An Electoral System of Consecutive Levels

An Electoral System of Consecutive Levels

Wang Lixiong

Section I: Power is a Form of Alienation

For thousands of years human society has continued in a state of dichotomy, with centralization of power as one component and deprivation of power as the other. Societies at separate stages, regardless of their various differences, have all been alike in that they were split into two categories—the rulers and the ruled. Power is an independently existing “entity”; whoever seizes it becomes the master of society. This separation between the power-holder and society at large has come to be regarded as an unalterable principle, a normal state of affairs. Seldom does anyone consider whether or not this should be changed to say nothing of whether or not such a change would even be possible.

As I see it, this split is a form of alienation.

I. The Source of Power—The Structure of Communication

1. Indirect Communication

Some people say power derives from force, yet ordinarily when people obey power, the resort to force is not involved, while most often, they obey as a matter of “natural rightfulness”. In maintaining control, power mostly uses procedural means and not force. The reason why people endure the restrictions imposed by power is explained by the fact that outside of restrictions, power also provides a function which is indispensable to society, otherwise people could simply go off to live in distant mountain forests or desert islands. It is only out of people’s need for this function that power can assume an aura of the unalterable principle.

What is this function? Power exists only if there is a society, which is mankind’s form of cooperation, while the premise of cooperation is communication. Obviously power and communication are inseparable. Therefore this study of power takes communication as its starting-point.

In a small group, people can achieve adequate rapport in the course of direct contacts. When a group exceeds a certain size, direct contacts may meet with obstructions or chaos. As the numbers keep increasing, the inadequacy of direct communication grows only more severe. Therefore, with the exception of small tribes, fairly large societies must depend on indirect communication.

Indirect communication as such, simply means dividing a group of people more numerous than can communicate directly among themselves, into separate units such that the number of persons in each one is kept within the scope of direct communication. In each such unit a “communication center” is set up –that is to say, a person is specially appointed to engage in communication between his unit and other ones.

This kind of indirect communication can be used regardless of the number of people involved. If it exceeds the basic limit of those who can communicate directly, then the persons are re-divided into another unit (the second-level unit), a new communication center (the second level communication center) is formed, and in a similar way, it is possible to expand and develop what may be called a “framework for indirect communication”.

 

2. Functions of the Communication Framework

To sum up, the indirect communication framework has several functions:

A.    To merge the channels of communication

In communicating, members of different units need only go through their own respective “communication center”. No matter how much the scope of communication needs enlarging, the unit members need not enlarge the communication framework. This is the basic function of the “indirect communication framework”.

B.     Concentrate handling of information

A considerable part of the information needed by people living close by or working in the same place is of a similar nature and can be handled in a unified way through the “communication center”. This can reduce the overall cost and eliminate repetitious labor.

C.    Realize cooperation within society

In a society based on division of labor, it is only necessary to engage in consultations between “communication centers” and separately direct the members of a unit, in order to harmonize division of labor and achieve cooperation.

D. Unify Policy

Each person making policy on his own may lead to thorny conflicts. One of the functions of the “communication center” is to provide public information to diminish the impact of differences, the other is to prevent insoluble conflicts by giving unified policy precedence over individually—conceived policy.

E.     Program Management

A communication framework necessarily calls for a communication program alongside it, each in turn giving rise to a system and an organization.

 

3. Power and Communication

In the above account of the functions of a communication framework, one can readily catch a glimpse of power. The fore-mentioned “framework of indirect communication” also bears a close resemblance to the structure of power – both are individual units with levels of gradation; therefore it is reasonable to consider them an integral whole.

The nature of power requires that people obey. Once the scale of society expands to the extent that its members are mutually unacquainted ,when they are required to act in a unified way, to coordinate closely, there is no alternative except to submit to the control of the “indirect communication framework”. In this situation the framework reveals the same characteristic of requiring that people obey.

Thus it can be said that the source of power lies in the dependence of people on communication. It follows that people obey power primarily because it appears “naturally right” and not because of force, the reason being that people living in some form of society cannot dissociate themselves from communication.

The primary concern of large-scale indirect communication is the setting up of rules and regulations. This is where the function of  “passing laws” is to be found in the concept of power. Law provides society with a publicly-recognized structure and unified standards. This is to say, law encompasses the most widespread communications of the whole society and emerges as the basis on which other communication must be carried out. Only if one follows procedures in accordance with, the control center can one manage to communicate. Nevertheless communication according to procedures thrown into disorder cannot possibly connect or may even become confused or stalemated.

Force guarantees power. Its main use is to suppress any undermining of the power structure and not to provide a source of strength for the everyday exercise of authority.

Force in the last analysis consists of organized people who have weapons, and, their organization being in fact communication, also exercises control over communication through its monopoly over weapons.

II. Power Is a Form of Alienation-Its Communication System Does Not Tolerate Communication

To say that power is a form of alienation is not to say that power has undergone a process of alienation. This is because I do not believe that such a thing as “power” really exists. Power and the structure of communication are in fact one and the same. Nevertheless, the communication system basically is a tool of society-at-large, therefore, above all, it should encompass the communication of society. But as the structure of communication became alienated, it did not allow for communication by society, and it became split off from society, forming a duality and emerging as power.

——Power is a structure of communication that deprives society of communication within itself.

 

1The Increasing Complexity of the Structure of Communication

The indirect communication framework at first came into being for the purpose of dealing with complexities that had arisen; but with the continuous expansion of society, the framework itself grew more complex. It was this growing complexity which created a possibility for the structure of communication to become alienated.

In tribal society all group affairs came within the scrutiny of its members. Each one, with the assurance of his own experience, could express his ideas and wishes to the leaders, supervise their activities and consult with other members to restrict them. The leaders themselves, operating within such a simple, transparent structure and with no place to hide, were obliged to comply with this kind of give-and-take.

As the administrative layers of indirect communication kept increasing in number, entirely separate layers of indirect communication also kept increasing in number, while entirely separate layers not based on shared experience appeared as well. When the tribal chieftain took along only his son to meetings of a tribal alliance; any communication at the alliance level extended beyond the range of the members’ supervision, with the result that they could hear only whatever the chief reported on his return. This afforded the chief an opportunity to deceive or to manipulate the tribe. As society expanded, and the separate layers of communication multiplied, the members of society began losing confidence. At length they not only fell out of touch with common experience, but could no longer even entertain the idea of keeping up contact.

Today the complicated nature of the communication structure has reached an extreme difficult to imagine. One of the sources of this situation consists in vertical communication interlayer. Also within the structure of communications there are specially built-in horizontal layers—innumerable legal regulations, needless overlapping commissions, repetitious procedures, vast reams of documents, deep-rooted, stultifying relationships, and so on. The vertical administrative layers, already extremely complicated, have been further intercepted  by innumerable horizontal barriers, so that, with the exception of the qualified officials long ensconced within concerned people can only end up feeling helpless and frustrated, with society deprived of all means whatever to continue further communication with them.

 

2. The Privatization of Power

The above-mentioned “communication center” is a theoretical concept, while in fact there is a real living flesh-and-blood individual occupying it. A private person in charge can only be self-centered and highly focused on personal gains. When society is cut off from communication, it cannot function properly. Likewise, in the case of persons who would not hesitate to fight a war over oil, is it conceivable that they would not seize upon communication to use as their own private resource?

When deer meat is to be allotted within a tribe, the tiniest injustice falls within the scrutiny of the members; but when distribution is handled through lines with innumerable links in a monetary system, through banking institutions, legal ramifications and international trade, it is exceptionally difficult for ordinary people to discover embezzlement and corruption. Nevertheless, the essence of the privatization of power does not, in the main, consist in day-to-day self-serving practices but in the splitting off of the communication framework from society. Once communication by society is not tolerated, the whole structure turns into the private realm of the power holders. Once this happens, the structure no longer serves the needs of society but operates according to the wishes of those in power. They can pursue their own interests, while forbidding any and all disadvantageous communication. Thus the structure of communication turns into power monopolized by private persons.

 

3. Restricting Communication—Dictatorship’s Basic Measure

The reason why dictatorship emerges as such, apart from cutting off society’s communication with power vertically, is that it must necessarily also restrict communication horizontally between the inside of society and the inner precinct of power. We are only too familiar with such restrictions as forbidding contacts between units, banning organizations not sanctioned by law, controlling the media, press censorship, and prohibition of electioneering; all are limitations on horizontal communication.

On the one hand, keeping people ignorant, undiscerning, mutually estranged and hard to organize is but an age-old scheme to prevent them from rebelling; on the other hand, it is also necessary to be on guard inside the precincts of power by frequent transfer of high-ranking military officers to offset any enhancement of their own personal influence, and to maintain restrictions against officials holding positions in their own native place. All these are measures designed to cut off communication. As for the political trickery well known as “divide and rule”, the decisive move is to cut off any possibility of united action from below in advance by first instigating strife; only then can a would-be dictatorship reach its aim to “rule”.

Another form of restricting communication is secrecy under the guise of security. When news is blocked for reasons of “security”, people are prevented from understanding the whole situation. It serves as a threat by autocratic power-holders, warning people not to resist but to simply obey orders.

It is relatively easy to restrict communication in a large society such as China’s. Opposition groups find it difficult to exchange ideas. This is one of the reasons why autocratic power can maintain stability over a long period. Nevertheless once things get out of hand, redress is difficult because of unwieldy communication over such an extensive territory.

 

4. Difficulty of Communication—Democracy’s Limitation

Modern western systems of democracy have given society various channels enabling it to communicate with those in power in an attempt to solve problems arising from the split-off between society and power. The main forms are the following:

·General Elections

This form of communication, “from below to above” is by no means an everyday practice, but nevertheless it is a beginning.

·Voting and Electioneering

Voting enables the members of society to communicate with those in power. It is an improvement over the system of putting persons in office or ending their tenure from above, and gives citizens the decision to put in power or replace certain sections of office-holders. An election campaign gives voters a channel of communication for understanding the candidates.

·Freedom of Speech and the Press

These channels extend the flow of news and ideas horizontally and can to a certain extent penetrate into the shady deals and secrecy of the power-holders as well as present citizens the possibility of vertical communication for supervising those in power, while at the same time they can serve the function of coalescing public opinion through horizontal communication and use it as a form of pressure from below to place restraints on power.

·The System of Political Parties (Special Interest Groups)

The system of democracy allows for the existence of independent political parties outside the power structure, as well as for special interest groups and people’s organizations—that is, independent communication structures outside the precincts of power. This affords members of society new channels for expressing individual opinions and the possibility of forming alliances.

·The Principle of Checks and Balances

Western democratic societies operate according to “separation of powers”. This not only provides for mutual checks and balances among the several divisions, but also increases the channels for communication among the organs of power.

Other aspects of the western system of democracy such as rule by law and the guarantee of human rights also require the above-mentioned forms of communication assurance in order to be effective. Modern forms of autocratic power are purported to rule by law and to respect human rights, but words alone, “lip service” alone, can have no effect in the absence of the above-mentioned communication guarantees.

