Outline of CHAPTER 6... Local, National, and Regional Government Introduction Creative Politics Democracy's new agenda Two Traditions of Integration Integrative Government Integrative Interest Representation The Size of Democracy Local and Area Government National Government Regional Government Redesigning Political Leadership Opening the Government Evolution of Government

Local, National, and Regional Government ...a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer. If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them... But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. Machiavelli The Prince Introduction In the last two chapters we focused on the task of changing systems whose basic forms appear likely to persist well into the future. Families, groups, businesses, cooperatives, corporations, unions, and the quasi-permanent institutions known as local, area (county or provincial), or national governments are not likely to disappear in the 21st century. Some of them will be radically transformed, some moderately reformed. If democracy continues on its evolutionary path, all of them will eventually be integrated into a global democratic system. The distribution of power has shifted over the centuries from local to area to regional powers to vast empires, then to the modern nation-state and increasingly now to multinational--or regional--units such as the European Union. Relations among the three levels of local, national, and regional government, however, have often been complicated. In an earlier Viet Nam "the emperor's law stopped at the village gate." Today in Viet Nam, the United States, the Russian Federation, and in almost every other country disputes over jurisdiction still persist in various--usually nonviolent--degrees of intensity, but the power to decide now rests most often in the nation-state. Global corporations, international trade agreements, and supranational political systems are gradually usurping the powers of nations, however, leading to a relative increase in the power of local and regional systems. Along with the growing complexity of nearly every system in the Modern Age, however, it has become increasingly clear that human problems develop and accumulate where they do not conform to the old geopolitical boundaries. New political units, even new ways of conceptualizing political units, have to be developed in order to cope effectively with these problems. Although the Cold War is over, the theme of integration vs. mutually assured destruction is still in the air. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the population "bomb," and the Earth's shrinking capacity combined with an increasing interdependence of living systems are rapidly making national boundaries incongruent with human problems. "Basic" assumptions of political science having to do with political and legal jurisdictions and other fundamental issues will have to be rethought. Further, the Machiavellian precepts quoted above, which appear to be acceptable to many career politicians today, have led to a serious loss of faith in the modern, democratic process. Only by eliminating the rewards for special interests and narcissistic politicians can we restore public confidence in the secular, democratic system. We will propose in this chapter, therefore, a clear re-visioning of the present structures of democratic government and of the methods by which the people decide. Creative Politics In his 1967 Presidential address to the American Political Science Association [Dahl, 1967], Robert A. Dahl made the following observations: ...one of the characteristics of our field is the large number of old and quite elemental questions--elemental but by no means elementary--for which we have no compelling answers. I don't mean that we have no answers to these questions. On the contrary, we often have a rich variety of conflicting answers. But no answer compels acceptance in the same way as a proof of a theorem in mathematics, or a very nice fit between a hypothesis and a satisfactory set of data. Whether the obstacles that prevent us from achieving tight closure on solutions lie in ourselves--our approaches, methods, and theories--or are inherent in the problems is, paradoxically, one of these persistent and elemental questions for which we have a number of conflicting answers. For whatever it may be worth, my private hunch is that the main obstacles to closure are in the problems themselves--in their extraordinary complexity, the number and variety of variables, dimensions, qualities, and relationships, and in the impediments to observation and data-gathering. My own "hunch" is that every political problem lies both within us and our political institutions and without, i.e., in the complexity of the problems themselves--and that it is always necessary to attend to both. At this moment in history, as we stand at or near the limits of the Earth's carrying capacity and with the means of our self-destruction already in hand, it is especially important to renew our focus on that part of every political problem which lies within each of us and within each political organization. It would be far wiser for each of us to assume the responsibility for these unsolved, elemental problems than it would be to attribute their lack of resolution to some difficulty that is intrinsic to the problem and/or outside ourselves. Human problem-solving abilities and external conditions are continually evolving. Unsolved problems, therefore, should be seen as a function both of their changing, intrinsic difficulties and of our evolving abilities. Each must be reevaluated periodically, by governments as well as by individuals, to see if a new pathway has opened. But, since there will always be more than enough difficult problems, we will have to find a way to establish clear priorities. Further, it is organizational common-sense that the problem-solving actions taken by different political entities must be coordinated in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, mutually conflicting strategies, and a failure to employ economies of scale. To cope effectively with problems of every size and distribution, it will be necessary to develop democratic problem-solving processes at every social system level from the small group to the global. In accordance with the law of requisite variety, our problem-solving system will have to be capable of matching the variety in our problem system. As to the argument that we humans are not sufficiently educated or developed to create and maintain more complex and more flexible democratic processes, it should be clear from the analysis of complexity in human systems (chapters 3 and 4) that we can--and must--educate and organize ourselves to cope with the problems that are looming in the next half century. We will certainly have to develop the cultural and political processes of democracy sufficiently to solve at least those problems which threaten our species with either extinction or severe degradation. To do this we will need deeper and broader methods of democratic problem-solving at all levels of human organization. Having democratic decision methods at every level of human organization does not mean that every decision must be decided democratically, nor that democratization will ever be complete. There will always be processes and degrees of nondemocratic decision-making in every system. The process of democratization, as I use the term, should be understood as a process of becoming "adaptively democratized," that is, democratized to the degree that is adaptively intelligent for the organization and for the larger community of humans. Some decisions will be made democratically, then commands will be issued to those organs that will carry out the decisions. Ideally, those commands will allow flexibility and freedom to alter the command on the spot by an intelligent agent who understands the goals and objectives of the demos and will act to achieve the goals rather than slavishly follow orders. Some decisions will, of course, also be entrusted by a demos to experts who--having the same goals--must have the same flexibility and freedom to cope with unexpected local changes. Defining each demos and deciding which decisions will be left to nondemocratic processes, or to an "authority," remains a vast area for research, but the essential idea must be to extend and improve democratic processes to that degree which is most adaptively wise for humanity. To proceed with this great project, we will need less provincialism, less dogmatism, less reflexive negativity toward representative government, and more of an experimental or constructive attitude toward every issue--especially toward the fundamental values that underlie authentic democratization. The type of decision which often has to be made in politics, however, is different from that which usually has to be made in, say, a college chemistry laboratory. In the realm of political action we often cannot know with precision whether an important decision will lead to the desired effects or whether 20 years hence it will be seen as a disastrous turning point. Operating of necessity within the 'web of life' we cannot easily duplicate the paradigm of physical science by isolating elements of political or economic behavior in order to do controlled studies. Nor can we create precise analogies from the history of "natural experiments." Ultimately, we consider many sources of information, then we "construct" a response that takes into account as many elements of the problem set as feasible. This difference between uncontrolled conditions of political life and controlled conditions of experimental science leads me to the conclusion that traditional political science, which attempts to confine political knowledge to that which can be logically or empirically demonstrated, can only be helpful insofar as it can point to a subset of what is possible. Real time political decision-makers, i.e., each of us, must function within the far fuzzier realm of constructive or creative decision-making. With regard to virtually all of the major decisions facing humanity now, the situation is unique in enough ways to require a brand new--never before tried--solution. One of the dangers is that global integration may continue to proceed, as it often does now, by the formation of new, transnational and multinational organizations which are not democratic in nature but which are controlled by special interests concerned only with capital accumulation. By such means the special interests, who shortsightedly seek to evade democratic processes, can gain significant further