Home

First chapter The Solution to the Problem of Democracy «The instrument of government»

The instrument of government is the primary political problem facing human communities. This problem is often the reason behind family feuds and it was further aggravated to an alarming extent after the rise of modern societies. People today are still faced by the persistent problem of the instrument of government. Failing to find the ultimate and democratic solution of this political problem, many societies are bearing the burden of its far-reaching consequences and ramifications. The Green Book presents the ultimate solution to this problem. All existing political systems in the world today are the product of the struggle for power between potential instruments of government. This struggle, whether conducted by peaceful or armed means, may be a class struggle, a sectarian or tribal strife, or a power struggle between individual adversaries vying for political ascendancy. It invariably culminates in the victory of one instrument of government - whether it be an individual, a sect, a political party or a social class - and the defeat of true democracy. Political struggle which culminates in the victory of a candidate obtaining 51 per cent of the total votes of electorate, establishes a dictatorship in the seat of power garbed in the guise of democracy. It is in fact, a dictatorship because 49 per cent of the electorate would then be governed by an instrument of government they did not vote for, and which has been imposed upon them. This is the essence of dictatorship. Moreover, a political conflict may culminate in the rise to power of an instrument of government representing a minority of the electorate. Such an outcome is the product of an electoral process whereby the votes of the electorate are distributed among a number of candidates, of whom one would obviously obtain a umber of votes larger than the number obtained separately by any one of the other candidates. Yet, though the sum total of the votes scored by these other candidates would be the largest and represents a sweeping majority, the candidate who independently scored the highest percentage of the ballot, which is comparatively the lowest, is legally considered a winner in a democratically conducted election. In actual fact, such an outcome heralds the rise of a dictatorship in the misleading guise of democracy. Such is the reality of political systems of government prevalent in our world today: sheer dictatorship falsifying true democracy.

«Parliaments»

The institution of parliament in the world today is backbone of modern traditional democracy. Yet such an institution is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a contrived solution to the problem of democracy. Parliaments are instruments of government are essentially established in the name of the people. Yet this underlying principle is in itself undemocratic, since democracy as a system of government means the power of the people, and not power vested in elected members of an assembly, in the name of the people. As such, the mere existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people. Parliaments have become a legal barrier between people and their right to exercise authority. They exclude the masses in order to prevent them from practising politics, they monopolize the control of politics in their name. The people are left with nothing but a semblance of democracy, manifested in the long queues of voters waiting their turn to cast their votes in the ballot box. To unravel the real nature of parliaments, we must know how they are formed. They are either elected from constituencies, a political party or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. All such methods are undemocratic. The division of the population into constituencies means that a member of parliament represents thousands, hundred of thousands, even millions of citizens, depending on the population count. It also means that a member of parliament thus elected keeps few people’s organizational links with the electorate, and is considered, along with the other members, a representative of the people as a whole. This method is a requirement of existing traditional democracies. At this point in the process, the masses and the elected member of parliament, are totally set apart, and the elected member, upon obtaining the majority vote, becomes a monopolizer of the people’s sovereignty by virtue of the authority vested in him to manage their affairs. Traditional democracy, prevalent in our world today, confers upon members of parliament a sanctity and an immunity it denies ordinary citizens. Parliaments have thus become a means of confiscating and monopolizing the power of the people. Such a state of affairs gives the right to struggle, by waging a revolution to destroy these instruments - the so-called representative assemblies which monopolize democracy and sovereignty, and usurp the will of the masses. The masses will rise and proclaim the new principle in a thundering cry: “No, to representation of the people.” If a parliament is formed from members who are followers of one particular political party as a result of their electoral victory, then this parliament is not representative of the people, but of this particular party; the executive body it will be the executive power of this party, and not of the people. Similarly, a parliament of proportional representation whose seats are distributed to the different parties according to their percentage success in the vote is not representative of the people: its members do not represent the people but their parties; and the ruling power established by this coalition of the parties is the power of the coalition and not of the people. Under such systems, the people are the prey fought over by the predators: instruments of government complete in their power struggle for the votes of the people they in turn neglect and exploit, while the people move silently towards the ballot box, like the beads in a rosary, to cast their votes in the same way that they throw rubbish in dustbins. This is traditional democracy that is prevalent in the world today, regardless of the system of government in place and regardless of whether it is a one-party, bipartisan or a multi-party system, or indeed a regime which precludes political parties. Traditional democracy therefore represents forms of government in which the principle of representation is a fraud. Assemblies whose seats are allotted to heirs and other privileged appointees cannot be similarly categorized: they lack even a semblance of democracy. Moreover, the electoral system in the so-called democratic forms of government is a demagogic practice in the literal sense of the word. It is based on propaganda campaigns aimed at winning over the constituents, and involves buying and manipulating votes. This produces closed election campaigns which the poor cannot afford to participate in and thus the rich are always elected. The principle of elected representation was advocated by philosophers, intellectuals and writers in times past, when people were unwittingly herded like sheep by sultans, emperors and conquerors. At that time, what the people truly aspired to was to have someone to represent them to the rulers. Eve when this aspiration was rejected, throughout history people have waged a bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal. After the triumph of republicanism and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable that the concept of democracy should be translated into an electoral process whereby a few elected deputies are mandated to represent the masses. This is an outdated theory, and an obsolete experiment. Power should be entirely for all the people. It should always be born in mind that the most tyrannical of dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.

