The Political System of the New Earth

Politics that serves life

The politics of the New Earth should help organise the conditions for a dignified life. It concerns water, food, safety, health, education, nature and opportunities to develop. Its quality becomes visible when people receive the support they need, can live in their own way and have room to help shape the world.

A public decision should have an understandable purpose. If we allocate money to improve access to water, we identify whom it is intended to help, which solution we are choosing and how we will check that it works. Later, we report the actual outcome, including when it differs from our assumptions.

Our responsibility also extends to those who will live after us. When using resources, we ask about the consequences for future generations and other living beings. Our assessment takes account of what we leave behind: the condition of rivers, soil, air, infrastructure and relationships between communities.

Shared decisions require knowledge and a choice of priorities. Sometimes several needs matter at once while resources remain limited. People should then understand the available options, their costs and their consequences. An honest explanation of a difficult choice makes informed participation possible.

The Global Council of the New Earth

The Global Council of the New Earth would help communities cooperate on matters affecting the whole planet. Environmental protection, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, shared resources and the coordination of assistance require agreement across borders.

The Council would have a clearly defined mandate: the range of matters entrusted to it by people. Residents of different regions would need fair representation and a way to check whether their representatives are actually carrying out the task entrusted to them. The process for selecting the Council should be publicly agreed, understandable and open to scrutiny.

Local communities would retain self-government. People living in a place know many of its needs, conditions and customs. They should be able to decide matters concerning their surroundings while respecting other people's rights and consequences that extend beyond their region.

We can imagine a river flowing through several communities. Each uses its water, and actions in one place affect the others. Cooperation would involve agreeing rules for protecting the river, sharing costs and assigning responsibility. The Council would help bring together everyone's knowledge and needs, then check that the agreement is being implemented.

We develop this cooperation between cultures and nations as well. A community of the Earth can leave room for different languages, traditions, beliefs and ways of life. Our mission presents this broader direction. Putting cooperation into practice requires us to establish who makes a decision, within what scope and to whom they are accountable.

Clear limits on power

The Global Council of the New Earth should not have absolute power. Its authority, duties and funding arrangements would have to be recorded and publicly available. Everyone should be able to check what it is permitted to do and which procedure applies to an important decision.

We need limited terms of office and a real possibility of removing a representative. The rules should establish in advance who can initiate such a procedure, on what grounds and who examines the case. The person whose actions are being assessed should have an opportunity to give an explanation. The outcome and its reasoning would remain public insofar as they concern the public role.

Decision-making, carrying out tasks and reviewing their performance require separate responsibilities. People managing expenditure should not decide on their own whether they have done everything correctly. Independent oversight needs access to documents, the ability to challenge actions and protection from pressure by those being scrutinised.

Extending the Council's authority would require a public procedure and genuine consent from people. The Council could not simply grant itself further powers. Measures introduced in an emergency should also have a defined scope, a time limit and a subsequent review.

Limits should apply even to a leader we like and whose vision moves us. Popularity, charisma and beautiful declarations do not remove the duty to account for one's actions. A representative should know they have an obligation to answer a citizen's calm, specific question.

Real participation and preparation for voting

Participation in politics should include the ability to express needs and proposals, learn the arguments and influence decisions. What happens afterwards also matters. An institution should explain which proposals it accepted, which it rejected and why.

We propose a combination of consultations, representative citizens' panels and voting methods suited to the matter at hand. A panel would be a group of residents selected to reflect different parts of the community. Participants would need time to understand the problem, ask questions and hear different positions. The selection rules, funding and use of their recommendations would be transparent.

Voting requires access to understandable information. We should know the purpose of a proposal, its possible alternatives, costs and consequences. Those responsible for presenting this information would also have a duty to disclose significant difficulties and uncertainties.

We also propose different levels of participation in voting. Smaller matters would be open for everyone to decide. Participation in decisions with greater consequences would require confirmation of an appropriate level of cognitive ability. A person whose result fell below the criterion set for that level would not be eligible to vote on such a matter, while retaining participation in votes on smaller matters.

In this proposed model, anyone casting a vote would take an IQ test before every vote. For smaller matters, the result would not exclude participation. For more important matters, it would be a condition of eligibility to vote. IQ testing would also cover people who make political decisions or have a significant influence on their formation. The categories of matters and the requirements would need to be publicly established before they took effect.

An IQ result alone does not confirm knowledge of a particular issue, empathy or responsibility. Understanding the problem and being able to assess its consequences would therefore also matter in important decisions. Before using a test to restrict participation, it is necessary to examine whether that use is justified, the risk of an incorrect assessment and how repeated testing affects the result. We do not set an arbitrary number here to separate eligible people from everyone else.

