“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Margaret Mead
In Chapter 2, I described many of the limitations inherent in the western democratic model of governance, and why this model, if left to its own evolution, would never transcend above these limitations.
In Chapter 3, I described a new model of governance—a model without political parties and without the limitations they bring to the public decision-making process.
In Chapter 4 and 5, I described two new tools we will have to learn to make this new system of governance work: consultation and the advisory board.
The next question is: “How do we move from the western democratic model to a TDG?”
This chapter outlines a path of transformation from a western democracy into a TDG.
Historical Footnotes
The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, which has been regarded as the hallmark of western democracy, was not a straightforward process to build a better society. Throughout much of its early history, this charter was ignored, forgotten, abused, poorly applied, and often not universally accepted. If the charter did indeed lead the English people to modern democracy, it took at least 500 years for them to get a passing grade.
Coming to this past century, the export of the western democratic model to less-than-democratic nations has not always been a guarantee of transformation of such nations for the better. It is true that there have been successes, but there have also been places where western democracy has clearly not worked or is still very fragile—despite great investments in trying to make an undemocratic nation embrace western democracy.
These two parts of history provide an important lesson for the early builders of the TDG. We have seen that we cannot just apply western democracy and assume it will automatically take root and mature in a short time. The same will be true for the TDG. Citizens in western democracies should not assume they already have the values, attitudes, and skills for the TDG to work. They will need at least one decade to learn the new ways. And this learning will come from a conscientious effort of applying the four TDG salient features.
The TDG will evolve through four distinct stages—early TDG, middle TDG, maturing TDG, and TDG-in-waiting. Each stage will provide opportunities for us to learn all the necessary attitudes and skills while moving forward.
Stage 1: The Early TDG
The first step for citizens who want to start building the TDG is to find other citizens in the same neighborhood with the same vision. To find each other, one suggestion would be to set up a meeting place and time. Use word-of-mouth to let people know of this introductory meeting. Maybe place doorknockers (flyers that hang on door knobs and latches) on all the residences in the neighborhood to let residents who are not so well connected know about the meeting.
In the first meeting, discussion should be about the TDG, mostly explaining this idea to people who have never heard about it. A second meeting can be arranged if at least five people are willing to write a local TDG constitution and further promote the TDG to their neighbors.
These meetings will also give all members a good chance to get to know each other—and size up who each feels is best to be voted for in the inevitable first election.
The Early Constitutions
The builders of the early TDG have an important task: building their local constitutions. These constitutions should address the following themes:
One challenge that will arise during the early TDG will be members who have some excellent ideas but are rather inflexible in accepting other ideas. I recommend to these people to realize that whatever ideas are created in this early stage will most likely be changed beyond recognition as the TDG evolves.
So speak eloquently and passionately for your ideas, but also listen when the consensus seems to be going in another direction. Whether the consensual decision is to your liking or not, do your best to make it work (or at least step out of the way). Maybe your ideas will be more acceptable when the group sees its consensual decision not working so well a year or so later.
I recommend getting the first constitution in place before informal membership becomes too large, probably no more than 15 people. When this committee has created this document, it should conduct the first election. After that election, the early TDG executive committee will manage the day-to-day affairs of the early TDG.
The results of the first election will be a challenge to some committed and enthusiastic early TDG members—because they will find themselves not being elected. I recommend that each member psychologically prepare him- or herself for this possibility, willingly accept the results, and hand over much of the local early TDG-building process to the first elected committee. Remember, each TDG member probably had a good chance to get to know all the other TDG members—and others were found a little more worthy to be tested to move the early TDG forward. Graciously accepting that one has not been elected is a very important attitude to have for the TDG to work well in the future. And even if not elected, that member still has a very important job to wisely cast a vote in the next election. He or she should stay informed of the local TDG happenings. And the TDG just might call that person back!
And if an enthusiastic member has not been elected, there are other organizations which could use that TDG spirit, thereby promoting the TDG to a wider audience.
The Early TDG Executive Committee
The first elected executive committees of the early TDGs have several important tasks:
The Atlanta Approach
In 2014, a fellow from Cobb County, Georgia, USA found the TDG website and was quite excited about its approach to democracy. He and I exchanged quite a few emails, and he really tried to get some local interest in this concept. While he was not successful, I realized a flaw with my approach to the early TDG. It is quite probable that early TDG builders are going to have to take the “Atlanta Approach” to get the TDG started.
