Contents

The Meaning of Democracy
The Right to Education
The Right to Decide
The Right to Strike
Role of Experts

Selecting and Electing Representatives

Proportional Representation: 'Closed-list' and 'Open-list' Systems
Closed-list System
UK Members of European Parliament (MEPs)
Proportional Representation in Israel

Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy
Multinational Summits and Agreements

The Right to Know

Open Decision-taking (in Government, Enterprises, Organisations)
Access to Information
Whistle-blowing

The Right to Be Heard
The Right to Protest and Demonstrate

Social Costs
Social Irresponsibility

Beginnings (Origin) of Democracy

Relevant Current and Associated Works
Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

The Meaning of Democracy

(Contains) a detailed step-by-step listing of what people are struggling to achieve, their needs and wants, their achievements and objectives. This progression shows underdeveloped and developed people as they are, human beings at different stages of an identical struggle for a better life against those who wish to profit from their condition.

And you can assess how far the country/community you are living in has advanced in this struggle for independence and a good life for all, or where you are yourself on this scale.

From The Will to Work: What People Struggle to Achieve (1981, 1989, 1995)

Highlights are Figure 1 (Motivation of Directors) and Figure 3 (People's Needs and Wants, Achievements and Objectives: The Struggle for Independence and a Good Life).

Participative (democratic) organisation rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for putting into effect policies decided by the population.

What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people.

Policies state what has to be done and by when it has to be done. What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that these policies then become binding on management or government.

And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. ... Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship.

What we see all around us is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking.

What we see is top-level leaderships trying to take over decision-taking from the population.

We can see the struggle in all organisations and at all levels. It is a struggle against authoritarian management or government for the right to take decisions. And in all democratic organisations it is a struggle against the authoritarian mind taking over the decision-taking.

So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

And from Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

In the working environment we see a world-wide struggle to achieve a humane way of life, each family, person or community struggling to advance at their own level of development, struggling against those who wish to dominate, exploit, oppress. A struggle whose successful outcome depends on trustful co-operation, companionship and teamwork.

We know that dominating does not work in normal circumstances. Authoritarian organisations are much less effective than participative ones. In authoritarian organisations morale is low, people cease to care and tend to work against each other instead of co-operating with each other for the benefit of the organisation. Which applies equally well to a family.

From Family, Sex and the Individual; Women's Liberation, Feminism and Community (1998)

Participative organisation and co-operation result in economic success. More participative countries have a higher standard of living than those with more authoritarian forms of government. Higher by about three times.

A move towards greater centralisation, towards more authoritarian government, corresponds to a more restricted life and lower standard of living. A move towards greater participation corresponds to a higher quality of life and a higher standard of living.

Take the USA. A democratic country with high standard of living, a country of great contrasts. Great poverty and suffering, great riches. Much oppression but there is no doubt about the way the population is enabled to struggle and is struggling to achieve a better life for themselves and their children, about their appreciation of the value of democracy (participation) and its principles. A people who have been, and are, achieving much.

From Style of Management and Leadership (1981, 1982, 1988, 1995)

When talking about pay, incomes and differentials, then we are dealing with matters which are at the centre of confrontation and conflict and around which rage controversy and strife. We are dealing with matters which determine how one man stands in relation to another, with something which depends on negotiation and bargaining between those who employ and those who are employed. The result is that almost all one sees about pay and differentials is biased towards one side or the other and both points of view are then equally misleading.

From Work and Pay: Summary (2002)

The National Remuneration Pattern is factual and reliable. It shows the relative value placed on different kinds of work in the United Kingdom. It is largely determined by employers.

The pattern tends to be applied through national or industry-wide centralised negotiations. The employer sets a rate for the job which is not what he can afford to pay but is simply the least he has to pay to get the work done.

At the top are the owners or those who work directly for them, at the bottom is the mass of wage earners. It is a pattern of differentials which rewards service to the owners and their establishment rather than ability or service to the community. And so the nurse, the minister, the fireman, the policeman and the teacher are at present paid comparatively little for the work they do.

