TheGreen Book

Part One

The Solution of the Problem of Democracy

"The Authority of the People"

• The Instrument of Governing
• Parliaments
• The Party
• Class
• Plebiscites
• Popular Conferences & People's Committees
• The Law of Society
• Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?
• How Can Society Redirect its Course When Deviations From its Laws Occur?
• The Press

 

THE INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT

The instrument of government is the prime politicalproblem confronting human communities (The problem of the instrument of governmententails questions of the following kind. What form should the exercise ofauthority assume? How ought societies to organize themselves politically inthe modern world?)

Even conflict within the family is often the resultof the failure to resolve this problem of authority. It has clearly becomemore serious with the emergence of modern societies.

People today face this persistent question innew and pressing ways. Communities are exposed to the risks of uncertainty,and suffer the grave consequences of wrong answers. Yet none has succeededin answering it conclusively and democratically. THE GREEN BOOKpresents the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper instrument ofgovernment.

All political systems in the world today are aproduct of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of government.This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among classes, sects,tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the victory of a particulargoverning structure - be it that of an individual, group, party or class -and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy.

Political struggle that results in the victoryof a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorialgoverning body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of theelectorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for,but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, thispolitical conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority.For when votes are distributed among several candidates, though one pollsmore than any other, the sum of the votes received by those who received fewervotes might well constitute an overwhelming majority. However, the candidatewith fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic!In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy.This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today.They are dictatorial systems and it is evident that they falsify genuine democracy.

PARLIAMENTS

Parliaments are the backbone of that conventionaldemocracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentationof the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problemof democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people,but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of thepeople and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence ofa parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only throughthe direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of theirrepresentatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the peopleand the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politicsand monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facadeof democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.

To lay bare the character of parliaments, onehas to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies,a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these proceduresare undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means thatone member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millionsof people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a memberkeeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he, like othermembers, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is whatthe prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely isolatedfrom the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. Immediatelyafter winning the electors' votes the representative takes over the people'ssovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional democracyendows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which are deniedto the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means ofplundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become theright of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy suchinstruments - the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracyand sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses havethe right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation inlieu of the people.

If parliament is formed from one party as a resultof its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party andnot of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executivepower of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of thepeople. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representationin which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their successin the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respectiveparties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalitionis the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under suchsystems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitativecompeting factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardlynoisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, thepeople are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to casttheir ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. Thisis the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is representedby a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clearthat representation is a fraud.

Moreover, since the system of elected parliamentsis based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the realsense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are unableto compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the richget elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary successiondo not fall under any form of democracy.

Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocatedthe theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciouslyherded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspirationof the people of those times was to have someone to represent them beforesuch rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter andprotracted struggle to attain this goal.

After the successful establishment of the ageof the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkablethat democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to acton behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority must bein the hands of all of the people.

The most tyrannical dictatorships the world hasknown have existed under the aegis of parliaments.

THE PARTY

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship.It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the ruleof a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a superficialdemocracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda through itsmembers. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed onlyof those people who have common interests, a common perception or a sharedculture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief.They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend thedominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole.A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program.Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who constitutea diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs. The partyis a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with common outlooksor interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the partyrepresents a minority.

The purpose of forming a party is to create aninstrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party.The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept -the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. Theparty presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends,and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is thetheory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship.No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.

The existence of many parties intensifies thestruggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements forthe people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presentedas a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that anopposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in theirstruggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. Thisis a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vitalinterests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests willfall prey to the struggle for power between instruments of government, forthe destruction of those interests supports the opposition in their argumentagainst the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition partyhas to defeat the existing instrument of government.

To do so, the opposition must minimize the government'sachievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those plans may be beneficialto the society. Consequently, the interests and programs of the society becomethe victims of the parties' struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore,politically, socially, and economically destructive to the society, despitethe fact that it creates political activity.

Thus, the struggle results in the victory of anotherinstrument of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of another.It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy. Furthermore,parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or outside.

Originally, the party is formed ostensibly torepresent the people. Subsequently, the party leadership becomes representativeof the membership, and the leader represents the party elite. It becomes clearthat this partisan game is a deceitful farce based on a false form of democracy.It has a selfish authoritarian character based on maneuvres, intrigues andpolitical games. This confirms the fact that the party system is a moderninstrument of dictatorship. The party system is an outright, unconvincingdictatorship, one which the world has not yet surpassed. It is, in fact, thedictatorship of the modern age.

The parliament of the winning party is indeeda parliament of the party, for the executive power formed by this parliamentis the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is supposedlyfor the good of the whole people, is actually the arch-enemy of a fractionof the people, namely, the opposition party or parties and their supporters.The opposition is, therefore, not a popular check on the ruling party but,rather, is itself opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. Accordingto modern democracy, the legitimate check on the ruling party is the parliament,the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say,control is in the hands of the ruling party, and power is in the hands ofthe controlling party. Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of thepolitical theories dominant in the world today become obvious. From theseemerge contemporary conventional democracy.

