Curious Manifestos (politistics) — Part One
© Chris MYRSKI, 2000, 2007
This genre I call "politistics", as everything that can be said about social politics. In this case it is something like political science fiction or various utopias, but critique of the democracy, too.
The book looks like collection of Manifestoes of dozen political parties (plus two supplements). They are quite different in their characteristics, mainly ironical or even satirical, but entirely reasonable and scientifically sound. Must be said, though, that this is not an entertaining reading, unless you find pleasure in the mere reasoning or in theoretical speculations; anyway, this is not reading for falling in slumber.
All Manifestos are different, they are not related one with the other (so that it is not necessary to be read in succession) and in some places they contradict one to the other, as it is normal for different parties. Their initials, which in the original Bulgarian language are three equal letters (but this is rarely maintained here), are the following: DDD, EEE, ZSG, IIE, CCW, NNO, FCP, BRD, USC, TTT, FFF, and CCC; plus some sentences in the Afterword, as also the Supplement "Hurray, is it possible?".
(politistics — part one)
Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, 2000, 2007
[ As far as this is a whole book let me give here an idea about its cover. When you open it (and look from the back) it has the following view: on the left half, which goes to the back of the book, in its down part, is seen the world globe with the continents, around which there is a small ring on the Equator (like by Saturn), from which somewhere in the bottom part goes out continually broadening band reaching 2-3 cm. at the place of the fold of the cover, but later at the front (bottom) part of the cover this band broadens more reaching on the right verge width of about 10 cm.; in this band already is seen human crowd (on some demonstration) on a gray background, who are caring placards with three capital letters, on each of which, starting from the right (and frontal) broader end, can be read the following: "DDD", "EEE", "ZSG", "IIE", "CCW", "NNI" (maybe also "FCP and "BRD"); the background of the cover is neutral (say, light-blue), and in the right (front) part there is enough place: above — for the title and the author, and below (under the band) — for the publishing house (and whatever else may be needed). ]
In first part:
Manifesto of the DDD (Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship) Movement
Addendum to DDD
Manifesto of the EEE (Enigma of the Exploitative Elite)
Manifesto of the ZSG (Zodiacal Significance Group)
Addendum to ZSG
Manifesto of the IIE (Initiative for Iterative Elections)
Manifesto of the CCW (Corrupted Cadres Wing)
Manifesto of the NNO (New Nomenclature's Offensive)
In second part:
Manifesto of the FCP (Forever Changing Party)
Addendum to FCP
Manifesto of the BRD (Believers in the Reasonable Difference)
Addendum to BRD
Manifesto of the USC (Union for Strength and Competition)
Manifesto of the TTT (Tandem for Total Totalization)
Manifesto of the FFF (Feminism Forcing Formation)
Manifesto of the CCC (Civilized Centralization and Circuses)
Addendum to CCC
Supplement: Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)?
* All names of the parties /movements /etc. in Bulgarian original have abbreviations with three equal letters, which peculiarity isn't easy to maintain in the translation, so the letters are more often different.
The proposed book is collection of papers of a genre called, according to the author's definition, "politistics", which comprises all what can be said about the social policy — either a theoretical or scientific investigation, a documentary material, a satire, a pamphlet, some fiction etc, or any kind of mixture of the mentioned, as much as life itself is, in general, mixture off any, good and bad, things. To define is to delimit, as some people know, and that is the etymology of the word (meaning to make it finite, to set some limits) and, in this sense, some not strictly defined writing genre should not lose, but on the contrary may enhance, the reader's interest in a similar way as a good coffee blend, for example, has better taste than any one of the used sorts.
The Manifestos presented in the book are too serious to be read in bed at night, but also too paradoxical to be seriously taken by the reader. But what are the paradoxes if not something that is placed outside of our knowledge and parallel to it, because this word comes directly from Greek παραδοξοσ, meaning something unbelievable, contradicting to well accepted notions (usually because our knowledge is not sufficient to comprise them, too), and which is build from παρα + δοξα where the first means "around" and the second is a thesis, statement. They are as if parodies of the Marxian Manifesto (judging by the beginning of each of them), but this is only small formal similarity and in their core they are rather parodies of all democratic parties, i.e. of the (multi-) party system, and therefore they criticize, respectively, the politics and politicians on the whole, the democracy, as well as the simplicity and vulgarity of the people (who in Latin are unavoidably vulgar). For one thing, they are very logical, if one reads them carefully, but for another — they are just Utopias. At the same time, however, some materials are highly ironical and instructive for those who are capable to find pleasure in things interesting from the so called speculative point of view, i.e. as knowledge in itself and not because it is useful in their everyday life.
One may take the Manifestos for political science fiction of a kind (in which there is more science and logic and less fiction as is usually accepted), or as popular treatise about democracy (something that in no way is superfluous in countries with insufficient experience in the area), or simply as political pamphlets (because is preserved the main element of the manner of speech of a politician, namely: to speak only pro for his part and contra the opposite one). To some of them there are Addendums where is schematized the mathematical model of the proposed idea, which are very serious, but they may be skipped, if you find them difficult to read. Another ones are really comic, but this does not make them entirely inapplicable, if a reasonable approach will be applied. The common joining idea is that each one of them proposes some ideal (in a given aspect) model of democracy, which is better than each of the existing democratic forms, what, for its part, gives right to some of the readers to name the book antidemocratic (just that the "anti" is related with our naive and euphoric notions about the contemporary democratic forms, and not with the very democratic idea). Anyway, the Manifestos sound interesting, or at least they were interesting for the author while writing them, so that he hopes there will be found some readers, too, who will share his view.
Some say there was in ancient Greece one Hesiod, who has divided people in three categories according to their capability of thinking, namely to: a) such who think alone, b) such who think as the others, and c) such who don't think at all. The last category has the major advantage that they are the most happy of us all (fact that was known from very old times, preceding the biblical ones, and that was reflected in the parable for Adam and the Apple), so let them go and see the new video action film and be even happier. The first category is very limited in number and they are so engulfed in their thoughts that they have neither time nor desire to read what other people have written, so let us leave them alone. This book is designed to help those of the middle group to convince them that there is nothing bad if they try, sometimes, to give little thought to the phenomenon of democracy.
Hoping that the reader will, nevertheless, find something valuable and will not curse the author for the time spent but, on the contrary, will read the Manifestos with gusto and simply for the fun of it, the latter leaves the former alone with this political mixture.
1996 - 2000, 2007, Sofia, Bulgaria Chris MYRSKI
1. The history of all societies, for 25 centuries now, is a history of change of democracy with dictatorship, and vice versa! Even in Ancient Greece there were incessant changes of periods (of about ten years, or so) of some kind of democracy (but not for the slaves and the women, of course) with another periods of tyranny (called so because their dictators were simply named tyrants). Similar change was performed in Ancient Rome when times of democratic government were succeeded by absolute monarchy. After the ruination of Roman Empire have arisen some feudal monarchies, which for more than ten centuries have caused such stable stagnation (still and untroubled as the death itself), which, after that time has passed, have given solid ground to the entire world to call the new tendencies "Renaissance" (i.e. revival or resurrection). And, of course, the Renaissance begins with limitation of the authority of absolute dictators (no matter were they the Church or some Monarch), because "too much good isn't good". Later on, in some countries the Monarch remained as dictator, but his power was limited to a certain point, and in others he was discarded but in his place was established a President (i.e. a man who presides over all other people, man of highest authority again) because "the Nature avoids empty places", and without a kind of dictator there is no go! Anyway, this process of everlasting change of dictatorship with democracy and v.v. is entirely natural and unavoidable and here is the place to note two important points, namely:
a) both, the democracy and the dictatorship, have their advantages and disadvantages;
b) the perfection is in the very process of changing of one form of government with the other.
The democracy, as it is well known, has the advantage of giving equal opportunities to every common man to express his thoughts about all social problems that trouble him. But it has the same disadvantage! Because nobody can give us the guaranty that all people know exactly what is in their interests, nor that the right meaning is that of the majority, or even less, that this meaning is in the interest of the minority, too. From another point of view, however, big intellects, as much as square simpletons, are only minority and there is no guaranty that suppression (even in democratic way) of the minority's meaning is triumph over the simplicity and not over the reason, what must never be forgotten! To put it in another form, supposing it is true that "errare humanum est" (and one would rarely contest this), then democracy gives the right to everyone to make his own errors free and unlimited, what in many cases leads to escalation of errors instead of to their diminishing. But it is true, however, that in this way, by merely psychological reasons, "seeing a mote in thy brother's eye", as the proverb goes, one has the opportunity to see one's own errors, too, reflecting those of the others (which usually turn out to be very similar). Shortly, the main advantage of the democracy lies in the freedom to express oneself, which helps in cases of finding new ways, or producing ideas, and that is why it is known to be the most adaptive form of government if there is any need to change things and turn to some new conditions, or, to put it in a technical language, it has the most powerful feedback from the population (the object of the control) to the controlling "device".
The dictatorship, in its turn, makes all disadvantages of the democracy to become its advantages and vice versa. The limitation of freedom leads to limitation of human simplicity or stupidity, if the dictator is a clever and thoughtful person, but to oppression of thoughts and progress, if the dictator is not such one (as it often turns out to be the case). Or, if we look at this from another point of view, the dictatorship suppresses the natural for the folks tendency to sin (together with the suppression of the freedom) but enables in its place the growth of some specific "sins" (characteristic for the dictators, usually), such as cruelty or humiliation, for example. In this way, however, if the dictator is strong and uncompromising, or, as it is often said, has "an iron fist", then the dictatorship is the best way for achieving the goal that has brought him to power, what means it is the most effective government.
Hence, we are bound to come to the conclusion that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e. in the compromise. Till nowadays there were found many compromising solutions in different times and countries, such as, for example: Parliamentary Monarchy, Parliament in two Houses, Presidential Republic, and Democratic Centralism. But all these efforts have been done in the space only, and not in the time! And as far as even the whole mankind is not equal to the God itself, and every single man is too weak, nobody has yet succeeded to bind these two poles in one and the same time interval, and that is why peoples in all times have continually reverberated between these two antagonistic forms of government providing, in a way, just an illusion of a middle point, if one takes it in a long time interval! We, of the Movement for Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship (DDD), simply take this dynamics in the time for granted and, instead of to reject, confirm it, because it doesn't matter at all whether people approve of it or not, and it is also well-known that life in our Universe is based on cyclical repetition (with inclusion of new elements). Without a cycle there isn't, and it cannot be, stable evolution, and that is the capstone of our Movement!
2. Before to make it clear, however, what is our concrete goal, let us first idealize the problem in a try to profit as much as possible in finding out the best features of both the democracy and the dictatorship, which are namely:
a) The ideal democracy must provide opportunity for performing of a representative sample (if we use the terminology of statistics) of the population, which has to convert in form of laws the fuzzy and ever-changeable human notions for good and bad, to make decisions about all principal questions (of the strategy, not the tactics) in the development of the country. The representativeness of the elected people must guarantee that the Parliament fully expresses the wishes and thoughts of the populace, exactly of the average citizens, not of the best ones (or the worst, respectively). Never before in the history was this implemented in ideal case, and nearest to the truth, maybe, was the Parliament in Ancient Athens (if we do not count slaves and women for people), where were chosen 10 persons out of every of 50 greatest families (the so called "dems") through some casting of dice (or by voting, but choosing from smaller pool of well known relatives and neighbours). Nowadays all Members of all Parliaments are chosen as best representatives of the citizens (though they very often, at least in our country, turn out to be just people with: high self-esteem, mediocre intellect, and primitive emotions!). And we state here that all features of the Members of Parliament (MPs) must be average or mediocre (but that has nothing to do with the Government, nor with any Commissions to the Parliament), and the best representativeness may be achieved only by using of random choice by different parameters (such as: age, profession, educational level, marital status, ethnical division, religious beliefs, etc.), or just by some random choice! Very important is also the requirement that all MPs do not take part in the making of various tactical decisions, or in the writing of laws (this must be left to the specialists) — only in their voting! Otherwise we may be sure there will be a "contradictio in adjecto" (contradiction in the definition) saying that the MPs are representatives of the citizens, when they are, in fact, non-representative "representatives"! In democratic periods, of course, the highest authority is the Parliament and no Dictator can exist, hence the top-ranking figure is the Chairman of the Parliament.
b) The ideal dictatorship must fulfill straight and unfaltering the set goals, deny all other views standing in the way of achieving the goals, and severely punish all who "put stick in its running wheel". In the dictatorial Government tactical decisions for movement in the previously established direction are mostly taken, and if there is not an ultimate goal, i.e. if the most important goal is simply to live an interesting life, then the Dictator meets with serious problems in his activity and might even be found redundant. This, of course, has (or must have had) nothing to do with the way in which the Dictator itself comes to power, or leaves its post, and there are no problems this to be done by some kind of election, but when he takes once the state's steering wheel in his own hands he has the right to dismiss all democratic institutions.
c) Undivided from the discussion about the ideal democracy and dictatorship is the role of the parties in the democracy, as main device for expressing of the (exactly partial) views of different social classes and divisions of population concerning various strategical or tactical questions — role of initiators for some activities in interest of those people. As far as each party is, in a way, an individual body, it must have its own interests, which are not always equal to those of that part of the population they pretend to represent! This is so, not only because the parties are an intermediate level between the populace and the government, but is due to the fact that the members of all parties in a given country are usually not more then 10 per cent of its population and the left 90 per cent are not directly represented. Even more, in the elections the representatives are chosen only out of those who have set their candidatures, not out of the whole population, and there is no guaranty that they express better the interests of the voters, nor that the situation will be the same during the whole mandatory period. In this way all traditional Parliaments express only the wishes of the parties, not of all the people! What is important in a democratic government is just the role of initiators, the possibility for direct discussions between representatives of the parties in one place (because their number is small enough to hear one another), the personal desires of party members to express themselves better, etc, but ... their place is not in the Parliament (which must be a representative sample of the population) and, therefore, the only way to save parties is to put them apart in a similar institution called Partiment or "Party House", which must serve also as reservoir for electing of local authorities and judges in the Courts, but that organization must be subordinate to the Parliament.
3. The problem of uniting the ideal democracy with the ideal dictatorship in the time will be done simply by their alternation for, say, four years, and at most two mandates! And now remains to make clear how the Parliament and the Dictator, respectively, must be chosen with a good guaranty that they will always change one another, and how the appointment of the other authorities will be made. We propose the following:
a) The democratic Parliament has to be elected by the current Dictator during the time of dictatorship! There are no problems for doing this because there is no need at all for free elections — all will be done on computers according to previously set criteria and in strictly established sequence of their applying, so that there always will be possibility to check whether they are satisfied or not (though it will be impossible to prove that the choice was really random, because, frankly speaking, when we say something is random this may serve only to show that our knowledge of the process is limited). The important thing is to note that this multi-parametric random choice of the Parliament not only guarantees the representativeness of the chosen persons, but also enables the possibility to follow the current political orientation of the population, a feature no other conventional Parliament could provide, and after some time (but often before its mandate has been elapsed) it turns out it significantly disagrees with the current political views of the electorate, what is explainable with the fact that the populace easily changes its views while all party members, led by their own interests and ambitions, usually make some delay in this process. In our randomly chosen Parliament there could be no inertness because, if we take that only 10 per cent of the population has membership in any of the political parties, then the situation in the Parliament will be just the same and, therefore, its members will have no moral obligations to stick to the principles of the chosen party, coalition, or union, i.e. this will be a really free and objective Parliament!
We have to note here that it is in the interest of the Dictator to leave the political scene for the democracy when his mandate comes to an end because in times of worldwide intervention of all information media even from the space it is very difficult to hide an obvious fact of elapsing of the once and for all established period of ruling. Besides, let not forget the pure psychological moment that the Dictator, usually, enforces his power not because he is bad, wicked, or evil, but because he is sure he does his best in the interests of many people, and that is why he always has his true followers, hence there is one and only way for him to be (possibly) elected again after the democratic period — if he succeeded to show himself best off during the dictatorship!
b) The Dictator must be chosen by the democratic Parliament at the end of the democratic period! This is to be performed by indirect voting in the Parliament using the propositions of the Partiment and other possible institutions, where the exact procedure, naturally, must be established strictly and there may be several rounds (it is possible also to accept a direct voting but taking into account that our Parliament is a representative selection of the population, this would be only an expensive and not motivated difficulty). After the Dictator takes the rule, however, he usually dismisses the Parliament and the Partiment as redundant institutions because more then one view diverts from achievement of the set goals, but he may maintain his own structures based on (part of) the above mentioned to help him.
