Since the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, the metaphysical State of Total Mobilization has led to newfound concerns over political-economic participations in the affairs of the nation. Throughout the Western world, in Europe, America and elsewhere, it became inevitable for many to embrace Democracy, replacing Feudalism and Monarchism. No longer will one’s Social Rank be determined by claims of a centuries-old bloodline. Now, the Totality attains higher Social Ranks by either achieving the highest Quality of Arbeit or the largest Quantity of Kapital.
Democracy in the Western world differs immensely from how it was once envisaged in Greco-Roman Civilization. Although fundamental disadvantages like Demagoguery and Factionalism are still shared by Greco-Roman and Western conceptions of Democracy, the Western version has nuances that are tied to the Western world. Unlike the Athenian Democratic or Roman Republican styles of governance, Western Civilization remains stuck between two distinct modes of democratic governance. There is a “Delegative Model” and then there is the “Representative Model,” the two models forming the basis behind “Council Democracy” and “Parliamentary Democracy” respectively.
Representative Model
To begin, it should be noted that whenever the SMP Compendium and any other Treatises related to the Work-Standard mention Parliamentary Democracy, it is referring to a specific style of governance, regardless of whether the Head of State is a “President” or a “Monarch.” Whether it is the EU/NATO countries, post-1945 Japan and South Korea, the English-speaking world, or Jeffersonian America, Parliamentary Democracy is easily distinguishable from Council Democracy based on a number of discernible characteristics. These characteristics originated from Great Britain and have been developed and refined over the past several centuries into what it is within contemporary times.
In Parliamentary Democracy, people engage in the electoral process as voters casting ballots for parliamentarians who will represent their interests inside Parliament. The parliamentarian has to convince the electorate why they and they alone should be the best person to legislate on their behalf. Often, this parliamentarian is going to be affiliated with a political party that will propose and pass policies that cater to those same voters. If the parliamentarian and their party succeed in passing those policies in Parliament, they will be able to stand for reelection and continue representing the electorate. However, if they fail, the parliamentarian will be voted out and replaced by another parliamentarian, particularly somebody from another political party.
What is important to note is that the electoral process of Parliamentary Democracy occurs independently of the production processes of the Market/Mixed Economy and Fractional-Reserve Banking System. There is a ‘separation of powers’ between political power and economic power. Such separation was what led to Parliaments relying on “Committees” and “Lobbyists” to pass policies in accordance with the special interests of those who would otherwise not be noticed by the parliamentarians and their political parties. When the electorate votes in a Parliamentary Democracy, their vote does not change the size and composition of their national government nor does it enable them to be directly involved in its affairs. Instead, voters are simply choosing who and which gets to govern within a given timeframe or election cycle.
Given the presences of special interests trying to steer Parliament in direction that may not necessarily be favorable to the electorate, it should not be too surprising that some voters are left with the impression that their interests are being ‘represented’ by Parliament. There is that suspicion the parliamentarians and their political parties are unable to notice the concerns of the electorate unless some catastrophe affects the national government or whenever factionalism, demagoguery and populism strikes Parliament.
This separation of political and economic powers cannot be addressed without subverting the integrity of Parliamentary Democracy. When it became apparent to many people in European countries between the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Parliament should do something to tame the worst excesses of Neoliberalism, “Social-Democracy” was conceptualized as an important handmaiden of Parliamentary Democracy. The basic idea behind Social-Democracy is that Parliament should implement a Welfare Capitalism that redistributes Kapital between different groups of Civil Society and prevents others from pursuing alternatives to Neoliberalism by establishing a “social safety net.” While one might be forgiven for assuming that a “social safety net” ensures that nobody gets left out, it could just as easily be a means of keeping people away from realizing that, in the end, they are still powerless. The powerlessness itself becomes discernible whenever Parliament decides that its social safety net is too expensive and is not practical enough to be effective at its original purposes.
These longstanding factors are related to one of the more obscure problems of Parliamentary Democracy, namely its definition of National Sovereignty. In most Liberal Capitalist Parliamentary Democracies, National Sovereignty does not belong to their Totalities (or, to use Neoliberal ideological language, “Civil Societies”) and any one particular Self. The fact that it does not belong to any Self is indicative of Parliamentary Democracies having abandoned all notions of Sovereignty belonging to the Head of State. Even so, National Sovereignty in Neoliberalism belongs to the Parliaments responsible for the making of policies and the passing of legislation. The Totality surrenders its claims to National Sovereignty by allowing the parliamentarians and their political parties to ‘represent’ their interests. That is why the Totality can become easily disillusioned by the electoral process because people are left with the impression that their votes do not make any significant difference in the everyday affairs of government. It might affect who runs Parliament and who gets to decide on which legislation gets passed, but not the actual bureaucracies or the political structures that form the basis of government.
The Parliament organizes the legislators, the “Members of Parliament” (MPs) or “Members of Congress” in the American case, on a Left-Right Political Spectrum. Everyone on the “Left” reflects the Egalitarian tendencies of Liberal Capitalism, everyone in the “Center” is its Fraternal tendencies, and everyone on the “Right” is its Liberal tendencies. As a reflection of the Enlightenment, the Left will favor faster Progress toward Liberal Capitalism while the Right is inclined a slower implementation of Progress. Anyone who opposes this Progress in general is often considered to be on the “Far-Left” (if they are convinced that the people’s livelihoods will suffer) and the “Far-Right” (if they are convinced that the people’s traditions will suffer).
