By JC Collins
With the increasing socioeconomic tension in the
United States, it is reasonable to expect that the population could begin to
see the scaling back of police state methodology and the beginnings of a more
democratic process which reflects the growing demand for fair and equitable
representation.
Whether its protests and rioting against the abuse of
power by police, or legislative bills demanding an audit of the Federal
Reserve, the pattern of reversal is beginning to take shape. Some
assumption can be made and discussed regarding the rise of multilateralism and
the effects of a waning unipolar American world.
History is littered with the remains of previous world
powers, and their last attempts at hanging on to that power has made for a deep
cultural deposit of material which has been used for everything from history
lessons, to literature, and big screen epics.
With this transfer of power we are unable to
completely define the negative aspects of the outgoing structure. Though
the US was the tip of the spear for the projection of power, the influence and
leverage behind it have been more interwoven within the socioeconomic fabric of
western cultural as a whole, whether its America, Canada, Europe, or proxy
regions around the world. As such, when the multilateral integration
reaches a critical point of mass transition and intersection, the degradation
and humiliation of western culture will reverse and the people will seek out an
identity based on the principles of morality and vigilance which brought it to
greatness hundreds of years ago.
The challenge presented to the people and their
representatives will be in establishing a multilateral check and balance
mechanism. It is my contention that this process is further along than
many would suspect, which is visible within the dialectic paradigm developing
in American politics between predetermined governance platforms and campaigns.
It is interesting that politicians, like religious
leaders, will invariably adapt and adjust to the changing mandates of a fluctuating
cultural, and the demands made upon that culture by banking and business
interests. We can expect to witness, and in fact have already been
witnessing, some of these external and multilateral demands.
Like all things in life, there are conflicts and commonalities
between the emerging multilateral and the domestic sovereign demands made, both
on and by, the governing structure of each region and country. The
assumption is repeated ad nauseam that international organizations and
institutions undermine domestic democracy. Though this may be true in
some instances, it is not in all. Where conflicts now exist, there may be
commonalities in the near future. And where commonalities now exist, there may
be conflict in the future. Such is the motion and direction of the waters
of history.
The Cultural and Socioeconomic Interception (CSI)
methodology which has been used throughout human development is sometimes the
product of covert and intentional manipulation of mass populations, but can
also be the response to subconscious and unintentional manifestation of
direction and desire, force and form, of the moral and intellectual collective.
This manifestation can take the shape of a response to other intentional and
unintentional CSI programs.
The world we live in is a product of both
conscious/intentional CSI outcomes and subconscious/unintentional outcomes,
with the interaction of responses from one to the other overlapping and at
times superseding each other.
The constant struggle between both is visible in the
alternate and various interpretations of the small rent seeking elite and the
large disorganized masses. In the case of a transition from the existing
unipolar power structure to a shared multilateral structure, we find that the
pro and con interpretations are widely dispersed amongst both
groups. There are some within the small rent seeking elite who
represent the existing power structure and are leveraging business and industry
in their attempts to maintain the status quo. This is off-set by those in
the small rent seeking elite who wish to transition the world towards the
multilateral framework.
This division of conscious and subconscious intent is
equally distributed throughout the large disorganized masses as there are those
who support a multilateral architecture and those who support the continuation
of the domestic sovereignty which has defined the unipolar world.
Equally so, there are those within all demographics
who see both positive and negative characteristics in all directions. The
position which I analyze and think from would fall into this category, as I do
not see the world in black and white paradigms, but in the mishmash and push
and pull efforts of all groups, with a special focus on the pressure faults
which exist between both small and large groups.
In the spirit of that preamble, I would like to
present the following material for effective and purposeful, along with
meaningful, debate amongst those who have something of value to contribute in
developing a broader awareness of the challenges facing the world today.
Let’s begin with the assumption that multilateral
institutions, represented by the mandates of global governance, act as distant,
elitist, and technocratic methods of controlling and conditioning mass
populations who are collected under the ideological banner of democracy, or
variations of the democratic ideal, which other forms of governance are now
morphing into, such as China-lite communism, and European Union adapted
socialism.
Based on our defined characteristics of interwoven
dependence and interpretation, we find that there are some probable fallacies
involved with the above assumption.
First is the assumption that democracy can only exist
when there is unfettered legal sovereignty as a necessary prerequisite. On the surface
this may seem reasonable, but when we consider the actual methodology of the
multilateral architecture, and the commonality of international goals and
objectives, such as the environmental issues facing China and the world’s
oceans, or the stability and sustainability of macroeconomic liquidity, the
refusal of one specific country to delegate some of its domestic authority to
multilateral institutions could represent a self-defeating restriction and
arbitrary reduction in the national democratic deliberation process. A
pooling and delegating of sovereign governance could in fact broaden and
strengthen the democratic process domestically.
Second is the assumption that the existing domestic
institutions will always adhere and promote the common good and aspire to
maintain high democratic standards. This is obviously not the case and in
fact the absence of a supra-sovereign delegation on some domestic matters could
in fact reduce the democratic process.
Third is the assumption that advanced pooling
(consolidating) and delegating of sovereignty to multilateral institutions will
reduce the participation within the democratic process domestically.
There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, as the absence of a
supra-sovereign delegation in years past has still lead to a reduction in
democratic participation domestically.
This leads us into the first positive assumption which
states that multilateral institutions and supra-sovereign delegation could in
enhance the democratic process domestically. Some of the benefits could look like the following:
1.
Limit the power and influence of domestic special interest groups, such as
national rent seeking alliances.
2.
Protecting individual rights through the macroprudential mandates and
legislation enforcing limits on rent seeking practices and the modernization
and infrastructure development of third world countries.
3.
Improve the quality and frequency of domestic democratic deliberation.
4.
Off-setting regional and transnational business and industrial factions.
5.
Protection of minority
rights.
It is possible for multilateralism to have net
democratic benefits for sovereign governments who choose to interact within a
defined set of important democratic standards. The supra-sovereign
democratic standards need to be determined and promoted by the domestic
sovereignty of existing frameworks. The conscious intent should be to
facilitate the reform of the international and multilateral institutions
through a process similar to what we have described here.
It is with great interest, and for the purpose of
healthy and constructive debate, that I draw attention to the fact that the
largest abuser of domestic sovereign rights and governance, of its own people
and the people of other regions, is the last holdout on the reform of
multilateral institutions. While America promotes the ideals of domestic
democracy, it defiles the very nature and intent of democracy itself.
It would appear democracy and multilateralism are
combined through both a subconscious/unintentional and conscious/intentional
CSI methodology which is attempting to bring a supra-sovereign form of
democracy to an increasingly interconnected world. – JC
No comments:
Post a Comment