A
Republic is not a Democracy
The 16 element structure has a
long historic background, but the division as shown above is a recent one that
was put into place in the late 1800s by a new England woman. (See: Interrelationships)
Briefly, for level have been scribed as:
The higher order
science the spiritual
moral the transitional
empire the face of depravity
In the above figure a line is
drawn through the center of the moral domain, that makes it transitional. The
line divides the three lower rows into an upper half (light green) and a lower
half (dark blue). Anything above the line is defined by scientific progression,
and below a regression into insanity, the opposite of science and all that is
spiritual. Above the moral line, the line that one should not cross but move
away from in scientific and spiritual development, unfolds the human domain in
which the moral develops into the spiritual in the 'rivers' of science. Below
the line, the sub-moral domain trends towards utter depravity and inhumanity.
The question arises, on which side
of the line does one find the Republic located and on which side, the Democracy?
It all depends on what the terms
mean to us. The delineation is often blurred. The following is a brief overview.
A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a
monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its
government. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair"....
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a
monarch. In republics such as the United States and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct
democracy, and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as
"republicans". In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as
liberalism....
Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of
Government." The Soviet Union was a single nation composed of distinct and legally sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics....
As Machiavelli wrote, the distinction between an aristocracy ruled by a select elite and a democracy ruled by a council appointed by the people became cumbersome....
The concept of the "republic" itself was not a meaningful concept in the classical
world. There are number of states of the classical era that are today by convention called republics. These include the city states of ancient Greece such as Athens and
Sparta and the Roman Republic (which became an empire). The structure and governance of these states was very different from that of any modern
republic. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic)
It appears that a republic is
neither a monarchy, aristocracy, or a democracy, or else, why would one need a
special name for it? So what is a republic that makes it distinct from either of
the three? It appears that the answer to the question is defined by how the four
types relate to the moral line in principle, and beyond that, by the degree to
which the four types reflect the order of the Universe.
The order of the Universe reflects
a type of rule that is harmonizing and constructive - that is neither arbitrary
nor autocratic, but is absolute in the sense that it is totally focused on the
general welfare of the whole so that nothing happens that endangers the whole,
diminishes the whole, and hinders its constant progressive universal unfolding.
All of this should also be reflected in the self-government of mankind. The
autocracy of a monarchy falls far short. If it drops below the moral line, which
it typically does and becomes self-serving, it is an evil. The same can be said
about government by aristocracy. In this case, a wider circle becomes
self-serving, to the detriment of the whole. A pure democracy is basically not
much different either, with the small exception that the ruling elite is
typically bought by the oligarchy that runs the world from behind the scene with
its money bags. We see a lot of that today in many places around the world. The
entire Euro zone is run this way. This leaves the term republic for capturing
what the other types of government are not. It would be in principle a type of
government where the self-serving class becomes the nation itself. A nation
would promote thereby whatever is in its universal interest.
Economically, a republic would
operate as a national credit society - a society that owns its own currency and
issues itself financial credits for its self-development - versus a society in a
monetarist system where the economic lifeblood is owned by private
(self-serving) enterprises, typically called banks.
Socially, the same principle would
apply. A people is a nation's greatest asset. Whatever would be needed to maximize
the creative and productive potential of this asset would be created in a
republic (and would not be created by any other system.) This includes high
quality housing, education, health care, culture - all created in the most
efficient manner for the whole, including also transportation, power, and
farming infrastructures. The focus would not be on cost, but onto the benefits
towards developing the human potential. In such such system the recurring
question would be, what do we need to fulfill this mandate to ourselves? And the
answer would be: Let's do it!
Such a system that would
invariably be called a republic, would be primarily governed by its a
acknowledged principles laid down in a constitution, and only to the extend of
the details involved in fulfilling the nation's commitment to itself, can a
government become essentially democratic. Democratic, in this sense, doesn't
mean a system of counting votes, but implies a system of consultation and
discovery of the most efficient principles that a apply to a given situation.
Under these parameters, a republic would be operating miles above the moral
line. The fact that this happens extremely seldom in practice, so that no clear
examples exist, is the likely reason why the distinctions between the terms blur.
In practice the blurring is so
extreme the terms themselves have become meaningless. We now see republics (by
name) having become fascist, which is essentially a contradiction in terms. So,
the terms have become meaningless. But the moral line still remains. In many
respects, it is a fine line especially when the definitions are blurred as to
what a government is. The farther a society gets away from universal principles,
the closer it operates near the moral line that thereby becomes easily crossed.
The environment that one finds typically near the moral line is one of
indifference, and it doesn't take much for indifference to cross the line and
become disdain and greed. It took Adolf Hitler a half a dozen years along this
road to drag much of Germany with him into the sewer of fascism.
The healing of the world from its
collapse ever deeper into fascism, poverty, war, terror, and economic
disintegration, involves essentially a healing of the term 'republic.' And this
healing needs to be in the heart. When Benjamin Franklin said about the USA,
"I give you a republic if you can keep it," did he mean with that, 'if
the ideal of the republic can be kept in the heart?' Evidently that is what he
meant, because it is in the heart where the term is defined, and if the heart sits
too low, the noblest name looses it meaning.
|
