Pravý Blok [CNW:Counter]

Petr.Cibulka@PravyBlok.cz
Petr Cibulka
Dnes je: 24. 04. 2014  | Zpět na domovskou stránku | Seznam témat | Download | Odkazy |  
NAŠE ANKETA
Existuje Bůh?

Ano (505367 hl.)
 
Spíše ano (13887 hl.)
 
Spíše ne (13666 hl.)
 
Ne (717745 hl.)
 
Nevim (16215 hl.)
 

Celkem hlasovalo: 1266880
NECENZUROVANÉ NOVINY 01/2002

* Petr Cibulka: SYSTEMIC DEFENCE AGAINST SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION OF CITIZENS IN POST-COMMUNIST WORLD

Vydáno dne 02. 07. 2005 (2705 přečtení)



Another Fine Specimen
6 December 2002

Things fall apart, the center cannot hold

Let no man deceive you with vain words

East European Democracy
and how it works

By Petr Cibulka

At the beginning of the holiday, 2001, I was invited to the Polish NISA to take part in a very interesting conference covering JOW. As it concerns me, the most interesting thing about the conference was the comparative analysis of political and electoral systems of many post-communist countries. This analysis compared the policy of political party REFERENDUMS and direct democracy.

1) Both the political systems and electoral methods of the "former" communist bloc countries have the same nature as political and electoral systems that were imposed by the winners of World War II to the defeated countries.

2) While the western countries -- USA, Canada, Great Britain and France -- created a system of elections for representative bodies with a one-round system of voting, (in France with two rounds). Also, these countries are divided into a great number of very small constituencies in which citizens can choose from the best and most trustworthy people who have been known for years, or whose families have been known for generations. It was quite the opposite for countries occupied by Russia.

For example, the published biographies of many Czech politicians start in the year 1990 and then, especially in relation to various periods of their post-communist political or financial activities, they suffer from a huge loss of memory.

3) In virtually all post-communist countries their political system is derived from the determinant election law, which is not based on the majority, one-mandate, one-round system of voting, but is derived from an electoral system based on percentage representation. Electoral systems based on percentage representation means that the percentage of votes is the same as the percentage of representatives in the Parliament. This mathematically logical rule can be, in practice, manipulated to produce unrepresentative results. In this respect the Czech Republic, which divided the country into 14 constituencies, imposed a system of counting votes according to special rules. There is a five percent threshold for getting into Parliament and financial deposits are required for the political parties that want to participate in elections. This five percent threshold, coupled with the financial restriction, neutralizes a significant portion of the electorate, which is broken up into many small voting groups or groups without money. Because of this, supposed constitutional perfection is now something a mafia state might envy. Thanks to this completely closed political system, the power-holders rule their citizens easily and comfortably, without taking any risks -- as in the Czech Republic.

This " well-tried and time-tested" system of percentage representation ensures that people are put on a large list of candidates (in the system of 14 constituencies) not according to their personal qualities or trustworthiness, but according to their loyalty to the power center -- the center that was created by Russia after World War II and, logically, by the real winners of the "velvet revolution" of the year 1989. This is none other than the reform wing of KGB/GRU. In their "new" system the elected representative is not responsible to the voters, but to his party superiors. It is the party bosses who decide whether a representative will be suggested again as a candidate after 4 years and whether he will be supported. They also decide how high he will be placed on the list of candidates. Under this carefully and systematically created situation the elected representative isn't chosen by the voters. Instead, he serves a select little group within the management of his own political party, on which he has practically no influence. In such a closed political system these select little groups are the real winners. They keep in their hands huge, opaque and uncontrolled power -- thanks to proportional electoral system. In their offices and secretariats, somewhere high, far away, above the heads of citizens, taxpayers, they easily reign over the life of the whole society. But they should be accountable for their acts. They should honestly serve the citizens.

4) While very cheap and accessible, the simple one-mandate and one-round system of voting produces more trustworthy political personalities, firmly connected to the voters. The proportional electoral system, initially imposed by Moscow, produces unscrupulous toadies and political prostitutes who would hardly earn a decent living in normal life without the help of their party providers.

While the majority system of voting is highly transparent and controllable by citizen-taxpayers, the proportional system is opaque (that is, not transparent) from the side of the citizen-taxpayers. Corrupt representatives elected under this system CANNOT BE REMOVED from office by the citizens.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BOTH THE SYSTEMS

5) The majority one-mandate one-round electoral system has, from the point of view of free citizens, free taxpayers, many advantages but one disadvantage:

The person that gets the most votes is the winner and takes everything, even if he wins only 30 percent of the vote. The second election round, in which those who did not get the confidence of the voters in the first round, could come to an agreement about the support of the rival candidate for the second round, and they could call their voters for support and defeat the winner of the first round, does not take place in this system.

