Democracy
A Farewell to Politics

The goal of the Second Dimension is to build a system that strengthens and extends the rights and freedoms enjoyed by global citizens. The role of the elected leadership is to secure for their people access to better quality of rights and freedoms. The new democracy recognises that power is highly corrupting and ensures that the individuals who govern are chosen from a group of people who (a) have demonstrated, by managing complex organisations, that they have the skills necessary to run a country; and (b) they have done so with a high degree of success, where this success is measured according to transparent, quantifiable metrics. The rights and freedoms of citizens will be built into scorecards and the leaders will be judged on the basis of an annual assessment of those scorecards. 

The new democracy will also be a system that addresses the flaws of First Dimension democracy, because it will remove the need for identity politics and derive its value from merit. My aim is to create a new form of political practice that combines the ideal of democracy with the necessity of meritocracy, along with the ability to manage complexity at scale. In the Second Dimension, democracy will have a new, enhanced meaning. The key ingredient of democracy – the enfranchisement of people and their right to vote in free and fair elections – will be retained, at least at a local level, but elections will no longer be an empty ritual to be rehearsed periodically. The new democracy will be a synthesis of quality (meritocracy) and equality (democracy), built around a clear mandate to deliver meaningfully on rights and freedoms.

In the Second Dimension, governance will be carried out by individuals with proven capabilities in running complex organisations, elected from a pool of qualified candidates. Within the bounds of their jurisdiction, these new leaders will be empowered to govern almost unilaterally, such that decisions – even bold ones – can be made efficiently and productively. The complexity of modern societies and the systems upon which they rely require administrators who have a high degree of technical know-how and managerial skill. This is a fundamental tenet that ought to require no explanation – just as the most skilled and experienced candidate should be chosen to fill a vacancy in a private enterprise, so too in governance. A movie star may be photogenic and likable, and she may have played the part of the good mother convincingly on the silver screen, but is she therefore someone to whom you would, in real life, entrust your children? By the same token, a politician tends to win an election on the strength of his ability to campaign, to generate enthusiasm, to solicit funds from donors, to deliver moving speeches, and to manipulate media coverage in his favour. But is he qualified to govern effectively? Does he have a thorough command of finance and macroeconomics, of communication technology and international politics, of developments in education and energy policy? Above all, does he have the managerial and organisational skills to harness the vast human and financial resources that he is likely to have at his disposal?

In essence, government administrators in the Second Dimension will be selected from the best managers. What constitutes good management? Good management is simply the ability to understand a vision, and to deliver on it. That vision may be a vision of the future of society, or, more modestly, an idea for a new product or service. Delivering it requires sufficient technical knowledge to intuit all its aspects and consequences, and a high degree of organisational skill. Good leadership is more than good management. It requires the leader to not only understand and deliver on a vision, but also to formulate that vision and convince everyone of its goodness. Good leadership in governance involves the ability to articulate a vision of the near future that is enlightened, progressive, and feasible. The overriding goal of any vision must be to improve the lives of all those who follow, whether they be citizens, employees, or customers.

In the Second Dimension, leaders will continue to be elected directly by their constituents only at the lowest level of governance, namely, the Community. Here is the proposed four-tier hierarchy of government administration for the Second Dimension: 

Government level

Composition

Maximum population

Community

A geographical unit (such as a rural district, a small municipality, or a neighbourhood in a large city) consisting of approximately 25,000 inhabitants.

25,000

Area

Up to 100 contiguous Communities

2.5 million

Region

Up to 10 contiguous Areas

25 million

Nation

All Regions within a national boundary

Unlimited

At the local level, a leader will be elected directly by the adult citizens of that Community. The prerequisite for candidacy will be that the candidate must have occupied a position of leadership in an institution of lower impact for at least two years. To explain what I mean by ‘institution’ and ‘impact’, see Table 10.2. The table illustrates how each organ of government, from the smallest, community-level organisation (the example given is a local public library) to the highest executive institution in the land (the head of government) can be categorised into a clear, twenty-tier system depending on its impact. This impact score, for government agencies at least, depends on the number of citizens served by that organisation. Thus each government agency, department, or institution can be assigned a score from 20 (lowest) to 1 (highest) according to the impact it has on society.

