SEAL TWO
THE POLITICAL QUESTION AND GOD’S ANSWER
“Some day there will be a king who rules with integrity, and national leaders who govern with justice.”
- (Isaiah 32:1)
Many governments today are in the process of trying to solve their various social, political and economic imbalances given a suitable political framework or system. The party systems of democracy have been relatively successful with some, but a majority of the evolving societies are clamped down with ineptitude and setbacks despite. The various options or versions available are just not sustainable.
Like other systems tried, party democracies too have been truncated and abrogated by revolts on excuses of “bad government” at various times. Some bad government's malfeasances are: political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization, lack of sensitivity of government, arbitrariness of government, high cost of bureaucracy, bribery, corruption, graft, embezzlement, misappropriation, sit-tight leadership and powerful personalities over institutions, official high-handedness, nepotism, poor planning, unbalanced representation, misrule, mismanagement, in-transparency of governance, remoteness of government, discontinuity, etc., etc. These and more are just some of the so many issues and problems raised and attributable to malfeasances of inefficient systems of democracy in practice today.
As expressed above, many think “party” democratic systems of government still offer the best solutions to these problems. This somewhat is questionable though given our preamble.
What then could suffice for sufficient answer, you ask? The answer, we believe, could be subsumed in this novel version of non-party democratic system of government we tag: “Neutral-party System” , otherwise 'N-party, ' for short. What could N-party be?
N-party could also pass as acronym for No, Nil, Non, or Neutral–party system of democracy. It is a brand of grassroots democracy in which representation is on zero, nil or no party basis (hence the name). How might N-party work, you ask? Observe the diagram below:
HEIRACHY IN THE N-PARTY SYSTEM:
In some graphical example, let us have a hypothetical federation of equal ratios of sub-entities by population thus: Let there be one central government; 10 state (or regional) governments within the federation; and 10 local (or mayoral) governments within each of the 10 states. And 10 equal wards (or councils) still within each mayoralty.
At the general elections, these wards or councils elect in - say, 10 candidates each - on zero-party basis as representatives-elect into their respective mayoral houses of parliament at the local government tiers. These elections, as envisioned, could be marred save if carried out perhaps by a peculiar and novel electioneering system and process as follows. (This electoral process is to be aided by a novel and especial voting right and power we tag: the “plurality of franchise”). What could this all be?
It is well avowed that 'franchise' is the power or right to elect and be elected, to vote and be voted for. This is all the more upheld by this our new political voting right and power - the plurality of franchise. Which defined is: “that all qualified and registered electors may stand candidates simply by themselves and cast their votes freely, singularly and directly for themselves as a one-man contestant and be elected, as may for any other electorates (who also are empowered to stand freely and be voted) in any elections.” This in breakdown means “parties” [i.e., political candidates] can be as “plural” [numerous] as there are voters, and each voter “reserves” [can spend freely] his own vote. Hence we talk about a “plurality of franchise” . This is a fundamental rule of engagement in the entire N-party and its psephology. And this stands it out from all other political systems presently in practice.
When general elections are conducted at the grassroots on pluralism basis as thus, say 10 highest polls are derived from each ward [or constituency] by simple majority to represent it in its mayoral house of parliament at the council. 100 such candidates would then converge into each of the mayoral houses across the federation (given 10 wards or councils in each). General elections involving the public end here. Power of representation and elections is devolved to the representatives-elect onward in house as a College.
On convergence in each of the mayoral houses, the new-elect parliamentarians (MPs) elect frontwards from among themselves 10 representatives each into their respective state parliaments. This is to be done by a similar N-party voting arrangement to the one defined above but differing in a few regards. In these collegiate [or house] elections, candidates notably may campaign or stand election within their houses, but they however may not cast their votes for themselves as in the general elections. They must rather have to cast it for another within their houses. Lot then would be drawn on the polls as cast to 'select' the ultimate 10 winners. This is to avoid any foreseeable stalemates. By so doing also, they are engaging the 'Hand of Providence' (or God) in the decision-making process. This being so supported by God in the book of Proverbs 16:33 of Bible, which states: “Men cast lots to learn God's will, but God himself determines the answer” . Asides this, this helps too to lend voice to and take care of the interests and rights of minorities in the houses.
After these elections, the state houses would each then have been constituted with 100 new MPs (given that 10 mayoralties make up a state). And the mayoral house-memberships would have been reduced to 90 members each. Similarly by the foregoing, each of the 10 state houses would elect from among themselves 10 new MPs into the federal congress to constitute it.
