In the middle of the last century, research has been done in the U.S. to determine whether there is any quality difference between individual and collective decisions taken, as it is known, only through one way, with referendums and the application of the majority principle.

The results of these investigations were known as the “paradox of voting” [i].

The paradox was the finding that there are systematic and significant differences between the quality of individual and the quality of collective decisions taken with the referendums. These differences are summarized as follows:

1. Individual decisions are understandable, reasonable and usually reach the best possible choice.

2. Collective decisions by referendums are sometimes unpredictable, non-understandable and inconsistent to logic.

3. The quality of decisions through referendums is significantly affected by the phenomena of demagogy, the wording of the question and the number of options/responses the voters have. The most favorable case for correct collective decisions is when the question is of the type: A or B, Yes or No.

The result of this research is obviously contrary to common sense and to the logic of Statistics, Statistics Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, where decisions / conclusions of a totality, have the maximum reliability compared with those of a subset of the totality- and much less of one person.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the reliability of the results of the research was not only disputed, but was reinforced from the experience of the people who found that these differences were actually real.

Identifying and understanding the causes and therefore the process of creation of this strange and irrational phenomenon has a big and crucial significance because it is related:

• With the universal validity of logical and fundamental physical principles.

• With the question of the ability of ordinary citizens to take collective decisions with the power of logic and

• With the adopting the view – and mostly the practice – that ordinary citizens take collective decisions with the power of instincts, emotions and motivations rather than logic; ie that they take decisions in the same way that irrational beings do.

It is perhaps interesting to recall that animals decide and apply decisions with the power of instincts and motives and that the only exception is man who has the prime possibility to take decisions with the power of reason.

The above data and views lead to the conclusion that the “paradox phenomenon” constitutes a deviation from the normal and healthy human behavior, it is like a “disease” which removes or diminishes the human logical force selectively in the field of political decisions by referendums. The finding that the logical power of the people is great when decisions are taken individually and reduced or canceled when taken collectively refers to the disease of divided personality that is to schizophrenia. This disease when concern the people as members of the society constitutes a “Social Schizophrenia”.

The causes and responsible people of social schizophrenia

The responsible people of this social disease are easily identified, if we apply the doctrine of prosecutors. According to this doctrine the responsible of every criminal act is he who benefit from it.

In this case, the degradation of the logical force of people, in decision-making selectively by referendum, clearly promotes the interests of rulers, because consolidates the view that there is an absolute need decisions to be taken by a few people, while the vast majority of the citizens simply have to execute these decisions. In other words it promotes and consolidates the same old recipe used by the Kings – Gods, the Divine Right Kings, the Enlightened Leaders and the Fathers of the People; that the people only have to perform their decisions.

The emergence and spread of the social schizophrenia is due to the abolition of the status of the “governing and governed” citizen, ie the status that is nothing more than verification that all people dispose a logic power.

Important point is that this deletion has been taken in practice while in theory the status of the governing and the governed citizen is recognized broadly and without reservation. The famous saying that “the people are the bosses” said from the politicians and intellectuals, actually means that the people are the bosses provided that they are not ruling.

A second factor that reinforces this conclusion is that those exercising the power, have not attempted to cure this “disease” but tried to present it as a characteristic of human nature and therefore any effort for its treatment is utopian, if not hybris (as the ancient Greeks said). According to them, the great decisions have to be taken by the One or by a few “enlightened”, but to be executed by all citizens. The rationalism and the morality of such a view are obvious.

The results of the disease

The abolition of the status of “the governing and governed” citizen, had as a medium term effect:

(a) Atrophy and degradation of the citizens’ logic, because it was not used in the field of exercising of the political power, and

(b) Reduction of the citizens’ responsibility on the state problems, because the responsibility has been transferred from the owners/citizens, to their representatives.

The first result greatly increased the power of lords that they got the institutional right, to be taking the major strategic decisions without citizen’s agreement, and then to argue that they have been substantially taken from the citizens.

The second result became a boomerang for the politicians, because decisions can be taken without the citizen’s consent, but is impossible to be realized without the active citizens’ participation [ii]

The great difficulty, if not impossibility, for the application of the plethora of political decisions taken today, proves that the boomerang is not a theory but a visible reality.

The therapy of the disease

Similar to the treatment of any disease, the treatment of the social schizophrenia can be achieved by canceling the cause which has created it. This can be achieved through the existence of a real and not of a verbal, “governing and governed” citizen’s status.

The power and responsibility of citizens is not, as many believe, two autonomous entities, but a single and indivisible entity. When one of them is canceled, automatically the other is also canceled. When there is a shortage of citizens’ power automatically a deficit of their responsibility is created. This does not apply to the representatives of the citizens who have the status only of lords.

In today’s political system, the power of the citizens has actually been canceled by those exercising the power and has been replaced by verbosity. But nature is not fooled by words. The creation of responsible citizens but without power is unattainable with deterministic certainty.

In today’s power system, the rulers/representatives of the people have the institutional right to take: (1) strategic major decisions affecting the citizens and (2) the minor decisions which come out and are limited from the strategic decisions. But in the real Democracy, the Democracy of ancient Greek culture, the major decisions were taken by the citizens and the minor ones by the rulers. So the citizens were the boss and lords were the servants of the citizens.

In this way, there was faith and cohesion of the society in the application of the major decisions / objectives.

The fact that today, the big decisions are taken by lords, who claim that they do so by executing the citizen’s mandate, but are not taken by the citizens, have as a consequence these decisions to be constantly into question and the struggles and sacrifices of citizens to become without coherence and efficiency.

Addressing of the “paradox phenomenon”

In modern Greece, politicians and other competent were not involved in the understanding and treatment of the paradox, but with its surpassing. This happened in the following three ways:

1. Informal cancelation of referendums in practice, not in the constitutional law. This transaction was very easy because referendums in Greece are decided by the government and not from the people or by assets provisions. As was expected the rulers / representatives hardly decided to put their authority under the power of the citizens and so in the last 70 years two referendums only have been done in Greece. This very low frequency of referendum – a referendum every thirty years – until recently, perhaps was justified from the great difficulties of informing citizens and the very high cost of making them. But now that the digital technology is widely used in many areas of public life (taxation, public safety, healthcare,..), these difficulties can be surpassed. By using the new technology of informatics, the “digital referendums” will have much lower direct and indirect cost, high operating and financial information for the public and greater security and reliability, compared to conventional ones.

2. Big decisions have to be taken from the “enlightened leaders” of the party and only minor decisions through referendums, in order not to affect the power of the party lords. This way, besides rendering difficult the exercising of power, completely subverts the original philosophy of the ancient Greek Democracy, where the few major decisions were taken by the citizens and the plethora of minor ones, introduced and limited by the majors, by the lords.

3. Doing referendum of confused way, in which the existence of paradox decisions is … impossible. The method was simple. Like the egg of Columbus. Instead of question type A or B, they initiated referendums of query type, A or A, so paradox and absurd result cannot be found

All Greeks are well aware about the initiators these ways to overcome the paradox of voting in the country that has been the Cradle of Democracy.

Conclusion

The nature of the referendum leads to decisions not of degraded quality and reliability, but instead leads to decisions that have thoughtful wisdom, great reliability and the widest possible acceptance. Opposite opinions and findings, is the work of the established power, which has the contractual right to decide the application of the referendum, the wording of the question, the way and the morality of citizens’ awareness, the rules and the frequency of referendums. With a referendum every 30 years, it is not possible to have, logic, experience and familiarity of the citizens with the institution of referendums, the institution which is the essence of authentic democracy.

[i] J. Haskell. Direct Democracy or Representative Government, Westview Press, 2001.

[ii] More on the side: http://www.dd-democracy.gr/article.asp?Id=42

This is an argument Alexis voiced with the easiness of someone who is planning to keep a distance from any government scheme that would assume the responsibility to manage the agreements Greece has signed with its lenders. SYRIZA’s alternatives are alien to this approach. Party cadres have already talked about economic measures that sound not only obsolete but also irrational.

SYRIZA leader knows his crew cannot serve the needs of the country in its fifth year of recession. The 38-year old politician chooses to ride the wave of the punishment vote, trying to sustain dissatisfied voters that jumped the fence from PASOK, or travelled a really long way from ND to join the ranks of the European Left; 37% and 13% of the SYRIZA vote respectively. Yesterday he announced the ‘rebirth’ of SYRIZA into a new ‘democratic left coalition’, in a move that reminded of Andreas Papandreou in the beginning of the 1980s.

On the other hand, ND and PASOK are trying to delegate responsibility, since they are fully aware that although torched by the cruelty of voters, the latter seem to want them to stay in charge and, at the same time, start improving fast in order to fit the likes and dislikes of citizens. These days, more than 70% of Greek voters appear supportive of the country’s staying in the Eurozone; at the same time, a great majority has voted for parties that preach against this target. This oxymoron clearly makes things easier for pro-European parties, as Greece will approach decision time over the next ballot poll.

However, do we really need a re-election? Does Greece really need another month of uncertainty just to rearrange scores of MPs amongst political parties? Obviously the May 6 mandate by Greek voters to the political system as a whole was to cooperate, hence the simplicity of the solution: Greek pro-Europe politicians should decide to put the country first and form a government with a clear mandate for the next 2-year period; also give a promise that no election will be held before this deadline.

Will they be just ND-PASOK-DIMAR, or more centre-right forces (Drasi, Democratic Alliance) could come to the rescue, offering new blood and fresh ideas to govern the country? Could even some MPs from Independent Greeks declare some short of availability to support the coalition in rough times? This would definitely armor the scheme even more.

These moves require politicians who are willing to fall in the battlefield to save their country. However, if they win, they will be rewarded by people who already expect them to do just that.

It is common ground that Greece needs a government as soon as possible. We should add that Greece needs a government that should be willing to die (politically) for its country. Greece needs a government that hopefully will be able to deliver the last set of harsh measures, but also productively manage the positive results immediately after; to negotiate with our lenders on a fruitful ground that could make things easier for households; to utilise all available scientific expertise politicians could command, turning it into a growth plan for the future.

But most of all, what Greece really needs, is its politicians to be brave. Admit their mistakes, assume responsibility, set aside partisan interests, clean their backyards and decide to govern, no matter what; fight for fiscal streamlining, structural changes and growth planning; approach the problems in a holistic way that puts people first, employ common sense in public management and ignite the growth engines of the country.

This is the brave thing to do… actually this would be the “Greek thing to do”, to restart the country and inspire Greeks in and out of the country.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of AlYunaniya.

It is argued that when elites are divided, journalism thrives. Well, only if the latter is not part of the problem. As in many other countries around the world, deep pockets in Greece have always nurtured their private lists of MPs and journalists and businesspeople were used to exchange their support with government contracts, once ‘their guys’ are appointed in public office. A simple proof is the fact that no one could ever explain the origins of expenses of individual candidates during pre election periods.

These days, things are quite different. Payrolls have dried out, politicians appear tired and ineffective on the racing track, whilst entrepreneurs are cornered by civil servants, who have already seen their incomes shattered and what’s more, are closely followed by troika executives with a ‘license to kill’.

So, what has been common practice for decades, now leads to handcuffs and public ridicule. What has always been a means of showing oneself around is now evidence of socially not accepted behaviour. Old money, if survived, is laying low and new riches are already slammed by their overstatements (and overspending).

When state money ran out, elites started panicking. They knew the system too well to expect any hope for improvement, especially when current gen of politicians remained in charge. However, astonishing things happened in the last two years, during which a late maturity occurred in the lives of Greeks, albeit in a dramatic way. Firstly, citizens were deprived by most of the ‘fat’ accumulated during the ‘golden deficit years’, secondly, after a decade of inactivity and failure, politicians made way to a technocrat who came in to make things right. Thirdly, international profiteers pardoned a large part of the Greek public debt, bankruptcy was avoided and the CDS proved peanuts -in local terms- despite the painstaking efforts of allegedly gifted economists who kept betting on disaster. Fourthly, EU officials started talking about growth and jobs, while reforms were signed and voted by a smoked Parliament. These structural developments create a series of conditions for a clean start.

However, politicians and the ‘old system’ remain puzzled. The first have proved unworthy and the latter, who had already cashed out much of their wealth in foreign banks, lost the ‘drachmisation’ opportunity and the chance to bring in hard currency to reposition themselves in the country.

Negativity that is still around troubling citizens, who attempt to think ahead, has to do with a general disbelief towards a political and economic system that appears crippled in the post PSI era. The old state-fed and boneless corporatism is unable to lead the country into a new equilibrium, defined by 21st century. New money is urgently needed; the honest, ambitious and efficient type…

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of AlYunaniya.com