According to this categorisation, the executive office of a Community is a Level 15 organisation, that of an Area government is Level 10, and that of a Region is Level 5. The entire nation state, represented and managed by a Head of State, is rated at Level 2. (The highest level, Level 1, is reserved for supranational organs of governance, such as Continental and Global assemblies.)

Level 

Example of government institution 
or public service

Head officer

20

Local library

Chief Librarian

19

Local fire station

Fire Chief

18

Local school

Principal

17

Community arbitration court

Chief Arbitrator

16

Community registry

Registrar

15

Community

Community Leader

14

Area-level police force

Police Chief

13

Area-level hospital

Hospital Director

12

Area-level dept of public works

Chief of Public Works

11

Area-level judicial court

Judge

10

Area

Area Manager

9

Regional transportation board

Transport Commissioner

8

Regional dept of agriculture

Agriculture Commissioner

7

Regional tax authority

Revenue Chief

6

Appellate court

Judge

5

Region

Regional Governor

4

National parks, forests, and agriculture

Minister for the Environment

3

National defence

Commander-in-Chief

2

National government

Head of State

1

Continental / Global government

--

How are positions of leadership in this twenty-tier system assigned? For leadership positions at the lowest levels (Levels 16–20), candidates may apply and are selected by the Community Leader and his staff. When a vacancy for Community Leader (Level 15) arises, any officer who currently has responsibility for an organisation one or two levels below it (either Level 16 or Level 17) may apply, provided his performance score in his two prior years of service is sufficiently high. The candidate may then campaign for the vacancy in the same manner as politicians campaign today, with an election carried out across the Community. An outright majority awards the seat directly, with the option of a runoff between the top two candidates if no one has achieved that mark.

Once the newly elected Community Leader has been inaugurated, he will have overall authority, much like a chief executive officer of a private firm, over the Community, with the ability to select members of his managerial team and appoint specialists to various positions in local government, such as for public works and internal revenue. The Community Leader’s tenure will be indefinite, but it must be reviewed on an annual basis. At the end of each year, his performance will be evaluated according to a balanced scorecard that considers a variety of factors, and directly references his success in guaranteeing to each and every member of his Community the expanded rights and freedoms. The exact composition of the Community Leader’s scorecard will vary depending on his performance in prior years, and the needs of his particular Community.

A Leader scoring 90 per cent or more will have his tenure renewed automatically, but lower scores will result in other scenarios. This is merely an indicative proposal and could be adjusted to suit different situations. For example, a Leader’s target score should be 90 per cent or higher once he is established in his position, but a concession might be made in his first year in the job, by temporarily lowering the target score to 80 per cent.

Score range

Consequence

90% and above

Tenure renewed.

80–89%

A new election may be called, but only if there is a motion, backed by majority vote in a Community-wide referendum, to hold a new election. If an election is called, the incumbent may run.

70–79%

A new election is mandatory. The incumbent may run.

Below 70%

A new election is mandatory. The incumbent shall not run.

In such a system, the performance of the Community Leader would be evaluated regularly and transparently, and he would be directly accountable for the welfare of his flock. The only parameter is performance toward the goals of the Community, not popularity, adhesion to a particular ideological programme, or membership in a minority group. This system cuts politics and political parties out of democratic governance.

