Deutsch-Wikipedia voller Text der “Demokratie-Verfassung”, mit Loeschgeschichte am Ende

1. Klarer deutscher Wikipedia -Artikel Text mit aktiven Hyperlinks

2. Screen Kopien des deutschen Artikel-Enddesigns
3. Deutscher Wikipedia Quelltext zum einfachen neuen direkten Erschaffungsversuch
4. Korrespondenz mit Wikipedia
5. Request to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, incl.
Plain improved/extended English-Wikipedia draft article with active Hyperlinks
Screen copies of English-WP Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) and
Wikipedia Source Text for easy trial of new direct WP-creation of these articles
6. Geschichte des Google Such-Ergebnis-Korrektur-Verlangens

Alter Wikipedia “Demokratie-Verfassung” Text mit aktiven Hyperlinks (Deutsch; die neuere
englische Version unter Punkt 5. ist verbessert und ausfuehrlicher):

Grundbetrachtungen zu
„Demokratie-Verfassung“
[Dieser Artikel wurde mittels dem Wikipediaprogramm im July 2017 erstellt, jedoch von
Wikipedia abgewiesen – z.B. weil der Verfasser keine wissenschaftliche Erwähnung oder
Veröffentlichungsreferenz zum Allgemeinwort „Demokratieverfassung“ anzeigte, und weil
es eine Theorie sei; Zum Vergleich, Wikipedias „Utopie“ ist per Definition vollkommen eine
Theorie...]

Inhalt

1. Definition der Democratie-/Republikverfassung

2. Fehlende praktische Demokratiedefinition
3. Basisprinzip der Demokratie/Republik
4. Grob-zusammengefasste Geschichte
5. Ziel der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung
6. Demokratieoptimumprinzip
7. Unterschiedliche Demokratiegrade
8. Vorgetäuschte Demokratie
9. Sicherheitsvorkehrungen
9.1.Relative, Absolute, Supermehrheit
9.2. Menschen-, Grund- und Justizrechte
9.3.Gewaltentrennung
10. Beispiel: Universelle Demokratie-Verfassung.pdf
Definition der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung
Eine echte Demokratie- oder Republikverfassung ist die Zusammenfuehrung der 2
Einzelwortbedeutungen, und definiert verlässlich die geschriebenen (britische Lexika
schliessen eine ungeschriebene Verfassung wie die Monarchie mit ein)
Grundvorraussetzungen einschliesslich Machtausübung und ihrer Verteilung in einem
Staatssystem, das seine Rechtfertigung vom gleichberechtigten wählenden Volk im
Staatsgebiet bezieht. (Siehe selbst-widersprechende Definitionen am Artikelende)

Basisprinzip der Demokratie/Republik

Die Demokratie/Republik beruht auf dem Basisprinzip der Gleichberechtigung eines jeden
Einzelnen (mit wenigen Ausnahmen) bezüglich der Machtausübung durch die Sach- und
Personenwahlen; Ein Mensch, einen Volksregierungsanteil/-wahlstimme.

Ziel der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung

Das neutrale Ziel der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung ist die Maximierung von Weisheit
einschliesslich Problemlösung, mit Minimierung von Gewalt.

Grob-zusammengefasste Geschichte
Nach den 2 Weltkriegen hat die League of Nations, später United Nations (UN) genannt,
fundamentale Menschenrechte entwickelt, einschliesslich dem Recht auf Selbstbestimmung,
was die Demokratie für eine Menschengesellschaft ist. Diese sollten weitere Kriege sowie
deren Diktaturursachen verhindern, da Kriege generell extremes Leiden und Schäden
erzeugen.

Die Idee der Demokratie war nicht neu: „Demokratie“ ist ein altgriechisches Wort für das
Regieren durch den (männlichen Teil des) Volkes; Neuseelands Maori Stämme hatten eine
100%-Konsensus Methode, beschränkt auf Männer und dominiert von gebürtigen Adligen,
während die Irokesen Indianer einen stämme-übergreifenden männlichen Rat hatten, der von
den Frauen gewählt wurde. Deutschland hatte nach dem ersten Weltkrieg mit der Weimarer
Republik eine ungesicherte schlechtfunktionierende parlamentarische Demokratie
geschaffen, die von Hitler mit Gewalt und Niederbrennen des Reichstagparlaments
überwältigt und beseitigt wurde.

Amerika, als ehemalige englische Kolonie, hatte bereits eine primitive relative-Mehrheit-
Pseudodemokratie entwickelt, die weitgehend vom königlich-englischen Westminster First-
Past-The-Post System kopiert wurde, nur dass der Monarch durch einen gewählten könig-
ähnlichen Präsidenten für maximal 8 Jahre ersetzt wurde, während das englische Parlament
(House of Commons) und adlige Oberhaus (House of Lords) durch den Congress und Senat
ersetzt wurde (dieses FPP-system ermöglichte 2000 und 2016 kompromisslose
Minderheitsregierungen/Präsidenten in Amerika, auch wenn der Oppositionskandidat mehr
Wahlstimmen bekam -- was regierenden Adligen, Reichen (Oligarchen) und Faschisten sehr
bequem war). Im Gegensatz zu Amerika, Deutschland und vielen anderen Ländern hat
Britannien auch 2017 noch keine geschriebene verlässliche Demokratieverfassung (ein
klassischer totalitärer Monarch ist die Verfassung; siehe Liberal Democracy), und verlässt
sich auf Konvention und Tradition. Englands mittelalterliche Magna Carta kann als die erste
schriftliche Menschenrechtsverfassung zwischen dem König und seinen Adligen angesehen
werden.

Die deutsche Nachkriegsdemokratie nahm unter der Besetzung der alliierten Siegermächte
deren Systeme als Vorlage, verbesserte diese aber mit Hilfe der Nazierfahrungen, wie zB.
proportionale parlamentarische Repräsentation mit einem inaktiven Präsidenten und einer
schriftlichen Verfassung als Sicherheit. Deutschland's Nachbar Österreich schuf eine
proportionale parlamentarische Demokratie, in der der absichernde Präsident direkt mit
einfacher Mehrheit gewählt wird, während die Schweiz Referenda stark in ihre Verfassung
einbaute.

Fehlende praktische Demokratiedefinition

Die Definition von (echter) Demokratie und somit von Republik ist eine Utopie und beweist
sich in der Praxis extrem schwierig, da eine vollkommen direkte Demokratie durch direkte
Wahlen aller Beteiligten nicht verlässlich und praktisch genug durchfürbar ist (zu viele
ändernde Entscheidungsthemen, zu grosser Manipulationseinfluss, zu viel Zeitaufwand bei
der individuellen Information aller Beteiligten, zu wenig Wahlsicherheit einschliesslich
genügender Wahlbeteiligung und Wahlverfälschungssicherheit, usw.), während eine
Demokratie durch gewählte Volksvertreter oder Parlamentarier nicht immer dem wenigstens
durchschnittlichen Willen des Volkes entspricht, und zu einem Machtmisbrauch neigt.

Demokratieoptimumprinzip
Es zeigt sich aber, dass ein durchschnittlich zutreffendes andauerndes Demokratiemaximum
erreicht werden könnte, wenn das Optimumkompromissprinzip, welches der Demokratie
zugrunde liegt, ebenfalls an dem Demokratiesystem selbst angewended wird: Das Ergebnis
ist die echte Democratieverfassung!

Unterschiedliche Demokratiegrade
Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen geschichtlichen Machthintergründe und somit des
Weisheitsstandes der Völker haben sich unterschiedliche Grade der Demokratie und deren
Verfassung entwickelt, und somit eine Vielzahl von Systemen, die sich als Demokratie
bezeichnen (üblicherweise täuschen Diktatoren ihren Völkern eine Demokratie/ Republik
vor); Jedoch hat sich bis 2017 noch kein System dem bislang undefiniertem
Demokratieoptimum ausreichend angenähert.

Vorgetäuschte Demokratie/Republik
Somit leiden viele Länder oft unerkannt unter ihrer Diktatur/Monarchie, die ihre Adligen und
Reichen wohlhabend an der Macht halten, während eine Demokratie/Republik vorgetäuscht
wird; Es ist somit für alle undemokratischen Mächte üblich, jeweilige
Demokratieverfassungen und Rechtssysteme so kompliziert zu gestalten, dass das Volk die
wahre Diktatur/Oligarchie verfassungsmässig nicht einschränken oder sogar erkennen kann --
Politik ist auch die Beeinflussung des Volkes durch Politiker... Beispiele:
In der klassenorientierten britischen Monarchie hat der Monarch immer noch per Gesetz (zB.
versteckt in Neuseelands Constitution Act) die totale Macht, unter der alle Parlamentarier,
hohe Beamte, Richter, und indirect auch alle Rechtsanwaelte einschliesslich Kronen-
/Staatsanwaelte, unter dem Schwur zur Monarchie stehen – Polizisten stehen ausserdem unter
dem Eid, den Frieden und die Ruhe des Monarchen (nicht der Demokratie) aufrecht zu
erhalten. Inkompetenz einschliesslich direkter Korruption wird üblicherweise nur nach
Veröffentlichung oberflächlich korrigiert, denn korrupte Untergebene können erpresst
werden, wenn sie Machtmisbrauch aufzudecken drohen.

Einparteiensysteme presentieren sich als Demokratien, obwohl nur eine Partei zur
„Wahl“ steht, während andere Parteien aktiv verhindert oder unterdrückt werden (zb.
Russlands und Ostdeutschlands sogenannter Ostblockkommunismus).

Andere sogenannte „Demokratien“ sind von ungewählten religiösen Diktatoren

verfassungsmässig überschattet (zB. in Ägypten und Iran 2017); Sogar die britischen
Monarchen hatten diese Möglichkeit, da sie das Oberhaupt der Anglikanischen Kirche sind
(König Henry VIII konfiszierte die katholische Kirche, weil sie keine Scheidung erlaubte),
und es gab noch 2017 ein vergessenes Blasphemiegesetz in Neuseeland.

Sicherheitsvorkehrungen
Die Demokratieverfassung muss Sicherheitsvorkehrungen enthalten, die sie gegen die
Machtergreifung von Diktatoren aller Art dauerhaft schützt; Ansonsten würde sie schnell
nach der gesetzmässigen Einsetztung üblicherweise durch Gewalt verhindert und ausser Kraft
gesetzt werden (wie zB. 2017 in der Turkei, wo der Präsident mittels einfacher-Mehrheit-
Referendum totalitäre Macht erreichte, während 2011 in Britannien das Volk dazu gebracht
wurde, mit einfacher-Mehrheit-Referendum gegen das Demokratieminimum der
proportionalen Representation zu stimmen). Diese Tendenz beruht auf unzählige
geschichtliche Erfahrungen der Unstabilität einer Vereinigung von freien unabhängigen
(horizontal oder gleichberechtigt organisierten) Menschen, im Vergleich zur stark
hierarchischen (vertikal Befehl-und-Gehorsam Führer-organisierten) Vereinigung mit einem
oder wenigen gewaltausübenden/-androhenden Diktatoren, einschliesslich gebürtigen
Diktatoren (Monarchen) und Oligarchen (Oligarchie: Herrschaft durch einige wenige). Solch
vertikal-organisierte Vereinigungen im Zusammenhang mit lebensbedrohlicher
Gewaltausübung erreichen einen extrem starken Zusammenschluss (Faschismus,
Brüderschaft, Gang), was ebenfalls eine starke Philosophiegleichschaltung (starke
"Mainstreaming") der Mitglieder bewirkt und somit die Demokratiebasis verhindert. Das
kann dann nur durch eine ebenfalls gewalttätige oder -androhende Revolution korrigiert
werden, z.B. in Form von unkontrollierbaren Massendemonstrationen, Boykotten, Attentaten,
oder durch militärische Invasion wie im 2.Weltkrieg, usw..

Menschen-, Grund- und Justizrechte

Auch muss die Demokratie-/Republikverfassung Menschen-, Grund- und Justizrechte

enhalten, die nicht einfach mittels absoluter-Mehrheit-Gesetze abgeschaft werden können,
denn verhungerte, ermordete oder ohne öffentliches Gerichtsverfahren eingesperrte
Menschen können nicht wählen!

Relative, Absolute, Supermehrheit

simple-majority referendum Die englische Definition (siehe Englisch-Wikipedia) der
einfachen Mehrheit ist bestenfalls unlogisch, und kann das First-Past-The-Post- und Plurality-
voting-wählen einschliessen, während Deutsch-Wikipedia sich beträchtlich unterscheidet und
die relative Mehrheit ähnlich dem First-Past-the-Post und plurality-voting als <50%, die
absolute oder einfache Mehrheit als >50% (mit Unterschieden in den Enthaltungen), und die
qualifizierte Mehrheit ähnlich der Supermajority definiert. Diese unpräzise englische
Definition resultiert klar von der traditionellen FPP-Wahlmethode.

