Consolidating Democracy in Sierra Leone

Posted by admin on May 24, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

A Return to Prosperity?

In September 2007, Sierra Leone had the opportunity to define her democracy for the first time after 41 years of many miscarriages in her democratic process. The September 8, 2007 run-off elections were by all means a defining moment in Sierra Leone’s democratic development. But the outcome of the elections, which confirmed the APC front-runner Ernest Bai Koroma as President, would become more meaningful when the political changes the country has experienced take hold if Koroma’s administration could position itself to consolidate the democratic gains made in the 2007 elections.  The 2007 parliamentary and presidential elections were Sierra Leone’s first truly democratic national contest in 4 decades and the victory of Ernest Bai Koroma—a former Insurance executive who ran on the platform of “zero-tolerance on corruption”—should put an end to 41 years of bad leadership.

In contrast to the dubious nature of electoral processes of the previous four decades, and much to the credit of the strong leadership of Dr. Christiana Thorpe (the National Electoral Commission (N.E.C.) chairman); the run-off elections were transparently conducted, and their outcome was incontestable. Koroma’s victory in 2007 has triggered hopes for profound change, and the caliber of the people President Koroma has chosen for his cabinet is testament to the direction he wants to take the country—that of development that is progressive and sustainable.

But it was not the first time Sierra Leone had experienced such optimism. In 1996, former head of state Ahmad Tejan Kabbah found himself at a similar turning point. He had become president after being helped by a N.E.C. led by Dr. James Jonah which was blamed to have manipulated the elections in favor of Tejan Kabbah against the veteran politician Dr. Karefa Smart after two rounds. Dr. James Jonah was consequently rewarded by Kabbah by appointing him Minister of Finance. President Kabbah was immediately consumed by a host of problems: a profoundly alienated country, a hostile and offensive press, the ill feeling of the U.S. for his friendship with Iran and Libya, and the rancor within a military establishment angered by the fact that the militia Kamajors were more trusted and favored by a defense department whose day to day activities were administered by a “Kamajor chief” (Hinga Norman) as Deputy Defense Minister.  Despite being dignified in many ways, President Kabbah was also impossibly careless and irresponsibly negligent. And thus, instead of marking the start of a stable Sierra Leonean democracy, Tejan Kabbah’s ten-year government ended with nothing to be proud about.  Again, it is worthy of note that in April 1997, President Kabbah was ousted from office in a coup d’état by Lt. Col. Johnny Paul Koroma — setting off a period of ten months interregnum and plunging the country into sadistic chaos. The governance vacuum created by the A.F.R.C. junta rule did not end until February 1998, when President Kabbah ordered a bloody military intervention using ECOMOG forces led by the Nigerian General Maxwell Kobe to force the junta out of power. President Kabbah was restored as head of state. He was again expected to guide a return to peace in the country and guiding the prosperity of Sierra Leone by laying the foundation for a stable and progressing nation. But again, President Kabbah could not assure that peace in the country. Instead Sierra Leone’s manipulated democracy faced risks that ultimately led to the veiled negligence of President Tejan Kabbah. Can 2007 now mark the return of prosperity in Sierra Leone? 

Only fundamental consensus on the major objectives of the state can provide a society with a secure basis for democracy, and the new Sierra Leone seems to have such an agreement between its principal political actors. The outcome of the August 11 presidential and legislative elections held with the backing, notably, of the European Union (E.U.) and the United Nations (U.N.) with Ernest Koroma’s party winning 59 seats; the incumbent party of Solomon Berewa winning 43 seats; and the newly formed P.M.D.C. party of Charles Margai winning 10 seats brought about a convergence of will between Koroma’s A.P.C. and Margai’s P.M.D.C. from a common determination to end S.L.P.P. misrule in Sierra Leone in the wake of the second round of presidential elections held September 8, 2007. Therefore, the winning parties of the 2007 elections are the APC and the PMDC parties. These parties are both abundantly gifted with resources, authority, and persuasive skill, and can possibly establish a basic consensus with one another to guide the country through prosperity. The unity between the two parties and their understanding to support that unity has kept contemporary Sierra Leone in a state of governmental optimism.

