What is Global Isokratia - PART 4 Isokratia Global
Isokratia Global is an extension of Isokratia national. The same principles, just extended to the global cybernetics (governings). Under Isokratia Global, the Global citizen will be deciding, whereas the Isokratic governing bodies, will be executing the global citizens decisions. Isokratic Global United Nations with real governing powers. Isokratic Global Security Council, with full membership not just to the few superpowers. Isokratic Global Health Councils. Isokratic Global crime prevention and law enforcement councils with real powers. Isokratic Global Ecological Councils and so on, with real and applicable powers. Without any veto powers. Without any abuse possibilities by the few.
The power of the decision making to always lie with the public at large based on each individual’s vote, not the government, nor on the government’s appointed oligarchic representatives, or their appointed employees.
The executive arms of some organisations to lie with a separate body. Once given an instruction by a global public vote, the executive arm of such an organisation will have the power to execute it, be it military, civil or a combination, without being halted or prevented by any individual country or group of countries.
For this purpose, the executive, or rather executioning bodies, be they military, police or whatever, must be manned by permanent staff members, soldiers, police, judges, researchers, and so on. Such personnel to be drawn from the global pool, with a balanced proportion of members from each region and country. This is to avoid the influence by an individual country’s intervention. This will minimise, if not eliminate, the power of a single country or group of countries, to affect the execution of a global vote, by an international body such as the United Nations organisation.
No single country or small group of countries will be able to interfere or invade another country without the Isokratic mandate from the global community; and equally important no single country or small group of countries will be enable to abstain from such actions when deem necessary and mandated through the Isokratic voting of the global community.
Financing such organisations can be decided in any format. Be it a national contribution or a global tax. Each country member to have to pay a proportionate annual contribution to this force, in proportion to its per capita income, or whatever other means, set as criteria. If a country fails to pay its membership, to be automatically banned or membership and rights suspended.
Economically weak countries can be excluded from the economic burden of contributing towards the financial maintenance of the international bodies, until their economies are in such a state of ability, which will allow them to be able to contribute without harming the economy of their country. Such countries, will still be required to contribute in personnel, raw material, facilities and whatever other form of contributions of which they may be cable.
Membership to these international bodies to be open only to Isokratic and Democratic countries and those with convincing evidence that they are in a transitional state to Democratic / Isokratic system. Every country, financially and technologically unable but willing to implement the Isokratic system, to be able to receive financial grants and training help, to set up the global electronic Isokratic voting system.
When the people of a country demand the Isokratic system and the local regime opposes it on any grounds, the international enforcement body will have the obligation, firstly to put in a vote for action, against such regime. Once, or if such a vote is won, then action to be taken to remove such a regime. The action can be in steps such as first in a financial or trade embargo, and after a set time if necessary and if approved by the global voters even by military intervention.
Care must be taken for the benefit of the public at large. Long-term economic and other types of sanctions have a habit of punishing the public not the regime leaders. The misery brought to the public of a country just because the international community fights against, their leader, must end. As such, swift and decisive use of force targeted specifically for the removal of a dictatorial regime, may be the best pill. Always and only after the full vote for such an action by the Isokratic United Nations body whose representatives will be voting according to the wishes of the voters of the country they represent.
Under our present United Nations system, embargos and sanctions can be easily overused, or just set up for decorative purposes only. Watch this; According to the Herald tribute of 23 January 2001, the USA in the year 2001 had sanctions of some form of another, against 75 countries out of the 193 nations. The reasons are a wide span, ranging from humanitarian violations, to war offences, drug trafficking, mislabelled tuna cans, tariffs and so on. I am not judging the validity of such sanctions. I merely stating facts as to the extend, which may escape the great majority.
I stress again that the circumstances for such votes and actions are only when the people of a country demand the Isokratic system, not just because the rest of the globe demands it to be. If the public of a country at large through their free vote (supervised by the global agencies), lawfully elects a representative who may not be to the liking of the rest of the international community, then the people’s wishes must be respected and upheld by all other countries.
Undemocratic, un- Isokratic system countries, to be allowed reasonable transition times to switch from a dictatorial, or autocratic system to the Isokratic system. Under such circumstances, the transition time to serve a bridge time, whereby Isoklratisation is introduced step by step, until full implementation.
Personally, I am of the belief that, the sooner the better. I believe that if given the chance and exposed to the arguments for and against, all humans educated or not, are capable of forming a balanced opinion upon which to base their voting decision. I rather see the wrong decisions taken by informed individuals, rather than see the wrong decision, taken by one or a few, on behalf of the millions or even billions of individuals.