translation in Arabic.
134
lemeus in order to explain all phenomena concerning the planets – like the retrogressive movements of planets – he was
forced to develop a very complicated model (circular motion in
small circles, in over-cycles). By examining all the given data he
understood that all these could be explained in a very simple
way if the center of the planetary system was the sun and not
the earth. Thus, he developed a model different than that of
Ptolemeus which was considering the sun as the center.
By using Copernicus’ model, the same forecasting as those of
Ptolemeus could be done, but their accuracy was smaller than
the one presented in the geocentric model.
These first predicaments did not unsettle Copernicus view as far
as the validity of his opinions was concerned. Copernicus was
unsettled by the reactions of the theological established order
which he was already expecting. Copernicus himself was a
theologian and he could understand.
That was the reason why it took him a long time to publish
these opinions of his. He published them in 1543 when he was
already seventy years old and he had little life ahead of him.
Copernicus died in 1543. The geocentric system was not subverted straight after the publication of Copernicus’ work. Many
attempts were made with most important the one of Galileo.
Galileo (1564-1642) studied at the beginning to be a doctor.
But he was mainly involved in the study of mathematics, astronomy and in the construction of some machines. Despite the
fact that he is not the inventor of the telescope, he is the first
to use it in order to make astronomical observations.
With the help of the telescope, Galileo gathered many data
through which he substantiated Copernicus’ views on the suncentric system.
Galileo was also aware of the risks that he could face if he was
about to publish the above data. Due to that fact he did not
rush to publish them.
135
A little later, Cardinal Barberini, a friend of his and a man with
broad education and an open-mind, became Pope. Galileo considered this time to be the most appropriate to publish his
views.
But when he published his book, the theological established
system commanded its confiscation and sent Galileo to the Holy
Inquisition.
Galileo was not burned in fire. His friend, the Pope, and the
Holy Inquisition showed “understanding and a big heart” since
they put him first to confess that he is guilty and to sign a text
with which he was renouncing his views. That way, his punishment was small. He was not burned in fire but he was obliged
to live the rest of his life in his house.
The established conception of the geocentric system was altered very slowly. Nowadays everybody accepts and believes
the sun-centric system.
According to your opinion, which were the reasons that led to
the creation of the established conception of the geocentric
system?
A Colleague
Here things are clearer. It was for the same reasons that you
have already mentioned: the limited and mistaken experience
of the people, the non purposeful mistaken views of the intellectual established order and the mistaken positions of the
theological and political established order which were purposed
and intentioned. Obviously, the latter reckoned that the subversion of the geocentric system would undermine their authority
and their power.
The established conception of the stable time
The notion of time is difficult to be defined in a direct way.
Usually is being defined indirectly through the purposes for
which we use time. Such purposes are the definition of the be136
ginning, of the end, of the coherence and of the duration of
phenomena and events.
Despite the difficult notion of time, people are very familiar with
it. They use it constantly in every activity of them.
This familiarization and the established experience led to the
conclusion that time is a stable magnitude all over the earth.
This stability of time which is absolutely compatible to our experience, took a more general form. Time was considered to be
stable in every point of universe. Nonetheless, this is neither
compatible nor incompatible to our experience because simply
there is no such experience.
The case of the stable time presents many similarities with the
case of the stable vertical. Both are not valid in general but in
practice have a very limited validity. Stable time stands for a
very small part of the universe e.g. the earth and the stable
vertical stands for a very small area of earth e.g. a field.
The validity of stable time was not only accepted by simple
people but also by experts of all times alike. It was also accepted by Newton, the father of all contemporary Natural
Sciences.
Newton created a very big structure. He introduced mathematics in the studying of physical phenomena, he developed the
new mathematical tools of differential calculus, he discovered
the Fundamental law of Mechanics and the law of Universal
Gravitation.
In the mathematical study of the phenomena which were introduced by Newton, their future situation appears as a function of
space (variables x, ψ, z) and of time (variable t). The form of
this function is nothing more than the mathematical expression
of the law that stands for the phenomenon to be studied.
A basic condition of the Newtonian Mechanics that stands also
for the planets was the stability of time.
137
If time was not stable then the structure created by Newton
and by other great scientists seemed to be unsettled.
In 26 September 1905, a young and unknown physicist, Albert
Einstein published an article through which he was supporting
that time is not stable but it depends on the motional situation
of the object (of the system) that becomes the phenomenon
and of the system where the observer is situated.
This view, known as the Special Theory of Relativity, constituted an overturning of the view of the stable time; a view,
which was adopted by Newton and by all the great scientists of
that time.
Today we know that the relativity of time was the outcome of a
mathematical study by two other great scientists: Lorenz and
Poincaré. But none of the two did believe in the value and the
reliability of the mathematical outcomes because they were opposite to Newton’s views.
For that reasons some historians of the science today, are facing problems when asked to estimate who discovered in effect
the theory of relativity; Lorenz, Poincaré or Einstein?
We undoubtedly believe that it was discovered by Einstein who
found the spiritual and mental courage to clash with Newton
and all the scientific established order of his time; to clash and
to overturn the conception of stable time.
The overturning of the established conception happened slowly.
It took place through fruitful confrontations through which it
was made clear that under specific conditions time is stable in
the same way that under specific conditions the vertical is also
stable. Thus, became understood that Einstein’s Special Theory
of Relativity was not canceling the Newtonian Mechanics but it
was completing it.
According to your opinion, which were the reasons that led to
the creation of the established conception that time is stable?
138
A Colleague
Again in this case, the reason was the non-purposed mistaken
views of the intellectual established order. The great authority
and the great power of the established order was creating very
big inhibitions and predicaments when it was about to publish
and to estimate objectively views that were contrary to the
ones expressed by the intellectual established order.
A second reason was the limited experience –actually the absolute lack of experience- since the relative time was being discovered through the brain and not through observations.
Summing up the outcomes of our conversation we come to the
conclusion that in all three examples one of the most important
causes that led to the creation of the established conception
was the power and the actions of some established order; of
the spiritual one, the religious or the political.
Between the established order and the established conception
there seems to be a very strong relation; a relation equal to the
one with the chicken and the egg. And at this point we are
not in a position to know if the established order gave
birth to the established conception or the established
conception gave birth to the established order.
A Colleague
About the subject of time’s relativity you mentioned some historical but not essential data. Thus, we were not able to form a
personal opinion and our opinion is by necessity a dogmatic
one.
Could you tell us a few things about the essence of relativity’s
theory?
Something like that will not only be interesting but it will also
be very useful so as to form an opinion of our own.
139
Your request is right. Still, it is difficult to be satisfied in general
and more specifically by me. Nonetheless, it could be satisfied
by a colleague that is here between us. This colleague of ours
knows more than I do and I believe he could give a brief and
simple answer.
But before he starts talking to us about the basic points of the
relativity theory, we should reach to a conclusion about the
case of democracy.
The established conception of today’s democracies
Do you think that the fact that the majority of people believes
that the exercise of power by the citizens themselves is utopian
and that the only feasible way is to choose competent and
moral representatives, constitutes a phenomenon of established
conception?
A Colleague
Ancient Greek democracy was based on two principles; a logic
principle and a procedural one.
The logic principle demands that the major decisions have to be
made by the whole lot of the citizens; by the true citizens’ set.
The procedural principle clarifies that the above mentioned decisions have to be based on the will of citizens’ majority. (Majority principle).
In ancient Greek democracies and especially in Athenian democracy, both principles were valid. In some others political
systems, the procedural principle was valid, but the logic one
was not.
In these political systems, decisions were made by the democratic procedure of majority’s principle that was enforced to a
petty subset of citizens and not to the true citizens’ set. This
petty but “power subset” was formed by wise men (old men),
or by rich men, or by distinguished family men.
140
Such regimes were the political systems of Sparta30, of Carthage, of Venice, of Rome. Thousands years later, in modern
democracies, the above “power subsets” changed face. Now
they are formed by citizens’ representatives.
Still, in modern democracies, the essential figure has not
change; the procedural principle of democracy is valid but the
logic one is not.
Today the majority of people believe that democracy is the regime where the “principle of Majority” is enforced, independently if this principle is enforced on the true citizens’ set or on a
petty and power subset of it.
This view constitutes a clear established conception phenomenon, since the democratic logic is not enforced.
I agree with you. Your view is clear and strong. Is there another point of view?
A Colleague
I think it does.
This is resulted from the arguments that were used in support
of the conception that political power exercise by the citizens’
set is a utopia. These arguments are in essence alike to the
aforementioned laughable ones in support of flat earth conception. These similarities are sending a clear answer to our question.
I am sure that one day people will understand and will believe
that political systems are by nature citizens’ set-centric ones, as
the planetary system is by nature a sun-centric one.
30
In Sparta the power subset named Apella and was formed from “wise men”
and not from rich or distinguish family men. In those times Sparta’s regime was
not named democracy. Today is named limited democracy of Apella.
141
The “Lightgiver Sun”, of a political system is the total of citizens; it is not one or few citizens with the capacities of a leader-messiah.
I agree with you.
Is there another point of view?
A Colleague
I also think that this phenomenon existence is obvious.
When we accept the existence of established conception’s phenomena about the flat earth and the stable time, which are not
connected to financial interests on behalf of the ruling class,
what should we accept when we claim that the only feasible
way of exercising power is that of our chosen representatives?
What should we accept when it is known that by virtue of that
conception some of our messiahs–representatives made money,
stock shares, villas in aristocracy’s suburbs and they live in the
luxury of the sovereigns?
If we investigate it more, I think that we devalue our intellect.
I believe that this conception is an organized intentional creation of the few who exercise power and their protégés; if not of
all of them, at least of the majority of them.
Still, we have to admit that this phenomenon of the established
conception is less intense than similar phenomena in the past.
In those days, people with views contrary to the established
ones were being sent to fire. Nowadays, they can all express
freely their views, like we do today.
142
A Colleague
Indeed, there are differences. However, these differences do
not constitute a change of the goals but only a change of the
means and the methods that lead to their accomplishment.
Then, the established order was using the fire. Nowadays, it
uses other means more modern, more effective and with lower
cost for the established order.
Today, instead of the fire there is the methodical scorn and ignorance of such ideas and the systematic admiration and promotion of the contrary ideas. These stand accordingly for the
people who carry these ideas.
Is there another opinion?
A Colleague
The space and the time of discovering ancient Greek democracy, I think that it constitutes also a cause of creation of an established conception phenomenon.
The democracy that was born in ancient Greece and climaxed
in Athens died suddenly in 322 BC not due to its weaknesses
but through an external intervention.31
After the death of the Athenian democracy, the political regimes
of all the countries were monarchies or oligarchies. Elements of
democracy existed in the regimes of some states, were of non
importance in comparison to the ones of the Athenian Democracy.
The democracy of the ancient Greek world, as an idea
and as an act, fell in deep come for 2000 years.
31
In 322 BC , Athenians were won by Macedonians. The Macedonian general
Antipatros, forced Athenians to cut out the democratic regime and to accept an
oligarchic one.
143
It was actually in the 18th century that started the attempt to
rediscover and to approach for once more the ideas of democracy, of ancient Greek world in general, by British humanists,
philosophers and writers. It happened in a space and time
where monarchies and oligarchies were at the peak of their
power and of their moral authority.
Those who first started to study the ancient Greek world they
admired its artistic and philosophical achievements. Nonetheless, as it was natural, they were looking in doubt, concerned
and scared the way that political power was being exercised in
that world. They were skeptical and scared about democracy.
The researchers of ancient Greek democracy had at the same
time to face the reactions of the political established order as
well as the difficulties concerning the consolidation of such a
concept; the difficulties in understanding a political regime that
was not supported by previous experience and knowledge.
They had to face problems similar to those concerning the rationale of the flat earth and to those that Galileo saw rising
when he attempted to support the soundness of the sun-centric
system.
I think that these were the reasons why researchers were particularly and systematically underlining the disadvantages and
the risks that are inherent in the political regime of democracy
and they were not missing out its advantages. In essence they
never adopted the principle of democracy; the principle of citizens’ power. Instead of it they adopted the need to limit the
power of the state leaders in favor of that of the citizens. And
this constitutes the most essential achievement of contemporary indirect democracies.
I think that contemporary indirect democracies were since their
birth a phenomenon of established conception.
But this is the least to mention. Today all political regimes are
called democracies. They are being called democracies even
those political regimes where the citizens do not choose those
144
who govern them and they do not either have the ability to express their views. But democracy means the power of citizens.
Your views are interesting and reasonable. It will worth the
trouble to consider them as a reason to start a more detailed
study of which the basic points you could present to us in a
future discussion.
Is there another view?
A Colleague
There is not.
Now I think we should kindly ask our colleague to tell us a few
words for the theory of time’s relativity.
A sketch of the relativity theory
The special theory of relativity is not only one of the greatest
discoveries of the 20th century and it is also one of the biggest
intellectual revolutions of man.
Einstein with this theory ignored all Newton’s conceptions as
well as those of all the top scientists and he went on to two
very important breakthroughs.
1. He defined the notion of time in a simple and understandable way transcending complicated and profound definitions
that they exist on the same subject.
2. He proved that time with the meaning that himself defined
could not be stable but relatively stable. He proved that
time was being changed according to the “motion state” of
the system where the events take place and the motion
state of system were studied by the observer is situated.
145
The meaning of time
Einstein in his historic article that was first published in German
in the 26th of September of 1905, he writes the following concerning the meaning of time.
“If we would like to describe the motion of a material point,
then we express the prices of the co-ordinates (x, y, z) as functions of time. Here we have to hold carefully in our heads that a
mathematical description of this kind has no natural importance, unless we have made absolutely clear what we mean
with the meaning “time”. We have the obligation to consider
that all our findings in which time plays an important part, they
are always judgments that concern simultaneous facts. If, for
example, I say that “this train arrives here at 7 o’clock” , I
roughly mean the following: “The indication 7 of the small hand
of my watch and the arrival of the train are simultaneous facts”.