 

Theoretically, in democratic elections, there are no restrictions as to who may run for office; nevertheless, for a candidate to be elected, he must ensure that a large majority of voters understand his proposals. In reality, this condition restricts the number of possible candidates to a very small number. In a situation where direct communication is possible, each person can be known to the others and can speak to them face-to-face. It is a different matter in respect to a large-scale society. In order to become known to the general public and to promote his views, a candidate must make use of the media. Although this is not a political monopoly in western democratic society, still its services must be paid for in money. Therefore only persons who have financial means of their own, or who have such support from other sources, can run for office.

Democratic elections pose another problem—the difficulty in finding the must suitable person to take over leadership. This is because in a large-scale society, to let an ordinary person with only partial understanding of his own immediate surroundings make a judgment represents in itself a serious split in communication. At the same time, the only access voters have for understanding candidates is through television, newspapers and street-corner meetings, but what they manage to see are fictionalized images improvised by the media.

An advantageous aspect of the democratic electoral system is its use as a process for dismissing an incompetent official. Nevertheless, because of the split in communication, ordinary people have no way of discovering his mistakes but must wait until his crimes are exposed before repudiating him. By then a crisis may be on the rise. If an election is not at hand, ordinarily it is difficult to stop the harm from spreading. Therefore, western democratic society may be advanced, but the problem of power is over-riding,, and breaking free of predicaments is far from a simple question of choosing between a present-day system of democracy and a system of dictatorship.

III. The Evil of Power—The Power Will Dissociates Itself From the Social Will

1.      The Social Will

In the last analysis, social development consists of the sum total of the activities of all its members—activities which follow the will of each person. Thus it is possible to sum up the individual will of every member under a concept analogous with that of “social development”—i.e., the social will.

The social will is a vector combining the individual will of all the members of society.

A vector, in addition to magnitude, has direction. In the abstract, the will of each person can be considered a separate vector, equal in magnitude but differing in direction.

The sum of two vectors makes up the diagonal line of a parallelogram. The sum of any number of vectors is also a vector. In combining many vectors, it is possible to begin by finding the combined vector of two vectors, then using it to add a third vector, after that, adding a fourth vector to the sum of three vectors, and so on until the last vector forms the last parallelogram, of which the diagonal equals the total of all the vectors.

The concept of the social will does not belong in the realm of metaphysics. Historical accounts abound in ideas of the “popular will” which, similarly, cannot be touched or seen, but nevertheless must be recognized as existing. When the large majority of individual wills throughout society approach consensus and only a small number of those differing remains, the direction and magnitude of the social will can be considered the common will of the overwhelming majority of people—that is to say, the “popular will”.

Still, what reflects the essence of the social will more accurately is not its close proximity to “the great majority”, but the capacity of any small minority—even down to the will of one single person—to have an influence in the social will. While the combined vectors of all the individual wills make up the social will, each individual person’s will participating in the combination must be taken into account and is certain to have a relevant impact.

The social will encompasses all individual wills. It is not divided into “progressive”, “reactionary”, “left” or “right” wing, “oppressor” or “oppressed”, but includes one and all without exception, puts them together, considers each individual will as having equal power and conscientiously includes each one in the final result. Attaining the sum of vectors follows a standard procedure: the result is always to be sought in the difference between two vectors, and is arrived at by accommodating both sides and reaching a compromise. If one side holds a predominant position, it cannot achieve complete preference but in all events must be able to bring over his counterpart by allowing for a proportionate share in the final outcome.

Of course, up until now, this extent of agreement has never been realized. In the course of social development, individual wills of diverse tendencies have very rarely been accorded consideration simultaneously. The extent to which the social will can be realized is influenced by many factors, particularly that of the social structure. And up until the present, no form of social structure has been able to commit itself to the goal of seeking the sum of the vectors of all the individual wills throughout society. For this reason, the social will persists as deformed and crippled, so that even if it does succeed in finding expression it can be for only a short time.

2.      The Social Will is “Correct”

What is the standard for judging the state of affairs of a society?

“Judging”, itself is a kind of will. Society is a form of assembly for each individual. Therefore, the standard for judging the situation of a society is the social will. If the social will is satisfied, the situation is good; if not, the social situation is not good. In the last analysis, a society exists for the purpose of satisfying the social will. The direction toward which society develops, therefore, should be the direction that the social will desires.

As a matter of fact this is exactly what happens. Even though expression of the social will often encounters obstruction, nevertheless in the long run it can be realized. This kind of law is expressed in such familiar sayings as “the will of the people decides the rise and fall of kingdoms”, and “those who submit shall prosper, those who resist shall perish.”

The social will is “correct” as regards the development of society. The importance of this conclusion is incalculable. Once established, it can lead to the following one—that is to say, the best social situation is the full realization of the social will, while the best social system is one in which realization of the social will is not obstructed.

3.      The Will of Power

“Numerically-Based Structure for Seeking Consensus”

In a small-scale society, the members can communicate fully in a direct way and reach a compromise through persuasion and mutual understanding. This may be called a vector-style of reaching agreement. On the other hand, in a highly populated society, how can the individual wills—in figures astronomical, and subject to a myriad of changes in the twinkling of an eye—seek accommodation in such a style?

As a matter of fact, society itself is a kind of “agreement”; it is the result of people congregating the result of not only people, but of their material things, and necessarily, of individual wills congregating. But in the past this way of coming together has all along been distinguished by numbers, that is, it has been a kind of “numerically determined structure for agreement” and not one really seeking the social will through a “vector-type structure for finding consensus”.

There are two kinds of the “numerically-based structure for agreement” which divide according to how consensus is arrived at.

The first kind takes as its standard the will of the rulers, unifies the will of the people from the top down, compels the will of each individual to obey the “centralized leadership”, then allocates them according to a conceived number into a state, nation, class, political party, mass movement and the like.

The second kind of numerical determination—from bottom to top—consists of decision by a majority or by an election. This way of seeking consensus extends to each citizen the right to say “no”, but nevertheless confines the individual will, which is generically rich and varied in scope, within two choices—“for” or “against”. The search for agreement ends in a split represented by numbers, between “yes” and “no”, “for” or “against”.

This second kind, in reality, plays a very minor role by comparison. This is because even in the most democratic society, it is impossible to declare a general election over separate issues that keep rising. By and large the great number of day-to-day decisions are made from the top down by those in power and all the people are expected to agree with one accord.

Obstacles to Reaching a Vector-Accord

The ideal of the founders of western democracy was to allow all members of society to live independently, participate in social development, and influence it. This appears to be similar to harmonizing individual wills by vector-accord. Nevertheless, confronted by the real difficulties involved in expediting such a process, there appeared to be no alternative except to adopt a simplified method of casting votes. Two types of simplification include: (1) drawing up a plan in advance, and presenting it to the public for their opinion; (2) confining the choice to “yes” or “no”. The first type twists the orientation of thousands upon thousands of individual wills into a homogeneous mass. The second type of simplification consists in toting up election results and deciding the outcome according to the principle of majority rule.

With simplification carried to this extreme, all obstacles in running an election are overcome, its expenditures are reduced to the lowest; yet needless to say, the real nature of the result is a far cry from that to be reached through “vector accord”, and turns out to be nothing but accord by number.

The Will of Power

The first type of simplification mentioned above—proposing a plan in advance, obviously requires another factor, namely the source of the plan. This is determined by two conditions: (1) not every person can bring up his own plan; (2) to be acceptable to all members of society, a plan cannot be “a tiny one” proposed by any one member of society alone, and must be an “overall programme” to suit the whole of society. Most ordinary people lack the ability to propose any such “overall programme”. For this reason it can only be proposed by a small minority of special members of society.

If one maintains that voting is a form of accord from bottom to top, nevertheless the programme to be decided on is drawn up in advance by a small number of special persons; therefore, this in fact makes it from the very beginning an accord from top to bottom reached numerically. Over and above this, there are many day by day issues which cannot be voted on one by one but must be decided on by a small number of members of society—those in power-- the rulers.

They exercise the will of power—“power will”—giving rise to the source of  “seeking accord by number”, and is even more blatant in an autocratic society which does not permit citizens to vote at all.

4.      Social Will and Power Will within the “Structure for Seeking Agreement by Number”

A.    “The Structure for Seeking agreement by number” can only be a dual structure

Power will, as one part, proposes a plan and makes decisions from above. The social will down below, passively accepts and follows orders. This sort of division is necessarily part and parcel of the “structure for seeking agreement by number”. To seek numerical agreement, division into “above” and “below” is indispensable for running the operation, for only then is it possible to transform an individual will from its vector, which is boundlessly rich in variety, into a stark number.

“The structure of the vector method for seeking consensus” consists mainly of the social will, while “the structure for finding agreement according to number” consists of the power will. The former seeks consensus through communication from bottom to top, while the latter finds agreement through control from top to bottom. “The structure for finding agreement by number” is the basic method of communication with society used by the power component of the dual structure, while the “structure of the vector-method for seeking consensus” can emerge only after elimination of the condition of duality, when society and power are integrated.

“Power will” is the core and soul of the “structure for seeking numerical agreement”. This structure, in essence, took shape in association with power will and is its offspring. Only with the aid of this structure can power will fulfill its function of making strategic decisions.

B.     The “Judgment” of the Social Will is Capable of Spontaneous Formation and Fulfillment Within the “Structure for Seeking Numerical Agreement”

Will is made up of three qualities-judgment, purpose and decisiveness. As to judgment, this can be treated simply as a general question of being satisfied or not. It is relatively convenient to seek consensus vector-style in case of a general question, and to a large degree is similar to seeking agreement according to number. Then there need only be a social network for setting up contacts among the members of society. Regardless of what the set function of the network happens to be, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of every member can through its channels, be brought together,  regardless of whether the economy, politics, friends or relatives are involved. The members can freely seek common ground among themselves to form the judgment of the social will.

The social will’s judgment is not only capable of spontaneous formation, but of automatic manifestation. In the same way, it is not necessary to rely on any special structure, but only to take advantage of the web used throughout society in daily communication for reaching judgments through gossip, discussion, expressions of  popular sentiment and so on. Judgment is an especially important characteristic of the social will, and determines its power of initiative.

C.    The “Goal” Of the Social Will Can Exist Only Recessively in the “Structure for Seeking Agreement Numerically”. Whether or not it Can be Realized Depends upon Whether or not the Power Will Happens to “Touch” it.

Persons differ as to their own particular aim in everyday life, therefore fail to exhibit any general tendency in this respect. Within the “structure for seeking agreement numerically”, there is no way of finding their “vector-consensus”. This causes the aim of the social will to exist only partially recessive state within that structure. A social goal cannot be realized without a clear-cut program and relevant laws. Thus, in the absence of a “structure for vector-method consensus” a program and laws can only be formulated by the existing power will. Therefore, in a dual society, whether or not the goal of the social will can be realized depends upon whether or not the power will happens to “touch” upon it by some sort of coincidence.