Such a division would restrict some citizens' participation in important decisions. It is a proposal to change political rules, requiring assessment against the international standard of universal and equal voting rights and protection against discrimination. Assessors and test developers would be subject to independent scrutiny. Free access, fair testing conditions, protection of results, an appeal process and clear reassessment rules would be necessary. A test result does not determine a person's dignity.

Participation must also be accessible to people without internet access, people with disabilities, those with less time and those who speak another language. Appropriate ways to make contact, support in understanding an issue and opportunities to speak would be needed. Otherwise, influence will mainly go to those who can reach institutions most easily.

Fundamental human rights should also protect people who belong to minorities. A number of votes does not confer a right to violence, humiliation or taking away someone's dignity. Shared decisions must remain within the rules that protect each of us.

Maturity and assessment for public roles

In the proposed system, every person taking on a political public role would undergo a mandatory, independent assessment of their suitability for the responsibilities entrusted to them. This would include members of the Global Council. We need people who have knowledge, can listen and understand the responsibility that comes with influencing other people's lives.

Empathy, self-control, cooperation and the ability to set and respect boundaries would matter. So would humility: the ability to admit a gap in one's knowledge, examine a belief and change a position after learning relevant facts. A decision-maker should be able to draw on other people's knowledge without pretending to be infallible.

We are also developing the proposal for responsible use of brain examinations to assess traits associated with psychopathy, pathological narcissism and functions needed for empathy and self-control. Their use in determining people's suitability, however, requires demonstrated usefulness for that specific purpose. A scan alone, or the size of a selected brain region, is not a validated certificate of empathy or character. An association observed in a group of study participants does not determine the traits of every individual.

An assessment should combine justified psychological methods, examination of competence and documented behaviour. Neuropsychological assessments or brain imaging would be used where their scope and value had been adequately justified. Criteria should concern the requirements of the role and the risk of abuse. A clinical diagnosis alone does not replace an individual assessment.

How a candidate responds to refusal, criticism and the possibility of losing a personal advantage would matter. Do they follow the rules when those rules apply to them? Can they cooperate with people who hold a different view? Do they take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Such behaviour needs to be understood over time and examined on the basis of facts.

Assessors would also require independence and oversight. Candidates should know the criteria, receive an explanation and have a way to appeal an incorrect result. Medical records require protection; the procedure's rules and the scope of confirmed qualifications would be public. A good assessment result does not end accountability. A representative's actions would still be scrutinised throughout their time in office.

Values of the New Earth explores the values needed in this system, while Self-love explores honest self-understanding. In politics, these acquire an additional dimension: we entrust a person with responsibilities whose consequences other people experience.

Transparency in all public institutions

Everyone should have free access to information about what public institutions do. This principle would cover the Global Council, governments, local authorities, public offices, funds and organisations or companies managing public money. The scope of scrutiny would follow the task and the money entrusted to them.

Drafts of important decisions, their reasoning, meeting records and voting results would be publicly available. We should know who prepared a proposal, what information was used, who supported it and who is responsible for carrying it out. Changes to a decision would also leave a clear record.

Transparency would cover contacts intended to influence public decisions and conflicts of interest. If a representative is deciding a matter from which their company, family or close colleague might benefit, that relationship needs to be disclosed and their involvement appropriately limited. People should know which rules apply in such situations.

Available information must be understandable. Alongside full documents, we need a simple explanation of an action's purpose, costs and consequences. Data should be searchable, comparable and downloadable. Clear publication deadlines and a visible update date would matter, so readers know which state of affairs they are looking at.

The ability to ask a question should lead to an answer. An institution would explain a discrepancy, supply a missing record or identify a specific basis for refusing access. A citizen would have a way to challenge that refusal before an independent body.

Public money visible from beginning to end

Public money should have a fully traceable path. Everyone should be able to check where funds come from, who decided how to use them, for what purpose and under which budget. Information would also be available about the selection of the contractor, payment amounts and dates, the outcome received and the people who checked delivery.

Each important part of that path should connect with the next. Someone examining an expense could follow it back to the decision and through to the contract, payment and outcome. Dividing a task between several organisations or passing funds onwards should not interrupt the ability to account for it.

Transparency would cover revenue, expenditure, grants, procurement, pay for public roles and the costs of running institutions. For public contracts, we would see contractors, relevant interests and relationships, subcontractors and changes to agreements. Every movement of funds would have a verifiable record, with protection for data requiring privacy.

Imagine a shared project to purify water. Residents could see why a particular solution was selected, how much it was expected to cost and which company received the contract. Once work began, payments, progress information and quality checks would be available. If the cost rose, the institution would explain why, identify the person making the decision and show the contract amendment.

Accounting for the project would include its effect. Does the installation work? Has it improved access to water? What does it cost to maintain? If the goal has not been achieved, people should know the problem and the plan for further action. A paid invoice confirms expenditure; evaluating delivery requires checking what we paid for.

A budget should allow us to compare the plan with reality. What was meant to be done, what was actually done and where did a difference arise? The ability to trace changes, dates and responsibilities helps us understand both necessary adjustments and failures. Earlier records would remain available so the course of events could be examined.

People's privacy still needs protection. Someone receiving assistance should not have to disclose their health records, address or bank account number to the whole world. Amounts, purposes, allocation rules and institutional accountability would be public. The complete flow of funds would remain accessible to independent scrutiny, including where we protect a recipient's identity.

Every exception to public access would need a specific justification and the narrowest possible scope. If disclosing a detail directly endangered people, we would protect that detail and identify the basis for restricting access. A refusal would be open to review. A general appeal to security could not close off scrutiny of an expense's cost, purpose or responsibility for its use.

Scrutiny of abuse and protection for people who report it

Transparency needs people and institutions capable of responding to wrongdoing. Independent audits should examine documents, flows of money and whether tasks have actually been completed. Findings, recommendations and the response of the institution under review would be publicly available.

Someone who notices abuse should know where they can report it safely. We need protection against retaliation, confidential contact and a procedure that leads to facts being examined. The reporting person's identity would require protection even when the case concerns someone influential.

An allegation requires a fair examination. Necessary evidence must be secured, explanations heard and what actually happened established. The person concerned retains the right to defend themselves. Protection for those at risk and proportionate precautionary measures should be possible while the situation is being investigated.

Confirmed abuse requires consequences proportionate to the act: stopping harmful conduct, repairing its effects, accounting for funds or removing someone from the role entrusted to them. We also need to ask which organisational failure allowed the harm and what we will change to reduce the risk of similar situations.

Empathy includes those who have been harmed. Boundaries protect their safety and their ability to regain influence over their own lives. Position, wealth, popularity and declared spirituality do not exempt anyone from responsibility for their behaviour.

Shared resources and responsible use of AI

When setting priorities, we take account of people's needs, the environment and long-term consequences. Water, food, health, education and necessary infrastructure require continuity. People should understand why we allocate resources to a particular purpose, whom its delivery will help and how we will assess the result.

AI could help explain budgets, compare solutions, translate documents and identify possible irregularities that need examination. This could enable more people to understand the details of shared matters and ask better questions. Access to information would remain possible without using such a tool.

AI outputs would need to be checked. A suspicious payment flagged by a system is a reason to examine documents and circumstances. Responsibility for the assessment, decision and explanation would remain with people. Someone affected by a decision should be able to obtain an explanation and appeal.

Tools used by institutions would also be subject to scrutiny. Information about their purpose, the data they use, their limitations and responsibility for correcting errors would be public. A public institution should not collect private information beyond what is necessary for a justified task.

Technology in the politics of the New Earth should help people understand shared life and scrutinise decisions. We assess its value through its performance, accessibility and impact on human rights.

Gradually building the system of the New Earth

We can begin with a community publishing an understandable budget, a project with a full record of expenditure or a panel of residents whose recommendations receive a public response. The solution must be possible to observe, evaluate and improve.

Before expanding its scale, we also examine the costs of the system itself. How much work does maintaining transparent data require? Can people use it? Does oversight remain independent? Does the appeals procedure lead to a fair examination? A principle that sounds good needs this kind of examination in practice.

Broader cooperation should grow from agreement between communities. Further communities can study the results, offer comments and adapt solutions to their own circumstances. The Global Council would need precisely this foundation: trust grounded in experience and agreed boundaries of responsibility.

The right to change a solution that is not fulfilling its task matters. An error should lead to a transparent explanation and improvement. An institution that serves people must also be able to learn from criticism of its own actions.

In the spiritual language of the New Earth, a shared direction can be described as nourishing its egregore. In politics, we give that intention a concrete form: a person is heard, a decision has a reason, money has a traceable path and a breach of boundaries receives a responsible response.

We choose to build a system in which everyone can examine what is happening in shared affairs, express a need and be heard. Representatives' maturity goes hand in hand with scrutiny of their actions. Entrusted power serves life and stays within the limits agreed by people. We examine each further solution while retaining responsibility for its impact on the individual.