(03d) The Three-Power system. How I think it should be in politics.

A country should always be rules by three powers and these powers should be equal: Head of State (government), Jurisdiction and Parliament. These three powers should control and balance each other. As long as each power accepts its own strengths and limitations while it also accepts the other powers' equal status, the powers can do their own duty. But each power is necessary to prevent the other powers becoming arrogant and corrupt due to too much power.

One of the best examples in history is Emperor Augustus, first emperor of the Roman Empire. I am not sure how dirty he played the game to become the only ruler but ones emperor he tried (mostly) to make decisions with respect for the Senate and in the interest of the people, thus he accepted he had limitations and could not do whatever he wanted (but he was a also a child of his time with his mistakes). But by accepting this and wondering what the Senate (and the people) might think about his decisions (without trying to be the popular guy), he made decisions for the common good of the empire. He also punished people who misbehaved so people knew they had to obey the laws and this resulted in an orderly society. Many of his successors acted for their own good and therefore were often bad.

An example not to follow comes from a time before the Roman Empire, e.g. Alexandre the Great: the more he conquered and thus the bigger his power the less he listened to advise. He became aggressive towards advisers, killed some of his most loyal friends making enemies from within.

Three Powers

I believe in the Three Power system as so many people do. It exists in most if not all European countries, in the USA (worked very well in the past) and in most other countries although sometimes only in theory. These three powers should be equal in strength, although individual persons within a power have different powers compared with people in the other powers. Lets explain ... .

Head of State - First Power

The First of the three powers is the Head of State (or Head of Government = Prime Minister, PM). This Power is equal to each of the other two powers. However, the Head of State is the most important individual as he/she is the only person in that position. The Head should be able to choose his own ministers and advisers to help him/her while he/she alone is responsible for the decisions (in Belgium for example it is not the PM who chooses his ministers but the political parties who are part of the government). Therefore, the Head should be able to remove his ministers when they are bad in their function or can no longer be trusted (more on how the government should work in another publication).

As the Head of State has the greatest powers as a person, all members of the other powers and the public should show their respect and rise when he/she enters. That doesn't mean they have to agree with the Head. Indeed, the other powers have the possibility to stop government decisions when a majority in the other powers think certain decisions are bad. Thus, the person of the First Power has a lot of power but needs the other powers to make progress, therefore he/she needs to communicate well with the other powers.

Nevertheless, the First Power should not be the place where laws are made but should implement the laws and manage the country. Of course, the Head should be able to suggest to introduce certain laws but mainly to allow a flexible working system. This power is also responsible for the budget (although it should be approved by the other powers).

High Court - Second Power and Parliament - Third Power

The Second Power, the High Court, should (a) check whether laws are followed by all the citizens (inclusive politicians) and (b) check whether new laws do not contradict with the essential laws of a society, i.e. the Human Rights.

The Third Power, Parliament, should (a) make new laws and (b) check whether the other powers implement the laws and make the people obey them. Therefore, the Members of Parliament (MPs) should stay in close contact with the people so they know what goes on in society and therefore be able to introduce or adjust laws to improve society.

Thus, the first duty of the Third Power is to introduce new laws or improve old ones while its second duty is to control the other powers to see if money raised via taxes is well spend and everyone contributes towards society. The Second Power should investigate whether the laws voted by the Third Power are not in contradiction with other laws and it should punish anyone who breaks any laws so all citizens are threaten equally. The First Power might find it necessary to suggest new laws to improve the working of the state; however it is the Third Power that will decide whether or not changes in the law are necessary and the First Power needs to manage society within the rules set by Parliament.

As I think in future no political parties will exist anymore, MPs will be independent from the government. I think this system might work better than the present systems. Look to e.g. the USA where many Republican politicians block any decision (even good decisions) made by the President in the hope people will vote for a Republican candidate. MPs should block bad decisions and not every decision simply because the Head is from another political party. When no parties exist, politicians will more likely judge the decisions made by the Head and not whether he/she belongs to this or that party (although of course some politicians will always deny their own morals if they think it will be good to get elected). And as most of the power to change society should be within Parliament, many people will be happy to be MP and take their responsibilities.

Personal power in each Power

As I mentioned before, each Power as a whole is equal to each other Power. As a result, the Head is the most powerful person while individuals in the High Court are second in position as its power is divided over a small number of people while the individual power of MPs is smallest as the power of Parliament is divided over a large number of people. Thus the power of an individual within a certain power is different from the individual power of a person in another power while the sum of all the members within a power is equal to the sum of all the members within the other powers. This means that each power has one third of the total power.

Of course, this does not mean there are no individual differences between MPs or judges within their own powers. You have Heads within each power. Also, good politicians want as much power as possible (be in the spotlights) to have their ideas heard and thus become law. Therefore, politicians are forced to explain their ideas and convince other politicians to vote for their ideas (remember when no political parties exist each politician is +/- on its own and according to subjects majorities can change). This will stimulate the debate, not only in the Parliament but also outside because politicians will need the support of voters to get elected and be sure other MPs who support their ideas get elected too. Indeed, good ideas will get a majority. Politicians will know they have to convince voters about their ideas to get elected as there will be no party to support them (although with the help of supporters who will help to spread the ideas of the politicians, such as in American presidential elections).

Respect between the Powers

It is very important that each (member of a) power shows respect for the other powers. Everyone should show their respect for the Head of State and rise when he/she enters a place. Equally, the Head should rise to greet members of the other powers when they enter his/her office to show his/her respect for the other powers. And this should be done even when they do not agree with each other. But still, the Head is higher in hierarchy than other individuals, and the latter should wait for a signal from the Head of State to sit down.

Of course, when a member of a power abuses his/her powers and becomes arrogant, the other person should complain about this directly or when necessary via the other Powers (first via his/her own Power) so that the other power(s) can force the arrogant one to show more respect to its members. Of course, what is being arrogant?

The Head needs to give the example and show respect towards the other Powers. When the Head is invited to go to one of the Powers, the Head should go and answer the questions asked by the other Powers. Of course, this should all happen in a civilised way (e.g. one should, within limits, respect each others agenda.)

Relationship towards individuals in society

In normal circumstances their should be respect between people. However, this is not always necessary. People with power sometimes have to show they are in a higher position than other members of society. When a member of society behaves badly, the attitude of people in power should show this, e.g. they do not stand to greet the civilian (may be the other person is not even allowed to sit). But when they split, the person in power should indicate he/she assumes the other person will behave in future (even when one thinks the other will not). Nevertheless the person should be given a chance to prove they want to improve their behaviour. Indeed, during the discussion, the person in power should made it clear what the consequences will be when the behaviour does not change. A well known example: in a court the Judge does not rise for the potential criminal, thus the judge shows who is in charge. And after a conviction, there is a punishment. Then the person gets a second chance. When the person repeats his/hers bad behaviour, the second punishment will be bigger.

Rule properly or else ...

The Head, although the person highest in ranking, cannot assume the power is always his/hers as he/she can loose the power during elections or when majorities in the other two Powers remove the Head from its powers. Even royals can loose their crown when they act unlawful. As each power is equal to the other powers, the power can be removed from an individual when it is proven the individual is corrupt. However, an individual's power cannot be removed because he/she has another opinion than the rest of the individuals. In this case, the individual's power can only be removed when he/she is no longer elected.

Thus Heads, MPs or Judges can loose their powers. But only when a majority in the three powers decide a person should loose its privileges. The Head can be removed by a majority in each of the two other powers while members of the Second and Third Power can only be removed with the agreement of a majority in all three powers. More specific, a member of the High Court can be removed when the First Power (Head of State) and a majority of the Second Power (High Court) and Third Power (Parliament) decide the judge has to go (it should be able to remove a judge when he/she is not doing its job properly). The same concerns to members of Parliament. As a consequence, it is slightly easier for the Head of State to lose his/her powers because a majority in only two powers is sufficient while majorities in all three powers are needed to approve the removal of the power of a member of the Second or Third Power.

This system is good because an individual member of the High Court or Parliament is less threatening for society than one person who is a Power. This system slightly decreases the powers of the individual in the First Power to make sure he/she cannot become too powerful. Indeed, when one person in e.g. the Parliament is corrupt, even when there is no majority to remove that person from Parliament, many MPs will no longer want to work together with that person (although this doesn't mean they can't vote in a similar way on certain issues). In the end, when there is enough evidence a certain person is corrupt, then the Powers will be forced to remove the power of its member as corruption can't be tolerated in a normal society. When the Powers become corrupt and don't want to remove the power of its member then, in a normal society, people will punish the corrupt politicians by not re-electing them (unless society itself becomes corrupt and people elect corrupt politicians (e.g. in Italy, although courts had evidence PM Berlusconi might be corrupt and although he introduced laws to protect himself from prosecution, people still elected him. This gives some indication that a large proportion of Italian society is corrupt)).

Nevertheless, as long as a suspected corrupt person is a member of the power, people should show their respect as it demonstrates their respect for the Power and as long as the corruption is not proven (as it can be a false rumour). Indeed, as long as the powers are not corrupt a majority will exist to remove the corrupt person but only when there is enough evidence. All powers should be involved: judges should investigate allegations and the other Powers should agree. This system prevents a Power removes a member for having another opinion than the other members. Members of the public can always show their disrespect for a person in power during elections by not re-electing the person.

I think this system makes it difficult for the Powers to become corrupted. And, as I believe in a future society without political parties, Parliament can be strong and independent from the First Power and thus it will be an honour to be an MP. MPs will be able to discuss legislation without dictates from political party and MPs should only be allowed to vote "YES" or "NO" and thus if a law is bad it will be rejected and re-discussed until a majority is found. MPs should vote more often on smaller subjects and less on big all-including legislation. This allows flexibility as it will be easier to change a small bad section of a big law while leaving the good parts unchanged.

Equal powers for the three Powers is important

I repeat, it is very important that the three Powers are equal, even during emergencies. E.g. the Head of State should not be the only person who can start a war or be the only person with the code to use nuclear weapons. All three Powers need to be consulted. E.g. the nuclear code should be divided between the three powers and thus this weapon can only be used when all three Powers agree. Thus, the decision to start wars or use certain weapons should not belong to one individual (important when that person goes crazy). Also by important decisions such as war enough voices should be heard. And I am sure that when a country is attacked, it will be easy to find a majority to defend the country while some might suggest possible longterm solutions. Of course, the Head leads the war but still informs the other Powers who can block bad decisions.

When corruption takes over and the system goes down

I think the system I discussed is difficult to corrupt: (1) each individual can make decisions according to his/her conscience and not as a party dictates; (2) each individual is on his/her own and not protected by a political party, therefore every politician has to be as good as possible to be re-elected (of course the time in office might be short so there should be a system to support them during a short period when no longer in office) and (3) each Power is controlled by the other Powers.

Only when two of the Powers become corrupt there is a possibility this system collapses as the third Power probably becomes corrupt. Indeed, corrupt powers will not consider the uncorrupted power as equal and thus the "good" power (and society as a whole) can't function anymore. Therefore:

1. members in the "good" power will be forced out of office and replaced by people who are accepted by the corrupt powers, allowing the three powers to agree with each other (for a while) even when this means in a corrupt way) and thus all three powers become corrupt;
2. the members of the uncorrupted power don't want to resign and in order to make decisions, members of the "clean" power have to agree with the policies of the other two powers and thus, members of the "clean" power become corrupt.

Before that moment arrives, people (voters) should interfere and demand their leaders stay "clean". People should show their support to the uncorrupted power and people should not re-elect the corrupt members.  But many people may not stop the corruption as long as the corruption serves them well or because things happen in secrecy so no-one knows things go wrong. Indeed, bad leaders (especially those in politics) can (often) only exist because people allow them to be in power (elected) as long as people use the system for their own and not for society.

Not so long ago, most people were happy with little control on companies as long as the companies paid dividends (and still there are people who think governments should reduce their interferences). As a result big companies made their own rules. They still think society will allow them to behave as they did. At this moment, this is correct as many politicians introduce laws in favour of big companies because many politicians are afraid these companies may otherwise fail and thus people loose their job. But, as a result, smaller companies fail. But one day, politicians might notice these laws do not work because many big  companies only think about their own profits and might leave countries, even after receiving subsidies and costing society money, when they think they can make more money somewhere else. Then independent people (politicians and experts) will start to force rules on companies worldwide and an international government will rise to make a better world and force multinationals to obey the laws.

But, companies can still humble themselves and agree to think for the general good of society. Rich people can't continue to ask sacrifices from ordinary people while paying themselves even more because that might lead to revolution (something I hope will not happen). But either way, afterwards we will enter a more relaxed and less corrupt world where people will follow rules to prevent another collapse as everyone will agree we can't continue the way we did.

In conclusion

In the future society people will accept the political system is at the top of society and everyone has to obey the rules as everyone is part of the society. When people want to change society, they can try to do this in one of the Powers and when their ideas are good, they can become a member of one of the Powers and try to convince the other member of the Powers. During elections, people can support a candidate to make sure the candidate's ideas are heard but not within a party. Organisations will find it harder to force their ideas on society as they have to speak with individual members of the Powers and not only with a few party leaders try to convince them of their ideas. And organisations will have to convince the public about their ideas so members of the Powers who support the idea can be elected.

Changes may be slow to introduce in Parliament because each time like-minded have to be found. But as the First Power is managing the country, society will not collapse while MPs discuss new laws in Parliament. And the Second Power can make decisions during court cases that may influence society while Parliament can later introduce more permanent solutions.

Most people will recognise this system as indeed it already exist in many countries. It should work at many levels: from the level of the smallest town up to the level of a world government but also in other domains in society.

May be this system will not work, but I think society is already moving in that direction.