THE GREEN BOOK (Part One) by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This file contains the complete text of

THE GREEN BOOK (Part One)

by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.

[NOTE; You my want to watch this video first]

http://danieltowsey.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/video-libya-the-untold-story-a-debt-free-nation-ransacked/

This etext was created by Ingrid Solem in 1997.  The complete HTML version
of this translation of the Green Book may be viewed at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/

This translation was published by the
Public Establishment for Publishing,
Advertising and Distribution in Tripoli,
Libya.

Absolute fidelity to the original has
been maintained, including page and line
numbers. The only omission is the diagram
entitled “The Authority of the People”
that appears on page 27 of the original
and which, unfortunately, could not be
reproduced in ASCII format. This diagram
is presented in the file p27_3.gif.

———————————————–
CONTENTS

1. The Instrument of Governing
2. Parliaments
3. The Party
4. Class
5. Plebiscites
6. Popular Congresses and People’s Committees
7. The Law of Society
8. Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?
9. How Does Society Readjust its Direction
in Case of Deviation from its Law?
10. The Press

———————————————–

Muammar Al Qathafi

THE GREEN BOOK

Part One

The Solution of the
Problem of

DEMOCRACY

‘The Authority of
the People’

———————————————–

THE INSTRUMENT OF
GOVERNING

‘The Instrument of Governing is the prime
political problem which faces human com-
munities.’
Even the conflict within the family is,
often, the result of this problem.
‘This problem has become serious since the
emergence of modern societies.’
Peoples, nowadays, face this persistent
problem and communities suffer from va-
rious risks and grave consequences to which
it leads. They have not yet succeeded in
solving it finally and democratically.
The GREEN BOOK presents the final
solution to the problem of the instrument of
governing.
All political systems in the world today
are the product of the struggle for power
between instruments of governing. The
struggle may be peaceful or armed, such as
the conflict of classes, sects, tribes, parties or
individuals. The result is always the victory
of an instrument of governing — be it an
individual, group, party or class and the
defeat of the people, i.e. the defeat of genuine
democracy.

[5]

Political struggle that results in the vic-
tory of a candidate with 51 per cent of the
votes leads to a dictatorial governing body
disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per
cent of the electorate is ruled by an instru-
ment of governing they did not vote for, but
had imposed upon them. This is dictatorship.
Besides, this political conflict may produce a
governing body that represents only a
minority, for when votes are distributed
among several candidates, one of them polls
more than any other candidate. But if the
votes polled by those who received less are
added up, they can constitute an over-
whelming majority. However, the candidate
with fewer votes wins and his success is
regarded as legitimate and democratic! In
actual fact, dictatorship is established under
the cover of false democracy. This is the
reality of the political systems prevailing in
the world today. They are dictatorial systems
and it seems clear that they falsify genuine
democracy.

[6]

PARLIAMENTS

Parliaments are the backbone of |No
traditional democracy as it exists to- |representation
day. A parliament is a misrepresenta- |in lieu of the
tion of the people and parliamentary |people
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]

THE PARTY

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]

CLASS

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]

PLEBISCITES

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]

POPULAR CONGRESSES AND
PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES

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]

THE LAW OF SOCIETY

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]

WHO SUPERVISES THE
CONDUCT OF SOCIETY?

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]

HOW DOES SOCIETY
READJUST ITS
DIRECTION IN CASE OF
DEVIATION FROM ITS LAW?

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]

THE PRESS

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.
If the Medical Association issues a
journal, it must be purely medical.
Similarly this applies to other categor-
ies. The natural person has the right to
express only himself and he is not
entitled from the democratic point of
view to express anybody else. In this
way, what is called the problem of
press freedom in the world will be
solved radically and democratically.
The continuing problem of press free-
dom in the world today is generally the
product of the problem of democracy.
It cannot be solved unless the entire
crisis of democracy in the whole socie-
ty is solved. Only the Third Universal
Theory can solve the intricate problem
of democracy.
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, does not relapse and the
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]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s