Eine verlässlichere Definition der geforderten Abstimmungsmehrheiten ist notwendig, denn

eine relative Mehrheit, bei der ein Kandidat mehr Stimmen als jeder einzelne andere
Kandidat bekommt und somit als alleiniger Sieger alle anderen Wahlstimmen und
Philosophien ungültig macht, führt zu verstecktem Faschismus (wie unter dem
englischen/amerikanischem 2-Parteien First-Past-the-Post System); Vertikal-organisierte
Brüderschaften haben den stärksten Zusammenhalt mit Philosophiegleichschaltung.

Da es bei vielen gleichberechtigten unabhängigen Wählern immer eine Anzahl von

abweichenden Stimmen gibt, kann eine 100%ige Übereinstimmungs-/Konsensusmehrheit
nicht erreicht werden; Daher muss eine Demokratie-/Republikverfassung die
Entscheidungstreffung mit geringeren Mehrheiten regeln, um langfristig ein
Übereinstimmungsmaximum zu erreichen, ohne dass die herrschende Mehrheit die
Demokratie vernichtend überstimmt und in eine unwiderrufliche Diktatur verwandelt. Somit
ist generell die absolute >50% Mehrheit als Minimum erforderlich, während für
Verfassungsänderungen und Notstandserklärungen eine höhere Mehrheit (zB. 2/3 oder ¾,
auch Supermajority genannt) nötig ist, um die Verfassung zu schützen.

Gewaltenteilung

Herkömmliche Gewaltenteilung: Als Verfassungslösung hat sich langsam die

Gewaltentrennung in Legislative (Parlament), Executive (Regierung), und Judikative
(Gerichte) herrausgestellt, welche in der Praxis jedoch nicht genügend unabhängig
voneinander sind: In den vielen Ländern werden Verfassungsrichter und sogar auch
Präsidenten (zB. Governor-Generals in Neuseeland, Australien, Kanada 2017) von der
Executive (in Neuseeland sogar nur vom Prime Minister/Solicitor-General -- in Amerika vom
Präsidenten) bestimmt, in Deutschland jedoch mittels dem Oberhaus (Bundesrat). Die so
bestimmten regierungsfreundlichen obersten Richter und Präsidenten haben ungenügenden
Drang, Korruption aufzuklären und ihre Regierungen zum Einhalten der Verfassung und
anderer Gesetze zu zwingen. Auch ist die Gefahr des Machtmisbrauchs sehr hoch, wenn
Entscheidungsmacht in einer einzelnen Person konzentriert ist. Ein Praxisoptimum muss
gefunden werden:

Optimierte Gewaltenteilung: Lösung ist die wahrlich unabhängige 3-fache

Gewaltenteilung, um versteckte faschistische Machtergreifung zu verhindern, indem das
Volk die 3 verfassungsmässigen Mächte direkt erwählt. Die Macht wird auf mehrere
Personen verteilt, welche idealerweise auch die Philosophieverteilung im Volke proportional
widerspiegelt. Dieses sind die Anforderungen an die Wahlmethoden für Parlament,
Präsidenten und Verfassungsrichter, und sind die Prinzipien des Universellen-Demokratie-
Verfassung Beispiel, welches auch die entsprechenden Wahlmethoden festlegt!:

Beispiel: Universelle Demokratie Verfassung.pdf

Falls obige Hyperlinkadresse fehlschlägt:

https://www.scribd.com/document/352637170/Demokratie-Verfassung

https://www.scribd.com/document/352636740/Republik-Verfassung

Zusätzliche Referenz: Beweis der aktiven aber versteckten absoluten britischen Königsmacht:

https://www.scribd.com/document/341435238/New-Zealand-Local-Democracy-Supreme-
Court-Documents

NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990

Englisch-Wikipedia republic-Definition schliesst Definitionen ein, die von der Basisdefinition

abweichen, nämlich des Herrschens durch das Volk (public) einschliesslich dem gleichberechtigten
Machtmandat jedes Mitgliedes wie in der Demokratie; Deutsch-Wikipedia ist viel präziser,
widerspricht sich aber innerhalb eines Satzes und gegen die Einleitung, in dem es Monarchien in
Demokratien einschliesst sowohl als auch ausschliesst, und China's Oligarchy dann als Republik
bezeichnet, nur weil es sich als solche bezeichnet.
Deutsche Version des Wikipedia Artikel Enddesigns der Demokratie-Verfassung:
A maximum inconsistency appears in German-Wikipedia under the headline “Abgrenzung
Republik/Demokratie” in the 2nd and 3rd point: English-Wikipedia's republic definition includes
definitions that deviate from the basis definition of rule by the public, including the inherent equal-
power mandate of each member like in a democracy; German-Wikipedia is far more precise, but
contradicts itself within one sentence where it includes and excludes monarchies from being
democracies, while later calling China’s oligarchy a republic simply because it calls itself such…
 Wikipedia Quelltext

Wenn irgendjemand Universelle Demokratie-Verfassung wieder in WP einzutragen vewrsuchen

moechte, hier ist der Quelltext; Kopiere mittels rechtem Mausclick, dann gehe zu deutsch WP,
anmelden, ...., dann „Search“ WP for Demokratie-Verfassung, click (es sollte
Nichtvorhandenseinmeldung erscheinen), dann click „Mehr“-„Verschieben“ in „Benutzer“, dann
Quelltext bearbeiten, dann rechter Mausclick „Paste“ in das leere Eintragsfeld, dann „Speichern“;
Theoretisch koennte es jetzt in die oeffentliche.WP verschoben werden, wuerde aber von WP-
Geisterhand in Kuerze rueckgaengig gemacht werden...

Um das Universelle-Demokratie-Verfassung-Bild in das rechte obere Fenster zu bekommen, muss

zuerst das .pdf File ins Wikipedia-Commons geladen werden unter „Democracy
Constitution.pdf“ (oder unter einem anderen Namen mit Aenderung des Hyperlinks am Anfang des
Quelltextes); Wikipedia hat das Original geloescht, und den Verfasser unbegrenzt von irgentwelchem
Aufladen blockiert, da Demokratie gegen Wikipedias versteckte Absicht/Praxis ist!

Mit Bildhintergrungfarbe entsprechend der Hilfeseiteninfo, jedoch geloescht durch WP

Geisterhaende ohne irgendeinen Hinweis... : [[File:Democracy Constitution.pdf|thumb|background-
color:#FFCC11|'''[https://www.scribd.com/document/352638522/Universelle-Demokratie-
Verfassung Beispiel: Universelle Demokratie-Verfassung.pdf]''']]

Aktuelle Kopie bevor Wikipedias Löschen:

[[File:Democracy
Constitution.pdf|thumb|'''[https://www.scribd.com/document/352638522/Universelle-
Demokratie-Verfassung Beispiel: Universelle Demokratie-Verfassung.pdf]''']]

{{TOCleft}}

== '''Definition der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung''' ==

Eine echte [[Demokratie]]- oder [[Republik]][[verfassung]] ist die Zusammenfuehrung der 2

Einzelwortbedeutungen, und definiert verlässlich die geschriebenen (britische Lexika schliessen eine
ungeschriebene Verfassung wie die Monarchie mit ein) Grundvorraussetzungen einschliesslich
Machtausübung und ihrer Verteilung in einem Staatssystem, das seine Rechtfertigung vom
gleichberechtigten wählenden Volk im Staatsgebiet bezieht. (Siehe selbst-widersprechende
Definitionen am Artikelende)

== '''Basisprinzip der Demokratie/Republik''' ==

Die [[Demokratie]]/[[Republik]] beruht auf dem Basisprinzip der Gleichberechtigung eines jeden
Einzelnen (mit wenigen Ausnahmen) bezüglich der Machtausübung durch die Sach- und
Personenwahlen; Ein Mensch, einen Volksregierungsanteil/-wahlstimme.

== '''Ziel der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung''' ==

Das neutrale Ziel der Demokratie-/Republikverfassung ist die Maximierung von Weisheit
einschliesslich Problemlösung, mit Minimierung von Gewalt.
== '''Grob-zusammengefasste Geschichte''' ==

Nach den 2 Weltkriegen hat die League of Nations, später United Nations (UN) genannt,
[[Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte|fundamentale Menschenrechte]] entwickelt,
einschliesslich dem Recht auf Selbstbestimmung, was die Demokratie für eine Menschengesellschaft
ist. Diese sollten weitere Kriege sowie deren Diktaturursachen verhindern, da Kriege generell
extremes Leiden und Schäden erzeugen.

Die Idee der Demokratie war nicht neu: „Demokratie“ ist ein altgriechisches Wort für das Regieren
durch den (männlichen Teil des) Volkes; Neuseelands Maori Stämme hatten eine 100%-Konsensus
Methode, beschränkt auf Männer und dominiert von gebürtigen Adligen, während die Irokesen
Indianer einen stämme-übergreifenden männlichen Rat hatten, der von den Frauen gewählt wurde.
Deutschland hatte nach dem ersten Weltkrieg mit der [[Weimarer Republik]] eine ungesicherte
schlechtfunktionierende parlamentarische Demokratie geschaffen, die von Hitler mit Gewalt und
Niederbrennen des Reichstagparlaments überwältigt und beseitigt wurde.

Amerika, als ehemalige englische Kolonie, hatte bereits eine primitive relative-Mehrheit-
Pseudodemokratie entwickelt, die weitgehend vom königlich-englischen Westminster
[[Mehrheitswahl|First-Past-The-Post]] System kopiert wurde, nur dass der Monarch durch einen
gewählten könig-ähnlichen Präsidenten für maximal 8 Jahre ersetzt wurde, während das englische
Parlament ([[House of Commons]]) und adlige Oberhaus ([[House of Lords]]) durch den Congress
und Senat ersetzt wurde (dieses FPP-system ermöglichte 2000 und 2016 kompromisslose
Minderheitsregierungen/Präsidenten, auch wenn der Oppositionskandidat mehr Wahlstimmen
bekam -- was regierenden Adligen, Reichen, Oligarchen und Faschisten sehr bequem war). Im
Gegensatz zu Amerika, Deutschland und vielen anderen Ländern hat Britannien auch 2017 noch
keine geschriebene verlässliche Demokratieverfassung (ein klassischer totalitärer Monarch '''ist''' die
Verfassung; siehe
[https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=liberal+democracy&oq=liberal+democracy+&aqs=chrome..69i
57j0l5.15974j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Liberal Democracy]), und verlässt sich auf Konvention
und Tradition. Englands mittelalterliche [[Magna Carta]] kann als die erste schriftliche
Menschenrechtsverfassung zwischen dem König und seinen Adligen angesehen werden.

Die deutsche Nachkriegsdemokratie nahm unter der Besetzung der alliierten Siegermächte deren
Systeme als Vorlage, verbesserte diese aber mit Hilfe der Nazierfahrungen, wie zB. proportionale
parlamentarische Repräsentation mit einem inaktiven Präsidenten und einer schriftlichen
Verfassung als Sicherheit. Deutschland's Nachbar Österreich schuf eine proportionale
parlamentarische Demokratie, in der der absichernde Präsident direkt mit einfacher Mehrheit
gewählt wird, während die Schweiz Referenda stark in ihre Verfassung einbaute.

== '''Fehlende praktische Demokratiedefinition''' ==

Die Definition von (echter) [[Demokratie]] und somit von [[Republik]] ist eine [[Utopie]] und beweist
sich in der Praxis als extrem schwierig, da eine vollkommen [[direkte Demokratie]] durch direkte
Wahlen aller Beteiligten nicht verlässlich und praktisch genug durchfürbar ist (zu viele ändernde
Entscheidungsthemen, zu grosser Manipulationseinfluss, zu viel Zeitaufwand bei der individuellen
Information aller Beteiligten, zu wenig Wahlsicherheit einschliesslich genügender Wahlbeteiligung
und Wahlverfälschungssicherheit, usw.), während eine Demokratie durch gewählte Volksvertreter
oder Parlamentarier nicht immer dem wenigstens durchschnittlichen Willen des Volkes entspricht,
und zu einem Machtmisbrauch neigt.

== '''Demokratieoptimumprinzip''' ==

Es zeigt sich aber, dass ein durchschnittlich zutreffendes andauerndes Demokratiemaximum erreicht
werden könnte, wenn das Optimumkompromissprinzip, welches der Demokratie zugrunde liegt,
ebenfalls an dem Demokratiesystem selbst angewended wird: Das Ergebnis ist die echte
Democratieverfassung!

== '''Unterschiedliche Demokratiegrade''' ==

Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen geschichtlichen Machthintergründe und somit des Weisheitsstandes

der Völker haben sich unterschiedliche Grade der Demokratie und deren Verfassung entwickelt, und
somit eine Vielzahl von Systemen, die sich als Demokratie bezeichnen (üblicherweise täuschen
Diktatoren ihren Völkern eine Demokratie vor); Jedoch hat sich bis 2017 noch kein System dem
bislang undefiniertem Demokratieoptimum ausreichend angenähert.