advantage for themselves. They simply move decision-making out of the hands of currently existing democracies and into other national or transnational organizations that can be controlled by their own carefully selected and politically appointed technocrats. This leaves democratically organized peoples without either a decision-making role or the force to enact decisions in areas that affect our lives. Thus the modern, democratic ship of state is adrift between the rocks of Scylla and the turbulence of Charybdis without power or rudder for steering it's way through a dangerous future. Our only hope for healthy systems at the local, national, and regional levels is to move quickly to establish democratic control over the new international and supranational systems However, in order to stop the hemorrhaging of human resources and financial capital into de-democratized structures, the old framework of local democratic systems and nation-states will itself have to be reformed, whatever the difficulty. Only by democratizing at every level can we create the new, more democratic, more comprehensive, and more equitable world system that we need in order to survive the next century. We know that broadly distributed economic power is conducive to, and ultimately necessary for, a genuinely democratic politics. [Vanhanen, 1990] We also know from comparative studies that democracy is good for economic development. [Pourgerami, 1991] Political plans for democratization, therefore, must go hand in hand with a just redistribution of wealth. The distribution of knowledge, the values of democratic culture, democratic control of mass media, and other power resources must also be elements of any politically initiated drive toward democratization. Our new, more democratic world will have to include: (1) greater participation among larger numbers of people, (2) improved technologies for communication and direct democratic decision-making, (3) improved general education in conflict-resolution strategies, in democratic decision-making, and in the elements of democratic culture, (4) bioregional, transregional, and transnational elective bodies for coping with problems that don't conform to existing geopolitical lines, (5) for greater efficiency, more flexible groupings that will be developed to include in the democratic problem-solving process--in some cases at least--only those individuals and families, or their representatives, who are most affected by a particular set of problems, (6) replacement of the rigid, hierarchical structures of bureaucracy with organizational democracy and feedback loops, (7) a gradual redistribution of wealth with more worker and communal ownership balanced with private for-profit and nonprofit or cooperative enterprise. (8) control of mass media by an independent, democratic organization which contracts about 1/3 of the available channels to profit-making corporations, 1/3 to nonprofit corporations, and 1/3 to the democratic government for opening up it's processes to the electorate. (9) a general trend of progressive steps toward global, democratic government. (10) authentically democratic control of electoral and lobbying processes. Naturally, the new, integrative subsystems raise questions about jurisdiction and how we will decide jurisdiction, but these are problems that have always been present even with the fixed boundaries of our present federations and republics. A procedure to establish temporary boundaries around "problems" rather than permanent boundaries around territory may not be as difficult as it first looks. As to other methods of bringing about these reforms, transformations, and new organizations, the reader is referred to chapter 7, where two basic categories of organizing for change are described and a new strategy and method of political organizing is suggested in some detail. In the following section we will describe an approach to change based on reform of existing government. Here too, however, we will look at proposed new democratic structures and the reasons for recommending them. Election and constitutional reforms are addressed in the model constitution presented in The Universal Model: A Democratic Constitution [Foreman, 1995]. Democracy's New Agenda There should be no mistake about the nature and intent of the changes proposed in this book: they represent a peaceful but radical democratization of human society in every country and at every level of social organization. It may be useful to remember here that the changes broached in this book are based on the idea of democracy as (1) the best political strategy for species survival and further evolution, (2) the political system most conducive of personal and social development, (3) the most efficient decision-making process for most human organizations, (4) the political system most likely to implement human rights and values, and (5) the most creative political process. These assertions are based on the assumption, however, of a culture of understanding and support for democratic processes with universal participation. With these points in mind, let us establish an outline of reforms and of an organization that could move the political process of any local, national, or regional system toward the improved democracy that would meet the criticisms presented in chapter one and approximate the ideal democracy described in The Universal Model: A Democratic Constitution [Foreman, 1995]. For lack of another name at present, I will refer to this organization, its values and its reform program as "Democracy's New Agenda (DNA)." DNA is not to be a political party that serves as a springboard for advance in the present political hierarchy. DNA organizations may endorse candidates who endorse the DNA program for democratic reform, but DNA would not financially contribute to campaigns under the current system of campaign finance laws. However, DNA may organize volunteers to help with campaigns that have been carefully reviewed and endorsed. DNA organizations may be structured as pre-syntropic organizations or as syntropic community systems. They would differ from the syntropic communities described in chapter 7 primarily in the focus of DNA on reforming existing political structures and on maintaining such sound democratic processes as already exist. In practice, then, the goals of DNA organizations would depend in some respects on the structure of the system that is to be reformed and/or supported. Independent syntropic communities, on the other hand, would have a focus on creating a whole new system of democratic communities. These two approaches to further democratization could, of course, be complementary and mutually supportive. In either case, incentive structures will have to be developed to attract the several levels of individual personality as described in chapter 4. Jointly owning property and/or businesses may offer both jobs and investment incentives. Various types of fund raising activities could enable DNA workers to supplement their incomes from other sources and thereby help to sustain them over the long haul. DNA will be well-advised to have a democratically organized and comprehensively thought out program for reform that can be implemented in steps. The aims of DNA organizations would be primarily to promote the following seven transformative values: (1) electoral reform, (2) media reform, (3) lobby reform, (4) educational reform, (5) economic/structural reform, (6) population/ecosystem balance, (7) and democratization of corporations. We will look briefly now at three levels of DNA organization: Local A local organization for democratic reform can exist solely as a local and independent group or as a chapter in a national or regional DNA organization. Its purpose would be to promote democratization in the governing process and in all other human systems. To accomplish this most efficiently it will need an effective strategy. Its first steps will be to clearly state its goals and values, then begin to attract membership. It will then need a plan of action with steps and priorities spelled out clearly. The first reforms to seek are: (1) electoral reform, (2) lobby reform, (3) media reform, (4) corporate reform, and (5) the strengthening of the DNA organization to promote these reforms. Without these first reforms a truly democratic representation cannot be achieved, and special interests would continue to prevent progress on the rest of the new agenda. Everything else, therefore, is secondary to these reforms. The specific content of the proposed reforms in each of these areas can be found in the model constitution [Foreman, 1995], in the sections pertaining to each of the reform topics. The principle methods by which these first reforms can be pursued are: (1) education, (2) expansion of membership, (3) support for electoral candidates who advocate these reforms, (4) media events and/or campaigns, (5) mass demonstrations, (6) seminars/teach-ins, (7) write-in campaigns, (8) initiatives/referenda, (9) proposals of new laws to legislative bodies, and (10) the establishment of a fund to purchase or create new media outlets that will function to promote a carefully structured approach to reform as described above and in the model constitution. Naturally, an organization for democratic reform will want to structure itself democratically. The model for a universal constitution [Foreman, 1995] would be suitable for an organization whose purpose is to reform the existing state and national political process and to move the local society toward a more democratic self-government. The strength of this organization would rest primarily in the quality of its membership, its organization, and in its numbers. Small groups can be formed within the organization, as described in chapter 7, for the purposes of self-education in democratic ideas and for personal development. Since the quality of an organization is often reflected in it's meetings, these small groups ought to offer individuals experience in the conduct of effective decision-making for meetings. Toward that end the following table provides a list of guidelines for democratic meetings: Ten Guidelines for Democratic Meetings 1. Distribute a written agenda in advance of the meeting. Clearly state the purposes or goals of the meeting, and specify the methods or rules for democratic decision-making that will be in effect--unless these are to be decided at the meeting. 2. Elect a Chairperson, a Historian, and a Parliamentarian for the remainder of the meeting. Rotate these positions, or elect new people, in subsequent meetings. 