Cobb County is one of about 35 municipal jurisdictions that constitute metropolitan Atlanta. I could quickly see that my friend was going to have trouble finding 10 committed TDG builders in Cobb County, let alone in his own neighborhood in Cobb County. He is going to have to cast a bigger geographical net to find the people to help him move the TDG forward. He probably could find 10 TDG builders within metropolitan Atlanta. With the freeway system in this region, they could meet at a central location within an hour’s drive.
When these 10 people meet, there will be a natural tendency to write a constitution that encompasses the entire metropolitan region—complete with number of tiers and boundaries of the neighborhoods. This metro-Atlanta group should resist this temptation.
Rather the group should focus on several neighborhoods within metropolitan Atlanta, probably where some of the group members reside. They should promote the TDG to the residents of these neighborhoods, getting some of these residents together to explain the TDG concept, and see if there is any interest in building an early TDG. When several TDG neighborhoods are functioning well, the metro-Atlanta group should dissolve itself—and let those well-functioning TDG neighborhoods promote the TDG to other neighborhoods within Metro-Atlanta.
It is of vital importance that each TDG neighborhood go through the experience of writing its own constitution, applying it, making changes to it, conducting mergers, and practicing their consultative skills. If building the TDG becomes a top-down approach (as the metro-Atlanta group will be tempted to do), it will have less relevance to the local people who really need to learn the organic nature of the TDG by working together to build it.
The District Approach
Even with the Atlanta Approach, it could still be hard to find five or more people in a neighborhood to start building a local TDG. But if the starting geographical area is enlarged to about 2000 people, it could probably find five early TDG builders.
A 2000-resident area is probably more of a district than a neighborhood. Rather than wait for a viable number of builders in the neighborhoods, these early builders proceed with their early TDG. But they should write the constitution to reflect the district and its future of creating neighborhoods within this district. As membership grows, the neighborhoods should be added to the constitution. The eventual goal should be to have several neighborhoods electing their own neighborhood representatives—and these representatives would constitute the early TDG committee.
But before the neighborhoods are established, the early TDG committee should be elected from the members residing in the district.
While I think it would be better to start at the neighborhoods and work up and out, this district approach has merit. But it has to go one step down before it can go up or out.
Merging of the Local TDGs
Merging with neighboring early TDGs is an essential process. Only as the early TDGs unify into larger units can the TDG be considered as a serious replacement for the western democratic model.
With each local TDG setting its own borders, it's possible for early TDGs to overlap in territory, which is quite unusual thinking for defining political jurisdictions. In the end, this initial overlapping will be unimportant because the overlapping early TDGs will eventually merge.
So if a group of early TDG builders decide the borders of their neighborhood are Blocks A, B, and C and another TDG group says its borders are Blocks C, D, and E, both groups should be allowed to exist—even though they overlap a certain geographical area. Some residents in Block C could even be members of both early TDGs. And both groups could come up with quite different or quite similarconstitutions.
Because these two early TDGs encompass Block C, they would be natural candidates for a merger.
Should they have an interest in merging with each other, the elected committees (or appointed sub-committees) of both TDGs will start negotiating. There will be a comparison of the two different constitutions each early TDG has developed. There will be a discussion of a constitution that would work for this combined geographical area. When both committees have agreed to merge and written a new constitution to reflect that merger, the members of both early TDGs shall approve of the merger and the new constitution. The two early TDGs have indeed merged, and all the members of the two smaller early TDGs become members of one larger early TDG. By mergers, early TDGs grow in size.
As early TDGs merge, they can stay with a one-tier elected committee as its main body of governance. But as the mergers start accumulating 10 or more neighborhoods, it may be the time to create that second tier, starting off the process of indirect elections. And this just might be the time for writing into the TDG constitution the structure and jurisdiction of the advisory board.