== '''Vorgetäuschte Demokratie/Republik''' ==

Somit leiden viele Länder oft unerkannt unter ihrer Diktatur/Monarchie, die ihre Adligen und
Reichen wohlhabend an der Macht halten, während eine Demokratie vorgetäuscht wird; Es ist somit
für alle undemokratischen Mächte üblich, jeweilige Demokratieverfassungen und Rechtssysteme so
kompliziert zu gestalten, dass das Volk die wahre Diktatur/Oligarchie verfassungsmässig nicht
einschränken oder sogar erkennen kann -- [[Politik]] ist auch die Beeinflussung des Volkes durch
Politiker... Beispiele:

In der klassenorientierten britischen Monarchie hat der Monarch immer noch per Gesetz (zB.
versteckt in Neuseelands Constitution Act) die totale Macht, unter der alle Parlamentarier, hohe
Beamte, Richter, und indirect auch '''alle''' Rechtsanwaelte einschliesslich Kronen-/Staatsanwaelte,
unter dem Schwur zur Monarchie stehen – Polizisten stehen ausserdem unter dem Eid, den Frieden
und die Ruhe des Monarchen (nicht der Demokratie) aufrecht zu erhalten. Inkompetenz
einschliesslich direkter Korruption wird üblicherweise nur nach Veröffentlichung oberflächlich
korrigiert, denn korrupte Untergebene können erpresst werden, wenn sie Machtmisbrauch
aufzudecken drohen.

Einparteiensysteme presentieren sich als Demokratien, obwohl nur eine Partei zur „Wahl“ steht,
während andere Parteien aktiv verhindert oder unterdrückt werden (zb. Russlands und
Ostdeutschlands sogenannter Ostblockkommunismus).
Andere sogenannte „Demokratien“ sind von ungewählten religiösen Diktatoren verfassungsmässig
überschattet (zB. in Ägypten und Iran 2017); Sogar die britischen Monarchen hatten diese
Möglichkeit, da sie das Oberhaupt der [[Anglikanische Gemeinschaft|Anglikanischen Kirche]] sind
(König Henry VIII konfiszierte die katholische Kirche, weil sie keine Scheidung erlaubte), und es gab
noch 2017 ein vergessenes Blasphemiegesetz in Neuseeland.

== '''Sicherheitsvorkehrungen''' ==

Die Demokratieverfassung muss Sicherheitsvorkehrungen enthalten, die sie gegen die

Machtergreifung von Diktatoren aller Art dauerhaft schützt; Ansonsten würde sie schnell nach der
gesetzmässigen Einsetztung üblicherweise durch Gewalt verhindert und ausser Kraft gesetzt werden
(wie zB. 2017 in der Turkei, wo der Präsident mittels einfacher-Mehrheit-[[Referendum]] totalitäre
Macht erreichte, während 2011 in Britannien das Volk dazu gebracht wurde, mit
[http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/ einfacher-
Mehrheit-Referendum] gegen das Demokratieminimum der proportionalen Repräsentation zu
stimmen). Diese Tendenz beruht auf unzählige geschichtliche Erfahrungen der Unstabilität einer
Vereinigung von freien unabhängigen (horizontal oder gleichberechtigt organisierten) Menschen, im
Vergleich zur stark hierarchischen (vertikal Befehl-und-Gehorsam Führer-organisierten) Vereinigung
mit einem oder wenigen gewaltausübenden/-androhenden Diktatoren, einschliesslich gebürtigen
Diktatoren (Monarchen) und Oligarchen ([[Oligarchie]]: Herrschaft durch einige wenige). Solch
vertikal-organisierte Vereinigungen im Zusammenhang mit lebensbedrohlicher Gewaltausübung
erreichen einen extrem starken Zusammenschluss (Faschismus, Brüderschaft, Gang), was ebenfalls
eine starke Philosophiegleichschaltung (starke "Mainstreaming") der Mitglieder bewirkt und somit
die Demokratiebasis verhindert. Das kann dann nur durch eine ebenfalls gewalttätige oder -
androhende Revolution korrigiert werden, z.B. in Form von unkontrollierbaren
Massendemonstrationen, Boykotten, Attentaten, oder durch militärische Invasion wie im
2.Weltkrieg, usw..

==== '''Menschen-, Grund- und Justizrechte''' ====

Auch muss die Demokratie-/Republikverfassung [[Menschenrechte#Die Wurzeln der

Menschenrechte in der Antike|Menschen-, Grund- und Justizrechte]] enthalten, die nicht einfach
mittels absoluter-Mehrheit-Gesetze abgeschaft werden koönnen, denn verhungerte, ermordete
oder ohne öffentliches Gerichtsverfahren eingesperrte Menschen können nicht wählen!

==== '''Relative, Absolute, Supermehrheit''' ====

Die englische Definition (siehe [[wikipedia:Majority|Englisch-Wikipedia]]) der einfachen Mehrheit ist

bestenfalls unlogisch, und kann das First-Past-The-Post- und Plurality-voting-wählen einschliessen,
während [[Mehrheit|Deutsch-Wikipedia]] sich beträchtlich unterscheidet und die relative Mehrheit
ähnlich dem First-Past-the-Post und plurality-voting als <50%, die absolute oder einfache Mehrheit
als >50% (mit Unterschieden in den Enthaltungen), und die qualifizierte Mehrheit ähnlich der
Supermajority definiert. Diese unpräzise englische Definition resultiert klar von der traditionellen
FPP-Wahlmethode.
Eine verlässlichere Definition der geforderten Abstimmungsmehrheiten ist notwendig, denn eine
relative Mehrheit, bei der ein Kandidat mehr Stimmen als jeder einzelne andere Kandidat bekommt
und somit als alleiniger Sieger alle anderen Wahlstimmen und Philosophien ungültig macht, führt zu
verstecktem Faschismus (wie unter dem englischen/amerikanischem 2-Parteien First-Past-the-Post
System); Vertikal-organisierte Brüderschaften haben den stärksten Zusammenhalt mit
Philosophiegleichschaltung.

Da es bei vielen gleichberechtigten unabhängigen Wählern immer eine Anzahl von abweichenden
Stimmen gibt, kann eine 100%ige Übereinstimmungs-/Konsensusmehrheit nicht erreicht werden;
Daher muss eine Demokratie-/Republikverfassung die Entscheidungstreffung mit geringeren
Mehrheiten regeln, um langfristig ein Übereinstimmungsmaximum zu erreichen, ohne dass die
herrschende Mehrheit die Demokratie vernichtend überstimmt und in eine unwiderrufliche Diktatur
verwandelt. Somit ist generell die absolute >50% Mehrheit als Minimum erforderlich, während für
Verfassungsänderungen und Notstandserklärungen eine höhere Mehrheit (zB. 2/3 oder ¾, auch
Supermajority genannt) nötig ist, um die Verfassung zu schützen.

==== '''Gewaltenteilung''' ====

'''Herkömmliche [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewaltenteilung Gewaltenteilung]:''' Als

Verfassungslösung hat sich langsam die Gewaltenteilung in Legislative (Parlament), Executive
(Regierung), und Judikative (Gerichte) herrausgestellt, welche in der Praxis jedoch nicht genügend
unabhängig voneinander sind: In den vielen Ländern werden Verfassungsrichter und sogar auch
Präsidenten (zB. der Governor-Generals in Neuseeland, Australien, Kanada 2017) von der Executive
(in Neuseeland sogar nur vom Prime Minister/Solicitor-General -- in Amerika vom
Präsidenten) bestimmt, in Deutschland jedoch mittels dem Oberhaus (Bundesrat). Die so
bestimmten regierungsfreundlichen obersten Richter und Präsidenten haben ungenügenden Drang,
Korruption aufzuklären und ihre Regierungen zum Einhalten der Verfassung und anderer Gesetze zu
zwingen. Auch ist die Gefahr des Machtmisbrauchs sehr hoch, wenn Entscheidungsmacht in einer
einzelnen Person konzentriert ist. Ein Praxisoptimum muss gefunden werden:

‘‘‘Optimierte Gewaltenteilung:‘‘‘ Lösung ist die wahrlich unabhängige 3-fache

Gewaltenteilung, um versteckte faschistische Machtergreifung zu verhindern, indem das
Volk die 3 verfassungsmässigen Mächte direkt erwählt. Die Macht wird auf mehrere
Personen verteilt, welche idealerweise auch die Philosophieverteilung im Volke proportional
widerspiegelt. Dieses sind die Anforderungen an die Wahlmethoden für Parlament,
Präsidenten und Verfassungsrichter, und sind die Prinzipien des Universellen-Demokratie-
Verfassung Beispiels, welches auch die entsprechenden Wahlmethoden festlegt!:

== '''Beispiel: [https://www.scribd.com/document/352638522/Universelle-Demokratie-Verfassung
Universelle Demokratie-Verfassung.pdf]''' ==

Falls obige Hyperlinkadresse fehlschlägt:

https://www.scribd.com/document/352637170/Demokratie-Verfassung
https://www.scribd.com/document/352636740/Republik-Verfassung

Zusätzliche Referenz: Beweis der aktiven aber versteckten absoluten britischen Königsmacht:

https://www.scribd.com/document/341435238/New-Zealand-Local-Democracy-Supreme-Court-
Documents

[http:s//www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792 NZ Bill of Rights Act

1990]

[[wikipedia:Republic|Englisch-Wikipedia]] republic-Definition schliesst Definitionen ein, die von der

Basisdefinition abweichen, nämlich des Herrschens durch das Volk ('''public''') einschliesslich dem
gleichberechtigten Machtmandat jedes Mitgliedes wie in der Demokratie; [[Republik|Deutsch-
Wikipedia]] ist viel präziser, widerspricht sich aber innerhalb eines Satzes und gegen die Einleitung,
in dem es Monarchien in Demokratien einschliesst sowohl als auch ausschliesst, und China's
Oligarchy dann als Republik bezeichnet, nur weil es sich als solche bezeichnet.
 Korrespondenz mit Wikipedia

WP criticised my personal introduction to the “mentor”, because it explained the importance of my

article including its likely effects on political situations in a subjective way.

These are proposals for Improvements that I thought are needed after my short beginner period,
experiencing difficulties with the “easy-to-use” WP program, because it contains a huge amount of
overload info that a beginner simply cannot memorise and use…
This is the detailed answer to “mentor’s criticism;

This is the answer to “mentor’s” deletion notice of the picture file, informing him about the text I
sent to WP commons (picture storage), after I uploaded a clear picture in best-quality .pdf format to
satisfy his demands; His answer indicated that my pictures in .png format will not be deleted…
The following day this withdrawal by the “mentor” appeared together with a notice to his colleges
and the info, that I would not receive a “mentor” unless I obeyed, but the article designs (see screen
copies below) have been deleted – without previous clear warning and advice to save them!

This is the removal-from-“mentor”-programme notice with arrogant abbreviations only

understandable to insiders; It is clear that Wikipedia never had any intention to allow any proper
article about democracy-/republic constitution right from the start…
 German-Wikipedia’s Maximum Inconsistency

And finally the fundamental inconsistency in German-Wikipedia under the headline

“Abgrenzung Republik / Demokratie in the 2nd and 3rd point:

English-Wikipedia's republic definition includes definitions that deviate from the basis
definition of rule by the public, including the inherent equal-power mandate of each
member like in a democracy; German-Wikipedia is far more precise, but contradicts itself
within one sentence where it includes and excludes monarchies from being democracies,
while later calling China’s oligarchy a republic simply because it calls itself such…

This is Knowingly deliberate mis-information/stupefying of the General Public!!!:

 Endbemerkungen:

The “mentoring” limited itself to rather general unspecified or even unjustified criticism requiring
guesswork by the novice, whereas requests for constructive criticism remained unfulfilled. The
“mentor” required professional published reference proof of existence and use of the Headline
words “Demokratie-Verfassung” (English: “Democracy Constitution”), despite that it is an obviously
generally used connection of the 2 words (This connection practice is even far stronger in German
grammar, where the 2 words are written as one; the separation with a slash was done for search-
engine convenience); Otherwise one would have to provide such proof for every single word…

It did not matter that the article contained hyperlink references to “democracy”, “republic” and
“constitution” in the first paragraph, and that esp. the German Wikipedia link to Demokratie
contained all common and professional definitions in connection to that word. The Mentor insisted
that “republic” is not equal to “democracy”, and that democracy is not a form of rule despite that
Wikipedia itself produced such literal proof while offering hyperlink installation choices. He was also
made aware of the English WP “liberal democracy” entry that illogically said that the British
monarchy is a democracy despite commonly-known contrary definitions of both words; German WP
at least uses the expression “democratic” in connection with this monarchy, although even that is
proven wrong by the articles (where is the border between democracy and monarchy?) :

The “mentor” was asked to stop his criticism regarding the definition of republic, and to achieve its
WP correction or at least an insertion into the texts that there exist fundamentally inconsistent
definitions and uses of language. After all, WP “encourages” the correction of false articles on-the-
face-of-it. The following note was added to the end of the “final” draft article with explicit notice to
the ghostly WP observers in the file-saving headlines:

English-Wikipedia's republic definition includes definitions that deviate from the basis definition of
rule by the public, including the inherent equal-power mandate of each member like in a
democracy; German-Wikipedia is far more precise, but contradicts itself within one sentence where
it includes and excludes monarchies from being democracies, while later calling China’s oligarchy a
republic simply because it calls itself such.