Governmental optimism is already being demonstrated following the selection of cabinet ministers which included some of the gifted resources of the PMDC party (Dr. Soccoh Kabbia as Minister of Health; Mr. Benjamin Davies as Minister of Lands, Country Planning and Environment; and Mr. John Saab, as Minister of Housing and Infrastructural Development) to ensure that the P.M.D.C. is involved in nation building and making Sierra Leone governable from a broad platform of political ideologies. Another demonstration of governmental optimism is the appointment of the human rights activist and chief civil affairs officer to the U.N. Mission in Liberia, Mrs. Zainab Bangura as Minister of Foreign Affairs.  Lango Deen, an insightful contributor to the Leonenet Forum administered from the University of Maryland in the United States summed up Zainab Bangura’s appointment in this brilliant assessment, stating: “When President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State he said, “In Dr. Rice, the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country.”  I am no President Koroma, but I’d like to say the same of Zainab Bangura. She is at ease with herself and no stranger to the global stage.  By nominating her for this high profile job, President Koroma has included all Sierra Leonean women as equal partners in the national endeavor. It is clear the president is aiming for a full engagement of Sierra Leonean women.”

In a country where conditions are so bad and a country that has experienced all sorts of chaos, any combination of party ideologies to inspire genuine social change is a giant step in the right direction. From such cooperation there will be a basic consensus on how to establish a firm rule of law. Organized crimes of corruption which have turned many Sierra Leoneans into innocent victims deprived of what their nation has to offer (which all members of the previous S.L.P.P. government failed to even recognize, for selfish reasons of their own). A cooperation of this nature again makes it easy for other aspects of the national agenda to be driven by general consensus to determine, for instance, the right ways to create wealth, economic growth, or employment; on how to modernize the energy sector; on how to combat poverty and inequality. In the last ten years, Sierra Leone’s political leaders have even failed to consider the value or the viability of the public institutions and the huge financial liabilities (such as those created by the relentless corruption of unscrupulous cabinet ministers and senior public servants and specific party privileges) being a continuation of the old.

All this obvious and underlying cooperation will inspire the furthering of democracy in Sierra Leone. The 2007 elections have demonstrated that the people of Sierra Leone who have been beaten too long by successive regimes have learned to appreciate the essence of democracy. Voting Koroma as President is a safeguard of the democratic process with Sierra Leoneans voting in a manner that transcends their immediate tribal interests. President Koroma must now behave as a head of state for all Sierra Leoneans, not just a representative of his party or his ethnic group. Then of course, civil society can contribute in many ways to help promote stability in the country. The media (local and international) has to be objective and impartial in their presentation and analysis of issues. However, going the right direction with the opportunity of becoming the number one man in Sierra Leone is the major responsibility of President Koroma’s APC government. It is up to him and his party whether Sierra Leonean democracy advances or is muzzled again, whether corruption is firmly dealt with or not dealt with at all. The humble but firm persona of Ernest Koroma gives some indication that he will rise above his short-term interests to consolidate Sierra Leone’s progress toward democratic stability.

The Promise of a Successful Presidency

The All People’s Congress (APC) has existed for 40 years. From its beginnings as a minor opposition party in a new independent country it had defended the rights of workers. The A.P.C. under Siaka Stevens showed an impressive tenacity in resisting and surviving the assaults of the S.L.P.P. machine. But this has also meant that with Siaka Stevens gone, the A.P.C. became more focused on limiting power than on exercising it — a quality that hurt the party when Joseph Momoh took over the presidency.

Like in 1967, the A.P.C. had another historic moment in 2007, and it had in Ernest Koroma a leader who, as the head of a veteran pro-democracy movement, “mesmerized Sierra Leoneans” — just as Siaka Stevens had done in his initial presidential campaign against Albert Margai, in 1967. (That campaign was truncated by Siaka Stevens’ exile to Guinea following the Brigadier Lansana coup d’état, but the unrest that ensued catapulted him to the presidency nonetheless.) For this impact, Koroma deserves much credit. Still, Koroma’s A.P.C. party carries some of the blame for the hard times and the degeneration of political life in the country. The performance of the A.P.C. during its 24 years of misrule (1968 – 1992) sowed the seeds of Sierra Leone’s chronic stagnation and stark deterioration of political life. And it could be a possibility for the sins of the A.P.C. under Siaka Stevens and Joseph Momoh’s leaderships to come to undermine Koroma’s status as “the champion of democracy” if he fails to use his initiative and be his own man to bring sanity in governance in Sierra Leone by any means necessary.

