I want to give your comments my viewers about this subject that Is iran a danger for world or no? plz be honest

hello to all my viewers and readers I want to say you that excuse me because infact I cant answer to your comments.I like u very much and thanx to your admiration.
sincerly amin

1
INSTITUTE OF POLITICS STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES
Revised through November 22, 2009
Mission of the Institute of Politics
A memorial to President Kennedy, The Institute of Politics’ mission is to unite
and engage students, particularly undergraduates, with academics, politicians,
activists, and policymakers on a non-partisan basis and to stimulate and nurture
their interest in public service and leadership. The Institute strives to promote
greater understanding and cooperation between the academic world and the
world of politics and public affairs.
ARTICLE I: Purpose and Function
 Section 1. Purpose. The Student Advisory Committee is the student leadership component of the
Institute of Politics.
 Section 2. Function. The Student Advisory Committee will organize and implement programs of the
Institute of Politics with the advice and assistance of the Director and staff of the Institute of Politics.
The Student Advisory Committee will be governed by its internal Policy and Procedures, which will
be reviewed annually following the fall elections.
ARTICLE II: Composition
 Section 1. President. The President will be responsible for overall operation and general
administration of the Student Advisory Committee and student involvement at the Institute. The
President will plan and chair all SAC meetings and be the official student spokesperson of the
organization. The President and Vice-President will coordinate the development of the report
presented each semester to the Senior Advisory Committee.
 Section 2. Vice-President. The Vice-President will be responsible for assisting the President in the
leadership of the Student Advisory Committee. In the absence of the President, the Vice-President
will fulfill all of his or her duties.
 Section 3. Treasurer. The Treasurer will be responsible for assisting the President in the leadership
of the Student Advisory Committee as well as overseeing all matters relating to the annual Student
Budget, including working with staff to select and grant funds to student projects. The Treasurer is
also responsible for maintaining financial and membership records for SAC and for all IOP programs.
 Section 4. Communications Director. The Communications Director will assist the President and
Vice-President in all outreach to students and campus organizations and internal communication. This
includes a particular emphasis on outreach to communities underrepresented at the IOP. The
Communications Director will be charged with keeping SAC minutes, publishing a weekly student
newsletter, assisting with the IOP website, and recruitment of incoming freshmen and new members
throughout the year.
 Section 5. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is comprised of The Director and
Executive Director of the IOP and the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Communications
Director. The Executive Committee will meet at least once a month during the school year.
 Section 6. Program Chairs. Program chairs will facilitate student involvement in their respective
programs.
2
 Section 6.1. Current Listing of Program Chairs. The following program chairs are members of the
Student Advisory Committee: Citizenship Tutoring, CIVICS, Community Action, Fellows and Study
Groups (two co-chairs), Forum, Harvard Political Review, Harvard Political Union, Internships,
National Campaign, Policy Program (two co-chairs), Special Events, Survey, and the Women’s
Initiative in Leadership.
ARTICLE III: Membership
 Section 1. Membership Requirements. All members of the Student Advisory Committee are
members of SAC for the duration of their college career unless they fail to meet the membership
requirements by the end of each semester.
 Section 1.1. Requirements for Officers. President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Communications
Director, and program chairs must attend 2/3rd of all SAC meetings and fulfill their leadership roles.
 Section 1.2. Requirements for Members-at-Large of SAC. Members of SAC who are no longer IOP
Officers will be referred to as Members-at-Large of SAC. Members-at-Large of SAC must attend 2/3
of SAC meetings to remain active members of SAC.
 Section 1.3. Second-Semester Seniors. Second-semester seniors are exempt from membership
requirements.
 Section 2. Expulsion.
 Section 2.1. Failure to Meet Requirements. At the end of the semester the Treasurer will submit a
report to the Executive Committee detailing all of the requirements met by each SAC member. Any
member not fulfilling their requirements for the semester will be expelled from SAC. The Executive
Committee may consider other mitigating circumstances on a case by case basis.
 Section 2.2. Issues of Conduct. Students may report issues involving inappropriate conduct by SAC
members to the Executive Committee for review and potential disciplinary action including expulsion
from SAC. If the issue involves a member of the Executive Committee, that individual may not be
part of the discussion or vote.
 Section 3. Leaves of Absence. SAC members may apply to the Executive Committee for leaves of
absence during which they are exempt from requirements and are non-voting members of SAC.
 Section 4. Resignation. Any member wishing to resign from SAC must submit a written statement to
the Executive Committee.
 Section 5. Conflicts of Interest. SAC members will be eligible to apply for all programs offered by
the IOP (Internships, Summer Stipends, etc.), but will not be allowed to serve on the selection
committees for the program for which they are applying.
ARTICLE IV: Procedures
 Section 1. Meetings.
 Section 1.1. Timing of Meetings. The Student Advisory Committee shall meet regularly no fewer than
six (6) times per semester. The President will set the date and time of all meetings and can call
additional meetings with forward notice of at minimum of one week.
 Section 1.2. Agenda. The agenda for SAC meetings shall be determined by the President and the Vice-
President and distributed to all SAC members via email at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. It shall
also be made available to any individual upon request. The Communications Director will be
3
responsible for taking careful notes of each meeting, and will make the minutes available to any
individual upon request.
 Section 1.3. Executive Session. Any member of SAC may call for an Executive Session, which will
immediately be entered into upon the simple majority vote of SAC members present.
 Section 1.4. Observers. All meetings of the Student Advisory Committee will be open to observers,
except for Executive Sessions. The President can recognize observers to add points to the discussion
when deemed necessary.
 Section 1.5.Robert’s Rules. Procedural disputes will be resolved by Robert’s Rules of Order, except
when they conflict with the Policy and Procedures of SAC.
 Section 2. Voting.
 Section 2.1. Voting Eligibility. All members of SAC, unless otherwise noted, are voting members. The
President will only vote in case a tie exists.
 Section 2.2. Quorum. A quorum is half the total number of active, voting SAC members, excluding
second semester seniors. A quorum is not required for discussion, but is a necessity for any votes to
take place.
 Section 2.3. Changes to Policy and Procedures. Changes to the Policy and Procedures of SAC will
require a 2/3 majority vote. All SAC Policy and Procedures changes will be reviewed by the
Executive Committee and approved by the Director before being voted upon by SAC.
 Section 2.4. Absentee and Proxy Voting. Absentee or proxy ballots will not be allowed at SAC
meetings.
 Section 2.5. Proposals. Proposals can be brought before SAC by any Harvard College undergraduate.
To bring the proposal before SAC, the student must submit the proposal in writing to the President
