Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Ithaca Press
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Republished in a new translation, "The Green Book" provides fresh insight into the thinking of Muammar Al Qaddafi, and his Third Universal Theory for a new democratic society. Outlined first is his theory for direct democracy in society, or Jamahiriya, focusing on the authority of the people, renouncing representation or delegation of authority, and recognizing the need for organization of the people at lower levels of society. Part Two suggests an economic revolution, transforming societies of wage earners into companies of partners by applying a political and economic theory of social organization that gives the ownership, and regulation of production, distribution and exchange to the community as a whole. Part Three launches a social revolution, presenting solutions to man's struggles in life, and the unsolved problems of man and woman, as well as tackling the situation of minorities by laying out sound principles of social life for all mankind.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 104
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 1999
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
M. AL GATHAFI
The Solution to the Problem of Democracy
The Solution to the Economic Problem
The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory
The Green Book
Published by
Ithaca Press
8 Southern Court, South Street
Reading RG1 4QS, UK
www.ithacapress.co.uk
www.twitter.com/Garnetpub
www.facebook.com/Garnetpub
thelevant.wordpress.com
© M. AL Gathafi 2005
The right of M. Al Gathafi to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.
First edition 2005
ISBN 978 0 86372 473 2
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Credits
Editor
Emma Hawker
Design
David Rose
Production
Typesetting: Samantha Barden
www.algathafi.org
Contents
Part One The Solution to the Problem of Democracy
The Authority of the People: The Political Basis of the Third Universal Theory
Part Two The Solution to the Economic Problem
Socialism: The Economic Basis of the Third Universal Theory
Part Three The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory
Part One
The Solution to the Problem of Democracy
The Authority of the People: The Political Basis of the Third Universal Theory
The instrument of government
The instrument of government is the primary political problem facing human communities. This problem is often the reason behind family feuds and it was further aggravated to an alarming extent after the rise of modern societies.
People today are still faced by the persistent problem of the instrument of government. Failing to find the final and democratic solution to this political problem, many societies are bearing the burden of its far-reaching consequences and ramifications. The Green Book presents the ultimate solution to this problem.
All existing political systems in the world today are the product of the struggle for power between potential instruments of government. This struggle, whether conducted by peaceful or armed means, may be a class struggle, a sectarian or tribal strife, or a power struggle between individual adversaries vying for political ascendancy. It invariably culminates in the victory of one instrument of government – whether it be an individual, a sect, a political party or a social class – and the defeat of the people, the defeat of true democracy.
Political struggle which culminates in the victory of a candidate obtaining 51 per cent of the total votes of the electorate, establishes a dictatorship in the seat of power garbed in the guise of democracy. It is in fact, a dictatorship because 49 per cent of the electorate would then be governed by an instrument of government they did not vote for, and which has been imposed upon them. This is the essence of dictatorship. Moreover, a political conflict may culminate in the rise to power of an instrument of government representing a minority of the electorate. Such an outcome is the product of an electoral process whereby the votes of the electorate are distributed among a number of candidates, of whom one would obviously obtain a number of votes larger than the number obtained separately by any one of the other candidates. Yet, though the sum total of the votes scored by these other candidates would be the largest and represent a sweeping majority, the candidate who independently scored the highest percentage of the ballot, which is comparatively the lowest, is legally considered a winner in a democratically conducted elections. In actual fact, such an outcome heralds the rise of a dictatorship in the misleading guise of democracy.
Such is the reality of political systems of government prevalent in our world today: sheer dictatorship falsifying true democracy.
Parliaments
The institution of parliament in the world today is the backbone of modern traditional democracy. Yet such an institution is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a contrived solution to the problem of democracy.
No representation of the people – representation is a falsehood.
Parliaments as instruments of government are essentially established in the name of the people. Yet this underlying principle is in itself undemocratic, since democracy as a system of government means the power of the people, and not power vested in elected members of an assembly, in the name of the people. As such, the mere existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people.
Parliament is a governing body in absentia.
Parliaments have become a legal barrier between people and their right to exercise authority. They exclude the masses in order to prevent them from practising politics, and monopolize the control of politics in their name. The people are left with nothing but a semblance of democracy, manifested in the long queues of voters waiting their turn to cast their votes in the ballot box.
To unravel the real nature of parliaments, we must know how they are formed. They are either elected from constituencies, a political party or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. All such methods are undemocratic. The division of the population into constituencies means that a member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of citizens, depending on the population count. It also means that a member of parliament thus elected keeps few people’s organizational links with the electorate, and is considered, along with the other members, a representative of the people as a whole. This method is a requirement of existing traditional democracies. At this point in the process, the masses and the elected member of parliament, are totally set apart, and the elected member, upon obtaining the majority vote, becomes a monopolizer of the people’s sovereignty by virtue of the authority vested in him to manage their affairs.
Traditional democracy, prevalent in our world today, confers upon members of parliament a sanctity and an immunity it denies ordinary citizens. Parliaments have thus become a means of confiscating and monopolizing the power of the people. Such a state of affairs gives the people the right to struggle, by waging a revolution to destroy these instruments – the so-called representative assemblies which monopolize democracy and sovereignty, and usurp the will of the masses. The masses will rise and proclaim the new principle in a thundering cry: “No, to representation of the people.”
If a parliament is formed from members who are followers of one particular political party as a result of their electoral victory, then this parliament is not representative of the people, but of this particular party; the executive body it will appoint will be the executive power of this party, and not of the people.
Representative assemblies are a misrepresentation of democracy.
Similarly, a parliament of proportional representation whose seats are distributed to the different parties according to their percentage success in the vote is not representative of the people: its members do not represent the people but their parties; and the ruling power established by this coalition of the parties is the power of the coalition and not of the people.
Under such systems, the people are the prey fought over by the predators: instruments of government compete in their power struggle for the votes of the people they in turn neglect and exploit, while the people move silently towards the ballot box, like the beads in a rosary, to cast their votes in the same way that they throw rubbish in dustbins. This is traditional democracy that is prevalent in the world today, regardless of the system of government in place and regardless of whether it is a one-party, a bipartisan or a multi-party system, or indeed a regime which precludes political parties. Traditional democracy therefore rep resents forms of government in which the principle of representation is a fraud.
Assemblies whose seats are allotted to heirs and other privileged appointees cannot be similarly categorized: they lack even a semblance of democracy.
Moreover, the electoral system in the so-called democratic forms of government is a demagogic practice in the literal sense of the word. It is based on propaganda campaigns aimed at winning over the constituents, and involves buying and manipulating votes. This produces closed election campaigns which the poor cannot afford to participate in and thus the rich are always elected.
The principle of elected representation was advocated by philosophers, intellectuals and writers in times past, when people were unwittingly herded like sheep by sultans, emperors and conquerors. At that time, what the people truly aspired to was to have someone to represent them to the rulers. Even when this aspiration was rejected, throughout history people have waged a bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal. After the triumph of republicanism and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable that the concept of democracy should be translated into an electoral process whereby a few elected deputies are mandated to represent the masses. This is an outdated theory, and an obsolete experiment. Power should be entirely for all the people. It should always be borne in mind that the most tyrannical of dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.
The political party
The political party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the latest modern dictatorial instrument of government, where - by the part rules the whole. Comprised of a group as opposed to an individual, a political party is able nevertheless to attribute a semblance of democracy to itself through the formation of councils and committees, and through the propaganda activities of its members.
The party system aborts democracy.
But a political party is not in any respect a democratic instrument. It is an organization formed by individuals who share the same interests, ideas, culture, place or doctrine. They come together to form a political party so that they may realize their interests or impose their ideas or the might of their doctrine on society as a whole, with the intention of seizing power as a means to implement their political program.
Democratically, none of these individuals or members of a political party should rule over a whole people who constitute diverse interests, opinions, dispositions, places and beliefs. A political party is a dictatorial instrument of government which enables those with the same ideas or interests to rule over the people as a whole. In actual fact the party constitutes only a small minority.
He who elects to be a partisan betrays society.
The purpose of organizing a political party is to create an instrument with which to govern the people, the non-party members of the populace.
Fundamentally, political parties are based on a domineering and despotic theory: the manipulation of the people by the party leadership. The leadership alleges that its rise to power is a means to realizing the party’s objectives, and assumes that its objectives also represent the aspirations of the people. Such theorizing is a justification for party dictatorship, and it is the theory presented by any dictatorship.
Regardless of their diversity, political parties set forth theories that are basically the same. Yet it is the plurality of parties that escalates the struggle for power which usually supersedes and destroys any achievements gained by the people, and also subverts any socially beneficial plans. Such destruction and subversion is meant to justify the opposition party’s attempts to undermine the ruling party it aims to replace.
In their fight against each other, political parties seldom engage in armed strife; instead they usually resort to mud-slinging tactics to discredit one another. Their battle inevitably rages beyond society’s vital and prime interests, and of these some, if not all, may fall victim of this wrangling and be destroyed. However, this situation serves to support the arguments of the opposition parties against the ruling party or coalition.
In order to rule, the opposition party must defeat the existing instrument of government. To do so, the opposition must undermine the government’s achievements and cast doubts on its plans, even if these plans were beneficial to society, to prove the incompetence of the current governing instrument. Consequently, the interests and programs of society become the victims of the power struggle raging among the political parties.