3. At the meeting provide copies of the agenda and rules of order, with last minute modifications. The Chair should then ask for discussion of the agenda and rules. After discussion and further changes, the Chair should move that the agenda and rules be approved by majority vote. 4. The Chair will then conduct the meeting according to Robert's Rules of Order or a modified/informal version of those rules. The Historian will record the meeting and write a brief account of the meeting and its historical significance in relation to the stated purposes. The Parliamentarian will adjudicate disputes over procedure, and will decide procedures to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected and their views included. 5. Discuss and decide each item on the agenda--even if only to table some items until a later meeting. 6. If complex or important issues require a division of labor or an in depth discussion, separate into small groups of 7 \xb1 2 individuals. Reassemble for group reports and final decision by the whole group. 7. Actively solicit every person's opinion in the small groups. 8. Foster an mutually supportive atmosphere, positive regard for each individual's opinion, and a commitment to shared goals. Practice the communication model described in chapter four (page 163) of this book. 9. When making decisions, specify who will carry them out and when; and how the results shall be reported, by whom, to whom, and when. 10. Limit the meeting to 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Decide the time of adjournment and the time of the next meeting at the beginning of the meeting. National A national DNA organization dedicated to the program of democratic reforms outlined here can be chartered when enough local chapters exist. It will be important to develop new democratic organization in a way that does not promote particular individuals, but rather, the organization's goals. Strict adherence to democratic processes within the organization, frequent elections, rotating leadership, and a democratic decision-making structure based on the model constitution should help keep the organization alive and progressing. Lobby reform becomes especially important at the state and national levels of organization. With lobby reform, only lobbyists who are democratically elected by their organizations would be allowed to lobby--and then only under a strict set of rules that would prevent campaign contributions, bribery, and unfair or "insider" influence. DNA lobbyists could be elected and sent to every level of government to inform elected representatives of the ideas, policies, proposals for new laws, and the growing strength of the new democratic organizations. They could also gather information about the ongoing legislative process to send back to their democratic organizations so that timely action can be taken when needed. All of the activities at local levels can also occur at, and be coordinated with, the national level. Local and national levels can support each other in a variety of ways. Joining with other democratically functioning organizations to share values and goals and to establish a network of mutually supportive organizations is, of course, crucial at every level. Regional Progressive people in neighboring countries should be approached with the ideas of establishing DNA organizations there, and eventually, with the goal of creating a multinational, regional organization. Regional DNA organizations should also be structured on the universal model of democracy. Authoritarian or poorly developed democratic systems in neighboring countries are hazardous to their more democratic neighbors. People in countries with democratic deficits tend to need more help with democratization, of course. Both they and their neighbors will benefit when the whole region moves toward greater, and more authentic, democracy. The new democracy organizations should not rest until universal participation in democratic government is achieved. The idea of universal participation by adults in democratic self-government actually assumes a universal model for democracy. The idea of a universal model may seem implausible to some. In fact, however, when any group begins to study existing constitutional democracies in order to find an appropriate new structure for itself or to improve itself, it invariably comes up with some combination of features from already existing democracies. The continuation of this process spontaneously leads toward an integration among existing democracies and to a universalized model of democracy. The primary challenge at the regional level of organization is to create a new sense of community among human groups that have not previously seen themselves as parts of a larger community. As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out, government is not created by fiat but rather out of a sense of community. [Walker, 1993] To achieve this, a common model of democratic government is necessary but not sufficient. Cultural, historical, and economic integration will also be necessary. To speed progress in finding and implementing a multileveled system model, chapters 7 and 8, and [Foreman, 1995] propose one universal model of democracy for the reader's consideration. It is designed to facilitate introduction of democracy into any culture, to provide guarantees for fair representation for all peoples, to enhance human health, improve economies and restore the environment, establish universal values and goals, and to stop the corrupting influence of special interests. Its widespread acceptance would clearly create a foundation for world peace and prosperity by the middle of the 21st century. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to discussing additional reforms that can be promoted by new democratic organizations or by individuals and other organizations for every level of government. Although these reforms and new organizations, if perceived in isolation, could seem by themselves to be of minor significance, the synergistic accumulation of all the recommended changes would represent a dramatic freeing of the human spirit and a great leap forward for human excellence in political organization. Two Traditions of Integration The European Union is one example of what might be called an "economic model" for the integration of political units in the 21st century. Beginning with a trade organization involving only two small countries, Belgium and Luxembourg, it has evolved with economic exchange agreements leading the way toward greater political integration. The North American Free Trade Agreement with its trilateral commissions, and the Uruguay Round GATT agreement with its new World Trade Organization (WTO), may be early steps in the same direction. The People's Republic of China, under Deng and his allies, has adopted its own version of an economic path to social transformation--a set of policies sometimes referred to as "Market Leninism"--which will probably lead, eventually, to a dramatic redistribution of political power. Unfortunately, in most twentieth century examples of the economic model of integration, a "democratic deficit" exists at the new, "higher" levels of decision-making and governance. Democratic processes will probably flow "uphill" into those levels, for democracy dislikes arbitrary authority as much as nature abhors a vacuum. Political innovation can also lead the way to change--as demonstrated by the Iroquois Confederation in Pre-Colombian America, the creation of the Helvetic Confederation (Swiss) of the 14th century, and of the 18th century federal constitution of the United States. These were eventually followed--though in some spheres only after many years--by varying degrees of economic integration of the political units involved. An inversion of the political model, and the most prominent recent example of political innovation leading to economic change, has been perestroika--a political invention that led to the disintegration of a unified, command economy. Whether political or economic initiative comes first, changes in the other are likely to follow--along with cultural and psychological changes. Step by step economic integration leads almost naturally to political integration with only a gradual reconception of the political process. Political turns such as perestroika involve a dramatic transformation of political thinking that have to gain acceptance by a large number of minds before the ideas can be effectively implemented. Politically-led transformations offer a faster, and clearly more dramatic method of change, but it is difficult to sustain sufficient political unity to carry them out. Hence, they oscillate--ambivalently and dangerously--between political poles of thought. Other historical processes of integration are led, for example, by military conquest, or by cultural, linguistic, religious, or racial growth. Since political creativity in service to the evolution of democratic forms is the main focus in this chapter, we will now turn directly to innovation in politics and then follow with an advocacy for specific changes. Integrative Government To facilitate the integrative process as well as to substantially increase their legitimacy and decision-making effectiveness, all peoples and early 21st century governments are likely to move toward a more integrative model of democracy. By the term "integrative model," I mean two things: (1) the establishment of suprasystemic, or supranational, commissions, councils, and parliaments; and (2) the intersystemic inclusion, including transnational structures, in each democratic government of observers, advisors, and a number of voting participants who come from outside a particular system's former jurisdictional boundaries. Both suprasystemic and intersystemic systems would have the effect of formally recognizing the need for new approaches to those problems which cannot easily be solved under the old system of sovereign nation-states existing in anarchic relationship with one another. Suprasystemic bodies, for example an Asian or a South American Council composed of representatives elected from each sovereign nation in the regions of Asia or South America, would examine and decide issues that affect citizens from more than one nation--or delegate the decision to a smaller, transnational council representing just those citizens who are affected, across national borders, by the issue. Intersystemic inclusions will bring new perspectives, increased popular trust, improved decision-making intelligence, a new transparency or openness to government, but most importantly, a more global orientation for those governments which are less than global. Rather