Thus reducing the states house-memberships too to 90 members, and making the federal a hundred (100). The federal, state, and mayoral houses completed, other government businesses begin.
These MPs in all of the respective houses would then sit collectively in each of their houses to determine and fashion out their plans and programs for their term –say, a 6 year term.
When the agendas have been collated and aggregated, the houses then would each elect - by same N-party psephology of the houses - their chief executives. The vote is cast and lot is drawn to pick one man each from the houses (as elected) to head the executive as president, governors, or mayors, respectively.
These immediately appoint their cabinets and other technocrats to carry out business. In doing this they are devolved from the control or influence of their houses and may go anywhere to find the desired hands to fill the executive vacancies. However these executive-heads solely are to bear the brunt of misgovernment and are held responsible and accountable for whatever flaws or defects are found in their cabinets. And with respect to this may be deposed upon successful impeachment. In some indictment bordering on corruption, theft, or embezzlement, the direct culprits themselves would be held to face the music in the courts.
However as a balance, the heads of government would be allowed 3 month's grace to settle down in office before any impeachments moves may be made against them. And this can only be successful upon a 2/3rds majority vote against in their houses.
As another defense, executive-heads are also allowed to retain an officer behind in their seats in the houses to represent and defend the executive before parliament and to participate in all parliamentary activities (including voting). These officers lose office to their principals when they are returned to parliament after a successful impeachment.
Pertinently, any legislators (MPs) who leave parliament to take up appointments in the executives do so at the risk of their offices. Immediately they leave to take up appointment, elections are conducted in the overseeing lower houses they represent in the lower tiers to fill the vacancies. The prerogatives of returning back to the houses belong only to executive-heads.
Germaine also is that in transitional elections (i.e., general elections at expiration of term) it is the parliament's life that transits. The executives overlap (remain intact), until impeached in a vote of no confidence. Therefore, the government is a continuum. The seating chief-executives' seats in the grassroots (or constituencies) then are always uncontested or reserved in general elections.
After a chief-executive has been deposed, the parliament would convene to elect a new officer to continue the executive headship from amongst them by in-house voting. He too is also empowered with all grace and autonomy to retain or to fire any cabinet members for longevity of tenure or self-preservation in office. This continues until eventually a stable, flawless, and effective leadership is enthroned as foreseen in Isaiah 32:1 of Scriptures (quoted above). It must be mentioned here that it is the self-same resolves that are being pursued, only that the administrators are changing. Hence there are no fears of discontinuity or red tape once they got their acts right.
Legislators in the houses, as of the executives, also would be subject to checks and balances as the arrows do indicate in our diagram: Federal MPs would account back to their respective lower state houses; while state MPs would report back to the subordinate mayoral MPs in the local government tiers. These MPs may be impeached and removed by 'votes of no confidences' brought upon them by the overseeing subordinate lower houses they represent for any failures to pave way for a replacement. As of course, this has to be upon a 2/3rds majority vote against them in the house and after the usual grace of 3 months to settle down in office.
Going by our trajectory, mayoral houses at the least tiers might seem unilateral since having no overseeing subordinate lower houses to report or account back to structurally. This however might not be so. Legislators in these houses should by the enabling act be empowered in the constitution the ability to raise votes of no confidence among themselves for failings or flaws as to be spelt out. Upon an impeachable flaw raised against any member (MP) by other members in their house, the member is deposed by passing a majority 2/3rds against him/her in the house. This notably would be made possible only after the usual 3 months' performance grace.
When such errant MPs are rusticated, fresh members are called up immediately and sworn-in from the list of winners at the general elections at the beginning of term. This list should be held in care of house leaders of parliament. Thus thereby are freshmen convoked as new representatives-elect of their wards or constituencies from the grassroots into the mayoral houses.
Let us concisely look at all what we have said in a summary: Candidates freely stand elections in their constituencies directly for seats into the mayoral houses. In-house collegiate-type elections continue in the mayoral houses into the state houses; and then into the federal. All houses elect their chief executives from among the house members. And the chief executives appoint their cabinets freely and autonomously. All office holders are responsible and accountable back to the subordinate offices they evolved from and represent. The diagram above summarizes all this once again.
In concluding, our advocacy would not be complete without a closer look at some of the advantages of the N-party system of government over other systems of government – party or no party:
In the N-party, a plurality of votes only is needed to succeed in any elections, which makes it easier for someone to accede to leadership. Leveraging support to this also is that there would be little rigging since everyone is perceived in competition individually against others.
You will agree it would be more difficult to rig an election when working alone and against all others in a rivalry than when in a bloc or party. In the event of any riggings or grafts however, the self-regulatory mechanisms of the N-Party do not allow any rooms for mediocrity rule over the better expertise or good sense of others – be it majority or minority. Retaining clout would simply be on merit and by individual best-efforts. N-party thence places everyone on a level playing field.
The N-party system, in its principles of political pluralism and popular participation, more effectively allows for freedom of expression of opinions by empowering nonpartisanship, or enabling self-willed non-patronage of others, by guaranteeing liberties and rights and allowing for a down-to-earth grassroots representation of everybody - which no other systems probably guarantees in as much. (At best, the multi-party systems of government polarize opinions which may be roundly populist than down to earth or factual).
Expediency demands also that we mention here again that N-Party succession and replacement mechanisms do not lead to red tape. Contrarily, they lead to greater efficiency or better ways of doing things. We have argued in support of this and now reiterate that it is the same resolves or views that are pursued, only that the administrators are changing for greater effectiveness. So, there could be no red-tape or discontinuity.
N-Party on a closer scrutiny can be seen to have infused in it the best of republicanism, rationalism, libertarianism, objectivism, positivism, and egalitarianism, etc. There are also traceable the elements of some of our past heritage systems of African government such as: the Yoruba cabinet collectivism, compartmentalization and Providentialism, etc. N-Party can thus be said to be a political hybrid with all the characteristics of diamond - God's quintessential answer for Nigeria and man's many woes in his good governance quests!
There obviously also are observable N-party's distinctive separation of powers, and checks and balances. As never before known, roles are better separated one from another. The organs also are sovereign and supreme. There is ample opportunity for the various arms to operate and exercise authority within their judicial latitudes and yet under cooperative team spirit. Of particular note, the judiciary is unequivocally guaranteed independence and sovereignty – and so also presumably would be the press and the anti-graft agencies. This is an added plus for N-Party advocacy considering Nigeria's case. (Probably the ancient Greek political philosophers imagined a system akin to this also).
A most veritable check and balance to be conjectured of and observed in the entire system and its environment is the subliming ideological and sociological philosophy of “neutrality of representative” . We should recall that elected officers were to be evolved on no party basis, and hence hypothetically, all candidates would act independently in line with their own dictates or along the lines of those of their sponsors. There thus would be ephemeral allegiances and alliances. This makes everyone bear no social contract towards anyone particularly, but towards everyone generally in the common good. This evokes both a sublime, charismatic leadership and a neutral, critical follower-ship. This also creates both a check and balance that upstarts about a paradigm shift towards general excellence and perfectionism within the socio-political environment, with electorates competing against one another in perceived selflessness to earn clout. This awesome and compelling ideological, sociological, philosophical, and psychological checkmate and balance upon the candidates is what we term: the “neutrality of representative.” It works to neutralize everybody off. Interestingly, it also overwhelmingly makes government the art and essence of politics, rather than politics the art or essence of government, as hitherto. It also thereby lends it its full name: “Neutral-Party System”; abbreviated, “N-Party”.
Pen-ultimately, we would like to (re)-define democracy from our perspective as simply: “a small central consensus, flanked by an array of divergent opinions.” Or, as someone put it still: “a small hard core of common agreement, surrounded by a wide variety of individual differences.” Indeed this definition is to be taken as a hard fact of life and of the real world. For in the real world, there are as many divergent views or opinions as there are people or populace. N-party apparently captures them all.
And on a last note, we ought to have been able to conjecture or figured out how the N-party eases out the many woes and symptoms of “bad government” as listed. We therefore ought then to have realized that it has zero tolerance for any forms of bad governance given its modus operandi. We therefore submit that N-Party transcends all reasoning, time, creed, and culture; it best answers man's political quests from the ages and presumably throughout all ages to come.
ADDENDUM
The diagrams and discourse above may be augmented with an international tier assuming nations want to make representations into any international forums such as: the UN, EU, AU, ECOWAS, Commonwealth, etc. It could also be adjusted [reduced or increased] in order to suit each country's population size or resource capability. The principles are same as elucidated. And all the advantages of the N-party appertain.