As president, Koroma has the opportunity to do enough real good. He has the right composition in Parliament—an A.P.C. majority plus the 10 seats of the P.M.D.C party under his belt. With good use of the emergency powers leverage he has to get Parliament to quickly act on various essential projects, the S.L.P.P. members in Parliament do not have the numbers to block Koroma’s projects. Koroma simply has to stave off any internal rivalries within his party to avoid possible stalemate from his own party ranks that would work against his cogent and logical catalog of obligatory reforms.  Koroma himself cannot make his party see any significant limitations in his persona. His personality cannot be unpredictable and be disposed to impulsive decisions, bizarre statements, and a lack of leadership and direction at critical moments.

Koroma can also learn how to keep his wife from intruding into the process of government and not make statements in public that may come to hurt his presidency.  It is clear that his cabinet choices so far will help him. By selecting the best possible people for his cabinet and the initiative he has taken to reach beyond the party for the best will help his presidency to succeed. Koroma can maintain a long-lasting public affection because his lingering popularity largely stems from the fact that he is a new kid in public life with no baggage. Many Sierra Leoneans view him as a “good man.” Moreover he deserves credit for some real accomplishments of his own as head of an insurance company he competently managed as Managing Director for over a decade. With his insurance background, Koroma can therefore use that experience to succeed in preserving macroeconomic stability and work to reduce unemployment or significantly improve growth. He has to respect the division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the principles of good governance.

By introducing and implementing a law requiring open financial accounting in government that again will certainly reduce corruption. By also introducing various democratic reforms on labor and management issues, will continue to expand democracy in the country. With the media guru and erstwhile President of the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (Ibrahim Ben-Kargbo) now at the helm of the information ministry, Sierra Leone will now enjoy true freedom of expression, and will be an important achievement for Koroma’s government.

The people of Sierra Leone cannot afford to be disappointed this time. Koroma has presented himself to be a great and colorless leader during his campaigns in 2002 when he lost to former President Tejan Kabbah and in 2007. He thus has to fulfill his promises to fight crime and insecurity and to generate tangible social change and progress—his apparent commitment to which won him much support among poor Sierra Leoneans in 2007. Koroma is likely to occupy a place in history very much like that of Sir Milton Margai: immortalized as a considerate and respected figure who made tangible social progress during the short time he was Prime Minister of Sierra Leone.

The ousted S.L.P.P. thought the people of Sierra Leone had placed a final judgment on the A.P.C. because of its dismal record of 24 years of misrule and blatant brutality (from 1968 to 1992) that would affect the fortunes of the A.P.C. candidate in 2007. Evidently, the A.P.C. got a second chance because of its contributions to Sierra Leone’s democracy over the past ten years as the leading opposition party in Parliament. The party found an excellent candidate in Ernest Bai Koroma. The son of a veteran Electoral Commissioner (Sylvanus Koroma), he is honest, intelligent, hardworking, and, at 55, relatively matured for the job. Ernest Koroma and the A.P.C. have managed to win the presidency, and the prognosis for a creative government would now depend in part on his political competence and strength as a leader, but even more on his capacity to establish alliances with disaffected members of the defeated parties — something easier said than done. The good thing is that the P.M.D.C. “positive change” ideologues have allied themselves with the A.P.C. in Parliament giving the A.P.C. an overwhelming majority. Koroma’s victory is therefore a sweet one, because he would not encounter any kind of parliamentary resistance to get his job done. Thus, Sierra Leone clearly has the opportunity now to start truly deliberating and undertaking necessary reforms.

With the outcome of the 2007 elections in favor Ernest Koroma and his party, it is clear that the S.L.P.P. was instead punished because of the widely held perception that Kabbah and Berewa had not governed effectively. With that being the case, the S.L.P.P. has a chance to draw lessons from its ten years experience with power, to promote the rise of new and charismatic leaders, to rekindle its image and its now- obsolete platform of demonizing the A.P.C., to distance itself from its tribalistic traditions (still strong within the party), and to prepare itself for the elections of 2012. As a strong party of opposition, the S.L.P.P. could perform responsibly in Parliament; help to simplify issues for the public; and continue to toil in general for democracy and political harmony. And it can persuasively press on for improved economic programs that support the legitimate creation of wealth, foreign investment, and standard fiscal and monetary policies.