like the "open skies" policy between competing military powers that wish to show, to one another's spy planes, that no aggressive actions are being planned, each government will further open up their decision-making processes to other peoples. Doing so will demonstrate an honest intent to promote mutually beneficial understanding with other governments. Trained international election observers, legislative observers, nuclear energy inspectors, and military observers who have the right to investigate suspected irregularities in each others' systems can also substantially improve the trust that individuals have in their own systems. Naturally, and most importantly, such policies also increase trust and confidence in those other governing systems around the world which may otherwise be the objects of fear or resentment. Historical injustice and conflicts over scarce resources, as well as local, regional, and national chauvinism, vary considerably from one area to the next, however. Therefore, the movement toward integrative structures for democracy will undoubtedly continue for some initial period to be slow and irregular. Locally prejudiced and nationalistic arguments against anything approaching a single, universal model of democratic, or integrative, government will tend, at times, to be quite virulent. A patient, consistent, and determined approach by a well-organized, sustainable and nonviolent organization will find, however, that time and the changes in consciousness that lie ahead are generally on our side. Integrative Interest Representation For a variety of reasons mentioned in the "human interest story" described in chapter two, people of different races, religions, and cultures are transporting themselves into almost every country to form multicultural societies. Unfortunately, also previously mentioned, people with these differences are usually not psychologically or culturally prepared for living with one another. It is the responsibility of all governments to provide this preparation. Mandatory education in racial and cultural relations, with proper use of the mass media and the dramatic arts, can easily accomplish the necessary ends--if the fanatic hate groups among nearly every people can also be prevented from seeding more fear and hatred by their policies of killing and maiming people who are different from themselves. Government also has the responsibility of assuring that each people is not only protected from such violence but also that each people is proportionately represented in democratic decision-making. By developing rules for representation that foster integration of all peoples into a truly democratic and multicultural society, a governing system assures itself of the full, rich variety of information that its citizens can contribute to the well-being of the whole system. When people know they are respected as equals and fully represented in the centers of power, they are much less vulnerable to the appeals of desperate fanatics whose cries of rage and helplessness resonate with the disadvantaged. A true sharing of power is the only way to prevent the debilitating ethnic conflicts that destroy lives and economies and create impediments to integration with the peoples of other nations. Even under conditions of racial and cultural homogeneity, where a majoritarian, i.e., English or U.S., electoral style may be preferred, there will be some division of society along the lines of ideas and values. While heterogenous populations are clearly better served by a system based on proportional representation, for example, the German or Israeli systems, there are still problems to be solved. [Vanhanen, 1992] Lines of affinity develop and coalitions fade into and out of being. In almost every community, region, or nation there will be at least two major, competing principles of social organization, and therefore, of democratic representation. People affiliate with one another on the basis of such factors as race, gender, language, ethnicity, history, class, profession or interests, geographical territory, political party, religion, and shared ideas or values. Any one or several of these factors may determine, consciously or unconsciously, the affinity for a social group that an individual feels or chooses. Likewise, individuals may suffer discrimination because of their group affinities, and the democratic process may be, and often is, skewed by prejudice between groups. The design of a democracy must take these factors into account. Representational and decision-making processes cannot usually be based on the assumption of a homogenous population in which each individual's wants and needs are identical to every other individual. Proportional representation is therefore necessary but, unfortunately, not sufficient. As Lani Guinier has pointed out, if a prejudiced majority is simply transferred from the population to the level of legislative representation, then no progress has been made. The proposed "Law of Racial Thermodynamics," according to which "racism is never created nor destroyed but merely has different guises," is by such means supported. The heart rending cries of those who suffer the devastating effects of racial or ethnic prejudice can only be answered with an authentic sharing of power. What we need, in Guinier's terms, is "proportionate interest representation" in both legislative and regulatory outcome. "The term 'interest' refers to self-identified interests, meaning those high salience needs, wants, and demands articulated by any politically cohesive group of voters." [Guinier, 1991] Guinier's claim, fully justified in my opinion, "is that disproportionate majority power is, in itself, so wrong that it de-legitimates majority rule. As Alexis de Tocqueville recognized, 'The power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.'" [Guinier, 1991] The interests of each people in a multicultural democracy can be more fully integrated at each higher level of representation by careful attention to a variety of rules for decision-making that prevent a prejudiced group, even a majority prejudiced group, from dominating the legislative, judicial, or executive processes. Among the rules and strategies suggested are: (1) the supermajority, (2) concurrent majorities, (3) cumulative voting [favored by Guinier], (4) preference list voting, (5) minority veto, and (6) federated districts that are based on the concepts of "consociational democracy." The choice among these and other strategies for guaranteeing a democratic sharing of power among disparate peoples must, of course, finally be decided according to the historical and existential conditions of each democratic system. The most important strategies for achieving integrative interest representation, which overlaps with--but is not the same as--proportional interest representation, are: (1) a syntropic education with special emphasis on integrative democracy, (2) integrative democratic control of the mass media, (3) integrative democratic control of the decision-making in every political party and every political or governmental organization, and (4) the creation in every political structure of dialectical (or whole system) and syntropic goals and purposes. By the term syntropic education, I mean that educators present: (1) the concepts of paradigmatic information processing as described in syntropic systems theory, (2) all information--especially information about democracy--be presented in age-appropriate, paradigmatic sequence, and (3) the values and goals of syntropic democracy. The Size of Democracy Size is an important factor in determining the quality of a democratic structure. Communities or small cities may not seem to need, for example, a divided government based on the idea of a separation of powers. A simple pattern, such as a "City Council" or a "County Board of Supervisors" with each member being elected in free and fair elections, may appear to be the most efficient, or at least the minimally adequate, form of democracy. On the other hand, a strict adherence to the principles of democratic representation that are consistent with the principle of equality before the law may well lead to more careful and more complex, local structures. This would also involve, of course, acceptance of what may appear to be the additional costs, both in time and money, of a more complex democratic process. Actually, the costs of government spread over time are least when the government is most democratic. The factors of size and the potential for corruption are the critical factors in deciding whether a simple council or a more complexly structured form of government would be best. The next section focuses on the solutions to corruption. Here we will focus on the not unrelated issue of size. Political philosophers from Pericles and Aristotle through Rousseau and Montesquieu to Gandhi and Dahl have argued the merits of small size for democracy. From the perspective of citizen communication and control, the superiority of smaller systems is clear. From the perspective of power and coordination among disparate peoples, however, the advantage of large scale democracy is equally clear. The question thus becomes: What degree of decentralization and autonomy is appropriate for each of the different subsystems of society, and under what conditions should we maintain or revert to increased unity and centralization of power or decision-making? In relation to the idea of a universalized model of democracy, to what degree should our large and small democratic systems be holographically representative of one another? No matter how we answer these questions the issue of size will have to be evaluated and reevaluated as we go about the process of reforming governments at every level. Human social systems of virtually every size and type will become subject to some degree of integrative, democratic self-governance by the end of the 21st century. One of the principle justifications for integrative democracy is that it will help to avoid the subordination of smaller, or less militarily powerful communities to larger or stronger political entities. People everywhere ought to develop for themselves a Jeffersonian small system. Certainly every political organization should be composed of small groups. Every individual ought to have the benefit of political discussions in small groups, and every individual owes to the democratic community the value of her or his opinion on matters of importance to that community. The fear which some have that such groups could lead to mind control is unfounded, because democratic values and constitutional protections apply