Klassikerbibliothek der KPP ×
 
Quelle: Public Establishment for Publishing, Advertising and Distribution in Tripoli, Libya; Übersetzung Tec Dian
Original: ?
Geschrieben: ?
 

Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi

Das Grüne Buch1) 


|3| Teil 1
Die Lösung des Problems der
DEMOKRATIE

'Die Authorität des Volkes'

|4| Das Instrument des Regierens

'Das Instrument des Regierens ist das politische Hauptproblem, vor dem menschliche Gemeinschaften stehen.' Selbst der Konflikt innerhalb der Familie ist, oftmals, das Ergebnis dieses Problems. 'Dieses Problem wurde besonders seit der Entstehung moderner Gesellschaften akut.' Die Völker stehen heute vor diesem ständigen Problem, und Gemeinschaften leiden unter den verschiedenen Risiken und ernsten Folgen, zu dem es führt. Sie haben es noch nicht geschafft, es endgültig und demokratisch zu lösen.
Das Grüne Buch liefert die endgültige Lösung dieses Problems des Instruments des Regierens.
Alle politischen Systeme in der heutigen Welt sind das Produkt des Machtkampfes zwischen Regierungsinstrumenten. Der Kampf kann friedlich oder bewaffnet sein, so wie der Konflikt zwischen Klassen, Sekten, Stämmen, Parteien oder Individuen. Das Ergebnis ist immer der Sieg eines Regierungsinstruments - sei es ein Individuum, eine Gruppe, Partei oder Klasse, und die Niederlage des Volkes, das heißt die Niederlage der wirklichen Demokratie.
|5| Politischer Kampf, dessen Ergebnis der Sieg eines Kandidaten mit 51% der Stimmen ist, führt zu einem diktatorischen Regierungsorgan, verkleidet als Scheindemokratie, weil 49% der Wählerschaft von einem Regierungsinstrument beherrscht werden, das sie nicht gewählt haben, sondern das ihnen aufgezwungen wurde. Das ist Diktatur. Außerdem kann dieser politische Konflikt ein Regierungsorgan schaffen, das nur eine Minderheit repräsentiert, wenn die Wähler auf mehrere Kandidaten verteilt sind und einer nur eine relative Mehrheit gewinnt. Aber wenn die Stimmen, die für die anderen Kandidaten abgegeben wurden, zusammengezählt werden, können sie eine überwältigende Mehrheit bilden. Trotzdem gewinnt der Kandidat mit wenigeren Stimmen, und sein Erfolg wird als legitim und demokratisch angesehen! In Wirklichkeit wird so eine Diktatur unter dem Deckmantel der Scheindemokratie errichtet.
Das ist die Realität der politischen Systeme, die sich in der heutigen Welt durchgesetzt haben. Es sind diktatorische Systeme, und es erscheint klar, dass sie die wirkliche Demokratie nur verfälschen.

|6| Parlamente

Parlamente sind das Rückgrat der traditionellen Demokratie, so wie sie heute existiert. {Keine Vertretung an Stelle des Volkes} A parliament is a misrepresentation of the people and parliamentary governments are a misleading solution to the problem of democracy. A parlia- ment is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself, is undemo- cratic as democracy means the author- ity of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere exist- ence of a parliament means the abs- ence of the people, but true democracy exists only through the participation of the people, not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the peoples and the exercise of authority, excluding masses from power while usurping sovereignty in their place. Peoples are left with only false exter- nal appearance of democracy man- ifested in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes. To lay bare the character of the [7] parliament, we have to look to the |Representation origin of such a parliament. The par- |is a denial of liament is either elected from consti- |participation tuencies or a party or a coalition of parties, or is formed by some method of appointment. But all these proce- dures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people, de- pending on the size of population. It |Representation also means that the member keeps no |is a falsification popular organisational link with the |of democracy electors since he, like other members, is looked upon as a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy re- quires. The masses, therefore, are completely isolated from the represen- tative and he, in turn, is totally sepa- rated from them. For immediately after winning their votes he himself usurps their sovereignty and acts in- stead of them. The prevailing tradi- tional democracy endows the member of a parliament with a sacredness and immunity denied to other individual members of the people. That means [8] that parliaments have become a means of plundering and usurping the people's authority. Hence the people have the right to struggle, through the popular revolution, to destroy instru- ments which usurp democracy and sovereignty and take them away from the masses. They also have the right to utter the new principle, no rep- resentation in lieu of the peo- ple. If, however, the parliament emerges from a party as a result of winning an election, it is a parliament of the party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the peo- ple, and the executive power assigned by the parliament is that of the winning party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament in which each party holds a number of seats. For the members of the parliament represent their party and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not of the people. Under such systems the people are victims fooled and exploited by political bodies. The people stand silently in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes [9] the same way as they throw other papers into the dustbin. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether the system is one-party, two-party, multi-party or non-party. Thus it becomes clear that representation is fraud. Assemblies formed by a method of appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy. Moreover, since the system of elected parlia- ments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. and votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people fail to compete in the election cam- paign and it is always the rich -- and only the rich -- who come out victo- rious. Philosophers, thinkers and writers advocated the theory of representative government at a time when the peo- ples, without realising it, were driven like sheep by kings, sultans and con- querors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. Even that aspiration was nulli- fied. Peoples went through long and [10] bitter struggles to attain what they aspired to. After the successful estab- lishment of the era of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unreasonable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete theory and an outdated experience. The whole authority must be the peo- ple's. The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the shadow of parliaments. [11] Die Partei The party is the contemporary dicta- |The party torship. It is the modern dictatorial |system aborts instrument of governing. The party is |democracy the rule of a part over the whole. It is the latest dictatorial instrument. As the party is not individual it exercises a sham democracy through estab- lishing parliaments and committees and through the propaganda of its members. The party is not a democra- tic instrument at all because it is composed of people who have common interests, a common outlook or a com- mon culture; or who belong to the same locality or have the same belief. They form a party to achieve their |To make a ends, impose their outlook or extend |party you the hold of their belief on the society as |split society a whole. A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its programme. And yet, democra- tically, none of these parties should govern the whole people because of the diversity of interests, ideas, tempera- ments, localities and beliefs, which [12] constitute the people's identity. The party is a dictatorial instrument of governing that enables those with one outlook and a common interest to rule the people as a whole. Compared with the people, the party is a minority. The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the peo- ple; namely to rule over non-members of the party. For the party is, fun- damentally, based on an arbitrary au- thoritarian theory . . . i.e. the domi- nation of the members of the party over the rest of individual members of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, assuming that its objec- tives are the objectives of the people. That