Delegative Model
Due to the inherent problems of Parliamentary Democracy, the various Scientific and Artistic Socialisms, Corporatism, Syndicalism, State Capitalism and others have had to come up with their own styles of governance, their own political statecraft. To reaffirm the Totality’s legitimate control over National Sovereignty and to ensure that the Totality will have power in the everyday affairs of their own national government are two important political aims of overcoming Neoliberalism. Thus, it is necessary to consider Council Democracy as the viable alternative to Parliamentary Democracy. The specifications of Council Democracy are applicable to Corporatism, Syndicalism and State Capitalism as well as the Scientific and Artistic Socialisms. The Work-Standard is also capable of fostering the implementing Council Democracy to complement a Corporatist, Syndicalist or State Capitalist VCS Economy.
In a Council Democracy, the electoral process begins inside the workspace. The Totality becomes the electorate when they are organized according to their Profession, Enterprise, Industry, and Economic Sector. Constituencies of various Professions and Enterprises are designated by their corresponding Guild, Subsidiary, Consortium, or Industrial Concern. Everyone working at an Enterprise within the jurisdiction of a Municipal government votes for a “Delegate” to govern on their behalf at its local Council.
The Council of the Municipal Government is divided between Delegates of the VCS Economy, who are seated at the “Municipal Economic Chambers,” and the Municipal Functionaries of the Municipal government’s Departments and Offices, who are seated at the “Municipal Civil Chambers.” Both Chambers must decide together who among them shall become the “Municipal Councilors” that not only preside over the entire Council but will also choose their Mayor and their Municipal Government’s “Regional Delegate” to the Regional Government Council.
The same electoral process repeats at the Regional Government Council. Delegates to the “Regional Civil Chambers” are chosen from the Municipal Government Councils, while the Regional Functionaries to the “Regional Economic Chambers” are chosen from the Regional Government’s Departments and Offices. Here, they must choose who will be the Governor of the Regional Government and who will be the “State Delegates” to the State Council of Central Government.
At the State Council of the Central Government, State Delegates from the Regional Governments are seated at the “General Economic Chambers.” Serving alongside them in the State Council are the “General Civil Chambers,” whose State Functionaries are drawn from the Central Government’s Ministries, Departments and Offices. The State Council chooses the “State Councilors” responsible for passing legislation with the “State-Electors,” who will choose the next Head of State. The Head of State in turn will appoint their Head of Government and State Ministers with the approval of the State Council. The Head of State is the “State President” and the Head of Government is the “State Chancellor.”
This is the basic template of a Council Democracy under the Work-Standard. Note that the size and composition of the Municipal, Regional and Central Governments are directly impacted by the Social Ranking System. The Central Government will be smaller compared to the Regional and Municipal Governments because the latter two have to accommodate the interests of the Totality. A single State Delegate within the General Economic Chamber has far more constituents than a Delegate from the Municipal Economic Chamber of a Municipal Government.
In later Entries of the SMP Compendium and covered in greater detail in two other Treatises, the basic template of Council Democracy is modified further to account for the appearances of Student Economy and Digital Economy during the late 20th century. For Student Enterprises, the Student Government maintains its own Chambers and Councils, whose constituencies at the national level are delegated by State Delegates inside the General Civil Chamber. Those State Delegates are drawn from the Council State’s Ministry of Education. For Digital Enterprises, there are “Social Forums” on the National Intranet that have their own delegations to the Councils, and whose constituencies at the national level are delegated by State Delegates drawn from the Council State’s Ministry of Science and Technology.
Unicameral versus Bicameral Legislature
Council Democracies and Parliamentary Democracies may opt for either Unicameral or Bicameral legislatures. Unicameralism refers to a legislature that has one body responsible for policymaking and legislating, whereas Bicameralism features a legislature with two bodies. The same choice is also reflected in the decision to opt for either Unitary, Federalist, or Confederal political structures.
In a Parliament, the norm is for the legislature to be bicameral by having a Lower House and an Upper House. The Lower House comprises of the representatives elected by the people at the national level. The Upper House are similar to the advisory group on legislative matters, but they are often appointed in the case of Constitutional Monarchy or they are elected as in Presidential Republic. A bicameral Parliament maintains a number of Committees and subordinate Subcommittees in its Lower House or both Houses. These Committees will be associated with a specific set of issues that are of concern to the nation-state. The Subcommittees are more specialized variants of the Committees, focusing on more specific tasks that pertain to broader fields of interest. It is particularly under those conditions that lobbyism and favoritism tend to proliferate among the Committees and Subcommittees because what goes on there is of no concern to the rest of the Parliament until a new proposed bill is allowed to materialize.
In the State Council, it is acceptable for the legislature to be unicameral in nature. However, it is also possible for the legislature to be bicameral, where the State Council establishes an advisory group guiding the decision-making of the Head of State. This advisory group differs from the Cabinet or “Council of Ministers” who serve under the Heads of State and Government by leading the various Ministries of the Central Government. They are in many respects reminiscent of the old Courts of Monarchs who had once ruled the Western world prior to the Enlightenment.
The State Delegates and the State Councilors constitute the “Lower State Council,” the State-Electors and the State Chancellor as the “Upper State Council.” The upper half or the lower half recognizes that there is a policy problem worthy of being addressed by the Council State. The proposed legislation must account for the concerns and considerations of the Regional and Municipal Councils as well as their Constituencies. If a majority of State Delegates and State Councilors are in favor, it goes to the Upper State Council to be approved by a majority of the State-Electors. The State Chancellor’s vote will break the tie. The inverse can also happen as well.
Either way, regardless of whether the proposed legislation was originally introduced in either the Upper State Council or the Lower State Council, it will always go to the State President. It is up to the State President to either approve or disapprove. If the State President approves, it will be signed into law. If the State President does not approve, then the State Council must either change the proposed legislation or override the State Presidency with a two-thirds majority.
Categories: Compendium
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment