Democracy with parties?

1. Introduction

We are now in the 21th century and the population and the population of the world is still growing fast. We know additionally, that in all modern economies the service sector is increasing in comparison to other sectors as industry or agriculture. In the consequence politics have more and more challenges and responsibilities for their countries. But elementary rules for a just and fair government are not recognized in many countries. Different forms of weak Democracies fight with soft or strictly Autocracies for superiority.

Because of our historical experience we know, that Autocracy is only temporarily a national problem. After autocrats submitted their people completely, the future is more and more dangerous for their neighbors in other countries. In order to avoid evil from the people of a country and neighboring countries, it’s necessary to give them all protection against autocracy. Hence it is important to consider the development of the separation of powers in the past and in the presence and the further development. A next step is needful for a full protection against autocracy.

2. From Feudalism to Capitalism

From the Middle Ages until the 18th century the political and the economic rules based on feudalism. When the rulers changed without violence, it was mostly the son or sometimes the daughter who inherited the throne from their father or mother. The political units were kingdoms or principalities or sometime empires. In order to give such political systems a peaceful legitimation the religious authorities told the people that the ruler derived the right to rule through the grace of God. This was possible, although in the Bible at the first book of Samuel Chapter eight the Lord told his prophet Samuel many reasons, why He don’t favor kingdom and monarchy.

But in the 18th century more and more steam engines and later other engines were introduced for industrial production. The production in the agriculture sector was descending and in other sectors was growing in comparison to each other. But the public sector was rising, too. The age of feudalism was replaced through capitalism.

For many people it was no more acceptable to keep the public property in private ownership. In order to change this the idea of separation of powers became increasingly popular.

John Locke (29 August 1632, Wrington, Somerset, England – 28 October 1704, High Laver, Essex, England) a very influential of the Enlightenment thinkers who wrote the book Two Treatises of Government, published at 1690. In his work he distinguished between the legislative and executive and the federative power. The federative power is characterized as the power for foreign affairs. Hence the executive is in his theory the power for domestic policy. Locke says that the legislature cannot govern arbitrarily. Levying taxes or confiscating of property without the consent of the governed is illegitimate, because of his nondelegation doctrine. John Locke believed that the legislative should be supreme over the executive and federative powers. Because the legislative power can give laws to another powers, it must be superior to him. (Second Treatise §150). This mean, the executive and federative power are only subordinate powers.

Later Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (January 18, 1689, Château La Brède , near Bordeaux, France – February 10, 1755, Paris) is a French political philosopher who wrote his Enlightenment ideas of a tripartite system in his book The Spirit of Law (1748). There he distinguished between three political powers. They are the legislature and the executive and the judiciary. His separation of powers was based on the structure of the Roman Republic and the British constitutional system. Montesquieu argues that each power exercise its functions separately. The people will be secure against tyrannical laws and arbitrary judiciary, when the powers are independent from each other. Checks and balances are necessary to keep all powers within their limits. The principles of Montesquieu’s ideas were implemented in 1787 in the Constitution of the United States.

At the following centuries and decades, the ideas and the necessity of separation of powers was implemented in more and more countries of the world. In many countries the development from monarchy and feudalism to democracy did not happen peacefully. Through the hard experiences of World War I and World War II most libertarian politicians learned that for the future the countries need more democracy. Democratic countries were too fragile and declined sometimes very fast into autocratic countries. When countries have no more a rule-based order appreciated from the majority, then in such countries, the right to rule is gained by the strongest. This is the rule in the nature. Usually, the bigger animals eat the smaller animals after a fight and a victory. The stronger animal is the winner and the weaker animal will be the loser. Survival of the fittest is in principle their rule.

But in a community with equal rights, it’s necessary to find rules without fight. All political powers need representatives of the people. Because the people is the highest sovereign of a country. They can announce their will only with elections and referendum. Only in this case it’s possible, that the majority can reign over the minority. In order to guarantee this rights for the people, it’s a condition, that politicians don’t fear the opinion of the majority of their people. The selection process and the manner and the duration period for the representatives is a part of the rules for a modern and justice constitution. A second condition is the fact, there are courts which can judge in accordance of such rules and laws. It's a principle of fairness, that the rules are valid for all people without exception. Justice in the manner of equal rights for everybody is the most important condition for peace. In politics as well as in economics the societies with a maximum of equal rights and fair rules have the best protection against autocracy. Such societies can exist with a stronger inner structure. They are more peaceful and stable and without threats and danger against their neighbors.

