THE END OF REPRESENTATION

By Demosthenes Kyriazis

 The natural law of the “untransferable” and its infringement.

From our experience we know that certain natural attributes, as the man’s muscular and intellectual force, are from Nature, from God untransferable. All of us know and experience that the muscular and intellectual force of a person is not possible to be transferred to some other person either volunteerly, or violently, or by human laws.  The impossibility of transfer of those natural attributes, is an obvious and undeniable natural law, the direct overshooting of which was neither realized, nor substantially was attempted in the thousands of years of man’s history.

For obvious reasons, the sovereigns had strong interest for the transfer of the above forces to their own body and for the putting them under their control.  Thus the “good lad discovers another pathway". The pathway was discovered very early and named slavery.

It is clear that the results of slavery are equivalent or greater to the transfer of the before mentioned powers, since with slavery “is actually transferred” the personal power of a set of people, of an entire society, to a person:  to a king, a lord, an enlighten leader/protector of people.

However besides the muscular and intellectual attribute, man has also a third untransferable attribute that also is a gift of Nature and not of the rulers. This attribute is also a kind of power (of force, of energy), like the muscular and intellectual, and it is named “personal power”, better known as “Freedom”. Freedom is that kind of energy that transformed to the most important kind of work, which produced only by man and not by other living beings. This kind of work has the name “the making and the realizing reasonable decisions”. It is important to be noticed that animals can also “take and realize decisions”, but with the force of instincts and motives and not by the logic as man does.

From the previous ones it becomes clear that man is free when he has personal power and that man is a slave when he looses his personal power. Therefore, the full transfer of personal power to someone, who takes and carry out the decisions that concern a set of people, constitutes a loss of freedom and therefore constitutes a form of modern slavery.           

The view that freedom is a form of energy and not a moral or philosophical value, results from the fact that the freedom produces work. “Energy” is an abstract noun that physicists have given to the possibility of producing some kind of work, mechanical, chemical, spiritual etc, possibility that exists to both, the living creatures and the no living entities. This view is also resulted from the fact that, as has been proved, energy and work constitute the same entity. The work is the visible form, while the energy the invisible form of the same physical magnitude [i].

The above logic has been deliberately ignored and distorted for the following two reasons, a real/objective and an artificial/selfish.

Real reason is of utmost need to restrict the absolute personal freedom, so that does not restrict the freedom of other members of the society. The Freedom resulting from the restriction, by common rules, of the absolute personal freedom, is the active freedom of the members of the society. I think the philosophers and politicians call it “rights”. It is obvious that the rights shall be the same for all people, “rulers and ruled citizens”.

Selfish reason constitutes the fact that the logic of the “untransferance” of the personal power [ii] is contrary to the interests of lords and for this reason it is usually rejected or ignored. The privileges of lords, established by them-selves, must be protected.

Is the Representation a violation of natural law?

The above question is significant, because many social institutions, with leading ones those of the Representative Democracy and of the Syndicalism, are based on the transfer of competence and power, to someone or to some other citizens, i.e. to the politicians and the leaders of Syndicalism

The answer to this question is simple and can be summarized as follows:

Depending on the real goal and rules of representation, this may constitute either Deaconship and Serving of citizens’ power, or Hybres (�βρις, outrage, insult) [iii], that is transfer of the “untransferable” power of the man.

It is deaconship, when the representatives serve options, commands, and decisions of the citizen’s set and not those of the delegates.

It is a hybres, when loss or restriction of the people’s power is created by the representation. This happens when the major decisions are taken by the representatives and not from the citizens’ totality.

According to the Cosmo Theory of ancient Greeks, when the representation constitutes a hybres, we unavoidably end in destruction through the following stages:

Hybres  – leads to Ati ( �τη,  blindness/confusion) – then to Nemesis ( Ν�μεσις  wrath/anger) – and finally to “Tisis” (  Τ�σις,  destruction, catastrophe ).

Today the representation in the current state of democracy and of syndicalism, constitutes a Hybres or a Deaconship?

If it constitutes a Hybres, then at what stage of the above mentioned evolutionary process are we?

We believe that all citizens have a clear and solid answer to these two questions.

Because it is a characteristic of human nature, “man promotes firstly his interests”, we conclude that the most likely form of representation is this of hybres and not that of deaconship.

The majority of people believe that the services to people from representatives, depends on the qualifications of the elected representatives and, by extension, on the average culture of the voters. We believe that this existence depends primarily upon the rules of the political/social system and that these rules shape the representation, either at hybres or at deaconship. This view was not based on thoughtful theories, but on people’s wisdom, which is summarized in the motto: "the animal in our orchard grazes all the pasture up to the extent its rope allows”. Therefore the protection from destruction of the orchard depends on the length and the resistance to breakage of the rope. Something similar applies to the institution of representation.

The most compatible with the natural laws form of government.

 From the above it is clear that the existence of a deaconship representation, or a hybres representation, depends on the institutional rules of democracy and not on the spiritual and moral characteristics of elected politicians and of voters. Nevertheless, people are trying to surpass the crisis and be led to the salvation by changing the representatives and not by the institutional rules of the regime.

When the regime of the country allows the development and functioning of hybrid representation, then the social entropy will causally increase quickly and will result in the rapid degradation of the social system and the reduction of its efficiency. The present situation of socio-political system in many countries, in terms of efficiency and degradation, is a typical example of a high-entropy system.

But what regime ensures that the representation will be that of deaconship, with protection against an eventual change at hybres ? 

What regime ensures low social entropy [iv]?

This regime is the Democracy of the ancient Greek spirit.

It is the Democracy in which major decisions were taken from all citizens in Ecclesia of Demos (Assembly of the Municipality). It is the Democracy in which the leaders /representatives, nor legislated, nor took the major decisions, nor exercised judicial power, but served the power of Ecclesia.  It is the Democracy in which citizens have the double status, “the governor and the governed”.

A regime, with principles and institutions like those of the Athenian Democracy, adapted to the current political, economic and technological conditions, should ensure that:

(1) The representation will be a deaconship and,

(2) The entropy of the socio-political system is going to be low.

Sooner or later, but with a deterministic certainty, the natural laws will predominate on the human ones. This means that the end of the representation, the end of representation which constitutes hybres,  is inevitable.

________________________________________

[i] Demosthenes Kyriazis, “DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN TELEAREA”, Greek edition of book by Pataki’s Publications, 2005. (pages 17-20).

English Version in  http://www.solon.org.gr/downloads/Telearea_Dimosthenis_Kyriazis_Teliko.pdf  

And in http://issuu.com/georgepapagiannis/docs/telearea  

 [ii] This view is essentially identical to the axiom of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the “untranferable of rights”, documented in ethical and logical principles.

 [iii] Hybres (�βρις) in Greek means the act of arrogant overestimation of human capabilities. Such, hybres was any act contrary to the laws of the “responsible Gods”, contrary to natural laws.

 [iv] Relevant article is: "Direct Democracy, the regime of low Entropy", in http://www.dd-democracy.gr/article.asp?Id=92