Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

EQUITOCRACY

DIVERSITY-BASED DEMOCRACY
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM REQUIRES FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION

By Owolabi Salis Research Professor, Equity Union (Democracy Building Organization) 1179 Eastern Parkway 1st Floor Brooklyn, NY 11213 Tel: 1-212-655-5749, 1-917-402-0566 Fax: 212-742-0549 For Permanent Address, please use the three Emails below. In the subject of your email, type Equitocracy. Emails: mosalis@gmail.com or mosalis@hotmail.com or mail@salislaw.ocom Website: www.salislaw.com

Page

EQUITOCRACY: DIVERSITY-BASED DEMOCRACY By Owolabi Salis

Introduction: Natural vs. Artificial diversity As you all know, the world is characterized in diversity forming unequal ratios or unequal weights among diverse groups or interests. Diversity may be classified as natural or artificial; there are other classifications that may be used. Common natural diversity includes race-color and sex. Artificial diversity develops through programming of the people and includes race-culture, religion, ideology, and so on. The PDC of Life The PDC of life is linked mainly to artificial diversity and it means Programming, Diversity and Competition. Take a child born in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be brought up in the Vatican, that child will most likely be a Christian and vice versa. In the same way, take a child born in a particular culture or ethnic group to be raised in another culture r ethnic group, that child will exhibit characteristics of the raising culture or ethnic group. This is called Programming and that explains why we should not even fight one another because so doing is artificial. But today, the whole world is fighting because of artificial programming. After the child is programmed, he/she will be identified as part of the raising Diversity for example Christian or Muslim or of the particular culture or ethnic group or ideology. These diverse groups or interests then compete for limited resources. This is the Competition. We are essentially in this world to manage diversity and competition. The Effects of Unequal Diversity Ratios or Weights on Competition When diverse groups compete with one another for limited resources, they either develop initiatives or progressive moves or make destructive moves. It is the destructive moves that are the problems. The art of competing itself is called racing or racism and that brings us to the concept of positive racism and negative racism. Racism may not always be negative as generally political assassinations, discriminations, religious conflicts, ethnic rivalries, personality conflicts, believed. The destructive moves include conquers and invasions, colonization, wars, coup de tat,

Page

party and group conflicts, electoral malpractice (fraud, rigging, rituals, violence, deception, bad campaigns, unattainable promises, damaging vote negotiations), marginalization and domination including destruction of sense of belonging, human rights abuses and many others. In many jurisdictions, the more bias, religious and ethnic based you are, the more political and socioeconomic relevance you enjoy; interest groups have then catch up with the opportunity by forming and joining ethnic and religious organizations in order to increase their political and socioeconomic standing. This is at a cost to nationalism. It is unfortunate in this world now that some people are feeding on conflicts. Freeborn: Education Control of Diversity Based Conflict. We can use the PDC education to control conflicts arising out of our diversities. We can do this through enlightenment of the adults and programming the children to be diversity freeborn. A freeborn is someone who does not keep sentiments; one who displays total objectivity of mind and that takes understanding of the PDC of life. When you understand the PDC of life, you know it does not really matter what diversity group you belong and you tend to act to accommodate all. Give the education now and let people be free. Diversity Intelligence and Breaking down the Unequal Ratios. Grand democracies like the parliamentary and presidential systems have failed to address the diversity based problems. The presidential and parliamentary democracies are old fashioned operating in modern day complexities mostly promoting opportunists and excluding great personalities. The old systems promotes hate creating racial, tribal, religious and other sentimental leaders such that you gain political relevance only by discriminating or being a tribal lord. They are hate democracies. When diverse groups or interests are competing, the one with the higher ratios or weights will always win such as majority group or incumbency weight or interest. For example a country with 2 ethnic groups A with 60% population and B with 40% and operating a presidential or parliamentary system will create poor balance. A will always produce the leader because of majority sentiment. In rare cases, B may produce the leader at the mercy of A or if directing the institution of control such as the armed forces. To achieve equitable distribution of votes, we will need to breakdown the diversities into a common factor, say 5 so that: A= 1/5+1/5+1/5 and B= 1/5+1/5. We will now use the common factor (5) for comparison. Determining the ratios is called diversity intelligence. Welcome to Equitocracy: Solution to diversity-based problems

