Styreformen i Libya før krigen.

[Rescue me]

Ser at massemedia kaller Gaddafi for en diktatotor, men var han virkelig det?

 

Jeg sjekket ut Store Norske Leksikon (papirversjon) som kom ut i 2006, her er hva som sto under "Stat og styresett" i Libya:

 

 

I følge leksikonet var han ikke er diktator fram til 2006.

 

Nå har jeg et fin FN rapport om menneskerettigheter i Libya, publisert 4. januar 2011, før krigen altså startet:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Så hvordan fungerte demokratiet i Libya? Det var ikke et indirekte demokrati slik vi har i den vestlige verden, og Gaddafi kritiserer indirekte demokrati veldig mye i The Green Book.

 

Fra The Green Book av Gaddafi:

 

 

 

POPULAR CONFERENCES AND PEOPLE'S COMMITTEES

 

Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.

 

 

Popular Conferences and People's Committees are the fruition of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People's Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.

 

 

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government. Because it is impossible to gather all people, however small the population, in one place so that they can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct democracy, which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by various theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and

plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their political affairs.

 

These instruments of government - the individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of the masses and monopolized politics and authority for themselves.

 

THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial governments, be they parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.

 

True democracy has but one method and one theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the systems claiming to be democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so. Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular Conferences and People's Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere.

 

First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select administrative People's Committees to replace government administration. All public institutions are run by People's Committees which will be accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the people's and the

outdated definition of democracy - democracy is the supervision of the government by the people - becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.

 

All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People's Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferences and People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in the General People's Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular

Conferences and People's Committees. Resolutions of the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.

 

The General People's Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees.

 

Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.

 

 

 

Gaddafi har også kritsert FNs sikkerhetsråd da han mener det ødelegger demokratiet i FN, og også bryter med FN-pakten som slår fast at alle medlemslandene er likeverdige. Gaddafis tale i FN:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvOo5LK22sg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5IOPeAbc0

 

 

 

Det er også veldig interessant å se at Libya i 2010 var det afrikanske landet med høyest HDI (Human Developement Index). 53. plass i verden, neste afrikanske land er Mauritius som kommer på 72. plass, Sør-Afrika som er Afrikas rikeste land kommer på en 110 plass i verden. Link til Wikipedia artikkel.

 

Om HDI fra Wikipedia:

 

 

HDI er en engelskspråklig forkortelse for Human Development Index (norsk: Måleskala for menneskelig utvikling). HDI brukes på samme måte som bruttonasjonalprodukt (BNP) for å måle velstand i land. Mens BNP kun måler økonomiske kilder, sies HDI å gi et mer komplett bilde, da det inkluderer fattigdom, lese- og skrivekyndighet, utdanning, forventet levealder, fødselstall og andre faktorer.

 

 

Så man kan vel si at NATO ikke går i krig for å innføre demokrati, da det allerede eksisterte.

 

FN-rapport av Libya:

A-HRC-16-15.pdf

 

The Green Book av Gaddafi:

Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

Endret 9. oktober 2011 av Kun10kr

[Skatteflyktning]

Tja si det ... noen av statsviterne her burde da kunne svare paa dette?

[Gnurk!]

uten å vite noe om saken bør vi jo nevne at demokrati trenger ikke bli gjennomført særlig demokratisk for det om det eksisterer?

en korrupt demokratisk leder er vel egentlig en diktator?

[Rescue me]

uten å vite noe om saken bør vi jo nevne at demokrati trenger ikke bli gjennomført særlig demokratisk for det om det eksisterer?

en korrupt demokratisk leder er vel egentlig en diktator?

Stemmer det, og Gaddafi kommer med mye kritikk mot det han anser som diktaturer som utgir seg som demokratier i "The Green Book".

 

Fra The Green Book (utdrag fra første post):

 

First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariats of all Popular Conferences together form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular Conferences select administrative People's Committees to replace government administration. All public institutions are run by People's Committees which will be accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the people's and the outdated definition of democracy - democracy is the supervision of the government by the people - becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the supervision of the people by the people.

 

All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members of the Basic Popular Conferences or People's Committees. Subjects dealt with by the Popular Conferences and People's Committees will eventually take their final shape in the General People's Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and People's Committees. Resolutions of the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and People's Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences.

 

Men som sagt så er det interessant for å se om et demokrati er korrupt, hvor bra landet fungerte. Libya hadde blant annet gratis helsevesen, skole og elektrisitet, og å ha en plass å bo var en menneskerettighet.

