Conflict Resolution
These considerations are taken into account in regard to
the CDRSB alternative to the use of postal ballots on
demand. Falling voter turnout is best understood not as a
crisis of democracy in general but of its present, limited
form in which conflict between radicalism and conservatism
has remained a threat to political stability and freedom.
The CDRSB seeks to develop democracy to help resolve this
conflict. Representative democracy has been constrained by
narrow parameters which tend to polarise factional
differences. On a global scale two related aspects of
reform therefore need to be tackled, preferably in America
first, then in the less advanced states, assuming they can
first emulate the achievements of the US Bill of Rights.
First, the development of broader, more egalitarian means
of political representation through increased use of
sortition (which can be applied to both election and
appointment practices). Second, implementation of the
principle that the earth belongs to the living. By such
means the problem of class polarisation in the modern era
that in large part gave rise to radical extremism could be
better moderated. A participatory democracy of this kind
could provide a more flexible basis upon which different
macroeconomic systems such as socialism or capitalism could
be tested over time without the autocratic powers which
radicalism has generally sought to acquire. Jefferson's 19
year cycle for constitutional review seems appropriate in
this regard.
On this understanding the CDRSB has formulated the resolution below. It is oriented to expressing truths which are self evident to common sense and the unfulfilled aspirations of the American founding fathers. We intend to continue demonstrating through opinion research that these truths exist and can provide the basis for a new agreement across the political spectrum for democratic development free from electoral fraud, factional conspiracy and violent conflict. The resolution advocates incorporation of the right to self defence free from monopoly factional control. In the USA this in principle has no real application since the right to bear arms is firmly established. In those states where this right is denied the usual practice is for control of arms to be exercised by government ministers. One possible first step to establishing the right to effective self defence in these states, certainly by non-lethal means, could be to ensure that all such decisions may be subject to appeal to a jury. In this way the right to self defence can to some extent be taken out of the control of narrow political factions. For those who cannot agree to this resolution on first sight we would like the opportunity to discuss it with them by means of an interview in which the ideas in it can be more fully explained.