«The political party»

The political party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the latest modern dictatorial instrument of government, whereby the part rules the whole. Comprised of a group as opposed to an individual, a political party is able nevertheless to attribute a semblance of democracy to itself through the formation of councils and committees, and through the propaganda activities of its members. But a political party is not in any respect a democratic instrument. It is an organization formed by individuals who share the same interests, ideas, culture, place or doctrine. They come together to form a political party so that they may realize their interests or impose their ideas or the might of their doctrine on society as a whole, with the intention of seizing power as a mean to implement their political program. Democratically, none of these individuals or members of a political party should rule over a whole people who constitute diverse interests, opinions, dispositions, places and beliefs. A political party is a dictatorial instrument of government which enables those with the same ideas or interests to rule over the people as a whole. In actual fact the party constitutes only a small minority. The purpose of organizing a political party is to create an instrument with which to govern the people, the non-party members of the populace. Fundamentally, political parties are based on a domineering and despotic theory: the manipulation of the people by the party leadership alleges that its rise to power is a means to realizing the party’s objectives, and assumes that its objectives also represent the aspirations of the people. Such theorizing is a justification for party dictatorship, and it is the theory presented by any dictatorship. Regardless of their diversity, political parties set forth theories that basically the same. Yet it is the plurality of parties that escalates the struggle for power which usually supersedes and destroys any achievements gained by the people, and also subverts any socially beneficial plans. Such destruction and subversion is meant to justify the opposition party’s attempts to undermine the ruling party it aims to replace. In their fight against each other, political parties seldom engage in armed strife; instead they usually resort to mud-slinging tactics to discredit one another. Their battle inevitably rages beyond society’s vital and prime interests, and of these some, if not all, may fall victim of this wrangling and be destroyed. However, this situation serves to support the arguments of the opposition parties against the ruling party or coalition. In order to rule, the opposition party must defeat the existing instrument of government. To do so, the opposition must undermine the government’s achievements and cast doubts on its plans, to prove the incompetence of the current governing instrument even if these plans were beneficial to society. Consequently, the interests and programs of society become the victims of the power struggle raging among the political parties. Although the struggle for the power among political parties stimulates political activity, it nevertheless has a devastating impact on political, social and economic levels. It invariably, it culminates in the triumph of just another instrument of power - the downfall of one political party and the rise of another, but also in the defeat of the people, and thus the defeat of democracy. It should be added here that political parties can also be bribed or corrupted by both internal and external interests. Initially, a political party is formed to represent the people. However it does not take long for the party leadership to become the representative of the party members, then for the head of the party to become the representative of the elite. It is clear that this is a game of deceitful farce based on a false form of democracy, which has underlying selfish and authoritarian intensions that are fraudulently pursued with maneuvering and political games. This confirms the fact that the party system is a modern instrument of dictatorship which the world has not yet eradicated. It is the dictatorship of the modern age. When a parliament is formed by a winning political party, it becomes an assembly representative of this party, and the executive power formed by such an assembly becomes the party’s instrument of authority over the people. Thus, the party which is supposed to exercise power in the interest of all the people, is actually the arch-enemy of a large proportion of the people, namely the party or parties of the opposition and their supporters. This does not make the opposition the popular guardian over seeing the performance of the ruling party, but rather it is itself lying in wait for the opportunity to replace it. The legal guardian over seeing the ruling party, according to the principles of modern democracy, is parliament. But since members of the ruling party constitute the majority in parliament, supervision of the ruling party’s performance in government comes from within its own party, i.e. the ruling party supervises itself. This state of affairs illustrates the deceit, falseness and invalidity of the political theories prevalent in the world today, and it is these which are the source of contemporary traditional democracy. The political party is the modern-day equivalent of the tribe or sect. A society which is ruled by a one-party system is similar to a society which is governed one tribe or one sect, because, as noted above, a political party represents the vision of one group, or the interests of one social group, or one belief or place, and therefore represents a minority of the people. Similarly, a tribe or a sect represents a minority of the people, and has its own particular interests or belief from which its vision formed. While the blood tie constitutes the only difference between a tribe and a political party, indeed a tribe could have been the basis for the foundation of a party. There is no difference between a political party’s struggle for power and a tribal or sectarian struggle for power. Just as a tribal or sectarian regime is politically condemned and rejected, a political party regime should likewise be condemned and rejected: they all follow the same course which leads to the same outcome. The impact of the struggle of political parties on society is as damaging and devastating as that of any tribal or sectarian struggle.