This process of merging gives the early TDG elected committees practice to develop the important attitudes necessary for TDG governance. For example, imagine all the good consultation practice that will happen while a merger is being negotiated. When the early TDG members see that consultation (i.e., not steadfastly holding on to one’s own views) does produce great results, they will likely employ consultation more fully and pass this more mature attitude on to future builders of the TDG. Another good practice is the constant refinement of ideas and concepts: early TDG builders will create their new constitutions as best they can, watch how it works, and then make adjustments. Between the consultation for and the refinement of the merged constitution, early TDG builders systematically develop or enhance a new process for societal problem solving. This will carry through in the next stages of building the TDG.
The ultimate plan is for all these small TDGs, which start their existence working independently, to merge into one TDG entity. For example, my friend starts a TDG in his neighborhood in Cobb County. It has 13 members who build their constitution to elect afour-person committee. After that committee gets more residents to join this local TDG, it looks to an adjacent TDG in Cobb County to form a larger TDG with the two neighborhoods. They merge and look for another local TDG to merge with in Cobb County. Eventually all the neighborhoods in Cobb County are joined together under one TDG, with at least two tiers. Then Cobb County should look at neighboring jurisdictions such as Fulton County or Cherokee County to merge with. Eventually all the municipal jurisdictions in metro-Atlanta will be under one TDG. Then metro-Atlanta starts negotiating mergers with adjacent TDGs to metro-Atlanta. These mergers continue until the entire state of Georgia has just one TDG, probably with about eight tiers. And, of course, the next step is to bring the entire United States under one TDG. So by getting a few neighbors together in Cobb County to build the first TDG, my friend’s work will eventually connect with the work of similar builders in Bangor, Maine; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Cordova, Alaska. Their work might even eventually unite all the countries of the world under one government!
In contrast to making these connections by merging, any early TDG which fails to merge will eventually die. A more robust early TDG will attract members in the geographical area of the failing one.
Post Merger
A newly merged early TDG has several options after a merger. It may enter into another merger negotiation. It may decide that it needs to build a second elected tier. It may decide that it needs to formally add to the advisory board. But it may decide to wait some time to see how the new processes are working and fix any problems. Whatever the newly elected committee decides is what the newly merged TDG should do, but care should be taken as not to overtax the volunteer resources of the elected members. Time will be needed to really understand how well any TDG is working.
The early TDG should focus most of its energies towards developing its TDG attitude, consultative skills, and electoral structure. It should admit that it really doesn't have the skills and abilities to wisely and effectively handle the various issues of society. Or perhaps better put, any positions on societal issues, other than general humanistic principles, will just be a distraction and a source of disunity at this time in the evolution of the TDG.
Stage 2: The Middle TDG
When elections are running smoothly and the consultative attitude is an integral part of the early TDG culture, the early TDG can move into the middle TDG stage. While many mergers have been completed, many more are still required.
The middle TDG should have moved from its elected committees to electing neighborhood representatives. There should be at least two tiers.
Incorporation
Part of the middle TDG’s mandate should be to gain formal legal recognition from the government.
There are several reasons for this recognition. First, the middle TDG might start requiring physical assets and paid workers. Legally speaking, these tasks are better served under a definite corporate entity than an ad-hoc group of people. And the middle TDG should plan for an increase in size and the need for some sort of corporate recognition. Legal recognition would most likely mean becoming a non-profit society under the corporate laws of the middle TDG’s location.
When a new non-profit society is formed, the government provides the society with a “constitution” with which to govern itself. Most new societies adopt this constitution quite readily as it has proven to work quite well to sort out legal difficulties later. However, a middle TDG should not accept the government’s constitution; it needs to make several amendments that allow it to function with its innovative electoral processes. It has the right to make these kinds of changes to the government version, but it might require a lawyer to interact with the government.
Gaining this recognition needs to be timed well. The middle TDG should have its electoral processes more or less in place and many of its small mergers completed, as future changes to a formal organization could be more difficult to effect than as an ad-hoc organization. But the recognition should be done before the middle TDG starts to be seen as a threat to the western democratic model. Each early TDG will decide when best to make the change into a formal organization.
The TDG Charter
The second reason to formalize the TDG is that the middle TDG needs to clearly communicate its purpose and objective: it is a model for an alternative system of governance that could replace western democracy in the future. If it does not communicate its purpose, then “replacing western democracy” could be interpreted as a seditious, usurping organization that deserves intense scrutiny, vilification, and legally forced disintegration.
So each middle TDG should prepare a charter for the citizenry to inspect.