to the small group as well as to national and global systems. Further, if the philosophy and model of democracy expressed in this book is adopted, each individual would be educationally immunized against the manifestation of authoritarian personalities. Local and Area Government At the current levels of local, democratic self-government--neighborhood, village, town, city, and county--the problems of low participation, inadequate representation, citizen dissatisfaction, and corruption become worse as government progresses toward larger size, and provincialism tends to be progressively more intense as we move back toward smaller systems. If democracy is to be effective in a densely populated, multicultural world with problems that range in size from local to global, then it will have to have democratic problem-solving processes based on a universal model at each of these local levels and at even smaller levels, i.e., in small groups, families, and couples. "Jeffersonian assemblies" in the U.S., in Israeli kibbutzim, and in the Mondragón cooperatives of Spain--among many other examples--demonstrate the value of small group participation in democratic processes. Every local government could be substantially improved by eliciting more participation from local constituents. One method of proven effectiveness for bringing everyone into the democratic process was recommended by Don Anderson of the National Association for the Southern Poor. [Anderson, 1993] It involves the formation of Jefferson-type "conferences" composed of about 50 persons with each person being a member of a small group of about 7 \xb1 2 individuals. Anderson cites the following statement by Thomas Jefferson as the inspiration behind Jeffersonian assemblies: "Among other improvements I hope that they'll adopt a subdivision of our counties into wards. Each ward would thus be a small republic within itself, and every man in the state would thus become an acting member of the common government, transacting in person a great portion of its rights and duties." Objectively, we can see that with these small numbers we have the options of either direct or representative democracy. I recommend that both direct and representative methods of decision-making be employed in communities up to around 700 members. Some types of decisions can be assigned by the constitution or bylaws to direct vote and some to a vote by representatives. It is clear that fifty individuals could easily meet in direct democratic process, or one representative of each group of 7 ± 2 could meet in a representative council that consists of 7 ± 2 representatives of the whole assembly. Five to nine Jeffersonian Conferences would, depending on small group size, involve from 125 to 730 citizens of a Jeffersonian "Community," probably the upper limit of effective direct democratic process--unless electronic or computer conferencing is introduced. This number of citizens could also be represented by a central group of 7 ± 2 representatives that would only be two levels removed from the individual member of the community. Nine Jeffersonian Communities would involve up to around 6570 citizens who could be represented by a Central Council consisting of one council member from each community elected either directly or, if elected indirectly by the group network method, with no more than three layers from an individual citizen to the center. This greater community still falls within the range of system size that was found, in studies done by the Local Government Research Group in Sweden, to provide the highest levels of citizen participation, satisfaction, communication, and control. [Dahl, 1973] For a variety of reasons I recommend that people organize themselves into Communities of five hundred or less. Each individual should participate in a small group of seven ± two individuals that meets briefly about once a week to discuss political decisions on the community agenda. Conference meetings of fifty or so could meet biweekly and incorporate two of the small group meetings twice a month. Whole community meetings should occur at least monthly. These are merely suggestions. Local communities will, of course, decide for themselves. In order to harmonize their values and purposes, to facilitate mutually beneficial cultural and economic exchanges, and to move toward a purposeful, global democracy, I recommend that each of these local groups adopt as the basis of it's organization the universal model of democracy embodied in the model constitution described in The Universal Model: A Democratic Constitution [Foreman, 195]. Quite a few such communities could exist in a large city or even within a large corporation. Networks that bring them into the larger unity of a city or county government could easily be established. The result would be a more participative local democracy. Each local democracy, in turn, will in the future find it necessary to integrate itself with other democracies and other levels of democracy within its own larger system. Benjamin Barber, in his book Strong Democracy, advocated a nationwide system of neighborhood assemblies. However, he was referring to a "neighborhood" of from five thousand to twenty-five thousand people--hardly a small, intimate gathering where everyone has a chance to ask questions and express an opinion! Further, if one simply draws a line around those numbers of people and then asks them to make decisions democratically, it is not likely that they will quickly evolve the ambient standards of democracy to a higher level. It takes time, study, commitment, a sense of community, and a common set of values and goals to achieve even the minimal standards of a modern, liberal democracy. The task of improving our presently existing democracies must eventually involve all of us, but the work should begin with smaller and more cohesive groups. The organizing principles must not be geographically or residency-based, although space, time, and access to one another are clearly important factors. The central organizing principles, especially in the early stages of a new social movement, must be based on shared values, beliefs, and purposes. The basic question that naturally arises in relation to creating political movement is this: What would motivate people to do it? The usual strategy is to find some issue that arouses people, then organize a unified response and attempt to maintain unity after the issue fades away. Issue-oriented organizing tends to be quixotic, however. In issue organizing, the most powerful organizers are highly cathected negative issues. These inevitably become clouded over and then disappear--leaving members with the "desperate" feeling that their political organization is disintegrating all around them. Totalitarian measures have then been employed to "save the movement" and "instill" or maintain the "proper" motivation toward goals. That is obviously not the democratic way. A truly democratic system is self-rewarding. Economic, political, cultural, biological, affective, cognitive, and spiritual incentives are built-in when people design their democratic self-government according to the theory described in this book. Specific suggestions and historical examples are described in the last chapter on communities as "crucibles of change." National Government Almost everyone who follows political and economic events closely recognizes that the sovereignty of the nation-state is diminishing in favor of new systems which are created to cope with the economic, environmental, technological, transportational, communicational, and population pressures that tend to make national boundary lines irrelevant. Nations simply cannot control the effects of these forces on the lives of those who are, with increasing anachronism, called citizens of a particular nation. Individuals, families, communities, and corporations will, therefore, increasingly call for supranational, regional, or global organizations to protect their interests, assure fair play, and establish laws that are universally applicable. Environmental and labor laws, for example, will have to become part of all trade agreements in order to prevent the constant tensions caused by expansion and contraction of national and regional economies. Fair and reasonable access to all natural resources will have to be established under global agreements that protect and preserve nonrenewable resources while regulating those profits attained by accidents of geography or monopolistic accumulation of capital. This requires regional and global decision-making authority which, in turn, cry out for democratic controls over decision-making at these new levels of governance. Governments of all types will have to become more fluid and adaptively flexible for problem-solving in the future. The current hierarchical and bureaucratic structures are already being replaced, albeit slowly, by more egalitarian and network methods of mutual and participatory decision-making. The worldwide plague of bureaucracy is treatable--but only by a conscious effort to democratize all authoritarian hierarchies. Bureaucracy was established in the 1800s on the then prevailing model of authoritarian efficiency. It is characterized by its hierarchical chain of command, compartmentalized subdivisions, and personnel roles with formally defined job descriptions designed to make each person both responsible and replaceable. Tasks are performed as ordered and, theoretically at least, in accordance with the department's mission which is assigned from above. Because of its obvious organizational clarity, bureaucracy is a delight to any authoritarian leader who wants to know that orders will be carried out, or if not carried out, precisely who is responsible. On the surface, at least, bureaucracy appeared to many to be the best possible form of organization, and it has come into such widespread use that one social scientist coined a popular phrase with the title of his book: The Bureaucratization of the World. Bureaucracy is often described as a "rational" system of organization, but actually it is most like a "schematic" structure--primarily feedforward with little feedback of either internal or external type and little in the way of participatory decision-making. Lacking a mission defined, self-corrective feedback and participatory democracy it very quickly undergoes the celebrated "ends-means reversal." In other words, it begins to exist to serve itself and its own personnel rather than the purpose for which it was created. Existing primarily for itself, then, it's personnel become obstructive, impersonal, and annoyed when any outsider seeks to