A first step to implement these proposals can be the canvassing of public opinion to confirm the relation between common sense and the self evident truths which they encompass. Such non-partisan research must be conducted on a transparently honest foundation and clearly distinguished from 'deliberative polling' and suchlike practices which have of late been adopted by Left leaders. As shown in the CDRSB Community of Democratic Nations briefing, Socialist International President Georges Papandreou sought to establish a people's assembly of randomly selected citizens in Athens tasked with increasing support for the EU using deliberative polling. Similarly on 3rd September 2007 Gordon Brown declared he wants to build a "politics of consensus, not division, a politics built on engaging with people ... not the narrow circles of power." Opposition backbenchers have been recruited to a series of standing commissions, voters will be consulted through citizen's juries and an all-party Speaker's Conference will be called to draw up proposals for constitutional reform. The CDRSB initiative outlined here is fundamentally different to this approach for self evident reasons concerning the use of postal ballots on demand. It is nevertheless important to fully clarify these lines of demarcation.

Critics of the Labour initiative condemned it as partisan in character. The Daily Telegraph alleged Gordon Brown's "idea of consensus politics is a one-party state ... The big clunking fist has not turned into an outstretched palm." Labour is accused of merely repeating previous manoeuvres aimed at drawing in what Lenin termed 'useful idiots' from other parties under a 'big tent' which remains firmly under Labour control. Polling companies and think tanks used by Labour will themselves be both financially dependent on the government and also politically aligned with it. Citizen juries will be fed questions and information determined by Labour, so the outcome of their deliberations will closely conform to its priorities: it is unlikely they will be called upon to examine issues such as the European treaty, immigration, and postal ballots. Critics maintain citizen juries cannot add anything coherent to complex questions of policy review that could not be supplied by senior civil servants. The Hansard Society believes citizen juries should be used only for educational purposes and not to influence policy. These criticisms directed against Labour's disingenuous method of approach in regard to citizen juries are valid and our analysis can demonstrate this. At the same time our analysis can show the belief that assemblies elected by sortition should not influence policy is wrong.

The CDRSB analysis derives from study of the history of political philosophy, democracy and conflict between radicalism and conservatism prompted by concern regarding fifth column practices. Upon these premises we advocate a resumption of the approach taken by American revolutionary radicalism in further developing the US constitutional achievement, and propose the use of sortition to help develop a non-partisan constitutional framework of understanding consistent with the self evident truths of common sense, including the principle that the 'earth belongs to the living.' This can serve as a point of departure for conflict resolution between radicalism and conservatism on a world historical scale. These insights are unique to our analysis: none of them have been included in Socialist International concerns. In fact one of the main reasons why to date sortition has been practically absent from published works of democratic theory is because Left leaders have themselves undermined the integrity of the electoral process and do not seek to apply or promote the self evident truth that sortition can be used to contain secret factional influences and fifth column practices.

The suspect nature of europhile interest in sortition is most apparent when account is taken of the fact that the right to trial by jury - a barrier to secret factional influence on the law - is absent from the European constitution. As Jefferson stated, this right is the only means by which a government can ultimately be held accountable to its constitution. For those who genuinely value the judgment and consent of randomly selected ordinary citizens defence of the right to trial by jury should be a priority in promoting greater use of sortition. In fact Left leaders generally seek to undermine this right, both in Europe and the USA, prompted by their own aristocratic inclinations, which, as shown, have longstanding antecedents, and ultimately, an affinity with totalitarianism. Left ambitions are oriented to gaining control of Europe with a view to establishing world socialism, not developing democratic institutions to facilitate informed, evolving choice between different macroeconomic systems over time.

A clear and now irrevocable demonstration of the selective nature of Left enthusiasm for sortition is the Labour ministerial refusal to support, even at pilot project levels, our proposals for the use of random selection in security force recruitment and democratic development in Iraq. Instead their officials persuaded US Ambassador Bremer to include the Communist Party in the Iraq provisional authority. Suspicions therefore that Labour leaders are under communist secret influence appear justified and suggest they oppose using sortition to contain the influence of clandestine factions and seek merely to exploit citizen juries to disguise extremist, partisan manoeuvres as being non-partisan and moderate. The price of Labour cooperation with Bush may have been the creation of ideal conditions for infiltration of Iraq government and security forces by communist allies and fronts. Time will tell whether Bush got the better of the deal.

Accordingly while the CDRSB advocates the use of sortition as a requirement of conflict resolution between radicalism and conservatism on a world historical scale through development of a non-partisan constitutional framework of understanding able to contain the influence of secret factionalism, Left leaders do not incorporate random selection in their various schemas for conflict resolution, and similarly do not take account of the need to reconcile conservatism and radicalism on a general scale. On the contrary, their preference is for the appointment of elite bodies and the restriction of conflict resolution measures to national, or at best, regional parameters. These limitations derive from the refusal of Left leaders to take serious account of the Golitsyn warnings concerning communist fifth column practices.

In such vein a meeting in September 2007 in Finland between Iraq allies of Al Qaeda, Sinn Fein and other Leftists identified chief requirements of conflict resolution as being the use of independent bodies to oversee arms decommissioning and 'explore how to deal with the past in ways which will unite the nation.' If Golitsyn is correct the appointment of supposedly 'independent' bodies of experts opens the door to secret factional influences. 'Arms decommissioning' in this context is a disingenuous and misleading use of the term because it refers not only to military disarmament but also abolition of the right to bear arms. The model for such decommissioning is not the American revolution - which opposed aristocratic attempts to abolish the right to bear arms and thereafter established a national democracy - but the Northern Ireland peace process.

The Irish peace process is a poor model for conflict resolution on a world scale because Irish radicalism upholds confused policies which are vulnerable to totalitarian and extremist influences. Sinn Fein ended the armed struggle because the rewards for doing so are so great, not only from the British Government, but also from the EU. Ireland has reaped huge benefits from the EU, which plans to regionalize all its state members. As shown, if Golitsyn is correct the EU will be an essentially soft totalitarian regime whose citizens, practically all of whom are already deprived of rights to bear arms and trial by jury, will only enjoy those rights the Left elite deem appropriate. Close inspection of Sinn Fein policy on 'arms decommissioning' accordingly reveals its leaders seek to abolish the right to bear arms for ordinary citizens, but not for themselves. That they may seek to coerce unarmed citizens - loyalist or republican - remains a clearly possible, if not actual fact. Such a standpoint offers a poor model for conflict resolution on a world scale.

Next: Method
Previous: Alternatives
Back to Postal Ballots on Demand: The Democratic Alternative Index