The TDG Charter could have any of these aspects:
As middle TDGs continue to merge, they will also compare their charters and negotiate the details of their new charter.
As well as the TDG constitutions, the various TDG charters could also become obstacles to mergers. If two middle TDGs who are likely candidates for a merger find their charters irreconcilable, they should wait a year before commencing negotiations again. The differences may not seem that important in the future, or newly elected representatives will bring in different perspectives to handle those differences.
Regardless, middle TDGs that are so inflexible with their charters as to not effect mergers will eventually fail. More robust middle TDGs will eventually move into their geographical areas and attract members.
Challenges
The middle TDG will have a couple of important challenges that must be planned for. The first challenge will happen as the early TDG evolves into the middle TDG. The kind of people who were able to make the early TDG work well may not be the same kind of people who will make the middle TDG work well. So, after several years of great service to the early TDG, some of the early builders will no longer have official positions within the middle TDG; they will become ordinary members. All early TDG builders should prepare themselves for this possibility, be proud of the work they have put into the TDG, and graciously accept if the membership chooses some different people to guide the TDG through the next stage. This transition of needing different kinds of people will occur throughout the evolution of the TDG.
The second challenge should be met easily if the early builders have done their job well. The middle stage of the TDG will be attractive to overly ambitious people who will not hesitate to use alliance building and electioneering to vault themselves to higher positions within the TDG. By this time, the culture of the middle TDG should be such that the membership shall not give such an individual (or group of individuals) their votes, thus these individuals do not enter into the elected positions. This cultural disapproval of alliance building and electioneering should be strong enough to defeat an overly ambitious, yet otherwise credible, individual who wants an official position in the middle TDG.
However, such a person will occasionally be elected to the lowest tier. But, after a few meetings of neighborhood representatives, other representatives of the same tier will soon recognize that ambitious person for what he or she is—and not cast any votes for that person to advance further. That person will either become frustrated and leave the middle TDG or see that the middle TDG is indeed a new and positive model for societal decision-making—and change his or her attitude to working within it.
Funding the Evolving TDG
The early TDG will likely not need much funding, as it will be driven mostly by altruistic volunteers and donors. I recommend an early TDG buying a small safe to keep its cash holdings. The early TDG’s treasurer will bring the safe to each meeting along with a statement of donations and expenses that balances the cash in the safe.
I should add that when the TDG gains some degree of popularity, there will likely be fraudsters and hoaxers trying to convince sympathetic members to donate money to the TDG. But that money will never find its way to any TDG operations. I advise that no money be given to an early TDG unless the donor personally knows elected TDG members—and these members are worthy of the donor’s trust.
When the TDG reaches the middle stage, it should have some obvious signs that it is a credible organization and worthy of donations. It will need these donations for staff, office, seminars, legal fees, travel allowances, etc.
I don't want to curtail any future TDG builders' fund-raising efforts, but I strongly recommend that it receive all its funds from individuals who are TDG members. Donations from corporations, non-profit societies, activist groups, labor unions, religious affiliations, and even from the government itself should be avoided as much as possible. If certain groups seem to be funding the evolving TDG, this could arouse unnecessary suspicion and hamper future progress of the TDG. As well, there could be sinister forces offering funding,but their motive could be to embarrass or manipulate the TDG later. Sometimes it's better to sacrifice an immediate cash gain in the present in favor of greater gain of credibility in the future.
As well, the donation list should be available for public inspection. The evolving TDG should make its financial records known. Nothing should be hidden, and all donors should be aware that their names can be inspected.
Hopefully, enough monetary resources will come with occasional pleas from the elected institutions and advisory board to the TDG membership. There may even be a philanthropic organization created specifically to fund many deserving TDGs. If such an organization appears, it should also make its donors and recipients public knowledge. Or maybe even wealthy TDGs can provide assistance to other TDGs. Going beyond these sources into more innovative fund-raising activities will deplete the energy of the TDG.
The elected tiers of the TDG will be responsible for spending the money. Like most other organizations, the money will never be enough to do what the TDG really wants to do. But the elected tiers will have to spend their limited resources as wisely as possible. This is just part of good governance.
As well, each TDG will have to determine its own money flow. For example, do all the donations become the responsibility of the highest tier, who then filter it down to the lower tiers and advisory arm? Or do the lower tiers collect the money from their neighborhoods and send their surpluses up the tiers? Or should individual TDG members have the choice to put some of their donations directly to the advisory board? These financial mechanisms are good issues for each TDG to resolve for itself.
As the TDG matures, it will not only be able to acquire more donations because of its increasing credibility, it will become more efficient with its resources. This is just a positive consequence of a better system of governance.
Stage 3: The Maturing TDG
There will be a time when the middle TDG can and should comment publicly on various societal issues. However, it should only comment when two conditions are fulfilled, both of which indicate that the TDG has moved from the middle stage to its maturing stage.
First, the highest elected tier of the maturing TDG must give permission to make such comments. The highest tier, after consultation with its lower tiers and advisory board, can give this permission to itself. Or it can give permission to a lower tier if the highest tier feels that the lower tier has developed the maturity to make such comments. When the highest tier does grant permission, it can also limit the scope of what kind of issues a maturing elected tier can publicly comment on.
The second condition is that all members of an elected tier should be unanimous in that tier’s decision to make a societal comment on behalf of the TDG. A unanimous decision on a contentious issue signifies a very mature consultation. If an elected body cannot gain total consensus, no comments should be forthcoming from the TDG about the affairs of society.
When in its deliberations for societal comments, the maturing TDG should not make statements similar to oppositional political parties looking to score points to enhance their electoral success. Instead, it should think of how it can be of assistance to the present and future governing political parties to make better decisions for society. The maturing TDG should recognize that societal resources are limited, resources invested in one sector of society will require a shift of resources from other sectors, time is required to effect long-term changes, and various aspects of a well-functioning society have a high degree of interconnectivity. The underlying goal for the maturing TDG is to provide a positive, thought-provoking, respectful commentary on various societal issues.
The maturing TDG that is preparing societal comments should be free to call experts it has confidence in, government and opposition politicians, and various stakeholders to get different perspectives on the issue. It might even set up The Consultancy, which is described in Chapter 8.
When the maturing TDG makes a societal comment, it places no obligation for the governing party to accept or act on its advice. In essence, the maturing TDG assumes the role similar to the advisory board of the TDG in its relationship with the government: the maturing TDG gives sound advice but does not criticize the government when it does not take that advice.
Stage 4: The TDG-In-Waiting
As the political world and general citizenry interact more with the maturing TDG, many citizens will start seeing the TDG as a source of wisdom and collaborative decision-making because it is bereft of the 12 limitations of political parties. When it becomes apparent to a significant minority of citizens that the maturing TDG will eventually replace the western democratic model, the maturing TDG has evolved into the “TDG-in-waiting” stage.
A good sign that the TDG-in-waiting stage has started is when some political parties start publicly and positively acknowledging the maturing TDG's comments. Another sign may be when the parties start boasting how much better they follow the advice of the maturing TDG than the other parties.
Mirroring Government
The TDG-in-waiting still needs further maturation. It can get some of this maturation by mirroring itself with the government. It should appoint individuals or small committees to monitor specific ministries within government. In essence, these individuals will attempt to get as much understanding as they can from these ministries, mostly by studying the ministry from the outside. Hopefully and eventually, there will be enough respect and trust between the government and the TDG-in-waiting that will allow these individuals some access into the ministries. These TDG-in-waiting ministerial representatives could even collaborate with the actual ministers on important decisions.
Or the TDG-in-waiting may have already formed The Consultancy (Chapter 8) which might be a good institution to mirror the ministries.
It will be important for the TDG-in-waiting to build this mirror for several reasons. First, it will give the TDG-in-waiting a better source of expertise to build wise commentary on societal issues, which will then build the TDG-in-waiting's credibility. Second, it will put the TDG-in-waiting in greater contact with the government, which is a desired outcome. Third, it will give higher ranking TDG-in-waiting individuals some important experience with being in actual government, which will ease the transition process when the TDG-in-waiting does assume its role in societal governance.
At this point, the TDG-in-waiting will have become a strong enough societal entity such that it could field a political party and probably win the election. The TDG-in-waiting must resist this temptation for several reasons.
First, to win an election, it would have to bring in some of the 12 limitations. Its lack of the 12 limitations will have made the TDG-in-waiting the force that it has become. Vying for election would ultimately be a massive backwards step in the evolution of the TDG.
Second, while winning an election does indicate popular support, the TDG-in-waiting will likely not have enough support to effect the transition because there will still be sufficient opposition to make it difficult. Instead the TDG-in-waiting should wait for even more popular support.
Third, if the TDG-in-waiting does form a government at this point, it will likely find it does not have the resources to effect the transition when it also has to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of government. The TDG-in-waiting must be patient and further build its credibility as an alternative system of governance.
Writing a New Bill for Electoral Laws
When the TDG-in-waiting stage starts, the highest tier should start drafting legislation for the new electoral laws for the future transition.
Replacing electoral laws sounds like an easy process, but this is not the case. While the foundation of electoral laws in western democracies is based on some basic principles, these laws have been created mostly with decades of small amendments to previous legislation. These laws were not created in a short time. But nearly all of these laws are incompatible with TDG electoral procedures, so the old western democratic electoral laws will have to be replaced en masse! And because most parliaments have a time limit for a bill to be passed into law, this change will have to occur within a relatively short time. Replacing western democratic electoral laws with TDG electoral laws is going to be a very daunting task!
The TDG-in-waiting should realize that a supportive political party does not have the resources, the ambition, or the experience to write the TDG electoral laws. So the TDG-in-waiting will write this bill. When a supportive political party is ready to introduce this bill into parliament, the bill will be ready to go. The TDG-in-waiting should have also studied the parliamentary procedures so that it also has a strategy for the supporting party to implement these changes by legal means—and in a relatively short time.
The TDG-in-waiting should keep the process of writing this bill very public. Not only can the TDG membership view, comment on, and make suggestions for this bill, the TDG-in-waiting should invite all political parties, parliamentary experts, and the general citizenry to do the same. It may take several years to write this bill, but getting input from many sources will not only strengthen the bill, it will build the TDG-in-waiting's credibility.
The bill for the new electoral laws will be a rather large piece of legislation. However, there may be other sets of legislation that need to be passed concurrently or in quick series with the TDG electoral laws. The TDG-in-waiting will identify and proactively rectify situations which could cause some kind of constitutional crisis.
Although the TDG-in-waiting can still advise the government on whatever societal issues need addressing and comment on bills presented by the political parties, the TDG-in-waiting should stay away from writing bills that have little to do with changing the electoral laws. It needs to put its resources into an effective and eventual transition.
An Electrical Analogy
To explain the TDG-in-waiting transition a little better, I would like to bring in my involvement with a volunteer group I had been associated with for about 15 years. This group has some property, and buildings have been added to the property over the years. As the buildings have been added, the electricians have tacked on new circuits to the main electrical panel.
I was helping an electrician with our most recent addition. He took one look at our circuit panel and shook his head. He saw all the tack-on circuits and commented that this circuit panel had “little spare capacity” and had become “unbalanced.” Although he did make small changes to get the new circuits in place, he did warn us that the facility was close to requiring a whole new circuit board. There was no way the current one could handle another series of small expansions.
This kind of change needs to be well planned. It will require an assessment of electricity needs to get the right circuit panel to serve well for the present and future. It will require that the facility be shut down for a week or two, with generators to supply power to parts where electricity is really needed. But the amazing thing is that most of the electrical wiring and fixtures will remain in place, totally unchanged. It is only the main circuit panel that will be replaced.
In a like manner, transforming the western democratic model into the TDG will actually leave many parts of western democracy well in place. The TDG may change these parts in later years but not during the initial transformation. It is only the changing of the “control panel” that will be the TDG-in-waiting’s objective.
The Communist Analogy
The fall of communism around 1990 moved Eastern Bloc countries into western democracy very quickly. These democracies were quite unsettled in those times: political parties rose and fell quickly; political leaders rose and fell quickly; political alliances constantly shifted; and new laws were quickly passed and quickly repealed. Compared to mature western democracies, these countries were in constant political chaos.
Despite the tumult, several of those Eastern Bloc countries managed to turn themselves into reasonable western democracies. But it is important to note that in these countries all the former communist legal apparatus did not immediately disintegrate on the eve of the transference of power from communism to democracy. Citizens still had to follow their communist laws until such time that they were changed by democratic processes.