"The party represents a segment of the people,but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible."

"The party allegedly governs on behalf of thepeople, but in reality the true principle of democracy is based upon the notionthat there can be no representation in lieu of the people."

The party system is the modern equivalent of thetribal or sectarian system. A society governed by one party is similar toone which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party, as shown, representsthe perception of a certain group of people, or the interests of one groupin society, or one belief, or one region. Such a party is a minority comparedwith the whole people, just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority hasnarrow, common sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlookis formed. Only the blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a party,and, indeed, a tribe might also be the basis for the foundation of a party.There is no difference between party struggle and tribal or sectarian strugglesfor power. Just as tribal and sectarian rule is politically unacceptable andinappropriate, likewise the rule under a party system. Both follow the samepath and lead to the same end.The negative and destructive effects of thetribal or sectarian struggle on society is identical to the negative and destructiveeffects of the party struggle.

CLASS

The political class system is the same as a party,tribal, or sectarian system since a class dominates society in the same waythat a party, tribe or sect would. Classes, like parties, sects or tribes,are groups of people within society who share common interests. Common interestsarise from the existence of a group of people bound together by blood-relationship,belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Classes, parties, sects andtribes emerge because blood-relationship, social rank, economic interest,standard of living, belief, culture and locality create a common outlook toachieve a common end. Thus, social structures, in the form of classes, parties,tribes or sects, emerge. These eventually develop into political entitiesdirected toward the realization of the goals of that group. In all cases,the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe, nor the sect, forthese are no more than a segment of the people and constitute a minority.If a class, a party, a tribe, or a sect dominates a society, then the dominantsystem becomes a dictatorship. However, a class or a tribal coalition is preferableto a party coalition since societies originally consisted of tribal communities.One seldom finds a group of people who do not belong to a tribe, and all peoplebelong to a specific class. But no party or parties embrace all of the people,and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority comparedto the masses outside their membership. Under genuine democracy, there canbe no justification for any one class to subdue other classes for its interests.Similarly, no party, tribe or sect can crush others for their own interests.

To allow such actions abandons the logic of democracyand justifies resort to the use of force. Such policies of suppression aredictatorial because they are not in the interest of the whole society, whichconsists of more than one class, tribe or sect, or the members of one party.There is no justification for such actions, though the dictatorial argumentis that society actually consists of numerous segments, one of which mustundertake the liquidation of others in order to remain solely in power. Thisexercise is not, accordingly, in the interests of the whole society but, rather,in the interests of a specific class, tribe, sect, party, or those who claimto speak for the society. Such an act is basically aimed at the member ofthe society who does not belong to the party, class, tribe or sect which carriesout the liquidation.

A society torn apart by party feud is similarto one which is torn apart by tribal or sectarian conflicts.

A party that is formed in the name of a classinevitably becomes a substitute for that class and continues in the processof spontaneous transformation until it becomes hostile to the class that itreplaces.

Any class which inherits a society also inheritsits characteristics. If the working class, for example, subdues all otherclasses of a particular society, it then becomes its only heir and forms itsmaterial and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those from whomit inherits, though this may not be evident all at once. With the passageof time, characteristics of the other eliminated classes will emerge withinthe ranks of the working class itself. The members of the new society willassume the attitudes and perspectives appropriate to their newly evolved characteristics.Thus, the working class will develop a separate society possessing all ofthe contradictions of the old society. In the first stage, the material standardand importance of the members become unequal. Thereafter, groups emerge whichautomatically become classes that are the same as the classes that were eliminated.Thus, the struggle for domination of the society begins again. Each groupof people, each faction, and each new class will all vie to become the instrumentof government.

Being social in nature, the material base of anysociety is changeable. The instrument of government of this material basemay be sustained for some time, but it will eventual become obsolete as newmaterial and social standards evolve to form a new material base. Any societywhich undergoes a class conflict may at one time have been a one-class societybut, through evolution, inevitably becomes a multi-class society.

The class that expropriates and acquires the possessionof others to maintain power for itself will soon find that, through evolution,it will be itself subject to change as though it were the society as a whole.

In summary, all attempts at unifying the materialbase of a society in order to solve the problem of government, or at puttingan end to the struggle in favour of a party, class, sect or tribe have failed.All endeavours aimed at appeasing the masses through the election of representativesor through parliaments have equally failed. To continue such practices wouldbe a waste of time and a mockery of the people.

PLEBISCITES

Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Thosewho vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather,are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowedto say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical.Those who vote "no" should express their reasons and why they did not say"yes", and those who say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they didnot vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their"yes" or "no" vote.