Page

Diversity-based democracy project also titled EQUITOCRACY is a design or prescription to build properly democracy around diversity by creating equitable and interacting diversity zones to reduce diversity-conflicts, eliminate sentiments, positively regulate the behavior of the diverse groups and redefine democracy as the government of all the people (comprising all diversities),

by all the people and for all the people determined through objective evaluation of the candidates abilities to perform by the electorates. This is about equity formation of a Federal Equity
Republics or Equity Republics. One of the direction of this research is based on the general equity law/rule that he who comes to

equity must come with clean hands; the design of this project therefore was to eliminate from the
political process or regulate the behavior of those troublemakers who in the quest for power always cause conflicts and bring untold sorrow to mankind. Equitocracy broken down means equity and democracy i.e. a system of government involving the determination by the people. Equitocracy therefore is a fair system of governance involving the determination of the people. It is a competitive democracy designed to create objectivity or to reduce or eliminate discrimination or political conflicts among peoples of different backgrounds or diversities living together in a political entity, bring about socio-economic development and produce the best candidate for a country. The product will resolve political problems brought about by racial, tribal/ethnic, dialectical or religious etc differences. Sharing of values among competing interests: Political administration is about sharing values among the conflicting or competing interests. We hold election to determine who will be in control of sharing the values. The history was that people who are denied a share in political power are also denied a share in the benefits of power. Different forms of diversities exist among people living together in a political environment. These diversities create different ratios putting some group(s) at advantage or in majority over other(s). Common examples are color ratios, tribal ratios, religious ratios etc. These different ratios create sentiments or subjectivity or ratio-attachments giving probabilities that are not equal. Expectations of Modern Democracies: A good democratic system should have a design that creates equal probabilities i.e. clears the sentiments or eliminate the subjective behavior. Therefore, democracy should not be seen as the differences and creates equal probabilities or equities in an attempt to create a balancing

Page

government by the majority but a majority-minority system i.e. a system that recognizes the

necessary for conflict management and socio-economic progress. If it is seen as the majority system, there is the tendency for political domination from the majority group and this could lead to conflict. Democracy should not promote conflict. It should be seen as a majority rule only in the sense that the man with the majority votes wins and his winning votes are won based on his ability to perform. Democracy should have in it some perfection eliminating subjectivity, rigging, excessive use of money et cetera. Old Time Democracies against Expectation: The old time democracies create rough road to power that decent men will rather opt out than go for it. Many political leaders under these old time democracies are seen to be thugs, assassins, rough riders, goal getters and often not the best for their country. A modern democracy should create opportunities, be competitive and embrace decency enabling great and intelligent personalities to aspire. In a diverse society, the ideal democracy should not promote ethnic or color or religious consideration in voting, should avoid clashes among statesmen and be peaceful. A modern democracy should recognize the general attitude of voters to vote on diversity lines without conducting the candidates evaluation for example in racial color societies black voting for black, white for white. This subjective attitude is also applicable to language and religious diversities.

Definition of Equitocracy: Diversity Based Democracy: Democracy should be the government of all the people, by all the people and for all the people determined through objective evaluation of the candidates abilities to perform by the electorates. This is about equity formation.
The Peace Republic: Forming an Equity Republic or Federal Equity Republic The Equity Republic therefore is a state having full recourse to its people who have been cleared of sentiments. The people in the state display an objective mind; they are freeborn. Equitocracythe objective system will be used in forming an equity republic by eliminating ethnic, race or other sentiment based options in voting consideration. It is the design of equity in architecture of voting. But the truth is that people do not want to be objective. We have to create rules to make them objective. The first of the rule should be enshrined in the democratic system particularly in the

Page

right to vote. We have to make them evaluate candidates objectively.

Making basic rules that give all groups a sense of belonging in a democratic system is very important and crucial to the groups living together in peace and harmony. These rules will form the procedure for the substantive statements against domination or oppression. Some systems have made rules such as collegiate or rotational presidencies. These are not objective rules because at a point it disenfranchises a group. These rules only suspend the s entiments for a while. Clearing or Eliminating the Sentiments: Equitable democracy building Arrangements have to be made to free the minds of voters of sentiments. In any nation-state, the power is in the relevant people and the relevant people are the voters who can make a change. In most political systems, all groups are interested in producing the leader, but some groups are constrained because they suffer disadvantages e.g. being a minority. The disadvantage can be resolved under an equity model without putting the majority under a disadvantage position. Because all groups are interested, we set an equity model that recognizes all groups and which will objectively evaluate their respective foreseeable performance in order to determine the best among them. How? We will form an equity circle in which all candidates must prove their objectivity to be part and in which all the formers or voters must also be objective otherwise they lose their forming or voting rights. The voters will be put on no-choice case that will make them evaluate objectively on the best foreseeable performance. No-choice means no way to act sentimentally or to discriminate. The no-choice case is a process of eliminating the race-color or ethnic or tribal or other diversitybased option or consideration in voting. This will be achieved by creating ratios or equal equities and making the voters and the candidates of the same or near-zero interest or diversity. It is trial balancing. In mathematical terms, it is like creating a common factor for effective and objective comparison; to compare 4/5 and 5/7 ratios for example, you have to reduce them to the same common factor. You can also break down the ratios 2/5 and 3/5 to 1/5, 1/5, 1/5, 1/5 and 1/5. In complex or multi-diversity situation, you either consider the complexities altogether or you limit the ratios to significant or material diversity interests and rely on the concept of dilution for general interest balancing. This will wipe out sentiments that could influence the voters to vote subjectively or influence the candidates to campaign subjectively. Objective evaluation of the equal equities is done to select winnings. All the equal equities created must be evaluated for selection by the voters otherwise the full forming or voting right is lost. In common and other similar laws, the equity rule that among equal equities, the stronger or the strongest is the law will

Page

be applied to select the leader. The voting type may be general/open or limited/closed through the use of delegates. In the voting system, the majority will vote for minority and the minority will vote for the majority. Inter-voting or cross-voting and intra-voting will be done to erase sentiments and subjective behavior and reveal objectivity in such a manner that the post of a leader can fall on any candidate no matter what diversity depending on his national acceptance over others. Examples: Forming Equity Republic of ABC or Federal Equity Republic of ABC Let us assume the following demographic situation: Country: Equity Republic of ABC Ethnic Groups: A B Population (%): 70 30 Voters (%): 65 35 Parties: SP DP Candidates D (from A Tribe) S (from B tribe) If the democratic system is a majority system, D has a greater chance or probability of winning because of the advantage of coming from the majority tribe. A good democratic system should be a majority-minority system equalizing the probabilities or putting the candidates under the same probabilities. You may also call it creating equal equities or a trial balancing or common factor. In a simple majority system, the people from A will want to vote for D being part of them or their subject. D may not have been the best for the country under an objective performance evaluation. A good democratic arrangement should have a way of excluding opportunists and producing the best candidate. Should D win under a subjective voters behavior, D will want to satisfy his race or tribe. To clear the sentiments requires identifying the major differences and allocating proportional points or ratio.

Page

Lets have the following demographic situation again: Tribes: A B

Proportion: 60% 40% Diversity Ratio: 3 2 Allocation: A1A2A3 B1B2 Parties: SP DP Candidates (1st No Choice case) D1 from A1 S1 from A1 Candidates (2nd No Choice case) D2 from A2 S2 from A2 Candidates (3rd No Choice case) D3 from A3 S3 from A3 Candidates (4th No Choice case) D4 from B1 S4 from B1 Candidates (5th No Choice case) D5 from B2 S5 from B2 We are making the above arrangement to free the minds of voters of sentiments. In most political systems, all groups are interested in producing the leader, but some groups are constrained because they suffer disadvantages e.g. being a minority. The disadvantage can be resolved under the equity model without putting the majority under a disadvantage. The equity model is not

designed to impose the minority on the majority but to create equal proportional opportunity that will ensure cooperation and understanding among the diverse groups .
Because all groups are interested, we set an equity model which recognizes all groups proportionally and which will objectively evaluate their respective performance in order to determine the best among them. How? We will form an equity circle in which all candidates must prove their objectivity to be part and in which all the formers or voters must also be objective otherwise they lose their forming or voting rights. Let us assume that we have 100 voters of which tribe A has 65 and tribe B 35. These voters have to be put on NO Choice Case i.e. No Subjective Mind Case or 'Objective Mind Case' in say 5 or multiple of 5 cases. The no-choices may be interpreted as follows: Assuming the 2 candidates are from division 1 of tribe or race A i.e. A1. Then the voters in tribe B have no choice to think subjectively on tribe line but to vote objectively on the best foreseeable performance evaluation. Minor differences can still cause subjectivity. This can be played down through further allocation of ratios or it can be diluted.

Page

Remember, we said we have D1 and S1 both from A1. 70% of the voters from A1 may prefer D1 while 30% may prefer S1. This means D1 wins unit A1 point. All the voters in all the units will vote for either D1 or S1. In the same way, they will vote for D2 or S2, D3 or S3, D4 or S4 and D5 or S5. What we want to achieve is to make the candidates of the same interest or in mathematics of the same common factor. We are wiping out sentiments that could influence the voters to vote subjectively or influence the candidates to campaign subjectively. For clearer presentation, the table below further explains how to clear the sentiments:

A1 D/Zones A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 Candidates D1vsS1 D2vsS2 D3vsS3 D4vsS4 D5vsS5 220 154:66 132:88 121:99 118:102 140:80

A2 250 162:88 115:135 110:140 130:120 170:80

A3 180 99:81 45:135 117:63 127:53 124:56

B1 100 30:70 40:60 52:48 31:69 10:90

B2 250 70:180 60:190 190:60 95:155 155:95

TV 1000 515:485 392:608 590:410 510:499 599:401

TP 5 3:2 1:4 3:2 3:2 4:1

Winner

Rank

D1(A1) S2(A2) D3(B1) D4(B1) D5(B2)

4 1 5 3 2

D/Zone means Diversity Zones i.e. zones of similarities like color, tribes etc., TV means the Total Votes comprising the total valid votes from each diversity zones. TP means the Total Points which in this case must add up to five diversity zones. The candidates are D1 and S1 from A1 D/Zone, D2 and S2 from A2 zone etc. To interpret column A1, out of the 220 voters voting in D/Zone A1, 154 prefer D1 to 66 for S1 (both candidates from D/Zone A1). 132 prefer D2 to 88 for S2 both candidates from D/Zone A2. 121 prefer D3 to 99 for S3 both candidates from D/Zone A3. 118 prefer D4 to 102 for S4 both candidates from D/Zone B1. 140 prefer D5 to 80 for S5 both candidates from D/Zone B2. Other columns can be interpreted same way. To interpret the rows, D1 has 154 (out of 220 votes) of D/Zone A1 voters leaving 66 to S1, 162 out of 250 of D/Zone A2 voters, 99 out of 180 of D/Zone A3 voters, 30 out of 100 of D/Zone B1 voters and 70 out of 250 of D/Zone B2 voters. If the number is greater, it means D1 win the points of the D/Zone or unit. A point is assigned to a equities. In our illustration, D1 wins the points of D/Zones A1, A2, A3 and lost B1 and B2. Total is D/Zone or unit and we have a total of 5 points because we have 5 D/Zones. These are the

