Government Structure



World Representative Government
The most prominent component of a "democratic" form of government is that the will of the people are somehow represented in the countries government. In most current democracies, the most common way to give this voice to the public has been through a body of elected representative, e.g., a House of Commons/Representatives in most parliamentary or congressional systems. Each "seat" of this House therefore usually represents a certain number of people. (ca. 100,000 in Canada and 660,000 in the U.S.). While this system has been the best and most effective methods of representation taking into consideration the overall context of the times in which they were founded and the scope of the work their government, one can reasonably argue that they could easily and probably repeatedly do not provide a true "representation" of the general public. For this to be the case, each decision that this representative take and each vote that he makes while in power would have to be the exactly how each of the "constituents" he or she represent would have decided and/or voted. And if he or she had come to win that seat in government by a narrow margin then, (if that seat had had 4 candidates running for it), his or her vote may potentially have represented only 25.1% of the population in that electoral district. In a mainly two-party system like the United States, a national government could actually be only the government of just over half of the general population, yet still in effect being capable of making decisions for 100% of the population, and that for an extended period of time (e.g. 4 years in the U.S.). While a democratic system does have provisions for the lawful change of a government in office, this would require some kind of gross or criminally binding misconduct by the government. Popular disapproval is really reason enough to warrant such a change, so a country may have to endure the complete term of an administration and their decisions despite a clear and lasting majority public disapproval. So even if a now disapproved-of government argues that it is only carrying out its "mandate", the truth really is that its true "mandate" has really been revoked and changed. In such a case, "democracy" only really exists on election days themselves. The terms in between would then be a sort of temporal monarchy yet with decisions that may need to continue to be dealt with long after that administration left office. In a parliamentary system (e.g., Canada) a parliament/government may be "dissolved" for reasons of non-confidence, yet that assumes on the flip side that everyone in the electoral district for whom each member of the government actually voted for during the vote of no-Confidence, actually did have no confidence in the government. Again only a clear violation by that government could assure that that had been the case. Even the subsequent election can result in the exact same structure and repartition of seats that the previously dissolved government had. So the case can then be made that their actually had not been "no confidence" in the government and the whole thing may have just been an attempt at a strategic political move. Of course, there is the provision that the general public can make their opinion heard by their congressman/member of parliament, representative, but this "venue" is merely of a suggestive force and does not guarantee that the representative will heed to their constituents view. Furthermore, for the representative to actually act on the view of his constituents, they would have to all (or the great majority) reach him with that same view (e.g., 50,000+ or 330,000+ people). This would come to be quite a tedious process and require the use of mass media and communications and some time. So while this provision does exist, the system is now set up to really facilitate such a process. What constituents really do in all practicality in such systems is completely relinquish their personal views over to one member of government in a "carte blanche" sort of way for the next few years, and only to do it again at the next election.

NJK's Direct Representation
All of this shows that preferably, there needs to be a clearer and more direct way of allowing the general public to have an authoritative "voice" in their government, and in order to bring this into effect the NJK will be implementing some new and more efficient process in order to have a government that fully and continually reflects its people. Current technologies and the chronicled developments and histories (both secular and Biblical) of various past national actions and decisions have really come to allow such a more direct government to be established. So what would come to be the case is that the NJK would not have the inevitable dichotomy of people vs. government as the government/administration would always reflect the literally up-to-the-minute will of the people. Therefore, NJK leaders will merely have a role of leadership and of presenting and making clear the Biblical view, helping to carry out and serving their local population. How will this all actually and efficiently work? Well as it was stated before, the constitution of the NJK establishes that it is a Christian country and that Biblical teachings set forth what is right and wrong. With this established, those in leadership will therefore have to be capable of upholding this standard and therefore would have successfully taken a formal education and training in Christian minister and pastor. While this process somewhat restrains the who can readily accede to a position of leadership, it does insure that the NJK citizen will verifiably have competent leaders. There can be cases where someone may have untrained leadership and ministerial qualifications, but as a formal education will not hurt but further sharpen the talents of such a person, it will be a mandatory prerequisite for having NJK Leadership credentials. Furthermore, even during formal education, this person could still make his views and talents available to those in current positions of leadership. Such a responsible, benevolent and thoughtful attitude will only help this person later on when, as it will be explained later, this person qualifications will be reviewed and rated by HC and NJK citizen in general. The "spirit" and "economy" of the NJK society also does not encourage the reserving of knowledge and information a proprietary data to be used for as a form of "gain" later, so selfishly withholding something back for a later advantage, that would have been a benefit for all at a present time would be backed by any Biblical teaching and therefore would certainly not be rewarded in anyway. In fact, base on the promise of Christ, such a selfish act would only stunt that person's "growth" (give and it...). Also, as money to receive this formal education will not be a issue in a country where education is free (see here), literally anyone who wants to (i.e., "feels called to") be involved in such ministry, will have the full and equal opportunity to do so.