“Touch” in this sense includes two kinds—“identification” and “coincidence”.

As a form of “identification” the rulers may choose to go along with some particular aspect of the social will in an effort to deal with it more or less correctly and may intentionally assume the role of spokesman and promoter on its behalf. “Coincidence” does not allow for such initiative; a muddle-headed monarch might even occasionally come up with some measure consistent with the social will. However no matter whether as identification or coincidence, there nevertheless exists some degree of “touch”. Sometimes the two wills “touch”, sometimes not; therefore to rely on this eventuality can at best  enable the goal of the social will to materialize only very briefly now and then, on and off.

D. Since “decision” by the social will can not be made in the “structure for seeking agreement numerically”, the development of society can only be determined by the power will.

Decision and aim are not the same. Aim can exist subliminally, but not decision. “The structure for seeking numerical agreement does not allow for the possibility of the social will to make decisions at its own discretion. Thus, decisions concerning society as a whole can only be made by the power will.

Decision is the basic function of the power will. Once it holds the power of decision, it determines the development of society. This is where the power will holds sway with all its might..

Without the structure of the vector-method for finding consensus, the aim of the social will cannot become dominant nor can it make decisions. Nevertheless, a society cannot but have an aim, nor can decision-making be avoided. Consequently, it is necessary and inevitable that the power will should occupy any gaps that may exist.

5.      Warping of the Social Will

A.    Warping of the Social Will

The “juncture” at which the power will and the social will interact occurs in the realm of decision-making. If the aspects of judgment and aim in the will of each side were not involved in decision-making, they could exist separately, independent of each other, in isolation and without mutual interference. In the “numerical-type structure for seeking agreement”, the social will can only follow decisions of the power will. If and when a decision compels the social will to subvert its own aim, its nonconformity will become evident and its judgment will be one of dissatisfaction.

The power will controls the procedure of communication and monopolizes force; it can use compulsion to confront the members of society with no alternative but to convert their “free will” into “un-free will”. This distortion of the will of every individual in the whole of society, through seeking consensus vector-style, is a warping of the social will.

In a society of binary structure, splitting-off of the power will from the social will assumes an aspect of inevitability. Unification can only be fortuitous; therefore society can benefit while at the same time one much it must sustain out-and-out harm—this is the basic problem in a society of binary structure.

B.     “Big Vector” Agreement

In fact a society has different groups, each one of which has its own will which by analogy could be called the “group will”, and is a kind of “big vector”. These big vectors themselves are also binary, while their direction usually is the same as that of the power will, or even the same as that of a dictator’s personal will. The fact that a group can become a big vector is because it itself is the result of seeking agreement by number. That is to say, either by threat or “brain-washing”, the vector-nature of an individual will is destroyed and forced to become a number within a “unified will”, and through similar additions it becomes a state, nation, class, political party, mass movement or exclusive faction.

Different large vectors strive among themselves to incorporate more members into their own orbit through such means as subjugation, annexation, amnesty and deceit; or else in reverse, try to weaken an adversary by cutting down its numbers through stark ethnic strife, class struggle, religious holy wars, ideological harassment, widespread purges and so on. Only when there is no single big vector which can gain overwhelming preponderance over its adversaries or which can annihilate them, a big vector cannot but engage in some degree of seeking agreement vector-style such as compromise, balance-of-power tactics, befriending those distant while attacking those nearby, or forming alliances both vertically and horizontally. Clearly through vector-style  relationships of this sort, agreement according to number is basic; if the numbers are insufficient, a vector cannot become a big one and also cannot become part of its ???, and once it has failed to accumulate enough strength to join in with a big vector to seek agreement, it can only serve as a cast-off or as an addition. This sort of mechanism impels the “big vector” to strengthen its own “structure for seeking agreement through number”.

C.    The “Big Vector” of Western Democratic Societies

Pressure groups have commonly arisen throughout modern Western democratic societies and are gradually on an ever-widening scale breaking up the few existing tough big vectors into smaller vectors of a somewhat narrower orientation. This provides a great many more channels for the expression of individual will. The relationship between the different factional groups is no longer one of mutual extermination; compromise tends to supervene over rivalry; their boundaries have become much less distinct, while exclusiveness has given way to overlapping. Within the faction, seeking agreement and setting aside differences has replaced “big unification”, compulsive co-opting has given way to free choice by the individual will. The usefulness of this relatively flexible structure for seeking agreement is gradually gaining in strength and the power policies of the Western democratic societies are increasingly concerned about maintaining equilibrium among all forces.

But of course this still cannot really solve the problem. Regardless of how wide a variety of persons the pressure group can assimilate, it is still a highly simplified  big vector as compared with individual will. The pressure group’s aim is to gain influence, therefore its inclination is to enlarge itself numerically, and strive to unify itself internally; therefore it cannot cast off its innate characteristic as a “structure for seeking agreement through number”.

 

IV. The Stagnation of Power—Renewal, Reorganization and Disaster

Can the social will simply allow itself to be controlled by the power will? On the surface, the whole world seems to be held in the palm of those in power. For the social will to surface depends likewise on if the power will happens to “touch” it. Nevertheless the power wills if it in fact wields absolute dominance as such, will unavoidably undergo a scissors-like split of ever-widening span with the social will. In the face of reality how can it still actually go on “touching” with the social will again and again? A restraining force must necessarily exist which can continually turn the power will back from its course, bringing it into “touch” with the social will.

1.      “Counter-Warping” a Function of the Social Will

The individual will is subject to warping, while a person’s instinct may at the same time give rise to a kind of  “counter-warping” to offset it. The social will is also imbued with this kind of counter-warping, representing the vector sum of counter-warping exerted by all the individual wills in society.

The warping sustained by different individual wills may well differ in countless ways, but the counter-warping is homogeneous. Things of the same nature can achieve consensus within the “structure for reaching agreement by number”. Counter-warping reveals itself as slow-down at work, undermining others, deliberate trouble-making, “policy from above circumvented from below”, and so on. Rulers, confronted by the social will’s counter-warping, may recognize that their control is ineffective and at odds with society.

The greater the warping imposed on the social will, the greater the corresponding counter-warping. When it reaches an extreme, the power will cannot deal with it. Finding no alternative except to let up on its warping of the social will, it must finally “touch” with the social will. This is the gist of the matter.

2.      Power Readjusts Its Pressure

Society’s capacity to oppose distortion by the power will takes two forms—one: pressure, the other: force. Counter-warping as it builds up “internally” ready to act, appears as pressure in a “static state”, or “externally” as release in a “dynamic” form, and can transform into violence. Force or violence, is always the result of pressure applied beyond its limits, and is a special state of affairs, while pressure is a situation of every-day prevalence.

Pressure expresses dissatisfaction on the part of the people, whose active participation in “legal” activities diminishes. The orders issued through the echelons of power turn ineffective, public protest runs rife, acts of destruction increase and so on. In a word, all forms of society’s opposition to power surface. The situation if allowed to continue, will shake the rule of the power clique. At the same time, the strength of the social will to counter warping weakens the vitality of society, while losses caused by internal strife increase. All this is detrimental to economic progress social order, and facility of movement to the extent of harming the interests of the power clique itself. Therefore when under pressure it may almost always make adjustments to alleviate the mounting opposition it faces.

Moreover, the “touch” of the power will with the social will always affects the struggles within the power will. In striving for power, the various factions like to pose as “champions of the people” deliberately making use of the pressure exerted by the social will. This is so particularly in the case of up-and-coming new arrivals on the scene, who are even more inclined to adopt such pretension in order to buttress up their fragile position. The reason why they feel that the people’s support can be used as a weapon is because the pressure of the social will does in fact carry considerable weight. Rulers who stand on the side of the social will almost always emerge as the winners of inner power factional struggles.

Pressure serves to induce those in power to make inner adjustments calculated to prevent social turmoil and destruction. Pressure in the normal ranks of society is bound to arise and express itself as a matter of common occurrence. For this reason it functions as the social wills main method of restricting the power will and also of countering warping. Especially today when in democratic societies officials in power can be changed through elections, it appears that pressure has become the only method used by the social will to restrict the power will. In democratic society all political activities from bottom to top are ultimately carried on for the purpose of exerting pressure against the power holders. It follows that in face of this pressure, the power will, must make concessions in the course of wielding power.

The experience of democratic societies demonstrates that allowing pressure due channels of expression prevents it from building up, and society can avoid the suffering brought on by outbreaks of violence. In the past, mankind has all along been cyclically beset by disasters brought on by brute force.

3.      Power and Its Forcible Replacement

In an authoritarian system, society has no line of communication with power. If the rulers are muddle-headed, or surrounded by sycophants, so that they cannot accurately gauge the strength of the social will’s counter-distortion, or they consider themselves able to deal with such situation through suppression, as long as the social will’s pressure has no outlet, the strength of its counter-warping can gradually evolve into brute force which ultimately resorts to as a means of replacing the power and realizing the social will.

Although suppression by the authority in power may for a long time warp the social will, nevertheless the strength of society’s counter-warping can in turn promote the linking up and development of “opposition”--type groups such as underground political parties, military uprisings and so on. Although autocratic power monopolizes the well-springs of force and occupies a position of dominance, nevertheless once people who represent the social will organize, they also have forces of their own forces. The decisive role of the social will lies in its power to attract followers—its supporters can keep growing in number and agreement reaching countless thousands, while those who stand against it find themselves deserted by followers and forsaken by friends. Therefore the former are bound to overthrow the latter to bring about a complete transformation in the power over society.

After the new rulers are swept into power, society returns to its place as before under the authority of the power-holders, but because the new regime, supported and elevated to its position by the social will, may perhaps at the beginning to some degree keep “in touch” with it, the social will is enabled to attain relatively full realization.

Then everything starts out from the beginning again. Step by step the power-will splits with the social will, so that readjustment through pressure and change by force pass through the rounds of yet another cycle.

A society of binary structure may be compared to a drama about heroes: A stage brightly lit, the beautiful scenery breath-taking, lighting focused on the rulers, while society is only the wooden floor beneath their feet. Nevertheless, in reality, the vicissitudes of the “heroes” are determined by the “ordinary people” while the social will, through readjustment by pressure on the power will or through forceful take-over dramatizes its own choice of the path of history.

4.      Inevitable Lag of a Binary Structure

Even if readjustment through pressure, or a change-over through force, exerts a restraining influence on the power will, nevertheless the nature of a binary society determines that only through the strength of counter-warping can the social will effect a complete break with the power will and maneuver a total change-over. This kind of restraining influence, therefore, involves unavoidable lagging: First of all, counter-warping only after the social will has already undergone twisting, that is to say, after it has already suffered harm. This is the “lag in the rise of pressure”. In the second place, the response to pressure in a binary society is far from timely, and not full. The power holders are far from likely to readjust immediately as soon as they feel pressured, but always tend to wait until its force rises to a severe pitch before they face up to it. This “lag in the effect of pressure” causes the harm to intensify. Thirdly, the harm does not immediately come to an end after those in power make readjustments, but continues for some time. This is “lag in the ending of harm”.