The Parliament has no way to stay for a longer time and thus to be a hindrance for giving the power to the incumbent Dictator because there, similarly, exist the Constitution and all the media to make it impossible, but there is a psychological point, too, that every MP is merely a mediocre citizen and it is only his or her duty to serve as an MP (something like mandatory military service, for example), and we even propose a certain procedure for rejecting this duty to be accepted, if one wish not to do it, and electing the next one instead, again by computer program. It would be better to imagine that the MPs are like the public in a theater, but of a special kind, and instead of showing them plays tedious laws are shown for giving an opinion — they do not govern (there is Government to do this), they do not judge (this is done in the Courts), and they are not making any political career (there are political parties for that activity) — they simply express the holy "vox populi" about the current notions for good and evil.
c) The other authorities have to be elected by the conditions in the current half-period (of democracy or dictatorship) in a way which is characteristic for that half, but the exact procedure must be fixed in the law. In general terms, however, in times of dictatorship all decisions have to be made by the Dictator only and he is to take the whole responsibility for them, namely: he personally appoints the Governmental body, approves the local authorities and the judges (with the exception of Constitutional Court which has to be elected by the legal authorities), sends and dismisses the ambassadors and consuls, and will he use any democratic institutions to help him, will he sympathize with some political party or not, will he pay money to different, domestic or foreign, scientific consultants, or he will decide all by himself — this is his own business.
Similarly, during the democratic period the Parliament is the institution that chooses the Partiment, approves the Governmental body, calls elections for local authorities and for judges, by propositions from the political parties, and appoints all ambassadors. In relation to the Partiment we have to make the point more clear because the Parliament does not hold any new elections but establishes only the quotas for different parties in it, while the exact party members are chosen by each party in its own way. As far as all MPs make one really representative sample of the population, the quotas may be established on the base of their own political orientation, what is an important simplification in the voting procedure, at least thousand times less expensive, fast, operative, and may be held once each year (or even more often, if needed), providing in this way possibility for easy following of the current political orientation of the population in the Partiment, too, making in this way public political demonstrations and strikes wholly redundant.
d) The prolongation of the mandate for second time (at most) must be done by some other part but not by the same one about which we speak. In this spirit, whether the Parliament has to stay for another mandate depends on the voting in the Partiment at the end of the democratic half-period when the party members there have, anyway, to decide either to prolong the democracy or to make propositions for the next Dictator. During the dictatorship a similar decision must be taken by the old Parliament, brought together specially for the purpose after adding some new MPs, if needed; or by the current Parliament, because the Dictator might have saved the old one; or, else, new helping Parliament has to be chosen by the same computer procedure. As a kind of exception of the two mandates rule we may propose the possibility for self ceasing, either permanently or temporarily (the last meaning preservation of top control), of the mandatory half-period (of democracy or dictatorship). This may be significant in war times, for example, when the Parliament, rejecting its own mandate, may elect the old or a new Dictator, or in times of stable development, when there simply is no need of a Dictator and he decides to leave the ruling to the Parliament (and, if he still preserves his post, this will be a kind of equivalent to the Presidential Republic, but with "real" President, not with person with formal and limited powers). In this way the mandates for each of the two polar kinds of power turn out to vary from zero to two.
4. Let us in conclusion make some remarks describing more clearly the role and the place of our DDD Movement, namely:
a) During the democratic half-period even four powers will exist and they are: approving and top power — of the Parliament (and personally of its Chairman, but he is not a dictator, because he easily can be substituted by another MP); initiative and law-creative — of the Partiment; executive — of the Government (Ministerial body), and also of the local authorities; and judicial — of the Courts. In other words, moving all parties out of the Parliament we reach to dividing of the legislative power in law-creative (in the Partiment), and (law-) approving one (in the Parliament), but this is natural evolution and specialization, and, obviously, it is better to do the estimation (the decision making) by an uninterested part (from the point of view of political career) and unrelated with the creative group (it is something similar to the splitting of activities in the Courts), what will, unavoidable, lead to less partiality and more objectiveness in the legislature. Although it is preposterous to imagine any kind of competition (here "competition" for better laws), in which the competitors make also the jury, nevertheless this funny situation exists in all of the conventional Parliaments?! Now about the legal competence (i.e. incompetence) of the randomly chosen Parliament — well, this question stands before each of the usual Parliaments, too, and is solved by hiring of competent consultants (various Commissions to the Parliament, and other institutions), whose task is to check the soundness of the new laws and their congruence with the previously set goals.
b) Transition to DDD might be performed from any of the existing forms of democracy, or from dictatorial ruling, too, because the computerized election of the new Parliament may be run by some kind of Dictator (President or Monarch), as much as by some Parliament, and the election of the new Dictator may be done indirectly in the Parliament, or by direct public voting. This is to say that the beginning of this new form of social governing may be established with the democratic half-period, or with the dictatorial one, though it is more natural if we begin with the democratic half, because the needed democratic institutions are better to be created from the very beginning, as more tedious and slowly to be build up, when the dictatorial institution may build new structures, or else, use partly the existing ones. Even more, the needed Governmental structures (excluding the Partiment) are well known in the world and in nearly ready for inclusion as elements of the DDD form, and the new things to be done are practically a few, though of cardinal value! The only required step is to establish a new Election Law and then to make the population familiar with the goals and tasks of our Movement because every new social invention is instinctively rejected at first, and let in this connection recall the simple fact that the democracy in Ancient Greece has not been initiated by the general public, but efforts of many people (and dictators, too) were needed to make it worldwide accepted nowadays.
The Movement for Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship has no precedents in human history, though it does not come to an empty place but is a result of natural evolution in the domain of social government. We state something more, namely, that the Democratic Dictatorship is unavoidable and, therefore, it is much better to perform planned transition instead of chaotic one, which will have then greater social price. The future of any reasonable government, either of dictatorship, or of democracy, in all their variations, converges to one and only form — that of the Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship!
We are not a party but a movement for better parties!
We do not fight for partaking in the Government but for improvement of the Government itself!
Give support to us and our Movement for Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship!
* The new word here is "deliberate", which doesn't stand very well, but in Bulgarian (Slavonic) "movement" begins with "d", so I decided to translate it in this way.
1. Simple random choice of Parliament
To make simple random choice between about 6 mln. electorate in our country the problems consist mainly in building some ranging of persons, and in providing of guaranty for impossibility of faking the electoral results. Here we propose two variants, namely:
a) Using one common electoral roll. All electoral rolls by regions are to be issued and left for viewing by all residents according to the existing law, after which they have to be sent to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), where they have to be united in a common one, according to some ranging of regions. After that each elector receives new ordering number and during one month (or two) there may be done corrections via adding at the end, or scratching with leaving of empty place in the list. This common list is sent to all concerned instances or private persons when requested (as a file, not printed, due to its presumable length of about 500 MB). Thereafter, on the prearranged day, the election is to be held publicly for choosing out randomly the needed number of Members of Parliament (MPs) — say 200, for our country — plus some reserve of 10 per cent. In some short period of time has to be checked whether each of the chosen persons answers all the requirements for the election (which are not so many and are like: whether he/she has not been scratched, whether is still living, of appropriate age, not imprisoned, etc.), and if someone has to be discarded then he/she is substituted with one of the reserve. If the reserve is finished, or later on any need arises for more MPs to be chosen, the same procedure is applied over the same data base.
It still left to be explained the exact procedure for simple random choice, and it can be the following: in seven spheres (because the total number of electors is 7-digit number) has to be put three (for example) groups of digits from zero to nine including (it is good to have between 20 and 40 balls with digits to make it suitable to use the existing lotto /toto spheres), and all of the digits of the number has to be chosen simultaneously, whereby numbers exceeding the maximal number of electors are to be discarded on the spot. This will guaranty the impossibility for faking of the choice, and, by good organization, there will be no problems for the exact chosen persons to be announced by their names after some minutes.
b) Using the Citizen's Identification Code (CIC) for the given country. As far as the CIC number (called EGN in Bulgaria) is unique there is no need to produce other primary regional lists of electors, but by this ranging there, obviously, will be many "holes" in the list, what will result in the need of possibly twice as many chosen numbers, but that is not of principal importance. The procedure of choice is the same, i.e. the digits of the CIC are to be chosen in different spheres simultaneously. Our CIC is a 10-digit number, as follows: two digits for the year, two — for the month, and two — for the day of birth, and then another four digits where the last is not significant being used as control digit (by number 11). Similarly, the CIC number may be momentarily related to the chosen person.
The common disadvantage of the simple random choice is the fact that, according to the big numbers law (in probabilistic theory), it is possible for the chosen group of people to have not good representativeness, e.g. if the Romas (gypsies) in our country are, say, 20 per cent, it is very probable they will be in one Parliament 24, and in another — 17 per cent. It is also good if there will be some age limitation not only from below (above 18, by us) but from above (say, 70 years), too. This method is really simple and easy to apply, but if one wants a good representativeness of the choice by different parameters, then there should be provided a way for their extracting from each one of the electors, and for some iterative method of the very choosing procedure until the exact percentage for each group will be reached, and that is what we will discuss by the next method.
2. Multi-parametric random choice of Parliament
Here the situation is more complicated because we cannot allow us now the extravagance to have holes in the list (only by some exception), and to each elector in the common file have to be attached beforehand some fields for marking of the values of required parameters. Besides, there has to be a way to provide for some abstraction from the exact person's names during the choice by using some coding and shuffling in the general set. Let us begin with some preliminary remarks.
The general set is provided with labels i for each group Gi, as well as with the values of their subgroups, which we shall mark using superscript j. We shell show this using an example near to the real situation, giving also some possible values in percentages of the general set:
G1 [age]: G11 [<30 years] — 30%; G12 [<40 y.] — 23%; G13 [<50 y.] — 22%; G14 [<70 y.] — 25%;
G2 [education]: G21[< secondary] — 20%; G22[< tertiary] — 60%; G23 [>= tertiary] — 20%;
G3 [profession]: G31[without] — 20%; G32[human.] — 15%; G33 [techn.] — 20%; G34 [trade] — 25%; G35 [others] — 20%;
G4 [ethn. origin]: G41[Bulg.] — 55%; G42[gypsy] — 20%; G43 [Turks] — 20%; G44 [others] — 5%;
G5 [religion]: G51[Christ.] — 45%;G52[non bel.] — 40%; G53 [others] — 15%;
G6 [mar.stat.]: G61[single] — 20%; G62[mar.] — 55%; G63 [div./wid.] — 25%;
G7 [soc.class]: G71[low] — 35%; G72[middle] — 50%; G73 [high] — 15%;
G8 [sex]: G81[male] — 50%; G82[female] — 50%;
Let us leave aside the question with the needed documents confirming the belonging to different subgroups and add just that they are very dynamic and in many cases are controversial, until they will be judicially treated accordingly. On the basis of general set exact estimates for the above given priory percentage are to be made and they have to be rounded to the whole number of percentage (or to the halves, if there have to be 200 MPs). It has to be computed also the minimal intersection of all possible subgroups, which in our example is: G13*G21*G32*G44*G53*G61*G73*G81 = 0.22*0.2*0.15*0.05*0.15* 0.2*0.15*0.5 = 0.0000007425, where the last number multiplied by 6000000 electors gives 4.46 and means that only 4 persons might exist in this intersection. But that is not so bad, because the probability to have real person with exactly this combination of subgroups is, in fact, less than one millionth (i.e. this might happen only once in million chosen people), but still it is good if the minimal intersection comprises at least hundred persons to be sure that we will always find a solution, and in this sense it is good the differences in the subgroups to be not very big. Otherwise we shell have to apply some strategy for eliminating of such collisions, and one possibility is to repeat the choice of the person with intersection in groups less then 0.00001 (if this is possible), or discarding the necessity for strictly matching of some subgroup (otherwise).
The exact procedure goes in five steps:
a) Making of the general set. Each elector has the responsibility to make the needed corrections (with the required documents) in the authorized institutions (Departments to the Local Governments, or Local Electoral Commissions) in, say, 2 months time, and if this has not been done then the old values are accepted, or some initial values — for those who are elected for the first time. Each one takes the risk for incorrectly given parameters alone, because, after the step d) finishes, strictly checking for each of the elected persons is performed and if something has been given wrong to the established deadline the chosen person is simply discarded and on his/her place another one is to be chosen starting from step e) with the parameters of this improperly chosen. The files made in this way are collected from each of the local institutions and sent to CEC, where they are merged in one file which we will call F0. From this file is made an excerpt of the minimal required fields, properly coded, and file F1 is produced, which can be copied to every interested party (or person). This file is used for calculating of the exact numbers of persons in each subgroup, as described above.
b) Making of the electoral file. From the file F1 in CEC only the fields with the coded parameters and some unique number for the persons (CIC) are selected and copied in an intermediary file F2, which may be copied to the interested parties, too. This file is moved in specially chosen isolated room (or even in separate building), where on a stand alone computer (not connected to any net, what is easy to be checked) a procedure for shuffling of the records by simple swapping of the places of two randomly chosen records is started. This procedure continues for as long as is wished, it is observed by the media, and may be stopped when simultaneously the following things occur: the elapsed time is at least one hour, swapped are at least half of the records in F2, and approvals are given from three persons (out of 10) with their personal passwords. In this way file F3 is produced, which is copied twice or thrice to doubling computers in the room, but must not be carried out of it. From this file a selection of only the parameters for each record, but not the unique number, and in the exact order of the records is made, thus producing a file F4, where the correspondence between the number of each record and the proper person for whom the record was made cannot be established without the file F3. As an electoral file is used F4, and three copies of it have to be given to those persons who continue with the next steps, whereby this special room is to be closed and stamped and guarded at least till the end of the elections.
c) Performing of the initial simple random choice. This is made by computer for the records in the file F4 using random number generator (because there is no need for more complicated procedures) producing in this way a short file F5 containing the chosen records from F4 extended with a field for the records' numbers in F4. On the base of F5 the number of personal records (though the persons remain anonymous) in each subgroup is established, which has to be near to the required but with two-three records more or less than the exact estimate. This step finishes very fast.
d) Iterative fitting of the parameters to the exact estimates. The file F5 is fitted to the exact number of records for each subgroup proceeding in prearranged order, e.g.: between the groups in increasing order of mean square deviation for the subgroups (of the group), and between the subgroups in increasing order of the needed numbers (percentage, or number of MPs). Here three cases are possible, namely: i) there is no need for correction — go to the next (sub-) group; ii) there are less numbers of records than needed — take from those subgroups in the group where there are more records beginning with the subgroup with the highest surplus; iii) there are more numbers of records than needed — give to those subgroups where there are less records beginning with the subgroup with the biggest deficit.
The changing of the records in F5 is done with records of F4, where all the other parameters remain the same as for the record (person) that goes out, and only for the given group the value of the given subgroup must be the new one. In doing this it is good in all such cases to make the intersections of all subgroups in F4 in order to ensure that the random choice is made only for those numbers where it is justified (not to look for nonexistent intersection, or such where only a pair of records are possible). This step may continue for hours (or more), but that is of no importance and depends on the processing speed of the used computer. If we never reach to the empty set (what is practically impossible, as was stated in the beginning), the task has always a solution. The chosen in F5 records' numbers are related to the real persons in the special room where the file F3 is kept by simply reading the corresponding to the sequential numbers in F4 records from F3, and, if needed, the records are extended with some other data from F1 (where the CIC is used for access). This ends the election, but because it is very possible that some of the persons might have given incorrect parameters and have to be discarded and new persons chosen, or later on may be needed that some MPs be changed with new ones, so the last step also has to be provided.
e) Substituting of one person with another randomly chosen but with the same values of parameters. Here nothing difficult exists in making of the random choice for a person from the intersection of all the subgroups of the old one, and the procedure works in one step. These intersections in our case are 12960, what means that it is not easy to maintain them all, just for the speed in one case (even if the cases are hundred), but this is not needed in a good contemporary data base, for the records are extracted very fast. In general, such base is not much different from the base for all the vehicles in one country with an average population (of about 50 mln.).
This is the whole procedure, on the level of ideas about the algorithm, for the multi-parametric random choice, which provides an exact representativeness of the chosen MPs.
The history of all societies is a history of improving of the exploitation, or of changing of one form of exploitation with another one, better than the former. And "better" here means that it more exactly corresponds to the new economical, social and political conditions in the society. On the early dawn of human civilization the tribal method of exploitation in big families have been changed with the slavery, because this has been proved to be essential in the fight for survival between different states, and those of them, where there were no slaves, have fallen as easy preys in the hands of the stronger and better organized countries. Without the slavery order there would have been no Ancient Greece, i.e. it would not have been great country, having given powerful impetus in the development of all arts, sciences, and production of goods in that time, but would have been instead something like "Eskimo-land". The slaves were fed and clothed and, under a competent slave-holder, even for themselves it was preferable to be slaves in a great and prosperous country rather than free citizens in a backward tribe.
With the evolvement of the economy, however, it became possible to change this form of exploitation with new and better one — with the feudal form, where the people did not still carry chains and could move freely between the borders of the country, but ... if they had what to eat, only the "chow" in that times have come mainly from the earth, so that they were forced to state bound to it. Glad or not (because people are always unhappy with what they have, but due to this trait they are in position to incessantly evolve themselves) the serfs have lived happy for many centuries, where their misfortune have begun just then, when have perceived that they may live even better. But they have established this only when this has become possible!