It could seem possible to overcome all difficulties that follow
the meaning of “time” if we substitute the word “time” with the
expression “the indication of the small hand of my watch”. And
indeed, such a definition is satisfying when we are interested in
defining some time exclusively for the place where our watch is,
but it seizes to be satisfying when we have to interrelate time
wise a series of events that happen in different places or –
practically the same- to estimate the time that events happen in
places situated far from the watch”.
That is, according to Einstein, time is a comparison, an estimation of the simultaneous character of the event we study with
another one which is being used as a point of reference; for
example, the hands of our watch.
The relativity of time
Under the rationale of the above definition of time, the following questions arise: These estimations of simultaneity are absolutely independent? Is it possible that they have a deterministic
dependence on some natural magnitudes? Is it possible two
phenomena that have been estimated to be simultaneous by an
146
observer A, to be estimated in a deterministic certainty as non
simultaneous by an observer B when there are some specific
differences?
The special theory of relativity gave answers to these questions. It defined when and why the estimation of simultaneity
changes. It defined when and why time is relative.
These answers could be summarized as following: The estimations of simultaneity depend on the motion state of the systems
where the events take place and on the motion state of the
system where the observer is situated. The cause of this determinism is the finite speed of transmitting the data that will
be used for the estimation of simultaneity. That is, these data
are not being transmitted with infinite speed, instantaneously,
but with the speed of light (300.000 Km/sec); a speed, which is
stable in the universe.
But let us clarify the above through an experiment of intellect,
through a reckoning into which we use mathematics and meanings very simple, like those used in high school.
The imaginary train of Einstein32
Let us assume that there is a train of 5.400.00km length which
has the usual wagons and which is moving with a stable speed
of 240.000km/sec as it is shown in schema 15.
Such a train of course exists only in our minds but this is no
harm for our reckoning.
32
This reckoning can be found in the book “What is the Theory of Relativity” of
the Russian physicist L. Landaou, who was awarded with Nobel prize (Korotzi
publications, 1983).
147
2.700.000 Km
2.700.000 Km
240.000 Km/s
passenger
stationmaster
Schema 15
The imaginary train of Einstein
Let us also assume that in the middle of the train there is a
light that when it is on activates two photocells that exist in the
first and in the last wagon and through which their doors are
being opened.
When the train passes from a station and at the moment it is
situated in front of the stationmaster it is lighted up. After a
while the doors of the first and of the last wagon are going to
open.
We are asked to estimate what would a passenger in the middle of the train and the stationmaster see?
a. What the passenger sees
The light in order to reach from the middle of the train to the
first and to the last wagon will use equal times33 which can be
estimated by the relation:
33
The velocity of light is stable and independent from the fact if the system is
moving towards the same or towards the opposite direction of the light (experimental findings of Michelson)
148
t=
Dis tan ce 2.700.000
=
= 9sec
Velocity
300.000
So the passenger will “see” that the doors of the first and of the
last wagon open simultaneously and after 9sec of the electric
lamp lighting up.
b. What the stationmaster sees
As it is shown in schema 15, the last wagon approaches the
stationmaster with a speed of 240.000km/sec while the first
wagon is drawn away with the same speed.
Consequently, for the stationmaster the relative speed of light
towards the last wagon is equal to the sum of the speeds of the
light and of the train. As an outcome, the time of the light’s
arrival to the last wagon and of the opening of the doors is:
tτ =
2.700.000
= 5 sec
300.000 + 240.000
In a similar way, the relative speed with which the light is moving towards the first wagon is equal to the speed difference of
light and train. As a result, the time of the light’s arrival to the
first wagon and of the opening of the doors will be:
tπ =
2.700.000
= 45 sec
300.000 − 240.000
Consequently, the stationmaster will “see” that the doors of the
first and of the last wagon will not open simultaneously as the
passenger saw but with a time difference of 40sec (455=40sec)
Through this example we can draw the result that the same
events –the opening of the doors in the first and in the last wagon- were simultaneous for the passenger of the train but they
were not simultaneous for the stationmaster who was out of
the train.
149
This difference was created because the relative speed of the
passenger as far as the first and the last wagon are concerned
was zero, while for the stationmaster was 240.000km/sec; positive for the last wagon and negative for the first.
I hope that my brief introduction on that serious subject would
enable you to clear –and not to confuse even more- your views
concerning the theory of relativity.
150
Discussion of 1st June
Subject: Intelligence of the citizens and political
systems
It is obvious that there is a strong relation between the intelligence of the citizens and the political systems. It is also obvious
that in order to understand this relation we are supposed to be
aware of some basic elements – of the alphabet – of political
systems as well as of intelligence.
We have already discussed for the basic elements of the political systems. Let us attempt something similar about the intelligence of the man.
What intelligence is?
“Intelligence is the ability to receive and to cerebrally process
the data, the information”
That is, intelligence is the ability of man to realize two specific
functions:
(1) To receive the information existing in the environment
through the help of his sense organs.
(2) To process this information through his cerebral power and
not through instincts and motivations
Animals receive information but they process it through instincts and motivations; they don’t process it through cerebral
power.
Two very important conclusions are resulted by the above classic definition:
•
There is no intelligence without the existence of information
151
•
Intelligence does not exist only when information is being
received since the existence of them does not imply their
cerebral process.
We think that this second conclusion should be understood and
experienced by the people of “information society” because
there is the risk that there would be prevail the view and mainly
the practice, that intelligence is only the receiving of information. It is obvious that such a practice would lead to a depreciation of people’s intelligence.
Types of intelligence: IQ and EQ
In the previous classic definition of intelligence, it is being indirectly defined by its results and not directly by its nature and
function.
This happens because deep down we do not know –or at least
we did not know- many things about them.
Our knowledge about intelligence was general and philosophical
for thousands of years. Since the beginning of the 20th century,
neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, biologists and many
other scientists start to investigate about the nature and the
function of intelligence. They started to investigate the HOW
and by WHICH elements of the brain human intelligence is being created.
These efforts gave the first answers to the questions HOW and
by WHICH that led to the development of measuring methods
of the power of each man’s intelligence.
The first decades of the 20th century, the power of intelligence
was expressed by the quotient of the right answers to a total of
specialized questions that were being asked to the man whose
intelligence we wanted to measure.
The results of such measuring of people’s intelligence power,
took the name IQ ; Intelligence Quotient .
For example, if the questions that were made are 20 and a man
answers correctly to 16 of them, then his IQ is 16/20.
152
From the beginning of the 20th century until the midst of the
1990’s we believed in one HOW and one by WHICH. That is, we
believed that people had only one type of intelligence that was
simply called intelligence and it was expressed with the letters
IQ that include information about its power.
The products of IQ are speculations and thoughts that follow
the model of the ancient Greeks’ logic: “if a then b” and the
model of mathematical logic: “2+2=4”.
People call the above type of thinking as logic thinking while
the neurologists called it serial by observing the form of the
“neurons” through which is being created.
In the midst of the 1990’s researchers found out that human
beings have also a second type of intelligence, apart from IQ.
The new type of intelligence was called Emotional intelligence
and compendiously EQ that expresses the type and the power
of intelligence.
The products of EQ are speculations and thoughts that are
called coherent.
The coherent thoughts differ by the logical thoughts as far as
the cerebral elements that are being produced are concerned
as well as the procedure of this production.
The coherent thoughts are being constructed by the correlation
of the information with the sentiments that they provoke. An
example of coherent thought is the conclusion of the existence
of risk when a dog is barking.
Coherent thoughts constitute the ring that unites sentiments
with outer facts, with information.
Intelligence and civilization models
There is a strong correlation between the two fundamental
models of civilization and the types of intelligence that can be
summarized as follows:
153
IQ is the intelligence on which it was based the ancient
Greek and the western civilization.
EQ is the intelligence on which it was based the civilization of the Eastern people.
The scientists that until now ignored the above mentioned data
of EQ, they were considering that any non logic thought and
consequently the coherent thoughts as absurdities and occultism. That is why coherent thoughts in the West were being
faced with reservation if not with disdain. Today, after the discovery of EQ, they are being faced with understanding and respect.
The first years of the 21st century (2000-2002) scientists discovered that man has a third type of intelligence that was
called spiritual intelligence or compendiously SQ.
SQ is the sovereign intelligence of man that correlates and controls the coherent and logic speculations through creating questions and answers for sovereign issues like: which is the meaning of life? Why we were born?
Obviously, the total intelligence of man is the sum of the emotional , logic and spiritual intelligence, that is:
Man’s intelligence= EQ+IQ+SQ
This relation has only logic use. In order that it would also have
mathematical use then EQ, IQ and SQ it had to present the
same measuring units (e.g. Watt).
But it is also possible for some people or for some groups of
people that one of the above types of intelligence stands for the
biggest part (e.g. 80%) of the total man’s intelligence.
The type of intelligence that expresses the majority of the total
intelligence is called the dominant intelligence. Practically dominant intelligence in all different societies is the EQ or the IQ.
154
The equations of IQ and EQ
When considering the historical data we get to the result that
there is a strong correlation between the political systems, the
types of writing, the types of conception and of the dominant
intelligence.
Specifically, in the societies where the dominant intelligence
was the IQ , there was developed the alphabetical writing, the
open conception and the political regime of democracy.
On the contrary in the societies where the dominant intelligence
was the EQ, there were developed the symbolic writings, the
established (dogmatic) conception and theocratic/monarchic
political systems.
The above views, that today we are aware that they are compatible with the features and the performances of logic and coherent speculations, they could be expressed under the following mathematical form34:
IQ= alphabetical writing +open conception + democracy
EQ = symbolic writing +established conception +monarchy
We rush to clarify that these relationship have statistical and
not deterministic standing.
The first relation stood clearly in ancient Greece that gave birth
to logic, open conception and democracy. It stood for the ancient Greeks that were the first people to develop IQ into the
dominant intelligence.
The second relationship stood and it is still standing in eastern
and other countries where obviously: symbolic writing, dogmatic concept, theocratic political systems and EQ coexisted.
34
Demosthenes Kyriazis, “Intelligence of citizens and political systems.” Union
of Greek Physicists Journal, issue 25- 26, March 2007.
155
A Colleague
In most contemporary countries people use alphabetical writing
and they have a high IQ since they can manage matters that
concern science, technology and more generally all the contemporary human activities.
Still, the quality of political systems shows that there is no real
democracy nor open political conception. What do you have to
say about that?
Social schizophrenia
Whatever you say is true indeed. I also believe that the previous relations are valid and that you say is due to the differential use of IQ and EQ.
More specifically, I believe that today people use IQ in order to
deal with matters that concern science, technology, economy
but they use EQ in order to deal with matters that concern political power and other important issues of humanistic value.
This selective use of IQ and EQ is the cause, why the above
groups of activities are being developed with no common goals
and rhythms; with no harmony. The average IQ of societies is
not small; it is just not being used for political power exercise
or for issues of humanistic value.
The basic cause of this paradoxical differential use of IQ and EQ
is the established order’s action that systematically and effectively is addressed to the emotions and not to the logic of
people. The explanation is simple. If the power’s established
order was being addressed to people’s IQ it would have been
self-annulated.
The above differential use, that it could be called as social
schizophrenia, is responsible for the wars, the massive killings
of people and many other disasters that people realize impelled
by the established order of authority and their EQs.
156
A Colleague
In the new era of information people would possess a much
bigger mass of information than what they have today. Given
that intelligence is the receiving and the cerebral processing of
information, then how people will manage to process such a big
mass of information in the new era? It is obvious that if they
will make it, there would also be an improvement of the IQ. If
they will not make it and they limit themselves only to the receiving of information there will be a degeneration of the IQ. So
what it will happen in the new era? An improvement or a degeneration of the IQ?
Perhaps the answer is not so difficult to be given, if we would
be able to consider the possibilities that this technology deep
down possess. And these possibilities are to relieve people from
time consuming and painful routine operations and not to substitute his mind. In this rationale, new technology provides to
people time and techno-economic ease to more substantial and
deeper cerebral process of information. In plain words, in order
to make people manage to cerebrally process the big mass of
information, he should use new technology as a tool. In
this case his IQ would be improved.
In the contrary case, the new era of information will become a
nightmare like the one described in the well-known book of
George Orwell “1984”.
If the people of information’s society will decide to use technology as a tool for the cerebral processing of information, then
their IQ would be improved and it would become dominant. But
if they insist to the cerebral processing of the big mass of information using traditional tools, will not manage it. Today’s IQ
will become shrunk and the paradoxical phenomenon of differential use will be reinforced.
It is useful to remind that the routine operations of nowadays
are not the same with those of the past. Something that in the
157
past was a difficult, time consuming and of high cost spiritual
work, today – thanks to technology- is a routine operation,
easy, fast and of negligible cost.
158
Discussion of 3rd June
Subject: Democracy and modern physics
The democracy of the ancient Greek spirit is a system of exercising political power based on the moral principle that people
by nature, by God, are all equal as far as their natural, spiritual
and psychic power is concerned. Obviously, this axiomatic principle does not stand when we consider people to be individual
beings. It does stand though – and more precisely it is the
standing truth – when we consider a set of people, when we
put in question a society.
This principle, deep down it coincides with the logic of the
total and of the random which was developed and is being
used in modern physics. This logic nowadays is highly appreciated and it is accepted not only in physics but also in other
sciences as well as in philosophy.
On the determinism of the total and of the random, the three
fundamental institutions of Athenian Democracy are based.
These are the institutions: of the Ecclesia of Demos, the Justice
administration and the Leaders of the citizens.
We have already talked for these institutions in our previous
discussions. But let us now reconsider them as creations of this
logic.
Ecclesia of Demos and logic of the total
In ancient Greece all big decisions concerning the citizens and
the state, were taken by the total of the citizens. That is, they
were being taken by the General Assemblies of the citizens
which were called Ecclesia of Demos.
Decisions of that kind taken by the Ecclesia were: The institution of laws, the declaration of wars, the judgment of big offences committed by leaders or citizens and generally the tak-
159
ing of the “major” decisions concerning the citizens and their
state.