Forceful methods to effect a change-over in power cause even greater harm to society. It always accompanies war and leads to disaster, the “lag” is even more serious.

Worse still, since in binary society, a split between the power-will and the social will is inevitable, then adjustment under pressure, or a forced change once established cannot last, but continuous efforts and repeated trials of strength are called for, again and again; that is to say, the inherent lag described above, is bound to function and persist, harm is bound to result repeatedly, and the whole of society, too, is fated to suffer the aftermath time after time, eventually lapsing into retrogression.

V. Brief Summary and Questions

Is it only through methods of pressure or force that the social will is able to express itself? How is it that mankind must endure repeated harm before the vehicle of society can be steered over to the correct road? Is it possible to find a way for the social will to express itself free of obstruction and thereby enable it to attain full and lasting realization?

The following diagram illustrates a summary of the main points covered above:

 

POWER-WILL

SOCIAL WILL

INDIVIDUAL WILL

 

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

文本框: PRESSURE文本框: FORCE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                       

DIAGRAM  A

In Diagram A, u stands for INPUT, y for FEEDBACK. The square marked “INDIVIDUAL WILL” represents the system’s source of motive power, while the “DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY” is the goal of the system.

Two key components of society are shown, one consists of the people who make up society, the other is their communication with one another. These two components, which have a decisive role in promoting “social development”, are indicated by U1 and U5 respectively. Every person strives to satisfy his individual will; each and every effort has a direct bearing on “social development”. The combined efforts of all members of society fill the U1 space. The other social development “input” line, U5, consists of communications. In a binary society, communications emanating only from the “power-will” can influence “social development”.

Actually, Diagram B (a section of Diagram A) represents the present-day structure of a binary society. As a model, it typifies the split between the “power-will” and the “social will”. Here, the “social will” can influence the “development of society” only through the “power-will”, while the “social will” can succeed in restricting (U4) the “power-will” only by means of “pressure” or “force”.

POWER-WILL

SOCIAL WILL

文本框: PRESSURE文本框: FORCE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIAGRAM B

In Diagram B, the long connecting-line with a question mark (?) beside it, represents the crucial question we are addressing: Would it not be possible to find some means whereby the “social will” need not exert “pressure” or “violence”, but is enabled to communicate directly with the “power-will” and thereby express itself free of obstruction?

Input U5 from top to bottom starting from the “power-will”, if not beneficial to “social development”, will come into contradiction with input U1 from bottom to top, and pass on through feedback Y1 to “individual will”. At this, “individual will” cannot but be dissatisfied and the dynamic for promoting social development weakens accordingly.

Besides, the direct impact of the “power-will” on the members of society(as through policy decisions of officials at all echelons of power, or through rewards and punishments)is shown by feedback line Y3. The “power-will” deflects the “individual will” through two channels: one, indirect (U5     y1), the other, direct, that is, y3.

The individual will of each and every member of society, joined together with all the others through U2, makes up the “social will”. Deflection of the individual wills of the majority results in deflection of the “social will”. As a corresponding counter-deflection drive mounts it transforms into “pressure” or “violence”, with the aim of inducing the “power-will” through input U4, to undertake a readjustment or be placed. In this way, the clash between the “power-will” and the “social development” inputs U5 and U1 eases.

One can also see from Diagram A that apart from receiving input U4 from the “social will”, another input comes from “individual will”, i.e. U3. This indicates that persons in power, the rulers, seek to satisfy their own individual will. In a binary society the individual will of the rulers almost always impels the power-will to split with the social will. But U3, the line leading from the “individual will” of the rulers to the “power-will” is unimpeded, while on the other hand, the input U4 from the “social will” to the “power-will” involves “pressure” and “violence” against blocking. Therefore ordinarily, the power-will can more often be influenced by U3, while the efficacy of U4 lags behind. This directly explains the reason why U5 is so easily isolated from the “social will”.

The symbol y2 represents the feedback that the “power-will” receives from “social development”. If the feedback is prompt and accurate it should enable the power-will to recognize the contradiction between U5 and U1, make adjustment with U5 to bring itself into gear with social advance. But this feedback is of no use in two situations: 1. when the direct interests of power itself are opposed to the interests of society, and to make allowances for the interests of society could harm its own interests; 2. if the feedback channel is blocked or the feedback information is false, both contingencies can result in failure to adjust, or even in maladjustment.

In Diagram A and B there is a connecting line with “?” beside it. The line represents direct input from the “social will” to the “power-will” without the use of  “pressure” or “violence”. This is equivalent to the unification of the “power-will” and the “social will” superceding their dualistic division into separate units. All four compartments of Diagram B also combine to make up the “social will” as shown in a structure in Diagram C:

SOCIAL WILL

INDIVIDUAL WILL

 

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIAGRAM C

In Diagram C the input and output lines are clear; there are no hitches or obstructions. The structure itself is smooth and expansive, the links well defined. It represents, as it should, a structure calling for the least effort, yielding the highest efficiency, allowing for easy adjustment and offering the greatest advantage for fulfilling the ultimate goal.

How, then, can this “?” connecting line be transformed into actual existence? How can it be made real?

As explained above, the communication structure, because it does not permit communication, undergoes alienation and assumes the form of power. If, by way of reversal, society is enabled to communicate with it, power can once again become the communication structure. The basic difference between power and the structure of communication is that one works from the top down, the other from the bottom up. If this up-side down situation can be reversed and turned right-side up, that is, if we can change the graded system of making official appointments from the top down, to a system graded from bottom to top, for electing a person to take charge of a communication center, this change, cutting to the heart of the problem, solves it at one stroke.

The way to achieve this change is explained as follows, by means of an Electoral System of Consecutive Levels.

 

SECTION 2THE DISSOLUTION OF POWER

 

I.       Vector-Summary of the Individual Will

The previous section dealt with the two basic characteristics of human society today: 1. its binary structure, splitting power from society; 2. its structure for gauging individual will numerically. These two characteristics are symbiotic; as long as the structure is binary, it is only possible to summarize numerically, but if the binary structure is to be transformed, summation according to number must be changed to vector-summation.

Finding the numerical sum is simple and easy to administer, but is there a method of operation for finding the vector-sumIf this cannot be handled, if this is but a theoretical elaboration void of any practical significance, then the question whether or not a method can be found for handling vector-summation emerges as crucial to whether or not it is possible to transform the binary structure of society.

This part deals with how vector-summation of the individual will is to be handled in the most basic unit; the following part deals with whether or not it is possible to set up a “vector-type structure for summation” which includes the whole of society.

 

1.      Four Conditions for Handling Vector-Summation of the Individual Will

As a matter of fact, vector-summation of the individual will takes place all the time in everyday life; the difficulty is how to do it through our the whole of society. At the same time, vector-summation requires preparation of the following four conditions, while up until now no form of society has been able to manage this.

Condition 1: Sum Up From Bottom to Top

Vector-summation means first, to take single vectors, divide them into several groups, and separately sum up each group. Then find a higher-level sum from the vector-sums of the several separate groups…… until in the end, the sum of all the vectors is found. This sort of procedure can only be handled from bottom to top. Otherwise, if in the opposite direction—from top to bottom—the only possible result can be a numerical summation.

Western democratic societies practice summing up from bottom to top but can come up with only two numbers—one “in favor”, one “opposed”, and not a vector-sum. This is because the following conditions are missing.

Condition 2: Sum Up Common Experience

This condition is crucial. Each individual will, include in the vector-sum, must be part of a sphere of common experience.

As far as the individual will is concerned, there are only two categories of common experience: one, a common life experience; the other, participation in the same “sphere of activity”. A tribe or a traditional rural village may be considered as having a common life experience. As modernization spreads, this category is gradually shrinking; life and work are becoming separated and people are joining up in different groups. At present, the category of common experience mostly falls into that of “activity”. Those participating in the same “activity” may not necessarily understand each other in regard to other aspects of their lives, but as to the “activity” itself, they engage in mutual contact in a sphere of common experience and for this reason the individual will of each can find the vector-sum of that “activity”.

One can define the sphere of experience from the point of view of communication as that within which full, direct communication is possible. Therefore the number of persons involved must of necessity be limited.

Why is it that within the sphere of experience, individual wills can find vector-summation? How can they go about it? What is the vector-summation which they finally arrive at? The answer to these questions follows a logical sequence:

A.    The significance of a person’s life lies in seeking satisfaction of his individual will;

B.     The standard for judging the quality, soundness or success of a common life experience or of an “activity” is based on whether the individual will of every member has attained the highest possible average degree of satisfaction.

C.    The pooling of the efforts of each member within the sphere of experience seeking satisfaction of his individual will creates the motive force for moving the community forward.

D.    Within the sphere of experience, the goal and decision of each member can be established and acted upon without the necessity of finding intermediate help from any communication link or authority. For this reason the individual will makes up a complete vector and consequently can participate in vector-summation.

E.     The sphere of experience can minimize the limits of an individual will to the lowest degree. This is one of its most valuable characteristics. As each member understands the whole situation, he comes to understand his own relationship with the others as well as his own status in the whole set-up. In general, this kind of vector of an individual will is fairly correct. (There may be disagreements, but disagreements mostly arise from differing standpoints or causes outside of the limitation.)

F.     Within a community, there are different persons with different standpoints. There is contradiction and competition. Nevertheless, tension between competition and cooperation can enable the community to reach its optimum situation. The vector-summation of the individual wills is the process through which the relation between cooperation and competition is adjusted.

G.    Competition and cooperation within the sphere of experience can achieve just the right compromise, because the sphere of experience enables each member to be assured of his best position along the “competition-cooperation” curve, to gauge the limits of the other person’s tolerance and the lasting value of emotional investment as well as the practical plan for compromise, the step by step measures to be taken and methods of implementation—this is in fact the vector of the individual will as defined above. The result achieved by all the members from this kind of summing-up through getting to know yourself and know the others must necessarily bring about the best possible solution for the whole community. The average value of the benefit gained by all the members is certainly also the greatest. This kind of summing up involves a process of development; if it cannot reach a more or less mathematically accurate balance, there can be no end to the “bargaining”.

The above discourse does not consider influences from outside the circle of experience. In fact even if in real life, a circle does exist as described above which suits the definition, nevertheless the vector-sum cannot necessarily be realized. The reason is that the very forces of society itself—its structure and so on—are far stronger than those within the circle of experience. The reason why influences from the outside are disregarded and why the circle of experience is conceived of as a small island, is to bring the principles of individual—will summation into sharp focus.

