User talk:Caezius

Test

Nonpartisan democracy

Hi Caezius,

I'm very sorry for the quite delayed response. I am living in China which previously had Wikipedia access problems, and I've gotten away from checking my account here.

Yes, I created the Nonpartisan democracy article, though was pleased to see how well it developed with other examples since I started it. (FYI, I also recently discovered the Adversarial system#Comparisons_with_the_inquisitorial_approach article with a similarly interesting comparsion with the "inquisitorial" system.)

I am an advocate of nonpartisanship, but I don't want to be a partisan advocate of nonpartisanship. :) What I mean is that I want the editing of the article to allow all viewpoints (NPOV). That being said, yes, I do support it.

As far as describing oneself as antipartisan, while I personally wouldn't want to be described as "anti-" in the sense of being aggressively or single-mindedly focused against things (as a Baha'i we are more concerned with building up an alternative system and do not wish to yet more shrill voices to public discourse), in a sense I do agree that being anti-partisan is more descriptive in my case rather than being non-partisan, if considered in contrast to how "non-partisan" may bring to mind being indifferent to partisanship, whereas, in our belief, partisanship is indeed something to be shunned. I believe that when more people are conscious of the possibility of democracy operating without partisanship, they can propose constitutional referendum and the like which seek to ban political parties, and even campaigning (while still guarding the right to secret ballot and promoting the greater choice that a lack of campaigning allows, etc.). But, again, I think a more productive focus, at least in the short to middle term, is on changing mindsets, educating people about possibilities, and building an alternative example, rather than trying to push aggressively against those who are already too inclined to aggressive methods; if there is enough change in mindset, there will be political momentum to change the system itself. If the majority don't want a change, then structural changes are not possible or at least sustainable.

As far as world government, I think ideal loyalties can stem from either the top or the bottom. For example, it is reasonable that one wishes to take care of the basic needs of one's family first, take care of pressing needs for poor people in one's locality (assuming the poverty is indeed grinding; if you live in a developed country, that might not be the case), and then go up to the global level, especially if we are talking about public institutions.

However, as far as concern with people, and our mindset, I wholeheartedly agree that we are human beings first (and that as you point out political (and indeed racial) boundaries are quite arbitrary. Otherwise, we will never learn from each other, never intermarry, and all other things which are beneficial for our self-interest as well as others' interests. This is my primary mode of thinking. However, for the sake of convincing nationalists and the like, I like to focus more these days on pointing out how a global outlook is in our best national (or local) interests, and how a non-global outlook is against our national interests (e.g., how the rude nationalist commenters on discussion forums are harming our national security). I also like to phrase arguments in terms nationalists can understand; e.g., how a modern George Washington would have supported a federated world government as he brought forward a wider union than what had existed before (see the article on Articles of Confederation) (as he also supported non-partisanship too!), how Benjamin Franklin and as I recall, Dewey, were part of educational efforts to forge a wider (at that time, national) identity which had not existed before, etc. (just as we need world citizenship in schools around the world too). I also like to admit shortcomings of the current international system which affect my own nation's people being able to endorse world government (e.g., a lack of proportionality to population (given the U.S.' large population compared to most other countries, though without endorsing complete proportionality--i.e., like our own Congress) or the problem of allowing countries without basic rights into the U.N.: see http://www.onecountry.org/oc72/Turning%20Point%20full%20text.htm ) even while making sure people are not blind to other aspects where our country has lop-sided, and yes, non-democratic control of these international institutions (e.g., permanent membership in the Security Council with unconditional veto power, unwillingness to (at least eventually) adopt a global currency, etc.) which in turn promotes resentment and ineffectuality as other nations are less willing to abide by international decisions where we need their support, given that the system is so transparently unfair in this regard.

Thinking from this additional perspective (supplementing a purely global outlook) has I think not only helped me be more effective in communicating the advantages of a more global outlook, but also put me more in touch with the mindset of nationalists, who I might otherwise dismiss as extreme, parochial, etc. (indeed they are, but they often do have valid points which need addressing, before they are willing to consider their own shortcomings).

So yes, I believe that world government is not only compatible with non-partisanship, but even mutually supportive of it. Too many politicians get rewarded by stirring up nationalist sentiment in a partisan system, whereas when people get used to non-partisan systems which emphasize the value of humility and demonstrated action over words and avoid pitting one bloc against another, I think people will be less likely to divide with those in other countries as well.

Despite the need for a sufficiently strong international government, there is also a great need for avoiding excessive centralization (or at least acknowledging the dangers to those who are afraid of it), even if excessive centralization at the international level seems nearly impossible at this point given the excessive and extreme emphasis on sovereignty.

Besides the document referenced above, if you are interested, I really highly recommend reading these two documents:

1. The Promise of World Peace: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-7-2-1.html
2. The Prosperity of Humankind: http://statements.bahai.org/95-0303.htm

Hope you don't mind my long elaboration, but I thought your question was quite thoughtful, so wanted to give it more attention... best wishes, Brettz9 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)