Endret 11. oktober 2011 av Kun10kr

[H3N]

På democracy index defineres Libya under Gadaffi som et Autoritært styre, på 158 plass blandt 167 andre land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

 

For meg virker Gadaffis styresett som noe som kun så bra ut på papiret, i praksis fungerte det dårlig.

 

Libya's høye levestandard har mye å gjøre med store oljeressurser, fordelt på en relativt liten befolkning, pluss Gadaffis "islamsk sosialisme" som la en del vekt på investering i sosiale goder.

 

Er dette nok til å kvalifisere som et "demokrati" ?

Var da tidligere øst Europeiske kommunist stater demokratiske?

[Skatteflyktning]

For meg virker Gadaffis styresett som noe som kun så bra ut på papiret, i praksis fungerte det dårlig.

 

Libya's høye levestandard har mye å gjøre med store oljeressurser, fordelt på en relativt liten befolkning, pluss Gadaffis "islamsk sosialisme" som la en del vekt på investering i sosiale goder.

 

Er dette nok til å kvalifisere som et "demokrati" ?

 

Om vi fjerner "islamsk" fra det over minner det meg på ett annet lite land

[Rescue me]

På democracy index defineres Libya under Gadaffi som et Autoritært styre, på 158 plass blandt 167 andre land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Jeg synes det kunne være litt interessant å sammenligne de afrikanske landenes HDI og Democracy Index.

 

Afrikanske land rangert etter HDI:

 

 

 

I parentes står rankingen i verden. Fargene er bare sånn ca, ikke de samme som i Wikipedia artiklene.

 

Libya: HDI: 0,755 (53) Democracy Index: 1,94 (158)

Mauritius: HDI: 0,701 (72) Democracy Index: 8,04 (24)

Tunisia: HDI: 0,683 (81) Democracy Index: 2,79 (144)

Algerie: HDI: 0,677 (84) Democracy Index: 3,44 (125)

Gabon: HDI: 0,648 (93) Democracy Index: 3,29 (133)

Botswana: HDI: 0,633 (98) Democracy Index: 7,63 (35)

Egypt: HDI: 0,620 (101) Democracy Index: 3,07 (138)

Namibia: HDI: 0,606 (105) Democracy Index: 6,23 (69)

Sør-Afrika: HDI: 0,597 (110) Democracy Index: 7,79 (30)

Marokko: HDI: 0,567 (114) Democracy Index: 3,79 (116)

Ekvatorial-Guinea: HDI: 0,538 (117) Democracy Index: 1,84 (160)

Kapp Verde: HDI: 0,534 (118) Democracy Index: 7,94 (27)

Swaziland: HDI: 0,498 (121) Democracy Index: 2,90 (141)

Kongo: HDI: 0,489 (126) Democracy Index: 2,15 (155)

São Tomé og Príncipe: HDI: 0,488 (127) Democracy Index: Kunne ikke finne data

Kenya: HDI: 0,470 (128) Democracy Index: 4,71 (101)

Ghana: HDI: 0,467 (130) Democracy Index: 6,02 (77)

Kamerun: HDI: 0,460 (131) Democracy Index: 3,41 (126)

Benin: HDI: 0,435 (134) Democracy Index: 6,17 (72)

Madagaskar: HDI: 0,435 (135) Democracy Index: 3,94 (113)

Mauritania: HDI: 0,433 (136) Democracy Index: 3,86 (115)

Togo: HDI: 0,428 (139) Democracy Index: 3,45 (124)

Komorene: HDI: 0,428 (140) Democracy Index: 3,41 (126)

Lesotho: HDI: 0,427 (141) Democracy Index: 6,02 (77)

Nigeria: HDI: 0,423 (142) Democracy Index: 3,47 (123)

Uganda: HDI: 0,422 (143) Democracy Index: 5,05 (98)

Senegal: HDI: 0,411 (144) Democracy Index: 5,27 (95)

Angola: HDI: 0,403 (146) Democracy Index: 3,32 (131)

Djibouti: HDI: 0,402 (147) Democracy Index: 2,20 (154)

Tanzania: HDI: 0,398 (148) Democracy Index: 5,64 (92)

Elfenbenskysten: HDI: 0,397 (149) Democracy Index: 3,02 (139)

Zambia: HDI: 0,395 (150) Democracy Index: 5,68 (91)