6) On the contrary, the proportional electoral system has, from the point of view of free citizens - free taxpayers, all disadvantages, but can have, under meeting certain conditions of fundamental nature, one important system advantage:

If the elections did NOT take place in 14 constituencies, as it is in our country, but in ONLY ONE nation-wide constituency (as it is for example in Israel), in which all political parties and all movements that are able to make the lists of 200 candidates for the Lower Chamber of the Parliament consisting of 200 representatives, or 81 candidates in case of the elections to the present Upper Chamber of the Parliament - the Senate - consisting of 81 representatives, would solicit the confidence of voters. It would ensure the maximal possible political proportionality because in case of the elections to present Lower Chamber consisting of 200 representatives, for electing one representative it would be sufficient for the political parties to get on the area of the single nation- wide constituency 0,5% of the cast votes. It is hardly possible to imagine more proportional and more open electoral and political system under fulfilling the above mentioned conditions. Unfortunately it is in this ideal case the only advantage of this system. All mentioned disadvantages when considered from the point of view of citizens - taxpayers, are effective.

The negative aspects of both the political and electoral systems can be easily eliminated thanks to their mutual combination.

7) The decisive Lower Chamber of the Parliament, which has consisted of 200 members so far, should be elected through a majority electoral system in 200 small one-mandate and one-round constituencies. This system would also empower citizens to remove from office representatives that prove untrustworthy. For this it suffices to acquire a majority of signatures from competent voters and to initiate new elections in the given constituency.

8) The Upper Chamber of the Parliament (today's Senate) plays a less decisive role and therefore the maximal proportionality in the division (configuration) of political powers of the country would be reached, though at the expense of professional, moral and spiritual quality.

It would also be possible to set the same number of representatives and senators for the Lower and Upper Chamber. For example 100 representatives and 100 senators could form optimally balanced system of political representation of our country. In their mutual negotiations and in their joint decision-making none of the chambers would have any advantage as concerns the number of votes, compared to the present situation. This way the desired reduction of the total number of representatives and senators would be accomplished: instead of 281 persons there would be 200 persons. It would also save money.

9) The political party Pravy Blok (Right Bloc) suggests that the third, highest chamber of Parliament should have about 7 members. This would consist of the spiritually and morally most developed personalities of our country. They would have politically limited powers similar to the President of the Republic. Under this system the president would lose some of his powers (the right to veto bad laws passed by Parliament, the right to grant pardons, etc.) This highest chamber would not be elected directly by the citizens, but would be appointed from the sphere of the main spiritual centers of our country. These spiritual centers could ensure the material support of these persons. The details are in political documents of the Right Bloc on the Internet.

10) The most important documents of the political party Pravy Blok can be found at the following addresses:

The most important documents of the political party Pravy Blok can be found at Internet at the following addresses:

ENGLISH VERSIONS:

PROGRAMS:
http://www.cibulka.net/petr/view.php?cisloclanku=2005062802

DOCUMENTS:
http://www.cibulka.net/petr/view.php?cisloclanku=2005062803

INTERVIEWS:
http://www.cibulka.net/petr/view.php?cisloclanku=2005062804

JURNALISM:
http://www.cibulka.net/petr/view.php?cisloclanku=2005070201

Petr Cibulka: Biography:
http://www.cibulka.net/petr/view.php?cisloclanku=2005062805

Petr Cibulka was born in 1950 in the city of Brno, in the province of Moravia. As a five-time political prisoner, Mr. Cibulka did hard time in the toughest communist prison camp in Czechoslovakia. He was repeatedly jailed between 1979 and 1989 and conducted a 31-day hunger strike in 1979.

In 1991 Mr. Cibulka began publishing his paper, "Uncensored News," so he could oppose the "official" informational and ideological blockade organized by the Communists through control of the mass media. In 1992 Mr. Cibulka acquired and published data from secret police files. He published over 200,000 names of communist officers and collaborators. Subsequently he became a target of aggressive attacks from "former" Communist officials.

Mr. Cibulka has had to go through countless police interrogations and home searches. He has suffered numerous court trials because he named names. The most famous trial involved Czech President Vaclav Havel, who publicly denounced Mr. Cibulka as a shameful disgrace and declared Petr's "Uncensored News" to be "garbage."

Mr. Cibulka was elected chairman of the conservative political party Right Bloc in 2000. Right Bloc is trying to implement the principals of American democracy and freedom into the Czech political system.

www.JRNyquist.com

Return to Main Page


[Akt. známka: 1,00 / Počet hlasů: 1] 1 2 3 4 5
Celý článek | Autor: Petr Cibulka | Počet komentářů: 504 | Přidat komentář | Informační e-mailVytisknout článek

NECENZUROVANÉ NOVINY
ROČNÍK 2001
ROČNÍK 2000
ROČNÍK 1999
ROČNÍK 1998
ROČNÍK 1997
ROČNÍK 1996
ROČNÍK 1995
ROČNÍK 1994
ROČNÍK 1993
ROČNÍK 1992
ROČNÍK 1991
Fultextové vyhledávání
v ročnících 1991-2001

Archiv Necenzurovaných Novin

STB ON-LINE Diskusní fórum Pravého Bloku RDF Site Summary

Kdo bude bez našeho souhlasu a bez pozměny šířit naše materiály, stává se našim nejlepším přítelem!
© 2003, Pravý Blok. Všechna práva vyhrazena.