Breaking the Cycle: The Pentalogue and the Permanent Minority Problem
This piece is adapted from Cresset, the author's book. The views expressed are the author's own.
Democracy tends to lose its viability as it ascends from village to province, country and ultimately to the international level. This is so because it is not sufficiently designed to work at a global level. The United Nations Security Council provides a familiar example: its five permanent members possess veto power that confers upon them a position of institutional privilege, notwithstanding the standpoint of an overwhelming majority. The loss of effectiveness may also be attributed to the creation of perpetual majority and minority clusters; thus, the latter is at a perpetual disadvantage. This encourages the perpetual minority cluster to break away from the perpetual majority cluster and create a playing field of its own. In the newly established political landscape, new majority and minority clusters emerge and the process starts all over again. Is there a way to break this cycle? This is the question that I have tried to answer. Neocracy is the model I propose: a layered structure of governance running from the country level up to the global level. It has country, subcontinental, continental and global administrative setups. The head of every Neocratic setup is the President, in whom the executive authority vests. Similarly, there are Neocratic Legislative Houses at every level.
The Pentalogue has five tenets, and it constitutes Article 17 of the Constitution of Neocracy. Its first tenet provides that each setup exercises authority to the extent of its jurisdiction. The second tenet states that a legislative instrument issued by the House may be dissented by the President. The third tenet then gives reciprocal authority to the House and states that the dissent of the President may be set aside by the House by a two-thirds majority of its joint sitting. This is in consonance with the basic democratic principle that, in case of conflict between the individual and the collective mind, the decision of the latter prevails.
Building upon the same principle, the fourth tenet states that any action of a superior setup may be altered or amended or repealed, to the extent of its jurisdiction, by a subordinate House by a two-thirds majority. It implies that the decree of, say, the Global President would pass down to the Continental, Subcontinental and, lastly, the Country President. Since the Country President is part of this vertical executive setup, he is bound to endorse the global decree and implement it forthwith. However, if the Country Neocratic House feels that the decree is against the very ethos of their society, then the same may be rejected by a two-thirds majority. This also applies to a legislative instrument issued by the higher Neocratic House. For instance, if a certain section of an Act promulgated by the Subcontinental Neocratic House is against the very ethos of the people of a country, then the same may be rejected by a two-thirds majority of the Country Neocratic House. This is the basic constitutional safeguard which enables a country to maintain its identity while at the same time remaining part of the higher subcontinental, continental and global setups.
Lastly, the fifth tenet states that any action of a subordinate setup may be altered or amended or repealed by a superior House by a two-thirds majority. It implies that the decree of a Country President or a legislative instrument issued by a Country Neocratic House may be rejected by, say, the Subcontinental Neocratic House by a two-thirds majority. Consequently, the Country Neocratic House does not have an absolute veto power. In case of conflict between the subordinate collective mind and the superior collective mind, the decision of the latter prevails. In simple words, the fourth tenet safeguards diversity and the fifth tenet does not permit division.
The Global House is the final constitutional authority in this chain of reciprocal overrides. However, in this case, the power rests with the two-thirds majority, not an individual. Unlike the institutional privilege of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the superior Neocratic Houses of the Pentalogue are constituted through a structured progression of representatives from the constituent levels below. As the geographical ambit of a House expands, the number of representatives belonging to a particular country may decrease, but its representation does not disappear; every higher House remains firmly rooted in its geography. Thus, at the point of irreconcilable conflict, finality rests with a two-thirds majority of the broader collective body in which the subordinate unit itself remains represented.
It may not be inferred that the dissent at various levels mentioned above would come in the way of day-to-day governance. The Pentalogue acts only as a constitutional circuit breaker and, by default, it cannot be invoked under ordinary circumstances. Routine orders pertaining to expenditure, development, health, etc., can be executed unhindered. This is so because securing a two-thirds majority in support of dissent on a particular issue would require substantial effort based on a genuine grievance. The object of the Pentalogue is to achieve unity without demanding uniformity, and to preserve diversity without permitting division.
About the author
Asfandyar Khan is a Pakistan-based author of the book, Cresset. The book endeavours to provide a constitutional blueprint for a world order beyond the nation-state, global governance, and the ultimate creation of a sovereign and borderless society. It is freely downloadable from www.cressetbook.com. The author believes in unity without uniformity and diversity without division.