Gambia: HDI: 0,390 (151) Democracy Index: 3,38 (128)

Rwanda: HDI: 0,385 (152) Democracy Index: 3,25 (134)

Malawi: HDI: 0,385 (153) Democracy Index: 5,84 (85)

Sudan: HDI: 0,379 (154) Democracy Index: 2,42 (151)

Guinea: HDI: 0,340 (156) Democracy Index: 2,79 (144)

Etiopia: HDI: 0,328 (157) Democracy Index: 3,68 (118)

Sierra Leone: 0,317 (158) Democracy Index: 4,51 (105)

Den sentralafrikanske republikk: HDI: 0,315 (159) Democracy Index: 1,82 (162)

Mali: HDI: 0,309 (160) Democracy Index: 6,01 (79)

Burkina Faso: HDI: 0,305 (161) Democracy Index: 3,59 (120)

Liberia: HDI: 0,300 (162) Democracy Index: 5,07 (97)

Tsjad: HDI: 0,295 (163) Democracy Index: 1,52 (166)

Guinea-Bissau: HDI: 0,289 (164) Democracy Index: 1,99 (157)

Mosambik: HDI: 0,284 (165) Democracy Index: 4,90 (99)

Burundi: HDI: 0,282 (166) Democracy Index: 4,01 (110)

Niger: HDI: 0,261 (167) Democracy Index: 3,38 (128)

Den demokratiske republikken Kongo: HDI: 0,239 (168) Democracy Index: 2,15 (155)

Zimbabwe: HDI: 0,140 (169) Democracy Index: 2,64 (146)

 

 

 

Her er alt satt inn i et diagram:

 

 

Det er veldig interessant å se på topp 12 lista blant landene med høyest HDI, hvor alle har over 0,5:

 

Libya: HDI: 0,755 (53) Democracy Index: 1,94 (158)

Mauritius: HDI: 0,701 (72) Democracy Index: 8,04 (24)

Tunisia: HDI: 0,683 (81) Democracy Index: 2,79 (144)

Algerie: HDI: 0,677 (84) Democracy Index: 3,44 (125)

Gabon: HDI: 0,648 (93) Democracy Index: 3,29 (133)

Botswana: HDI: 0,633 (98) Democracy Index: 7,63 (35)

Egypt: HDI: 0,620 (101) Democracy Index: 3,07 (138)

Namibia: HDI: 0,606 (105) Democracy Index: 6,23 (69)

Sør-Afrika: HDI: 0,597 (110) Democracy Index: 7,79 (30)

Marokko: HDI: 0,567 (114) Democracy Index: 3,79 (116)

Ekvatorial-Guinea: HDI: 0,538 (117) Democracy Index: 1,84 (160)

Kapp Verde: HDI: 0,534 (118) Democracy Index: 7,94 (27)

 

5 av landene scorer høyt på Democracy Index (i afrikansk målestokk hvert fall), mens 7 har scorer lavt. Tar man med de neste to landene på lista så scorer de også lavt på Democracy Index. Virker i hvert fall ikke som den store sammenhengen mellom hvor bra landene scorer på Democracy Index og hvor god HDI de har.

Endret 12. oktober 2011 av Kun10kr

[H3N]

Men HDI i segselv har ingenting med demokrati å gjøre.

HDI prøver kun å måle levestandard.

Du kan selvfølgelig si at HDI er viktigere, og at det derfor var bedre å beholde status quo, å sette spørsmåls tegn ved om demokrati engang er så viktig.

Det finnes flere eksempler på land hvor HDI sank etter at de ble mer demokratiske.

Men det blir en litt annen diskusjon?

 

Jeg diskuterer gjerne det også, jeg er langt fra overbevist om at alt som har med denne krigen å gjøre er helt riktig..

Men jeg synes det blir veldig feil å derfor påstå at "jamahiriya" var en demokratisk styreform.

[Rescue me]

Men HDI i segselv har ingenting med demokrati å gjøre.

HDI prøver kun å måle levestandard.

Du kan selvfølgelig si at HDI er viktigere, og at det derfor var bedre å beholde status quo, å sette spørsmåls tegn ved om demokrati engang er så viktig.

Det finnes flere eksempler på land hvor HDI sank etter at de ble mer demokratiske.

Men det blir en litt annen diskusjon?