What then, is the path to be taken by humanityin order to conclusively rid itself of the elements of dictatorship and tyranny?

The intricate problem in the case of democracyis reflected in the nature of the instrument of government, which is demonstratedby conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The elections and plebisciteswere invented to cover the failure of these unsuccessful experiments to solvethis problem. The solution lies in finding an instrument of government otherthan those which are subject to conflict and which represent only one factionof society; that is to say, an instrument of government which is not a partyclass, sect or a tribe, but an instrument of government which is the peopleas a whole. In other words, we seek an instrument of government which neitherrepresents the people nor speaks in their name.

There can be no representation in lieu of thepeople and representation is fraud. If such an instrument can be found, thenthe problem is solved and true popular democracy is realized. Thus, humankindwould have terminated the eras of tyranny and dictatorships, and replacedthem with the authority of the people.

THE GREEN BOOK presentsthe ultimate solution to the problem of the instrument of government, andindicates for the masses the path upon which they can advance from the ageof dictatorship to that of genuine democracy.

This new theory is based on the authority of thepeople, without representation or deputation. It achieves direct democracyin an orderly and effective form. It is superior to the older attempts atdirect democracy which were impractical because they lacked popular organizationsat base levels.

POPULAR CONFERENCES AND PEOPLE'SCOMMITTEES

PopularConferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system ofgovernment contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, isundemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world todaywill remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferencesare the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.

Popular Conferences and People's Committees arethe fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences andPeople's Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the productof thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputablythe ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all people,however small the population, in one place so that they can discuss, discernand decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy, which becamean utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various theoriesof government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and plebiscites,all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their politicalaffairs.

These instruments of government - the individual,the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling toachieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and monopolizedpolitics and authority for themselves.

THE GREEN BOOK guidesthe masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No twointelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal,but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised.The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us witha practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in theworld will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is thestruggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, bethey parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system ormulti-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.

True democracy has but one method and one theory.The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic do,in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the people hasbut one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences and People'sCommittees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committeeseverywhere.

First, the people are divided into Basic PopularConferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariatsof all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently,the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select administrative People'sCommittees to replace government administration. All public institutions arerun by People's Committees which will be accountable to the Basic PopularConferences which dictate the policy and supervise its execution. Thus, boththe administration and the supervision become the people's and the outdateddefinition of democracy - democracy is the supervision of the government bythe people - becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition:Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.

All citizens who are members of these PopularConferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors andhave, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferencesin addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic PopularConferences or People's Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferencesand People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in the GeneralPeople's Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular Conferencesand People's Committees. Resolutions of the General People's Congress, whichmeets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences andPeople's Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions throughthe responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic PopularConferences.

The General People's Congress is not a gatheringof persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gatheringof the Popular Conferences and People's Committees.

Thus, the problem of the instrument of governmentis naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The peoplebecome the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the worldis conclusively solved.

THE LAW OF SOCIETY

Law represents the other problem, parallel tothat of the instrument of government, which has not been resolved. Althoughit was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persiststoday.

For a committee or an assembly to be empoweredto draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also invalidand undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended by individual,a committee, or an assembly.

What then is the law of society? Who drafts itand what is its relevance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is grounded ineither tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outsidethese two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be consideredthe law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positivelaw, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.

The problem of freedom in the modern age is thatconstitutions have become the law of societies. These constitutions are basedsolely on the premises of the instruments of dictatorial rule prevailing inthe world today, ranging from the individual to the party. Proof of this arethe differences existing in various constitutions, although human freedomis one and the same. The reason for the differences is the variation in theassumptions and values implicit in diverse instruments of government. Thisis how freedom becomes vulnerable under contemporary forms of government.

The method by which a specific modality of governmentseeks to dominate the people is contained in the constitution. The peopleare compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws derived from that constitution,which is itself the product of the tendencies within particular instrumentsof governments.

The laws of the dictatorial instruments of governmenthave replaced the natural laws, i.e., positive law has replaced natural law.Consequently, ethical standards have become confused. The human being is essentially,physically and emotionally, the same everywhere. Because of this fact, naturallaws are applicable to all. However, constitutions as conventional laws donot perceive human beings equally. This view has no justification, exceptfor the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, beit an individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is why constitutionschange when an alteration in the instruments of government takes place, indicatingthat a constitution is not natural law but reflects the drive of the instrumentof government to serve its own purpose.

The abrogation of natural laws from human societiesand their replacement by conventional laws is the fundamental danger thatthreatens freedom. Any ruling system must be made subservient to natural laws,not the reverse.

The fundamental law of society must not be subjectto historical drafting or composition. Its importance lies in being the decisivecriterion in light of which truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and individualrights and duties can be judged. Freedom is threatened unless society adheresto a sacred law with established rules that are not subject to alterationor change by any instrument of government. It is, rather, the responsibilityof the instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Unfortunately,people the world over are currently ruled by manmade laws that can be changedor abrogated, depending upon the struggle for power among competing formsof government.

Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is ofteninsufficient. Plebiscites are essentially a counterfeit of democracy sincea "yes" or "no" is the only option. Moreover, under man-made law, people arecompelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conducting a plebiscite on a constitutiondoes not necessarily make the constitution the law of society. In other words,the status of a constitution will not be altered by a plebiscite; it willremain no more than the subject of a plebiscite.

The law of society is an eternal human heritagethat does not belong only to the living. Therefore, drafting a constitutionor conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery.

The catalogues of man-made laws emanating fromman-made constitutions are fraught with physical penalties directed againsthuman beings, while tradition contains few such measures. Tradition lays downmoral, non-physical penalties that conform to the intrinsic nature of humanity.Religion contains tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a manifestationof the natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic social guidelinesand answers to the fundamental questions of existence.

Most physical penalties are deferred to a futurejudgment. This is the most appropriate law affording due respect to the humanbeing. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties, save in certain compellinginstances necessary to the well-being of society.

Religion contains tradition, and tradition isan expression of the natural life of the people. Therefore, religion is anaffirmation of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws which are notpremised on religion and tradition are merely an invention by man to be usedagainst his fellow man. Consequently, such laws are invalid because they donot emanate from the natural source of tradition and religion.

WHO SUPERVISES THE CONDUCT OFSOCIETY?

The question arises: who has the right to supervisesociety, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society?Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of society. Therefore,society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or groupto claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is,democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole. This can bearrived at through the democratic instrument of government that results fromthe organization of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, andthrough the government of these people through People's Committees and theGeneral People's Congress - the national congress - where Secretariats ofthe Popular Conferences and the People's Committees convene. In accordancewith this theory, the people become the instrument of government and, in turn,become their own supervisors. Society thus secures self-supervision over itslaws.

HOW CAN SOCIETY REDIRECT ITSCOURSE WHEN DEVIATIONS FROM ITS LAWS OCCUR?

If the instrument of government is dictatorial,as is the case in the world's political systems today, society's awarenessof deviation from its laws is expressed only through violence to redirectits course, i.e., revolution against the instrument of government. Violenceand revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments of society regardingdeviation, do not constitute an exercise in which the whole of society takespart. Rather, violence and revolution are carried out by those who have thecapability and courage to take the initiative and proclaim the will of society.However, this unilateral approach is dictatorial because the revolutionaryinitiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new instrument of governmentrepresenting the people to arise. This means that the governing structureremains dictatorial. In addition, violence and effecting change by force areboth undemocratic, even though they take place as a reaction against an undemocraticprior condition. The society that revolves around this concept is backward.What, then, is the solution?

The solution lies in the people being themselvesthe instrument of government whose authority is derived from Basic PopularConferences and the General People's Congress; in eliminating government administrationand replacing it by People's Committees; and finally, in the General People'sCongress becoming a truly national convention where Basic Popular Conferencesand People's Committees convene.

In such a system, if deviation takes place, itis then rectified by a total democratic revision, and not through the useof force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social change andtreatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the natureof this democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside groupwho can be held responsible for such deviation or against whom violence canbe directed.

THE PRESS

An individual has the right to express himselfor herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or herinsanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity.The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who sharetheir corporate identity. Since society consists of private individuals andcorporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his orher insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Suchexpression reflects only in the individual's character. Likewise, corporateexpression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporatebody. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it producesis harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the company.

The press is a means of expression for society:it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate bodies.Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either oneof them.

A newspaper owned by any individual is his orher own, and expresses only his or her point of view. Any claim that a newspaperrepresents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses theviewpoint of that private individual. Democratically, private individualsshould not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information.However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally,to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, forexample, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. Itpresents their own points of view and not that of the general public. Thisapplies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.

The democratic press is that which is issued bya People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case,and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic,expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.

If medical professionals issue a journal, it mustbe purely medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private individualshave the right to express only their own, and not anyone else's opinions.

What is known as the problem of the freedom ofthe press in the world will be radically and democratically solved. Becauseit is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the problem of freedomof the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy in societyas a whole. Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracyis through The Third Universal Theory.

According to this theory, the democratic systemis a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on Basic PopularConferences and People's Committees which convene in a General People's Congress.This is absolutely the only form of genuine democratic society.

In summary, the era of the masses, which followsthe age of the republics, excites the feelings and dazzles the eyes. But eventhough the vision of this era denotes genuine freedom of the masses and theirhappy emancipation from the bonds of external authoritarian structures, itwarns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and demagoguery, and the threatof a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and party, insteadof the authority of the people.

Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but,realistically, the strong always rules, i.e., the stronger party in the societyis the one that rules.

 

Return

Click here to discuss The Green Book!