Misused Opportunities, Five Years in “Political Purgatory”

After losing the presidency in 2007, the S.L.P.P. can now start thinking of regrouping more successfully. In fact, the defeat may be to the S.L.P.P.’s long-term benefit, because it gives the party a chance to clean up its image.

The S.L.P.P. can better position itself as an ideological powerhouse: the party can push for more refined economic and development measures or it can push for openness and a message of one nation, one people — whichever suits the moment. But the party has to work very hard to push well-refined economic and development ideas this time because the moral burden of its past is considerable. Under S.L.P.P. rule, Sierra Leone was tormented by violent confrontations because of opportunities mismanaged by a power that had the democratic legitimacy but became a corrupt oligarchy.

When Tejan Kabbah became president in 1996 — after the “self-made Brigadier General” Maada Bio was forced to end his junta rule that year opening the gates to electoral democracy — he had the full support of the international community. His government received millions of dollars in aid money. Many Sierra Leoneans were not happy that Kabbah’s government mismanaged monies donated by the international community to help with post-war reconstruction. The party’s defeat in the 2007 elections is partly because of aid money and in kind donations (Gaddafi’s rice donation) that did not benefit the people. The S.L.P.P. leadership had filed an injunction against the credibility of the presidential run-off results, but the party’s leaders eventually recognized their defeat — in part because they understood that by peacefully accepting their descent from power, they could begin to purify their long record of tyranny and corruption. In typical fashion, the A.P.C. reoriented itself and, treading very carefully, set about reviving its political fortunes.

A presidential victory for the A.P.C. was within the bounds of possibility. Voters came to fear that an S.L.P.P. government would continue to plunder the country and to divide the country by obvious tribalism and nepotism; and a P.M.D.C. government too inexperienced because it is a new party; as such the A.P.C. became a compelling lesser evil. With the A.P.C. winning, in addition to the presidency, enough seats in Parliament, it was grateful to offer some positions in government to the P.M.D.C. Together, the A.P.C. and the P.M.D.C. could now secure a workable parliamentary majority, one that would be able to enact needed structural reforms. Some analysts are suggesting that to stave off the dangers of distracting dissension and even violence, the A.P.C. can extend the same offer of “cohabitation” to the S.L.P.P., although that does not sound like a good idea because the S.L.P.P. had misused opportunities during its ten years of rule, therefore, in the next five years it is reasonable for it to be in “political purgatory” to reflect on and repent its gross miscalculations.

The A.P.C. has proven to be synonymous with “the Sierra Leonean political system,” even though its previous 24 years of misrule continue to weigh heavily on its reputation and possible future. Today, however, its ranks include many experienced political professionals and technocrats, a number of them honest men and women, and the party seem to have a great deal of prestige or credibility among younger Sierra Leoneans. It has put forward some strong, qualified candidates for ministerial positions.

The A.P.C. was wise to choose a presidential candidate with a fresh face and a reputation for honesty — someone like Koroma, who has a moderate, pragmatic left-wing ideology that proved very attractive to Sierra Leonean voters. Koroma is not linked to the A.P.C’s dark past of manipulation, corruption, and disinformation. His choice as front-runner of the party did help to end the years the A.P.C. has been in “political purgatory.”

Consolidate Democracy Now or Die Trying

In many ways, the victory for a modern left-wing popular front — much like those that govern Botswana in south-central Africa through “a relatively uncorrupt bureaucracy accountable to government and with the economic underpinning of increasing resources distributed through government” (Neil Parsons) — is the best possible result for Sierra Leone in 2007. Fortunately, the reformed A.P.C. has the attributes of such a party. The A.P.C. seems to favor retaining complete state dominance of the minerals and agricultural industries and is in no way skeptical of free markets and foreign investments, labor reforms, and the worldwide integration of humanity (globalization) — a body of proclivities the A.P.C. leadership has shown a propensity to steadily adhere to as a reborn and modern party of the left that has long adjusted its ideological schema to reality.