Given only that the logic described above can be built up under conditions free of outside influences, this exposition proceeds as follows:

Condition 3: Language Alone Is Inadequate (Reliance on Language Alone Is Inadequate)

Vector-summation of the individual will may be described as a conference of the members within their circle of experience. The vector-sum is the result of compromises arrived at in the course of the consultations. Nevertheless, outside of some simple problems, a summing-up of this sort is really difficult to carry out. While consultation as such must take place through the use of language, the problem is precisely that language as a vehicle cannot fully express the individual will. People often experience “indescribable” feelings in the course of their lives; therefore to engage in consultations through the use of language as the sole medium cannot guarantee accuracy free of misconceptions. Furthermore, life goes on, but since language-based settlement through consultation requires relative stability, it is impossible to avoid its falling behind development continuously.

In addition, reality by nature is generally complicated and varied. The use of words in an effort to grasp all the details can render the process unbearable because of the great proliferation of language involved; therefore it becomes necessary to simplify and generalize. Linguistics, although it tries to keep simplification from affecting expressiveness, nevertheless, life being a conglomeration of countless odds and ends, abbreviation and simplification likewise can also conglomerate, so that the void between language and life keeps widening along with the expanding coverage and the mounting degree of abstraction. The gap between real life and a culture conveyed by language is difficult to bridge, the simplistic nature of language certainly comprising one of the major reasons for this; therefore it would be impossible to bring about an accurate vector-summation of the individual will by means of communication through language alone.

Vector-summation of the individual will can only be accomplished under conditions of “holographic communication” so to speak. This consists of confining the process of communication within an integrated environment with its own complete sequence of events, keeping the communicators strictly confined within the sphere of common experience; communicating in addition to the use of language, makes more important use of tacit agreements reached on the basis of mutual understanding.

“Tacit agreement” means sensing an idea and accepting it even without language communication and is often used in describing the best relationships. As a matter of fact, reaching a tacit agreement as described, means people finding the vector-summation of one another’s will without the use of words. In real life, consultations during which it is difficult to reach explicit agreement, may quite often—either deliberately or unavoidably—end in “silent acquiescence”. Such choices as “put it off”, “wait and see”, or “let nature take its course”, in the last analysis, can generally achieve better solutions than “the best-laid plans of mice and men”.

Language cannot be isolated from its environment and the most prolific language environment is the sphere of experience. The language within the sphere of experience does not consist of disconnected abstract concepts, but involves “history” and also is “pictographic”. Every word, every statement, contains much that can be sensed but not expressed in words, as to background, thinking, differences, implications, attitudes—much that makes up and can be called the “field” of language. By comparison, the characteristic of the individual will’s vector is to be found much more in this kind of “field” than in whatever can be expressed through language itself. If such a “field” did not exist, vector-summation of the individual will would be deprived of its base, and language could only turn out to be unconvincing and far removed from life.

Condition 4: Needed: A “Sum-Carrier”

If the relationship is only “one-to-one”, mutual tacit agreement comes easily, but in a group made up of many persons it involves much more difficult. Theoretically a unified tacit agreement can be reached by repeatedly integrating a series of conformities. Each person keeps communicating with another separately, ponders, sounds out alternatives, initiates minor trials of strength or throws out challenges, then draws comparisons with many others, summarizes, revises, and in the end finds a common feature which enables him to reach unanimity with everybody else. When at length each member of the group has found this feature, which finally brings mutual agreement, then only can the group be considered to have realized the sought-after conformity, and with it, the possibility of united action as well. To reach conformity like that, one can only imagine what a great expenditure of time and energy would be required. Furthermore, if one considers that adjustments would be necessary whenever the situation changed, and that even within the sphere of experience the expenditure would be too great, then there is no way this sort of procedure can be considered practical.

For the purpose of cutting down costs, it is necessary to simplify this kind of sequential arrangement as a way of reaching conformity. The method required is to build a public functional center in which each member plays a direct role, simplify the original relation of one-to-many, to a one-to-one relation and proceed to build conformity separately, and finally at that center realize the comprehensive result of the conformity, namely, the vector-sum of the wills of all the members. The public center, therefore, can be called a “sum-carrier”.

A suggestion (or a draft) is one form of  “sum-carrier”. A group, when a situation arises, even if it is some member briefly offering a small suggestion, a “sum-carrier” comes to life. Here, not every member needs to interact separately. It is only necessary for each one to consider the suggestion, make known his attitude, and offer revisions or additions. The process of discussing the suggestion, bargaining with another member, from the “preliminary draft” to the “finalized text”, leads to the vector-sum of the wills of all the members in regard to that particular suggestion or issue. On the other hand, in using a language-produced result as a “sum-carrier” it is not possible to avoid the problem described in “Condition 3”, while at the some time, it would not be possible to solve the problem of the enormous cost involved in reaching consensus. In a group, if every member tries to be the first to suggest a draft, whether the matter is big or small, and the process must proceed from discussion to revision, to implementation and, after all-round understanding is reached, most of the time and effort may be wasted in quibbling over wording. Therefore the “public center” must not be a product of language, but must itself have the capacity to generate tacit agreements, to make up for the inadequacies of language.

In the world, Only people have the ability to carry on activities based on tacit agreement?

Therefore the best method is to choose a person from within the sphere of experience to act as the “sum-carrier”, and allow him to anticipate group’s consensus through tacit understanding. After that, he decides on his own policy and substitutes it for the actual consensus of the group, while at the same time he can still correctly reflect the result reached by the group’s actual consensus. Only in this way can the cost of the individual wills undertaking vector-summation be brought down to a sustainable level, as well as prevent waste of time in verbose give-and-take.

The logic behind allowing a person to assume the role of “sum-carrier” is as follows:

A.    As long as the sphere of experience allows for full and direct communication, the “sum-carrier” can correctly and sensitively gauge the individual will of each member.

B.     The “sum-carrier” ponders over the individual will of each member as if in his own mind he has used a style of tacit understanding to reach conformity with the individual will of each.

C.    Since the sphere of experience has no boundaries, the tacit understanding of the “sum-carrier” is, in general, unlikely to deviate widely from the correct vector-sum.

D.    Even if the “sum-carrier” does deviate from the vector-sum, the members of the group can confront him, keeping up their contacts with him until he is compelled to shift to the correct “sum”.

E.     The nature of the sphere of experience, namely, its absence of limitations and openness to full communication, enables each member of the group to recognize, very early on, any deviation from the vector-sum on the part of the “carrier”, compel him to correct it, and in this way to avoid bringing on any harmful result.

F.     Owing to the “sum-carrier’s” skill in the use of tacit understanding, it is not necessary for the members of the community to contact him repeatedly; he can “understand tacitly” how to correct a deviation. Thus, the cost involved is low, the expenditure of time, minimal.

G.    Outside of the rare contingencies when an objective is crucial or an important decision is in order, making it necessary for the members to engage in extensive mutual contacts with the “sum-carrier” to reach conformity, the multifarious daily trivialities can be decided by the “sum-carrier” on his own to cut down on unnecessary conformities.

H.    Even without engaging in interaction, since direct communication is always possible, the “sum-carrier” as a matter of fact is constantly in a position open to interaction with each and every one, because he only needs to show some sort of bias to bring on eventual interaction.

I.       The “sum-carrier” on his own initiative grasps developments promptly and with foresight, and consciously readjusts the existing aim and policy to suit a new situation. This can turn the vector-summation into an on-going process. This continuity does not demand that all members keep pushing each step of the way. Only when the “sum-carrier” falls behind developments would it be necessary for other members to join in.

   The core of the logic described above is to allow real conformity to emerge as rarely as possible, but to guarantee that it emerges always as a “poll test” and serves to restrict the “Sum-Carrier”. If any one of these aspects is lacking, the vector-summation of the individual will cannot be completed.

 

2.      Election Within the Sphere of Experience—Emergence of the “sum-carrier”

The specific method by means of which this takes place can be summarized as follows: the “sum-carrier” emerges through election within the sphere of experience.

As for elections, people have taken part in many all along, but never in the past has an election been carried out within a “sphere of experience” stipulated as a limitation, for most elections extend far beyond any sphere of experience.

The sphere of experience is characterized by full communication, mutual understanding, and convenience of contact; therefore an election is very simple, and as for such large-scale procedures as electioneering, campaigning for office, voter registration and casting votes at the ballot box, not one is needed; moreover, elections can be held at any time.

Large-scale elections only allow the voter a choice of “yes” or “no”, and for this reason the special advantageous characteristics of the vector are lost. Moreover, the quantity of information available during elections in the sphere of experience is unlimited. Even if a person remains “for” or “against” an elected candidate, nevertheless he has already reported his all-round individual will—the reason he agrees or opposes, his judgment, demands, aim, and what he wishes the elected official to do for him—all this is in his vote “for” or “against”. He can speak up to express his ideas, or he can use the “field” of language to do so. As long as it is within the sphere of experience, his individual will can emerge in vector form, and also can definitely be transmitted to the other members correctly—including, needless to say, the name of person he wishes to elect. As compared with the Yes/No form of election outside one’s sphere of experience, this type can be called a “holographic election”.

A “holographic election” enables a candidate for office to be clear about the reasons for his being supported or opposed, what the voters expect of him, what he should do to attract more support and lessen opposition, and the fact that he can be elected only if he satisfies the individual will of the voters to the utmost possible degree. This may prompt a prospective candidate to start campaigning, and to strive for the highest degree of average satisfaction attainable for the group, that is to say, realization of the vector-sum of the individual wills of the group members (“the collective will”).

Therefore, if the candidate’s aim to be elected is the same as his individual will, then, when dealing with the affairs of the collective, his own individual will does not become involved and he relinquishes his own “domain” to take on convey the burden of the collective will, thus willingly becoming the “sum-carrier” of the collective. In this way, apart from the election itself, a real conformity can be reached, while all former conformities were “poll tests” in the mind of the candidate. Whenever the candidate sets a policy, he makes clear the position of the others in advance, mulls over in his mind how to go about bargaining, where the dead-line of each person is and also at what point a balance can be reached through mutual compromise……He needs only to turn things over in his mind and he can more or less correctly find the resulting conformity. If this imagined conformity exhibits a divergence from the real conformity, the members of the collective can sense it and through feed-back to the official using holographic communication prompt him to reconsider the matter, to undertake yet one more mental “poll-test”, correct the deviation and in this way, to approach the actual vector-sum more closely each time the process is repeated.

This kind of mental experimentation requires little cost and yields high returns, therefore taking the elected official as “sum-carrier”, substituting his mental poll-testing for the real consensus, is the best way to realize the vector sum of the individual will.

Within the sphere of experience, the “holographic poll” in combination with the “optional poll” can lead to an excellent situation—whenever the official makes a decision of any kind whatever (in exercising his role as a “sum-carrier”), he faces the possibility of a new election. This prospective election may not actually take place, but because its imminence is only too real, it can hover in the mind of the official. To avoid dismissal his only recourse is to closely abide by the collective will as a way of maintaining a position, from beginning to end, as the most correct and responsive “sum-carrier”. In fact, the “optional poll” is only a possibility to which the elected official is sensitive, so that he is always ready to readjust his position to suit the will of the collective, so that in the long run the “optional” eventuality need not take place at all.