Those who provide jobs and money have power over those who need to work so as to live. This applies also to those who have the power to give or not to give in national and local government, and the civil service. Putting the interests of the owners and of their representatives before that of the community is probably the main cause of our deteriorating environment and of lowering the quality of life.

From Work and Pay: Summary (2002)

The Right to Education

People are entitled to free education to the highest level they can reach, dependent only on their skills and abilities.

A key problem of communist state education appears to have been that people were fed much ideological abstract nice-sounding waffle. This, and the consequent inability of people to think clearly and work through their problems, appears to have been a major cause of the suffering of the Russian people after the collapse of the state-communist social system. And of authoritarians taking over Yugoslavia's advanced social system by setting people against each other and breaking up the country.

From Style of Management and Leadership (1981, 1982, 1988, 1995)

People need to learn to reject abstract waffle as being imprecise, meaningless and misleading.

It is not good enough for students to be asked to provide textbook answers to textbook questions. People need to be taught to think, reason, evaluate, assess the relevance and reliability of information.

See Using Words to Communicate Effectively (1998)

The Right to Decide

In 'The Meaning of Democracy' we saw that

In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. We see secretive top-level decision-taking. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship.

What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people.

So what needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government.

So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

Decisions about work should be taken by those doing the work or close to the work being done.

We decide what we do or what we do not do. It is individuals who take decisions, who are responsible for taking them and thus accountable for the consequences of the decisions they take or fail to take.

From Co-operatives and Co-operation: Causes of Failure, Guidelines for Success (1996)

See this also for a comprehensive discussion of the electing, appointing and appraisal of managers, directors and elected representatives, of the right to ownership, the right to know, the right to be heard, and of work, pay and differentials.

The Right to Strike

The slave has to work whether he likes it or not. Slavery denies to the enslaved their basic human rights. The slave is treated by the master like an unfeeling production unit, is kept and maintained while productive.

The master in effect owns and controls the slave through what he can force the slave to do by means of the laws of the land and by force of economic necessity.

The free man may withdraw his labour. He enters into a voluntary agreement with someone else in which he agrees to carry out some specified work in return for a specified amount of pay. If there is disagreement between them he may freely withdraw his labour. This is a most essential right, the right of every citizen, of every worker, to associate with others and withdraw his labour, to go on strike.

People are enslaved when they are forced to work through need, have to work to survive. They are enslaved to the extent to which they are forced to accept mere survival existence in return for the work they do. They are free to the extent to which they are able to choose freely between one employer and another, to the extent to which they are backed by a comprehensive system of social security and services if falling on difficult times.

A workforce which cannot withdraw its labour at will is either oppressed or enslaved. A free people have the right to strike and can exercise this right, supporting those who exercise it.

From The Right to Strike (1996)

Role of Experts

Experts inform and advise about what should, can or cannot be done and about likely consequences either way.

Experts must be independent, must not derive income, benefit or advantages from companies or interested sources, or from vested interests, or have vested interests, which could bias their advice one way or the other.

The role of experts is to advise.

From Corrupted Economics and Misleading Experts (1998)

Selecting and Electing Representatives

Proportional Representation: 'Closed-list' and 'Open-list' Systems

Voting by proportional representation (PR) decides how many candidates of a party are elected. If 300 seats are available and the party gets one-third of the votes, then it gets one-third of the seats, that is it gets 100 seats.

If the party put forward a list of 300 candidates, only 100 can become representatives.

With a "closed list" system of PR, the electors vote for the party and not for a local candidate. They thus vote for the party's list. In the above example, it is the first-named 100 names on the list which become representatives.

With an "open list" system the electors have the chance of voting for candidates of their choice from the party's list.

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

Closed-list System

Whether or not one is placed on the list, and one's position on the list, determines whether one is elected or not.