Meanwhile, President Koroma has to prove that he is a strong and assertive president. But he also has to show that he is not going to manipulate power through messianic demagoguery. Preferably, he has to be fully committed to the autonomy of the judiciary and the demarcation of powers, to a free press, and to complete fiscal transparency and accountability in government; a respect for autonomous institutions such as the central bank; and coordinating a violence-free government strategy, especially when reforms can be accomplished peacefully with composure. These are all necessary tenets in an open democratic society, and some of Koroma’s past conduct (showing a propensity toward humility to accept defeat in 2002 and a spirit of reaching out to his opponents within his party who repeatedly challenged his leadership) suggests that he may respect them. A choice not to respect these tenets at the national level could put the consolidation of democracy itself at risk.

With the A.P.C. victory by such a large margin, Koroma must waive any inclination to revive the one-party state in Sierra Leone like his predecessor (Siaka Stevens) did. As president, Koroma would have to contend with a plethora of challenges. If he honors the fundamentals of an open democratic society, of the rule of law and the inalienable rights of individuals, he will have every clout to implement his social and economic projects, so long as he conducts himself in the ambit of reality rather than conceptual ideology. But if Koroma rebuffs these fundamentals, then Sierra Leone is going to lose yet another opportunity to consolidate its democracy and his government like the S.L.P.P. government under Tejan Kabbah and Solomon Berewa will (by 2012) die trying.

Democracy in India and in Pakistan

Posted by admin on May 17, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Democracy in India and in Pakistan.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate.

The people of India adopted democracy in 1952-53 and they are proud of the fact that they are carrying on his democracy during he last six decades when their neighbour Pakistan couldnot maintain democracy and the people of Pakistan have to face military rule time and again The people of India could declare that they are the largest democracy in the world, when their counterpart Pakistan could no boast like this. Therefore, we the people of India can declare that we are better placed in democracy and the democracy established in Pakistan remains at stake and as and when some elected people rule the country, they too function under the military pressures. They are not independent and as and when there is some weakness, the military takes over the charge without any permission from the civil authorities.

In 1947 when Pakistan was being established so many Muslims living in India were not agreeing for the establishment of Pakistan because they were of the view that this small country would not progress. The people who were demanding Pakistan were not so competent people who could run the administration of a country. But the British who were leaving Hindustan thought it better to partition this Hindustan so that these two countries could never establish peace. The creation of Pakistan was a conspiracy and that conspiracy turned out successful because since this partition, both these countries could not live in peace and they are at war, sometime in direct war and sometime they are busy in indirect war. It is on record that they are fighting and out of these fights one other country Bangladesh came into being. There is a Kashmir problems and that problems could not be solved and this Kashmir had been divided into two parts, one is held by Pakistan and the other is with the government of India. What shall be the future of this Kashmir, none on earth can give a suitable reply and making this Kashmir as a base, he terrorists from Pakistan side are spreading throughout in the whole of India.

In spite of all these ill efforts from Pakistan side, the people of Pakistan could not shake the Indian democracy. The people of India are still carrying out with democracy and the people of Pakistan are not in a position to establish democracy in Pakistan. The military authorities are always having an eye on the civil administration and as and when they get an opportunity, they come forward and occupy all seats of power. Military rule is no equal to democracy, but here we see the people who did not opt for Pakistan in 1947 were feeling better and they are proud of the fact that they had been living in a democracy throughout since the partition. What is the future of Pakistan, none could answer this question. They got a military ruler once again and whether he would be allowing them to function as a civilian government, this is a question, which is not to be answered at this stage. The people of Pakistan could not establish a permanent constitution and they are at liberty to change this time and again. This is not a good process, but the military rulers would not like that the civil governments should function without their supervision, therefore, they have framed the constitution as per their own choice.

The people of India is a democracy and they shall be establishing governments of their own choice with people from amongst themselves. Presently some groups are on the throne, but a time is coming when the people of India shall be nominating their own people who shall be committed to work for their welfare and this country India shall become one of the most developed country in the world because it has got all the potentials which could take this country ahead.

—————————

Chinese Democracy Ringtone | Guns N Roses – Chinese Democracy Ringtone

Posted by admin on May 10, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

Click Here & Sign Up to Download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses

Chinese Democracy by Guns N Roses is one of the hottest songs in America and the Chinese Democracy Ringtone is one of the most popular ringtones in the world Chinese Democracy. The single has become a top-seller on iTunes and is climbing music charts all over the world, including the US Billboard Hot 100 and Canadian Hot 100. Chinese Democracy is the newest hit single by Guns N Roses and was released in 2008. The track is getting massive radio airplay all over America and the Chinese Democracy music video is one of the hottest clips on YouTube. The Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses has become one of the hottest ringtones of 2008.

