The Constitution Solution

This information is brought to you from Australia.

But what is Australia, apart from a name on various bits of paper?

Is any society and/or nation, in fact, nothing more than a name on bits of paper and therefore really only a figment of imaginations?

Perhaps you turn to Wikipedia to tell you what something is and what it is not.

What is Wikipedia but a digital happening at the press of a button?

Does it exist on paper at all?

What, for that matter, is the press or the media or whatever you want to call that figment of the imagination? 

What is Australia but an upside down world, a topsy-turvy location, and a place where the apparently impossible is possible?

If this is your first experience of Trickery Today, welcome.  Please pay here.

How much do you usually pay for the most important bits of information you receive?

How do you usually acquire information about your imagination? 

How do you usually acquire information about your life and your location and your socioeconomic status and your political status and your citizenship status and your cultural status?

How do you know when bits of information are important and when they are not?

What is your acquaintance with constitutions?

Perhaps you prefer to laugh in contempt of constitutions and the charlatans they allow to rise to positions of power.

How do you compare the Constitution of Australia with the Constitution of Chile?

Who usually writes constitutions, and for whose benefit?

Who benefits when constitutions are not written?

Australia, like other purported sovereign states, is a product of history.

And history is usually a product of stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and greed.

That is why political scams happen.

Every polity is meant to be ruled politely and credibly, with appropriate empathy.

Politeness and credibility are the only legitimate indications, in practice, of a reasonable constitution.

Changing constitutions, to encourage more reasonableness, politeness and credibility in governments and societies, should not be particularly difficult, at least if persons with empathy are adequately involved in the composition.

A failed state obviously has a failed constitution.  It probably should not have had the associated constitution implemented in the first place. 

A fragile state probably should not have been constituted as a state at all in geographical and political terms.

The state has, in academic terms, long been regarded as the only legitimate source of force, yet unjust coercion is prevalent in many social situations.  

Unjust biases and other unfair assumptions are also prevalent, particularly during decision-making processes.

How many decisions have you made today, and how did you make them?

Which bits of the media have you sought out for bits of information over the past few days, and why?

How does the media influence your conversations and decisions, and your experiences of a collective identity? 

When has the media ignored your preferred identity or regarded it as invalid?

What is your acquaintance with international law, and how did you acquire it?

How do you know when a 'generally accepted' practice, in normative terms, in not generally accepted at all by adequately informed, unusually reasonable persons?

How do you tell when diplomatic recognition is an absurdity?

How do you tell when the absence of diplomatic recognition is an abomination? 

21st century politics is mainly a consequence of the muddles and madness of previous centuries.

Giving states a more reasonable foundation involves inserting the constitution solution into those foundations.

What is the constitution solution?

What is it not?

What is your acquaintance with puppet states?

How do you tell when organisations within a society, and/or external states and/or external organisations, have too much political influence within a sovereign state?

What is the international community? 

What is the world community?

What is the global village?

What is a multinational corporation?

When the constituent populations of a state regard the implementation of a constitution as objectionable, that constitution has no proper validity, regardless of traditional views expressed through international law, a right-wing media and an arrogant military and/or police hierarchy.

When objections are rudely ignored, credibility is impossible to maintain.

Who has been giving public money to news crap, and why?

What is the ABC?

What is the BBC?

What is the CIA?

What is China?

What is Chile? 

Here are a few reports from the BBC about Chile:

19 October 2020 - protests turn violent

20 October 2020 - political choices

26 October 2020 - rewriting a constitution

17 May 2021 - major changes possible

Recently - major changes happening

Earlier - a history of conflict

There are many ways to interpret the past, present and future, but how is it possible to prevent distortions of the truth?

When political decisions do not take the consequences of economic inequality and social inequality into consideration appropriately, opposition to those decisions is inevitable.

That opposition may not be noticed, whether by governments or by the media, until organised activism happens in the public sphere.

And that opposition may never be understood, or respected, by people in power.

What is your acquaintance with the history of battles for resources?

A petty quibble about what should be done in response to a conflict has often prevented appropriate action from being taken at all.

Such quibbles are often a deliberate strategy to prevent appropriate action from being taken.

What have been your personal experiences of economic fairness and economic unfairness?

What have been your personal experiences of political stability and political instability?

What have been your personal experiences of environmental health and environmental dangers?

What have been your personal experiences of the reasonable rule of law and the violation of human rights?

How do you compare one document with another and another and another?

There are many ways to examine documents in the 21st century.

Constitutions are often built upon a foundation of legend, not fact.  That is the source of the trickery associated with them.

What do you know about the geopolitics of legends?

What do know about the geopolitics of conflict?

What is your acquaintance with grey zones?

What do you know about buck passing and plausible deniability and the blue wall of silence and the contrived ignorance of politicians regarding dire situations?

How do you attempt to understand the world? 

By which principles do you prefer to live your life, and why?

What have been your contributions to leaderless resistance when addressing injustices?

What have been your contributions to leadership when addressing injustices?

How do you know you address injustices in suitably justifiable ways at all times, and in all places?

How do you know when an opinion is plausible, justifiable and undeniably sensible?

How do you know when a conflict is unavoidable?

How do you prefer to conduct yourself when addressing a conflict, and why?

Perhaps you unquestioningly follow the example of the people around you.

As most constitutions are based on protohistory and not on real history, the best way to improve a constitution is to acknowledge history properly.

But what does that mean in practice?

How accurate are interpretations and translations?

How should the structure of documents and organisations be examined, and for what reasons?

What should be the primary goals of any constitution?

What should be the primary goals of any democracy?

Only properly democratic constitutions are reasonable.  But what does that mean in practice?

There is much fake democracy in the world.  There is much trickery associated with it.

What, then, should constitutions contain on the subject of leadership?

Why has the Alexander Romance been so popular, in various societies, at various times in history?

Who has enjoyed the Book of the Marvels of the World, and why?

How do you examine priorities?

What have you discovered from history and legends about such matters?

How do you examine rights, and claimed rights?

What have you discovered about wars of succession?

How do you interpret communications?

What is your acquaintance with historical documents?

How has your creativity informed your view of history?

What do legends about Alexander the Great have in common with legends about King Arthur?

Excessive complexity in lives and political systems deceives minds and directs attention away from problems.  

The same applies to excessive simplicity.

How do you compare one country with another in constitutional terms, and in relation to international law?

All current national and sub-national constitutions are outdated laws, even when they are quite new.

They are not based on substantial evidence of societal and environmental needs.

How have you been attempting to tame the dragon of global warming?

For centuries, there has been plenty of talk about constitutional reform through the law departments of various universities, and even at extravagant international events attended by legal theorists and possibly even a few legal practitioners. 

Yet such persons have done nothing substantial to improve constitutions.  Their ideas have not been based on political realities, or upon the lived experience of most people.

How do you make the distinction between constitutional matters and political matters? 

How do you make the distinction between academic matters and societal matters?

How do you make the distinction between matters of ephemeral consequence and matters of historical significance.

Assessing intentions is always a difficult task, particularly when unable to interview persons who made decisions with long-term consequences.

How do you tell the difference between a constitutional monarchy, a constitutional republic and a genuine constitutional democracy?

A healthy democracy requires suitably sensitive persons to hold positions of political power.

But what does the Australian Constitution, or any other constitution, currently say about suitable sensitivity?

What should the Parliament of Australia codify in its practices now, and why?

Which of those codes, if any, should be put to the Australian voters in a constitutional referendum, and why, and when?

These are obviously questions requiring mature answers.

But what does your maturity require of you, and where, and when?

How do you know your self-perceived maturity is not merely a fantasy?

How do you attempt to nurture good in the world if not through the improvement of legal systems and political accountability?

You can choose to help improve the world where it most requires improvement or you can choose to ignore that moral duty.

Where do you believe the world most requires improvement, and why, and where is your evidence, and what are you willing to contribute over the weeks ahead?

Perhaps you would rather interpret legends. 

Perhaps you want to be regarded as a legend.

Perhaps you are mostly interested in money.

How, if at all, do you attempt to uphold suitable standards of conduct?

How do you usually prefer to think about, and express, compatibility?

How should constitutions reflect empathy, if at all?

How can quality leadership best be encouraged if not through quality constitutions?

The Constitution of the United States is even worse than the Australian one.

You may be aware that American democracy is a complete sham at the national level.  The bureaucratic and military parts of that national and imperial regime have long been involved in destroying democracies, and other expressions of the public will, elsewhere.

The power duopoly of Republican arrogance and Democratic hypocrisy has always given priority to plutocracy rather than democracy, as is the case with the Liberal-Labor power duopoly in Australia and the Conservative-Labour duopoly in Britain.

Outdated laws prevent societies from improving.

When juries are racist or otherwise biased, whether in courts of law or in the assessment of art, literature and entertainment or other standards, there is no justice.

Yet racism, sexism, classism, ableism and other expressions of abuse and incompetence are yet to be adequately addressed in any legal system, and any political system, and through any other elitist entities, anywhere in the world.

What do you know about scapegoating and dehumanisation?

How often have you perpetrated systemic bias?

How often have you experienced cognitive dissonance? 

How often have you acted against institutional abuse?

When police corruption is common, there is no justice.  Unfortunately, that corruption is common everywhere.  That is the only reason why various forms of vice are prevalent, particularly white collar vice.

When police brutality is common, there is no justice.  Unfortunately, that brutality remains common everywhere.   It is why other brutality is not prevented.

Police officers have rarely received the necessary training to help them protect the rights of distressed people against abusive ones.

Ill-trained persons unfortunately have a tendency to exacerbate distress.  They quickly become indifferent to suffering, possibly including their own.

And persons attracted to careers in authoritarian organisations have a tendency to behave in brutish ways in the name of conformity.

Words change in meaning in every language.  Laws are required to do the same.

How do you define the meaning of a secular state?

What should national constitutions say in relation to citizenship?

What should national constitutions say about the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship?

While Alexander the Great, Marco Polo and the Emperor Shizu of Yuan actually existed, little is really known about their lives for certain.

The past is much like the Fra Mauro map.

It may be much like the Chingiznama, too.

How do you interpret the Compendium of Chronicles?

What do you know about the imperial hunt of the Qing dynasty and its origins?

What is your acquaintance with the history of Chile and the career of Bernardo O'Higgins?

What do you know about various persons regarded by the media and/or historians as founders of nations?

Suitably compatible values are at the heart of all sustainable development practices, and all sustainable maintenance practices.  Constitutions and other compositions are meant to reflect those values.

What do you know about the stated and unstated beneficiaries of constitutions?

How do you assess, and respond to, urgent needs?

There is nothing more important than improving constitutions.

Perhaps you would rather read a chivalric romance or an example of Romantic poetry.

How do you attempt to understand the popular imagination?

How do you distinguish between the popular imagination, popular culture and populism? 

Perhaps you associate all three with trickery.

How does your mind play tricks on you? 

How does constitutional law play tricks on societies?

How, if at all, is the general will of the people reflected in the rule of law?

Constitutions are the basis of the secular rule of law.  If they are not satisfactorily reflective of reasonableness, and democracy, they do not have any validity in terms of ethics.

What sort of guidance do you currently require, and from whom?

What have been your main interests in relation to cultural history and cultural practices and cultural values, and why?

At what age did you first become aware of your leadership responsibilities?

How do you usually attempt to lead by example?

Where do you find examples from history to guide you?

Where do you find examples from history to warn you?

Do you have the knowledge with which to lead the necessary process towards constitutional reform? 

How do you prefer investing in the experience of art, and for what purpose?

Perhaps you do not regard the composition of laws to be an artistic practice.

All over the world, purported democracies have become more like anocracies.

Perhaps you do not regard that as a problem.

Everywhere in the world, electoral ballots are mainly intended to dupe the public.  

Such ballots provide fake democracies.  They mainly aim to justify plutocracies in the guise of "the general will".  

How do you tell whether something has been written as a seriously factual document or as a work of satire?

It is impossible to be good without the power to resist corruption and other forms of aggression through peaceful practices.

What and/or who gives you that power?

Perhaps you feel as though you have no power at all.

Even relatively simple societies require proper constitutions when their members are forced to interact with overly complicated or otherwise corrupted groups, organisations and/or states.

Perhaps you are a bully.  Perhaps you are therefore a beneficiary of inappropriate constitutions and/or inappropriate governments.

Or perhaps you are a coward.  Perhaps you are too frightened to participate actively in a process towards constitutional reform.

Or perhaps you are lazy.  Perhaps you have no interest in, or intention of, contributing proposals for constitutional amendments.

Without clear principles, and a clearly stated sense of purpose in terms of societal and international goals, a constitution is likely to be contradictory or otherwise meaningless.

How can you be sure you always follow the law of non-contradiction?

How can you be sure you always act with integrity?

How are you supporting democracy at present?

How do you respond to people who say, or at least act as though, democracy is not in the public interest?

How can you prove your reputation for respectability is justified?

There are many important documents to examine whilst reflecting upon the composition of new and/or improved constitutions.

What do you know about the possibilities associated with composing generic constitutions of suitability for any relatively reasonable society?

How do you prevent yourself from being duped by pseudohistory and the culture wars it ignites?

If you prefer to act through organisations rather than independently, how are those organisations constituted, and why?

Perhaps you give little thought to the constitutions of the organisations with which you are associated.

What, if anything, do you know about the most suitable constitution for a political party in a proper democracy?

How, if at all, have you been involved in improving political practices, and where, and why?

How have you been attempting to address and prevent tyranny?

How have you been encouraging accountability? 

Quality constitutions strongly discourage conflicts of interest and strongly encourage properly democratic practices.  At present, political parties actually represent conflicts of interest in many circumstances.

How do you reflect on political systems as cultural systems?

How do you know whether a cultural system encourages or discourages reasonable decency? 

Over the next few months, how will you attempt to improve your understanding of a sociocultural system you may possibly be able to help improve as a consequence?  

Perhaps you give little thought to the constitutions of the countries in which you have citizenship, residency, property, family members, friends, economic interests, cultural interests or emotional connections.

Perhaps you spend much of your time fighting an odontotyrannus and/or an authoritarian regime.

How do you usually identify and assess the problematic aspects of constitutions, and who helps you to do so?

Perhaps you expect someone to fly to your rescue.

Perhaps you believe yourself to be in a perilous position.

Perhaps you think it is easier for a swallow to carry a coconut than it is for you to improve a constitution.

Never mind.  

What do you know about political traditions in parliaments and elsewhere?

How do you tell the difference between a political tradition and other traditions?

How well have you already conducted research into anti-establishmentarian necessities, and how can you prove it?

How and where do you usually assess your own values?

How can you be sure you have been investing in anti-establishment necessities with suitable elegance and relevance? 

The constitution solution requires you to act wisely.

Perhaps that is outside your ability at present.

How have you been investing in justice over the past few years, and possibly over two decades or more?

And how have you attempted to make such investments sufficiently pleasurable, and for what reasons?

How dedicated are you to investing in the quality analysis of events?

If investing in improved constitutions is possible, why are so few people actually doing so?

Of course, much time is required.  And much knowledge is required.

How imaginatively have you been investing in good policy, and with what results?

How enlightened and imaginative is your approach to investing in social research, and how do you know?  

Regardless of your geographical, political and family connections, how imaginatively have you been investing in thoughtful discussions over the past few years, and with what results?