one week before the next meeting.
 Section 3. Creation of a Program
 Section 3.1. Proposing a Program. Proposals for new programs will be evaluated based on whether
they adequately meet the following criterion: (1) Articulate a purpose consistent with the IOP’s
mission (2) Show the potential to fill a need that is not adequately addressed by existing programs (3)
Present a realistic timeline of goals over a set period of time, typically one year. (4) Detail the type of
funding, resources, and staff and student support necessary for the Pilot Program to succeed. (5)
Provide the potential for substantive student leadership.
 Section 3.2. Creation of Pilot Program. The approval of the proposal will require a simple majority
vote, at which time the project will be termed a Pilot Program.
 Section 3.3. Automatic Status Review. After a period of time specified in the proposal, typically one
year, SAC will have an automatic vote on the whether the Pilot Program should (1) be disbanded (2)
continue as an Pilot Program for a set period of time or (3) be made an official IOP program. Because
it is a change to the Policy and Procedures, creation of a program requires a 2/3 majority vote.
 Section 3.4. Rights of Pilot Program Chair. The Pilot Program Chair will become a member of SAC
with all of the rights and responsibilities therein for the remainder of their College career, regardless
of the outcome of the Automatic Status Review.
 Section 3.5. Current Listing of Pilot Programs. The following Pilot Programs have been approved by
a vote of SAC: (None)
4
ARTICLE V: Election Procedures
 Section 1. Candidate Eligibility To be eligible to run for any position on SAC, a Harvard College
undergraduate must meet certain eligibility requirements depending on the position. These
requirements must be met in the semester s/he plans to run.
 Section 1.1. For President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Communications Director. To be eligible
to run for President, Vice President, Treasurer, or Communications Director, one must meet the
requirements for voter eligibility in these elections as described in Article V, Section 2.1.
 Section 1.2. For Program Chairs. To be eligible to run for Program Chair, one must meet the
requirements for voter eligibility in that program as described in Article V, Section 2.2.
 Section 1.3. Term Length. The term length of President, Vice President, Treasurer, Communications
Director, or Program Chair is one (1) year starting on January 1st.
 Section 1.4. Term Limit. One may not serve two consecutive terms in the same position. Time spent in
a position gained by special election does not count toward the term limit.
 Section 2. Voter Eligibility.
 Section 2.1. For President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Communications Director. Any registered
Harvard College undergraduate attending ½ of the meetings of any program or contributing
substantively toward the completion of program activities will be eligible to vote in elections for
President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Communications Director. Additionally, all SAC members
in good standing will be eligible to vote for the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and
Communications Director.
 Section 2.2. For Program Chairs. Any registered Harvard College undergraduate attending ½ of the
meetings of any program or contributing substantively toward the completion of program activities
will be eligible to vote in elections for that program.
 Section 2.3. Not Enough Eligible Voters. In the case that a program has two or fewer eligible voters,
excluding the sitting program chair and the candidates for program chair, the sitting President, Vice
President, Treasurer, and Communications Director will be eligible to vote in that program election
but will not be eligible for an absentee ballot.
 Section 3. Timing of Elections.
 Section 3.1. Executive Election Date. Elections for President and Vice President, Treasurer, and
Communications Director will take place between 10 and 20 days prior to Thanksgiving on a date and
time set by the Election Commission. These elections are called the Executive Elections.
 Section 3.2. Program Chair Election Dates. Program chairs will be elected in individual program
meetings after the Executive Elections and before Thanksgiving.
 Section 4. Election Administration.
 Section 4.1. Election Commission. Elections will be administered by an Election Commission. The
Election Commission will consist of three SAC members in the senior class who are not on the
Executive Committee, and will be appointed by the President. A 2/3 vote of SAC can remove a
member of the Election Commission, at which time the President would appoint a replacement.
5
 Section 4.2. Filing Statements of Candidacy. All candidates planning to run for any office must file a
statement of candidacy to the Election Commission listing the positions for which the plan to run in
order of preference and pledging to abide by campaign rules. Filing Day, the final day to file
statements of candidacy, will be the day three weeks prior to the Executive Elections.
 Section 4.3. Election Order. Elections will be held in the following order: President and Vice
President, Treasurer, Communications Director. The President and Vice-President will run as a ticket.
Drop-down elections will be allowed, though candidates must file for any positions to which they
might drop down.
 Section 4.4. Voter Rolls. Preliminary voter rolls will be posted outside the Student Office one week
before Filing Day. Voter rolls will be based on (1) the weekly program attendance reports complied
by the Treasurer (2) a memo submitted by program chairs justifying any student who has not attended
½ of the meetings but has otherwise made a substantive contribution to the program. A challenge to a
student’s presence or absence on the voter roll must be brought to the Election Commission by Filing
Day. The Election Commission will immediately inform candidates of any changes to the voter roll.
 Section 5. Campaigning.
 Section 5.1. Campaign Start Date. Campaigning is allowed beginning at 12:01 AM the day after
Filing Day.
 Section 5.2. Executive Elections Voter Guide. An Executive Elections Voter Guide will be made
available one week prior to the Executive Elections. Each Ticket for President and Vice President and
each candidate for Treasurer and Communications Director are allocated one (1) page; they are free to
use this page however they choose.
 Section 5.3. Program Chair Voter Guide. A voter guide will be made available to members of
programs one week prior to their respective program elections. Each candidate for program chair is
allocated 250 words in the voter guide for their program.
 Section 5.4. No Surrogate Campaigning. Candidates may not instruct or request an individual who is
not on their ticket to campaign on their behalf.
 Section 5.5. No Campaign Emails on Campus Lists. Campaign emails to any campus email lists,
including IOP-Open and IOP-Announce, are prohibited.
 Section 5.6. No Money. No individual funds shall be spent on campaign materials.
 Section 5.7. No Campaigning at the IOP. There will be no campaigning on IOP Property or at any
IOP events or meetings.
 Section 5.8. Abuse of Power. To abuse one’s authority or position in order to advantage a particular
candidate or ticket is strictly prohibited.
 Section 5.9. Consequences. If any campaign rules are violated, the Election Commission will confer
with the Executive Committee to determine an appropriate response. Consequences may include but
are not limited to: warnings, public announcement of rules violation, and disqualification.
 Section 6. Election Proceedings.
 Section 6.1. Speeches. Each election will begin with speeches from the candidates as determined by a
random order. Candidates for President and Vice-President will be allotted a combined five (5)
minutes, Treasurer, Communications Director and program chairs will be allotted three (3) minutes
each.
6
 Section 6.2. Question and Answer. Following speeches, candidates will be subject to a question and
answer session. For President and Vice-President, five (5) questions will be taken from the audience
and each ticket will have one (1) minute to respond. For Treasurer, Communications Director, and
program chairs, four (4) questions will be taken from the audience and each candidate will have fortyfive
(45) seconds to respond.
 Section 6.3. Absentee Voting in Executive Elections. Absentee voting will be allowed for the
Executive Elections. In order to be valid, absentee ballots for Executive Elections must be cast in
person before election proceedings begin.
 Section 6.4. Absentee Voting in Program Elections. In the event of an irreconcilable conflict with the
scheduled time of a program election, a voter may petition the Election Commission for an absentee
ballot. The absentee ballot petition must be filed least 24 hours prior to the election. The Election
Commission will deem whether the conflict warrants granting an absentee ballot.
 Section 6.5. Instant Run-off Voting. Each eligible voter will be allocated one secret ballot. Voters will
rank order their candidate choices. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st place votes, the candidate
with the lowest number of 1st place votes will be eliminated, and their votes will be redistributed to
the next candidate in their rankings. This process will continue until a candidate receives a majority of
votes.
 Section 6.5. Tie Procedure. Current officeholders will cast provisional ballots for their respective
successors, only to be used in the event of a tie. If there are two officeholders for one ballot position
(President/Vice President, Policy Co-Chairs, Fellows and Study Groups Co-Chairs) and the
provisional ballots again result in a tie then a “high card” draw will determine the winner.
 Section 6.6. Challenging Election Results. All ballots will be kept following each round of elections in
case of challenges following the proceedings. All challenges must be submitted in writing to the
Executive Committee within 24 hours of the election.
 Section 6.7. Exceptions. The Harvard Political Review, CIVICS, Internships, and the Women’s
Initiative in Leadership will select their leaders independently. (See Addendum I for independent
election and campaign procedures.)
ARTICLE VI: Absence of Officers
 Section 1. Absence of Officers. Should an elected officer have to step down from his/her post during
the semester, the following procedures will be followed for his/her replacement:
 Section 1.1. President The Vice-President will automatically assume full responsibilities as the
President.
 Section 1.2. Vice-President The President will appoint a new Vice-President who must be approved
by a simply majority vote of SAC.
 Section 1.3. President and Vice-President Concurrent. If the President and Vice-President should step
down at the same time, arrangements for a special election to fill those positions would be made
immediately and a special election would occur within two weeks. Requirements for voting and
running in this election would be the same as in the regular election for these positions.
 Section 1.4. Treasurer or Communications Director. If the absence should occur before the end of the
spring semester, SAC will appoint a current SAC member to fulfill the duties. Additionally, a special
election will be held for the position in the spring for an individual to serve the rest of the term. If the
absence should occur before the end of the fall semester, SAC will appoint a current SAC member to
fulfill the duties until elections are held in the fall.
7
 Section 1.5. Program Chairs. If the absence should occur before the end of the spring semester, SAC
will appoint a current member of the program to fulfill the duties including serving as a provisional
member of SAC until elections occur. A special election will be held for the position in the spring for
an individual to serve the rest of the term. If the absence should occur before the end of the fall
semester, SAC will appoint a current program member to fulfill the duties until elections are held in
the fall. Provisional members of SAC are only members of SAC during the term of their appointment.
ARTICLE VII: Programs
 Section 1. Membership. Program involvement may be open or may require application. The IOP
Common Application will be produced and publicized by the IOP at the beginning of each semester,
and it will be the only avenue by which applications for IOP program membership may be collected.
The IOP Common Application shall be open to all students in good standing currently enrolled in
Harvard College, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or physical
disability.
 Section 2. Leadership. Program chairs may select a leadership team to assist them in carrying out the
responsibilities of their program.
ARTICLE VIII: IOP Members-at-Large (MALs)
 Section 1. Description. IOP Members-at-Large are students significantly involved in the IOP who are
committed to the IOP community and IOP-wide initiatives. MALs are often involved in multiple
programs at the IOP, though they are required to be a member of at least one program.
 Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the Members-at-Large is threefold: to provide a means of
recognizing the most involved IOP participants, to promote a sense of community at the IOP, and to
include students in the process of envisioning the IOP’s future.
 Section 3. Responsibilities. IOP Members-at-Large are expected to complete one project a semester,
on their own or with other MALs, that serves the broader IOP.
 Section 4. Selection. IOP Members-at-Large will apply each semester through the IOP Common
Application and will be selected by the President, Vice-President, Treasurer and Communications
Director. There is no fixed number of Members-at-Large. Members-at-Large must re-apply each
semester.
 Section 5. General Meetings. General Meetings will be an open forum for all students involved in
the IOP to discuss IOP-wide goals and initiatives and to build community. General Meetings will be
held at least twice a semester.
8
ADDENDUM I: Independent Election Procedures
 Section 1. HPR. See HPR Constitution.
 Section 2. CIVICS. Two elections will take place, one for the IOP chair (a SAC position) and one for
the PBHA chair (a non-SAC position). The election with the greater number of candidates will take
place first, followed immediately by the other election. Candidates may file to run for either the IOP
chair, the PBHA chair, or both positions. Candidacies must be declared in advance, with one
exception: unsuccessful candidates for the election held first will have the option of deciding to run
for the other chair position. Both abide by the following rules:
Each election will begin with speeches from the candidates as determined by a random order.
Candidates will be allotted a combined four (4) minutes each. Following speeches, candidates will be
subject to a question and answer session. Up to eight (8) questions will be taken from the audience
and each candidate will have up to one (1) minute to respond. Following the question and answer
session, candidates will exit the room and the voters will participate in a discussion of the candidates.
Upon completion of deliberation, all voters will cast secret ballots. (In case no candidate or ticket
receives 50+% of the vote, a run-off will occur between the two candidates receiving the highest
number of votes. If the run off results in a tie, deliberations will reopen, following by another vote.
 Section 3. Internships. The Internships Chair will be selected by process of application to the
President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Communications Director, and outgoing Internships Chair.
 Section 4. Women’s Initiative in Leadership. The Women’s Initiative in Leadership Chair will be
selected by process of application to the President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Communications
Director, and outgoing Women’s Initiative in Leadership Chair.

Continue Reading

i want to say u my dears which read my posts,i adore u because u are gived me opinions and dreams that i can to help ourself.agian and again ,more and more i tell u thanx

Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan has told his followers that President Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East represent “the rule of the devil.” Democracy is the “rule of the people,” and whatever the people rule is right. Vox populi, vox dei—”the voice of the people is the voice of god.” In Farrakhan’s case, the voice of the people is the voice of the devil—a counterfeit god (cf. John 19:15; 2 Cor. 4:4). If the majority of people have a defective worldview, then their vote will also be defective. There’s more to Farrakhan’s article, but on this point he is correct.

Actually, Farrakhan has some history and logic on his side. John Winthrop (1588–1649), first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared direct democracy to be “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”[1] John Cotton (1584–1652), seventeenth-century Puritan minister in Massachusetts, wrote in 1636: “Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”[2] In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison (1751-1836), fourth president of the United States and recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” writes that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[3] These more realistic descriptions of the effects of direct democracy are a far cry from today’s modern appraisal.

So, contrary to what is widely taught in the schools of the United States and bruited about in the news media and expressions of politicians, the United States is not— in the opinion of one its principle founders and interpreters—a democracy. The Constitution itself, Article IV, Section 4, says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government. . . .” Taken simply literally it is a guarantee of a republican government in the states and a republican government outside and above the states. There is no mention of the word democracy in the Constitution.[4]

What should we think of this? Did these men oppose the democratic process? Winthrop certainly did not. Although voting was restricted at Charlestown compared to our nation’s universal suffrage, assistants were chosen “by the general vote of the people” through the raising of hands.[5] Certainly Madison, as one of the architects of the Constitution, cannot be accused of rebuffing the democratic process since the Constitution mandates the representatives from the states be elected by popular vote.

These men feared that the whims of the majority cut off from an ethical base would prevail if direct democracy were ever accepted as a legitimate form of civil government. On the other hand, these men knew that only “the people” could keep a civil government in check. There was no divine right of kings (or a divine right of representatives or judges), and there must be no divine right of the people. A checking and balancing civil government was the ideal our founders worked for. But if at any time the character of the people changed, the effort would have been for nought.

There must be some consensus of opinion of what democracy is and what makes it work before it will function as an effective and stable aspect of government. Just to say the word does not make it a reality. As Christians there is one thing we should all agree upon, Vox populari est non vox dei (the voice of the people is not the voice of God), for we know that with a simply majority, evil as well as good can be implemented into law.

One of the last accurate definitions of democracy was published in 1928 in a training manual developed by the U.S. War Department. Democracy was described as “a government of the masses.” Authority was said to be “derived through mass meeting or any other form of ‘direct’ expression.” Direct democracy, according to the manual, would result in “mobocracy.” The “attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.”[6] In a word, direct democracy makes “we the people” the immediate sovereigns without any guarantee of external moral restraint. C. Gregg Singer, echoing this opinion, writes that “Modern political theory has replaced the doctrine of the sovereignty of God with that of the sovereignty of man.”[7]

Is it any wonder, therefore, that John Adams, the second president of the United States, declared that “the voice of the people is ‘sometimes the voice of Mahomet, of Caesar, of Catiline, the Pope, and the Devil.’”[8] The results can be devastating. Francis Schaeffer describes law by majority opinion, certainly a definition of direct democracy, as “the dictatorship of the 51%, with no controls and nothing with which to challenge the majority.”[9] Schaeffer deduces a simple result of this definition of democracy: “It means that if Hitler was able to get a 51% vote of the Germans, he had a right to kill the Jews.”[10] Winthrop understood that a standard had to be found to direct the life and morals of governors and the governed.

The Fundamentals which God gave, to the [Commonwealth] of Israel, were a sufficient Rule to them, to guide all their affairs: We having the same, with all the Additions, explanations and deductions, which have followed: it is not possible, we should want a Rule in any case: if God give wisdom to discern it.[11]

Winthrop believed rightly that God gave us His law to check the totalitarian inclinations of the minority and the majority. There is nothing magical or holy about giving people the right to vote. In fact, political power in the hands of the wrong people with the wrong worldview is demonic.
Endnotes:

[1] Quoted in A. Marvyn Davies, Foundation of American Freedom: Calvinism in the Development of Democratic Thought and Action (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1955), 11.
[2] Letter to Lord Say and Seal, quoted by Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson, eds., The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, [1938) 1963), 1:209–210. Also see Edwin Powers, Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts: 1620–1692 (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1966), 55.
[3] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Jacob E. Cooke, ed. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 61.
[4] Ferdinand Lundberg, The Myth of Democracy (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), 12.
[5] Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1958), 90.
[6] Training Manual, No. 2000–25 (Washington, DC: War Department, 1928), 91.
[7] C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 43.
[8] John Adams, quoted by Gilbert Chinard, Honest John Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., [1933] 1961), 241 in John Eidsmoe, “The Christian America Response to National Confessionalism,” in Gary Scott Smith, ed., God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989), 227–228. C. Gregg Singer writes: “The coming of democracy, some fifty years [after the drafting of the Constitution], began a process of secularization of American political thought, and that equality implied in the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of the believers was transformed into the democratic concept of equalitarianism which came to America as a result of the French Revolution. It is pertinent to note that this secularized version of Presbyterianism must logically lead to a democratic despotism because its doctrine of ‘the priesthood of the voter’ is devoid of any Biblical foundation and denies that man is a sinner by nature” (John Calvin, 43).
[9] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (1970) in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, 5 vols. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 4:27.
[10] Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, 4:27.
[11] Winthrop, “Discourse on Arbitrary Government,” Winthrop Papers, 5:473. Quoted in Powers, Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 253.

The Program is appropriate for those who see a future as practitioners in public, voluntary or political work. It would also be of value for anyone in the private sector who works at the interface with the public sector, whether the public service, the government or members of parliament in general. It may also be useful preparation for those who intend further study and research in political science.

Current students and graduates of the program include members of parliament, ministerial policy advisers, media advisers, public servants, parliamentary and electorate office staff, and community organisation workers. They have come from Commonwealth, State and Local government working in areas of public health, indigenous affairs, education, immigration, taxation, crime control, environmental protection, resource management, community services, human rights and local government. From the private sector, MPP students have come from the areas of finance, health, publishing, insurance, the media, public relations, and the law.

International students have come from Japan, Thailand, China, Tonga, Colombia, East Timor, the USA and the UK.

Students have come straight from an undergraduate degree or from several years out from either study or paid employment. Students whose undergraduate study has not included politics are eligible to enrol in the program. They may be required to complete an additional unit at the commencement of the program for which no fees are charged but for which no credit points are awarded. The unit consists primarily of auditing the undergraduate unit on the Australian political system and regular meetings with the Convenor of the MPP. Students who have some familiarity with the Australian political system but wish to brush up their knowledge are welcome to audit the unit as well.

While an undergraduate degree is the normal entry requirement students who can demonstrate relevant work or professional experience in lieu of that degree are eligible for enrolment in the program. One student without an undergraduate degree has successfully completed the program and another is well on the way to completion.

Mode of Tuition

The MPP is offered both externally and internally.

Internal students will normally be required to attend a one hour lecture and a two hour seminar once a week for each unit they are enrolled in. These classes are held in the evening, commencing at 6pm.

External students will receive a recording of the lectures and be required to attend two weekend schools at Macquarie University per unit. In exceptional circumstances a student who is unable to attend a weekend school may be allowed to substitute additional written work.

Each unit will have a designated website with a public page and access to additional material for enrolled, registered students. The website will have a private email facility and discussion board so that internal and external students can engage with each other and the unit convenor.

Discipline Resources

All graduate students have access to the graduate students room, computers, printers and some photocopying. The facilities of the University generally are available to graduate students, especially the library and its associated network of information retrieval facilities. Computer stations are available in the library.

This is a message about something that is increasingly important … democracy.

Before attempting to discuss democracy, let me first ask, do we know what democracy is? Or do we just take it for granted that democracy is a public voice and it does not matter who is speaking?

A discovery was made after the 2000 election and written down in book form (a book that has yet to be published aside from this open letter and person to person discussions ). The discovery is that democracy is, no doubt, more than some in Congress and the country believe it too be, and less!

The discovery, that our politics is moving to the “left-of-center” (due in part to a little known (law) of democracy). Poverty and backwardness always surround more successful nations. There are always large numbers of persons who understate democracy, who are undemocratic themselves owing to, in the last analysis, their lack of a balanced political point of view. DEMOCRACY IS BALANCE so it does not matter what reason people have for holding a political bias, all significant political biases are undemocratic.

Both points can be proven 1) our national politics is moving farther and farther to the left and 2) the farther off-center you move the less democracy there is! The second point is self-evident!

It so happens that the truth about democracy (i.e. the Constitution) has never been fixed and thus set down and proven. It can be proven and it is not far left or far right. It is our failure to prove what democracy is and is not that has put us in the situation that we are in. For every Greater person who loses confidence, position or advantage by following the course we are on as a nation, the way is made clear for one Lesser person to gain confidence. This can be understood quite simply. It is a very old — lesson of history. The perspective set out here on the impact that decadence and “new values” place on a nation may be innovative but it is not radically different. John Adams and James Madison both had great respect for the weak points of democracy and none is greater than its capacity to unravel into political chaos and ruin. My words are intended to unravel the mystery of the larger political processes that detail and explain what makes democracy, democracy and what about democracy makes it open to attack and failure. In a democracy, I can think of no more worthy endeavor!

ONE WAY TO SIMPLIFY AND VIEW THE UNDERLYING CHARACTER OF DEMOCRACY
IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH IS GOVERNED BY A RULING MAJORITY

IF THE RULING MAJORITY (INTEREST) IS SMALL
EXCLUSION AND USE OF FORCE KEEP ORDER

A LARGE MAJORITY (RULING INTEREST) CAN INCLUDE EVERYONE
BECAUSE NO ONE UNDER ITS CONTROL IS ALLOWED TO DIFFER IN ANY WAY WITH ITS POLITICS

No greater insight is called for to explain how large and small political philosophies work. They OPPRESS. One, on the right, oppresses by exclusion. The other, on the left, oppresses by inclusion. Those open to change cannot survive politically without limits on power. It is solely the way the limits are expressed that distinguishes oppression on the left from oppression on the right. Both, left and right, govern by oppressing opposition. They simply define opposition differently. On the right, opposition is material difference. On the left, opposition is spiritual difference. Religion without materialism is unquestionably left of center and vice versa. Hence, a clear understanding of the left comes from observing and respecting that it has a fundamentally religious nature. It is about conversion of the unfaithful to the fold of the faithful. Being a-material, the faithful are sympathetic toward anything that is not material; and that means open opposition to religion that is material, even half or partially material in nature. Thus the conflict that we see between national mores handed down to us and the national mores that are forming on the left, under a new religious order, getting its imprimatur from the left, not the mainstream.

If you will permit this writer to express a point of view, good religion like democracy, requires a balance between material and spiritual consciousness — in the same way that the inherent nature of large and small majorities — form a counterbalance in a stable social order. As a result, the left is drawn to what this writer calls underclass values, or too little culture. It is content in this state of affairs and does not seek to modify or improve them. On the right, people are drawn to upper class values, or too much culture. Nor does the right seek to modify or improve anything it approves of. AMERICA HAS ALWAYS STOOD FOR MIDDLE-CLASS VALUES, neither too much nor too little culture.

To be “middle class” your values have to balance material and spiritual (human) natures. So equality and inequality, one left and the other right, are both wrong if taken literally, i.e. too far. Equality tends to liberalize a political order that possesses a worthwhile measure of material interest and inequality strives to do just the opposite. Since our national politics is turning to the left under the equality banner, let me add this. The left is not interested in protecting “political liberties,” “government by law with the consent of the governed,” and “protection from arbitrary authority.” ^{Footnote 1} The extreme left abhors or mistrusts these verities as much as the far right does. When you are not leading from the center you are being lead from the extremes as there either is no anchor for power between the extremes and the center, or if such a position ever exists, it is inherently unstable and readily yields power either to the extreme point of view nearest it or back to the center.

In the most extreme case, power passes to means (off center) and then on to the extremes on the left and the right more or less at the same time. In this case, DEMOCRACY is truly imperiled as it is repulsed on both the right and left at the same time; one aiming for heredity orders (the right) and the other (the left) primitive societies, the worst possible case for democracy. That is, if power is totally radicalized, as in the manner suggested, there is no ground on which to establish democracy. If one nation falls to the left and another falls to the right, these nations will at least oppose each other. This in turn maintains a kind of political balance between the extremes. In a world where no one can be wrong no one can be right either. Under the model evolving at the United Nations this is precisely what is coming about in geopolitics. The law of nations is being abandoned by a new order, the so-called “New World Order.” There is great risk here. Natural checks and balances are being discarded in the name of unity but there is only unity in a mindless pursuit of political order.

Majorities can be large or small. Majorities not only can err but can err greatly, and their errors can persist. What explains anything so fundamentally un-American in nature?

Majorities Rule And Those Who Rule Govern

It is not, and never has been an absolute (under the Constitution), that majorities are always right. This idea surprises no one. What may surprise some is that majorities can be dead wrong. This is not a part of popular culture, facing as it is, more and more to the left.

As stated above, “democracy is balance,” without balance you do not have democracy. Therefore, the more diverse people are –in the sense of– not sharing large, in between and small values the more likely it is that they are incompatible and that undemocratic forces exist. The “Melting-Pot” once united America’s diverse peoples. Today “Diversity” argues against assimilation, even when the assimilation amounts to agreement on only the most crucial aspects of political order, what language do people speak, what boundaries are maintained, and what is the dominant religious order or cultural heritage. If people have genuine differences that are too great to bridge then the world we live in and know offers only large and small majorities as a solution, such differences will produce discord at the earliest possible opportunity; if and when, significant differences surface. There is no magic formula for political success. Political systems work because they are fundamentally sound, or lacking fundamental soundness, because the left or the right has established a political order that cannot be reshaped or changed in any ordinary or usual manner or process. In such a world, trusting solely to politics to secure anything of great value is extremely misquided.

Anger is undemocratic per se. So it makes little or no sense, political or otherwise, to organize people who are angry. While progress has resulted from the over-throw of governments, it rarely occurs. Either the attempt fails as the prevailing order defends itself or those making-change lack the wisdom and fortitude (a sense of cultural balance) to secure a form of government as good or better than the one they rebelled against. There are few American Revolutions to turn to for guidance or comfort. Most revolutions are dismal failures.

Politics Ends Where Truth Begins

In general it may be said with some assurance that, encouraging people to feel as “other” if they are not or to be “other” if they are, makes for bad politics and bad politics makes for great error (and trouble). People living in poverty and relative obscurity are neither disposed to democracy nor readily motivated by reasonable political rhetoric. They are political fodder for a demagog. Which is anyone who will promise more than is possible or what is unwarranted in any event to enlist their support. Poverty cannot be addressed without real progress and this requires great leaders and good government over a period of time. You know when these two conditions are being met and when they are not. When they are not, the promises political leaders make to special interests to get their backing are at best cynical and at worst dangerous. It is a matter of record that a recent president pursued minorities and among minorities, black leaders in particular, in what might be seen as a heavy handed manner. For the president to deny or disparage the values of the prevailing order of society — in light the the foregoing contribution to our understanding of democracy — is troubling. The issue is that blacks are Americans and all Americans share or should share common values. When the president, elected by all the people, turns to show favoritism for a minority interest he has cast dispersions upon the majority will of the nation. The “majority will,” if democratic, and we are addressing only the American electorate^{Footnote 2}, stands for something of great value, DEMOCRACY. Democracy can be subverted (in the manner explained above) and the surest way to subvert it is to organize or see to it that its politics is organized “off-center.” When the president engages in undemocratic activity, all bets are off! DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED to the extent of the resulting political imbalance! Only in a society without legitimate interests could you claim to do good by upstaging or dismissing the prevailing order and its values. America has a legitimate interest DEMOCRACY and it is democratic only so long as its electorate is! What a past president did, and we know who that was, following this explanation, was wrong if it sought out difference for the sake of difference, and if this is true, quite possibly, was un-American. The greatest dictators have been very popular within a given segment of society. The more you know about democracy the less likely it is that you will be easily fooled by liars and cheats who profess truth without anything greater than politics to back it up. There is evidence that America has democracy but it is centered in the white electorate (see footnote 2 below). Time will tell how much damage a president can do who willfully violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Does this mean that a president cannot look out for minority interests without being un-American? There is nothing whatsoever in common between upholding law and the Constitution and discriminating against or contemptuously ignoring mainstream values. One act is presidential, while the other is contemptible. If blacks in America are identifying with middle-class values they are not or should not be in a distinct minority. If their condition, as a voting bloc, is such that they respond to undemocratic appeals by national leaders, such as purely “liberal” and therefore unbalanced politics or policies, no one should doubt that a problem exists and that it poses a genuine threat to American democracy.^{Footnote 3} The next time you see a black W.W. II. veteran in a news story take note of his civility and demeanor. 50 years ago blacks were openly discriminated against but their culture and upbringing did not take them out of the mainstream of American life. They were mainstream even without rights. This was the power of democracy at work. People had positive social values even when they had negative economic incentives. If it made sense for blacks to be raised as civic minded persons 70 years, why is it such a stretch and compromise to promote normalcy today? Why, because black leadership has a substantial, if not profound, liberal bias. Black leaders are taking their people to the left. The conditions that exist in too many black communities, as explained, make it possible to sell people bad ideas. Ideas that were not promoted in the past because they held no general or lasting value. Democratic values are “general and lasting” in principle if not in fact. The fact is it is very difficult to negotiate truth overtime in a world that throws up many obstacles to progress. A few black leaders are outstanding, but too many are radical or readily support radicals. In the context of democracy, this is undemocratic.

It is logic not politics that makes a significant political bias negative. Politics is indifferent to bias. Politics understands only acceptance and rejection. Which is why politics cannot resolve a problem that is this pervasive and logic is needed to see us through this difficulty. There is more on logic in the paragraphs that follow.

People living in poverty will be angry if they believe things will not get better and the political system they are part of lacks moral integrity. Inclining the nation to underclass values is not going to improve the status of those in the underclass, it will only exacerbate their plight. This is why you cannot lead the nation from well left-of-center or with less than adequate cultural values. This is why it is a measure of bad leadership that a candidate or official of government favors those who have the least to offer a political process if only because the condition they are in mitigates against it. Anger can be raised or lowered. Loyalty may increase or decrease. The president should always show loyalty for the nation and it legitimate values first and all other matters second. Nothing else will work in the end. Nothing else is democratic. Being underclass might distinguish persons in a negative light but people have survived this and more in the past. There are many poor white Americans who live with hardships. No one tells them daily that they are being discriminated against and that it is wrong. It is a fact of life that only real economic progress can address. It is MAINSTREAM to “work hard and not to complain.” This must be a prevailing attitude for the people of a nation if the nation is to succeed in the world. This attitude conflicts with the radical liberal agenda that is unfolding across American society these days. The “victimized person” ethic is becoming commonplace in American life and it is an ethic of defeat. Defeat of those values that are essential to the construction of civilization, mainstream values.

Erode public morality with a “victims rights” persuasion (and little else) and people will exhibit less character in direct proportion to its lack in the leaders of the nation around them. If a majority of people are sufficiently angry (or ignorant a distinct corollary of anger), they will not, they cannot, be democratic. This is too important to ignore. It may well be that the mainstream is more accepting of the world as it is, there is some truth in this, but there is no alternative to mainstream values for the long run. Any value, even little or no value, can stand its ground for a moment or two. The test is one of endurance. The truth cannot endure on the extreme right or left even though civilization appears to be able to move off center and normalize to and accommodate its new environs. But there is a cost: the meaning (or value) of democracy is lost. There is less balance in direct proportion to the distance civilization moves off center.

The nation also has to confront a larger world, the nations of the world that it must deal with. Consistent with what has been written here on this subject, it follows that taken as a whole, you might expect the nations of the third world to be undemocratic in nature given the widespread poverty that exists and, too often, the lack of integrity and virtue in those governments.^{Footnote 4}

Place This Perspective Alongside The Facts

Only twenty years ago no one would have even suggested that the United Nations would take a direct role in governing nations. It was unthinkable. Why? People being sensible back then, knew the U.N. had no basis in fact for assuming such authority or exercising such power over nations. In the intervening twenty years a lot has changed. American leaders invited and even encouraged U.N. plans to intervene in the internal affairs of nations in matters that had always been understood to be out-of-bounds. Nations addressed the wrongdoing of other nations through alliances and agreements and took whatever actions the laws of nations dictated. THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE! Today, the United Nations is more and more so assuming the position of a Nation of Nations (the N.N.) not the United Nations (or U.N.) that was chartered at the end of W.W. II to arbitrate between and among nations. It’s arbitrations are NOT binding. The world is indeed becoming more liberal! If true, AND TO THE EXTENT OF IT, this new found liberality stands between it and the U.S. Constitution, which being democratic, always looks to the highest possible center.

THE MORE WE SHIFT TO THE LEFT THE LESS AMERICAN WE BECOME

Set out above in some detail, it is reasonable to reassert the idea here that the larger a majority is the less democratic it is. This is true both within and without a nation. It is almost certainly true for the United States that both domestic and foreign politics are turning to the left. And in each case, the key is the number of persons directly included in political decision-making today, and looking forward, versus the number that were similarly involved in governing in the past. BALANCE is not a given in the world of politics. It is rather difficult to come by and even more difficult to sustain over long periods of time, being a prerequisite of good government, the distinction matters.

AS THE WORLD ORGANIZES AND MOVES TO THE LEFT IT IS INCREASINGLY ANTI-AMERICAN

Further U.S. integration in world bodies that oversee the Constitution and the American people is a very bad idea if the argument can be justified that “bigger means less democratic” in real world politics. The rush that is on to democratize the world will have just the opposite effect if more care is not taken because the world is not ready for democracy. It is undemocratic and will only recognize what it is comfortable with, liberality emanating from spiritualism, becoming more spiritual and less material if left to its own devices and allowed to make its own decisions. This is where a left-thinking political bias will lead; one that has little in common with democracy or the United States Constitution. Given this explanation of these facts, in most instances, the objections to this perspective on democracy will come from persons who have dubious leaders to turn to for information, or else common sense has to be stood on its head and another explanation found.

What Is The Alternative?

Maintaining the Constitution and the RULE OF LAW is an imperative not an alternative. It is the prize in and of itself! The United States and its citizens have a duty to the Constitution to uphold TRUTH not to support those who will first erode and evade it and later destroy the TRUTH, replacing it with their own, another and lesser truth.

What Is Truth?

There are arguments to support even the most flagrant assault and attack upon the Constitution. One goes that too few consume too much of the world’s resources. This argument appears valid on its face except for the fact that but for the United States, the great consumer, no one would have sufficient democratic rule to achieve this or anything remotely approaching this level of prosperity. So what is so sound about the argument that you are at fault for doing what no one else could or would do, but for your doing it?

It is not necessarily a wining argument to oppose someone for being in a position to do something and doing it better than you can. America knows how to create wealth. What about global warming? In fact more environmentally friendly technologies should be found to replace the unfriendly ones. On this point, a case can be made that free trade, which some people believe benefits underdeveloped nations, only puts off developing better environmental technologies as under-developed countries compete to get the polluting first world industries encouraging the first world to put off developing the next generation, minimally polluting, technologies. The United States may play a role in the failure to move ahead environmentally, but were the United States to concentrate on better environmental technologies it would not need the third world to prosper and the gap between rich and poor nations would, in this view, be even greater than it already is.

Truth is often simple to articulate and difficult to apply.^{Footnote 5}

The net result is that resentment exists between the haves and the have-nots. This resentment grows rather than diminishes when others look at our politics and society and see that it stands for less and less with each passing day. Americans, through their new masters on the left and far left, setting aside considerations of the right for the moment, are living, ever more so, for the moment and themselves when sacrifice to a greater cause, be it God, Nation, or Community, has always been the measure of greatness in the world of nations. Those who view our CONSUMPTION see a people consumed with and full of themselves. This is precisely what you might expect as a by-product of the equality standard. An idea that is not new to politics or historicity. The equality standard is opposed to a standard of excellence, or so it has been written.^{Footnote 6} Excellence requires conditions, tests, grades and measures of what good is and is not. The left uses “the measureless society” or the “equality standard” to undermine the virtue on the right and right of center that counterbalances the virtue on the left. The virtue of each stands in direct opposition to the other. The left and the right are diametrically opposed. So too much of either is a bad thing which is why the swing-to-the-left in America is a threat to the American Dream. The new leftward America will surrender its material virtue without a fight in the name of progress in a world that is too open to spiritualism in its present state, an impoverished and politically backward world: THE WORLD OF THE LEFT. The longer Americans listen to and follow their new masters on the left (i.e. its leadership) the more certain it is that the nation’s enemies on the left will draw strength form it, get aid and comfort, and pose a threat to the Constitution.

How did we get in this predicament? By not upholding the Constitution and opposing its enemies both foreign and domestic. We have not done all that can be done to support the Constitution. We, as all people, are caught up in politics and refuse to budge on that point. EQUALITY AND THE EQUALITY STANDARD are just another way of talking about and organizing a “large majority,” which means, “MOVE OFF CENTER.” The EQUALITY MOVEMENT in America has played a key role in placing the United States in an increasingly vulnerable and uncertain position. In the real world partial, not complete, as it is, equality is NOT truth. Far from it, equality is at best a HALF-TRUTH like INEQUALITY. Both are factors in a larger picture but equality and inequality are all or none propositions–unless reason is fully applied to them. The former leads to large majorities through inclusion, and the latter produces small majorities through exclusion. Politics swings back and forth between these extreme positions, left and right, never coming to rest for long in between the two where it belongs. The center, drawing from both the left and the right, is the genesis of good government.^{Footnote 7}

 
IS THE CONSTITUTION TRUTH “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”

Felix Gorelik

“Democracy and Totalitarianism”

by Felix Gorelik

In the counter-revolutionary changes in the USSR and other countries that were building socialism, the last elections in the Ukraine again confirmed the correctness of the thoughts of V.I. Lenin regarding socialist and bourgeois democracy. All the former and present lies and propaganda about this “democracy” begs the answer as to the actual difference between the two. Dialectical analyses and logic, points to one or the other conclusion. Bourgeois ideology, in order to hide its real meaning, uses only formal logic. These “ideologues” are putting on the same level the Soviet state and its democracy and counterposing it to fascist Germany, “communism” and “fascism”. They point out that in Germany and in the USSR there was only one party in power. Thus this kind of system is called “totalitarian” and is opposed to “democracy”, which embellishes itself with many political parties, elections, changes of parties and their government with another party and government, “rights of man”, “pluralism” in the countless newspaper and media.

Where are the lies in this presentation? Lenin taught that every question is based on the question of the classes, making this fact known to the people. Only a simple question needs to be asked: Which class is in power in the country? In whose interests is the political system geared? To which class does the means of production belong? Then the answer becomes very clear. Marx, Engels, Lenin wrote volumes on this question. The class which rules in the economy, to which belongs the means of production, shall utilize all mass production means, shall grab all power politically in order to rule. Capitalism utilizes all forms of rule, fascist rule, and “democratic” rule, but having one thing in common – it’s the dictatorship of the financial oligarchy. The role of the government that is led by the Communist Party is to guarantee the rule of the working class, and that is why the composition of the Communist Party in its majority should be composed of the working class – workers, farmers and peoples intelligentsia – thus they shall guarantee that the interests of the workers are looked after and defended.

