Testing testing 123
In majority of the cases, a country is run by a party through democracy. Well there is no problem with democracy per say, but there is a problem (in my opinion) with how a decision is made and passed by the current government of that country.
Scenario
Let’s take the scenario where in a country C, there are three political parties X, Y and Z. Suppose party X is in charge of the country currently. What would happen if the current government pushes a decision that goes against the interests and betterment of the people? Naturally there would be opposing forces at play, the current government party, X, would get a bad reputation, and the other parties Y and Z get popularity as they would try and exploit that “wrong” decision. This is the norm, and this is what happens on a regular basis in any multiparty country. So what am I proposing here?
A Possible Solution
Let us introduce a neutral party N in our situation. What is the purpose of this party? To put it simply, their objectives don’t include any interests in any traditional “political” matter, rather their interests are solely on how to improve and develop the quality of life (this may be a broad term but you get the idea) of the population in that country as well as to ensure peace between the government and the people. Unlike other parties, N cannot AND will not take part in any form of elections. They do not have the right to delegate new people in the government. Nor can they take down the current government. So what’s happening here?
Suppose the government X decides to pass a new rule/regulation in the country C. But despite obvious flaws in that regulation, the government pushes it anyway. Here is where N comes into play. Since N has decided and have seen that the rule is flawed, they call in a special vote. In this vote, the public is made aware of the rule to be passed and are asked to vote for or against the rule. A second vote is then conducted with the parties X, Y and Z. Then, N decides and concludes the voting with consideration of both the numbers i.e. the votes of the public and the votes done at the party level. Majority of the votes for the particular notion wins.
Isn’t This The Same As Having An Advisor?
The advisor of any government fall in the category of being a member of the ruling party. So in our case, the advisor of X in country C would still be a member of that party. The advisor does not hold any authority or power to oppose the current government. In my proposed solution, N has the power to oppose the government and their decision, hence bringing forth the vote-for-a-decision. And in this case, the government has no choice but to comply.
Why Would This Be Effective At All?
To put it simply, It’s a mind game and a psychological pressure system. As long as the ruling government is a physical human being, this might work. Why though? Because we, humans, love power more than anything. So if X thinks they need to be in power for longer, obviously they would do what’s “right” for the people and the nation. This is so because they would not want to lose in the next election/campaign. Hence they would try and comply with the unanimous decision. Once the they’ve gained the popularity of the people, then they are sure to win (given normal circumstances).
Some Things To Note
There is a possibility that once the people are made aware of the “bad decision”, parties Y and Z might try and manipulate the supporters or the people in general to vote for their decisions (which they show are right but may not be). To avoid such a case from arising, there should be strict monitoring on the opposing parties such that they cannot force their decisions on the people. If they do so, their votes at the gathering conducted by N will be declared null and void. Let’s also recognize that in an ideal system, not all the opposing parties would oppose the decision given by the government. After all, if the decision is indeed right, then there is no reason to intervene in the first place.
Keep in mind that the party N in any given country C cannot and should not have interest in the population of another country C’. N’s sole duty is to lookout for the people of C. However, should there be a conflict between the current party X and the parties Y, Z and N, and Y, Z, N and the population of C are in one agreement, then N has the right and holds authority to call N’, N’‘, N’’‘ and so on from countries C’, C’‘, C’’‘ and so on respectively. This is done in order to intervene with X and negotiate and come to an agreement. Should the N-primes from the other countries impose decisions that may align with the interests and benefit to the other countries C-primes, then the N-primes should be dismantled from making any decisions in their respective countries and a new group of people will for the N party.
Matter Of Safety
Obviously there will be attempts from the current government to eliminate N. The contingency for this that the members of N for C will be located around the world in other countries. And it would be the job of ALL the parties in that country to conceal their locations and whereabouts. Let me reiterate the point that no N of any country will serve together to bring about their own interests. The N for any country C must remain within the interests of that country ONLY.
Conclusion
This is just a theoretical framework and a work in progress on my take of how a country could be run. There may be flaws here and there, or loop-holes within this current system that I have described. This is only an alpha version of this system. Maybe you could say version v0.1??? So I might decide to work on and improve the model later on. But for now, this is what I have got.