1.0 Introduction * The necessity of change Congruence of social, economic and political systems

In text-books on political science, the mutual relation among the three types of system named above is usually presented in this way:

Economic and political systems are components of a broader social system. Politics and economy are not completely separate, they influence each other and develop through constant interaction. Any given social system can only give birth to and maintain a political and economic system which roughly corresponds to the degree of development of the society in question. At a certain moment in history, every political system until now became obsolete and was replaced by another, better suited to the new social and economic situation. Marxism tried to explain these changes in a one-sided way, by stressing economic factors operating in a simplified, bipolar social setting and resulting in violent upheavals. This way of looking at things was highly influenced by Marx's personal experience (several revolutions), the level of development of contemporary science (determinism, materialism) and the grave social problems generated by erstwhile capitalism. In the late twentieth century, if not earlier, it has become evident that Marxism was wrong in almost every respect. But in spite of all its errors, over a century or so, it did succeed in captivating the imagination not only of a bunch of revolutionary fanatics but also of many honest intellectuals and "average" citizens. Why? The reason must be the fact that Marxism had something which other social and political doctrines lack: a comprehensive and optimistic vision of the future development of human societies. Our work tries to fill the gap opened by the failure of Marxism, without leaving the solid foundation of contemporary science. As far as we can see, politologists and most other researchers in the field of social science are too involved in the establislunents of their respective countries to dare express explicitly what, in their hearts, they cannot ignore. Their writings are unable to inspire popular movements in the same way as Marxism once did. And yet, the situation in the world is anything but idyllic. Environmental pollution, unemployment, growth of islamic and even Christian fundamentalism, drug addiction, criminality, ethnic conflicts in many countries and so on - all cry out for a remedy. At the same time, traditional political systems of all descriptions, including what is called "western democracy", prove increasingly impotent vis-a-vis all these problems. Several observers have pointed out that the social and political situation in the West now resembles the situation in France in the decades preceding the Great Revolution. If this is the case, we are heading for a radical change. But is this expectation really correct? Let us cast a glance at three major historical events to see if there are similarities with to-day's situation in the West, the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D., the abolition of feudalism in France in the late eighteenth century and the collapse of the Soviet empire two hundred years later. The current explanation of the fall of the Roman Empire runs approximately as follows: The size of the Empire became so large that Roman troops and officials were no longer able to control it; at the same time, there was increasing pressure from German tribes who eventually conquered Rome and deposed the last puppet emperor. This explanation, however, does not tell the whole story. Perhaps even more important was the increasing corruption of Rome's ruling elite. After the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last great emperor, came an irreversible decline beginning with Commodus. Instead of maintaining law and order, the officials mostly tried to enrich themselves. In order to squeeze as much money as possible from the economic system, they succeeded throttling this very system by a strait jacket of bureaucratic rules and practices. As a result, the whole economy collapsed. (In our century, the communists did exactly that and with the same outcome.) To buy and sell for money became, to a great extent, impossible. Instead, people began anew to practice barter. Personal relations of allegiance began to carry more weight than centrally imposed legal rules. In other words: Rome's political system, originally based on rudimentary representation, universality and at least a theoretical equality among her citizens, became incongruent with the new social situation, based on local feudal relations and barter economy. The outcome could only be one, a collapse of the political system. In eighteenth century France, the situation was, in some respects, similar, but in others quite the opposite. The similarity concerns the corruption of the ruling elite - the aristocrats and the clergy. At the beginning, promotion to nobility was used as a reward for personal merit. The first noblemen reached their high positions in society because they deserved it. When titles became hereditary, personal merit was no longer a necessity. In the eighteenth century, many aristocrats were worthless parasites living in luxury while their peasants starved. At the same time, they paid no taxes. The tax burden lay heavy only on the lower classes. The exchequer was bancrupt owing to a series of wars. Under these circumstances, the explosion was inevitable. But contrary to what had been the case in ancient Rome, there was also a "Third Estate", a relatively well-to-do bourgeoisie gathering momentum in a favourable economic setting. As in ancient Rome, the obsolete feudal political system became incongruent with the new social and economic situation and was therefore bound to collapse. However, owing to the above mentioned circumstances, the upheaval did not result in a collapse of society as a whole, but only in a removal from power (albeit at the beginning only temporary) of the representatives of the "ancien régime" and in the succesive establishment of political systems better suited for the now rapidly developing society. The Soviet empire, established after the second World War, reached its peak at the end of the 1940s and the beginning the 1950s. The secession of Tito's Yugoslavia seemed largely compensated by the communist coup in Czechoslovakia in February 1948 and especially by the establishment of a communist regime in China in the following year.

To begin with, all communist regimes were dominated by inflexible party dictatorships who introduced collectivized, planned and steered economic systems. Western researchers have called systems of this type "mobilization systems".They proved suitable for under-developed countries (not only communist ones) possessing vast natural resources and cheap labour. During the first years, yearly economic growth in the communist countries was about 10% or more, a fact which created an illusion of socialism being superior to capitalism because the growth of Western economies did not exceed some 2 - 4%. However, it soon became evident that, beyond a certain level of development, "mobilization" could no longer assure a satisfactory level of growth. Instead, it became necessary to rely on increasing productivity and this purpose could only be achieved by introducing individual stimuli rather than collectivist slogans. But this change - a certain liberalization of economy - automatically resulted in demands for a liberalization of the political system, i. e. for a loosening of Party control. The communist leaders found themselves caught in a dilemma, either to give priority to economic growth at the price of a successive weakening of their power, or to go on keeping their power positons intact at the price of economic stagnation and decay. The whole history of communism since the death of Stalin in 1953 was a vacillation between these two lines of policy. Communist political systems were becoming more and more incongruent with the changing economic and social conditions. As always, the economic system - the basis of the living standards and quality of life of the population - has proved more important than the political system and eventually it enforced a radical change in this system. In the history of mankind, we could discover many more examples of this type. The pattern is always the same: above a certain (relatively high) level of socio- economic development, economy becomes more important than military power, the appeal of collectivist propaganda (nationalist, religious, socialist, racial, ethnic ... ) diminishes, and the importance of individual self-interest increases. After a period of an approximative congruence between the social, economic and political systems of a given society, social and economic changes tend to proceed faster than a corresponding adaptation of the political system. In other words: the political system lags behind. This is, of course, natural. The elites who owe their power positions and prerogatives to the political system in question are reluctant to change the system in a way necessarily unfavourable to themselves. Therefore, for a certain period of time, the political system remains basically intact while changes are taking place in the social and economic spheres. However, such a situation inevitably engenders an increasing gap and tension between the ruling elite and the population of the country in question, a tension which, sooner or later, will result in the collapse of the political system and the establishment of a new one, better adapted to the changed social and economic situation. The speed of the process depends on the level of development of the respective society and on the international situation, in particular on:

1. the level of education arousing political awareness and the perception of opportunities for change,

2. the degree of technical progress achieved (information and communication technology,

3. the degree of satisfaction of the basic material needs of large groups of the population,

4. outside pressures.

At a low level of development, the speed of the process of adaptation of the political system to the socioeconomic system is slow. In the second century B. C., the Gracchus brothers made an attempt to adapt Rome's political system to the changing socioeconomic situation (proletarization of peasants). The attempt failed owing to opposition from the ruling elite. The incongruence between the political and the socioeconomic system of ancient Rome was thus preserved and continued to grow and thus the political system survived for more than five more centuries.

Similarly, the first attempts at limiting the power of kings took place already in the 13th and 14th centuries (Magna Charta 1215 in England and La Grande Ordonnance 1357 in France). As early as during the reign of Louis XIV, signs of social criticism appeared in France (Molière, La Bruyère), although it took more than another century before the feudal system was abolished by the Great Revolution.

By contrast, the disintegration of the Soviet empire proceeded much more rapidly. The attempts to make the communist political systems more congruent with the respective socioeconomic systems began in the early 1960s in East Germany and culminated in the "Prague Spring" of 1968. The occupation of Czechoslovakia can be compared to the strengthening of oligarchic power in Rome by the assassination of the Gracchi. But, owing to the much higher stage of socioeconomic development of the 20th century, the suppression of reforms in the Soviet empire gave the communist oligarchies a respite of no more than 20 years.

After having thus established a conceptual framework for analysis, let us now try to find out whether party-based parliamentarism is still congruent with the rapidly changing socioeconomic situation in Western countries. If not, and if it is to be presumed that the above described trends are still at work, the conclusion must be that the now existing western party systems do not represent a definitive stage of political development of western societies, but that, sooner or later, they will be replaced by systems better adapted to the changed socio-economic conditions. What, then, is the difference between the situation of the mid-1990s and that of only ten years ago?

The fall of world communism at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s was a turning-point, not only in the development of the socialist countries, but also of the Western countries. In the period 1945 - 1990, the world seemed constantly menaced by the spectre of a global nuclear war. This threat over-shadowed all other problems - economic, environmental, as well as those pertaining to the sphere of internal politics. Consequently, military force was a top priority. Even in the West, movements opposing the political system, or certain aspects of it, were quite successfully kept in their places by stressing the necessity to rally round political leaderships which passed for bulwarks of democracy and freedom. In other words, outside pressure - the perpetual conflict with the communist world - smothered conflicts and tensions arising within western societies.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, this pressure has been missing. As a result, internal conflicts and tensions have come to the fore with an intensity unthinkable in the preceding period. But these conflicts and tensions are very different from those which, in the nineteenth century, gave birth to the now existing western party systems. At that time, political parties were established to promote conflicting interests of clearly defined and rather homogeneous groups inside a given country (workers, entrepreneurs and peasants). At the end of the 20th century, these interests have become to a great extent convergent rather than conflicting. Firstly: It has become evident that prosperity is unattainable without free private enterprise. Both the capitalists and the workers (as well as all other members of the society) therefore have a common interest in the smooth functioning and maximum efficiency of the private sector. Plain common sense - not to speak of historical experience and economic theories - points in the direction of cooperation between entrepreneurs, workers and politicians as the most rational approach to achieve such an objective. The spectacular economic achievements of Japan is a good illustration of this insight. Until 1960, the Japanese labour market was to a great extent paralysed by strikes instigated, as in other countries, by socialist propaganda. To cope with this problem, the Japanese invented an ingenious system. Large-scale enterprise guaranteed, in practice, life-long employment under State supervision and guidance. In other words, a sort of State capitalism combined with elements of social security was established. This model proved extremely successful. Strikes disappeared and Japan's economic potential is now second only to that of the USA. During periods of economic recession in the West, Japan's economy continued to grow at a yearly rate of some 8%. Many observers have noticed that the whole Far East (i. e. countries pervaded by Confucian tradition) is the most dynamic area in our contemporary world. There is little doubt that, in the 21st century, the long economic dominance of the whites will be broken and replaced by a preponderance of "the yellow race". Now, what is the leading principle of Confucianism? Certainly not conflicts among classes, groups and States. On thc contrary, coordination of society, cooperation, harmony are stressed. This is not to say that the Japanese model, such as it is, can be transplanted to the West, nor can it be expected to last for ever. But its success certainly shows that cooperation inside the economic system is much more fruiful than conflicts, strikes, lcckouts and excessive pressure on the part of Union bureaucracies. Many Union leaders - as well as, probably, most entrepreneurs - in the West have begun to understand this and have become more cooperative than their predecessors. It has namely also become evident that management in any enterprise achieves optimum results if the employees themselves become share-holders and take a personal interest in the business. Modern managers are coordinators rather than bosses who give orders. Further developments in this direction are likely to take place. Secondly, the traditional role of the State as the basic national and administrative unit is on the wane while other actors assume an increasing importance. On the one hand, we find NG0s (non-govemmental organizations), often operating on a global scale, outside the traditional party-political framework, and, on the other hand, regional and local communities whose interests often clash with the interests of the State (that is to say those of the national oligarchy) to which they are subordinated. These units tend to play an increasingly important role, pursuing policies of their own, at home and sometimes aven abroad. This phenomenon ("regionalization" and "internationalization" to the exclusion of the State) is amply commented upon by contemporary political science. It manifests itself by a fractionalisation of the political system into a great number of small local parties and other organizations. Political organization - especially the party - still remains the only channel open for demands from the public. The system means that citizens must found new parties even if they only want to deal with a minor local problem or a narrow personal interest. This development reveals more and more the absurdity of traditional party politics as such. Increasingly, people consider the system a mockery and make fun of it by founding or voting for fictitious parties like "the Donald Duck Party", "the Party of Friends of Beer" and the like. Others abstain from voting altogether. Participation in elections clearly tends to decrease. Thirdly, the deteriorating environmental situation calls for cooperation between many different groups, administrative units, branches of production and transportation and, ultimately, all inhabitants of this planet. Ecological problems concem all people equally and cannot be satisfactorily treated through traditional party politics. Fourthly, other important problems also cut across the classical party political lines. As an example, the referenda concerning membership in the EU, organized in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway can be mentioned. All parties in these countries became split over this issue and, in some cases, party leaderships took a stand differing from that of the majority of their members. As modern societies become more and more hetcrogenous and complex, issues of this type, that is to say those incongruent with the traditional party political pattern, become more and more numerous. And last but not least, the stunning development of communication and computer technology enables the individual citizen to participate directly in politics in an unprecedented manner. In such a setting, traditional political organizations - parties and corporations - become ever more redundant. Political systems which lay decision-making in the hands of party political oligarchies, whose chief merit is allegiance to their organizations, are becoming increasingly incongruent with modem socioeconomic systems.

To call party-based parliamentarism "democracy' is the greatest bluff in the history of mankind. A true democracy is yet to be established. For the first time ever, though, this is becoming possible owing to the above mentioned changes and developments. The nature of the present day incongruence is easy to understand. Key concepts are cooperation and conflict. It is becoming increasingly evident that modern states should be run in a similar way to private enterprises, that is to say on the basis of cooperation among and inside different structures, economic, administrative as well as political and, ultimately, among all, or at least a vast majority, of the citizens. This idea is sometimes expressed in the media (c. g. by speaking about "Sweeden, Ltd., USA, Inc." and the like). It stands to reason that, from the point of view of the enterprise as well as that of society as a whole, cooperation is always more advantageous than conflict because it permits the rational use of available resources and the avoidance of the losses invariably caused by conflicts. The more severe the conflict, the heavier the losses. The worst conflicts of all - wars - can result in millions of deaths and the destruction of enormous material and cultural wealth. There is a well-known saying, sometimes quoted in politological works, "War is a continuation of politics by other means". This is certainly true if applied to the political systems which have existed up until now and which have been based on competition among various organizations, especially political parties. The word "party" comes from Latin (pars, partis, meaning "part"). This concept has been taken over by all great European languages. The very etymology suggests what party politics is about, i. e. instigating one part or parts of society against other parts - "divide et impera" (divide and conquer for the benefit of party oligarchies pretending to promote the interests of the group they allegedly represent, while in reality promoting oligarchic interests of their own). The principle is the same in one-party systems (nationalist, fascist, communist or other dictatorships) and multi-party (or more-than-one-party) systems (the so-called "parliamentary democracies"). As one politologist put it in an euphemistic manner typical of this science: "Politics is an exploitation of bias." The only difference between one party and more-than-one-party systems is the degree of power concentration. In the latter, power is more diluted than in the former and, therefore, ordinary citizens have greater influence over decision-making in such systems than in overt dictatorships. But even in more-than-one-party systems, the citizens are still far from being able to decide themselves about fundamental problems concerning their own quality of life. The very principle of the party system as such, that is to say a permanent conflict among various parties pretending to promote the interests of parts of the population to the detriment of others (and, in the long run virtually to the detriment of the entire society), is in direct opposition to the principle of democracy, which means rule by the (whole) people and for the people. A truly democratic system can only be created and maintained by excluding all political parties and other organizations from decision-making which affects all citizens. A true democracy can only be based on cooperation between the vast majority of citizens as well as between the key institutions. A true democracy can only be a direct democracy, that is to say a system by which individual citizens have a real possibility to participate directly in the making of all important decisions concerning themselves. Cooperation is beneficial for the vast majority of the citizens. By contrast, the permanent conflict among political parties, factions and corporations is only beneficial to the leaderships and well-paid bureaucracies of these organizations who have developed into a parasitic ruling elite, comparable to the hereditary aristocrats of the feudal era.

It is difficult to break through the barrier of silence with which the established media surround the power structures of party-based parliamentarism. By confounding the concepts "parliamentarism" and "democracy", they have hitherto succeeded in concealing from the general public the basically undemocratic nature of any party system. Let us, however, quote the famous remark, once made by Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." A growing number of citizens in western countries are beginning to see through the bluff and to demand more democracy, even if still mainly only within the framework of the existing systems. The representatives and apologists of the establishment, when speaking about direct democracy, attack it in a demagogical way, claiming that direct democracy is impossible because citizens would have to decide on thousands of issues through nation-wide referenda. This is, of course, nonsense. Direct democracy as conceived by us, means that referenda will be limited to a few, but fundamental, issues the nature of which can he understood by any ordinary citizen. Examples of such issues are direct election of the head of the executive from among an unlimited number of independent candidates, war and peace, the level of public spending on the armed forces, health-care, old-age pensions and the like, general principles concerning agricultural policy, immigration policy and environmental policy. The vast majority of decisions - those of a more technical and restricted nature - will be made, as now, by Parliament. We are, however, opposed to Parliament consisting only or partly of the representatives of political parties or other organizations. There must be either direct personal elections of trustworthy citizens, or, probably in a more distant future, a sample representation. Exactly how to organize such elections must be decided by a public discussion with the participation of as many citizens as possible. The system must eliminate all vested interests and all lobbying. We believe that the realization of a system of direct democracy according to the above proposals requires the establishment of computer-based voting facilities replacing the clumsy and expensive procedures of manual voting and counting which now exist. According to experts, the level of today's technology makes it perfectly possible and relatively easy to introduce computer-based voting into the political systems of Western countries at any moment. In the long run, such a procedure will be not only more democratic and efficient, but also cheaper for the tax-payers. It should he evident to any unbiased observer that the extant systems of party-based parliamentarism which function by means of ceaseless conflicts and quarrels among various oligarchic groupings are becoming ever more incongruent with the level of social and economic development achieved in the West in recent times. To use a politological term, in the contemporary, social, economic and political context, party-based parliamentarism has become dysfunctional. It is being more and more discredited by innumerable scandals and failures. Its final collapse is only a matter of time.