Implementation
A first step to implement these
proposals can be the canvassing of public opinion to
confirm the relation between common sense and the self
evident truths which they encompass. Such non-partisan
research must be conducted on a transparently honest
foundation and clearly distinguished from 'deliberative
polling' and suchlike practices which have of late been
adopted by Left leaders. As shown in the CDRSB Community of
Democratic Nations briefing, Socialist International
President Georges Papandreou sought to establish a people's
assembly of randomly selected citizens in Athens tasked
with increasing support for the EU using deliberative
polling. Similarly on 3rd September 2007 Gordon Brown
declared he wants to build a "politics of consensus, not
division, a politics built on engaging with people ... not
the narrow circles of power." Opposition backbenchers have
been recruited to a series of standing commissions, voters
will be consulted through citizen's juries and an all-party
Speaker's Conference will be called to draw up proposals
for constitutional reform. The CDRSB initiative outlined
here is fundamentally different to this approach for self
evident reasons concerning the use of postal ballots on
demand. It is nevertheless important to fully clarify these
lines of demarcation.
Critics of the Labour initiative condemned it as partisan
in character. The Daily Telegraph alleged Gordon Brown's
"idea of consensus politics is a one-party state ... The
big clunking fist has not turned into an outstretched
palm." Labour is accused of merely repeating previous
manoeuvres aimed at drawing in what Lenin termed 'useful
idiots' from other parties under a 'big tent' which remains
firmly under Labour control. Polling companies and think
tanks used by Labour will themselves be both financially
dependent on the government and also politically aligned
with it. Citizen juries will be fed questions and
information determined by Labour, so the outcome of their
deliberations will closely conform to its priorities: it is
unlikely they will be called upon to examine issues such as
the European treaty, immigration, and postal ballots.
Critics maintain citizen juries cannot add anything
coherent to complex questions of policy review that could
not be supplied by senior civil servants. The Hansard
Society believes citizen juries should be used only for
educational purposes and not to influence policy. These
criticisms directed against Labour's disingenuous method of
approach in regard to citizen juries are valid and our
analysis can demonstrate this. At the same time our
analysis can show the belief that assemblies elected by
sortition should not influence policy is wrong.
The CDRSB analysis derives from study of the history of
political philosophy, democracy and conflict between
radicalism and conservatism prompted by concern regarding
fifth column practices. Upon these premises we advocate a
resumption of the approach taken by American revolutionary
radicalism in further developing the US constitutional
achievement, and propose the use of sortition to help
develop a non-partisan constitutional framework of
understanding consistent with the self evident truths of
common sense, including the principle that the 'earth
belongs to the living.' This can serve as a point of
departure for conflict resolution between radicalism and
conservatism on a world historical scale. These insights
are unique to our analysis: none of them have been included
in Socialist International concerns. In fact one of the
main reasons why to date sortition has been practically
absent from published works of democratic theory is because
Left leaders have themselves undermined the integrity of
the electoral process and do not seek to apply or promote
the self evident truth that sortition can be used to
contain secret factional influences and fifth column
practices.
The suspect nature of europhile interest in sortition is
most apparent when account is taken of the fact that the
right to trial by jury - a barrier to secret factional
influence on the law - is absent from the European
constitution. As Jefferson stated, this right is the only
means by which a government can ultimately be held
accountable to its constitution. For those who genuinely
value the judgment and consent of randomly selected
ordinary citizens defence of the right to trial by jury
should be a priority in promoting greater use of sortition.
In fact Left leaders generally seek to undermine this
right, both in Europe and the USA, prompted by their own
aristocratic inclinations, which, as shown, have
longstanding antecedents, and ultimately, an affinity with
totalitarianism. Left ambitions are oriented to gaining
control of Europe with a view to establishing world
socialism, not developing democratic institutions to
facilitate informed, evolving choice between different
macroeconomic systems over time.
A clear and now irrevocable demonstration of the selective
nature of Left enthusiasm for sortition is the Labour
ministerial refusal to support, even at pilot project
levels, our proposals for the use of random selection in
security force recruitment and democratic development in
Iraq. Instead their officials persuaded US Ambassador
Bremer to include the Communist Party in the Iraq
provisional authority. Suspicions therefore that Labour
leaders are under communist secret influence appear
justified and suggest they oppose using sortition to
contain the influence of clandestine factions and seek
merely to exploit citizen juries to disguise extremist,
partisan manoeuvres as being non-partisan and moderate. The
price of Labour cooperation with Bush may have been the
creation of ideal conditions for infiltration of Iraq
government and security forces by communist allies and
fronts. Time will tell whether Bush got the better of the
deal.
Accordingly while the CDRSB advocates the use of sortition
as a requirement of conflict resolution between radicalism
and conservatism on a world historical scale through
development of a non-partisan constitutional framework of
understanding able to contain the influence of secret
factionalism, Left leaders do not incorporate random
selection in their various schemas for conflict resolution,
and similarly do not take account of the need to reconcile
conservatism and radicalism on a general scale. On the
contrary, their preference is for the appointment of elite
bodies and the restriction of conflict resolution measures
to national, or at best, regional parameters. These
limitations derive from the refusal of Left leaders to take
serious account of the Golitsyn warnings concerning
communist fifth column practices.
In such vein a meeting in September 2007 in Finland between
Iraq allies of Al Qaeda, Sinn Fein and other Leftists
identified chief requirements of conflict resolution as
being the use of independent bodies to oversee arms
decommissioning and 'explore how to deal with the past in
ways which will unite the nation.' If Golitsyn is correct
the appointment of supposedly 'independent' bodies of
experts opens the door to secret factional influences.
'Arms decommissioning' in this context is a disingenuous
and misleading use of the term because it refers not only
to military disarmament but also abolition of the right to
bear arms. The model for such decommissioning is not the
American revolution - which opposed aristocratic attempts
to abolish the right to bear arms and thereafter
established a national democracy - but the Northern Ireland
peace process.
The Irish peace process is a poor model for conflict
resolution on a world scale because Irish radicalism
upholds confused policies which are vulnerable to
totalitarian and extremist influences. Sinn Fein ended the
armed struggle because the rewards for doing so are so
great, not only from the British Government, but also from
the EU. Ireland has reaped huge benefits from the EU, which
plans to regionalize all its state members. As shown, if
Golitsyn is correct the EU will be an essentially soft
totalitarian regime whose citizens, practically all of whom
are already deprived of rights to bear arms and trial by
jury, will only enjoy those rights the Left elite deem
appropriate. Close inspection of Sinn Fein policy on 'arms
decommissioning' accordingly reveals its leaders seek to
abolish the right to bear arms for ordinary citizens, but
not for themselves. That they may seek to coerce unarmed
citizens - loyalist or republican - remains a clearly
possible, if not actual fact. Such a standpoint offers a
poor model for conflict resolution on a world
scale.