From all the aforementioned it is obvious that in ancient Athens
the power was possessed by the citizens as a set and not by
one or some “components” of the set; that is by individuals selected by the citizens on the criterion of their special moral and
spiritual powers.
At that time, the legislative, the governing and the judicial
power was carried by the total of the citizens; the set of the
citizens was the unique and top power carrier.
Justice Administration and logic of total
In ancient Athens there was the faith that the righteousness of
courts’ decisions was being ensured by the big number of citizens – judges.
That is the reason why the number of courts’ members was
being increased depending on the seriousness of the offence.
Major offences were being judged by the Ecclesia, by the total
of the citizens.
Judicial decisions were taken by the total of the citizens, named
“ostracisms” (οστρακισμοί). Ostracisms were referendums in
which voting were done by use cells, (potsherds, όστρακα)35.
The aforementioned faith was characterized by researchers
of ancient Greek civilization, “curious faith”.
36
But, in Statistic Physics this faith is not curious. It is a basic
presupposition for the validity of the determinism of the
logic of the total.
35
In ostracisms, citizens wrote on a cell the name of the accused man and
dropped it in a certain field. If the written cells were equal to the citizens’ majority, then the accused man, as a rule a leader, was guilty.
36
Ulrich von Wilamowiitz, Plato.
160
Leaders and logic of the random
Leaders (άρχοντες) in the ancient Greek language of Homer’s
years were called those that were placed at the beginning of an
organized formation. (Αρχή = beginning, άρχοντες = men at
the beginning).
The leaders in ancient Greece and more specifically in Athens
had no essential power. They were neither legislating, nor judging, and they were not the ones to take strategic or political
decisions.
In those days, the leaders were the servants and the deacons
of the Ecclesia of Demos.
In the Ecclesia leaders and citizens had the same power: One
vote.
Leaders and citizens had the right to propose the WHAT and
WHY should be decided in the Ecclesia. It is possible that the
majority of decisions in the Ecclesia were being taken after proposals of the leaders. But this is no political power. It is the spiritual and moral power of each leader, of each citizen.
The appointment of the leaders was taking place after random
choice (drawing lots) or with circular terms of all citizens. In
some cases this was taking place through election, through voting. Practically in ancient Greece only military leaders were being appointed through voting.
The act to prefer, for leader’s appointment, the random choice
than the election, shows that the principle of citizens’ equality
was a sincere faith and not a verbalism. It also shows the understanding that any forthcoming difficulty inherent in the prediction of man’s special abilities is being proved only through
the exercise of power. (Αρχή άνδρα δείκνυσι. Power exercise
pushes forward man’s abilities).
It is useful to point that in those days the determinism of the
total and of the random was neither understood nor it had the
status that it enjoys today. On the contrary, the morality of the
161
total was being understood and it enjoyed a very big status.
Plato, who was actually a harsh critic of the democratic regime,
he used to say that in order to govern correctly a state there
should be that either all citizens to be philosophers, (democracy) or that only the philosophers should govern (aristocracy).
On the contrary, the morality of the random was and still is indefinable and incomprehensible even nowadays. Maybe that is
the reason why Plato called Democracy an absurd political regime where the leaders are not the best citizens but the citizens
that their turn has come.
In today’s “Democracies”, that actual all power is transferred by
the Ecclesia to the Leaders, many people trust more the random choice of them than the expectation of choosing the perfect ones through voting that possess rules and practices defined only by the Leaders without citizens’ participation.
As a result from the aforementioned we understand that ancient Greeks appreciated, trusted and used the logic of
the total and of the random. This was a sovereign and crucial decision of them which after two and a half thousand years
is rationally justified by the conclusions of the Statistic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.
A Colleague
From the things that you say we should also say that ancient
Greeks had also discovered quantum mechanics?
Of course not; such a claim would be an illogical exaggeration.
With all the things I said we should come to the conclusion that
ancient Greeks, although they did not know about statistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, they were using and they
were trusting their determinism in the most important, as far as
humanity is concerned, issue; the issue of the exercise of political power.
162
A Colleague
You do not think that this opinion of yours is totally arbitrary
since it has no logical explanation?
It may have some logical explanation.
As it is known, the advantage and the same time the disadvantage of ancient Greeks was that they were trying to understand
everything through logical speculations without supporting and
confirming their standing through experiment. This process until the beginning of the 21st century seemed as very important
deficit of substantiation.
At the beginning of the 21st century (2000-2002) researchers
have discovered that people possess apart from logical intelligence (IQ) and emotional one (EQ) ,as well as a third type of
intelligence, the spiritual intelligence (SQ).
The SQ constitutes the sovereign intelligence that is checking
the conclusions of EQ and IQ; the conclusion of logic and coherence.
It is possible that the achievements of ancient Greeks are owed
to the significant growth of their SQ; to their SQ’ s action.
A Colleague
What they told us in a previous discussion about the dominant
IQ and what you tell us about the sovereign SQ have confused
me. At the end, what is the basis of the achievements of the
ancient Greek civilizations; the dominant IQ or the sovereign
SQ?
You are right. Let us try to clarify the matter.
In ancient Greece, thanks to the SQ the transformation of IQ
to dominant intelligence was carried with respect to its “older
163
sister” the EQ. The IQ, although dominant, was cooperating in
harmony and with no arrogance with the EQ.
Thus, ancient Greek civilization was founded on the harmonic
cooperation of the dominant IQ with the older and respected
sister the EQ, by the supervision of the sovereign SQ.
Here is an example of such cooperation: Athenians asked the
oracle at Delphi - the temple of EQ - what they should do in
order to win the Persians and it answered: You should build
wooden walls. However, Athenians thanks to their SQ and IQ
understood that the oracle meant that they should build military
ships.37
A Colleague
In previous discussions it was mentioned that democracy is a
social system of low entropy. This view is related to the present
view that democracy is based on the logic of the total and of
the random?
The logic of the total and of the random has standing value and
it is being implemented in natural systems that are being constituted by a big mass of elements that they are – or at least
they are considered to be – equal. A basic characteristic of
these systems is entropy.
Let us remind that entropy in modern physics is being defined
as “the measure of ataxia” (disorder) or “the reciprocal of the
information’s measure”. Consequently low entropy means small
measure of ataxia or big measure of information.
We come to the conclusion from these definitions that democracies constitute political systems of low social entropy because the power remains practically to its natural carriers, the
citizens. Also in these political systems, the possibility of the
37
This data are included in “Herodotus’ History,” book 7th, about Persian –
Greek Wars; Herodotus (5th century BC) was named “the father of history.”
164
access of all citizens to the information is being maximized because all citizens are rulers and being ruled.
Consequently, systems with low entropy - or with big transparency, as politicians and sociologists prefer to call it - are only
the democracies of the ancient Greek spirit; the true democracies.
A Colleague
Your views are sensational. But do they still have a practical
value besides the attempt to create this sensation?
I understood well the spirit of your question. But I would like to
assure you that these opinions were not phrased just to create
a sensation but instead because I sincerely believe that they
have a practical value as much as in the short term as well as in
the long term.
The crisis of contemporary democracies is owed to the fact
that deep down people, do neither understand nor they trust
the determinist capabilities of the total and of the random.
Besides, the determinism of the total and of the random was
mainly developed by the Statistic mechanics relatively recently.
I have the opinion that sooner or later they will be taken seriously into consideration by the sciences of sociology and of
politics.
A Colleague
Which is the long term value of these ideas?
It is obvious that these ideas are in an embryonic state.
Still, it is possible that in the future some other people that
know very well the philosophy and the possibilities of modern
physics and they are also interested in sociology and in politics
165
that they would develop more specific and more useful ideas
relating to this subject.
166
Discussion 4th of June
Subject: Prigogine's theories and the Athenian
Democracy's institutions
Ilya Prigogine was born in Moscow a few months before the
Russian Revolution of 1917. Due to the fact that his father had
a critical standing against the new Bolshevik regime, his family
migrated in 1921 to Germany. Eight years later, in 1929, the
family of the twelve year old Ilya settled in Brussels.
In his new home country, Ilya grew up, studied physics and
chemistry and made the first steps of his scientific career. In
1949 he assumed the Belgian nationality.
The most important stages of his scientific development were
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
1950 Professor in the University of Brussels
1959 Director in the International Institute of Research in
Brussels
1959 Transition to the Texas University of USA, at the
beginning as a lecturer and little later as a professor of
Physics and Chemistry.
1967 He returns to Brussels where he assumes the position
of director in the Centre of Statistic Mechanics and
Thermodynamics
1977 He was awarded the Nobel prize
Ilya Prigogin died in Brussels in 2003 at the age of 86. Until the
day of his death he was President of the International Academy
of Sciences.
Brief description of Prigogine work
Deterministic and chaotic systems
In order to understand the pioneering work and the important
contribution of Prigogine in the study of the natural, biological
167
and social systems, it is necessary to remember the basic characteristics of the deterministic and chaotic phenomena and
systems.
We call the systems and the phenomena deterministic, whose
behavior and evolution is being determined in absolute certainty because they stem out of a specific, known and unchangeable cause or causes (logic of determinism).
We call the systems and the phenomena chaotic, whose behavior and evolution is due to many and changeable causes and
for that reason are indefinable, chaotic (logic of the chaos
theory).
An example of a deterministic phenomenon is the fall of objects, not into the atmosphere but in the vacuum (free fall).
The course of the free fall is being determined in absolute certainty and accuracy by the laws of Newton that we learned in
High School38. The cause of this determinism is the force of
gravity.
It is being said that what lead to the discovery of Newton's
laws was the fall of an apple to his head.
The fall of a stone in the atmosphere is being determined by
Newton's laws in a very big approximation. Still, this does not
stand for the fall of all objects into the atmosphere.
An example of a chaotic phenomenon is the fall into the atmosphere of a tree leaf or of a feather.
Out of our personal experience we know that the “fall” of a
feather is not being determined by Newton's laws. It is being
rather determined by the “law” of the “floating feather”.
Phenomena such as the fall of a feather, the meteorological
phenomena, the open thermodynamic systems, the biological
systems (e.g. human organism), the social systems (e.g.
38 These laws, in mathematical formalism, are being written: g=stable, u=g.t
and h=1/2 g.t²
168
Greeks' society), whose behaviour and evolution is indeterminable or at least is being defined in a very difficult way, are being called chaotic.
In the austere scientific language of Physics, chaotic phenomena are being called the phenomena that are being described by
non linear differential equations: that is by equations that are
not being solved or that we do not know until now how to
solve.
A second more understandable definition is the following: Chaotic are the phenomena and the systems that present an extreme sensitivity to their initial conditions. A slight change to
them produces subversion to their course and renders it indefinable.
Consequently, chaotic systems are not deterministic indefinable
but instead practically indefinable. The chaos theory does not
cancel determinism but it rather completes it.
Open thermodynamic systems
Prigogine since the first years of his scientific career was occupied with the study and the research concerning the open
thermodynamic systems. That is the systems whose behaviour
and evolution is very difficult if not impossible to determine.
It is useful to remind that open thermodynamic systems are
being called the systems that exchange (give and take) energy
with the environment, while the closed ones are those that do
not exchange.
The closed thermodynamic systems have been extensively studied in classic physics. This abstractional simplification led to
the understanding and to the discovery of the thermodynamics’
laws; something similar to the process that used by Newton to
the discovery the gravity and the laws of objects’ fall.
This abstract ional methodology led to the following extremely
important successes:
(1) To the discovery of the basic laws of nature
169
(2) To the use of mathematics in the study of natural phenomena and
(3) To the biggest and fastest due to the use of mathematics
development of Physics, comparing to that of the other
sciences.
This abstractional methodology is the one that, according to our
perception, lead to the triumph of determinism.
This undoubtable offer of determinism had nonetheless a negative outcome. It created an elitistic mentality that confronted
any non deterministic logic with a small interest if not in an arrogant way.
Through the elitistic mentality, the solution of every problem
should always come as a result of the deepening of the well of
determinism
Prigogin subverted this mentality; he believed that the solution
to every problem should result by the deepening and the broadening of this well. A second outcome of Prigogin which
presents an obvious credibility was that the majority of systems
-natural, biological, social, economical- are open systems (they
interact with the environment) and consequently they should
possess a common or at least a relative determinism.
Prigogin, since the first days of his scientific life, worked at the
open thermodynamic systems. It is possible that this occupation
of his was the cause that leads to new ways of perception and
methods of solving problems. It was possibly something similar
to the apple that fell to the head of the father of natural
sciences; of Newton.
In these new ways, Prigogine’s efforts took a holistic, interdisciplinary and philosophical character; a character different to
the austere deterministic of classic physics. Prigogine by moving
in these new ways, he located those basic and similar dynamic
procedures of nature that stand in many fields; from cosmology
and the physics of elementary particles to biology and sociology. This new way has the summarizing name: “Bridging and
170
unification of classic physics, philosophy, biology, sociology and technological applications conceptions”.
Those efforts of his were summarized by the Swedish committee that granted him the Nobel Prize as following:
“...he gave new relations and he created new theories in
order to bridge the gap between the biological and the
sociological scientific fields of research”.
Prigogine’s theories related to the Principles of
Democracy
A Colleague
Which theories of Prigogine are being related to the institutions
of Athenian democracy? This correlation is documented or it
presents big doses of imagination?
Colleague-Introducer
The subject of documentation is something that you will judge
by evaluating all those that would be mentioned in our discussion.
Nonetheless, the most important ideas and theories of Prigogine, which are being related to the institutions of the Athenian
democracy, according to our perception are the following:
(1)The non-existence of simplicity and hierarchy in the natural systems
(2) The random character of the evolutionary process and
the value of probability
(3) The self-organization.
A Colleague
It would be very interesting if you could do a brief review of
those theories and a correlation of them to the principles and
institutions of the Athenian Democracy.
171
Let us attempt that. Still, I would like to say that such an effort
is not easy to be covered within the boundaries of a discussion.
The non existence of simplicity and hierarchy
Prigogine believes that the simplicity does not exist in nature
but only in the mind of human beings. In nature there exists
complexity.