The same system of evaluation and election would apply in higher spheres of government. The important difference, however, is that there would be no direct voting at higher levels, but an indirect election by one’s peers. For example, if a vacancy for Area Manager (Level 10) should arise, only administrators who currently occupy positions no lower than two rungs below Level 10 (that is, at least Level 11 or Level 12) would be eligible to stand for elections for this post, provided their average performance score over the previous two years is 90 per cent or better. This means, of course, that a Community Leader could not make the leap directly to Area Manager without having first transitioned through one or two Area-level administrative posts (Levels 11–14), enabling him to become acquainted with the needs and operations of the Area as a whole. The candidates who stand for election to the post of Area Manager will therefore be drawn from a pool of administrators who possess the skills and competencies required to fill that role. The winner will be chosen in an indirect election where all one hundred Community Leaders in that Area may vote. Again, an absolute majority would determine the winner, with a runoff if the election yields a lesser mandate. 

Thus, while the Community-level election retains the spirit of direct democracy, the Area-level election echoes the spirit of representational, parliamentary democracy. In both cases, candidacy is predicated exclusively on merit, as demonstrated in previous governance experience and measured objectively by a scorecard. Politics and electioneering are absent; only the most skilled administrators and those leaders capable of delivering results would rise to the highest echelons of government and, once elected, their tenure in that role would be determined exclusively by their competency and leadership skills. 

At even higher levels of government (Region and Nation), the same rules would apply. In the case of a vacancy for Regional Governor (Level 5), only candidates with experience in Level 6 or Level 7 would qualify, assuming their performance scores over the previous two years are good. Voters in such an election would comprise all Community Leaders and Area Managers in that Region. In these situations, the voters would be choosing from a group with proven capabilities, that is, whoever they elect would have the necessary competencies, skills, and abilities required of that position. However, each Community Leader would cast only one vote (for a total of 1,000 votes), whereas each Area Manager’s vote would have one hundred times the weight (for a total of 100 votes per Area Manager x 10 Area Managers = 1,000 votes), such that the Managers, as a group, would have as much influence in the election as the cohort of Community Leaders. 

This mechanism is replicated again for selection of the country’s Head of State. Only candidates with experience in Level 3 or Level 4 administration would qualify, provided their performance scores are adequate. And the election would be carried out by all Community Leaders, Area Managers, and Regional Governors, with one vote for each Leader, 100 votes for each Manager, and 1,000 votes for each Governor. 

The overall electoral mechanism is shown below. The numbers given in the table assume, by way of example, that the country has approximately 150 million inhabitants. It should be noted that the system is intended to select leaders in Levels 15, 10, 5, and 2. Officers at all other levels are appointed by the relevant leader. For example, a Community Leader may appoint section heads in levels below him (Levels 16–20) when a vacancy occurs; Area Managers may appoint heads in Levels 11–14; and so forth.

Position

Who votes?

Number of voters

Voting rights

Available votes

Community Leader

All adult citizens in the Community

up to 25,000 

1 vote each

up to 25,000

Area Manager

All Community Leaders in the Area

100 

1 vote each

100

Regional Governor

All Community Leaders and Area Managers in the Region

10 Area Managers

+

1000 C. Leaders

=

1010 

100 votes each

+

1 vote each

 

 

(10 x 100)

+

(1000 x 1)

=

2000

Head of State

All Community Leaders, Area Managers and Regional Governors

6 Reg. Governors

+

60 Area Managers

+

6000 C. Leaders

=

6066 

1000 votes each

 

100 votes each

 

1 vote each

(6 x 1000)

+

(60 x 100)

+

(6000 x 1)

=

18,000

Why, you might wonder, are more senior administrators given a disproportionately large vote share when it comes to electing their superiors? When electing a Regional Governor, for example, just 10 Area Managers wield as much control over the outcome as all 1,000 Community Leaders put together. Is this not un-democratic? Has the will of the people (who elected the Community Leaders directly) not been diluted to the point that it is insignificant?

The answer to these objections has two parts. First, this model helps to distribute electoral influence more evenly, such that every level of the administrative hierarchy contributes the same voting weight to the overall outcome. This ensures that a high-level candidate is elected with broad-based support. For example, a candidate for Regional Governor would not be able to rely on the support of just the 10 Area Managers to be elected, nor would the support of the Community Leaders be sufficient without the agreement of at least a few of the Area Managers. This ensures that once elected, the Governor would have a positive, collaborative relationship with the Area Managers under him, with whom he works more closely than with the Community Leaders. This closeness is also reflected in the way in which governance scorecards are computed. The Regional Governor’s scorecard is to a large extent an aggregate of the scores attained by the Area Managers under him. The Area Managers, in turn, rely on the Governor’s support to improve and maintain their own scores. Because the Governor’s impact on their scorecards is so considerable and so immediate, it stands to reason that the Area Managers should have a significant say in his election. In other words, they should be heavily involved in selecting their boss. The key to building a successful hierarchy of governance is the perfect alignment of the interests and goals of each executive level. This system will also prevent the cronyism that plagues so many political and administrative appointments today: voting for someone who is not qualified for the post, just because you owe him a favour, or because he is your cousin or a member of your minority group, will probably result in your own performance score falling in the long run. 

Second, it is important for the reader to let go of certain quaint but misleading aspects of First Dimension democracy. In theory at least, everyone and anyone can stand for election and occupy a leadership position in First Dimension democratic states. This notion is appealing because it is very egalitarian, but it is an unwieldy relic of the class struggles of yesteryear and irrational. Would you be ‘democratic’ when selecting a surgeon to perform an operation on your child, by accepting any doctor listed in the phonebook? Of course not – you would seek out the most qualified surgeon: the one with the most impressive medical degree, the longest experience, the best track record in performing life-saving surgeries, and the most considerate bedside manner. Is the governance of society any less important a responsibility than performing a surgery? Is it any less critical, given that the lives and livelihoods of so many people depend on it? Should it be left in the hands of any candidate who is popular enough to win an election, who can debate well on television, or who has the financial support of a few large donors? Or should it be entrusted to a person who has a documented track record of efficient and productive management of complex organisations?

The system I propose here uses clearly defined standards and scorecards to determine eligibility, and leaves election to the highest offices in the hands of a candidate’s peers. In higher dimensions the key goals of representative forums will be to define the rights and freedoms, and to appoint the bodies that monitor and review each leader’s achievement of goals aligned with those rights and freedoms. The goal of executive leadership will be to deliver those enhanced rights and freedoms. Democracy, therefore, must be a system that helps us identify candidates capable of delivering higher-order rights and freedoms, and appoint them to administrative roles with a clear mandate. 

This is a fundamental shift from the way representative democracy functions (or is supposed to function) in a First Dimension context. In the Second Dimension, adhering to a process in which elected officials will have to both meet applicability criteria and be scored on an annual basis will radically change the incentives of those in power.

Representative Forums

The proposal for today’s societies to be managed by capable, professional leaders – their selection and tenure almost entirely merit-based – will ensure both the best possible management of communities and the elimination of political distractions like parties, special interests, and electoral campaigning. From addressing the executive needs of government, let us turn to the legislative function of the new democracy. My proposal is for the same executive officers, assembled in a parliamentary style, to make up the necessary legislative bodies. The duty to pass laws, in other words, will fall to gatherings formed by leaders of Communities, Areas, and Regions.