is the theory of the justification of party dictatorship, which is the basis for any dictatorship. No matter how many parties there are, the theory remains one and the same. But the existence of many parties escalates the struggle for power and this results in the destruction of any achievements of the people and of any socially benefi- cial plans. Such destruction is seized upon by the opposition party as a [13] justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that it may take over from them. The parties in their struggle resort, if not to arms, which rarely happens, then to denouncing and stultifying the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevit- ably waged at the expense of the high- er and vital interests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher in- terests will be victims of the power struggle of instruments of governing. For the destruction of those interests supports the opposition party or par- ties in their argument against the rul- ing party. The opposition party, as an instrument of governing, has to oust the ruling body in order to have access to authority. To prove the unfitness of the instrument of governing, the oppo- sition party has to destroy its achieve- ments and to cast doubt on its plans, even if those plans are beneficial to the society. Consequently the interests and programmes of the society become victims of the parties' struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially and economically destructive to the society, despite the [14] fact that it creates political activity. Besides, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of gov- erning, i.e., the fall of one party and the rise of another. But it is a defeat for the people, a defeat for democracy. Furthermore, parties can be bought or bribed either from inside or outside. Originally, the party is formed to represent the people. Then the leading group of the party represents its mem- bers and the supreme leader of the party represents the leading group. It becomes clear that the party game is a deceitful farce based on a sham form of democracy which has a selfish con- tent based on manoeuvres, tricks and political games. All these emphasise that the party-system is a dictatorial, yet modern, instrument. The party system is an overt, not a covert, dicta- torship. The world has not yet passed beyond it and it is rightly called 'the dictatorship of the modern age'. The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, as the executive power assigned by this parliament is the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is [15] supposed to be for the good of the whole people, is actually a bitter enemy of a part of the people, namely the opposi- tion party or parties and their suppor- ters. So the opposition is not a popular check on the ruling party, but is itself seeking a chance to replace the ruling party. According to modern democra- cy, the legal check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say, checking is in the hands of the ruling party and rule is in the hands of the checking party. Thus become clear the deceptiveness, falsi- ty and invalidity of the political theories dominant in the world today, from which contemporary traditional democracy emerges. The party is only a part of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible. The party governs on behalf of the people, but the principle is no represen- tation in lieu of the people. The party system is the modern tribal and sectarian system. The socie- ty governed by one party is exactly like that which is governed by one tribe or [16] one sect. The party, as stated above, represents the outlook of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group of the society, or one belief or one locality. Such a party must be a minority compared to the whole people just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has common interests or a sectarian belief. From such interests or belief, the common outlook is formed. Only blood-relationship dis- tinguishes a tribe from a party and even at the foundation of a party there may be blood-relationship. There is no difference between party struggles and tribal or sectarian struggles for power. And if tribal and sectarian rule is politically rejected and disavowed, then the party system must similarly be rejected and disavowed. Both of them tread the same path and lead to the same end. The negative and des- tructive effect on the society of the tribal and sectarian struggles is iden- tical to the negative and destructive effect of the party struggle. [17] Klasse The class political system is the same as the party, the tribal, or secta- rian system, i.e. a class dominates the society in the same way that a party, tribe or sect does. The class, like the party, sect and tribe, is a group of people from the society who share common interests. Common interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by blood- relationship, belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Also class, party, sect and tribe emerge from similar factors leading to similar results, i.e. they emerge because blood- relationship, belief, standard of living culture and locality create a common outlook to achieve a common end. Thus emerges the social structure in the forms of class, party, tribe or sect that eventually becomes a political concep- tion directed toward realising the out- look and ends of that group. In all cases the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe nor the sect; these are [18] no more than a part of the people and constitute a minority. If a class, party, tribe or sect dominates a society, the whole system becomes a dictatorship. However, a class or tribal coalition is better than a party coalition because the people consist originally of a group of tribes. One seldom finds people who do not belong to a tribe, and all people belong to a certain class. But no party or parties