«The social class»

The class political system is the same as a party, a tribal or a sectarian political system. It is a political system whereby a particular social class dominates a society in the same way a political party, tribe or sect would. Social classes, like political parties, sects or tribes, are groups of people bound together by common interests. Common interests emerge from the existence of a particular group of people bound together by kinship, place, belief, culture, or standard of living. Classes, parties, sects and tribes emerge because kinship, belief, standards of living, culture or place create a common view point as to how these common interests are best achieved. Thus social structures whether classes, parties, tribes or sects emerge and eventually a political instrument develops from these which is used to realize the common vision and interests of that particular group. However, the people are neither a class, party, tribe nor sect, for these represent only a section of the people and constitute a minority in society. If either a class, party, tribe or sect dominates a society then the system of government becomes a dictatorship. Nevertheless, a class or a tribe coalition is preferable to a coalition of parties, since societies are almost invariably descendants of tribes. It is rare to come across a people without tribal roots, and whilst all people belong to different social classes, they are not all affiliated to political parties; but political parties or coalitions represent a minority compared to the masses outside their membership. Moreover, in a true democracy, there is no justification for one social class to suppress other classes in order to serve its own benefit, nor for one tribe or sect to act likewise. Condoning such actions means spurning the principles of democracy and justifies the use of force. Such policies of suppression are dictatorial as they are against the interest of society as a whole. It is an unjustifiable course of action because society is not made up of one social class, one tribe or sect, or of members of one political party; rather it is made up of several interest groups, of which one group is intent on eliminating all other groups in its attempt to prevail. Such actions do not serve the interests of society as a whole but the interest of one social class, tribe, sect or political party, that’s intent on ruling the society. Basically this is an act of elimination directed against all members of society who do not subscribe to the party, the social class, the tribe or the sect which is carrying out the policy of elimination. A society torn apart by party wrangling is no different from a society torn apart by tribal or sectarian conflicts. A political party established to represent a social class inevitably becomes a substitute of this class. This gradual process of transformation continues until the political party finally becomes the successor to the social class, and is hostile to the class whose interests it supposedly represents. Any social class which inherits a society also inherits its characteristics. Thus, if the working class were to subdue all other social classes in a society, it inherits the society and it forms its material and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those from whom it inherits although this may not be apparent immediately. Over time, however, the characteristics of the other crushed social classes will manifest themselves within the ranks of the working class itself. Those members who have acquired these characteristics will accordingly assume the attitudes appropriate to their newly evolved characteristics. Eventually the working class becomes a society in its own right, burdened with the same contradictions which existed in the former society. At first, the spiritual and material standards of individuals become unequal. Then factions will emerge and then automatically become different social classes - the same social classes which were previously eliminated. Finally, the struggle for power