Noel Edward Mundy: The full text of Pathway to Utopia is a new way of thinking for a new world
Previous page | Next page | Page: 4 of 6 |
Jump to page:
Page 4
Developed nations are reducing workforce numbers - the cause of social instability . There will need to be fundamental changes to power structures the world over, but especially so in developed nations with their 2 major party opposition systems of government. Party systems of government are powerless to initiate the necessary changes , so divided are the 2 power groups and consequently the people themselves.
The purpose of this paper is to place in front of all people an entirely new way of thinking. The world urgently needs systems of government which are mostly transparent and, if necessary, can be adjusted by the actions of people themselves.
People - a majority - would have the ultimate power to control their own destiny and the destiny of the nation, bringing to an end the behind- the -scenes manipulation of national economies and decision making. .Of prime importance would be an end to the incentive driven exploitation of the differences between nations. In this matter developed nations are implicated.
With the clever use of fear arms dealers and manufacturers, whether state or private, have played off one nation against another so as to gain access to the huge profits and employment from the world's armament industries. In many of the underdeveloped nations money that should have been used for development has been used by those in power to rule by force.
Would the people of each nation when given the opportunity avoid the devastation of war? They would for one logical and unquestionable reason. The greatest fear that the world has ever known stems from that one reality that is ever present in the human mind -generals always begin fighting wars from where the previous war finished.
Government for the 21st Century:
This paper uses a period of Australia's political history to demonstrate how opposing party systems of government are powerless to effect change. From 1960: 2 teenagers from totally different socio-economic and educational backgrounds seek employment. The parents of one teenager have quite opposite political beliefs to the other parents. Any truly impartial observer must allow equal credit to their choice of political parties. Therefore, both sets of parents are either correct or incorrect. Relate that logic to alternative periods of government by both opposing parties from 1960 when the signs of industry re-structuring became noticeable. Consider the changes that have taken place in Australia and similarly in other nations - Huge escalation of national debt , huge growth in bureaucracies, higher proportion of taxes, whether direct of indirect, in the form of extra cost of products , falling living standards, higher levels of unemployment and an ever increasing gap between the wealthy 20% of people and the lower 30%
Voting Patterns, Australia: 1980. The largest ever majority (Coalition's 2nd term) . March, 1983. Largest ever swing to Labor Dec. 1st, 1984 Reduced majority for Labor After 1984 Australians quietly waited revealing their concern. What has happened? Our nation is getting into a debt trap Is it already too late? While the 2 major parties blamed one another the people were saying 'We Australians are living beyond our means.' What of the 2 teenagers? They are just 2 of a growing number.
Party Systems: The party system emerged in Britain in the latter part of the 17th century when Parliament gained the right to be the law-making body. The philosophies of the three main parties have changed very little right up to this 21st century. a. The Conservative Party generally supports private ownership of land, but is cautious towards reform b. The Liberal Party supports private ownership, free trade, private enterprise and also supports reforms c. The Labor Party, the youngest, distrusts private enterprise and believes in nationalisation as a better means of distributing wealth.
Four centuries later is any of this still relevant? No, of course not!
It was never an ideal system of government - only the best that was available. There are many weaknesses. Voters are encouraged to expect more than a nation can sustain This is the result of opposing parties forced to compete for government power by condoning the voters' false expectations. Party supporters threaten withdrawal unless their demands are met Parties, therefore, are forced to produce attractive policies to woo the voters The winning party is then forced to implement at least some of those policies (promises) swelling the bureaucracy still further. Although at different rates of climb, depending on circumstances, the thrust in bureaucratic numbers is upwards, ever upwards, never downwards. Even so, the crux of the problem is opposing party systems. Over many years and many changes of government they become a trap with no acceptable way for any party to stop the destructive forces (see Cycle of Democracy).
Previous page | Next page