Checks and Balances Revisited

One of the most hallowed pillars of First Dimension democracy, as we all learned in civics class, is the division of the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of the state. The separation of these three branches of government ensures both independence and balance in the democratic state, in theory at least. In reality, however, the separation of power has resulted in rigid, cumbersome, and often immovable states, incapable of making reasonable, progressive decisions. This is especially obvious in presidential systems like the United States, where often the legislature and the executive try to pull the country in different directions. In recent years this has often been the case, with Congress dominated by one party and the White House occupied by another. The selection of Supreme Court judges, meanwhile, can degenerate into a partisan standoff between the majority and minority in Congress. The result has been continual bickering and pettiness, political stasis, and the paralysing inability to pass any meaningful and reformative legislation. Even passing a federal budget has become deeply contentious, such that government operations have had to be shut down repeatedly when the President and the legislature cannot agree on a budget. Even a highly intelligent, visionary, and dedicated president like Barack Obama failed miserably to push through any lasting, substantive reforms. He often publicly regretted his inability to introduce effective gun control legislation, for example; and his attempt to pass a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill to combat climate change was also stopped in its tracks. Even his landmark achievements, such as the Affordable Care Act and the agreement with Iran to reduce its nuclear capabilities, were quickly dismantled by his successor, Donald Trump. As the United States remains hopelessly polarised, future presidents will be similarly limited to the smallest of achievements. Public frustration over this kind of cultural and administrative stasis continues to grow; we are likely to see the deterioration of even the most basic First Dimension rights and freedoms as a result of the election of more extremist and divisive politicians.

In parliamentary systems, the division between legislative and executive functions is less pronounced, but there too its legacy is dismal. In most nations that use a parliamentary system, no party can secure an absolute majority. As a result, most large democracies, such as Germany, Italy, and France, must rely on executive governments that are coalitions. Coalitions are frail and prone to crisis. In some countries, this means frequent elections when governments fall; in others, it means extremely slow, inefficient, and lumbering progress toward reform as the competing interests of coalition members must be balanced.

To move into the Second Dimension, we need much better alignment and communication between the executive and legislative elements of government. To move more quickly toward a sophisticated and purposeful definition of human rights and freedoms, we must achieve better cohesion of interests among all the members of governance structures. One way to achieve this is to do away with the separation between the executive and the legislature. Centralising authority, both executive and legislative, in the hands of leaders elected exclusively on merit will result in a far leaner and more efficient state. Abuses of power by these individuals will be checked by the scorecard system itself. As I have already explained, each officer’s tenure will be subject to evaluation and review every year, in a system rendered transparent and fair by the use of goal-based scorecards (to be detailed in the next chapter) that can quantify every leader’s success in delivering what her constituents need.

Composition of Representative Forums

I now turn to the structure of the representative forums composed of elected executive officers. The legislative body closest to the people, known as ‘Area Caucus’, would comprise all the Community Leaders within an Area, that is, 100 members, plus the Area Manager, for a total of 101 members. There would exist as many such Caucuses as there are Areas in a country. A higher assembly, known as Regional Assembly, would consist of all Community Leaders and Area Managers in a Region, plus the Regional Governor himself, for a total of 1,011 members. Finally, the highest legislative body in the land, the National Council, would comprise all Area Managers and Regional Governors in the country, plus the Head of State.

Membership in the National Council would vary with the size of the country. For example, in a country that has approximately 150 million inhabitants, there would be six Regions. The National Council would, therefore, consist of sixty-seven members: the six Regional Governors, sixty Area Managers (ten Area Managers for each Region), plus one Head of State. The National Council would, of course, have to be sized carefully in smaller countries. In a country of, say, 20 million people, there might be only a dozen members in the National Council, which would be an insufficient number to provide the right scale of decision-making by vote. In such a case, the composition of the National Council could be altered to include additional representatives chosen, on a rotating basis, from the Area Caucuses. Alternatively, the way in which the country is divided into smaller units could be altered, for example by creating Regions that consist of just five Areas instead of ten. Adjustments might also have to be made for extremely large nation states. China, for example, with a population of almost 1.4 billion, would have a National Council consisting of 617 legislators, which might be too large for the highest forum in the land.

Voting on new or amended legislation in the representative forums would proceed like this:

Forum

Members

Voting rights

Available votes

Area Caucus

1 Area Manager

+

100 Comm. Leaders

=

101 

100 votes

 

1 vote each

(1 x 100)

+

(100 x 1)

=

200

Regional Assembly

1 Regional Governor

+

10 Area Managers

+

1000 Comm. Leaders

=

1011 

1,000 votes

 

100 votes each

 

1 vote each

(1 x 1,000)

+

(10 x 100)

+

(1000 x 1)

=

3000

National Council

1 Head of State

+

6 Regional Governors

+

60 Area Managers

=

67 

60 votes 

 

10 votes each

 

1 vote each

(1 x 60)

+

(6 x 10)

+

(60 x 1)

=

180

 

This system leverages the same assemblies that were introduced previously in connection with the election of Community Leaders, Area Managers, Regional Governors, and the Head of State. Indeed, the idea is to focus authority in the same bodies. The Area Caucus, for example, will make legislative decisions that apply to the Area it represents, and thus to all the Communities in it. When the Area Manager position for this Area is vacant, the same Area Caucus (minus, of course, the Area Manager, who is outgoing and therefore not involved in the election) will elect a new Area Manager from the pool of qualified candidates. Thus, there will be a certain cohesion between the executive and legislative functions in the Area, not unlike the parliamentary democracies of today. The voting system for legislative decisions echoes this same principle. At the Area Caucus level, differential voting rights ensure that the opinion of the Area Manager has the same weight as that of all the Community Leaders put together. Thus, no legislative decision can be made without the Area Manager’s approval. Conversely, if a 75 per cent quorum were required to pass new legislation or amend existing legislation, no such legislation could be pushed through by the Area Manager alone without securing the support of at least half of the Community Leaders under him. Similarly, in the Regional Assembly it would be very difficult to push through any changes without the cooperation of the Regional Governor, who wields one-third of the votes. At the same time, however, it would be impossible for the Governor to force any legislation without the support of the majority of Managers and Leaders.

It is important to clarify that the Area Caucuses, Regional Assemblies, and National Council are not intended to be permanent or standing legislative bodies. They would meet only occasionally, as needed, to accomplish three tasks: 

  1. Pass new laws (or amend existing laws) that are appropriate to their jurisdiction. (Any rules and protocols that are developed from these laws would also require the forum’s approval.)

  2. Periodically review benchmarks for standards of rights and freedoms. (These benchmarks would be developed and analysed by an independent authority.)

  3. Appoint members of four technical groups (described below) responsible for the creation and implementation of a scorecard system applicable to all leadership positions (Community Leader, Area Manager, Regional Governor, Head of State).

Thus, while the personnel engaged in legislative and executive roles would be the same, the legislative function would be only intermittent, and would not be an excessive burden on leaders. As explained in Chapter 8, the increasing reliance, in higher dimensions, on each individual’s conscience will result in fewer laws, distilled down to minimalist renditions. Therefore, assemblies of executive leaders (the Area Caucuses, Regional Assemblies, and the National Council) will have to convene only rarely to discuss and write new laws, as needed. 

Moderators of Power: Four Technical Authorities

The representative forums will be responsible for appointing the members of four independent institutions:

  1. Jurisdictional Authority. This body will assign responsibility for every decision or action undertaken by government to the appropriate level of administration. For example, if a city park needs maintenance or new landscaping, the task falls to the Community. However, if an inland canal that flows through multiple communities requires refurbishment, the Jurisdictional Authority would analyse its course and impact on various segments of the population, and assign the task to the Area government. Unless, of course, the canal crosses multiple Areas, in which case the competent authority might be the Region. (These examples relating to infrastructure are relatively simple and clear-cut, but in matters relating to judicial proceedings, for example, or to education or health, the determination could be much more difficult. Hence the need for a specialised committee to make such decisions.) The Jurisdictional Authority functions at a National level and would therefore be classified as a Level 3 or 4 entity. While it may have multiple branches dedicated to specific Regions and Areas, it is necessarily a single, monolithic body to avoid contradictions and split opinions over jurisdiction. Members of its executive committee are appointed to this office (for terms of, say, five or ten years) by the National Council, using some of the same criteria used for election of Area Managers and Regional Governors, that is, successful completion of two consecutive years in office in a position not more than two levels lower than the Jurisdictional Authority’s level. 

  2. Scorecard Development Authority (SDA). This body will be responsible for researching, developing, reviewing, and updating the scorecards applicable to all chief officers (Community Leaders, Area Managers, Regional Governors, and Head of State). There are multiple SDAs operating in a country. One SDA would be required for each Area to develop and continually update scorecards for all the 100 Communities in that Area. The executive boards of these SDAs are appointed directly by the Area Caucus and are Level 10 institutions, that is, at the same level as the Area Manager. These measures ensure that each SDA retains a high degree of autonomy and has the authority to counter attempts to influence its work from the Area Manager and from Community Leaders. There must also be Regional SDAs (Level 5) to compose scorecards for Area Managers. Finally, a National SDA at Level 3 or 4 to oversee the development of scorecards for Regional Governors and the Head of State.

  3. Scorecard Evaluation Authority (SEA). This authority, which must at all times remain independent of the SDA, will be responsible for auditing compliance with the scorecard system, and especially for calculating each officer’s score at the end of the year. A SEA exists to match each SDA. Therefore, SEAs operate at Area, Regional and National levels. Like the SDAs, each SEA is headed by an executive committee appointed for a fixed term by the corresponding representative forum. 

  4. Election Committee. Election Committees are responsible for publicising, organising, and conducting elections at various levels of government. Election Committees will operate at Area level (to supervise Community Leader elections in the Area), at Region level (to supervise elections of Area Managers in the Region), and at National level (to supervise elections of Head of State and Regional Governors). The heads of these Election Committees are appointed directly by the corresponding representative forums. Direct, popular elections will be retained only when electing Community Leaders. The Election Committee for the Area where a Community Leader election is taking place will be responsible for monitoring its progress and certifying its results. If the Election Committee is notified by the competent SEA that a Community Leader has failed to achieve his annual scorecard target, the Election Committee must initiate a new election. Higher executive positions, such as Area Manager, Regional Governor, and Head of State, are elected not by popular vote but rather by the members of the relevant representative forum, as discussed above. In such cases the Election Committee must verify each candidate’s qualifications to determine whether he or she may stand for election, and will audit the results.

The political architecture and evolution that led to the democracy we know, with the bicameral legislature and the division of powers, was a phenomenal leap for humanity and one of the great achievements of First Dimension thought. However, for humanity to progress further, we need a new political system that is designed for, and capable of, a more evolved and sophisticated understanding of social cooperation. The system as it exists is proving to be a liability in the creation, extension, and development of more subtle rights and freedoms. The creation of these rights and freedoms is urgent for a planet badly in need of a system that is able to encompass the complexity and variability of our world. Human relations – relations between nations and within nations – are becoming more complex as technology, urbanisation, and diversity conjure up both fantastic new ways of doing things and new threats. We need a political system that is better designed to guide us through the 21st century. That is what I have attempted to define in this chapter, while bringing the political system in alignment with some of the other ideas that inform interdependence and put us on the path to the Third Dimension.

 

Explore other ideas

Three Dimensions

The Three Dimensions are a ...

Read

Consciousness

Our Context in the First ...

Read

Bonds & Love

Humans have historically ...

Read

Community

Communities and Personal ...

Read

Liberty

Liberty is a relatively r...

Read

Laws

The Proliferation of Laws i...

Read

Citizenship

The Nation State: An Obso...

Read

Economics

Economists try to quantif...

Read

Money

In the Second Dimension&n...

Read

Rights & Freedoms

Rights & Freedoms as ...

Read

Justice

We're still working o...

Read

Governance

In the Second Dimension, al...

Read

Capitalism

Capitalism and its Disconte...

Read

The Enterprise

We're still working o...

Read

Sovereignty

We live in an era where onl...

Read

Education

The First Dimension educa...

Read

Agriculture & Food

We're still working o...

Read

Health & Medicine

We're still working o...

Read

Scientific Inquiry

The Power and Limits of R...

Read