employ the organization's "services." The radical solution to the problem of bureaucracy is organizational democracy based on the syntropic model but modified to suit the purposes of the organization. It works like this: the purpose of the organization is democratically defined by the larger society and its elected representatives. Providing that corrupt campaign practices have been stopped, the "heads of the department" are either appointed by elected officials or are themselves elected to the "executive council" by the electorate which the department serves. The egocentric individual CEO, in this model, has been replaced by an executive council of 7 ± 2 members--as explained in the following section on political leadership. Other members of the executive council are elected from within the department and from any electorate outside the department who is specifically affected by the department's actions. The Chair of the executive council is rotated among the council members. Other employees are hired and/or fired on the basis of competence, problem-solving skills, and interpersonal skills. Each subdivision democratically elects its own leadership and selects its tasks from the list of those that need to be accomplished. Each employee belongs to a "quality circle" of about 7 ± 2 employees, and each quality circle joins other quality circles for meetings of the full subdivision. In the meetings of the quality circles and of the subdivisions as well as of the whole organization or department of government, there is full participation in the analysis of problems, feedback, and creative problem-solving as well as innovation with regard to the working patterns, goals, and purposes of the whole organization. Movement of employees among different roles and subdivisions, and the development of new skills is encouraged, but of course, in an orderly way. "Experts" should not be required to perform outside their specialties, but their activities and decisions would remain subject to supervision by democratically elected representatives. Specialized subdivisions for Quality Assurance, Personnel, Public Relations, Investigations (to prevent or detect corruption), and so on--depending on the size of the organization--can be organized the same way. This whole process can be expedited by integrative approaches that increase the connectedness among several systems, i.e., other organizations, for example, rotating personnel, skill sharing teams, and quality review teams from other organizations. Regional Government Many poor and less developed nations are in a vicious circle of economic breakdown, family disintegration, diminishing educational resources, overpopulation, environmental deterioration, food shortages, political chaos, violence, and further economic collapse. The people of these nations require assistance in reestablishing constructive and healthy progress. The developed nations can provide such assistance, but numerous unnecessary obstacles prevent the most important types of aid from being delivered. Food and medicine are necessary, but they do not by themselves lay the groundwork for a better future. The type of aid that people need is the type that helps them build new societies for themselves as integral parts of the democratic world community. To accomplish this will require a multinational, or better a global, program with the goal of eliminating poverty while protecting the global environment. This goal could be achieved in ten years--but only if it were universally agreed upon. Most regions are composed of nations that share some history, a level of economic development, a similar culture, similar racial or ethnic origins, and analogous political systems. Although a sharp divide exists along a few borders, generally a more gradual economic gradient occurs across the borders of the several countries that share a "region," or "bioregion" of the Earth's surface. Cultural factors, natural resources, and unique developments in politics combine to produce greater levels of wealth and human comfort in one country or region than in another. Fortunately, most of the regions of the Earth have at least some resources that are needed by other regions, and each region can benefit from trade with other regions. Further, the nations of each region have a great deal to offer each other. Merely developing a peaceful relationship with a neighboring country confers a great economic advantage to both countries, since in the absence of peace each country would be forced to waste its wealth on military preparedness. Of course, capital does not tend to flow toward regions of military conflict or social unrest. The economic development of a region, therefore, depends greatly on achieving nonviolent methods of decision-making that enable people to develop themselves and their economic communities. To facilitate this process the nations of each region ought to consciously begin to integrate themselves into transnational, regional systems of democratic self-government. Regional trade organizations are a good first step--perhaps developing in a manner similar to that followed by the European Union. The nations of each region can help each other through mutually beneficial trade, and at the same time, develop increasingly political systems. Individuals in each country can do their part by forming organizations promote increased economic and political integration. This, of course, would be desirable only if it is accomplished democratically and if it leads to further democratization. The citizens of a relatively democratic country may not be enthusiastic about political integration with a less democratic country. The merits and demerits of each bilateral relationship ought to be discussed, and the issues decided, democratically on both side of every national border. A further necessary and important strategy that can be initiated by citizens both in and out of government is another one suggested by authors from the World Order Models Project: encourage the growth and enumeration of intergovernmental, transnational nongovernmental, supranational, and worldwide organizations whenever possible--so long as they are based on--and actively promote--democratic values and human rights. In 1974, Rajni Kothari suggested the formation of transnational or regional federations as an intermediate stage in the evolution toward global governance. [Kothari, 1974] He tentatively proposed the following regional federations which would preserve autonomy for each people but politically integrate them with their neighbors on the basis of the federal principle. In viewing Kothari's proposal it will be noticed, of course, that the map of the world has changed somewhat since 1974, and that many of the changes have been toward greater democratization: ROUGH SKETCH OF POSSIBLE REGIONS OF THE WORLD 1. The Russian Region: U.S.S.R., Byelorussia, Ukraine, and Mongolia. 2. Northern Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. 3. East Central Europe: The German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria. 4. The Mediterranean Region: Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon, and possibly Israel. 5. The EEC Region: The German Federal Republic, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Italy, Ireland, United Kingdom, and the very small but sovereign states of Malta, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein and Vatican City State, with the possible future membership of Switzerland and Austria, and still later of Spain and Portugal. 6. The Persian Gulf Region: Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the two Yemens, Oman, and the Persian Gulf States including Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial States. 7. The Arab World: Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. 8. West Africa with possibly two subunits: (i) French-speaking West Africa: Liberia, Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Mali, Guinea, and Guinea-Bissau (though the latter is Portuguese-speaking), Senegal, Mauritania, Togo, Dahomey, Niger, and Spanish Sahara (Spanish-speaking); (ii) English-speaking West Africa: Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. 9. East Africa: Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Mozambique, perhaps along with Ethiopia and Somalia. 10. Central Africa: Central African Republic, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo (Brazzaville), Zaire (Kinshasa), Zambia, Malawi, Angola, Chad, and Equatorial Guinea. 11. South Africa: Zimbabwe, Namibia, Bostwana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malagasy Republic, Mauritius, and South Africa. 12. South Asia: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangla Desh, the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, and Maldive Islands. 13. Southeast Asia: Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, and Indonesia (including West Irian). 14. Indochina: Laos, North and South Vietnam, Khmer (Cambodia), and Brunei. 15. China including Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macao. 16. Northeast Asia: North and South Korea and Japan. 17. North America: Canada and Greenland. 18. United States of America. 19. Middle America: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. 20. The Carribean Region: Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Barbados, Grenada, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and the few "territories" and the many small island groups of the area of which only the Bahamas are fully independent. 21. Brazil. 22. Plate River Region: Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. 23. The Andean South America: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, along with the three Guyanas. 