Dividing Government into a war and a peace Government (a revolutionary and an established Government), and rotate them in/out power depending on revolution/peace status. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: when (violent) struggle occurs, suitible (preselected?) delegates for that can be elected, once the revolution is won change out all delegates. (This is already the basic operation of the voter-group system.) When struggle intensifies secrecy could be added and councils could be compacted to only the spokespersons. The Cherokee Nation (NA Natives) have an EXCELLENT EXCELLENT system, where in times of peace the 'white Government' rules, and in times of war the 'red Government.' The white Government consists of wise elders who know how to live, the red Government consists of people assumed to do well war and in commanding during war. We can use this idea to stabilize our revolution ! When we have no power yet, when we have not yet stabilized society - or indeed, during times of war of any kind - we can do two things and probably should do them both: 1. We can assume that we have elected a red government already. 2. We can proceed in our voter-groups and designate someone who we all feel is qualified to lead during war. Leading during war is something quite different then doing hand to hand combat, and secondly our revolution is also about food and water, about saving people. What we need for leadership is people who can think ahead, who can predict what people will do and need. Therefore a highly intelligent women of 25 may be the vastly superior choice for the red Government then a well trained knife wielding retard who won the championships of several martial arts. Leading is about strategy and even principles, but at times about quick tactics and immediate decisions as well. Someone who would do anything to save people, but would pick itself up and carry on as if nothing happened if a good number of them die in the struggle. With this in hand we can say: if our struggle would become violent because of violent opposition, or if it becomes a tactical and strategic fight possibly leading to violence or a war of nutrition and so on and so forth: then if we have pre-selected a candidate in each voter-group for the red government and it isn't already in power, we can push that person into power as voter groups really quick. This makes us responsive and quick, because the chosen candidate obviously knows it is chosen for that role, and would have been living with an eye of performing its duty at some point. So, the red government makes a flying start. We can also ask the red delegates when they may be called on for action, to meet as if they where a council already, so they can prepare themselves and discuss. We can also make the red Government faster and more secretive by saying only the spokespersons of the red Government will be that red Government, who rule by their own majority over their local operations. This tightens the circle conciderably, and makes leaks much less unlikely. During struggle quite a few principles of democracy can work against us, such as that all should know all and that decisions should really take some time. So let't make that a rule ? Let's call that the 'emergency red Government' and 'the emergency red council.' Let's also say that if not all red delegates show up for a scheduled meeting, they can still rule if they get a majority between them as if the absentee delegates all voted against. So that means if 6 show up in a 10 grouplet-leader (previously spokesperson), a decision will have to be unanymous. It can't be said beforehand if the local councils should operate independently of wider red councils, or be loyal to a central command, because both have problems and advantages. Let's say that everyone tries their best. In legal/procedural terms one could say: the spokespersons or grouplet leaders are ceded with the power of their grouplet who can still rotate that red delegate in and out of course for someone else. Every council can be casually divided into 5 groups of 10 persons, see elsewhere at council internal organization ./064-council-internal-organization ./067-100person-council--spokesperson.html ./084-council-order So: first we may feel violent pressure and therefore decide it is time to put the red Government in. Every voter group could decide this for themselves. Then if things become like an emergency, each council can decide for itself whether it is time to tighten the circle. So, the plan is that the power stays local: the voter group decides if it sends in red or white, the council decides if it tightens or widens. This can be useful because local people know more about local conditions, and so the red and white Governments can also be in power in different areas depending on local needs. A red Government can also wear off this way from one corner of the nation, slowly to the other, propagating that and making the transition smooth. The red councils then basically rule their local area and are not suborginated through law or procedure to the higher councils. This is good for being unpredictable in the struggle. Once a council goes 'red,' it will presumably need to conduct itself in relative secrecy. When conducting in secret, a red Government can not be a real Government, hence it becomes semi-legitimate at best according to the rules. This may not be a problem, because the Red Government could be seen as being a non-existend or casual government and it only speaks to people willing to prosecute the revolution, anyway. Secondly once we have power an established the rule of law and justice, peace: protocol will have to be honored, that means the red Government steps down. Meaning it is replaced by the white Government, different people. What this will do is that candidates for the red Government will know they are only "fighting for the honor to give up their power/position once they've succeeded." First this means people who only want to succeed for their own ambitions may be hesitant, knowing they'll effectively be dismissed from Government once they have taken it in a sovereign sense. Secondly this principle means that the voter groups are aggressively rotating people out and in, knowing this is the system that we're supposed to be following. Point 1. means that once we gain sovereignty through even a minor struggle, then it is assumed we have put in a red Government, and then we will rotate that out as well even if we hadn't officially put our red delegates into power. The obvious reason: when making a selection for delegate we presumably have taken a choice reflecting the demands of the moment, and if that demand is struggle then we have put in red delegates one may presume. It does not matter if there was no struggle at the moment of election, as the selection may have been made in anticipation of struggle. Another benefit is that a white Government delegate, wishing to rule after the revolution and stabilizing society, will have a reason to give up its seat during struggle to someone else, so that it will be in a position to stand for election immediately after the revolution has been won. This way the red and white delegates may be less embattled over the election. Also, the stepped down white delegate will be pressuring the red delegate out when the time is right in its opinion. It might also be noted that people who are capable of both doing red and white Government, if they have led a struggle they may be in a certain mind set that may not be that good for rule in peace time for some time. Too aggressive perhaps, too quick and authoritarian -- because that is the need during a struggle. Once it wears off, they can do white Government. These things can be very important, because one of the major threats after a revolution is the revolutionary leadership itself. They may be effective in war and struggle, but maybe once they have power they want to continue to fight or rule by force. Therefore we should not look with complete faith at the red Government, and rotate them out of power when a voter group feels the struggle has been won and there is no more need for struggle. It is even a danger that the Red Government, knowing it will be removed from power/influence, will attempt to drag the struggle onwards, so as to postpone losing its power. You could say the red Government is a double edged sword, we can use it effectively but it can turn on us as well. When the arrows are unused carry them in a container. I suppose that people having been the red Government and being rotated out, they could still be eligible for Government one day. But maybe it is smart to wait at least a few years with that, to make sure the Government becomes the white Government. * No doubt we can give the successful Red Government some medals as tokens of appreciation for the success of their efforts. Medals which obviously wouldn't be extended for Red Government delegates who misbehave or subvert the revolution. Obviously a subversion of the revolution can lead to court cases and prison sentences. * In this system we do not seem to need a tie-breaking Chief. If you would maintain a red government "out of power" next to a white government, then there could be a problem once the red government wants or has taken over: who has the power, the red or the white ? What does it mean when a voter groups say they prefer 'white government' but can and have send in both one for each ? I suppose we could say: in case there are two councils maintained side by side, always the white rules over the red, it is the white council that decides who has the authority, who is the council. This does depend on the white council being able to achieve at least its delegates number, hence if only a few voter groups want to go white and set up a second white council in the area to get rid of the red government (like a form of activism), then that council can only take over once the voter groups in the area support it sufficiently with their delegates. Obviously one of these must be "the" delegate for a voter group because a voter group only has one delegate and not two. So one of the two becomes informal and kind of "extra legal activism." However, the voter groups don't need to go outside the red government: they can send white delegates to the red Government, turning it white. The most clear-cut case is to have one council I suppose, and just adapt its composition through the voter-groups. * EC -- Note that the EC (Electoral Council) can force a general election on all voter-groups. Through this method the delegates will be re-calibrated at that moment. If there is a call out to put the red delegates in, it could happen. Also back toward white. Legitimacy of red council secrecy & re-organization --------------------------------------------------- Note that a council made up of red delegates but otherwise conforming to all regulations about public agenda and transparency is exactly the same as a white council. It could be said that an emergency red council is like the delegates grouping together for fun and games /outside/ the purview of their Governance obligations - this is strenuous however. Hence the situation has to warrant it and it must be widely supported (see article 1.1.a), or such behavior can and should be prosecuted and convicted under the Judiciary. The secrecy and tightening circle is against the proposed constitution. But like they say: emergency breaks law, and 1.1.a might allow it. It does not seem like a good plan to go to 'state of chaos,' because this would centralize government, making it predictable, having long lines of communication and having a single point of failure. Local councils and so on would simply decide to reject such a claim of centralized government if they find it to be ill advised. A 'shadow red council' can organize how they wish because they are not the actual selected delegates yet. If however they start to rule directly and use secrecy/circle-tightening, that is illegal except through 1.1.a. If they become an advice council to the white Government but the white government continues to rule taking over the red government advice and then voting it in after proper review, that would be legal again (because there are no laws on how an advice council should be structured.) In case the red government is set up as an advice council (first?), its members need to be elected by the ruling council (that is what the law says). The ruling council can obviously decide to select all 'red' delegates so designated and offered for election by their own voter groups. You can't really say that it is needed to have a red council on hand, because if you have one on hand, it will prepare itself, and while that may be great if everyone can be trusted, it is not so great if some people go to the other side and betray everything that has been developed in skill, principles and strategy. Only once a struggle is taking place may it become apparent who will be on what side, and hence who can be trusted and who can not (?). The benefit of an unprepared red council is its unpredictability by the enemy. Are they dumb ? Are they smart ? Who can tell ! ------------------------------------------------------------------- PS I noted above strategy contradicts previously proposed strategy it seems (in the book), where councils would be quite open & public etc. Page 9 / O, point [29].