The neat and elegant view of philosophers and physicists that
any level of scientific description is being built on the precedent
level, and as a consequence the descriptions of the basic level
of rudimental elements and fundamental powers have priority,
does not stand true.
But let us try to present some historical arguments of the above
idea.
Philosophers and scientists alike believed that underneath the
apparent complexity of the world, there is being hidden a simple structure, that is that simplicity exists.
This view is very old and diachronic. It was phrased by the ancient Greek philosophers and more specifically by Democritus
and Aristotle that also determined the form of this simplicity.
Democritus (460-370 b.C) expressed the view that the world is
structured by similar simple structural elements that are not
being further intersected; the “atoms”.39
Aristotle (384-322 b.C) expressed the view that the world is
structured by four structural elements with a continuous composition, which can be constantly intersected; Earth, Water, Air
and Fire. Still, he was not limited into defining the rudimental
elements by which the world is structured but he went on to
the definition of the fundamental powers, of the “glue” that
39
Atom (άτομο) in Greek means the structural element that cannot be divided
furthermore.
172
unites the rudimental elements in the unified and beautiful
structure of the world; of cosmos40.
The fundamental powers according to Aristotle are two: gravity
and lightness. Due to gravity, earth and water move downwards, while due to lightness, air and fire move upwards.
Thousand years later the only thing that changed was our view
on the forms of the rudimental elements and the kinds of the
fundamental powers by which the world was structured.
For example, in the 1950's we were considering that the rudimental elements are the protons, the neutrons and the electrons, while we knew few things about the fundamental
powers which unite them in order that they could be able to
form a nucleus, an atom, a molecule, a star, a galaxy, the cosmos.
Today, the subject of the rudimental, of the basic, elements has
lost the simplicity that possessed during the era of Democritus
and that of the 1950's. Today there has been experimentally
discovered a very big number of rudimental elements -the
“atoms” of Democritus- whose catalogue is constantly growing.
Today we consider that exist a lot of basic elements; six different types of quarks - up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top –
electrons, leptons, neutrinos…”a whole zoo of rudimental ele-
ments through which the world is being structured”.
The simplicity in the basic elements of matter seems as if it
comes to a dead end, it seems to be a utopia.
Instead of the simplicity of the basic elements of matter, today
the physicists are trying to locate the simplicity of the fundamental powers, of the glue that unites these basic elements.
Nowadays we know that these powers are four: gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear interaction and strong nuclear interaction. Nonetheless, the researchers are trying to discover the
40
Cosmos ( Κόσμος) in Greek means top jewel; top beauty.
173
“superpower” that unifies them; the superpower that has the
aforementioned four powers as daughters. In spite of the many
efforts that have been done, neither this superpower has not be
found or at least not yet.
Prigogine also believes that there is no hierarchy in nature in
the sense that it exists in human systems, especially in the social ones.
The structural and development laws of nature are democratic
and not monarchic.
A Colleague
These ideas are revolutionary and they contradict the theory of
the unified field and the efforts of so many researchers that try
to discover what you have called superpower. You do not think
that these ideas collide with the ideas of Quantum Mechanics?
I agree with you. But we should rather call it a different view.
Not collision.
This different view leads Prigοgine to suggest the change of
direction of the efforts; to suggest their orientation to the understanding of the laws of interaction between the powers and
the phenomena. Time will tell which of the two views is the correct one.
Let us try now to correlate the aforementioned with the principles and institutions of Athenian Democracy.
As it is easily comes out by the simple viewing of the practices
and of the institutions of Athenian Democracy, in this regime,
there is neither hierarchy, nor there has been done any effort
of simplification and documentation of its institutions and principles. Here is an example of such a practice and an example of
such an institution.
(1) In ancient Greece, democracy was a self-evident value,
without simplicity or complexity. That is the reason why there
174
was no philosophical documentation of the necessity and of the
morality of this regime. Whatever had already been written
concerned the description, the weaknesses, the disadvantages
and the advantages of Democracy.
The views expressed by Plato, the austere judge of Democracy,
have the same target. The Plato’s view that “in order to govern
a city in the right way, either all citizens should be philosophers
(democracy) or there should only govern the philosophers (aristocracy)”, is a realistic and not a negative standing for democracy, We should probably bring back to mind that in ancient
Greece language, aristos (άριστος), is the one who possesses
moral and natured power and not the one who possesses social
and financial power; one man of nowadays aristocracy.
Contrary to the aforementioned practice of ancient Greek, the
necessity and the morality of today's representative democracies needed to be documents through many philosophical arguments. Such arguments appeared in the theories of “Social
Contracts”; of English Thomas Hobbes, of French Jean Jack
Rousseau and others. In these theories people are not being
considered as carriers of power -as considered in the regime
of Athenian Democracy- but they are rather considered as
“partners/ servants” of the rulers; of the powerful men.
In contemporary representative democracies, during our efforts
to achieve simplicity and documentation, we even lost the simplicity and the spirit of ancient Greek democracy.
(2) The lack of hierarchy is clearly evident in the institution of
the Ecclesia of Demos as well as in the institution of the leaders’ competences.
The Ecclesia of Demos in ancient Athens was the only and the
sovereign vehicle for exercising any kind of power; of the legislative, the executive, and of the judicial. In those days all power
was in the hands of the of citizens’ set.
During that time, the leaders were neither making laws, nor
they judged and they were not also taking the strategic deci175
sions that nowadays' leaders do. During those days, the leaders
were the deacons of the Ecclesia of Demos; of the Ecclesia
which composed by citizens with the status of ruler and being
ruled.
In the Ecclesia citizens and leaders alike possessed the same
power; one vote. Pericles, the greatest leader of Athens, in Ecclesia had the same power with a farmer of Attica who might
not know to read and to write.
The Value of Random and Probability.
According to the classical conceptions, the term random refers
to systems and phenomena that are being developed and governed with blind eyes; that they lack of goals and meaning.
Still, according to Prigogine random is synonym: To non determinism, to spontaneous, to innovation and to creativity. It is a new and revolutionary view.
Also, according to the classical conceptions, the development
and the evolution of systems are deterministic; they possess an
absolute and argumented certainty. The first breach to this
conception was created by the second law of Thermodynamics,
namely the law of entropy. The law of entropy does not stand
in an argumented certainty but it stand in a big probability,
stemming out of the statistical data of practice.
For example the saying: “in August is not snowing in Athens”,
has no deterministic certainty, but it has high probability. We
cannot dismiss the fact that one day it may snow in August.
Something similar but with higher probability stands for the law
of entropy.
The second and bigger breach to the conception in question
was created by the Heisenberg’ Principle of Uncertainty in
Quantum Mechanics. According to this principle, which stands
for the sub atomic particles, for micro cosmos, it is impossible to know in a certainty the position and the momentum
176
(the velocity) of a particle41. This principle obliged on one hand
the physicists to describe situations through the use of probability instead of that of certainty and on the other it also obliged
the philosophers to coherently expand the principle of uncertainty to other spaces besides that of the microcosmos, something that we do not yet know if it is right or wrong.
Prigogin comes to document the view that Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty also stands in the open thermodynamic, in
the biological, and in the social systems; that it generally stands
in all systems that interact with the environment.
Prigogin's new principle of uncertainty tells us that when the
complexity of the systems in question surpasses a certain point of limit, then the systems are heading towards unforeseen and uncertain situations.
It is obvious that Prigogin's new principle of uncertainty is of
very great importance when we refer to today's very complex
social, economical and political systems. It reminds the popular
proverb: “when the ant wants to be lost, it grows wings”.
Although ancient Greeks were not aware the aforementioned
views on the random and the probable, they were implementing them in the most important sector; in the sector of exercising political power. Here we have three indicative examples:
(1) The election of the leaders in the Athenian Democracy was
being carried through random choice, by lot, and it was only
the election of the military leaders that was being carried out
with voting (conscious choice, election).
(2) The decisions in the Ecclesias by the total of citizens were
being taken based on the principle of majority. It is obvious
that decisions of that kind do not present the certainty but instead the high probability, to be rational.
41This law in mathematical formalism is being written: Δx.Δp >1/2h and it
means that the uncertainty of position Δx multiplied with the uncertainty of
momentum Δp is bigger or equal to a constant number.
177
(3) After examining the outcomes of the normal distributions,
today we are in the position to know that the decisions taken
by the set of the citizens present a normal (moderate) rationality but also a very high probability (almost certainty) of securing
this rationality. On the contrary, the decisions taken by a Messiah present a big degree of rationality but a very slight probability of securing it. What is more, the greater the Messiah the
smallest the probability of the existence of a true Messiah. Imitation Messiahs are not being determined by the determinism of
normal distributions.
The conclusion from the above is that the citizens of Athenian
Democracy appreciated more the probability of securing expectancy than the size of expectancy. That is, they believed in the
old wise saying: “Who wants to get plenty, is going to lose the
few, too”.
In ancient Greek democracy it was difficult for the citizens to be
duped by verbalistic expectancies.
The self organization
Prigogin's ideas concerning the self organization of systems do
not only constitute an innovative view but also a recovery, or at
least an approach, of the self organization procedure.
The self organization phenomenon is tightly connected to the
phenomenon of life itself and that is the reason why it appears
in a more intense way in the living than in the still systems. But
self organization is not a privilege of the living systems.
The Prigogine’s self organization procedure is not easy to be
described. Still in a first approach, we could say that self organization is an outcome of “information storage” into the molecules that develop the capability to produce a useful work, like
the metabolism or reproduction. The self organization procedure is evolving furthermore according to the law of “natural
choice”.
The self organization leads to more effective and to more stable
systems than those of man organization ones.
178
The unsurpassable classical civilisation of Athens, that developed in time and space where there existed the regime based
on the citizens’ set, on the random , on probability and on self
organization, the original democracy, constitute possibly the
biggest and the most characteristic example of the Prigogine’s
theories value and validity.
The conclusion into which we are led by all the aforementioned,
is that the institutions of Athenian Democracy are so much
compatible with Prigogine's theories, that appear to fully justify
the next question:
The ideas of Athenian Democracy have been formed by Prigogin's ideas or Prigogin's ideas have been formed by those of
Athenian Democracy?
A Colleague
Everything that you said is rational views. I think though that
they do not present a big practical value when it comes to the
analysis and the solution of the problems that exist in today's
democracies. In my opinion they constitute some general
thoughts. What is your opinion?
I agree with you. Still I believe that always this happens; always the first steps are small and unstable.
Nonetheless, the unstable initial steps usually result into causing similar efforts by other citizens who are experts on subjects
of sociology, politics or of modern physics.
My personal view is that sooner or later Prigogine's ideas will
acquire a practical value in the field of analysis and development democratic systems; they will be used for the analysis and
solution of the representative democracies’ problems, as it has
already been done for the problems of Biology.
179
Instead of epilogue
Today, problems in physics are being phrased and studied with
the use of austere rationality based on clear and catholic validity principles.
As it is known, this austere rationality did not exist in the past.
It is a relatively recent achievement of man.
In relation to this achievement, the Nobel awarded Emilio Segré
is writing in his book “History of Physics”:
“The biblical history of Genesis could be rewritten in a modern
way as follows:
•
“Let there be light” takes the form:
∇.E = 4πρ
∇× E =−
∇.B = 0
1 ϑB
c ϑt
∇× B=
1 ϑ E 4π j
+
c ϑt
c
That are the Maxwell’s equations; the equations of the electromagnetic field of light.
•
The motion of planets takes the form:
F =ma
F =k
mM
R2
That are the Newton’s equations; the equations of Fundamental Low of Mechanics and of Low of the Universal Gravitation.”
Let us hope there would be a day that man would be able to
display ideas and events of politics in a similar way of catholic
validity; to be able to easily discern right from wrong, truth
from lie.
Man that “reached” the atom and went to the moon, surely
possess this ability. He only has to make an effort and to not
face obstacles similar to those that Galileo had to face.
181
182
PART III
Digital technology as an opportunity and as a
vehicle for democracy’s expansion
and regeneration
•
Digital technology of interactive networks brought to life
the dream of humanists and the aspiration of technocrats
for a catholic democratic technology of information’s disposal and processing.
•
The interactive networks constitute a tool for the reduction
of social entropy.
•
The oncoming globalization, make Pnyka’s digitalization
indispensable and urgent.
•
Only one digital referendum per year on the major issues
of the state of Telearea was enough to be evolved the status of the “ruler and being ruled” citizen and to be improved significantly the quality of democracy.
Discussion of 6th June
Subject: Technology of the Mass Media
and political systems
The connections between technology and systems of political
power were created with the development of technologies that
enabled the informing, the emancipation and the demagoguery
of people.
Such technologies were those concerning the production of papyrus, of vellums and of paper; of the materials on which power carriers were writing by hand their orders and instructions to
the people.
Several years after, the German monk Gutenberg (1400-1468)
perfected the technology of typography through which it became feasible to produce many copies of a written message, in
a fast way and with a low cost. The first book to be printed with
the help of this new technology was the Bible.
The products of the technology in question, books, newspapers
and magazines rendered this interrelation of political power and
technology to be more direct and stronger.
Radio times
The first decades of the 20th century it was developed the technology of radio which contributed in a great way to the modernization and the empowerment of these connections.
New technology provided the political power, the ability to acquire “electronic preachers” who could get into the houses of
the citizens and to work day and night for informing them on
the views of the authority. The new way of circulating information presented many advantages. It was easy, friendly, flexible
and of low cost. It was still discreet, gentle, persisting and for
that reason effective.
185
The provision of information concerning the views of power was
not appearing as a main goal but as a secondary one, as a parenthesis. The main goal of radio was typically to educate and
to entertain the citizens and not the promotion of power’s aspirations.
The above mentioned information medias –newspapers, radio
and later television- were called Mass Media. The term “Mass”
defined the massive and low cost way of informing the citizens.
However, today it defines also the philosophy of managing the
receivers of the information; the citizens.
Into this philosophy, the citizens are considered to be a “mass
of people” and not individuals with intellect and critical thinking.
This philosophy in theory is not being adopted by anybody. But
in practice, it is being adopted by many.
The cause of this massive management of people is a technoeconomic characteristic of the Mass Media technology. It is the
securing of all citizens’ access only to the receiving information.
In Mass Media, it is not feasible to have access to the
transmitting information all citizens; only the owners
and the people of Mass Media, it is feasible to have.
As it was natural, the few ones that had the access to the
transmission of information acquired a lot of power and for that
reason they took the name “fourth authority”.
The power concentration to the people of the “fourth authority”, many times, proved to be much greater than the one possessed by the institutional political authority.
This strength of technology’s interrelation with the political
power systems, results also by the following historical event:
The epidemic of dictatorships in Europe –of German Nazi, Italian fascism and many others- coincides in time with the technoeconomic maturing of the radio technology of electronic tubes.
186
It is useful to remind that Nazi had developed a simple and low
cost radio set, which people could buy by post stabs. This radio
maybe was the “more effective arm” of Nazi.
Many people believe today, that without the radio technology,
this epidemic of dictatorships would not have been so greatly
expanded.
Television times
The information carried by books and newspapers have the
form of written speech while those carried by the radio have
the form of oral speech.
Due to this difference, getting information through radio is considered to be easier and friendlier than getting it through books
and newspapers.
And something other very important: The sending of information through radio is easier and more flexible but also rougher
than the information carried by written texts. “Writings stay,
words go away” used to say for thousands of years.
In the television technology which appeared in the midst of the
20th century, the carried information has the form of the written
speech (text) as well as those of the oral speech (voice) and of
the image (video). With such technical features, the power of
television’s information became very big.
As it is known, people have a limit of endurance against any
kind of pressure: Physical, intellectual, psychological. When this
limit is passed over, there comes the equivalent of the pressure
“collapse” of people.
People have a similar endurance limit against the pressure of
information. When this is passed over, people do not control
the information but the information controls people.
The existence of this limit and the big power of information that
television possess made believe that today, in the TV era, the
greatest problem is not WHAT we say but HOW we say it. If we
find the appropriate HOW, we can face the problem of WHAT.
187
And vice versa; most simple WHAT, it can become a serious
and complicated problem if it is not accompanied by the appropriate HOW.
The combined power of image, voice and text has been proved
to be greater than the power of truth and logic.
The oligarchic features of Mass Media
To incriminate technology because we use it for bad purposes
constitutes an absurdity. The responsibility for the good or the
bad use of technology belongs exclusively to the people and not
to technology.
Technology has another responsibility: The economical and
functional feasibility of being used by everybody or by few
ones.
If the techno-economic features of technology lead to its use by
all people, then we have technologic democracy. In the contrary we have technologic oligarchy.
In the case of Mass Media, the technology of receiving the information is democratic because it is accessible by all people.
Anybody can to day acquire a book, a radio or a TV.
The technology of transmitting the information is oligarchic because it is not accessible to everybody. The publication of a
book, the acquisition of a radio or a TV station or even the
phrasing of a view in such a station, is not possible for a simple
citizen.
Within the framework of the techno-economic features of the
Mass Media, the institution of free access to the information has
only theoretical value. In practice, people today may hear freely
what is being said, but people themselves do not possess the
practical ability to express their own views.
We rush to clarify that the “oligarchic features of the Mass Media” do not cancel their big offer to the informing and to the
emancipation of people.
188
The techno-economic features of any technology, either of an
oligarchic one or a democratic one, cannot define by themselves the purpose of technology’s use. The definition of the
purpose is an exclusive responsibility of people. The knife is a
product of democratic technology. We all have knives. Most of
us we use them to cut the bread and to “eat the melon”. Still,
some use them also to stab people.
A Colleague
The oligarchic character of transmitting the information in the
Mass Media is indeed a very important problem.
Still, this problem cannot be faced with the laws and rules of
political power?
The legislation for using devices of oligarchic or democratic
technology is indispensable. The fact that all citizens can possess a radio does not mean there should not be rules for the
use and the functioning of the radios.
The question is which technology creates problems to the operation of democracy that can be easily faced by laws and rules;
a democratic technology or an oligarchic one?
Without any doubt, democratic technology creates fewer and
smaller problems. The bigger the number of the citizens that
possess it, the fewer the problems created in democracy’s functioning.
Thirty years ago, in radio times, the problems that exist today
in the television, existed in the radio; Oligarchic mentality, discriminations, complaints, grumpiness.
Today, that hundreds of radio stations are functioning, today
that in every big village there is one or two FM radio stations,
these problems have disappeared. They were solved through
the institutional liberation of the radio stations’ functioning
but mainly through the “democratization of technology”;
through the securing of the appropriate techno-economic fea189
tures that render feasible the functioning of one or two radio
stations in every big village.
A Colleague
Why political leadership does not give the same solution in television?
Why it resorts to laws of questionable effectiveness and to
amendments in the Constitution?
Your question is a very important one.
Like we have already said, the democratization of a technology
is not only a matter of taking the proper political decision. It is
not only a matter of a low. Before anything else, it is a matter
of the techno-economic features of technology.
It is a fact that the technology of radio electric television does
not present the necessary techno-economic features for such
democratization. Nonetheless, cable television’s technology
does present them.
My view is that the development of cable television would solve
these problems in a more reliable and effective way than the
solution that is being attempted to be given through amendments of the Constitution and through voting laws of questionable effectiveness, like the one of the “main shareholder”42.
A Colleague
Your views seem reasonable. Still, why political leadership prefers to solve the problem of TV through laws and not through
technology? Is it possible that the technological solution has a
very big financial cost? Is it possible that deep down inside de-
42
The Mass Media problem in Greece was faced through changes that were in
the Constitutional Law and through the legislation of the “Main Shareholder
Law”.
190
sires the existence of oligarchic technology with the hope that it
will be used towards the fulfillment of its aspirations?
I do not know which one of the above stands true. Nonetheless, I realize that your questioning is reasonable and that all
citizens are entitled to a documented answer.
I also know that from the offered two solutions, that of democratic technology through reasonable legislation and that of
oligarchic technology through hard legislation, the right and
effective one is the first. The institutional and techno-economic
liberation of the radio sends a clear message.
A Colleague
You connected radio technology with epidemic of dictatorships
in Europe. However, there is not a similar connection in relation
to TV’s technology. Is it possible that the things we say about
TV are views that are not historically documented?
It is a fact that in television times we did not have the establishment of many dictatorships.
Still, we had a reconsidering of the values’ hierarchy concerning
the WHAT and the HOW that we mentioned earlier. However,
this reconsidering of the values’ hierarchy is an equally risky
phenomenon like the one of the dictator regimes’ appearance.
This reconsidering of values’ hierarchy, which happens in the
TV era, resulted in the change of the spirit of institutions
and not to their letter. And this is equally dangerous even
than the abolishment of spirit and letter of democratic institutions.
The fact that politicians and experts speak about “Televised
Democracy” and “Televised Courts”, is not irrelevant.
191
May be this camouflaged practice is, in long-term, more dangerous than the obvious dictatorships of Europe during the 20th
century.
192
Subject: Digital technology
of interactive networks
Mass Media technology secures the techno-economic freedom
of the citizens only as far as the receiving of information is concerned.
In the transmission of information the securing of freedom is
not feasible for all citizens but only for a small category of citizens which has at its disposal the required money assets and
the necessary natural asset of the frequencies.
The development of a catholic democratic technology that
would posses such techno-economic features, that all citizens
would have the same possibilities in the receiving and the
transmitting of information, was the dream of humanists and
the aspiration of technocrats.
This dream became a reality through the digital technology of
interactive networks.
The term interactive states the existence of the technoeconomic ability that is lacking in the Mass Media. That is of the
ability ensuring the free access of all citizens not only in the
receiving but also in the transmitting of any form of information; mass or personal; text, voice, image, data.
But how it was born, where it is today and how it is expected to
be developed in the future, this technology?
The birth and the development
The technology of interactive networks was created by the cooperation, and by the crossover of Telecommunications and
Information technology. These technologies do not have as
their purpose the production of mechanical work, as all the others technologies have. They have as their purpose the produc193
tion of another form of work which is usually called intellectual work; the easy and low cost, processing, circulation
and disposal of information.
The technology of interactive networks started with the purpose
of the computers’ communication and mainly for the computers
used for military purposes. The extent of the purpose to the
form that it has today became slowly during the course of the
technology’s development.
In the first years, computers had oligarchic and mystified features.
•
They were big and they cost a lot of money.
•
They needed a whole building to house the machines and
the people that were operating them.
•
The computer’s entrance data had to present the form of a
perforated card.
•
The space of computer’s operation had equally austere
specifications as those required for a surgery.
•
Whoever wanted to type a page of text should have had a
PhD.
•
Computers’ technology was not at all democratic.
The aforementioned purposes and features became the cause
of distant – if not of contrary – views, between humanists and
technocrats. They became the cause that humanists and technocrats did not cooperate so as to make this new technology a
vehicle for broader humanist changes such as the participation
of citizens to the exercise of power.
Instead of a cooperation there was attempted the incrimination
of technology and of the technocrats for the usual phenomena
of technology’s misuse.
Still, this standing is absurd and unfair. It is equally absurd and
unfair as to consider that the responsible for a fire is the fire
194
itself and Prometheus that stole it from the Gods and not the
arsonist.
Later, the use of big computers was expanded through the development and the use of terminal devices, which could be
used by people who wanted to send or to receive information
by or towards a big computer. It was the era of common use;
of the computers’ leasing.
During these times, the appropriate long wires they were used
to connect the terminals with the computer (mainframe). This is
how the first computer networks were developed.
In the first networks, computer and terminals were functioning
in different spaces of the same building. They were the networks of local area; the LAN (Local Area Network).
Later, the wires became longer. Terminals and computer were
functioning in different buildings of a wider area. Of a research
center, a military base, a university campus. They were the
networks of wide areas; the WAN (Wide Area Network).
During the times of the WAN, the technology of Personal Computers was developed, the well known PCs.
The PCs had all the abilities of the terminal appliances and they
could also carry through the same work as the big computers of
a smaller extent.
Now the terminals were replaced by the PCs which were machines of the same philosophy as the big computers but they
had very low cost.
With this breakthrough all terminal positions changed possibilities. From the position they had to send and to receive data
now they were in the position of “processing, sending and receiving information”. They acquired the same abilities as the big
computer. The democratization of the computers’ technology
had just started.
The areas of the WAN they were getting wider and wider
month by month. Then it became apparent that the cost to es195
tablish a network in a wider area, in a city, in a country was
bigger than the cost of these computers.
This serious problem was solved with the use of telecommunications networks; of the telecommunications’ lines.
With the help of telecommunications’ lines there could be
created, fast and with a low cost, WANs of big extent: in a city,
in a country, in many countries, in all countries of the world. It
was a problem of using existing infrastructures.
The financial problem was overcome. But it could not be overcome the following technical problem: The existing telecommunications’ networks were of analog technology while the computers of digital. This was creating many and serious problems
in the cooperation of computers and telecommunications’ lines.
This problem was faced with an international program of congruity between telecommunications and informatics. Despite
the diplomatic name of the program, the congruity concerned in
essence only the telecommunications.
In practice, the congruity demanded changes only in the telecommunications’ organisms. The congruity demanded the massive replacement of the existing analog telecommunication
networks with new networks of digital technology and the
change of their monopoly functioning into a competitive one.
The telecommunications’ organisms were the ones that paid the
cost of congruity.
In the new digital technology any form of information (text,
voice, image, data), is structured by the same basic information. It is structured by the information digits 1 and 0; the bits.
All the forms of information are constructed by bits; they differ
only in the volume and the transmission speed of the bits.
From the moment that any terminal place of the network was
upgraded into a station of information processing and circulation, the networks should be interactive and independent by
their size.
196
Thus, we reached to the full democratization of information.
Thus we reached the era of information.
The top achievement in the evolution of the INTEReractive
NETtworks was the creation of an INTERnational NETwork
called INTERNET.
The Internet
The Internet is the international network of computers that
connects all the computer networks of the world. It is the international WAN that it was created through the interconnection of
all WANs. It is the network of networks.
The international extent and the very big number of Internet’s
users create the impression that its organization and management are complicated and daedal. However, in practice Internet’s organization and management are very simple because
they are based on the democratic principles of self-organization
and self-management.
Let us clarify the above with a summarizing and simplified presentation of the Internet.
The Internet, that its simplified block diagram is shown in
schema 16, is constituted by three categories of elements:
1. The computers that execute several functions of the networks and provide some “information assets”. These computers have different names and abilities; here for matters
of simplicity we call them nodes.
The nodes are connected with other nodes and with the
rest of computers possessed by the Internet users.
If one node is connected to a node of other countries, then
it is called international. In the contrary it is called local.
Any local node is connected to at least one international
one.
2. The computers of the Internet’s users. These computers
are PCs or computers of greater power.
197
3. The telecommunications’ lines of appropriate technical features that connect either the nodes between them or the
users’ computers with a node. In the first case the connection is being depicted with a closed ring and in the second
with radiuses that begin from node. This depiction is very
close to the natural forms of the telecommunications’
“lines” forms.
ΔΟ
ΔΚ
ΔΚ
ΔΚ
Δ
*
ΤΚ
Δ
*
ΤΚ
Δ
*
ΤΚ
:
Memo:
ΔΟ International network
Δ
Local network
ΔΚ International nodes
ΤΚ Local nodes
*
PC of Internet users
Similar networks
Schema 16
Simplified block diagram of the Internet
As it is shown in schema 16, Internet constitutes by many similar local networks of computers Δ and by an international network Δο.
Any local network Δ includes many local nodes ΤΚ and at least
one international ΔΚ. All international nodes are connected between them and they form the international network Δο. In this
way, all international and local nodes are interconnected in an
international level.
198
Any network and any node have their own organization and
management.
The internet has many similarities with international network of
airline transport.
Equivalent elements to international nodes are the international airports; to local nodes the local airports; to telecommunications lines the airplane flights.
Any company of airplanes and any airport have autonomous
organization and management as it is happening to the nodes
and the lines of the Internet.
With the international airplane network, passengers and goods
are being transported with a big speed e.g. 720km/h
(0,2km/s).
With the Internet, information is being transported with a
speed of 300.000km/s.
The cost of using the airplane network is important and depended on the distance of transport.
The cost of using the Internet is very small and independent
by the distance of transport.
The aforementioned Internet’s features and the important feature that any PC, any computer of the network is a point of
processing and circulation of information, lead to the conclusion that with this technology, we achieved the creation of an
international “market of information”.
A market where all people have the same chances and the
same means in the processing, disposal and transport of information.
A market which is being developed without a central programming but instead with conditions of autonomy and of ideal democracy.
The Internet has no proprietor and no governor. Proprietors
and governors are the millions of people that possess and they
199
operate the three elements that it is being formed by: The
nodes, the PCs and the telecommunications’ lines.
By comparing the possibilities of the interactive networks to
those of the Mass Media we can easily understand the changes
that are being made in the democratization.
Humanists, politicians, technocrats and simple citizens are
called to utilize these big changes.
Towards this attempt the obligations of the technocrats are not
the same with those of the simple citizens. They are greater
because the technocrats apart from the obligation of the simple citizen, they also have the professional task to contribute in
such a way that the technology they developed and they serve,
to be used only for the welfare of the humankind. They know
more than the simple citizens about the possibilities and the
weaknesses of this technology.
The perspectives
Two categories of lines are being used in the Internet for computers’ connections: The lines that connect the nodes and the
lines that connect the PCs and the computers of the subscribers with one node of the network.
The first are depicted in schema 16 like closed rings while the
second like radiuses that begin from the nodes.
The first lines belong to the national and international network
of the telecommunications’ companies, while the second to the
subscriber network of them.
Today, in all telecommunications’ companies – or at least to
majority of them – the international and national networks
have been modernized and fully digitalized. On contrary, the
subscriber networks (Local Lops) have not changed but they
still have the analog form of the two copper wires.
This delay in modernizing is due to economic and technical factors. That is, the replacement of the subscriber network is a
200
very difficult and very expensive work for contemporary technology.
This delay constitutes the crucial problem in the operation of
many major new services of a broad frequency spectrum:
Broad Band Services.
Broad Band Services that are of interest to the simple citizen
are: interactive television, that is transmitting and receiving TV
programs, televised Telephony, color faxes and other services
that require a broad band of frequencies such as telemedicine,
electronic trade, banking services from home, tele-work, teleaction in general.
The delay in modernizing the subscriber networks constitutes a
big problem in the full utilization of the interactive networks’
possibilities.
When this problem will be overcome then the interactive networks’ possibilities will be take off. Then Mass Media will be
replaced by the Medias of Interactive Informing. Then through
one line that will end in our house we would be able to receive
and to send any form of information.
The attempts to solve this problem are looking to the following
directions:
1. To the construction of new subscriber networks by optical
fibers. This solution presents many possibilities as well as
high cost.
2. To the development of some appliances that could be
placed at the ends of the existing subscriber lines and they
would improve to a certain degree the performance of the
subscriber lines. This solution presents limited possibilities
but it is easy, fast and of low cost. It is the DSL technology
(Data Access Subscriber Line) that is being advertised in
newspapers and TV.
3. To the development of earthy wireless subscriber networks
(Wireless Local Loop). This solution presents a wide flex201
ibility but it is limited due to the lack of frequencies. A given total band of frequencies can be divided into few Telecommunication lines of broad band or into many lines of
narrow band. In any case the product: “lines X bandwidth”
is stable.
4. To the development of satellite systems with which the use
of contemporary telecommunication’ networks will be
completely bypassed; international, national and subscriber
ones.
These attempts today have evolved into a battle. The “battle of
wires” as it was called by a great scientist of informatics; the
ever memorable Michalis Dertouzos.
Time will show when and how we will win this battle of wires.
This battle’s victory will not be late to come.
A Colleague
In your introduction there is an exaggerated optimism about
the abilities and the perspectives of the interactive networks. Is
this optimism justified? You are not worried in case it turns out
to be one more disappointment?
My optimism is based on the true fact that the interactive networks’ technology:
a. It is a democratic technology as it was mentioned in our
previous discussions.
b. It constitutes a tool for the reduction of social entropy. Do
not forget that “entropy is the reciprocal of the information’s measure”.
A Colleague
If I understood well, you support that Internet will lead to the
reduction of social entropy?
202
Not this exactly. I support that Internet technology is offering
capability to men for reduction of social entropy; that it is a tool
of social entropy reduction.
Still, in order that this can happen it is indispensable that the
data that are circulating and processing in the Internet constitute information with the austere scientific meaning of the term
and they will not be rubbish and lies.
However, the responsibility for the information’s quality belongs
exclusively to the people and not to the Internet.
The Internet’s responsibility is the fast, flexible and low cost
way of processing, disposing and circulating of information.
A Colleague
Since all the things we said are valid, I think that it would be
more preferable in the new era to aim at the creation of a “society with low entropy” and not simply to the “society of information”.
What is your opinion?
I think that your proposal is of big interest. If we adopt it, we
would have clarified from the beginning, from the title, that we
have to aspire to the improvement of the quantity and the quality of information and not only of the quantity.
A Colleague
I have the opinion this exactly what is being secured by technology; more and better information. That is, information with
better quantity and quality features. Isn’t that so?
No, it is not so.
203
Technology is responsible for securing all the features of information (quantity, processing, transmitting, disposal etc ), except from the quality.
Responsible for the information’s quality is always deep down
man himself; even at the case of automatic collection and
processing of information.
204
Subject: Democracy and digital technology
The influence of the new digital technology in important human
activities –in research, education, public services, public security, medicine, production of services, production of goods, management of businesses, functioning of political parties, functioning of politicians – is obvious.
This influence we see it everyday when we enjoy the favorable
changes created by new digital technology.
Still, the influence of new technology in democratic activities, in
activities concerning the exercise of power by the citizens
themselves, is non-existing.
In order to achieve this kind of changes the first presupposition
is the existence of relevant institutions. The techno-economic
possibility of implementing the institutions constitutes also a
basic presupposition but in any case the second one.
The possibilities of new technology cannot by themselves create
changes in the institutions of exercise of power by the citizens.
This is the reason of zero penetration of the new technology in
that sector in comparison to the high penetration in other sectors.
Nonetheless, the interrelation of technology and power exercising institutions is an existing fact, irrelevant by the kind of institutions. It is a major problem which is being considered
by many people as the most current and urgent problem
of the new era that had begun. This is due to the fact, that
the new technology can support effectively end equally democratic and anti-democratic institutions.
Within the framework of these thoughts the following question
arises:
205
Should the possibilities of the new technology be used for the
exercise of power by the few –even if they are being elected by
the citizens- or should they be used for the exercise of power
also by the citizens themselves?
Is it intended and necessary to change the democratic institutions that have been created with the criterion of the possibilities of the past, towards the direction of increasing the citizens’
power and adjusting them to the possibilities of the new era?
Before we answer the above questions, each one of us should
imagine the changes that can be brought forward by the new
technology.
The changes
From our previous discussion it becomes obvious that the new
digital technology of interactive networks –if also people ask for
it- can change the way, the space, and the time of democratic institutions’ functioning. It can achieve remarkable improvements in flexibility, in speed, in credibility and in the direct and
indirect cost of these institutions’ functioning.
Obviously, the democratic institutions’ development and their
adaptation to the possibilities of the new era are not technology’s act and responsibility. It is an act, a responsibility and
a right of the citizens; of all citizens.
Despite that fact, new technology is influencing in an indirect
way the institutions’ development. Institutions that were considered to be rightful and desired could not be adopted until recently, because of arising exaggerating difficulties that were out
of proportion and because of the big cost in their implementation, today they can be adopted. Today, these problems are
being faced very effectively with the use of the new technology.
The use of new technology in the democratic institutions’ functioning is difficult to be foreseen by now. The same thing happened with the initial forecasting of Internet’s development.
This forecasting always fails reality.
206
What can easily be foreseen is that any change
will also be a lever of technology’s development.
sa; any technology’s development will become
element and a chance for further democratization
tions.
in institutions
And vice vera motivation
of the institu-
This interaction – if people also want it – can become a snowball that will lead to regeneration of Democracy.
But it is also possible – if people are indifferent – to lead to the
death of Democracy. To lead to a belated “1984”43.
While being aware of this reality, we will attempt to present in
a summarizing way, the changes in democratic institutions’
functioning which are awaited to take place in the new era.
Digital Pnyka
The space of democratic institutions’ functioning –the square
with the balcony, the assembly room, the parliament, the election centers, the Pnyka - will be tremendously expanded. They
will be expanded to the whole of earth and possibly outside of
the earth. They will be identified with any space where digital
machines of interactive information and tele-action are functioning, where computers, PCs, teleconference and televoting
devices operate.
All these machines, they will be of private use because of their
affordable cost. But they will also exist, similar machines of
public use, something like today’s public phones.
The machines of public use will possess all the capabilities of
the interactive networks and their way of functioning will be
particularly user friendly. Such machines are already operated
by the telecommunications’ enterprises in spaces that are called
info-kiosks. Still, simple citizens have overcome the imagination
43
“1984” Orwell’s science fiction novel that was forecasting the domination of
oligarchic political regimes through technology’s support.
207
of the telecommunications’ enterprises by creating the all
known internet cafes.
Any country will have a digital Pnyka which citizens will “visit” in
order to realize all those actions that the citizens of Athenian
Democracy were realizing some 2300 years ago in the hill of
Pnyka.
Pnyka is the name of a small hill in Athens lied opposite Acropolis and next to the observatory of our days. On this hill the citizens’ general assemblies were taking place. It was an open kind
of parliament of the Athenian Democracy’s citizens.
Pnyka had a capacity of about 7000 citizens; it had a podium
from where citizens–orators were speaking and clepsydras to
count their time of speaking.
A digital Pnyka of nowadays will be an interactive network
through which the citizens-visitors will be able to get information on the views of the other citizens, to make known their
own views and to participate in the voting that will take place
for decisions’ taking on the main citizens’ issues.
In a digital Pnyka the speeches of the citizens-orators, will take
place from “digital podiums”; the networks’ sites.
Any orator will determine by himself his speeches’ program. In
the same way any citizen will determine by himself his hearing
program.
The autonomous and liberated character of these programs will
be achieved through the use of machines –servants that will
repeat the speech of an orator when a citizen-visitor of digital
Pnyka asks for it.
The virtual space of digital Pnyka will be million times bigger
than the natural space of the aforementioned hill. This space
will include any city, any settlement, any place of the earth
where it would be possible to operate a proper machine connected with the interactive network that we mentioned. Accor-
208
dingly, its capacity will be much bigger than the Athenians Pnyka’s capacity.
Digital Pnyka will be constituted by a set of smaller extent interactive sub-networks; the municipal, prefectural, regional,
national ones. All these networks will function according to the
democratic principles of self-organization and self-management
as Internet does.
The conclusions drawn out of the comparison between conventional and digital Pnyka are easy.
Digital time
In digital Pnyka there will be no limitations in the time of the
speeches, of the meetings, of the voting.
There will only be one known time of duration for the specific
democratic function which will be the same for all Pnyka’s visitors; orators and listeners.
Within the framework of this duration citizens will be able to
visit digital Pnyka whenever it suits them; day and night. They
will be able to stay in it for as much as they need in order to
hear the views of other citizens and to make known their own.
All these will be easily and quickly done without significant cost
because no transferring will be necessary and there will be no
delays due to functioning problems to be faced.
Digital Isegoria
Basic aspirations in ancient Greece as well as pillars of democracy were considered to be the isonomia, isokratia and isegoria. That is, democracy was provided for citizens: equality
opposite the laws (isonomia), equality in the forming of the political power (isokratia) and equality in the political speech that
is equality in the speaking time of all citizens to the Ecclesia
(isegoria).
209
From these three pillars, the most important was the one of
isegoria because it was empowering inductively the standing of
the other two pillars.
Isegoria in ancient Athens was ensured by Pnyka’s technical
features – capacity, acoustics, natural air conditioning, number
of podiums, clepsydras – and by the functioning rules of Demos’ Ecclesia.
Isegoria in a digital Pnyka, will be ensured by its “Servers”.
These Servers will arrange effectively and noiselessly that all
the citizens’ speeches will have the same structure, for example: brief summary up to 100 or 1000 words and presentation
of citizen’s thesis with no limitation, and so on.
It is obvious that in a digital Pnyka, isegoria can be ensured
with easier, simpler and more reliable ways.
Now, the important element of the political speech is not the
duration but the quality of it; the “features of the information”
lead citizens to its positive assessment.
Digital informing
In the new era, citizens will get informed not by the Mass Media
but by the Interactive Media.
The change in the Medias will bring a change in the form of
information. Informing will evolve from its present passive form
to the active form that it used to have 2300 years ago in Athenian Democracy.
In the new digital Pnyka each citizen-orator will support his
speech with text, voice, video and data information and it will
not have limitations.
The citizens-visitors of digital Pnyka will have easy, free and
continuous access to all orators’ speeches.
The above changes clearly define the advantages of digital informing against the conventional one.
210
Digital informing of the new era will look like a big and modern
market. It will differ by it in that it will provide information instead of material goods.
The big mass of information will oblige citizens to make assessments and to choose, the way they choose today material
goods.
Still, the procedure of assessing and choosing information will
be much easier than the one concerning material goods. It will
be made without any transfers, no waste of energy and time,
without the known problems that concern the research for material goods purchases.
It is obvious that the equivalent digital market of material
goods, the electronic trade, will never acquire the advantages
of the digital market of information. This difference is not a
matter of technology but a matter of features of material goods
and information. Information does not have weight nor gets it
spoiled by time as it happens with material goods.
The research and assessment of the information market’s
“products” will be done form our house or our nearby info
kiosks and Internet cafes.
These procedures will be enabled by reasonable organization
rules of the “information’s positions” and by information research machines.
However in any case, the responsibility of information’s’ research and assessment will belong typically and essentially to
the citizens and not to the oligarchy of the Mass Medias that
possess them in essence nowadays.
At the beginning there will arise difficulties as it happens to any
transitional periods of changes. Still, familiarization and experience will render the above procedures easy.
Digital tele-voting
Until today, voting for the choice of leaders (elections) or for
the decision making (referendums) are being carried in many
211
ways: With shells, with round stones (votes), with lead stones
(bullets), with legumes (broad beans) and with ballots.
In digital Pnyka voting will not use the above ways. It will be
done through machines of digital technology, with no transferring of the citizens to election centers. The votes and not the
citizens - voters will travel to the election centers. And they will
be traveling with a 300.000km/s speed rendering thus voting:
easy, quick and with a very small direct and indirect cost. The
capabilities of the Information Technology will also ensure voting reliability.
We do not think that we can foresee accurately which will be
the digital tele-voting systems that will be developed before
proper institution will be legislated. However, with a first approach we can imagine that tele-voting will take place through
digital machines of private use –home and mobile PCs- as well
as through tele-voting machines of public use. These machines
of public use will look like the ATM’s that are being used today
in banks for the transactions of their customers.
The control of the “voters’ book” will be done through the machines with the help of a card with a personal number of the
citizen’s identity (PIN) almost as it happens with the withdrawal
of money from the ATMs of the banks.
It is very possible, if not certain, that there will be developed
even more secure ways of controlling the voter’s book like the
one of controlling our fingerprints or our voice.
The tele-voting systems will also be able to have other functions necessary in order to ensure the reliability and the safety
of the elections’ procedure, for the publishing and the assessment of the elections’ result and for the informing of all citizens.
Under these presuppositions, tele-voting will take place with a
speed much bigger than the contemporary one, increasing thus
the citizens’ participation to the exercise of power.
212
Digital mentality
In the Mass Media and in the balcony passive citizens informing, the procedures of the information assessing is much more
of a sentimental character than it is of a reasonable one.
This is perfectly known by the people of the Mass Media and by
the politicians. For that reason they make sure that they enlarge the sentimental element and to minimize or to leave out
all logical elements of information. They avoid “to talk about
the cigarette-case”, as people use to say when the essential
logical elements of an issue are not mentioned.
In the new era of the Interactive Media, alterations of the information’s elements as well as of the information’s assessing
are expected to happen.
Information will now have more reasonable than sentimental
elements. The active participation of the citizens in information’s checking will have as a result the information’s structuring
with reasonable elements that have to be simple, tangible and
reliable.
Similar changes will also take place in the way of assessing the
information. The assessing of information will also be done with
more reasonable and less sentimental criteria.
This new mentality, into which logic will overrule sentiments,
will constitute the digital mentality of the citizens.
A Colleague
Nonetheless, the depreciation of human sentiments does not
constitute a depreciation of man’s humanity? of man’s human
features?
Consequently, how is it possible to consider the digital mentality
as a man’s improvement?
213
The answer to your question is obviously the answer to the following question: Which feature of the man is the most important? his logic or his sentiments?
I recognize that even the question is not so simple. I think that
most people believe that man’s most important feature is his
logic. Sentiments and those that are compatible with the common sense, come after logic.
Consequently, the view that the empowerment of logic opposite
sentiments consist of a risk for the humanity, is a mistaken one.
Possibly, it is also an intentionally mistaken view that is being
methodically promoted for the protection of the interests of an
established order.
It is not people who are in danger by the empowerment of logic; it is the people of the established order
who face the risk.
A Colleague
The changes you mentioned that can be brought by new technology seem reasonable and feasible. Still, all those you described as digital - digital informing, digital isegoria, digital Pnyka, digital market of information, digital mentality – mean
a
new machines’ domination against man.
As a result, is it possible that this machines’ domination to be
the vision of the new era?
Is it possibly the nightmare of the new era?
At first, I agree with you that technology can become the vision
or the nightmare of the new era. Still, this possibility will not be
created by machines’ domination against man but by the bad
use of machines by man. Demons and Angels do not exist inside the machines; Demons and Angels exist inside the minds
and the souls of human beings.
214
The exclusively responsible for the way to use the machines, is
man and nobody else. The view concerning machines’ domination on men is a cheap and absurd excuse for the bad use of
technology. Man has and will have the ability to eliminate machines’ domination by turning a switch; so easily and simply.
As far as it concerns now the terms “digital” and “information
market” it is self-evident that their use – as well as the use of
any other term - does not alter the essence of the problem. The
term digital and market in other languages may remind only
technology and commerce. Nonetheless, in Greek language
these terms point to democratic procedures.
The words digit and vote – in Greek ψηφίο and ψήφος - are
related to the exercise of power by the citizens. Furthermore,
market – in Creek αγορά, agora - for the ancient Greeks meant
general assembly of the citizens.
Consequently, these terms in Greece they were used to characterize democratic procedures since Homer’s years. They are not
new ones.
However, it is possible that even the choice of these terms is
not random. Maybe this happened because some new technology scientists know the meaning of these terms in ancient
Greece.
215
Discussion of 4th July
Subject: The digitalization of Pnyka
The term digitalization is a term purely technical. It means the
change, the substitution of a conventional technology system
with a system of the new digital technology.
Such a digitalization took place in several technical systems.
However, digitalization of bigger extent took place during the
last two decades of the 20th century in the existing telecommunications’ systems where the term was used for the first time.
If Pnyka was in function today –if at least one Pnyka was in
function- the term “digitalization of Pnyka” would only mean a
technological change like the one happened to the telecommunications’ networks. Still, today Pnyka is not in function. Today,
no Pnyka is in function all over the world.
As a result, the term “digitalization of Pnyka” does not imply
just a technological change. It expresses mainly the regeneration of the values that existed and of the institutions that were
functioning in the small hill of Pnyka in Athens.
The technical part of the digitalization is the easy one. The difficult one is the regeneration of Pnyka’s values and democratic
institutions, adjusted of course to the social, political and technological givens of the 21st century.
The digitalization of the telecommunications’ networks that took
place during the last two decades of the 20th century meant the
beginning of the era of information. Still, the digitalization of
Pnyka, that can possibly take place during the first decades of
the 21st century will mean something even more important; the
era of true democracy.
216
A Colleague
The technical part of Pnyka’s digitalization, for which we talked
in our previous discussion, became understood.
That which was not understood is which it will finally be the
form of regime that will be served by digital Pnyka? the democracy of the ancient Greek spirit? the participating democracy of the Anglo-Saxon spirit? or the popular democracy of Marxism?
According to my perception, the perception of a simple citizen,
the main and top goal of Pnyka’s regime, must be the development and the consolidation of the followings:
•
To the citizens, the status of ruler and being ruled,
•
To the leaders, the status of servant and deacon of
the citizens’ power.
The above status is a mandatory characteristic of the political
system of democracy, because people are being transformed to
active and responsible citizens only when they get the status of
ruler and being ruled.
The people, who get only the status of being ruled, could not
be transformed to active and responsible citizens; they will be
determinately transformed to passive and irresponsible ones. A
regime with passive and irresponsible citizens can not be a democracy.
The leaders of citizens that they have only the status of being
ruled can not be transformed to servants of the citizens; they
will be determinately transformed to princes or to ineffective
democratic leaders.
A Colleague
All you say mean that pnyka’s regime must be the regime of
the Athenian democracy. Isn’t it?
217
Colleague -Introducer
Not this exactly. I would like to say, that Pnyka’s regime must
have the same orientation and the same principles with Athenian Democracy, adapted to the conditions of the 21st century.
For such orientation and adaptation, it useful to remind the following difference in the development of Athenian and contemporary democracies, because we think that they are useful to
be taken into consideration in the planning of Pnykas’ regime.
•
In ancient Greek democracy, the status of “ruler and
being ruled” citizen, was in force, because the state
was identified with the citizens.
•
In the contemporary democracies, this status is not in
force, because the state is being identified with the
leaders independently by the way they are appointed.
The claim that the leaders are servants of the people
may have a moral value, but in essence only the recognition of the need to limit the state’s power in favor of
the citizens has an actual value. This is the most important performance of contemporary democracies in
comparison with the ancient Greek democracy one.
•
In ancient Greek democracy citizens’ power was a selfevident fact, that its validity did not need an argumentation.
•
In the contemporary democracies the poor citizens’
power was needed the philosophical argumentation of
the Social Contracts of the English Hobbes, of the
French Rousseau and many others.
•
Ancient Greek democracy, without a philosophical argumentation, was based on simple and crystal laws, of
which the most important ones were those of Klesthenes.
218
•
Contemporary democracies with a plethora of philosophical argumentations are based on a plethora complex lows which need “translation” by experts lowers.
All above deep dawn mean that today we don’t believe and we
don’t trust the principle “of citizen ruler”; we actually believe
and trust the principle “of citizen ruler, but without ruling”!!
The main goal of the aforementioned reorientation must be the
rational and effective participation of the citizens to the
exercise of political power and the function of the leaders as
servants of the citizens’ power.
If this could be achieved then it will not matter the name of
Pnyka’s regime.
If this could not be achieved then the appeal of models and of
names will be just nonsense; another trickery of the citizens by
the political power established order.
A Colleague
Still, I did not understand which will be the political regime that
will be served by digital Pnyka; the direct democracy of ancient
Greece, the participating democracy of the Anglo-Saxon spirit
or the popular democracy of the communist spirit?
You have right. Until now we have just mentioned the WHAT
we expect by the political regime of the digital Pnyka; the regime where “citizens take by digital referendums the major decisions” concerning the citizens and the state.
The
HOW we will achieve this is a problem that can be faced within
the framework of the constitution and of the subsequent laws.
Within this rationale, the definition of the form of digital Pnyka’s
political regime is out of our capabilities as well as out of the
purposes of our discussions. This definition can only be a work
of experts and what is more of wise experts and not of simple
citizens. However, simple citizens should understand and should
approve the new limits of their power as well as of their re219
sponsibility. They have to experience the self-evident fact that
the exercise of power is identified with the assuming of responsibilities. Exercise of power with no responsibilities is not power.
It is a fake power; it is a mockery.
Consequently, the terms “participating”, “popular” or “direct”
democracy that expresses a specific institutional framework,
only when they clearly define the power of the simple citizen
and his responsibilities can have a value for him.
In a digital Pnyka the crucial problem is who is going to choose
the major problems for which the citizens will be taking the decisions by digital voting. Maybe this decision in practice is less
crucial than the choice in question.
In ancient Pnyka the major issues for which the citizens were
supposed to vote, were proposed by the leaders or the citizens;
but were chosen by the total of citizens; by Ecclesia of Demos.
The same principle should also stand nowadays no matter how
time consuming it seems to be.
If this principle will not stand and the citizens make decisions
for issues that have been chosen by the leaders without their
participation, then there is the danger that the digital Pnyka will
evolve into a new super modern appeal of the political power
established order. The fourth appeal.
Simply democracy
The names and the models of democracy are useful ideas for
the politicians and the constitutional scientists that will need to
modernize the institutions and to define the citizens’ participation on the taking of big decisions.
Still, as far as a simple citizen is concerned all these are too
many and unnecessary. Citizens can read again the next simple
thought, phrased 2300 years ago by Pericles; an outstanding
leader of the Athenian Democracy:
“Our political regime is not jealous of the laws of others. We
ourselves are an example for the others. And because we do
220
not live based on the few but based on more, our political regime is called democracy.
Laws give to everybody the same rights. And when we see
that somebody is capable, we prefer him to take part in the
public management.
And even when somebody is poor is not held back because of
his poverty, if he has something good to offer to the city”
Epitaph, Thucydides 44
The ancient Greek term “democracy” is simple, brief and essential. It does not need any changes. Institutions need changes so
that the word democracy acquires again the meaning that it
has in the Greek language.
The adjectives following democracy –direct, participating, popular, etc- have no particular value. The problem is not in the
names but in the institutions.
Our expectation by the digitalization of Pnyka is to have the
citizens’ real power; what in Greek means actually the word
democracy.
Globalization and Digital Pnyka
A Colleague
All these ideas in the framework of oncoming globalization can
be realized?
My opinion is that the oncoming globalization is an opportunity
and a lever for realizing all these ideas. This happens because
the regime of a state is strongly modified by the regimes of the
other states. In other words, for such a democracy to be developed and operated in a state, it is necessary that similar regimes must exist in every country worldwide. In such a case,
globalization will be a blessing for simple citizens.
44
Thucydides is a famous historian of ancient Greece ( 5thcentury BC).
221
In the opposite case, when globalization is realized in a world of
regimes, typically democratic but in essence oligarchic, it becomes a nightmare for simple citizens.
As a result, the oncoming globalization, make the development of Pnykas’ regime indispensable and urgent.
A Colleague
What we have said up to now is all right. But how it will actually
change the present situation?
This change equals with the overturning of the established order and of the people’s established conceptions. How can such
an overturning take place and how citizens can participate in
essence to the exercise of power?
This can only happen through a revolution.
Indeed, only through a revolution; but through a revolution different than the others. This can happen through a revolution
that will aim at the overturning of an established order
perception and not to an overturning of an established
order of people.
A different revolution
In the energy conception of political power, all revolutions –or
at least most of them- deep down there are a change of the
point of power concentration and not a change of the concentration degree. The overturning of the established order deep
down it means leaving it naked from any power. Still energy is
imperishable. Consequently, it does not get destroyed by revolutions; it just “migrates” for another point of concentration.
However, systems with the same degree of power concentration are in essence equivalent even if the points of concentration get changed. What matters, is the degree and not the
point of power concentration.
222
In revolutions, there is a need to make their power concentration bigger than that of the established order. Otherwise there
is no overturning; there is no successful revolution.
Nonetheless, the big power concentration of revolutions
determinedly leads to the transformation of the revolution into a new established order. There exist many examples. We all know such examples.
The revolution that we, Elpida’s colleagues, envision will aim at
the repatriation of power to its natural proprietors, to the citizens themselves.
Our struggle does not include as an “intermediate and temporary goal” the power concentration to new moral and reliable
people that in a second phase they will realize the repatriation
of power to its natural proprietors. We believe that this repatriation may begin from today and be realized with slow and sure
steps.