24. South Pacific: Australia, New Zealand, Eiji, Tonga, Gilbert and Ellice lslands, New Caledonia, New Hebrides, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and the many small islands in the region. Whether these nations and peoples--or the new ones that have recently replaced some of the above--have at present a sufficient affinity for one another or sufficiently common goals and values is not the issue. The issue is whether individuals and groups within each society--including minorities and indigenous peoples--believe they can now begin to work toward a common set of values, goals, and shared democratic processes. If so, they can begin now to work toward a world of some twenty-four large democracies that can then proceed toward continental, and finally, a global democratic federation. Redesigning Political Leadership It is well-known that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919, the last year of his second term in office, and that his wife informally (and illegally) assumed many of the presidential responsibilities. This occurred at a time when Wilson had been struggling to gain congressional acceptance of U.S. membership in the League of Nations--an acceptance which was never won. Another U.S. President, Richard Nixon, was forced to resign from office after one of his ethical lapses. In 1993-94, a number of important policy decisions appeared to hang on the truth or falsity of allegations regarding the personal ethics of U. S. President Clinton. In each case policies affecting an entire nation of people rested, in large part, on the health or morality of a single individual. The individualistic presidency or prime ministership is an anachronistic remnant of kingship and priesthood! No individual personality should be so exalted that the fate of a nation or of the world rests on his or her personal foibles. Moreover, individualistic leadership promotes an unhealthy drive for personal power and sustains a primate tradition of alpha male (rarely female) dominance which is inconsistent with the values of democracy. Democratic politics is intrinsically a power sharing process. Democratic leadership should also be a cooperative, power sharing, and integrative group. Although the historical record of presidential councils is mixed, I believe the future will likely belong to a group presidency with a rotating chairperson. The rotating presidency of the European Union is a step in the right direction. The advantages of seven brains, fourteen hands and feet, seven coalitions behind them, a mutually educational deliberative decision-making, and a cooperative sharing of power are simply too great to ignore. Reducing the excessive power of one individual, i.e., a single component, in the system will create greater reliability and reduce the unhealthy incentive to seek power or control over others. Eliminating the glorification of an individual member of the community will reduce the narcissistic incentive to seek "a place in history." The days of the especially privileged, deified, and elected royalty are numbered. Long live the new king: democracy! The principle of democratic group leadership, of course, extends to every democratic organization. As this becomes the accepted norm many more people will thereby be trained for leadership roles. The quality of our leadership will be enormously enhanced, and the opportunity for control by special interests will be significantly diminished. Other changes, some described below, would lead to less prurient interest in the personal lives of political leaders--since they would each assume a more human dimension--and to more respect for the serious work of democratic leadership which would be within reach, at some time in life, for nearly everyone. Opening the Government In every governing activity, records must be kept and made immediately available for public scrutiny except when grave danger threatens a people and necessitates secrecy for a period of time. Otherwise the only legitimate secret in democracy is the secret ballot, and that belongs to the individual voter alone. Democratically elected representatives have a responsibility to their constituents to show them how they are being represented. Every meeting of elected, appointed, or hired representatives of the people--excepting only juries and those governing in a situation of grave danger--must be open to the press and the people. It is rather doubtful that those African-Americans who were deceptively sterilized by doctors employed by the U.S. government, or that those pregnant women or those children who were intentionally and deceptively exposed to harmful amounts of radioactive substances, would have been subjected to these outrageous crimes against their bodies and souls if the decisions had been made in an open, democratic process. A "democracy" which is not open is not a democracy. In turn, the responsibility of the people and of the press to their elected, appointed, and employed representatives is strict adherence to the principle of noninterference in deliberative process. Expressions of opinion and sentiment must be made through other channels which are organized to provide coherent information to governing representatives. Only if the deliberative process begins to assume the nature of a pathological and unrepresentative group dynamic--which would be much less likely in an open society with truly fair and democratic elections--or if the decision-makers so violate the sensibilities and universal values of humanity that the people cannot fail to act in response to their own collective conscience, should protest flow out of and surround the well-organized and peaceful channels of a people's communication with its democratically elected representatives. Term Limits Another method of opening government is to take it out of the hands of a monopoly group called the "career politicians." I favor a one term limit on every elected position and a term limit on every appointed and hired position in government. Over the course of a generation, depending on population size and density, perhaps half or more of every people would therefore have the opportunity to learn from, and contribute to, the process of leadership in democratic self-government. While in office there would be the additional advantages of not having to divide one's attention between raising funds for re-election and performing the duties of representation, and the elected representative would be less subject to pressure by special interests and more respected by the electorate. Corruption Control Corruption has so seriously undermined democracy around the world that were it not for the profit motive involved it would undoubtedly have been labeled a communist plot. Yet, to my knowledge, no comprehensive program for the prevention and control of this social disease has ever been undertaken anywhere--truly a tribute to the mostly invisible power of special interests. Only a comprehensive program would work, however, and those who attained power via the support of special interests are not likely to approve a program without loopholes. The burden of corruption control, therefore, falls upon ordinary citizens and their capacity for building a massive anti-corruption movement. Such a movement, I believe, will have to achieve the following results to be successful: Campaign Finance Reform Most serious and objective students (this excludes a certain group of U.S. Supreme Court Judges) of the relationship between money and election results have concluded that a large amount of private interest money given to a candidate or a party is not an expression of the principle of free speech but rather a violation of the principle of equality before the law. If, or when, the U.S. Supreme Court comes around to this fairly obvious conclusion, private campaign contributions, privately funded political commercials, and the privately owned mass media's stranglehold on the democratic political process will die a natural death for no one will be able to defend these inanities without the support of moneyed interests. The media-amplified, closed loop argument by the representatives of big money that the U.S. taxpayers have never voted, and will never vote, to provide funds for public campaign finance will be broken. Without the special interests and private media control of the flow of information and thereby public opinion, and with the other reforms that will ensure a high degree of honesty in government, people will discover the losses they have suffered while special interests were in control. The voters will then enthusiastically embrace the savings that public financing of campaigns, together with democratic control of the mass media and other electoral practices described by Foreman [Foreman, 1995] can bring to the democratic process. Decision-making When democracy and the free market overlap in social space, there will inevitably arise a band of hardy entrepreneurs who don't like to call themselves "lobbyists." Nevertheless, they will advertise themselves as having friends in high places and as being able to influence those friends for the benefit of anyone willing to pay. Democracy, being based in part on freedom of association, cannot prevent the appearance of such pecuniary interlopers. It can and should, however, make rules to prevent them from exercising undue influence on the democratic process. Even if we assume that all lobbyists are altruistically motivated to serve the public interest--as some would have us believe--it is still necessary to organize their access to lawmakers and law-enforcers. The principles guiding such organization are a blend of the values of freedom and equality. Equal protection before the law, equality of opportunity, and the principle of one person, one vote must be upheld along with freedom of access to one's representative--an access that ultimately must be shared equally with all others--or triaged according to a publicly available system of priorities. With regard to this challenge, most present day democracies are still on an early learning curve. Wherever it has been allowed, a vast industry has been built-up around the seat of democratic government. This industry brings some of the best minds in the corporate world to the task of influencing decisions that are ostensibly being made by democratically elected representatives for the common good. Either this vast amount of corporate money and talent is being wasted, or the common good is being seriously subverted. Most citizens have correctly concluded the latter, and that is one of principle reasons for the loss of trust and public apathy that many "democratic governments" enjoy today. The methods of the special interest influence industry are sometimes crude, as with bribes or threats to withdraw campaign money, and sometimes subtle, as when lobbying firms mount a political advertising campaign, then research, seek out, and pay those who respond to the advertising to come to the capital and pressure the lawmakers. Thus, at great but apparently worthwhile expense to the special interests, an artificial public interest movement is created to support or oppose a particular bill before the legislature. Even if paid political advertising were outlawed, which we must do, there could still be public opinion surveys by private firms that then round up those who take a particular position and bring them to the capital to create a false impression of public interests. Accordingly, this use of private money to create artificial displays of public opinion must be disclosed and