Afterwards have emerged the new capitalistic exploitation where only the property delimits the freedom of citizens, but this limitation is strongly needful for the existence of society, because without exploitation there is no society! And there is no society because the people must somehow be forced to do this, what is useful for all others in the country, and not only to look for their own interests. But even if somebody works for himself we can still speak about exploitation, only then about individual or self-exploitation, but it is the most difficultly to be reached.
Linguistically looked the word "exploitation" means taking out ("ex-") of the whole (the "ploi-") of the person, i.e. to "pull out the soul" of the people. This, however, is neither good no bad, it is unavoidable, because the human is a lazy enough creature for to break his doing-nothing, if nobody forces him somehow to do this! That is why in the study there are (despised-) teachers and (bored-) students, not because the latter could not have studied very well alone (supposing there are good enough books), but because they wouldn't have done this. Exploitation exists in the production, in the family, in the sphere of education, in the sciences and arts, between people and between animals.
If there is something bad in the exploitation, this is the bad exploitation, i.e. such which has already become anachronistic and does not correspond to the conditions of life! But even in this case it continues to remain on the stage for a long time, as it has become with the slavery order in one great democratic country like USA in relatively new time, when there was necessary to lead civil war and to kill about half a million people only to prove that, what has been known for a long time in the civilized world (and this is immortalized in the Constitution of the USA, where is literally written that the slavery is forbidden — because it has been allowed). The weak and insufficient exploitation very often is worse than the stronger one, and the main reason in the social area for alling down of the communism was the insufficient exploitation after the 70-ties of the 20-th century (what now is called bad motivation), which has led to lacking of interest for better labor or producing of goods given to the population (because it didn't have fallen earlier, when the compulsion or dictatorship was stronger, but exactly when it has weakened). The advantages of the capitalism before the totalitarian society are not in the absence of exploitation, but strictly in its better correspondence with the productive and social conditions. And the dream of everyone under the capitalism (or at least of the millions unemployed all around the world) is not for him not to be exploited, but to find himself such employer, who can best of all "pull out his soul", provided he pays him good.
Let we not deceive us, that if our "chains" can't be seen they does not exist! The main tendency in the society is for reaching of even better "remote control" of the masses, but not for rejecting of the governing. Without organization, i.e. without organized exploitation, the society would have been like a band of wolfs and this have been known at least from the times of primitive societies. But "known" does not mean well used, because all methods for selection of exploiters till now have been only opportunistic, i.e. such which can be found on the path of least resistance, but without whatever scientific ground or decision. Nowhere on the world have been reached the right view for estimation of the enigma of exploitative mastery, because this, really, is an art, which has its secrets and mysteries! Only we, from the Enigma of the Exploitative Elite (EEE), approach this problem in a right way, trying to find a scale for measuring of this art, on the basis of which the question for choosing of rulers or exploiters, what is the main problem in the democratic elections (but is useful also for the centralized government, too), can be solved. Stating openly that exploiter, this sounds great, we ask ourselves first the question:
1. Why our democracy does not work?
And really, why in one America, or France, or Germany, et cetera, the democracy (more or less) works, but in one Bulgaria, or Albania (or Bangladesh, in order not to feel ourselves on the last place) it does not work? But don't think that the situation by us is so bad because we are small country, for we have, both, flown away from one big country (the great and indestructible Soviet Union, which had at once crashed down), and there are also smaller countries, like Czech, Hungary, etc., which are still better than us. We are, as we like to say, as much people as there are in Switzerland, just that we are not Switzerland. Well, of course there are natural resources, social traditions, religious integrity, etc., but these are things that we are not in position to change(or we can change them, but very slow and difficult). Still, we also carry out elections, as they do in their countries, only in our country happen to be elected only bad politicians. In any case, intervention in the choice is the easiest way to better the things or to recompense some other minuses, and for that reason let us first look at the possibilities of the democratic choice. By this, however, we must stress that
a) The existing democratic choice does not solve the problem, i.e. using it we shall still be at the end of the rang-list! This is so because the populace simply cannot know well his politicians for to make a good choice, and does not require from them any data or normative information, some document for qualification, on the base of which to do the choice. In no other area of activity people react in this way; wherever one applies for work he (or she) must show the required documents, only by the democratic elections such documents are not required. And when they are not required then the choice of the people can't be good.
In this way, though, it does not become clear why in other countries it turns out to be good. In order to simplify the task let us speak not about choice of politicians but about a ... basket with apples! Then our original question can be paraphrased as: in what the American "basket with apples" (American Apples, ah?) happens to be better than ours? In other words, how is it possible that whenever one thrust his hand in the basket each time he catches good apples (nonetheless he can't evaluate them good beforehand)? Well, in this case it's clear that this is possible only if all apples are good! This would have been completely true also for the political "basket", if there were not other social or economical reasons, so that we are not stating that all our politicians are still "green", but the truth is that in a given democratic society all leading parties are equally able to rule the country — what they also do, alternating according with the choice of the people. Only that for our country this is not a proper choice, and that is why EEE makes proposition for special preparatory choice of the "basket", so that to have there mainly "ripe apples" and, therefore, make the choice easier for the people. Our proposition will be given below, but let us now continue with the drawbacks of the democracy, which reflect particularly badly on countries like ours, stating that
b) The western view on the question of democracy is not useful for the weak countries, hence, it is not useful for us! Here we are going from the thesis that the democracy, giving wider freedoms to the nations for their development, gives, in a natural way, advantage to the more powerful economies and better united nations, and, intentionally or not, violates the equality of stronger and weaker nations, because it is clear that under equal conditions in this world wins the stronger! In other words, when the West objects to the level of democratization is some country, this is mainly because of diminishing the abilities of the stronger countries to exploit the weaker ones. We do not blame the well developed countries (because their attitude is explicable and normal), we just declare the fact that exploitation exists also in dealings between states, and its character does not correspond well to the interests of weaker countries.
The only salvation for the weaker in this situation is to unite with other weaker ones in order to become stronger (or to append or annex himself to the stronger). This, surely, is the main reason for creating the European Community (for to be in condition to compete successfully with the United States of America), and we do not reject such possible ways. But together with this we may win in the fight on the world arena also if we have better way for selection of exploitative elite, what could have made us stronger with our own strength. And in this way it is possible to affect not only the ruling elite but the masses, too, because
c) The successful exploitation depends substantially on the exploited! Maybe the most important difference between us and the Americans (or Germans, Englishmen, etc.) in relation of the psychology of the people is their higher unity and organization. And one nation can't be well organized if it has not common views on principal questions of the country, but in a world of mass exploitation the principal view is the conviction for the necessity of it! It is possible that our non-understanding of this can be explained with our long-lasted communist influence, but the communism, in the end, comes not from the East but from the West, and in one America, for example, it was well known, though nobody there has wanted to be no wealthy people (i.e. to abolish the exploitation of the poor), but rather for themselves to become rich (what makes them to take active part in the existing mutual exploitation in the society).
Apropos, in relation to the communists: one should not give big credence to them because they are perverse people. Not that they alone have some guilt about this, because if the capitalism a century back was what it is nowadays on the West then the communism or fascism would have remained just a theory, i.e. the communists are product of the society or of the unsuitable exploitation under it. But they are perverse because they call themselves with strange names, which a normal person would have felt ashamed of — for the Russian "tovarishch" is derivative from "tovar", what is a burden or wares, so that this greeting has to be translated as ... load carrier or stevedore! Similar is the situation also with the western comrade (camerade /Kamerad), which comes from the camera (or cell) in jail, so that they are this time prisoners (galley-slaves, or slaves of the work). Well, the Bulgarians now also proved to be perverse because they ran away from the nice greeting "drugar", what means "the other one", which is both neutral, as well as speaks about friendship (what is very important for the successful exploitation).
But let us leave the perversions aside and return to the unity of our people. If the population is convinced that each society relies on the exploitation in it, then the society will be good, and our country strong. And if we make the democratic choice such that to be chosen only "good" people, capable to give all hidden in their nature in the name of successful exploitation of the people on the way of democracy, then, looking on their successes, our people will listen to them and go after them as meek flock after its herdsman. And all this reduces mainly to the ability to measure their exploitative mastery, so that it is time now to go to the
2. Evaluation of exploitative capabilities.
Because there are not good objective criteria for estimation of the level of exploitation which each one can exercise in the society, i.e. we can't imagine organizing of exploitative exams, no their mass usage, we are forced to be contented with only fixing of the exercised by the person exploitation — in some exploitative record books (ERB) — and its accumulation with the years. For our goals, though, this is quite enough, where the received estimation can be used not only in the politics, but also by taking of whatever ruling position. In other words, together with the labour booklet (employment record book), each person who wishes whenever to begin to exercise active exploitative activity must maintain also a separate exploitative booklet, where each year are to be fixed some points (which we shall clear after a while), in different columns by kinds of exploitation (about what we shall speak in the next section).
First let us discuss the scoring system. Its choice must be such that will allow maintaining of wide diapasons of values (say, from 1 to 1000 persons subordinates), so that to be measured mainly the level of hierarchy and not only the total number of persons, because no big boss governs alone his /her subordinates. Fortunately this question is solved for centuries in mathematics using the logarithmic scale, which is applied generously by "dear God" himself in our sensory organs. If we take as their base the number 2 then log2 2 is equal to 1, log2 4 = 2, log2 8 = 3, etc., where log2 1024 = 10, but loga 1 = 0 no matter what is the base a. In this way to each number N (the number of subordinates of the person), we set in correspondences its binary logarithm.
The binary base is suitable with this, that if the working hierarchy is binary, then on the first level we shall have 1, for two subordinates, on the second level — 2, for four people of the lowest level, etc., so that the level of hierarchy will be exactly equal to the binary logarithm of the number of his lowest executives. But this is idealized case because the number of immediate subordinates is, usually, around three, though they may reach up to 7-8, and in addition we are interested in the total number of subordinates, not only of those on the lowest level. That is why we propose to use the Neper number e, which is 2.7182..., what gives greater contraction of the diapason and for which loge 1 = 0, loge 2 ≈ 0.69, loge 3 ≈ 1.1, loge 8 ≈ 2.08, loge 10 ≈ 2.3, loge 20 ≈ 3.0, loge 50 ≈ 3.91, loge 100 ≈ 4.6, loge 150 ≈ 5.01, loge 404 ≈ 6.0, and let us set here one ceiling, as we in Bulgaria are used to do with student's marks (we use from 2 to 6, where the latter is the highest mark).
This number now does not correspond exactly to the level, but neither the hierarchical tree is binary, nor it is needed to calculate some more complicated estimation for each person. The important thing is that this is suitable measure in the limits from 0 to 6, it is easy to calculate with ordinary professional calculator, and it corresponds approximately to the level (for example: for the tiny boss with 2-3 subordinates it is around 1, for 7-8 persons — around 2, for 15-20 — circa 3, etc.). In this situation is reasonable to set the condition to fix only values greater than 0.6, i.e. to begin with 2 subordinates (if they are integer numbers), and to work with precision up to the second digit after the point. As long as the logarithm, in any case, does not become integer, then there is no need to require that the number N is integer (i.e. we can measure also seasonal workers, computed proportionally to the period of time).
Till here we have spoken only about computing of one of the columns in the ERB and also for one year. The accumulation will be performed via ordinary summation of the numbers in each column for the year, and after this for all years. Mixing the logarithmic scale with the linear one is clear that we shall get some distortions of the estimation, as for example: person who exploits three years by three workers will gather three points, or the same amount which he would have had for one year from 20 or so workers. But this is not undesirable, because we measure not just some number but exploitative abilities, which depend stronger on the time of their applying (i.e. on the gathered experience), than on their strength in one year, and in the financial assessment of the person using his salary the distortion is even greater, because it is hardly to believe that the salary of a supervisor of 20 workers will be three times higher than that of a tiny boss with only three subordinates (maybe this relation will be about two times).
After all said till now we are ready to continue with the question of the
3. Kinds of exploitation.
The issuing and maintaining of exploitative booklets must be performed by a special institution with working name Bureaus for Registration of Exploiters (BRE). Each citizen of age must have rights (after corresponding judicial regulation of the matter) to receive an ERB, in which each year to be put the earned by him exploitative points, where the various columns are filled from the immediate instances, but the attestation and summation for the year is performed in the BRE, which has the rights of higher control institution. In each column can be entered only more than 0.5 points for the whole year, where is marked also the period of time, in order to recalculate the points if the year is not full. Such calculation is performed in the BRE proportionally to the time (if there's a need) for each column separately, after what in the total column the points are summed with two decimal positions (after the decimal point), but if for all columns can't be reached at least one point then nothing is entered for the year (i.e. 0 points). Each person can receive points in different columns, notwithstanding the fact that they may be related with one and the same place of work (and this is normally to be supposed by big exploiters).
The Enigma of the Exploitative Elite proposes in the ERB to be maintained the following 5 kinds of exploitation, namely:
a) Administrative exploitation. This is the most widely spread kind of exploitation, which we have had in view by explanation of the assessment, but not at all the single one. Here the question is about these exploitative abilities (working with masses, governing, representativeness, organization of the subordinates, etc.) which are shown when one takes some higher executive position as hired worker against payment. The assessment of these abilities is done with the number (N) of all subordinates of the person, where for the purpose must be used some scheme of hierarchy of the posts in the factory, especially if it is a big one (for small companies with maximal yearly average number of hired persons, according to the official financial documents, not higher than 10 persons is permitted not to make special scheme). The entries in the ERB are made by the organization where the person is hired, in the limits from 0.6 to 6, even if the organization is bigger than 400 people.
More than this, inasmuch as there is difference in the abilities needed in the civil sphere and those in the military or militarized subdivisions, we propose to exist some diminishing coefficient for the latter case in the boundaries of 0.5 - 0.8, by which to be multiplied the number N before taking the logarithm of it. We find this justified because it is more difficult to rule a factory with 100 workers, than a subdivision of 500 solders, for example, where there are strong disciplinary punishments in cases of non-obedience. In addition to this, in various institutions where the employees work with big number of clients, in positions filled by way of elections in the democratic institutions, in the educational or health-care institutions, et cetera, is counted the number of staff subordinates, and not of the customers (what is obvious).
b) Financial exploitation. This is one non-direct exploitation, which one performs via his capitals, keeping shares (or bond, securities) of companies, but not working immediately in them against salary. Here also is calculated first some number N, what are again workers, but employed yearly on the average in the companies, parts of which the person owns. At first sight one may think that such calculations would be difficult, but having in mind that we observe only such parts which will give more than one person, it is clear that the point isn't in owning of 4-5 shares out of tens of thousands emitted, even if in the company work several hundred employees. Each company which has emitted shares on the market surely knows what is their minimal number, which corresponds to one employed worker, and the situation is even easier with owning of parts of companies, where this can be applied to only a pair of persons. After calculating the number of workers non-immediately exploited by the person is taken its logarithm and the gathered estimation is entered in the ERB, where here also is applied the limitation from 0.6 to 6 points.
c) Social exploitation. Here are measured the exploitative abilities of persons engaged in one or another form of social activity between the population (regardless of the fact against or not some payment), like: participating in parties, non-profit associations, religious or educational organizations, et cetera, inasmuch as each form of influencing over the minds of people is conductor of ideas, aiming at forming of such behaviour between them, which is useful for the person or organization which he represents, and, hence, leads to some exploitation. But in this case it is very difficult to measure the number of people which fall under this influence, particularly because it is very small and must be applied powerful depressing coefficients (1/100 or 1/1000, for example), and because of this we propose to use some standard scoring in the limits from 0.5 to 5.0 maximum, and by steps of 0.5. Each similar organization must offer in the end of the year list of the persons who are to be marked with more than 1 point, in order to be entered by BRE, and enter in ERB only for the persons with 0.5 and 1.0 points.
For that purpose must be made in beforehand corresponding tables, where for some of the posts we propose the following: President, Attorney General, Supreme Judge, Chief-commanders of various armed forces — 5 p.; their direct assistants — 4.5 p.; Chairman of the Parliament, Head of the official Church, President of the Academy of Sciences, Ministers of various Ministries — 4 p.; their direct assistants, Chairmen of Commissions to the Parliament — 3.5 p.; Members in the Parliament — 3 p.; Municipal Councilors — 2.5 p.; heads of political parties, religious groups and other non-profit associations (with at least 1000 members), not occupying some of the above-mentioned posts — 2 p.; their assistants etc. — 1.5 p.; other ruling personnel of similar organizations — 1 p.; and ordinary members (if scoring) — 0.5 points.
d) Personal exploitation. As measure for self-exploitation of each one is used his /her salary, but as far as we must compare it with something symbolizing one human unit we accept for this purpose one minimal monthly salary (MMS). The allowed interval is from 0.5 to 2.5 points (i.e., taking the logarithm, from nearly 2 MMS to about 12 MMS). This column, too, is filled on the place of work and is attested in BRE.
e) Professional bonification. Inasmuch as everything can be learned, so the exploitative abilities also can, up to a certain extent, be learned and one education of the kind must be marked somehow. For this purpose must be elaborated one list with qualified in this case types of education, where we find that these are, e.g.: management, public relations, journalism, law, and other social sciences. The scoring here is humble and in the limits from 0.5 to 1.5 p., where 0.5 is given for college (non-tertiary), 1 — for university (tertiary), and 1.5 — for higher than tertiary (or more than one tertiary) such education. Entering in this column is made in the BRE after showing (the first time) of the corresponding diploma.
With this we finish the explaining of major topics of the EEE and proceed to the last
4. Conclusive remarks.
The Enigma of the Exploitative Elite does not plead for changing of the existing democratic elections but only for introducing and using of exploitative booklets. After some 10-15 years there will be persons with 50 points in the ERB, and maybe even with hundred points. They can be accumulated in different ways, for example: a) small owner with 5-10 workers and personal ruling of the company will gain in an year: 1.5 p. for personal exploitation, 2 p. for financial, 1-2 p. for administrative, and having a diploma for manager another 1 p. (and, probably, 0.5 as some small party functionary), what already gives more than 6 p., so that for 15 years this will reach up to hundred; b) professional businessman who takes a becoming post in, say, a bank can accumulate: 1.5 for personal, 2.5 for administrative, 0.5 for owning of shares with the time, 1.5 for professional (certified MBA), what gives again about 6 points in an year; c) important administrative director ruling over a company with 150 workers will have only in the administrative column 5 p.; d) prominent politician, member of Parliament, will have 3 p. for social, about 2 p. for personal, something for administrative, 0.5-1.0 for financial (probably), and 1 p. for education; e) high-ranking post in the army will gather about 4 p. only in administrative line; and so on.
These booklets will be useful for all chiefs, politicians, businessmen, media staff, clergymen, ordinary citizens, etc., because they will fix and accumulate their exploitative abilities and for each sufficiently high position they will be required, if not mandatory, then at leas as a significant factor by their application for the job. With time it will show that a party, which did not ballot leaders with high points in the ERB, will just not have the confidence of the masses and will lose in the elections. We do not force the parties to use ERBs — they alone will take this as requirement. And the more the democratic principles in our country flourish, the more appropriate will be fixed the secrets of exploitative mastery in the exploitative books, because the bad chiefs will be quickly changed and other persons will go ahead in the number of points. Only with the help of EEE will our country succeed to catch up with and overtake the economically well developed countries, in which the exploitation advances still sporadically, where by us it will be subjected to exact empirical estimation.
The classical democracy sets on the possibilities for free choice, but does not make anything for forming of the algorithm of choice. In this situation the things go well where they have always gone well, and, respectively, bad — where they were bad. Put it otherwise: where has leaked, there will leak again. Only our EEE gives the possibility also in our devastated economy to begin to flow rivers with ambrosia.
Even if EEE will not better the policy, it will better the economy, but the best policy has always been the best economy, hence, EEE will better also the policy!
If you yearn for our country, then you yearn for the exploitation in it, therefore you long for the Enigma of the Exploitative Elite.
Perceive our Enigma in order to build our own exploitative elite!
The history of all societies is a history of contradiction between the personality and the society, of incessant fights between the individual and the group, to which he belongs! From times immemorial the humans had aspired first of all to personal manifestation and prevalence over the others, and continually have tried to make career by way of, if one believes in the Latin origin of this word, just throwing down the others around them like stones in a precipice (confirmation of what may be found in similarly sounding words "career" and "quarry", which in Slavonic are exactly the same), only to climb up to the crest of power, no matter whether it goes about some real (and global peak) or about some small local height. This is a main law in our world and how the plants are heliotropic so the humans are "cratotropic" (i.e. longing for power, to put it in contemporary words), but inasmuch as the sun often does not suffice for all vegetation on a given place and most actively is used by those who have succeeded to clime on the top, so also the power can't "make warm" all equally, but only those on its higher floors.
In relation with this, indestructible as the very life, longing for prevalence over the others from very old times people have applied the simplest and validated rule — uniting is some groups by interests, regardless whether organized on: ethnical, professional, religious, of property, or gender, or age, etc. principle, what can help them in their climbing up. On that thing is based the existence of political parties and the forming of special arena for their combats — an idea which receives significant development with the appearance of democracy in Ancient Greece, where it became popular not only between the privileged castes and strata of the population, but also between the whole nation.
Immediately after the massification of parties, however, it turns out that this decision, generally said, is not a decision, due to the innate drawbacks of the very idea! In a sense that, as much as the parties allow the individuals to leap above the others, in the same extent they hinder him to reach this, and in this way the drawbacks of parties provoke also the drawbacks of democracy, because of what in the millennial human history incessantly have alternated periods of democracy with periods of dictatorship, or at least of some compromising form between the two poles. And because the parties does not give equal opportunities for their participants to manifest themselves and make a moderate career (non hindering the others to make the same, too), it turns out that the parties are used only and exclusively as means for making of career (in the same way as in hot weather, for example, one drinks more water, which, because of the lower concentration of salt in it than in his sweat, instead of satisfying his thirst, worsens even more his water-salt balance; this what one needs in very hot weather is not more water but more salts, but being not in position to get them he gets at least the water). And, really, the situation (whole 25 centuries) was just hopeless until our Zodiacal Significance Group (ZSG) has arisen, which at last succeeded to put each thing on its proper place with one precise intervention exactly in the weakest point. For the first time in human history we allow to various parties to become unions primarily of equally thinking individuals, and not of careerists, but not depriving the persons from the possibility (and by this equal for each member) to make career (with even greater chances than in the existing till the moment parties), and more than this — in one much more attractive way! But let us look at the things consecutively, beginning with the
1. Shortcomings of existing till the moment parties.
The inevitably inherent shortcomings of the existing parties are mainly of three kinds, namely:
a) The probability for career making in a given party is in back proportion to the number of participating in it members, where the strength of it and its influence over the masses is in direct proportion to this number! This means that if someone chooses a small party in order to enhance his chances for progress in it, he, on the other hand, will have smaller chances for participating in the governing of state, because the very party will take small part in this activity (the parliamentarian quote). But in case of a strong and powerful party (one of the pair leading parties) it will have hundreds of thousands of members and the chances of the person between so much people will be very moderate. Put it otherwise, this gives something like the situation in which one falls when he must decide whether he has to become married or not, because, however one looks at this — so bad, and otherwise also bad, and the exact estimation depends on so much, and very fuzzy, too, parameters, that it is even not possible to find at least what is worse!
b) The chances for career making for each person are in no way equal, nor are they measure for his abilities (more so for his abilities to rule or govern, something for which he applies), because nobody knows exactly to what he (or she) is capable until he makes it (and even after this there is no guaranty that this wasn't an occasional outcome and in another mandate, or by slightly different conditions, he will again succeed). In the same time, when one buys a lottery ticket, each ticket has the same chances to win, and if it wasn't so, but was known in advance which ticket what will bring, this would not have been a lottery but rather some auctioning for tax evasion, maybe. The interest, obviously, is in the uncertainty, especially by democratic governing, while the chances for political career, in any case, depend highly on the: ancestry, physical features, personal contacts, education, financial position, family background, et cetera.
The chance is something from God, so to say, something that can't be established in advance, but which is necessary in life and what makes the very making of career more interesting than the brutal throwing down of stones, and the chance inside the political parties (not in the fights between parties) is reduced to minimum with the purpose of maintaining the party monolithic. But this deforms the conditions of competition between the party members and is something like faked die, or marked cards, or some other dishonest method of playing the game. By such non-uniform chances for career making, which exist in the present-time parties, most of the party members have, as we said, no other choice than to make career, and that is why the parties are filled mainly with careerists!
c) The dependence of the events, put in a probabilistic jargon, or the influence on the career of previous successes or failures of the person (which don't need to be related at all with his real abilities, as we have already said), is the next scourge for the parties, figuratively speaking! Because of this many persons for long years "rest on their laurels" and cram the leading positions, where other young and more suitable ones don't have the possibility to try at least once. Some continuity, of course, is necessary, but only up to two mandates (what in many cases also exists), where one will hardly find a prominent political figure which, though having not begun his (or her) political career precisely on 20 years, will conclude it before reaching of pension age, and even this, most often, happens with his natural departure from this world.
We from the ZSG think that whatever exceptions above the two mandates must be only exceptions, in order to be possible to ensure maximal independence of the chances for career making of a person, who has taken some ruling post, from the newcomer in the play, but who is burning with desire for self-manifestation, because if some relative equality will not be established, then the wish for career making becomes fixed idea for the young politician. This, said in technical jargon, means that the existing party system is highly inertial, and for that reason not only between parties, but in each of them, too, the political confrontations became substantive and lead to unnecessary revolutionary moments, instead of providing of one stable and slow evolution on the political arena, which alone can provide opportunity for moderate manifestation of each party member.
Together with this most important hindrances for career making in the existing parties must be mentioned also some others, like for example: the overly seriousness, with which the wins or defeats are met, having in mind that the politics is, anyway, a game (as also all our life) and it is comical and childish if one begins to "weep" when he looses in it (in any way, nobody except God himself, maybe, can be really sure, that exactly his ideas are the right ones); the wryly understood necessity for long-lasting and unchangeable course in the politics, where in many other cases one often changes his views with his age (what he calls evolution of the conceptions); the non-interesting and low attractive character of the very career making, which needs some new ideas, some way of taking into account also the intervention of God, or the pure chance, consequence of which is our whole life; et cetera. Our further narration will clear in one natural way these moments and will show the positive influence on them of the elegant ideas of Zodiacal Significance Group, so that it is time now to make our
2. Proposition for changes in the political life.
As far as the probability theory is an exact mathematical science for establishing of the characteristics of the whole group of events, when we can't, for one or another reason, take them good into account for each individual event, so we are bound to believe in it, if we want to stay near to the reality. This theory, and if you want the whole human practice, have postulated that it exists one and only method for increasing of the probability of a given event, without by this decreasing the probability of some other one related with it, and this is the so called conditional probability! This means that, instead of speaking about the probability of some thing, we will observe the probability for this thing, but under condition that some other thing has already happened (so, for example, the probability to guess six out of 49 numbers, as it is in Bulgarian lotto "Toto-2", is very small, it becomes much greater if we have already guessed the first three drawn numbers; or, if we return to the politics, then the probability somebody to be elected as President depends highly on the fact whether he belongs to the leading in the moment party). In other words, introducing of some condition of the choice is necessary, which has to diminish the group, but such condition that must split it in several smaller groups, where each of these subgroups represents good enough the whole group — this is something like breaking of a piece of magnet in smaller pieces! It turns out that such condition for splitting, in this case, must satisfy the following three requirements:
a) to split the group evenly and, so to say, vertically, not horizontally, providing for each subgroup equal number of members in the different stories of hierarchy of each party (because in the parties inevitably exists hierarchy, even under democratic conditions, when single party hierarchy for the whole country is absent), otherwise we shall only sharpen the pyramid, depriving (and embittering) the greater part of party members of their chances for career making;
b) to be precisely non-essential in political regard, because if we make splitting by a substantial criterion this will only give new fraction or disintegration of the party, and we from ZSG don't fight for ruination of the parties, taking into account their confirmed during the centuries usefulness in political life, but for turning them to a better place for sensible career making for each party member;
c) to be permanently fixed and unchangeable splitting, because if each one can alone change it and determine his participation to different subgroups, this will contradict to the first requirement, but at the same time, while the participants in different subgroups remain the same, their part taken in the governing must be rotated somehow, choosing only one of the subgroups in each particular moment, where the other party members are to perform subsidiary functions to the leading in the moment subgroup, but in the next elections the groups have to change their places (what, if we use the analogy with breaking of a pencil in several smaller pencils, has to say, that in each moment we will write with just one pencil, while the others rest and "sharpen" themselves for their future use).
In this way each party will not only not suffer from such decision, but will also strengthen its rows, because it will be not just doubled or tripled, but even multiplied, according to the number of echelons in which the party is divided! But is such exactly ideal goal not chimerical at all, isn't this some political machination, as one of the many finding place in periods of democracy? This isn't so at lest because we are not party but a group for reforming of the parties, and when so we are not fighting for taking part in the political life; and the very decision is simple and elegant, as discovery of the wheel in ancient times, and this decision has only one word: the (signs of) Zodiac! In addition to the requirements for even and non-essential splitting, they are once and for all fixed for each party member, and using one attractive procedure for choosing of the ruling for the mandate Zodiac they are also the very natural for the whole Christendom decision. Who wishes may believe in them, and who not — not believe, but they exist and are quoted almost everywhere in our life, giving one sufficiently even splitting of all people (if we go out of the statement that the humans, in contrast with many of the animals, don't have yearly established periods of enhanced sexual activity and, hence, are active the whole year). Besides, the zodiacal signs, certainly, are non-antagonistic groups, which can never accumulate in themselves so much contradictions for to separate as another parties or fractions in them, so that they are simply the ideal solution! And now we are ready to go to the question of
3. Fulfilling of the idea.
The only minimal (but very important) amendment, which must be done in the Election Law, for to allow the idea of ZSG to throw roots in our political life, is the requirement from each of the candidates for whatever ruling political position (i.e. as MP, member of Municipal Council, President of the country, in the court and the prosecution, and with recommendatory character also in the Police, Army, and Boards of Directors of different companies) to demand that he /she be chosen from the previously established one or more Zodiacs! In this situation, naturally, we have all reasons to call the Parliament now Zodiament, and the Municipal Councils — Zodiacal Councils, because this better corresponds with their true substance. Together with explaining of the actual procedure of choice of ruling Zodiacs, however, we will give also some quantitative mathematical assessments, in order to be able, for one thing, to motivate our proposition, and for another thing — to establish the number of Zodiacs.
First of all let us stress that it is better if the average continuity for the zodiacal signs, in probabilistic sense, is about 1.5 up to maximum 2 mandates, which will guarantee similar continuation of the period of political career for everyone, and this is figure about which, even in worldwide scale, exists consensus, only that in traditional parties this simply is not respected, where by us it cannot be omitted! And mark that the probabilistic sense is more justified and interesting than the fixed two mandates, because it guarantees the things on the average for long period of time, where the continuation of ruling of each particular zodiacal sign will depend, as it's said, on the "providence" and exists probability different from zero that some one of the Zodiacs can be chosen even in 10 consecutive mandates, for example (compensated by others for which there will not be such chance).
What is important to stress is that we require not some simple drawing of a lot but one emotional choice, which in addition gives greater probability to be drawn out the old zodiacal sign than some new one. As usual, the simplest arrangements are the best one, and our proposition is to perform multiple drawing of one out of 12 Zodiacs (where it is even better if in the sphere are loaded two, but maybe also three, dozens of numbers, for it not to rotate nearly empty), where this drawing is repeated until some number will be drawn again for the second time, but only for the old Zodiac is taken that its number was already drawn once, so that with its first real drawing it becomes chosen. The number of this drawings, naturally, can't be greater than the number of Zodiacs, and the very procedure must be translated by the media and performed in formal circumstances in advance of one to two months before the proper democratic elections for the Zodiament, and for the Zodiacal Councils and the President the current Zodiac is to be used without new choice. Having in mind some singularities, which will become clear a while later, we propose below three similar variants.
a) We shall consider first the one-zodiacal choice as single variant, i.e. the choice of only one zodiacal sign out of 12 by the above-mentioned procedure. The exact calculations, of course, we leave for the Addendum, because they require decent mathematical education, where here shall give only the end-results. It turns out that in this way the probability for repeated choice of the same Zodiac in the next elections is 0.33634, what with precision to the third sign after the decimal point equals 1/3, where the probability for choice of one of the new Zodiacs (in their sum) is respectively 0.66366 or 2/3, what divided by 11 gives probability for choice of one new Zodiac of 0.06033 or 6 per cents. Certainly the average probability for choice of one whatever Zodiac must be 1/12 = 0.0833333 = 8.33% (because the Zodiacs, anyhow, are 12). Here we must mention that the probability of 1/3 for repetition of the Zodiac gives, in fact (after some calculations), an average repeatedness of mandates of exactly one and a half times, what is good as measure for the continuity. This, what isn't very good, though, is the lower probability of choice of new Zodiacs, because 6% is somewhere about 1/17, and this means that if the mandates are by 4 years and our Zodiac is not the current one, then it will enter once in about 66 years, and in this case some of the party members have all chances not to have a chance at all for their Zodiac to be chosen while they are still living (though when it will be chosen it will remain such for on the average about 1.5*4 = 6 years).
b) The next variant is two-zodiacal choice again as single variant, i.e. choice of one out of 12, but by two old Zodiacs. In this case the single probability for choice of an old Zodiac becomes 0.2760, but as far as there are two old Zodiacs their common probability is 0.5520, and for the new Zodiacs (now 10) the single probability becomes 0.044798, and the common — 0.44798. The average probability for one Zodiac to be chosen remains again 1/12, but as far as the common probability for repetition of Zodiacs enhances, then this for choice of one new Zodiac diminishes, so that this variant turns out to be the worst from the point of view of the rarest case of entering of a new Zodiac, where we get that this can happen only once in 4*(1/0.0448) ≈ 89 years. But this isn't so important because the choice isn't yet finished with the choice of only one Zodiac and there must be also second tour (in order to have always two old Zodiacs), just that then will be chosen between 11 Zodiacs (because one is already selected). The end-results appear very near to those for the next variant and because it is much more all-comprising than by simple doubling of the two-zodiacal choice we shall continue directly to it.
c) The last and the most interesting variant is one combination of the former two, where there are performed two tours of choice, but whether the very choice will be two-zodiacal or one-zodiacal is established from the number of the old Zodiacs, when if in both tours is chosen one and the same Zodiac, then this means that the next time it will be one-zodiacal, otherwise it will be two-zodiacal! This model is much more abundant with variants so that we from the ZSG propose exactly it as final decision, and because the Zodiacs are many then the probability for them to happen to be different (i.e. two-zodiacal case) is much greater than by one-zodiacal (it turns out about 5 times), and for that reason the results are nearer to the two-zodiacal choice. To spare the multiplicity of figures we shall mention only that: the average probability on the whole becomes 0.15257 ≈ 15% (or entering once in 4*(1/0.15257) ≈ 26 years), the probability for one-zodiacal choice becomes 0.169169 ≈ 0.17%, and for two-zodiacal — 0.830830 ≈ 83%. In addition to this we now speak about probability for at least one old Zodiac (as measure for the repeatedness of the choice), which is 0.4267 ≈ 43%, and for at least one new Zodiac, which is 0.0714 ≈ 7%. The first will give (after some calculations) an average continuity of the Zodiacs 1.7443 times, and the second means that a new Zodiac will enter in the governing at the worst case once in 4*(1/0.0714) ≈ 56 years, but will stay then for average 4*1.744 ≈ 7 years. The very procedure of drawing in technical meaning is maximally simplified, but attractive, where for each new drawing in the limits of the given tour (first or second) the drawn out number is written and then returned in the sphere.
How each party will choose the candidates for the elections is its own business, just that only people from the current Zodiacs are to be chosen. The both tours of choice of Zodiacs are of wholly equal value (when they are different, of course), where only by the elections of President is settled that he (she) must be from the first chosen Zodiac, where Vice-President is chosen from the second, and if later, but under the wing of the same Zodiacs, by different reasons, new elections for President must be performed, so they alternate (i.e., the next President must be from the second Zodiac, and the Vice-President — from the first, and so on). The modeled in this way different echelons for each party pretty well can name their candidates supposing that the pool is big enough, but if one party does not possess at least 12 times more members than candidates for the elections (at national or local level), it can confidently be stated that this is no proper party. On the other hand, if in a given party exists only a pair of prominent representatives, but they are not from the current Zodiac /Zodiacs and there are no other competent persons from the current Zodiac which can substitute this pair of competent persons, then this also isn't a proper party (but some administrative unite, dependable in one or another way by this pair of persons), because people who can't be substituted with others don't exist! In this way the questions are solved and there is nothing more left except to proceed to the
where, surely, is necessary to put our Zodiacal Significance Group on its worthy pedestal, such that it be easy seen from each party and coalitions, and also from non-parliamentarian powers, because it well deserves this honor. The main moments on which we shall stress are the following:
a) The democracy cannot be bettered until the parties are bettered, organizing them on the principle of mutually changeable echelons of party members from all levels, which are to be changed in some arbitrary way, so that all can get hold of some "greased morsels", as it's said, but while in the very echelons people may differ by their prospects for career making, then between the echelons must exist full equality. Such shrinking of the electoral pool for the moment frees the major part of the members from the futility of pre-electoral contest, but not excluding them from the party, of course, and in this way localizes their self-seeking ambitions only in the allowed time, yet for that reason this enhances their chances for success in the corresponding elections! But what better echelons than the approved for centuries zodiacal signs, as one psycho-physical division of humans in groups with non-substantial, but interesting, differences (in the similar way how the necktie, or the earrings, if you like, are non-essential — in functional sense — elements of clothing, but they make people nicer and our life more interesting)?
b) If the demos continues to want bread and circuses, then all spectacular events, which don't hinder the acquiring of bread, are to be preferred in one democratic society. But what more interesting show than one Zodiament, where people, instead of dividing themselves on left, right, and center ones, will divide also according to their Zodiacs (carrying required and well recognizable badges on their lapels), and instead of political libels and slanders will exchange between them neutral and impartial zodiacal remarks about "Rams", "Crabs-cancers", "Virgins", etc., refreshing and pacifying the situation and avoiding saying of words which will be regretted by both sides? Add to this also the various horoscopes and the interpretations, that can be made for each of the ruling persons, the refreshing caricatures in the media, the propitious or not days for work of the Zodiament and the various commentaries by the gatherings and international meetings, the incessant influence of the zodiacality over the souvenir, textile, and other industries and over the fashion in general, and you will surely begin to feel the fresh air, which the ZSG pours in the everyday activity of the ruling authorities and life in the country.
c) In addition to all this the periods of zodiacal ruling will become something like milestones on the historical way of our country, because they will mark in an interesting manner the time of ruling of given Zodiacs and people will speak not only that someone was born under the sign of the Ram, but also that he has married in the time of Leo and Virgo, for example, has got a son during the single Gemini, and so on, in the same way as even nowadays in some eastern countries they speak about the years of Tiger or Dragon. There may be instituted some interesting occasions which must commemorate each change of the Zodiacs, like, say: building of Zodiacal alley in each major town with figures of prominent politicians from the corresponding periods, shown (or not) the essence of their Zodiacs; issuing of jubilee coins, or of new money notes in general, with the coming to power of new Zodiacs; adding of stylized architectural elements to the public (and also other) buildings, erected during a given period; and other similar things. And sooner or later our small country will make its greater contribution to the whole Western world linking its name with one ever-expanding zodiacalization in the governing and public life of the planet, and the power that will change radically the world is our ZSG!
If the future of the humanity is in the democracy, then the future of party system is in its zodiacalization, hence, the future of the democracy is in the zodiacal democracy!
If you want to make political career, do it only in the solely appropriate for it zodiacally pure environment!
To zodiacal turn with the help of Zodiacal Significance Group!
** Here, surely (as said before) in the original language were used three "z"-s, which are somewhere to the front of the Cyrillic alphabet (like Latin "c"), i.e. between 'e', then 'zh', 'z' (as in "zero"), and then 'i'.
This addendum contains partial description of the mathematical model of forming of the Zodiacs proposed by the ZSG. Despite its exactness it has illustrative character and does not show principal influence over the explained in the Manifesto ideas, meaning that if the zodiacal ruling will be applied this will not be because of this analysis. Nevertheless, however, the given calculations are true, where in addition is made also probabilistical modeling with computer program, what proves that the last thing that can be said about the Utopian ideas is that they are not reasonable, while the most important thing that makes them different from the real ones is only that they are not yet realized (but it has been so with the democracy, too, before Pisistratus have enforced it in his time).
1. We shall give thoroughly the formulas for computation of the probabilities for variant 3.a) for one-zodiacal choice out of 12 equally-probable Zodiacs, where the computations are performed via simple summation, by the number of drawings in one tour, of the probabilities in each drawing (obtained by dividing the favorable events to their whole number). Let us mark with P1O the probability for one-zodiacal (upper index) choice of one old Zodiac (lower index — from Old), with P1N — the probability for choice of one new Zodiac (lower index — from New), and for all 11 new ones — with P1NA (A — from All). For the old Zodiac we have that it can be chosen from the fist time with probability of 1/12 if its number is drawn at once; from the second time with (11/12)*(1/12), because this can happen only if the first time some of the numbers of the other Zodiacs is drawn (with probability of 11/12) and after this falls the number of the old Zodiac (with probability of 1/12), in which case, naturally, the probabilities are multiplied (as, for example, if we toss a coin three times then the probability to have each time the head is 1/8); and so on, for the n-th time (2 <= n <= 12) we will have (11*10*... *(11-n+2))/12n, what, when we sum by the number of drawings (from 1 to maximum 12), gives the following:
P1O = 1/12 + 11/(122) + (11*10)/(123) + ... + (11*10 ... *2)/(1211) + (11*10 ... *1)/(1212) = 1/12 + ∑n=212 (11*10 ... *(11-n+2))/(12n) = ∑n=112 (11!)/((11-n+1)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (11!)/((12-n)!*12n) = 144619817/429981696 ≈ 0.33634 (1)
where the exclamation sign after some number is the factorial, or the multiplication of each integer numbers from 1 to the number, and Σ means summing from the low to the high value of the index. Similarly for one new Zodiac we get that from the first time it cannot be chosen; from the second time this may happen only if both times falls its number; from the third time — when two out of three times falls its number and once one of the other 10 new numbers, only that for the first time the number of Zodiac may emerge either in the first drawing or in the second one (the last time, obviously, we must always have the needed number, because it finishes the choice favorably for us), so that we must multiply also by two; and so on, what we write as:
P1N = 0 + 1/(122) + (10*2)/(123) + (10*9*3)/(124)+ ... + (10*9 ... *2*10)/(1211) + (10*9 ... *1*11)/(1212) = 1/(122) + ∑n=312 (10*9 ... *(10-n+3)(n-1))/(12n) = ∑n=212 (10!*(n-1))/((10-n+2)!*12n) = ∑n=212 (10!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (10!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = 25941989/429981696 ≈ 0.06033 (2)
only that this time the summing begins from 2, but because of the factor (n-1) in the numerator we can write it in the end also from 1. The probability for all 11 new Zodiacs we get easily multiplying by 11 the last formula, what may be rewritten as:
P1NA = ∑n=212 (11!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = ∑n=112 (11!*(n-1))/((12-n)!*12n) = 285361879/429981696 ≈ 0.66366 (3)
In any case we must have that P1O + P1NA = 1, but we shall leave aside this proof from the reader giving only one table filled after modeling of this process on a computer, where for convenience is accepted that the old Zodiac is always N1 (and we don't give all new ones).
Zodiacs 1 2 3 4 ... old one new ones Probabilities 0.3362 0.0611 0.0596 0.0608 ... 0.3362 0.6638 Av.No.Drawings 2.9602 4.6410 4.4964 4.5364 ... 2.9602 4.5756
TAB. 1. STATISTICAL ESTIMATIONS BY PURE ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE.
It has left also to produce the formula for computation of average continuity in number of mandates, which we will obtain in more general case for probability p, 0 < p < 1, and possibility for unlimited iterations, i.e. we must find the mathematical expectation M1p, for which we need the sums Sp и S*p , the first of which is usual geometrical progression, and the second one is relatively easy to get via a recurrent expression, namely:
Sp = ∑n=1∞ pn = p + p2 + p3 + ... + pn + ... = p/(1-p) (4)
S*p = ∑n=1∞ n*pn = p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ... + n*pn + ... = p + p2 + p3 + ... + p*(p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ...) = Sp + p*S*p (5)
where from S*p = Sp/(1-p) = p/(1-p)2 (6)
and for the expectation we get
M1p = S*p/Sp = (p + 2*p2 + 3*p3 + ... + n*pn + ...)/(p + p2 + p3 + ... + pn + ...) = 1/(1-p) (7)
Then for our case of p = P10 ≈ 0.33634, we obtain average continuation of choosing for second time the old Zodiac (in times, or number of mandates) M1p ≈ 1.5068.
2. In the case of pure two-zodiacal choice (variant 3.b) the corresponding formulas (without explanations) become:
P2O = ∑n=111 (10!)/((11-n)!*12n) = 9889819/35831808 ≈ 0.27601 (8)
where also P2OA = 2*P2O ≈ 0.5520,
P2N = ∑n=111 (9!*(n-1))/((11-n)!*12n) = 1605217/35831808 ≈ 0.044799 (9)
и P2NA = ∑n=111 (10!*(n-1))/((11-n)!*12n) = 8026085/17915904 ≈ 0.44799 (10)
where the upper index in this case must be 2, and summing must be up to 11, because there may happen at most 10 new different Zodiacs by once and on the 11-th time there must fall either one of the two new or one of the old ones. Similarly also the verification P2OA + P2NA = 1 will be fulfilled. Under alike condition that 1 and 2 are the numbers of the old Zodiacs the table will look as follows:
Zodiacs 1 2 3 4 ... old ones new ones Probabilities 0.2720 0.2795 0.0458 0.0457 ... 0.5515 0.4485 Av.No.Drawings 2.6150 2.6408 4.1281 4.1327 ... 2.6281 4.1495
TAB. 2. STATISTICAL ESTIMATIONS BY PURE TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE.
We will not give the calculations for doubling of two-zodiacal choice in two tours because the next variant is much more interesting, but we shall stress that till the moment the choice is not finished, because in each choice must be two Zodiacs and we have chosen till now only one.
3. By the combined variant in two tours of one- or two- zodiacal choice depending on the previous Zodiacs the complexity of calculations exceeds the limits of popular explanation and that is why we will give here only one table and data from computerized modeling with generator or random numbers. Here the Zodiacs N1 and N2 are like all of others, and one-zodiacal choice is achieved on the diagonal.
Z1↓\Z2→ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sum 1 897 393 358 373 399 372 358 390 402 372 363 361 5038 2 395 884 390 397 358 376 359 379 357 386 350 371 5002 3 354 366 880 386 402 373 359 361 336 354 358 328 4857 4 394 404 384 842 385 393 398 380 396 409 378 368 5131 5 373 372 385 367 862 375 346 384 370 373 384 406 4997 6 391 444 387 386 356 906 391 387 343 380 401 382 5154 7 371 391 401 421 361 406 838 336 393 420 353 357 5048 8 350 366 393 352 404 380 405 866 368 386 392 380 5042 9 360 356 366 368 404 390 351 390 864 383 372 389 4993 10 397 377 359 386 369 367 411 373 367 811 393 407 5017 11 363 383 347 382 369 372 372 359 392 349 858 332 4878 12 369 342 384 335 379 386 382 347 430 353 372 764 4843 Sum 5014 5078 5034 4995 5048 5096 4970 4952 5018 4976 4974 4845 60000
TAB. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ZODIACS IN THE TOURS OF CHOICES FOR THE COMBINED VARIANT WITH 60000 RANDOM CHOICES.
A) DISTRIBUTION OF CHOICES (NUMBERS) FOR BOTH KINDS
SINGLE CHOICES FOR ZODIACS (DOUBLED NUMBER): TOTAL=120000, WHERE
OLD=62186, NEW=57814; PROBABILITY: OLD=0.5182, NEW=0.4818
Σ ON DIAG.=10272; Σ OUTS. DIAG.= 49728; PROBAB. DIAG.= 0.1712; PROBAB. OUTS.= 0.8288
REMARK: ELEMENTS ON THE DIAGONAL GIVE ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE.
AVERAGE FOR CHOICE OF ONE ZODIAC [(DIAG.ELEM. + 2*OUTS.) / 12 FAVORABLE EVENTS]:
B) NUMBERS AND PROBABILITIES FOR ONE OLD ZODIAC
NUMBER= 10271, PROBAB.= 0.1712 [WHOLE CHOICE 1 NEW: NUMB.=10272, PROB.=0.1712]
ONE NEW, SAME AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 1132, PROBAB.=0.1102
TWO NEWS, 1 AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 4621, Σ_PROB.=0.4499, 1_PROB.=0.0409
ONE NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 396, Σ_PROB.=0.0386, 1_PROB.=0.0035
TWO NEWS, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 4122, Σ_PROB.=0.4013, 1_PROB.=0.0073
NEW ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 1528, PROBAB.=0.1488
NEW TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 8743, PROBAB.=0.8512
AT LEAST ONE OLD ZODIAC: NUMB.= 5753, PROBAB.=0.5601
AT LEAST ONE NEW ZODIAC: NUMB.= 9139, Σ_PROB.=0.8898, 1_PROB.=0.0809
C) NUMBERS AND PROBABILITIES FOR TWO OLD ZODIACS
NUMBER= 49729, PROBAB.= 0.8288 [WHOLE CHOICE 2 NEW: NUMB.=49728, PROB.=0.8288]
ONE NEW, SAME AS SOME OLD: NUMB.= 7764, Σ_PROB.=0.1561, 1_PROB.=0.0781
TWO NEW, SAME AS BOTH OLD: NUMB.= 7590, PROBAB.=0.1526
TWO NEW, ONE AS ONE OLD: NUMB.=24593, Σ_PROB.=0.4945, 1_PROB.=0.0247
ONE NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 980, Σ_PROB.=0.0197, 1_PROB.=0.0020
TWO NEW, NOT AS THE OLD: NUMB.= 8802, Σ_PROB.=0.1770, 1_PROB.=0.0039
NEW ONE-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.= 8744, PROBAB.=0.1758
NEW TWO-ZODIACAL CHOICE: NUMB.=40985, PROBAB.=0.8242
AT LEAST ONE OLD ZODIAC: NUMB.=39947, Σ_PROB.=0.8033, 1_PROB.=0.4016
AT LEAST ONE NEW ZODIAC: NUMB.=34375, Σ_PROB.=0.6912, 1_PROB.=0.0691
TOTAL AT LEAST 1 OLD: NUMB.=45700, Σ_PROB.=0.7617, 1_PROB.=0.4165 [:1.8288]
TOTAL AT LEAST 1 NEW: NUMB.=43514, Σ_PROB.=0.7252, 1_PROB.=0.0713 [:10.1712]
TAB. 4. LISTING WITH STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM COMPUTERIZED MODELING OF THE COMBINED VARIANT.
The history of all societies is a history of selection of public leaders! However strong and powerful one country is, if it is not well organized and governed, the society cannot demonstrate this, to what it is capable, the country is torn by internal confrontations and becomes easy prey for others, better organized than it, countries. And much more needed is the good organization if the country is poor and weak. But in the human society the organization is performed by the humans and, therefore, it reduces mainly to finding of most capable rules and setting them at the head of the power. In conditions of dictatorship this is performed from above, where in conditions of democracy — from below, but the problem remains, because it is very difficult to be solved and, usually, some decision is taken, but with no guaranties that it is the best one. Let us have a better look at this.
Under the dictatorship the rulers are appointed by the dictatorial body (be it one person or some counsel), what is good, if this body is competent and honest, bus as far as this rarely happens the good dictatorships are also rarity in the history, and what is worse: when there come incapable rulers they compensate in abundance for all good, which their predecessors have done. Under the dynastic and monarchical forms of governing it is accepted that the choice of the new dictator must be done from the descendants of the old, because the "seed" is the same, but this, alas, guaranties nothing. The only plus of the choice from above is that the area for searching of rulers is restricted to few and related with some aristocratic or other relations persons having received good education and who can, more or less, be made known to the dictator, i.e. some diminishing of the pool of choice is achieved.
Under the democratic choice (the choice from below) the things go well only if the group of voters is relatively small, and they can know good the persons whom they choose, but on a state's level this choice appears to be nearly as bad as the other one, with the single plus that the bad ruler can't state for long in power and can easily be changed with another one (usually as incompetent as the previous!). However small this advantage is, it, still, is something, so that we shall try to retain it, i.e. we will observe the democratic model, but let us not be mistaken that it works now good, because the problem of choice remains! This is the problem that when one chooses somebody, who is to rule him (or her), he must choose the more competent one, but for this purpose he alone must be competent enough in order to make the choice! In other words, one can choose only such boss for himself who is as good as he is (or worse), but not better one, by the simple reason that he is not in condition to assess him right! The things worsen even more because the managerial art isn't at all an area with which everybody is familiar (as, for example, the football), so that the ordinary citizen simply has no chances to be specialist in it.
At any rate, this has to be obvious, because in each human activity there exist commissions for making of decisions about the abilities of competitors, and these commissions are more competent than the very participants, but in the national elections it is on the contrary! The choice from below can work only in case of very small difference in the abilities of the competitor and the commission, what can make it similar to the competent choice from above. For this reason the humanity from times immemorial applies the simplest rule of iterative choice, where small groups of people choose their representatives, which form another groups, where the same rule is applied, and so on, until the top level is reached. This is the main method of work in each party or group of people, where the democratic choice is applied. The only reason why this is not done in general elections is the difficulty for performing of such estimation, but only this is the right way, if we want to make good decision! We from the Initiative for Iterative Elections (IIE) have definite proposition, which we shall explain below, but let us first clarify the obvious minuses of the existing democratic choice, which are wisely hidden by all traditional parties, or, better, by the politicians on the higher levels of power.
a) In the direct national elections people vote, as a rule, for parties, not for personalities! This is easy to explain because the parties live longer and are better cognizable than the personalities, and because it is tacitly presupposed that in the very parties the iterative choice is applied, but neither this can always be guarantied, nor the parties are just sums of their members. The parties are places for career making and receiving of personal benefits, what has to say that the party members have their own interests, different from those of the people who they represent. Besides, the party system contradicts to the democracy, because the democracy requires access to the power for wider masses of citizens, where the members of all parties in a given country usually don't exceed 10% of its population, what gives us reasons to speak about partocracy, or ruling of the parties! Anyhow, this is sufficiently clear, but all parties taken together resolutely keep silence about this (and this question, as it seems, is the only one on which they have consensus) and insist, each in its own way, that they are the best representatives of the people. The important thing for us here is to reach to the conclusion that the choice must be held out for personalities, and only after their choosing they may be united in some groups with similar views of the things, but this groups must not obliterate their singularity.
b) The choice at the top, naturally, means not knowing the people and this leads to lack of objectivity and exclusion of the right decision. This follows from the mentioned in the beginning problem of the choice, and because of this it follows that leaders on the top must advertise themselves in the same way as, for example, one car model, or prostitute, is advertised, where is not at all necessary that the most popular persons are also the best ones. One cannot choose somebody in a democratic manner if this somebody does not volunteer alone, and with this he (or she) can demonstrate only his higher self-esteem, though not some other qualities. But when a young boy intends to marry he does not go in the public house to search there for his future bride, does he? The electors must vote for persons from their near surroundings, who they know, not for those from the political high-life — and this also is pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to confuse the things.
c) The representatives of the people have no information about their electors, so that they, in fact, don't know who they are representing, and in this case they simply apply their personal (i.e. party) views, but not those of the voters! The single thing that they know is from which region they were elected but this is a pure formality, because the dividing of people in regions of habitations is not at all important feature of the voters — such characteristics would be, for example: the differences in ownership of capitals, or of age, or ethnical, educational, and so on differences. Besides, splitting by regions has no meaning on a level of our Parliament (the National Assembly), which is one national institution. If we direct our sights to the primal source of democracy — the Ancient Athens — so there were elected representatives of 50 genders (called dems), what for that time was a substantial sign of differences between people. But if the delegates of people don't know which strata of population they represent, then they are not representatives of the people at all! If they meet from time to time with "their" voters, then these people are not necessary exactly those who have elected them (because this can't be proved), but just people who want to use the position of a given representative in order to rise higher some question, or because they have no other things to do and on account of this go to these gatherings (but the same question they could have set also before representatives of some other political power).
For these reasons the traditional elections are plainly procedure for lawful validation of the power of political oligarchy and for facilitating of its linking with certain business circles! The difficulty for choosing of persons from the near surroundings or everybody, just because of their abilities or moral features, here is changed with one electoral farce, intending "shutting up the mouths" of the general public, that they are, seemingly, those who make the choice. Only our IIE is able to fight with this wryly-understood democracy proposing the following
Primarily requirement of the new procedure is the possibility for each one to vote for everyone, not because the latter have applied for but because the former thinks that he (or she, surely) can trust the chosen person with defending of his interests! Under the present-day development of the computerized technique this can be performed very easily where each person can choose up to five persons, including himself, if he finds that he is capable enough to, or at least will, take part in the governing of the country. The order in which the proposing is made has no importance, and the very persons are marked by unique number which for our country is the so called Unique Citizenship Number (UCN — or, then, the insurance number, or how it's accepted in the country), where in the subsequent processing erroneous numbers are excluded and doubling ones are counted once.
At the first sight may seem that the requirement for everybody to know the exact UCN of the person for whom he wants to vote is an essentially difficult one, but this could have been so before half to one century, maybe, not nowadays, because each official candidate can together with his name make known also his UCN (this isn't an address, for to be afraid to tell it to all around). Besides, everybody would be allowed to ask his close friends or relatives about their UCN-s and write them on a piece of paper. On the place of work there are no problems for everyone when he writes his name (on the door or in some list) to write also his UCN, which, anyway, exists officially in the office. And why not to carry some badge on the lapel with his name and the UCN when some elections are in the near vicinity — maybe someone may find him worth liking when meeting on the street? But there are also no problems to have some officially available data bases (in the Municipal Councils or in the electoral clubs) of all persons from a given region or for the country, where by various signs like: some of the names, age, place of living, etc., to be possible to make the needful selection and find the UCN, if this proves to be useful.
In this way we do not reject altogether the parties and the possibility to make choice on the top, because together with his near acquaintances one may wish to vote also directly for some well known leader (who can be a politician, or football star, or good professional in some area). What is important is that this choice must be done in iterations, where on each next stage there vote 10 to 20 times less people. In this case 3 to 4 iterations will suffice for the choice of Parliament, and even less for the Municipal Councils. It must be clear that in each subsequent stage vote only the corresponding number of the first in a list ordered by the number of votes received for them, but they can vote again for everybody (for now), with exception of the last time, so that some persons may enter in the list of elected in next iterations, too. In the last iteration, which must contain about thousand persons, must be provided possibility for them to meet personally and acquaint one with another, where here must be chosen persons only between themselves (in order to avoid inclusion in the last moment of arbitrary persons, or of possibilities for easy buying of votes). So that we propose the following variant of voting in our country.
2.1. Choice of Parliament
a) First iteration: starting with all voters (about 6 mln.), each of which votes for each of these persons, till the first 300,000 of them with the most votes given for them, according to an ordered list of the chosen containing only UCN and the number of votes received for them.
b) Second iteration: from 300,000 voters to the first 20,000 with the most votes given for them by the same rules.
c) Third iteration: from 20,000 to 1,000 in the same way, where this time the choice is performed in the Regional Electoral Bureaus, because of the diminished number of the persons.
d) Forth iteration: from 1,000 persons to the needed number in the Parliament, which we propose to be exactly 100 persons, where this time each one of them votes again for 5 persons but only between these thousand. In addition to this before this stage of elections there must be at least one month time, during which these people must succeed to associate with one another, staying for two weeks together (in some tourist resort, for example), having in their disposition various possibilities for personal contacts and expressing of their views for the strategy of governing in the given moment. This thousand chosen delegates may be looked at as one Enlarged National Assembly (Parliament) and as natural reserve for further supplying of the future one when needed. Here is permitted to arise division of this people according with their political views, or some other characteristics (age, education, etc.). The very voting finds place in the Central Electoral Bureau (or in the National Assembly), where it is preferable for it to be also open.
In relation to the coding of the votes we propose it to be done on usual punch cards (the same that have been used in the computer centers before 10 to 20 years), where everyone may prepare his card when he wishes in an interval of two months in the corresponding bureaus to the Municipal Councils using there some data base for to be sure in the numbers of the UCN of the candidates. In the election day there must be such devices in the electoral bureaus, or to be used these in the Councils and in the bureaus to be accomplished only the voting. Together with this must be enabled also the potentiality for everyone, if he so wishes, to vote also in advance and openly , leaving one such punch card and receiving a copy of it, confirmed with the needed signs (of the administrator and his) and a seal of this institution. Mark that, when people vote for persons, there are no reasons for whoever to be afraid that he knows somebody and trusts him, more so, if these are not people from the top, as it is supposed to be on the first iterations!
The processing of the votes should not be difficult (it is time-consuming, but that is why the computers exist — for to "work" in place of the humans), where it will consist in one preparatory phase of transferring of the records from all punch cards for a given section to a magnetic medium (no matter in what order), and subsequent filling of one file with two fields for each record: UCN and the number of votes for this person, which has to be maintained ordered by UCN. Afterwards, on regional level, these files (from different sections) are merged (united) maintaining them ordered by UCN. After merging also on national level this file is sorted by the field for the number of votes and is separated the needed number of records (persons) from the beginning of the file. (In case that the next several persons after the last chosen have the same number of votes like him they are also included, because the exact number is not important.) It leaves then to inform all these partially chosen for each level people that they continue the election. There are no problems for whatever checks and examinations from whatever political power of the files and their processing.
2.2. Choice of Municipal Councils
Here the things are entirely similar, only that the iterations will be in other boundaries. If we take for granted that one Municipality has, say, 50,000 people, then on the second stage is enough if there vote 3,000, and on the third — 200 people. Only that in this case during the processing must also be sieved out the persons who are not registered in the region. There are no problems, though, if this processing is done on the same punch cards for the choice of Parliament, because they, anyway, are carried out by regions, so that the necessity of new elections (at least for the first iteration) may vanish. In addition must be noted also that there is no need of common elections for judicial authorities, because the masses, in any case, don't know them, and these elections may take place in the corresponding Municipality, where the candidates may meet in person and make acquaintances with the representatives of the people (or even with an enlarged number of them — those from the last iteration), instead of applying of one purely formal procedure.
2.3. Choice of President
By the iterative elections there is no need for doing of separate choice of President /Vice-President, because this may be done in the very National Assembly, but if we so much want to increase the selection, then the thousand people who have voted on the last iteration may be used for the purpose. Generally speaking, this Enlarged Assembly may be used also for various other purposes (say, for inquiries), because it will be a sufficiently good representative choice of the population, something that is absent from all contemporary democratic elections.
After the proposed by IIE variant of elections is applied several times and the citizens palpably experience its advantages there will be made necessary some enhancements and accelerations of the method. Here we will mention five more important moments.
a) The elections will become open and clear! As we have already mentioned, when everybody votes for people from his immediate surroundings there are no reasons for fears to state openly his vote, what in effect will eliminate the possibility for falsification of the elections, because easily can be faked this, that can't be seen, where this, what is known and can be proved elementary, nobody will try to forge. But then this means that there is no need of one election day with the traditional commotion, and everyone will be in position to fulfill his choice in convenient for him hours in one reasonable span of time (of about a month), where the election day will be simply the last moment for the given stage. The open choice will require also entering of the UCN of the voter (for example, as the last one and preceded with the symbol "@"), but this in turn will provide possibility for demonstration of all other pluses given below.
b) Everybody will be able to vote from his home or place of work, using the computerized network, doing in the same time all needful checks in the data bases. This can be done with sufficiently high level of protection and security using personal keywords (as it is done, for example, by getting money from the bankomats or cash dispensers). After that moment will be possible to require in each iteration to be named persons only between the voters for the given level, because it will be easy to make fast check whether the UCN in question is from the allowed ones, and if it's not so then to show some other person. It is possible also to do more iterations so that the diminishing of the pool each time to be only about 10 times (five iterations for Bulgaria), what will increase the accuracy of the elections. All in all, this means that elections could be done even each year, if this will be forced by the circumstances, and they will cost almost nothing to the state.
c) It can, and must, be introduced weight of the votes for each iteration (after the first), because these (say, 300 thousand), which have been elected on the preceding level, have entirely different representativeness, i.e. number of people who have voted for them! In some open elections there are no problems in addition to the five UCN and this of the voter to enter one more field in the record for fixing of the weight of his vote, which on the first level is filled with one but for each next level will be automatically filled in the process of computerized processing, where for each chosen by somebody person in the field for the number of voted for him people is added not one but this number. Then will be possible rightly to say how much "costs" the vote of each one of the voters on every level of the elections, what in the last iteration will show exactly how much people have chosen, directly or indirectly, the given Representative of the people (and not only how much persons on the last level have voted for him). In this way will be reached the ideal variant of voting, where could be possible to be traced, when needed, the whole tree of the choice, as from top to bottom (who from whom was chosen), also from bottom to top (who which persons has chosen). And mark that here it goes about each one from the hundred persons in the National Assembly separately, not mixed for all candidates from the list of some party for which there are given some number of votes (but in one region the candidates are one, and in another — other people).
d) It will be possible to make all imaginable statistical analyses of the voters. In the previous subsection we have hinted this but let us stress that in the nation-wide elections the question is not "who whom", but "who from what people", i.e. age, education, profession, ethnical identity, and other parameters, which can be extracted from some more accurate data bases for the country. This will help the MPs to execute maximally near to the interests of the real voters policy, as also to give ear to their meanings (via email, for example), because the meaning of one person is one thing, but the situation is entirely different if behind this person stay, say, 42 people!
e) The society will unite itself and its conscious attitude to the elections will enhance. When everyone after the first level begins really to express the meanings of the others, and everybody before the last one will be deprived of the possibility to make career and take personal benefits out of the elections, then also everyone will begin to approach them more seriously and try to give all he can squeeze out of himself. The humans, surely, are egoists, but they are not imbeciles and each one aspires for supremacy if this can be achieved, but otherwise there leaves nothing else to him unless to think about the society, for the very reason that he wants to be admired by the others (who have trusted him with their votes). It is normal to suppose that the majority of the people, when they see that they represent more than a ten of persons, will try to find in some way (say, via a standard questionnaire) the views of these persons, with the aim that in the next elections these people could again express faith in them. And the ways for this will be quite available, because if today (about the 2000) in the developed countries nearly 10% of the population has access to Internet at home or in the office, then after some 10 years their part may become 1/4, and after 20-30 years this will be so accessible as the TV nowadays.
