Nearly all my life I have hated the country I love.
The love is for our people, of whom 1 in 20 belong to my tribe, the Anglo-Saxons. Growing into ever fuller co-existence with the other 19 makes life elating.
The hate is for our politics. First, politics made us an oppressive nation, built on belittlement. In a euphoric spurt around 1994 we beat that, briefly. Then we settled into a new politics that makes us a pathetic nation, built on pretence.
Long ago it struck me that we could have the love without the hate. So could other unhappy nations, marred by rifts that were blamed on the people. The people weren't wrong; the equation was wrong. Our potential is more civilised than our politics allows our practices to be.
Looking for resolution, I queried the value of democracy. In a long view, democracy had been an advance on what went before it – oppression and bullying – but, notably in newer democracies, it had jammed as a headcount. It was supposed to mean that people ruled, but all that the people got to do was choose a clique, often by a virtual ethnic census. Opposition voters were disenfranchised in effect if not in name. Ruling party voters stoned cars to get their voices heard. There had to be better than this.
Usually, disillusion with democracy went with the allegation that democracy had gone "too far". I reversed the question: has democracy gone far enough?
The convention had been: tame power by restricting power. That was right in the era of princes and chiefs. It may be wrong for the era of people's power. Could it be that for modern needs power was better tamed by amplifying power?
Democracy worked by chaining ideologues and activists to the wants of people who didn't go to the rallies, didn't wear the T-shirts, didn't shout the slogans, and, often, couldn't spell "ideolagy". If democracies failed, the chains weren't tight enough.
I pictured a society with very much power held by very many people on very tight chains. It looked good: low on sham, high on justice, spectacular on confidence.
Ways came to mind of tightening the chains. You'd want no-one to be a supplicant, everyone to have a toehold on power. You'd want decisions made in ballot booths, where people are alone with their soul and conscience. You'd want voters knowing how their votes are impacting on people they don't like. You'd know that majority rule had to be unconstrained, that your system must be free of artifice. Much more.
These things added up to something big. Done right, politics could be made to catch up. A correct structure could stimulate evolving humanity to evolve fuller and faster.
I wrote this argument, a few times, over years, decades. It met a certain scepticism, not surprisingly; I'd be sceptical myself. But it, too, evolved. I'm now at the point where I believe I can state the basics clearly, and invite scrutiny. This is done in full all over this site. To end this introduction, here are the headline features of what I am and am not asserting:
I am not [unlike, I think, any better-world case you have met to date] requiring people to be different – better educated, more tolerant, anything.
Of what I am saying, one bit is adamant; the rest is humble.
I am adamant that more democracy is the wave of the future. Within a generation or two the systems of government that we now brag about will seem rudimentary. There may be many ways of putting democracy to fuller use, but the central theme will be the amplifying of the rule of the people, to orders of magnitude higher than we now know. The glue that makes it work might be called a Law of Cautious Majorities, by which when politics is truly tied to people whose priorities are choosing washing powders and arranging school drop-offs, power loses its capacity to do damage.
As to how to achieve this state; I offer the route I see, and am very ready to hear of others. Mine has the advantage of total simplicity. Its essence is to let communities do what communities want to do, so that in principle if you and fifty neighbours wished to make playing Rap music in your area punishable by death, nothing in law would prohibit you. And if we in your biggest community, your nation, send the air force to dispose of you and your fifty neighbours, nothing in law prohibits us either.
At this point you say "That's not simple! That's crazy!" Thinking in today's frame, it surely is. Thinking in tomorrow's frame entails many counter-intuitive propositions of which this is a good example. The reason that nothing "in law" needs to stop wild lunatic conduct is because wild lunatic conduct is cut out more fundamentally and more profoundly, by the essence of the system, than any law can match.
A bit strange? Probably. That's okay. This is an introduction I have gone on long enough. Go through the site, please, and if what you find does not satisfy you, tell me why and I will do my best to fill it in. I know there will be moments that on first sight you think you've come across Theatre of the Absurd. Stick with it just a little bit, would you, and you will need no persuading that all of this is genuinely easy – it just looks temporarily complicated because it is unfamiliar.
I much suspect, too, that shortly you will be seeing D2 or Version Two Democracy as the way you want to live. I hope your voice will join a groundswell that in due course will quite easily, and with no thought whatever of wars or weapons, bring about the most revolutionary revolution ever, the first one that does not replace the old ruling clique with a new ruling clique but actually does let the people rule.
Finally, I want you to know that for me this is not a game or an exercise. There is a phrase I can say, in sickening proof of living in a wrong way: I have known more than a hundred people who have been murdered. I want that to become a phrase no-one can think of saying. I want people coming after me to hold their heads up in a beautiful land, at home, in confidence, loving a nation they have no need to hate.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by James Lind Holmes , June 08, 2010
written by Ian C-G , June 10, 2010
It begins with a shift in my mind. That shift says simply that I matter. I am part of the solution. Perhaps most importantly, and on behalf of voters everywhere, I am now taking back the power I gave a clique of disinterested maniacs. I am supporting D2. Jeez, sounds fanatical. No more coffee.
written by Denis Beckett , June 21, 2010
yourselves another coffee by now, four days later. (2) To the oservation on
it unfolding the way we make it unfold, hear, hear!
written by Ernie Gay. , July 24, 2010
written by Errol - Farnham, Surrey , July 24, 2010
written by Mo Haarhoff , July 25, 2010
Not using the vote that people strived so hard to get you is an utter waste of their effort. Use your vote, but divert it to the team you think is doing its best, training hardest and has the best players. You can always switch your vote back in later elections. At worst this will give the team now at the top of the log a wake-up call; at best it will give it time to reorganise, search within for more meaning and accountability and do some serious training before the next match; find a new coach that is worthy of the position and players who will better respect its supporters.
I could go on ad nauseum, but I'm sure you get the idea.
written by Cassandra Davis , July 26, 2010
As facebook is celebrating its 500-millionith user today and has been coined the 3rd state of the planet, I see the Web 2 communities very much in line with your thinking, where those belonging to these communities by free choice, interact or collaborate with each other making up their own rules and even finding solutions to problems.
We have seen the power of these communities as political platforms providing opportunities for a wide variety of groups to attempt to build support for a cause or campaign. Obama’s social media campaign clearly won him the vote.
I think you have the right idea by building up a community here online. But perhaps the big challenge towards true social change is how to make these big social communities work offline?
written by Boykey Sidley , July 26, 2010
written by Kitty Carruthers , July 27, 2010
Keep it up, DB
K
written by Angus , July 27, 2010
After university I unwisely forgot about community activism. The result was that I felt alienated and angry about the new South Africa. In the last few years I’ve begun to get involved again (in a very small way), and like magic I feel much better about the country. But my observation about activism is that; 1. There is an enormous amount of space for activism in South Africa 2. The laws are generally liberal and well meaning…they’re just not enforced very well 3. It’s always a small core of diligent, caring people who do the vast majority of the work.
I disagree with you that South Africa needs more democracy. There are places with far less democracy than South Africa who beat us hands down in terms of material and social well-being. The avenues for democratic expression that do exist are nowhere near exploited to the full. It’s unhelpful and misleading to discuss the reinvention of politics. It’s simply wrong to endorse the line of thinking that says ‘politicians are an evil breed who can’t be trusted’. The truth is politicians are generally very energetic, driven, optimistic and human. Like all professions they have their dark side. Perhaps Alan Greenspan put it best when he said that the US Presidency should be denied to anyone who is willing to do the things you need to do to get it. In my mind you complicate the issue. Democracy, at its most basic, is about a viable alternative. Liberals have always been squeamish about power…about seizing it, and about using it. I disagree with much of what the DA stand for, but at least they are taking the fight to the ANC. Competition can be a wonderful thing. ANC municipalities are motivated to improve themselves for fear of being shown up by the DA. Nothing concentrates the mind of a politician like the fear of losing his job. Democracy works – we don’t have to reinvent it, we just need to start using it.
written by Philip Machanick , July 28, 2010
I'm involved with Green politics in Australia, which has a lot in common with your ideals: grassroots democracy, eschewing corporate finding of politics, working for the greater good not for vested interests. See my blog for some opinions on the state of the world: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/
written by Jon Quirk , July 28, 2010
The process of voting is just that, and of itself in no way guarantees that Governance will be democratic.
written by Ian C-G , July 30, 2010
The supporting concept is that elected officials who, conceivably, can get voted out at any time for poor performance, requires no elucidation. It’s a win on a very large scale
The sticking point of successive majority groups voting each other out of a situation in a random and continuous attack is unsettling.
The other constant criticism/sticking point is why tinker with what works? Fix poor education and health care, create jobs, and the existing democracy will perform like the Swedish model.
Dealing with the last sticking point first is the easiest. This is just stupid, a complete non-sequitur. The analogy is approaching Everest with your Vespa and a scarf. Fixing SA education, Health Care, jobs etc requires hard-working functional politicians, nothing else. Once we stop the leak in the tyres of government mobility then the vehicle of government-as-service to the electorate can get moving again. Think about it. All our energy as tax-paying citizens goes into bankrolling government. As a rule, unless you are an ideological academic with no sense of this process, this takes most the energy an individual has. He/she is pretty much spent when the working day is done and most of that day’s energy went to feeding the government. It makes sense to expect this to be done properly, not now at the end of your working day having to begin to work on sorting out government failure in creating jobs, a decent health care and education system. D2 correctly addresses the problem, which is crap government.