Page

3:2 and that means he wins over S1 and qualified for the equity circle/council. The same interpretation goes for other rows. Looking at the Total Points (TP) column, D1 qualified by 3 to 2, S2 qualified by 1 to 4, D3 qualified by 3 to 2, D4 qualified by 3 to 2 and D5 qualified by 4 to 1. THERE IS EQUITY RULE THAT AMONG EQUAL EQUITIES, THE STRONGER OR STRONGEST IS THE LAW. In our illustration, S2 and D5 have 4 points to qualify. But because S2 qualifies with total votes of 608 compare to D5 votes of 599, S2 is the stronger in law and therefore the leader. To avoid rigging, any ballot paper not marked or improperly marked for any of the units will be voided as a whole. Rigging is practically not possible because rigging will require assistance of other units and if they give the assistance, that means they are automatically rigging themselves out. The ballot paper can be arranged so that voting is done in one ballot paper or slot. The Leadership can fall on any candidate irrespective of where he comes from provided he gains the best national evaluation. Alternative arrangement is to allocate weights to the diversity zones depending on their relative importance in the political entity. For example: A1 may be allocated 10 points, A2=15, A3=25, B1=20 and B2=30. The total weights or points equal 100. As to winnings of the points or weights, there may be two arrangements: full or proportional adoption. For a full adoption, if a candidate wins A1 zones with 70% to 30% in a two platform arrangement, he will be credited with the full points or weights of 10 from A1 zone. For a proportional adoption, he will only be credited with 7 points that is 70% won. SP DP

[] A1 [] A2 [] A3 [] B1 [] B2

[] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] []

Voting procedure may require elementary or primary literacy and where that is missing in formed will not affect the objectivity of the model.

Page

adopting system, delegates extensive enough may be used for the voting. How the delegates are

Parties/Platform (SP & DP)


SP DP

Zones/Units/States
[] A1 [] A2 [] A3 [] B1 [] B2 Fig. Two Platforms Opportunities [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Parties/Platform (SP, DP & KP)


SP DP KP

Zones/Units/States
[] A1 [] A2 [] A3 [] B1 [] B2 Fig. Three Platforms Opportunities [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Parties/Platform (SP, DP, KP & NP)

Page

10

SP

DP

KP

NP

Zones/Units/States
[] A1 [] A2 [] A3 [] B1 [] B2 Fig. Four Platforms Opportunities [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Steps in the Design of an Equity Model: EQUITOCRACY Conduct an objective country study of the differences or diversities existing among the people in the political entity. This is called diversity intelligence. Note the weights of the differences or diversities and allocate ratios accordingly for evaluation. This is called diversity ratio allocation creating diversity zones. Determine the candidates or vote propensities or choices or the number of ratio representatives to be evaluated at every ratio points. Is it one in two options or one in three or one in four et cetera. This is an area for creating political opportunities or wider competition that relaxes or flexes political tension. Determine the evaluators- either open covering all the people or close using delegates. Invest or inter/intra vote the ratios in one another linking it to the choices under an objective evaluation to determine which of the ratios is best valued. Adoption of course will involve constitutional review. Potential Advantages of the Equity Model: It remains the best compared to most democratic system currently existing in this world. Many countries are going complex and they are still practicing old fashioned democracies often leading to chaos, civil conflicts/wars et cetera. In this modern day, the equity model

Page

11

is what most nations need to move forward. If you find any deficiency in this equity model, compare it to the present system in practice in your country and determine which can better address any plural problem being experienced. It ensures balancing of values and production of generally acceptable leaders. What many political systems have produced for the world are specifically acceptable opportunists or negotiated leaders out of freewill of the voters. Promotion of tolerance and diversity integration. If you want to win election, you will need to embrace the differences from other diverse groups, find them and accommodate them. If I am in a country where they speak French and German and I am from German speaking and need the votes of the French, I will need to be closed to the French culture and if possible study their language and pick a wife among them. I should carry out some integral moves that will make them believe reasonably I am part of them. It will ensure objectivity: Positive thinking among the people and guided approach to one another. It will lead to socio-economic progress playing down political crisis. Better standard of life. This will naturally come through a free environment where people now shift focus from agitation to improvement in their lives. National confidence in the electoral system: rig free election. To rig election, you will need assistance from other diversity zones which if they grant would mean they are rigging themselves out. People are not likely to work against themselves. Equal rights and human rights guarantee. Creation of competition, political and socio-economic opportunities. Promotion of peace, love, unity among the people and command of national loyalty. Group sense of belonging and improvement in national security. Reduces political negotiations therefore creating time for the leader satisfying the nation rather than negotiators. Compared to the popular democracies, it discourages traces of diversity-conflict. Mutual respect and cooperation. Respect flows from control of political power. If a particular group controls the political power, that group will gain a unilateral respect which affects the socio-economic activities because control of political power can determine control of socio-economic power. In some democracies, because the chance of some group gaining political power is hopeless, they are often oppressed and disrespected down the whole system. The dominating groups are always seen as the elite. In a study of a system in Africa, a particular ethnic group dominates the military and by implication superior citizens always oppressing and disrespecting others denying them key positions

Page

12

the political system. The people of this ethnic group see themselves as first class

and opportunities. The equity model will guarantee mutual respect and control the behavior of the people in the whole system to be cooperative and respectful. Equity Model as Majority-Minority System: The model is intended to improve cooperation among the various diverse groups and create sense of belonging for everybody. The majority will gain through larger allocation of diversity ratios. If the population is say 90 to 10 and it is determined to have 5 ratios, the majority will pick 4, minority 1. This will give them greater opportunity or probability of 4/5 of producing the leader. Other factors may also be used in the allocation of diversity ratios such as socio-economic contributions, nativity, past exploitation etc. One example is South Africa where the whites are about 10% of the population but have contributed to the socio-economic development of the country. Other examples are the native Indians and aborigines and recognition for past exploitation such as slavery. The majority may also gain if variation of the equity model below is practiced. Variation of the Equity Model:

The equity model can be varied in many ways. One variation is to practice two systems of
determination- one based on equity (non-dominating) and one not based on non-equity (dominating). The election of the President for example may be based on dominating while that of the Prime Minister on non-dominating or vice versa to create some sense of belonging to the

dominated or the minority. This can avoid conflict. After long period of domination, the dominating
group or sometimes the majority may not be comfortable to cede power. Also, the dominated or sometimes the minority will feel aggrieved and get prepared for conflict or country-system dissolution unless genuine recognition is accorded them. This arrangement will serve a good comfort for both groups. Extension of the Equity Model: The equity model can be extended to the legislatures particularly the higher legislative body such as the Senate. Many political systems operate the regions/states/local governance structure for effective and accelerated grassroots impact or development. The natural compositions of some regions, states or local governments are such that some people are so disadvantaged that they cannot produce the leader of the region, state or local government. To create a sense of governments by identifying the diversities creating anti-democratic attitude among them and allocating ratios accordingly. belonging for these people, the Equity Model can be extended to the regions, states or local

Page

13

After-formation What we have discussed so far is the formation of the equity council and who is the first in time is the strongest in law and therefore the President. Forming the equity council can be very interesting particularly if the diversity ratio, the platform and the formers are wide and can be traded on by the bookers. The next question is what happens to others who made it into the equity council but are not able to be the strongest? These are subject to constitutional rules of procedure as to what roles they have to play. The equity council could be seen for example as a corporate board with the strongest in law being the Chairman and Chief Executive. Others may take executive portfolios and/or constitute the national audit committee. The relationship among them will be determined by constitutional rules of procedure. We can also design constitutional review language.

By Owolabi Salis Research Professor, Equity Union (Democracy Building Research Organization) 1179 Eastern Parkway 1st Floor Brooklyn, NY 11213 Tel: 1-212-655-5749, 1-917-402-0566 Fax: 212-742-0549 For Permanent Address, please use the three Emails below. In the subject of your email, type Equitocracy. Emails: mosalis@gmail.com or mosalis@hotmail.com or mail@salislaw.com Website: www.salislaw.org

Page

14

Оценить