Essay/Chapter 11. The social rule or archy

From Escola Finaly
Jump to: navigation, search

Chapter 11. THE SOCIAL RULE OR ARCHY


1. Definitions
2. Dialectics between archy and anarchy
3. The different archies


When we must suggest a social aternative, one of the main questions which must be solved in the first place is that of who and how will rule, which will be the political structure of this new society, which institutions will take care of its direction.

As far as we are concerned, we cannot think —at least in the present evolutionary cultural level— of a human society without a rule, without a person in charge of ruling, deciding, in every field of the social activity under consideration.


1. Definitions

In all the social levels there is rule, but now we are interested only in the highest social rule, that is the one which is practised on geostrategic levels: district..., town..., county..., ethnic group..., interethnic group..., empire.

And the technical term we apply to this social rule is that of archy. Archy is a word of Greek origin, derived from a Greek verb which, originally, appeared to mean «to take the initiative, to start», and later became also «to rule».

But, what is implied in the idea of rule, generally speaking, and in the idea of archy (or of «supreme command»), in particular? It is necessary to exactly describe these ideas, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings with other social realities of a very different sign.

Ruling is the action of a commander-in-chief elected by the members of the society on which he rules; this action is oriented to take the suitable practical measures in order to really carry out the political will declared by these members: it is then an action in the service of the members of the collectivity or community being ruled; finally, this commander-in-chief must be personally responsible for all his actions, and therefore must account for his actions at the end of his term of office.

If these fundamental requirements of freedom of action and total responsibility of the chosen commander-in-chief are respected, it is easy to understand that ruling becomes a just and healthy social function, which contributes cohesion to the social structure, and constitutes its keystone.

To this high command we can then oppose the idea of power above and against persons. Power is a term of latin origin. The verb potere meant originally «to be the master of», later it meant «to exert power on». In the eyes of any person it is legitimate «to be the master» of any object, of any thing, but it is unfair, illegitimate and ignoble to be the master of a person (individual, collective or communal).

Any ruling of persons implies, necessarily, a power above things: without this power, the commander-in-chief would be disabled, he could not act; because the commander acts on things, modifies things, in the service of persons.

On the contrary, it is necessary to prevent absolutely the rule on persons to become power over and against persons, which would be slavery (more or less concealed) and tyranny, control, oppression, repression, right of life and death, objectification of persons...

This hateful situation is the one which takes place when the ruling is concealed and irresponsible. And in any social proposal expected to be liberating and libertarian, the first thing to do is to formulate the specific mechanisms which will prevent, in practice, the transformation of the ruling of persons into power above and against persons.


2. Dialectics between archy and anarchy

The number of principles which make up our archic conception are resumed in the expression dialectics between archy (high social command) and anarchy (the absence of a high social command): this means, simply, that any free and responsible archy must provide itself —besides the mechanisms which ensure this freedom and responsibility— with mechanisms of self-limitation.

The counterpart of any free and strong archy, with an actual ability to act on things and to rule on persons, is its constitutional limitation in the following fields:

  • Limitation in the number of persons exerting the archy. The archy must be monarchical, that is limited to one only elected commander-in-chief, free and responsible at the end of his term of office; the goal pursued with this measure is twofold: the concentration of responsibilities on one only person, and the unification of all the archic actions in one line, single and consistent, easily to be distinguished by any observer. The number of collaborators of the monarch (ministers, counsellors, secretaries...) must also be limited (for example, no more than six), for similar reasons.
  • Limitation in the length of the term of office. The time period during which a given archic mandate is exerted must be established constitutionally, and it must not be possible to extend it —that is, no monarch can present himself for re-election, because there is a very strong tendency to take advantage of the continuity of the same person in a position of the highest responsibility—. So, each monarch will exert his mandate during a very short period of time —enough, however, to carry out his programme— and be immediately after be judged for his performance.
In order to avoid the discontinuity of persons to cause a discontinuity of rule which would not be desirable, it can be established among the collaborators of the monarch an automatic succession order, to provide at every cessation a successor: the elections would be carried out, every time, not to choose the commander-in-chief, but the last of his collaborators. In this way, everybody reaching the highest responsibility would have a long experience obtained during the years in which he acted as collaborator.
  • Limitation of authority. Finally, it will be necessary that the authority and the field of action of the monarch be limited to the minimum necessary.
To attain the maximum archic decentralization, according to the subsidiarity principle, it is necessary that no archy of a given level take part in any matter which may be dealt with at a lower level. Finally, it is necessary to leave to the free decision of every citizen and citizenship, to the anarchic freedom, as many things as possible.
It must be pursued that the life of each person (individual, collective and communal) within the empire be as anarchic as possible, and as little as possible submitted to the archic discipline.


3. The different archies

As we have already pointed out, the archy is the highest social rule, but this is exerted at different geostrategic levels, which we shall detail hereafter.

The first distinction to be made, is between imperial archies and civil archies.

The imperial archies are those exerted on the total whole of the geopolitical community or empire. They have been built up, legitimately, on the federal agreement among the different ethnic groups which make up the empire.

The civil archies are those exerted on each one of the communities integrated in the empire: districts..., towns..., counties..., ethnic groups..., interethnic groups..., ex-empires (that is, old empires at present integrated into a larger one, better adjusted to the present geostrategic conditions). Also these archies —previous to the imperial archies— have been building up legitimately through the agreement among the members of each one of the mentioned communities.

The imperial archies, as we have already said in the previous chapter, are two: the political archy and the justicial archy.

The political archy is exerted through the State: it is the manager of the empire, the executor of its projects and of its political will, but with respect to relations with abroad and to the domestic organization.

In our suggestion, the State is made up of:

  1. A monarchic Executive body, strong and short: that is with an elected head of State, solely and personally responsible, with a real capacity of executing his decisions, and with a council made up by a small number of members.
  2. A Legislative body, independent from the Executive one, and therefore elected separately. The Legislative body, following the principle of legislative abstinence, will legislate as little as possible; in no case will the Executive body depend on its votes to be able to act. We want to avoid as much as possible the executive parliamentarism, the confusion between executive and legislative functions, a confusion which only leads to an abandonment of the responsibilities inherent in each one of these two functions so well differentiated.
  3. Consulting organs or Consulting Chambers, specialized in each sector or field of activities, which will be compulsorily consulted for the preparation of any law.

The justicial archy is exerted through Justice: this is the protector of the empire, the peacemaker in all the many conflicts generated inside it.

Particularly, Justice must be the protector of all the imperial archive of cheque-invoices: it will only be able to use this archive in matters concerning a proceedings case under way. It will then have objective and positive documentation at hand concerning that specific case.

Justice will also undertake judging all the persons which will have held a ruling post (political, justicial or civic, that is archic; but also non-archic liberal) at the end of their term of office.

But in order to warrant the integrity of Justice in carrying out its task, it is necessary to legislate its total independence with respect to the State: it is well-known that nobody can be a judge in one's own case. To this end, a step to be taken is the constitutionalization of the attribution to Justice of a fixed percentage of the communal monetary mass (see following chapter); with this amount, Justice will be able to organize its budget in the best way.

The civic archies are manyfold and on many geostrategic, sub-imperial levels. Every Republic and civic Authority will have complete freedom to organize itself as best it can through archic-civic institutions. These institutions will also have their executive, legislative and consulting bodies. Their functions will cover all that the State will not have explicitly taken up —and which, we must remember, will have to be little and on the basis of minimal laws, which every civic archy will have to develop—.

Finally, there are very special archies, which are made up by the fit-for-war forces —we say fit-for-war, and not armed forces, because these will have to be ordinarily un-armed, and will only use arms when carrying out missions in which they have been expressly ordered to use them—.

As long as a situation of full self-pacification on a world level has not been attained, the existence of fit-for-war forces will continue being vitally necessary.

But it will also be necessary to submit them to a very hard discipline, so that they will act only in the execution of the mission entrusted to them by the imperial community: the defence and protection of all the citizens and citizenships in the empire.

Following this discipline, the fit-for-war forces will not have, in any case, a full archy, but they will always be in all respects rigidly submitted to the preceding archies: according to cases, to the respective politic, justicial or civic rules. The commanders-in-chief of the above-mentioned archies will be finally in charge of the fit-for-war forces depending on them.

These fit-for-war forces can be the following:

  1. Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control of the head of the State, the fit-for-war forces of the State: the Imperial Army and the Imperial Security Police.
  2. Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control, respectively, of each examining judge in charge of a specific justicial case, and of the protection judge of each person condemned, will be the Judicial Police and the Penitenciary Police.
  3. Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control of each president of a civic, autonomous Republic, will be the Civic Armies and the Civic Peace Police bodies.