Click Here to Get Bonus Guns N Roses Ringtones for your phone!

If you are a fan of Guns N Roses, click on the link above & sign up to receive bonus Guns N Roses Ringtones for your cell phone. Chinese Democracy is an awesome single and is the perfect choice for your next mobile phone ringtone. The Chinese Democracy Ringtone works with most major American mobile phone carriers and some international carriers as well. Whether you use AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile or any other carrier, check out the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by clicking on the link below. Don’t wait, download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone to your phone now by clicking on the link below and signing up Chinese Democracy:

Click Here to Download the Chinese Democracy Ringtone by Guns N Roses

Liberal Democracy and Socialism

Posted by admin on May 3, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments

LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM

Liberal democracy is basically the same things as anarchism, my conception of anarchism anyway. My conception of anarchism is based upon the idea of equality of economic developments, equality of economic developments for all traditions, and\or equality of economic developments for independent traditions. We should have also the idea of liberal democracy and socialism, the political concept of socialism should also value the idea of liberal democracy, and also as anarchism which is basically the same things as liberal democracy is generally perceived also to be a socialist doctrine. It is stated therefore that the political concept of socialism should value and embrace the political concept of liberal democracy, and in so doing negate phoney deceitful socialist ideology, such as marxism, which tried to condition socialist thinking against the idea of democracy. The true nature of the political concept of anarchism can be analysed to be basically the same thing as the true nature of the political concept of socialism as is explained below.

The idea of equality of economic developments can be firstly elucidated in relation to housing. We all need a place to live, an abode – a house, apartment, cottage, bungalow etc. As we all need an abode, a home, to be equally economically self-sufficient, equally economically self-empowered we should all own our own homes, our own abodes. Equality of economic developments in that sense, in relation to the self-ownership of housing, can be also thought of as the anarchist idea of a society where all are their own masters. People become their own masters in that sense, they become economically self-sufficient, economically self-empowered when they come to own their own homes. As such it can be said, that such anarchism evolves from capitalism. As all over the world, the economic means to provide housing for people is controlled by the political concept of capitalism, the banks and capitalist property developers, then it is such capitalism that provides housing for people, but it can also be said that the idea of anarchism evolves, derives from such capitalism, for people become their own economic masters when their mortgages are paid off and they come to own their own homes. It is desirable that all people should own their own homes and become economically self-empowered in that way, and therefore we have the idea of equality of economic developments in relation to housing.

We also have the theory of equality of economic developments in a broader political sense in relation to traditions. In accordance with liberal democratic thinking, and in accordance with my conception of anarchism, various traditions, all traditions should flourish, and in so flourishing, to be economically self-empowered as distinct traditions should have their own quota of economic developments, and therefore we have the idea of equality of economic developments for all traditions. Therefore, this theory of equality of economic developments for all traditions, which is only a theory with regard to the political concepts of anarchism and socialism, as the political concepts of anarchism and socialism don’t have control of economic power, states that various traditions should own their own economic developments such as houses, hotels, shops, restaurants, schools, universities etc.

An anarchism can also be derived from the internet. On the internet people can create their own web-sites, and in creating their own web-sites individuals have a sense of self-achievement, of self-empowerment. Anarchism therefore can be deduced to derive from the internet in that individuals become their own masters in that sense when they create their own web-sites. Therefore, we can recognise that the political concept of anarchism can derive something from capitalism. As both housing and the internet are creations of capitalism, it is true that people become their own masters, become self-empowered when they come to own their own homes and when they create their own websites.

Anarchism can be thought of as being basically the same thing as liberal democracy. The idea of liberal democracy is that all people, including different traditions and individuals should be free and flourish in democratic conditions. The conception of socialist anarchism says that this also has to be economic, that individuals and traditions should flourish by being equally economically empowered, by the idea of equality of equality of economic developments. And in Chapter 6 ”Equality Of Economic Developments For All Traditions” in the section “The Anarchist Idea of Power Distribution” I say that power should be distributed among individuals as well as traditions. An individual doesn’t necessarily have to be part of a tradition, doesn’t necessarily have to regard himself or herself as being part of a tradition, and surely it enhances the idea of democracy if there are also individuals who are free and empowered as well as various traditions being empowered. As the political concept of liberal democracy emphasises the idea of the individual, this also concurs with my anarchist idea of power distribution.