in the society begins again. Initially, it is a struggle among groups of individuals, but with time, this develops into a struggle among factions, which then escalates into a new class struggle in which each social class attempts to become the instrument of power. Being social in nature, the material basis of any society is changeable. The instrument of government may be stable for a certain period of time, but eventually it breaks down as new material and social standards evolve and emerge from the same material basis. Class struggles have erupted in the past in societies made up of only one social class. But inevitably evolution leads to the emergence of other social classes in society. The social class which takes over and possesses another class in order to secure its own instrument of government in the seat of power, will eventually discover that it is as vulnerable to the influences of property and possession as society itself is. In conclusion, all attempts at unifying the material basis of a society in order to solve the problem of government or to put an end to the struggle in favour of one particular political party, social class, sect, or tribe have failed. In addition, all attempts to appease the masses by having them elect their representatives, or by seeking their opinions in referendums, have also failed. To persist in such attempts is a waste of time and makes a mockery of the people.

«Referendums»

Referendums make a mockery of democracy. The people who respond with “yes” or “no” are not actually expressing their will, but rather are constrained to respond as such because the concept of modern democracy so dictates. They are only allowed to select one of two words: either “yes” or “no”. Referendums represent the most extreme repressive dictatorships. Individuals who respond with a “no” should be able to state their reasons for this response and why they refrained from responding with a “yes”. Similarly, individuals who respond with a “yes” should be given the opportunity to justify their consent and explain why they did not choose to give “no” as an answer. Each should be able to speak out and give the reasons for agreement or disagreement. Which path then should human communities follow in order to be permanently rid of tyranny and dictatorship? The intricate problem with democracy is reflected in the problems with the instruments of government, which in turn are demonstrated by the conflicts of partisans, individuals and classes. Referendums and election processes were actually devised to cover up the failure of these unsuccessful experiments to solve this problem. Nevertheless, a solution is attainable. It lies in finding an instrument of government other than those subject to the struggle for power, and which represents only one faction in society, that is to say an instrument of government which is neither a political party, a social class, a sect nor a tribe; is an instrument of government which encompasses the people as a whole. In other words we are looking for an instrument of government which neither represents the people or acts on their behalf. There can be no representation of the people for representation is a fraud. If this instrument of government were found, the problem would be solved and true people’s democracy would be established. In this way humankind would bring to an end the eras of tyranny and dictatorship, replacing them with the will of the people. The Green Book presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the instrument of governance and indicates the course that the masses should follow if they are to leave behind the eras of dictatorship to enter the era of genuine democracy. This new theory is based on the authority of the people; it renounces representation or delegation of authority. It leads to the achievement of direct, orderly and efficient democracy, unlike previous attempts at direct democracy which proved to be inapplicable, as they had disregarded the need for people’s organization at the grassroots levels of society.

