Essence of democracy and capitalism - multilayer, passive and negative approach -

Section 10 Local official currency　-　Multi-currency systems

The means of spreading money to a large number of people is not limited to the redistribution of money stored by the wealthy.

The quantity of money is the amount of money used. An increase in the frequency of transfers is an increase in the quantity of money. Credit creation by banks is a well-known example, but transfers also increases as the number of times money is used among people as a means of exchange.

If a 10,000 yen bill is transferred only 10 times in a year, society as a whole will have 100,000 yen (used), but if it is transferred 100 times, society as a whole will have 1,000,000 yen.

Even when most of the money is unevenly distributed among a few people, if the remaining money is used frequently among the rest of the population, no money shortage will occur.

The companies that are currently struggling are those that provide goods and services to meet domestic individual demand. This is because their customers, individuals, are short of money.

On the other hand, many of the materials needed to produce goods and services to satisfy individual demand can be supplied from neighboring regions, but cheap imports dominate the market in many cases.

The use of a common currency makes transactions overwhelmingly faster and safer. In other words, a currency that is accepted only within a certain region stimulates trade within that region.

A local currency that is restricted exchanging with foreign currencies and reserve currencies can create a localized market protected from intense competition from outside of the region.

Moreover, if the currency is prohibited from earning interest or dividends, the speed of money circulation within a small region can be accelerated, and production and consumption within the region can be further boosted, as in the case of monetary easing policies.

This local currency which cannot be exchanged for the reserve currency (base currency for example Yen) or foreign currencies and is forbidden to earn interest or pay dividends is the "local currency" proposed by Silvio Gesell.

Before Gesell, there were many examples of non-state organizations issuing their own currencies to compensate for the lack of circulation of national reserve currencies in middle ages (e.g., Japanese clan currency, European Brachteat silver coins , etc.).

However, Gesell ‘s unique perspective is that he deepened his consideration of "local currency" as a means of solving people's economic difficulties.

Gesell positioned the use of non-interest-bearing or negative-interest-bearing(a fee is charged for depositing, so if you do not use it, you will lose money) money, which was consciously limited to the regions in which it could be used, as a tool to stimulate the circulation of goods within a region and to revitalize the local economy.

Due in part to Gesell's recommendations, various local currencies were issued in various parts of the world.

While social groups had different levels, such as districts (~1,000 people), municipalities (~100,000 people), states (~tens of millions of people), and countries (~hundreds of millions of people), the scope of circulation of local currencies also varied.

For example, some were used in smaller communities as a mutual aid and had a restricted purchasing target (Time Dollar in the U.S., LETS in Canada).

Others were used on the scale of a single city and stimulated economic activity in the area (Vela in Germany after World War I, RGT in Argentina in the 1980s, etc.).

Some were accepted throughout the country, just not for foreign transactions .

In terms of performance, the first type was too narrow in its scope of distribution and inadequate in terms of the type and quantity of goods and services exchanged, and had only a small impact on society.

The second type circulated as a response to the disappearance of money under the crisis national economies that experienced capital flight and extreme inflation, and helped people maintain their livelihoods. It also demonstrated that the speed of circulation of a limited-use, interest-free currency could exceed that of a reserve currency. However, since the issuers were private organizations, they were banned for "disturbing the monetary policy of the state," or were sloppily controlled, over-issued, and counterfeited, and none have survived to the present day.

Modern governments have a monopoly on issuing the reserve currency and let the central bank determine bank lending rates and control the amount of bank credit creation as well. This system is the infrastructure of centralization. To ignore it too much could have shaken the modern state system, so it may have been unavoidable to prohibit local currencies .

The first type, via , has been in use since the 1930s. It is accepted throughout Switzerland and does not have a negative interest rate which is recommended for other local currencies. However, since it is issued against the Swiss franc, there is little friction with the reserve currency system, and since it is issued by banks, it has high creditworthiness and is said to help stimulate small and medium-sized businesses.

The benefits of introducing local currency system are observed in two main aspects.

One is the so-called "cooperative assistance" function.

Local currencies are used as a mechanism not to overbuy goods from the global market, and to ensure that everyone in the region buys the goods and services supplied by local residents as much as possible.

When local currencies circulate instead of reserve currencies, they reduce "imports" from other regions (primarily industrialized urban areas) and force the use of resources that are available within a small region.

The resource that any region has is labor. This will increase employment, which in turn will help sustain and foster industry within the region over the long term.

This is a similar mechanism by which developing countries tried to develop domestic industry by restricting imports as part of “big push policy” to catch up with industrialized countries.

In order for this to work, the currency would need to have a certain wide circulation area.

The second is the development of a mutual aid system in a community of a limited number of people that is neither intimate nor anonymous. This is the "mutual aid" function, so to speak.

This means fairing the burden on volunteers without personalizing them, introducing market adjustments to some welfare services, and using local currency as a tool to convert daily living skills into cash.

This function can be easily realized even if the distribution area is relatively small.

However, since local currencies are issued by private institutions, the system is fragile (lack of means to ensure the fairness of the issuing institution, unclear eligibility, and ease of counterfeiting) and can be an obstacle to monetary policy.

On the other hand, local governments have the budget, human resources, and authority to resolve these issues.

If local governments become the sole issuers of local currencies exchanged for the reserve currency , they can maintain control and credibility.

The scope of circulation would also be clear if it coincided with the local government's administrative authority (e.g., circulation would be limited to Yamagata Prefecture or the Tohoku region).

Counterfeiting can also be solved if local governments outsource printing to the Bank of Japan. For example, it would only be necessary to add a unique character (e.g., RYK from "Ryukyu" to indicate Okinawa Prefecture) at the end of the serial number of the currently circulating banknote.　

Also, as with the Swiss via, using the reserve currency as collateral would not interfere too much with the government's monetary policy.

This should be called a "local official currency" (hereafter referred to as LOC).

LOC perform the same functions as local currencies, only with greater impact because they have public backing.

First, it will contribute to the development of effective demand within the region.

Even if LOC were to circulate, those who would sell goods in LOC would be limited to those who would purchase goods in　LOC.

The strong players in the national or international market are not such entities. The strong players in the market choose the most advantageous place of production and materials from all over the world.　Receipt of LOC would hinder production by making it difficult to pay wages and buy materials for them.

Local suppliers who can sell in LOC are more likely to have their products bought, even if at a slightly higher price (i.e., less efficiently), and are protected from competition from stronger suppliers from outside the region.

This increases the demand for goods and services produced within the region, and the income of local workers increases in return for the provision of goods and services that can be bought in this way. Moreover, when LOC is used (even in part) for the payment for them, the effective demand for local products will be accelerated, and the speed of circulation of goods and local currency will increase.

Conversely, for example, even if local businesses work hard to increase their salaries, if their employees are buying goods and services provided by the market moguls who have a nationwide presence, the money will end up outside the region, which will only increase the speed of economic circulation in the cities where the market moguls gather, but will not allow money to circulate within the region.

In addition, LOC can provide side support for the government's economic policies.

Even if local contractors win bids for public works projects, if the majority of materials are purchased from large companies in Tokyo or from overseas, the salaries of employees of small and medium-sized local companies, which are the majority of workers, will not increase.

Converting a certain amount of the reserve currency into LOC before the projects or subsidies and other public support by LOC would increase the multiplier effect within a relatively small area, stimulate effective demand, and promote the circulation of goods.

Controlling the amount of LOC issued would keep the volume of currency in circulation within the country constant, thereby reducing the complexity of monetary policy. This is because LOC would not be stored or invested in abroad stock or real estate  (while it is difficult to expect increase in volume of circulation through bank credit creation because of LOC ‘s non-interest bearing nature).

LOC will be used to purchase goods and services even by wealthy individuals or corporations, because LOC must be used within a certain region and is difficult to invest or save in.

So, LOC will help revitalize the local economy, and may lead to an increase of good and wealthy people who would rather donate LOC than waste it.

LOC can serve as a kind of tariff barrier or "demand cradle" to protect new entrepreneurs and increase opportunities for the discovery and development of new goods and services.

Considering that many large companies have benefited from the reconstruction and population growth of postwar

era, and that such benefits are unlikely to be available in the future, protectionist policies that check the dominance of giant capital in the market should not be unreasonable.

On the other hand, the economic entities protected by LOC will tend to be confined to that region and will be "segregated" from economic entities exposed to severe market competition.

For example, those earning the reserve currency would purchase luxury goods from outside the region, while those earning LOC would acquire locally produced goods. The latter will not be able to afford brand-name products but be able to afford locally sewn clothing. They will not be able to afford Bordeaux or Napa but can drink local wine; they will not be able to travel to the city for advanced medical care or education, but they will be able to afford as much as they are in local.

This is a kind of disparity, but in a way that allows the poor to participate in society and be respected. This is different from the current excessive disparity.

In LOC economy where efficiency is not so strictly demanded, it will also be easier to realize the principle of gender equality which is incompatible with efficiency.

Local currencies can function to correct the excesses of free trade while preserving its principles.

Protectionism at the national level will too often hinder the overall efficiency of the global economy. If it expands, it will be a repeat of the pre-World War II block economy. The basic principle must be free trade.

But free trade must also be halted.

Under free trade, countries compete to lower corporate taxes in order to encourage their own companies to accumulate funds (for technological development and foreign investment) and prevent them from relocating overseas. And yet, companies still move their factories to developing countries. On the other hand, taxes on the general public, who are not wealthy, will be increased in order to maintain welfare budgets.

Free trade system brings fewer jobs and heavier taxes to the general public in developed countries. Naturally, the backlash against globalism will intensify, with demands to "prioritize local workers" and "protect demand for domestic products.

The circulation of a certain amount of LOC which cannot be exchanged for foreign currency encourages the distribution of a certain amount of domestically produced goods by giving consumers the right to decide what to give priority to their local production.

For example, Californian rice is delicious and inexpensive. There is concern that Japanese rice would lose out (without tariffs and volume restrictions).  

However, importers of Californian rice do not want to sell it in LOC. This is because they need the yen (the reserve currency) for their next purchase, since they pay for it by exchanging yen for dollars.

On the other hand, those who have LOC have an incentive to use them as soon as possible because LOC is somewhat inconvenient to use.

In this case, a supermarket that sells Californian rice in LOC as a middleman between the two will come around.  But in exchange, the supermarket will have to purchase something else from the region. And the local product should be chosen, even if it is a little more expensive.

In other words, the supermarket, which is looking at the consumers and not the government, decides "what to cover with products from outside the region and what to cover with locally produced products.

The workers of the companies that produce the preferred local products will be protected from competition from cheap labor abroad. The workers of all nations would be spared the endless competition and would be able to coexist (not unite as Marx said).

If nations agree on the ratio of LOC to the reserve currency, they will be able to strike a balance between free and protected trade while keeping tariffs low.

LOC can also distance local economies from the global money game.

The establishment of a vast global market has facilitated the distribution of goods and information, but this also means that a country's economy is more susceptible to foreign influence.

However, if a certain percentage (20-50%) of reserve currency must always be converted to LOC for circulation in advance, it can serve as a protective barrier against this.

This is because money with a restricted circulation area is not easy to use for wealthy people (especially foreign ones) and money game players, and increased circulation of LOC is an element that checks speculation (a system in which money generates money).

Furthermore, if a system is introduced that allows tenants to pay real estate rent in LOC if they wish, or that property tax rates are lower when paid in LOC and higher when paid in reserve currency, it should ease the buying up and overpricing of real estate by giant capitalists.

In the event of a currency crisis such as capital flight, LOC would also help to quell confusion in the exchange of daily consumer goods, for LOC cannot be transferred overseas.

The introduction of LOC would limit the inflow of goods from outside the distribution area, separating the local economy from the national one. Subdividing the market would create a refuge from the hard competitive economy and protect the distribution of goods made within the region by production methods that are not the best in efficiency.

It will foster subsystems that can supply substitutes with the highly efficient, collective factories that the market powerhouses have achieved. This would also enhance the sustainability of production in times of emergency.

It could be the development of an environment in which traditional farming methods and construction techniques and renewable energy generation, which do not require large-scale investment and are strong in times of emergency or disaster but are difficult to use due to their high cost.

This would also help prevent global warming.

It is clear that the mass-production economy is the cause of massive emissions of carbon dioxide. And mass production presupposes mass transfers across borders and regions. Mass transfer assumes single national currency and exchange market. Preventing mass production from dominating the economy will reduce fossil fuel imports and promote the use of renewable energy within the regions where LOC circulate.

This leads to inefficiencies in one respect.

However, this inefficiency is a natural consequence of trying to achieve self-sufficiency within a region, and it is necessary from a resilience perspective to become a little accustomed to this on a regular basis.

In addition, LOC can boost the effectiveness of public welfare.

LOC can be useful in publicly supporting the subsystem of "providing goods and services that are often overlooked by the main system of the modern economy which effectively utilizing labor and resources in competitive market.

Many jobs that contribute to the well-being and safety of society can be done by amateurs in the community with a little familiarity, or by people who are under-appreciated in the labor market.

For example, temporary care for infants and school children, housework for the elderly and other people in need, simple repairs to roads, maintenance of abandoned houses and vacant lots, utilization of dilapidated forests, and cultivation of idle farmland.

These include non-urgent work. It may seem wasteful to use the reserve currency as public funds for such things, since it reduces the amount of goods that can be purchased that must be "imported" from other regions.

However, since payment in LOC directly leads to an increase in effective demand in that region. It would be an acceptable use of public funds , if there are such double benefit.