In the most of democratic countries the population looks at the politicians as at some elitarian stratum which is not approachable for the masses and is ready to bet on them as it is done in lotto on in horse racings. But this is so because of the lack of involvement with them, as also from the part of the latter to the masses which have elected them. Only IIE finds the right way for uniting of the society in one whole body, where each one carries his part of responsibility for the destinies of the others, and the more to the top we went the more heavier becomes this responsibility. The future of the elections is only in the open and iterative elections, based on direct contacts and possibility for expressing of one's own meaning about the persons for whom is voted. The choice on the top, especially of people related by tight and unifying party platforms, and not of particular personalities, erodes the foundations of democracy. The Representatives of the people must really represent the nation (or part of it) and not their parties, and such representativeness can be reached only with the help of IIE.
Give support to our IIE, because we support the proved during the centuries iterative choice of gradually executed voting from below, solely able to overcome successfully the problem of choice.
Show reason, show understanding, show initiative — choose our Initiative!
IIE gives the iteration, the iteration betters the democratization!
** Here are three "i"-s in the original because "election" in Bulgarian begins with this letter.
The history of all societies is a history of continuous establishing of existing tendencies while reaching the required level of ripeness! It has newer occurred that something was settled and legalized in the society before it has arisen as a germ and has acquired some procreation, which has enforced the setting on the agenda of the question of its accepting; but this only has never been enough if the thing in question has not corresponded well in its degree of development or ripeness to the needs of society and mostly of its government. The first part of the above statement defends the thesis that in the social development can't be seen unmotivated ideas, which have not initially arisen as non-justified, or non-lawful, or heretical thoughts, because there is no way to fix something about which nothing is known (and the new things in the beginning are considered heretical), what is obvious. The second part of the statement requires some time for comprehension or maturing of the idea, until it becomes "palatable", i.e. for its establishing as principle in the social government, where the different ideas need different level of ripening for to be taken out of the sphere of unofficial practice and accepted as rightful in the official; dually viewed we may assert that the society has to ripen for to accept some new proposal. This, naturally, is only a qualitative relationship, but it suffices for our aims, as we shall see later.
So for example in the foundations of slave order, surely, has existed the idea for giving more freedom to the slaves in the limits of some isolated place or island, where they could be in position to move freely but can't run far away, only there was needed much time till this idea has ripen in the form of owning of serfs (i.e. of attaching to the land, without which one could have not sustained his life in those times). Similarly has come the next freeing of population via substituting of the serfdom with setting the people in dependence only upon the means for existence, i.e. on the goods produced with their labour, which they can exercise everywhere, provided someone is ready to pay them for the work. Another example give us the measures for punishing of the heretics or the persons convicted to be possessed by evil powers — in bud there were present all possible measures, but were applied only those of them which were the most suitable, according to the taste of the rulers, and when some measure has "over-ripened" then it was rejected or substituted with another one.
It can also be mentioned that the ideas of communism have existed in some form back in the times of Plato, but there were needed to pass many centuries until they could have ripen enough for to be applied somewhere, and, still, not everywhere, but in certain countries where they were proved to be most suitable for usage, otherwise, communes have existed long before the emergence of communism. In the same way we may observe also the appearing and legalizing of different social norms or civil rights, which are applied when this becomes possible. There exists certain analogy in the degree of ripeness of these things and the taste which have, for example, the tomatoes, or cucumbers, or melons, if you like, where nobody would have liked green tomato or overripe cucumber, and the capitalism usually is liken with the taste of the medlar because until it is overripe it's good for nothing (something in which we should have convinced ourselves from our experience in the last democratic years).
What concerns the corruption, then it has existed from the beginning of the world, but till now its time has not come to be recognized in the governing, because it was still green, or the society was not ripe enough for to appreciate its taste. But the fact, that it is applied illegitimately and unofficially almost everywhere, says that there are many connoisseurs of its taste, as also that it successfully complements various lawful situations, where with the help of it often a right decision is reached. And, really, for that who gives a decent baksheesh to some governmental officer, for example, in order to compensate the unjustness of some law, or to "grease" some judicial institution, is just the same whether the decision is got after he has paid a tax to the state, or he has paid it to the officer; and for the latter is also one and the same whether he receives enough money from the state to defend the justice, or he defends it against an additional payment.
As you see, if the baksheesh is in the interest of fairness it is morally acquitted, so that bad is not the corruption but the system of law and order which causes it, where it can be boldly stated that there is no law, which is always just, and even less so to be just for the mostly deprived and weak part — at the best case it can be right for the stronger one, i.e. for the state. Be it as it may, we expose these thoughts not in order to condemn the laws or the judicial personnel, but to acquit the corruption, if it is in the interest of something more important — be it some freedoms, be it more happiness for the people, be it more effective defending of these same laws.
The very word "corruption", or the adjective corrupt in English, means pollution and comes from the Latin, but what is the pollution if not a certain degree of ripeness?! If we return again to the analogy with the melon then it (from the positions of the cucumber) may be taken for "corrupted" when people use it as food (as well as also the paradise apple, or the medlar, or the capitalism, according to the above remark), but this does not impede it to be tasty and nourishing. And isn't that animal called vulture, to which all look with great disgust because it feeds on decaying and decomposing food, at the same time be called also "sanitarian of the nature", because it fulfills very useful functions? And is there a country which may boast that it has succeeded to combat completely the prostitution, which is one typical instance of the decaying of the moral, but exists from the times of Babylon, and up to the current day, no matter whether legally or not, because it is needed for the society and has ever been needed (and will be, at least until the opposite tendency arises in some wide-away future)? So that the corruption should not shock us at all, but must make us to think when and where it is needed! We dare to announce that the corruption in the politics, obviously, is necessary and unavoidable (at least because it, anyway, exists), and the time has come to make it legal, because it is needful for the democracy, or the democracy requires it! So that let us begin.
The real democracy has various drawbacks which could be eliminated, and here we shall stress on some of them which can be overwhelmed with the help of our Corrupted Cadres Wing (CCW). They reduce mainly to the inability for mutual help between the voters and the elected persons and are the following:
a) The lack of direct contact of the chosen delegates with the voters and vice versa is one very important minus of all really existing democracies. If we look non-partially at the things we shall see that the anonymous choice makes the things very complicated, because no Representative of the people can know whether someone has voted for him (or her, surely) or not. More then this, he does not know what people on the average have chosen him — young or old, with secondary or tertiary education, employees or owners, from what ethnical groups, et cetera —, and this knowledge could have been of use during his activity, in order to know whom he defends. The meetings with the "voters" are not meetings with his real voters (and that is why we set them in quotes); it is not clear whether the people who try to find him personally have really voted for him, i.e. whether they have aided him and whether have believed in him, or want now to use his position, but on this world everybody wants to know who are his people, on whom he can rely. The anonymous choice is such because till now has not been set the requirement for it not to be such (at least for some parties), i.e. till now the situation has not have ripened, and the anonymous bulletins are just an easy way for choosing. Until, however, the voters and the elected ones can not know one another at least on paper (i.e. by name, or Unique Citizenship Number, or some document, which may confirm the choice) they will not act affiliated and united; until there is no way for them to lend hands (even not directly) before the elections, they will not lend them also after the elections! If under the democracy the ruling of country is done by Representatives of the people, so the former must know what people they really represent, otherwise the representativeness is a pure formality and demagogy.
b) The lack of mutual help between the two sides in the democratic elections sets great difficulties before the individual (independent) candidates, which may be expressed both ways: the poor politicians, for their part, have practically no chances to be elected, because the electoral campaign costs big money (and instituting of property qualification, as it is in some countries, is anti-democratic element); the wealthy individuals or legal entities, for another part, can't legally enforce their choosing, or of their representative, with some kind of bribe or reward for the voters (who would have been only glad to receive something free), and when some people from the masses want something that makes nothing to the others it is entirely democratic to give it to them. With the parties the things are otherwise because they are supported by their party members, i.e. the parties, de facto, are bribed or corrupted, and for that reason they have money for pre-electoral campaign, as also for their post-electoral functioning! This, that the regular members don't give bribes to particular persons, but to some kind of "non-personal" non-profit associations, does not mean that these alliances are not corrupted in the usual meaning of the word, because the parties perform their activities in return for the party fees collected from the members dividing the money between the ruling body, but this is pure bribe, because it is given in advance, just that it is legalized and is not called so. Such procedure, though, does not exist for the individual candidates and it is time to make this also legal.
c) The democratic elections are not controlled openly by the capital, what could have been good if we lived, say, under the feudalism, but in one capitalistic economy the important thing is the capital (for the English speaking persons this is obvious because this word means together with a big sum of money also a major town, and the root is Latin meaning a head). The bad thing is not when the capital forms the choice of the masses, but when the masses don't want this, what the capital offers them, yet there is nothing non-democratic if the people may win from this, influencing the choice via their capitals, or the other way round — when they may receive some capitals for their choices. It is, really, high time to come to the right understanding of this question, because the current situation is such that the capital, in any case, forms the choice of the public, but not at all in the interest of the masses! If some group of people, big enough to ballot their own Representative in the Parliament, or at least in the Municipal Council, wants to pay (something small, usually, because the persons are many) in order to have there reliable defender so this is entirely reasonable and democratic, as well as if one big company decides to pay something to the people who vote for its own individual (because if they vote for him or her then this means that such is their wish!), so this also is correct. The financial corruption in the elections is called so only because it is not fixed in the laws and legalized, so that we are for legalizing of the corruption, which in this way will vanish!
a) There must not be required always secret voting and if the voter wanted to give his vote in the open, then he should be allowed to do this, where he will receive some document confirming his choice, which he may use later if needed. This does not require fundamental changes in the Election Law but some time from two to four weeks before the official date of the elections, during which those who wish to vote openly will be able to do this in the corresponding Municipal Councils, where their choice will be fixed in computerized data base and their names will be checked off in the electoral lists. In the existing law it is possible to vote by telegram but as a rare exception, if the voter isn't at the moment in the country, where we wish that this will be made a rule. In this way everybody (who wishes, of course) will be able to prove his choice, be it in order to guarantee easier access to some chosen person, be it to pretend later for some present by the person or company which stays behind him, be it to be entitled to ask for some responsibility from the chosen person, if he was, so to say, his "share holder" in his choosing — the specific form of mutual cooperation between the voters and the chosen persons will be established in each party or coalition, which accepts the platform of the CCW. In this sense there may exist different Wings for each of the cases, with their own regulations.
b) There must not be required obligatory entering of the names of the candidates in the electoral lists of the parties, because for the choice alone is important the number of mandates for each political power participating in the elections (the seats in the Parliament or Municipality) and not the particular persons, who can be established according to the regulations of each of these powers also after the elections in a period of again two to four weeks. This will facilitate much the individual candidates — and they are the really democratic nominees — because they will be able to unite in some Wing, and on the basis of the received after the choice documents will become clear who exactly from them is chosen, as also with how many votes for each of the candidates. Such document could be one additional piece of the quittance given from the Municipality by the open voting (one exemplar has to be for the voter, and one for the archives of the Central Electoral Commission), in which the voter can enter the name of the actual candidate from the Wing and mail it or bring it on hand. In the central base will be kept data only for the parties participating in the elections, not for the persons, and everyone who has voted openly will have the duty to send this piece to his candidate.
In this case the CCW will be able to jump over the threshold for participating in the elections (in Bulgaria it is 4 per cent) and each of the individual candidates having reached the needful number of voices will really enter in the corresponding instance, where these (supposedly many) of the candidates, for which there are not enough voices in the beginning, will be able to receive or give their voices to others (it doesn't matter whether we shall say "give" or "sell" because when one gives something he does this, either on account of some past, or some future, service, i.e. each favour has its price!), where only for one candidate will not be enough voices, and many will drop out, but shall win something from this via the initially received for them voices. In this way the necessity of individual candidates vanishes because they will unite in Wings and will become more powerful and able to compete with the parties, but each of the parties can also will benefit from this requirement because there is no need for some person to enter his name in 3-4 election lists (in different regions), and there is no need at all for each elections to make lists with the names of candidates because they, anyway, are from one and the same party and only its name suffices (what will make the procedure of elections much more cheaper). In addition to this the performed in this way elections for Parliament will become really national (because it is national institution) and there is no matter at all from which region the given person is elected, and if he wants to know by whom is elected then he could be able to find this by the pieces from the quittances for open voting (if the voted for him send them to him).
c) There must be legalized the corruption between voters and chosen persons and be given publicity to all financial machinations accompanying the elections, because everybody has rights to know what person or party which financial backing and from whom has received for to conduct the elections, as well as after this, too, what receives or gives. If some firm wants to buy his representative in the Parliament giving to everybody who has voted for him by one share, then why not to make this in the open, instead of to search some "doors" in the laws or to throw unnecessary financial resources for advertisements (unnecessary because they don't enter into the pockets of the voted for its candidate)? If money drive the wold, then let us at least know how they do this! This corruption is needed for the people and, as far as it existed, is better to render it legally (because else it happens something like the existence of ethnical party in Bulgarian Parliament, which is not called so because this isn't allowed by the law, but this does not hinder it to be ethnical and to exist).
Also, what is wrong if some region, or professional, or ethnical organization, wants to ballot its own person, who, though, is poor enough to organize alone campaign for his election, but each one of those people would have, with light hand and pure heart, donated some small sum of about, say, a pare of dollars? These people can simply become auctioneers of this person and choose him, and even collect later by, say, one more dollar, in order to give him the possibility to build himself some decent home, where to receive his voters. Instead of corruption only of the parties we want that everyone could be in position to corrupt himself, because this is an expression of democratic rights and freedoms, and the people must receive them!
When the Corrupted Cadres Wing achieves the necessary influence between the population the elections will become one democratic share market, where wins the better politician, and from this, at the end, win the people. The politicians will begin to be bought and sold as the football stars, for example, but in what one politician is worse than a well-known football player? Does he not have an appearance, or the needed education, or does he not bring emotions to the people who, anyway, want not only bread but also circuses? The only thing that out politicians don't have is money and that is why they often are forced to harm the state (what means the people), but if they cost millions, and given voluntarily by their supporters (be it private persons or companies), then the masses will be more satisfied by their "play" (to say nothing about the very politicians). When the politicians become richer they will work even more productive for the happiness of the people (because will be legally well ensured), and this, that the capital will propel the things is not only justified, but will also include the common people in this play, because everyone will be allowed to support whoever he wishes and win by this.
Every politician must be allowed to institute his own political company, which is to exist on the principle of joint-stock company and to sell shares to whoever wants to buy and win together with him! The shares of one politician will rise and of another one fall but they will be bought and sold, and these will be real shares, not some literal hyperbolas! Each one having given his voice for the politician will receive against payment one share, and the very politician could be allowed to buy in each elections from 10 to 50 of them (depending on the level of elections and some national rating), but later on, on a common assembly of share holders will be decided about the distribution of the dividends each year, as well as about emitting of additional shares. In each new elections, in which the politician takes part will be emitted new shares under the same regulations. The politician alone may have the highest number of shares in this firm of his own but this isn't at all mandatory; he (or she, surely) may receive some help from political parties or business organizations, but also from every common citizen who wants to do this; the political firm will make business like every other one, but will be engaged mostly with maintaining the image and marketing of the politician. But well, that is the life, that is the share market, that is the capitalism, where the talking about corruption is outdated babble of the defenders of our totalitarian past, when everything was done concealed from the people and later they were just informed about the taken decisions. With us everybody will have the real chance to win out of the elections and politicians, and this will be only beneficial for the people.
Besides, let us not forget also the following important moment, which will be direct consequence of the activity of CCW, and this is the assertion that only proper business foundations in the politics will give good possibility for individual development of the politician and for complete manifestation of his abilities, what is namely the goal of each democratic society. The people choose the actual personality and the parties are only some linking and depersonalizing instrument and, in this sense, only via CCW could be reached real democracy, where is valued first of all the personality and singularity of the politician as representative of the public and not his devotion to some common ideas. The way to modern democracy unavoidably passes through the Corrupted Cadres Wing!
To legalizing of political corruption in order to eliminate it from political life!
Set the politics on business fundament for to better and elevate it!
Ahead to real democracy with the Corrupted Cadres Wing!
