Four-Level Decentralised Government

It was good to see writer and broadcaster Iain Davis back at Off-Guardian (21/11/24), this time with some interesting thoughts about democracy. I’d agree that representatives selected from party lists drawn up by capitalists, whether “state” or “corporate”, are hardly the best people to advance democracy.

But can democracy provide a satisfactory and complete political system within itself? Experience would suggest not, and a quotation below Davis’ article submitted by “Lost in a dark wood” is especially apt, given that Switzerland is so often held up as a beacon of democracy:

Indeed, ever since man was evicted from the arguably anarchic Garden of Eden, experience has shown that theocracy, not democracy, has been the best political system for the greatest number, i.e. theocracy according to the original meaning of the word (Greek “rule by god”).

Exemplary theocracies enabled by Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a matter of historical record. Inevitably, though, these theocracies were eventually usurped by ecclesiastical and/or regal authorities which seized control in order to advance their own interests.

As always a section of the people was complicit, with objectors subject to persecution, even martyrdom. The conclusion was always autocracy, though the derogation often proceeded in stages: firstly a simulacrum of religion, then a man-made legal structure somewhat imitating Divine law, and finally oppression and tyranny.

Accordingly, many have proposed a return to theocracy, whether in a traditional or new form, with safeguards against its subversion. Personally or on a limited scale this might be a solution but, with the notable exception of former communist countries, the world at large is still moving away from religion.

Materialists are united, albeit in error, whereas faiths are divided. However, it is not beyond the wit of faiths to integrate, or to unite within a new one. To a great extent, though, people have been programmed to abandon their faiths by capitalistic powers keen to divert them from “free stuff” offered by religion towards highly-profitable “bought stuff”.

The best way to destroy is from within; attacking from without is always likely to strengthen an entity by summoning defence. Therefore, various irrational interpretations – such as original sin and bodily resurrection in Christianity – were quietly inserted into religious doctrine via dubious translations, and then promoted in various ways until they became orthodoxy.

The effect was twofold: firstly, to alienate many rational, intelligent people from religion, and secondly, to foster the fanaticism and hypocrisy required to paper over such anti-scientific cracks with emotion and blind faith. This second category has been a gift to the owners of the mass media.

For instance, in contrast to warring factions which are political more than religious, but to which religious labels have been applied, TV adverts show people of different races enthusing together over consumer products, thus providing the required scoreline: materialism 1 religion 0.

And fear-based autocratic policies have continued to trump rationality. As H L Mencken correctly stated: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” One ensemble of hobgoblins terrorised man into that state of cognitive infancy from which so many irrational decisions were made during the COVID-19 episode, notwithstanding the general availability of scientific facts.

The past four hundred years have seen numerous attempts to progress from this kind of tyranny to reason and science-based equality under the rule of law. In particular, the English Revolution of the mid-17th Century, the French Revolution of the late-18th Century and the Russian Revolution of the early-20th Century witnessed the execution of a monarch representing the old autocracy, and the inauguration of a law-based system primarily employing the carrot of money and material incentive rather than the stick of violence.

Indeed, this is the political system which has gradually prevailed; even in the remotest parts of the world, autocracies have been defeated and brought within the orbit of the money power with its systems of statute law. In some countries, for some periods of time, this capitalistic strategy has been associated with demonstrable social benefits: invariably where and when it accorded with commonly-accepted religious law and moral standards.

However, every political insider within a corrupted system knows that they, or more likely arms-length associates operating via the market economy, might gain financially by making discreet trades in advance of legal changes in response to popular demand generated by reported political events (“problem, reaction, solution”). The ever-increasing divide between rich and poor is symptomatic of this temptation.

Furthermore, faced by banks, corporations and governments acting in concert, the relatively atomised middle class never stood a chance. All this capitalist combine needed to do was gradually increase taxes and onerous requirements on the holders of property in order to see all the world fall into its lap, as has been occurring for many decades. The only other requirement was to pacify the masses with such dole and distractions as their own inflated currency might buy.

Briefly, the limitations and defects of capitalism are well known and there is no need to rehearse them here. However, law-based capitalism is the best form of government within certain limited and tightly-controlled circumstances, where hidden monopoly or monopsony cannot find purchase. In the absence of a wholly-integrated Divine system, every man-made form of government – whether anarchic, autocratic, aristocratic (or capitalistic) or democratic – has some merit.

They each have their proper sphere of operation, even as life within the matrix, infancy, childhood and adolescence continue to exist within adult man. And as “the child is the father of the man”, no political system is independent of that which preceded it. Thus autocracy includes anarchy, and aristocracy (or capitalism) both autocracy and anarchy. Similarly, democracy should coexist with and embrace all three of these existing political stages, i.e. “four-level government”.

The many precedents for this arrangement include the former British triumvirate of king, law lords and parliament, as informed by both the anarchy of innocent nature and prevailing beliefs both scientific and religious. Proportionality and moderation are essential. Republicans are on the right track, but the constitutional monarchical element brings many advantages, not least continuity. The goal should be eventual return to an all-embracing theocracy.

Democracy can only work for the benefit of the people when it is decentralised, so that political candidates are known personally. Otherwise one may well be voting for an actor whose primary allegiance lies within the centralised capitalist system, thus defeating the whole object of democracy. However, political decentralisation must be accompanied by religious and scientific centralisation, lest the unity of the whole be lost. In the same way, bottom-up must be balanced by top-down.

Religious principles common to all the great mainstream faiths – including rational arguments that lead to belief in God and the Golden Rule – must be acknowledged and taught in schools; and likewise, science must return to its common humanitarian foundation, concerned only with establishing truth, and actively hostile to any political or financial influence that would restrict or thwart that aim.

In other words, decentralised political infrastructure must be moderated and balanced by centralised institutions of religious and scientific import. Bottom-up means that decentralised local councils, voted into place by constituents who actually know the representatives involved, vote for regional or national bodies, which in turn vote for national or international bodies. And what better top-down agencies than those that already exist, such as established constitutional monarchies, and genuine religious bodies and scientific institutions, according to the proper meaning of these words?

These are just a few broad brush-strokes, not enough to paint even the outline of the full picture. The subject is so vast that my book turned into a trilogy. All three self-published volumes feature a type of mudra, called a manumon (from “manual mnemonic”), which I have employed to illustrate certain complex details. There are many relevant side-issues, a few of which I have considered at length.

Antony Alexander attended the University of Edinburgh but passed the first year exams and dropped out. Since then he has had numerous occupations in various countries. Long interested in the international auxiliary language issue, he ran langx.org until 2009, having reached the limit of his capability. He would be pleased if an international committee – or anyone to begin with – cared to take up langx.org and develop it further.

Thanks for reading...

You can help us keep doing what we do. Every little helps and is hugely appreciated.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.