 

II. An Election System of Consecutive

 

The number of people in a sphere of experience is limited. If a particular limit is exceeded, communication cannot be adequate and the range of experience cannot completely include the whole group. However, since the number of people in any society for exceeds this limit, how, then, would it be possible to engage a whole society in vector-summation? At this point, it is necessary to expand the method described above to include different levels, forming a “vector-summation structure”.

 

1.        The Group Leader of “n” Villagers

Suppose that “y” represents the limit of the number of people in a sphere of experience, while “n” a smaller number, that an administrative village has “n” small groups of villagers (natural villages) and each small group of villagers is made up of “n” villagers. A “sum-carrier”(a village group leader) can be elected inside each group to realize the vector-sum of their individual wills; while this would not be possible within the scope of the administrative village, because its number of persons (“n” X “n”) would exceed the numerical limit of a sphere of experience. In an election for example, if an administrative village has 1,000 people, it is certain that they would not understand each other, would not ordinarily intermingle, and therefore a “holographic election” could not be carried out. In such a situation, a person elected numerically could in no way become a “sum-carrier”, because in his mind he could not possibly conceive of a consensus of the will of 1,000 persons, while at the same time, being detached from their experience, he also might tend to deceive the members of the collective. In addition, it would be difficult for 1,000 people to engage in optional elections and consequently they would be deprive of any means of holding him accountable when necessary, and all the disadvantages of traditional elections would reappear.

A small group of villagers makes up a sphere of experience, and the group leader elected by them is their “sum-carrier”. If vector-summation, according to its own principles, is applied to the vector-sums of the heads of small groups of villagers, the result should be exactly the same as the vector-sum of the individual wills of the 1,000 villagers of an administrative village. Let us therefore consider the case of “n” heads of village groups to see whether or not finding their vector-sum fulfills the required four conditions for vector-summation.

Condition 1: it is clear at a glance that the heads of “n” groups of villagers were elected from “below”, and if they hold another election and find the vector-sum, it will certainly be from below to above.

Condition 2: Do the leaders of “n” groups of villagers belong to the same sphere of experience? Consider this question a focal point.

Whereas the number of people in a natural administrative village exceeds the limit for a sphere of experience, nevertheless the “n” leaders of groups of villagers do not exceed the limit ”y”. Let us consider the management of an administrative village as a project: the members of the project are the group leaders of the villagers. The function of the administrative village is to act as coordinate or among the small groups of villagers. In carrying out the project, each and every leader of a village group must maintain contacts and engage in consultations. While the ordinary members of the various small groups may be unacquainted with each other, even having had little connection with each other in the past unless necessary, nevertheless, it is a “must” for the leaders of the groups of villagers to be in constant touch; at least regarding whatever concerns the management of the administrative village, they must definitely be on familiar terms with each other. Through their contacts, their familiarity has drown as if always  within sight and hearing; they personally experience “holographic communication”. Their exchanges during consultation do not depend only on language, but thrive much more on mutual understanding. Among themselves they make up a common sphere of experience; therefore, while complying with Condition 2, they also suit the Condition 3, namely, they “refrain from relying on language alone”.

What about Condition 4? The vector-summation of “n” leaders of small groups of villagers also requires a “sum-carrier” (head of the administrative village). The method by means of which he emerges is the same, that is to say, he is elected within the sphere of experience from among the “n” leaders of groups of villagers. The principle is as explained above: The administrative village head must act within the bounds of the “holographic election” and the “optional poll” in order to satisfy his individual will to be the elected official, and among the projects related to the administrative village, he can only represent the vector-sum of the will of “n” leaders of groups of villagers.

Some questions may arise: At the level of the administrative village, is the will of each leader of a group of villagers still the vector-sum of the will of the members of his group? This will determine whether the vector-sum borne by the second-level “sum-carrier”(the administrative village head) is in fact the vector-sum of the will of all the members of the administrative village, or is it only the vector-sum of the individual wills of the “n” leaders of villager-groups? Is it possible that the leaders of the village groups will make use of a lack of understanding on the part of the members of the village small groups regarding the situation in affairs of the administrative village and seek private ends or the interests of a small clique instead?

This situation cannot possibly arise for these reasons:

A.    An election within the sphere of experience enables the members of the village small group to fully understand the person they vote for; this, as well as his ability and behavior, guarantees the character of their elected leader.

B.     The administrative village is not completely cut off from the members of the ordinary village small groups; their partial experience can be passed on. In any structure made up of parts, the parts all have the ability to extend their experience, or function, to the whole structure. Likewise in all his doings, a village group leader up at the level of the administrative village, at the very least in respect to comparatively important events, cannot completely dissociate himself from the influence of the village small group’s experience.

C.    A cause-and-result linkage within the “mother-and-child” structure plays a decisive role even if a village group leader seeking personal gain may conceal it for a time, His will harm the interests of the village group so that sooner or later it will be reflected back to the village group, through the cause-and-result linkage in the “mother-and-child” structure, and be exposed.

D.    Other persons within the village small group, who would like to be elected its representative, may keep a watchful eye over the administrative village, stand judge over the current elected official’s activities, and encourage the village small group to take an active interest in the goings-on of the administrative village. All this constitutes a kind of goad that the current elected official cannot but constantly feel qualms about.

Therefore, in the vector-summation from the small village group (“child” structure) to the administrative village (“parent” structure) the “sum-carrier” (the village leader) of the “child” structure unmistakably represents the collective will of the “child” structure when participating in summation and must not do so according to his own individual will. That is to say, in this way the “sum-carrier” of the “parent” structure, elected from among the “sum carrier” of the “child” structures, conveys the vector sum of the collective will of all the “child” structures, and this equals the vector-sum of all the individual wills within the “parent” structure.

 

2.        The Structure of Vector Summarization

Call any sphere of experience made up of voters and their elected representative a “level-precinct”. For example all the members of a small group of villagers (A) and their elected leader (A) are referred to as “level-precinet A” All the members of village small group (B) and their village small group leader (B) may be called “level-precinct B”, and so on. “Level-precinct A” and “level-precinct B” are two different units, or “precincts” of the same “level”. Then, all the small village group leaders (including village group leaders (A) and (B)) and their elected head of the administrative village make up still another “level-precinct ”. This makes up a “precinct” of one “level” higher, as compared with “level-precincts” “A” and “B”. Each village group leader among them has two identities: he is an elected representative of a lower-level precinct and also a voter in his current higher-level precinct. They make up a sort of liaison department between the successive level-precincts.

The structure of vector-summation, taking this kind of “level-precinct” as the basic unit, is made up of a combination of consecutive levels. The principle for the vector-sum of any one level-precinct among them is the same as for “n village-group leaders”. Instead of the village group leader, it is necessary only to substitute the administrative village leader, district director, county commissioner, or the mayor of a city, right up to the top-level precinct of the state leader elected by “n” number of provincial governors.

As the levels go up, the distance between precincts of the same level may become greater, while the child-parent structures connected from below may also increase in number of levels. Such being the case, is it possible to guarantee a common sphere of experience among the voters of higher-level precincts? Can the will of members of the basic levels of society still have an influence on the upper levels? As to this, let us examine the precincts at the highest levels of society; if there are no problems at the highest level-precincts, then those at the middle levels need cause no worry at all.

The centers of “n” number of provincial governors are at least more than 100 kilometers apart, so that their opportunities for face to face contacts, as compared with that of farmers living in the same village, are fewer by far. Nevertheless, provincial governors using the means of communication at their disposal can guarantee to keep in touch at all times. Similarly, electing a new head of state can be undertaken at any time, and would in fact be even more convenient than calling a village election, because electric current covering several kilometers’ distance in an instant is certainly faster than a person walking from one end of a village to the other.

Governors of provinces cannot keep in touch with everything that goes on in the same way that villagers get to know about every local happening such as which housewife is short of some kitchen or other. Outside of holding joint discussions on state affairs, they probably have no other contacts. Does a certain villager get along well with his wife? Is he a good fisherman? It is not necessary for a governor to understand aspects of society not connected to issues of running the whole country. Nevertheless, once the question of respect for one’s wife impinges upon national affairs, investigation of such a case would present no difficulty at all since many resources, such as reports and funds, are available to the governor.

As the levels ascend, metaphysical reflection in regard to communication and summarization will occupy an increasingly important position. Still, nevertheless, experience is basic as always. Regardless of how high the degree of stratification, in the vector-summarization of each and every level-precinct. All require direct communication based on experience. This is the basic attribute of the level-precinct structure. All the conditions and procedures for finding the vector-sum as explained above—whether in electing a “sum-carrier”, or using “holographic communication”, or estimating the vector-summarization through mental calculation through a poll-test of his level-precinct by the “sum-carrier”—are exactly the same for the highest level-precinct as well.

Generally speaking “the extension of experience” exists only between a “parent-child” structures at adjacent levels. But this is like piling up dominos, where one weighs on the other. In order to stand the last piece (the highest level) on end, then one must put up all the fore-going pieces to make this possible. The first domino (at the lowest-level precinct) although there is only a small part of it resting on the second, nevertheless all the dominos behind it are weighing on it and supported by it. For this reason, the level of a provincial governor or the head of state is many levels removed from the ordinary members of society but cannot break free from their restrictions. Moreover, because the control comes from below, it is a case of many controlling a few. Ordinary people vote only for the first-level “sum-carrier”, but this is more thorough, more dependable, as far as securing their own interests, than dealing with autocratic power based on a small number controlling a large number.

 

3.An Electoral System of Consecutive Levels

The following outline of “An Electoral System of Consecutive Levels” is only a visualized application of “The Structure of Vector-Type Summarization” as a concept in a real social system. Difficult to understand, as it may unavoidably turn out to be, additional commentary follows description of the main principles.

 

An Electoral System of Consecutive Levels

 

1.Voting

Article I 

1.      Leaders of each rank in public power organizations, equally taking “n” as the basic number, are elected by a majority of two-thirds; the term of office is unlimited but subject to change at any time by those who voted for him;

2.      A voter is not allowed to vote for himself.

Article II

In society any organization based on people’s rights may choose whether or not to use the electoral system of consecutive levels.

Article III

1.      An organization based on people’s rights that adopts the electoral system of consecutive levels may voluntarily be entered into the electoral level-precinct corresponding to that of a civil rights organization to participate in elections of the same level as that of a civil rights organization.

2.      The grade-level and precinct level of a people’s rights organization entered into the elections of a civil rights organization is based on its number of members and its locality and as specifically set by law.

3.      A people’s rights organization entered into the grade elections of a civil rights organization can have only one civil rights electoral identity at a time; if its subordinate organization independently participates in the voting grade of a civil rights organization, when deciding on the level-precinct of the civil rights organization in which the people’s rights organization is to participate, the number of members in its subordinate organization is deleted from its total number of members.

Article IV

1.      A citizen’s individual identity as a voter in consecutive levels elections is not limited.

2.      Every citizen has at least one identity for enrollment as a voter in level elections of a civil rights organization.