«People’s Congresses and People’s Committees»

People’s Congresses are the only means to achieve people’s democracy. Any form of government contrary to this method is undemocratic. In our world today, all existing forms of government are undemocratic; they still stray away from the course which leads to the establishment of People’s Congresses: the culmination of the journey of the masses to achieve democracy. People’s Congresses and People’s Committees are the ultimate accomplishment of the people’s struggle for democracy. They are not products of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has assimilated all experiences of humanity in its pursuit of democracy. In fact, direct democracy is the ideal and indisputable method of government. But the virtual impossibility of gathering all the people together at once in order to discuss, consider and decide their politics, has caused nations to depart from this concept of direct democracy, which therefore remains an utopian ideal far removed from reality. Various other theories of government have been applied as substitutes (parliamentary assemblies, party coalitions and referendums) but they all led to the isolation of the masses, who were excluded from running their own affairs and robbed of their sovereignty. The endless succession of governing instruments - the individual, the social class, the sect, the tribe or the political parties constantly in a state of power struggle - have monopolized the rights of the masses and stripped them of their sovereignty. The Green Book shows the masses the way to direct democracy based on a magnificent and practical system: the Third Universal Theory. This theory is based on actual experience with direct democracy, an ideal over which no two reasonable adults can possibly disagree, although the method of implementation of which was previously inconceivable. The Third Universal Theory permanently solves the problem of democracy in our world and it is up to the masses to struggle to eliminate the various forms of existing dictatorships, be they parliament, sect, tribe or class, in one-party, two-party or multi-party systems of government, which all inappropriately call themselves democracies. There is only one theory and one method of true democracy. The dissimilarity and diversity of the forms of government claiming to be democratic is evidence enough that they are not. The authority of the people has just one face, and this can only be realized by one method - the establishment of People’s Congresses and People’s Committees everywhere. Without these, democracy is unattainable. Firstly, the people are divided into Basic People’s Congresses. Each of these selects it own secretariat. The secretariats of all the People’s Congresses together from Congresses other than the Basic People’s Congresses. The masses of the Basic People’s Congresses will then select administrative People’s Committees to replace governmental administration. From then on, all public institutions will be run by People’s Committees which act answerable to Basic People’s Congresses which dictate policies and oversee their implementation. Thus, both the administration and supervision become the people’s responsibility and the outdated definition of democracy - democracy is the supervision of the government by the people - is finally done away with. It is replaced by the true definition: democracy is the supervision of the people by the people. All citizens who are members of these People’s Congresses belong by virtue of employment or profession to different social groups, and therefore must set up their own Professional People’s Congresses in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic People’s Congresses or People’s Committees. All issues dealt with by the People’s Congresses and People’s Committees are drafted in their final version in the General People’s Congress, which is attended by the secretaries of the People’s Congresses and People’s Committees. Resolutions of the General People’s Congresses are refereed for implementation to the People’s Congresses and People’s Committees, which are in turn answerable to the Basic People’s Congresses. It should be noted that the General People’s Congress is not like a parliament, a mere congregation of members or persons, but rather it is the gathering together of the People’s Congresses and People’s Committees. In this way the problem of the instrument of government is solved, and the dictatorial instruments of power finally disappear. The people become the sole instrument of government and the dilemma of democracy in our world is ultimately resolved.

«The Authority of the People»

«The legislation of society»