The meaning of the word “democracy” and “people’s rule” is synonymous. Most countries or peoples are composed of over 95% workers. That is why only workers rule can be classified as democratic! That is why V.I. Lenin always stated that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the highest form of democracy, as people’s rule!

I, as a teacher by profession, saw with my own eyes how the party organized around our school, the building of all necessary components utilizing all workers, teachers together to build what is and what was needed by our school, district, region – and it was done.

Because of the imperialistic encirclement and constant danger of war, we could not have built and manufactured everything that was needed or that we could have accomplished.

We are always asked and derided as to why did we only have one candidate in the elections – there was no choice! But these elements fail to tell the people that each candidate was discussed by the trade union organizations and workers councils. Those that were nominated as candidates to Parliament were worthy candidates, having procured the majority of votes at countless meetings, believed in by their peers and workmates who grilled all candidates and elected the best and the most honest and dedicated ones. I do not see the necessity of many parties and many candidates. This process is just demagogy, to struggle for power in one’s personal interests thus giving the opportunity for anti-peoples candidates through demagogy, vote buying influence… and we see this now in front of our eyes and the consequent results.

Interests of the one party system is saved only until such time that the communist party is the party of the workers. History now gave us a bitter lesson. Under the weight of bureaucracy, when the top leadership of the party is out of the control of the working class, of the majority of party members, it then becomes a closed knit “nomenklatura” system and loses contact with the masses… thus giving credence to personal rule. That is why socialist democracy is only possible when there is internal party democracy, struggle against “personal leadership”, basing itself on the masses, which are united around the Soviet of Deputies, organized in the shop levels.

Is it possible to have “people’s rule” when capitalism rules the country? This is shown by the “Independent” Ukraine where the workers have the choice to elect this or that person who represents the capitalist class or the capitalist oriented party. The opportunity to elect a genuine representative of the working class or the left parties is at a minimum. The last results of the elections in Lugansk Ukraine should serve as an example. For the third time the rich capitalist industrialist Kolomoytsev in Lugansk was elected plus Borzykh. Kolomoytsev was a consultant to president Kuchma, rabid “reformist” anti- communist. Borzykh, formally a Director of a “State Farm”, but in actuality the owner of this “state farm”, member of the parliamentary group “Reform”, voted for all anti-people laws in parliament. And only one Communist – secretary of the City Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, F. Maramazin was able to win from the Lugansk district.

How was it possible that the workers voted for this their own class enemy, responsible for their present plight? Well here is the “democracy” which raises its ugly head. Before the actual elections, the state paid out the unpaid wages, gave money to where they felt would produce the best publicity propaganda. According to one member of RUKH (an organization not known for sympathy towards communists) it cost $3 million dollars to be able to be elected to the Parliament of the Ukraine on average. This money buys constant TV ads, radio, press, posters, leaflets, parties. These “candidates”, sometimes for 1 or 2 hours, were on TV telling all sorts of lies about their deeds for the people, etc., etc. Wherever a person turned you could not get away from this constant barrage.

But there was another secret weapon that these candidates used. This owner of the “State Farm” was sending into the cities gallons of milk, selling it at 35 kopeks, but not at 50 kopeks as other farms were doing. He told people that this is how he cares about the misery of the people, plus giving free milk to needy children.

Unfortunately the people voted for this “good Samaritan” not understanding that this same “benefactor” voted for all anti-people laws that are being enacted on behalf of the transnational corporations and the International Monetary Fund. His main propaganda was against the pensioners, who always voted for the Communist candidates. He opened up a special store only for pensioners, veterans, where he sold goods during the election time for very low prices. He also published his own newspaper called the “Veteran” which were given out free, plus medicines for older people. On every holiday, he gave a bottle of “brandy”, “chocolates” to veterans. He also sent 300 pensioners to a Sanatorium but it was found out that the money came from the top echelons of the government), with a special convoy which was headed by scores of priests, leading a procession, like sheep to slaughter… all this was constantly on TV day and night.

Of course he won the elections for the third time!

These “candidates” are supported by both internal and external enemies. Such “candidates” all over the Ukraine are needed by the present regime in order to hide the underlying sell-out that is going on. These elements, getting in under such circumstances, are now in the majority in Parliament and thus the IMF and Kuchma can rely on them to vote for its policies, for NATO, etc., etc.

Against them were running a Socialist and a Communist, no finances and no unity, thus they split the votes and the reactionary nationalists got in!

Other methods of running candidates supported by the present regime is to have these candidates run as “independents” thus trying and sometimes succeeding in fooling the voters that they are anti-reform “candidates”. Here are some figures that will show you that people are beginning to see through all this fog of lies. In Lugansk district, the candidates of the CPU received 46% of the votes while the bloc of Socialists and Village parties received 50% of the votes! The Party of Kuchma received only 2.8%. Nationalists and RUKH and others did not receive even 1%. In Western Ukraine, the hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism, the Communists were not able to reach any significant percentage of votes. Because of the lack of finances for leaflets, newspapers, radio or TV ads, plus the blackout imposed by Kuchma authorities, it is no wonder that the results were so low.

Even though overall the Communists did gain in seats, everything remains the same. The capitalist system is intact. This is guaranteed by the present Constitution, which is only possible to change by the President… parliament is impotent to change anything.

What kind of “democracy” is this when the voice of the President has the sole right and not the Parliament? This means that Kuchma alone has more rights than the 400 members of the Ukrainian Parliament! President Kuchma (as does President Yeltsin) has the right to disband parliament if the Communists should win a majority of deputies in the Parliament. Where lies and money do not buy votes, there is always the dictatorship of the president and the army, militia and the courts!

Another example which I’m certain the world does not know is the fact that the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine – N. Vitrenko who was elected had her mandate as Deputy revoked because she dared criticize President Kuchma in pre-election meetings. The reason given by the judge in handing her this sentence was that “she influenced the electorate…”! Also another example of “democracy” in action – the Editor of the newspaper “Soviet Luganshina”, a Communist newspaper, was severely beaten up. V. Steletskij had to be hospitalized. The Chairman of the Election Commission of the City of Popasnaya threw himself out of a window and left a note saying: “I know what’s going on now in the elections.” The head of Lugansk District Committee of the government was fired from his post because the governmental party received only 2.8% of the votes.

The lesson is clear: You cannot by “parliamentary”, “constitutional” methods change the bourgeois system. This is guaranteed by the adopted Constitution which unfortunately even some “communists” voted for. The only method is to organize all the people for revolutionary activity and struggle, utilizing all forms of struggle and tested in battles of history.

Bourgeois “democracy” is masked always but it is “totalitarian” – dictatorship of mighty Capital!

Economics, Philosophy, and Politics

Mises Daily: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe