MANIFESTO: AFRICAN CORPORATIST SOCIETY
By: Omolaja Makinee
A FIVE-VOLUME LITERARY BOOK
VOLUME 4: ETHNONEUTRALITY OF POPULOCRACY:
Social and Economic Bases of Collective-Individualism
AFRICAN CORPORATISM
Copyright © 2023 by Omolaja Makinee
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the author.
ISBN: 979-8-88896-694-5 Paperback
Printed in Africa by Makinee
16-February-2023
Cover Image by: Rawpixel.com – Freepik.com
Image by: Drazen Zigic – Freepik.com
Background Cover Image by: Teemu Paananen on Unsplash
Table of Contents
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
1. POPULOCRACY:A RISING TIDE FOR UNITED AFRICAN STATES
2. POPULOCRATIC REVOLUTION FOR A UNITED AFRICA
Populocracy and Ethnopublic Nationalism
Populocracy and Govox-Populi
3. GOVOXICAL ECONOMY OF POPULOCRACY
Determination of equalism by economic situation
Equalisation of social and economic classes into groups
4. SOCIAL CHARACTER OF POPULOCRACY
Morale and attitude of populocratic socialism
Ethnocratic Populist governance of Indigenous Ancient African Society
5. CULTURE OF STRUCTURAL GOVERNANCE OF FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY IN THE ERA OF POPULOCRACY
Qualified Participation in State Affairs and Formal Populocracy
Populocratic Culture of Collective-Individualism
6. ETHNOSOCIALIST VIEW OF POPULOCRACY
Promotional Groups of Populocracy in an Ethnosocialist Society
Populocratic Empowerment of the Populous
References and Select Bibliography
Preface
Democracy in Africa is a government for the people, and neither a government of the people nor a government by the people that are governed. The evidence is everywhere we looked. When the American 16th president Abraham Lincoln (1863) in a short sentence defined ‘Democracy’ as “a rule of the people, for the people and by the people”; he was accurate in his definition of direct-democracy but inaccurate when compared to the indirect-democracy in current practice in all the African nations.
In Africa, democracy is a form of governance in which the government are elected by the people, and the people in government impose their self-prescribed rule to govern the people, and then becomes a government of the national institution of government rule over the people. In other words, the so-called representative-democracy in current practice in Africa is a government rule by the government, for the people, and by the national institution of the people in government.
The ancient Greeks were said to created democracy around the 5th-century-B.C.E and comprehended it as a form of governance in which adult citizens of a nation would be expected to participate in the day-to-day administration of the government of their country and manage it directly. But where democracy became corrupted and counterfeited with the so-called representative-democracy was when the Roman Republic 509BC-27BC added ‘elective-representatives’ to democratic practices.
Whereas, in a direct-democracy without corruption or without the intention to deceive or defraud the people that are governed, the governed people’s participation in legislative government processes is recognised as part of being a citizen of a nation. Citizens, not their elected representatives in government, decide on state-centred policies and laws in an elective-process. Although it is safe to say that the exclusion of women in democratic participation in ancient Greek was derived from the Athenians’ ethnic culture at the time, but that does not depart from the original format of democracy they created for human-society as the ‘rule by the people’ that are governed. And the slaves were considered foreigners or migrants with no right of citizenship to vote in the affairs of the nation in which they reside.
Representative-democracy or indirect-democracy so-called, as it is in current practice in all the divided African nations is a form of governance in which the citizenry-electorates elect individuals into a government office, for the elected people in government to impose their self-prescribed authoritative rule under the guise to preserve the power of their political status quo in the governance of their country binding upon the people that are governed collectively, and if the people are dissatisfied with the rule of a group of individuals in government, they would be free to elect another group of individuals to impose the individual rule in government in the same way.
This, essentially, places citizens of our democratic society in Africa as a community of a people who, by the elective action of the majority imposed upon themselves the rule of the winners in an election that subject the entire nation to become the legal property of the elected group of individuals in government. Surprisingly, the people are always dissatisfied with whatever policy or rule is imposed by the ruling-party during each tenure of a democratic government they elected to govern them. This is what I call: citizenry consensual slavery in action and the government as their master – because representative-democracy has been established in this context as an autocratic form of democratic governance. In other words, representative-democracy or indirect-democracy is a democratic rule of the people represented by the autocratic rule of the government.
In our current state of affairs, our indigenous African leaders both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora are demanding reparation money in compensation from the western States. The question is asked: what are they going to do with the money under their autocratic-democracy form of governance? Since the money is going to be spent in the same fashion that western aid monies are being spent, money is not what the young generation of Africa needs. Since the reward of western capitalism kick-started on the back of slavery of the African people was not spread to Africa and we remain poor as a collective in the global market economy as a result, the facilitation of all western intellectual-properties to industrialise the African economy in Africa is the demand of the young generation of Africa.
Everywhere we looked, the governing form of democracy has become such a valuable instrument that enables any individual person in government anywhere to will State power in any form as they wish, even to change their election manifesto unchallenged and without restriction after assuming government office, binding upon the people that are governed. The governed people of Africa then find themselves under a duty to give state power to their political masters in an elective-process, and they consider this essential to their own individual happiness.
How, then, any society of people that places themselves in consensual slavery with their government as the master should expect equality governance rule of government over the people, falls into the popular definition of ‘insanity’ – doing the same thing over again and expecting different results each time. The democratic government are therefore free to impose its policy for its own individual welfare regardless of whether any of its decisions conform to the will of the people that are governed. Since the governed people have voluntarily submitted their independence to the politicians they elected into State office, African democracy then becomes a form of government for the people, a form of government by the ruling-party in government, and a form of government for a republican nation or constitutional-monarchy.
The whole of the social-system of social-control handed down to us since post-colonial in all the African nations is a complete lie, or better put, a travesty – a whole gigantic deception to deceive the populous. The manipulation of democracy into indirect-democracy and the remaking of bureaucracy into personal bureaucratic practices and procedures that turn government bank accounts and assets into personal properties of government officials, including the capitalist economic system producing insufficient economic resources with the provision of foreign aid under the mollycoddling of foreign protégé economic relations with all African countries, has turned our African government institutions into a complete farce.
Western societies practice their system with collectivism, albeit under the same title as African nations’ practice of individualistic inter-governmental relations being done under the African Union Organisation (AU). The question is asked: Who is to blame for all the mess that has been created in the development of all African countries post-colonial to adopt the same systems – indirect-democracy, republicanism, bureaucracy and politics – none of them escaped, each and every one of them was put in the same bag – to producing the development of underdevelopment in their individual and divided nations in the same fashion.
Here and now, I advocate for the institution of a populocracy form of governance. Populocracy is a form of government by the people, a form of government for the ruling people in government, and a form of government of an ethnopublican nation. In other words, populocracy is a government by the people, for the government, and of the nation. The historical view of populocracy has shown that it is not a new phenomenon.
In fact, the term ‘populocracy’ originates from the term ‘populism’; and populist idea is the governing tool of the primitive people since the beginning of our human existence itself – before the organised system of human-society. This is to demonstrate that anywhere a community of people coexists, populism exists there also; and everywhere humans congregate and associate, populism is the rule employed to express individuals’ ideas of the people within a collective.
Populism is the movement of the people to campaign with one voice and action towards a common goal; it is that mighty roar in the ancient society, the populous voice of the population of people in ancient Jerusalem that called for the crucification of Jesus Christ in one voice, in the Bible book of Luke chapter 23, verses 18 to 25; it is the global antislavery populist movement of the voice of the people in support of the African people in the 19th-century, in demand for the abolition of slavery of the African people; it is the Pan-Africanism populist-movement titled-‘One Africa, One Hope’ in the 20th-century in demand for the independence of African nations from western colonial rule; and, here and now, populism is the voice of this manifesto arousing Africans both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora to rise together with one voice and demand for the implementation performance of the unitary form of all African states into a single national body – ‘One Africa, One Hope’ – to abolish the democratic rule by the government for the populocratic rule by the people of Africa in Africa.
For too long, the world of our African younger generation has been divided by the colonial-prescribed borders left to fester by our current older generation in government, with their national interests in pursuit of wealth and status, and by their obsession with power in government. We have been torn apart by their conflicts, by poverty, by inequality, by the ravages of climate change, and by their inaction.
But today, this manifesto declare that the younger African generation will no longer be divided. We will no longer be bound by the narrow confines of their republican nationalism. We will no longer be disillusioned with their notion of democracy. Instead, we will come together as one united Africa, with a shared vision of peace with no war, prosperity with no hardship, and justice for all.
We will build a united Africa, an Africa where every person has the right to live in safety and security, where every child can go to school and receive a quality free education, where every family has access to free healthcare and free basic necessities, where every community can thrive and prosper, and where every African citizens of voting age would be given the legislative power to participate in the affairs of government through their voters’ selection of government policies.
We will put an end to the scourge of poverty, hunger, and disease, and we will create a united Africa where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential. We will fight for equality and justice, and we will work to dismantle the political systems of oppression in government that is holding so many Africans back for far too long.
And we will do all of this not just for ourselves, but for our African future generations. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to create a better African world both in the HomeLand and abroad, a world where they can grow up in safety, with hope, and with the knowledge that their leaders are working tirelessly to build a brighter future for all.
My fellow Africans, this is not a dream. We are done dreaming. It is not a distant hope. It is a reality that we can build, together, starting with this manifesto. We will face many challenges from our current older generation in government, but we will overcome them. We will work tirelessly, we will cooperate with each other, we will learn from each other, and we will never give up.
Every African younger generation both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora are united in this cause, and we are stronger than any force that could ever hope to tear us apart. So we stand together, we march forward, and we are determined to build a United African States, an Africa that we can all be proud of.
Thank you.
Introduction
The term Populocracy has increasingly entered public and academic discourse as a way of describing a system where the will of “the people” becomes the dominant claim to political authority—often in a way that overrides pluralism, institutions, and democratic safeguards. The word itself derives from the Latin populus, meaning “people,” and -cracy, from the Greek kratos, meaning “rule” or “power.” Thus, at its root, populocracy translates as “rule by the people.”
In parallel, the word ‘Democracy’ originated from the Greek word ‘Demos’, meaning ‘people’; and the word ‘cracy’ from the Greek word ‘kratos’ meaning ‘rule’; both combined make the Greek word ‘Dēmokratia’, and translated in English as ‘Democracy’; which means ‘people rule’, or a paraphrased interpretation ‘the rule by the people’.
Now, look closely, ‘Populocracy’ and ‘Democracy’ are of the same interpretation, no doubt; but their meanings differ both in theory and practice. Populocracy talks about the ‘rule by the people’ that are governed – the citizenry electorates – ‘for the people’ who are elected to govern and ‘of the people’ of a nation. Democracy, especially when you think of it in terms of representative-democracy in current practice, also called indirect-democracy, across the divided African nations, we begin to talk about the ‘rule by the people’ of the ruling-class – the government – ‘for the people’ that are governed and ‘of the people’ of a nation.
In Catherine Fieschi’s words, she coined “populocracy” because she believes populism has become a system. Where we might disagree is when ‘populism’ became a system. I say that populism became a system as the first precondition of organised human society – before recorded human history began – because it emphasises the precondition of the ‘idea’ of the people. Whether the recognition of populism as a system was under-valued in the various theories of socialism or perhaps it was discontinuous in history at any one time, is a matter for debate. The fact remains that populism is the precondition of the idea of the people to organise in a manner that accounts for the idealistic conceptions of how society should be characterised as a community.
The idea of the people is the capacity to organise resources, to be motivated to drive social change and essential preconditions for the structure and framework of a society, to pioneer and introduce new ideas, to enforce practices and habits throughout generations that initial conservative elements of minority populists resist at the beginning of a change, and the ability to harness the available human resources and natural resources and to combine the use of opportunities to achieve the intended goals and objectives. This is to demonstrate that an organised human society cannot exist without the idea of a people – the prevailing populists’ view of a people to govern themselves with or without a leader, be it physically, mentally, psychologically, spiritually and/or socially.
We all agree that to be referred to as a populist or propagating populism is to be seen to appeal to the idea or persistent will of a people to achieve an objective, regardless of whether the people are in the majority or the minority, in a society. Since the decision-making power in the day-to-day administration of government in a democratic society belongs to the elite groups in the affairs of a government and their experts, populism has always been referred to as those who are anti-government and or those against the monopoly of State power of the ruling-class to advance the dominance of their elitism in society.
It is in this frame of reference that I defined ‘Populism’ as the persistent will of a people to promote an idea – regardless of whether it is the idea of a people that are governed or the idea of a government that governs – populism is the persistent will of a people in the promotion of an idea.
Think, for example, the members of the People’s Party also known as the Populist Party in the United States in the early 1890s originated the term ‘populism’ as a self-designation to which their political party should be recognised by their apparent left-wing idea supporting the rights and sustainability of small farmers and poor peasants against the wealthy and their elites group in American society.
Meanwhile, in the 1860s and 1870s, a completely different group known as the narodniki in the Russian Empire referred to the ideology of their politically conscious movement as the Narodism [In the Russian language: народничество; from народ (narod)] meaning ‘people’ – supporting Agrarian socialism – a political ideology which combines an agrarian way of life with a socialist economic system, and became involved in revolutionary agitation against the autocratic leadership of the Tsarist.
As such, both the People’s Party politics from America and the Narodnik movement from Russia were merely populist initiatives that appealed to each of their organisation ideologies to garner support from the majority of the people that are governed. In this context, I defined ‘Populism’ as nationalist or liberal view of a people – regardless of whether it is the view of a people that are governed or the view of a government that governs – populism is a nationalist or liberal view of a people.
In the 1920s, the term ‘populism’ was used to describe a group of French writers expressing sympathy for people that are governed against the elite groups that held the power of government. The media have always been known as nationalist populist institutions expressing the view of the people collectively – either the view of the government or the view of the governed or both. Even political parties operating under the constitution of different forms of governance must always employ a populist handbook to advance their cause.
Therefore, regardless of what rule any other form of governance does, which usually conforms to the rule of a minority of people with the power of government that governed the majority of the people in the current state of affairs in our society, populocracy stands out from the rest as the rule by the people that are governed – and populism is the precondition for the existence of all forms of governance that exists including both democracy and populocracy.
While populism is the persistent will of a people to promote an idea, it can only be exercised to convey the nationalist view on the platform of a form of governance. The form of governance may be an autocracy, democracy, aristocracy, meritocracy, anarchy, and so forth. This is to demonstrate that regardless of whatever form of governance is in practice within an organisation or State structure, the populist view done under the existing form of governance is the sole condition used to promote ideas and to gear the persistent will of a people to act in support.
In the pre-recorded historic form of anarchism, in which primitive communities are divided into different kinship ties and communally-ruled settlements, evidence suggests that populist governance, in which the will of individuals to express their dominance, power and ideology in the achievement of individual welfare or achievement of welfare to their kinship ties, have always existed in several forms and is the seedbed for the originating development of all other forms of governance – that at first instance eventuated the turn of the ancient society everywhere around the world and emerge tribalism, kleptocracy, theocracy, plutocracy, autocracy aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, and many more. Each form of governance is developed on populist ideologies based on economic policy, social development or religious one, or a governmental structure. Some overlap, while others operate independently.
Think, for example, in the African primitive communities kinship ties formed the basis of social groupings. The means and mode of economic production were communal and no individual or group could claim to accumulate a wealth of resources above another within a collective. Whilst one prevailing view argued that the natural tendency of biological species to care for their offspring with parental responsibility to meet the needs of their young ones developed the gerontocratic form of governance as the first form in human-society.
I argue that the populist behavioural culture of the primitive people, regardless of their age or gender, to enforce an idea of the method to will their dominance, power and ideology to achieve individual welfare and that of their kinship ties or community, to promote the practice of the idea for their tradition and custom to raise their young, in which relations are enforced and regulated to achieve an intended objective, defined populism as the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance in human-society.
Therefore, the evidence of the transforming structure of the bare existence of populism as the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance in human-society everywhere has again emerged and now subsisting as an independent form of governance in our current 21st-century social-media culture on the web-internetisation platform as a form of the rule by the people – meaning, populocracy as a form of governance.
Think, for example, the web-internetisation platform is a socialist system that operates a fair and just social-order under the seedbed of altruism of software developers, which is nourished by equality relations for the welfare and happiness of people regardless of race, gender, age, creed or a geographical location anywhere around the world. The web-internetisation’s GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, amongst others, is a prime example.
The open-data of information and intellectual-property, open-access to education and knowledge available to anyone from anywhere at no cost on internet platforms, free-culture and the right to express oneself and individuality, open-Government of politics; the Open-Access to scientific research; the Open-Care in health and social welfare that is influencing our human culture collectively around the world; is effectuating a Revelation-Age – where intellectual properties are increasingly becoming freely available to anyone from anywhere to use and amend and innovate for their useful-values as they so desire.
The populocracy form of governance as it’s operating on the web-internetisation platform thrives on the idea of the people and their collective persistent will to drive human social progress because populocracy is the only form of governance where the collective idea of a society of people is in a consensus rule to govern themselves in harmonious socialism. The populist persistent will of a people in the capacity to organise resources, to pioneer and introduce new ideas, to enforce practices and habits in the social and economic lives of individuals and as a collective, to inform one another of social happenings, to impart knowledge of phenomena, to gather support for a cause and agree on a plan and action, including the ability to harness opportunities to achieve the intended goals and objectives favourable to our human society as a whole, demonstrates the prevailing populocratic view of a people that governed themselves on the web-internetisation platform, be it physically, mentally, psychologically, spiritually and/or socially.
What this simply demonstrates is that given the bare existence of a populist form of governance in the absence of government and thus serves as the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance since the primitive era in our human-society in the world, where populists view in its bare existence is in disarray and never in conformity with one another and sometimes with a disruptive force in antagonist against the cohesiveness of human-society it purports to regulate with its persistent will to promote ideas, and that the emergence of a populist form of governance with a government has produced populocracy form of governance that turned out to aim at greater happiness for a greater number of people with equalitarian-social relations in our human society.
I paused here for a moment, and I at once revisited Catherine Fieschi’s book where she recognised that populism is a system, which I recognised as a form of governance in its own right and the fact that it is the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance that exists and that will ever exist in our human-society. I add that her recognition of ‘Populocracy’ – a populist form of governance with a government – cannot coexists as a mixed-form of governance with democracy or with any of the other forms of governance for that matter. My reasoning is simple:
Populocracy stands out from all the other forms of governance as the rule by the people that are governed compared to other forms of governance. Populocracy is a socialist platform for the people to govern themselves. It is therefore impossible for any form of governance with a rule by the government to govern a society of people to coexist harmoniously with a form of governance with a rule by the people to govern themselves. One has to give way for the other – it is either populocracy or any of the other forms of governance – there is no other way.
That is why no government rule favours protests that convey the populist view of the people anywhere, and that is why individual politicians are quick to exploit protests and the persistent will of a people to promote an idea to surmount their opponents in public office for their political advantage under the republican representative party politics; that, according to Aristotle, is always in the chaotic process of ‘kyklos’ or ‘anacyclosis’.
This view conforms to my claim that a populist form of governance because it is the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance, is incapable of producing a form of governance in the absence of a government that could function independently without falling into a state of disorder. Anarchy form of governance is a prime example because it is the only form of governance like populist governance that created it, that exists independently in the absence of a government. This is to further demonstrate that a populist form of governance in the absence of a government (since populism is the originating seedbed for all other forms of governance in our human-society) emerged with a government in its own right in the form of populocracy in our current generation on the web-internetisation platform.
Therefore, I claim that populocracy is the highest (advanced) stage of a form of governance our human-society can ever attain. Under a populocracy form of governance, people express their individuality to their utmost desires and are fully regulated under a rule or law and is necessary for a populocratic society in the interests of the public empowerment of the collective or for their economic success, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the people that govern themselves.
As volume-4 of this manifesto proposed to show, populocracy is an equalitarian form of governance because its belief system rejects the rule by the government over the governed in favour of the rule by the people that are governed over the government, under an elective-process in the collective decision-making by the populous over the day-to-day administration of government, and performed on the platform of commicracy mode of organisation and the breakdown of bureaucratic order. Ethnopublican nationalist State structure and govox-populi administrative system of government are what I identified and developed in the preceded volumes of this manifesto that operates in a harmonious social-system of social-control with a populocracy form of governance.
In its purest form, populocracy can be defined as the rule by the people that are governed, with shared-control of decision-making power between the government and the governed in the day-to-day administration of government through an elective-process. Ethnoneutrality of populocracy, in this context, is the unity of a people with a shared sense of a common identity and purpose, usually sharing a cultural, govoxical, or social affiliation. It involves an understanding and commitment to shared values, goals, and norms, and a willingness to work together for a common good. In the context of ethno-corporatism, populocracy is the unity of a people to refer to a sense of common identity in socio-economic custom and purpose toward a non-monetary economy and moneyless trade-offs of exchange of goods and services. In the context of ethnopublic nationalism, it is the unity of a people regardless of race, ethnicity or religious differences, to practise a collective culture, custom and traditions that provides equal worth to all persons.
Populocracy is therefore based on a qualified right of citizenship to a nation and remains neutral with having no regard to ethnicity, religion or race affiliation in an ethnopublican society. This established definition of populocracy is a form of govoxical and commicratic approach in which the State apparatus is controlled by the citizenry-electorates to further the interests of citizenry society collectively, their collective power and shared resources as self-government of societal affairs, with implications for state-centred decision-making and policy development that transcends both regional and national level to supranational level.
CHAPTER ONE
POPULOCRACY: A RISING TIDE FOR UNITED AFRICAN STATES
A rising tide is emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa – the emancipation of the populous. They ebb and flows in all direction, engulfing the entire social-system of social-control from the bottom up. This tide is united in One populist voice and calling on the African people to be awakened to our own social and economic development. The voice of the tide speaks in the force of proof and evidence – gearing for the indoctrination of Africans in preparation for its new world order of collective work-ethics and innovation.
Their ideas are lifted and consecrated to their purpose, their faith is made simple to become equipped to fortify the hope that is within them, their dreams affirmed on the small miracle of true geniuses, and they say what think, they write what they think, and they participate in the development processes for the United African States with the vigour and the tenacity of the true sons and daughters of Africa they are. The determination of the rising tide knows the true depths of which they dug within, to fight for the African people and to secure the African continent its true place in the global realm.
Everywhere we looked, Africans are united socially and culturally but remain disorganised governmentally and structurally. With one united voice, this manifesto calls on the African leaders in government everywhere to think critically of Africa they hoped to leave behind to their younger generation after their passing to the place of our ancestors. Each and every one of them needs to publicly proclaim to us if they wish to leave behind a united Africa or a disorganised one.
For, if we protest on the streets with our voices, we are bound to be responded to with their police batons and tear-gas; wherever we cast our individual votes at the ballot to effect change, but our policies and their promises are bureaucratically ignored and trampled upon; whenever we raised civil wars and supported coup d’etat, the end result was carnage and mayhem at its wake and nothing changes; and now we raise our pen to paper as a course of action, and we pray for our African leaders to rise with one united obligation to avert the hidden catastrophe that doom all indigenous Africans in the global realm. Was it not the African-American writer, Audre Lorde (1934-1992) that said: “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognise, accept, and celebrate those differences.”
I asked the simple question: What are these differences that kept the African nations to remain divided post-colonial? Why are the African people anti-political establishments? Why do our people distrust their government? It is only when we are able to answer these questions, then we would be able to understand the problem of democracy and why democratic governance is a nemesis to the social and economic order of our African society. To again quote Audre Lorde (1934-1992) as she said: “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.”
In order to observe the ruin of democratisation across African society, it is essential to first observe the true nature, and the benefit if any, that the African people can claim to gain from the existing democratic values and their arrays of democratic institutions. How can we demonstrate our satisfaction with democracy when the people are given the right to vote with clear policies and promises to deliver them, but the elected representatives in government can exercise autonomous power within legal means to represent the interests of their few elites over the populous majority that are governed?
Why should the populous not allow to take an interest in democratic governance and the civic affairs that affect them personally, and yet the electorates are expected to participate only in electing parties to government and not to participate in the day-to-day administration of government decision-making processes that affect their daily lives? Why, in all sense, should a democratic society anywhere experience poor social and economic conditions if the democratic government are truly committed to exercising democratic power equally to represent the interests of all citizens in both equal opportunities in economic distribution and social development?
In African society, the people that are governed shared the same interests – the hope of a government that would take its society seriously and eradicate poverty, to truly commit to social and economic development on equal par with other developed countries in the world.
In the same fashion, we see a minority of people benefiting enormously from the existing social-system at the expense of the majority of people that are governed. The exploited majority had to be constantly silenced with threats of police brutality and military attacks to prevent them from asserting their populist interests that threaten the legitimacy and power of the ruling-class to impose their elitist rule upon the governed. Thus, across Africa, the mixed-form of governance appropriated under the western imposed colonial system is maintained as a method of generating and amassing wealth for those with the decision-making power of the State.
In Africa, like in any other country anywhere in the world, we have been carefully guided to concentrate our energy of suspicion upon every president and prime-ministers that ever assume office; we have been psychologically primed to hold ministers as suspects and masters of corruption; we have been indoctrinated to see State power as the play-thing for their bureaucrats to corrupt and to corrupt absolutely for their individual purposes; we have been persuaded to focus on electing political parties to State office as the only viable solution to effect change and hope for a better world that never materialise; we have been conditioned in many ways because it serves the purpose for the elites to continues to guarantee their legitimacy to will State power to their own advantage over the governed majority.
If we asked the simple question of who to blame for corruption, opinions differ. Whenever we lay blame on any president or prime-minister in Africa as a corrupt culprit and as the enemy of national development, that assertion is always hewn with rumours and no concrete evidence to substantiate our allegations; wherever we accused foreign powers of their activity with our African leaders with a claim of foreign bank accounts with a wealth of cash in foreign currencies and with no foreign business activities attached to it, the evidence they often produce doesn’t always support our claim; and in cases where bureaucrats on the ground in Africa were caught red-handed with public monies in their private places, we always got reminded to think critically if the matter is worth pursuing or take the option of becoming asylum seekers and refugees in foreign countries instead. And yet, all these are done in the promotion of democratic values under the banner of democratic institutions.
Democracy, like any other form of governance in its mixed-form, has proved incapable to regulate human-society in an equal economic provision for a greater number of people in African society. Hence, the victims of our democratic predicament across Africa are the police who found themselves in the midst of high cost of living to commits to collection of bribes from motorists to support their income; the bureaucrat government workers who have not been paid salary for months at a time to dip hands in public coffers to feed their families and guarantee a roof over their heads; the single mothers who found themselves having to hawk on the streets to feed their children because their baby fathers do not have the financial means to take responsibilities; the school teachers who place demands for donation on pupils before they could be allowed to enter the classrooms; the young children in their early teens crowded at local internet cafes on computers learning hacking skills and the art of cyber criminality to feed themselves because their parents lacked the means to support them; young girls becoming highly materialistic with the desire to acquire material things amounting to prostitution; desperate young men and women becoming highly psychologically warped minded in seeking alternative means like consultation in a distorted version of our African spirituality to use human organs for rituals for money.
When Maya Angelou (1928-2014) said: “If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.” Africans recognise that we don’t like the negative global image of African countries as underdeveloped even when it is evident that the African continent is the most natural resource in the world with admirable human labour power too, and we have not been successful so far to change the democratic corruption that is so rampant in our society; we have been deficient in proprietary to revolutionise the negative trends that are producing the development of underdevelopment in our African economy at the national level; our African governments are docile with the handed-down colonial bureaucratic social-system and its democratic social-control that hinders all initiatives for social and economic development; and whenever we tried to change our attitude towards any of these issues, we still do not like it.
Every new generation of Africa continually finds themselves in this revolving process of not liking it. It just so happens that change is inevitable in the case of Africa, and abolishing the current national structure and their accompanying systems for an advanced model proposed in this manifesto capable of equal distribution of economic welfare and social development to our African people, is the only option we have.
For the past 30 years, since the early 1990s, we have witnessed various democratisation processes across all African countries. Many of these processes have maintained our economy in a state of dependency on foreign aid. Those with the leadership skills and ingenuity to bring about real social and economic development are often faced with one of two options – follow the path of corruption or join our ancestors in an untimely death – most take the former with no choice, and those with alternative means take none but instead depart the place of their birth with their talents for the benefit of western nations and they were never heard from again.
The problem, however, is that democracy is grossly misunderstood as a government ‘rule by the people’ that are governed. The only success of democracy for the populous is simply that it allows the people that are governed to vote for their leaders in government. Since democracy now belongs to a strand form of governance where the rule by the government over the governed is its convention, it is easy for any democratic society to appropriate a mixed-form of governance with any of the other forms of governance in their government in society.
Look closely, like all other forms of governance in current practice, the people that are governed are isolated from the day-to-day decision-making power of government including the major decisions that affect their society nationally and supranationally. Then think, for example, how easy it had been for democracy in current practice as a mixed-form with any given form of governance that effectuate any country’s governmental regime into either a democratic constitutional-monarch, a flawed-democracy, a hybrid-democracy, or an authoritarian-democracy. All African countries fit in one of this mixed-form of governance in their democratic rule.
The rule by the government over the governed, irrespective of any forms of governance it appropriates, institutes the seedbed for corruption and abuse of human rights in society. We hear of such significant human rights issues including credible reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities; arbitrary arrest; arbitrary deprivation of life and other unlawful or politically motivated killings; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; serious restrictions on free expression and media, censorship and the existence of criminal libel laws; denial of fair public trial; serious government corruption; political prisoners and detainees; lack of investigation of and accountability; and more like. And they do all of these things with the protective-group of both their police and military institutions.
This manifesto declares the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the divided African nations into a single national body. This new era is an important period for the establishment of populocracy in the unitary form of the proposed ‘Ethnopublican States of a United Africa’. The rising tide emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa on the rising ground of populocracy is a time to confront the challenges we face and to celebrate the achievements of our human resources and our continental naturedly-endowed natural resources to benefit the African people both in Africa and in the diaspora. Our generation will be remembered for the advances that will be made on the populocratic front.
We are geared to mark the end of political party rule by government and to institute the govox-populi rule by the governed in our United Africa. We are intent that the protective-group of the police institution should be abolished for the promotional-group of the institution of lawderly in our ethnopublican United African States. And in addition, we are determined to put an end to corruption in African society collectively and to end our African government’s dependencies on foreign aid with immediate effect.
Democracy is the seedbed for everything that we despise in our government in all African countries. The evidence is everywhere we looked. Since the post-colonial era, democratic practices have been the ‘rule by the government’ to govern the people and the people to free and fair elections. The government make the rule for the people in a democratic society, including the rule that governs the elective-processes or the so-called free selection, either through direct participation or elected representation. Whereas, populocratic practices will be the direct opposites to democratic practices in a populocratic society.
For example, a case in point would be the responsibility of ordinary people of voting age to decide on state-centred decision-making, and including the responsibility to decide on technically sophisticated policies also. In a democratic society, politicians who make state-centred decisions are themselves not experts or academically competent in all the particular fields of their decisions. It is indeed a dangerous affair to give the ‘rule by government’ in the hands of individuals in public office to employ their personal prejudices and personal desires and goals to drive their state-centred decisions that affect a greater number of people in society.
As proposed in the preceded volumes of this manifesto, ordinary members of the public of voting age would be free to consult expert opinions to aid in their individual voters’ choice on policy in the form of locally independent citizenry-centred govoxical Information-delivery offices on the streets. Also, government-centred Commicratic-Departments would be responsible for policy development for the govoxiers in their information-delivery exercise to their constituents members. There are robust systems in place in a populocratic society to specialised informed consent to ordinary members of the public in their state-centred decision-making exercise, so that the benefit of populocracy will not be compromised by any lack of information or disinformation to the citizenry-electorates with the voting power to decide on state-centred decisions.
It would be unpopulocratic for any government body to be concerned about any non-specialist opinions of voters or any presumed notion that certain groups of voters will be vulnerable to being inadequately informed. The fact remains that even in a democratic society the power of those minority of individuals in government offices to make a state-centred decision that applies to a greater number of people in society, with or without an expert’s advice, has proved to be more dangerous and there has been sufficient evidence that the African people are suffering greatly and grossly mistreated under the purported democratic practices.
Even amongst westerners, critics abound to substantiate the fact that democracy is the worst form of governance in comparison to other forms because democracy is the only form that is not in practice in its original format since it now practices the ‘rule by the government’ as its convention and not the ‘rule by the people’ as its classical theory proposed. In fact, to be clear, democracy became corrupted when it was changed from its direct-democracy to representative-democracy. And since our African governments with their obdurate approach continue to appropriate the western model of democracy, let’s challenge them a little with what the proponent of western democracy had to say about the hidden catastrophe of their holier-than-thou representative-democracy form of governance:
Was it not Winston Churchill (1874-1965) the former British prime-minister who famously said during the 11 November 1947 British Parliament Bill that, on quote:
“The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Parliament, about the rights of Parliament, which I shall certainly not fail to defend. But it is not Parliament that should rule; it is the people who should rule through Parliament. That is the mistake he made, an important omission. All this was comprehended by those who shaped the Parliament Act and the settlement which developed upon that Act, so that it was never mentioned again for 36 years until now. That is what the Government are seeking to mutilate, if not to destroy. The object of the Parliament Act, and the spirit of that Act, were to give effect, not to spasmodic emotions of the electorate, but to the settled, persistent will of the people. What they wanted to do they could do, and what they did not want to do they could stop. All this idea of a handful of men getting hold of the State machine, having the right to make the people do what suits their party and personal interests or doctrines, is completely contrary to every conception of surviving Western democracy. Some reverence for the laws ourselves have made, Some patient force to change them when we will. We accept in the fullest sense of the word the settled and persistent will of the people. All this idea of a group of super men and super-planners, such as we see before us, “playing the angel,” as the French call it, and making the masses of the people do what they think is good for them, without any check or correction, is a violation of democracy. Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”
With the detailed observation of Winston Churchill’s quotes above, a great man of his time, democracy in current practice in all the African nations is of western origin. Those who comprehended its governmental structure into the British Parliamentary government system have since failed to conform to its populist forms of governance that serve as its originating seedbed to reflect the ‘rule by the governed people’ under democracy.
Even before the Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea, Pontius Pilate (26 to 36 CE), who presided at the trial of Jesus Christ and gave the order for his crucifixion, he gave the decision-making power to the populous to decide if Jesus was to be crucified or pardoned. The people roared in one voice that Jesus should be crucified against the wishes of Pontius Pilate himself, who, initially exonerated Jesus before bending to the will of the people and condemning him to death. This is to demonstrate that in any given form of governance, there is always the germinating seedbed of populism in the background – the broad feeling that the governed people should govern themselves and shape the laws that govern their society binding upon their government.
As Churchill pointed out very clearly here: ‘that is what the Government are seeking to mutilate, if not to destroy.’ This proved my point that even though both democracy and populocracy are of the same interpretation, meaning ‘People rule’ or ‘the rule by the people’, the commission to corrupt democracy with mixed-form of governance has corrupted democratic governance where the ‘rule by the government’ is now its convention. As such, democracy, as we practice it across Africa today, turned into a mixed-form with autocracy that reflects an authoritarian form of democracy in some countries, and a hybrid and flawed with other forms of governance in others.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s quote in our current struggle that is emerging the rising tide from within the inhabitants of Africa on the rising ground of populocracy, that: ‘there is the broad feeling in our Africa continent that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, with the persistent will of the people, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of our African government to be in interdependent commicracy with the people they govern and not the masters of the people who are governed’.
I dare say, it is not just an extraordinary revolutionary construct to reject democracy form of governance in Africa, because democracy is corrupted and no longer in practice in its original format. This manifesto advocates for the establishment of a populocracy form of governance, because we can trace its originating seedbed from the populist form of governance that originates from the world’s systematic culture in human-society, and not only in Africa, since the primitive era, before recorded human history began.
Everywhere we looked, we witnessed how democratic principles are implemented through undemocratic procedures, and how arrays of undemocratic principles are implemented through democratic procedures. As such, the practice of democracy differs from the ‘rule by the people’ it purports to practice in Africa, or anywhere in the world for that matter – even the practice of direct-democracy in current practice in countries outside of Africa is flawed and cannot stand the test of equality when compared to populocracy as this manifesto proposed to show in subsequent chapters. Populocracy talks about the ‘rule by the people’ that are governed, democracy now practices the ‘rule by the people’ of the ruling-class – the government that governs, everywhere.
Having known this much, I claim that there is no such thing as ‘Democracy’ in current practice anywhere in our human-society – it is either the purported indirect-democracy or the purported direct-democracy. As Churchill also pointed out, ‘democracy is the worst form of Government’ because all other forms are still maintained in their original format, except democracy which is no longer in its original format because it’s been corrupted to be mixed-form with other forms of governance that practice the ‘rule by the government’ over the govern.
With many defeated forms of governance that had one period in our human-society existed around the world, where the rule by the people to govern themselves was the convention and developed from the seedbed of populism by the socialist promoters and believers of classless-society, they established equalitarian rules of engagement in human-society with strategies that are highly varied to achieve equal and altruist distribution of economic wealth and shared governmental power to the populous.
As the crucial creation of democracy form of governance by the ancient Greeks around the 5th-century-B.C.E, prescribed the ‘rule by the people’ with enforcement to bolster citizenry empowerment in the day-to-day administration of government, the disciples and apologists of a class-society form of governance by the politico-military crusaders of Roman-Republic mutilated and counterfeited democracy with the overthrown of the Roman-Kingdom in 509-BC and instituted the practice of Representative or Indirect-democracy to further their aim for a class-society.
Similarly, as the crucial aim of the theory of socialism provided for the means of economic production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community of people as a whole in the context of a classless-society, the adherents of class-society wreaked havoc and shattered socialist organisation theories and practices into arrays of socialist-democracy, socialist-anarchism and the whatnots. Likewise, strategic differentiations not only help us identify what types of bureaucratic programs the so-called ‘Marxism–Leninism theory’ in 1938 used to be most effective to advanced the agender of class-society against the original classless-society theory of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx in 1848.
The intent to pull down, dismantle or sabotage the persistent will of the people that are governed by their class-system and power-class, the social inequality and individualistic greed for personal wealth caused by these fanatics, reveals how populism form of governance that serves as the seedbed for all other forms of governance can be a critical source lever between these two contrasting social-systems of social-control, where attempted peaceful development of classless-society have slipped into dysfunctional patterns for the dominance of class-society.
Here I developed a table to convey the emergence of all forms of governance in our human-society, starting from the populism form of governance as the seedbed for the two contrasting social-system of social-control. The list is non-exhaustive, but it is merely to grasp the general idea. Below is a table to further demonstrate my meanings. The Emergence: Forms of Governance:
| EMERGENCE: FORMS OF GOVERNANCE | ||
| Populism Form of Governance | ||
| Classless-system | Class-system | |
SOCIALISM | Socialist-Anarchism | Anarchy |
| Religious-Socialism | Autocracy | |
| Socialist-Democracy | Monarchy | |
| Authoritarian-Communism | Tribalism | |
| Marxism–Leninism | Dictatorship | |
| Non-exhaustive List | Gerontocracy | |
DEMOCRACY | Indirect-Democracy | Aristocracy |
| Hybrid-Democracy | Theocracy | |
| Representative-Democracy | Ethnocracy | |
POPULOCRACY | Populists | Feudalism |
| Totalitarianism | ||
| Meritocracy | ||
| Federalism | ||
| Kleptocracy | ||
| Oligarchy | ||
| Plutocracy | ||
| Populocracy is the highest (advanced) stage of a form of governance. | Non-exhaustive List | |
As the above diagram show, Socialism and Democracy under a classless-society are no longer in practice in their original format anywhere in the world. Even the so-called direct-democracy in current practice in any given country is vulnerable to corruption under the torpedo of bureaucracy mode of organisation to structure and methodise it, and the ingrained politricking of the governmental system of politics used to dis-administer and mismanage it. Each of these systems has been disfigured and dynamited by the arrays of disseminated theories to depose them into a class-system.
As established in the introduction of this manifesto, populism is the persistent will of a people to promote an idea. The populist movement for a populocracy form of state governmental system proposed in this manifesto for African society is compatible with our current 21st-century global socio-culture in pursuit of equalitarian relations between people in current practice on the web-internetisation platform, operating on the altruism of mass of selfless and most worthy people born of our generation regardless of race, gender, geographical location, sexuality, religious belief or creed.
The development of commicracy proposed to structure and methodise it and the establishment of govox-populi administration of government proposed to administer and regulate populocracy, are derivative of the all-encompassing theory of classless-system. I dare say, class-society belongs to our past everywhere around the world, uncertainty dominates our present in Africa, and classless-society is the future of the human race.
CHAPTER TWO
POPULOCRATIC REVOLUTION FOR A UNITED AFRICA
All African countries practice some form of indirect-democracy or representative-democracy so-called, which of course is comprehended under the political system where elected representatives tasked themselves with the responsibility as the law-maker for and over the people that are governed in their society.
These representatives also make laws for the institution of police and the Judicial system they task to enforce those laws on their behalf binding upon members of society, and they also act on behalf of the citizens in the parliament and voice their persistent wills, aspirations and social problems. They get their seats in the parliament or State legislatures on the basis of the citizenry majority voters’ election of candidates. Sometimes, these representatives further select representatives in the higher house of the parliament to oversee the day-to-day administration of their government.
We call them the elites because they have the State power and resources to will as they deem fit binding upon members of society, even to such extent as to have the power to command the deployment of our State military to wars in foreign countries, regardless of whether it goes against the will of the majority of the citizens that are governed.
As it turned out, our African older generation permitted a group of elected elites in government to administer and regulates our social-system of social-control under a counterfeited form of governance we know as indirect-democracy; they endowed these group of minority elites in society to be the law-makers and the law enforcers imposed upon the African people, to conduct themselves in a bureaucratic impersonal organisation procedure when they are in fact humans with flesh and blood in their veins and with the humanistic emotion of Adam and Eve where, in our case, they are crunching their teethes on the forbidden apple with both hands, and thus corrupted themselves rightly like any humans would when placed in such esteem state of affairs or position. The populist voice of their younger generation of African people is expressing discontentment and a campaign for change.
At least, the collective tide of the current African younger generation agreed on the same thing: that the political elites in government are self-serving, that there is endemic corruption across all African government that hinder national development socially and economically, that the insistence of foreign nations and their persistent will for their own economic development are placing enormous pressure on every African government in office to remain corrupted and enrich themselves at the expense of the African people, and that all African leaders knows fully well how to resurrect African economy to self-sufficient subsistence in the global realm and keep their citizens fed and watered sufficiently, but they instead choosing to remain docile with the handed-down colonial bureaucratic mode of organisation, the partisan administration of western-style governmental system of politics, the double-dealing of western ancient state structure of republicanism, and the debased western romanised governance of indirect-democracy.
The populocratic revolution for the ethnopublican State of Africa is the recognition that every generation in human-society are deeply influenced in their views of society by the events and experiences in which they grow up in. Every generation in Africa shares common experiences growing up that influenced their values and attitudes about social constructs and what they would require to improve it for their younger generation to come.
The shared experiences of our ancestors that endured the sufferings that occurred to them during the slavery era; the defining moments of colonialism that captured the ingrained social collectivist culture and the cooperative economic customs of the African people different to the individualist social culture and capitalist customs of each of their colonial powers; the shared experiences of our older past generation both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora that influenced their thinking for the unity of all African States into a single national body to be achieved by the call for the end of western colonial rule of all the divided African nations advocated under the Casablanca group; the unfortunate moment of those who advocated under the Brazzaville and Monrovia group after independence of African nations from western colonial rule to keep African people disunited in an inter-governmental relations with the formation of African-Union (AU) under protégé economic system that has been reproducing scarce economic resources in Africa for Africans with export-oriented practices of African natural resources to benefit western nations to sustain their economic development; and the decisive moment in our generation when things changed radically:
That we grew up relatively sheltered by self-imposed poverty caused by our immediate past older generation and maintained by the current elites across government in Africa; that the persistent will of our generation everywhere in Africa to travel to foreign nations as migrants or refugees with hat-in-hand begging for western charity simply for each of our basic economic survival for food and shelter and an opportunity for a better livelihood; that the current African generation of this rising tide could no longer endure to sacrifice the future of our younger generation in the same fashion as our older generation have sacrificed our future for the benefit of foreign nations; and that for the misdeed of our older generation across government the voice of the rising tide emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa call for the populocratic revolution in the establishment of the united ethnopublican States of Africa – to merge all African economic resources into a self-sufficient subsistence to benefit all African people equally; to create a joint governing body of all African nations with shared legal authorities, communal social establishments, allied cultured way of life, our indigenous sense of religious spirituality, collective solidarity, united fronts, and merged inspirations toward common interests and goals, so that the populocratic revolution proposed in this manifesto would not be hindered by the territorial division of borderline.
The change that occurred within our generation is revolutionary. The sad reality was the Brazzaville and Monrovia-group advocacy to keep African people disunited post-Independent of all African nations from western colonial rule. There was no democratic referendum to give the African governed people a voice to decide whether to remain disunited or become united. Had they done so, they would no doubt be told by the populous that African unity into a single national body is their decision.
A case in point was in 1958 democratic referendum organised by the French colonial masters for all West-African citizens within the French colonies to decide on the future of their nations – whether they wish to remain in colonialism or become Independent. Guinean people alone voted for Independence, there was widespread sentiment and condemnation by all African countries against those who voted to remain under the control of the French colony. The argument expressed by these people that their economies were still in their infant stage toward capitalism and not ready for independence was met with the solution to unite all African nations into a federation to merge all economies into a single national body.
Another case in point was in 1958 when Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana initiated the formation of the Ghana–Guinea-Union. The idea was immensely appealing and hailed in many parts of Africa as the persistent will of the African people to promote the unity of all African nations into a single national body. The invitation was offered to other African countries to join, but only Mali joined in 1961. Had other African governments put the decision to join to their people on a democratic national referendum, as opposed to making state-centred decisions that their colonial masters imposed to govern the African people, the result would have seen the rapid formation of all African nations into a single national body.
The three African nations cooperated economically with resident-state ministers present in each others’ countries and produced immense success socially and economically before certain and unspoken international politics caused a rift between the leaders and led to their disbandment in 1963. Had their union been achieved through a referendum by the people, no international politics could disband and no rift between leaders could overturn without the decision of the people that are governed. Indirect-democracy handed to us to practice in Africa gives the decision to political leaders in government against the governed people affected by the decision.
The decision to form the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union was made by the elected leaders in government, they assumed the autonomy to change their decisions regardless of whether the people that are governed agree with it or not because, apparently, it is their decision and not the decision of the people that are governed and affected by the decision.
What further set our revolutionary basis for this manifesto is the cold war between the two groups, between the Casablanca-group who advocated for united African states and the Brazzaville and Monrovia-group who advocated for inter-governmental relations between African divided nations, according to a source, was the leadership cold-war between the two leaders of who should be installed as the first African president of the proposed federation of African states, between Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.
This is another fraud perpetrated by politicians under the indirect-democracy form of governance and the deceptive governmental administration of politics they inherited from their colonial education. It was not at all clear whether they fully understood the transforming structure of epoch-making of the African-socialism from ancient times to the present they advocated to return to post-Independent, or whether they became highly influenced by their colonial masters to mirror the western state system with African state system as a loyalty badge of some description.
In any case, their cold-war speaks volume of the academic education of politics that indoctrinate people to ambition for power in public office – thus reflects in their populist idea to create a federation of African States or the idea to create a one-party rule-life-presidency like a communist class-society. In any event, it is none of their decision to make. State-centred decisions that affect the lives and future of those affected by the decision should be made by the people that are governed by it – this is what the academic education of govox-populi proposes to indoctrinates.
This further proved my claim that African democracy is a government rule by the government and not a government rule by the governed people. The populocratic revolution for the establishment of an ethnopublican State of Africa is the recognition that the people that are governed have the decision-making power to decide the future of their nations, and that no rift between leaders could overturn or place the economic lives of the people that are governed at a disadvantage in their own society.
The academic education of govox-populi made it clear that there is no bureaucratic power to be had in its government administration. Govoxiers would find themselves in interdependent governmental relationships with those that they governed. The governmental administrative system of govox-populi is revolutionary and it is the governmental regulatory system of ethnopublican statehood.
The current generation of Africa everywhere, both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora, are vocally expressing their persistent will to promote the idea for all African countries everywhere to unite into a single national body, and the only option that our current African leaders in government have in response to this noble populist voice of the people is to give all African people a referendum to individually decide for themselves and as a collective whether they want the unity of an ethnopublican states of Africa or not – it is not the decision of the government to make.
We recognise that the unpopulocratic decision to keep African nations disunited in a selective-process by the minority leaders in government was made in the absence of a referendum for the people that are governed to decide, by the elites who had been placed in political power in their countries by their colonial masters who exercised an overpowering influence over them.
It is therefore clear to us that the activities of Brazzaville and Monrovia-group are not the decision of the African people and it is contrary to the wishes and persistent will of the African people. We say that their decision is the persistent will of their colonial masters to keep African nations disunited for their own economic advantage to the detriment of African economic development. The evidence is everywhere we looked. Africans were forced to become disunited under the colonial imposition of protégé economic relations with the divided African nations.
Our generation also has witnessed our African governments’ experiences collectively, the effects of African economic disenfranchisement from the global market economy that is still to the present day keeping our national economy across Africa in a revolving state of poverty and scarce economic resource. This raised our disappointment and we feel betrayed by how African collectivist interest with foreign nations is not reciprocated in a mutual or cooperative interchange of favours or privileges, especially in the unfavourable economic activities with African currency that continually inflating and keeping African people further away from equal participation in the global market economy.
This changed our idea about the rules of engagement with foreign nations and what we need to change within our own continent to create a better world for our future generations. Interestingly, with the way things stands today, the rising tide of African generation cannot find heroes within our current African leaders in the absence of a referendum to give our generation the voice to make our own decision on the question of African unity and decide our own future.
The current generation of Africa are still living on the scarce economic resource in Africa. We are the children, the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of those who fought for our national Independence from western colonial rule. We share their struggle and we glory in the privilege of their persistent will to create a better world for us – they remain our heroes and we retrace their footsteps in paving the path for a better world for us including for that of our African future generation.
With the technological achievement of our fellow generation cohorts in the global world, with whom we share a similar set of beliefs and embraced the same cultural diversity as a value, and of which the outcome of their life experiences with the surplus material resource in their economic and social life enables them to kickstarted the digital age and the web-internetisation that we all enjoy today as a collective.
They have been sufficient in proprietary in keeping the doors of collectivist relations open for everyone in our generation in the global world and Africans in Africa benefited from that act of altruism economically and socially, in circumstances where the capitalist individualist relations of their older generation would have kept it shut against Africans in Africa to our disadvantage.
When I say: good things come to those who do good deeds – I speak of this moment in history when your fellow generation cohorts in Africa are gearing up for their own social and economic development and to share it with you freely in the same altruism that you’ve shown us since the beginning of the digital age, which began to reach the poorest of our generation in Africa since the late 1990s, first with the Internet and computer cafes on the streets of Africa, then followed with mobile phone devices since the early 2000s, and with social networking, big data, and computing clouds, has been revolutionising the social life and work practices of Africans in Africa.
Collectivist culture is the chief avenue through which we indigenous Africans pass on our values and generosity. This fundamental value of the African culture would further cement how our generation globally at any time in history would be remembered for the altruism and collectivist relations that we have shown one another. Your good deeds create more good deeds in us to become more civic-minded as an outcome of these experiences, and your generation on the other side of the globe shall be rewarded with altruism that is about to start developing on the ground in Africa as a force for good in the world.
There is so much this generation of ours to be proud of in our altruist relations and collectivist culture globally. Our generation was the first to raise awareness about the ungodly capitalist economic practices and their impact on our environment. With web-internetisation, we revolutionise work practices and kept workplaces remote with the use of computers and laptops and thus removing the old condition of capitalism from our generation and replacing our economic condition with corporatism. We undermined the abuse of individualist power and autocratic norms perpetrated under bureaucracy and changed the customs and traditions of career norms to a choice that makes it easy for anyone from anywhere to easily transition from one type of career to another in their lives – which is another revolutionary invention of commicracy that our generation cohort had created.
Web-internetisation and its digital technology have transformed our human-society globally and influencing us in unprecedented ways in certain altruist order. In the face of this transformation, artificial-intelligence, the Internet of things (IoT), cloud services and more, are playing a significant role in influencing the trajectory of our digital and technological development.
Our generation is the prime-mover of the digital age as an integral part of our lives and that of our future generation to come. It is precisely through the platform of being highly digital in our morale, attitudes, practice, values and beliefs that we found our generation’s populist persistent will to promote an idea to emerge in the governance form of populocracy.
Since the populism form of governance serves as the seedbed for all other forms of governance that had developed and existed at one time or the other in the history of human-society, we found the populocracy form of governance developed as a natural development of our own global generation cohort. Each form of governance in human history, both of class-society and classless-society, is a product of a particular generation cohort that existed in a particular era in human-society and each is influenced by the life conditions and work settings that existed in each generation.
This goes to claim that indirect-democracy in current practice in all African nations is a product of our departed older generation cohort globally, and that owing to our generation being highly digital has made the indirect-democracy form of governance incompatible and a nemesis to the social and economic order of our current generation cohort.
This provides the evidence that populocracy is the most compatible form of governance that is equipped to make life go well for our current generation, and that all other forms of governance would continue to create the condition that makes life go badly for us if we employ them or continues to allow them to have a bearing on our persistent will to promote an idea that drives the condition for our generation moving forward progressively.
Therefore, this manifesto set the base for the rising ground of a populocracy form of governance as the product of our current generation cohort globally. The evidence is everywhere we looked. We grew up digital, our children are growing up digital, our grandchildren are set to grow up digital, and their future generation after that. In our own digital age, we are experiencing a series of conflicts with the older generation’s form of governance in their notion of democracy. We know we are different to them and are in a continuing battle with them through a series of protests and disruptions for the right to express ourselves, and for them to stop mollycoddling our ways of life through the use of force or coercion under their series of class-system form of governance.
For example, their preferred method of communication with friends and families is face-to-face, our preferred method of communication is through text messaging and emails. Their idea of marriage is bureaucratic with the notion of bride ownership, arranged-marriage between the opposite gender is normalised as a convention, and child-bearing is a moral obligation. The idea of marriage in our generation is commicratic with the notion of shared privilege between marriage partners, marrying for love regardless of race or gender is normalised as a convention, and child-bearing is a personal choice or preference and non-compulsory.
We could go on and talk about how our generation’s populist promotion of equality relations between genders, racial equality, and tolerance of beliefs and sexuality. We could also point to the institution of the police, the prison institution, and the army as their protective-group’s run class-systems, used as a tool of their class-society under their notion of democracies they defined as the highest form of the State.
Whereas, with the evidence of our own eyes the people that are governed do not have equal political rights and power with their government anywhere. This, from a populocratic perspective, means that the existing indirect-democracy form of governance is grossly unfair, the republican nationalist State structure is wholly unjust, and the government administrative system of politics is totally illegitimate – to the current generation’s notion of social order and promotion of equality relations in our human-society.
Looking ahead, our generation cohort has driven a permanent shift from a class-system towards a classless-system in human-society. Ethnopublican State reflects the persistent will of the people to promote their ideas on the populocracy form of governance. As such, the govox-populi administrative system of government would not need to rely on the use of force: in most cases, the authority of the governed people would be accepted by the State.
Look closely, I used the word ‘in most cases’ deliberately because I recognise that the emotion of humans causes individuals’ sense of right and wrong to be governed by their own prescribed populist views derived from the condition of class for itself. But when a group of people brought their ideas together to form a consensus, they create a condition of class in itself where their ideas as a collective have transcended individuality to the idea of the collective. It just so happens that, while some minority of ideas might border on the promotion of class-system to conflict with the ethnopublican State constitution that promotes equality and thus such authority of a people would not be accepted by the State.
The good thing is that the basis for the populocratic revolution is the recognition that the trajectory of the developing ideas that generate from the life condition in our generation cohort promotes class in itself ideas that are classless in nature. And the free and open culture of our digital age has a lot to do with the way our collective attitudes, values and beliefs have been shaped in the same way globally.
The populocratic revolution for an ethnopublican State is the recognition that inevitable change has occurred in our human-society. With our generation’s attitude toward fairness and freedom to individual rights, our developing equalitarian values in all areas of social life, the preferred right for choice with open opportunities and unconstrained by external parties, our generation cohort has undoubtedly instituted new world order in human-society everywhere.
Each generation develops different culture from its predecessors in history, which is why we have the arrays of different forms of governance that developed throughout history in our human-society from the beginning of our human existence itself. The diversity produced by the populocracy form of governance in our generation is good and admirable. More disruptive innovation is badly needed to eradicate all forms of class-system and its class-society in our generation.
A part of the innovation that has been developed in the theory of ethnopublicanism is the reservation of the judicial supervision of StateLords, regional local Lord-Governors including the palaver-courts’ Judges to those we widely respected as those “old wise elders” of Africa. This is to demonstrate the strengths of populocracy defined as the highest (advanced) stage of State government’s governance, in the sense that it has the power and influence to convert all class-system forms of governance into a classless-system form of governance, just in the same way as anarchy form of governance has converted a lot of classless-system form of governance into its class-system form of governance – in the form of indirect-democracy, socialist(hybrid)democracy, socialist-anarchy, and more.
Gerontocracy form of governance is a prime example, in the sense that by placing our ‘old wise elders’ in the ethnopublican supervisory judicial-arm of government, this is where their knowledge and collective life experiences would be most needed in the promotion of a classless-system in a populocratic society.
The other arms of government, because of each of their administrative nature in the regulation of executive, legislative and the economy, the young generation are most suited to occupy these State’s governmental positions because it creates the institutional and governmental platform to which every developing young generation can drive their generation cohort without major conflicts or revolution with their passing older generation – as we are experiencing in ours in current practice with our gerontocratic leaders’ notion of democracy in conflict with our populocracy.
Populocracy stripped the gerontocracy form of governance of its class-system in an ethnopublican State structure because the gerontocracy leadership position is limited to the supervision and advisory body to providing state-centred constitutional guidance derived from history and experience. The older people are, the better they become judicially astute to embrace different thinking about long-established practices. Gerontocratic leaders are well-equipped for that purpose to occupy the judicial-branch of government in an ethnopublican society.
The judicial branch of government is the only branch where our current gerontocratic African leaders in government can be most helpful in the pursuit of patriotism to their people to offer their younger generation in government the sage advice we need desperately to pass down to our own younger generation.
The delusive democratic practices and the political power-intoxicated morality in current practice have made it literally impossible for every African younger generation in government to achieve such a close bond with our gerontocratic leaders in government. They lost that relationship of bondness with their gerontocratic leaders and the same cultural trend is directing us to lose it as well with them and deprive us of the most useful knowledge that every younger generation required to become good leaders to their young. While this is regrettable, it is recognised that the class-system form of governance is a product of their generation cohort, and not of our own.
The ambition of the populocratic revolution of this manifesto is to create a bridge of reconciliation to resolute the wedge of the divide in current practice between our two generations. Whilst the revolution for a lot of class-society have a history of achievement under the driving force of anarchy form of governance, and the revolution for most classless-society thus far has their history of achievement under the driving force of socialism form of governance; our generation is the evidence that the revolution for a populocratic society (because its classless-system generates directly from populism form of governance), the trajectory of its achievement is pointed under the driving force of populism form of governance that generated it.
Look closely, both the anarchy form of governance and the populist form of governance that created it are without government to regulate them in their own individual rights. So, while populism governance is the seedbed for all the other forms of governance – both class and classless, anarchy form of governance has greater influence in the creation of the most class-system form of governance in each of their own rights, and socialism has greater influence in the creation of all classless-system form of governance that has existed.
Then think, for example, when Berners-Lee developed the World-Wide-Web in 1989 that developed into the web-internetisation platform today, he advocated with his team to his employer management at CERN to make its underlying code available to human society anywhere and everywhere on a royal-free basis, forever – not to be monetised; to commit it to decentralisation that requires no permission needed from any central authority or individual human to post anything on the web by anyone from anywhere. This is where web-internetisation acquired its classless socialist systemic platform of populism. When people began to interact with it and heavily relied on the internet in their daily activities including the rise of social media platforms, the web-internetisation platform developed its populism government into a populocracy.
Humans, in expressing their self-opinionated and populist emotions or persistent will to promote an idea on the web-internetisation platform cause every single person’s sense of right and wrong to become an individual populist class for itself. As soon as an idea gained a consensus, it began to develop into a collective populist class in itself.
An example is the number of populist petition signatures required by a government, in current practice in western societies’ democracies, to give a response or considered for a debate in their government parliament the persistent will of a people in a political society. It is precisely the routine success of populist ideas through petition and protest as a collective class in themselves and thriving on the web-internetisation platform and performed on the streets, that developed the commicratic framework for the classless self-regulated government for populism in the form of populocracy form of governance.
This manifesto call for the abolition of the illusion of democracy in Africa for populocracy form of governance; to transfer the legislative power of the state from the government to the electoral rule of the people that are governed from the bottom-up at regional level to State level – for the citizenry-electorates to make their own laws that govern their society; to create the economic-branch of government as a new arm of government; to remodelled the existing arms of government whereby the executive-branch, the legislative-branch and the new created economic-branch of government organised under the administrative-division of government, and the Judicial-branch of government becomes the supervisory-division of government to oversees the activities of its administrative-division; to abolish the governmental system of politics for the installation of govox-populi system of government; to abolish the Prison-system for the Redeem-system; and lastly but not exhaustive, to abolish the institution of Police force for the institution of Lawderly.
The populocratic revolution for African ethnopublican society is a movement for the abolition of the divided African nations and their republican and monarchy nationalist state structures for the establishment of the unitary form of Ethnopublican states of Africa:
Populocracy and Ethnopublic Nationalism
The theory of ethnopublic nationalism is the theory of the collectivism of the African people as One-Nation. In volume-1 of this manifesto, I defined the term “Ethnopublic” as a populocratic category of the proposed philosophy of African ethnosocialism.
The English word “Ethno” is a word-forming element that originally derived from the Greek word ‘Ethnos’ meaning ‘Community of a people’ or ‘Nation’; and the English word “Public” originates from the Latin word ‘Publicus’ or ‘Poblicus’ meaning ‘Of a people’; both combined make the English word: Ethnopublic, to meaning ‘communities of people or nation relatively governed based on the common-unity of the people’.
In stripping all African nations of their individualist Republican and Monarch nationalism State structure and applying the theory of ‘Ethnopublic’ to the proposed United African States, each African nation are ‘Public’ – that is, ‘a nation of people’; and the introduction of ‘Ethno’ defined as ‘community of a people’ collectively with a united practice of ethnicity as ethnopublican people; both combined, transition the Ethnopublic theory of all African nations as a ‘collective communities of a people’.
Therefore, the publicism of all African nations, after each is stripped of their republican and monarch nationalism State structure that kept Africans divided nations, the installation of ethnopublican nationalism State structure proposed in this manifesto is ring-fenced around all the divided African nations to transition them into a Unity – a United African States.
The populocratic form of governance in the proposed United African States is concerned with providing a solution to the problems that grow out of the democratic rule by government in our generation. The proposed solution is based on the rising voice of the current African generation who are concerned that the democratic power of government is destructive to the populocratic way of governing ourselves in Africa as a society.
The ambition of this younger generation of Africa, in their united voice for the United African States, is not concerned with expelling the current individuals in government generally, but rather to bring down the systems that endanger the effectiveness and security of our social-system of social-control that hinders our social and economic development across all African States, to come in line with the 21st-century advances occurring everywhere around the world.
Therefore, there shall be no misunderstanding that may arise from the use of the words: the revolution of nationalism by populocracy form of governance. This is particularly the case because, when we talk of the revolution of nationalism by a populist form of governance, we do not talk about the option to use violence as a means to achieve our revolution of nationalism. Populist form of governance is readily predisposed to use peaceful means as a revolutionary convention to achieve its objectives. Whereas, anarchy form of governance is predisposed to use violence as an option to promote its ideas and the State system that often and always develops from it often appropriates the class-system form of governance everywhere it is employed.
But, here, we talk of populocracy, and populocracy is defined as a form of governance with an in-built government that regulates it in its own right, like any other form of governance, except Anarchy form of governance. The views of populocracy on the State are summed up in the first chapter as a form of governance with a government that is derivative of the all-encompassing theory of a classless-system – the view of a socialist’s promotion of a classless-society.
The essential feature of a populocratic government is the rule by the people to control the day-to-day administration of their government and dictates the rules that control the roles and duties of every elected individual in public office, beyond merely electing individuals to a government office. This necessarily places the primary objective of the government to be the welfare of the people and the government shall be accountable to the people, and the primary objective of the people to be the welfare of the government and the people shall be accountable to the government; as such, both the government and the people that are governed exercise shared control of State government administration in an interdependent governance in a populocratic society.
Whereas, in our current state of affairs in all African States, we have democracy form of governance where the people that are governed have no control over the exercise of State power by individuals under the banner of party politics they elected to the government office. The arrangements and procedures of indirect-democracy have been summed up in the first chapter as a form of governance with a government that is derivative of the all-encompassing theory of a class-system – the view of anti-socialist promotion of a class-society – creating the development of underdevelopment of all African States collectively.
This, in a word, makes democracy as it is in current practice in all African States synonymous with self-aggrandisement, individualist self-interest, arbitrary government, and unrestrained and autocratic authority. This drives our revolutionary ideas that it is insufficient to merely elect individuals to public office and not regulate the day-to-day activities of each of their State powers.
We have not disagreed that all African States practice some form of democracy, albeit in their arrays of adulterated and indirect or representative forms. When democracy involves a group of elected elites in public office to make themselves responsible for State policies that affect the livelihood and future of their society, or when State policies and procedures can be subject to change based on random choice or personal whim of the elected individuals in government, or when government officials think it is the normal rules governing affairs of government to publicly awarding government contracts to their friends or family members, it is sufficient to be called democracy – that is, the rule by the people in government.
Family members and friends can work together in a populocratic government and they can be just as procedure-bound, and just as self-serving to secretly award government contracts to their friends and family members. This section of this manifesto, however, deals almost exclusively with the procedures of populocracy and how the rule by the people over the day-to-day administration of State government’s activities relates primarily to the effectiveness of a society of people to govern themselves, to prescribe their society State policies binding upon the government to govern, and to aim at greater happiness for a greater number of people in their society.
In trying to show how populocracy regulates the ethnopublic nationalism structure of the State, it will be necessary to show the procedural incentives of the ability of the rule by the people to govern themselves through direct control of the day-to-day affairs of government. It is enough to point out that democracy anywhere is not efficient to regulate the advanced social culture of our current human-society in the 21st century. Indirect-democracy was suited to the type of technology that developed from a capitalist economic system, particularly in the requirement for workers to travel to remote locations for work on a daily basis, including the heavy use of machinery for economic production and physical distribution of wealth through physical contacts and interactions.
Populocracy is suited to the type of technology that is developing from a web-corporatist economic system, especially between the option for workers to be present at different locations and still be able to work together remotely, and with the heavy reliant on the use of computerised technology for economic production and virtual distribution of wealth through non-physical contacts and online interactions.
People everywhere no longer practice democratic socialism, we now practice populocratic socialism, and reliance on the web-internetisation platform is the catalyst that precipitates the rise of populism to develop a government in its own right that we now call populocracy.
Western nations boast of a well-regulated system of democratic government, but the persistent will of the people to raise protests against the government proves that governmental democracy is a poor and inefficient system, because it is not suited to the technological advances and culture of our generation cohort.
Politicians anywhere would be quick to tell us that the possibility of the people to fail to re-elect political parties that failed in their State duties to the people is a characteristic feature of a democratic society, but in the same tongue and under the same breath they would be unable to freely admit that the arbitrary exercise of State power like autocracy by the politicians over the people prove that democracy or indirect-democracy so-called, is a mixed-form of an autocratic form of governance with democracy.
What, therefore, we must get at is what motivates and encourages the attitudes and state of mind of government officials; in particular, the Executive and the Legislative-branch as a whole that tends to stimulate the development of action that keeps their self-willed policies and performance within the bounds set by the will of their elite group?
In view of the content and emphasis between populocracy and ethnopublic nationalism, it is important to give attention to the following questions: How does populocracy endanger the relationship between elected government officials to their elite group? How can governmental relations exercise the responsibility of State power to favour the working-group in such a manner as to aim at greater happiness for a greater number of people in society? How can the procedure of populocracy be arranged to effectively control the day-to-day affairs of government? Do the people, with their persistent will to govern themselves, have the endurance to exercise control over governmental populocracy by direct action to vote on issues on a daily basis? How possible and easy it is for the people that are governed to control the government in their persistent will to govern themselves?
I identify four principal ways in which the people in a populocratic society endanger, obstruct, weaken and destroy the democratic institutions of the elite group in the affairs of their government that affect them negatively: (a) The people have the power of elections on the day-to-day affairs of government; (b) the people are prone to information-sharing about the issues that affect them personally and what decisions to make in an elective-process to resolute it; (c) the people have the power to reject their government policies and to make their own policies that meet the public will; and (d) the people, by their persistent will to govern themselves, have the power to impeach any government official from public office.
The secretary-of-states who is the head of the Executive-branch, and the principal Prime-Ministers of both the Economy-branch and the Citizenry-branch, under the Administrative-Division of government, are leaders of govoxical groups. They obtained govoxical privilege by winning elections, and they anticipate maintaining it throughout their tenure in that office by doing the same. It makes sense that they would use their governmental department to conform to the persistent will of the people all of the time, in response to the authority and power that the people control over the day-to-day affairs of government.
In democratic societies, the government uses the police and the army as their protective-group to express the autocratic power they exercise over the people that are governed, and they despatch them to quash protests by violent means; with the power of the ruling party in government, the police force is often used to raise arbitrary prosecution and conviction of rival political parties and make them illegitimate to function; protective-groups are also famous for the contravention of human rights on behalf of political parties, to control the rigging of free elections, disrupt political meetings of rival groups; media corporations are bribed by awarding them government contracts for party politics advertising and printing costs; and a lot of abuses beyond the normal human thinking faculty inciting our ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions from time to time.
In a populocratic society, all these are avoided and society appears to be safely past that stage of having to wage protests against the government or having their free election controlled or rigged in such ways and the whatnot. The govox-populi system of government is non-partisan and free from party affiliation, bias, or allegiance to an elite group. People would be free to conduct their populocratic elections from their mobile phone Apps, or at a designated polling station depending on individual preference, with publicly counting live feeds over the internet with individual ‘National Insurance Number’ attached to each vote internally and hash-encryption code identifier externally, and thus completely free from being rigged or the democratic deception of hauling illegal voters from region to region for multiple voting. The protective-group of the democratic government institution is converted to become the promotional-group for the people that are governed in a populocratic society.
In a populocratic society, the rule by the governed people to exercise power over the day-to-day affairs of government would detach the need to raise protests against the government on any issue. Populocratic procedure is sufficient to resolve any issues the people may have against their government, with ease and calm, without recourse to protests, violent uprisings, or waste of one’s precious time and energy. Even in situations where the Executive-branch of government may fail to implement policies or meet the demands of the people, the people have the power to seek judicial review at the House-of-StateLords against any individual in a government office that may lead to a public vote for the impeachment of such person or group in extreme cases.
It is noteworthy to discuss the potential success of populocracy, in describing the deception of democracy that government appropriates in exercising autocratic power over the people that are governed. This is not to say that a populocratic government cannot find ways of using the privilege of government resources to corrupt themselves and ensure their continuance in public office. While such a government would be bound to act in a more subtle fashion, the people have an overriding power over the government to effect a necessary action on legislation, to delay government contracts or refused its performance to specific groups or individuals, to streamline the enforcement of laws for the government with clear lines of boundaries, and to raise prosecution and public investigation against any act of corruption in public office.
The discharge of populocratic power by the people is an exercise on the procedural scale under the representative leadership of the Citizenry-Prime Minister. They may be an act of the working-group under the lead of the Economy-Prime Minister. They may be the executive program of a regional commissioner through the secretariat-ministry under the lead of the Secretary-of-State. They may be the judicial supervision of the StateLords under the lead of the House-of-StateLords Assembly or tribunal.
Any discharge of populocratic power by the people vary and depends on which of the above administration of government it is being discharged from. Every act of a govoxier in public office is a bid for re-election for the individual in public office since an individual who satisfies the people can make an arguable case for continuing to enjoy the privilege associated with being part of the administration of government.
What are you and I to do when an individual in public office is acting or has acted in a dishonest manner? The answer to this question goes to the culture of a populocratic society. Govoxiers have a duty of Information-delivery to the people within their constituents, and they exercise control over the ability of the citizenry-electorates to know and understand the relevant facts and issues around each policy proposal.
If a govoxier was found to have compromised the free elections by denying the public access to information or that prevent them from engaging in the kind of discourse that helps clarifies minds and thoughts to form opinions and judgments on any issues or on the choice of a candidate, it is best practice for a populocratic society to provide evidence through alternative Information-delivery from independent Advisory-bodies and confront the accused govoxier with fact and evidence at the proposed Advisory Faculty of Govoxical Advocates – a promotional-group.
This gives govoxiers the platform to defend their actions, or be caught in the act and resign, without putting the people into any further distress to seek an impeachment trial at the House-of-StateLords tribunal, which may cause public outrage to seek prosecution and redemption. Regardless of any one-sided view of achievement in office by a govoxier, the people have direct control over the future of govoxiers in public office.
Populocratic procedure is an insistent and persistent demand for accountability in public office, and describing in detail the exercise of State power by individuals in a government office. Unlike in a bureaucratic mode of organisation where governmental democracy achieves its dependencies to corrupt absolutely; where it remains tasking if at all possible, to know what motivates or influences the individual experts responsible for government policies or procedural organisation decisions; to use a famous quote: the departmental ‘left-hand does not know what the right-hand is doing or proposes to do within a large-scale bureaucratic organisation.’
Whereas, a commicratic mode of organisation is fortified by the walls of society populocracy and makes publicly the administration of power through the provision of official reports from day one, be it an annual report or daily records. Under the ethnopublic nationalism structure of the State, society’s populocratic administration of government power determines their format and subjects all parties within commicracy to the shared control by law and statute.
None of the western democratic procedures that all African democratic government adopts makes much progress in helping us find a solution to all of the problems facing African people socially and economically, and there is no direct route to access accurate reporting of government officials without also being provided with bias-reporting or propaganda that expresses a favourable image of those in control of State power. This is another good thing that the populocratic power of the people to make policies and legislate laws that govern their society resolute through the populocratic will of the people to govern themselves.
The most treasured maxim of populocracy is simply that we have a government by the people and not a government by the government. This statement has two implications: first, within the Administrative-division of government, citizenry-electorates are in-charge of deciding on policies and legislating laws that govern their society in each of their regions; second, all government officials within the Administrative-division are responsible for implementing the citizenry-prescribed policies and laws and ratified and approved by the judicial Supervisory-division of government.
Under the first implication, the citizenry-electorates cannot pass arbitrary policies or laws that act contrary to the ethnopublic Constitution, since it is bound to be rejected by the judicial Supervisory-division of government. Under the second implication, government officials within the Administrative-division cannot act capriciously or failed to carry out citizenry-prescribed policies in accordance with published guidelines and standards, because their actions remain accountable to the people and also subject to the judicial Supervisory-division of government. These two maxims are the main pillar of populocratic principles.
The citizenry’s charge of the legislative-arm of government is an indispensable feature of a populocratic government. It is by making policies, rules, regulations and laws to guide the activities and power of government that the citizenry-electorates exercise direct control of their government, and ultimately the power of the people to control the direction of their society. As such, the lawmaking power of the people that are governed is firmly lodged in the Citizenry-branch of government by the proposed ethnopublic Constitution. The other branches of government share the legislative power with the people, but only with the invitation and consent of the governed people.
The situation with respect to the State government’s shared-control of power with the governed people is uniform across the whole of the proposed United African States. The Legislative, Executive, Judicial and Economy are separated into governmental organs with robust provisions for checks and balances between them. There is no ability of any governmental department, as far as I can tell, to abuse its power directly as it operates in democratic societies.
Any suspicion or claim that a government department or individual in government office abuses their discretionary power, administrative power, regulatory power, or deliberately misinterpreted worded policy of the legislature to give a different meaning and action, all they would face is the wrath of the governed people under the Citizenry-branch and to make them judicially accountable for their actions.
No government body can expect to have its authority extended by the power of its own governmental authority without the consent of the governed, or by taking bureaucratic steps to prejudice a situation or nullify the purpose of the legislature by inaction that the people have the legislative power to enforce, or to lobby the people to extend the policy to accommodate the committed abuse of power against the people that apparently the people have established by commicratic procedures.
Best practice dictates that the general expressions of populocratic policy should adapt to a diverse range of specific situations, to spread across the wide range of conductive administrative authority under a commicratic mode of organisation. This arranges for immediate direct regulatory-control of policies within the Administrative-division of government: by the enforcement authorities of regional Commissions to implement policies as prescribed by the electorates and which at the same time is their exercise of executive power on behalf of the secretariat-ministries.
The public functions of independent Advisory-bodies to judicially interprets government Information-delivery and provide advise to members of the public on a wide range of govoxical issues of the day, which enables the people to form judgments and engage in discussions to clarify their minds on any govoxical issues, and including by the govoxiers’ daily arrangements of the voting process on the activities of the citizenry legislative decisions on the day-to-day affairs of government.
It is a matter of fact how the arrangements of populocratic control of power by the people will direct the administrative functions of all branches of government as intended. Look closely, first, the Executive-branch does not acquire more power beyond its remits and capacity to regulate in a populocratic country, that it has for running a democratic country; second, the Judicial branch does not appear to have any deficiency to fail in its duty to incorporate into law or statute the regulatory decisions of the citizenry in a populocratic country, that it does in a democratic country where it can literally employ bureaucratic exploitation to nullify almost any purpose of a legislature by excessive delay or inaction; and third, the proposed ethnopublic Constitution in the fifth and last volume of this manifesto gave both the Legislative-branch and Economy-branch a streamline organisation system that produces an efficient and effective administrative function across the agencies of regional Commissions by employing a faster or simpler commicratic methods with no excessive use of discretions than the necessities of the situation may demand.
Talking of the proposed ethnopublic Constitution, the Executive-branch is not given excessive power to make policy or proposed law or to set out policies of its own liking without the consent and approval of the Legislative-branch. To be clear, all the other branches of government – the Judicial, Executive and Economy – have the power of policy proposals but not an imposition, and that’s all to it. Whether their proposal would be accepted or rejected by the citizenry Legislative-branch, to consider the policies which the government propose to enforce to govern the affairs of the State, is a matter of decision that belongs to the citizenry-electorates and them only.
Everywhere we looked, the people that are governed are against everything the democratic government does and the way they do it. Indeed, democratic systems have impressed negative connotations to the word ‘Government’ in our human-society, no doubt; and populocracy is the saving grace for this current generation of Africans.
With respect to populocratic government as with respect to the people affected by State-centred decisions, the government remain accountable to the people with the obligation to must achieve their majority consensus on what the government ought to do to improve matters for a government policy proposal to be accepted and decreed by the governed people affected by the decision.
Unlike in a democratic society where administrative departmental practices are designed to patchwork government-prescribed policies to the needs of the people by force of deception, citizenry-prescribed policies are designed to fit precisely to the functions of administrative departmental practices to meet the direct needs of the people in a populocratic society. Another important is, while the judicial function of the House-of-StateLords Assembly is supreme in establishing the purposes and objectives of the Administrative-division of government, none can defy the Citizenry legislative-branch on matters of policy or law that affects the govern people; and all are dependent on the Citizenry economy-branch, even though the Secretariat executive-branch is the head of government.
This, in a sense, reveals the interdependent leadership model of the govox-populi administrative system of government, and how State power is spread across all branches of government to output inter-reliant levels of leadership as a necessary condition for the performance of equalitarian legal relations and the practice of egalitarian society. This is to say that the govox-populi administrative system of government can only be practised in its purest form under the populocracy form of governance.
Populocratic government is established and maintained as a commission between the government and the governed, which is why govox-populi is the most appropriate system of government to convey populocracy in its purest form. Both govox-populi and populocracy have something in common – a multi-headed body created to perform a particular function, whether it be administrative, legislative, economic or judicial in nature. Added to the harmony, like a Cinderella story, is commicracy defined as a system of organisation in which most of the important decisions are taken by the organised body of those affected by the decision.
Now, look closely, we now have three Musketeers who fit perfectly together like conjoined triplets – populocracy, govox-populi and commicracy – fortified and held together as a formidable interpersonal and governmental body of functions, that thrives on equal opportunities for all, fairness, alleviation of human sufferings, impartiality, freedom, social justice, and meeting the human needs of their people as an important and uncompromising will for national development.
Under the govox-populi government, no populocratic society will ever tolerate a government that consistently fails to implement the will of the people that are governed. Under the commicracy mode of organisation, the end-users are the chief decision-maker that directs the course of the organisation.
There is no amount of reform that could change the direction of bureaucracy, politics and democracy in Africa. Since the colonial era, Africans have been left without the kind of State government we want. This manifesto is the voice of the current generation of Africa, in one voice, that the people have come out with a new kind of government that we want to be instituted in Africa and for Africans.
I say, the more the people of Africa kept their faith steadfast in democracy, the more the democratic system continually proved itself with a great degree of inefficiencies across our social-system of social-control. It is on this matter of democratic inefficiency, that is so widespread and persistent across all the divided African nations, that we take a giant step in the development of this manifesto to put words to action, to call for the United African States into a single national body, to show what can be done to make the administration of ethnopublic nationalism structure of African States efficient and resourceful, and to quit trying to reform the arrays of completely broken systems of politics, bureaucracy, republicanism and democracy, handed-down to us from Western colonial inheritance.
The ethnopublic nationalism structure of populocratic statehood is of a very different quality. It professes a governmental commissioning management structure that covers the entire cycle of assessing the needs of people across local regions, designing those needs into policies, and securing resource-effective services in order to deliver better outcomes to meet the human needs of its people collectively.
Although this manifesto is much too brief to provide a detailed account of the efficient working structure of all the social-system of social-control that made up an ethnopublic State, here we provide a variety of how populocratic condition is more advanced and has more depths and scope with several spheres of control than democracy.
The entire volume of this manifesto is only an introduction to the proposed ethnopublic nationalism structure of the United African States and is directed toward a specific central commissioning cycle of management – the social and collectivist regulation of the African economy. Having studied far and wide, and having witnessed several failed academic propositions related to a specific objective like “how to reform democracy to be efficient under a republic State”, the rising tide of our younger African generation has no time to waste to babysit the failure of democracy.
Instead, we advocate for populocracy, irrevocably seek the abolition of democracy and believe it is too damaged to be reformed. We prescribed ethnopublic nationalism State structure, and hold that republican is unprincipled for an egalitarian society that is compatible with our ancient African collectivist culture. We idealised the promotion of a commicracy mode of organisation, and maintain that the impersonality of bureaucracy is destructive to the collective interpersonal consciousness and social integration of human nature to socialise everywhere. We pioneer the govox-populi system of government, and invalidated politics as an epitome of a debased system of government because its priority is given to party-politics over the welfare of members of society, where its egoism is promoted over altruism, and where its personal benefit and self-aggradation is pursued over collective benefits; and we raised ethno-corporatist economic system, and debunk capitalism as a form of slavery.
Populocracy and ethnopublic nationalism are governmental systems in social and economic affairs toward an egalitarian society, and thus inevitable in our human-society, whether now or in the future. The governmental action of populocracy is in accord with the will of the people to govern themselves. Both the government and the governed are devoted both to the accomplishment and populocratic will of the populous in an efficient and economical operation in achieving a common end – advanced socio-economic development.
Populocracy and ethnopublic nationalism are mutually compatible as they reciprocate each other in an adaptable manner. If the StateLords reject the will of the people to pass a Law or policy, it does so only under the prescribed Constitution that the people commissioned the StateLords to uphold and apply on their behalf uncompromisingly.
Populocracy presents a viable alternative and more advanced form of governance than democracy. The arrays of indirect-democracy in current practice in all African States operate incompatible with the republican nationalism it purports to validate. The evidence is everywhere we looked. Republicanism is incompatible with direct-democracy, hence the employment of indirect-democracy as a patchwork form of governance to mediate it, and left both the democracy in practice in all African nations and their republican State structure coexisting in a permanent state of tension and a complex entity that is fortifying the development of underdevelopment of all African nations.
The compatibility of populocracy with ethnopublic nationalism reveals how social development can be directly traced to economic conditions, and vice versa. Populocracy would produce large-scale economic industrialisation across all African States, would put an end to class-system and class-society and their promotion of individualistic self-interests and greed, would put an end to poverty and bad governance, and, as the African-American writer and poet, James Baldwin (1924-1987), wrote in the 1962 essay for The New York Times, “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced“.
We faced democracy and were unable to reform it, we have got nothing to lose to phased-out democracy by abolishing it entirely and installing populocracy in its stead. Populocracy promises us everything democracy has taken away from us – literally, everything – such as the shared-ownership of our own natural resources on the ground in Africa, and our social and economic development would be reinstalled under populocracy.
Populocracy and Govox-Populi
The theory of populocracy literally means ‘the rule by the governed people’, and in volume-1 of this manifesto I introduced the theory of govox-populi which literally means ‘government voice of people’. Both populocracy and govox-populi complement each other harmoniously as the ‘rule of government voice by the governed people’ or ‘the voice by the governed people to rule of government’. In other words, the day-to-day administrative rule of government and the public persona or voice of government is prescribed by the people that are governed in a populocratic society. Govox-populi, therefore, is fundamentally compatible and derived from populocratic principles and values.
For that reason, govox-populi is a representative-populocracy in government, and it is a form of governance in which people vote for representatives who then propose multiple policy initiatives for the people to vote and choose on a system of majority rule in an elective-process; as opposed to unrepresentative-populocracy, a form of populocracy in which the people are not represented by an official body of government, and individual people advocates for policy initiatives, implementation of laws and organisation to shape their society, with a shared responsibility to ensuring that everyone feels personally accountable for the day-to-day direction of their society. As such, govox-populi is the official body of government for a large-scale organised human-society where the governed people govern themselves, and unrepresentative-populocracy is appropriate for a small-scale organised human community where the governed people govern themselves.
However, it should be emphasised in this context that the word ‘direct and indirect’ is different to when the word ‘representative and unrepresentative’ is used. The former is a contractual obligation of government to perform or not to perform actions in the interest of the governed people, and the latter is a commissioning agreement of government to perform or not to perform actions as prescribed to it by the governed people. This is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as direct or indirect populocracy, only representative and unrepresentative populocracy exists. Both platforms of populocracy are ‘pure’ because they do not depart from the direct rule of the governed people in society.
According to the developing theory of govox-populi, it is absolutely a non-partisan governmental administrative system: it is essentially a governmental system based on functions; principled of fixed and official jurisdictional personnel, ordered by rules, laws and administrative regulations; each member of govox-populi government are designated in a fixed way to perform specific public functions; and the authority for the discharge of their public duties is strictly prescribed and disposed by the governed people in society, of those eligible to vote and within the prescribed voting-age group. This placed govoxiers, as they would be known, as highly judicious public officials and not polarised by party groups. As I proposed to further show, the designated duties of govoxiers in public office and non-partisanship are indispensable for populocratic functioning.
Politics thrives on polarisation because it is based on partisanship and is thus indispensable for any type of indirect-democratic functioning. Blind loyalty to a political party is a catalyst for corruption and dishonesty, and more importantly, it promotes the regressive condition of class-system and class-society. The politics of partisanship is the germinating seedbed for the debasement of democracy into the arrays of indirect-democracy government in our human-society the world over.
Yet, I encounter this type of argument all of the time, around the question of why partisan political governments fail to govern society with an impartial authority. It’s like equating a pigeon to a dwarf cockerel and then questioning why the cockerel failed to spread its wings and take flight. No political government anywhere would govern society in an impartial way – it is a matter of fact, not of opinion – the evidence is everywhere we looked.
The conflicting relationship between partisanship, politics and indirect-democracy is not open to question, they violate the basic requirements of one another with impunity. They are what they are: divide and conqueror, conquest subjugators, blind loyalty, propagators of all types of information-biases, individualistic self-interest, extremism, greed for power and honour, pride and prejudice, dishonesty and lies, autocrats egoism and dictatorial in disguise, and more like. Since party-politics exercise direct control of the legislative-branch and executive-branch of government, they extend their corruptive practices to interfere with the sanctity of the Judicial-branch also.
In the so-called democratic societies, ordinary members of society are not clued to the recognition that court decisions should not have been decided in the interests of partisan party-politics, instead that judicial decisions to be based on the rule of law as laid down in the State Constitution. When politicians need something to do to further their individual ambition or their ruling party interests, they basically congregate to hold inside-door meetings in some parliamentary buildings, chewed words for a bit and challenged thoughts a little, the next step of the process is to basically instruct their bureaucrats’ counterparts, the pen-pushers so-called, to go put pen to paper and changed law and policies as they so wish and desire. And they taught students at schools to regard political democracy as a government rule by the people that are governed. I say, Nay!
In contrast, the progressive relationship between non-partisanship, govox-populi and populocracy is not open to question. The populocratic processes of the people to select State policies and public officials in an elective-process removed the incentives any influence public officials may have on the question of blind-loyalty to any perceived party group, individualistic self-interest, autocratic egoism and more like.
The proposed ethnopublic Constitution that will prescribe the selection of the rules by which public policies are selected and public officials are elected in an elective-process, detached public officials from any allegiance to any notion of perceived party group they may abhor secretly to pursue the culture of divisive-ethics, conquest subjugators, extremism, pride and prejudice, and more like. And, everywhere we looked anywhere all around the world, the governed people of our young generation cohort are committed to State government impartiality to govern their society, in constant conflict with the personal interests and ambition of party politics to monopolise State power over the governed people.
To fully evaluate the problem we faced with the legal status of democracy and politics in society anywhere, it is first to clarify that republican nationalism structure is a partisan entity in its own right, whereas ethnopublic is a non-partisan entity. The partisanship of party-politics is a private institution with the monopoly for State contracts as a ruling-class and subject to Constitutional restraints, whereas the non-partisanship of govox-populi is a public institution since people are elected to public office on their own merits and not through affiliation to a party group.
The ethics and values of democracy through the various indirections and representative model is the ethics of partisanship and long departed from its non-partisanship affiliation, whereas the ethics of populocracy is wholly the ethics of non-partisanship since people affected by state-centred decisions are in full control of their prescriptions, implementations, modifications and abolitions of those decisions that are made.
We can see clearly that the partiality of a republican State is the central feature of democracy or indirect-democracy so-called, while the impartiality of an ethnopublican State is the central feature of populocracy. That is why, as we can see with the evidence of our own eyes, the ethics of politics and their notion of democracy directly commits atrocities and treasons against the governed people through their daily gridlocks on issues of public concern to polarised society in each of their self-centred opinions.
When politicians argue in their vicious cycle of polarisation and partisanship, that in effect triggered the humanistic emotions of the governed citizens to take sides – whereas, the people have no direct knowledge or the full so-called ‘classified’ details of the arguments that politicians are making – so when the people become outraged and polarised on political issues, politicians capitalise on that to legitimatise their argument to sustain the culture of division among the governed people, in pursue of popular votes that further their individualist self-interest and greed for power to their political party and honour to their individual selves. All these are lawless and treason against the governed people who irrevocably desire for State impartiality governance of their societies everywhere.
A central precept of govox-populi is that govoxiers are forbidden from getting involved in the activities associated with the debate with the people over what decision or policy should or must be made in the daily public elective-process on govoxical issues. According to this rule, govoxiers are responsible for Information-delivery to the people – that is, to provide the people with factual information to enable them to engage in the kind of open discussion that clarifies each of their minds and enables them to form opinions and judgments with their votes about candidates to public office and public issues that affect their daily lives.
Whereas, politicians engage in daily routine occurrences to constantly raise fuss on trivial matters, to argue blindly and with hidden agendas, and to create unnecessary gridlocks over policies. And sometimes we see them engage in a barrage of verbal violence or fist-fighting in Parliament on a range of issues that should not have been of any personal concern to them, but rather the public concern of the people that are governed and affected by the decisions.
Unlike politics defined as governance activities associated with the debate between parties contesting for government power to exercise over the people, govox-populi is defined as governance activities associated with the debate among the governed people deciding on policies to be executed by the government. While politics is based on partisan principles and values, govox-populi is based on non-partisan principles and values.
Below are some of the differences between democracy and populocracy:
| DEMOCRACY | POPULOCRACY |
| A government that is governed by the government and is binding upon the people that are governed | A government that is governed by the people and is binding upon the government that governs |
| Democracy is a revolutionary construct of an autocracy form of governance | Populocracy is a revolutionary construct of a populist form of governance |
| A Partisan system of government, .i.e Politics | A Non-Partisan system of government, .i.e Govox-Populi |
| The formation of a democratic government is prone to corruption and empire building because people who get elected by people’s vote are free to exercise the authority of their powerful positions as they will to impose policies and make laws that exploit the people and without the people having any power over the action the government have taken | The formation of a populocratic government creates checks and balances to ensure that neither the government nor the people exercise supreme power over the legislative processes because people who get elected by the people’s vote are not free to exercise the authority of their powerful positions without the day-to-day approval of the people that are governed |
| The basic structure of indirect-democracy does not allow the governed people to seek any result they want. | The basic structure of populocracy allows the governed people to seek any result they want binding upon the government to implement them. |
| There is more division in the democratic governing process with party-politics because the governed people do not hold the right to vote on government resolutions on policy. | There is more unity in the populocratic governing process with non-partisan govox because the governed people hold the right to vote on government resolutions on policy. |
| Each person only gets the chance to vote for selecting a representative to assume government office for the purpose of expressing policy views on behalf of the people, but the people do not get the chance to vote on the selection of government policy | Each person not only gets the chance to vote for selecting a representative to assume government office to express policy views for the people, but the people also get the chance to vote on the selection of government policy |
| The democratic process limits the power of the people by only allowing each community to continue pursuing the specific results through voting for a representative that they feel is helpful, and continually switching representatives with the hope of a better leader. | The populocratic process gives the power to the people by allowing each community to vote for a representative that they feel is helpful in providing accurate information that enables them to continually vote on a better policy that meets their needs. |
| Voters have an opportunity to change their elected officials, but not the policy that the elected officials made to control their destiny | Voters have every opportunity to change their elected officials, including every policy that the elected officials proposed or they themselves made previously |
| The dependencies between democracy and politics centralised power to the Executive-branch that employs autocracy form of governance that allows the government to dictate what people can or cannot do in any situation | The interdependencies between populocracy and govox-populi centralised power to the governed people that allow the people that are governed to dictate what the government can or cannot do in any situation |
| The structural division between party-politics does not agree on everything. Hence the people raise protests against any government-imposed policy to overturn unwanted rules and regulations imposed by the government | The structural unity of the non-partisan govox agrees on everything through compromise. Hence the people have the power to select policies to prescribe their societal rules and regulations imposed upon the government to implement. |
| People are expected to identify with their government on a stronger level of patriotism to the State through blind-loyalty to a party over another, and thus promotes the culture of division in society between two empires competing for government power | People are expected to identify with their government on a stronger level of patriotism to the State through growth-mindset to a cause becoming the prevailing view, and thus promotes the culture of compromise in society between opposing populist views |
| The culture of democratic rule always runs counter to what the majority of the people want and the people are always unhappy by such political disempowerment to promote ideas of impositions | The culture of populocratic rule always runs in accordance with what the majority of the people want and the people are always content with such govoxical empowerment to promote ideas of expositions |
| There are more violent rebellions through the persistent will of the people to protest against any government action within democratic societies | There is no justification for the persistent will of the people to protest against any of their own self-willed policies within populocratic societies |
| Arbitrary and self-centred levels of rules to wage warfare between nations or civil unrest within nations have increased significantly. Democracy dependencies with politics encourage battles and chases after them when it meets the interest of the government | Rational and considerate levels of rules to avoid warfare between nations or civil disagreement within nations. Populocracy interdependencies with govox-populi encourage debates and promote trade-offs when it meets the interest of the government |
| The classical theory of democracy has been corrupted to practising indirect-democracy. It deprived the people of the power to vote on issues that affect them directly with the current practice of electing representatives to make those decisions for the governed people affected by the decision | The classical theory of populocracy cannot be corrupted, hence it is not populocracy. The people cannot be deprived of the power to vote on issues that affect them personally with the practice of electing representatives to provide policy information for the governed people to cast their vote on a decision that affects them and their community |
| Each candidate for office declares before their voters the reasons why they are the best person to represent each community to impose policies to govern them | Each candidate for office declares before their voters the reasons why they are the best person to represent each community to expose policy information for the governed people to govern themselves |
| Democracy encourages extremism because it is based on partisanship under its republic nationalism | Populocracy encourages centrism because it is based on non-partisanship under its ethnopublic nationalism |
| The current wave of populism that is happening around the world is a testament that the format of democracy is a failure to govern human-society | The current wave of populism that is happening around the world is a testament that the format of populocracy is a success to govern human-society |
| There are times when a complete majority of a single party can win an election, but even then, there can be enough disagreement within the ranks that threatens the unity of government | At all times when a complete majority of a single person wins an election, there is no justification for disagreement within the ranks that may have a bearing on the unity of government |
| The democratic process makes it possible for elected representatives to aggregate the different needs of each community toward a coherent policy that protects the interests of the government | The populocratic process makes it possible for voters to aggregate the different needs in each community toward a coherent policy that protects the needs of everyone |
| Democracy is to ensures that the interests of each segment of society can conform to the interest of the government regardless of whether the people receive the protection they need while undermining any accountability for the governing actions which occur | Populocracy is to ensures that the interest of government can conform to the interests of each segment of society to receive the protection they need while providing a higher level of accountability for the governing actions which occur |
| Democracy is ineffective unless voters are given back their governing decisions on the day-to-day affairs of government | Populocracy is ineffective if voters are deprived of their governing decisions on the day-to-day affairs of government |
| Supporters of democracy claim that the will of the majority is not always the ethical or moral position that one should take, but their promotion of blind-loyalty does not provide the platform that allows the minority view at one time to easily become the prevailing view at other times without a revolution with unnecessary loss of lives and civil unrest. | Supporters of populocracy claim that while the will of the majority may not appear to the minority as always the ethical or moral position that one should take, there is a platform for growth-mindset that allows the minority view at one time to become the prevailing view at other times through debate that allows proof and evidence to promote an idea. |
| Humans are rational beings. Whereas, if someone finds themselves outside of the will of the majority more often than not, then it will feel like their opinion doesn’t really count for something and democracy encouraged the minority to give up | Humans are rational beings. And if someone finds themselves outside of the will of the majority more often than not, populocracy provides the equality of opportunity to continue to provide the majority with proof and evidence to sway their view |
| Democracy is one of the least cost-efficient forms of governing that exists today. The time and currency resources that are necessary to conduct an election can cost billions of money in unnecessary spending | Populocracy is one of the most cost-efficient forms of governing that will exist. The time and currency resources that will be necessary to conduct an election can cost far less with Online campaigns and on App |
| Democracy creates a high risk of oppression and an autocratic form of governance in disguise | Populocracy creates a high impossibility of oppression and a populist form of governance at best |
| Voting requires time to review the information provided by each election. That means processes slow down to the point where it can take several years to create significant changes | Voting is digitised and requires less time to review the information provided by each election. That means the process accelerates to the point where it can take weeks to create significant changes |
| It takes more time at the local level to make decisions with democracy because each referendum must go to the voters. Every decision is up for review potentially. That means there is always a certain level of uncertainty. | It takes less time at the local level to make decisions with populocracy because each decision must go to the voters. Every voter’s choice is locked as they are cast. That means there is always a certain level of certainty. |
| Democracy does not follow-up on a higher level of accountability because its representative form is established on the merits of party-politics. The goal of a politician is to receive the most votes. Once that person gets into office, there are fewer controls in place to recall that person if they do not accurately represent what the community wants. The only method to stop this in some countries is to vote for a different person during the next election | Populocracy follow-up on a higher level of accountability because its representative form is established on the merits of individual govox. While the goal of a govoxier is to receive the most votes, once that person gets into office there are many controls in place to recall that person if they do not accurately represent what their community wants. The only method to stop this in certain circumstances is to immediately vote for a different person to take over |
| Empty promises are common in democracies. When there is an incentive to offer everything without the requirement to implement them, then you’ll see more lies than truth in the daily conversations about governing that occur. | Promises made in populocracies are legally binding. The people vote on policies and the government is legally obligated to implement them, failure to implement them without reasonable excuse may lead to a vote of no confidence by the people |
| The culture of partisanship democracy frequently promotes gridlocks within party-politics. There is no incentive for people in government to work together so that the election of new representatives can appear to face challenges to resolving an existing problem | The culture of non-partisanship populocracy frequently promotes compromise within populocratic-govox. There is an incentive for people in government to work together because every election of new representatives are expected to be inundated with their own challenges to resolve future problems |
| All other forms of governance including democracy, enrage the persistent will of the governed people to raise protests against any government action. As such, democracy has joined the rank of governance best to govern a society of animals with no verbal communication capability to articulate their rules. | Populocracy is the only form of governance devoid of the persistent will of the people that are governed to raise any justifiable protest against any government action. As such, populocracy is the best way of governing a society of humans with verbal communication capability to articulate their rules. |
| While any governing structure can be abused under the right set of circumstances, there are not enough checks and balances in a democratic system to protect the people affected by government decisions. The elite-class control the means and mode of economic production and government power. Since State power remains only with a privileged few that governed, then it is something of an autocratic form of governance | While any governing structure can be abused under the right set of circumstances, there are enough checks and balances in the populocratic system to protect the government from the decision made by the people. The people control the mode of economic production and government power. Since State power remains with the vast majority of the people that are governed, then it is something of a socialist form of governance |
Indeed, the central precept of govox-populi shows that govoxiers are a collective and their legal status is expressed in a collective-individualist’s relations and interactions and makes them become more ideologically independent on a wide range of issues from each other. As it will become clear in practice, the populocracy form of governance would be unable to function in its representative form without the govox-populi administrative system of government. This will become more evident by the collective public duties of govoxiers in public office.
Govoxiers – the citizenry-committees and the economy-unionists perform a number of public functions such as Information-delivery, mobilising voters, and acting as a medium between their constituent members and the head of each of their branches of government. The regional Commissioners perform public functions such as educating and giving voice to people that are living and or working within their regions and meeting their specific needs, they also help voters simplify choices in their govoxical decisions and to make individuals aware of issues of how each decision-making processes affects their regional society and the lives of individuals personally.
County StateLord-Governors and regional StateLord-Councillors perform public duties such as recruiting and regulating judicial candidates for local palaver-courts’ services, organising and regulating the social and economic structure of their communities and providing the avenues in which regional citizens can develop policies to improve the development of their communities and as well as hold any government officials accountable for failures.
The StateLords perform public duties such as supervising the structure of government, judicial interpretations of the Constitutions in line with new policies and laws, ratifying into law the final decided policies and rules of governance proposed by the governed people, supervising the conducts of govoxiers and enforcing disciplines and redemptions. The secretary-of-States and the citizenry-prime ministers perform public functions such as executing and implementing policies, regulating the organised structure of government and conducting checks and balances on one another to improve the order of government and the impartiality of the State.
As it is becoming clear, the non-partisan institution of ethnopublic nationalism, in which govox-populi exists, positions each designated public duties and governmental functions of govoxiers to commit to the necessary realisation of the value that meets the cause and advocacy of the people on the platform of populocracy. With a clear view of the practice of populocracy by the branches of government, heads of each branch of government are in the govoxical custom to ceaselessly conducting checks and balances on one another through which the supervisory-division of the judiciary is effectively managed with the supervisory control over the administrative-division.
Look closely, the Executive-branch and the Economy-branch with the power to implement policies are checked by the Legislative-branch that makes policies, the Judicial-branch supervise their activities and arbitrates their checks and balances is equally checked by all of the other branches under its supervision, the Legislative-branch with the power to impose directives and laws that govern the activities of government is checked by the Executive-branch which holds power as the head of government and by the Judicial-branch who holds supervisory power over the government.
Indeed, the checks and balances between all branches of government is intertwined, and gridlocks or conflicts act as an internal check on the question of compatibility with the Constitution, and not based on any party group self-interests, or influenced by tyrannical personalities to exercise power for its own sake, or selfish ambitions of some elites to monopolise government power.
While govoxiers are elected to public office to regulate the activities of government, they do not have jurisdictional power to impose their individual personal opinions as a means to create a line of divisions among people in society – citizenry people have the right to vote and the jurisdictional power to debate and decide on policy issues and make laws and regulations that govern their government and their society.
Govoxiers are legally responsible to portray or express ideological neutrality with the people. It is outside the jurisdictional power of govoxiers to criticise the ideological positions of individuals or groups in any manner or stage a debate battle among people, even if it appears as prima facie evidence that a people are getting it wrong or that their prevailing populists views will be detrimental with incurring loses, govoxiers are prohibited by law NOT to interfere or engage in debate with the people and drawing distinctions with them against rival positions. It is the role of independent Advisory-bodies to stage battles for debate among rival ideological positions with the people in each of their regions, and the governmental position of govoxiers is to maintain the neutrality of position, opinion, advice or ideology with the people on any govoxical issue.
Independent Advisory-bodies are promotional-group for the govox-populi government institution and thus they play an indispensable role in what I identified as and call: Populocratic-Govox; required to regulate rivalries of opinions, organising govoxical debates – of both the publicity of populist views and unpopular opinions, and marking the lines of division and consensus through which govox-populi activities takes place.
The term ‘populocratic-govox’ is derived from the word ‘populocracy and govox-populi’; both combined literally means ‘people rule government voice’, or a paraphrased interpretation ‘Administration of the day-to-day affairs of government by the rule of the people’.
This reveals the term ‘populocratic-govox’ as the govoxical identity of non-partisanship. In this context, I defined populocratic-govox as relating to or denoting a community of people with differing views organised to connect or interlink into diverse groups with other communities of people representing the intertwined ideology of opinions and solutions to meeting the day-to-day challenge of State government.
Independent Advisory-bodies are private organisations that carry out public interest functions with registered membership with the executive authority of the secretariat-ministry of Govoxical & Constitutional Affairs of the United African States, responsible for their regulations. They would be registered as Public Interest organisations (PIO), and each would be known to adhere to a Cause or ideological social identity, a kind of populist conception that, like ethnic or religious identity, captures the organisational ethos of an Advisory-body as representing the attitude and world-views of psychological adaptation with a certain kind of people in society. Advisory-bodies would be known for facilitating populist analysis that appeals to the attitudinal, idea of living and behavioural effects of individuals, and thus conditions the decision of their adherents’ vote choices on policies.
In addition to the immediate contribution of independent Advisory-bodies in an ethnopublican society, they represent a necessary data analyser of ideological identification, to gather and study ideological data sets of individuals within each of their regions, to expand on or interpret in detail govoxical Information-delivery to their adherents to condition each of their vote choices on policies, to help solve their collective social problems that create the greatest happiness for a greater number of people in society from time to time.
On this account, populocratic-govox does not favour one populist view over another. It provides exactly what each person or group wants, for the purpose of acceptance, to be reasoned with or approved of, so that the recipient of Information-delivery gets some personal advantage from being informed of all facts and contingencies surrounding the making of a decision for a vote choice on policy at any one time. I identify three main values of populocratic-govox: diverse opinions of individuals, group compromise, and majority consensus.
First, govoxical diverse opinions of individuals arise from the perceptive view or judgement formed from the Information-gathering that each person acquired in the course of life, and in which the nature of information acquisition is inherent as a natural attribute of being human. It does not matter whether an individual’s opinion is shaped by the opinion of other people or conformity to an ethnic morality, religious principle or govoxical Information-delivery, diverse opinions of individuals are dictated by the influential righteousness of an individual to conform to a way of life.
Second, govoxical group compromise is the ability to be convinced to appeal to an opposing view, typically through the Information-delivery one receives from an independent Advisory-body. Advisory-bodies would be known to be providing facts and evidence to convince individuals to be conditioned towards a particular view on govoxical issues. The natural attribute of being human is the ability to have one’s opinion or belief compromised and to be shaped by a third-party influence, facts and evidence, to compel us to take other’s view of things as our own. Group compromise occurs every day of our lives, especially over the selection of political candidates for government officials because of their policy positions and what they promise to do when they assume government power over the people. It is the same with govoxical group compromise when people are driven towards open information and data, toward the achievement to help solve their collective social problems.
Third, govoxical majority consensus is the majority vote of a people at any one time. It refers to the agreed public view of a people and their populocratic approach to solving their own caused social problems. Majority consensus encompasses the prevailing populist view having the most appeal or influence of the people that are governed to govern themselves. It is a unified populocratic theory of social justice, where a majority of the people advance their votes as a conception of the common good that defines their society and the way of life of its people. As such, govoxical majority consensus is the coherent, compromise, and consensual setting, for an underlying often ideological plan or program of populocratic-govox.
In the preceded volume-2 of this manifesto, the citizenry-branch and the economy-branch were identified as having a direct jurisdictional position as the official advisory-bodies of government to the people – over the citizenry-electorates and the working-group respectively. Both the executive-branch which implement policies from theory to practice, and the Judicial-branch which interprets policies and ratified them into State law, neither have a direct jurisdictional position of policy Information-delivery nor advisory to the people.
Given the human condition, of the natural attributes of being human to make one’s view and opinion known to others – to influence or otherwise, govoxiers would be regulated from any covert or indirect undertone to attempt to influence people to take their own personal opinion to compete with the prevailing populist view. This may be expressed in rogue conduct by a govoxier with an undertone of threat or undue coercion to influence in their Information-delivery, or it may be done with facial or hand gestures that speak volume louder than voice. But wherever it is expressed in any form or manner it is outside the jurisdictional power of govoxiers to express their personal opinions during or in their Information-delivery to the people. Even though govoxiers are not prohibited by law not to express their personal opinions on any issue outside the minute of their Information-delivery, they are prohibited by law from weaponising their personal opinion to weigh heavily on people’s minds as to influence their vote choice on policy during their Information-delivery.
The govoxical performance of Information-delivery is a skilled one. Govoxiers – citizenry-committees and economic-unionists – have a very difficult job in this area, because the basic rules that govern Information-delivery are streamlined with dos and donts that must be complied with at all times without exception.
While govoxiers are permitted to offer technical advice and expert opinions to influence the decision-making of their citizenry-electorates during their Information-delivery in certain situations and circumstances, as the law may provide, especially in cases that concern the regulatory performance of govoxiers in the day-to-day administration of government on citizenry affairs of the State, govoxiers are prohibited from making known or associating their personal opinion to fraternise with their technical professional advice on issues within their level of expertise.
In strategising the directions of policy with their regional electors and guiding the quality of individuals’ diverse opinions for people to make their own decisions on any issue, govoxiers are prohibited from organising or getting involved in the activities of intergroup meetings of electors with one-sided views – since govoxiers are the upholder of populocratic-govox and not to favour one populist view over another or be seen to publicly express allegiance to one populist view over another.
While both the Citizenry-branch and Economy-branch of government would be seen as encouraging their electors to keep their interaction with independent Advisory-bodies at a minimum and to avoid being conflicted with irrelevant matters or information-bias that may complicate voters’ choice on policies, the Secretariat-branch of government would be seen to encouraging electors to increase their interaction with independent Advisory-bodies outside the Information-delivery of govoxiers as a means to be well-informed with all relevant and otherwise missing facts in issue to better guide them in their voting choice on policies.
Look closely, Advisory-bodies are independent of government and known for their impartial public patriotic promoter of shared-governance between the government and the governed, they balance govoxical Information-delivery to the people with the power of decision-making to make decisions that improve their lives and that of their society, and they become the conventional wisdom for the people as a necessary condition for an impartial populocracy in a truly egalitarian society of non-partisanship.
However, the lack of wide approval or full support that both the Citizenry-branch and the Economy-branch embody towards independent Advisory-bodies also shed important consideration on the limitations of Advisory-bodies in a populocratic society. Advisory-bodies may be criticised for not bringing a balancing approach to issues on the one hand depending on public expectations at any one time, or they may be famous and highly respected for their ingenious tenacity and innovative ability to provide detailed information about issues beyond the capacity of govoxiers on the other hand depending on the context.
These two opposing factors would be borne by two further factors: one being that Advisory-bodies are not part of government and thus would demonstrate less direct knowledge about issues than govoxiers who have direct knowledge about issues from the seat of government; the second being that Advisory-bodies, because they are independent of government with no governmental authority for their protection, they would be free to employ investigative journalism to access information, almost to the point of criminality at the expense of their individual safety.
On the one hand, Advisory-bodies will be seen to express views in their independent notion of not being part of the government or not having governmental involvement in their covert free-radical mentality to access information from any place and by any means and to use that information without being restricted by any external agencies, and on the other hand, they will be seen to fostering a closer relationship with government commicratic departmental agencies on mutual information sharing for a better non-partisanship both in the interest of the people.
On this account, the Secretariat would support Advisory-bodies within legal means and develop strict rules and regulations to regulate and curb any anti-social behavioural tendency that independent Advisory-bodies may exhibit. This is where the focus is placed on the aficionados, those mentioned in volume-2 of this manifesto, as would be seen to take particular delights in attempts to exercise control over the decisions of their fellow electors at govoxical gatherings of Information-delivery by govoxiers.
The free-radicals, as I proposed to call them in my exploration of their activities in a populocratic society, are individuals with known or rather unknown ambitions to become govoxiers themselves, but their enthusiasm in govoxical affairs would be well known to border on extremist populist views in adherence to a Cause or ideological identity – social or economy or both. Since the populist conception of free-radicals would be expected to capture the organisational ethos of registered and government-regulated independent Advisory-bodies in their society, they should be expected to be acting under the public persona as anonymous whistle-blowers expressing allegiance to their Cause by facilitating evidential information on any issue of their concern to Advisory-bodies database to be used without restriction to further their collective Cause.
Although free-radicals are annihilated by the government and their activities are disapproved, any direct relationship with free-radicals would be regulated through the executive authority of the secretariat government’s regulation over Advisory-bodies. Whilst the proposed ethnopublic Constitution made no mention of the activities of free-radicals due to the non-partisanship recognition of ethnopublic nationalism, the free-radicals’ loyalties and affinities towards their respected Advisory-bodies should be expected to create a certain defence for Advisory-bodies to hold sympathies towards free-radicals and to providing indirect preferential protection for them with a bit more attention that they will normally provide to their regular clients within their region, albeit with no government authority or legal protection to do so.
Independent Advisory-bodies arguably would by law face a conflict between their loyalty to the government and their loyalty to their free-radicals. Their loyalty to both is perfectly compatible with non-partisan impartiality and adherence to the public interest. Even though the formal and codified ethnopublic Constitution could not legally be made unconstitutional the activities of free-radicals, neither the law nor the Constitution can be proposed to compel to give recognition, positive or negative, to the activities of free-radicals in any event.
In fact, to be sure, it would be onerous for the Constitution to do so and incompatible with any populocratic Equality Act or Human-Rights law to do so also, because such recognition would create the Double of Anything of Advisory-bodies in society and will effect their promotional group activities into partisanship in practice, as both groups would find themselves working in the competitive relationship and forever to be in conflict of interest with each other, which is contrary with the non-partisan impartiality of the populocratic-govox and everything that ethnopublic nationalism stands for.
Additionally, since free-radicals would be perceived as individuals or groups with no govoxical qualification to be either a govoxier or an independent Advisory-body, it would still remain impossible to legally enforce the separation of loyalties between Advisory-bodies and their free-radicals. Even if the citizenry-electorates raised a law to deprive the Executive-branch of enforcing any stringent regulations over Advisory-bodies that may attempt to create any administrative division of relation with their free-radicals, that still does not make the official recognition of free-radicals legitimate or be accepted as a standard under the formal and codified convention of ethnopublic nationalism. While the State, however, would have the power to prosecute, convict or commit any suspected free-radical to redemption if their activities are found to overlap with any other offences, like trespassing or data breach without jurisdiction, but the sole activities of free-radicals in themselves could not be prosecuted against under an ethnopublican principle.
Since ethnopublic nationalism is a non-partisan system, its populocracy and govox-populi government are directly involved in upholding a strong adherence, dedication or belief to their collective unity, and their policies are addressed as a duty to enter into compromise by means of the prevailing populist view with opposing ideology or agenda by competing populists oppositions. As such, govox-populi expresses a willingness to work together in good faith to support any system or organisation that is pursuing populocratic legitimacy.
Govoxiers will be trained to relate to the identification of long-term aspirations to keep the collective unity of their electors within an ideological framework and at the same time to work towards the overall strategic aims and interests of the State, and as the means to achieving them, they will be motivated to providing informed-knowledge that appeal to as many psychological-adaptation of a majority of citizenry-electorates as possible in conditioning the governed people’s voters choice on policies.
As long as the populocracy form of governance remains within the compromise decision of differing populists’ opinions and solutions of those affected by the decision, its differences of opinion in policy or otherwise would continue to undergo metamorphosis in a revised version incorporating human advances, for legitimacy towards becoming the prevailing view that promotes the desirable condition of perpetual development and advances in society.
Participants in any process of populocratic-govox stand alone in each of their ideologies and come together to compromise in unity, in order that the collective-individualism of each of their advances stands the test of individual discernment toward collective compromise in their common public interest.
Therefore, populocracy and govox-populi are characterised by the ability for knowledge, some degree of linguistic expression with the ability to think logically, the ability to assess proposed solutions and analyse and solve problems, including the degree to which one can write and speak clearly, attending to details. With the belief in compromise, the connection between populocracy and govox-populi is completely homogeneous or agreeable, and their beliefs become akin to a deep-rooted drive for impartial rules of engagement.
It should therefore be emphasised that non-partisan belief in compromise to rule is progressive and drives the spiritedness for harmony between the government and the governed in society than the regressive culture of partisan loyalty of imposition to rule where the governed often find themselves distrustful of their government with an accusation of lack of truth-telling.
Think, for example, how politicians compromise their beliefs only to blind-loyalty to their party-politics in opposition to others, with the drive to engage in irrational debate with strings of elitism advantage attached to their claims. As such, the partisan belief of loyalty characterised democracy and politics in the ability for stubbornness and rigid principles. And more importantly, the democratic politics of partisanship is the belief that when one compromises their individual beliefs for the collective common interests of a group, they effectively betray themselves and are no longer true to their standards and virtue.
By being rigid and stubborn to remain in your own standards and idea of virtue, you effectively inhibit your opportunity for growth and advances to learn why others hold their view, and whether the standards of others are actually more progressive and beneficial than your own regressive morality. Whereas, the populocratic-govox of non-partisanship is the belief in a growth-mindset.
For this reason, the non-partisan belief in compromise strives to remain within the system of collective-individualism, so that individuals within a collective can learn and grow from the standards and virtue of others within the group. When one does things in opposition to what they believe in the course of practising the belief in compromise, whether through a sway of vote policy choice toward a majority, one effectively opens themselves to the ability for knowledge, to think logically, to assess proposed solutions within the analyses of diverse variables to solve social problems for the future. As such, the connection between populocracy and govox-populi is collective-individualism.
Therefore, the social and economic bases of collective-individualism, which incorporates both populocracy and govox-populi in homogeneity, is a system that effectively expands the vision of both the government and the governed for sustainable development in society. When govoxiers submits policy consideration for the governed people to choose from, this effectively set the people to begin to question the beliefs of others different to their own, and by so doing put individual decision-maker in the knowledgeable position to have to assess others’ opinions and why they hold their views. The logic of the human brain continually undergoes a metamorphosis of information in a series of revised versions incorporating the beliefs of others that might make some sense to us or make no sense at all.
If partisanship means the decision-maker cannot always agree on anything and would require the belief of compromise all of the time to achieve consensus, why should non-partisanship give the power of decision-making to the government over the governed people affected by the decision? If democratic politics is about loyalty to a group over another regardless of its detrimental consequences to the governed people, why should populocratic-govox not be about the belief of the majority of the governed people affected by the decision in a society to achieve the greatest happiness for the greater number of people in that society? If humans are social beings and rely on sharing ideas and solutions, what benefit do party-politics with their division and rigid principles provide to advance human-society?
The answer to any of these questions is why democracy and politics are a failure. Even belief in scientific-method that we all revered is about ‘hypotheses’ and ‘experimentation’, both of which are fundamental attributes of belief in compromise – because a lot of compromises have to go on within the experimentation exercise to complement the hypothesis.
Quite often, the experience of scientific experimentation that produces a desired result, goes back to demand a change in compromise within the minutes of its hypothesis to achieve consensus with it. Yet, political party principles hold on to their one-sided view beliefs and standards in antagonist relations, while the world of the people that are governed proceeds ceaselessly in growth-mindsets with new possibilities, opportunities, discoveries and belief of compromise to achieve their collective progression and advances.
The base of collective-individualism is unity, the fundamental prerequisite of collective-individualism is to compromise, and the process of collective-individualism is discernment. Everywhere we looked, the people that are governed always expect their government to empathise with their plight and for the government to always make the right decisions that meet the needs of their society. At the same time, the government remain unwilling to sacrifice the beliefs of their party-politics and they feel inadequate to accept that they are wrong when they encounter failure in their policy decisions.
Look closely, the mindset between the impartiality of ordinary people in society and the partiality of their government is a conflict: this conflict is borne out of the condition of the class-system and class-society – the ‘we’ and ‘them’ culture. While the government sees any failed policy as a derivative of a mistake and an inability to discern the situation properly, the people that are governed view any failed policy as an opportunity to exchange ideas to foster creativity and knowledge for improvement.
Republic nationalism, as a partisan system with its democratic form of governance, conflicted with the development of new ideas, technologies and concepts that improve human society in its own right. Since the people that are governed are a growth-mindset by Nature, republic nationalism was compromised to adopt indirect-democracy to regulate human-society under its partisan system. As human-society progresses from one development stage to the next, republic nationalism adopted a mixed-form of governance to keep human-society subjugated under its regulatory-control. Mixed-form of governance, as they operate in all republican nations, remain malleable with the ability to shift partisan perspectives accordingly in their collective justification for class-system and class-society.
This manifesto seeks the abolition of republic nationalism, politics, bureaucracy and their notion of democracy, in the simple recognition that they promote partisanship, chameleonic culture and rigid principles in our national government structures everywhere. With every new development and advance in science and culture, people compromise their beliefs and change themselves and their aspirations change accordingly with it. Whereas, republic nationalism appears malleable to corruption with those changes and advances because it itself adopted a mixed-form of governance to justify its dominion for power and legitimacy over human-society. Whereas, all forms of governance that operate successfully under republic nationalism are not malleable in each of their own rights for reform.
Having a mixed-form cohabiting within the same structural system allows the direct applications of say, a bit of autocracy with a bit of democracy to provide a solution in a certain situation, or a bit of ethnocracy with a bit of aristocracy or oligarchy even to provide the rules of engagement with certain foreign nations; as such, mixed-form of governance in any governmental structural system is making a farcical of government and a mockery of the people that are governed anywhere in our human-society.
Think, for example, all the systems that operate within a republic nationalism structure promote the condition of class-system and class-society, in the circumstances where the people that are governed advocate for a classless-system and classless-society. On this account, it is right to emphasise that all systems that operate within an ethnopublic nationalism structure – such as populocracy, govox-populi and commicracy – remain true to their unity and promotion for impartiality even in the face of their collective beliefs of imperfection that all people agree with from time to time; where, should one prevailing view in a belief system that gave rise to majority vote choice for policy provide a high level of inequality in practice, that recognition in itself present a course of action by which the belief of non-partisanship allow people to be able to question their own commitments to it and to strategised new belief system to drive their collective social development and economic growth.
Non-partisan believers, because of their ingrained belief in compromise, would drive the culture of collective-individualism between the government and the governed, between prevailing populists’ views and differing beliefs and opinions, between social-order and economic-order of their society, and most importantly between the openness of govoxiers and commitment of the people to drive the best policy that improves their human condition and human-society anywhere.
This particular way of impartial sociability that accelerates social development and economic growth without limit, is what populocratic-govox demands of the relationship between the government and the people that are governed in the proposed United African society.
CHAPTER THREE
THE GOVOXICAL ECONOMY OF POPULOCRACY
Populocracy is the rule of the economy by the consumers, the rule of the employer in interdependencies with that of the employee, and the rule of the service-providers in interdependencies with that of the service-users. As such, populocracy provides a direct effect on economic growth through the direction of those affected at every stage of the decisions or end-product or services.
The relationship between populocracy and economic growth has never been explored in this context, but its activities are well-known and comparatively explored in scientific research. However, regardless of the differences between the wide range of variables on this subject, all agree on one fundamental point: that consumers are both the obstructors and boosters of economic growth anywhere. That all economic products and services under any given economic model appeal to the satisfaction of consumers to guarantee economic success.
As such, in the proposed economic system of ethno-corporatism, the governing rule by the citizenry consumers of economic products and services provides the framework to illustrate the govoxical science to obtain a balanced understanding of common empirical predictions and analysis of the govoxical economy of populocracy.
As I proposed to show, the populocratic model provides the govoxical theory of growth to transition the existing economic models from a class-system into a classless-system, where consumer variables on economic products and services can be characterised to manifest through citizenry policies in an elective-process so that wherever economic growth is measured on its variables it would be seen to inevitably create the greatest satisfaction for a greater number of consumers and/or greater working condition for a greater number of workers in society.
Therefore, wherever capitalism relies on human-capital to primarily focus on the abilities and training that workers can possess, the govoxical economy of ethno-corporatism should be expected to primarily focus on human-resources on the potential capability and the type of skillset available to drive the upskilling of workers. In this context, ethno-corporatism is defined as the “people’s economy”. In other words, the “economy of the governed people” in society.
In the preceded volumes of this manifesto, I introduced the concept of ‘corposense’ as the intellectual capability for the economic survival of the individual. The theory of corposense develops in the recognition that all biological species, including humans, originate and mature in age with a specific natural talent that was not trained or learned, purely genetic and specific to the capabilities of the individual to do something. Humans differ from each other in corposense which provides the opportunities that are specific to individuals to succeed and make one unique in doing something different to others.
A set of corposense capabilities might be in music, sport, writing, engineering, drawing, and more. When the govoxical economy of ethno-corporatism relies on human-resources above human-capital, it means that the natural capability of corposense is most desirable than the forced training for the acquisition of abilities for work-ethics.
Hence, people that are intellectually better suited as a farmer would no longer be compelled to work as a banker for financial reasons. Likewise, people that are more suited as a chef would no longer be compelled to work as an accountant because of jobs that pay more in salary. The govoxical economy of populocracy places individuals within their intellectual capability in corposense, and none would be driven by the condition of the monetary system that imposes unequal value in the economic worth of society that sets people in unfair competitive advantage against one another.
Under the economic system of capitalism, people are forced to invest their time and energy in the acquisition of human-capital, to train and to be educated in the abilities for an economic trade in pursuit of money. Money is the prerequisite for the economic-order of society to function under capitalism, and people are driven towards becoming proficient and skilled in a service of trade that pays more in money and guarantees their human survival and better quality of life.
One who has a natural talent as a writer is forced or compelled by life circumstances or poverty to take on human-capital as a footballer, and one who is a natural-born singer or vocalist is forced to take on being a banker to guarantee their own survival.
As such, money interposed to be the medium of exchange that drives the condition of our economic-order in human-society has caused the disorganisation of true talents in work-ethics everywhere, virtually in all work industries, and the majority of the human population in every generation being forced to abandon their true passion of corposense in a particular skills trade to invest their abilities for work-ethics in other skills-trade solely in pursuit of money.
One prevailing argument propounded by the adherent of capitalism is that the monetary value of economic worth is appropriate to balance workers to occupy jobs in the shortage occupation list. So that the value of salary on jobs that are most needed in society is rated in the pecking order as high-skill jobs at any one time, as a means to encourage people that would otherwise have been suited in one of the overpopulated low-skills jobs to be driven by money to acquire one of the high-skill jobs and occupy it.
My argument is that the purpose of capitalism to rely on money to regulate the economy conforms to its bureaucratic impersonal procedures that see people as objects and a source of severe discontentment in workers and psychosocial dysfunction in human behaviour in general. People are more driven by money than their natural passion for a particular type of work.
Commicratic interpersonal procedure is the promotion of a new type of culture as it is developing in the expanding culture of populocracy in our current generation. It is the recognition that sees individuals with multiple skills-set for multiple types of jobs that may be unrelated. It is now a growing trend to see, for example, a professional accountant by day with a part-time job as a music tutor; an employee in a factory by day with a part-time job serving as a 3D printer and sculptor, and so on.
The ethno-corporatist economy creates the opportunity for individuals to occupy their true job talents in work and maintain a second job in patriotic culture to the State economy. Any of the two jobs might be the true talent and passion of the individual – between the day job and the part-time job. This removes the discontentment and a source of mental health of workers with their jobs. People would be called upon to acquire skills in the shortage occupation lists in the national interests while keeping the jobs that conform to their true talents, and the State would provide them with the resources to balance the two roles conveniently.
The outcome will be that there would be fewer people in work in the proposed African ethno-corporatist society. With the African population at 1.4-billion today and in which the younger generation form the higher population rate, this draw on the logical conclusion to increase the working-age to say age-20 and decrease the pension-age to say age-40 so that people would only dedicate their time to work during their most physical peak in both their 20s and 30s.
This goes to demonstrates the commicratic interpersonal procedures employ by ethno-corporatist economy follow the trajectories of human biological condition and physiological nature. It is widely recognised, as we can see with the evidence of our own eyes, that humans on average are at the peak of their child-bearing age between the age of 16 to their 20s; that their physical peak for work-ethics overlaps from their late teens up to their 30s and 40s; and that their mental peak overlaps from that up to their 50s and 60s; and that their true pension age when they should no longer be considered to be recalled back to work should overlap between their 60s upward.
As such, the govoxical economy of populocracy concludes that the particular statistics of the African population allow us to set the working-age to be set at the 20s and 30s and that while the pension-age is set to start at age 40s, pensioners would no longer be considered in the priority list to be recalled at age 60s upwards.
Therefore, the govoxical economy of ethno-corporatism abolishes money and bridged corposense to become the direct prerequisite for the economic-order of its society to function under the interpersonal procedures that create greater job satisfaction for a greater number of people in an ethno-corporatist society.
With the abolition of money, people would be free to invest in upskilling their natural in-born human-resources in corposense in their true passion for work-ethics and to have equal means to guarantee their human survival without the interposition of the qualitative condition of the monetary system to forced them to invest in the acquisition of human-capital that they have no innate capacity for. The abolition of the monetary-economy would also prevent the brain-drain of true talents for work-ethics in our human-society under the economic system of ethno-corporatism.
Govoxical economy can therefore be defined as whatever direct effect populocracy may have on economic growth. The direct effect of citizenry policies to condition the identification and upskilling of corposense across economic industries; the direct effect of how society understands that the earlier the potential of individual corposense is identified, upskilled and put through continual improvements in the workplace, the more the collective of people in society will benefit in the long run.
The direct effect of the populocratic government’s responsibilities to invest enormously in the education system in order to improve the pool of availability of economic workers; the direct effect of conditioning multi-skilled workers for people to acquire relative talents around their existing corposense in order to have a number of different skills, enabling them to do more than one kind of work to drive economic growth. And more importantly, the direct effect of regulating the condition of a non-monetary economy under the balancing of negflation over posflation, and allows stock policymakers to effectively aim for valueless negflating evaluation in order to steady economic growth that keeps consumers sustained and workers resourceful.
In volume-1 of this manifesto, I introduced the differentiating factors that made up the three Types of Ethno-corporatist Economy: Controlled-economy, Planned-economy, and Command-economy. I identified Command-economy as State-ownership of production and the allocation of resources, and planning and decision-making become concentrated within a particular group. Under the proposed govoxical economy of ethno-corporatism, the application of Command-economy would, for example, direct the effect of citizenry policies to provide incentives for multi-skilled workers as a means to produce a more advanced corporatist economy that has more depths and scope with several spheres of control to which populocratic-govox of workers rule over the economy would drive a robust and more influential economic-order in society.
Unlike in capitalist society, because it applies market-economy, the government is made responsible for making economic policies in which those who own the means and mode of economic production are given the free reign to set the pricing of goods and services, to make economic decisions to direct the effect of government policies to be determined by the supply and demand of goods and services, imposed on consumers. This allows the government and their elites to influence educational and apprenticeship curricula and practices in schools, and shape students’ career choices to must choose within the limitations of their imposed educational curriculums.
As such, in capitalist society human-capital are cultivated and invested in through imposed education and training, added is the pressure placed on students to choose educational skills that guarantee higher wages in salaries as a means to guarantee individual economic survival. This place the capitalist economy in a narrowed and less scope and depths to which the sphere of control cannot advance beyond any biased democratic politics of government rule over economic workers in society.
The govoxical economy of ethno-corporatism applies command-economy and its allocation of resources is self-governed. Demand for products and services would drive its specific sourcing of material resources from the bottom-up approach to achieve its direct provision or supply.
Whereas, under capitalism, sourcing of material resources is used to produce an excess supply of products and services specifically directed to source consumer demands of the produced products and services – where products are produced ahead of demand – culminating in wastage of economic resources and aggregations of expiry products from warehouses, restaurants and supermarkets shelves to the landfills.
In simple terms, economic production under ethno-corporatism is to supply products and services for existing consumer demands of them, but economic production under capitalism is to source consumer demands for an existing production of products and services.
Therefore, since human beings are naturally drawn to their own intellectual corposense concerning their work skills, upskilling is a necessary condition to expand multi-skills set around the same like-like jobs will always be attached to them with education, training and availability of resources, even if they do not make use of the entirety of their skills in work throughout their working life.
In cases where a multi-skills set is used, we could find, for example, a musician having the skills-set as a music tutor in the provision of economic services nationally, including selling and trading musical instruments under monetary economy internationally. This would allow more skilled and talented workers to become the possessor of several trade industries across Africa, and at the same time sells and markets African made-products and services in economic competition in foreign nations, both of which contribute immensely to African economic growth as a developed nation in sustaining the condition of economic self-sufficiency subsistence. Such a concept creates the availability of excess economic skills-sets above economic placement in society and thus keeps consumers sustained and workers resourceful throughout time.
Since populocracy have a direct effect on economic growth and with increased education and training, all workers across Africa would be experimenting with relying on the excess availability of material resources in Africa to create businesses in foreign nations through direct participation as possessors of successful and thriving trade industries on the ground in Africa.
This would be made possible and efficient through the unification of all African currencies into a single currency; and while the United African States employ a non-monetary economy nationally, it would conform to a monetary-economy in the global market with foreign nations with African own single currency in exchange. So that African citizens, who have at least one thriving economic industry of products or services in Africa under the executive authority of the secretariat-ministry of Labour & Industry, would routinely also be eligible under the regulatory-control of the executive authority of the secretariat-ministry of National Insurance & Multinational Finance to rely on African natural resources to sell and trade African made-products and services to create businesses abroad in foreign nations. This fall under the definition of a trade-economy.
An ethno-corporatist trade-economy is defined as an economic system in which individual citizenry workers or their businesses make economic decisions and the pricing of goods and services in their international trade markets, while the national (secretariat) government who controls its command-economy nationally exercise regulatory guidance over the economic decisions of workers in their international business activities. As such, non-African citizens who have genuine business interests with the African government would be regulated under the secretariat-ministry of International Affairs & Trade to create trade industries on the ground in Africa or to trade African made-products and services abroad in foreign nations.
Populocratic motivations for economic growth are diverse. In the current state of affairs, African working-group are on the constant look-out for business opportunities with foreign nations that can help stimulate African economic growth and reduce poverty under the restrictive and unfavourable African monetary system.
Under the proposed non-monetary economy, the citizenry policies have the power to directly affect the African government to strengthen citizenry economic empowerment for African working-group with business interests abroad and deepen populocracy in Africa and for Africans anywhere. This would reduce the burden of the government’s responsibilities to engage in international trading in itself, and transfer those responsibilities onto the citizenry working-group to drive the economic-order and the United African States’ economic empowerment in the global realm. This means that individual govoxier, including individual StateLord, can also be free to engage in international trade-economy with African natural resources abroad for their own personal benefits, in the same fashion as individual governed people.
Thus, govoxical regulation of open-door policy that allows any person or organisation to engage in international trading with African made-products and natural resources, by individual citizens and organisations under the government-owned operated industries, is seen as a solution to the problems generated under the capitalist society corruption with excessive greed and abuse of government power under the governmental regulatory-control of politics and elitism. This is examined from the origins and implications of the failure of capitalism from a govoxical economy perspective.
Govoxical economy decentralises the economic power of the elites as it operates in political society, and the exercise of legislative control over the direct economic function is by the governed people in pursuit of a classless-system for the equal benefits of individual people in government and the individual citizens in society.
Having detached monetary economy at the national level, it went further to transfer the responsibility for international trading from the government institution directly to the people, even when evidence suggests that doing so would maintain the substantial value of State revenue to the people regardless of their status – both people in government and the governed.
Govoxical economy also evaluates the evidence to understand where international trading has considerable benefit for African society in part or in whole and where it does not. While it identifies variable conditions for when resource augmentation in some areas and depletion in some other areas are needed to effectively regulate its national economy, it identifies ways in which international trading to sustain some foreign nations during the winter period can help the world community to manage ecoflation in some regions that experience very long, cold winters with prolonged drought period that can cause reduced soil moisture or groundwater, diminished stream flow, crop damage, and a general water shortage.
This goes to demonstrate, as Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) said, “Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world.” Africa is the richest resource continent in the world – resource rich landmass with the desert in the North region perfect for a Solar-thermal Power industry to power electricity across all African States, perfect soil moisture in the West and toward the South for vegetation and large-scale farming, including largest reserves of minerals and other natural resources, and with abundant labour power too. African continent already has the conditions to succeed economically. This manifesto identifies the ways in which our nationalism structure can be restructured to command economic empowerment and social development in Africa and for Africans.
Understanding populocratic rule and how citizenry-preferred policies may be regulated effectively under a govoxical regime has the advantage of providing precise information directly from the consumers that enable sharp predictions for economic growth, and it also has the disadvantage of more extreme citizenry policies that may be detrimental to African government global agenda or any promises of responsibility to any other foreign nations.
In exploring how Judicial power is exercised and structured in a gerontocratic arrangement, how the Economy power is exercised and structured in a meritocratic arrangement, how Executive power is exercised and structured in a democratic arrangement, and how Legislative power is exercised and structured in a liberal-socialist arrangement, fits precisely in compromising rule to describe a broad range of outcomes between the exercise of power in government.
For example, the legal use of Judicial discretions on the one hand, and the evidential reliant on Economy evaluations on the other, both have the power to construct a House-of-StateLords coalition or individually capable of extinguishing, if not narrow, to compromise the power of both the Legislative jurisdiction and or the Executive authority to be more or less susceptible to pass any test imposed through policies.
This premise is on the recognition that there would be times when the fear of relative economic or cultural deprivation may be a factor, and the decision-making preferences of any branch of government would not hesitate to exercise its power to instils a social and govoxical orientation that is more protectively communitarian than promotionally cosmopolitan.
One fundamental aspect of the govoxical economy of populocracy is simply that it is a response to the non-standardisation of the global monetary system. One is that African-owned economic industries are under-represented in international trading in the global market economy; the second is that African people are heavily deprived of financial flows in the global market economy.
While the latter was achieved through high visa restrictions for Africans to travel abroad freely to engage in business activities anywhere without imposed discriminatory immigration restrictions, the former was achieved through the deliberate degradation of all African money and currency illiquidity on the global financial market causing increasing high inflationary rate in currency value on goods and services that ensures that foreign-made goods and services would remain highly unaffordable to the majority of the African people in Africa.
As I proposed to show, the analytical framework of the govoxical economy accounts directly for the strengths and ideology of its populocracy against the background of global monetary economies that remain highly prejudicial to African economic growth and financial empowerment in the global market economy and under the capitalist economic system.
Following the approach of the ethno-corporatist economic system, each branch of government has their own strengths and limitations within their constitutional arrangement and structure, each has a governmental model to which power can be exercised and compromised, and each has a distinct framework that guides its ambition of govoxical economy:
First, the Judicial-branch of government occupy the Supervisory-division of government over the Administrative-division where all other branches of government occupy, and its House-of-StateLords Assembly necessitates a single African economic model.
The Judicial-branch operationally referred to as the Judiciary, is composed of StateLords and joint head-of-State of the proposed United African States, and with the responsibility to supervise the Administrative-division of government. The judicious view of the StateLords should be expected to highly support an exported-oriented economy that is highly competitive in the global market economy, especially when its income strengthens the non-monetary economy of the State at the national level.
The Judicial-branch, because it is structured and arranged in gerontocracy, should be expected to be less patient with policies with suspended or not-immediate benefit to investment attached to it, and their judicial discretions should be expected to display the tendency to underinvest in such government global agenda or any prudent economic purpose toward a foreign nation, and thus may sometimes appear to be unsupportive to the self-image of the Executive-branch in pursuit of advancing its ambition for a long-term economic relationship with foreign nations in the global realm of things.
Since the citizenry has given up their individual labour-power to the State and returned to a collectivist way of living by submitting to the sovereignty of a non-monetary economy at the national level, which is a precondition for the government regulation of free-labour and free-consumption of goods and services, with a direct use-value system for the working-group to engage freely in competitive international trading and to benefit directly from the quality of African made products and services; the Judicial-branch should be expected to direct their discretions to boosting African full economic participation in the global market economy and promoting policies that peg foreign currencies to the African proposed single currency or by setting inflationary targets of foreign currencies to synchronised with African currency as a means to strengthening the African economic relationship with foreign nations that guarantee immediate investment targets to African economic empowerment.
In terms of the direct effect of populocracy on economic growth, one of the most important features that should be expected to contest to compromise the discretionary exercise of the power of the Judicial-branch on matters of govoxical economy is the citizenry’s impartiality to economic activities and trading in particular foreign nations.
Indeed, since the State depends upon the economic activities of the citizenry international trading for export-led growth, the exercise of discretionary power in any decision-making by the Judicial-branch should be expected to be more generous with citizenry trading activities associated with imports that promote national economic growth, and thus be more minded to favour those foreign nations in any proposed investment to foster prudent economic relationship associated with the Executive-branch of government long-term global agenda.
Yet, it is because of the citizenry’s impartiality to economic globalisation with the free cross-border movement of people, and the natural tendency of human nature anywhere to engage in the free trading of goods and services without any adverse government restrictions, that the Judicial-branch should be expected to have their discretionary power directed. The gerontocracy structural arrangement of the Judicial-branch should be expected to pursue policies that protect against any long-term delayed return on investments or economic rent.
Second, the Economy-branch of government share in the occupation of the Administrative-division of government, and its economic activities is subject to the supervisory power of the Supervisory-division of government where the Judicial-branch occupy.
The Economy-branch operationally referred to as the Economist, implements and regulates the domestic activities of the economy at the national level, and not institutionally or governmentally involve in an export-led oriented economy. This means its labour view would be dependent on African home-grown economic resources and be marked by the tendency for low import rate of essential sources for its economic self-sufficiency subsistence on materials.
The Economy-branch would be seen to offer exclusive access to African-owned economic resources to African working-group who trades abroad. Unlike in monetary economy orientated to the economic needs of the capitalist industrial trade owners and with no direct governmental protection, a non-monetary economy is oriented to the economic empowerment of the State and with full direct governmental protection to corporatist traders.
As such, just as the State’s own economic goods and services remain exclusively available for trading in the international markets to African working-group – both citizens and non-citizens alike, it offers additional strong employment protection to African citizens to reside abroad as international traders of African made products and services anywhere. So that all Africans, regardless of their off-shore residents or accumulation of wealth and properties abroad, would be free to retire to Africa during their pension days and be dependent on the same free government welfare provision to African pensioners.
What this means in the context of any compromise of power between the branches of government, especially in a situation where the Economic-branch may express some vulnerability to the excessive free movement of particular goods or resources abroad, is the power to exercise any evidential reliant on its own economy evaluations that may be used to regulates govoxical economy in the interest of the State, to remove any jurisdictional power that either the Legislative, Judicial or the Executive may have ongoing in an existing operation.
Overall, the meritocratic structural arrangement of the Economy-branch should be expected to display characteristics capable to render any other branch of government’s power relatively susceptible to the power of the economist, to rely on its own constructed economic evaluation analysis as a means to approve, reject or amend policies under proposal or already in operation.
Third, the Executive-branch of government is the head of government and shares in the occupation of the Administrative-division of government. Its executive role is tasked with implementing all policies ratified and made into law at the House-of-StateLords Assembly and subject to the supervisory power of the Supervisory-division of government where the Judicial-branch occupy.
The Executive-branch, operationally referred to as the Secretariat, regulates the implementational performance of the social and economic development of the United African States nationally and internationally, and carries out the House-of-StateLords’ foreign policies and relying on the Legislative-branch prescribed policies including any evidence that the Economy-branch may rely upon as its evaluation analysis to apply to the implementation performance of the Executive.
The Executive-branch, because it is structurally arranged in democracy, should be expected to harbour ambitions in both national and international affairs, and the strong-willed to make compatible all tasks it sets to undertake – both the ones it sets for itself through policy proposals to the House-of-StateLords Assembly, and the ones other branches of government sets for it through the ratification of policies at the House-of-StateLords Assembly.
The conservative view of the Executive authority should be expected to display the tendency to invest in proposing government global agenda and with the drive to make all other branches of government agree with its vision. The high resourcefulness of the Executive-branch should be expected to sometimes propose unconventional and unique solutions to meet opportunities in challenging situations.
There will come situations where any other branch of government opposed the Executive authority for such things as over-investing African resources in a foreign project or national enterprise than is necessary, the evaluative analysis of the Economy-branch on related matters with the economy or the discretionary power of the Judicial-branch on any other matters or the legislative jurisdictional power of the Citizenry, could be necessitated to compromise the authoritative power of the Executive.
In any event, the Executive internal governmental operation of democracy, because of its resourceful mindset, should be expected to relentlessly propose policies, even up to inducing complete frustration and the pressure to give in to its demands upon other branches of government at the House-of-StateLords Assembly, by envisioning alternative paths to achieve its desired goals and objectives, with the result that the governmental preference of the Executive to drive its agenda of govoxical economies in both national and international affairs in certain respects may come to influence the decisions of other branches of government.
Unlike other branches of government, only the Executive-branch have a Govoxical & Constitutional Affairs ministry that serves as the seedbed for the Executive attitude of resourcefulness in government. This secretariat-ministry should be expected to consist of secretariat employees with inspired out-of-the-box thinking, they should be expected to display the generation of new ideas and the ability to visualise all the possible ways for the Executive-branch to achieve its desire. The academic prowess and the capability to conduct research nationally and internationally by this secretariat-ministry places the Executive-branch at a substantial advantage and a cut above the other branches of government.
Nonetheless, because of the Executive’s open-mindedness and tendency to break boundaries and redefine what is constitutional or is not lawfully possible in any given situation, the welfare of the State should be expected to often find compatibility with the Executive’s policy proposal. The Executive, being self-assured with the capability to handle any problem faced and in the mindset that workable solutions exist for every problem, other branches of government should be expected to demand high expectations of the Executive or to give excessive emphasis to elaborate the Executive’s promises to must always find solutions in every challenge.
The overall culture of the democratic model of the Executive should be expected to display imagination and ingenuity to amending existing policies and making old things work better; it should also be expected to be persistent to succeed and every setback it faces at the House-of-StateLords Assembly should be expected to be reintroduced in new formats again and again until it succeeds; this means, among other things, the proactivity to enter into unilateral relations with other foreign nations, without itself taking any responsibility on behalf of the State, to creating own independent resources and networks to achieve its governmental goals and objectives that caters to the needs of under-represented people in society, nationally and internationally. As such, the Executive-branch’s internal model of democracy should be expected to employ hopeful means to always find a solution to problem, even if that means a change of direction to meet its governmental goals and objectives.
Fourth, the Legislative-branch of government share in the occupation of the Administrative-division of government, and its legislative role is tasked with the jurisdictional power to make laws and subject to the supervisory power of the Supervisory-division of government where the Judicial-branch occupy.
The Legislative-branch operationally referred to as the Citizenry regulates and organises the citizenry electors to make state-centred decisions in an elective-process. This means its socialist process can thus be described as performing the following State governmental functions: (1) the organisation of the citizenry-electorates for the selection of public policies; (2) the supervision of the citizenry-electorates for the selection of public officials; (3) the regulation of the citizenry-electorates for the selection of the rules by which public policies are selected; and (4) the regulation of the citizenry-electorates for the selection of the rules by which public officials are selected.
The Legislative-branch, because it is structured and arranged in socialism, should be expected to exercise its jurisdictional legislative power to make laws and impose regulations in the representation of the will of the governed people, and its liberal view is of course be expected to fully compatible with an open global economy. The Legislative exercise of power and authority should be expected to display the tendency to liberalise culture and practices to boost economic growth.
A very liberalised culture and practices, in which the citizenry working-group is in a commicratic mode of organisation in pursuit of economic globalisation, makes economic sustainability a contentious issue among citizenry voters’ choice on policies to regulate the limitation of export-orientated products and services.
While the functioning control of socialist practices that support long-term economic growth without negatively impacting social, environmental, and cultural aspects of a community or society as a whole, would define the character of compromising power between the branches of government with a distinct governmental framework that guides each of their ambition of govoxical economy at the House-of-StateLords Assembly. This is a large part of the fundamental principle of ethno-corporatism.
The liberal govoxical economies within the unity of the United African States should be expected to maintain altruistic-communitarian economic policies that are highly selectional, relating to the process by which only certain products can naturally, normally, or correctly be open to economic globalisation in international trading in the context of maintaining a sustainable economy at the national level; which should display economic protectionism relation with foreign nations outside the unity and economic promotionism relation with interdependent States within the unity, while at the same time ensuring the viability and incentives associated with imports of essential sources of economic growth, which in turn provides the avenue to which investment opportunities with foreign nations could become compatible with the govoxical economies of all branches of government.
The govoxical economy is strongly affected and directed by the populocratic drive of the people, both the working-group and the consumers in particular, and it should be expected to reflect significant ideological streams of the prevailing view of the consumers and or workers affected by the production and or consumption of economic products and services; which may be explained in this context wherever economic growth is measured on its variables with the purpose to create the greatest satisfaction for a greater number of consumers and or greater working condition for a greater number of workers in society.
Therefore, based on the differences between the distinct governmental model of govoxical economies, between the four branches of government, especially in the context where the Economy-branch have the overriding power to use evidence of its own constructed economic evaluation analysis to render any other branch of government’s power or economic ambitions or preferences relatively susceptible to the will of the economist, it is possible to begin to explain in the next section of this chapter the determination of equalism by economic situation that the economist is expected to rely on the exercise of power to regulates govoxical economy in the interest of the State – and by extension which may allow a counter evidential analysis, either by Independent Advisory-bodies or government Commicratic-Departments, that could possibly be raised by any other branch of government to compromise the power of the economist.
Depending on how economic globalisation turns out, good or bad, in any given govoxical economic situation – in particular, whether the availability of stocks is primarily trade-related through payment of money or primarily in trade-exchange of products by products – different types of populocratic evaluation analysis should tend to emerge.
In addition to explaining the different levels of economic relations that each Executive-branch in government would tend to portray towards foreign nations, such affiliation or friendship can account for changes in the Executive branch’s direction of govoxical economic policies it tends to propose over time: in other words, why some voters decision on policies can surge towards economic protectionism at some time and how it can take different forms over time towards economic promotionism.
The persistent will of the Executive-branch to drive its agenda of govoxical economies in both national and international affairs in certain respects should indeed be expected to come to define the decisions of other branches of government, really and truly and to their extreme – this includes, among other things, what should be expected to account for ideological change of the citizenry people affected by the decision on policies, and why a shift between prevailing populist views takes place in a given time and in a given situation.
I have to say, at this junction, that any person who ever assumes the executive office of the Secretary-of-State should demonstrate the ability to ensure that the secretariat-ministry of Govoxical & Constitutional Affairs within the unity to be staffed and structurally arranged on the organisation mode of meritocracy in the interest of the State; for, the success and failure of every policy proposals and ingenuity of the Executive-branch of government at any one time depends on those who occupy this secretariat-ministry.
This is significant because social and economic practices are based on the long period of time during which social processes develop or social structures evolve – whether in terms of the changing nature of elected govoxiers and reshuffle of their employed staff after each tenure or the abrupt shift in progressive social values that occur with new successive govoxiers in a government office – should be highly expected to account for every rapid govoxical shifts that will take place over time, and which should be expected to define exactly what may lead to the idea of a prevailing populist view to surge in a certain direction in voters decisions on policies.
Populocracy relies on the surge of prevailing populist views on the one hand, and the effective representation of elected govoxiers in a government office to propose progressive policy solutions that incorporate different populist views in one policy solution for their society on the other. In any well-established populocracies, citizenry-electorates should be expected to question whether a govoxier candidate contesting for government office has the can-do attitude or skills to handle challenges and crises, and this is bound to shape the portrayal of support or distrust among electors against any individual govoxier. Any claimed competency or incompetency that electors may hold against the ability of any given govoxier may influence triggering the rise of ideologically extremist populist views and movements, to force a govoxier of their focus side-ways into extreme confusion.
The non-party system in govoxical populocracy is the ideal governance tool for the people anywhere to govern themselves because it places direct-control of policy decision-making in the day-to-day affairs of government in the hands of the governed people affected by the decision.
Determination of Equalism by Economic Situation
Historically, ‘value’ has been attributed to our human tendency to evaluate economic resources with a level of quality based on subjective evaluation above objective evaluation, generating from personal or corporate greed for higher monetary profits than its necessary. While subjective evaluation is derived from the resourcefulness of humans influenced by needful things to add quality to evaluate economic resources, objective evaluation is derived from the resourcefulness of humans to recognise the number of economic resources to account for their value.
In the primitive era everywhere in the world, the resourcefulness of humans to meet the pressing condition for self-preservation recognised quantity to value anything and everything. Primitive Africans were known as the first recognised people to develop geometrical thinking in their recognition of quantity and shape to value; the oldest mathematical games, artefacts, and digital computer systems were also recorded to be in practice in primitive Africa, including complex counting systems in practice by the Yoruba tribe from the western African region.
As such, through the customary practice of geometry, symmetry and mathematical understanding, the ancient African people accessed their economic needs and wants on a quantitative moneyless trade-off within communities (identified as trade-by-barter in the West), without the need to apply the subjective qualitative value of money to value their economic resources as it was the practice in regions outside of Africa.
The arrival of non-natives cultures to Africa in the ancient society at different times in our history, the Arabian from the East and the Europeans from the North, influenced the customary practice of the African people to transition from the use of quantitative economic trade-off to qualitative economic evaluation of resources as a condition for trade. The caravan of Arab traders was recorded as the first to introduce the use of cowrie shells as a form of exchange in trade as early as the 8th century to Africans. It was at this stage that the African economy began to apply qualitative value to evaluate their economic resources in trade as a popular form of economic currency to trade in Africa.
In my upcoming scientific research publication titled: “Maturation Upshot: The Origin of Species”; is the theory that humans belong to a group of organisms that underwent a metamorphosis growth in stages during development at origin. This development occurred within a very short period of time involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the biological-body structure through cell growth and differentiation and developed into full maturation as a pubertal human within a year that could reproduce through copulation.
The maturation era existed before the primitive era, and it was during the maturation era that biological species evolved from the Earth’s habitat composed of rainy hydrogen and nitrogen gas and vaporised helium atmosphere. Caves and riverbanks are their preferred habitat, and they fed on other animals and vegetation. Their body structure is smaller statures, rugged and tough looking, with spongy bones that survive only on blood cell production and ion exchange, with a complete lack of compact bones everywhere in the human body, even the skull density was spongy. Due to the fragility of their biological compositions, their body structure is squishy and with saggy skin, they walk and balance with their feet in close proximity to their kneels, and they have a rapid ageing-process with a shorter lifespan that could last 20-years or less.
With the planet Earth reaching its maturation stage hydrogen rain stopped, the gassy or vaporised atmosphere condensed, the heat of the planet-Sun penetrated through to the Earth’s ground and its radiation warmed the Earth’s surface, where oxygen experienced addition to its molecular atom, and all the maturation organic materials evaporated and became ineffective as a result.
It was at this stage that all biological species including plants began to go through relative metamorphosis changes in their body structure, hormones and genes addition that involves changes in the organisation of biological genes activity. Spongy bones and skulls in species gradually solidified, squishy and saggy skins began to become resilient, and varieties of food resources began to grow naturally from the ground – this caused the inherited activation of genes in biological species during the maturation era to evolve by means of transfigured or converted genes that eventuated the human socialism to the primitive era.
The biological transformation involved progressive addition, edited, increased locomotion of movement, including functional replacement of motor control genes, which thus evolved spongy bones into compact bones, with the articulation of joint bones present everywhere locomotion existed from 360-degrees during the maturation era and gained sturdily to below 180-degrees during the primitive era. More defined was the gradually increased period of time from birth to when the human species can reach independent age, due to the heat atmospheric condition from the planet Sun that caused addition to all molecular properties; converted the genetic attributes in species in both living and non-living systems, with the addition of molecules that caused the delay to which biological species can reach independent age.
The sudden relative changes within a short period of time overwhelmed the biological gene composition of human species due to factors associated with the distinctive gene composition of humans different to other animals, and these overloaded changes were almost sufficient to extinct the human race entirely. It is presumed that some other race colour had gone extinct during the biological gene clogging period at the end of the maturation era – a notable red skin colour species of humans and animals are identified. This is accounted for to have caused the slow articulation of newborn humans to reach independent age longer into adulthood from birth in comparison to other animals, to reach pubertal with the capability to reproduce after a decade from birth, and with a gradually increased lifespan that could last up to 100-years or more.
The environmental transition that caused increased capability of genes activity in humans during the transition from the maturation era into the primitive era, evolved human society into a communally-ruled settlement, in which the resourcefulness of humans to meet the pressing condition for self-preservation developed the natural predisposition to quantify the value of anything and everything. It is through the lack of sufficient variety in the acquisition of material resources to achieve basic aesthetics that humans develop the culture of subjective instinct to dictate objective reality in their feelings or opinions to add quality to value material resources. This is evident because, as the population grows in a particular environment, this consequent an increase in ‘wants’ in equal measure to ‘needs’ to meet the desire of the whole population sufficiently.
The environmentally imposed sedentary habitation in the maturation era influenced the sedentary traditional way of life in the primitive era. Communally-ruled settlements across the world during the primitive era were built close to one another, where food grown organically from the ground in Africa involves the culture of large-scale food storage in other regions, and where a permanent architecture of habituating in mud-built houses in Africa involves the habituating in caves and riverbanks in other regions. In all regions across the world, all communally-ruled settlements experienced increased population levels and a decrease in the number of natural resources with a sufficient variety of foods available to sustain the population cohabiting in a communally-ruled settlement.
Unlike in African regions with heated sunny summer and freshly cool winter weather throughout the year, that condition food grown organically from the ground in most landmass (apart from the deserted or arid lands with usually sparse vegetation in the northern region of Africa), the western regions with extreme cold weather conditions throughout the year – from heavy snowy winter to relative speck of heated sunny summer – contributes to the natural resources of food scarcity and the economic culture of large-scale food storage, led to civil unrest and violence for the self-preservation of their individuals and welfare of a community.
It is precisely within the nature of the resourcefulness of humans that the persistent will to express dominance, power and ideology through the addition of quality to value economic resources developed for the simple reason of self-preservation of the individuals for a start, and evolved for the economic welfare of the community.
The economic evaluation from a moneyless quantitative trade-off in the primitive era to a qualitative induced value of money on products and services emerged at the turn of the ancient society everywhere around the world and was practised under the different forms of governance such as tribalism, kleptocracy, theocracy, plutocracy, autocracy aristocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, indirect-democracy and many more.
Each form of governance is developed on populist ideologies based on the economic policy of economic-order to drive the social-order of a community of people, as a necessary condition for an impetus governmental structure in recognition of an organised human-society. It is precisely this qualitative attribution of value on resources – both material resources and human resources – that the determination of inequality by economic situation developed the qualitative value of inflation and deflation to be evaluated on monetary terms.
Therefore, the economic situation that anything and everything is subject to be attributed with qualitative value on monetary terms, notable in the economic situation of inflation and deflation, is the originating seedbed for inequalities in human-society and the promotion of class-system and class-society.
This manifesto’s premise is the recognition that the monetary system is bad for human-society and it is the source of peril and confusion. And that the economic situation of inflation and deflation to regulates it distorts the patterns of economic distribution and results in inequality and hardships for the majority of the working-group at the lower-pecking order of money, hence humans resort to money-motivated crimes against one another. Money, therefore, is not in accord with human-nature and is a nemesis to the social-order of our human-society everywhere.
The proposed non-monetary economy of ethno-corporatism is notable for its moneyless quantitative trade-off of economic resources which is based on deflationary value on economic resources over inflationary value, for rapid expansion resulting largely from economic innovation for sustainable economic self-sufficiency subsistence, and for feasible economic globalisation to meet demands internationally to boost economic growth for social-development nationally.
Quantitative moneyless trade-off on economic resources occurs when human resources and natural resources are conditioned to be necessary for the provision of free-labour and free-consumption of goods and services. The present monetary economic system of qualitative value of money on economic resources in turn occurs when natural resources and human resources are conditioned to be necessary for the provision of valued-labour and valued-consumption of goods and services.
Therefore, the determination of equalism by socio-economic situation is the recognition that a non-monetary economy promotes economic equality in human society. As I proposed to show, monetary-economy promotes economic inequality in human-society everywhere. The deceptive practices of the monetary system in its application of qualitative evaluation on economic resources; the imposed economic situation from liquidity to the illiquidity in investments with a substantial loss in value; the burdensome and wholly subjective imposition of monetary policy to set interest prices to regulates the monitoring of economic activities as a means to directly influence the economic behaviour of people beyond the basic human needs for demand and supply; the daily risks of losing money to fraud, robbery and a whole lot of money-motivated crimes perpetrated in society is accelerating the path of human-society to undesirable and harmful social life.
Below are the basic differences between the quantitative trade-off under non-monetary system and qualitative value under monetary system as a form of exchange. Their differences are non-exhaustive and they provide a clear view of the two contrasting frameworks:
| Qualitative Value | Quantitative Trade-Off |
| Qualitative value employs money currency as its form of exchange | Quantitative trade-off employs moneyless trade as its form of exchange |
| Qualitative value of money is always fluctuating, inconstant and unfixed, which thus creates economic instability | Quantitative moneyless trade-off is balanced, constant and fixed, which thus creates stability in the economy |
| Too much money in circulation reduces its value and causes inflation (i.e., a rise in the price level) and insufficient money raises its value and results in deflation (i.e., a fall in the price level). | A moneyless trade-off is a balancing exchange of economic products and services regardless of their incompatible features. Availability of resources determines posflation or negflation – if things can be had at the same time by all demands, or not. |
| Inflation distorts the pattern of distribution in favour of the rich; thus, it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Deflation, on the other hand, results in unemployment and hardships for the working class. | Negflation does not distort the pattern of distribution in favour of the working-group; thus, other groups not within the working-group have a fixed provision quota in weekly quantitative units. None are imposed with deliberate posflation. |
| The excessive use of money in society creates an inflationary effect on its value, which thus increase the competition over access to money. This widens the inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth in society. This divided the society into ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and caused class conflict between them | The excessive use of moneyless trade-offs in society has absolutely no deflationary effect on its value, which thus increases production to meet demands for provision. This spurs economic growth in the distribution of resources and wealth in society. This will equalise the society from the ‘haves-not’ to ‘haves’ and the cause for group altruism between them |
| The use of money leads to the concentration of wealth in a few hands and this gives rise to monopolies | The use of moneyless trade-offs leads to the concentration of wealth equally among all groups and this gives rise to monopsony |
| Growth of monopolies of money results in the exploitation of the workers brings misery and degradation to them | Growth of monopsony of moneyless trade-offs results in the altruism of the workers extends contentment and better living condition to the non-working groups |
| Wide fluctuations in prices and business activities, caused by money, may lead to government instability. This may result in a change of government | Fully balanced in value and trading caused by the constancy in quantitative units in moneyless trade-offs promotes government stability. This may result in a long reign of re-elected individuals in government |
| Easy borrowing and lending facilities, made possible through money, lead certain industries to use more capital than is required. This over-capitalisation, in turn, results in over-production and unemployment | Easy access to resources and production facilities, made possible through moneyless trade-offs, may lead certain industries to use more resources than is required. This over-utilisation of resources, in turn, results in over-production, waste of resources and time |
| Money, which is the basis of credit, leads to the creation of more and more credit creation. Credit creation, if not matched by the increase in production, results in an inflationary rise in prices and unaffordability. | Moneyless trade-offs, which are the basis of provision, lead to the creation of more and more production. Provision, if not matched by the increase in production, will result in a posflationary decrease in provision and inability to meet demands |
| In the materialistic world, people give undue importance to money and, instead of utilising it in productive activities, may start hoarding it. This would adversely affect the growth of income, output and employment in the economy | In the materialistic world, people give undue importance to moneyless trade-offs and, instead of utilising them in productive activities, may start squandering them. This would adversely distort the growth of provision, output and employment priorities of workers |
| The defects of money indicate its elimination. The disadvantages of money far exceed their advantages. It is an incompetent servant and a dreadful master. Human society has been unable to properly regulate the money supply through the various so-called wisely formulated monetary policy. There is no guarantee to ensure the efficient working of the economic system and to achieve the socio-economic objectives of the economy with money as a means of exchange. | The advantages of moneyless trade-off far exceed the advantages of money. It is an obedient servant and an ideal model master. Human society would be able to properly regulate moneyless trade-off usage to effectively predict the economy and formulate a future stock policy of material resources. There is a guarantee to ensure the efficient working of the economic system and to achieve the socio-economic objectives of the economy with moneyless trade-offs as a means of exchange. |
| In modern times, moral values have been sacrificed at the altar of money. People have become so much money-minded that they openly indulge in corrupt practices to satisfy their greed for money. Money is also the root cause of thefts, murders, fraud, prostitution and other social evils. | In modern times, moral values have been sacrificed at the altar of material things. People have become so obsessed with trends that they become distorted between their ‘wants’ and ‘needs’. Following trends have its positives and negatives and this remains a grey area |
| Money, due to storability characteristics, is the cause of the evil of black money. It provides people with a convenient way to evade taxes by concealing their income. Illegally obtained money, in turn, encourages illegal marketing and speculative activities. | Moneyless trade-offs, due to their non-storability characteristic, are non-transferable. It provides individual people with a convenient way to access resources. It discourages illegal trading or transfer of assets and illegal economic activities |
Since it is evident that the qualitative value of evaluation, in the use of money as a form of exchange for goods and services, is the originating seedbed for the determination of inequality in society by its economic situation of inflation and deflation; so, I asked a simple question: how does quantitative moneyless trade-off work in the determination of equality in society by its economic situation?
Firstly, a qualitative value defined the economic situation of inflation as the general increase in prices of goods and services, and deflation is defined in the same breath as the general decrease in the prices of goods and services. In other words, inflation is when things of economic value become expensive and unaffordable to buy to everyone in possession of money required as a form of the qualitative value of capital exchange, and deflation is when things become cheaper and less expensive to buy with money as it was once at any one time.
In volume-1 of this manifesto, I introduced the theory of Negflation (a portmanteau of negating inflation) as the non-monetary economic practice of quantitative trade-off of economic resources, in the proposed theory of ethno-corporatist economy. In reference to the determination of the economic situation, I defined Negflation as the general availability of provision of products and services above aggregate demand. In other words, negflation is the sufficiency in material resources and human resources by which the general production of goods and services remains sustainably available for the free supply of provision of goods and services at any one time.
Correspondingly, I here introduced the term Posflation (a portmanteau of positing inflation) as the objective principle from which an economic condition of scarcity is formed or developed in a non-monetary economy. Posflation can be defined as the general increase in aggregate demand above the production of products and services available for provision. In other words, posflation is the insufficiencies in the availability of material resources and human resources by which the general production of goods and services becomes lower than the demand for its provision of goods and services overtime.
Money-economy appropriates Inflation and Deflation on prices of goods and services; Non-money economy appropriates Posflation and Negflation on the evaluation of products and services. Below are the basic differences between Inflation and Deflation on the one hand, and Posflation and Negflation on the other, in comparison between monetary economy and non-monetary economy:
| MONETARY ECONOMY | NON-MONETARY ECONOMY | ||
| INFLATION | DEFLATION | POSFLATION | NEGFLATION |
| Qualitative value of money in trade | Qualitative devaluation of money in trade | Quantitative evaluation of resources in trade | Quantitative trade-off of resources in trade |
| A general increase in the price of goods and services causes Inflation | A general decrease in the price of goods and services causes Deflation | A general increase in aggregate demand for products and services above provision cause Posflation | A general decrease in aggregate demand for products and services below provision cause Negflation |
| The rate of Inflation decreases purchasing power for consumers with the qualitative value of money | The rate of Deflation increases purchasing power for consumers with the qualitative value of money | Value of Posflation decreases trading with a materialising scarcity of economic resources for consumers | The value of Negflation increases economic trading with sufficient economic resources for consumers |
| Inflation is profitable in a monetary economy due to the specific focus in the market on money-making | Deflation is not-profitable in a monetary economy due to the event in the market in the loss of money-making | Posflation raise the value in a non-monetary economy due to the event of insufficient economic resource for trade | Negflation is valueless in a non-monetary economy due to a specific focus on maintaining economic sufficiency subsistence |
| Inflation creates higher prices of commodities, a high cost of living that increases poverty in society, and slows the State’s economic growth as consumers’ purchasing power erodes under the market economy | Deflation creates lower prices of commodities, low cost of living that makes necessities affordable, low consumer spending that decreases overspending and weakens State’s monetary economic power under the market economy | Posflation creates insufficient economic resources and nurtures scarce economic resources, it creates consumption inequality between people in society and weakens State’s economic power under trade-economy | Negflation creates sufficient economic resources and nurtures the capacity for growth, it creates consumption equality between people in society, and strengthens State’s economic power under trade-economy |
| Production decreases and aggregate demand exceeds supply, resulting in inflationary economic stability designed for a monetary profit-making | Production increases and supply exceeds aggregate demand, prices of goods and services reduce, resulting in devaluation and loss of monetary profit-making | Production decreases and aggregate demand exceeds supply, resulting in economic insufficiency and scarce economic resource | Production increases and supply exceeds aggregate demand, creating surplus products and services, resulting in economic self-sufficiency subsistence. |
| Monetary policymaker aim for a valued inflation rate as a means to steady growth and keeps consumers active and businesses profitable in a monetary society | Monetary policy is a fundamental source of deflation and price stagnation risk through monetary interest rate policy or imposing market speculation that causes stock market failure | The stock policy is a fundamental source of posflation and insufficient risk through human avaricious ways of managing natural resources or imposing inflationary pressures on economic resources. | Stock policymaker aim for a valueless negflation evaluation as a means to steady growth and keeps consumers sustained and workers resourceful in a non-monetary society |
| Ecoflation due to natural resources becoming scarcer, and sustainability issues becoming more pressing, would increase inflated prices of goods and services to infinity | Ecoflation due to natural resources becoming scarcer, and sustainability issues becoming more pressing, would accelerate monetary deflation of goods and services to inflation, and maintain it indefinitely | Ecoflation due to natural resources becoming scarcer, and sustainability issues becoming more pressing, would decrease the lack of economic resources to infinity | Ecoflation due to natural resources becoming scarcer, and sustainability issues becoming more pressing, would accelerate the lack of economic resources into posflation, and maintain it there indefinitely |
| Inflation increases the employment rate in society as people (such as both husband and wife) are driven to secure jobs and increase their household income to avoid poverty | Deflation decreases the employment rate in society as consumers’ low spending and falling businesses revenues force to cut income pay in some and lay off workers in others | Posflation decreases the employment rate in society as insufficient economic resources lower production, and thus keeps people in society out of jobs with increased poverty living condition | Negflation stabilises the employment rate in proportion to the population of society at a constant level since the sufficiency of economic resources rules the provision of labour to unlimited capacity |
| Inflation leads to higher production and wages | Deflation leads to lower production and wages | Posflation leads to lower production and economic shrinkage | Negflation leads to higher production and economic growth |
Both monetary-economy and non-monetary economy are based on demand for economic resources and services; both are value-based economy; and both generate increase and decrease in the values of products and services. If inflation has taught us anything, it is that ‘greed’ for money is favourable to those who control the means and mode of economic production in a monetary society. In contrast, if posflation has imparted us with some knowledge, it is that ‘greed’ in any form is detrimental and inhibits economic growth for human-society collectively. While the value of a commodity can only be lowered to its bare minimum of zero under the deflationary value of a monetary-economy, the value of a commodity can be erased completely to infinity under the negflationary value of a non-monetary economy.
Determination of equalism by economic situation is the recognition that the negflation of a non-monetary economy provides the analysis grounded in effective stock policy on the sourcing, allocation and distribution of material resources. The era of a non-monetary economy will bring an end to the boom and bust cycles related to the financial instability that affects all African States’ economies at the national level on the global market.
As a result of this and other experiences, this manifesto considers what non-monetary policy can do to spur the economic growth of the United African States. In maintaining low negflation in material resources to stabilise the quantitative moneyless trade-off of production at the national level, decreases the chances that the global economic downturn could push the African economy into inflation and stagnation, as has been happening in detriment against all African countries today.
The exploration of resource sourcing, posflation risk factors, and national stock policy to manage negflation, lays the foundation for the analysis in the preceded section of this chapter. The next section of this chapter opens with a brief review of the equalisation of social and economic classes under the monetary-economy into groups under the non-monetary economy.
It also touched on how the nature and consequences of managing the flow of foreign cash-equivalents from international trade economies against the proposed government-backed economic Entitlement-Chip as a form of moneyless trade-offs of economic exchange of products and services, so that wherever it amplifies exchange price fluctuations for those in foreign activities, it would not be linked to causing instability in the national economy.
The activities of a non-monetary economy isolate the United African States’ national economy from the activities of its global market economy. This allows the United African States to enter into economic relations with foreign nations and private multi-national corporations as a corporate entity with different rules-of-engagement and with the protection and security of a corporate organisation, without being affected by any consequential factors to fall on its national economy, which remain non-monetary – so the citizens can freely engage in trading activities associated with imports of essential sources of national economic growth, and the governments regulates the selection of citizens trading activities associated with export-led growth.
Equalisation of Social and Economic Classes into Groups
Today, in all the divided African nations, there are abundant natural resources and human resources in Africa, but the monetary economic system is to ensure that it is unevenly distributed to benefit all people equally in African society. The indirect form of democracy in current practice in all African nations is to ensure that national wealth is concentrated in the hands of individuals in government or those associated with government in some way – the politicians and their elite group – while the vast majority of the people that are governed remain poor with the scarcity of economic resources and deprivation from the global market economy.
And whilst the national wealth of the African people is concentrated in the hands of people associated with the government, they use it for personal gain with properties and monies in foreign currencies abroad, and not to industrialise Africa for Africans or to create a better world for the African people.
In the proposed ethno-corporatist society, an important goal for citizenry voters’ choice on policy is to promote equality of opportunity in their society and to let the goal of the collective outweighs that of the individual. Populocracy gives everyone a voice and allows individuals to prove their populist views with proof and evidence rather than individual prejudice or regressive morality. Populocracy levelled the playing field for citizens to govern themselves in interdependent leadership with the government, and thus allows the citizens to direct the government in the specific direction that represents key issues in their collective policy evaluation.
The criterion in which indirect-democracy is being used to conduct the evaluation of equality between social classes actually promotes inequality and class conflicts. The criterion in which economic evaluation is being used to define equality of opportunity between economic classes continually failed to make it possible to assess the long-term effect of every distribution of equality of opportunity goal. The culture of partisan politics and indirect-democracy provides short-term solutions to problems. The same sets of problems people face at one time, socially and economically, developed in new forms at another time, and are provided with short-term solutions again and again with every successive government and with no end in sight.
The contribution of this section is to define a criterion of equality of opportunity to institute a permanent governmental system that transforms classes prone to conflicts into groups predisposed to altruism in society. So that the construction of ‘class’ and our understanding of the word would give parallel meanings in the context of the term ‘groups’ that should be understood as a reduction in the extent of inequality of opportunity between people on a different level of contribution to the national economy.
Therefore, wherever ‘class’ is mentioned it should be understood there is a high level of inequality between people and they are prone to class-conflicts; and wherever ‘group’ is mentioned it should be understood there is a high level of equality between people and they are predisposed to group-altruism.
As I proposed to show, the construct of the institution of an ethnopublic State applies equality of opportunity to every generated criterion to policy evaluation. This places its ethno-corporatist economy to be the generating seedbed for the promotion of equalising society from the ‘haves-not’ to ‘haves’ and the cause for group altruism between them.
For example, the proposed government-backed economic entitlement-chip under moneyless trade-off exchange are designed to regulate the provision of free-labour and free-consumption on commercial transactions in a large-scale society of non-monetary economy. Unlike in a monetary-economy with the use of fiat currencies, which are circulated and backed by a central bank or monetary authority on behalf of a government, economic entitlement-chips are directly issued to individuals by the government. In the proposed ethno-corporatist society, economic entitlement-chips would be issued by the secretariat-ministry of National Insurance & Multinational Finance and provisioned by regional Commissions in every State.
While economic entitlement-chip develop as the primary moneyless trade-offs of economic products and services under a non-monetary economy, it is a government-issued chip that is backed by the aggregates national economic wealth. Economic entitlement-chip give the government greater control over the economy in an ethno-corporatist society because they can control how economic resources are being used and distributed including the rate at which demand is driving the provision of supply of products and services.
The secretariat-ministry of National Insurance & Multinational Finance will work towards achieving the redemption of foreign currency units for government-backed economic entitlement-chips in order to engender trust in the national economic wealth of the United African States. As I proposed to show, it should be expected for economic entitlement-chip to only be redeemable for goods and services nationally across the United African States, and the secretariat-ministry of National Insurance & Multinational Finance should be expected to convert any quantity of allowance within the chips into foreign fiat currency – for the purpose of citizenry foreign endeavours and visitors.
The provision of free-labour and free-consumption of products and services nationally is backed by the government economic entitlement-chip and their quantitative moneyless trade-off are pegged to the chips. In this way, quantitative units of economic entitlement-chip serve as economic security which can be redeemed against products and services everywhere nationally.
The secretariat-ministry of National Insurance & Multinational Finance will trade government-backed quantitative units of the chips for foreign currencies on their face qualitative value for tourists and visitors in Africa. Foreign-entitlement chips may, under some circumstances, become more valuable than their underlying foreign currency for tourists or foreign visitors. This may be the case, for example, when the economic situation in the country negflate further, and trust in the strong value of commodities posflate the qualitative value of monetary capital in foreign currencies to inflate higher.
While the economic entitlement-chip is the means of moneyless trade-offs of economic exchange for products and services within the United African States for residents – both citizens and non-citizens alike. But foreign entitlement-chip is the means of economic exchange for products and services within the United African States for foreign visitors and tourists alike. While foreign entitlement-chip can be refunded back into their qualitative value in monetary currency, national economic entitlement-chip merely prevent outflows of wealth from Africa because quantitative units of the chip can only be exchanged on a moneyless trade-off with economic products or services only within Africa.
Foreign entitlement-chip also play a vital role in complimenting government-backed economic entitlement-chips by extending the flow of foreign cash-equivalents for African international trade economies. By increasing the amount of foreign wealth with an increase in cash flow, they allow citizens to engage in international endeavours such as tourism, education or training, or commercial transactions, which may otherwise have come from a direct foreign exchange from African proposed single currency for international activities to acquire foreign currency for African citizens foreign endeavours. Any resulting increase in foreign economic activities in Africa stimulates economic growth for the African international economy and increases the participation of African citizens in the global market economy.
Another function of economic entitlement-chips is providing African citizens with free access to basic necessities such as housing, food and toiletries without the condition of labour attached to its economic provision. African citizens are able to meet their basic needs through government-issued economic entitlement-chips because they are guaranteed that the chips will be redeemed for selected products and services within the United African States, which will come as a basic human rights package of ethno-corporatism.
While the government is expected to heavily regulate the economic entitlement-chip, the working-group should be expected to take full advantage of the chip in a more diversified fashion far beyond access to basic necessities available to those within the working-age group who are yet to be regulated into work activities – the conchie-workers, as they would be so-called. The use of economic entitlement-chip domestically relieves the economic situation associated with a high cost of living and involuntary poverty associated with a monetary-economic condition.
Look closely, the proposed economic entitlement-chip will equalise lifestyles and equal cultural behaviour of all people regardless of economic status or social status in an ethno-corporatist society under a non-monetary economy. However, what it does not directly provide for is the role of governmental power to make policies that govern economic equality outside of the rule by the working-group. Since the effectiveness of group-altruism is measured in both economic terms on the one hand and social terms on the other under ethno-corporatism, the prevalence and the sociology which explains them gives the role of governmental power to propose policies that govern both social equality and economic equality in the hands of the citizenry-electorates.
While the system of economic entitlement-chip will equalise the cultural behaviour of all people regardless of their status in society, the power to regulate how both the economic behaviour and governmental behaviour influence policy is placed in the hands of the citizenry-electorates – where both the working-age group and the pension-age group occupy – both of which are responsible for voters choice on policies that govern both social equality and economic equality in an ethno-corporatist society.
So, wherever we require the selection of voters’ choice on policies to direct the government to implement equality of opportunity between the working-group and the non-working group, the voters’ selection of policies by the pension-age group should be expected to drive the distribution of economic wealth to pensioners in regions where the pension-age group are higher in proportion than the working-age group.
Since the economic selection of voters’ choice on policies would be required to be implemented in the distribution of economic wealth on a regional basis, this is to demonstrate that in an ethno-corporatist society, it would be disadvantageous for pensioners to live in an industrialised region with a larger population of the working-age group, since policies that are likely to be made there should be expected to cater to the specific provision of economic wealth that favours the working-group affected by the decision in that region, and may be detrimental to those not in work activities in a certain order, especially the conchie-workers who are not in work activities by choice.
In regions with a larger population of pensioners than the working-group, the executive-authority of the secretariat-ministry of Labour & Industry ensures the equality provisions of economic wealth available to the working-group to be uniform everywhere, in terms of equal quantitative units on economic entitlement-chips, equal access to the same materials of useful-values everywhere, and education.
So wherever the working-group in one region won the vote to implement the distribution of economic wealth to them in a certain order, that implementation is automatically taken up by the secretariat-ministry of Labour & Industry to become uniform as an alternative choice of what is available to all workers in other regions everywhere. The working-group in a region might not even propose policies or vote on selected policies, but they are bound to benefit directly from the advances that have been made by the working-group in other regions to apply to them as an alternative choice of what is also available to them to access on an individual basis, including those available through the direct provisions of economic entitlement to the working-group in provision by regional Commissions.
Whereas, voters’ choice on policies that apply to pensioners in one region does not automatically apply to pensioners in other regions. So, in an ethno-corporatist society, it should be expected to see a wide divide between population habitation between the working-group and the pension-group, between the young people and the older people, between those in work and the different categories of those not in work that fall within the working-age group.
This is how equal opportunities for economic wealth can be evenly distributed in a populocratic society. As such, the group-system drives the achievement of its ethno-corporatist society, including the different types of systems of stratification such as the groupings and altruist culture that generates between them.
It is important to note that the diversity of our human-nature which can be explained by the ceaseless interaction between our individual genetic constitution and environmental conditions, characterised the social reality of our human experiences everywhere on the trajectory of what can be explained to drive the construction of our human-society anywhere.
While the diversity of our beliefs system is more specific on a regional basis on the one hand, and individuals in any organisation setting tend to have fixed opinions about issues of interest to them on the other hand, the construction of our human-society comprises a set of a multi-faceted approach that if not regulated in certain altruist order to regulates the diversity of human behaviour that inhabits it, it would create the various construction of inequality in human-society anywhere.
Think, for example, the dominant culture of individualistic self-interests and goals that drives the construction of capitalist society anywhere produce the various forms of inequality between economic rankings and social rankings into classes in human-society. Since groupings are the primary form of stratification in an ethno-corporatist society, neither the differences in economic ranking nor social ranking is more influential than the other in shaping people’s lives. As such, the dominant culture of collective-individualistic interests and goals that drives the construction of ethno-corporatist society should be expected to produce various forms of equality between economic rankings and social rankings into groups in human-society.
Whilst humans are socialised in the direction to drive the construction of capitalist society to favour individualist greeds and ambitions for power and wealth above collective interests, the various form of social inequality is widely expressed through gender inequality, racial inequality, ethnic inequality, discrimination of ageism against people based on their age, and discrimination of ableism against people with disabilities. This manifesto proposed to socialise humans in the direction to drive the construction of an ethno-corporatist society to favour collectivist interests based on equality that meets the economic needs and wants of everyone in the society equally.
As human-nature gets older their needs change according to age. The long lists of goals and ambitions when in their 20s and 30s for example, dwindled down dramatically if not changed completely in their 50s and above. It does not matter whether one managed to achieve all or some of their goals or not, the fact remains that what appeals to people in their youth changes dramatically in their older version. Given the population of Africa standing at 1.4 billion as of 2022, and with the rapid increase in advances of computer artificial-intelligence technological instruments to reduce the need for human labour power in the workplace and automate works to such extent to which mass human labour-power would no longer be necessary to operate in as many economic industries as practicably possible, the pension-age group population is bound to start increasing than ever before.
As such, if the construction of human-society is systematised in an altruist order to drive the diversity of human culture towards collectivist interest above individualistic greed and ambitions at all times, both the youth in their working-age group and the old in their pension-age group would have equal opportunities on voters choice on policies under the eligibility as citizenry-electorates to meet the specific needs of their individual group to achieve their individual self-preservation and condition of what makes life going well at any one time.
In such a state of affairs, it would become highly desirable to group economic rankings and social rankings based on merits or capability alone, and such construction of inequality of gender, ethnicity, race, ageism and ableism would signal the disorganisation of human resources to regulates the production of material resources in society, in which the working-group may face a heavy burden of everything if not regulated on merits.
Therefore, the three primary groups that emerged with ethno-corporatism are the pre-working age group, the working-group and the pension-group. Equal distribution of national wealth would be seen to be directly related to the selection of voters’ choice on policies by the citizenry-electorates to prescribe the eligibility for economic provisions that each of the three groups should be entitled to from time to time.
| SOCIAL GROUP | DEFINITION |
PRE-WORKERS | The young who are in pre-working age education and training. Also known as the ‘pre-working age group’ |
WORKERS | The controllers of the economic production. Also known as the ‘working-group’ |
PENSIONERS | The reservists to the economic production. Also known as the ‘pension-group’ |
This is to demonstrate that while the working-group controls the means and modes of economic production and has a direct entitlement to its provision equally, the pension-group are workers whose biological age has passed the working-age group and thus are legally not obligated to remain in work activities, but may be recalled in times of needs to come back and join economic operations alongside the regular workers. The older ones who are in age far into the pension-age group, the further such person would be grouped as unavailable to be recalled for economic services when the Economy-branch of government mobilises to deal with an economic crisis. The possibility of such crises or when needed otherwise to fill a shortage occupational list will be to allow for the completion of new recruits from those just falling into the working-age group or to help in the direct participation for their training.
However, within the working-age group, there are two additional groups that would resonate as equally important on voters’ choice on policy in the distribution of economic wealth across a variety of grouping scales:
- The gender of women who are within the working-age group but are not in work activities due to their commitment to child-bearing and raising children is in the national interest.
- Ableism of people living with disabilities and whose capacity to engage in work activities is limited, with the exclusion of those more qualified to take part in non-manual work.
Ethnicity, race, and conchie-workers are excluded in the stratification scale of social groupings under ethno-corporatism because they have been equalised to must fall under any of the two major groupings – working-group or pension-group. While discrimination based on ethnicity or race is an unfortunate one in human-society anywhere because any resulting inequality that hampers economic development or social cohesion should be expected to be robustly regulated in the national interest. The commission of conchie-workers should generally be expected to be seen to be the activities of those who are conscious objectors against work, or simply those who fall under the groupings to struggle with employment and education to a greater degree that borders on psychological-constraint.
In academic terms, psychological-constraint of conchie-workers may be defined as those falling within the working-age group who have the physical and intellectual capability to engage in work activities but are psychologically prohibited from complying with work-ethics in the national interest. While psychological-constraint does not have a clinical definition under psychological-method, those who fall in this category are what they are and their free commission of it is what it is, and they would be regulated to be assessed on a case-by-case basis under multiple regional Commissions to actualise the State’s rules of engagement with them.
Both the working-group and pension-group have the most power in an ethno-corporatist society; the source of their power is given recognition to the citizenry-electorates with the power of majority voters’ selection of policies that shape the distribution of wealth in an ethno-corporatist society.
Equalities are ingrained into the ethno-corporatist system, no doubt, as the State legally implements the voters’ selection of policies. While the welfare of gendered women and disabled ableism is guaranteed to have an equal distribution of wealth to them in a certain order, the welfare of conchie-workers beyond the free access to basic necessities such as food, housing and toiletries could not be guaranteed or made to be justified in law in any event in the national interest.
As I proposed to show, the various views that govern social-group parallelism are based on the notion of the citizenry’s power to make policy on the principle of equality of provision to all. Since citizenry-electorates have the legislative power of the State to make state-centred policies, individuals would assign themselves to particular social-groups where voters’ selection of policies is systematically constructed to create the condition of what makes life go well for the individual selves.
Even pensioners who fancy the lifestyle of being in work should be expected to give up their rights to be pensioned and to remain in work for whatever purposes. Whilst the everyday life condition of conchie-workers should be expected to create the condition of what makes life going badly for the individual selves and as a collective, it would not be smooth-sailing for them either when they enter the pension-age group, and one’s ability to avoid undesirable life condition of this nature would be catered for by the regional Citizens Advice Commission in every State.
There is a strong relationship between social-group, equality, and better living condition. As should be expected, the working-group would tend to have better opportunities in the distribution of wealth due to several factors:
- Family: Gendered women and disabled ableism who are not in work would have equal economic entitlements as those in work. Married gendered women would benefit directly from all other benefits associated with their husbands in work emolument such as priority of access to healthcare services, choice of regional locations, priority choice to type of housing, education, etc.
- Health: Workers and the pre-working age group especially would have priority of access to healthcare services.
- Wealth and emolument: High level of quantitative units on their economic entitlement-chip guarantees a whole lot of other benefits associated with workers, such as priority to travel abroad for tourism or holiday with or without their immediate family members, etc.
- Education: Priority is granted to the working-age group to upskill their corposense. Flexibility in how they learn or engage in vocational training, upskilling or further education would be provided at individual convenience that guarantees their competencies geared towards their preferred goals.
- Work: All workers would have equal priority of access to economic provisions, regardless of the nature of their work, employment, company possessor, importer or exporter etc. This is the holy-grail of the balance that would be achieved on the moneyless trade-offs of economic exchange regardless of their incompatible features.
- Populocratic-Govox: The priority of workers to influence the laws, rules or regulations that govern their individual labour industry, including the places or method of casting their voters’ selection of policies.
Therefore, the citizenry’s power over voters’ selection of policies results in group parallelism between both the working-age group and the pension-age group. Unlike workers who can live anywhere, pensioners would require to populate a region to be able to guarantee equality of opportunities through their voters’ selection of policies in the equal distribution of economic wealth that is available in equal proportion to workers anywhere.
Think, for example, in any particular region with a larger population of pensioners, access to healthcare, emolument, type of housing, education, economic provisions, including any influence with how and in whatever manner they voted to engage actively in their populocratic-govox, would be seen to work in indirect priority to pensioners because there are far fewer workers in the region to populate the direct priority lists.
Generally, cohabitation of the group structures in the same region will result in the dominant modes of provision to the workers above any other group. As a result of the priority to the modes of provision granted to workers in an ethno-corporatist society, living conditions and other economic entitlement requirements would be transferred equally to any other person that may fall within any of the other group as a direct privilege of being categorised as an immediate family member of a worker.
The regional entitlement of economic provision to the pension-group indicate that condition that creates life going well will equalise in society, and regions with a larger population of pensioners are guaranteed to have improved equalities of economic provisions in equal proportion as the working-group with both achieving the dominant modes of the economic provision in each of their regions. With ethno-corporatism, equality of opportunity is achieved everywhere.
With the power of regional electorates to make state-centred decisions that affect their community and their individual livelihood, equality has narrowed with the shift in dominant modes of provision between the working-group and the pension-group. While that must account for the welfare of gendered women and disabled ableism, equality to ethnicity and race is covered in national law and prohibited everywhere.
As such, in a populocratic society, people should be expected to migrate toward neighbourhoods with equality of opportunities that promise to meet individual goals and ambitions at any one time, such as employment opportunities, healthcare services, and even relationships based on how comfortable individuals’ personality or way of life match with certain cultural behaviour of a regional community of people or the architectural environment and or nightlife of a city life.
The social character of populocracy is to live among a community of people who have a like-minded perspective on life, and where there is no fear of becoming a minority on most issues. Living in a community where the prevailing views always conflict with one’s view would be detrimental to the mental health and individual happiness to feel a mental and spiritual connection as part of a collective.
Populocracy promotes coherence of views and objectives toward a common goal when it comes to governing. Populocracies encourage collective thinking and promote compromise because every voters’ choice on policies that govern their community affairs becomes the edict of their collective-individualism. In other words, the majority decision of the collectives should meet as close as reasonably possible the needs of individuals in some way, even if not all individuals agree with the majority decision.
CHAPTER FOUR
SOCIAL CHARACTER OF POPULOCRACY
The social character of populocracy is a govoxical process. This manifesto’s purpose is to clarify the role of the govoxical process within the social character of populocratic governance. In the preceded chapter, I proposed a brief introduction concerning the impacts of populocracy on economic growth and how it is in the interest of the citizenry to govern themselves anywhere under populocratic governance. Here, I focus on the social character of populocratic governance, mainly on what should be expected of a populocracy form of governance, and on the social policies and development needed to facilitate the populocratic process.
Since the post-colonial of the divided African nations, theories and policies of development are centred on the promotion of social democracy, which is based on the ideology that the sovereignty of the State requires the government to dictate policies to govern their society. Whereas, people who occupy State government must conform to blind-loyalty to party-politics, hence the partisanship sovereignty is the cause of division and conflicts between the government and the governed in a democratic society.
While democracy is defined in simple terms as the government for the people by the government, populocracy is defined as the government by the people for the government. While social democracy is defined as a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means, social populocracy is defined as a socialist system of government achieved by populocratic means. The difference between social democracy and social populocracy is the central view of this chapter. So, I asked a simple question: what is social populocracy?
Recognising at first instance that social democracy is the opposite of social populocracy, it is helpful to remind ourselves what social democracy is in practice. I shall begin by saying that social democracy is a system of State government that claim to conform to socialist values within the capitalist economic framework, with the administration of a bureaucracy mode of organisation, under a republican nationalism State structure, and in harmony within the partisan loyalty to party-politics.
Analysing the ideology of social democracy when it says that its people have a say in government actions, whereas the most effective avenue in which people do have a say is through the rising tide of protests against government action because the government administration of bureaucracy is routinely weaponised to ignore the persistent will of the governed people all of the time.
When the ideology of social democracy says its people support a competitive economy with the provision of a benefits system to those on the lower income including those without a job, whereas the individualist greed of the capitalist economic system is systematically weaponised by the elites-class in permanent coalition with the ruling-class in government to deprive the people of equal income – where the service of labour is evaluated on artistic skills and not for the service of labour itself – so that when its government offer handouts in benefits to those at the lower pecking order of economic hierarchy its government action could be viewed to mirror socialist principles. Does social democracy conform to socialist principles in any African nations? I say, nay!
In the current state of affairs across Africa, there is no such governmental system that promotes the claimed ideology of social democracy. Social democracy, therefore, is a farce and an autocratic democracy at best, because none of its ideology truly serves the interests of the people it purports to be in the service for. I claim that there is no socialist principle that could arise anywhere under any given system with bureaucracy in place, with capitalism in practice, with the partisan-politics and its notion of democracy in situ, or under the structure of republicanism. So, I replaced the question by a new one: what is the social character of populocracy?
Populocracy is part of ethnopublic administration and its institution is constructed with the commicratic mode of organisation. Hence, the citizenry electors hold the sovereign right of the State to vote on government policy and elect representative leaders to the government to implement the policy decisions of the people. Populocracy is based on a socialist principle, and its main characteristics include a Constitution, voters’ selection of policy, majority rule, compromise-based decision-making, equality of opportunities, freedom of speech and assembly, individual rights within collective consensus, and rule of law.
Constitution is an instrument prescribed by law for the foundation of the social rights of populocracy. The ethnopublic Constitution is a citizenry law of the State which supersedes all other laws. The proposed United African States Constitution declared the fundamental rights of the State, the obligation of the citizenry electors and the duties of the government. The Constitution proclaimed the civil and govoxical rights and limitations of Citizenry power in their collective holding of the legislative power of the State, it conditioned the duties and govoxical obligations and limitations of government power on the citizens, and it raised the power of the State to be an important significant role and responsibilities of the shared interdependent leadership between the government and its citizenry people that are governed.
As such, by the Constitution the government is prohibited from dictating policy or imposing policy to govern the people, the government is obliged to propose policy Information-delivery to the people through the process of debating and deciding on the selection of policies needed in the collective governance of their society, and the government has imposed the duties to implementing the common needs of the people and to ensure their welfare in the provision of equality of opportunities to every citizen and their affairs.
The proposed ethnopublic Constitution in the upcoming volume-5 of this manifesto has two major parts, namely the Administrative-division and the Supervisory-division. These are the divisions of government levels that conduct the day-to-day management of government. In the Administrative-division, the Constitution placed in it three arms of government: the Executive-arm, the Legislative-arm, and the Economy-arm. In the Supervisory-division, the Constitution allows only the Judicial-arm to occupy it. Both the Administrative-division and the Supervisory-division share State power in an interdependent leadership. This explains the govoxical character of the populocratic government body.
Voters’ selection of policy is another govoxical process of populocracy. The citizenry-electorates are assigned the State duty to collectively participates in elections that prescribe the selection of the rules and regulations by which public policies are selected and public officials are selected, including the selection of public policies and the election of public officials to government offices. This responsibility and power lie with the voting-age citizens of ethnopublic society and they engage freely in the populocratic processes to choose how their society is governed by their government through voting or elections. The main purpose of voting choice by the citizenry people of an ethnopublic society is to express the social character of populocracy in its purest form.
Therefore, unlike the claimed ideology of social democracy, the fundamental principle of socialist government anywhere with the true purpose to conform to socialist principles must always obtain its State legislative power from the people that are governed. The idea of socialist democracy, representative democracy, hybrid democracy or any other type of democracy known to be in practice in human-society, is wholly unsocialist.
The idea of electing leaders to government offices, which gives them the autocratic power to make laws, impose policies, repeal laws and exercise autonomy on how and in what order public funds are spent, belongs to one or combination of a class-system form of governance and none of it is socialist. Socialism is corrupted when accoutred with a class form of governance, and social populocracy is proving too powerful to succumb to class corruption in theory.
Majority rule is another govoxical process of populocracy. In this context, social populocracy is the principle that every voter’s choice in an elective-process belongs to the selected decision with the majority number of votes. Populocracy focuses on the fundamental rights of the collective cohabiting within the same regional boundary. The principle of majority rule is to ensure that populocracy creates greater happiness for a greater number of people in its society. At all levels of government and within the population in society, majority rule is the convention that operates within the borders of populocracy.
However, with the way populocratic governance is structured through a govoxical process around local and regional levels, there is always a platform for growth-mindset within the population in which the minority view at one time have the equal opportunity to become the majority view at other times through continual debate where proof and evidence can be used to prove the right or wrong of a decision made at any one time. In populocracy, the process of trial and error, of experimenting with various methods of doing something is appropriated under the majority rule to govern human-society at any one time.
Throughout history, majority rule has never been absolute in human-society, because society evolves through continuous and ever-changing options. By that, I mean that social culture and human behaviour change over time. One argument made to justify the corruption of democracy into the arrays of the accoutred form of democracy in current practice everywhere in the world is that the will of the majority is not always the ethical or moral position that one should take, so their democratic State government impose upon themselves the power to dictate policy and impose it in the governance of their society, regardless of whether the majority of the people that are governed agreed with it or not.
Whereas, the will of the majority at any one time conforms to the prevailing social perspectives of their collective beliefs of how the world appeared to them to be and the values and cultural expressions of how things should be. As such, government interference to legislate laws and impose policies to govern their society is a deflection of the public’s attention from the direction that human-society should follow.
Think of slavery of the African people and gender inequality that once prevented women to vote or own property right, for example, beliefs and social perspectives of the majority prescribed at one time that society should be organised in this order. The further scientific knowledge transcends the limits of our human understanding of the material world, the greater the extent of our human thinking faculty changes direction to champion the minority view at one time to become the prevailing view at another time.
This is to demonstrate that humans are rational beings simply because the capability of our brain evolved to make continuous decisions with ever-changing options without end. This is how the capability of our brains relies on individual experience to drive the quality of dealing with events to output our collective decision through a majority vote, beyond our individualistic ideas to form the majority decision.
Therefore, the social populocratic principle of majority rule is the recognition that the experience that a generation is subjected to dictates the opinion of more people than the notion of an idea generating independently, into which democratic government intrudes to impose their individual experience to prevail over the experience of the vast majority of the people in society.
In this view, whatever the consequences that the majority rule generates in a populocratic process, it should be assumed to be a continuum of possible responses towards seeking new experiences during which the majority decision is continuously subject to modification or change without end. In that state of affairs, the minority voters are not understrength or deprived to have their decision implemented equally, but rather the minority vote is merely placed on hold by the majority vote during which the minority voters are required to continuously prove their populist view with proof and evidence towards new experience, potentially strong enough to become the prevailing view for a majority vote to come in time ahead or not at all.
Think of the current state of our monetary economy, for example, even though the elite-class in coalition with the ruling-class has imposed upon human-society the arbitrary standardisation of the monetary system, in the promotion of unequal distribution of national wealth, between employers and employees, between economic products and services, between the diverse levels of ability to engage in economic activities equally.
Citizenry people all over the world have been conditioned to believing that human-society cannot do without a monetary-economy; that the unequal measure of value and worth must drive economic activities in its inequality of opportunities between people; that bureaucratic structure must determine how people are paid for their economic services in society, and if whatever you are paid is insufficient to sustain you and your family till the next payday, then so be it; and that we should be content in the realisation that some people make millions and billions of monies in income and others simply earn close to nothing.
While the unsocialist condition of a monetary-economy is regrettable, we should never forget that it forms the prevailing view of the majority of the ruling-class and their elites-class in the exercise of imposing their notion of State power and authority through policies and banking regulations to regulate the monetary economic system of their society.
Under social populocratic principles, the citizenry people of society have the power of decision-making in an elective-process to decide the future of their economic exchange and its trade-offs. And while the proposed ethnopublic Constitution has been dedicated to the abolition of a monetary-economy in conformity with socialist principles that promote the shared ownership of economic production and provisions in society, monetary-economy is wholly incompatible with pure socialist principles.
One is that monetary-economy in a pure socialist society would disorganise the economic system to regulate the condition of economic services of workers to be paid equally and in the same amount for the service of the labour and not for the artistic skills of labour. Likewise, it would be impracticable to regulate the economy in a way that the unequal worth of economic products should be decategorised to equalise the value of money paid for every economic product.
This is evidence that monetary-economy can never conform to socialist principles in any event, and it is right to abolish money outright under any serious theory of socialism and to regulate the economic system in a non-monetary economy that guarantees equality of opportunities of economic service and products to everyone in the society equally and with no exception.
The social populocracy of majority rule ensures that all critical levels of govoxical government operate within the borders of socialist principles and that equality of opportunities on all useful-values of worth are accessible to the entire citizenry people of its society. While the citizenry-electorates are responsible for passing laws by the majority rule, the House-of-StateLords Assembly occupied by the judiciary-branch of government makes its rulings and judgments to enact the policy decision of the citizenry majority rule by its own majority rule as well, which may be by a vote of two-thirds but not less than four StateLords sitting. This means that the Executive-branch and the Economy-branch of government, too, obtain their decisions at the House-of-StateLords by the majority rule in any event.
This conforms with the views that the wishes of the minorities have been complemented under a consensus-based decision incorporating both the majority as well as the minority, in the recognition that the majority rule is a continuous decision subject to modification or change which may be by the wishes of the minority to come in time ahead, or not at all.
Compromise-based decision-making is a social populocracy principle that is associated with the principle of majority rule in some way. The basic rule of elective-process uses a compromise approach to trump the majority vote decision to become the decided decision that is selected through an elective-process above that of the minority vote, based on two factors: one is the greatest happiness for a greater number of people, and the second being that every decided decision is a continuous and ever-changing option subject to modification or change without end. Compromise-based decision-making, therefore, becomes an intervening solution to pass the test of time for a period.
Under the govoxical process of populocracy, both the citizenry-committees and economy-unionists occupy the role of State facilitators with the main role of providing policy Information-delivery to their designated electors, to help the governed people affected by the decision in identifying all relevant points in an issue that should guide their elective decision, and to agree or disagree among themselves through debate or discourse, on all pertinent points to form the basis of each of their decision in an elective-process.
Then, focusing only on the majority vote of the decided decision that is selected, the role of the regional Election & Boundaries Commission is to approach the decided decision of the minority vote as a compromise in favour of the majority vote that creates the greatest happiness for a greater number of electors, in the recognition that the decided decision that is selected has been achieved through a compromised-based decision-making and therefore subject to future modification or change without end in time ahead.
According to this view, the decided decision of the minority, whatever their view or claim may be to improve their society, runs the risk of distorting the populocratic process and causing it to be less socialist, or producing ignorance that may end up harming their society, if they give up on their views without continually enlightening their fellow electors the right or wrong of their decisions with continual proof and evidence through lived experiences.
Although an unconstitutional decision of the majority vote or unpopulocratic view that promotes inequality, or the prejudiced view of a people to set a populist view in motion that hinder economic growth or obstruct social cohesion, may require the House-of-StateLords Assembly to intervene on occasion, even though judicial intervention where discretion may be exercised in the national interest are exceptions to the general rule that the majority decided decision of the people that are governed is always the ethical or moral position that a populocratic government should take.
The practice of compromised-based decision has been distorted and misinterpreted for so long that its essential condition has been almost abandoned, that is if it still exists in practice anywhere by those whose votes fall on the minority vote in democratic societies. An essential condition of compromised-based decision-making is simply that any elected individual in public office could face a vote of ‘no confidence’ at any time, to be demoted from that office by the same electors who elected the individual to that office. It has not found its way into everyday public discourse. Even when people that are governed hear it expressed by politicians on both sides of their party conflicts, the rule has been rewired to give the registered members of a political party to be responsible for casting the votes of no-confidence on their elected member that was elected to hold that office by the people that are governed.
Look closely, regardless of what partisan politics does or the State power they self-prescribed to govern the rules and regulations of their governance activities imposed on human-society, nothing stops the rising tide of the people to raise protest for the demotion of any individual from public office, and the people also have the power of protest against any government-imposed policy that negatively affects their lives.
Populocracy is the only form of governance that is devoid of any legitimate justification for protest because the legislative power of the State is with the people themselves to prescribe. Even in cases where the people are not satisfied with the judicial discretion of the StateLords, they have the power to revise their policy decision in an elective-process in ways that it does not misrepresent the State Constitution or contravene any existing laws of the State.
This is to demonstrate that populocracy is the most superior form of governance that guarantee the promotion of equalitarian-based relations between people in society above all the other forms that exist. Populocracy creates the platform for growth-mindset in the population to continually evolve and develop so that a consensus-based decision-making process does not fall into class-system through ethnic prejudice or religious ignorance to dictate for too long the condition of a regressive way of life for human-society anywhere.
Equality of opportunities is also a social populocratic principle. It defines the clear lines of boundaries for both the government and the governed, through which populocratic directives can be guided and enforced by its equalitarian principle. Equality of opportunities prescribes the voting-age, the working-age and the pension-age, and people within the legal age of populocratic activities have the right to engage in it if they wish to do so. Equality of opportunities is what it is: equal rights to every citizen of a populocratic nation.
We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, caste, religion, belief, sex, gender, language, sexual orientation, age, health or another status. However, anyone within the legal age of populocratic consent and who chose not to participate in its specific activities without falling within any of its prescribed exemptions will equally have deprived themselves of its equality of opportunities to any of its benefits.
Equality of opportunities is regarded as a fundamental right only when one participates in its prescribed commission. Social populocratic principle is the recognition that every citizen has access to equal opportunities which can help them improve their well-being and the condition of what makes like going well from time to time. The social character of populocracy has removed the condition of class from its society, has eliminated the economic hierarchy of wealth in all its forms by abolishing monetary-economy, and has equalised the roles of government and the governed in a governmental interdependent leadership and obedient to the State Constitution.
Populocracy is the idea of collective leadership of a governed people having governmental, economic, as well as socialist principles as its hallmark. Unlike democracy in current practice where the government are sovereign, all people in a populocracy are sovereign.
Hence the equality of opportunities to all necessary rights exercisable by humans made available to all within it, shared interdependent leadership governmental structure in govox-populi, economic equality of ethno-corporatism, individual populist sovereignty in a collective populocracy, supreme citizenry prescribed laws of the State, and the necessary horizontal delegation of authority and powers is the mode of organisation of commicracy without which equality of opportunities within populocracy fails.
As such, equality of opportunities acts by a basic belief: “you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself”. This premise on the recognition that the basic principle of social populocracy prescribes the tenets to which individuals should be expected to be treated equally and with significant points that are deemed just and fair to promote individual rights in a populocratic society anywhere.
Unlike the arrays of corrupted democracy in current practice everywhere which is the best form of governing a society of animals with no verbal communication capability to express themselves, populocracy is the best form of governing a society of humans with verbal communication capability to express their needs and wants throughout life. As such, any serious socialist theory that seeks to promote equality of opportunities, human rights, and the condition of what makes like going well for human-society anywhere, has a populocracy form of governance to consider.
The question typically left to consider is how much power is warranted to the governed people in a populocratic government. Any class-system form of governance wants the government to have all the power, except in a democracy where the voting right to elect officials to State office is powered by the people that are governed. Classless-system form of governance wants a socialist governance where the people that are governed have the legislative power as well as the voting right to elect officials to State office, while the executive power and the judicial power are left to the government in an interdependent commitment with both the legislative power and the economic power between the government and the governed. This has become the unresolved argument that splits all the accoutred socialist theories departure from the classical theory of socialism itself.
My response to this dilemma is simply that I trust neither the government nor the governed people to have all State power in a one-sided authority. The prevailing view of socialism has always been that the governed people should have the legislative power of the State to choose and select policies in an elective-process. With all the autocratic socialist theories that have been spawned, there can be no equality of opportunities without the legislative power to the governed people to govern themselves, and there can be no orderly control without the government retaining the judicial power of the State.
The power that promotes equality of opportunities for all people does not exist anywhere outside of the regulatory control of the governed people affected by the exercise of such power to create the rules that govern the directives of the power itself. Partisanship governance is a contest for power in which corruption and greed typically win. Non-partisanship, by contrast, is defined by rules; rules create consensus and shared authority, and the governed people affected by the rules generate the rules.
Freedom of speech and assembly is a fundamental aspect of social populocracy because it is what set populocracy apart from all other forms of governance that exist. For populocracy to exist in any place and function rightly, in the right sense of the word, it requires the capability of its participants to exchange verbal communication. The power to articulate speech or its meanings in signs and thoughts is required for the performance of populocracy. Since the power of speech is inherent in human-nature, it is a fundamental right of every human that exists to express the freedom of expression associated with speech – this is an essential condition of populocracy as the form of governance inherent condition to govern human-society anywhere.
With freedom of speech comes freedom of peaceful assembly, both of which necessitates the freedom to form associations and freedom to participate in the populocratic processes in the shared responsibilities in the governance of one’s society and preservation of one’s ways of life. The social populocratic principle of speech and assembly, therefore, provides the footing for the governed people to express and define what counts as equality for them, and thus that constructs populocracy in a true sense as the rule by the people collectively to govern themselves.
Look closely, democracy defined as the ‘rule by the people’ mirrored socialist principle with its claimed freedom of speech and assembly, no doubt, but it lacks the footing for the governed people to express and define what should count as equality for them under any of the branches of its State governmental structure. Since the democratic government has monopolised all State power to themselves, leaving only the power to elect individuals to State office to the governed people, this has deposited democracy as the construction of the rule by the government to govern the people affected by the government definition of what should count as equality in society.
Think, for example, no other animal species apart from humans that could articulate the power of speech. As a result, every pet owner prescribes what should count as equality relations imposed on their pet animals and relies on any consensual gesture of the animal to appreciate agreement to the action over them; in the same fashion, that democratic government prescribes what should count as equality relations with their governed people in society and relying on the obedient act of the people to appreciate agreement to the rule over them.
This is true of democracy, because even though the classical theory of democracy is defined as the ‘rule by the people’ but it does lack the power of speech to the governed people to articulate that ‘rule’ for themselves. This analysis does give a credible explanation as to why democratic government anywhere dislikes any form of protest by the people since democracy has been re-theorised to keep the governed people mute with no power to articulate speech in protest or voters’ selection of policy against the rule by the government.
In this perspective, I believe that the governed people everywhere have grossly misunderstood what democracy has been re-theorised to become. If we agree that democracy is mute with no power of speech to the governed people and that democratic governments everywhere do not like speech protests or any idea of the governed people to make a selection of government proposed policy on that account, in the same relationship we expressed and expected with our pet animals – since it would be out of the ordinary to expect our pet animals to articulate to us what counts as equality for them through speech, then it is safe to say that there is no form of governance in current practice anywhere that has the power of speech attached to the governed people, so people are not justified to protest against any government action through speech in any event.
One might argue that the only way a democratic government could appreciate the disagreement of the people against its rule is to do what any mute animal would do in any given situation – since pet animals freely express their power of choice to protest through action, not speech. Refusal to eat one type of food and preferring another is a chosen behaviour for pet animals, especially dogs. Since they could not articulate speech, and we could not expect them to do so in any event, there is no way of knowing if our pet animal is simply filled up on too many treats that day or just feeling bored with our democratic governance to dictate over their day-to-day affairs.
Rightly so, it is not such an extraordinary course of action for people who turn up at a polling station in the election of any person into State office, to overcrowd a polling station and simply refuse to cast their vote. If that is achieved successfully, and the politicians ended up voting for themselves, democracy will dissolve itself by inaction and reveal its true self as the autocratic rule that it exercised in disguise.
This would allow the government to exercise the State legislative power they amass as their authority under democracy to make new laws that keeps them in power over the governed people at any cost, such as any pet owner would be minded to take their pet animal to the vet to force them to eat in the case of any refusal to eat. So, in any case, there is no other practicable option that is available to the governed people in a democratic society to express their disagreement against any government action – no right to decide on policy and no right to protest either.
Populocracy, in contrast, has the power of speech attached to its definition of the ‘rule by the governed people’. Since the freedom of speech and assembly necessitates the freedom to participate in the populocratic processes in the shared responsibilities in the governance of one’s society, the legislative power to the citizenry-electorates is dedicated to this achievement in a populocratic society.
This allows individuals to participate directly in the shared governance of their public administration within a populocracy. And the legislative power of the governed people directly governs the protection of all other rights by the State and is protected by the judiciary system with a concentration on protecting the individual rights within the freedom of the governed people in their collective consensus as members of their nation.
Populocracy, therefore, plays a key role as a system of information-delivery to the governed people in society and allows citizens to directly manage economic resources and direct the course of their own social development. This is to demonstrate that populocracy requires ‘information’ to function, for without information the governance system of populocracy would lack its populocratic expression and become stifled of its breathing source – the power to the people to govern themselves. Therefore, freedom of speech and assembly necessitates freedom of information-delivery in a populocratic society. As such, free independent media in populocracy plays a key role in the provision of information-delivery.
Look closely, the era of web-internetisation socialism established a populocracy form of governance and a commicracy mode of organisation as its functional prerequisite. Across the social media platforms everywhere on the internet, freedom of speech and assembly and freedom of information-delivery is the significant social characteristics of populocracy. As such, how people access information online to free their imagination, how people develop information through online debate, how people garner support for a cause through online information systems, and, perhaps most importantly, how people use information from an online source to improve their personal life and educate themselves accordingly about the condition of life anywhere and everywhere, exposed the one-sided view in the provision of bias information-delivery that developed under democracy through the media institution of television and radio contents, for example.
This is to demonstrate that while State governments everywhere can claim to be appropriating and practising democratic governance over the governed, the populist power of the governed people has advanced in appropriating and practising a populocracy form of governance on web-internetisation that ensures the interdependent source of information-delivery to self-regulates their society in altruistic and equalitarian relations.
Think, for example, traditional radio, newspapers, television, magazines, school curriculums, and even some books have been known to promote independent information-delivery from the government to the governed people, and the source of each of their populist information platform are connected to promotes the interest of the government everywhere, hence they risk facing government restrictions and banned from operating. The development of social media on the internet practices interdependent information-delivery to both the government and the governed people equally and the source of the majority of populist information objectives are connected to promoting the interest of the governed people in society anywhere.
As such, people are more prone to rely on the information they receive from social media because of its populocratic source, more than the information they receive from any of the traditional media because of their democratic source. Anyone, even politicians or any democratic government, who is serious about reaching a greater number of people has no choice but to must employ populocratic means through posting on the internet its information-delivery. This further proves the point I am making, in that populocracy is the form of governance by the governed people to govern themselves anywhere.
Recognising populocracy as an efficient and interdependent source of information-delivery in any govoxical process posits govox-populi as an administrative system of government that operates with the consent of the governed people in its society. Every machinery for the operation and election cycle of State officials is populocratic through accessible voting to the governed people of the legal voting-age. As such, all governed people are expected to:
- enjoy the freedom of assembly to debate and engage in govoxical discourse without interference on the day-to-day affairs of their government;
- articulate their freedom of speech to be expressed through their voters’ choice and selection of every government policy;
- participates in the daily public elections on government policies through their mobile phone Apps in a populocracy;
- free to adjourn from day to day or intermittently or forever from the populocratic process, including voting;
- compromise the votes of the minority to consensus with the votes of the majority as the decided decision of the governed people that is continuously subject to modification or change without end;
- respect the populocratic process with the need to have a collective-individualism of differing populist views on a common ground where all agree to promote equality for all.
Individual rights within collective consensus also form the principles of social populocracy. This necessitates the primary objective of populocracies to be the protection of individual rights within the consensus of a collective. The freedom of speech of any person to express their views on any issue without interference; the freedom to hold a belief or practice a religious faith, as long as such practice in any manner does not interfere with the individual rights of others; the freedom to participate in populocratic process as well as allow for the free provision of basic human needs to conscious objectors to any populocratic process; the freedom of assembly or cohabit as an organised culture, economic and/or govoxical custom and way of life, as long as the event does not interfere with the individual rights of others to choose within the boundaries of equality of opportunities so widely enjoyed by their peers in a populocracy.
The rights of individuals within collective consensus necessitate the social populocratic principles that prescribe an age limit for each populocratic process in the promotion of individual rights to participate toward collective consensus; it allows individuals to contest elections if they wish to do so; it authorises the provision of basic necessities to conchie-workers to meets their human-needs in populocracy; and, most importantly, it institutes equality of opportunities to identifying individual rights across all areas of sociability, and to match every newly identified individual populocratic rights to the existing populocratic consensus of a collective, so each and everyone finds a belonging to a group, community, association, fellowship or circle in all areas of social life.
Rule of law is a social populocratic principle and it incorporates freedom, equality and individual rights. Rule of law demands that the government authority has the responsibility to ensure a fair and unbiased legal process for the governed people in society. The Judicial branch of government, in its occupation of the proposed Supervisory-division of government, determines the fact and findings of particular cases and provide fair and consistent procedures in conformity with the State Constitution.
Rule of law in an ethnopublican State is constructed by the citizenry people and aims at the protection of the governed people in society collectively. This includes the non-interference with the course of justice either by the government or by the governed people, and it also includes the right of an accused person to face a public-jury trial as the law may provide. The fundamental characteristics of most rules of law constructed in conformity with a socialist principle deteriorate towards a populocracy or egalitarian rule. This is what I called the masterful law of populocracy.
Populocracy, when performed very skilfully, is powerful and able to control the governance of all other systems that interact with it. It is authoritative, self-willed and self-assuring. Even democracy which is stable when analysed cannot measure in the same masterful performance showing authoritative skills like populocracy. I show the requirement for a rule of law directed to conform with a socialist principle to become directly influenced by the masterful law of populocracy:
- The governed people of society have to govern themselves by holding the legislative power of the State and retaining all other power to their government. As a consequence, society and its government is controlled by the governed people, who act as a collective and exclusively engage in a compromise between themselves to resolve disputes.
- These unified people join or form regional communities. These regional communities are interdependent, which includes economic interdependency, and they are unified in a collective-individualistic corporation for each regional community to determine their own rules that directly or indirectly influence the determination of the rules of other regional communities.
- These regional communities are each a part of the State nationalism structure and they are together a corporate unit, e.g. a canton headed by StateLord Councillors for each region.
- They are organised in horizontal commicracy.
- There is heavy reliance within these regional communities, e.g. in the distribution of wealth and reciprocity of association in expression or function so related to one another that their activity is unified.
The most advantage of populocracy is that elected officials are required to must fulfil the selected policy of the governed people, and with absolutely no lawful principle that could allow elected officials to promote their own self-interested goals whilst in public office, providing a cohesive system of governance rule by the governed people and not a government rule by the government. The direct control of the legislative power of the State by the governed people is subject to the supervisory power of the State government judiciary to ensure that the system of majority-rule legislators voting on issues is prescribed in conformity with the State Constitution.
The structure of populocracy is an inclusive system of public governance, in which citizenry-electorates turn into State legislators, based on their direct participation in any given voters’ selection of policy that won the majority vote and passed at the House-of-StateLords Assembly. Below is a list of how populocracy is well suited to the socio-culture of our 21st-century advances in technology and rising population:
- In populocracy, voting is primarily done online and on mobile phone Apps, with the option to attend a polling station at a designated place open for those who wish to vote by paper/computerised ballot;
the consequence is that the governed people would spend less time each day attending to government affairs with less or no loss of productivity on their usual daily activities, because typically it may take average of 10-minutes reading through a regional policy that affects one own community – the bullet-point details between two or more contesting policy decision, the outcome and direct beneficiaries, and the implementation schedule on each one – and to cast a vote for one at a click of a button;
the advantage is that policy decision deals with both the most complex to the most basic with full information to fully evaluate the policy idea provided on the government website if one wishes to further scrutinise each pertinent point submitted on any given policy Information-delivery in both video televised format and written-form, and there will be no more than 4 policy decisions that may be required for voting selection in each regional community in each day.
- The government are tasked with the responsibility to provide Information-delivery on the nature, requirement, contingencies and implementation schedule of each policy on the electoral selection. The government then submit at least two or more contesting policy decision for the people to choose, and then implement the policy decision that has the majority vote;
the consequence is that there is transparency between the government and the governed people, with an open line of communication that helps everyone knows what to do, how to do it, why it is needed, and which outcome to expect at every selection of policy in an elective-process;
the advantage means that electors do not have to be vastly knowledgeable about current events that relate to particular policy development and with no requirement to be govoxically active on most issues.
- The inclusive system of public governance means that all information relating to the affairs of a populocratic State is open and accessible to all people – citizens and non-citizens alike – regardless of their status or geographical location;
the consequence is simply that there is no such thing as government-codified secrets anywhere;
the advantage means that the citizenry people of a society provide early intervention to deal directly with issues as it occurs at an early stage, call out bureaucracy or autocratic behaviour wherever they arise, and as well as able to deal with matters on a compromise approach without any justification for weaponising State-to-State violence to resolved any caused human problems.
- While government control of the State is at the national level from a top-down approach, the legislative control of the State is at the local regional level from the bottom-up approach;
the consequence is that the governed people affected by state-centred policy decisions are the legislator of that policy decision;
the advantage means that there would be no justification for street protest or any violent upheavals by any individual citizen against the government institution or personal attack against any government officials since the governed people have the legislative power to change any government rule or administrative function that they do not like.
- There is a high level of accountability in the populocratic structure. Anyone is subject to govoxical accountability for their actions – where a government official may be held accountable for mismanagement or corruption in public office, a citizenry-electorate may be held accountable for election malpractices or any other misconduct as a public legislator;
the consequence is that everyone is subject to accountability – both the government officials even up to the Head of State and the governed people;
the advantage is that the governed people would have the final say in what happens to the accused persons, either through submitting their electronic verdict through a public-trail jury in the trial of any public legislator or an existing prescribed citizenry law is rightly applied in the verdict of a trial against any government officials at the House-of-StateLords Tribunal.
- Since the governed people affected by government decision makes government decision, and there is the understanding in their consensus-based decision-making that every majority vote is a decided decision of the governed people that is subject to modification or change, which may be by today’s populist view of the minority to come in time ahead or not at all – it creates greater happiness for a greater number of people in society;
the consequence is that the government is legally obligated to implement the will of the governed people in society, regardless of whatever personal interest such public official may have in the exercise of the decided policy decision by the people;
the advantage is that the governed people are generally happier and more satisfied with the administration of their government because the intermediary approach to influence government policy decisions between the ruling-class and the elite group who owns the means of economic production under a democratic governance structure has been removed and completely defeated by the direct rule of the governed people on every government policy under populocracy.
- Unelected government officials can be removed at any time by the majority vote of the governed people, and the majority vote that elected any elected government official can be recalled at any time by the majority vote of the citizenry-electorates concerned;
the consequence is that the election of any individual into a government office to serve out a full term is not guaranteed, as both elected and unelected government officials can be removed from their job if they have been found to act contrary to the interest of the governed people in public office;
the advantage is that it is a narrow public sector with simple objectives, specific focus-dimensional and easy to verify or attribute to specific commicrats. It keeps public officials highly professional in their policy Information-delivery to their constituent members, and it removed blind-loyalty associated with party-politics in government organisational goals under the democratic government structure.
- Populocracy form of governance fortified the public administration of govox-populi through the interdependent leadership between the government and the governed people. This institute the governmental culture of cooperation under the structure of populocracy, and removed any justification for rebellion or anti-government sentiment from societal consciousness;
the consequence is that prevailing populist views have the platform to express their concerns freely and to provide proof and evidence to garner a majority vote when debating policies, laws, or procedures;
the advantage is that the government have no other choice but to cooperate with the governed people and accept the direction of their policy decisions on a state-centred policy decision that affects the government equally.
- In populocracy, government validates every policy proposal eligible for public legislators’ selection. However, individuals or groups can advocate for their policy interests, law or procedures, to be included in the contest next to the government-validated policy at every election process regardless of its wide public interests or benefits on any specific issues;
the consequence is that everyone has an equal chance, both the government and the governed people, to put their populist policy for public debate and seek public votes to support their specific issues, even if any of the populist policy or law that was not validated by the government does not have the prospect to reach the majority vote;
the advantage is that all policy submitted to the voting database for voting gets reviewed by voters who have an interest in it, where one policy decision would receive the majority vote for permission for implementation over the rest, and where majority voters may otherwise select the option available on every voting process to defer their selection of policy to a future specified date.
- Since voting is primarily done on computerised platform online and on mobile phone Apps with a live data-feed that records what each policy receive in votes, there is no threat of vote manipulation to consider because each vote cast would be ascribed with a computer generated harsh encrypted identifier number, under a counter of quantitative units attached to identify each vote to each voter’s government issued National-Identity card number internally;
the consequence is that the computerised counting procedure of election makes it faster and easier for decisions to be made at the same time as each election process ends, and for the work that needs to be done and be quickly implemented;
the advantage is that it removes any potential activities of any lobbying group to engage in corrupt practices with government officials that directly affect the outcome of the decided policy decision of government officials to influence the outcome of a policy that favours the elite-class to the detriment of the governed people as it is happening under the democratic government structure.
The list of how populocracy is well suited to the socio-culture of our current 21st-century generation is non-exhaustive. The level of public participation in an election is irrelevant in populocracy. The majority vote is taken as the decided decision of the governed people, regardless of its wide public interest benefit. The populocratic society of people can respond to emergencies faster, decide on the allocation of economic resources and distribution of wealth swiftly, and manage the daily needs of life within their regions at their own call.
Populocracy requires the participation of the citizenry-electorates in everything that the government does or proposes interest in, and the majority vote does not mean that the minority vote is always at a disadvantage in a populocracy. While the roles of citizenry-committees and economy-unionists are to provide the factual basis of policy Information-delivery to the governed people and seek their voters’ choice on every policy, the roles of local regional StateLord-Councillors oversee the supervision over all policy implementation by the Executive-branch through regional Commissions within their regions, and the roles of regional county StateLord-Governors oversees the supervision over the various segments of the roles of each StateLord-Councillors in all regions within their county.
Government validation of policies eligible for public selection in an elective-process is designed to promote two or more contesting policy views that are both equally good for the betterment of society. While individuals or groups can advocate for their policy interests, laws or procedures, to be included in the contest next to the government-validated policy at every election process regardless of its wide public interests or benefits on any specific issues, government validation on some policies and not others is to emphasise the danger of voting for unvalidated policies that may have been constructed on the emotional responses of a group of individuals, either for a short-term solution that promises instant gratification that may not align with any logical conclusion that may produce the desired outcome or any long-term benefit to a greater number of people in society.
The social character of populocracy offers society the complete freedom to govern themselves and with no conflict between the government and the governed people, as every majority vote, no matter the low-level participation of the governed people in an elective-process offers society the most freedom to govern themselves than any representative-democracy that allows the government to impose policy implementation upon the governed people.
Morale and Attitude of Populocratic Socialism
Individuals in a populocratic society are each responsible for taking govoxical actions to improve the condition of what makes life go well for the individual self. Populocratic socialism is the recognition that individuals should be expected to belong to a collective to meet their needs and wants throughout life.
All people agreed on the need to engage in work-ethics to guarantee the economic provision of the condition that improves individuals’ quality of life. In the context of work, populocratic socialism is the recognition that individuals should be expected to find themselves in work activities that gives them a sense of purpose and conforms to their personality in the workplace.
The dictum of the morale and attitude of populocratic socialism arise as a consequence of the economic development of global corporatism thriving on the web-internetisation platform and the incompatibility of the political administration of government to regulate it effectively. The ethics of capitalism are based on competition of products and services and unequal distribution of wealth, its’ bureaucratic impersonal organisation procedures that treat workers and service users as objects, and its political system of government that abuses the monetary system in many ways, one being through taxations on every earnings including goods and services to justifying its own legitimacy that sees the governed people as a commodity indebted to the State – are each a repertoire of the economic failure and governmental oppression of the unsocialist system under democratic governance structure.
The ethics of global corporatism are based on the quality of products and services and equal distribution of wealth, its’ commicratic interpersonal organisation procedures that treat workers and service users as subjects, its’ proposed govoxical system of government that equalised human activities, one being through equalising every economic value under non-monetary economy in justifying the position of the government as a privilege indebted to the governed people in society – are each a repertoire of the emerging populocratic socialism that is creating the condition of economic empowerment and the proposed governmental freedom upon the collective of the people in society.
Socialism essentially meant populocracy because there’s a lot of emphases placed on collective culture, cooperative customs and togetherness. The aim of populocratic socialism are twofold: (i) collective-individualism: individual rights of the citizen to meet all personal interests and benefits within the collective activities of their society; and (ii) populocratic-govox: the organisation of society by the collective citizenry to be centred on the provision of personal interests and benefits to the individuals.
Put together, populocratic socialism is defined as a reciprocal organisation of a community of people with the shared understanding that the systems they live in are designed to specifically meet their collective needs most of the time, and with the individuals having the power to vote on policies to achieve their individuals’ aims and objectives within a collective.
The morale and attitude of populocratic socialism, in the context of sustainable living in conformity with our natural environment, can be interpreted broadly under the principles of permaculture. The lifestyle choices of humans in a non-monetary economy are designed to differ considerably different to how the monetary-economy impact the lifestyle choices of humans everywhere. The culture of populocratic socialism is a better and lighter way for human-society to live sustainable and environmentally friendly lives in ways that can halt the destruction of the environment with our individualistic greed in pursuit of money and power in society.
The morale and attitude of populocratic socialism aim to keep the social and economic activities of the African people in Africa highly sustainable and compatible with the natural habitat. The theory of African populocratic socialism is constructed around the three primary ecosystems that made up the climate environment of the African continent: the desert regions, the coastal regions, and the grasslands and forestry regions.
The morale and attitude of the people whom the economic system of ethno-corporatism is bound to influence to inhabit each of these regions should be expected to directly have something to do with the social conditions and natural resources associated with the economic output in their region. Proposed in this manifesto, populocratic socialism of a regional community of people will be organised on the basis of a shared practice of socio-economic customs – either by means of economic provisions that meet local needs or economic output that local people produce, or both.
On the ecological principles of populocratic socialism, the provision of basic necessities to all citizens regardless of their status would encourage the use of open systems in a manner that provides access to material resources on free access basis. It seeks to institute the practice of the connection between individual basic rights to align with the fundamental rights of the collective.
The interdependencies of regional communities would be able to create sustainable food sources that are freely shared and stocked across supermarkets across cross-boundaries; and the free access to building materials would enable individuals to acquire pre-built factory-manufactured homes provision by local regional Housing Commissions, which can be installed in any location of their choice and where relocation would require the movement of the building platform to be re-installed in a new location.
The populocratic socialism of creating productive ecosystem would requires the permaculture to managing resources in a way that promotes the morale and attitude of waste reduction, prevents environmental pollution, eradicate the use of genetically engineered crops of consumable foods on all African soils and agricultural farming, promotes the use of electrical vehicles to combats air pollution across Africa, reduce ground water pollution through the reduction in plastic containers and harmful chemicals that may end up as unintended waste products or washed into groundwater and the sea, utilise the desert regions of Africa for the production of solar energy sources, institutes the culture of water reservation in every homes and in all regions through the collection of rain water for daily purposes throughout the rainy season that may last through to the autumn season, protection of natural habitats and wildlife, and the socio-culture of balancing the needs of individuals to align with the needs of the collective.
The open-system of populocratic socialism refers to the ideal of collective-individualism, in the concept that the individuality of each human being can only be guaranteed to live a fulfilling and happier life when they co-habit within a collective with a shared-sense of values to equality.
For example, the ways of life that appeal to pensioners are totally different to those of the working-group, and likewise what appeals to conchie-workers is different to what appeals to those with a sense of work-ethics in society. The expected morality and attitude of populocratic socialism present itself as a system that integrates naturedly way of sustainable living in harmony with Nature and not in annihilation to it, to promote beneficial impacts to the natural environment with the ecological advantage that benefits the human life in the long-term on planet earth.
Some examples of implementing populocratic socialism into African society include regulating the economy in a non-monetary standard of exchange, farming of non-genetically engineered crops on all human consumable foods, how and what natural resources are sourced and environmentally friendly to be cultivated, environmentally friendly pre-built manufactured homes, increase forestation areas in and out and across all African regions, managing resources and reusing waste products in ways that promotes sustainable quality of human life, and fosters the socialist culture to improving both the social and economic condition of African society collectively.
The culture of populocratic socialism is the recognition that the quality of human life must align in the same paths with Nature and not against it. This includes, among other things, the maintenance of the economic system in eco-friendly socialism, and the stability of the ecosystem on the paths of diversity to benefit biological life in all its forms.
The theory of populocratic socialism is the recognition that humans are not equal in every aspect of social life, and there is a need to foster a culture of equality of opportunities that allows each and every human to achieve individualised fairness in the distribution of wealth and social justice in society. This conforms with the beliefs that the practice of populocratic socialism entails a collective culture that provides equal moral worth to all persons regardless of their race, age or gender, and cooperative customs that provide basic economic necessities to all persons regardless of their capability for work-ethics or individual beliefs.
The goal of populocratic socialism is to influence the socio-culture of humans in the organic ways of life with Nature. It promotes the philosophy of sustainable living in all actions that simplified lifestyle choices to necessities. It encourages individual actions to recognise how one action may impact the lives of others around them, thus motivating the potential to live a consequential life that takes into account the interests, welfare, and dignity of the collective in our personal or individual everyday decision-making.
As the human population continues to rise globally, capitalist economic activities of production ahead of demand have proven deficient in capacity to recycle the mass of waste products that it generates – thus disrespecting the planet Earth and causing environmental disaster with its failure to regulate ecological overshoots appropriately. With the proposed ethno-corporatist economic activities of production to supply existing demand is the saving grace for humanity to reclaim the planet from destruction to the many natural systems, so that the rising population of human settlement can be outspread evenly in ways that instil the value in humans aspirations to colonise the universe space ground.
According to the theory of populocratic socialism, it is a lazy way of thinking to hold the belief that the planet earth is overpopulated by humans. It is full of biases and distorted ways of thinking to interfere with the natural order of Nature with our so-called scientifically modified engineering of consumable food resources that should not be altered or tampered with by any means. The influence of beliefs in scientific racism, the sway of decisions and judgments that people make each and every day based on religious belief or racial prejudice, has shifted and moved the attention of the collective of the human-race away from what should rather have our attention – that is, the collective survival of the human race beyond the planet earth.
The main mission of the theory of populocratic socialism is to illustrate the importance of life and the natural settlements of the human species on the planet earth. None of the social-system of social-control that we appropriate in our generation at the present allows us to live sustainably in ways that promote the survival of the human-race beyond the planet earth.
Nothing that exists last forever – the planet earth will not last forever – the human race will not last forever – for every life has an expiring day and everything that exists dies. But we can promote to extend our limited existence by thinking of the universe as human occupation beyond the planet earth. Every human has a responsibility to contribute – no matter how little or trivial – towards the occupation of the human race in the universe beyond the planet earth.
The idea of populocratic socialism is to regulate human-society to achieve their economic objectives in the least disruptive manner to our natural environment. The ultimate objective is to integrate individual human needs with sustainable efforts to safeguard our natural world and its resources. Our socio-economic system needs to be fundamentally restructured in order to achieve the essential condition of populocratic socialism.
Unlike capitalist economic relations that are monetised and privatised to benefit individualised ownership of economic production which thus promotes unequal distribution of wealth in society, ethno-corporatist economic relations are free and public and its commission of rules are made by economic equals which thus gives rise to populocratic social structures that confer interdependent power relations on everyone equally. Such populocratic social relationships allow any collective member of society to be free to utilise the structural resources of institutions and how any individual ambition of extraterrestrial development could be effortlessly achieved within them.
Human-society cannot carry on in its current form forever, because we could imagine the increasingly restrictive condition of the monetary-economy to wither away all governmental institutional relations with the governed people due to its incompatibility with socialism. The governed people of society anywhere can agree that the basic contours of society should be constructed in populocratic governance by its members. The vision of populocratic socialism rests upon the sole tradition of collective socio-economic custom, with no regard to race, ethnicity, or religion in its constructed organised socio-economic unity.
It is difficult to provide a generalisation about any future change that may occur in the morale and attitude of populocratic socialism, as the theory in itself is a broad and diverse govoxical ideology that encompasses a range of views and approaches, that drives the socio-economic organisation of human-society on the path of equalitarian principles and altruist rules of engagement and of representations. Populocratic socialism emphasises the importance of the governed people of a society and seeks to empower the citizenry people of any State in their self-governance through populocratic means.
Populocratic socialists may prioritise issues such as the equal value of all basic necessities on matters of the economy, unconditional social welfare that promotes principles of reciprocity, and populocratic participation in all aspects of social life. They may also advocate for policies that seek to redistribute wealth and power to benefit the governed people of foreign nations under altruistic principles.
The morale and attitude of populocratic socialists may be influenced by a variety of factors, including their goals, values, and experiences. Populocratic socialists may be motivated by a desire to create a more equitable and just society, and they may be hopeful and optimistic about the potential for positive change through collective action and populocratic participation.
While it has been possible to produce an examination of the specific goals, values, and experiences of the African people in our collective need for economic growth and social development in order to project the ideal morale and attitude of United African populocratic socialism, overall, it is important to recognise that populocratic socialism is a diverse and multifaceted ideology, and it’s not possible to make generalisations about the morale and attitude of all populocratic socialists anywhere.
Ethnocratic Populist Governance of Indigenous Ancient African Society
The populist governance of ethnocracy refers to a govoxical approach or system in which legislative power is held by or derived from the governed people and decisions are made based on the will or needs of the majority. Ethnocratic-populist governance can take only one form: interdependent leaders who take governing instruction from the citizenry people and who represent the “voice of the people.”
Ethnocratic-populist leaders use their power to implement policies made by the governed people and propose decisions that are popular for the people. Ethnocratic-populist governance can also be characterised by the use of prevailing populist views to consolidate legitimacy for power, and it can lead to both the success and failure of ethnocratic norms and institutions on the line of egalitarian principles.
Populist governance of ethnocracy was practised by indigenous ancient African communities under the imperial administrative government structure with interdependent leadership rule of kings or queens with their chiefs that revolves around the day-to-day affairs of citizenry members of their community. In ancient Africa:
- Judicial-Branch: The ruling kings or queens hold the judicial arm of government over the people which is often exercised with absolute discretion. They do not get elected by the people as head of the community but through lineage and they practise a gerontocracy form of governance. They hold their office for life and after their death, the first male child inherits the position in conformity with a patriarchal social system.
- Executive-Branch: The chiefs hold the executive arm of government over the people which is often exercised with authoritative power. The chieftaincy operates on governing principles that conform to a strand of govoxical ideas and values. The chiefs are not elected by the people but through lineage, and they hold their office for life, after their death, the first male child inherits the position in conformity with their patriarchal social system. If a chief does not have a male successor upon death, the chieftaincy title usually passes on to another member of the community chosen by the king, or in an elective-process by the chiefs.
- Economy-Branch: The working-group holds economic power that governs their community, and each is obliged to contribute a portion of their economic productivity to the office of the head of their community household – the king or queen. Their economic system is cooperativism, and this allows all working-group to work for each other and each work for all as a collective, with equal distribution of land, economic wealth and resources within their community boundaries. Because their constitutional social system is patriarchal which develops to recognise women as child-bearers, caretakers and caregivers of each of their family households, the distribution of economic wealth in the community favours those who carry out economic activities directly. This allows women to marry men and rely on their husbands for each of their economic needs and wants throughout life.
- Legislative-Branch: Women are included as part of the citizenry legislator to voice their opinions and concerns in the shared participation process of the legislature that governs the community. Indigenous ancient African governments practised unwritten constitutions and their laws are legislated and executed in oral form. Because the monarch must act in accordance with traditions and customs, the judicial discretion of the ruling king is absolute and operates on the constitution of the patriarchal social system, which is used to regulate customary laws that must be passed through the judicial test to either be accepted, rejected or amended. As the legislative authority places the needs of the community above individuals’ interests, where the chiefs hold daily participation in the populist processes of information-gathering and debates with the entire community through gatherings at the town square centre where community members regardless of gender are able to voice their individual populist views and opinions for the judicial rulings of the king, they constitute a commicratic mode of organisation. This made the governed people that participates in the ethnocratic-populist process a part of government institutions in ancient African communities, in an interdependent shared-control of community administration with the role of the chiefs and monarch that represents them as socialist leaders.
The populist governance of ethnocracy was practised in different variations but in the same format across all indigenous ancient African societies. The judicial power of the African ruling king or queen which is often exercised with absolute discretions has been misrepresented to mean the same type of western-style bureaucratic mode of organisation that is exercised with top-down absolutism under their imperial administrative system of government.
Whereas, this is different to a strand of the commicratic mode of organisation practised in indigenous ancient African communities, because the governed people perceived the judicial discretions of the king as a derivative of a set of unwritten rules laid down by their ancestral leaders, passed down to the ruling monarch by direct education and spiritual connection.
Therefore, in whichever way or direction the exercise of judicial discretion of a ruling monarch had chosen to govern their community of people at any one time, it represents to the governed people in ancient Africa as the important aspect of their organised unity through which their departed ancestors laid down to govern both their social and govoxical life.
Community role by lineage is most appropriate in a relatively small population than the selection of individuals to occupy community roles for a term by a voting system appropriates in a large population. As such, the community role of the indigenous ancient African people is by lineage: where monarch, the chiefs, the different craftsmanship and economic role of the working-group, including the role of women as being born to marry and become a caretaker and caregiver to their family household.
Individuals are qualified by birth to belong to a group and to participate in the community role attached to each group through the lineage of family ancestry, and therefore children are brought up into adulthood to occupy a specific role within the community – so that each child born in ancient Africa already have a role ascribed to that child from birth based on the social and economic group that the parents occupy in the community, and the first name given to that child always means something significant to the individual – either as a monarch, a chief, a worker, or a wife.
Primitive communities that consisted of clans developed into interspersed ethnic groups in ancient times across the African continent. Because of their constitutional patriarchal social system, it is common to have a ruling king rather than a queen.
The chiefs are appointed by the king in accordance with the traditions and customs to exercise governing authority over their community people who live within their regional boundaries. The executive authority of the chiefs in their designated duties over a specific region within the community acts with the judicial power of the kings in accordance with customary laws of the land. As such, the chiefs have the primary role to regulate all aspects of social life and economic empowerment of the governed people in each of their regions.
There was a designated role of government Speakers popularly known as town-criers that made public announcements of the day-to-day administration of government to the attention of the governed people. The role of town-criers in ancient Africa represents the news media institution today. Most town-criers also acts as an entertainer for the king through a form of rapping song of praise. The primary role of town-criers was government official speakers who announce the king’s enactment of new laws and the repeal of laws, public announcements of meetings and gatherings, including deaths and ascensions of new persons into government roles. While the chiefs are in the regulatory-control of service-delivery, the town-criers are mostly placed in control of making public announcements of government happenings to the people. The town-criers walk around residential buildings and marketplaces with a bell ringing and making public announcements at the top of their lungs.
Due to the role of chieftaincy as the service-delivery of government to the people since ancient times, indigenous African communities everywhere in this present day still demand the chiefs, whose role is inherited by lineage to a family ancestry to exercise a form of authority to regulate the social life of their community outside of any authority that the democratic State government hold including outside of any authority of the police or the official court system. Since the modern chiefs derived their governing authority directly from the allegiance and submission to their rule by the governed people that reside within their community jurisdiction, with or without the presence of a monarch, means that the authority of the chiefs stemmed from the symbolic ethnocratic-populist governance that existed since the ancient times.
The installation of a republican nationalist State structure in Africa, which saw the division of the African continent into colonial boundaries with no regard to ethnicity or tribes, defected the ethnocratic-populist governance of indigenous ancient African people. The court system took over the regulatory role of the traditional legislative system, the civil servants took over the executive service-delivery of the chiefs, and the presidential or republican head of state took over both the judicial discretionary power of the monarch and the executive authority of the chiefs in direct control over the legislative system.
By lumping together part-judicial and part-executive to the role of republican head-of-state is specifically designed to regulate representative-democracy form of governance in a bureaucracy mode of organisation so that the governed people would no longer have the direct legislative control they once exercised that allows individuals to be free to express their individual populist views, concerns and opinions at town-centres to guide the monarch in its absolute exercise of judicial discretionary power under populist form of ethnocratic governance.
Traditional African communities are not entirely satisfied with the western bureaucracy and their notion of independent leadership over the governed people achieved through the colonialism of the African continent. Despite the macro activities of republican leadership and their use of military and police force to subjugate local community people across Africa, the vestige of monarch institutions and the chiefs are still highly respected and expected to perform a wide range of public functions in each of their regional communities. To avoid uprising and achieve the compliance of the governed people to State government imposed-rule, traditional leaders are often employed and paid by the republican government agencies to maintain law and order within each of their regional communities.
This is to demonstrate that republican government and their system of representative democracy has to act in alliance with the ethnocratic-populist governance of traditional leaders to enforce safety and security within their national jurisdiction, including how the monarchs and the chiefs are often involved in settling land disputes, in the allocation and distribution of land, in the provision of spiritual leadership to the governed people, outside of the influence of the State government or their court-system.
During the colonial era across Africa, the western bureaucracy mode of organisation was imposed to weaken the African commicratic mode of organisation. The judicial power of the monarch was controlled to receive its authority from the colonial-imposed magisterial court-system headed by European colonial masters. Whatever the African people once held in connection with their ancestors was transferred to the State government institutions headed by European magistrates in direct control of the entire African population. This was successfully achieved through the indirect-rule of commissioning rule between the colonial masters and the African traditional leaders. The interdependent leadership between the monarch and the chiefs and their citizenry populist legislator now became dependent on the colonial government’s imposed rule.
This is to demonstrate that African populist governance of ethnocracy is still very much active at micro levels across African communities in the present day. Their dependencies under the western imposed system of government that remain active at the macro levels across the divided African nations is the cause for the disorganisation that is existing against all African governments post-colonial.
It is precisely this dependency that this manifesto proposed to remove with the installation of an ethnopublican nationalism State structure and govox-populi administrative system of government so that the ancient African populist governance of ethnocracy can be advanced into the modern populocracy form of governance to achieve the call for the revival of its ancient African-socialism advocated for by the Pan-African movement.
Western system of representative-democracy is alien to the African system of governance with chieftaincy and monarch which had existed historically on a strand that gives the governed people a voice in the affairs of government. While representative-democracy is defined as the imposed rule by the elected officials in government over the governed people, a populist form of ethnocratic governance rule is defined as the imposed legislative rule through populist opinions by the governed people to direct the judicial and executive leadership of their community officials in government. As such, the dependencies of populism in any form to be controlled by representative-democracy subject the monarchs and chiefs to became the enforcer of western bureaucracy in Africa with imposed rule over the governed people.
This has since undermined the populist governance of the African governed people. The economic system of cooperativism was abandoned for the western capitalism that sees the African people engaging in work across western build industries in pursuit of money. The working-group collectively had abandoned their shared ownership of their own natural resources and left it to the property of the republican State government headed by the European colonial masters, and now regarded as the property of the ruling-class in government under a personal organisation procedure.
As such, any traditional leader who failed to act in the interest of the State government faced being annihilated and bankrupt, and those who acted in their interest are given State legitimacy and robustly funded. Being a monarch and a chief in Africa today is more of a ceremonial occupation because their authority to provide direct service-delivery has been incapacitated by the State.
This manifesto is a revival of ancient African-socialism. The ancient monarch has been redefined to take the position of StateLords in their occupation of the Judicial-branch of government; the ancient chieftaincy has been redefined to take the position of the secretariats in their occupation of the Executive-branch of government; the ancient working-group has been redefined to take the position of the national economy in their occupation of the Economy-branch of government; and the ancient participation as public legislators through raising welfare concerns and opinions has been redefined to take the position of Citizenry-electorates in their occupation of the Legislative-branch of government.
Therefore, the proposed roles of govoxiers in the installation of an ethnopublican State is the recognition that the imposed rule of representative-democracy governance is antithetical to the proposed shared-rule of representative-populocracy, and the persistence of populist governance in its bare existence to raise protest or raise our collective opinions by the governed people to govern themselves wherever and whenever is very specifically innately programmed in the collective of human psyches under the universal laws of human-nature.
Therefore, the universal laws of human-nature are predetermined in everyone, as people exhibit a wide range of collective behaviours and characteristics in accordance with this law. The principles that may be considered to be universal to human-nature are practised differently between representative-democracy and representative-populocracy, and they include the following:
| UNIVERSAL LAW: | Democracy | Populocracy |
| The desire for survival: Humans have an innate desire to survive and thrive, and this drives many of their behaviours and actions | The few who occupy the ruling-class in government trumped their desire for survival over those of the governed people in society. They make laws and impose regulations that have little regard for the survival of the governed people | The people are free to voice their concerns and opinions to preserve each of their desire for survival, in which the decisions and laws that are made are based on the need and wills of the majority of the governed people in society. |
| The need for social connection: Humans are social creatures and have a fundamental need to connect with others. | Democratic social connection through membership in a political organisation promotes the culture of partisanship and division in society. It impedes populism and forces people into protests to be heard. | Populocratic social connections promote the culture of non-partisanship and dialogue between different groups. It promotes populism and contributes to a more inclusive and fair society. |
| The pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain: Humans generally seek out experiences and situations that please them and avoid those that cause them pain or discomfort. | The governed rule by the few over the majority promotes misconceptions about the limited experiences and situations of individual people. This results in inefficient use of resources to address crime and reduce recidivism | The governed rule by the majority provides a wider information base with vast experiences and situations that individuals can apply to understand other people. This results in the efficient use of resources to address crime and reduce recidivism |
| The drive to learn and grow: Humans have a natural curiosity and desire to learn and grow, both personally and intellectually. | The factors that contribute to the effectiveness of education in representative-democracy are suited for monetary-economy with a regimented form of learning and impersonal bureaucratic procedures | The factors that contribute to the effectiveness of education in representative-populocracy are suited for a non-monetary economy with a subject-focused form to learning and interpersonal commicracy |
| The capacity for moral reasoning: Humans can consider moral questions and make decisions based on their beliefs and values. | The construction of legal positivism that representative-democracy imposed to govern society failed to recognise most of the natural laws that govern the inherent moral principles of a majority of people in society and thus creates the condition of what makes life go badly for the moral conscience of a people in society. | The construction of legal positivism that representative-populocracy generates to govern society incorporates most natural laws that govern the inherent moral principles of a majority of people in society, and thus promotes greater happiness for a greater number of people in society |
Humans exhibit many complex aspects of human-nature from within any of the innate needs to express any of the above universal laws inherent in every human being, and it is important to recognise that individuals may exhibit behaviours and characteristics depending on their unique experiences and circumstances.
The ethnocratic-populist governance in ancient African society was more than a set of rules that were laid down by traditional ethnic leaders because it incorporates the opinions and concerns of the governed people as well. This is what defined the success of ancient African society in their collective culture since individual people are free to relocate themselves to another location and live an independent life away from any perceived authoritarian power over them.
There were often times of conflicts in ancient Africa that led to average of 10,000 different institutions of socio-economic communities and self-governing ethnocratic-populist governments with their own monarch and chiefs, and varieties of tribalised languages and customs of the same ethnic groups, before European imposition of slavery upon Africans and the consequent colonialism of Africa continent into republican boundaries. While those communities that reside around the coastal regions of the African continent were most affected by western slavery, all African communities were affected by western colonialism because all the land mass were searched and expedited to disempower the thousands of clustered ethnocratic-populist governance of each community into the western-imposed republican statehood.
Thence in Africa, we have communities of people of the same ethnic groups, tribes and languages, divided into different countries and represented under different nationalities with different imposed colonial languages. Tribes were redefined under colonial regional authorities, and all traditional leaders were limited to ceremonial functions in their service-delivery to their people. Monetary-economy was institutionalised and made mandatory above the natural order of trade-offs in exchange for products and services under non-monetary terms and conditions. Traditional leaders were subjugated to must rely on salary payment from the republican government which had taken over their lands and resources and deprived them of their economic survival and need for socio-economic association with their governed people, while at the same time governed people were socialised to colonial built industries to work in pursuit of money for their individual economic survival.
The collective culture of indigenous African society was forced to adopt individualised culture for self-interests and goals; the cooperative economic system of shared-ownership of both natural resources and human resources is now under the regulation of the western economic system of capitalism with government ownership of natural resources.
The commicratic mode of organisation of the ancient African people where a majority of the governed people could freely voice their concerns and opinions was derailed to take up a western bureaucratic mode of organisation with few individuals making life-changing decisions imposed for the majority; the indigenous Africanised moral practice of evicting from the community those found to had breached their community law to go and settled elsewhere with their families (which was taken advantage of by the western institution of slavery), was transformed into the inefficient use of resources to address crime by imprisonment of people in a confined space like caged animals with separation from family and causes of avoidable mental health in humans.
The proposed populocratic governance of African society advocated for in this manifesto will derive its legislative power based on the governance by the people as it had existed in ancient Africa. The collective culture of the African people where ‘all work for each and each work for all’ would be revived. The cooperative economic system would evolve into its advanced form in the ethno-corporatist economic system back to its non-monetary economy on products and services of needful values.
The western political system which has since contradicts the culture of the African govoxical ideas and values would be abolished and replaced with the proposed government system of govox-populi. And, most importantly, the divided African communities into colonial national boundaries will be regrouped in an organised unity based on tribes with closer cultural affinities to form the united 54 African ethnopublican nationalism State structure – One Africa, One Nation, and One Hope.
The revival of ancient African-socialism would produce govoxical leaders that would rely on emotional appeals, nationalist rhetoric, and equality sentiment to gain support, and they should be expected to often present themselves as outsiders to any partisan culture, even if they hold a well-defined populist view with less compromise with others.
One of the key characteristics of populocratic governance is the appeal to the “governed people” and the use of rhetoric that promotes equality of opportunities, intellectual discourse with proof and evidence, and quick to provide evidence against any populist views that appear out of touch with the concerns and needs of the majority. Populocratic leaders should be expected to often use language and policies that portray themselves as fighting for the interests of the “collectives” against any individualistic interests or prejudice, and they may use nationalistic or collective-preservation rhetoric to galvanise support.
In conclusion, populocratic governance is a govoxical approach that seeks to empower the general population responsible for making decisions based on the will or needs of the majority. While populocratic governance can take many forms and may have both positive and negative consequences, it is characterised by the use of nationalistic or humanitarian tactics to govern society and suppress individualistic populism, and it leads to the erosion of democratic norms and institutions for the populocratic empowerment of the people to govern themselves.
CHAPTER FIVE
CULTURE OF STRUCTURAL GOVERNANCE OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY IN THE ERA OF POPULOCRACY
The culture that governs the structure of family and community is important to the character of a nation, and it also contributes to the success and failure of a people’s social and economic development. Wherever a structural governance conflict with the culture of a people or is not well controlled to conform to the collective ideal of its participants, it as a consequence disorganise the social cohesion of their collective interactions within themselves on the one hand, and with other communities on the other.
While the transforming culture of structural governance from the primitive era in human-society can be characterised by an ethnocracy form of governance practised by family and community and uniform everywhere, different varieties of the same forms of governance have existed to govern the structure of different communities in human-society from the ancient era to the present day.
The ancient-society produced its distinct organised human-society in the world, and while their differences produced arrays of the independent social character of communities and nations, the consequences of their disparities also influenced the social cohesion in some and social conflicts of wars and invasions of nations against one another in others. As a result, human-society in the world remains in the practice of an individualistic form of governance and thus hindered the furtherance of our collective interests, power and resources.
The culture that structures the governance of democracy that expanded in the 19th century over family, community and nations in human-society in the world, reached its peak in the 20th-century and contracting at a rapid pace in our current 21st-century generation. With the development of web-internetisation platforms and increase human activities with individuals’ dependency on their mobile phones and computerised technology to socialise both in work and leisure for the most part, the cultural governance of the structure of populocracy is developing and expanding over and above that of democracy in our current 21st-century generation.
The majority of the world population is dependent on computerised technology operating on the web-internetisation platform in some way. Almost all, if not all, people below the age of 45 revolve their day-to-day lives around internet use – be it social media, gaming, education, work, gambling, shopping, or any other online activities. This simply demonstrates that in the next four decades, practically every human alive would become dependent on the use of web-internetisation platforms for each of their effective communication, work activities and social lives – where populocracy would have reached its high fertility stage before going into its peak stage in the 22nd -century, in the diversities of culture that is developing in the governance of the structure of family, community and nations in our human-society the world over.
The social character of family and community everywhere around the world is gradually expanding into uniform structural governance of populocracy, and what that means for the understanding of family and community in the proposed populocratic African society is how social connections and economic networks will become easily accessible in ways that otherwise wouldn’t be possible in any other structural system of governance that has existed in human-society anywhere.
Everywhere we looked, the web-internetisation platform has become indispensable for bolstering and developing social connections and economic networks, and every young generation is developing greater self-confidence in online social skills than their immediate older counterparts before them.
Think, for example, in a world where we are now dependent on web-internetisation for practically everything, where both children and adults both have their individual specific needs for the internet, where every economic work activity and every pursuit of leisure must have an internet site to reach their audience, with its increase in efficiency and ease of access to information in any subject of human knowledge beyond certification in formal education, with its increasing demand for more sophisticated machine learning in all areas of human social activities, with how it’s becoming the defining features in structuring families to remain connected outside of the constraints of physical locations, and with the way it’s institutionalising the organisation of what we understand by the term ‘community’; serves as a powerful medium for the success of national populocratic governance.
The cultural governance of family, community or nation defines the collective ties and the economic approach through which a people rely to access food, provision health and acquire needful resources including all other necessities required to guarantee their self-preservation and survival in society, the governance of populocracy is in the same way defining the common global problems of food, health and natural resources that individual family, community or nations are exploring through its ease of access to information of what’s available or possible to cultivate in any other parts of the world around them.
Considering the above social reality in practice in our current 21st-century generation, it is highly recommended that all the divided African nations move beyond inter-governmental cooperation under the African-Union (AU), and unite into a single national body, to be able to successfully work synergically to manage our social and economic development locally, nationally and internationally.
Africa is the second most populous continent in the world, after the Asia continent. During the peak of the culture that structure democracy in the 20th-century globally, African family and community maintained their great successes in subsistence economic production that meets their society’s basic demands for goods and services and remained trapped in this cycle of economic production approach for self-consumption. The ideal of all African national governments, at the same time, recorded their great failures under the economic income approach that failed woefully to meet the demand for economic development for the African community and family anywhere.
Now in the proposed era of the populocratic govoxical system, a new economic approach to structure our national development has developed under the theory of ethno-corporatism, and this involves the govoxical government and the working-group in Africa to come together in an ethno-corporatist alliance and empower the entire African population and develop the economy to achieve economic self-sufficiency subsistence under its production approach, that meets the direct public demands for goods and services under its final demand approach, and to create the economic output in Africa and for Africans in international business activities under its income approach.
Sooner or later, the increase in climate change around the world is projected to cause the entire African continent to experience a food security crisis along with the rest of the world. The African continent with its diverse ecological habitat is endowed with the capacity to avert the ecological disaster that is doomed to befall the world human population with an increase in climate change. In the pursuit of alternative ways to provide for the common global problems for food provision, health and natural resources, the western key-players were coming up with ideas and arrays of inventions that suit the ecological habitat of their national boundaries. Whereas, their ideas are disastrous for the ecological habitat of the African continent.
To be clear, biological engineering foods (GMO) not only threatens the biological diversity of foods that grows organically on the grounds in Africa, but it is also not desirable to African ecological habitat. Indigenous Africans live with Nature and our indigenous spiritual consciousness has always been in alignment to live in harmony and as a part of Nature, and have never been known in human history as a partaker of the destroyer of Nature. While Africans cannot be blamed for climate change, we also should never be seen to partake in any human activities that operate to control the natural order of Nature in any way shape or form.
The proposed United African States would gain great success in what is achievable and can be done with ease to keep the production of biological diversity of foods grown organically in Africa and sufficient to feed the world population – even up to ten billion human population, without being constraints by the threat of climate change. Another part of this great success is the materials in which African architecture houses would be built. African housing materials that have existed since the primitive era, built with mud and solid wood would be incorporated with steel, stone and glass, to revive our eco-friendly ways of life since the primitive era, and would experience revival in the proposed United African States.
The proposed United African States is also bound to result in the success of population planning through effective family and community planning; the issue of poverty and unemployment as well as health inequality and environmental problems will be effectively controlled and resolved with ease. The increase in the populocratic culture of the entire human population operating on the global web-internetisation platform will add to the mitigation and relief of their independent nations to cater to the economic needs of their people. To improve the lives of our human world population from now to the future, and to accelerate the termination of GMO foods from human consumption in Africa, for our health and safety and preservation of our human future generation to come, it is necessary to commence the proposed United African States’ program as the priority.
It requires several strategic implementation programs to incorporate the expanding family, community and national structure of populocracy as they are developing in our current 21st-century generation into the proposed institution of the United African States. It is also urgent to conduct field demographic research with its aim to design the subsistence economic model at the macro-level under the non-monetary model under the populocratic govoxical system which requires the participation of both the government ministries and their respective working-groups in all areas. The role of the proposed commicratic government departments, govoxical organisations and economic institutions, is equally important to manage any problem that may arise in the govoxical transition period in boosting the effectiveness and efficiency of the ethno-corporatist national planning programs.
It is necessary to design a non-monetary economic model to implement the ethno-corporatist planning programs in the era of populocracy because it is through the improvement in the quality of lives of the citizenry people to access economic products and services with neutrality or impartiality that does not exist in a monetary-economy, would it be possible for the government to have the means to successfully administer representative-populocracy, where govoxiers would propose policy initiatives to implement any desirable national planning programs with the support of citizenry participation. For, without citizenry participation in a representative-populocratic government, govoxiers would be unable to carry out the effective functions of government in the governance of the people.
Starting with recognising the expanding cultural thinking that is structuring the governance of family from the micro-level over to a community’s medial-level, my proposed concept of populocratic family planning is a program that works for men and women in this order: individuals are institutionally accounted for through their mothers, and men are placed in the position of responsibility as a necessary supporter to women in the concept of family. This allows the government to provision for the economic welfare of the first and second child born by a woman from birth until both children reach the working-age, whereby they would be in the independent capacity to cater for their economic welfare through direct participation in State affairs.
There would be a few exceptions to this rule, such as those with multiple births or more during their first or second child production, those who lost their first or second child to death before reaching the working-age, and those women of naturalised citizens of Africa with no dependent children below the working-age already assigned to be provisioned for by the State, would equally qualify under this government provision under the national interest in the control of population growth.
Further, any other childbirth by a woman, where the Government has already taken full responsibility for the economic provision of their first and second child, would become the responsibility of both couples to provision for their child/children through the parents’ government issued ‘Corporatist Service Provision’ CSP card until the child reach the working-age.
Equally, there would be a few exceptions to this rule, such as free education to all pre-working age group born of African citizens including children born by certain qualified migrants, free entitlement to day-care centres for any child born by working mothers, and free health-care provisions for all people regardless of the citizenship status of the parent.
The expanding culture that is governing the structure of the family in our 21st-century generation is aiming to meet the demand for the populocratic concept of family for human-society to be organised on satriarchical lines, with equal shared commissioning-rules in the family household by the perceived mother and father. The term Satriarchy, in parallel cultural practice as the term patriarchy or matriarchy, I identified and defined in volume-3 of this manifesto as, a system of society in which both the father and mother to a child have equal responsibilities as the supervisor of family and both assume the equal right to the line of descent to their offspring.’
The definition of satriarchy is premised on the recognition that since each individual is a biological product of two opposite gender – a mother and a father – therefore, while both parents have equal shared commissioning-rules in the upbringing of a child, either the mother or the father is institutionally registered as the first point of contact in the upbringing of a pre-working age individual under the populocratic cultural governance of each family household – but mothers take priority over fathers in this context.
This in turn is directed toward the new expanding approach to family, where a single guardian or a parent would be the first or principal point of contact in relation with an offspring, to the improvement of how we account for and provision for the pre-working age population, to the realisation of government’s understanding of what a family believe or value, and to the government’s strategic implementation of public policy approach over the procedures and routines that family use to work and act in their everyday activities in society.
The theory of satriarchy develops under populocracy because the patriarchal position of men in society is in crisis under the expanding culture of populocracy. For example, the culture that governs the structure of the family and places men as head of a family, also dictates that men are the economic provider to their family. This places enormous pressure on men to must engage in economic activities that are sufficient to earn a lifetime income to enable them to provide adequate shelter, food and aesthetic condition that makes life go well for members of their family.
But time has changed now. In volume-2 of this manifesto, I mentioned the fact that: “The proposed restoration-era in Africa will be known for its restoration of the Stone-Age era in human society – the revival of the common-unity of socio-economic customs.” The populocratic rise of web-internetisation platforms has brought about the era of socio-economic customs to depose the era of ethnicity, race and protégé in African society. Men and women are now in equal capacity to become the provider for their families like they were in the primitive stone-age era.
Think, for example, the role of a stay-at-home wife and being a caregiver to the family household is gradually being recognised as contributing to a nation’s economy in some ways. Everywhere we looked, men and women are increasingly taking up work-from-home jobs which allows both women and men to equally be the provider and caregivers to their family household, in shared roles in their family life.
In our current 21st-century generation socio-culture, the idea of both men and women engaging in work in shared-role as providers and caregivers to their family household is now the modern conception of what makes life go well for the culture that governs the expanding structure of populocracy in the concept of family and community and of a nation.
The transition from cultural democracy to populocracy is causing the entire human population in the world to experience changing social structure that governs family households which are increasing the number of working women in society. We now live in a society where women are taking greater advantage of the ease of economic network on the platform of web-internetisation to gain and improve their work skills training, to gain employment in areas with greater workplace flexibility, and this in turn has increasingly turned out to be in the interest of employers to provide better adjustment assistance to women in the workplace. As such, women are increasingly becoming economically well qualified to engage in labour activities in an equal capacity to men in society.
While the gender employment gap would always record men to retain a higher employment rate than women at any one time due to the biological role of women as child-bearer in society anywhere, it is safe to say that women cannot claim to be under-represented in the labour work on this reason alone.
In other words, the gender employment gap of men above women is culturally normal and expected under the expanding culture that is governing the structure of populocracy in society. While women would equally be expected to participate in any area of labour work in a govoxical populocratic society, better adjustments would be provided directly by the government to remove the burden of the daily childcare responsibilities to allow women equal opportunities in the economic realm of ethno-corporatism.
As a result, how equal opportunities would be provisioned between gender would differ, in that, the majority of women would be recognised as not feeling free like men in their choice of jobs or to attain the same job opportunities as men during their working-age. It is then safe to say, for reasons of the biological condition of women in their periodic menstrual cycle and the associated pains and discomforts, with being biologically conditioned as child-bearer, domestic and caregiving work over their family household, including in the limitation of physical manpower to engage in hard-laboured work that requires heavy lifting, women who work in part-time jobs would be entitled to the same equal opportunities of economic provision as men who work in full-time jobs.
Therefore, women of working-age who balance their part-time labour work in the national interest with their caregiving duties to their family household would gain equal opportunities of economic provision as men in full-time jobs in a populocratic society. Equally, men with caregiving responsibilities would be economically provisioned for in the same way, with fewer hours or time off work during the parenting phase. These arrangements would be institutionally provisioned in the proposed ethno-corporatist Labour-Law Act.
It is, therefore, necessary to synergise both the government and the working-group to incorporate in our progressive concept the expanding cultural strategic thinking of populocracy, in strategising the proposed institution of family from the micro-level, to conform with the local culture of community at the medial-level, in the national interest over the proposed United African States at the macro-level.
Recognising the expanding cultural thinking that is structuring the governance of community from the medial-level over to a nation’s macro-level, my proposed concept of populocratic community planning is a program that works for the working-group and the pension-group in this order: the working-group are locally organised as a community based on the nature of each of their economic service to the State, and the pension-group are locally organised in the position of responsibility as a necessary supporter in close proximity or within a short travel distance to their relevant working-group based on skills in the concept of community.
This allows the government to provide for the economic welfare of both the working-group and the pension-group in equal proportion, whereby pensioners could be recalled temporarily to fill a job position, both in times of emergency or need for specific skills-set in education/training provisions or professional members of informal advisory-bodies, with such implied commissioning-rule in social-judgment actions to demonstrate to themselves their true value in society.
Therefore, community in the era of populocracy would be organised around economic functions, and the participation of individuals in supporting the implementation of the community planning programs would revolve around those of higher achievers or economic prospects in specified areas for the State at any one time.
While the high rate of employment of men should be expected to fill most full-time jobs, and where part-time jobs would remain open to women with caregiving duties over their family households, the structure of the community from an individual perspective would be driven by whoever within the family household, between the husband and the wife, occupy a full-time job or occupy a shortage occupation that the government deems are in short supply of workers within the proposed United African labour trade.
For example, if a husband is in a full-time job and he does not fall on a shortage occupation list, and the wife is in a part-time job and falls in a shortage occupation list, the family participation in the community program should be expected to be organised around the wife whom the government deems to fall under the higher achiever or economic prospect in the national interest. In such an event, the government may propose for the wife to equally take on a full-time job like the husband, where bigger housing would be provided for the family with employed caregivers to provide care services to their households while they work.
Likewise, if both a husband and the wife fall in a shortage occupation list, their family participation in the community family program would weigh between the one who fall in the shortest in the list and the one who is in a full-time job, in which both may equally be proposed to take on a full-time job and caregivers would be freely provided for the daily care of their family household while they work. Similarly, if both a husband and the wife do not fall on a shortage occupation list, their family participation in the community program would weigh on the one who is in a full-time job – usually the husband.
The empowerment of family participation in the community program would seek to target those women willing to work and in which education and training could be provided for them to occupy a shortage occupation list. This, I referred to the capability of individuals ability to explore the limits of their corposense, especially those women who are ‘sleeper talents’ higher achievers in our society who may have been made vulnerable and intellectually suppressed through the indigenous culture that governs the structure of their family household, to align their morality to the State and cultivate their corposense to have an access to the productive resources of ethno-corporatism and participate in the process of United African development in the collective national interests of the African people.
Adaptation of populocratic ethics to new mindsets is the loyalty to the ethnopublic of a United Africa, in which individuals attain the ethnocultural intelligence as Africans with practices that are entirely neutral of ethnic, creed or racial differences. The major goal of the ethnoneutrality of populocracy transcends individualism and embraces collectivism. Its success will become influential by the cultural intelligence and the dimensions that govern the structure of our collective national identity as Africans.
In the proposed African era of populocracy, the proposed family and community planning programs would continue to be adjusted with the social, economic and govoxical changes. The participation of families and their targeted high achievers requires progressive strategic improvements to maintain ideal structural governance that creates the greatest happiness for a greater number of people in society. As a starting point, the proposed family program would focus on the mothers before strengthening sufficiently enough to also targets the fathers in the organised regulation of the family. Similarly, as a starting point, the proposed community program would focus on the working-group before strengthening sufficiently enough to also target the pension-group in the organised administration of the community.
The era of populocracy will be determined by the following:
(1) Institution. The state institution of populocracy would be founded on govoxical, economic, family, education, healthcare, and other social purposes. As a consequence of the citizenry legislative power of the State, local regions should be expected to have their policy that aligns with their local culture in the structural governance of their family and community. While the government would not be able to intervene in how regional people choose to live their lives, it would, of course, ratify regional policies into law in ways that do not conflict with the government’s national strategic framework. While government institutions would be permanently arranged in each region, the government remain fully responsible for the day-to-day administration and equal access of all regional people to its institutions.
(2) Law. As a populocratic nation, the citizenry-prescribed policy would have a firm legal foundation that controls the governing connection between the government and the governed people. This is significant in connection with the rights and responsibilities of those who fall within the government’s interest to participate in family and community planning programmes. Volume-2 of this manifesto reflects on how the Judicial-arm of government becomes the authority under the ethnopublican nationalist constitution to carry out the supervisory tasks over the day-to-day administrative tasks of govoxical government. These are supervisory tasks of ratifying citizenry-prescribed laws and keeping the Administrative-department of government under checks and balances – that is, in keeping the Executive, Legislative and the Economy-branch of government under supervisory scrutiny with the State Constitution.
While the task of the Legislative-branch of government is making law, the Executive-branch of government is concerned with the development of public policy in the implementation of the law within the ethnopublic legal framework, and this leaves the Economy-branch of government with the task of ensuring the citizenry compliance with the laws and regulations set out to operate in good standing across jurisdictions in the proposed United African States. The Judicial-branch of government remain in the tasks of adjudication that aims at upholding and enforcing the law, both in matters involving governed people and government authorities, between private individuals or corporations, and regulates the United African States government in its rules-of-engagement in international affairs.
(3) Ideology of Society. African govoxical ideologies should be expected to conventionally align with the various regional cultures and traditions, with most Africans identifying as conservative, liberal or moderate. Any citizenry laws and public policy derived from cultural beliefs to justify particular social arrangements would be tested and remade to conform to the ethnopublic Constitution under its ethical codes of equality-legal authority. Citizenry-electorates are the dominant group in a populocratic State, and each of their ideologies, traditional cultural beliefs and practices, should be expected to reflect in their collective legislative power of the State to justify the ideology of the African people.
(4) Socio-economic custom. The economic activities of ethno-corporatism would be driven and shaped by the populocratic social processes of society. The economic condition of negflation and posflation relevant to the non-monetary economy would analyse how the African economy progress, regresses or stagnate at any one time, in connection with regional, national or global economic factors. The working-group would be given full government support with enormous resources to exercise greater control over the welfare of their family, to ensure each of their full participation in the government community planning programs in the national interest.
(5) Equal Opportunities. All people of Africa are expected to have equal access to all national resources in manners that will justify provisions to particular distinctions of people. All working-group and pension-group would have equal affordability to economic services, under the regulatory-control of the Economy-branch of government, of the implementation of family and community planning policies. The daily operation of the Executive-branch of government to building and improving infrastructures and facilities, such as public buildings, housing, ropodium road facilities, self-sustained power supplies, needed for the day-to-day activities of African society and national non-monetary operation, including the readiness of labour resources of workers. These are some of the key factors in determining the quality of public services that are required for the equality of opportunities for the governed people to have their economic empowerment in a populocratic society.
(6) Regional Commissioners. In the era of populocracy, the participation of the people in the family planning programs would reflect directly in the community planning programs. Regional-Commissions are government citizenry-centred agencies, and they commit to regional community development and cater to the provision of national services to meet the direct economic needs and social welfare of all people resident within each of their regions.
For example, the Identity & Social Welfare Commission provide direct services for the welfare of stay-at-home wife or husband, youth, and the general social welfare of all regional people; the Health & Social Care Commission provide direct services to nursing mothers, toddler families, and the general healthcare of all regional people; the Agriculture & Farming Commission provide direct services to local farmers and local groceries stores, including the provision of local restaurants and take-away foods to cater to the daily provision of well-catered food services to regional people, etc.
In general, the culture of structural governance of family and community in the era of the proposed United African populocracy should be expected to seek to appeal to traditional African values and social norms, and the Judicial-branch of government should be expected to prioritise the needs and interests of the family and community in the national interest over those of the individual.
However, it’s important to note that even though cultures vary significantly in their beliefs and practices, it is possible to make generalisations about how populocratic policies of family and community would develop in each region through the Judicial-branch of government’s adherence to the ethnopublic Constitution in African society. As a result, it would be more accurate to examine the qualified participation of individuals in State affairs and the provision of equal opportunities to further understand the social and economic bases of collective-individualism in the proposed United African society.
Qualified Participation in State Affairs and Formal Populocracy
In the context of ethnopublic nationalism and ethno-corporatist economy, the idea of citizenship would be relevant to the recognition of individual rights within a collective; as a member of an African family on the one hand and or social belonging to an African economic community on the other.
In the proposed populocratic ethnopublic State of Africa, equal opportunities would be based on individual rights of citizenship from birth to death, this, in turn, imposes confidence in the effectiveness of individuals’ formal populocratic participation in affairs of the State, and both of which develop the populocratic socialism that defines the collective-individualism of citizenship of the African people.
As a result, qualified participation in State populocracy empowers the populist rights of individuals to no longer be dictated to by family, ethnic morality, and gender relations. Populocracy allows individuals to find their belonging to an economic group in order to obtain their individual direct access to economic needs and wants from the State, from birth to death throughout life. In this context, formal populocratic participation in State affairs means individuals’ qualified right to participate in the affairs of the State from birth to death.
As such, of the govoxical macro-level and ethno-corporatist economy, the idea of citizenship will be relevant to people’s daily lives, both men and women. Since individuals are expected to reap the rewards of macro-economic empowerment, there are incentives for the government to promote society’s confidence in the effectiveness of formal populocratic participation.
While society has evolved in response to the economic needs dictated by family, ethnic customs, and the cultural relations between gender, individuals are under daily pressure to help their family members to obtain access to economic needs and wants at different stages and in different forms throughout life, the developing new ways of understanding citizenship recognise individuals’ sole right with the State and ultimately, citizenship means the participation of individuals within a collective – either as a pre-working age group, working-group or pension group – without the need to rely on any one to obtain your access to economic needs or to be in the position to provide economic needs to anyone else regardless of the nature of your relationship.
Another important is, as mentioned in the preceded section of this chapter, that any childbirth by a woman, where the Government has already taken full responsibility for economic provision for the first and second child, would become the responsibility of both couples to provision for their child/children through the parents’ government issued ‘Corporatist Service Provision’ CSP card until the child reach the working-age. The exception to the rule that allows the government to cater for the pre-working-age through free-education, free day-care centres and free healthcare provisions, regardless of the citizenship status of the parent, also ensures that; for example, if both parents are conchie-workers, and none are neither a worker nor pensioner, the mother or registered guardian would be required by law to participate the child in State Affairs and formal populocracy.
This requires the Identity & Social Welfare Commission to facilitate direct economic services for the welfare of the child, such as clothing, adequate housing for the parent or guardian in the interest of the child, access to local day-welfare centres for pre-working age for the sole purpose to access well-catered foods and play-centres on a daily basis relevant to their upbringing etc.
This is to demonstrate that Regional-Commissions are responsible for the provision of equal opportunities and would fill the gaps in cases such as this to the pre-working age group. So that all economic provision for a child, based on their own individual sole right with the State, would be provisioned to children of conchie-workers in manners that it would be independent of their parents.
This is in recognition of the fact that national govox-populi on populocracy and individual sole rights with the State are interrelated and affect daily struggles for economic survival. Individuals would consistently identify with their qualified participation as part of the collective of an economic group – either as a worker, pensioner or pre-working age – as the core feature of individual qualified participation in State affairs and formal populocracy.
In the current state of affairs across Africa today, ideas of citizenship with the State are very distant from the daily struggles for economic survival. Whereas, the ideas of citizenship in ancient Africa focus on the formal participation of the family in community affairs addressing the problems facing individual members of the community on a daily basis.
The social and economic bases of collective-individualism are the recognition that when the ideas of citizenship have a direct correlation with the State government, with equal opportunities of economic provision to the citizenry, members of society would have shared responsibility with the government over common problems facing society anywhere such as law and order, viable infrastructures, adequate housing and education, and the action against poverty in all its forms.
Therefore, qualified participation in State affairs and formal populocracy, in this context, can be defined as meaning an individual’s entitlement to free education, free healthcare, free housing, and free entitlement of those in full participation in an economic group to equal rights opportunities to economic produce nationally.
As such, both the concept of individual rights, and formal populocratic practices, such as voting on legislation, becoming part of the collective of an economic group based on age, and participating in activities of Regional-Commissions, would be heavily promoted by the State and also by representative govoxiers.
While qualified participation in State affairs is important to men and women of any age, formal populocratic practices should be expected to be driven by the diverse values and beliefs of regional communities, and through which the Judicial-branch of government’s adherence to the ethnopublic Constitution in African society should be expected to ameliorate the differences in beliefs and practices to achieve equal opportunities to the collective of society’s rights-based populocratic practices.
The ideal is for individuals to focus on practices that ensure their own economic survival and the well-being of their own families, while the government focus on practices that ensure equal opportunities to communities and the provision for the economic survival of African society as a whole. As a result, citizenship is expressed through specific forms of economic participation in State affairs.
Several factors contribute to the interrelationship between formal populocratic mechanisms and the daily lives of individuals. Since ordinary people do not experience any major difference in their lives economically under political government and democracy, meaning that formal democracy has no economic effect on the everyday lives of the majority of Africans.
What we have in Africa is ‘government for the people’ and it is not about ‘government by the people’. This is evident in the lack of viable public infrastructures, jobs, education, healthcare, and adequate housing, all of which provide evidence that Africans are not living in a society where the activities of our African governments collectively are interrelated with the economic survival of the governed people, and such formal democracy has no direct economic provision for Africans in Africa.
Therefore, while Africans characterised their economic participation in family and community affairs, the government seek the citizens’ participation to elect them to government office as the most meaningful aspect of politicians’ political participation in State affairs on behalf of the governed people. But how voting for politicians to government office relates to individual citizens’ participation in democracy is deposited to political representation of citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Hence, it becomes tasking, if at all possible, for elected politicians to represent the ideas and concerns of the majority in society.
It appears that everywhere we looked, politicians are being given an impossible task to do things that are tasking for anyone to accomplish under any given government structure. I asked a simple question: how does voting govoxiers to State office benefits individual citizens’ participation in formal populocracy?
Govoxiers do not represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. The citizens represent their own ideas and concerns in a legislative elective-process and impose it upon their representative govoxiers to implement and enforce it into law to govern their society. This empowers the citizens to commit their time and energy to their own regional community improvements, initiate projects and maintain public infrastructures and services that benefit their individual selves and society. Regional citizens would develop and design their own community development projects, they would exercise legislative control over local govoxical day-to-day administration of government, and they would raise laws to regulate their own community safety and well-being.
Therefore, it is not the responsibility of a populocratic government to recognise problems in various communities, rather it is the responsibility of the citizens to address the problems that they recognise in their own community and to raise laws and safeguards for the government to implement and enforce for the people. Problems such as unequal opportunities, lack of education, poor infrastructures or difficulty with access to jobs, are all societal problems to solve by the regional people affected by the problems, through policy proposals to the government on implementation achievement.
The qualified participation of regional citizens in State affairs will perform a wealth of formal populocratic functions: people would be responsible for the success and failures of their various communities, their waste management and recycling contributes to the environment, their own needs for social and economic empowerment including adequate housing, education and job training including what should exist and what should not within each of their community.
This section of this chapter is just an introduction to the proposed qualified participation of citizens in State affairs and their expected formal populocratic functions different across regions due to the diverse cultural beliefs and practices of the African people. But one thing is certain, individuals would consistently identify qualified participation in State affairs as important to their formal populocratic functions, and how the development of the constructions of each of their voters’ decision on policies shapes the future of their State-wide national govoxical government.
Ordinary members of African society should be expected to consistently identify their individual qualified participation in populocratic functions as important to their individual selves, families, communities and the African nation at large, as they would be in direct control of what they could do to address the problems in their own community and to improve their condition of what makes life going well to themselves and their families.
The major motivation for the qualified participation of people in State affairs should be expected to be the basic human needs in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families, and this is consistent with what motivates the government equally for a better and happier people of a nation.
Populocratic Culture of Collective-Individualism
Collective-individualism is a balance between the needs and rights of the individual and the needs and goals of the group or community. This involves a recognition of the importance of both individual rights and the common good of its collective and the belief that individuals should be able to pursue their own goals and interests within the context of a supportive and cooperative community of people with like-minded beliefs and values on life.
It’s important to note that the concept of collective-individualism is gradually gaining wide recognition in the discourse on the sociological theory of society, and it is a term that is often used in a specific context. In this section, I focus on the collective-individualism of African citizenship in the context of the cultural governance of populocracy and its impacts on affairs of the State in the proposed United African society.
The expanding populocratisation of human-society around the world in our current 21st-century socio-culture has evolved the increase in equal rights opportunities socially and the need for a cashless society economically. As such, equality and human rights have become an important determinants of populocracy. While State governments everywhere are still administering the individualist cultural governance of democracy, the governed people everywhere are the driving force of the collective cultural governance of populocracy in their day-to-day social activities and economic networking on web-internetisation platform.
The rise of social-media platforms and online economic networking on the internet has seen great progress in populocracy everywhere around the world. The main explanation in my social science conception of our human populocratisation is ‘ease of access’ to everything and anything, according to which individuals become populocratic to rely on web-internetisation for their daily activities – shopping, gaming, leisure, work, education, and so much more. In the expanding determinant of populocracy, every human activity in our current 21st-century socio-culture leads to populocracy in one form or another regardless of whether one intends to do so or not.
As a result, democracy is in crisis, because State governments have increasingly found themselves having to regulate populocratic socialism which is expanding at a rapid pace around the world, and State governments everywhere are increasingly demonstrating their inadequacies to regulate it with their democratic tools. Their collective explanation for their failures is put down in one sentence: ‘society is increasingly becoming complex’. The question is, how so? Whereas, in reality, it is their hierarchical political institutions and the bureaucratic organisation structures as tools for control that are wholly incompatible with the expanding populocratic culture and its developing commicratic institutions.
With the developing socio-culture in our human-society that is the driving force for the governance of populocratisation, developing cultural values of individuals and beliefs contributes in some way to the direction of our collective culture away from democracy, especially when there is a window of collective action such as protest for social change. It is therefore the ambition of this manifesto to steer the wave of collective action of Africans to necessarily lead to a populocratic government regime for a united Africa.
In doing so, it is necessary to emphasise that African culture, since ancient times, are predominantly collectivist culture. There are numerous events in African sociology and history which illustrate that when the African culture of collectivism interacts with individualism, it embraces it with a focus to morph it into its collectivism. We see that every foreign culture including religious practices that interacts with indigenous Africans always finds a home within African culture and influences the ways of life of the African people.
The imposition of the chattel-era that saw indigenous Africans transported to the western world as slaves, the consequent colonial-era that saw the western governments shared the African continents among them for their economic empowerment, and the current state of our affairs with the protégé-era that is reproducing the condition of underdevelopment across Africa and upon all African people attributed to the western mollycoddling of African governments, each of these influences the type of choices we make in our rules of engagement with others and the attitudes of division and individuality we have adopted about issues that concern us all.
Each of these when put together sums up a conjecture of opinion that suggests the evidence of a sort of a culturalised psychological scar in which our ingrained collectivist culture had made us vulnerable to all manner of abuse and we appears to be in the determined mindset to stop practising collective culture for our own self-preservation, safety and respect from others.
The evidence in our formation of the Organisation of the African Unity (OAU), to abandon the collectivistic corporatist-model advocated by the Casablanca-group and instead commit to the individualistic capitalist-model advocated by the Brazzaville and Monrovia-Group, proves the point I am making; in that, African society had, consciously or subconsciously, removed themselves from the notion of collectivist custom that has worked for us successfully in the past. As a result, we now practice a more individualistic culture and continue to look after our individual selves even though it is costing us so much waste in natural resources in trading and keeping the African people in economic resource poverty.
This manifesto is a revival of our ancient African collectivist culture. Africans are crying out to rid the continent of its resource poverty and individualistic culture that is not natural to our indigenous African cultures. The collective movement of the younger generation of Africa, both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora, are pleading and begging for a collectivist unity of all African States in which all the divided African nations everywhere would work together in a united front to serve the greater good for the common Africans anywhere.
Everywhere we looked, the social-media has recorded a number of African movements that are promoting collectivism in their visions and operations. The rising tide that is emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa is a call for a cultural change to effect changes in the national structure of the African continent. Since populocratic culture is the form of governance that is existing and thriving on the web-internetisation platform, it is relevant to push for a thriving populocratic State governmental structure in Africa and for Africans.
Generally speaking, while African divided nations can generally be said to have individualistic governments, the expanding culture of the young generation of Africans is perceived as more collectivistic in their mindsets and more ready for a collectivist populocratic government of a United African States.
Despite the individualistic inter-governmental relations of the African-Union member States (AU), every young generation of Africa are now heavily influenced by the populocratic form of governance and commicratic mode of organisation that developed on the web-internetisation platform and we have embraced the idea of collectivist culture to restructuring the future of Africa so that our vision for the United African States would be organised to produce populocratic functions and operate successfully. After all, African people have a rich history of successful collectivism and it is ingrained in our blood to drive for a collectivist populocratic culture in Africa and for African people everywhere.
Looking back at indigenous African history, collectivist mindsets still exist strongly within us till the present day. In indigenous ancient Africa, our collectivist culture was reflected in our cooperative economic customs where – ‘all for work each, and each work for all’ – according to Edward Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912), and this is represented across African region as Ubuntu from the Zulu tribe in South-Africa, meaning “I am because you are”; there was also Ujamaa the sociologist ideology from Tanzania, meaning “cooperative economics”. The enslaved Africans in America employed a collectivist mindset in their secret network passages to free one another from slavery. The free slaves utilised the same collectivist mindsets to pool money together to buy freedom for those who are enslaved, to organise one another’s burials, and as well as to acquire lands for agricultural economic purposes for their community.
I doubt that collective culture to merge resources and commit to helping one another toward a common goal was a conscious effort to ancient Africans. I claim that it was a subconscious effort that comes naturally to Africans wherever it was needed. I arrived at this conclusion because, having studied the way we practice our individualist culture in the present day, it appears to be a conscious and forceful effort. The manner in which we attempt to formalise western capitalism in the abandonment of our own cooperativism, but we developed protégé economic relations with the Western State in our failure to consciously adopt a system that is not of our own.
When we think of the way we practice democratic principles in a representative-governmental model, our administrative system of politics, and even the way we’ve turned the classical theory of the impersonal procedure of bureaucracy into personal procedure in practice, all demonstrate our numerous failed attempts to formalised any system that is not primordial to African indigenous cultures and customs.
Do African governments still rely on the Western States for Aids to promote and specifically target the economic development and welfare of their countries? Do they still engage in export-oriented trading of African own natural-resources to the Western States as a source of national income for their countries? Do they still print their national currency in foreign countries outside of Africa? Have they ever been in the means to mobilise African working-group to industrialise their countries for economic development? Do we have viable basic infrastructures such as healthcare, energy or electricity supply, water, roads, and railway service? Do we still rely on foreign contractors to carry out our African national engineering projects? Are our educational curriculums at schools still based on Western educational curricula and cultures? Is any African country truly independent of any foreign nation in any way? If the answer to all the above questions is ‘Yes’, then African governments are still struggling in their conscious efforts to execute the basic national tasks for Africans.
In our conscious efforts to execute basic national tasks, the decisions we make appear complex. Feasibility study now requires foreign contractors to execute the basic skills. But we forgot the simple fact that we are more than capable to execute national tasks without requiring foreign interventions. We appear to fail to recognise that collectivist culture produces subconscious efforts to perform the actual national tasks. Whereas, every skill we require for our own national development is all on the ground in Africa by Africans.
Since collectivist culture comes to every African naturally on social-media platforms, it is precisely through the collective efforts and readiness of the younger African generation that the populocratic culture of collective-individualism has been proposed to provide the unifying national structure that bridges the gap between the African working-group at the micro-level and all African governments at the macro-level to achieve our national development.
Populocratic culture of collective-individualism is the recognition that national development and the facilitation of basic infrastructures should no longer be a government affair alone. In fact, to be clear, relying on government bodies to provide policies for national development has been known to produce significant disjuncture that hinders identifying the implications of individual interests of people in government which often makes national development projects a complex task. The absence of the collective actions of the governed people is the gap that populocracy propose to bridge – between the government and the governed.
The emerging younger African generations, both from the HomeLand and in the Diaspora, don’t just want their voices heard, but to simply be given the national authoritative platform to which to participate directly in the decision-making from theory to practice implementation that shapes the proposed future national development in Africa for Africans.
This is not merely about a demand for a radical type of populocracy, but rather the conception of collective action toward the United African States. The young African generation are coming together to overcome the collective action problems faced by the divided African nations. Our revolutionary situation is not about the overthrow of the government regime, but rather changing the structure of national governance under a collective framework that guarantees the greatest happiness for a greater number of Africans, both in the HomeLand and in the diaspora.
Since the governed people are the majority in Africa, the decision of the call for this collective action is theirs. It matters not whether an African government would want to engage in collective action for a restructuring of the African national government from democracy to populocracy in support of the people’s revolution, the decision of the majority is the one that matters.
CHAPTER SIX
ETHNOSOCIALIST VIEW OF POPULOCRACY
Ethnosocialism is the understanding of a form of nationalism that regards a people as having a common tie in their conception and experience of their national identity. African ethnosocialism, therefore, refers to the cultural, social, and govoxical dimensions of the African nation, in the shared economic customs of ethno-corporatism and social characteristics of the ethnopublic national identity of the African people collectively.
The ethnosocialist view of populocracy, in this context, involves the direct control of the governed people to pursue social and economic policies that maintain equal opportunities in the distribution of national wealth. This allows the people affected by their societal condition to take responsibility for both the success of the benefits and the failure of the costs that their own prescribed policy produced at any one time.
The ethnosocialist view of populocracy involves the direct management of government institutions in a commicratic manner by its service-users in ways that produce the greatest happiness for a greater number of people in society. It also involves undermining or disregarding ethnicity, race or religion to platform a collective action and instead commits to capturing the common ties of socio-economic custom that applies to all people of a nation as the appropriate cause to platform its collective action.
The ethnosocialist view of populocracy operates under three economic groups in an ethno-corporatist system: the pre-working age group, the working-group and the pension-group. Each of these groups is homogeneous in their economic activities in the national interest within their collective. Each group present itself as the voice of its people, fighting for their rights and engaging in populocratic activities and functions for their collective benefit. None of these groups has any reason to portray hostility towards the other, as their economic roles in State affairs are collective. In other words, each group occupy specific roles in the national interest which increases their cohesion.
For example, from the economic perspective, the pre-working group are organised under the regional Education & Apprenticeship Commission, and both the working-group and pension-group are organised inter-connectively under the regional Work & Pension Commission. While the pre-working age group are centrally regulated under the secretariat-ministry of Education & Apprenticeship, both the working-age group and pension-age group are centrally regulated under the secretariat-ministry of Labour & Industry. As a result, each group has its dedicated government departments, and each group are organised under the organisation mode of commicracy, and the specific roles they play in society guide their decisions by their conscious deliberative processes.
Since the important decisions in the daily activities of each group are made by the organised body of those affected by the decision in the collective action of each group, has raised populocracy to be a threat to democracy. By this, nationalism is an important aspect of identity for populocracy and it is designed to shape individuals’ experiences, beliefs, values and behaviours in an ethnosocialist society. Ethnosocialist factors can influence how people interact with each other in a collective sense, while at the same time, it can influence how they interact with foreign society in an individualist sense, because they have a direct impact on their own social, govoxical, and economic outcomes.
The concept of the ethnosocialist view of populocracy is used in this manifesto in the specific contexts for a United African socialism, including in its social and cultural trends, policy-making, and social services. It can help understand how the common ties in socio-economic customs and nationalist loyalty interact and influence various aspects of a people’s lives and experiences under ethnosocialism. In this context, it is important to recognise the expanding culture of populocratic rule in our human-society everywhere in the world. The prevalence to employ populocracies is rising and not limited by national boundaries. People no longer see themselves as divided by national boundaries on matters of governance. The war in Ukraine and the social unrest in Iran are prime examples, where people are free to express their populist views on social or economic issues that raised their sense of right and wrong ongoing in other territories.
What’s so fascinating about the unapologetic cultural views of populocracy, especially on matters of Ukraine, is that while people took sides between Ukraine and Russia, people widely condemned Ukrainians against their moral backwardness on racial prejudice and biases perpetrated towards black African people at the early stage in the collective struggle of ordinary members of their society to escape the unrest. And this on the other hand does not affect the support for Ukraine for a lot of people who condemned Ukrainians for their racism.
While the expanding culture of populocracy is something to cheer about, it is clear that this populocratisation is still in its infant stage and yet to reach its peak in human-society. Under the ethnosocialist view of populocracy, the governed people take direct control over their society’s civil rights, they would dictate what count as harassment and discrimination in society, and they would define the letter of the law and the procedure in which the courts’ Justice system use to enforce the law.
Generally, ethnosocialism is characterised by an emphasis on ideas such as equality, progress, freedom, and duty, and these are readily understood consequences of the govoxical logic behind the emergence of populocracy. As a result, three key sociological components I associated with the ethnosocialist view of populocracy, as follows:
- Economic Rights. Individuals are protected by the State based on their qualified rights of citizenship to be provision with the tools to which to achieve self-economic independence with the State. It involves free education, free housing, free basic amenities, and access to the job trades to achieve their moneyless trade-offs of economic exchange of products and services equally.
- Govoxical Rights. Individuals are protected by the State based on their qualified rights of citizenship to freely engage in free and fair voters’ selection of policies that govern their regional community equally.
- Civil Rights. Individuals are protected by the State to ensure their equality before the law as well as non-discrimination in the provision of public goods such as justice, security, education and health.
These are basic rights that characterised the ethnosocialist view of populocracy. Each of these rights is citizenry-centred, beneficiary to the African citizenry on an equal opportunities entitlement on an individual basis. Both Economic rights and Civil rights benefit everybody, and Govoxical rights benefit the citizenry-electorates and the working-group. These, essentially, are the taxonomy of govoxical regimes in an ethnosocialist society.
This goes to demonstrate, in this context, that populocracy neither comes from the top nor the bottom, it comes from the middle ground that holds both the top and the bottom together in an interdependent shared governance. Whereas, under the frame of reference to democracy defined as coming from the bottom, it could be said to be the blind trust of the citizenry at the bottom in service of consent-slavery to the State managing of the government at the top.
Similarly, under the frame of reference to autocracy, it is the forced-slavery of the compelled trust of the citizenry at the bottom and the State management of the government at the top. Indeed, under populocracy, we take the distinctive feature of equality of opportunities to put both the government and the governed under control, whereby both in a shared governance control every part of State affairs, however small or unimportant to a wide public interest.
As a consequence, populocracy can therefore be defined in this context as the third-party rule that arbitrates the process of shared governance between the government and the governed in an ethnosocialist society, and in which the citizenry must be provided with the full information of the government’s accounts and data for their voters choice on policy on affairs of the State. In other words, it is the informed-knowledge of the citizenry at the bottom in shared governance with the micromanaging of the government at the top.
The relationship between populocracy and socialism, especially the ethnosocialism associated with ethno-corporatism, is a reminiscence of the great populocratic governance of indigenous ancient African-socialism. Therefore, the great populocratic ideal for the United African States is one in which is a government of the entire people of the nation, ruled by the governed people, for the government people. While the ‘rule by the governed people’ is not absolute and subject to the State’s judiciary’s constitutional interpretation, neither the government nor the StateLords have the power to impose self-prescribed rule in the governance of the governed people. This fall on the definition of “ethnopublic” as the shared governance rule between the government and the governed based on the common unity of the citizenry people.
One of the great advances of populocracy is that its public-proclaimed non-partisanship of ethnosocialism relies heavily on the government administrative system of govox-populi, connected ‘rule by the governed people’ to provision for the ‘rule for the government people’. Whereas, under democracy, it is either the ‘rule by the people’ was omitted or misplaced in action – the ‘rule by the people’ was taken to be the ‘rule by the government people’ and the ‘rule for the people’ was misplaced to be the ‘rule for the governed people’ – simply by giving the governed people the electoral power to vote representatives government people into State’s office, and submit themselves to blind trust throughout each elected government’s regime.
This is one reason why the styled democratic-socialism is another way of recognising how the classical theory of democracy has suffered great calamity in its corruption into indirect-democracy or representative-democracy so-called. I claim that any socialist construct where the governed people do not have the legislative power of the State or the decision-making power of state-centred decisions affecting their day-to-day lives is not worthy of being called socialism – even if it uses a socialist slogan to define itself.
To paraphrase the Afro-Caribbean Trinidadian historian C.L.R. James (1947): “the struggle for populocratic socialism is the struggle for the governed people. Populocracy of the governed people is the crown of socialism. Socialism is the result of the people’s populocracy. To the degree that the citizenry-electorates mobilises itself and the great masses of the governed people, the socialist revolution is advanced. The governed people mobilise itself as a self-acting force through its citizenry-committees, economic-unionists, non-partisan govox-populi government, and other populocratic institutions. This is not merely the ‘African question.’ It is the world governed people anywhere.”
The rising tide that is emerging from within the inhabitant of Africa is the recognition that the populocracy form of governance that govern the web-internetisation platform is inseparable from genuine socialism. The interdependency between the claimed global corporatism and populocracy that emerged with the rise of the web-internetisation platform is a prime example. There is so much that is yet to be said of the ethnosocialist view of populocracy, a substantial part of which is dedicated to the next volume-5 – the proposed final volume of this manifesto.
A useful case study will be the various socialist theories derived from ancient African-socialism used to campaign for Africans’ independence from western colonial rule that was imposed upon the African people in the 1880s. The web-internetisation platform is what I regard as the populocratic breakthrough, not just for Africans, but also for the human-society the world over; and of which my theory of a fourth branch of government in the Economy-arm of government under the non-partisan govox-populi, I recognised to be the influence of my support for Marxism and its labour movement power to the economic workers in communist theory of socialism, which conforms perfectly with the cultural practice and customs in ancient African socialism.
I am glad to say that democracy and populocracy differ both in theory and practice, and the developing theory of populocracy and ethnosocialism is further shown in the next section of this chapter.
Promotional Groups of Populocracy in an Ethnosocialist Society
A promotional group of populocracy in an ethnopublican society are diverse organised advisory-bodies with individual members practising a profession or occupation, and in which an organisation offer govoxical centred policy advice of knowledge, skills, conduct and practice of that profession or occupation to members of society through formal consultation procedure, public gatherings and media broadcast.
Promotional groups are Advisory-bodies in this sense, and they are defined as Public Interest Promotional Group (PIPG) which seeks to influence govoxical policy in a particular direction – govoxical policy could be influenced by government proposed policy or perceived individual and or consented group made-up policies. They are action groups that operate in a desk-organised pressure group capacity.
Advisory-bodies are neither under government administrative control nor operate govoxical advisory centres that must be in the government’s interest. Because they are organised bodies in the public interest in practising a profession or occupation, they are obligated to must register their organisation as informal advisory-bodies to the public under the secretariat-ministry of Govoxical and Constitutional Affairs, and be recognised as professional organisations working as informal govoxical experts.
As such, they play an important role in the development of govoxical and social systems of regional communities, and they function as advocacy groups, lobbying groups and or pressure groups that use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and voters’ selection of policy in an elective-process.
Advisory-bodies engage in information-delivery to the general public who are essentially the governed people of a nation, they deliberate with individual members of the public on a 1-to-1 private consultation basis or in group meeting settings in private or public places. They are professional influencers who help to guide the people in making better decisions that weigh between individual personal interests and community interests, and as such members of advisory-bodies are treated as informal govoxical experts.
Due to the nature of their public functions, advisory-bodies should be expected to have a culture of criticism and or support of public policies. They should be expected to be ardent critics of one another over pressing interests, with accusations of failure in logical analysis of an issue, employing unacceptable pressure techniques, or claim of not in the public good, scrutinising one another over any lack of objectivity or too much subjectivity in a particular area of information-delivery to the people, or not keeping with the general welfare of the governed people and or the government, lacking internal or external controls, or accusation of being a corruptive influence on the governed people and or on the government. They should be expected to also have a wide social media presence and organise televised, radio and online live debates with facts and evidence on policy issues in their public functions to influence voters’ choice of policy.
Advisory-bodies employ a variety of strategies, such as swaying public opinions, developing close relationships with government-centred Commicratic-Departments, infiltrating voters’ choice on policy, and pressing individual govoxiers with relevant Information-delivery for pertinent information. Advisory-bodies serve as a responsible outlet for public criticism of any government-proposed policy and or a community of people or their particular majority voters’ selection of policy, a channel of public debate on policy between opposing populist views, and a populocratic platform for advisory members to voice their opinions.
Advisory-bodies can either be emotionally driven with vague goals or intellectually driven with scientifically based facts and evidence. It should be made clear that they cannot be relied upon to be always objective or free from biased opinions when it comes to social issues, and some may pander more toward populist viewpoints that give the impression that they are more ideological moralists than adherents to the ethnopublic State’s Constitution.
Advisory-bodies, because they are a promotional group for the State, should be expected to take positions between left, right or centre on critical issues. At the same time secretariat government resources and the desire for central regulation of professional conducts of Advisory-bodies may also grow in the populist views of electoral candidates for a secretariat-prime minister, making it possible to constantly regulate advisory-bodies in their public functions.
While both the Economy-branch and the Citizenry-branch of government have been theoretically portrayed to may come to view the polarisation in opinions of informal advisory-bodies on govoxical issues as signs of some aspects of social problems, with which the secretariat-branch of government must deal and accept the task of intervening when conflicts arise in the public accusation of special interests against them. In such interventions Judicial-branch of government remain completely neutral, would not interfere in public debates on any issue except when constitutionally invited to do so at the House-of-StateLords Assembly, and the StateLords should be highly expected to avoid giving the appearance of being the strong arm of the law on matters of Advisory-bodies. This gives rise to the recognition that even though the legislative power of the citizenry is not absolute, both the government and the governed should be expected to respect their shared governance rule on affairs of the State.
The promotional group of advisory-bodies are in their thousands in number, in which they would be organised in diverse sub-groups with narrowed specialist areas under mainstream professional bodies. Here is a list of some of the mainstream Advisory-Bodies with the non-exhaustive lists of each of their sub-groups, with particular reference to each of their policy focus to members of the public, together with each of their primary affiliated government-centred Commicratic-Departments, in the proposed United African ethnosocialist society:
The Ideal Formation of Informal Advisory-Bodies
| No: | ADVISORY-BODIES | Expertise |
| 1 | Advisory Institute of Computer Science | Computer |
| 2 | Advisory Institute of Arbitrators | Arbitration |
| 3 | Advisory Institute of Architecture | Architecture |
| 4 | Advisory Institute of Environmental Health | Public Health |
| 5 | Advisory Institute of Housing | Housing |
| 6 | Advisory Institute of Human Health | Human Science |
| 7 | Advisory Advocates for the welfare of animals | Animal Care |
| 8 | Advisory Institute of International Trade | Trade |
| 9 | Advisory Institute of Energy | Energy |
| 10 | Advisory Institute of Geological Society | Geology |
| 11 | Advisory Institute of Advisory-Bodies | Advisory |
| 12 | Advisory Institute of Forestry | Forestry |
| 13 | Advisory Institute of Engineering | Engineering |
| 14 | Advisory Institute of Chemistry | Chemistry |
| 15 | Advisory Institute of History | History |
| 16 | Advisory Institute of Law | Law |
| 17 | Advisory Expert in Human Affairs | Social Affairs |
| 18 | Advisory Experts in Indigenous Affairs | Social Science |
| 19 | Advisory Faculty of Govoxical Advocates | Govox-Populi |
| 20 | Advisory Institute of Agriculture and Farming | Agriculture |
- Advisory Institute of Computer Science
This Advisory-body is the specialist advisor with general information on all topics related to computer science and computer engineering in technical reports and relevant databases.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Advisory Institute for Computer Machinery | Computer and Internet Development Regulatory Department |
| Advisory for the Advancement in Artificial Intelligence | Consumer Product Safety Regulatory Department |
| Advisory for the Pre-working age in computing | National Science Foundation Regulatory Department |
| Advisory Institute of Computing & Software Research | Technology and Invention Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Arbitrators
This Advisory-body is the professional organisation representing the interests of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). They are professional practitioners. Each Advisory-body focuses on a specialised area of dispute resolution management, such as the working-group, family counselling and relationship experts, and they are also the independent professional body for everything related to internal organisation dispute avoidance and dispute management between economic workers, and also with their consumers and service-users in various specialist areas.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Women Cosmetics Consumer Dispute Resolution Advisory | Consumer Product Safety Regulatory Department |
| Govoxiers Arbitration and Mediation Advisory | Govoxiers Personnel Management Regulatory Department |
| Social-Workers Dispute Resolution Advisory | National Health Services Regulatory Department |
| Consumer Code for Online Dispute Resolution Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
| Family Counselling and Relationship Experts Advisory | National Courts & Arbitration Service Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Architecture
This Advisory-body offer a wide variety of advice information-delivery to guide any member of the public in areas of architectural technologies, landscape architectures, an employee of architectural practices, industrial architectural projects, hobbyists, students, etc.
Some of them would be able to offer piled materials for architectural house extensions for individual houses and industrial facilities. This Advisory-body also guides government regulations applicable to the architects’ profession to ensure that good standards of conduct and practice are consistently maintained.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Society of Architectural Historians Advisory | Consumer Product Safety Regulatory Department |
| Architectural Designer Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Architectural Technologies Advisory | Farm Infrastructure Regulatory Department |
| Advisory of architectural Installations, workshops, dialogues | Innovation and Intellectual Property Regulatory Department |
| Architects, Artists, and Communities Advisory | Technology and Invention Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Environmental Health
This Advisory-body acts as a practitioner and is dedicated to protecting public health by monitoring and recommending solutions to reduce pollution levels. They use specialised equipment to measure the levels of contaminants in air, water and soil, as well as noise and radiation levels to aid in their advisory services to the general public on any issues relating to the environment and public health.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Advisory Advocates for Clean air, Sanitation and hygiene, Health-supportive cities and built environments | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Advisory Advocates for Stable Climate | National Health Services Regulatory Department |
| Advisory Advocates for sound agricultural practices and prevention of industrial pollution | Farm Infrastructure Regulatory Department |
| Adequate water Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Housing
This Advisory-body promotes a viable, efficient and well-governed social housing sector able to deliver and maintain homes of appropriate quality that meet a range of needs for families, communities and local industries. They provide a wide range of advice to members of the public on housing options available both in remote areas and crowded places, and what is currently achievable by the government, including how to promote policies for new housing development within their regions.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Disabled Housing Advisory | General Amenities Services Regulatory Department |
| Single Parents Housing Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
| Family Housing Advisory | Africa Asylum-Seekers & Refugees Regulatory Department |
| Smart City Housing Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Human Health
This Advisory-body consist of sub-group organisations with individual members practicing a profession or occupation in areas of human health in which each organisation maintains an oversight of the knowledge, skills, conduct and practice of a narrowed specialist profession or occupation in human health.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Regional healthcare and social affairs Advisory | Africa Civil Rights Regulatory Department |
| Nutrition and Alternative Medicine Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Pregnancy Care and Abortion Advisory Service | National Health Services Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Advocates for the welfare of animals
This Advisory-body advises on acquiring, housing, and caring for animals as pets. Advise on compliance with the proposed Animal Welfare laws. They also provide information on technical and scientific knowledge of keeping a certain type of animals, risks and benefits involved.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Animal Welfare Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Appreciation of Zoos and Aquariums Advisory | National Health Services Regulatory Department |
| Bird-Life Advisory | Africa Civil Rights Regulatory Department |
| Preservation of Wild life animals Advisory | General Amenities Services Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of International Trade
This Advisory-body is the professional body with sub-group organisations that specialised in specific products and services for international trade. This Advisory-body represents and supports the interest of everyone involved in exporting, importing and global trade.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Advisory Institute of Export and International Trade | Africa International Trade Regulatory Department |
| Diamond Production Advisory | Africa Foreign Business Regulatory Department |
| Cocoa Farming Advisory | Africa Maritime Commission Regulatory Department |
| International Shipping and Logistics Advisory | Africa Securities and Exchange Commission Regulatory Department |
| Import and Export Advisory | Farm Infrastructure Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Energy
This Advisory-body is a professional body for people who have an interest in the world of energy. Their purpose is to create a better energy future in society by accelerating a just global energy transition to net zero. They also provide energy consultancy services, information and support.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Centre for Renewable Energy Advisory | African World Nuclear Regulatory Department |
| Solar Energy Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Power from the Sun Advisory | General Amenities Services Regulatory Department |
| Wave and Tidal Power Advisory | Innovation & Intellectual Property RegulatoryDepartment |
| Hydroelectric Power Advisory | National Energy Authority Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Geology
This Advisory-body provides advice and information to any member of the public interested in the science that deals with the earth’s physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it. They also provide information-delivery on the geological study of earth materials, products, landforms and landscapes about climatic processes and human activities that influences and form them.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Petroleum Geology Advisory | Africa Aeronautics and Space Regulatory Department |
| Geoscientific and professional organisations Advisory | Africa Central Intelligence Regulatory Department |
| Organisation of Geophysical Advisory | African World Nuclear Regulatory Department |
| Society of Limnology and Oceanography Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Advisory Institute of Geological Research | National Science Foundation Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Advisory-Bodies
This Advisory-body provides general information-delivery to members of the public and provides referral services to direct individuals to appropriate advice services with the right support services to meet their specific needs. It provides counselling and research on behalf of a referral applicant for the purpose of directing the individual to a specific advisory-body that provides the required assistance or services needed. In recognition that advisory-bodies and their sub-groups should be expected to be in their thousands in number, the sub-group organisations under this advisory-body provide referral services to members of the public looking for the right advisory-body for help with their specific issue or concern.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| General Purpose Advisory Service | Government Communications Regulatory Department |
| Freedom of Information Request Referral Advisory Service | Media Communication Regulatory Department |
| Human Health Referral Advisory Service | National Archives and Records Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Forestry
This Advisory-body provides advice to members of the public for protecting, expanding and promoting the sustainable management of woodlands. Their aim is to support sustainable forestry, to manage the control of wood-using for the benefit of the African economy, and to encourage the promotion of increasing forestry areas across Africa through govoxical engagement and protecting African forestry from the extreme international market promotion of trees.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Regional Forestry Advisory | Africa International Trade Regulatory Department |
| National Forestry Committee Advisory | Africa Reserve System Regulatory Department |
| Advocates for Forestry Advisory | Citizenry Legislative Interest Regulatory Department |
| Interest group forum for forests Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
| Forestry tools, equipments and products Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Engineering
This Advisory-body demonstrates professional development, engineering competence and ethics to fellow engineers and members of the public, giving individuals the confidence to acquire engineering skills, abilities and views in their everyday life activities, including encouraging more inventions in areas of engineering to improve human social lives.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Electrical and Electronics Engineering Advisory | Africa Aeronautics and Space Regulatory Department |
| Engineering and Technology Advisory | Innovation and Intellectual Property Regulatory Department |
| Civil Engineering Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
| Plumbing & Heating Engineering Advisory | National Science Foundation Regulatory Department |
| Computer Engineering Advisory | Technology and Invention Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Chemistry
This Advisory-body provides advice in all areas of chemical science across a range of sectors, such as writers, science communicators, academics and industrial chemists. They also conduct research and connect chemical scientists and shape the future of the chemical sciences for the benefit of humanity.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Oil Chemists Advisory | National Science Foundation Regulatory Department |
| History of Chemistry Advisory | National Archives and Records Regulatory Department |
| Chemistry Analytical Community Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
| Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Advisory | Innovation and Intellectual Property Regulatory Department |
| Chemical Technology and Research Advisory | Environmental Protection Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of History
This Advisory-body is devoted to the study and promotion of history and historical thinking. They support the teaching, learning and enjoyment of history at all levels and bring together people who share an interest in and love for the past. They bring together historians from all areas of study and research, with affiliation with global historians.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Institute of Historical Research Advisory | Leisure & Tourism Regulatory Department |
| Historical Collectors and Antiques Advisory | National Archives and Records Regulatory Department |
| History of Religion Advisory | National Endowment for the Arts Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Law
This Advisory-body provides non-legally binding advice to members of the public in all areas of the law – regional law, national laws and international laws. They advise and support those going through the court process including those seeking general knowledge about what is lawful to do in certain circumstances. They engage in research on behalf of applicants and provide bespoke support and guidance in specific areas of law.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Human-Rights Law Advisory | Africa Civil Rights Regulatory Department |
| Family Law Advisory | Citizenry Legislative Interest Regulatory Department |
| Industrial Law Advisory | Lawderly Affairs Regulatory Department |
| Govox-Populi and Government Advisory | Government Communications Regulatory Department |
| Labour Law Advisory | National Courts & Arbitration Service Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Expert in Human Affairs
This Advisory-body provides support and guidance to members of the public in all areas of human affairs. They support specialist support to individuals to improve their personal lives and well-being. They conduct research and organise seminars, conferences, social events and coaching.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Local Talent Development Advisory | General Amenities Services Regulatory Department |
| Personal Performance Improvement Advisory | Leisure & Tourism Regulatory Department |
| Human Capital and Self-Esteem Advisory | National Health Services Regulatory Department |
| Mental Health Support Advisory | Sports Development Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Experts in Indigenous Affairs
This Advisory-body provides information-delivery to members of the public on the practices, culture, beliefs and customs of indigenous culture and traditions that have existed and exists in the world. They are dedicated to promoting, protecting and defending indigenous peoples’ rights. They bring together cultural anthropologists from all areas of study and research, with affiliation with global anthropology organisations. Their advisory service to the public would be to emphasise the importance of culture in determining human behaviour, beliefs and practices.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Local Indigenous Affairs Advisory | Africa Civil Rights Regulatory Department |
| International Indigenous Culture Advisory | Africa Asylum-Seekers & Refugees Regulatory Department |
| Advocates for indigenous peoples’ rights Advisory | Africa Obligations to Foreign Visitors’ Regulatory Department |
| Protection of Indigenous Culture Advisory service | Citizenry Legislative Interest Regulatory Department |
| Archives of World Indigenous Culture Advisory | National and Community service Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Faculty of Govoxical Advocates
This Advisory-body conduct community and national awareness activities related to govoxiers’ roles and public functions. They are considered a social advocacy organisation that supports the legal and civil rights of govoxiers in public office. They also act as advisory bodies for govoxiers and represent the interests of alternative dispute resolution between govoxiers in the course of their public duties. They provide advisory services to members of the public in all areas of govox-populi and populocratic society, in helping to develop govoxical policy initiatives for govoxiers and individuals or groups.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Govoxiers Advocacy Group Advisory | Government Communications Regulatory Department |
| Govoxiers Dispute Resolution Advisory | Govoxiers Personnel Management Regulatory Department |
| Govoxical Information Advisory | Africa Civil Rights Regulatory Department |
| Africa Foundation for Populocracy Advisory | Africa Election Commission Regulatory Department |
| Centre for Govoxical Policy Initiatives Advisory | Citizenry Legislative Interest Regulatory Department |
- Advisory Institute of Agriculture and Farming
This Advisory-body provides advice and support to members of the public on all areas of agricultural farming. Their sub-groups acts as a professional organisation whose members conduct research, organise events and conferences, as well as provide advice, tools and resources to farmers, rural businesses and individuals who care for the environment and self-consumption farming.
| Independent Sub-Groups | Government Affiliated Bodies |
| Agricultural and Food Research Advisory | Africa Foreign Business Regulatory Department |
| Agricultural Engineers Association Advisory | Africa International Trade Regulatory Department |
| Agriculture and Horticulture Development Advisory | Consumer Product Safety Regulatory Department |
| Animal Farming and Livestocks Advisory | Farm Infrastructure Regulatory Department |
| Animal and Plant Health Advisory | National Industries Regulatory Department |
The above is a list of some mainstream informal Advisory-bodies in the proposed United African ethnosocialist society. A person’s membership in a professional organisation as an advisory provider does not imply that they are qualified to practise their profession or that they are authorised to do so by law. Some would be employees, trainees or apprentices under the supervision of an expert. Numerous of these organisations serve as learned societies for the academic subjects that support their respective professions.
However, in cases where membership of or a professional qualification from a science, engineering or computer professional body is necessary to practice a profession as a member of an advisory-body, the proposed Citizenry-Regulation and laws should be expected to provide that suitably qualified persons from foreign nations are as well permitted to practice as members of Advisory-body in Africa.
The Populocratic Empowerment of the Populous
Empowerment of the populous refers to the process of giving power, authority, or agency to the general population, or the governed “people.” This can involve a variety of measures, such as increasing govoxical participation and representation, providing education and training, and increasing access to resources and equal opportunities. The goal of empowering the populous is to enable individuals and communities to have a greater say in the day-to-day government decisions that affect their lives and to increase their ability to shape their own societal values.
There are many different ways in which the populous are empowered in a populocratic society, and the specific approaches depend on the context and the goals of the empowerment efforts. Some strategies might include increasing access to education and training, improving access to health care and other resources, promoting economic development, and increasing representation in govoxical participation and on the daily voters’ selection of policy. The focus of populocratic strategies is on building the capacity of individuals and communities to advocate for their own needs and interests, or on creating more inclusive and participatory decision-making processes as a collective.
Populocratic empowerment of the populous has some benefits, including increased govoxical participation of citizenry-electorates and representation of their elected govoxiers, improved access to resources and equal opportunities, and increased ability to shape the direction of their own lives and communities. It also contributes to the overall well-being and stability of regional communities and society at large, as individuals and communities with greater agency and govoxical control over their own lives are more likely to be engaged and invested in the well-being of their communities. As a result, empowering the populous is an ongoing process, and it may in certain areas require significant resources, time, and effort to achieve meaningful and lasting change.
Since we all agree that democracy comes from the bottom – because it gives the governed people the power to vote representatives into State office while keeping the governed people isolated from the day-to-day administration of government – then it is the case that democracy involves the blind-trust of the governed people at the bottom in service of consent-slavery to the State managing of the government at the top.
Everywhere we looked, there are entrenched public mistrust of political governments. Declining legitimacy in their policy-making also contributes to the firmly established mistrust of their governing administration and their notion of indirect-democracy or representative-democracy so-called. No African government play a central role in any approach to examine the democratic form of governance practice, and as a result, a viable governmental platform in which citizenry-electorates can live, work and engage directly with their government is lacking in African government.
Politicians, in their partisan governmental system, believe themselves to be capable of deciding on policy-making without providing the governed people affected by those policy decisions the option to choose. Matters of social, economic and environmental issues then become the decision of their carefully selected informal advisory experts. The confirmation-bias practices of hand-picking scientific experts to provide policy advice that is consistent with politicians’ existing beliefs have rendered politicians incapable to govern because it deposed democratic politics into autocratic politics in disguise.
Everywhere we looked, politicians whether deliberately or unintentionally, always and often demonstrate the inability to propose a policy that is inconsistent with their individual beliefs and moral prejudices. Politicians surround themselves with advisory experts whose personal interests conform with that of the politician who contracted them. Democratic societies are then indirectly governed by these experts in collusion with political leaders, hence corruption and elitism plague African governments everywhere. Whereas, this completely missed the point of what should otherwise be democratic governance in government. The governed people are the majority and they are diverse in beliefs, morality and prejudices. But our democratic societies everywhere are governed by the moral character and prejudices of our elected political leaders in government. Hence, our trust in politics and their notion of democracy has been eroded even before we were born into it.
I say the safest solution to overcome our democratic problem in Africa is to abandon any notion to reform democracy and rather seek its outright abolition. The collective value of the governed people is recognised because they are the majority. The collective rule of the citizenry-electorates in the self-governance of themselves and of their society is required to frame the path in which government seeks solutions to resolve future social problems in society.
Populocracy form of governance allows broader perspectives into policy-making decisions, thereby generating greater happiness for a greater number of people in society. Populocracy would not only broaden the direct control of the governed people to decide the rules that govern the government, but it exercises direct control over the directions of advisory experts and sets scientists and technologists against themselves to prove their solutions with facts and evidence whose truths can be easily proven, and to accepted or rejected by the majority voters choice on policy.
Populocracy requires citizens’ direct participation in the daily activities of government – without this, there is no populocracy. This understanding of govox-populi administration of government, along with the desire of the governed people to govern themselves, is the drive behind the growing rise of the tide that is emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa in our current generation.
Through the daily govoxical participation of the governed people’s voters’ selection of policy to shape their society, the social actions of the governed people in consultation with the public functions of informal Advisory-bodies, the economic planning of the working-group for the benefit of society as a whole, the judicial power of the StateLords to ratifying the decision-making power of the citizenry-electorates into State laws, these seek to enable broader policy deliberation and direct control over the secretariat government’s practical policy implementation.
This demonstrates that populocracy is a deliberative and inclusionary govoxical process in shared governance between the government and the governed. Its interdependent governance approach focuses on participatory administration and commicracy that aim to strengthen the populocratic deliberation and public empowerment of the populous. Below are some features of populocratic empowerment of the populous in an ethnosocialist society:
- The governed people of society are the majority, they are diverse, and they engage in public debates and careful deliberation of policy to arrive at consensus-based decision-making in an elective-process;
- Each of their participation in govoxical affairs that affect their lives cannot be compelled to demand their forced attendance to an election. There is no penalty or sanction against the non-participation of qualified electors;
- The governed people are free to engage in face-to-face meetings, online interactions and debates. People would be free to conduct their populocratic elections from their mobile phone Apps, or at a designated polling station depending on individual preference, with publicly counting live-feeds over the internet with individual ‘National Insurance Number’ attached to each vote internally and hash-encryptions code externally, and thus completely free from being rigged or the democratic deception of hauling illegal voters from region to region for multiple voting;
- Populocratic debates and deliberations are done through varieties of mediums. Some would be free to engage through television, radio, internet or through constructive argument in written texts;
- Populocracy is based on the basic rule of compromised-based decision-making, where, for example, the populocratic rule of election uses a compromise approach to trump the majority vote decision to become the decided decision that is selected above that of the minority vote, based on two factors: one is the greatest happiness for a greater number of people at the relevant time, and the second being that every decided decision is a continuous and ever-changing option subject to modification or change without end in future elective-process;
- Compromise-based decision-making is designed to give the recognition of an intervening solution in a populocracy. It enables the participants to continuously evaluate their decisions and current circumstances and situations in the light of different perspectives and new evidence that may sway their voters’ choice of policy in another direction in the future. This list is non-exhaustive.
In the proposed ethnosocialist society, representative-populocracy is the duty of govoxiers to provide policy Information-delivery to the governed people, and for the people to select a policy that best meets the interests of the majority in an elective-process. Populocracy is well organised to serve the interests of the governed people in society.
From the perspectives of our current African younger generation, there are multiple systematic and endemic organisation cultures of corruption across all African governments. Since it has been impossible for anyone who ends up working in one of the bureaucratic government institutions to corrupt and to corrupt absolutely, there is no amount of ingenuity that any African president or leader in government can propose to make that could change the course of corruption across their national government institutions.
Populocratic government institutions, represented by elected govoxiers with their employed commicrats, are responsive and accountable to the governed people; which should demonstrate the populocratic empowerment of the populous in shared governance with the government in a populocratic society. The governed people would see greater benefits through social justice, would be highly sensitive to any abuse of a position of authority in a government office, and they would exercise greater confidence in the State institutions because they have been populocratically empowered to have direct control to prescribe, modify and change its rule as they please and when it suits their interests to do so.
I claim that when African society began to populocratise policy-making through representative-populocracy of govoxiers and the shared-governance forms of government rule to give the governed people the legislative power of the State, the current concerns of institutional corruption across all African governments would disappear all at once, or at the very least easy to identify to a specific individual in State office. Government institutions would strengthen; bureaucrats would be converted into commicrats; duties and tasks would be narrowed with simple objectives, specific focus-dimensional and easy to verify or attribute to specific commicrats; and the policy that governs government institutions can only be changed, modified or abolished by the governed people – the populous.
The younger generation of Africa is now advocating and demanding that the governed people should have the legislative power of the State and design the direction of our own social and economic development. We are the social actors, born with the potential to improve the African condition and to make the long-awaited call for the United African States a reality. With populocracy, we are empowered to work for each and for each to work for all.
For the rising tide that is emerging from within the inhabitants of Africa, human rights, social justice and populocratic accountability are guaranteed when everyone affected by the policy decision contributes to its formulation and ensures its implementation. This populocratic condition isolates govoxiers from policy-making decisions and weakens the power of advisory experts to corrupt, and thus completely vanquished the power of elites from exercising power-class in government over the governed people. This then empowers the governed people to exercise greater control over the affairs of their society that shapes the day-to-day direction of their economic life and social realities.
The contents of the proposed Ethnopublic Constitution of the United African States, proposed in the publication of the next volume-5 of the manifesto, detail the govoxical realities, altruist relations and social justice in an ethnosocialist society. This is the ethnoneutrality of populocracy in the social and economic bases of collective-individualism.
REFERENCE AND SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Populocracy: Note on the Term “Populocracy”.
- The word populocracy merges the Latin populus (“people”) with the suffix ‑cracy (“rule”), yielding the literal meaning “rule by the people.” Though often associated with Catherine Fieschi, “Populocracy: The Tyranny of Authenticity and the Rise of Populism (Comparative Political Economy)”, Agenda Publishing, 30 June 2019, the term appears to have circulated informally prior to her work. Notably, a 2011 article titled “Egypt’s ‘Populocracy’” used the term to describe authoritarian regimes cloaked in populist legitimacy.
- No definitive author or date of coinage can currently be confirmed. Like many terms in political discourse, populocracy seems to have arisen in parallel across different contexts, gaining traction as scholars and commentators grappled with new forms of majoritarian politics and personalist leadership. While Fieschi gave the term analytic precision and theoretical weight, it is best understood as a collaboratively evolving concept rather than a coined invention with a single originator.
Democracy
- Ake, C. (1993). The unique case of African democracy. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 239-244.
- Bhengu, J. M. (1996). Ubuntu: The Essence of Democracy. Cape Town: Novalis Press
- Brohman, J. (1995). Universalism, Eurocentrism, and ideological bias in development studies: from modernisation to neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly, 16, 121-140.
- The bedrock of Botswana’s democracy is embedded in the traditional Kgotla system. The Kgotla is a time tested forum where issues of public policy are discussed openly by the community (Holm and Molutsi, 1989).
- “British Parliament Bill – Winston Churchill’s speech”(https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1947/nov/11/parliament-bill#column_206). api.parliament.uk. November 11, 1947. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
Non-Partisanship
- Nancy L. Rosenblum, On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008);
- Russell Muirhead, “A Defense of Party Spirit,” Perspectives on Politics, Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 713 – 727.