While the political concept of anarchism therefore can derive something from capitalism, we should, as socialists, have thoughtfulness for people who were told they were communists. I don’t accept that there should be such a political concept as communism. I don’t think people should be called communists, it’s a dehumanising concept. And therefore I refer to such people as people who were told they were communists either by the deceitful ideology of marxism and\or by a marxist state, and as a socialist I think that such people should be set free.

Nobody should be called a communist, nobody really wants to be called a communist, it’s a dehumanising concept. It’s dehumanising because the idea of communism would be oppressive and one-dimensional. And it’s dehumanising because it’s based upon a political deceit, the ideological deceit of marxism which was invented by God. Such people who were told they were ‘communists’ by the ideological deceit of marxism and\or by a marxist state, should be, need to be set free. Wouldn’t it be good, wouldn’t it be an inspiration, to realise such a person or persons are being set free, by giving them the inspiration to be liberal democrats, by giving them the inspiration to believe that they value the values of liberal democracy, human rights, democratic rights, that all traditions should flourish, that capitalism should be. For phoney socialist ideology is deceitful anyway, for capitalism is God’s capitalism, it was invented by God and it’s what God wants.

Such people should be set free by being told that socialism can have a moral democratic perspective, and that the political concept of socialism embraces and values the idea of liberal democracy, and therefore people who were told they were communists, if they want to be socialists, upon having political ideology clarified for them and the true nature of political reality revealed to them, can also value and believe in liberal democracy. And wouldn’t it be good to set such a person or persons free, a person or persons who were told they communists, who were deceived by God, and to see that such a person has been set free from phoney socialism, from the ideological deceit of marxism which was invented by God, so that such a person has the inspiration to be a liberal democrat, and if such a person, having had political ideology clarified , having had the true nature of political reality revealed, wants to be a socialist, that such a person is a socialist as a liberal democratic, that such a person is a socialist and a liberal democratic, that such a person is a democratic socialist in being a socialist and a liberal democrat.

And let it be said that it is I who wants to convey this idea to such a person, and not God, and not phoney socialist parties. They never said they wanted to convey this idea to such a person.

For, as I have said in my book “True Nature of the Political Concept of Socialism Revealed”, it is rare to find expressions of inspiration, of morality, of moral inspiration, in so-called socialist ideology. I found a few, and therefore as I, as a socialist, am inspired to find such expressions of moral inspiration, it is my wish to want to convey this morality with other socialists, with people who were told they were communists for example, to want to share this inspiration of socialist morality with them, so that they have the inspiration to be liberal democrats and socialists. And we should have the idea of socialism and liberal democracy.

As I have said above liberal democracy is basically the same things as anarchism, and as anarchism is generally regarded as being a socialist doctrine, and in realisation of the true nature of political reality, then the true nature of the political concept of anarchism is basically the same thing as the true nature of the political concept of socialism.

The true nature of the political concept of socialism is revealed by revealing the true nature of political reality.

The true nature of political reality is that God exists, that there is only one God, that the power of God exists, that as the power exists and as God created human beings it is inevitable that God must desire to share his power with human beings, that God has done this, that God has shared his power with his friends, that God has come to live in the world to share his power with his friends, that God’s chosen friends are the state and capitalism, that God therefore is a capitalist-royalist, that God is the power and intelligence behind the means of production. This is the true nature of political reality.

The true nature of the political concept of socialism therefore is revealed by revealing this true nature of political reality. The true nature of the political concept of socialism is that, as the original socialist objects to all war, and as the political concept of socialism has to do with the desire for control of the means of production, and as the true nature of political reality is that the means of production are controlled by God, the state and capitalism, socialism is a democratic socialism, a socialism that values liberal democracy, and seeks for some control of economic power, of the means of production by peaceful means.

As this is the true nature of the political concept of socialism, and as the true nature of the political concept of socialism has not yet achieved economic power, as the true nature of political reality is that economic power is controlled by God, the state and capitalism, if the true nature of the political concept of socialism was to achieve economic power, it could only be a minority concept, a minority achievement.

But true socialists can become satisfied that socialism would only be a minority concept, if socialism were to achieve power, because you can come to the view, to the belief that it is good to be in the minority.