and how it works
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
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.
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
majority one-mandate one-round electoral system has, from the point of view of
free citizens, free taxpayers, many advantages but one disadvantage:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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."
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.