© MARTIN BESECKE 2010 - 2019 ALLE RECHTE VORBEHALTEN.
mb
Here the whole concept in English language as PDF file!
The Value-levels-democracy • • • • The value-stepped reflection-system-theory of Four-segmentation! The transformation of democracy into a value-stepped four-chamber parliament! The executive and legislative and also the institutional and structural segmentation of the system into the four systemically relevant areas of economy, politics, culture and fundamental values, whereby they to be brought to a pertinent and full-democratic treatment! The constructive synthesis of direct and parliamentary democracy! The fundamental renewal of the societal conditions of communication and participation towards a full-communicative and thus full-democratic society! The philosophically deduced, competent action- and system-theoretical, constructive-peaceful-renewing political and social system of horizontal authority! The rapid advancement of democracy itself towards an integral democracy! Developed by Prof. Dr. Johannes Heinrichs!
Today we have many overall systemic negative developments, like the destruction of the environment, the nature and of the climate, the increasing social inequity and inequality, the overall systemic domination and power of design of the economy and money and as a direct result, the cutback of the democracy and the cutback of the universal human rights and fundamental values and not least, the increasing political and societal resurgence of the nationalism and authoritarianism. And that these negative developments can even be created in this way and can progress unhindered as well demonstrate that these negative developments are system-related. It demonstrate the systemic dysfunctionalities and also the structural deficiencies of the societal conditions of communication and participation of the existing democratic political and social systems. The necessity of the fundamental renewal of the overall systemic conditions! And that also means that an only change of policy is no longer possible or has no longer sustainable existence, as the examples of Argentina and especially of Ecuador show. Because the structural design of the system and its legal manifestation do not more allow necessary changes, such as by the neoliberal global free trade agreements anchored in international law, from which all systemic and social issues are to be regulated and determined and which are the expression of the ideology of the libertarianism, the ideology of self-ownership and the negative freedom of action as the guiding standard, that is to say, an action freed from all internal and external constraints, requirements, guidelines and necessities, but which in practice means an irresponsible understanding of freedom and therefore can only produce negative developments, because freedom and responsibility belong together and condition to each other, without responsibility no freedom, that is an universal law, and which in practice at best means only a libertarian democracy, so the partial to total abolition or restriction of the state, which means a preferably complete privatization of the entire state and community. Even only a tinkering with democratic instruments, such as the sole direct democracy only as referendums or the so-called “citizen dialog”, or reforms alone, such as the basic income, do not effect sustainable solutions. Because reforms have, because of the nature of reforms, basically always a system-preserving character. And especially the basic income means in practice at long last nothing else than the preservation of the existing neoliberal system. That is why it needs a fundamental renewal of the overall systemic conditions, in fact institutionally, structurally, contentwise and legally, for to permanently eliminate these overall systemic negative developments! And the Value-levels-democracy ensures this necessary fundamental renewal of the conditions! Its has recognized these dysfunctionalities and deficiencies and fix them and learned from the mistakes of the past! The Value-levels-democracy is based on the value-stepped reflection-system-theory of Four-segmentation and means in practice the transformation of the democracy into a value-stepped four-chamber parliament, into 4. a fundamental values parliament     (with the areas: world view, ethic, morality, spirituality, religion, value-axioms and rites), 3. a culture parliament     (with the areas: education, science, media, art, cultural identity affairs, the fair coexistence of cultures, society and language), 2. a politics parliament     (with the areas: territory, ground and land, traffic, homeland and foreign security, home and foreign affairs, tax and financial policy,      social and welfare policy, law and constitution), 1. an economic parliament     (with the areas: consumption, production, trade, economic and monetary system, the economic interaction with each other), which are elected separated from each other and which are, after a priority regulation, autonomous in their responsibilities. Priority regulation means that e.g. officially accepted fundamental values (expressed in democratically legitimized laws) are above economic interests, if these economic interests should undermine these fundamental values. Due to the one-dimensional institutional and mono-structural design of today’s democracy systems, today’s parties are all-responsible parties and thus power cartels, which bundle all political and societal topics power politics and in a very unobjective way. And due to the monarchical leadership and party discipline, leads this automatically to an unobjective and as a result, to an incompetent and uncomminicative and above all many times to an ideological treatment of many topics. Because of that, today's parties are not a problem solver, but themselves part of the problem. But through this differentiation of the system, today's unobjective major parties, which stand for everything, but therefore also for nothing exact, will be replaced by area-specific subject and thematic parties, such as economic or ethic or tax or foreign affairs or law and constitution parties or parties for digital or climate issues. The ministries are placed under the direct control of the responsible parliaments, something that is missing today. This leads to a permanent, honest, factual and pertinent communication structure between the legislative branch (parliaments) and the government executive (ministries). The respective ministries resulting from the four parliaments are headed by their own heads of government. That means in practice a total of 4 heads of government. In this way, governance becomes collegial rather than monarchical, which has a promoting effect on community stability, integrity and mutual control. As a result, today's monarchically governed systems will be replaced by collegial and factual communication structures. This in turn leads to a power unbundling and to a prevention of negative power structures. And that promotes in decision-makings on inter-parliamentary topics, a constructive and substantive argumentation, the recognition of the true and the right and provides the necessary transparency in information exchange and representation of interests, such as Lobbying. In summary, that means the executive and legislative and also the institutional und structural segmentation of the system into the four systemically relevant areas of economy, politics, culture and fundamental values, whereby they to be brought to a pertinent and full-democratic treatment and that for the first time in the history of the world. And that means in practice the fundamental renewal: each election becomes both, an area-specific and a pertinent election. The overcoming of the sole and thereby leveling principle of majority rule  =  decision making through communication and advice! And exactly these area-specific and pertinent election options means in practice the constructive synthesis (and not only just a mix!) of direct and parliamentary democracy as well as especially the fundamental renewal of the societal conditions of communication and participation towards a full-communicative and thus full-democratic society, in which the pluralistic will of the people is fully heard and comes into its own. And with that the Value-levels-democracy answers the questions: Under which conditions of communication can societal debates be conducted? Who is to speak, and how can the messages be well-ordered, correlated and effectively implemented? How can people negotiate the solutions objectively and peacefully, possibly with understanding and trust? And in which all persons, and that means really all, can have their say? One thinks that is a question of personal decency and peacefulness. But this view is naive and wrong! Because it is precisely in the systemic that the right institutional structures are needed in order to be able to produce and guarantee the greatest possible communication and the best possible decision-making conditions! And the Four-segmentation produces these necessary systemic communication and decision-making conditions and secures them legally. These systemic communication structures guarantee a rule-free discourse and prevent speech and thought prohibitions. More democracy by differentiation  =  diversity against the simplicity! What would it mean, if several economic systems or parties, with their different concepts of economic activity, stood for election in a truly democratic decision-making process? Current alternatives, such as the "solidarity economy" and the "post-growth economy", in which much right is formulated, also considers, like today's capitalism, an economic system with an unique position. This raises the question whether, because of this, are not also fundamentally in the negative dominant and undemocratic developments inevitable, as we already know from the present capitalism? Likewise, these alternative economic concepts like to consider themselves as complete, overall social systems. But this is factually wrong, because a social system is fundamentally more complex and multi-dimensional and can not be considered and renewed solely by the economy. It is an existential misunderstanding to believe that the social whole can only be regulated and satisfied by the economy. This fact takes the Four- segmentation into account by the further differentiation into the system areas of politics, culture and fundamental values. This one-dimensional thinking, based only on the economy, is also called economism. But through the sub-parliament “economy”, the legal and structural conditions for a real economic democracy are created for the first time. This creates the necessary systemic and institutional as well as the legal and constitutional structures, which becoming necessary systemic renewals, such as another economic or monetary system, actually make possible and establish peacefully and constructively in a democratic way. And this is e.g. for the mastery of the climate change absolutely necessary, because with the existing economic system, the neoliberalism, the climate change can not be mastered! And because the economic parliament has to take into account the value preferences of the higher-ranking parliaments, such as from the fundamental values parliament, it automatically leads to a community serving and not dominating economy, as in today's reality. But, the economy is an existential part of the whole organism! For this reason, it must also be ensured that necessary, correct and justified economic data for the overall practicability must also be taken into account in reverse order. These necessary feedbacks are by the value-stepped autonomy of the individual sub-parliaments, then by second and third readings legally established and guaranteed. And by the realization of a fundamental values parliament exists for the first time the possibility to be able to form the social coexistence of fundamental values as well as e.g. to be able to develop and establish new ethical principles in a societal peaceful-democratic process. While the realization of a culture parliament for the first time offers e.g. the possibility of objectively negotiating a fair coexistence of the different cultures at the system-institutional level. This is especially important in migration trends and multi-ethnic states. And this issue can only be solved on the systemic level, because the failure of multiculturalism has revealed that the issues related to cultural identity can not be let to the private life alone, but the need is shown that a fair coexistence of the different cultures must be treated above all on the systemic or system-institutional level. Because the multiculturalism means in practice nothing more than the equalization and thus the leveling and relativization of the different cultures as well as the associated identities. But cultures always go into the anthropological, because they are an expression of the universal sociality of the human and therefore have a systemically important meaning! And a disregard for this, like i.a. through the multiculturalism practiced to date in Europe and also in the USA, inevitably leads to exclusion, isolation, resistance and radicalization in the host or homeland and native cultures, as in the guest or immigrant cultures, as well as to parallel societies, as can be seen very clearly especially in the USA. But the current democracies are unable to grasp cultures as systemically relevant at the system-institutional level and therefore also not treat subject- related in a democratic process, as the reality proves. Even a separate ministry can not provide the necessary remedy here, because it is always just an executive organ of the current governing party line and ideology, such as i.a. the example Sweden shows. But through the sub-parliaments culture and fundamental values, the possibilities are created for the first time on the system-institutional level, freed from party political discipline, by the various subject and thematic parties eclectic from a broad knowledge framework, subject-competent and differentiated the issues and problems that always accompany with different cultures, and which are simply negated by the multiculturalism, to be able to negotiate and solve to a fair coexistence. Through this value-stepped institutional differentiation of the system areas into independent sub-parliaments, an objective communication and cooperation is virtually enforced. And because of this 1. constructive, workable and sustainable total solutions such as for this topic complex can be developed and 2. antidemocratic extremism developments can not develop any more. Furthermore, this can prevent the enforcement of false and ideological, such as the multicul- turalism, as well as political and societal irrationalities, radicalisms and irresponsibilities. Also, a culture parliament can guarantee the freedom and the independence of the science, the art and the press. The Value-levels-democracy or the Four-segmentation thus creates and guarantees through this differentiation of the system the necessary systemic realization structures for to make necessary innovations, such as a new economic or monetary system or the legal establishing of new human rights, constructively, peacefully and democratically possible. Because this differentiation of the system into the four sub-parliaments and resulting diverse area-specific and thematic parties guarantees a multitude of topics on system-institutional and system-structural level, whereby they are automatically brought into a societal, political and democratic process. While today, alternatives are only mediated through non-systemic institutional frameworks, mainly through NGOs. But because NGOs or foundations and associations are non-systemic institutions, they rarely can not develop the strength and certainly not form the necessary structures that can bring an automatically societal discussion, which is why many good and right contents outside of a wide perception silt up. And above all, therefore necessary new topics and contents can not be brought into a direct political process and thus into a democratic treatment, but what in the Value-levels-democracy, as described, precisely because of the four sub-parliaments with their admission of area-specific subject and thematic parties is automatically guaranteed. In summary, this institutional and structural differentiation of the system creates and guarantees a permanent factual and especially an effective pertinent communication between politics and civil society, and that system-structurally and legally secured. And that means in practice the ending of today's intellectual, political, communicative and emotional impotence and incapacitation of the civil society. In addition, this promotes the knowledge that diversity is fundamentally necessary as an essential prerequisite for any form of further development. And that means a fundamental paradigm change in sight, thought and action and a departure from the unsuitability of today's monocultural system. The deep inside of the human, the ability to self-reflection and self-determination! Almost all current alternative social models or political concepts, such as the sole grassroots democracy or the community, regionalization and grassroots ideas as well as the newly emerging fashion flow of the hitherto failed "Council Republic", are based on an idealized image of the human and which can only work if the people actually correspond with this idealized image, but what they do not do in the reality. The approach the people then with all possible measures to develop, to transform or even want to reeducate necessarily to this "ideal", not only philosophically has something totalitarian. Above all, however, these attempts fail in practice at the plurality of the overall society as well as at the limits of the reality of the human. That means the consequence that one have to recognize, to accept and to handle with the plurality of a society as well as with the limits of the reality of the human. And this realisitc handling succeeds the system concept of Four-segmentation on the basis of an universal reflection and action theory in a positive and constructive way. The Four-segmentation is based on the reflection- and action-theory of social behavior developed by Heinrichs, which goes far beyond previous views of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann, by doing they understanding the institutions themselves as products of interpersonal reflection and also in addition the explicit reflection, that is, the normatively determined thinking and acting by the system, as in Marx, also  the implicit reflection (Here a short explanation! >> )  and thus the necessary universal sociality of the human can grasp and work with it. His epochal new discovery are the levels of reflection primarily between the individuals, the interpersonal reflection and communication, the methodical self-development of people's inner reflective life into practical societal action. Thus, the Four-segmentation puts with the principle of reflection discovered connection to the action-theory and then continuative to the system-theory the human being in the center, without thereby following an idealized conception of the human and how it should to be, but on the basis of how it really is. Quite in contrast, as described, to many current alternative political and social systems, such as the sole direct or basic democracy. Because the alternative concept of the sole direct democracy only as referendums for example, so an “only from below”, fails in practice on the fact that even in small and manageable size units, even the majority of the participants for many reasons are not able to take over or want to all necessary own responsibilities, such as the necessary accumulation of knowledge, which is why in almost all grassroots projects hierarchical (power)structures with e.g. spokespersons, organizers and also leaders to establish in a very natural way and which then just just followed. A circumstance that is often concealed by the advocates of the grassroots democracy. This shows that a sole direct or grassroots democracy, especially in a pluralistic magnitude of social order, can not be practical, but at best will result in an oligarchy of the educated middle-class, because the people are in their intellectual capabilities, in their inner levels of development as well as in their interests, special knowledge and motivations just not all the same. Another existential fallacy is the belief that alone the existence of the instrument of direct democracy or if one just let the people leads to that they would then, so to speak, automatically decide for the right and the rational ones. But only the examples of Switzerland, the Brexit and the US-American municipal codes, whose legally binding content may only be designed and changed in a completely grassroots democratic procedure, which is constitutionally prescribed, regulated and thus even secured and which represents the so far grassroots democratic process of the world, have shown repeatedly and especially in complex systemically relevant topics and not just about a power line relocation or the privatization of communal housing space that this assumption is wrong. As well Switzerland, and also the Brexit, shows that the majority of information within the respective initiatives consists of (ideological) propaganda garbage and from which the people again and again be manipulated in large numbers. And that appears that the assumption that the sole direct democracy as an instrument would, so to speak, automatically develop the people to be knowledgeable and reasonably decisive in the sense of the whole, is wrong and has been disproved by the limits of the reality of the human. Furthermore, a mere referendum democracy also means only simple yes-no votes and decisions and above all implies an one-sided deportation of the responsibility to the individual. Because in today's democracies is the responsibility to solve problems professionally and reasonably based with the all-responsible parties, but for the reasons mentioned above this responsibility can not comply. And the individual, because of the shown, can do much less justice to this responsibility than today's parties already can not. Also the new fashion flow of the so-called "citizen councils" chosen according to the random principle (lottery), which should also be understood as a final-instance corrective, does not mean a practical and workable alternative. Because a lottery procedure basically means a compulsion and all practical experience to date has shown that a compulsion to deal with complex political or even systemic issues that do not correspond to one's own interests and one's own inner, can lead to a resistance to defense until to aggression, so to an excessive demand. And of course, the random principle / lottery can not produce and guarantee the necessary objectivity and competence and thus efficiency, but like the Four-segmentation with the resulting area-specific subject and thematic parties and the resulting area-specific and pertinent communication and election options. In addition, a lottery, even if it takes into account a representative cross-section of the population, allows only a very small group of people to participate directly. But societies consist of many different individuals, and groups or societies can evolve only as individuals evolve, because only the individuals develop further and resulting only then the societies. And individuals can evolve only through participation, but which is excluded by a lottery. Nevertheless, a new system must guarantee the basic requirements for a true political participation of every citizen, but in its functioning it must not only depend on it. The resulting absolute necessity also of a "from above" through representative structures takes into account the concept of the Four-segmentation in a constructive manner and, above all, in the pluralistic necessity. Because for the constructiveness and the functioning of a state system, there remains the fundamental necessity that knowledge, competence and expertise can think and act independently even in power and leadership positions and that this also remains guaranteed. And through the differentiation and institutional concretization in the four system areas and the resulting different area-specific subject and thematic parties, the independent and responsible leadership of thinking, experience, knowledge, reason and good sense, expertise, competence and integrity on system-institutional and system-structural level is really promoted and supported. As well of this value-stepped institutional differentiation of the system areas into independent sub-parliaments, a necessary factual communication and cooperation is virtually enforced at system-institutional level. And thus, as mentioned, constructive, workable and sustainable overall solutions can be developed and anti-democratic extremism developments can not even arise. Furthermore, this can prevent the implementation of false and ideological as well as political and social irrationalities, radicalism and irresponsibility. In the Value-levels-democracy, power is not understood as per se negatively, but as a force capable of positive development. And in order to be able to guarantee this, power is channeled positively precisely through these intelligent system-institutional and legal structures. In this way, the Value-levels-democracy also creates the necessary institutional and structural framework conditions for compliance with the universal law for a positive and integral (further) development to assign the tasks and responsibilities only to the most suitable. The necessity for new systemic institutions and structures! The Four-segementation has recognized that institutions and structures have a significant influence on the socialization of the people. Through the one-dimensional institutional and mono-structural design of the existing democratic political systems, it promotes primarily negative thinking and acting, such as negative striving for power, abuse of power, egoism, conformism, irresponsibility and corruption and also ideological power blocks. Thus, the present political systems inevitably cause the emergence of machiavellian power elites, because in the today’s systems only power groups can determine and form the social whole. This relationships in turn promote the emergence of so-called karmic spaces, of which automatically only specific characters, personality structures, inner development levels and ways of thinking and acting are attracted, approved and promoted, whereby these negative developments are sustainably conserved and which can best be explained with the (spiritual) meaning of the word: “Politics is a dirty business. But dirty businesses are only made by dirty people. Clean people do not do dirty businesses, because they can not do that from their whole inner!” It is also about the necessary consideration of the factor of the reality of human in the forms of power hunger and power obsession, nepotism, corruption, cliques, ruthlessness, intriguing and hypocrisy, which the Four-segmentation has recognized, in contrast to all other political systems, and by their value-stepped differentiation of the system areas prevented. This automatically prevents also the emergence of system-determining power networks. Beyond that, as described, these contexts prevent, above all, an intellectual independence and individual responsibility on the population, which in turn can lead to forms of political and personal dependence as well as to unreflective, unhealthy and wrong loyalties. But through the multi-dimensional logical-systematic design by Four-segmentation based on this reflection- and action-theory, it promotes primarily positive thinking, reason and good sense, expertise, integrity and the so-called “good will” of the people, a term used in sociology, philosophy and spirituality, and also a real intellectual and emotional independence. The Four-segmentation really promotes the mental and emotional independence and self-reliance, intellectual autonomy and independence, and activates the awareness of not only being a politically active part of the whole, but actually of being a politically active part of the whole. And that, taken together, can bring about a positive socialization and further development of the human being. This results in the knowledge, that it is above all the public systemic institutions that can bring about the better in the human. This institutional differentiation in this Four-segmentation also means, that the system can communicate with the people and vice versa on all four levels of reflection, and that for the first time in the history of social systems! While today's democracies, due to their one-dimensional institutional and mono-structural design and the resulting overall systemic dominance of the economy, can communicate only at the lowest level of reflection, the subject-object level, based only on my own needs, views, interests, intentions and freedoms, I treat the other instrumentally and thus only as an object. The Value-levels-democracy thus also lives up to the fact that the thinking and the consciousness of the people is meanwhile much more developed and differentiated and can not be satisfied only from the economic point of view. Because the people are also increasingly responding to cultural, ethical and fundamental values topics. And the Value-levels-democracy establishes the necessary systemic structures of communication and realization so that this evolved thinking and awareness of the people can be expressed in the systemic through a peaceful-democratic way. Because of these area- and subject-specific differentiations, the societal and systemic communication structures are created for the first time, which actually enable real and pertinent discussions between civil society and politics and safeguard them on an ongoing basis. And with this, the parliament of this new style itself is representing the citizenship and does not mean anymore an “only from above” as to date, where the people have to fiercely fight over again and again against mal-developments and against the parliament of today's one-dimensional design. For the good of the whole! The Value-levels-democracy not only eliminates our systemic and structural poverty, but also ends the existing patriarchal system, by doing by the sub-parliament “culture” a real social emancipation of the woman becomes possible. This is where the reflection- and action-theory of social behavior comes in, by doing they understanding the universal sociality of the human and working with them. Because the patriarchy comes from the universal sociality of the human, in fact from the male and the female, because nothing can exist over millennia in the negative if it does not come from the universal sociality of the human. Furthermore, the Four-segmentation resolves another system-related maldevelopment! A society as a whole can be roughly divided into two orientations, in "left-wing" and in "conservative". Both are inner structurings of the humans, which making it extremely difficult to turn a left-wing into a conservative and vice versa. Both orientations contain, from universal consideration, fundamentally right things, but also fundamentally wrong things. But the existing political systems cause an inevitable stockbuilding and where, in principle, they collide irreconcilably, which in turn promotes ideologies, enemy stereotypes, dogmas, political blocks, prohibitions of thinking and speaking and culture struggles. But in the Value-levels-democracy become by the differentiation by the Four-segmentation these two inner structurings structurally automatically combined and factually related to each other. In this way, the universal right things of both orientations can be constructively worked out and established for the good of the whole. Because from universal consideration both structurings belong together!!! Summary: The Four-segmentation or the Value-levels-democracy is competent action- and system-theoretical and up to now the only democracy model that is completely philosophically deduced. Its creates and guarantees the required framework conditions and real systemic realization structures so that our lived and everyday thinking can actually construct and realize the social reality! It means a structural full-communicative and thus full-democratic system, in which the solutions to our existential problems can actually be negotiated in a real overall societal discourse! Through the differentiation into the four system areas and the resulting area-specific subject and thematic parties, the Value-levels-democracy means in practice a real constructive synthesis of direct and parliamentary democracy and not only just a mix, such as the sole direct democracy as only referendums and the citizen councils. The Four-segmentation creates the systemic communication and decision-making structures so that the sole majority principle can be overcome and the true and the right can be worked out. Because in today's democracies, only the sole majority principle applies, which in many cases enforces compromises that, in turn, are often leveling in terms of content due to the different ideologies. These levelings are particularly evident in questions of the mastery of the climate change. Because it now shows that the mastery of the climate change is also a systemic issue, and in the development of concrete instruments the preservation of the existing system has the highest priority, which is why these instruments are so inadequate.  -  (Which in turn also reveals that it just does not work if one want to set the wolf can guard the sheep, as well as that a misunderstood pragmatism can lead to failure. Coherences and relationships that one can currently look at especially in Burma / Myanmar.)  -  The Value-levels-democracy, however, establishes and guarantees the necessary democratic governance and control options for radical ecological measures. In summary, the Value-levels-democracy means the rapid advancement of democracy itself towards a holistic, an integral democracy, while on the other hand we are dealing today with only quarter-democracies! It is transferable in all size units and a peaceful implementation is guaranteed by the introduction about the law!
I • N • V • D • D
EN|RU
EN  RU
MARTIN BESECKE MB