With this system it is not really the electorate which decides whether one is elected as a local representative. Whether one is elected depends on whether one is placed on the list and on one's top-to-bottom position on the list. So whether one is elected depends on the party leader or leadership.

So one's chance of being elected depends on doing as told by leader or leadership, on supporting their policies, instead of depending on serving one's constituents (local electors), instead of being responsible and accountable to the electors, to the community one is supposed to represent and act for.

The higher up one's name appears on the list, the more likely is one to be elected, the more likely is it that one benefits from the high salary, excellent allowances, good working conditions and good pension rights which go with the job. Loyalty to leader or leadership replaces loyalty to electors.

It is the grassroots membership which should select and decide who is to represent them. The party leadership seems to be close to taking over both functions.

What we see taking place with a closed-list system is far removed from being responsible and accountable to one's local electors, to the local community, for the way in which one represents them and looks after their interests both at local and national level. Democratic decision-taking is reversed by a system of closed-list proportional representation as decision-taking by representatives is replaced with obedience to dictates from the top.

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

UK Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

There was widespread criticism from Labour MEPs, the Liberal Democrats and constitutional reform groups when the Labour government proposed to change the selecting and voting for UK MEPs to one which allowed parties rather than the electorate to select who was to be their MEP.

A position near the top of a party list would be crucial to success because seats would be allocated proportionately to the party, not the individual.

From What People are Struggling Against: How Society is Organised for Controlling and Exploiting People (1999)

Proportional Representation in Israel

In Israel the democratic system of proportional representation has been defeated by the way in which prospective members of the Knesset (government) are selected by party hierarchies and also by the way in which, after an election, minority parties can combine to replace the majority party. {3}

Reason would suggest that the largest parties (which must include the majority party) should (have to) get together and compromise (say by referendum on alternative policies, if they cannot agree otherwise). ....

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy

Similarly, would it not be a good idea for each member of a government, each elected representative, to state in public what they personally are likely to gain, or lose, from the way they are voting on a particular legislation.

I feel that lists of such gains and losses may make interesting reading, for example about the recent changes by a conservative government to UKs local government taxation, from a 'Council Rate' (depending on property value) to a 'Poll Tax' (depending on number of resident people, on size of family) to a 'Council Tax' (Poll Tax amended because of public protest).

From Corrupted Economics and Misleading Experts (1998)

Far-reaching decisions are to be taken affecting not just the many people working so selflessly and well throughout the NHS (National Heath Service) but the whole population, its health and thus our future. It thus seems surprising that the Inquiry report's far-reaching recommendations could be considered for implementation, and for speedy implementation at that, without a wide-ranging debate in Parliament and among the community at large on the basis of full information.

From Reorganising the National Health Service: An Evaluation of the Griffiths Report (1984, 1985, 1995)

Following the publication of Manfred Davidmann's evaluation with its request for a wide-ranging debate in Parliament, the government held a debate. The future of Britain's national health service was discussed in Parliament on a Friday afternoon in an 'Adjournment Debate', which means that no vote was taken. Only about 25 Members of Parliament were present.

In 1979 the UKs oil wells started to produce and the UK became a net exporter of oil, as far as I know the only one of the industrialised countries to be producing more oil than it consumed, extremely well off as a result. A conservative (Tory) government was elected in the same year, harvesting the benefits and staying in power for 18 years. But by 1997 poverty and wealth differentials had increased by so much, and the rights and social security of the working population had been reduced to such an extent, that it was clear that this time the Labour party would be elected.

Before the general election (May 1997) the Labour party's leadership changed and under the new leadership some fundamental changes were introduced.

The Annual Conference of the Labour party consisted of delegates from local branches and was policy setting. Resolutions, proposed policies, were submitted by local Labour party branches, debated by delegates at the conference. If passed then it was up to the party's executive (its leadership) to implement the policy, to put it into effect. The decisions were mandatory, had to be put into effect.

So the Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect.

In the autumn of 1997 the conference voted for a system which transferred the choice of what could be debated from grassroots membership to a policy commission chaired by the party leader {16}. This in effect took away a vital aspect of decision-taking from the working population and placed it in the hands of leader and leadership.

In January 1998 it was announced that forty-five policy forums were to be set up in which members would be invited to express their views on policies, from social issues to local government and that such views should eventually work through to the annual party conference.

Although members would be able to discuss policy, it seems the leadership can either take note or else ignore the proceedings. {17}

The annual conference ceased to decide policies, ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership.

So a continuing process appears to be taking place which seems to be aimed at concentrating decision-taking in the hands of the top-level party leadership.

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

Manfred Davidmann laid down in 'Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy', maxims such as

Representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to override, reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

No elected representative, government or government employee has an overriding right or the authority

1. to hand over to corporations (that is to those who own and control them), or to any other organisation or to anyone else, an overriding control over the present and future, economic and social, welfare of the people, or

2. to sign away democratic rights of their people for the self-determination of key fundamental aspects of their lives.

Socially responsible and caring governmental legislation has to take precedence over the profit-motivated activities of corporations.

Decision-taking by leaderships has to be replaced by decision-taking at the level of the people.

The real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

From: What People are Struggling Against: Understanding How Society is Organised for Controlling and Exploiting People (1999)

See also: Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

And see: Social Concept (Policies) of the Russian Orthodox Church: Letter to the Russians (2004)

So profits and power are apparently being maximised regardless of the cost to others, to the community. Without care or concern for the condition, standard of living or quality of life of the working population. Without being concerned about the enormous human suffering which results.

What we see are consequences of decisions made at the top, and the results of putting them into effect. Results and consequences which at times make the decisions seem so brutal that they appear inhuman.

What underlies democracy is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people. But what we see is top-level leaderships trying to take over decision-taking from the population.

Secretive top-level multinational meetings and agreements negate democratic government and decision-taking, without having overriding authority or right to do so.

But representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to override, reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

From Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

Multinational Summits and Agreements

And that a situation has been created in which the nature of profit-motivated and profit-orientated multinationals threatens human independence and freedom. {5}

In 1998 a US multinational 'announced plans to unravel the entire human genetic code by 2001', saying it intended to patent 'the most valuable gene sequences', and to sell the information to scientific institutions and drug companies. {8}

Combining this information with recent developments concerning the cloning of animals and human beings raises disturbing and even fearful prospects.

'Ownership' has been defined as 'the right to possess an item of property' and so one has to look closely at where the right comes from and how it is exercised.

Ownership rights are the property of a country's citizens and communities {9, 10}. No elected representative, government or government employee has overriding fundamental authority to hand over to multinational corporations (that is to those who own and control them {11}), or to anyone else, such ownership rights.

From Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

MAI stands for 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment'. But its name does not reflect those aspects which are of deep concern. What is disturbing are not only the provisions of this proposed treaty but also that the provisions were debated in almost complete secrecy.

It appears that representatives of multinationals and governments representing the 29 richest industrialised countries, all OECD members, had been developing the MAI's provisions at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) since 1995. This seems to have been done in complete secrecy till a leaked copy became available on the Internet in 1997.

It seems that the agreement was to have been finalised in February 1998. Apparently it was adverse publicity relating to its restrictive provisions which delayed completion as concerned groups of citizens publicised their concerns. And some governments have now withdrawn their support.

From Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

Socially responsible and caring governmental legislation has to take precedence over the profit-motivated activities of corporations.

But it appears that under MAI the national governments would have handed over control, that is authority to act, over much of the economic and social welfare of their citizens to multinational corporations, that is to those who own and direct these corporations {11}, if they had agreed to this treaty.

In other words, multinationals would have been given overriding authority over democratically elected governments.

From Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

So let us look at the kind of provisions this almost-agreed agreement on 'Multilateral Agreement on Investment' contained {9, 10}:

Democratically elected governments

• Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country.

• Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence.

• Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment.

Multinationals would have had the right to

• Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests.

• Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny.

We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {6} and that unitary taxation <6> {6, 33} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation.

As far as I know, no elected representative, government or government employee has the authority

1. to hand over to corporations (that is to those who own and control them), or to anyone else, an overriding control over the present and future, economic and social, welfare of its people, or

2. to sign away the democratic rights of their people for the self-determination of key fundamental aspects of their lives.

From Democracy Under Attack: Top-level Leadership and Decision-taking (1998)

The Right to Know

Open Decision-taking (in Government, Enterprises, Organisations)

There should be open decision-taking at all levels of government, company, business and other organisations, commercial or otherwise.

In other words, at all levels and in all organisations.

Access to Information

All should have the right to free and unhindered access to all relevant information when requesting this.

Full information should be available to all at all levels within all organisations. This includes, for example, policy, technical, organisational, accounting or financial information, individual salaries, wages, expenses and donations.

With the exception of private or personal information about individual private citizens.

Whistle-blowing

We need to establish ways of whistle-blowing, of concerned citizens being able to inform the community of secretive decisions and of all matters which are against the public interest which are taking place within government, company, business and other organisations.

Anonymity of whistle-blowers has to be guaranteed. We need to establish ways of protecting, supporting and providing back-up for whistle-blowers.

From Social Responsibility and Accountability: Summary (2002)

Also see Co-operatives and Co-operation: Causes of Failure, Guidelines for Success (1996)

and Social Responsibility, Profits and Social Accountability (1979. 1982, 1989, 1995)

The Right to Be Heard

All have the right to comment, criticise or complain in public so that they can be heard and ways have to be made available for doing so.

Within any organisation, all should have the right to write a letter on any matter affecting the organisation, or to complain in writing, signed or anonymously. Such letters or complaints should have to be published within the organisation unless publication could harm the organisation. Anonymity must be protected. All letters have to be answered honestly, sincerely, factually and openly by those concerned, regardless of their level.

Within a country or smaller communities, there has to be similar and widespread access to publicity for concerned citizens who should be fully supported by the community when wishing to comment, criticise or complain.

But one may not spread corrupting or antisocial or antidemocratic propaganda or practices.

From Co-operatives and Co-operation: Causes of Failure, Guidelines for Success (1996)

The vague phrase 'Freedom of speech' is sometimes used to refer to the right to be heard. Because it is so vague, this phrase is often used to justify the spreading of corrupting and antisocial or antidemocratic propaganda and practices. See Using Words to Communicate Effectively about 'abstractions'.

The Right to Protest and Demonstrate

While supporting and while staying within the social system and principles set out here, people need to have the right to freely associate with each other,

for example by forming protest, support and self-help action groups,

to peacefully protest and demonstrate to show the extent of their support and to obtain publicity, being fully supported by the community when doing so.

Public demonstrations and public protests by concerned groups are an essential survival mechanism under beginning-of-twentyfirst-century conditions.

From Social Responsibility and Accountability: Summary (2002)

And from Social Responsibility, Profits and Social Accountability (1979. 1982, 1989, 1995)

Social Costs

The social benefits and costs of any operation have to be taken into account. The gain any enterprise or organisation makes is that which accrues to the community.

But just how is the balance drawn, to what extent are social benefits and costs included in the economic analysis of alternative proposals or schemes?

Responsible leadership aims to eliminate needs so as to eliminate exploitation through needs, wants the highest possible standard of living for the people.

And since people are exploited through their needs one has to eliminate the need to struggle for survival, for mere existence.

However, there are criteria other than personal income, such as security from internal and external threats and the standards of living, housing, health service and education of the population.

And there is the question of the extent to which benefits of a benevolent social system may need to be reduced as a penalty for those who are socially irresponsible.

Purifying effluent increases costs and so reduces profits. Hence discharging unpurified effluent is more profitable to the producer but the community has to suffer the consequences. Manufacturers and suppliers tend to increase their profits by passing on to the community the social costs of their operations, costs such as disposal of packaging and waste, of redundancy and unemployment when transferring operations to countries with lower wages or fewer environmental safeguards.

However, the interests of the community have to be taken into account when taking decisions. Such social costs need to be allowed for when taking decisions, need to be charged to the enterprise or organisation which is causing them.

From Social Responsibility and Accountability: Summary (2002)

Social Irresponsibility

Leaderships fear bad publicity, fear public awareness of socially irresponsible behaviour and consequent impact on sales and market share, on an individual's career or on an organisation's reputation and credibility.

So an effective control of corporate and top-level irresponsibility is publicity of what is being planned or being done, making the public aware of who did or is doing what, and of who condoned or omitted to restrain, antisocial or antidemocratic activities.

Particularly so when publicity names those responsible for making antisocial decisions, and those responsible for condoning, or for omitting to restrain, antisocial activities.

From Multinational Summits and Agreements, Top-level Decision-taking and Democracy (2002)

But how can one ensure that those in important positions become aware that they are accountable to the community and how can one make them accountable to the community?

One method may be through publicising the names of those who took the relevant decisions, who condoned the decisions and the resulting actions, who carried them out, who failed to stop them from being carried out.

There has come a point at which the interests of the community must and do take precedence over the politics of power and the interests of the owners. For this to happen, people need to act and co-operate with each other by forming pressure groups to impress the leadership with the strength of the feeling of people locally or country-wide, by getting publicity, by using the courts and by demonstrating to get the required legislation where it does not exist already, and when necessary by demonstrating to have existing legislation enforced so as to hold those accountable who fail to act for and to protect the interests of the community.

From Social Responsibility and Accountability: Summary (2002)

Beginnings (Origin) of Democracy

The Pentateuch's social laws and social system include a statement of fundamental and scientific social laws of behaviour, of human rights, of social and community organisation, written down about 3,400 years ago.

It is the social laws of the Pentateuch which in effect state that all are equal, that no person may exploit another or oppress so as to exploit. All have the right to be free and independent masters of their own fate and there has to be a system of social security which guarantees not just freedom from need but also protection against loss of material and spiritual independence. In effect, oppression can be and has to be resisted, struggled against and opposed.

From Causes of Antisemitism (1991, 1995)

Jesus Christ taught that all the laws had to be kept, that belief and practice included and had to include the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system of the Pentateuch. {2}

Included in the social laws of the Pentateuch, for example, are the kingship laws (Pentateuch, Deut 17: 14-20) which state that those in authority must not oppress people so as to increase their own possessions and power, that they must not put themselves above the people and so enrich themselves. They are warned against oppressing people and against forming enforcing squads or organisations so as to multiply their own power, must not be promiscuous and must not amass wealth. They must know and observe the Pentateuch law and its intent and aim to see the Pentateuch laws applied.

From Social Concept (Policies) of the Russian Orthodox Church: Letter to the Russians (2004)

Relevant Current and Associated Works

Back to Contents list

Relevant Subject Index Pages and Site Overview

• General Management  (Middle, Senior and Top Level)
• Motivation
• Community  (Social Responsibility and Accountability)
• Economics

• Judaism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Religion, Government and People

• Teachings  (Quotations, Summaries, Current Problems)
  
  
• Press Notices

• About Manfred Davidmann and his Works

• Home, Site Overview  (solhaam.org)
• Terms of Use

• Contact form   (Suggestions and Comments Welcome)

The Site Overview page has links to all individual Subject Index Pages which between them list the works by Manfred Davidmann which are available on the Internet, with short descriptions and links for downloading.

To see the Site Overview page, click Overview

Back to Contents list