The legislation of society is another problem closely connected to the problem of the instruments of government which has not been resolved. Although solutions were found for this problem at certain periods of history, the problem still exists today. It is invalid and undemocratic for a committee or an assembly to be empowered to pass legislation for society, or for an individual, a committee or an assembly to amend or abrogate legislation. What then is the legislation of society? Who passes this legislation? What is its relevance to democracy? Natural legislation in any society is grounded in either religion or customs, and any attempt to derive legislation for a given society derived from sources other than these two is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered as the legislation of society. A constitution is a man-made law, which needs to be ascribed to particular sources for its vindication - it does not have a natural source. The problem of freedom in modern times is that constitutions have become the legislation of society, and are based solely on the views of the dictatorial instruments of government existing in the world today - autocracies, party dictatorships and others. This is evident in the diversity of the various constitutions that exist: yet man’s freedom is one and the same throughout the world. The reason for this diversity is the variation in views held by the diverse instruments of government. This is how freedom becomes vulnerable under the contemporary political system existing in the world. The methods chosen by instruments of government to control their people are obliged into constitutions which people are constrained to obey by the force of laws derived from the same constitutions which, in turn, are derived from the views and dispositions of the instruments of government. The norms of the dictatorial instruments of government have replaced the norms of nature: man-made law has replaced natural law and, as a result, criteria have been lost. Man is essentially one and the same everywhere physically and in terms of sensibility, and that is the reason why natural law is the logical law for mankind. Constitutions as man-kind laws do not consider man as one. This view has no justification, except for the fact that it represents the will of the instrument of government (an individual, a parliament, a social class or a political party) to control and manipulate the people. The fact that constitutions change with the instruments of government corroborates that they reflect the disposition of the instruments of government, and are drafted for their benefit, and are not inspired by natural law. The imminent danger which threatens freedom lies in the absence of the real legislation of society which has been substituted with man-made laws. Such legislation is instituted in order to vindicate the ruling method adopted by the instruments of government, instead of being adapted to suit the fundamental legislation of society. The importance of this legislation, which is not man-made, lies in its being the criterion used to distinguish between right and wrong, between what is true and what is false, between the rights of individuals and their responsibilities. Freedom is threatened when society lacks a sacred legislation of established statutes, not liable to change or substitution by any instrument of government. It is rather the responsibility of the instruments of government to conform to the legislation of society. Unfortunately throughout the world people today are governed by man-made legislation which is vulnerable to change or abrogation depending on the power struggle among the competing instruments of government. Holding a referendum for the people to vote on the constitution is not sufficient. Referendums are in themselves a falsification of democracy; they allow a response of only ne word, either a “yes” or a “no”. People are compelled by man-made laws to vote thus in a referendum. However a referendum on the constitution does not necessarily make a constitution the legislation of society - it means just a constitution, the subject of a referendum, and nothing more. The legislation of society is an everlasting human legacy, and as such, it is not the property of the living alone. Hence, to draft a constitution and request the people’s vote of approval is a mockery. Codes of man-made law derived from man-made constitutions are abundant with physical punitive measures against man, whereas customs contain few such measures. Customs call for spiritual non-physical but deserving punitive measures. These customs are inherent in religion, in which most physical punishments are postponed punishments, and most judgements are passed as exhortations, guiding instructions and answers to questions, making them the most appropriate legislation which is respectful of human beings. In religion, immediate punitive measures are taken only in extreme cases for the benefit of society. Religion embraces customs and customs are an expression of the natural life of the people. Therefore, religion is an affirmation of natural legislation. Non-religious legislation and legislation which is not derived from customs, are inventions of man against man. These are therefore invalid since they are not derived from the natural sources of customs and religion.

«Who oversees the progress of society?»

The question arises: who oversees the progress of society and warns of any deviations from the legislation of society when they occur? In a democracy, no one group can claim the right to do this on behalf of society as society is its own overseer. Any such claim by an individual or a group is dictatorial because democratically is the responsibility of the society as a whole. Democracy means all society overseeing its own progress. This can be achieved through the democratic instrument of government which results from the self-organization of society into Basic People’s Congresses, and from the government of the people through People’s Congresses and People’s Committees and then the General People’s Congress (the National Congress), the occasion when secretaries of the People’s Congresses and the People’s Committees convene. According to this theory, the people are the instrument of government, and as such, they are their own overseer. In this manner society itself becomes, the overseer of its legislation.

«How does society rectify its course in case of any deviation from its legislation?»

