The Greek historian Herodotus, who grew up a subject of the Persian Empire, attributes the following to the young Darius as the latter engaged in comradely debate with fellow-conspirators: “In a democracy malpractices are bound to occur. Corrupt dealings in government services lead not to private feuds, however, as in oligarchies, but to close personal associations,(to collusion), with people putting their heads together and mutually supporting one another. This continues until somebody comes forward as the people’s champion and breaks up the cliques which are out for their own interests. This wins him (her?) the admiration of the mob and this person finds himself (herself?) entrusted with absolute power.” The implication is that the cycle will then start again from the beginning.
When Darius became emperor of Persia, his remedy for corruption was execution of those deemed to be corrupt. In more recent times such as following the failed English revolution of the 17th century, reforms were carried out in Britain and the United States to counter corruption through “separation of powers”, including bicameral legislatures, with elected parliaments monitored and supervised by “their betters”. .
Bicameral parliaments are supposed to make possible some kind of check or limitation on corruption. They have been experimented with in modern Greece (from 1844 to 1864 and again from 1927 to 1935) but Greece ultimately opted for a unicameral universal suffrage parliament , supposedly for reasons of efficiency and economy and to promote equality. Athens also chose to dispense with a constitutional court, though even e.g. Romania has judged that it needs such an institution.
In Greece voting is compulsory, formally speaking, though in practice many Greeks don’t vote, whether because they can’t be bothered or because they actively choose not to. We (“we?”) take the position that mandatory voting should be abolished, and so should universal suffrage. But it is the obligation that should be abolished, not the right. Anyone wanting “universal suffrage” should be able to have it and anyone wanting something more to their liking should exercise their imagination and create it. Some people see themselves, or are seen by others, as potential politicians or, more politely, “representatives”. Let them declare this explicitly and let it be recorded. Those who don’t aspire to being “representatives” but simply want a society that is more just, more human, less environmentally destructive, let them make this explicit too. Then there will be two clearly separate categories of non-voters with different degrees of politicization and ambition or vanity.
It will then be up to the constitutional court to decide which citizens do not qualify to be what they aspire to be. This would limit their rights to the rights currently enjoyed by all citizens, namely the right to vote in universal suffrage elections and the right be a candidate in universal suffrage elections. It goes without saying that all citizens should have the right, permanently, to be in, or to revert to, the category of today’s regular citizen, enjoying all the corresponding rights.
As for the candidates for membership in an alternative legislature, those who survive the scrutiny of the constitutional court (bring to mind the disgraceful precedent of former favoured Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu), will have won the right to participate in a sortition process. An alternative legislature will be assembled and given the name of Senate, Legislative Council, or something like that and proceed to compete for a mandate with the legislature of elected representatives.
The experience of the “COVID 19” lockdowns confirmed that most citizens are much quicker to join in denouncing to the authorities people who do what the authorities forbid, or fail to do what the authorities require, than they are to succeed in elaborating ideas for positive reform. This human weakness could be turned into an advantage if the habit of condemnation could be harnessed to provide backing for the deliberations of the constitutional court (on the proviso that this institution can be kept trustworthy). If the constitutional court forfeits its trustworthiness the ball will be back in the court of universal suffrage.
The members of the alternative legislature will speak in the first person singular, as individuals, and will communicate with the public and with their colleagues directly through channels over which they themselves exert control, not permitting any mediated communication in their name. Resort to a journalist will be ipso facto grounds for expulsion from the alternative assembly, which would mean that any subsequent attempt to stay in public life would necessitate securing election as a conventional politician. The income of members of the alternative assembly would be pegged to the amount they obtained prior to their political appointment.
To recapitulate, tomorrows bicameral parliament would not be like its Hellenic predecessors of the 19th and 20th century (or the parliament of the Australian state of Queensland prior to abolition of its upper house) where the parliamentary chambers were complementary. They would compete, as parties do now, and would continue to do in the conventional chamber. And the chambers too would compete with each other for the popular mandate.
As indicated, every member of the alternative chamber would speak as an individual.
Does anything need to be added to this formula?
An attempt was made to answer this question (in English) in the discussions held in Romania in October 2024.