But in the classical theory of separation of powers and representation of the people, it’s not possible, that the majority of the people has more priority than the majority of the deputies of a parliament or a congress or the governor of the state.

3. Democray with many parties

In countries with capitalistic economy, it’s normal, that the workers want be organized in unions. At the other side the employers are organized in other associations. All professionals got the experience, that the membership in unions and associations is a condition for a better distribution of income of companies and even of the budget of the government. Hence in many countries with democratic constitution it’s possible to elect a party or the candidates of a party listed on one paper. In such parliaments the parties should represent the same proportions than they got at the elections.

Before the elections the candidates and the leader of parties write a specific party program with the specific aims and wishes of the party. Every party has the goal to write the best party program with the best wishes. Then it is easier to find the limits and the differences to other party programs. Usually, parties want be the lawyers for the laborers or the upper class or the middle class or socialists or the communistic ideology. They are often advocates of conservatives or of the establishment with a libertarian ideology. Differences of parties can we group in moderate and in radical ideologies. The second category is, if they prefer the lower class and redistribution of money, then it is a left-wing party or if they prefer the upper class and emphasize nationalistic values, then it’s a right-wing party.

Before elections the representatives of parties tell the people, why their ideology is better than any other one. They tell additional, why voting for the wrong party will develop to a disaster for the whole country. Those arguments are obvious, especially because of radical parties. Extreme parties use dangerous ideology, like communism or nationalism with the promise that their ideology can solve all political problems, in case their party programs come true without compromise. Normally radical parties for protesters are smaller than moderate parties for the satisfied citizens. In case of radical parties, the government has the option to monitor the mindset of prominent representatives in relation to democratic rules. When such observations are not enough intimidating, the government can forbid the whole party, because of hostile propaganda.

In countries with a proportional representation of parties in a parliament are more fractions of parties in parliament, than in other countries with a majority voting system. Usually, the deputies are lawyers of those, from whom they owe their seat in parliament. When they got their seat from their party, then they have to fight for the leaders of their party. Otherwise, when they owe their seat from the majority of the voters of their constituency then they fight and vote for the majority of their voters.

In countries with a proportional election system the candidates of a party have to fight for a high list position, before the public election. The fight for a top list position is normally a private election before the public election. When a candidate wants a seat for a party in the parliament, it’s a condition to get a list position at the list of the same party. Candidates at the top of the party list have the best chance and the least chance have the candidates at the bottom of the party list.

A second factor for the chances of candidates is, if it’s a list of a popular party or only of a fundamentalistic party. When the voters are very angry about politics, they prefer candidates with a fundamentalistic mindset and especially parties with a fundamentalistic party program. The other voters prefer candidates with a more realistic mindset and a more moderate party program. In such countries it’s a tradition that the representatives of parties give the eligible voters promises, why they will never cooperate with hostile parties after the election. All candidates are convinced why changing majorities in a parliament are the end of stability in the legislative power. They know that after the election the parties of the parliament have to take the choice for a new governor. In order to build a new government, the leaders of the parties must build a coalition or an alliance of parties with the most similar party programs. On the way to a new coalition, they need often long negotiations with the aim to write a new coalition contract. Such a contract contains a mixture of the party programs of the participant parties and of the common aims of all parties of the coalition. Additional they need an agreement, which party will own which department of the government. All parties of a coalition pay attention, to get a proportional representation in the team of the new government. But it’s not negotiable, that the leader of the government is in the ownership of the biggest party of the coalition.

When all negotiations are successfully finished, the parties have the most security for the election of the new leader of the new government. The written coalition contract is a guarantee, that all deputies of a party will obey their leaders and additional to the leader of their government, because he is the highest representative of all parties of the coalition.

3.a. Diagram Democracy with many parties

Despite all negotiations and agreements and contract, the new coalition contract and the successful establishment of a new government, they have no guarantee for a successful cooperation of all parties over the complete time of the term. In case the Prime minister will dismiss an important minister of a party of the coalition during the legislative period, it's possible, that the alliance of the coalition parties will break. Then it’s no more possible to create new laws with a guarantee of the majority in the parliament. Another reason for trouble is, that the deputies of a party of the coalition have too different opinion about a new law. In this case it’s possible, that a majority for a new law is only reachable, with the deputies outside of the coalition, respective with deputies of an opposition party. This is a difficult situation, because all deputies of a coalition think, that a government with changing majorities is a chaotic government and that all deputies who don’t obey the leaders of their parties are traitors of their parties and of their alliance. They think, when they don’t give their vote to the coalition parties, then they give their vote to the opposition parties.

This means, the Prime minister has no more the support of the majority of the coalition. Then he has the option to construct a new coalition with another party of the parliament, consequently with an opposition party. Often this option is not realistic. A right-wing party and a left-wing party are normally hostile against one another. Usually they prefer, to give the protesters a voice than to take over responsibility for new laws. When they refuse their consent to all new laws, they keep their innocence, because of all consequences.

Usually, it’s a better option for the Prime minister to start a new election in the parliament, without a second candidate. Such an election will give the evidence, that he can reign no more with the majority of the parliament. In the next step he will give the order to start a new election of the whole parliament before the end of the regular legislative period.

A rare option exists, when a Prime minister will rule with the consent of the majority of the parliament. This is possible, when the governor will justify his orders with his reference to emergency. Such orders are decrees. When the Prime minister or President determine the state of emergency, he can give executive orders, without the vote and the consent of the parliament. The decrees come into effect immediately, in case the governor want instant execution. Such an extreme way of government is usually accepted in case of a war. A democratic leadership of an army is never successful.

More often the people recognize a state of autocracy without a war. There are governors who don’t like contradiction from their party or their coalition or their parliament. They claim, that their laws are backed from the majority of the parliament and from the majority of their people. But in the reality, they fear a referendum of their people and even the vote of their parliament. Autocratic governors with dictatorship inclinations speak often about security needs for his country. Those governors think, that every critical argument have the origin in hostile people. But at an early form of autocracy some people still have the chance to accuse unfair circumstances of a law. This is possible, when the judges still have the right to recognize human rights and elementary ways of fairness. Through the court rulings of the victims of new laws it’s possible to mitigate the impacts of new laws and especially the effects of decrees. Under a soft autocracy are contradictions through courts more promising, than under a hard autocracy.

4. Autocracy with one dominant party

In an early phase of autocracy, it’s important for a governor to get immunity against the law. They need a constitutional court with friendly members. So they will appoint those with a submissive mindset. In the next step the governor will hire ministers, who never criticized the governor. Loyalty to the governor is the most important feature of ministers and department heads.

It’s of course a condition, that all hired people for the government are from the same party. Prominent people from other parties will be fired at a favorable opportunity. In the consequence, the main party get the biggest budget for propaganda. The representatives of the dominant party tell the people, that for the fight against emergency and in order to avoid additional emergency, their party program is without alternative. In the consequence, the government can suppress the ideas of opponent parties and even forbid all activities. In extreme cases only one party will remain. It’s the dominant party.

Autocracy with a dominant party

4.a. Diagram Autocracy with a dominant party

Socialism or nationalism or the submission under the religion is the only way, to solve the urgent problems. The party leader is a rare hero and he own the best ideas and skills for his people. All people who don’t accept this propaganda are dissidents or unbelievers. Those people are dangerous for autocratic governors. Hence dictators need more and more laws against subversive agitation. Autocrats claim that the state monopoly on violence is necessary for order and peace and security of his country. People who criticize their dictator and his propaganda are accused to argue with a hostile mindset and they must be disqualified for any progress at their career. All people at senior positions need membership at the dominant communistic or nationalistic or religious party. They all granted the right to praise the autocrat or to be quiet.

Otherwise, they insult or slander their autocrat. Dissidents are people who are dangerous for the stability and security of the country, says the propaganda. This is the justification for an autocrat to extend the security services and intelligence services and to install special prisons in his country. Private newspapers and their journalists lose their license or reporter will be punished with prison in case they criticize their autocrat. Everybody has to learn, that any critics of the government is an offensive statement and an attack against the honor of the majesty and must be persecuted as a lie against the autocrat.

In some autocratic countries it’s possible, that the governor allows elections of the governor even with more than one candidate. But in such countries, it’s of course not allowed to tell lies to the people. That mean, the qualification of candidates needs a special level. Candidates can give their guarantee for qualification, when they support the same party than the autocrat and when they avoid any small critic of the autocrat. Those candidates are tolerated from the autocrat, when they avoid public appearances, public speech and discussions. In case they don’t want change something and when they don’t like private newspaper or radio stations or Television-Channels and when they don’t miss verifiable elections, they have the best chance to become candidates for the public election.

Some autocrats organize additional referendums after the extension or their territory by force. In such countries the people get the option to confirm the occupation of the region or complete countries near the border of an autocratic country. The results of such referendums are usually not verifiable. On March 12th, 1938 Austria was occupied through the soldiers of the German Empire. On April 10th,1938 a referendum was caried out. Jewish people and dissidents were excluded from the referendum. The result was, that reportedly 99,73% of the Austrian people voted with consent for the annexation.

Another wide spread reason for referenda will be carried out, to give the autocrat a legitimation for his government. In many countries it’s a reality to give the autocrat a legitimation through an election, without any other candidate. Such elections are necessary, in order to detect dissident citizens and people with a hostile mindset against the dictator. But elections are additional necessary to confirm the chosen candidates for the political assembly. For every constituency there is often only one candidate or at least the dominant and ruling party is connected with one candidate. It’s important for an autocratic government, that only the dominant representative of the dominant party will win the election.

When Josef Stalin (December 18, 1878, Gori, Georgia – March 5, 1953, Kunzewo near Moscow) was the governor of USSR (Union of Socialist Soviet Republics) his Red Army occupied since September 17, 1939 the eastern part of Poland until the German soldiers attacked the USSR at 1941. More than 13 million Polish citizens got the rights of Soviet citizens. Then the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs), the secret service conducted show elections. For the later Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia the elections were conducted at October 22, 1939. The ballot envelopes were numbered and often sealed before they were handed to the electors. Candidates were often unknown to their constituencies. At all polling stations NKVD-agents with uniform supervised the so-called election.

Autocracy is a regime without real elections. The people have no chance to replace their government without violence. Autocrats are not limited through the law. They have the right to release prisoners and to punish people. Usually in autocratic countries the death penalty is an important part of jurisdiction and the dictator has every right to defend his rule. They justify their decrees with the argument, thar there is emergency and they have the duty to avoid a bigger harm to their people. Autocrats say never, they want more security for them self. They argue, they want more security for their people. Human rights, international law, democratic rights, separation of powers or free international trade are not important for them. Autocrats like military strength and a strong secret service. They warn their people, because of the allegedly dangerous interests of minorities and especially of foreign agents.

All ideas, because of separation of powers will be persecuted as anti-state agitation. Hence in autocratic countries are special prisons necessary for political dissidents. In such prisons stay many people because of pre-trial detention. All the judges for such people must be loyalists to the autocrat. They show their qualification, when they confess to the party with the leadership of the autocrat. Other judges are not tolerated in the courts for political crimes. In autocratic countries with private newspapers and broadcasting journalists and reporters are tolerated, in case they practice strictly self-censorship and avoid any critical statement against their autocrats. But in an advanced step of autocracy all private newspapers and broadcasting companies lost their license. Then the autocrat is the superior of all reporters, because they all get their salary from the government.

In autocratic countries it’s advantageous to be a member of the dominant party. But it’s more advantageous to confess to the same ideas of the dominant party and to repeat the ideas of the autocrat. That’s necessary for all who want advance their career. For a fast career it’s necessary to be more strict and more radical than the autocrat. Why like autocrats chained dogs? The more of them who agitate for his ideas, the more the autocrat get the image of a wise, elder and moderate Lord. The chained dogs around him perform the dirty work and all people of the country think, their autocrat deserve more grateful and more loyal underlings. The propaganda says, all problems in the country have their cause in citizens, who does not obey and respect and admire the governor enough.

Autocratic governors seek their friends and alliance partners in other countries with an autocratic government. They trust only governors, who despise the separation of powers in their country. When they find friends in other countries who created or defend an autocratic structure of the rule system, then they help each other with money and military equipment. For autocratic alliance partners is ideology no problem. The need of support in order to extend their power and authority, they don’t care anymore about the philosophic background and legitimation of their alliance partners. If they prefer a nationalistic or a communistic or a religious legitimation for their dictatorship, has never the highest priority. Their most important affair is for such politicians the prolongation of their reign. Their goal is the suppress of all political critics and to persecute all dissidents at the homeland and even opponents at foreign countries.

Autocrats at an advanced stadium despise politicians who were elected through fair elections. When dictators survive attacks, they claim the bless of God or the providence of a super natural power who will help them. Such a big support is of course not available for his ordinary peoples or his underlings and not for his enemies. Autocrats never admit faults. Before and during a war they find all reasons and responsibilities in leaders and people of foreign countries. They argue, the people and their governments of hostile countries are immoral and decadent. They warn often, that they feel provoked through their neighbors in an unacceptable manner and that it’s necessary to warn them with military consequences.

In order to justify their dictatorship, it’s necessary, that they warn democratic politicians often to commit new provocations. In their narrative it’s a big crime, if democratic politicians or their people provoke an alliance partner. For their legitimation, they change the perpetrator and his victim at all international conflicts. When autocrats tell in public speeches about their love about peace and equality, most people don’t understand that they want submission. When autocrats submitted their own people, they can control all activities and publications and then it’s very dangerous for all neighbors in other countries. Usually, autocrats get addicted to gain more power, when they started a war. They think violence is a normal procedure to solve political problems. When the neighbor doesn’t accept occupation and will defend their sovereignty with weapons, then autocrats argue the narrative, that the neighbor is immoral and decadent with an evil ideology.

Sometimes local religious authorities pray in public area for autocrats. God should give them wisdom and intelligence and power in order to command wise decisions and honor the local religion and their customs and their language and their rituals. They pray for a secure and great nation. They pray, that the nation must fear no other nations without God. It’s possible, that the autocrats are honored as a messenger of God and when his soldiers conquer neighbors, they tell the believers it’s a holy war and that all soldiers who will die in combat, will come immediately in paradise. They argue, that every secular authority got his power through the grace of God and every criticism against him is from enemies of the home country. Often religious leaders say, the autocrat of their country is a chosen authority of God with the charisma of a prophet. They argue a decision through a referendum cause to laws of men and not to laws of God. But they don’t know, that all autocrats generate more emergency, than they can eliminate emergency.

Autocrats prefer often autarky as economic self-sufficiency for his country. A big military power should be independent from foreign trading and production. This is important, especially in case the foreign country is not ruled by an autocratic governor. Autocrats promise their people a wonderful future with big security, when the executive orders will be carried out immediately. They are convinced, that separation of powers is wasting of time for lawmaker. Autocrats think, the people and even the assembly of the people have not enough information, for new laws that must come into effect. Autocrats can never trust democratic politicians entirely. Their relationship to democratic politicians is in international affairs like the relationship of organized criminals to the police.

Many people think, autocratic governors make decisions with understanding and reason, because it’s their priority to extend the time of their rule. But they can’t avoid, that they get older and weaker like everybody. Then it’s a risk, how much collateral damage is necessary, when a power struggle is arising, because the autocrat is still alive and the majority of the people demand fair elections.

Autocrats like big and extreme luxury residences. For representation their buildings should be bigger, than all other buildings for representation. They prefer a strong army, because they should additionally support the police to push through law and order and to suppress opponent protesters and every resistance against his executive orders.

Most of the autocrats prefer politics with discrete private business. They don’t hesitate to use blackmail deals and insider information, in order get advantages for their own family. They like fast cooperation with oligarchs and to buy public property with a special offer. Such politicians are happy to help their family and relative’s careers and to gain profit. Autocrats like big and impressive buildings for representation. They preach to drink more water to the people, while no wine is too expensive for themselves. A royal lifestyle is good for more authority and more prestigious. Then the underlings recognize all the time the unique talent of their leader and why it is a big mistake, to wish a deadline for his reign.

A new challenge is awaiting, when the life and the government of an autocrat comes to an end. When the underlings realize the death of their autocrat, it’s advantageous to show in the public area their grief. The public showing of sadness is a spectacle like a competition. It will happen, when the Lord over life and death finished his leadership. The mourning people can only imagine, that the follower of the autocrat must be his son or at least he need the same confession. They are grateful for the opportunity to get more prestige, when they show everybody how much they miss their autocrat.

5. A Separation of powers for the future

For a better separation of powers, we need a more precise definition of Democracy. Democracy is a word from Greek origin and mean, means the government of a community or the people itself. That does not imply a government without representatives. But this will lead to fatal consequences, when there is a supreme and a subordinate power. In order to give the representatives full independency, they concede only a limited power. This means, it’s important to establish lawmaking powers with equal rights. For democracy is a dominance of one power, either the governor or the assembly, always a dominant power over the people. In case the governor is the dominant power, it will cause to autocracy. But otherwise, when the assembly is the dominant power, the parliament will disintegrate in parties or factions. This mean, the assembly will decay in dominant and subordinate parties. In order to guarantee stable majorities, it’s necessary, that the dominant parties establish a coalition, and the subordinate parties get the name opposition.

In order to avoid any disintegration of the parliament, it's important to organize the separation of powers, that all political problems without a veto of one power will be decided by the people itself. The objection of an assembly is valid through the vote of the majority of the deputies. Every people need a governor as a chief executive officer of the government. The governor or president of the government will be elected in the best case through the citizens in a direct and secret elections with many candidates. In such election it’s necessary to avoid any preselection in order to guarantee fair conditions for all candidates. Then it’s difficult that one candidate gets the absolute majority. But in a second ballot are only two candidates with the most votes allowed. The second election will be a runoff election, with only one winner.

The second power in a fair democracy is the state parliament or the people’s assembly. For full independence of a parliament, it’s important that all deputies will be elected through the citizens and without the support of parties. This is possible, if all candidates of a constituency will be listed at only one electoral list. In order to any form of preselection, all candidates can be listed in alphabetical order, like the names in a traditional phone book. Then it’s no more possible, it’s no more possible, to change the ranking of the candidates through the power of party organizations or through oligarchs.

When the governor and the state parliament own the same rights, they both have the power to introduce new laws for the people. Both state organs have the right to decide about new laws and to prevent new laws with a veto. The state parliament will decide with the majority of their deputies. When a new law will be prevented before the deadline is finished, both powers have the option to improve their law proposals. Then it’s more likely, that both state powers find a compromise for a new law. But in case they found no acceptable agreement before a normal deadline, both state powers have the option to decide about a referendum. In this case the eligible voter has the choice, to vote either for the law of the government or for the law of the parliament. Such a plebiscite is valid in every case. Neither the government nor the parliament has the option to ignore the majority of the voters. Because the validity of the referendum does not depend on the voter turnout.

In case the government and the state parliament have different opinion about deadlines or forms of power struggle, the both have the right to call the supreme court of the country. The judiciary will decide about a fair form of power struggle or if a new law will be compatible with the constitution. But the court can’t decide, if the government or the majority of the state parliament prefer the better law.

Democracy with elections and referendums

5.a. Diagram Democracy with elections and referendums

In traditional Democracies elections without parties and without the bad influence of oligarchs are utopian. Many people in the age of capitalism prefer either a nationalistic or a communistic ideology. The most people know, that workers and employed people have not enough money to pay the election campaign against capital owners and against billionaires. But if the eligible voters have no more the option to elect a party list or a party program, the voter turnout will be lower. It’s more difficult to decide between candidates than otherwise to decide between ideologies. Hence many eligible voters with only low political interest will be neutral and only viewers of the election process. But such new conditions are an advantage for serious political decision-making. Because it’s no more possible to elect radical party programs. Protest electors get no more representatives in a parliament. For a people’s assembly and their goal to prepare new laws the realistic and pragmatic deputies are more helpful than fundamentalistic and radical grassroot protesters.

In the age of capitalism, the privileges of capital owners cause big inequality between employees and self-employed candidates. Many costs, including the costs for the election campaign are deductible from the income tax. In order to a avoid such inequality, this system of separation of powers is an addition to the tax system, described behind the button: “Progressive tax? Why?”.

There are additional reasons for a referendum possible. The eligible voters of the people themselves can claim a new law proposal or initiate to prevent a law proposal or to repeal a law. The condition for such an intervention is, they have to collect enough signatures for the implementation of a referendum. A threshold for the execution of a referendum will be perhaps one percent of the eligible voters or less or more. In Switzerland is the legislative process with referendums successful and with a very long tradition.

Another reason for a referendum is possible in countries with a federal structure. Some laws of a central government have impacts on the regional countries and need the consent of their regional governments. In this case it’s possible, that an objection of the deputies of the regional governments will be decided through a referendum.

A third reason for a referendum is possible, in case of a change of the constitution or in case the country has the intention to join or to leave an international organization.

6. Conclusion

When the complete separation of the political powers is realized, then the people themselves are the supreme power in a country. The people must be the judge in case no agreement is possible between the People’s Assembly and the government. In the new Assemblies, the deputies can decide always in accordance to their conscience. Considerations because of parties and decisions due to membership and ideologies are no more necessary. Now the people of the constituency have the highest priority. Hence changing majorities are normal at any vote of the parliament. Such conditions will guarantee stable Democracies and peace to all neighbors. Hence in the assemblies the deputies will discuss more factual based on equal rights. All deputies will agree, that all autocrats with their favor to violence and arbitrary decisions and military rearmament must be stopped, before they give harm and punishment to their people.