lpc1998's Home

Original Posting: New Political System for the Information Age Draft #04

In reponse to NPS is not new - [Ian Green]

NPS is truly a new political system
Friday, 21 May 2004 14:20 Singapore

Your emal: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:02:16 -0500 (CDT)

Hi, Mr Ian Green. Good morning to you.

Thank you for your reply.

You said:

“Clearly you are a deep thinker and worthy to be a decision maker (along with your fellow, well-educated citizens) and a source of valuable proposals in regards to principles of law, …...”
Thank you for your compliments.
“…. but I'm sorry that I don't have time to read your proposal for a New Political System completely. However, on the face of it it seems not fundamentally different to most representative democracy constitutions. The structure of a ruling President, elected Senate and appointed elders or eminent people (Council of Veterans) seems very much like stepping back several hundred years in England, with a ruling King, and elected House of Commons and an appointed House of Lords.”
But the similarity with the English system ends here. The elected House of Commons has legislative powers and the appointed House of Lords judicial powers. They are all members of the ruling class, whereas in the proposed New Political System for the Information Age (
NPS), neither the elected Senate nor the appointed Council of Veterans has legislative or judicial powers.

The Senate is primarily elected to supervise the President, and where necessary, to remove him from office so that the people could decide whether to re-elect him to office or to elect a new President. In the NPS, the people have the final say in every important thing.

The Council of Veterans is primarily a pool of talents, experience and judgement in the management of public affairs for the nation and people to tap on. In the existing political systems, most of such talents, experience and judgement have gone to waste.

The other functions of the Senate and Council of Veterans are to provide constitutional checks and balances on the side of the people to the powers of the President.

In short, in the NPS, the Senate and Council of Veterans are for supervising President, making the government as transparent as possible and rendering help to the people in dealing with the government. They are not part of the government.

“No established democratic constitution is structured around a party political system, yet factions, parties, lobby groups, business people and other eminent people effectively control most if not all governments, regardless of their method of representative democratic election. If the worlds democratic governments actually operated in accordance with the best intentions of their constitutions, there would now not be undemocratic control of these governments and we would not be having this conversation.”
You are right in pointing out the problems of the existing political systems and constitutions. Precisely because of this, we have to understand why and how the existing political systems and constitutions have been corrupted or hijacked by powerful individuals or groups. And precisely because of this, we really need a truly new political system including DD (Direct Democracy), if it could provide an effective and practical government or system for the people and nation.
“The "New Political System" is nothing new under the sun. A president shall be no less than 35 years of age, etcetera, etcetera. If this were a truly democratic constitution, the emphasis would be on creating a government of the people, by the people and for the people, instead of facilitating a potential dictatorship. Is the specification of an arbitrary chronological age supposed to make people feel good that the potential president is somehow "qualified" to be president and make all of those legislative and executive decisions on their behalf, or does it merely reflect a fundamental distrust of democracy, believing that, but for that rule, "the people" would surely choose someone utterly unqualified and immature for the post of president?”
You have raised several issues here.

That a President or the leader of a nation be a certain minimum age is a wisdom derived from the accumulated experiences of mankind over thousands of years of history. The rule is proposed in recognition that most people understand the wisdom that experience, knowledge and judgement require time to learn and accumulate, but you are apparently not one of them.

If you were right that most people now think that the proposed rule is no longer valid in our time and age, it could be struck off before the new Constitution is adopted by the people in a referendum. On the other hand, would you accept the proposed rule, if the majority of the people are in favour of it?

How do you know that the NPS is not emphasizing on the creation of a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”, when you have not yet found the time to give it a fair and just evaluation? Are you not convicting it on the sins of others?

In fact, the NPS goes further than “a government of the people, by the people and for the people”. At the core of the NPS is the sovereignty of the electoral majority.

“This system has nothing in common with the direct democratic systems formerly discussed in the Direct Democracy Forum and other DD discussion groups, although one UK participant a few years ago created a proposal also called (New Political System), which was also not really direct democracy, but was rather a geographically hierarchical democracy based on progressively larger geographic areas implementing the democratic decisions of the constituents, who somehow could only exercise their democratic rights through their local group, which then voted at higher levels. Not very useful for a mobile, populace, and despite its name, it was actually a system which strongly opposed using modern information and communications technology to create a genuinely new paradigm of democracy, without representatives.”
Yes, you are right that the NPS falls short of the “new paradigm of democracy, without representatives”. This is because all political systems require representatives in one form or another, elected or not, explicit or implicit. So I shall be glad to be enlightened on how the DD could operate “without representatives”.

You are also right that the UK proposal is not based on direct election of the top national leader by the people whereas the NPS does. Such a proposal has in it all the problems and weaknesses of a system of ‘a representative of representatives’ resulting in many cases of the people being effectively not represented.

“Lastly, any political system with the name "New Political System" begins on shaky ground, as it communicates nothing about the true nature of the proposed system.
"New" is not necessarily better.
"New" is not even genuinely new.
"New" is usually simply "old" with the word "new" substituted, and rightly deserves the scepticism of any who should have to consider such a proposal."
I do understand why you are so skeptical about the name “New Political System”. I have done a yahoo search on “new political system” and I got 12,200 hits. After going through more than a hundred of them, I have yet to find a genuinely new political system or a proposal for a genuinely new political system, apart from DD which is a proposal or search for a new political system.

The common grounds between DD and the NPS are that there is agreement on the needs for a new political system and on the reasons for that need.

A striking difference is that DD does not in its name reflects what it actually is: a new political system whereas the NPS does.

Best Regards


Back to top