Our revolution brings to mind the fisherman that instead of giving away his fish to his poor compatriots, he preferred to convince them to start fishing themselves.
We believe that in this way it is possible to achieve two important goals:
•
To change today’s system of political power and
•
To create a new system compatible with the moral and
natural laws.
A Colleague
I agree with what you said. Still, I think that these constitute
general thoughts of action. Could you tell us a simple and practical way of action that would lead to the realization of all those
that you mentioned?
According to my opinion, if the citizens want to assume the responsibilities that are being created by the exercise of their
223
power, then all that we said will be realized by the politicians
themselves fast and with no revolutions.
Politicians know very well that they are not “proprietors of
power”. They know that the power that they possess at some
time is the determinably non-transferable power of the citizens.
Those that deep down inside do not know or do not believe at
this truth, are the simple citizens. That is the reason why they
avoid to participate in the exercise of power and to assume the
equivalent responsibilities.
In the case that this will would be created, politicians - and
what is more today’s politicians that come from the citizenshave neither any serious reasons nor the practical ability to ignore the will of their voters.
Similar cases in the past were not ignored but they were satisfied, without any revolutions, by leaders that did not come or
they were not voted by the citizens.
Let us remember the 3rd of September in Greece. Then when
Greek people went in the streets and they demanded a Constitution by a king that they did not choose themselves nor was
he a Greek citizen.
Today, citizens will not need to go out in the streets to phrase
their will for the digitalization of Pnyka. It is enough to send an
e-mail or a letter to the First Citizen of the country with this
demand of theirs.
If the majority of the citizens get this will, it is certain that politicians will trace it and there will be not only willingness but
also competition concerning those that will satisfy the demand.
And this will happen because it is self-evident that the fulfillment of this demand will constitute a presupposition for a victory in the forthcoming elections.
Still, citizens’ expectations for the elections do not include their
participation to the exercise of power and the assuming of the
equivalent responsibilities. Expectations become are limited to a
224
posting in the public services or to a personal favor by the representatives of their power.
You will think maybe that under such circumstances there will
be no essential Pnyka’s digitalization but a digitalization aiming
at a victory in the forthcoming elections.
Even if that is the case, digitalization would have begun.
Pnyka’s digitalization, in any case concerns firstly the soul and
the mind of the citizens and then of the leaders.
There exist millions of hills on earth like the one of Pnyka. Still,
true democracy took place only on this small hill of Pnyka in
Athens. This particularity is not owed to the features of the hill
but to the soul and mind of the Athenians. It is owed to the
culture of the Spontaneous Democracy of Athenians. This historical fact transmits a clear and strong message to the people
of the information society.
A Colleague
My proposal is to take the following complementary measures
that in my opinion they constitute a simple and practical way of
action like the one that our colleague asked for.
To acquire an e-mail address and a P.O. Box one, to which citizens could send their demand for the digitalization of Pnyka.
After that, some of us will bring with the use of a scanner the
conventional letters to a digital form.
Now, as far as the citizens’ demands are concerned that they
would all of them be in digital form, they will be send to the
First Citizen of the country and we will place them in an Internet site so that everybody could take them; political parties,
politicians and simple citizens.
In this site, apart from the detailed registration of the demands
we will also create some statistic pages of the detailed demands that would follow.
225
It is a very good, simple and easy to be implemented idea.
Thank you colleague.
Any other suggestions?
A Colleague
I think that the previous procedure would be easier for the
senders, more manageable for the receivers and faster for everybody if we typified the text of the letters.
For example, here a typified text:
Declaration
The undersigned in the present……………………………………
Citizen of Telearea, by exercising the rights that are being defined by
the Constitution of our country I declare that I want that the citizens’
representatives would promote the appropriate institutions for the reinauguration and function of digital Pnyka adjusted to the contemporary social, political and technological givens.
I declare that the clarity and the quality of the program for the creation of digital Pnyka will constitute a basic criterion concerning the
choice of the political party that I will vote in the forthcoming elections.
The declaring citizen
This suggestion is also simple, effective and can be easily implemented.
Colleagues, as you have understood, it is easy to find ways of
making the citizens’ will public.
The problem is not the publication but the development of
this will. The claims of some colleagues that this will exists, is
not real. It is an excuse to avoid our responsibilities. If there
was indeed this will, you should be sure that it would have
226
been traced by the politicians and that they would have already
put in practice what is imposed by their interest.
For the development of this will is necessary that all those who
believe in the idea of digital Pnyka should get more active. It is
necessary to methodically inform our colleagues, our friends
our co-citizens through the use of traditional and modern methods.
It is necessary to make conversations and to exchange views in
the cafes, in restaurants, in our houses as well as through Internet or other communication Medias.
When such will would be developed to the citizens, then be
sure that there would be more worthy to mention suggestions
in order to support and to get publicized by people who have
big experience in communication issues. From politicians and
from Mass Media people.
227
EPILOGUE
With the discussion for the digitalization of Pnyka we completed
the presentation of the Telearea young people’s views, of the
Elpida’s friends’ views about democracy, technology and their
interrelation.
We thought that it would be inappropriate and redundant to
comment these views because our interest in publishing them
shows that we consider them important and that we believe in
the need and the purpose of their implementation. Besides,
these ideas’ assessment would be of value if it was being done
by the citizens themselves. Citizens are bored to listen to such
analysis and assessments that are usually typified and ambiguous.
Instead of commenting on them, we thought it would be useful
to present a document relevant to the modernization of the
institutions that took place in the Democracy of Telearea in the
years 2005-2015.
In this document – an excerpt of the Telearean’s parliament
minutes - there is mention of summarizing data about the reforms that took place in order that citizens would have a rational and essential participation in the exercise of political
power; participation adjusted to the conditions of the new era.
In this document the following are being mentioned:
Excerpts of Minutes
Parliament of Teleareans
“During the period 2005-2015 the Parliament of Teleareans
voted laws in order to ensure, the rational participation of citizens to the exercise of power and the extension of our democracy to a more direct form. A form oriented to the principles of
the democracy that was born in ancient Greece and adjusted to
the social, political and technological givens of the 21st century.
229
1. Definitions
(1) Participation of the citizens to the exercise of power is their
participation to the taking of the “major decisions”. Other
activities of the citizens irrelevantly to their value, they are
not being considered as participation to power.
(2) The “major issues” for which the citizens decide are being
defined by the citizens themselves or their parliament.
(3) The “major decisions” of the citizens are being taken
through digital referendums.
(4) The decisions of the citizens on major issues are being taken with the simple, fortified and very fortified majority, according to their nature and their importance.
2. Levels of citizens’ participation
The participation of citizens in the taking of major decisions is
being foreseen for all the levels where citizens have rights and
responsibilities. These levels are the following three:
A level – low level
It includes the major decisions that concern:
The social security institutions, the syndicate and cooperative,
the unions, the students’ communities and other institutions
of citizens’ groups interests
B level – medium level
It includes the most important decisions of Municipality and
Prefecture.
C level – top level
It includes the major decisions of the central power of the
state.
3. Degree of citizens’ participation
The degree of citizens’ participation in the exercise of power is
being reduced according to the increase of the citizens’ mass
230
that is entitled to participate in the taking of decisions. Participation in A level is bigger than in level B which is bigger than
the one in level C.
This climax aims to ensure:
(1) The effective and easy function of the participation’s institution
(2) The increase of citizens’ power to the higher levels (B and
C) in an indirect and inductive way, taken as a fact that
there is an interdependence of democracy’s function in the
three levels.
4. Frequency of referendums
Digital referendums for issues of the A level take place four
times a year, one every trimester. For issues of the B level
twice a year and for issues of the C level once a year.
In every referendum citizens decide for all the existing issues
which were proved to belong to their jurisdiction.
The number of decisions through referendums , in average annual prices , was the following for the period 2005-2015:
Level of participation
A, Low
B, Medium
C, Top
Total
Number of referendums/year
12
3
1
16
5. Subjects of referendums
In the A level of participation
Referendums of this level concerned many categories of subjects which according to the frequency of their appearance are
being classified as follows:
• Control of effective exercise of duties, of the state appointed
executives of the above mentioned citizens’ institutions and
231
taking of decision concerning their approval, dismissal or sending to justice.
• Realization of strikes and sit-ins
• Approval of proposals of the aforementioned executives for
the major institution issues.
• Control of effective exercise of duties of the elected repre-
sentatives of the above said institutions and taking of decision
concerning their possible dismissal or sending to justice.
In the B level.
• Choice of alternative programs and hierarchy its realization.
• Control of the elected representatives and executives for in-
sufficient exercise of their duties and imposition of the foreseen by the law penalties (dismissal – sending to justice).
• Promotion of basic infrastructure (administration of garbage,
administration of pluvial waters –construction of small dams
for storage of water)
• Organization and promotion of planters’ activities for the
trade of their goods.
In the C level
• Institution of the control way of political responsibilities and
imposition of “political penalties” through referendums (extension of the law of ministers’ responsibility).
• Exclusive vocation and way of defining the wages of the dep-
uties (approval of alternative parliament suggestions).
• Strategy for the fortification of competition (approval of alter-
native parliament proposals).
• Choice and approval of alternative findings of assessment
committee of the Telearean’s parliament and imposition of
“political penalty”.
232
Through these institutions, the dogma that for so many years
was being adopted in words by politicians, experts and simple
citizens that “People are the rulers”, finally came to life.
The prime minister of Telearea – a relatively young man – during his days all these reformations were realized, he was called
by the citizens as “the new Klesthenes”.
This funny and at the same time honorary nickname was the
arduous and sincere expression of the Teleareans’ appreciation
and satisfaction towards their fellow compatriot that helped in
an effective way the timely and peaceful fulfillment of the ideas
and aspirations of Elpida’s friends.
The reformations of “the new Klesthenes” helped in an effective
way, to the repatriation of power to its natural carriers and
consequently to the improvement of democracy’s quality.
Teleareans gradually passed from the era of representative
democracy to the era of digital Pnyka’s democracy; to the era
of digital referendums for the major decisions of A, B and C
levels.
Only one digital referendum per year on the major issues of the state of Telearea was enough to be evolved
the status of the “ruler and being ruled” citizen and to
be improved significantly the quality of democracy.
Teleareans, participating in the taking of the state’s major decisions, became active and responsible citizens, in essence and
in practice.
The active and responsible citizens of Telearea, understood better the values and the possibilities of life, and in a noiseless
way, with no verbalisms, they preferred happiness than prosperity.
233
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Political Power – Regimes
1. The Greek Constitution 1975/86 (in Greek)
2. Constitutional Law. By D. Tsatsos. A. Sakkoula 1982 (in
Greek)
3. Direct Democracy or Representative Government. By J.
Haskell. Westview Press 2001
4. Political Science. By A.D. Metaxas. A. Sakkoula 1979 (in
Greek)
5. Athenian Democracy. By M. Sakellariou. University Publication of Crete 2000 (in Greek)
6. The Origin of State. By Friedrich Engels. Translation in
Greek. Mare and Korotzi, 1945
7. The Social Contract. By Jean Jacques Rousseau. Translation in Greek. D. Papademitriou 1973
8. The Prince. By N. Machiavelli. Translation in Greek. Patakis Publications 2003
9. Democracy Matters. By Cornel West. The Penguin Press
2004
10. Platon. By Ulrich Von Wilamowitz. Translation in Greek.
Kaktos Publications 2005
General Issue – New Era
11. What will be (How the New World of Information will
change our Lives). By M. Dertouzos, A. Livanes 1998
(in Greek)
12. Telecommunications in Europe. By H. Ungerer. Translation in Greek. EUC 1989
235
13. Telecommunications; controlled Freedom. By. M. Carpentier – S. Farnoux – C. Garric. Translation in Greek.
Kalofolias 1991
14. Spiritual Intelligence. By D. Zohar and I. Marshall.
Translation in Greek. Esoptron 2001
15. Near to Man. By Erwin Schrodiger. Translation in Greek.
P. Travlos – E. Kostaraki, 1996
16. The meaning of the things. By R. Freynman. Translation in Greek. Katoptron Publications, 1998
17. “1984” By G. Orwell. Translation in Greek. Kaktos Publications 1978
18. New Greek Language Lexicon. By G. Mpampiniotis. Vocabulary Center, 1998 (in Greek)
Physics – Technology
19. Random Noise Theory (Engineering Systems). By J.
Bendart – J. Wiley and Sons, 1958
20. Statistic and Quantum Physics. K. Alexopoulos (Athens
University 1957) (in Greek)
21. Physics, Electricity. K. Alexopoulos. Athens University
1955 (in Greek)
22. Physics, part A. By Holiday-Rensick. Translation in
Greek. A. G. Pnevmatikos 1966
23. Special Theory of Relativity. By Albert Einstein. Translation in Greek. Trochalia Publication 1998
24. What the Relativity theory is. By L. Landaou- G. Roumer. Translation in Greek. Korotzi Publication 1983
25. Aspects of Physics Theory. By M. Planck. Translation in
Greek. P. Travlos 1999
26. ABC’s of Computers. By A. Lytel. Howard and Co 1966
236
27. Computer in simple words. By P. Makris. Personal 2000
(in Greek)
28. Reference Data for Radio Engineering. Howard & Co
1969
29. The History of Physics. By Emilio Serge. Translation in
Greek. Diavlos 1997
30. The history of Communication. By G. Poretsianos 1980
(in Greek)
31. The History of Telecommunication Development in
Greece. By P. Skandaras 1991 (in Greek)
32. La Fin des Certitudes. By Ilya Prigogine, translation in
Greek, Katoptron 1997.
33. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia in Internet.
237

Direct Democracy in Telearea

Transcription

Similar documents

Sample file

US Democracy - Carson

Types of Government

Falun – Democracy City

Teaching English in Laos Diana Ang

Democratic Cities 27-28 May booklet - D-Cent

View Promo - St. Michael`s Health Group

Steps for GLBR - Budget Summary Report

art of the stateless state

A Government - jb