I struggle with the first sticking point. I see the AWB community in Orania voting for Capital Punishment and immediately hanging a black thief from neighbouring Hopetown. Stuff the vote, say the black Gauteng Local Government comrades, and next moment you have a bomber lifting off from the Pretoria Air Force Base heading for Orania. Denis agrees that in today’s time frame this Theatre of the Absurd situation will be counter-intuitive. Agreed! I am afraid I cannot yet see how “the essence of the system will cut out wild lunatic conduct”. However, my intuition says that this situation bears more investigation. As an eternal optimist, my sense of human evolution is that it is on the up and up. We are beginning to grow at our spiritual centre. It seems as if, with the rushing demise in credibility of religious, nationalistic and cultural demagogues the world over, that individual awareness and personal strength is on the increase. My intuition is that D2 reflects exactly this individual growth, and I find this incredibly exciting. For this reason I support pushing on into the current Theatre of the Absurd that today’s Time Frame presents. I am peering optimistically into the future, and hoping some enlightened contributor will help this vision of “the most revolutionary revolution ever” become reality.
What a thought; when our vote does “not replace the old ruling clique with a new ruling clique but actually does let the people rule.”
The sooner the better.
written by Beckett , July 30, 2010
You're talking a periodic big day where millions of hyped up people divide into groups -- probably determined by birth -- and put an X against one of 10 or 20 faces. I'm talking of elections designed for you to feel the effects of your vote, not least by being aware of what effects your vote has on others around you -- such as encouraging them to support factions that work in harmony with your gang, or encouraging them to support factions that threaten your interests. In those circumstances, basic reasonableness is guaranteed BY the voting process.
No? Okay, read some more, and then argue with me. Best to you meantime.
PS I'm "Beckett" here because the system says "Denis" is not available!?
written by Becket , July 30, 2010
By Murphy's Law it comes at an absurdly busy time in my life. Excuse delays: responses upcoming, appreciation fully intact already.
Luv
Denis (And now it tells me "incorrect password" I don't want anyone to have to have a password on this site. It'll get ironed out.)
written by Phakamile , August 18, 2010
I've read your manifesto and it seems to me that what you are describing is what democracy is already. What different about your theory?
written by Stewart W , August 24, 2010
Well, whatever, I will read on and hopefully discern what Dennis is talking about here!
Me? - I hate government - any government and all governments of today, with a passion! I guess I am really some kind of anarchist...!
written by Denis B , August 25, 2010
>
Yesterday I wrote to Julian, who raises cantons, on Forum, to say that D2 is not on the spectrum of unitary versus federal states. It is on a higher plane, which makes that spectrum obsolete. Afterwards I felt hmm, this sounds a little large. But now you come up with another spectrum, big government versus small, and I say the same thing again, with raised confidence. D2 invalidates this dichotomy, too -- you'll have bits of big and bits of small. Guys like you will be free to punt the minimalist line, and you'll make it happen according to how well you show the Have-Nots or Have-Littles that they get something from it. Mainly though I'd think that what D2 offers you is that instead of kvetching for anarchism while the state frays around you, you can kvetch for anarchism from a rock of solidity. Cheers, Denis
(PS, "Denis B" is because the system won't let me use just "Denis". Working these things through.)
written by Aragorn Eloff , September 01, 2010
Yes, I know, anarchism has a bad rap...Check it out though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
written by Denis Beckett , September 01, 2010
I think you’ve seen places around this site where I say I’ll take any comment I can, and make of it a reason why people should want D2 and want it now.
So now I do just that:
Anarchism, anarchism...? I do recognise that lurking in there is real stuff and actual thought, and it can differ from suspiciously similar-sounding anarchY that makes God-fearing Mills-and-Boon-reading persons blanche and shriek and call for the Riot Squad.
But ... D2 has zip to do with any isms whatsoever. That's its beauty, actually. You can be any brand of extremist visionary and/or nutcase that you like, and you get the same two basic effects as anyone else. You have more prospect than in any other kind of society of getting your chosen ism into some kind of real life, and you operate within the freedom and stability that comes of having to genuinely bug people before anyone stops you from doing your thing.
I note btw that your Wikipedia entry pretty much confirms than “anarchISM” is a word that can mean anything the user wants it to mean. You want it, whatever it is? Fine, get there through D2,
Cheers,
Denis
written by Ernie Gay , November 16, 2010
In his weekly column, Pale Native, ( Tuesday 16th. Nov) titled “President Zuma: the best we can do?” your columnist, Max du Preez asks the same question that I have been asking even before Mr. Zuma became president. Is Mr. Zuma the kind of man to lead a, largely, sophisticated but still developing country into the future?
Mr. Zuma, for instance has 3 wives, and a fiancée who he took with him last week to a meeting of the G20 heads of state in Seoul. I wonder if any other heads of state took their fiancée with them at their tax payers’ expense. I very much doubt it.
In addition to having 3 wives and a fiancée, Mr. Zuma also has 20 plus children to about 7 different women, several of them born out of wedlock. Could any of the other heads of state make such a claim? Again, I very much doubt it.
Then the question everyone is compelled to ask is, “is Mr. Zuma presidential material, taking his personal life into consideration?” Aren’t leaders supposed to lead by good example? Are there enough females for every man to have 3 or more wives and are there enough crèches and schools etc to accommodate everyman’s 20 plus children, or must many men be forced to lead a lonely and deprived existence in order for the uncaring fat cats to enjoy more than their fair share of everything? Is this the kind of democracy that is fair and equal to everyone?
I rather like Mr. Zuma, he is a jovial sort of hail-fellow-well- met chap. But is he the right kind of man to lead a nation of about 50 million people into a future fraught with complex uncertainties? He does have some leadership qualities however. But I think that they would be better suited to the headman of a village deep in the jungles of Borneo or The Amazon, where he could be surrounded by all his wives and piccanninies. Yes Mr. du Preez, I think that we can most certainly
written by Denis Beckett , November 16, 2010
This being a site about one way of making that move, I mention that from a D2 perspective your contribution (which, in case anyone scours the site for Max's column, is a drop copy of a letter to a periodical) brings up two relevant things. Firstly, in D2 the quantity of hysteria invested in the private habits of public leaders will greatly diminish. Secondly, various of the traditional practices that currently lurk in shadows will come under scrutiny. Decisions about them will not always be the decision that a colonial regime might have approved.
D2 Exchanges
It's the system that turns voters into ethnic herds
I have a friend who still reckons Afrikaners are a lesser race, sent to try the patience of we lordly Anglo-Saxons. In old days he made me livid. I had to oppose his bigotry, lest he spread it. Now I laugh him off as a deadhead; he could as well be punting elves and fairies. The Eng-Afrik racist baggage evaporated, unaided by decree, statute, or intellectual guidance. Which, I submit to Raymond Suttner, is what will happen to the Black-White baggage when D2 prevails.
This, Mike's reply to Laxative, Mike; align the gut with the head, is absolutely delightful. It is also vintage Mike. It is also magnificently wrong. Read Denis' long overdue reply here.
This smart-looking oke is Pedro Victor. I think his smart look has to be deceptive, when you see the hard time he gives me. He makes me explain again what D2 means, and re-explain why to get a truly stable next-phase society you can't do devolution and you can't do bit-by-bit. You have to make a far step, in one go. Then again, look close and you see that the stability of the outcome is copper-bottomed, so making the step will be easy when its import is better known. The place to see more is here. And Pedro, seriously, thankyou, you make me say things better, you're valuable (and as smart as you look).
What a gentleman is this! The debate he enthusiastically participates in is one of those that reduced me to rudeness about Malema debates as a genre. But does he get rude back? Nope, he's above that. He asks a legit question, only slightly tersely.
Phoebe is innocent! All she asked is "where's the debate?" But you'll admit that's a trigger question when the debate consists of long-distance amateur psychoanalysis of a few frail mortals whom our inadequate politics has grossly overpromoted. Check it out here.
Great & inspiring & all but, um, HOW?
Bernard Spong is one (of many) who doubts that D2 can get going, with big bad government ready to flick it away when it surfaces. But Bernard doubts it nicely, and in writing, and gives me a peg to reply. Brother Bernard, thank you! Actually, what you have here is the first wholly unbannable revolution; no possibility of a gun , a knife, a stone being raised. Plus the first that needs no displacing of incumbents ... but hey, Bernard's comment is here, and my reply with it.
Katy Louw buys into "inevitable". Hooray Katy! I'll send you a gold star in the post. I know the rest of you think it's insanely arrogant to talk of "inevitable".Yeah, I concede it's an off word. But ... if any one person can seriously tell me any conceivable direction that political development can take, other than fuller and richer democracy, I'll buy a humble pie. I'll cancel "inevitable". I'll send Katy two bottles of Solms Hiervandaan Shiraz blend. But you can't, hey? Me and Katy know that much. The Katy exchange is here.