The above tends to prove that Wikipedia is a corrupted propaganda tool of undemocratic fascistic

governments, pretending to be the neutral worldwide collection agency of knowledge and wisdom.

In connection with American Google fundamentally false information is distributed, while search-

engine results are manipulated to hide/replace important search results or prevent their internet

existence, thus arranging priority in favour of undemocratic government interests. At time of

compiling a final approach to Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee has been undertaken; If this were

successful, the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) would remain in Wikipedia for optimising

edits, and the (Universal) “Democracy Constitution.pdf” in Wikimedia Commons for referral.

Wikipedia Draft Constitutional-Democracy Article With Active Hyperlinks (English):

Basis Considerations to
Democracy Constitution, Constitutional Democracy
Contents

1. Definition of Constitutional Democracy/Republic

2. Basic Principle of Democracy/Republic
3. Aim of Constitutional Democracy-/Republic
4. No Practical Democracy/Republic Definition
5. Principle of Optimum of Democracy/Republic
6. Developing Grades of Democracy/Republic
7. Constitutional Safeguards for Democracy/Republic
7.1.1. Human-, Minority- and Justice Rights
7.1.2. Relative-, Absolute-, Supermajority
7.1.3. Secret-Ballot Elections
7.1.4. Minimum Election Threshold
7.1.5. Separation of Powers
8. Example: Universal Democracy/Republic Constitution
9. Roughly-Summarised History
9.1.1. Democratic Human Right
9.1.2. Ancient Democracy Origins
9.1.3. Parliamentary Monarchies
9.1.4. Parliamentary Theocracies
9.1.5. One-Party Oligarchies
9.1.6. Constitutional Democracies
10. Open-Source Democracy/Republic Constitution

Definition of Constitutional Democracy/Republic

A Democracy-/Republic Constitution is the connection of the meaning of both single-word meanings;
Constitution(al) is the reliable definition of an organisation’s [power] structure, and is today
purposed as a working safeguard for democracies/republics (unwritten constitutions like the British
monarchy cannot readily be retrieved and are not reliable but dependent on arbitrary
interpretational power). “Re-public” is the Roman/Latin word for “democracy” (Greek, “people’s
power/rule”), and means returning the rule/power “back again to the common public” (publicus,
plebeius – common, public; or res publica -- common public thing/affair, incl. power) in form of a
state; The use of these words is imprecise: By age-old practice it was often used as pretence to hide
and justify dictatorships by a few rich, which are correctly called plutocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy,
monarchy, theocracy, fascism, etc. instead, because “common public” is not limited to a few rich
dictators. [Such fudging-propaganda deviation of the meaning of democracy/republic does not
justify its acceptance and re-definition, unless the purpose definition of “language” were changed
from enabling truthful communication to cheating pretence.]
 Basic Principle of Democracy/Republic
The democracy/republic is founded on the basic principle of equal rights of every individual (with
few exceptions) regarding their power exertion via topic- and person-elections – One human, one
people-government share/vote.

Aim of the Democracy-/Republic Constitution

The neutral aim of Constitutional Democracy/Republic is the permanent maximisation of wisdom
incl. problem solving, with minimisation of violence.

No Practical Democracy/Republic Definition

The practical definition of literal (true) democracy/republic is an utopia and historically proves
extreme difficult, because nationwide 100% consensus cannot be achieved; Furthermore, an entirely
direct democracy via direct election by all participants is insufficiently practicable (too many
changing decision topics, too much time requirement for full information of individuals, too big
influence by manipulators, too little election safety, incl. sufficient participation and safety against
vote-/data-rigging, too low majorities, too primitive populistic pre-determining referenda questions,
etc.), while its substitute, the democracy via elected representatives or parliamentarians, is not
always reflecting at least the average will of the population, and without checks & balances tends to
result in misuse of power and ultimately in dictatorship.

Principle of Optimum of Democracy/Republic

A stable and on average medium-/long-term accurate maximum of democracy could be achieved, if
the practice of optimum-compromise finding, which is the very basis of practical democracy, were
also applied to the democratic system itself: The result is a safeguarding optimised
Democracy/Republic Constitution as the substitute for the elusive practical definition of
democracy/republic!

Developing Grades of Democracy

Due to differing historic power background and thus wisdom of the peoples, differing grades of
[constitutional] democracy/republic are developing with numerous systems calling themselves
“democracy/republic”. It is usual for undemocratic systems to design their constitutions and legal
systems in a complicated manner, so that the population cannot limit or remove the true
dictatorship/oligarchy, nor even recognise it; Politics is also the manipulation of the population by
politicians… Therefore until 2018 no system had sufficiently approached the elusive optimum of
constitutionally safeguarded democracy/republic.
 Constitutional Safeguards for Democracy/Republic
A Democracy Constitution must contain safety precautions which permanently protect it against any
power assumption by dictators of any kind; Else it would be prevented and invalidated rather fast
(usually by force) after being passed into law (in 2017 the Turkish president obtained dictator
powers via a simple-majority-referendum, in 2018 China’s president was enabled by the one-party
National-People’s-Congress delegates to rule for life, whereas in 2011 the British population was
deceived into a simple-majority referendum against the democracy minimum of proportional
representation). This tendency derives from countless historic experiences of the instability of free
independent (horizontal- or equal-organised) individuals, in contrast to apparently strong (but also
instable) hierarchic (vertical command-and-obey) association of followers with one or few violence-
exerting or –threatening dictators, incl. hereditary dictators (monarchs) and oligarchs (Oligarchy:
rule by a few). Such vertical-organised associations achieve in connection with live-threatening
power an extreme strong coherence (via fascism, brotherhoods, gangs and the mainstreaming of
philosophy of their members), thus preventing democracy at least internally if not nationwide or
worldwide. This is then challenged by a likewise violence-exerting or –threatening revolution, e.g. in
form of uncontrollable mass demonstrations/civil disobedience, boycotts, assassinations, or by
dictatorship/military coup, or by military invasion as occurred in World War II, etc. in a vicious circle.

Human-, Minority- and Justice Rights

A Democracy Constitution must contain human-, minority- and justice rights, which cannot be
readily removed via simple-majority laws, because silenced, starved, murdered or without-public-
court-hearing imprisoned humans cannot vote or be elected!

A precise definition of Natural Justice needs also to be included in order to restrict arbitrary hidden
overruling and invalidating of parliament’s laws by the judiciary (The legal English term “natural
justice” has never been defined; the pre-condition is used as pseudo definition instead, because
monarchies traditionally prevent any restriction of the monarch’s hidden power).

Relative-, Absolute-, Supermajority

The English definition (see English-Wikipedia) of simple majority is imprecise and can include the
First-Past-The-Post- and plurality-voting, whereas German-Wikipedia differs considerably, defining
relative majority similar to First-Past-The-Post- and plurality-voting as <50%, absolute or simple
majority as >50% of votes (with differences in abstentions), and qualified majority similar to
supermajority; This imprecise English definition clearly results from the ingrained traditional FPP-
voting practice.

A constitutional definition of the required degree of majority is necessary, because the relative FPP
majority, where one candidate gets more votes than every single other candidate and invalidates as
the sole winner all the other votes and philosophies, leads to a non-proportional political spectrum
drastically reduced to 2 “left” versus “right” parties and hidden fascism, because vertically organised
brotherhoods/gangs have the strongest coherence with strong philosophy mainstreaming. The STV
single-transferable-vote system is similarly non-proportional, but at least ensures a close to >50%-
simple majority for the winning candidate. Proportional STV party voting has until now not been
used to enable substitution of invalid below-minimum-threshold-party votes with valid-party votes,
because it makes nationwide vote counting very complicated.

As there will always be a number of dissenting votes among many equal-rights voters, it is
impossible to achieve 100% consensus; Thus a Democracy Constitution must regulate decision-
making with lesser majorities in order to achieve in the long term a maximum of agreement, without
that the ruling absolute majority removes democracy and changes it irreversibly into a dictatorship.
For these reasons the absolute >50% parliamentary majority is a minimum requirement, while for
constitution alterations and declarations of emergency there must be a higher majority requirement
(eg. 2/3 or ¾, also called supermajority) for the protection of the constitution against a simple
majority misled by a populistic leader/demagogue.

Secret-Ballot Elections

While one-person one-vote must be ensured, the casting of the votes must not enable identification
(One–party rule was enforced in Russian-controlled East Germany’s officially secret-ballot elections,
because voters had to fear repressions if they cast their votes covered).

Minimum Election Threshold

Due to the German Weimar-Republik experience with the splintering of parliament into many small
parties that were unexperienced in developing compromises and having been finally overpowered
by the dictator Hitler, post-war Germany embedded a minimum 5% hurdle for parliamentary parties
into the constitution. In today’s constitutionally safeguarded democracy this 5% hurdle tends to
favour the 2 main parties (in 2017 approx. 7 million German voters were prevented from
representation in parliament); Israel has a 3.25% hurdle, while Italy’s complex hurdles favour pre-
election coalition building for minor parties. -- A parliament of 100 members inherently has a 1%
threshold. Several methods are used to determine the proportional allocation of parliamentary seats
according to the votes: the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method is increasingly used, while the D’Hondt
method favours larger parties.

Separation of Powers

Conventional Separation of Powers: Classical separation was limited to hierarchical state/king

versus hierarchical church/religious leader. As constitutional solution the separation of powers into
legislative (parliament), executive (government), and judiciary (law courts) is slowly established, but
which are in practice insufficiently independent from each other: In many countries the judges and
even presidents (e.g. Governor-General in New Zealand, Australia and Canada) are appointed by the
government/executive (in New Zealand even only by the Prime Minister/Solicitor-General – in
America by the president), but in Germany more independently via a combined commission of
parliament (Bundestag) and federal upper house (Bundesrat). These such-determined inherently
government-friendly higher judges and presidents often have insufficient drive to clean-up
corruption and force their governments/presidents to follow the constitution and other laws; If
incompetence, incl. direct corruption, is usually only after publicity superficially corrected, then
corrupt subjects can be conveniently blackmailed if they threaten the status quo by uncovering
misuse of power. Thus the danger of power misuse is very high, if decision power is concentrated in
one single person.

Optimised Separation of Powers: The solution is a truly independent 3-tier separation of powers in
order to prevent hidden fascistic power assumption, where the population directly elects/empowers
the constitutional powers. Power should be distributed onto several persons, who ideally also reflect
the distribution of philosophies in the population proportionally. These are the neutral requirements
of the election methods for parliament, presidents and constitution-court judges, and are the
principles of the Universal-Democracy-Constitution example, which also defines the respective
election methods!
 Example: Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf

Roughly-Summarised History
Democratic Human Right

After the 2 world wars the League of Nations, then called United Nations (UN), created fundamental
human rights, including the right to self-determination, which is democracy for a human society.
These should prevent further wars as well as their dictatorship origins, because wars generally
produce extreme suffering and damage.

Ancient Democracy Origins

The Roman republic replaced a monarchy, and developed a complex structure of Tribunes,
Magistrates, Assemblies and Senate apparently with mutual checks & balances, partly enshrined in
writing, and partly derived from the Greek system. According to Wikipedia's Constitution of the
Roman Republic there existed the familiar constant power struggle between the rich and the
common-public poor, whereby the rich had increasingly curtailed the common-public’s
republic/democratic power most of the time so far as to make the word “republic” inappropriate
(German-Wikipedia describes it as an aristocracy with some elements of democracy, and excludes
the Roman empire from 27bC on).

The early Greek democracy was similarly limited: Although it reduced the power of aristocratic
families who literally enslaved farmers, it was also limited to male citizens, and used even a lottery
as substitute for voting out of the first 2 wealth classes. Democratic rights were then further
improved, leading even to the right to speak in the assemblies, but which resulted in the dominance
of skilled speakers. These demagogues even manipulated assemblies into unjust executions, which
was later made punishable. The targeted prevention of oligarchy appears to have been relatively
successful until the invasion of the Macedonians.

New Zealand’s Maori tribes had a 100%-consensus method limited to men and dominated by
hereditary aristocrats, while the North American Iroquois had a multi-tribal assembly of men elected
by the women.

Parliamentary Monarchies

Britain still hadn’t achieved a written reliable democracy constitution in 2018, and relies on
precedence, judge-made case “law” and tradition instead (parliamentary monarchies do not have
independently enforceable constitutions/independent constitution courts, because a classical
absolute unelected monarch is the constitution). Human rights were written into common-level laws
instead. The medieval Magna Carta can be regarded as the first trial of a written human-rights
constitution between the king and his aristocrats, but its interpretation/enforcement still depended
on the monarch’s highest court, the Privy Council with its law lords. The unelected British
(Canadian/Australian/New Zealand) monarch still has totalitarian power per law (hidden in e.g. New
Zealand’s Constitution Act 1986), under which all parliamentary bills need royal assent/signature to
become law (and can be rejected/ignored), and all parliamentarians, high officials, soldiers, judges,
and indirectly also all barrister-lawyers incl. crown prosecutors, are under oath of allegiance to their
monarch – policemen are under the additional oath to keep the peace of the monarch (not of the
democratic people). This human-rights-forsaking oath requirement makes it impossible for
consistent democrats to be elected/appointed, and prevents referenda and laws aiming to change
the monarchy into a constitutional democracy. In Northern Ireland it also prevented the Ireland re-
unification party from claiming British parliamentary seat(s) that remain unoccupied!

The British monarchs also reserved theocracy-like power, because they are the head of the Anglican
Church (King Henry VIII confiscated the Catholic Church, because it refused to allow his divorce), and
there existed a forgotten blasphemy law in New Zealand still in 2017.

(Wild-West) America as former English colony had developed a relative-majority indirect-voting

pseudo-democracy, which was partly copied from the royal-British Westminster First-Past-The-Post
system, except for the indirectly-elected king-like executive president for maximal 8 years, while
replacing the English parliament (House of Commons) and aristocratic (upper) House of Lords with
the House of Representatives and Senate, with some Roman-derived checks & balances as well as
Magna-Carta-like human-rights aspects and a right to carry guns (This FPP system enabled in 2000
and 2016 compromise-less minority governments/presidents in America, even though the
opposition candidate achieved more votes).

India had a long and complex revolutionary history as a colony of the British monarchy, which ended
in 1947 after Mahatma Ghandi’s non-violent civil-disobedience revolution resulted in a
constitutional presidential state system in 1950 with the world’s longest constitution. The very
powerful American-like executive president is indirectly elected by an American-like electoral college
of members of both houses of parliament, the State Legislative Assembly and of several other Union
Territories, but with single transferable vote. The Supreme Court apparently acts as a check &
balance, but its chief judge, who advises appointment of other judges, is appointed by the president.
The constitution defines some human rights and also duties (some are non-justifiable/-enforceable)
like [military] defence of the country, abjuration of violence and protection of the environmental,
but does not define the democratic election method of parliament and party-candidates except for
equal voter participation that overwrites any class system.

The constitution of Japan is a result of the post-war victors’ influence that enshrined detailed
[human] rights, disabled the military (which is in practice circumvented for self-defence), and
reduced the monarch’s power apparently only to “ceremonial”, but still retaining similar functions
(and thus nearly absolute powers) as the British monarch. The National Diet parliament is only
partially proportional, one half is determined by the relative-majority FPP method favouring the 2
main parties. It can overrule an upper house (formerly limited to aristocrats) veto with a 2/3
majority. The government in conjunction with the monarch appoints the judiciary; Unlike British
court practice, Japan’s monarch-obedient judges can openly overrule statutory laws if they conflict
the constitution (and thus the monarch) in a dispute.

The Swedish parliamentary hereditary monarchy developed from an elective monarchy. The
“Instrument of Government” (part of the Basic Laws of Sweden) apparently restricts the power of
the monarch in a complex way, but ultimately cannot remove it. Sweden’s “revolutions” were
bloodless democracy-increasing modifications of the monarchy.

New Zealand (under the British monarch) installed a mixed-member-proportional system via a
simple-majority referendum (This enabled in 1996, 1999, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2017 minor-party
candidates with even less than 0.5% of the total vote to bypass the 5% minimum threshold via the
“replaced” relative-majority First-Past-the-Post election method, distorting proportionality usually in
favour of conservative governments).

The Constitution of Spain enshrines parliamentary monarchy, after the referendum question for
passing the apparently democratic constitution into law was created by 7 of the king’s officials, incl.
4 followers of the previous dictator. Judges and other high officials ultimately act on behalf of the
monarch.

The Constitution of the Netherlands enshrines a parliamentary monarchy, where the king is active
part of the government and appoints an “(in)formateur” who facilitates coalition (compromise-
multi-party-government) building.

Parliamentary Theocracies

The Iranian revolution replaced a monarchy with a theocracy (rule by unelected religious priests);
Egypt’s revolutions replaced a monarchy with the declared aim to create a republic, but instead
under military control constitutionally installing a theocracy/presidential-dictatorship blend, later
softened to Islamic state religion with a very detailed constitution including human rights, but vague
on election methods for parliament etc., the president even being able to appoint 5% of
parliamentarians.

One-Party Oligarchies

The Russian monarch (tsar) was replaced through the Russian revolution, firstly by rich
interests/aristocrats, then violently by the military, which maintained its dominance for decades. It
imposed a narrow one-party-system interpretation of Marxist communism with democracy
pretence, where only one party could be “elected” while other parties were actively suppressed.
Factories, farms etc. and even worker-unions’ properties became constitutionally centralised
property of the Soviet Union. The 1993 Russian constitution enshrined a powerful executive
president, via a >50%-simple-majority 2-round election, who can dissolve the Duma parliament (then
partial-proportionally but now proportionally elected).

A stark example of such democracy/republic pretence was East Germany, calling itself “German
Democratic Republic”; Post-war occupier Russia created and remote-controlled its one-party
oligarchy dictatorship. Another example is China which installed a similar system calling itself
people’s republic: China’s Constitution derived from the Soviet Union’s constitution, with many
modifications, except the absolute rule of the Communist Party without checks & balances (i.e.
separation of powers), and called “people’s democratic dictatorship”, but traditionally power is
concentrated in the paramount leader. This even lead to a famine, and decades later to extreme
pollution through unregulated industrial growth. The party-candidate selection method appears
undetermined, so that in practice an established minority oligarchy maintains power and violently
suppresses any democracy demands that were (among other human rights) previously
constitutionally allowed. In 2018 the president achieved constitutional change from limiting the
presidential tenure to 2 periods into unlimited presidency, thus enabling his life-long dictatorship.

Constitutional Democracies

After the first world war Germany had created an unguarded bad-working (with up to 17 parties and
democracy-hostile officials incl. judges and even the president from the kaiser/monarchy era)
parliamentary democracy called the Weimar-Republik; It was overpowered and removed by Hitler
using force incl. the torching of the Reichstag parliament, installing a (Nazi/Nationalsozialist) one-
party/one-leader dictatorship. The German post-war democracy under the occupation by the allied
victors used their systems as example, but improved them with the help of the Nazi experience, like
human rights and proportional parliamentary representation with an upper house, president and a
written constitutional Basic Law as safeguard.
Germany’s neighbour Austria created a proportional parliamentary democracy, in which the
safeguarding president is directly elected via >50% simple majority, while Switzerland strongly
included referenda in her constitution.

The Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust created constitution-like Basic Laws of Israel determining
proportional representation with a minimum 3.25%-threshold, and a safeguarding president elected
by the Knesset parliament, but do not contain democracy safeguards regarding party-internal
determination of general-election candidates.

India had a long and complex revolutionary history as a British colony, which ended in 1947 after
Mahatma Ghandi’s non-violent civil-disobedience revolution, resulting in a constitutional
presidential republic in 1950 with the world’s longest constitution. The very powerful executive
president is indirectly elected by an American-like electoral college of members of both houses of
parliament, the State Legislative Assembly and of several other Union Territories, but with single-
transferable-vote rough approximation of proportionality. The Supreme Court apparently acts as a
check & balance, but its chief judge, who advises appointment of other judges, is appointed by the
president. The constitution defines some human rights and also duties (some are non-justifiable/-
enforceable) like [military] defence of the country, abjure violence, and protect the environmental,
but does not define the democratic election method of parliament except for equal voter
participation that overwrites any class system.

The French Revolution violently removed the monarchy, and developed democracy into today’s 5th
constitutional republic. A >50%-simple-majority 2-round election determines the powerful
president, who has dictatorship-like powers in a state emergency, even though the National
Assembly can then not be dissolved. He is heading the powerful government-minister cabinet, but
the proportional National Assembly has the ultimate legislative power, although the Senate and the
president can temporarily (but for constitutional alterations persistently) veto law designs.
Initiations of referenda need at least the agreement of the president and the government. The
judicative has investigative powers.

The Italian post-war constitution established a partly proportional 2-chamber parliament mixed with
very complicated regional election requirements, which often resulted in relatively short-lived
multiple-party governments. In 2017 the constitution court judged in favour of paramount
proportional elections, although complicated minimum threshold requirements remained. Detailed
[human] rights as well as social duties were enshrined (incl. even the duty to work, which would as
labour enforcement invalidate all other rights and is therefore in practice irrelevant), as well as free
enterprise on condition it does not damage the common good, health & safety, liberty and human
dignity; secret [fascistic] associations were forbidden, obviously a result of Mafia and Mussolini
fascism. It also established the separation of state and church (The Catholic Vatican is almost literally
a privileged separate state). The president has democracy-safeguarding powers that provide some
government-independence of the judiciary (state prosecutors are part of the judicative branch and
thus independent from the government). The constitution requires special supermajorities for
constitutional alterations, but even explicitly disables a change of its republic character.

The Greek constitution similarly prevents constitution alterations of the democracy/republic

character and even of its human-rights safeguards; it contains many detailed rights. The partly
proportional (1/20 is determined using relative FPP majority) Hellenic parliament can only change
the constitution by achieving a 60%-supermajority in 2-periods votes at least once. The 1975
alteration replaced the constitutional parliamentary monarchy with a [constitutional presidential
parliamentary] democracy/republic (the Greek word has both meanings). The Orthodox Church is
enshrined as the major self-ruling religion.

Open-Source Democracy/Republic Constitution

Purpose-limited horizontal direct democracies developed using open-source computer programs,
where participants contribute and benefit equally as well as directly regulate each other for the
common good/benefit. The computer program serves also as the constitution, and is subject to this
regulation/improvement. The safeguards against take-over by fascistic interests consists of the non-
profit voluntary contribution character, the light hierarchy (which is determined by achieving
proficiency in the program use and the prove of honest participation through successful
contributions in full unpredictable view of other proficient participants), the considerable amount of
active participants, and a semi-judicial notice-board/Arbitrary Committee complaints provision;

However, a lack of reliable safeguarded constitutions enables a take-over by

egocentric/fascistic/non-democratic-government interests, also paying “voluntary non-profit” users
for using/manipulating/policing the program to maximise their own power and eliminate
criticism/correction. Wikipedia Encyclopaedia and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux Linux]
computer operation system are 2 major examples.

[This is a modified article of a deleted Wikipedia entry (July 2017), and was available in March
2018 on Talk: Constitutional democracy – Wikipedia for fine-tuning discussion/editing, until
established Wikipedia editors disabled any optimising input via total deletion (see German-
Wikipedia Deletion Story with Screen Copies and Full WP Text)]

(Below is the original German-Wikipedia design showing the Universal Democracy Constitution’s
thumbnail picture top right:)
 Request to the Wikipedia Arbitration
Committee to

Enable/Restore Wikipedia-User Input to

the Draft: Constitutional Democracy, to

Correct False Article Details, to

temporarily Release the (Universal)

Democracy Constitution.pdf, and to

Unblock User Fritz Fehling

Please read the self-explaining Wikipedia (WP) entries below, and initiate/recommend changes to
established Wikipedia culture, so that it becomes practicably possible to create/participate/optimise
Wikipedia draft articles and to correct false Wikipedia articles without disabling and time-wasting
actions (WP’s “no-rule” page elevates the improvement spirit of WP above the letters of any rule):

Remark: “Wikipedia is not a democracy” states that WP’s “primary (though not exclusive) means of
decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting
(voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee).”

At this stage there is therefore no provision/security of how to test the stage of such consensus
beyond deletion “edits” and blockings by the most powerful persistent established editors; thus they
indirectly threaten to use similar methods to silence any disagreeing editors in a Wild-West lynch-
mob-WP dictatorship directed by demagogue-like “voluntary” editors hiding behind pseudonyms,
possibly paid by their undemocratic governments to police Wikipedia like a war game. Such
“consensus” therefore also does not need to regard the correction of false Wikipedia articles as a
priority.

This indeed would prove the original Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) entry about “open-
source constitutional democracy” false. Later versions contain a correction in order not to mislead
the General Public….
 This is the Wikipedia “Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic)”:

It was accessible via “Talk:Constitutional democracy”, with a redirect at the bottom of the page, or
directly via Wikipedia search entry of Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) (Source text at
bottom). The dark-green colour of the table of contents appeared very recently on all pages created
by the editor Fritz Fehling and seems to be a blacklisting information for established WP editors.
Below is the invitation for optimising constructive-edit (criticism / corrections / improvements /
additions) input with redirection link (see arrow in screen copy) to Draft: Constitutional Democracy
(Republic) on Talk: Constitutional democracy, created by an established Wikipedia user:

This is the notice of intention to totally disable Wikipedia user input/optimisation by total deletion;
The last very relevant edit was made by the author bypassing the editing block, but still signing; it
was deleted the following day, obviously to prevent any objections to the draft’s deletion:
 Correction of false details in the Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) and President-of-India articles:

This is the

Administrators’ Notice Board Entry:

'''Authoritarian Removal of Important Corrective Edits in Articles Containing False Facts'''

Yesterday I inserted corrective edits to "'''Single transferable vote'''" and a related correction to
"'''President of India'''" on grounds of inherent (even unavoidably included in the original articles
themselves) logical inconsistency/falseness, which I explained in short; I add a copy here for easy
referral:

'''The single transferable vote (STV) is a [[voting system]] designed to primarily achieve close
to >50% simple majority for the winning candidate''' through [[Ranked voting systems|ranked
voting]] in '''single-''' or multi-seat organizations or [[electoral district|constituencies]]
('''electorates/'''voting districts) [...] The system provides an '''unreliable random approximation
of''' proportional representation '''in multi-electorate elections''', enables votes to be cast for
individual candidates rather than for parties, and—compared to [[first-past-the-post voting]]—
reduces [[wasted vote|"wasted" votes]] (votes on sure losers or sure winners) by transferring them
to other candidates. '''Proportional STV party voting has until now not been used to enable
substitution of invalid below-minimum-threshold-party votes with valid-party votes, because it
makes nationwide vote counting very complicated.'''; [The bold type was added; Additional
explanation: as the complicated STV-vote-counting is currently only used for '''candidate''' election
(not '''party''' election) in single- or multi-electorate (national) elections, any appearance of
nationwide proportionality is through a biased random effect favouring the 2 major parties and
'''unproportionally''' disadvantaging the minor parties!!! German-Wikipedia's "Übertragbare
Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as identical to "instant runoff voting", and '''explicitly''' says that
it is '''not''' a proportional voting system!]; and:

The '''unreliable''' degree of proportionality of STV election results depends on the district
magnitude... [Added explanation: the more electorates/districts, the more proportionality effect for
the 2 major parties due to statistical reduction of margin-of-random-error]; further:

The [Indian presidential] election is held in accordance to '''the system of [[Proportional

representation]] by means of ''' the [[Single transferable vote]] method. [I scratched the bold type
on reason that an election of one person(president) cannot logically be proportional; the term
"population-adjusted" would be more appropriate, esp. as individual voting-congress members can
hold several votes due to lack of the congress's party-proportional constellation];

This authoritarian removal (without any explanation; I invited any objecting editor to discuss the
background on my user page) of corrective edits are possibly politically motivated.

I cannot speedily use my e-mail address, therefore also not speedily access Wikipedia's Arbitration
Committee in this very important matter that currently has a propaganda effect for not only India's
insufficiently democratic "election" system (see [[Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic)]];
Therefore I address this Administrators' Notice Board first. Greetings, --~~~~
These articles still contained the false and misleading entries on 28/3/2018, e.g. that …”STV is a
voting system designed to achieve proportional representation…”!

The Administrators’ Notice Board introduction leads to a page that offers the option to start a new
headline, resulting in following frame stating that “the following discussion is closed” – even before
it could start…! This is its screen copy:

At least temporary Release of the (Universal) Democracy Constitution.pdf:

The (Universal) “Democracy Constitution.pdf” in Wikimedia Commons has been removed from
access by the Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) (as thumbnail picture it in its top-right
layout) and from public access for examination and discussion, without providing reasoning details.

The (Universal) Democracy Constitution is also available to the General Public via Scribd Democracy
Constitution.
 Request for Unblocking of User Fritz Fehling

This is the on Fritz Fehling’s user page

Unblock Request

{{unblock|reason=''I had just written the following when you blocked me: Thanks for the advice; I
am still learning... It (sh)could have come from the established awarded editor himself in the first
place in order to achieve an examining discussion -- I have posted a copy to this editor, and will also
post copies to the articles' user pages. Besides: not every false phrase in WP articles is backed up by
references, and those should be able to be reverted with clear obvious proof and without references
either -- the article proves itself wrong...! Greetings,

Now I cannot even post it according to your advice onto the articles' pages! For example, German-
Wikipedia's "Übertragbare Einzelstimmgebung" describes STV as identical to "instant runoff voting",
and '''explicitly''' says that it is '''not''' a proportional voting system!!! This is not '''my''' original
thought/reference that you disable from English-Wikipedia!...

You consequently also blocked me from editing/developing the [[Draft: Constitutional Democracy
(Republic)]]. As this is a complex draft open to correction/fine-tuning/discussion/teamwork needing
further work (user Mathglot advised earlier that he will provide further constructive advice/input),
your block fundamentally goes against WP's encyclopaedia improvement purpose/provision -- a
draft is '''not''' a finished encyclopedia article. (The last addition "Open-Source Constitutional
Democracies" headline is just a proposal inviting established WP editors for input, because I do not
know enough about WP's internal democratic workings as I described yesterday on my user page
above, and your blocking action rather disproves its WP-democracy-describing contents...).

Please reconsider the block, as the constant authoritarian easy pre-emptive deletion of edits and
indefinite blockings are counterproductive (They will not prevent publicity of my work that also
receives proof/references through existing democracies' constitutions (although there exists a
language barrier that is partly overcome through the use of WP articles)) -- In other words: if WP
were so unreliable regarding the truthful contents of its articles and prefers to support dictatorship
propaganda, then it should fold up rather than wasting the public's time and endangering
democracies; As I have obtained many good truthful objective info (except some political issues)
from WP, I still want to believe that most established editors are acting in good faith and good
knowledge. Could it be that WP is already taken-over by fascistic interests and pretends internal
democracy similar to nation states? Greetings, --~~~~''}}
This is its screen copy:

Here are some replies; Please notice the vague choice of reasons for proving the blocking
unnecessary, and especially the bottom saying that even this user page may be blocked if too many
unsuccessful unblocking requests are made, until the (“indefinite”!) block has been reversed… A no-
win situation exemplifying the logic that is apparently rather common in WP’s day-to-day workings.
Here is a screen copy of Wikipedia’s “Wikipedia is not a democracy” section; Please notice that WP’s
“primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and
discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the
Arbitration Committee).”

At this stage there is therefore no provision/security of how to test the stage of such consensus
beyond deletion “edits” and blockings by the most powerful persistent established editors, who thus
indirectly threaten to use similar methods to silence any disagreeing editors in a Wild-West lynch-
mob WP dictatorship directed by demagogue-like “voluntary” editors, possibly paid by their
undemocratic governments to police Wikipedia. Such “consensus” therefore also does not need to
regard the correction of false Wikipedia articles as a priority.

This indeed would prove the original Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) entry about open-
source democracy false…
 English-Wikipedia Source Text for Easy Trial of New Direct WP-Article Creation:

[If anybody wants to introduce the “draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic) into WP again, here
is the source text; Copy via right mouse click, then go to English WP, log-in, …. Then “search” WP
for draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic), click “more”-“shift” into “user”, then “source text”,
then right-click “paste” into empty field, then “save”; Theoretically it could now be shifted into public
WP, but would be shifted back or deleted immediately by WP ghost hands…
In order to obtain Universal-Democracy-Constitution picture at right top, one has first to load the .pdf
file into Wikipedia Commons under Democracy Constitution.pdf (or load it under a different name
and change the hyperlink at start of source text); Wikipedia has blocked the original and indefinitely
blocked the author from loading-up anything else.]

[[File:Democracy Constitution.pdf|thumb|background-
color:#FFEE11|'''[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Constitution.pdf Example:
Universal Democracy Constitution.pdf]''']]

== '''Definition of Constitutional Democracy/Republic''' ==

A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitutional]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy Democracy]-/[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Republic]^[0] is the connection of the meaning of both single-word meanings;
Constitution(al) ^[1] is the reliable definition of an organisation’s [power] structure, and
is today purposed as a working safeguard for democracies/republics (unwritten constitutions like the
British monarchy cannot readily be retrieved and are not reliable but dependent on arbitrary
interpretational power). “Re-public” is the Roman/Latin word for “democracy” (Greek, “people’s
power/rule”), and means returning the rule/power “back again to the common public” (publicus,
plebeius – common, public; or res publica – common public thing/affair, incl. power) ^[1]
in form of a state; The use of these words is imprecise: By age-old practice it was often used as
pretence to hide and justify dictatorships by a few rich, which are correctly called plutocracy,
oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy, fascism, etc. instead, because “common public” is not
limited to a few rich dictators. [Such fudging-propaganda deviation of the meaning of
democracy/republic does not justify its acceptance and re-definition, unless the purpose definition
of “language” is changed from enabling truthful communication to cheating pretence.]

== '''Basic Principle of Democracy/Republic'''==

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy democracy]/[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

republic] is founded on the basic principle of equal rights of every individual (with few exceptions)
regarding their power exertion via topic- and person-elections – One human, one people-
government share/vote.

== '''Aim of Constitutional Democracy-/Republic ''' ==

The neutral aim of Constitutional Democracy/Republic is the permanent maximisation of wisdom

incl. problem solving, with minimisation of violence.

{{TOCleft}}
== '''No Practical Democracy/Republic Definition''' ==

The practical definition of literal (true) democracy/republic is an

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia utopia] and historically proves extreme difficult, because
nationwide 100% consensus cannot be achieved; Furthermore, an entirely
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy direct democracy] via direct election by all
participants is insufficiently practicable (too many changing decision topics, too much time
requirement for full information of individuals, too big influence by manipulators, too little election
safety, incl. sufficient participation and safety against vote-/data-rigging, too low majorities, too
primitive populistic pre-determining referenda questions, etc.), while its substitute, the democracy
via elected representatives or parliamentarians, is not always reflecting at least the average will of
the population, and without checks & balances tends to result in misuse of power and ultimately in
dictatorship.

== '''Principle of Optimum of Democracy/Republic''' ==

A stable and on average medium-/long-term accurate maximum of democracy could be achieved, if

the practice of optimum-compromise finding, which is the very basis of practical democracy, were
also applied to the democratic system itself: The result is a safeguarding optimised
Democracy/Republic Constitution as the substitute for the elusive practical definition of
democracy/republic!

== '''Developing Grades of Democracy/Republic''' ==

Due to differing historic power background and thus wisdom of the peoples, differing grades of
[constitutional] democracy/republic are developing with numerous systems calling themselves
“democracy/republic”. It is usual for undemocratic systems to design their constitutions and legal
systems in a complicated manner, so that the population cannot limit or remove the true
dictatorship/oligarchy, nor even recognise it; [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics Politics] is also
the manipulation of the population by politicians… Therefore until 2018 no system had sufficiently
approached the elusive optimum of constitutionally safeguarded democracy/republic.

== '''Constitutional Safeguards for Democracy/Republic''' ==

A Democracy Constitution must contain safety precautions which permanently protects it against
any power assumption by dictators of any kind; Else it would be prevented and invalidated rather
fast (usually by force) after being passed into law (in 2017 the Turkish president obtained dictator
powers via a simple-majority-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum referendum], in 2018
China’s president was enabled by the one-party National-People’s-Congress delegates to rule for life,
whereas in 2011 the British population was deceived into a [http://www.parliament.uk/get-
involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/ simple-majority referendum] against the
democracy minimum of proportional representation). This tendency derives from countless historic
experiences of the instability of free independent (horizontal- or equal-organised) individuals, in
contrast to apparently strong (but also instable) hierarchic (vertical command-and-obey) association
of followers with one or few violence-exerting or –threatening dictators, incl. hereditary dictators
(monarchs) and oligarchs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy Oligarchy]: rule by a few). Such
vertical-organised associations achieve in connection with live-threatening power an extreme strong
coherence (via fascism, brotherhoods, gangs and the mainstreaming of philosophy of their
members), thus preventing democracy at least internally if not nationwide or worldwide. This is then
challenged by a likewise violence-exerting or –threatening revolution, e.g. in form of uncontrollable
mass demonstrations/civil disobedience, boycotts, assassinations, or by dictatorship/military coup,
or by military invasion as occurred in World War II, etc. in a vicious circle.

=== Human-, Minority- and Justice Rights ===

A Democracy Constitution must also contain

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights human-, minority-, and
justice rights], which cannot be readily removed via simple-majority laws, because silenced, starved,
murdered or without-public-court-hearing imprisoned humans cannot vote or be elected! These
rights are currently embedded in many countries’ laws, but can often not be reliably enforced:

A precise definition of Natural Justice needs also to be included in order to restrict arbitrary hidden
overruling and invalidating of parliament’s laws by the judiciary (The legal English term
“[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice natural justice]” has never been defined; the pre-
condition is used as pseudo definition instead, because monarchies traditionally prevent any
restriction of the monarch’s hidden power).

=== Relative-, Absolute-, Supermajority ===

The English definition (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority English-Wikipedia]) of simple

majority is imprecise and can include the First-Past-the-Post- and plurality-voting, whereas
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrheit German-Wikipedia] differs considerably, defining
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) relative majority] similar to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting First-Past-The-Post]- and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting plurality-voting] as <50%, absolute or simple majority
as >50% of votes (with differences in abstentions), and qualified majority similar to supermajority;
This imprecise English definition clearly results from the ingrained traditional FPP-voting practice.

A constitutional definition of the required degree of majority is necessary, because the relative FPP
majority, where one candidate gets more votes than every single other candidate and invalidates as
the sole winner all the other votes and philosophies, leads to a non-proportional political spectrum
drastically reduced to 2 “left” versus “right” parties and hidden fascism, because vertically organised
brotherhoods/gangs have the strongest coherence with strong philosophy mainstreaming. The STV
single-transferable-vote system is similarly non-proportional, but at least ensures a close to >50%-
simple majority for the winning candidate. Proportional STV party voting has until now not been
used to enable substitution of invalid below-minimum-threshold-party votes with valid-party votes,
because it makes nationwide vote counting very complicated.

As there will always be a number of dissenting votes among many equal-rights voters, it is
impossible to achieve 100% consensus; Thus a Democracy Constitution must regulate decision-
making with lesser majorities in order to achieve in the long term a maximum of agreement, without
that the ruling absolute majority removes democracy and changes it irreversibly into a dictatorship.
For these reasons the absolute >50% parliamentary majority is a minimum requirement, while for
constitution alterations and declarations of emergency there must be a higher majority requirement
(eg. 2/3 or ¾, also called supermajority) for the protection of the constitution against a simple
majority misled by a populistic leader/demagogue.
=== Secret-Ballot Elections ===

While one-person one-vote must be ensured, the casting of the votes must not enable identification
(One–party rule was enforced in Russian-controlled East Germany’s officially secret-ballot elections,
because voters had to fear repressions if they cast their votes covered).

=== Minimum Election Threshold ===

Due to the German [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic Weimar-Republik] experience

with the splintering of parliament into many small parties that were unexperienced in developing
compromises and having been finally overpowered by the dictator Hitler, post-war Germany
embedded a minimum 5% hurdle for parliamentary parties into the constitution. In today’s
constitutionally safeguarded democracy this 5% hurdle tends to favour the 2 main parties (in 2017
approx. 7 million German voters were prevented from representation in parliament); Israel has a
3.25% hurdle, while Italy’s complex hurdles favour pre-election coalition-building for minor parties. -
- A parliament of 100 members inherently has a 1% threshold. Several methods are used to
determine the proportional allocation of parliamentary seats according to the votes: the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method Webster/Sainte-Laguë]
method is increasingly used, while the D’Hondt method favours larger parties.

=== Separation of Powers ===

'''Conventional Separation of Powers: '''Classical separation was limited to hierarchical state/king

versus hierarchical church/religious leader. As constitutional solution the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers separation of powers] into legislative
(parliament), executive (government), and judiciary (law courts) is slowly established, but which are
in practice insufficiently independent from each other: In many countries the judges and even
presidents (e.g. Governor-General in New Zealand, Australia and Canada) are appointed by the
government/executive (in New Zealand even only by the Prime Minister/Solicitor-General – in
America by the president), but in Germany more independently via a combined commission of
parliament ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag Bundestag]) and federal upper house
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany Bundesrat]). These such-determined
inherently government-friendly higher judges and presidents often have insufficient drive to clean-
up corruption and force their governments/presidents to follow the constitution and other laws; If
incompetence, incl. direct corruption, is usually only after publicity superficially corrected, then
corrupt subjects can be conveniently blackmailed if they threaten the status quo by uncovering
misuse of power. Thus the danger of power misuse is very high, if decision power is concentrated in
one single person.

'''Optimised separation of powers: '''The solution is a truly independent 3-tier

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers separation of powers] in order to prevent
hidden fascistic power assumption, where the population directly elects/empowers the
constitutional powers. Power should be distributed onto several persons, who ideally also reflect the
distribution of philosophies in the population proportionally. These are the neutral requirements of
the election methods for parliament, presidents and constitution-court judges, and are the principles
of the Universal-Democracy-Constitution example, which also defines the respective election
methods!
== '''Example: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Constitution.pdf Universal
Democracy/Republic Constitution] ''' ==

== '''Roughly-Summarised History''' ==

=== Democratic Human Right ===

After the 2 world wars the League of Nations, then called United Nations (UN), created
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights fundamental human rights],
including the right to self-determination, which is democracy for a human society. These should
prevent further wars as well as their dictatorship origins, because wars generally produce extreme
suffering and damage.

=== Ancient Democracy Origins ===

The Roman republic replaced a monarchy, and developed a complex structure of Tribunes,
Magistrates, Assemblies and Senate apparently with mutual checks & balances, partly enshrined in
writing, and partly derived from the Greek system. According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic Wikipedia’s Constitution of the
Roman Republic] there existed the familiar constant power struggle between the rich and the
common-public poor, whereby the rich had increasingly curtailed the common-public’s
republic/democratic power most of the time so far as to make the word “republic” inappropriate
(German-Wikipedia describes it as an aristocracy with some elements of democracy, and excludes
the Roman empire from 27bC on).

The early [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy Greek democracy] was similarly

limited: Although it reduced the power of aristocratic families who literally enslaved farmers, it was
also limited to male citizens, and used even a lottery as substitute for voting out of the first 2 wealth
classes. Democratic rights were then further improved, leading even to the right to speak in the
assemblies, but which resulted in the dominance of skilled speakers. These demagogues even
manipulated assemblies into unjust executions, which was later made punishable. The targeted
prevention of oligarchy appears to have been relatively successful until the invasion of the
Macedonians.

New Zealand’s Maori tribes had a 100%-consensus method limited to men and dominated by
hereditary aristocrats, while the North American Iroquois had a multi-tribal assembly of men elected
by the women.

=== Parliamentary Monarchies ===

Britain still hadn’t achieved a written reliable democracy constitution in 2018^[A], and
relies on precedence, judge-made case“law” and tradition instead (parliamentary monarchies do not
have independently enforceable constitutions/independent constitution courts, because a classical
absolute unelected [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy monarch] ‘’’is’’’ the constitution).
Human rights were written into common-level laws instead. The medieval
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta Magna Carta] can be regarded as the first trial of a
written human-rights constitution between the king and his aristocrats, but its
interpretation/enforcement still depended on the monarch’s highest court, the Privy Council with its
law lords. The unelected British (Canadian/Australian/New Zealand) monarch still has totalitarian
power per law^[B] (hidden in e.g. New Zealand’s Constitution Act 1986), under which all
parliamentary bills need royal assent/signature to become law (and can be rejected/ignored), and all
parliamentarians, high officials, soldiers, judges, and indirectly also ‘’’all’’’ barrister-lawyers incl.
crown prosecutors, are under oath of allegiance to their monarch – policemen are under the
additional oath to keep the peace of the monarch (not of the democratic people). This human-rights-
forsaking oath requirement makes it impossible for consistent democrats to be elected/appointed,
and prevents referenda and laws aiming to change the monarchy into a constitutional democracy. In
Northern Ireland it also prevented the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_F%C3%A9in#Westminster_elections Ireland re-unification] party
from claiming British parliamentary seat(s) that remain unoccupied^[C]!

The British monarchs also reserved theocracy-like power, because they are the head of the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England Anglican Church] (King Henry VIII confiscated the
Catholic Church, because it refused to allow his divorce), and there existed a forgotten blasphemy
law in New Zealand still in 2017.

(Wild-West) America as former English colony had developed a relative-majority indirect-voting

pseudo-democracy, which was partly copied from the royal-British Westminster
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting First-Past-The-Post] system, except for the
indirectly-elected king-like executive president for maximal 8 years, while replacing the English
parliament ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom House of
Commons]) and aristocratic (upper) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords House of Lords]
with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives House of
Representatives] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate Senate], with some
Roman-derived checks & balances as well as Magna-Carta-like human-rights aspects and a right to
carry guns (This FPP system enabled in 2000 and 2016 compromise-less minority
governments/presidents in America, even though the opposition candidate achieved more votes).

India had a long and complex

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement#Revolutionary_movement
revolutionary history] as a colony of the British monarchy, which ended in 1947 after
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi Mahatma Ghandi’s] non-violent civil-disobedience
revolution resulted in a constitutional presidential state system in 1950 with the world’s
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India#The_constitution_and_the_government
longest constitution]. The very powerful American-like executive
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_India president] is indirectly elected by an American-
like electoral college of members of both houses of parliament, the State Legislative Assembly and of
several other Union Territories, but with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
single transferable vote]. The Supreme Court apparently acts as a check & balance, but its chief
judge, who advises appointment of other judges, is appointed by the president. The constitution
defines some human rights and also duties (some are non-justifiable/-enforceable) like [military]
defence of the country, abjuration of violence and protection of the environmental, but does not
define the democratic election method of parliament and party-candidates except for equal voter
participation that overwrites any class system.

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan constitution of Japan] is a result of the

post-war victors’ influence that enshrined detailed [human] rights, disabled the military (which is in
practice circumvented for self-defence), and reduced the monarch’s power apparently only to
“ceremonial”, but still retaining similar functions (and thus nearly absolute powers) as the British
monarch. The National Diet parliament is only partially proportional, one half is determined by the
relative-majority FPP method favouring the 2 main parties. It can overrule an upper house (formerly
limited to aristocrats) veto with a 2/3 majority. The government in conjunction with the monarch
appoints the judiciary; Unlike British court practice, Japan’s monarch-obedient judges can ‘’’openly’’’
overrule statutory laws if they conflict the constitution (and thus the monarch) in a dispute.

The Swedish parliamentary hereditary monarchy developed from an elective monarchy. The
“Instrument of Government” (part of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Sweden
Basic Laws of Sweden]) apparently restricts the power of the monarch in a complex way, but
ultimately cannot remove it. Sweden’s “revolutions” were bloodless democracy-increasing
modifications of the monarchy. New Zealand (under the British monarch) installed a mixed-member-
proportional system via a simple-majority referendum (This enabled in 1996, 1999, 2008, 2011,
2014and 2017 minor-party candidates with even less than 0.5% of the total vote to bypass the 5%
minimum threshold via the “replaced” relative-majority First-Past-the-Post election method,
distorting proportionality usually in favour of conservative governments). The
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Spain Constitution of Spain] enshrines parliamentary
monarchy, after the referendum question for passing the apparently democratic constitution into
law was created by 7 of the king’s officials, incl. 4 followers of the previous dictator. Judges and
other high officials ultimately act on behalf of the monarch. The
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Netherlands Constitution of the Netherlands]
enshrines a parliamentary monarchy, where the king is active part of the government and appoints
an “(in)formateur” who facilitates [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government coalition]
(compromise-multi-party-government) building.

=== Parliamentary Theocracies ===

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution Iranian revolution] replaced a monarchy with

a theocracy (rule by unelected religious priests);
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011 Egypt’s revolutions] replaced a
monarchy with the declared aim to create a republic, but instead under military control
constitutionally installing a theocracy/presidential-dictatorship blend, later softened to Islamic state
religion with a very detailed constitution including human rights, but vague on election methods for
parliament etc., the president even being able to appoint 5% of parliamentarians.

=== One-Party Oligarchies ===

The Russian monarch (tsar) was replaced through the

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution Russian revolution], firstly by rich
interests/aristocrats, then violently by the military, which maintained dominance for decades. It
imposed a narrow one-party-system interpretation of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism_and_Stalinism Marxist]
communism with democracy pretence, where only one party could be “elected” while other parties
were actively suppressed. Factories, farms etc. and even worker-unions’ properties became
constitutionally centralised property of the Soviet Union. The
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Russia 1993 Russian constitution] enshrined a
powerful executive president via a >50%-simple-majority 2-round election, who can dissolve the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duma Duma] parliament (then partial-proportionally but now
proportionally elected).

A stark example of such democracy/republic pretence was East Germany, calling itself “German
Democratic Republic”; Post-war occupier Russia created and remote-controlled its one-party
oligarchy dictatorship. Another example is China which installed a similar system calling itself
people’s republic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China China’s
Constitution] derived from the Soviet Union’s example, with many modifications, except the
absolute rule of the Communist Party without checks & balances (i.e. separation of powers), and
called “people’s democratic dictatorship”, but traditionally power is concentrated in the paramount
leader. This even lead to a famine, and decades later to extreme pollution through unregulated
industrial growth. The party-candidate selection method appears undetermined, so that in practice
an established minority oligarchy maintains power and violently suppresses any democracy demands
that were (among other human rights) previously constitutionally allowed. In 2018 the president
achieved constitutional change from limiting the presidential tenure to 2 periods into unlimited
presidency, thus enabling his life-long dictatorship.

=== Constitutional Democracies ===

After the first world war Germany had created an unguarded bad-working (with up to 17 parties and
democracy-hostile officials incl. judges and even the president from the kaiser/monarchy era)
parliamentary democracy called the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Weimar Republik];
It was overpowered and removed by Hitler using force incl. the torching of the Reichstag parliament,
installing a (Nazi/Nationalsozialist) one-party/one-leader dictatorship. The German post-war
democracy under the occupation by the allied victors used their systems as example, but improved
them with the help of the Nazi experience, like human rights and proportional parliamentary
representation with an upper house, president and a written constitutional Basic Law as safeguard.
Germany’s neighbour Austria created a proportional parliamentary democracy, in which the
safeguarding president is directly elected via >50% simple majority, while Switzerland strongly
included referenda in her constitution.

The Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust created constitution-like

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel Basic Laws of Israel] determining proportional
representation with a minimum 3.25%-threshold, and a safeguarding president elected by the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_The_Knesset Knesset parliament], but do not contain
democracy safeguards regarding party-internal determination of general-election candidates.
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution French Revolution] violently removed the
monarchy, and developed democracy into today’s 5th
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France constitutional republic]. A >50%-simple-
majority 2-round election determines the powerful president, who has dictatorship-like powers in a
state emergency, even though the National Assembly can then not be dissolved. He is heading the
government-minister cabinet, but the proportional National Assembly has the ultimate legislative
power, although the Senate and the president can temporarily (but for constitutional alterations
persistently) veto law designs. Initiations of referenda need at least the agreement of the president
and the government. The judicative has investigative powers.

The [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassung_der_Italienischen_Republik Italian post-war]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy constitution] established a partly proportional
2-chamber parliament mixed with very complicated regional election requirements, which often
resulted in relatively short-lived multiple-party governments. In 2017 the constitution court judged
in favour of paramount proportional elections, although complicated minimum threshold
requirements remained. Detailed [human] rights as well as social duties were enshrined (incl. even
the duty to work, which would as labour enforcement invalidate all other rights and is therefore in
practice irrelevant), as well as free enterprise on condition it does not damage the common good,
health & safety, liberty and human dignity; secret [fascistic] associations were forbidden, obviously a
result of Mafia and Mussolini fascism. It also established the separation of state and church (The
Catholic Vatican is almost literally a privileged separate state). The president has democracy-
safeguarding powers that provide some government-independence of the judiciary (state
prosecutors are part of the judicative branch and thus independent from the government). The
constitution requires special supermajorities for constitutional alterations, but even explicitly
disables a change of its republic character.

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Greece Greek constitution] similarly prevents

constitution alterations of the democracy/republic character and even of its human-rights
safeguards; it contains many detailed rights. The partly proportional (1/20 is determined using
relative FPP majority)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Parliament#Composition,_election_and_tenure Hellenic
parliament] can only change the constitution by achieving a 60%-supermajority in 2-periods votes at
least once. The 1975 alteration replaced the constitutional parliamentary monarchy with a
[constitutional presidential parliamentary] democracy/republic (the Greek word has both meanings).
The Orthodox Church is enshrined as the major self-ruling religion.

== Open-Source Democracy/Republic Constitution ==

Purpose-limited horizontal direct democracies developed using open-source computer programs,

where participants contribute and benefit equally as well as directly regulate each other for the
common good/benefit. The computer program serves also as the constitution, and is subject to this
regulation/improvement. The safeguards against take-over by fascistic interests consists of the non-
profit voluntary contribution character, the light hierarchy (which is determined by achieving
proficiency in the program use and the proof of honest participation through successful
contributions in full unpredictable view of other proficient participants), the considerable amount of
active participants, and a semi-judicial notice-board/Arbitrary Committee complaints provision.
Wikipedia Encyclopaedia and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux Linux] computer operation system
are 2 major examples.

However, a lack of reliable safeguarded constitutions enables a take-over by

egocentric/fascistic/non-democratic-government interests that would pay “voluntary non-profit”
users/officials for using/manipulating/policing the program to maximise their own power and
eliminate criticism/correction.

== '''References:''' ==

[0] '''Important Translation of German-Wikipedia’s “Demokratie”:''' [first 4 sections] ‘’’

“Democracy ([description of linguistic origin]) describes today forms of rule, order or political
systems, in which power and government is derived from the people [public]. This either direct or
via determining representatives over all decisions of public relevance. In democratic states and
politic systems the government results from political elections by the public. Typical features of a
modern democracy are free elections, the principle of majority or consensus, protection of
minorities, acceptance of a political opposition, separation of powers, ‘’’constitutionality’’’
[emphasis added], protection of basic rights, protection of citizen rights, and respect for human
rights. As the rule is derived from the general public, freedom of expression and of the press [media]
are essential for the creation of political will. In addition, many of the existing democracies are also
republics.

Democracy is in most democratic countries formally a carrying principle of the constitution, so in

Germany ([…]), Austria ([…]) and Switzerland (Preamble of the Swiss federal constitution).

This is also the case in many states, where the democratic character is doubtful, like e.g. in pre-
revolutionary Lybia via “the Green Book” (there: “The solution to the Problem of Democracy”).

Modern monarchies are consistent with the expression “democracy” in many regards – thus there
developed mixed forms of state like “parliamentary monarchy”, which contain relevant elements of
a democracy.

There are different forms of measuring [the degree of] democracy….”

[German-Wikipedia’s “Republik” makes the difference between Roman monarchy, Roman republic,
and then Roman empire, although the latter is often included in the republic in the English use!...]

[1] The Pocket Oxford Latin Dictionary 1995;

This article refers to other Wikipedia articles and their references via Hyperlinks.

[A] (From WP “Liberal Democracy”, References:) [https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-

unwritten-constitution “Britain's unwritten constitution”]. British Library. Retrieved 27 November2015. The
key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown....
The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch’s prerogatives, providing
for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary
debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from ‘cruel or unusual punishment’. See
also contradicting reference below:
[B] NZ/British case law calls parliament “sovereign”, but the courts “supreme” and in effect above
parliament’s laws ([https://www.scribd.com/document/349703440/Appendix-B-Prisoners-Electoral-Rights-
Appeal-Court-Decision CA470/2015;] [2017] NZCA 215, page 15 mentions NZ’s Constitution Act 1986
declaring that parliament consists of the Sovereign in right, which is the monarch, and the House of
Representatives; page 20 quotes: “…it is always for the courts, in the last resort, to say what is a valid Act
of Parliament,,,,It is simply a political fact.” Despite further contradicting and misleading text, this is the
cases’ essence!)

[C] (From WP “Sinn Fein”, References:) Aidan Lonergan (9 June 2017).

[https://www.irishpost.com/news/gerry-adams-confirms-sinn-fein-will-not-swear-allegiance-queen-
take-westminster-seats-125111 "Gerry Adams confirms Sinn Féin will not swear allegiance to the
Queen to take Westminster seats"]. Irish Post. Retrieved 9 June 2017.
 Google Search-Results-Korrektur-Verlangen Geschichte

This is the short description of the Universal Democracy Constitution in Scribd under several titles:
Democracy Constitution (universal) for the General World Population's Info to correct and prevent
any sort of dictatorship/autocracy using fascism (incl. hereditary monarchy and oligarchy), via 3-tier
checks & balances of the 3 powers (Parliament with government - Presidents - Constitution Court)
upon each other. The Universal Democracy Constitution below under search result “Friedrich
Fehling” does not appear any more in such search results.
These deletion notices appeared after updating the documents while deleting the old version, but
the updated versions did not appear again on Google search results; Scribd provides an updating
system that retains the old internet adress, which was used later on, but results still do not return.
Similar happened to below, but then later an old version of a different account appeared, without
the hyperlink to Supreme-Court Local-Democracy Documents; After mailing a request to Scribd to
remove this old useless account, a correct version appeared in the search result the next day.

Below is this old version in Google search result, recognisable on the different subtitle to the one
quoted at the top of this screen-copy document, and opened below that:
Here is the correct version, retrieved while logged into Scribd, not as Google search result:
These are the Google search results from 13/5/2017 for “Democracy Constitution”; Note that no
democracy constitution whatsoever appears!

Below are the requests to Google Scribd to correct the wrong search result presentation for
“Democracy Constitution”, and to correct the missing search result presentation for the other titles
of the Universal Democracy Constitution:
Below are the still valid identical uploads of the Universal Democracy Constitution under different
titles in order to broaden the search results that were so drastically reduced; Now some come only
up when adding “Scribd” to the search title, the title “Democracy Constitution” being substituted by
another title, and “Universal Constitution, Republic” not at all…
The search results below show under “constitutional democracy” the result “The Role of the
Governor-General - Governor-General of New Zealand” with the subtitle “New Zealand is a
constitutional democracy and neither the Governor-General nor the Queen takes an active or
initiating role in the executive functions of…”;

But by passively and knowingly allowing violations/invalidations of the fundamental provisions of

the (constitutional) Bill of Rights 1990 by their officials incl. Supreme-Court judges, whom they
appointed, these unelected monarchy representatives prevent any constitutional democracy!
By the way, the New Zealand Constitution Act shows under thorough examination that the monarch
retained all the total powers that its predecessors had for over a thousand years!

Below is a copy of the very recent picture visible on library computers before using them. They now
show not only the NZ government’s Department of Internal Affairs running these computers, but
also that it insists on the right to arbitrarily at-will block them for any reason.

This is not only a reaction to the recent High-Court judgment against the computer entrepreneur
Kim Dotcom, in which the less than competent High-Court judge Gilbert, in “best” royal established
style similar to his fascistic mates in the Supreme Court etc., has now invalidated Parliament’s
extradition law, ruling that its S.4 is overruled by the extradition treaty (not a statutory law!) that the
NZ’s government has installed over Parliament! This raises U.S.American law above New Zealand’s
law/jurisdiction, in additional contravention of NZ’s Constitution Act, and is not recognisable for
residents or even lawyers until it’s too late! The U.S. spy agencies and NSA clearly want to get
Dotcom’s computer and hacking ability for their total-control fascism by any means, but he will not
give it for such despising treatment. This and Anglo-U.S. international fascism is exactly what a
democracy constitution is meant to prevent… The judgment [2017] NZHC 189 is setting a precedent
for international freemason fascism due to a total lack of checks & balances under this fascistic
monarchy.
Above and below are further requests to Scribd mainly regarding Google’s wrong search results, but
also regarding one self-made error; Everything seems to work correctly except the search results…
Below is the direct complaint to Google…

And another one:

The same, but with the lower part of the complaint writing:
Below is Wikipedia’s misleading of the public as described in the Google complaint above, describing
the British monarchy’s and America’s first-past-the-post simple-majority fascism as liberal
democracy, stretching the word “liberal” to the extreme… “Liberal Democracy” is Google’s search
result to “(universal) democracy constitution”.
Below is a screen copy showing now the removal of the “Universal Democracy Constitution” also
from generic general Google search results, and a resulting letter to Scribd:
 Yahoo

Here is the request 29/1/2018 to Yahoo to embed the Universal Democracy/Republic Constitution in
its search engine, and below the proof of Yahoo’s deliberate inaction:

Search results for Democracy Constitution fail to show "Universal Democracy Constitution"
(https://www.scribd.com/document/341433726/Democracy-Constitution-Universal-By-Fritz-
Fehling)

https://www.scribd.com/document/352637217/Universal-Democracy-Constitution

https://www.scribd.com/document/341530102/Constitutional-Democracy-Universal-pdf

At present it is shown under uncommon Search results "Universal Democracy Constitution"/

"Universal Republic Constitution":

Google (and even Wikipedia) has thus deliberately filtered-out (prevented) this general democracy
information, because it inherently shows the systemic and even deliberate constitutional
shortcomings of all governments (Google even removed it from "Universal Democracy Constitution"
search within days of Trump's removal of internet neutrality, which Scribd could reverse!)

As there exists no other such general democracy-constitution information, it logically by name has to
be presented regardless of rankings, because this is the search request, but Google perverts results
by presenting "constitutional democracy" instead! Consequently, Yahoo follows this perversion, not
being able to discover this problem without this very report...

A similar problem exists under search result "republic constitution"; A republic is logically identical
with a democracy, and this Universal Democracy Constitution is available also as "Universal Republic
Constitution" under the following URLs:

https://www.scribd.com/document/364558228/Republic-Constitution-Universal or

https://www.scribd.com/document/345439404/Universal-Constitution-Republic or

https://www.scribd.com/document/364558203/Constitutional-Republic-Universal

But Google upholds as new search result "constitutional republic, Conservapedia", a perversion of
Wikipedia presenting American far-right-view propaganda under the disguise of an encyclopaedia:
Among others it states that a republic/democracy constitution is meant to prevent dictatorship of
the majority, while deliberately omitting to mention the main purpose of preventing a far worse
dictatorship of a minority like one that obtained 3 million fewer votes than the main opposition due
to the undemocratic systemic use of relative-/ pluralistic-/First-Past-the-Post indirect voting with
less-than-50% majority that usually favours fascistic cohesion and prevents systemic corrections like
proportional parliamentary representation.

Given that the present governments are self-interestedly far too slow to reign-in and correct
America's Google world-censorship/propaganda tool, search engines like Yahoo need to counteract
such dangerous developments -- Hence this very report...

Greetings, Fritz Fehling

 Duckduckgo

Finally, a similar request to Duckduckgo; Although it did not embed the Universal Democracy
Constitution in its search engine under “Democracy Constitution” as required, it embedded it
directly under “Universal Democracy Constitution” (like Google), and even “Universal Republic
Constitution” as well as indirectly under German “Demokratie-verfassung” – This is quite a step
further than all other American search engines; It appears that the fear of loss of advertising revenue
and dictatorship-president reprisals work against democracy and freedom-of-expression media ….

However, its social-media discussion reddit platforms NeutralTalk/-Politics permanently banned the
author from participation after its Duckduckgo reddit published the request with examination of
synonymy of democracy and republic; Reason was the lack of information that contributions are
immediately published and then examined by the moderators rather than vice versa, blaming the
author for having included promotion of/links to his work: