STATE-SPONSORED VIOLENCE, WAR AND HUMAN OPPRESSION

State-sponsored violence and war

Throughout human history and every single day, throughout the year, and every year, countless innocent and defenseless human beings are being oppressed and killed by their own so-called “democratically” elected governments. The State is in fact the largest criminal organization and human rights violator, and those living under the tyranny of the State find themselves entirely powerless and defenseless against State-sponsored violence of their own governments, many of which justify their legitimacy from so-called “ democratic” elections.

The recent “ war on terror” waged in Iraq and in Afghanistan by the USA, Britain and its allies – to name but one - is the most recent historical example of State-sponsored violence, human oppression and war on a vast, unlimited and devastating scale waged against both the American citizens themselves, innocent civilians abroad and so-called “terrorists” by so-called “democratically" elected governments.
.
So-called “democratic” elections serve to legitimate criminal and oppressive States around the world – which in fact are nothing more than vast (legal) criminal organizations that engage in war crimes and commit crimes against humanity and (legally) rob both the country of its resources and its people of its hard-earned income for its own economic, financial and political ends.

Thus, to put an end to global state-sponsored violence, human oppression and war we must put an end to the criminal nature of illegitimate and oppressive States around the world.

I. LEGITIMACY OF THE STATE

The myth of “democratic” elections and the illegitimacy of the State.

ITS NOT HOW MANY VOTE THAT COUNTS;
ITS HOW THE VOTES ARE COUNTED.

The State derives its political legitimacy on the widely accepted but inherently flawed principle of the voting “majority” in so-called “democratic” elections. However, a brief quantitative analysis of the “democratic” electoral process reveals a different picture altogether from the preached “democratic” electoral rhetoric.

Let us therefore briefly analytically and objectively review the “democratic” electoral process which serves to legitimate “democratically elected” governments and the State.

“I think it is dangerous to confuse the idea of democracy with elections;
Just because you have elections doesn’t mean you’re a democratic country.”

Arundhati Roy

Let us, for the purpose of our analysis, make the following assumptions about country X which is conducting presidential elections with 5 candidates (A, B, C, D, E)

•  Total Population = 100 million inhabitants
  

•  % of total population eligible to vote ( over 18, etc. as per Constitution): 70% = 70 million inhabitants
  
•  % of voters that actually cast their electoral votes: 70% = 49 million inhabitants.
  

First round election results:

• Candidate A gets 30% of the votes = 14, 700, 000
  

• Canditate B gets 25% of the votes = 12, 250, 000
  
• Remaining 3 candidates ( C, D, E )share the balance of the votes (45%) among them = 22,050,000
  

Thus, candidate A & B together win the “majority” of votes (55%) in the first round and are thus qualified – under the electoral rules – to run for a second round.

Candidates C, D, and E are disqualified from the electoral process – according to the electoral rules - since they failed to obtain the “majority” of votes in the first round.

Second round of election results:

Percentage of the population casting their votes during the second round: 60% of eligible voters = 29.4 million voters.

• Candidate A gets 55 % of the votes = 16, 170, 000 votes
  
• Candidate B gets 45 % of the votes = 13, 230, 000 votes
  

Thus, under current electoral rules, Candidate A wins the “democratic” presidential elections with a “majority” of votes (16,170,000 votes)

However, let us look beyond the rhetoric and let the numbers speak and reveal the Truth.

The declared winner of the “democratic” presidential elections has won 16.17 million votes, OUT OF A TOTAL OF 100 MILLION INHABITANTS, which only represents 16.2% of the voices of the total population. How then can he legitimately claim to have been elected “democratically” by a “majority” of the votes…?

Even after deducting the voices of the 30 millions inhabitants who – under the electoral rules – are forbidden to vote, there still remains 53.8 millions people who did NOT vote for candidate A (53.8 % of the total population).

What about the voices of these remaining 53.8 million people who did NOT vote for candidate A, but who are now nevertheless constrained and obliged to be ruled by candidate A and thus to be directly affected by the political rule and economic, social, political and legislative policies developed and implemented during his presidential reign…?

Why should the 53.8 million people who did NOT vote for candidate A be obliged to recognize, accept and obey his rule? Furthermore, why should they surrender a portion of their income and earnings in taxes to the administration of a president for whom they did not vote…?

The above brief analysis of the so-called “democratic” electoral process by the so-called “majority” CLEARLY reveals that the whole electoral process is inherently deeply flawed and thus needs to be urgently reformed, for the sake of true democracy for the true majority of all people.

Thus, as the above brief analysis of the electoral process clearly reveals, so-called “democratically” elected governments do not have any political legitimacy to govern.

II. MERITOCRACY vs DEMOCRACY

• State administrators must be hired by the people based on merit, competence and integrity.
  
• State should be administered by competent individuals using the same management principles and objectives as corporations.(i.e. productivity, efficiency, profitability, etc.)
  
• State administration should be fully transparent and accountable to the people of the country, just as administrators of private corporations are held accountable to their shareholders.
  
• The State is the company of the administrators and the people its shareholders.
  
• All annual profits should be reinvested for the economic development of the country and the social welfare of its people.
  

III. PRIVATIZE THE ARMY AND THE DEFENSE SECTOR

• The government shall not be allowed to engage in ANY military spending and/or military/warfare activities.
  
• The security and military defense forces of the country shall be outsourced from the private sector.
  
• The private army/defense contractor shall be entirely independent from the government.
  
• The private army/defense contractor will be outsourced from the global private defense sector based on professionalism, efficiency, cost effectiveness, reputation, etc.
  
• The private sector defense contractor will be recruited and hired by an independent committee and will be directly accountable to the people.
  
• The private defense contract hire should clearly define the Terms and Conditions of the private security/defense company.
  

• The private defense contract will be hired only for internal security and national defense purposes; Under no circumstances will it be permitted to engage in offensive warfare within its territory or against other States.
  

Result:

END OF STATE-SPONSORED WAR, VIOLENCE and HUMAN OPPRESSION

Outsourcing military defense contracts from the private sector will achieve the following:

• Put an end to state-sponsored war crimes and oppression and human rights violation of its own people.
  
• Significantly decrease skyrocketing global military spending by Nation-states (1000 billion annually!),
  
• Reduce the expansion of the global military-industrial complex
  
• Put an end to global military conflicts and wars among nation-States.
  
• Remove State control over the repressive force of the military/army against its own people
  

• State revenue can be used for economic and social development of the country and not wasted on military spending. (i.e. annual military spending : $US 1 trillion vs $US 50 billion annual (so-called) “aid” allocated to Third World countries)
  

• Private Army/defense company more cost effective, efficient, professional and directly accountable to the people. If it fails to carry out its defined mission effectively (i.e. protection of the people and the country) the people can put an end to their contract and outsource another more effective defense company on the global market.
  

Resume of main political reforms

1) Dismantle illegitimate and oppressive States.
2) Hire new legitimate government administrators based on meritocracy, competence and integrity to administer the State using same management principles and objectives governing corporations (i.e. accountability, transparency, efficiency and profitability)
3) Privatize army/defense. Outsource defense contract from private sector. Army/defense should be independent of government.