embrace all the people and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority compared to the masses outside its membership. Under genuine democracy there is no excuse for one class to crush other classes for its own benefit, no excuse for one party to crush other parties for its own in- terests, no excuse for one tribe to crush other tribes for its own benefit and no excuse for one sect to crush other sects for its own interests. To allow such actions means aban- doning the logic of democracy and resorting to the logic of force. Such an action is dictatorial, because it is not in the interest of the whole society, which does not consist of only one class or tribe or sect or the members of one [19] party. There is no justification for such an action. The dictatorial justification is that the society is actually made up of various parts, and one of the parts undertakes the liquidation of other parts in order to stand solely in power. This action is then not in the interest of the whole society, but in the interest of a certain class, tribe, sect or party, i.e., it is in the interest of those who replace the society. The action of li- quidation is originally directed against the members of the society who do not belong to the party, the class, the tribe or the sect which undertakes the li- quidation. The society torn apart by party struggles is similar to one torn by tribal and sectarian struggles. The party that is formed in the name of a class automatically becomes a substitute for that class and continues until it becomes a replacement for the class hostile to it. Any class which becomes heir to a society, inherits, at the same time, its characteristics. That is to say that if the working class crushes all other classes, for instance, it becomes heir of [20] the society, that is, it becomes the material and social base of the society. The heir bears the traits of the one he inherits from, though they may not be evident at once. As time passes, attri- butes of other eliminated classes emerge in the very ranks of the work- ing class. And the possessors of those characteristics take the attitudes and points of view appropriate to their characteristics. Thus the working class turns out to be a separate society, showing the same contradictions as the old society. The material and moral standards of the members of the socie- ty are diverse at first but then there emerge the factions that automatically develop into classes, like those which had been eliminated. Thus the struggle for domination of the society starts again. Each group of people, then each faction and finally each new class, tries to become the instrument of gov- erning. The material base of the society is not stable because it has a social aspect. The instrument of governing of the single material base of the society will, perhaps, be stable for some time, [21] but it will pass away as soon as new material and social standards emerge out of the same single material base. Any society with class conflict was in the past a one-class society but, due to inevitable evolution, the conflicting classes emerged from that one class. The class that expropriates the pos- sessions of others in order to maintain the instrument of governing for its own interests, will find that material pos- sessions have brought within that class what material possessions usually bring about within the society as a whole. In short, attempts to unify the mate- rial base of the society to solve the problem of government or to put an end to the struggle in favour of party, class, sect or tribe, have failed, such as the efforts to satisfy the masses through the election of representatives or by organising plebiscites to discover their views. To go on with these efforts has become a waste of time and a mockery of the people. [22] Volksabstimmungen Plebiscites are a fraud against |The fallacy of democracy. Those who say 'yes' and |a 'Yes' or 'No' those who say 'no' do not, in fact, |Plebiscite express their will. They have been silenced through the conception of modern democracy. They have been allowed to utter only one word: either 'yes' or 'no'. This is the most cruel and oppressive dictatorial system. He who says 'no' should give reasons for his answer. He should explain why he did not say 'yes'. And he who says 'yes' should give reasons for approval and why he did not say 'no'. Everyone should make clear what he wants and the reasons for his approval or rejec- tion. What road, then, must human groups take to get rid, once and for all, of the tyrannical and dictatorial ages? Since the intricate problem in the case of democracy is the instrument of governing, expressed by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals; and since the electoral and plebiscite [23] methods were invented to cover the failure of those unsuccessful experi- ments to solve this problem, the solu- tion lies in finding an instrument of governing other than these which are subject to conflict and which represent only one side of the society. That is to say, an instrument of governing which is not a party, a class, a sect or a tribe, but an instrument of governing which is the people as a whole. It neither represents the people nor speaks in their name. No representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud. If that instrument can be brought into being the problem will be solved, popular democracy will be realised, mankind will have put an end to tyrannical eras and dictatorial systems, and the au- thority of the people will have taken their place. The Green Book presents the solution to the problem of the instrument of governing. It indicates for the people the way to pass from the eras of dictatorship to the eras of genuine democracy. This new theory is based on the [24] authority of the people, without repre- sentation or deputation. It realises direct democracy in an orderly and effective form. It differs from the older attempt at direct democracy, which could not be applied in practice and which was frivolous because it lacked popular organisation on the lower levels. [25] Volkskongresse und Volkskomittees Popular congresses are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government other than popular congresses is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of govern- ment in the world today are undemo- cratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular congresses are the end of the journey of the masses' movement in its quest for democracy. Popular congresses and people's committees are the final fruit of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular congresses and people's com- |No democracy mittees are not creations of the imagi- |without nation so much as they are the product |popular of human thought which has absorbed |congresses all human experiments to achieve democracy. Direct democracy is the ideal method, which, if realised in practice, is indisputable and noncon- troversial. The nations departed from direct democracy because, however small a people might be, it was impos- sible to gather them all together at one [26] (diagram) THE AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE [27] time in order to discuss, study and decide on their policy. Direct democra- cy remained an Utopian idea far from reality. It has been replaced by various theories of government such as repre- sentative assemblies, parties, coali- tions, and plebiscites. All led to the isolation of the people from political activity and to the plundering of the sovereignty of the people and the assumption of their authority by the successive and conflicting instruments of governing beginning with the indi- vidual, on through the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party. The Green Book announces to the people the happy discovery of the way to direct democracy, in a practical form. Since no two intelligent people can dispute the fact tbat direct demo- cracy is the ideal -- but its method has been impossible to apply -- and since this Third Universal Theory provides us with a realistic experiment in direct democracy, the problem of democracy in the world is finally solved. All that the masses need do now is to struggle to put an end to all forms of dictatorial rule in the world today, to all forms of [28] what is falsely called democracy -- from parliaments to the sect, the tribe, the class and to the one-party, the two-party and the multi-party sys- tems. Democracy has but one method and one theory. The disparity and dissimi- larity of the systems claiming to be democratic is evidence that they are not democratic in fact. The people's authority has only one face and it can be realised only by one method, name- ly, popular congresses and people's committees. No democracy without popular congresses and committees everywhere. First, the people are divided into basic popular congresses. Each basic popular congress chooses its secretar- iat. The secretariats together form popular congresses, which are other than the basic ones. Then the masses of those basic popular congresses choose administrative people's committees to replace government administration. Thus all public utilities are run by people's committees which will be re- sponsible to the basic popular congres- ses and these dictate the policy to be [29] followed by the people's committees and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become popular and the outdated de- finition of democracy -- Democracy is the supervision of the government by the people -- comes to an end. It will be replaced by the right definition Demo- cracy is the supervision of the people by people. All citizens who are members of those popular congresses belong, pro- fessionally and functionally, to cate- gories. They have, therefore, to estab- lish their own unions and syndicates in addition to being, as citizens, members of the basic popular congresses or the people's committees. Subjects discus- sed by basic popular congresses or the people's committees, syndicates and unions, will take their final shape in the General People's Congress, where the secretariats of popular congresses, people's committees, syndicates and unions meet. What is drafted by the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, will, in turn, be submitted to popular congres- ses, people's committees, syndicates [30] and unions. The people's committees, responsible to the basic popular con- gresses will, then, start executive ac- tion. The General People's Congress is not a gathering of members or ordin- ary persons as is the case with parlia- ments. It is a gathering of the basic popular congresses, the people's com- mittees, the unions, the syndicates and all professional associations. In this way, the problem of the in- strument of governing is, as a matter of fact, solved and dictatorial instru- ments will disappear. The people are the instrument of governing and the problem of democracy in the world is completely solved. [31] Das Gesetz der Gesellschaft Law is the other problem parallel to the problem of the instrument of gov- erning. It has not yet been solved in the modern age although it has been solved at certain periods of history. It is invalid and undemocratic for a committee or a parliament to be enti- tled to draft the law for the society. It is also invalid and undemocratic for an individual, a committee or a parlia- ment to amend or abrogate the law of the society. What, then, is the law of the society? Who drafts it and what is its import- ance to democracy? The natural law of any society is either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law for any society, outside these two sources, is invalid and illogical. Constitutions are not the law of the society. A constitu- tion is a basic man-made law. That basic man-made law should have a source for its justification. The prob- [32] lem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of society, and constitutions are based on nothing other than the views of the instruments of the dictatorial rule pre- vailing in the world, ranging from the individual to the party. The proof of this is that there is a difference be- tween constitutions although man's freedom is the same. The reason for the difference is the disparity in the conceptions of the instruments of gov- erning. This is the point where freedom is vulnerable in the systems of the contemporary world. The method by which the instruments of governing seek to dominate the peoples is estab- lished in the constitution and the peo- ple are compelled to accept it under the force of laws derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the temperament and outlook of the instrument of governing. The law of the dictatorial instru- ments of governing has replaced natu- ral law. Because man-made law has replaced natural law, standards are lost. Man is the same everywhere. His physical constitution is the same and [33] so is his instinct. For this reason natu- ral law became a logical law for man as one and the same. Then the constitu- tions, which are man-made laws, be- gan to look at man as not one and the same. They have no justification for that conception other than the will of instruments of governing -- the indi- vidual, the parliament, the tribe or the party -- to dominate the peoples. So we see that constitutions are usually changed when the instruments of gov- erning change. This proves that the constitution is the product of the tem- perament of the instruments of gov- erning and exists to serve their in- terests. It is not natural law. This is the impending danger to freedom latent wherever the genuine law of human society is absent and is replaced by man-made laws designed by the instru- ment of governing to rule the masses. Properly the method of government should be in accordance with the laws of society, not vice versa. Therefore, the law of the society is not subject to drafting and codifica- tion. The significance of law lies in the fact that it is the decisive factor which [34] distinguishes between the true and false, the right and the wrong, and the individuals' rights and duties. Free- dom is threatened unless society has a sacred law based on stable rules which are not subject to change or substitu- tion by any instrument of governing. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon the instrument of governing to abide by the law of society. Nevertheless, peoples throughout the world are now being ruled by man-made laws that are liable to change and abrogation be- cause of the struggle for power be- tween instruments of governing. Ple- biscites on constitutions are not enough because plebiscites in themselves are a sham democracy, permitting only yes or no. Under man-made laws, peo- ples are compelled to accept plebis- cites. A plebiscite on a constitution does not mean that it is the law of society, it means that it is only a constitution, or that 'thing' subject to plebiscite, nothing else. The law of the society is an eternal human heritage that is not the posses- sion of the living only. Hence, the drafting of a constitution and holding a [35] plebiscite by present voters are far- cical. Encyclopedias of man-made laws derived from man-made constitutions are full of material penalties against man while traditional law seldom has these penalties. Traditional law im- poses moral, not material penalties, that are appropriate for man. Religion embraces and absorbs tradition. Most material penalties in religion are post- poned until the Day of Judgement. The major part of its rules are exhorta- tions, instructions and answers to questions. This law shows proper re- spect to man. Religion does not ack- nowledge temporal penalties, except in extreme cases where these are neces- sary to protect society. Religion embraces tradition, which is an expression of the natural life of the peoples. Thus, religion, embracing tradition, is an affirmation of natural law. Non-religious, non-traditional laws are invented by one man for use against another. Therefore they are invalid because they are not built upon the natural source of tradition and religion. [36] Wer berwacht die Fhrung der Gesellschaft? The question that arises is: who preserves the society from any devia- tion from the law? Democratically, there is no group whatever that can claim the right of representative su- pervision over the society. 'Society is its own supervisor.' Any pretension by any individual or group that it is re- sponsible for law is dictatorship. Democracy means the responsibility of the whole society, and supervision should be carried out by the whole society. That is democracy and its proper implementation is through the democratic instrument of governing, resulting from the organization of soci- ety itself in basic popular congresses and from the people's rule through the popular congresses and the General People's Congress (National Congress) in which come together the popular congresses, administrative people's committees, unions, syndicates and all other professional organizations. [37] According to this theory, the people are the instrument of governing and in this case they are their own super- visor. In this way self-supervision of the society over its law is realized. [38] Wie korrigiert die Gesellschaft ihre Richtung im Falle der Abweichung von ihrem Gesetz? If an instrument of governing is dictatorial, as in political systems in the world today, the society's vigilance towards deviation from law will have only one way to gain readjustment. That is violence, which means revolu- tion against the instrument of gov- erning. This violence or revolution, even if it is an expression of the feeling of the society against deviation, is not carried out by the whole society. It is undertaken only by those who have the initiative and boldness to proclaim the will of the society. However, this approach is the way to dictatorship, for this revolutionary initiative increases the opportunity for an instrument of governing, representative of the peo- ple, to arise. This means that the instrument of governing is still dictato- rial. Moreover, violence and change by force are themselves undemocratic, [39] although they take place as a result of the existence of a previous undemocra- tic situation. The society that is still entangled around this resultant is a backward society. What, then, is the solution? The solution is for the people to be the instrument of governing from basic popular congresses to the Gener- al People's Congress. The government administration is abolished and re- placed by people's committees. The General People's Congress should be a national congress where basic popular congresses, people's administrative committees, unions, syndicates and all professional associations come together. If a deviation from the socie- ty's law takes place under this system, it should be dealt with through a demo- cratic revision rather than by force. This is not a process of voluntary choice of the method of change or of treatment, rather it is an inevitable result of the nature of such a democra- tic system. In such a case, there is no outside group against which violent action may be directed or which may be held responsible for deviation. [40] Die Presse The natural person has freedom to |Democracy express himself even if, when he is |means mad, he behaves irrationally to ex- |popular rule press his madness. The corporate per- |not popular son also is free to express his corporate |expression identity. In these cases, the first repre- sents only himself, and the second represents no more than the group of natural persons composing his corpo- rate person. The society consists of many natural and many corporate per- sons. Therefore, when a person, for instance, expresses himself in an irra- tional manner, that does not mean that the other persons of the society also are mad. The expression of a natural person is only self-expression, and that of a corporate person is only the ex- pression of the interests or viewpoints of persons forming the corporate per- son. For example, the company for the production and sale of tobacco only expresses the interests of the partici- pants in that company, i.e. those who benefit from the production and sale of [41] tobacco although it is harmful to the health of others. The press is a means of expression of the society and is not a means of expression of a natural or corporate person. Logically and democratically, the press, therefore, cannot be owned by either of these. Any newspaper owned by an indi- vidual is his own and expresses only his point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually ex- presses the viewpoints of a natural person. Democratically, a natural per- son should not be permitted to own any means of publication or information. However he has the natural right to express himself by any means, even if it is in an irrational manner to prove his madness. Any journal issued by a trading association or by a chamber of commerce is only a means of express- ion for this particular social group. It presents its own point of view and not the viewpoint of public opinion. This applies to all other corporate and natu- ral persons in society. The democratic press is that which is issued by a [42] popular committee comprising all the various categories of society. In this case only, and not otherwise, will the press or any information medium be an expression of the whole society and a bearer of the viewpoint of its categor- ies and thereby the press or informa- tion medium will be indeed demo- cratic.
Wenn die Medizinische Vereinigung eine Zeitschrift herausgibt, muss sie rein medizinisch sein. Analog gilt dies für andere Kategorien. Die natürliche Person hat nur das Recht, für sich selbst zu sprechen, sie ist vom demokratischen Standpunkt aus nicht berechtigt, jemand anderen dabei zu vertreten. Auf diese Weise wird das, was das Problem der Pressefreiheit in der Welt genannt wird, radikal und demokratisch gelöst. Das ständige Problem der Pressefreiheit in der heutigen Welt ist allgemein das Produkt des Problems der Demokratie. Es kann nicht gelöst werden, bis nicht die gesamte Krise der Demokratie in der Gesellschaft gelöst wird. Nur die Dritte Universaltheorie kann dieses eigentliche Problem der Demokratie lösen.
According to this theory, the demo- cratic system is a cohesive structure [43] whose foundations are firmly laid on basic popular congresses, people's committees and professional associa- tions. All these come together in the General People's Congress. Absolute- ly, there is no other conception for a genuine democratic society. Finally, the era of the masses, which approaches us at a rapid pace follow- ing the era of the republics, inflames the feelings and dazzles the eyes. As much as this era gladly announces the real freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the shackles of instruments of governing so much it warns of the approach of an age of anarchy and demagogy if the new democracy, which is the authority of the people, relapses and the [corrected-ed] authority of the individual, class, tribe, sect or party again comes to pre- dominate. Theoretically, this is the genuine democracy. But realistically, the strong always rule, i.e., the stronger part in the society is the one that rules. [44]


1) Das Grüne Buch ist Qadhafis Hauptwerk, in dem er die Grundzüge seiner Gesellschaftskonzeption, der Dritten Universaltheorie, darlegt. Danach sollte sich die Organisation der libyschen Gesellschaft richten.Zum Text


 

Regenbogenlinie

 

QW
Qadhafi
Zurück
Zurück

 

Regenbogenlinie

[Akilet] [Aksios] [Ilaros] [Etymos]
[Kontakt] [Forum] [Neues]

Optimiert für MS IE 5.0 bei 1024*768 und mittlerem Schriftgrad.
Letzte Änderung: 9. April 2001 - © Kunst des Denkens 2001