subjected to public and legal scrutiny in all cases. No gifts from registered or unregistered interlopers whatsoever--no paid travel expenses, no coffee, no donuts, and no third party payments for access Every behind the scenes exchange of money in support of political action should be reported to the public record. The people have a right to know who is paying for what political action and why. Access to democratically elected representatives in a large political system must be triaged in the same way we obtain access to emergency room doctors. Triage deciders must be trained, and triage decisions must be recorded for the public record. The access to our representatives in government can then take place in three ways: (1) by interactive presentations in regularly held public meetings, (2) by triaged private meetings which must be recorded for the public record, and (3) via telephone or computer-assisted communications. Computer conferencing will likely assume an increasingly dominant mode of interaction among representatives and members of the electorate in the 21st century. A further, valuable strategy for encouraging and rewarding honesty among elected representatives, and a practice which I fully support, would be the practice of statistically planned "sting operations" in which investigative agencies offer bribes or other dishonest rewards to government workers and record the response for public viewing on demand. Think of it as a statistical method of quality control. Many representatives will object to such "distrust," but the honest representative will be surprised and delighted at the public recognition of her or his integrity--and public confidence in government will be restored. Wealth and Income Disclosures A government worker--whether elected, appointed, or hired--ought to be paid enough to minimize the temptations of bribery, but not too much so as to avoid attracting avaricious or pecuniary personalities. By carefully balancing the salaries of those who serve in government, we can help ensure the right balance of incentives for service. Accordingly, in governing administrations we need recommendations from panels of experts with knowledge of the economy, of the salaries in positions comparable to those in government, of motivational psychology, of ethics, of political power sharing and the existing group composition of society, and of the psychologies of power, creativity, and altruism. Every person who is in a position to create or influence decision-making on behalf of a democratic community will, if she or he holds the interests of the community dear, be agreeable to the practice--required by law--of making complete disclosures of wealth and income every year while in office and for five years after leaving office--upon request by investigative agencies. Likewise, any assistant, associate, or family relative--and certainly every political party or association--will occasionally have to make such disclosures. It is the price of honest government, and each of us ought to be willing make the small contribution in time and energy that such disclosures would incur. These disclosures should be required both on the basis of statistical methods of sampling and on any justifiable suspicion of a violation of the public trust. "Trust," as the Russian proverb says, "but verify." There should be no secret bank accounts anywhere in the world. This highly publicized and somehow exonerated tradition, protected by those icons of respectability called "banks," belongs in the scrapheap of secret histories. It is nothing more than a method of hiding ill-gotten gains or the unwarranted excesses of wealth, and when held by current or former public servants, political organizations of any type, or large corporations doing business with other people's money, these accounts should certainly be subject to public scrutiny on the bases of both statistical sampling and justifiable suspicion. This, of course, would create lots of new jobs in the field of accounting. Feedback and Quality Control of Government Democratic self-government, which is any people's largest and most important investment, ought to provide a dollar's worth of results for a dollar spent. Unfortunately, a strange kind of blindness has prevented us from ever seeing most of what we've purchased. We could call it "loop blindness." We know we've got it when we find ourselves exclaiming, "Where has my tax money gone?" The problem was well-defined by Osborne and Gaebler in their book on Reinventing Government. [Osborne, 1993] They correctly recommended a governmental focus on outcomes or results rather than on rules and processes. Measures of progress toward goal achievement and of performance results must be built into every governing system, but that in itself is not enough. The results must be published and reported back to taxpayers and the general public so that the electorate can make informed decisions during elections, referenda, initiatives, and recalls. Further, the emphasis on goals is not wise if goals are in unresolved conflict with one another. It makes no sense, for example, to reward an occupational retraining agency for placing workers in new jobs, if in those new jobs the workers are destroying natural resources and polluting the commons. A major part of quality control in, of, and by the government must therefore be a clear articulation and coordination of goals and priorities. Quality control of government requires a feedback loop for every governmental decision, for every program, plan, policy, and law. The loop, however, is not simply back to the government decision-maker. It must always be reported back to the electorate, the particular community most affected by the decision, to the doers who carried out the decision, and to the decision-makers. This report must sum up in terms understandable by the lay reader exactly what was decided, what was done, what resulted, what it cost, what it cost per unit of result, what it cost per taxpayer, who received the money, how it might be improved, and how the whole project fit into the goals and plans of the community. Evolution of Government While no evolutionary process can be completely preordained, we can plan for the future and carry out many of the elements of our plans. Naturally, it is important that we consciously select plans that appear to be consistent with the forces of natural selection that are likely to impinge upon us in the foreseeable future. Plans, goals, and purposes--like living systems--must also be flexible and adaptive in the face of unexpected contingencies. Straight lines, i.e., perfect systems, are not simply a crime against nature, as the artist-philosopher Hundertwasser has stated. Being an impossible goal, they are also a psychological black hole, for any effort to create and maintain them leads to a loss of human energy and time. Perfect democracy, like the straight line an impossible goal, must therefore not be substituted for the praxis of democracy. Nor is the practice of democracy itself the end-stage of human evolution. It is, however, a necessary step toward the next stage. Systemic Goals and Purposes I propose that both the constituents and the members of local, regional, and national governments begin to orient themselves to the stages described in the tables presented in chapter 3 and to such short and long term goals as would move them toward higher stages of democracy. These goals and the reasons for adopting them ought to be clearly articulated with broad public participation. Once established, movement toward the goals must also be maintained with a determination and constancy of purpose that would be in keeping with constitutional amendments that articulate the goals and purposes of each polity. To do less is to consign our children and grandchildren to an unpleasant, perhaps disastrous, future. I wish to distinguish among objectives, goals, and purposes. Objectives are measurable steps on the way to goals. A goal is a fixed pattern selected as attainable within the life of a system. A purpose, on the other hand, is a pattern toward which we aim but can never achieve within the course of our lives. To establish a goal is to alter one's relationship with time and space. Pursuit of goals requires not only that we adopt a different perspective on time and space but also on the meaning of many elements in our lives. Establishing a purpose changes our relationship with ourselves and with the evolution of life. Without knowing exactly how, perhaps, a community that blends purpose into its constitution can add a profound sense of meaning and direction to its life. Having created goals and purposes in our lives, everything else begins to fall into place. The greatest danger in establishing goals and purposes is fanaticism which turns an open system with purposes into a closed system which tends to exclude new information. New values and goals, however, inevitably clash with some previously established values and goals. Creating a new purpose in one's life, therefore, requires a careful re-evaluation of some old values. New priorities will have to be established. Some basic values will need a rigorous defense against the zealots who wish the new values to take precedence over everything. The golden mean, or balance, among values will be difficult to find--as always--but the new impetus and vivacity given to life is well-worth the initial turbulence. Syntropic Systems Strictly speaking, a syntropic system is based on the assumption of self-organizing wholeness. Any systemic part, however, which begins to organize itself on the basis of syntropic values, purposes, and principles may be excused for calling itself "syntropic" even in the absence of a globally integrated syntropic democracy. If a community forms itself on the basis of the universal model of a democratic constitution suggested by Foreman [Foreman, 1995], and commits itself to the nonviolent pursuit of a syntropic democracy for itself and for the world system, then it will have achieved the status of a social syntrope--a community that is purposefully moving in the right direction for themselves and for their brothers and sisters all over the Earth. A natural next step would be for them to establish mutually supportive relationships with other individuals, associations, and communities who are progressing--or would like to progress--in the same direction. Networks of syntropic communities with sister cities and communities throughout a nation, in neighboring nations, and around the world would establish the political groundwork for a nonviolent, stepwise transition to democratic world government.