Household Voting
General public voting will be grouped together according to individual household (i.e., immediate family) votes. This is done in harmony with the Biblical expectation of the unity and agreement that should exist within the family unit (see e.g., Gen 2:24; cf. Amos 3:3).

Transferable Representation
There may come a case where a household may prefer, for whatever reason, to have their vote represented. A provision will be made for this, with their representative being their local ministerial body (i.e., their senior pastor and his two assistants). For this to occur, the household involved will have to indicate this through a formal, instant, process that will be made available for this.

Transparent Voting
Because the decision of one does affect the well-being of all, all general public, household voting will not be anonymous, but publicly available for all to see. This is in accordance with the supposed fact that voting will be done in a responsible way and that people should be capable of honestly defending the choices they've made. As each household comes to represent an official seat in the government, the inherent responsibility of such a position is also automatically given to them. This is similar to how one can today easily see for themselves how their elected representative voted on various governmental issues (e.g., the "How'd they Vote" website).

A Biblical Democracy
Some may jump to a completely incorrect conclusion that the NJK's proposed "Direct Representation" form of government will lead to an "Ochlocracy" (a.k.a. a "Mobocracy") where government is essentially at the mercy of a mob, and the minority will be tyrannized by the majority. Some hail a "Republic Government" as the only safeguard against such abuses, but a simple look at the various minority issues that are still put down in these Republics by the majority easily show that that is a fallacy. Ultimately, even a Republic style of government is fully under the control of the people, and is therefore "Democratic" in function. Even a "Constitutional Democracy" is also not a guarantee as a Constitution is formulated by men, and can at any time easily be changed and "amended" (or outrightly ignored) by the people (e.g., by a two-thirds majority vote).

The NJK aims to be a truly Christian Society so ultimately it is Truth that is the most suggestive force in its society and government, with due approval/ratification by the people. So if any "minority" issue is proven to be Biblical, it is should be guaranteed to convince the majority. It will be up to the "government representatives" (i.e., the clergy) to "make the Biblical case" to the people, and then up to the people to allow themselves to be Spirit led into making the Biblical decision. (cf. this page)



Weighted Opportunity

         The Biblical Training basis for NJK Leadership candidacy is quite different from the candidacy "eligibility" in some of today's democracies (particularly the self-proclaim beacon of democracy- the United States), as it is mainly those who have a "deep pockets" or the financial backing to pay for their full campaign who end up having a campaign and acceding to a political office, and that comes to include many unqualified (though filthy rich) people. So while one may have been led to believe that in those democracies anyone has the equal opportunity of becoming president, that is realistically very unlikely unless (1) that person can afford the hundreds of millions required to fund a full campaign or (2) if it is the case, those who may contribute to this person's campaign will benefit financially by this person being in power and supporting their particular industry|cause. Strangely enough, even members of a political party who wish to run for party leadership are restricted by this great financial demand. (cf.) A democracy that is so greatly influenced/controlled by the money is not really a democracy, but should rightly be categorized as a quasi-dictatorship where money has the "stranglehold" on power and the rich have the inside track. But since becoming individually wealthy is the "dream" of most of these societies then why shouldn't such "successful" people "lead the way". One can easily remember the oil baron, the former CEO/mogul or billionaire businessman, the successful lawyer, rich inheritor, and even the movie star who became president/vice-president or governor or was runner-up, but really, when was the last "average Joe" in modern/recent years from the common-life who became president or even had a chance. Clearly such a weighted system favors the "haves" and not the "have nots".
         Furthermore when one considers that most of the money for a campaign is needed to pay for various advertising, one can really conclude that the office of presidency is really limited/controlled by the asking price of the advertising CEO. So who is really in control here, the puppet or the puppeteer? A much better alternative to such a weighted-system would be each state having a public fund (from taxes) available for anyone who wishes to hold a political office. This person would have had to complete an education in Political Science, with loans and grants having been made readily available. Then the winner of a campaign fund would be determined democratically through publicly televised debates, moderated by a panel of judges, (e.g., former presidents, governors, politicians). (cf.). This would be much fairer than the current: Whoever-has-the-money-when-elections-come, because in that case, "quality" cannot be assured.

January 17, 2009