Furthermore, if the goods produced by the labor described above (agricultural products that do not look good but taste and are nutritious, vacant houses that have been made livable, etc.) could be used to provide in-kind assistance for daily living, the welfare budget could be saved.

Alternatively, the products could be wholesaled to local businesses at a lower price. If the products are sold, the businesses will make a profit and pay more taxes, which will later cover part of the public expenses.

LOC can also have a coordinating function in social welfare.

Social welfare can have two different orientations. One is to give recipients freedom of choice and expanding their activities (for example, for temporarily unemployed persons), and another is to manage and protect them (for example, for isolated dementia patients). And adjustments must be made according to the nature of the recipients.

At this point, if there are four types of possible benefits: reserve currency, LOC, coupons, and in-kind goods, it will be easier to choose the most appropriate tool for each recipient.

When the general public feels that the recipients will be overprivileged if they receive the benefits of the reserve currency which is a means of exchange that does not choose the time, place, or thing, the provision of coupons or LOC which are somewhat inconvenient goods, can provide a means of fine-tuning the situation.

This is to coordinate the realization of equality by effect, not by requirement.

A place of exchange through LOC may also diminish the sense of alienation that "I have little connection to the world and can have no impact on it.

Alienation arises from the fact that sellers and buyers "do not alternate," and also from the fact that it is difficult to share natural sense about value.

The larger the market size, the more sellers and buyers are separated, the less sense about value there is to share, and the more likely people are to follow simple principles such as competition.

However, people need to be in close contact with each other sometimes, and the small economies that LOC create will bring relatively close contact to people.

Some critics take the view that many goods and services are considered "commodities," and that society demands that we value ourselves as commodities.

However, commoditization is not bad, because it allows people to exchange goods and services without any discrimination, regardless of who they are exchanging them with.

The problem is that comparisons of the value of commodities are made among those that should not be, or without taking factors that should be taken into account.

Increasing the number of "measures" for value comparisons provides an opportunity to question the correctness of the measures themselves. LOC in different areas of circulation from reserve currency can serve as different "measures.

Money has not always served only efficiency and competition. It has also been useful in the exchange of mutual aid and sympathy.

Not only demand, but also effort and even sentiment can be measured in money to a certain extent.

For example, the fact that compensation for damages is made in money (with the strong backing of the state) helps to maintain social peace by eliminating violent self-help and the cycle of revenge.

No one can say "areas with a large circulation of LOC are less likely to attract new investment from outside the region."

The circulation of LOC may appear as if the area is regulated in some way.

However, companies that look for investment opportunities throughout the country are companies that do business throughout the country and abroad, so the money they receive and accumulate from sales is mainly in reserve currency. Salaries and purchases are also paid mainly in reserve currency by them. There is no reason for local workers and companies to refuse payment in reserve currency.

If a national-level company's products sell explosively in a certain region, LOC in that region may be built up in the company.

But this would rather be one of the factors that motivate the company to move its factory to that region.

LOC can rather attract investment.

LOC can provide society with a variety of functions and benefits, but we do not endorse a LOC-only economy.

It is also true that extensive trade is a major contributor to today's affluent material life. If goods from other regions were to cease entering one region, the standard of living would regress dramatically. Effective demand would not be fostered, and purchasing would be severely hampered.

The financial industry operates because of the interest it earns, and the incentive of interest allows for large investments and loans, which in turn improves the efficiency of production.

The reserve currency which maintains the same circulation and interest rates as before, and the local currency which does not earn interest and is used for the exchange of real goods in a small area, should run side by side to create an economy where the international market and the local market complement each other.

LOC system pursues the dual goals of increasing economic resilience while expanding the living space of those who are economically week, so it is not sufficient to provide relief to the truly needy.

A strong redistribution policy is also required.

Because LOC is a new institution, it brings new challenges as below:

What is the appropriate circulation ratio between the reserve currency and LOC ?

What is the appropriate exchange rate ?

(since the types of goods and services that can be purchased are smaller than those of the reserve currency,

it seems reasonable that LOC should be valued slightly lower, but it may be possible to consider making them equivalent as a matter of policy).

Should investment and dividends in LOC be prohibited altogether or not?

Should there be a place where only LOC can be used?

What is the appropriate circulation area ?

(assuming the cooperative function of local currencies, the existing prefectures come to mind, but larger units may be preferable to enhance regional economic independence. On the other hand, if regional cohesion is to be emphasized, smaller units might be a good idea.

And town or village comes to mind as a distribution area for the mutual aid function, but it may be too large or too small, depending on the population and the level of communication in the area.)

Social experimentation is necessary to address any of these issues, but social experimentation is usually conducted in a small area, and LOC is well suited for such experimentation in the first place.

LOCs are expected to begin circulating in the market for "used goods," "agricultural, forestry, and fishery products," and people's side jobs.

While people work in the competitive market, they will begin to engage in local or mutual assistance work as side job (for example, public welfare services in kind). LOC will be able to circulate in it, and LOC would expand to markets where as local agricultural products, used products, cast-off products are exchanged.

Since the prices of used products will be lower than those of new article, the price gap between them and agricultural, forestry, and fishery products will narrow. And it may be an element that helps revitalize the local community economy which depends on the relative stability of agricultural, forestry, and fishery product prices.

With the partial participation of manufacturing companies, it will further support people's lives.

The essence of money is a deed of credit or a promise made by people. It needs people's consciousness.

Therefore, in order to put LOC into circulation, it is important to make people aware of the importance of LOC as another currency to support the resilience of society, and it is also important to prepare a market where LOC can be used in advance.　

In order to ensure a certain volume of circulation from the beginning, it may be necessary to make preparations such as paying a portion of the salaries of local government officials in LOC.

This would be effective in order to avoid giving LOC a stigma like "currency of poor people.

Finally, we will reexamine the contours of LOC system by comparing it to other seemingly similar systems.

“coupons" are being used for local development projects. While they share the same characteristics as LOC in that they can only be used to purchase goods and services within a certain region, they are limited to one-time use and are not useful for reproduction, making them ineffective as tools for revitalizing the local economy.

However, the effectiveness of LOC will be assumed in regions where coupons have stimulated the economy to some extent.

“Virtual currencies” are similar to LOC in that they are issued by ordinary people.

However, their main uses are for overseas remittances for those who cannot open bank accounts, savings for citizens who do not trust their own reserve currency, and speculation.

And these situations will change if banks widely accept overseas remittances, and precious metals and dollars are also available as a way to save money for citizens who are unsure about their own reserve currency, so it is not a very important role.

And It is less convenient in that it cannot be used without an electronic device.

And it is difficult to distinguish between scams and not.

The purpose of LOC is to create a new economy that runs parallel to market competition.

This is fundamentally different from virtual currency which is used to circumvent regulations of the existing economy or to make a speculative profit.

Section 1 History of Modern Politics

Organization increases efficiency.

Thus, as a group grows larger, governing structure arises in which a small number of those who lead force a large number of those who are to be led to observe the norms.

And there always been a gap between the rich and the poor in any economic system (feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc.). The experience of Japan's defeat in the war and the collapse of the Soviet Union shows that social change does not necessarily reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

And the rich can sell their favors to others.

Therefore, it is common for the rich to be the ones who rule.

If the rich govern well, there is no problem, but there is no guarantee that they will.

It is obviously dangerous to leave governance to them.

Therefore, Eastern political philosophy has been talking about the ideal government. It tells us how to take a daily attitude to prevent political collapse, like Chinese medicine prevent illness before it happens. It can be said to be a standard that each individual should hold.

On the other hand, Western political philosophy has focused on what to do when the politics is not done as it should be.

It seeks a system that allows society to recover while it is being corrupted, like Western medicine minimize the damage after a disease has occurred. Modern governing principles such as democracy (change of power in the diachronic aspect), division of power (division of power in the synchronic aspect), separation of church and state, civilian control are fruit of this philosophy.

Procedurally, political systems can be divided into the following four types based on the two axes of “the number of potential participants ” and “the number of actual participants ” in decision-making in governance.

• (1) Dynastic system with few potential participants and few actual participants (loose rule by the king and surrounding tribal nobles)
• (2) Feudal system with few potential participants but relatively many actual participants (trust in kings and nobles is lost, and people follow the nearest prominent family)
• (3) Absolute monarchy (all the people are under a single person with strong authority to rule)
• (4) Democracy (people decide for themselves how their society should be with many potential participants and a relatively large number of actual participants)

 (1) and (2) are states in which “few people are likely to participate,” i.e., the number of members of the group is small, the sense of status is strong, and the sense of “country” is still weak among the people. In (1), the population is still small, unification has not taken place for a long time, and communication between regions tends to be sparse. In (2), territorials are divided within the country.

On the other hand, “many people are likely to participate” means that nationalism has permeated the country and each individual has a normal sense of national identity.

(1), (2), (3) of the above are political systems that actively affirm authoritarianism. The transition to (4) is triggered by the strong pressure for change (which may come from within the country or as external pressure) due to the development of science and technology.

The above mentioned (1) through (4) were sequentially changed in Europe, especially in Western Europe, where the principles of modern governance were born.

After the breakup of the Roman Empire, (1) can be seen as the period up to the time when the Frankish kingdoms took over, (2) began with its collapse (around 1000), (3) began due to the Hundred Years' War (around 1400) and the plague, (4) began with the civil revolution (around 1650-1800).　The Renaissance lay long in the transitional period from (2) to (3)。　The Reformation and “geographical discoveries” occurred in the cradle of (3) (centered around 1500). The Industrial Revolution occurred rapidly in the transition from (3) to (4).

In Central Europe, Germany under the Holy Roman Empire (from around 1000) had a long period of (2), which was mixed with (1). After the Napoleonic Wars (around 1800), it reached (3), which left the residue of (2), and after World War I, the transition to (4) began.

On the other hand, there are regions where these are ambiguous.

China, for example, completed the transition from (1) to (2) until the Spring and Autumn Period, and reached (3) with the establishment of the Qin Dynasty. After that, however, a mixed system with varying concentrations of (1), (2) and (3) continued (this is symbolized by the warrior class and the Communist Party organization). In particular, it is characterized by a clear lack of decentralized system of (2). This is probably because the land and population were so large that even if a dynasty could unify the whole country. And its isolation from other ethnic groups (because it was so large that it could treat them not as equals but as frontier peoples) making it difficult for science and technology to have an impact. The present situation is still a mixture of (3) and (2).

Other examples are the Roman Empire and the Islamic world.　

Some regions lack some era.

Countries such as Korea and Southeast Asia lack a feudal system (②), as they were unable to build highly independent political and economic systems for each region in the country due to geographical conditions that they had to be subject to significant influence and control from other ethnic groups.

After the introduction of the electoral system, which is formally (4), in advance, the developmental dictatorship (3) was realized through paths that were not necessarily democratic (coup d'etat, etc.　by Jeon Doo-hwan, Lee Teng-hui, Lee Kuan-yew, etc.), and modernization was accelerated, and then the path to (4) was sought once again.

Greece, in its ancient city-state, realized type (2) at an early stage, which is close to type (4). The number of free citizens, excluding slaves, who can participate in the society was halfway large. And those free citizens elected each other to participate in the society. Thereafter, it has been under the control of other ethnic groups for so long that it lacks (3) and is seeking a path to (4).

India seems to be trying to change from (2) to (4) in a single step, given its long-lasting status system, multilingual and multiethnic society, and strong territorial rights in each region. It may be too diverse for (3) to be possible.

Japan resembles the European type. During the Heian Period, (1) flourished (from around 800).  (2) continued from the beginning of the Kamakura Period to the end of the Warring States Period (from around 1200 to 1600).  (2) and (3) was mixed during the Edo Period.  (3) was established during the Meiji Restoration (from around 1870) and abolished after the defeat in the war and at the same time the search for (4) began (from 1945).

Although the transition from medievalism to absolutism almost began at the end of the Warring States period, the absence of plague, great voyages, and religious wars, unlike in Western Europe, delayed the growth of absolutism and prolonged the Edo period which drew on the medieval period.

The majority of states today are formally democratic. It can be said that modern political history is a history of various countries that have each achieved a little bit of democratization and division of power in various ways.

However, not a single country has yet truly achieved (4).

Even in developed countries, even though they are democracies in form, In practice, authoritarianism remains strong.　Certain groups maintain the position of imposing their will on the national government, and political power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of citizens.

Why ?

This is probably due to the fact that mankind has a tendency to tolerate monopolies of knowledge and wealth, to equate continuity of governance with continuity of rulers, and to somehow think that it is natural to have a “hidden ruling class-like structure” and has followed such a history.

Even in the early modern era, the positions of feudal lords and vassals who survived and powers were passed down through the generations. The Tokugawa vassals such as Sakai and Ii were allotted fiefs.

Richelieu, Bismarck, and Churchill, who had been shrewd under the king, were hereditary aristocrats.

Although the status of courtiers was later changed from status-based to appointment-based, hidden heredity was maintained in the form of power of education and connections.

In the period after （3）, there would also have been pragmatic reasons.

First, in order to realize policies for economic growth (concentration and allocation of resources), there is also a need to facilitate superior decision-making within the social unit of the state. Rather than thoroughly promoting democracy, it is better to have a specialized bureaucracy that formulates ongoing policies at the center of the country with the existing bosses who occupy authority in the regions and have them carry out their plans. It would be even faster if a “development dictatorship” or an enlightened monarch is appointed.

And next, thorough division of power divides citizens and weakens their ability to wrest hegemony from the king.

Political parties and bureaucracies arose at such times. These systems also have the effect of excluding ordinary citizens from politics.

The exclusion of the people is accelerated by the self-interest of the members of the governing system.

Original role of politicians is to reflect the will of people to politics.

But politics also inherently involves activities that seek to share of the profits as large as possible (Max Weber). Professional politicians must act first and foremost with the aim of remaining in politics.

Political parties can be means to get friends and money for this aim.

People also have a simple desire to work hard with someone in power. In politics, it calls for the rule of men, not the rule of law. We see this not only in Russia, China, North Korea, and other tyrannical states, but also in presidential elections in the United States, for example. And over time, that naive desire begins to demand something in return. The feeling of having served the organization turns into the feeling that the organization should serve them next. Supporters will eventually seek to take advantage of those whom they have helped.

Politicians are thus exposed to the incentive to make the interests of a particular interest group their main goal.

Bureaucrats borrow power from politicians, and politicians borrow power from bureaucrats.

There is nothing wrong itself, but some will borrow power for personal gain or to avoid personal disadvantage.

The governing bodies, with the bureaucracy and political parties at their core, then become farm for "hidden Rule by the few " through the replacement of members. It will undermine democracy and the division of power and rigidify decision-making. Particularly, large political parties are convenient to create the expectation among those around them that their interests will be realized if they are on the winning horse. And at the same time , political party provides a cover that obscures the responsibility for policy implementation so that each politicians are not responsible personally . They continue to reproduce the politics of vested interests, nepotism, and inequality that (in fact) ignore the majority of the people.

This may not always happen if the politicians and bureaucrats are highly motivated, but without institutional defenses, it is no wonder that the privatization of politics can occur at any moment.

This is our government.

Modern democracies have succeeded in wresting power from kings and emperors.

However, ordinary citizens are unable to influence politics and the possibility of changing rulers has not been fully realized by inadequate electoral systems, the prevalence of party politics, and indefinite of separation of power.

This reality is hidden.

But even though it is hidden, it is not so perfectly hidden. We are blindfolded ourselves. In that sense, we are accomplices.

We all somehow think that politics and economics should be left to the experts, and we accept a political system in which we understand a part of it but have difficulty understanding the whole relationship.

Therefore, those who have some knowledge of the relationships can profit from them.

Governing requires expertise and know-how, but they should be minimized. It also requires institutional design that prevents collusion among experts. Otherwise, division of power and democracy will become detached from society at large, and will be transformed into a skit in the theater of politics. And a small group of people who pass through the revolving door at the back of the stage will earn interests through time-delayed bilateral proxy transactions between politics and the economy.

Today, many democracies are dysfunctional and failing to prevent the fragmentation of society.

Modernity has taken some care with political procedures, but has not rigorously questioned their quality.

Restraining power is an eternal political challenge. In modern times, it means democracy and division of power.

Japanese politics is sometimes criticized for being slow in decision-making, but the essential problem is not that, but that it is undemocratic and decentralized.

We are entering an era in which the quality of governance procedures needs to be greatly reexamined, and in which democracy and the division of power must be spread throughout society.

Political parties are really still necessary? The separation of the “three” powers is really appropriate?

In the following, we will review the meaning of “democracy” and “separation of power,” the basis of modern politics, face to the reality that they have become a formality , and describe ways to change it.

Section 2 Democracy

Of all the governing principles, democracy is the most important.

However, the current democratic system has degenerated into a tool to protect authoritarianism which is essentially the opposite of democracy.

Robert Dahl, American political scientist, said that “there is no such thing as a completed democracy anywhere in the world yet, and that this is what we must aspire to.” in the 1970s.

These words still ring true today.

Democracy is neither about determining what is in the best interest or happiness of the greatest number of people, nor does it aim to do so.

What is profitable and what is happiness is different for each individual. Who can determine what is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people?

Excessive demands on politics can lead to irresponsibility.

The purpose of politics is not the greatest good or happiness of the people, but only to keep the people alive.

Democracy does not mean that decisions are made by the consensus of all people.

There is no such thing as a policy that everyone can agree on. If we aim to “listen to the opinions of all people and then decide on what everyone can agree on,” we will end up getting nowhere.

Nor does democracy mean that many people rule.

In all ages and cultures, the number of people actually governing has always been small. Michaels' “iron law of oligarchy” is correct In terms of superficial numbers of governing persons. Even modern democracies must be representative (indirect) democracies.

(Even the referendum system is not a direct democracy, either. It is somewhat meet the will of the people in vote on issues rather than councilor election, but it is also a kind of indirect democracy because people have to choose among the arguments and conclusions packaged by professional politicians and cannot propose alternatives.)

Democracy is not about having a political system that many people agree with.

Even the Nazis were not only agreed with but applauded .

Certainly, democracy has an aspect of objectivity, of inferring rationality from the approval of the majority.

However, in authoritarianism, the opposite of democracy (uncritical acceptance of the discourse of those in power), objectivity, or the number of people who agree with you, can also be a source of strength.

What distinguishes democracy from authoritarianism is not objectivity, but the process or procedure by which that objectivity arises, or the variability or instability of that objectivity.

Power is the controlling force whose ultimate weapon is violence and profit-mongering.

Democracy is a governing principle that constrains the diachronic (forever) concentration of power (while the division of power is a governing principle that constrains the synchronic (whatever) concentration of power).

In other words, the essence of democracy lies in the changeability of rulers and policy makers and large range of candidates for office.

Democracy can be redefined as a political system in which one never knows who will be the ruler, a procedural principle that sets the field of battle, so to speak.

In order to ensure that the enforcement of power is not detrimental to freedom and equality, it is important to have procedures that change the judgment of society properly.

In a narrow sense, justice (rightness) means equivalence or proper distribution, but in a broader sense, it is harmony for life.

Harmony can only be ascertained by relative comparison.

The fact that an opinion is chosen in a situation where another opinion could easily emerge is what ensures the high probability of its correctness.

When an election is held in the presence of another candidate, the high probability of the fitness of a candidate is ensured.

In order for the execution of power to be considered just, it is important that those who are to be executed can participate in the decision-making process, that the criteria for execution are clearly stated in advance to those who are to be executed, and above all, that the decision can be changed to another opinion.

It is only because it is changeable that we will follow it.

Also, no one person has the ability to judge what is just at all times.

What is right” changes from moment to moment. And it is also difficult to change one's judgments and assumptions.

The people who are most likely to make the right decision are those who are facing the problem.

However, we cannot know in advance where the people who are facing the problem and thinking about it are. Therefore, we do not know where the correct judgment will come from. Society.

This is why we need a system that allows those who should make decisions to come from anywhere, and a political system that makes it easy to constantly revise decisions.

Political professionals are only professionals in the current governing structure. When something goes wrong with that organization, can they change it? Were the modern revolutions led by courtiers? Was the Meiji Restoration led by the shogunate vassals? Rather, they were the opposing forces that created rules and conventions that were difficult to understand from the outside.

A democratic society is always open for anyone to become an opinion leader, no matter where they come from.

On the other hand, Pareto and Schumpeter, who emphasized the social role of economic activities, and Hayek, who placed the highest value on freedom, interpreted democracy in a formalistic manner, stating that “Democracy means that those who govern are elected, and after they are elected we should follow the chosen few. It does not mean that ordinary citizens should be involved in politics beyond that.”

But that is to minimize the meaning of democracy and to ask people to give up on politics. It is a dangerous view that could lead people to overlook the ways to make the little political power that is left to ordinary people more effective.

There is no formal or digital distinction between democratic and undemocratic, like ” if the rulers are elected, and people have the right to petition.”

There are analogous differences in the degree to which democracy is realized, depending on the degree of changeability of rulers (whether the system functions to avoid diachronic concentration of power) and the degree to which the opinions of the governed are heard (whether the system functions to prevent errors in judgment due to assumptions or lack of information by a small number of rulers).

For example, even in the same general election, there is a difference between an election in which “one can be elected as long as one follows what the party or regional boss says and shows that he or she is listening to the petitions of the electorate,” and an election in which “one cannot be elected unless he or she seriously considers what will really benefit the citizens.

For example, the right to petition, in which one can only ask those in power to “please listen to the wishes of the public,” is apart from the right to petition, in which people have the means to monitor and remove those in power from public office.

The Roman Empire, for example, had a democratic aspect in the sense that it created opportunities for people to compete for the position of emperor. However, the democratic concentration was diluted in the sense that there were large stakes to be wagered to become powerful (e.g., life) and the actual number of candidates was limited.

In modern democracies, the stakes for change are not as heavy, and opinion leaders can be changed within the framework of normal times. The concentration is higher than in the Roman Empire.

In addition, in most modern democracies, the specific decision-making tool is majority rule, but this does not mean that majority rule is a democratic tool. Majority rule can be both a tool of democracy and of authoritarianism. It has the bluntness to be mocked by the free and capable persons and is a cold-hearted tool against you.

Majority rule, especially after a clique, is malignant.

It is a tribal society that must form cliques and push through by force of numbers.

It is the dictatorship of the future that advocates democracy but uses majority rule through cliques.

A democratic society is one that is safe to be alone and does not force people to form cliques.

Majority rule has democratic legitimacy because the will of each independent person adds up to a majority.

Therefore, the realization of democracy requires not only the opinions of the majority in the center, but also the minority opinions on the periphery.

Some of the indicators of shades of democracy are whether regulations and redistributive disadvantages to minorities can be prevented, whether safeguards for the needy can be set quickly and easily, and whether changes in policies cause less disruption to the lives of the socially vulnerable.

It is also a cautionary tale about the current majority and opinion leaders. The majority cannot imagine being on the receiving end of oppression.

A democratic society is one in which this can be imagined.

Since democracy is also an application of passive approach for justice, it is also a mistake to expect too much from democracy.

Justice is a concept that describes a state in which a proper balance of various principles is achieved. But it is very difficult to accurately determine the point at which the balance is just right. Even in democratic sustem, it is not possible to select and recommend what is justice.

But “unjust” or “out of balance “ may turn out clearly and will be avoidable.

Popper recasts utilitarianism as “minimizing heartache, not maximizing happiness.” Fuller argues that “we can know (reach agreement) on what is manifestly unjust without declaring what is just.” Hayek also says, “We can only approach truth and justice by continually eliminating fallacies and injustices.　^★

Justice is, for example, keeping the maximum number alive when 100 people are involved in a catastrophe. No one will know on the spot how many people should be saved, whether it is 100 or 53  or 21 .

On the other hand, Injustice is easy to understand. It is death of all , for example , by internal strife.

The function of democracy is elimination of injustice.

On the other hand, democracy is not just a technique of governance.

Democracy is rooted in human nature of change.

The history of mankind is that we have changed to facilitate change.

Democracy is a guideline to find a political form that is in line with the nature of the human.

The deepening of democracy is evolution of human as a social being.

Therefore, the real enemies of democracy are also not superficial entities like kings, emperors, local bosses and the systems to which they belong.

It is something that lurks in our hearts.

The current champions build “forts” to protect their privileged position, making it difficult for outsiders to enter. And

the forces that have defeated him by penetrating the fortress tend to do the same thing as a new authority.

This is an excessive pursuit of one's own freedom at the expense of the freedom of others. It is a distorted manifestation of self-esteem, a desire to have one's victories recognized as inevitable and justified by those around one. It even has the power to twist the facts.

And how about ourselves.

Don't we also want to be part of the dominant community of a few and exert power?

Don't we want to be in good standing with a limited group (or class) of people who applaud authority and are blessed with status, wealth, and jobs (titles), or think that living under the special protection of such people is not so bad?

And don't we forget that this is at the expense of outsiders who are not part of that group?

All of these are what we might call “oligarchism” though in different degrees.

Oligarchism is a cancer that sits deep in our hearts and continues to claim legitimacy. Not only is it a denial of democracy, it may be the very essence of evil.

The most important tactics of oligarchism is being hidden. The hidden oligarchism that has survived in politics and economics is one of the main reasons for the stagnation of our time.

Democracy is the attitude of controlling oneself so as not to enter into such a wrong path.　

Democratic means a way of life that restrains blind obedience to authority (authoritarianism) and vested interests (oligarchism), and does not neglect efforts to make it easier for individual people to change their opinions. It is also an attitude that seeks to create a society in which it is not so difficult to live as an outcast or an outsider, and in which it is not so difficult to rejoin a privileged group.

This would also bring us closer to a society in which true objectivity is easier to maintain, in another words a society covered by a “veil of ignorance” of John Rawls.

Democracy is a child. They are gullible, easily injured, and demand too much for too little work.

Therefore, not every social function should be solved by democratic politics, and the effective range of political decisions should not be overly broadened. Sometimes, It is necessary to dare to leave on-site decisions.

But Democracy is also something that should not be discarded and should be monitored and nurtured to a large extent. The multi-tiered market described in Part I is a concrete example of this.

“Democracy” and “sovereignty of the people” are often seen as synonymous, but they have different perspectives.

The question of “who has sovereignty” in the latter is a signal to begin the struggle for authority, and is fundamentally laced with authoritarianism. Naturally, the debate will heat-up.

Discussing in terms of "sovereignty" confuses the idea of democracy which is essentially an attitude that emphasizes things rather than persons. For the concept of "sovereignty" was originally conceived as an omnipotent power that any king or god would have.

This has to do with how we perceive the concept of "freedom".

If we take the meaning of “freedom” positively as “the right to do whatever one pleases” (by putting oneself in the position of behaving freely) and assume that “the people have sovereignty,” we tend to reach the irrational conclusion that “whatever the people decide is fine.

On the other hand, if the meaning of “freedom” is taken negatively (assuming the need to secure an area for ourselves when someone behave freely and annoying us), the attribution of sovereignty will be not so controversial. And it comes to the conclusion such as “even the sovereign (one who has the authority to decide) may not decide anything” “What matters is not who decides, but how it is decided and what is decided” “it does not matter if sovereignty is divided between the king and the people as long as the social function of protecting justice is not harmed.”

This review of the doctrine of democracy also reveals problems with the current governing bodies.

For example, there is an overwhelming lack of public oversight of all governing entities, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The fact that local governments have too little political power has emaciated the diversity that is the soil of democracy.  (even if they are in the minority at the national level, they are in the majority at the local level.) (It is also possible to vote by foot.)

We can also spot the biggest hidden enemy of democracy in our time.

Political parties.

Section 3 Problem of Political Parties

In Western Europe, political parties were strategic tools for the transfer of political power from absolute monarchy to the people.

In the cradle of the modern era, people still had a strong sense of "occupation" and "locality" and a weak sense of "national identity," and they tended to be at odds with each other. In such an era, political parties served as a coordinator of interests and a banner for consolidating the will of the people and reflecting it in national politics.

The usefulness of such a coordinator and banner became commonly recognized in countries moving toward modernity, and political parties were formed as a means to realize one's political will, even from different backgrounds (for example, as a forum for the collusion in spoils system in the United States, and in Japan not as a means of abolishing absolute monarchy, but rather as a means of retaining or assisting it.).

These political parties were mainly funded by groups of wealthy citizens to carry out their political activities.

Current political parties that have taken over from that have corporation groups as their main advocates.

Even if the less affluent classes formed another party, it would not be able to increase its number of seats due to lack of funds and would languish as an opposition party.

The Communist Party, which calls itself the ally of the poor, came to power not with financial power but with violence, creating a one-party dictatorship that denies the existence of any party other than its own. But when it came to power, the party leaders became the privileged class.

In any case, under party politics, the less affluent majority was kept out of politics.

Political parties have two faces: a democratic face toward kings, sovereigns, and clans, and an undemocratic face toward the general public.

Now that the kings have retired and the “national” consciousness has been created, political parties have become a system that suppresses the replacement of opinion leaders and distorts the will of the people.

Political parties also serve as a bridge from democracy back to monarchy (or more accurately, its replacement, dictatorship).

The last task of the political parties is to weaken their own influence on the governing body, thereby making democracy a reality and preventing the transition to a dictatorship.

Some people may think that political parties are necessary for weak people to stand together and express their opinions, and only the opinions of those with power would prevail without political parties.

But this is a misconception. It is the relatively strong and capable members of society who organize parties.

Please recall.

Did the kids in the bottom half of the class get together and propose something in school? The kids with high grades or good at something were the leaders bringing everyone together, weren’t they?

In the real world, less intelligent people are not good at understanding each other's opinions and positions and organizing opinions. On the other hand, the gifted people often go to the city, where they can easily make connections and find mutual interests. Would they put their own interests aside and formulate parties for the socially vulnerable?

The political parties have been useful in bringing together the forces of the socially vulnerable only in time when there is a major change in the social system. Only in such times, people of superior intelligence and activism who are trying to overthrow the old system are included in the group of “socially vulnerable”. In other times, political parties naturally become organizations that protect the interests of the socially powerful first and foremost, and then protect or pretend to protect the interests of the socially weak (to the extent necessary to win their support).

It is true that the opinions of the clever people may prevail even when discussed on a blank slate without party affiliation. Still, it is better than a meeting where the clever people have already unified their views within their faction.

This unreflective collusion of those in power also unleashes the worst of national character.

Japanese exclusivity and defensive laziness, American usury and self-righteousness, Chinese self-interest and arrogance, Russian serfdom and paranoia, German dogmatism, and Korean flip-flopping are unabashedly strutting around with the understanding of their peers. And they don't even know it themselves.

I can almost hear the older politicians' rattling voice saying, "The electorate is voting for a political party, so it reflects the will of the people.

But the eyes of the electorate are not on the parties, but on their policies and commitments.

However, political parties make commitments on many issues, not just on one.

For example, a party may make a pledge including expansion of the farm household income guarantee system,  inflation control by raising the official discount rate, postponing the introduction of a consumption tax,  achieving collective , and many other issues.

The package of pledges is the result of coordination involving intra-party factional fights, bargaining, and deal-making. The people (the electorate) are then given the choice of whether or not to accept the package.

Let us suppose an electorate who is in favor of inflation control, opposed to the collective self-defense, and wants to postpone the introduction of the consumption tax.

It would be convenient if all of these were the pledges of one party.

But if not, the voter would have to vote for the party that shares his or her views on the issues that he or she considers important.

However, there is no guarantee that a pledge that the voter considers important will be considered important by the party, too. If it is not a priority within the party, it may be put on the back burner or even abandoned.

It is also possible to plant poison in this package.

In the 1930s, the German people voted for the Nazis, who stood for “job creation” and “legislative and administrative unity”.  Thus Hitler could argue that the people wanted legislative and administrative unity.

Even if a majority of people are skeptical of a pledge, it is possible to win the support of the public through the due process of elections by packaging it with a bait and switch, such as a uniform benefit for the people.　

Party tyranny through the pledge packaging also harms the “ability of each individual to think,” which is the foundation of a democratic system.

Individual legislators whose opinions are stifled by internal party dynamics will speak out to enhance their position within the party, and they will neglect to hone their ability to identify social problems and to formulate policies and words to address them.

The general public will act with the shallow notion that “the party bosses will do what they want in the end, so just give me something,” and will come to believe that “interest in politics is a waste of time.

And, constraining the opinions of legislators by party policy distorts the will of the people.

For example, consider the following case：

There are three parties in the Diet: Party A has 150 members, Party B has 100 members, and Party C has 40 members.

An agenda is submitted there.

90 of the members of Party A are in favor and 60 are opposed, 20 members of Party B are in favor and 80 are opposed. 15 members of Party C are in favor and 25 are opposed.

If each member could express his or her opinion individually, the bill would be rejected with 125 in favor and 165 opposed.

However, if party restrictions are in place, all 150 members of Party A must vote in favor, while all 100 members of Party B and all 40 members of Party C vote against, resulting in a 150 to 140 majority in favor, then the bill would be passed..

Is this a congress that reflects the will of the people or the will of the party bosses?

Democracy must use majority rule as a means of decision-making, but the correctness of decisions made by majority rule (efficiency, effectiveness, etc. for all interested parties) can only be ensured by having a free and equal voting electorate and representatives.

In democracy, the process of decision-making must be flexible and plastic. And it needs participants who are rational thinkers, free from authoritative thinking.

If voters try to choose the right answer independently of each other, dialogue and majority rule will bring us closer to the right answer.

It is important that all decision makers share information, that they can freely change their opinions during the course of discussions, and that they are not guided by profit motives.

Conversely, if there is systematic collusion or backroom deals in the decision-making process, or if a deliberate order of selection is established, fair decision-making and will of the people will be distorted.

Political parties are the very tools of this process.

Parties try to be bigger and attract groups that want to be on the winning horse.

When the interests of these groups conflict with each other, the parties become fragmented.

There remains an undecisive political system in which the parties are not motivated by ideals but by the power of factions, and in which the parties try to gather votes by regardless boldness and bluffing.

In addition, when a few parties are at odds with each other, as in a “two-party” system, there is a danger of deepening the division of society by bringing into politics the conflict of interest among the people. The United States is a good example.

Long gone are the days when it was effective to unite under the banner of ideals (words), and we are now in an age when we need a decision-making system that brings harmony out of free individual decisions.

And let me remind you the few kids who were not only at the top of their class, but also at the top of their grade, Were they in a clique? Those with exceptional intelligence would have been rather isolated because there was no need for them to form a clique.

They had the vision to find non-partisan solutions, and they can state it. In the real world, however, they are crushed by the sheer force of partisan numbers and eventually begin to feel that it is useless to speak out.

But if you can push them out into the open, they will come up with good solutions. We should listen to them. and their opinions should be judged individually.

For this, political parties are just an obstacle.

For democracy to be substantive, the voices of those on the peripheries must be reflected in policy.

It is against democracy to allow an environment where only the opinions of the center are respected and where it is easy to form a majority. (It may be easier to understand if we replace "center" with " influential persons" or "Tokyo" and "periphery" with "ordinary people" or "regions”.)

A simple comparison of the population of the center and the periphery shows that the periphery is usually larger. However, people on the periphery are disconnected from each other and often do not see other people on the periphery and are unaware of their common interests.

In contrast, people in the center, although small in absolute numbers, are in a better position to form a political majority, because they can unify for their common interests and manipulate information, and are able to keep voter turnout low by encouraging people on the peripheries to give up on politics.

Political parties may appear to be a means to reflect the voices of the periphery, but in fact they tend to be tools for the center to manipulate the periphery.

Prior to World War II, in both Germany and Japan, essentially private political groups outside of the governing body (parliament, executive branch, and courts) eroded the power of the regime.

In Germany, this was the Nazi party, and in Japan, it was the military junta(association).

By forming party or association, they became the majority in the center, even though they were actually a small minority. This pseudo-majority easily usurped the democratic system that should have protected the interests of the many other marginalized people and led to dictatorship.

Today, at least in the developed world, the military is restrained from seizing power (civilian control).

But equally dangerous political parties, in the sense that they can achieve collusion at the center, remain unchecked. This is a lack of true civilian control.　

Political parties are the ones in danger of transforming democracy into popular rule and dictatorship.

In fact, studies have shown that civil wars are most likely to occur in half-baked democracies, where parties formed on the basis of ethnic, religious, or other identities (Barbara Walter).

Nevertheless, a ban on political parties themselves would be an unwarranted infringement on freedom of association. It would also harm social variability and create a void in the field of political education. We do not want a president who does not have the right staff or who turns his business partners and drinking buddies into cabinet ministers. Only political party can provide a learning experience for aspiring politicians.

However, it is not a good idea for political parties to have too much of a function in educating those who have already become members of Congress or President.

It is necessary to educate these newcomers who may not have a thorough knowledge of politics. But only a public and open system is suitable to eliminate the inducements and misconceptions that can be mixed up in the process. Also, if it is open, it will also be easier to understand.

For example, the government should organize its budget (and accounts) in detail and clarity, so that all legislators can easily grasp it.

This is because the presentation of a bill in parliament should be paired with an estimate of the budget for that bill. This will make it easier to compare the efficiency and priorities of policies, and will also prevent the spread of pork-barrel politics to carry favor with the electorate.

The current situation that political parties are allowed to operate too much within the governing body is out of balance.

Political parties should have not become interest coordinating bodies.

The will of the people can be reflected in the Diet without a political party. For example, in the fact that various bills such as the “Law for the Prevention of Cruelty to Persons with Disabilities” were passed through the efforts of nonpartisan Diet members.

To avoid the chaos in plenary session of the assembly, the opinions of individual members may first be examined by the committee. Even there, council members should discuss as individuals among themselves, and political parties should be eliminated.

The infringement on democracy by political parties can be removed just if the legal system is reformed. No revolution or coup is needed.

But such an argument has not happened anywhere in the world.

In their newly empowered adolescent-like insecurity, moderns have been obsessed with getting their own opinions across, not tribal or rational opinions.

Perhaps, people have a longing or nostalgia for a position where they can pass their evaluations as justice.

Perhaps the image of kings who have been in power in the past is gloriously memorized in people's unconscious.

Also, modern people's habit of thinking that even the immediate results are important may lead them to think, "If I can unite just a part of the entire society into a group, I can eventually unite the entire society.

For now, they are clinging to the words (public pledge) without any hope of being kept of a group (political party) that can count the number of supporters.

However, what is important is not the association of some people, but the procedure for reaching a consensus that involves all people.

Some people believe that it is important to revive intermediate associations, because intermediate associations such as village communities have disappeared in modern times,, leaving only the huge organization of the state, and people have become a solitary crowd, attracted to dictatorship.

But the liquidity of the modern economy is not compatible with intermediate groups. And above all those who are left out of such groups are left in even greater isolation. Political parties are failing to include the views of these people.

“Politics is about sincerity,” said KATSU Kaishu, one of hero who brought about the Meiji Restoration. Also he said, ”Don't form a clique. ”

These words are typical of him, who paid attention to the common people.

It is in elections that political parties have the most power. Through elections, parties control the political process.

Parties in power have the financial power backed by corporate donations, and induce members of Congress and win over the electorate who have no political opinions especially by financial muscle. In this way, political parties are able to give the appearance of reflecting the consensus of the people, when in fact they only reflect the will of the interest groups.

In party-controlled elections, domination by the bosses continues in a hidden manner.

Conversely, if we can democratize the electoral system, the hidden control of the minority by political parties will be greatly shaken.

For example, government grants to political parties should be abolished. This is a system that uses money collected from the public in general as tax for the benefit of a specific group.　It is a system that only serves to protect the interests of vested political parties and is suspected of violating the right to be elected or even the right to equality.

And also, proportional representation should be abolished. All elections should be conducted on individual basis.

The election activities of political parties should also be drastically restricted. We should achieve an electoral system that greatly restricts campaigning and does not require much funding, as discussed after.

In other words, the need for discussion about electoral system has been neglected because political parties have manipulated the electoral system to their own benefit and advantage.

And because of this imperfect electoral system, true democratization has not progressed.

Importance and Instrumentality of Ideology