1/9 Ted Becker (Auburn (Australia) University political science professor and Independent researcher on DD issues):
of the above. If a political group runs in an election solely to
democratize the system through a variety of constitutional reforms, it
is devolving power from a political elite to the people in general, thus
it has no "party interests". Thus it is unique in history and needs a
new label, like a "transformational or evolutional entity." If a
political party promises to do so as part of their platform, don't
"As I have written
at length: "representative democracy" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in
terms. In actuality, those who developed the system that they
camouflage with this phrase, actually constructed a new kind of
autocracy, one I call an "Elected Oligarchy." I think that is the most
accurate phrase to describe all variations of them including USA, EU
nations, Russia, Brazil, Iran and on. The CCP hates the word "democracy"
and uses the word "republic" to hide its own autocratic ways.
it doesn't matter whether it is a one party state, two party, or
multi-party: these are just factions of the ruling elites and counter
elites. They are all anti-democratic by their very nature."
question was clear and all the answers so far have been pretty clear
that it is "None of the Above." This reminds me of the old schism in the
Grunen in Germany, the rift between the fundis and the realis. The
fundis did not want to become or back a party. They had their
ideological pillars and did not want to engage in the party system which
primarily served elites' power. That is what the consensus is right now
it seems. If the DD people ran for office and won, they would divest
themselves of power back to the people in many ways and on many issues.
Then disband and help facilitate and implement the process with as
little corruption as possible."