Note: “n” is a sphere or category decided and regulated by law. The basic principle for determining “n” requires that all the persons within the designated sphere, can participate in full and direct communication.

 

II Rights

Article V

Each level-precinct elected through consecutive layers and all the subordinate members under its leadership make up an autonomous unit. It has all the rights not clearly prohibited by the upper level-precinct and complete autonomy in areas where it does not violate the laws of a higher level.

Article VI

The voters and their elected official of each level-precinct together make up the level-precinct and the legislative organs of all its subordinate members. Laws or legal decisions are passed by a majority of two-thirds; a law or a legal decision is abrogated or annulled by a majority of two to one.

Article VII

Laws passed by a civil rights organization are effective over all its subordinate organizations and persons (including mass organizations not yet entered into consecutive-level elections of the civil rights organization, and private organizations). If any laws or legal decisions passed by a lower level-precinct or by any type of organization run counter to laws or legal decisions of an upper level, the upper level-precinct has the right to annul the law and when necessary impose sanctions or punishment.

Article VIII

The elected official of each level-precinct is the highest administrative head and legal representative of his level-precinct and of all the subordinate members.

Article IX

Persons assigned to help the administrative head implement his power over public affairs, persons concerned with work in public affairs, and personnel comprising functional set-ups are appointed by the administrative head or his entrusted assistant.

Article X

The voters of a level-precinct may cancel an administrative decision by a majority of two to one.

Article XI

Judicial power is invested in legally assigned judges of all ranks. The position of judge is established by a two-thirds majority vote of the voters and their officials of the respective level-precincts as elected by consecutive levels. The position cannot be held by a voter or an official. The term of a judge is not limited; he can be replaced by an election at any time.

Article XII

1.      The inspector of each rank installed according to legal stipulation is responsible for carrying out the procedure for entering human rights organizations into the consecutive levels elections of civil rights organizations; he guarantees that all citizens can participate in the consecutive levels elections of the civil rights organizations, supervises the lower ranks in execution of laws passed by the upper ranks and represents civil rights organizations in conducting legal proceedings.

2.      Public procurators of all ranks are elected by a two-thirds majority of the voters and officials of the corresponding level-precinct of the electoral system of consecutive levels. The term of office is unlimited, while the official can be replaced at any time by an election.

Article XIII

The elected official of the highest level-precinct, having emerged through civil rights organization elections according to consecutive levels, is the representative of sovereignty with full powers to conduct foreign relations and command the armed forces.

 

III Explanatory Notes

Article XIV

These rules take precedence over all laws. Any laws, regulations, commands, decisions or actions in violation of these rules are completely invalid.

Article XV

The free right to decide on these rules belongs to the highest level-precinct which has emerged through consecutive levels elections by civil rights organizations.

Article XVI

The right to interpret the laws of each rank is invested in the judge elected by the level-precinct which established the law.

 

Owing to limitations of space, the following covers only briefly some of the more important concepts and principles.

 

Types of Social Organizations

A “civil rights organization” is invested with and exercises public power, engages in public administration, and undertakes to fulfill public social welfare obligations. This role has always been assumed by organs of state power (governmental, legislative and judicial). The civil rights organization formed through the system of election by consecutive levels, differs from former state power organizations, it is not a minority organization made up of official functionaries, but is an organization of the whole people which includes all members of society.

Election by consecutive levels differs from direct popular elections of the Western democratic system. An election in the Western democratic system is a kind of procedure, not an organization. It is a voting procedure for electing a power organization. Even though a cause-and-result relationship exists between elections and power, nevertheless the common people are still cut off from the organs of power. On the other hand, the public power organization generated by the system of elections by consecutive levels is itself an organization of the whole people. Therefore in fact, power and society become completely integrated.

In the electoral system of consecutive levels, setting the number “n” is of crucial significance for realizing the acquisition of power by the whole people. The number “n” guarantees that all elections are carried out within the sphere of experience. This causes a qualitative change in the nature of elections. Such election, no longer for choosing an agent to act on one’s behalf, transforms an elected official into a “sum-carrier”, an instrument of the voters. Voters become the real masters and wielders of power,  the side commanding the initiative, they no longer hand over power to someone else.

Using “n” as a basic number, how can one set up the sequence of a civil rights organization election by consecutive levels? At first one can simply continue the present structure into which Chinese society is divided and follow its sequence, --for example the small group of villagers of a rural neighborhood, the village committee members of an administrative village, country towns, while higher up. There is the county, district, province…… Eventually after the all-round realization of the electoral system of consecutive levels, a more accurate basic numbers (“n”) and sequence will be adjusted gradually in an orderly way.

The situation in urban areas is more complicated than that in the countryside. People live away from where they work and live separate lives. The electoral system of consecutive layers requires that the civil rights organizations can include every member of society; therefore it might be fairly suitable to set up the basic units of a civil rights organization according to place of residence. A start could be made y running elections in local social organizations (such as a village small group, residence committee……) and then extending the layers district-wide and city-wide.

Holding consecutive level elections exclusively according to residence may not be conclusive because home and family are only one part of a person’s life, while work is another important part. According to Article IV of the Rules: “A citizen’s individual identity as a voter in consecutive levels elections is not limited”; in this way a member of society who has a work unit, while voting at his place of residence, can at the same time also vote at his work organization according to the stated system and can in this way express his individual will in regard to his work.

Nevertheless, except for “state-owned” enterprises and institutions, other types of work organizations cannot be regarded as civil rights organizations and for this reason cannot be expected to adopt the electoral system of consecutive levels. Particularly if ownership is that of a private enterprise (“private rights organization”) the workers fall into the category of hired hands, and for them to engage in election by consecutive levels would infringe upon the ownership. Therefore, in the rules, the system of election by consecutive levels is not proposed for them, although “people’s rights organizations”, which fall between public rights organizations and private rights organizations, can themselves decide whether or not to adopt the system. Nevertheless, even if a private rights organization or a people’s rights organization does not participate in the elections by consecutive levels of the civil rights organization, it still must respect the laws set by the civil rights organization of their area (Article VII).

“People’s rights organizations”, as I see it, should make up the main fabric of the future society. The main function of a civil rights organization is to administer the affairs of society, while a people’s rights organization is an autonomous community that works together on specific functions and aims, such as daily life, production, religious activities, education, and various other causes. Ownership rights belong to all the members. Article III stipulates: “An organization based on people’s rights which adopts the electoral system of consecutive levels may voluntarily be entered into the corresponding electoral level-precinct to participate in elections of the civil rights organization.” If a food-processing factory owned by the workers who hold stock in common voluntarily uses the electoral system of consecutive levels, it can connect with a non-civil rights organization in respect to voting activities. Yet, a possibility which is even more worth while for the enterprise, might be to join the level elections of a civil rights organization, because in that way it can influence wider policy decisions in seeking bigger benefits for the enterprise. If the food factory has 1,000 employees, and the number is in the same category as that of the residence committee, then the level-precinct of the civil rights organization elections by consecutive levels, into which the food factory is admitted must be the level-precinct from which the factory head and the local residents’ committee chairman together elect the responsible head of the residential area.

The head of the food factory becomes a voter and a legislator in the community level-precinct. In the process of summarizing the whole community’s will, the vector-sum of the factory workers can be included, bringing relations between the food factory and the community closer. The factory can give the local community special consideration and can coordinate with it in respect to environmental protection, employment, and payment into the public welfare fund. The community can take into consideration the needs of the factory in respect to overall planning, services and public safety. When the person in charge of the community who fills the role of “sum-carrier” enters a higher-grade level-precinct as a voter and a legislator, moreover, he can also transmit the factory’s vector-sum together with that of the community’s will.

If the food factory does not need to maintain frequent contact with the community but has close links with the city food-enterprise, it may, instead, opt to join the consecutive levels elections there. For example, “n” number of factories through such an election may form an association, which would be responsible for coordinating their activities and promoting cooperation among them, such as unified shipping of materials, joint marketing, and control over unfair competition. The factory heads of “n” number of food factories elect a person as responsible leader of the association.

When the association decides to combine with a civil rights organization in elections by consecutive levels, its appropriate level would probably be on a par with that of the community. The head of the association, on an equal basis with the community leader, would vote for the district manager, so that at this higher level he could further the interests of the workers.

As the food factory, it would be in its interests to participate in elections together with community civil rights organization while at the same time voting in the level elections of the food industry, but Article III section 3, stipulates: “A people’s rights organization entered into the level elections of a civil rights organization can have only one identity at a time as a civil rights voter; if its subordinate organization independently participates in the voting grade of a civil rights organization, when deciding on the level-precinct of the civil rights organization in which the people’s rights organization participates, the number of members in the subordinate organization is deducted from its total number of members.” This is to say, the food factory, once having joined in the elections of the civil rights organization in the community can still take part in election-level of the food industry, but when the association of food producers also joins in the civil rights organization grade elections, the number of employees of the food factory must be subtracted from the total number. Then the level-precinct to which it belongs in the grade election of the civil rights organization can be decided. The aim in setting up this sort of restriction is mainly for the purpose of preventing some people’s rights organizations (particularly a large-scale organization) from expanding its influence inordinately through repeatedly entering civil rights organization grade elections.

Of course this stipulation only adds to the technical complexity of elections by consecutive layers. Because of all sorts of difficult problems arise, such as calculating the number of people, determining the appropriate level-precinct, confirming an elected official, adjusting to changes and so on. Nonetheless, in the first place, mankind has now entered the age of the computer and the network, laying a technical foundation for solving difficult problems such as these; secondly as soon as election by consecutive levels begins to function, its mechanism for automatic correction can come into play and eventually find the best solution.  

 

Determination of the Number “n”

The basic number “n”, on which the electoral system of consecutive levels is based, is crucial. The core of the reason why this system surpasses other systems of election is the fact that all voting must take place within the sphere of experience, and this can be put into practice only according to the number “n”. Without the limitation of “n”, running consecutive levels elections only in form cannot essentially break away from the old types of election. At present in China elections of the “People’s Congress” are also run according to the form of consecutive levels, but precisely because the basic number of voters exceeds the number “n” by far, the process becomes a sham.

How then is the number “n” determined? The rule is explained in this way: “ ‘n’ represents a sphere determined and regulated by law. The basic principle for setting the number ‘n’ is: Within this sphere all persons can realize full, direct communication.”

The number “n” cannot be constant because the structure of the system of election by consecutive levels and the organizational structure of society itself form an organic whole and real life cannot be regulated according to a constant number; therefore ‘n’ can only be set according to a sphere:

 

xny

 

Number x and number y are constant numbers, “n” can represent any integral number between x and y. The problem of determining “n” now becomes one of how to determine x and y. As discussed above, the known number represents all the persons who can guarantee full direct communication mutually, and the upper limit of y must not exceed the maximum number of people who can guarantee full communication. What the exact maximum number is can be determined scientifically, and without difficult can be assessed by relying on a general knowledge of life. The specific number can be tested and revised in the course of practice.

The lowest number in an election cannot be one person alone, since an election cannot be run with one person and according to Regulation I, item 2: “A voter cannot vote for himself.” An election consisting of 2 persons can only result in an impasse, with each one voting for the other. According to regulation, a person must be elected “by a two-thirds” majority to be an official and to pass laws; therefore the lowest limit cannot be less than three persons. This also is in keeping with the customary lowest limit among social organizations in general.

As a matter of fact, it is not necessary at present to focus on the number “n”. At first, in using the electoral system of consecutive levels, it can not be so strictly confirmed; simply to vote according to the already existing structure for social communication and the ordinary organizations would be suitable. Once the principle of this system of elections is established and adopted throughout society, an appropriate “n” can be found, then implemented according to law and adjusted as changes in the situation take place.

 

A Citizen’s Identity in Election by Consecutive Levels

Article IV, regulation 1. stipulates: “ A citizen may individually have many kinds of identities as a voter in elections according to consecutive levels.” This means a citizen may simultaneously act as a voter and an elected official in many organizations that implement this system. For example, a citizen, as an ordinary employee of a food factory, participates in electing a group leader. At the same time, as an enthusiastic activist in the neighborhood he is elected small group leader. Also, he is a regular member of the Green Party, and in addition was elected responsible head of the National Amateur Surfing Club. If the food factory, neighborhood small group, Green Party, and Surfing Club all implement the system of elections according to consecutive levels and have all joined in the alignment of the civil rights organization elections, then this citizen has four identities in the elections of the civil rights organization. He has four channels through which to express his personal will in the vector-summarization of the civil rights organization. Is this phenomenon reasonable? Can it inappropriately magnify the personal influence of a citizen who has a fairly large number of identities in the electoral system?

Not at all. This is indeed one of the outstanding merits of this electoral system. The vector-sum of the individual will, as referred to, is not a simple unitary element. A person’s will invariably forms as a specific reaction in relation to a particular problem or question, different aspects of which evoke a different will. This type of election which accommodates many types of identities is eminently suited to this characteristic, for it provides many channels to enable the individual will to be reflected from various sides in all its dimensions. But no matter how many voting identities a person has for expressing the many various aspects of his will, they represent only a process of refinement of his individual will, and in no way can his individual will undergo aggrandizement.

Modern social life is becoming more and more divided up into separate compartments. The “tribal” quality of life that confined an individual from birth, through old age, illness, and death, within one sphere, where clothes, food, shelter and work were available, is declining day by day. Under these circumstances to restricting the vote to a single identity is obviously not in keeping with the development of society. Today voters in the West elect officials of different levels in a vertical direction: town, city, state, nation…… each time, voting at a distance further away from their own locality, while on the other hand the system of election by consecutive levels mainly develops voting horizontally with more than one voter-identity. This sort of election may not be as exciting or as bombastic as vertical elections, but it has much greater significance and effectiveness for fully realizing the individual will, while the ultimate realization of the social will may also well exceed by far the results of vertical voting.

The stipulation of Article IV, rule 2, that “every citizen has at least one identity for enrollment as a voter in a civil rights organization” applies mainly to members of the migratory population who have no way of joining a civil rights organization which is set up according to residence, and also to those who work in a factory or company which does not adopt election by consecutive levels. All this may result in their being deprived of a channel for expressing their individual will, while their interests in general cannot receive proper consideration. What channel would enable them to join in elections by consecutive levels of a civil rights organization? Joining a trade union, or the local residence committee? There may be many choices.

 

The Integration of Power

The electoral system of consecutive levels does not adopt principle of separation of powers. The purpose behind separation of powers is to maintain a balance; and to treat society is a structure split in two. In this way it is difficult for society to communicate with power or to restrict it. The only method for preventing corruption and abuse of power is to take pains in designing the structure of power, and only after that, set up the separation of powers. This sort of structure is by no means naturally reasonable, but exists  as a sort of last resort in the absence of any better alternative. It is like letting each of a person’s four limbs go its own way independently. No matter how ingenious the design for coordinating relationships to achieve and maintain balance, problems inevitably arise.

The consecutive levels electoral system enables power and society to coalesce and integrate into one unit. This dispenses with the state of duality; power once again returns to the communications structure and is controlled by all the members of society. Restrictions exist in every cell of society and become functional at any time, therefore the separation of powers as a system for maintaining balance is no longer necessary. The integration of power does not lead to dictatorship or corruption; moreover precisely because of this, it can be much more rational, highly efficient and flexible.

In this system, outside of the voters in the lowest rung and the head of state at the highest level, persons in the middle strata belong to two level-precincts at the same time; a person in the lower level-precinct is an elected representative, in the upper he is a voter. In each of these roles, he has the following functions:

l      Legislation

Here, “legislation” is a broad concept. It can mean drawing up the nation’s laws, setting up a routine decided by factory workers or finalizing an agreement reached by several villages to form a county township. Every level-precinct has this kind of “legislative” function, the only difference being that legislation at the higher level-precincts is more often drawn up in formal written form, while at the lower level-precincts rule-of-thumb methods will do.

“Legislation” impinges upon “basic state policy” and is not so much concerned with daily administrative trivialities; therefore this system stipulates that all the members ( “n” number of voters plus one elected representative) of a level-precinct draw up laws together. (Their elected representative joins in for the purpose of linking up with legislation of the upper level. This ensures full expression for the legal intentions of the lower level-precinct as well as prevents clashes between the two levels in the course of their legislative work.) The relationship between an upper level-precinct and a one is as follows: If the lower level-precinct is subordinate to the upper (regardless of how many levels separate them, as long as they are in the same cluster, the upper level-precinct may over-ride the legislation of the lower, and the lower level-precinct must abide by the decision. The legislation of the lower level-precinct is valid only on condition that it does not run counter to that of the upper one.

l      Administration

Here, for better understanding, ordinary decision-making is referred to as “administration” by way of analogy despite the basic difference. Thus, it may be formulated in this way: In the consecutive levels electoral system, the elected leader of each level-precinct acts as head of the administration and as its legal representative in dealing with its daily policy decisions.

l      Appointments

As the level-precincts rise a higher, the related subordinate “cluster” enlarges, while the volume of administrative work necessarily increases; so that the executive head unable deal with it on his own, needs an assistant or special group to help. A society that operates according to the electoral system of consecutive levels requires that all civil rights organizations use this system; only the personnel helping the leader at each rank to carry out his official duties are appointed from above. Although the assistants also exercise power, nevertheless, power of this kind does not actually belong to them. The power they wield is delegated to them by the leader. This appointment system is necessary to guarantee that power follows the consigner.

But the appointment system does not deny the assistant functionary the right to vote; he has other concurrent identities which offer him many opportunities to participate in elections and to various channels through which to express his individual will.

l      Administration of Justice

The electoral system of consecutive levels requires that all ranking judges and procurators are elected from their respective level-precincts. At the lower levels, the administration of justice and the procuratorial work may simply consist of settling quarrels, or supervising and inspecting; if may not necessarily require a special official position. At certain higher levels, however, it may be necessary to provide for a qualified full time person to handle legal matters.

The judge and the procurator are voted into office and can be replaced. For this reason, it behooves them to pay strict attention to the wishes of the voters. In this context, the power to mete out justice is basically in the hands of the voters, while the judge and the procurator are only functionaries of the judicial establishment. Still, they differ from the administrative assistant appointed from above by an elected official and assigned work by him personally. The judge and the procurator must follow the instructions of all the level-precinct members who elected them and not those of any one individual. The reason why it is stipulated that the vote for judges and procurators should be a two-thirds majority in the precinct is to guarantee their relative independence. Moreover, as long as they do not come into conflict with the precinct’s majority on any major issue, even the administrative head himself has no power to interfere with them—on this point, also, the administration of justice is guaranteed independence.

In practice, the administration of justice is far more complicated than the promulgation of laws. The question of how the judiciary is established in a society based on the electoral system of consecutive levels must be postponed for the present and reserved for future discussion.

 

                                                                      

 

The communication structure through alienation turns into power. This has resulted from the continual inadequacy of society to deal with the growing complexity of the communication structure, which became split off from society and taken over as privately owned premises. The electoral system of consecutive levels builds a society with the sphere of experience as the basic unit, and for this reason, whatever the complication--whether technology, a procedural problem, or even intrigues or plots--it cannot possibly be hidden, and for the same reason, alienation of the communication structure loses its base.

At a time when power, isolated from society, exists independently, even if the power-will happens to “touch” the social will which thereby attains expression; one still cannot maintain that power is not private. The electoral system of consecutive levels uses officials “sum-carriers”, who can exercise power only according to the collective will or the social will. Then power is truly no longer private.

One can see that the structure of elections by consecutive levels and that of indirect communication are exactly the same. In this electoral system, power is no longer a “solid body” split off from society, but instead, it is dissolved and absorbed into every cell of society, and therefore society is no longer a duality.

Once power returns again the basic purpose for which it emerged, and becomes the structure for indirect communication, pressure and force are no longer necessary to adjust or replace it. Therefore, as to the “?” in Diagram A, its answer is—the electoral system of consecutive levels. This system enables 4 parts of Diagram B to combine as “social will”; in that way, it realizes the unitary society described in Diagram C.

That society will be such that any social unit can become autonomous while at the same time every autonomous unit constantly merges with other ones to become a higher-level autonomous entity. Social information circulates within the autonomous unit5. Each unit needs only to go through a channel (the “sum-carrier”) for outside communication to receive instructions or report results. The specific procedures for communication are completely up to the autonomous unit itself to decide. For this reason, a large volume of whatever news or information emerges, does so spontaneously and disappears the same way. It is digested and absorbed within the confines of the autonomous unit. As the news continues to spread, even if it reaches the highest precinct of the state, it consists of only what has passed in and out of “n” number of provinces. The bulk of the information will already have been absorbed completely at one layer after another. For this reason, no matter how much the scale of society expands or how dramatically news “break”, it cannot undermine the ability of society to maintain order.

The expression “small is beautiful” speaks to the exigency which mankind is up against, but if one tries the method of turning social development backward as a solution, it can only represent a sensitive viewpoint but cannot be taken up as a useful approach. The electoral system of consecutive levels can not only allow the scale of society unlimited growth but can also allow each and every autonomous unit to maintain its sphere of experience free of information overload. In this way, all autonomous units can become equally small. This adopts “small is beautiful” from a fresh angle, while at the same time presents mankind with the possibility of creating a perfect society of great harmony.

Beijing, May, 2000

Democracy of the Western style has its restraints; it cannot resolve the overall disjuncture between those who control power and the rest of society. For example, any given election can only create a few positions within the power structure, providing limited channels for  communication. Considering that elections are held only once in several years, the communication they provide is actually spotty. 

« 上一篇 | 下一篇 »

Trackbacks

点击获得Trackback地址,Encode: UTF-8 点击获得Trackback地址,Encode: GB2312 or GBK 点击获得Trackback地址,Encode: BIG5

发表评论

评论内容 (必填):