Chapter 4: SKETCH OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY -- ADMINISTRATION
3. People achieve "true democracy."
3.1. Awakening from "faith in election"
Earlier I said that the Commons' Convention is neither a parliament nor a political party. It is a representative body peculiar to communism where the state is abolished. It resembles a parliament insofar as it is representative, but it is decisively different from the so-called parliamentary system in that it does not adopt an electoral system by voting.
Today, in countries where parliamentary systems are firmly established, one "faith" in electoral systems is widely shared: elections are the essence of democracy. From such a "faith", it could be said that a parliamentary system that denies the electoral system is inherently anti-democratic.
It would be unfair not to admit that election with universal suffrage, which does not discriminate based on status, property, or gender, has made a historical achievement in expanding the class framework for political participation compared to the hereditary politics of royalty and aristocracy in the old days.
However, if you take a closer look at the legislators elected by the "universal" suffrage, you will find that they are not ordinary people, but mostly men belonging to the proprietor class, though you can also see some proprietresses in recent years.
In particular, under party politics, political parties informally choose candidates before elections through the selection of candidates, so those who do not have connections to political parties are pre-excluded. Even if a person who is not affiliated with a political party runs for election, the wall of funds is thick, and it will inevitably become something like a hobby of a wealthy person.
It is no exaggeration to say that although the system of universal suffrage expanded the right to vote, the right to stand for election remained virtually limited to the wealthy class. If so, even political clans that monopolize politics as a de facto hereditary family business are formed, even though it is based on universal suffrage. However, considering that the universal suffrage movement itself was historically a class struggle of the progressive bourgeoisie against the royal aristocracy, it is inevitable that the victorious bourgeoisie itself will become aristocratic.
Still, you may ask: Is it the election that determines the judgment of voters, and are electoral winners, hereditary or not, democratically sanctified? That is the very core myth of “faith in election.”
But I dare to ask: Which factor is the “sanctifying” of a candidate in an election, personality or policy? The answer is neither. It is connections and image, especially the latter. The recent media/internet-led election campaigns, which rely heavily on visual representation, have developed sophisticated image strategies, making elections increasingly popular vote-like mega-events. Therefore, no matter how good a candidate is in character and makes a splendid pledge, if he fails in his image strategy, he must be prepared to lose the election.
It is not unreasonable to fear that the outcome of such image-oriented elections will be the emergence of agitator politicians who will rise to the top through skillful manipulation of the masses through the media and internet. In this respect, the fact that the Nazis, led by the eminent agitator Hitler, came to power by neither coup nor revolution, but by parliamentary elections with universal suffrage under the "democratic" Weimar Republic, remains historically significant. It is a great lesson.
In this way, it can be seen that it is not simply possible to say that elections unconditionally guarantee democracy. Rather, aren't elections, whether or not money is given or received, all advertising and bribery, nothing more than a political version of business transactions? Or aren't they nothing more than job hunting for ambitious proprietors and proprietresses with money and connections? Once you try to push it away like this, you may be able to wake up from the deep-seated "faith in election."
3.2. Lottery representative system
Today, voices lamenting the ignorance and incompetence of elected politicians, including parliament members, can be heard all over the world. Members of the legislative branch, in particular, call themselves law makers, but in reality they – with the exception of US legislators whose country does not authorize the right to introduce legislation to the government – have ended up as rubber stampers that only put a rubber stamp of approval on the bill submitted by the government.
That should be true, because the election process is not a test to measure the candidates' policy-making and legislative abilities. It is no wonder that there are law makers who, even if elected, are incapable of drafting a single bill on their own.
In contrast, delegates to the Commons' Convention are recruited and drawn by lottery from among those who have passed the delegate license examination and obtained a license. This examination covers not only basic subjects such as policy making, legislative techniques, and political ethics necessary to act as general/federal and local delegates - one common qualification for both - but it also tests basic and comprehensive sophistication in core subjects such as politics, law, economy, the environment, and individual major policy fields such as welfare/medical care, education/culture. If you pass this exam, you are guaranteed to be able to act as a delegate.
Although it is called an exam, it is not a memory-dependent cramming test, but textbooks are allowed to be brought in and referred to, and information selection and critical thinking skills are tested. There is no fear of becoming a minority elite selection because it is set to a level that will surely pass the exam.
In this way, those who pass the delegate license exam will be registered in the official list of delegate license holders, and from there they will be publicly recruited and drawn by lottery as delegates to the Commons' Convention of each level with a fixed term of office.
If such a system is adopted, there is no need for an age limit similar to the age for election in the electoral system. In fact, a 15-year-old licens holder is even more qualified to serve as a delegate than a unlicensed 51-year-old. Similarly, a foreign-born person with delegate license is more suitable for delegate than native-born person without license.
It should be noted that, when drawing lots for delegates, division of districts like constituencies in the electoral system is not considered. It is sufficient to simply draw lots from all over the zone until a fixed number is reached, and the same is true for each local area. By adopting a simple lottery system in this way, delegates will no longer act as influence peddlers who try to induce profits to their own hometowns, like parliament members under the electoral system.
3.3. Politics as a non-professional
A more important consequence of the delegate lottery system is that the status of delegates ceases to be a "profession." This is another major difference from the parliamentary system.
Although under the parliamentary system, the term of office of members is generally set to a few years, because of the unique "asset" of electoral power base, continuous multiple elections are possible, and politics becomes a fixed occupation, which in turn leads to the formation of hereditary political clans that turn politics into a family business. As a result, parliamentary politics takes on the character of aristocracy.
On the other hand, in the delegate lottery system, the probability of winning consecutive elections in a lottery that depends on chance and luck is low, so the rotation of delegates is quick and the position of delegates is not a fixed position.
Moreover, since delegates to the Commons' Convention are allowed to hold concurrent jobs (as we saw in the previous chapter, the drastic reduction of working hours in communist societies makes this possible), today's professional politicians as is the case, they will not fall into a privileged class that has lost the sense of ordinary people's lives.
If you play around with the title of Max Weber's famous book, you can realize "politics as a non-professional" rather than "politics as a profession". Politics is essentially a common task for all of us, human beings as social animals.
