Little Brother Watching Big Brother: Prout's Super-

Democratic System

1. Prout generates a more conscious qualified electorate than the present

form of democracy does.
2. It stimulates a greater sense of responsibility on the part of candidates.
3. It paves the way for a sense of universalism within the political
machinery itself by allowing for increased interplay, interaction and
dynamism by removing the constraints imposed by today's political party
structure.
4. The system of social boards resolves the perennial problem of power
corruption.

by Trond Overland

Some years ago in Sweden a local government banned a small primary plus KG
school running on neo-humanist principles.

Apart from a budding sister-KG in Copenhagen, that neo-humanist school, with

some 15 students, was the only such school in Scandinavia, situated in a rural
area, working quietly, being no part of any visible or noisy movement. Why was
the government so much against this rather wonderful educational initiative? The
authorities, represented by a Christian/socio-democratic majority, forced the
closing of the school on grounds that it was “antidemocratic”. During earlier
inspection sessions the religiously motivated inspectors had hinted that they
were displeased with the school’s spiritual practices and outlook, but in the final
analysis the authorities chose to play the democracy triumph card on the basis of
a brief mentioning in a book on neo-humanism, that the neo-humanist movement
wanted to create superhuman leaders. The struggling school anyhow dwindled
(mainly due to a diminishing number of students in that rather remote area) and
reluctantly closed a year or so later, after eight years of serving its community,
but the fact that the government had found the school “antidemocratic” kept
some of its sympathisers thinking, and today I want to put forward the following
points in anticipation of a valuable exchange of ideas on democracy and
Prout.

To begin with, as there seems to exist some misunderstanding regarding certain

aspects of Prout’s political setup, a clarification of some such points are sought
below with further elaboration following.

1. Prout generates a more conscious qualified electorate than the present form of
democracy does.

2. It stimulates a greater sense of responsibility on the part of candidates.

3. It paves the way for a sense of universalism within the political machinery itself
by allowing for increased interplay, interaction and dynamism by removing the
constraints imposed by today's political party structure.

4. The system of social boards resolves the perennial problem of power

corruption.

Elaboration

1. A conscious qualified electorate.

Prout states that wherever many or the majority are illiterate democracy is
nothing but a farce. Taking this idea a step further, democracy can only function
properly where the majority is morally conscious. So education is a must for
democracy. As Proutist writer Susmit Kumar has remarked, a driving license is
issued on proof of ability, not on proof of having been born 18 years or more ago
as that would jeopardize traffic and put people's life and health at greater risk. It
means, the right to vote should not be given on an age basis, as that would prove
a non-safety outlook for society. Rather, the right to vote should be given to the
socially conscious.

Prout therefore calls for voter qualification. In poor and illiterate countries this
principle will set in motion a huge and most welcome literacy drive, while in more
educated countries the question needs to be determined on an even more
dynamic basis: how to define a democratic person – what are the criteria
necessary to achieve voter status? One approach in so-called already
democratically enlightened countries would be to seek to avoid unnecessary
noise along a perceived “must”-axis and rather go for the stimulating “should”.
For instance, today voting in the West by way of the Internet is fast becoming a
reality; vote casting is effected by entering a personal code and mouse-clicking.
In that same process the voter would also be required to verify or confirm that he
or she really is acquainted with the election program of the candidate of choice
as well as that (those) of opposing candidate(s).

In order to generate sufficient democratic enthusiasm and understanding so that

this fundamental goal is substantially achieved there should be a considerable
and extensive drive if not propaganda in the media and public debate towards
that end. It means, the accent should be on active participation. Conscience is a
keyword here. Democratic participants should really awaken to the fact that not
only will they be able to be free to read and speak, but should also know well the
issues at stake as well as the current candidates' stand, plans, programs, etc. on
those issues. This need to awaken and elevate voters' conscience has to be
contemplated in the larger perspective of Prout’s vision of a decentralized
society. Prout advocates a moving out of today’s unhealthy centralization where
so many individuals are completely alienated from social and indeed political life.
True democracy seems to require local roots in a readily understood local
community where individuals feel they are part of meaningful social existence.
The nature of locality however changes and expands as the communications
channels advance.

2. Stimulating a sense of responsibility in candidates.

As is well-known, a candidate crossing the electorate, by defeating the very
program on which he or she was elected, is promptly removed in Prout’s setup
and should not even stand as a candidate in the next regular election but have to
wait for succeeding ones. In other words, if he or she massively fails to deliver
and the proper court proceedings prove the person has not kept their promise, a
by-election is held with other candidates participating. This principle will surely
create more realistic candidates with a greater sense of furthering people's
welfare rather than reflecting on the profits of an election victory, as it were.

3. Working without fixed political parties in a universal environment.

Often in European and Asian countries there are as many as three to six or more
feuding political parties horse-trading power amongst themselves in countless
combinations and constellations over the years. In contrast to the parliamentary
style of the UK and the US, where only two major parties share the main power,
the prime minister in such a conglomerate multiparty system may have
microscopic backing throughout the country, as he or she may be the outcome of
some rather twisted bargaining in an often astonishing outcome of national
elections. The same is true for local elections; minority governments may field
leaderships that are completely unexpected and sometimes bizarre.

In order to avoid such unnatural results and other bad effects of the static party
system, Prout advocates a party-free system where candidates are elected on an
individual basis. This allows for a vibrant political environment where movements,
blocks and groups will form and dissolve largely on issue consensus and
practical circumstances, and not anymore by party-whip. The elimination of the
present political party structure may be seen by vanguards of that so-called
democratic setup as fundamentally non-democratic. Prout argues however that
whereas a party naturally looks after its own interest first, the placing of the
responsibility on the shoulders of a single candidate only makes things more
clear and relevant to the electorate – for whom the entire democracy exists.
Further, that candidate has to learn and achieve goals of connecting with both all
and at the same time advancing a higher ideal of the good of the electorate and
society as a whole.

Here we would do well to remind ourselves that democracy is meant to serve

people and not politicians. On the whole the present party system tends to
function more as some sort of union for professional politicians and less as an
efficient vehicle for advancing public service or the welfare of all. In many if not
most countries political parties are corrupted and should definitely be replaced by
a more humane and sensible structure. For example, they may receive their
donation from tobacco and other unethical businesses.

Now it is also important to yearn for a modern structure, as the party system
originally grew out of the circumstantial royal court where various interest groups
– farmers, merchants, clergy, etc. – gathered and lobbied with the monarch in
order to further their own particular causes. It is high time to revolutionize the age
old parliamentary system in this crucial area.

4. Social boards: little brother watching big brother.

Many misconceptions regarding Prout’s political setup are removed by a proper
assessment of the role and functioning of its social boards. A simple illustration
delineates the rudimentals.

In this system, parallel social boards monitor whatever their elected democratic
equivalents are doing. These constituted boards on every democratic level –
village upwards towards global – function as the people’s immediate political
interface and indeed most practical communication tool. Here, on one hand, we
have all governmental power – legislative, judicial and executive – vested with
the democratically elected representatives forming their governments while, on
the other hand, people’s moral and spiritual power is institutionalized in the form
of social boards monitoring the democratic structure.

This new and enhanced system may therefore be termed as “super-democratic”,

as it generates or reinforces democratic strength by exercising the democratic
muscle fibre (due to points 1-3 above) as well as introducing a mechanism for
removing the prime factors of corruption, namely the concentration of isolation of
power in the hands of a few.

Social Boards
Prout’s social board system requires, indeed deserves, closer examination. Its
genius is that the ultimate power is in the hands of those who have no power. In
his The Political System of Prout, noted writer Ravi Batra remarks:

“In every country, whether democratic or authoritarian, the ruling bodies are
usually composed of people belonging to the same class. Hence they fail to
serve properly as checks and balances. Separation of powers is not enough;
there has to be another powerful institution guaranteed by the constitution, an
institution whose members stand above all mean and narrow tendencies; which
belongs to all classes, and whose word prevails over that of others.”

According to Prout, the only way such a highly motivated people’s representation
can prove itself, or obtain the people’s trust, is by their commitment to people’s
welfare through selfless service and sacrifice. There is perhaps no need of
mentioning the great souls that have sacrificed their personal comfort and
prestige in order to pave the way for progress and the improvement of humanity.
But it is good to remind oneself that people generally keep such people close to
their heart, and not just administrators or politicians with whom they have no
close relation actually, and Prout opens up for a system where persons of greater
social insight, spiritual vision and genuine love for humanity can see to it that the
wielders of direct power do not fall victims to that very power, and it and when it
happens they do something concrete about it – ushering in a new and
uncorrupted regime.

In his Society and State, Ac. Krtashivananda stresses the need for emphasizing
society vis-à-vis the state machinery:

“The creation of social institutions on the world level with organs on the lower
levels can eliminate threats from political and economic oligarchies and religious
fanatics. Members of the social institutions should be established in the spirit of
universalism. Sarkar explained that to be established in cardinal moral principles
is essential for the qualitative transformation of the personality. He frequently
used the term sadvipra in this regard. This is the only way to create social unity.
Value-oriented intellectuals and spiritually free persons, who have moral integrity
and are not motivated by self-interest, are the best persons to organize
themselves to form the social structure.”

The interested reader may find further material on the ideological profile of such
leadership in Proutists writings on leadership.
_________________
Trond Overland is Editor and Webmaster of Prout World. www.proutworld.org.