** Here the letters in the original are three "k"-s and wing is krilo.
The history of all societies is a history of fight for power between common and chosen (by God) people, between patricians and plebeians, between people and aristocracy! This is so because, for one thing, the governing isn't an easy activity which can be performed by incompetent and unprepared for the purpose people, but, for another thing, the more deficient one is, the less he understands this and the more thinks that he knows everything and wants to have his say in the government (surely for to muddle the things in the end). The aristocracy has the important advantage of people grown up in cultivated environment and received good education from early childhood, people for whom it is proper to say that they have sucked the good manners already with their mother's milk. The fact that they, as a rule, are not encumbered with the necessity to win their bread with disgusting labour, as the other part of the population, gives them the possibility to live for their own pleasure and creative expression, because to show his own abilities is the highest pleasure for those wealthy in spirit! At the same time the aristocrats don't need to make career at all costs, in order to find their place under the Sun, as it is the case with the "plebeians"; they have their good place already with their birth and when they take some important positions in the hierarchy of government they have no other possibility unless to do their work properly (because nothing makes them to do this, other than their moral sense)
Put it otherwise, the practical lack of selfish incentives in the governing makes the aristocrat the ideal ruler, and the more prosperous one ruler is, the less is for him the danger to "lose the bone" and all related with this privileges, the more unconcerned is he in the power and the more competent is his ruling! In this connection is useful to remind the accustomed between the ordinary people rule that a clever person, when surrounded by swarm of gnats, does not drive them away at all, because these, that have sucked full bellies with his blood, keep away the new and hungry ones. Together with this we should not forget also the fact that the aristocrat knows from early age what will be his place in the government and receives the corresponding specialized education, so that he is ready for the activity which will perform, where the plebeian-ruler, more often than not, has no managerial, as we say nowadays, education.
But all this, surely, has been known to the people from ancient times and was applied in social ruling long before the emerging of democracy, as it continues to be applied in nearly half of the world centuries after the widespread proliferation of the latter. The non-unknown totalitarian nomenclature was yet another attempt for realization of the above-mentioned pluses of predetermined rulers. The main drawback of this method is the fact that the masses are to be forced somehow to obey the aristocracy, where the ways for doing this are usually only two: either by compulsion, or by deception! If it is necessary may be invented some absolutely impossible lie, which can enable achieving of the goal for unquestioning obedience of the masses (like this, that the aristocracy has blue blood instead of red, like all the others, or that the God itself has made himself the trouble to choose them for rulers and this must be passed from father to first-born son and from him to his son, et cetera, until the end of the world) — each measure is good if it achieves the result. This, what is bad in this case, is that the goal not always can be realized. But let us analyze more precisely the situation, in order to see what, still, is missing from the good idea, what hinders it to be applied everywhere, and formulate in this way
If the common person was honest enough with himself (what, alas, happens very rarely) he should have confessed that the single reason, why he does not like the aristocracy very much, is the fact that he alone is not from it! And not only that he is not an aristocrat, but there is no way for him to became one, when he has not been born as such (it is true that there are some exceptions, but they are so rare that only confirm the rule), and at the same time people are longing most strongly for this, that is most hardly attainable for them, and don't want to accept the impossibility to enter in the list of the chosen. This eager wish, in principle, is something good, because it allows mobilization of the powers in necessary direction, but in our case this unrealizable desire just hinders the successful governing of the masses.
The good thing of the aristocracy is the social environment, in which it grows and is brought up, its material invulnerability and its wish to do something useful for the others (because there is nothing else left to it), where the bad thing is ... its heredity, which irritates the "plebeians", and exactly the realization and distinguishing of these moments build the backbone of the idea for New Nomenclature! If we find a way to "kill" the heredity, but preserve by this the privileged state of one group of people from the moment of their birth, we shell get only pluses without minuses, because we take for granted (and many times validated) that the abilities of geniuses, in whatever field, are not transferred to the posterity (something that highly impedes the descendants of known persons, because their ancestors shadow them throughout their whole lives). But is then possible to have an aristocracy without inheritance, or this is just one chimera? Indubitably yes — reply we from the New Nomenclature's Offensive (NNO) to the first question, because we contemplate the matter scientifically and substantiated. Yes, of course — say we, because we are realists and democrats — and if other people before us have not seen the elementary decision, then this is only because they have not searched on the right place!
But if the belonging to the New Nomenclature will not be passed by heredity, then how it will be passed? The answer is really obvious — via some choice, for which there are no reasons to be selective by some given criteria, because it is not clear of what kind they must be, neither is possible to be taken the right decision already in very young children age of the chosen person (because the living environment must be settled very early)! Then we are left with nothing else as to apply the only proper, in situation of uncertain information, choice — the arbitrary choice, used frequently also by the very nature (or God, if you prefer this notion). Only the arbitrariness can democratize the idea of aristocracy and make it appealing to the public! Only the arbitrariness can give chances to everyone to be from the chosen (by God), as well as to pacify and convince the masses in the rightfulness of the choice! Only the arbitrariness can make "the wolf satisfied" and "the sheep alive", but which must be the exact procedure we shall see in the next chapter about
Such choice must take place every year, for it to be really democratic and each child to have equal chances to enter in the circle of the chosen. The first thing that must be determined is the number by which the New Nomenclature (NN) is to grow yearly and supposing that the principal sphere of its activity will be the Parliament we propose its increase for one Parliamentary mandate to be between single and double strength of the Parliament. If by regulations the elections are performed every four years this will give yearly increase of NN from1/4 to 1/2 of the number of persons in the Parliament. These figures will be substantiated later in the course of our explanation but it suffices to say here that initially, until it does not accumulate enough grown-up and capable New Nomenclature, we shall stick to the higher number, what for 200 persons in the Parliament makes exactly by hundred in an year.
The next thing to establish is the age of the children who are to be chosen and we settle on two completed years, and because of the yearly basis of elections we accept for convenience that it goes about children born on whatever day in the calendar year that was three years before the current one. More precisely we propose this to be done in a very festive setting in groups of ten persons once weekly, say on Saturday evening, beginning from the first week of February, where there are drawn three groups of numbers, namely: month of birth (where in the sphere are loaded three groups of numbers from 1 to 12, in order not to rotate it nearly empty), day of birth (there are put 31 numbers in the sphere), and one group of three numbers — the last but one of our so called UCN (Unique Citizenship Number — equivalent of social insurance number or the like), which must identify uniquely the person — which are drawn digit by digit and with return (again by loaded three packs of digits from 0 to 9; the last digit in our UCN is for control by module 11, so that it should not be drawn). The year of birth is guessed by default, because it is one and the same. As far as the purpose of the elections is to be chosen real and alive in the moment child it may happen that some group of numbers must be redrawn, where the drawn till the moment numbers which are real remain, and are drawn again only these which cannot be satisfied (say, for the 29-th of February for non-leap year is redrawn only the day but the month remains; or the drawn for the last group digits don't corresponds to alive child, or simply give too high a number and for the day there are not so many children born — in this case are redrawn only these three digits). To add that if such examination, by different reasons, could not be performed in real time, or some error occurs, then the choice is finished in the next consecutive day.
This will be one highly attractive event that will be followed with great interest by the entire nation, maybe with greater than a final of world football competition (not to speak about drawing of some lotto), because for the first time in human history the mankind will interfere actively in the affairs of "God". But this will be one game without losses, contrarily to all other drawings, where one has to pay at least for the ticket — here each born alive citizen has already received his "ticket" and it remains only to check whether it is winning, what will make him (or her, of course) an aristocrat of new type (changing radically the life of his parents, too), or he is like all the other mere mortals. The important thing is to be understood that the New Nomenclature is chosen from most early age, without distinction by gender, ethnicity, religious belief, wealthy status, and so on, and continues to be such till the end of their life, but only until that moment, where nothing is passed to the posterity of the new aristocrats. Only in this way the access to the aristocracy remains open for each of the citizens, widening in this way the main democratic rights with one new more — the right of everybody to become aristocrat! But mark that this right is not related with whatever obligations for the newly chosen and he may make political career, if he wants, yet he may do also whatever he wishes (retaining for himself also the right to do nothing, if that is whereto his heart drives him). Before this, however, each representative of the NN must first grow up and receive his education, and that is why in the next chapter we will consider
Till the end of April (but maybe earlier) the elections of the new generation of NN will be finished and to the middle of the year — we propose from 1 of July — the happy chosen ones will be in position to enter the established for the purpose special nomenclature educational institutions. Because in the beginning the children are too young till the end of the year in which they complete six years (i.e. four more years) one of their parents or guardians has the right to live together with his /her child, and after this time the teaching is performed on basis of weekly boarding. The whole sustenance of the aristocrat (and the accompanying him parent, till he has this right) is taken by these establishments and, naturally, his upbringing must be, really, first class: with small groups of maximum 12 students; individual lessons everywhere, where this must be done, even studying in educational institutions in foreign countries if needed; the most up-to-day material facilities; free of charge, not only food and medicaments, but also books and teaching aids, sporting facilities, international communication links, transport and excursions all around the world, and everything what one wealthy parent will not have spared for his offspring.
In addition to the above-said, till reaching the age for official enlisting as New Nomenclature member, what we propose to become on 21 years, each chosen person will receive also one minimal monthly salary (MMS), where till being not of passport age these sum will be paid to his /her parents, and after that moment to him /her alone. With the years this financial support will not cease but grow even higher. Insofar as each aristocratic system has its hierarchy then NN also must have some levels of division and (until in the future the very aristocrats do not decide for something better) we propose the working name newarists from third till first rank (what sounds good enough in all western languages). More precisely: till 21 years we will speak about future newarists and they will be ensured with only one MMS; after the official declaration of the young newarists of third rank their support will grow to 2 MMS; later, when reaching the second rank, they will get by 3 MMS; and for the first rank — 4 MMS. Under which conditions and when will happen the raising in aristocratic staircase (as well as whether there will be some changes in the proposed amounts) will decide the newarists alone, where for the moment we propose that the first raising to second rank happens not before the age of 40 and by the requirement of at least 10 years length of service in the ruling democratic institutions, and for the first rank — at least 55 completed years and 20 years service in this structures, where existence of the clause "for special merits" is also permitted. This, what must be fixed now, are just the limits and we set as low limit 2 MMS (1 for the future ones) and as high — 5 MMS, which are never to be exceeded. Let us stress that this is a kind of pension for each newarist between 1 and 5 MMS, but does not limit their incomes!
Therefore, it is made all possible for to spare the new aristocrats whatever worries about their sustenance, decent home, professional career or respect of the others around, supposing that left to do what they wish to, they will do what they are able to do better! But after finishing of their education nobody requires from them work of any sort in the benefit of society and they may lead the way of life of all aristocrats around the world. Some of them may become scientists, another sportsmen, third hunters or explorers, there might be craftsman, if this is what they do better, or physicians, cosmonauts, businessmen, pop stars, et cetera. Of course it is supposed that about 1/4 of them will dedicate themselves to social activity (at least after reaching of some age), if not for other reasons then because they are, in any case, always before the eyes of the public as part of the highlife, so that in the next chapter we will have a look at
As far as we from the NNO think that the newarists must be part of the governmental institutions we propose, instead of forming of separated Houses or special institutions and after this establishing how they will interact with the existing ones, to be provided for the NN just a quota in each of the ruling instances, namely: in the Municipalities, the Parliament, and the judicial authorities, where this quota is always 1/3 of the whole number (with precision of the rounding)! But this number must be understood as maximal, where NN declares one month before the corresponding elections how much places exactly will be filled by the nomenclature, and if it can not fill all its quota then the left seats are added to the chosen by the common democratic way. The important thing is that more than its quota NN can't take in nomenclature way, but nobody forbids to whoever newarist to be elected also as representative of a given political power in the standard democratic way, because there are no reasons to take the participation to NN for some depriving of the common democratic rights. In the elections for President, of course, we can't set a quota and that is why we propose NN to take part in them as an ordinary political power and present its own pair of candidates.
In contrast with the greater majority of democratic institutions, though, we are not ailing by mania of populism and, when for the taken posts is not required some special (democratic, maybe?) education, think that there must be at least some rational limitations by age as a guaranty for accumulated living experience, because the ruling, somehow, is not like the sports, sciences, or reproductive (read, sexual) activity, where the highest achievements are reached often before completing the middle age of human life span (i.e. up to 35-40 years), but precisely on the contrary! That is why we require as an additional prerequisite for taking of the nomenclature seats also the following (upper and lower) age-limits: from 30 to 50 years — for the Municipalities; from 40 to 60 years — for the Parliament and the chosen Magistrates; and from 50 to 70 years — for the President (also the Chief Prosecutor and some other significant key-positions). These are wide enough diapasons for career making in each of the listed ruling institutions, which presuppose some natural continuity in the taken posts and in the same time, preventing the political activity before 30 years of age, give possibility to each of the newarists, if he (or she) has the needed abilities, to express himself in some other specific activity (such, for which education is required), and if he can't find such area, or already reaches his threshold in the chosen one before, or accumulates enough living experience and perceives that the social government is his calling, or when, in the end, with reaching of the middle age and his gradually cooling to fast and not taught-through youthful actions comes to one average (for his country) view and understanding of life, only then to turn his sight to the politics.
After explaining the precise quotas and age-limits it is now time to revise the temps of reproducing of the New Nomenclature, which we have accepted to be between 1/4 and 1/2 of the Parliament yearly. Now, if we take one middle value of 1/3 of the Parliament and remind us that the quota of NN in the Parliament is 1/3 we will get that each year we shall have the reproduction of the whole four-yearly quota, but if we take that only 1/4 of the newarists will occupy themselves with politics in the given ages, then we will succeed for one mandate to have exactly the needed number. If thereafter we accept that the aristocrats (as also the other Representatives of the people) will remain for on the average 2-3 mandates, we shall reach one double to triple covering what (in our view) builds the ideal competition. Let us remind you that in the countries with real aristocracy not more than (supposedly) 1/10 of the aristocrats occupy themselves with politics, but in our case of specially formed such strata is possible to expect that this part will grow higher. At any rate, the reproducing of the NN (in the set limits) will be in the hands of the very nomenclature, something that for the traditional aristocracy is nowhere yet reached (and is very difficult, not to say impossible, to be reached).
The financial support of the new for the country institution must be organized via initiating of one Foundation "New Nomenclature" which will be filled initially (and when needed) from the State's budget, from various charity organizations and private persons (we may be confident that such will show themselves) as well as from the very newarists. As far as each member of the New Nomenclature can't pass some of his (or her) farm or company to his future nomenclature descendants by genetic line, he is left with nothing else as to leave his heritage to this Foundation. And here we are not speaking about some small possessions, furniture, private home of flat, cars etc., which are left to his family according to the existing in the country laws, but for real values, which one aristocrat may gather for the years of his (supposedly) highly paid activity. At any case, we propose as part of the moral codex of the newarists to figure also giving in inheritance each more substantial possession to the very institution, to which he, in fact, is obliged for what he was (together with his luck, of course). Besides, each income exceeding one limit of, say, 10 MMS (there are no lawful limitations as to how much may win such person in a month, but only to how high may be his aristocratic pension) we propose to be transferred voluntarily by him to the Foundation, in order to be reached its complete self-sustenance after some time.
Before the Foundation, though, accumulates enough assets there are to be constituted for it premises for education, means for sporting activities, relaxation, transport, etc., etc., which can't "fall from above". But even in the most unfavourable for the people case (if everything falls on their backs), having in mind that yearly for our country will be chosen only 100 future newarists, just after 50 years will be expected their number to reach 5,000 people, so that even if till that time will not be switched to its full self-sustenance (what is practically impossible) then their number will amass up to about 1/1,000 of the working-age population (about 5 mln.), or each Bulgarian will "carry on his back" only one per mil of a child, more or less, what is really funny as additional load, where the advantages of the New Nomenclature are immense!
But we not vainly mentioned not long before the number 50 years, because after this time from the choosing of the first future newarist must be held, let us name it, Great Congregation of the New Nomenclature, on which will be possibly corrected the figures of growth (but surely in the allowed limits), will be changed, maybe, the very name newarists, and will be rearranged the matters with the financial support of the Foundation. Then, maintain we from the NNO, must be approved also some Moral Codex of the newarists. Then, but not earlier, the ruling of the NN will be really passed in its hands, because only then could be supposed that the New Nomenclature, having already taken part about 10 years in the Government of the country (the Parliament) and about 20 years in the Municipal Councils, will at last have reached its maturity.
of our Manifesto of the New Nomenclature's Offensive must be stressed that the main modification of the laws, for to be we in position after some time to create our own aristocracy of one really new type, consists in establishing of the nomenclature quota of 1/3 from the future governmental institutions, which to be filled only then, when by reasons of age this becomes possible. Together with this, of course, must be settled also the financial questions with the founding and initial sustenance of the Foundation "New Nomenclature", what, surely, will not provide difficulties, where the emotions for the public will begin immediately and the confidence in scientifically-based ruling (and, more generally, selection in the society) will pour fresh stream in our democratic government! To say nothing about the worldwide contribution of our small nation to all countries which, by whatever reasons, have succeeded to destroy their aristocracy, or for which there have not yet ripened suitable economical and other conditions for its building
To scientific comprehension of the notion nomenclature cadres, as specially cultivated and brought up, chosen by the fate and protected by the nation, competent rulers of the people!
To new and fuller democratization of the society via the official acknowledgement of the right of every citizen to become aristocrat of a new type!
Ahead to the future Offensive of the New Nomenclature!