In a like manner, when the TDG-in-waiting officially takes over governance from western democracy, most of the laws before the transition will likely remain in effect for a long time.
But any changes to these laws will be done with the much more pure and organic TDG process. The new laws will be much better than what western democracy could ever produce.
Working with Political Parties
Having the TDG-in-waiting work with political parties may seem a paradox to many readers. How does an institution bereft of the 12 limitations work with institutions saddled with the 12 limitations? Would not gaining the support of a political party mean the TDG-in-waiting has become a political player? These are good questions.
It is important to understand that working with at least one political party is necessary for the transition to happen. Staying completely outside of the political process may sound righteous, but without some cooperation, how can the bill to effect the transition be written and later introduced into parliament? Also by working with political parties, the TDG-in-waiting will get some valuable experience for governing a society, which is a much different task than governing the TDG-in-waiting. Staying completely outside will mean staying outside for a very long time—and not getting important experience about actual societal governance when it comes time to make the transfer from western democracy to the TDG.
Cooperation with at least one political party should be welcomed, not spurned. After all, are not political parties the institutions citizens and their associations interact with to effect other changes in society? However, the TDG-in-waiting must set some principles for itself for such interactions. The two basic principles are (1) the TDG-in-waiting will cooperate with any political party to further the TDG cause and (2) the TDG-in-waiting really has nothing to offer to such parties for their cooperation.
The TDG-in-waiting (and its previous stages of evolution) should not play favorites between political parties. It allows any political party the opportunity to support its purpose. The party will choose if it wants to contribute to the process or not. This offer from the TDG-in-waiting is extended to governing and opposition parties at all times—even when these roles have been changed because of a national, provincial, or municipal election. A party or politician can be a detractor of the TDG at one time, and a supporter in another time. The TDG-in-waiting will not bear grudges or have any long-term expectations. It will work with whichever parties want to work with it in the current moment.
The TDG-in-waiting will also not officially support any party because the party seems favorable to the TDG concept at the time. The elected and advisory tiers shall refrain from telling the TDG members and general citizenry which way to vote in a societal election because this kind of official endorsement is contrary to the TDG electoral process. However, a TDG-friendly party should be able to gain the votes of many TDG members in an election—but it will be the party's responsibility on how to attract this voter segment.
The TDG-in-waiting will adapt to changing politics. If a TDG-friendly party comes into power, the TDG-in-waiting should take advantage to further its cause. The TDG-in-waiting should not refrain from stating its needs to the governing party, such as more interaction within various ministries. If a neutral party comes into power, then the TDG-in-waiting shall accept it will not have the co-operation it would like to have—yet continue to build its system of governance and patiently wait for the situation to be more favorable. If an unfriendly party comes into power, then the TDG-in-waiting will do what it can to legally protect itself, relying on the same laws that protect other citizen groups’ right to associate and comment freely in western democracy.
The TDG-in-waiting should not encourage itself to become an election issue, but political forces could make it thus at some time, with political parties taking sides to support or oppose the TDG process. Rather than support a particular party, the TDG-in-waiting should only ensure that its purpose is well communicated. Let the friendly party campaign that it wants to further the TDG cause. Let the unfriendly party try to put fear of the TDG into the voters' minds. If the voters want to base their vote on whether to advance or hinder the TDG, it is their choice to vote for the party that best expresses their views.
By taking such a non-partisan approach, accepting whatever result the political process provides, working with whatever political parties are favorable to the TDG, and not making any deals with these parties, the TDG-in-waiting will be seen to have risen above the 12 limitations. This will attract more long-term support for the TDG cause—inside and outside of parliament.
The Transition
Eventually it will be obvious that it is time to effect the transition, whereby the TDG-in-waiting assumes responsibility for governance. The citizenry will approve the TDG with a significant majority of a referendum. The transfer bill, with the new election laws, will be shepherded through the parliament by a majority of elected parliamentarians.With its experience in mirroring government, the TDG ministries will be ready to take over for the governing party. A formal ceremony will conclude the formal transfer of power.
For the most part, not much will immediately change. Civil servants will continue to do their work. The senior civil servants will report to the new TDG ministers. Taxes will continue to be collected, and government programs will continue to operate. The transfer of power from western democratic politicians to TDG representatives will not be that much different than a new party coming into power. And like a new party assuming political responsibility, the TDG representatives will soon be put to task addressing day-to-day concerns of governance and drafting new legislation.
But a few things will obviously be different. The first is the many annual elections held in the neighborhoods and at the higher tier levels. Both the TDG and citizenry should expect that there will be some growth problems to fix over the next several years, in particular, the registration of the many new voters: i.e. all qualified citizens regardless of whether or not they were members of the TDG-in-waiting. With its annual practice and making small changes between elections, these elections will be running smoothly within five years—and many citizens will regard it as their civic duty to find, once a year, someone in their neighborhood to cast their vote towards. As well, citizens will also have more opportunity to meet and discuss issues with various elected and appointed TDG officials at the local level. Some of these citizens will find themselves being elected to the lower tiers, even though they never really sought such a position.
Anticipating the Critics
I think I have a good idea how TDG critics are going to attack the concept of ordinary citizens banding together to start the early TDG and progressing through the middle TDG, the maturing TDG, and the TGD-in-waiting stages. So I will offer my rebuttal right here.
First, the critics of the TDG will not believe that human nature can be elevated beyond its competitive nature for gathering power and influence. Therefore, these critics will say, the western democratic model is the system that has already proven to corral and herd these negative attributes for the betterment of humanity. Those who seek and desire power are held accountable by ordinary citizens, which then forces the powerful people of society to think more about the welfare of ordinary citizens when making their decisions. Since the TDG requires humanity to cast aside its competitive nature—something that supposedly cannot be done—the TDG is, therefore, a system of governance that will never work.
The critics are right about this point: the TDG will not work if the TDG culture does not rise above the instinct of gathering power and influence. If early TDG builders cannot do this, the TDG will breed infighting, alliance building, factions, non-consultative decisions, representatives more interested in status and influence than the welfare of society, and the eventual disenchantment and withdrawal of many supporters. If the critics are indeed correct, then the TDG will fall on its own face—long before it gets to any significant size. The critics need not say a thing to cause this failure.
But let's suppose the critics will be proven wrong in this regard. Say the TDG builders move the TDG concept into the TDG-in-waiting stage because they have created the culture that will make the TDG work. The TDG-in-waiting will have garnered a significant level of both public and political party support. The critics will say, at this point, that the web of well-known and obscure laws that create the western democratic institutions will be difficult to unravel. Any attempt to repeal too many of these laws at one time will result in too many links being broken and too many legislative loopholes to create various kinds of constitutional crises. Therefore, repealing all the electoral laws, in what will essentially be a single piece of legislation, could result in a collapse of society as we know it. The critics will argue that it's better to stay with the western democratic model than risk such a social engineering experiment.
To counter this, let's just look a little closer at the TDG when it does evolve into the TDG-in-waiting stage. To get to this stage, it will have created the very culture this book is calling for. If it has this culture, then it has much more capability to affect changes and handle difficult tasks than any political party has ever had. With this enhanced capacity, the TDG-in-waiting's creation of the legislation to affect the legal transition from western democracy to the TDG will not be as impossible as the critics will portray. And because even the best of plans seldom go straightforward, the TDG, after the transition, will have immense political capital to fix those few glitches that will happen, so the citizenry won't be driven into some kind of revolution while these constitutional repairs are being made. As well, the TDG representatives will be focusing on the repairs rather than using the few glitches as a means to increase individual/factional power, influence, and advantage. Society will not fall into some kind of constitutional limbo.
If the right TDG culture is not developed, the TDG will not grow to where it could be a societal force for the TDG transition. If the TDG does develop the right culture, it will have the capacity to make the kind of societal changes political parties can never make. The critics, however eloquent and logical their arguments are crafted, will have nothing to do with the failure of this movement. Any success will depend on how the early builders of the TDG approach their tasks, nothing else.
Conclusion
Transforming western democracy into a TDG by legal means is at least a decade-long process. There will be several distinct evolutionary stages: early TDG, middle TDG, maturing TDG, and TDG-in-waiting. Each stage will have its own objectives and challenges.
This process all starts with a handful of neighbors being inspired by the TDG vision and getting together a few hours a month to build their local TDG constitution for their neighborhood. While this chapter does offer some guidance, it will be these builders who actually figure out how to make their own local TDG work. Let us wish them success in their endeavors.