Man skulle jo tro at med et fungerende demokrati så vil levestandarden øke, da folk flest ikke er en del av eliten og gjerne vil fordele ressursene mer likt. Tenker nå på for eksempel oljeinntekter som de i Libya før krigen fordelte veldig bra, og hver libyer fikk blant annet en del rett inn på konto.

 

Om da staten også tilbyr gratis helsevesen (også utenlandsbehandling), utdanning og elektrisitet. Subsidiere halvparten av prisen på biler, har veldig billig drivstoff, gir 50 000 dollar til nygifte par for å kjøpe hus (Libya hadde verdens laveste skilsmisserate) og gir gratis utstyr og lån av land til alle som vil bli bønder. Å ha en plass å bo var en menneskerettighet og det var ulovlig med renter på lån. Hvorfor skulle Gaddafi ikke være for demokrati? Særlig når han kommer med så mye kritikk mot det han ser på som diktaturer som utgir seg for demokratier (indirekte demokratier).

 

Gaddafi om partier som kjemper om å få makt (fra The Green Book):

All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the victory of a particular governing structure - be it that of an individual, group, party or class - and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy.

 

Gaddafi om "flertalldiktatur":

Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, this political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority. For when votes are distributed among several candidates, though one polls more than any other, the sum of the votes received by those who received fewer votes might well constitute an overwhelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic! In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it is evident that they falsify genuine democracy.

 

Gaddafi om parlament/storting:

Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct

participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.

 

To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a member keeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he, like other members, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. Immediately after winning the electors' votes the representative takes over the people's sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments - the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation in lieu of the people.

 

Synes Gaddafi har mange gode poenger her, hvis man ser på det er vel ikke indirekte demokrati så veldig forskjellig fra Oligarchy (en liten elite styrer befolkningen), bare at det blir valgt en ny elite hvert 4. år. De som har flertall på stortinget kan vel egentlig gjøre nesten hva de vil (så lenge de ikke går veldig mye mot menneskerettigheter), selv ikke grunnloven ser de ut til å bry seg nevneverdig om (DLD, Libya krigen).

 

Er også skummelt hvordan vestlige land tar opp latterlig stor statsgjeld som "aldri" vil kunne bli betalt tilbake, er nesten som om de som styrer tenker at gjelden ikke blir deres problem da de uansett ikke kommer til å styre landet i evigheter. Om folket hadde bestemt hadde vel ikke statsgjeld vært noe majoriteten ønsket da det kommer til å gå utover dem selv og deres barn i fremtiden. Interessant hvordan det hele tiden blir tatt avgjørelser som går i mot meningene til majoriteten av et lands befolkning, tenker nå for eksempel på DLD, Libya krigen (i hvert fall i USA) og hvordan majoriteten av afghanere vil ha utenlandske styrker ut av landet. Men folk flest vet vel ikke hva som er best for dem?

 

Gaddafi om propaganda for å vinne valg:

Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy.

Synes dette er et veldig bra poeng, de med penger har mer penger å bruke på propaganda (all politisk reklame = propaganda). Folk flest for hovedsaklig informasjonen sin gjennom massemedier derfor viktig med nøytrale medier, men når man ser hvordan for eksempel Ron Paul blir ignorert i amerikanske massemedier kan man begynne å spørre seg om hvor nøytrale de faktisk er. Her har CNN jukset med sin undersøkelse under en TV debatt:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2_iLjiAaE

 

Er også interessant å se hvor mye pepper Frp faktisk får i norsk media i forhold til de andre partiene, men det har vel mye med at det så si ikke eksisterer journalister som stemmer Frp.

 

 

Gaddafi om partier:

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or a shared culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief. They form a

party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole. A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the party represents a minority.

 

 

The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept - the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.

 

The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their struggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the struggle for power between instruments of government, for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition in their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party has to defeat the existing instrument of government. To do so, the opposition must minimize the government's achievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those plans may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the interests and programs of the society become the victims of the parties' struggle for

power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially, and economically destructive to the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.

 

Thus, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of another. It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy. Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or outside.

Veldig interessant å se på hvordan LO årlig støtter AP med flere millioner kroner. Tviler på at det er noe de gjør uten å få noe tilbake.

 

 

Hvorfor Gaddafi ikke er en fan av folkeavstemninger:

Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote "yes" or "no" do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than "yes" or "no". Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote "no" should express their reasons and why they did not say "yes", and those who say "yes" should verify such agreement and why they did not vote "no". Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their "yes" or "no" vote.

Må si jeg også her ser et poeng, er lett å stemme for noe som gir en selv fordeler selv om en minoritet vil få store ulemper.

 

Er også interessant å se at "frie og rettferdige valgprosesser" er en av fem kategorier Demokrati-indeksen til "Economist Intelligence Unit" baserer seg på. Hva om man ikke har valg, da alle over 18 år er medlem av folkeråd?

 

 

Gaddafi om presse:

An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who share their corporate identity. Since society consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual's character. Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the company.

 

The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either one of them.

 

A newspaper owned by any individual is his or her own, and expresses only his or her point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually expresses the viewpoint of that private individual. Democratically, private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or information. However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, for example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. It presents their own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate and private individuals in society.

 

The democratic press is that which is issued by a People's Committee, comprising all the groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and representing all its groups.

 

If medical professionals issue a journal, it must be purely medical. Similarly, this applies to other groups. Private individuals have the right to express only their own, and not anyone else's opinions.

 

What is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in the world will be radically and democratically solved. Because it is by-product of the problem of democracy generally, the problem of freedom of the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy in society as a whole. Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy is through The Third Universal Theory.

 

 

THE GREAT GREEN CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE JAMAHIRIYAN ERA

 

 

Adopted 12 June 1988

 

 

Inspired by the first Declaration of the Great Revolution of Al Fateh (1 September 1969), which was the definitive triumph of liberty on this Earth;

 

Directed by the principles of the historical Declaration of the Establishment of the Power of the People of 2 March 1977, an event which opened a new era crowning the uninterrupted struggle of humanity, throughout the centuries, and confirming its unceasing aspiration to liberty and emancipation;

 

Led by the Green Book, guide of humanity for the total deliverance from any power of individuals, of classes, of clans, of tribes or parties, and the path towards establishment of a society for all, where all human beings would be free and equal in the exercise of power and in the possession of wealth and arms;

 

In response to the constant encouragement of the internationalist leader, Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi, founder of the Jamahiriyan era who by his thought and his labour makes concrete the aspirations of the oppressed and the enslaved in the world, and who opens before peoples the path of change by popular revolution, an essential instrument to establish the Jamahiriyan society;

 

Convinced that the Rights of Man, suppliant of God on earth, cannot be the gift of a person nor exist in societies where exploitation and tyranny are practised, and can only be achieved by the victory of the popular masses over the oppressors and the disappearance of regimes which destroy liberty, that the establishment of the power of the popular masses will consolidate their existence on earth, when the sovereignty of the people will be exercised through the Popular Congresses, that human rights cannot be guaranteed in a world where there exist governors and governed, masters and slaves, rich and poor;

 

Aware that human misery can disappear, and the rights of man be affirmed, only by the edification of a Jamahiriyan world where the people hold the power, the wealth and the arms; a world where governments and armies will disappear, and where communities, peoples and nations will get rid of any danger of war, a world of peace, respect, agreement and cooperation;

 

On the basis of the above and the decisions of the national and international Popular Congresses, held in the country and outside, the Libyan Arab people, guided by the famous slogan of Omar Ibn Al Khattab: "Since when can we enslave men when their mothers brought them into the world free?", words which were the first declaration of liberty and the Rights of man in the history of humanity;

 

Decide to promulgate the Great Green Charter of Human Rights of the Jamahiriyan Era, the principles of which are as follows:

 

1. Democracy is the power of the people and not the expression of the people. The members of the Jamahiriyan society declare that power belongs to the people. They exercise it directly, without intermediary or representatives in the popular congresses and the popular committees.

 

2. The members of the Jamahiriyan society consider the life of the individual sacred and protect it. They forbid its alienation. Imprisonment can only be exercised against those for whom liberty constitutes a danger or a contamination of others. The aim of punishment is to renew society, to protect its human values and its interests. The Jamahiriyan society proscribes punishments which attack the dignity and the integrity of the human being, such as forced labour or long-term imprisonment. The Jamahiriyan society proscribes all attacks, physical or mental, on the person of the prisoner. It condemns all speculations and experiments of any kind of which he could be the subject. The punishment is personal and suffered by the individual following a criminal act on which it must depend. The punishment and its consequences cannot extend to the family nor the persons close to the criminal. "One only commits evil to one's own detriment and nobody will assume what he has not committed".

 

3. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are, in times of peace, free in all their movements and in the choice of their residence.

 

4. Citizenship in the Jamahiriyan society is a sacred right. Nobody can be deprived of it or have it removed.

 

5. The members of the Jamahiriyan society forbid clandestine action and recourse to force in all its forms, violence, terrorism and sabotage. These acts constitute a betrayal of the values and principles of the Jamahiriyan society, which affirms the sovereignty of the individual in the Basic Popular Congresses, guaranteeing him the right to express his opinion publicly. They reject and condemn violence as a means of imposing ideas and opinions. They adopt democratic dialogue as the only method of debate and consider any hostile relation towards the Jamahiriyan society linked to a foreign instance, whatever its form, as high treason against it.

 

6. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are free to form unions, trade unions and leagues to defend their professional interests.

 

7. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are free in their private acts and their personal relations. Nobody can involve themselves therein, except at a complaint from one of the partners concerned or if the act and the relation attack or are prejudicial to society, or if they are contrary to its values.

 

8. The members of the Jamahiriyan society consider the life of the human being to be sacred and protect it. The objective of the Jamahiriyan society is to abolish capital punishment. To this end, the death penalty can only be exercised against an individual whose existence constitutes a danger or is deleterious to society. The person condemned to death may request that his sentence be lightened or, instead of his life, offer a personal tribute. The court may commute the penalty if this decision is not prejudicial to society or if it is not contrary to human values. The members of the Jamahiriyan society condemn the application of the execution of capital punishment by repugnant methods, such as the electric chair, the use of toxic gas or injections.

 

9. The Jamahiriyan society guarantees the right to plead and the independence of the judicial system. Each of its members is entitled to a fair and complete trial.

 

10. The judgements of the members of the Jamahiriyan society are based on sacred law, religion or custom, the terms of which are stable, unchangeable and for which there can be no substitute. They declare that religion is an absolute belief in the divinity and a sacred spiritual value. It is personal to each person and common to everyone. It is a direct relationship with the Creator, without intermediary. The Jamahiriyan society proscribes its monopoly and its exploitation for purposes of subversion, fanaticism, sectarianism, partisan in spirit and fratricidal war.

 

11. The Jamahiriyan society guarantees the right to work. It is a right and a duty for everyone, in the limits of one's personal effort or in association with others. Everybody has the right to exercise the work of their choice. The Jamahiriyan society is one of partners and not one of paid employees. Ownership, the fruit of labour, is sacred and protected, it can only be attacked in the public interest and with fair compensation. The Jamahiriyan society is free from the slavery of salaries, stating the right of everybody over their labour and protection. Only those who produce consume.

 

12. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are liberated from any feudalism. The land is nobody's property. Each person has the right to exploit it and to benefit from it by labour, agriculture or animal-keeping, throughout his life, that of his heirs, and within the limits of his effort and the satisfaction of his needs.

 

13. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are free from any rent. A house belongs to the person who lives in it. It enjoys a sacred immunity in respect of rights of neighbourhood: "Your close neighbours or distant neighbours". The residence cannot be used to harm society.

 

14. The Jamahiriyan society is united. It guarantees everyone a worthy and prosperous life and a developed state of health, so as to achieve a society of healthy people. It guarantees protection of childhood, motherhood old age and of invalids. The Jamahiriyan society is the guardian of all those who do not have a guardian.

 

15. Education and knowledge are natural rights for everyone. Any individual has the right to choose his education and the knowledge which suits him, without imposed constraint or orientation.

 

16. The Jamahiriyan society is the society of goodness and of noble values. It considers ideals and human principles sacred. Its aim is a humanitarian society where aggression, war, exploitation and terrorism will be banished and where there will be no difference between great and small. All nations, all peoples, and all national communities have the right to live free, according to their options and the principles of self-determination. They have the right to establish their national entity. Minorities have the right to safeguard their entity and their heritage. The legitimate aspirations of the latter cannot be repressed. Neither can they be assimilated by force into one or several different nations or national communities.

 

17. The members of the Jamahiriyan society affirm the right of each person to profit from the benefits, the advantages, the values and the principles which are obtained for him by agreement, cohesion, union, affinity and the affection of the family, the tribe, the nation and humanity. To this end, they work to establish the natural national entity of their nation and support all those who fight to achieve this aim. The members of the Jamahiriyan society reject any segregation between men due to their colour, their race, their religion or their culture.

 

18. The members of the Jamahiriyan society protect liberty. They defend it everywhere in the world. They support the oppressed, and encourage all peoples to confront injustice, oppression, exploitation and colonialism. They encourage them to combat imperialism, racism and fascism, in accordance with the principle of the collective struggle of peoples against the enemies of liberty.

 

19. The Jamahiriyan society is a society of splendour and fulfilment. It guarantees each person the right of thought, creation and innovation. The Jamahiriyan society works for the development of the sciences, the arts and literature. It guarantees they will be disseminated among the popular masses so as to prohibit any monopoly on them.

 

20. The members of the Jamahiriyan society affirm the sacred right for men to be born into a coherent family, where motherhood, fatherhood and brotherhood are given to him. Fulfilment of the human being is only in compliance with his nature if it is assured by natural motherhood and feeding. The child must be brought up by its mother.

 

21. The members of the Jamahiriyan society, men or women, are equal in everything which is human. The distinction of rights between men and women is a flagrant injustice which nothing justifies. They proclaim that marriage is a fair association between two equal partners. Nobody can conclude a marriage contract by constraint, nor divorce in any other way than by mutual consent or by a fair judgement. It is unfair to dispossess the children of their mother, and the mother of her home.

 

22. The members of the Jamahiriyan society considers servants as the slaves of modern times, enslaved by their masters. No law governs their situation, and they have no guarantee nor protection. They live under the arbitrary nature of their masters, and are victims of tyranny. They are forced, by necessity and in order to survive, to carry out work which ridicules their dignity and human feelings. For this reason, the Jamahiriyan society proscribes recourse to servants in the home. The house must be maintained by its owners.

 

23. The members of the Jamahiriyan society are convinced that peace between nations can guarantee them prosperity, abundance and harmony. They call for an end to the trade of arms and their manufacture for purposes of exploitation. The arms industry constitutes a waste of wealth of societies, a burden on individual taxpayers, causing the spread of destruction and annihilation in the world.

 

24. The members of the Jamahiriyan society call for the suppression of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons and any other means of massive extermination and destruction. They call for elimination of all the existing stocks, for the preservation of humanity from the dangers represented by the waste from nuclear power stations.

 

25. The members of the Jamahiriyan society undertake to protect their society and political system based on popular power. They also undertake to safeguard its values, principles and interests. They regard collective defence as the only means to preserve them. They think that the defence of the Jamahiriyan society is the responsibility of every citizen, man or woman. Nobody can have a substitute when confronted with death.

 

26. The members of the Jamahiriyan society commit themselves to the bases of this charter. They do not allow them to be infringed and forbid themselves any act contrary to the principles and rights that it guarantees. Each person has the right to plead under the law for the purpose of reparation of any attacks on the rights and liberties that it announces.

 

27. The members of the Jamahiriyan Society offer the world, and with pride, the Green Book, the guide and path of emancipation for the acquisition of liberty. They announce to the popular masses the advent of a new age, when corrupt regimes will be abolished and from which any trace of tyranny and exploitation will be extirpated.

 

The General Congress of the People of the Popular and Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Baida, 28 Ghawal 1397 from the death of the Prophet, 12 Assayf/June 1988

 

 

 

Jeg tipper NATO ikke kommer til å lykkes med å innføre indirekte demokrati i Libya da alle libyere studerer The Green Book på skolen.

Endret 13. oktober 2011 av Kun10kr

[H3N]

Man skulle jo tro at med et fungerende demokrati så vil levestandarden øke, da folk flest ikke er en del av eliten og gjerne vil fordele ressursene mer likt.

Velstandsøkning har ingen direkte sammenheng med demokrati.. i Kina har levestandarden økt, uten at det har veldig mye med mer demokrati å gjøre.

Noen eksempler på det motsatte er Sør Afrika og Russland, i begge disse landene sank levestandarden etter demokrati ble innført (selv om det sikkert kan diskuteres hvor velfungerende demokratiet i disse landende er, og Russland er vel i dag over levestandarden før Sovjet's sammenbrudd.)

 

At de hadde et noenlunde fungerende velferds sytem, basert på store olje inntekter i seg selv har ikke noe med demokrati og gjøre.. Saudi Arabia har det samme.

 

Selvfølgelig er det store feil med våre representative demokratiske system, men jeg har mye mindre tiltro til Gadaffi sitt styresett.

Jeg tror ikke glansbildet maler i "den grønneboken" samsvarer med virkeligheten.