When the instrument of government is a dictatorship, which is the case of existing political systems in the world today, a society, aware of deviations from the legislation, has no means to express its position and rectify the situation other than through violence. It has no other option but to rise in revolt against the instrument of government in the seat of power. However, even if violence or revolution were expressions of society’s attitude towards such deviations, participation in the uprising would not involve the whole society. It would be an act undertaken only by those who are capable of such an initiative and possess the courage to be outspoken and pronounce the will of society. Yet, a popular uprising would in itself constitute a dictatorial incident because its revolutionary initiative shall necessarily create opportune circumstances for another instrument of government to rise to power in the name of the people. In other words, the instrument of power would still be a dictatorship. Violence and the use of force as instruments of change are undemocratic, but they happen as an outcome of the development of an undemocratic situation. Any society which still finds itself in this vicious circle is a backward society. How is this to be resolved? The solution is for the people to become the instrument of government - to organize themselves into Basic People’s Congresses and People’s Committees to replace the governmental administration, and convene the General People’s Congress as a periodic national gathering for the Congresses and Committees. In such a system, any deviation from the legislation of society would be dealt with through the democratic process rather than through the use of force. This process is not a voluntary choice of the method to amend or change the state of affairs in society, but is an inevitable result of the nature of the democratic system where no outside group exists who can thus be rendered a target of violent action or held responsible for any deviations.

«The media»

Freedom of expression is the right of every natural person, even if a person chooses to behave irrationally to express his or her insanity. It is also the right of corporate bodies to freely express their corporate identity as such. However, individuals in both cases express only themselves. A private individual represents only himself and a corporate body represents only the status of the group of individuals that make up that corporate body. Therefore, when an individual expresses himself as insane for example, it does not mean that the rest of society is insane. An individual’s expression is his own alone, and a corporate body’s expression expresses only the interests or viewpoint of the group. A tobacco producing or distributing company for example expresses the interests of the parties comprising the company, i.e. those who are making profit from producing or selling tobacco, although it is hazardous to health. The press is society’s medium of expression, not an individual’s or corporate body’s medium of expression. Therefore, it cannot be logically or democratically the private property of such persons. Any newspaper privately owned by an individual is a medium expressing only the views of this individual. To claim that it expresses public opinion is false and groundless because it expresses the views of one individual. However, while it is democratically not permissible for an individual to own any information or publishing medium, all individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means, even if such means were insane and meant to prove a person’s insanity. On the other hand, a newspaper published by members of a certain profession, is a medium of expression exclusive to this professional group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the C public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society. The democratic press is the mass media published and broadcast by a People’s Committee, comprising members from all the various groups in society without exception. Only in this case, and in no other situation, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of society as a whole, representing all its various groups. If members of the medical profession publish a journal, then this journal must necessarily be a purely medical publication. This same condition applies to all other professions. While individuals have a natural right to self-expression, the principles of democracy do not give individuals the right to express anyone else’s opinions. Only in this manner is the so-called problem of the freedom of the press radically and democratically solved. The problem of the freedom of the press, which is still a controversial problem the world over, persists as a result of the problem of democracy in general, and no solution can be found unless the crisis of democracy is entirely resolved in any given society. The only way to resolve the intricate problem of democracy is by applying the Third Universal Theory. According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid one above the other, the Basic People’s Congresses, the People’s Congresses, and the People’s Committees, which finally come together when the General People’s Congress convenes. There is absolutely no conception of a democratic society other than this. To summarize, the era of the masses is rapidly advancing towards us to overtake the era of republics; it excites the emotions and dazzles the eyes. But in so much as it heralds the advent of real freedom for the masses and the blissful emancipation from the chains of all instruments of government, it is also the harbinger of a chaotic and tumultuous era if the new democracy - the authority of the people - were to suffer a relapse. Such an era would bring back autocracy, or the rule of one social class, tribe, sect or political party. Theoretically, this is genuine democracy, but in reality, the strong always rule: that is to say those who are strongest in society hold the reigns of power.

Home