You are on page 1of 208

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?



Yes We Can!?
Arik Hart


Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?


Arik Hart


The Idea 7

Prehistoric Era
Emergence of the Markets 12
Emergence of the State 14
Political Development 17
Expansion (Turkish Model) 19
Parameters of the State 21
States Protection 22
The Suicide Bomber 23
Role of Homicide in Human Development 24

Leader-Decision-Maker 27
Decision-Making in Representative Forums 33
Group Interest in Decision-Making 35

Island as a Promoter of Democracy 37
Political Subjects 41
Quasi-bi-Partisan Society 43
Theoretical Model of Democracy 46
Democratic Political Culture 52
USA Model of the Power 55

Mechanisms of Advance
Advancing Democracy 57
Human Rights 59
Progress 60
Career Advance 63
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Career Advance into Decision- Making Hierarchies 66
Driving Forces and Motives in Personal, Social
and State Affairs 70
Relational Networks 72

Interest Groups:
Spheres and Targets 75
Methods of Group Interest:
Bribery 78
Lobbyism 80
Conspiracy 81
Main Spheres of Group Interest
Mass Media 84
Healthcare 89
My version of the health care bill
Group Interest in Partisan Politics 98
Structure Functional Similarities between
Interest Groups and Viruses 100

Globalization 104
Forces of Globalization 105
Financial Flows in the Global World 108
Manhattan the Island of Money 109
Outsourcing 111
West- Third Word Relations 112
Doctrines and Imitation in Global Politics 115
Forged Elections 118
Flows of Globalization 121
Demographic Invasion into West 123

Internet Enclosed Global World
The truth and Global World 132
The Truth and Diplomacy 135
The Truth and Group Interest 137
Arik Hart


Geopolitics 139
Dissolution of the USSR: Facts and Myths 140
Geopolitics as a Point of View 147
Nationality, Religion and Extremism in Geopolitics 152
Acting Geopolitical Powers and Forces 154
The UN -a Failed Initiative 156
9/11 The Silenced Tragedy 156
Group Interests in Geopolitics 157
Degeneration of the States Cellular Structure 159
Recovery of the States from Degeneration 160
Relations and Hierarchy within Interest Groups 163
Motives of US and Israeli Policies 168
Global Positioning of the Superpower 174

The New Reality
Current Geopolitical Uncertainty 181
Political Illusions 182
Permanent War 186
Energy Production and Oil Supply
Arguments in Geopolitics 187
Geopolitical Scenarios 188
USA-China: G2 Cooperation or Rivalry 190
Intellectual Solutions 192
Hardly Achievable Vital Goals 199
Final Notes 203

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?


To Karina and Vazgen

Copyright © 2009
by Ara Arutunyan
All rights reserved

Arik Hart

The Idea

We consider our times as an era of glorious achievements of humanity. We
have had an admirable path of success: from slavery to democracy, from stone
tools to IT technologies, from the wheel to spacecraft. We anticipate a better,
more advanced world in the future.
Today, the global world is an unfolding reality. We passed this last milestone,
unaware of the changes it may bring to all of us. A thesaurus search for the
word global gives a rainbow of meanings: worldwide, universal,
comprehensive, total, inclusive, large-scale, etc. Depending on the social niche
and acquired information, people may have their particular perception of the
global world. At the same time, majority of us considers this new reality simply
as a new loop of the historical spiral.
We often hear that all empires eventually crumble. Now something similar is
also happening. Who is losing this time?
The Soviets became history in the fall of 1991. Even in J uly 1991, only a few
people in the USSR and abroad could accept that the USSR might fall in
months. The disintegration of the USSR was a colossal event - it resulted in the
collapse of the bipolar political world.
Empire or not currently US is the only remaining single pole - the
superpower. On the other hand, nature doesnt accept single poles: either a
new opposite pole must be generated, formed, named, even faked, or this
remaining single pole will become suicidal. During the last 18 years no
country even attempted to take the role of the second pole. Accordingly, it is
reasonable to assume that this single pole might be the next in line to be the
loser. Ironically, the US is moving in this direction enthusiastically, reluctant to
think about even the obvious dangers of the single pole status.
Both written and spoken histories carry some insight into how we have reached
the current point of our political, technological and social sophistication. This
history contains invaluable information, which could guide us to perceive the
future. On the other hand, each of us, including our ancestors, witnesses just a
snapshot of history. Consequently, we have to assume that history has to be a
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

mosaic of different snapshots. Additionally, we know that history is written by
winners, who have the advantage over the losers as well as previous winners, to
edit and interpret history voluntarily. These distortions seriously damaged our
ability to comprehend the essentials of current reality.
Because of historic and contemporary falsifications, and global, qualitative
changes in our relations, we do not have a clear view of many current political
and social - yet disguised setups, which profoundly alter our life.
In order to unveil the inadequacies of current world and see the basics, similar
historic and current settings will be modeled, analyzed and evaluated in this
book. I will simplify controversies existing around us and compare things
which may seem incomparable at first glance.
One didactic example of distortion is the observation of elections in a Third-
World country, where a western visitor (businessman, specialist, tourist, etc.)
along with the people of that country sees that during the elections the ballot
boxes were stolen, stuffed with false ballots and as a result, the elections were
utterly forged. Depending on his/her personality, he may blow the whistle
about it or may keep the information secret. Meanwhile, the western official
observers of the elections may say (and usually do) that the elections were
conducted according to democratic principles and that the country of interest is
moving in the right direction.
A more profound examination of this practice will reveal that this discrepancy
portrays the basic problem of western political culture: two subjects see and
interpret the same fact differently, though they are both representatives of the
same democratic society. What is the reason that their vision and
interpretation of the same observation are different?
If you ask this question in a western country, an ordinary person will express
his genuine surprise about your naivety and lack of understanding of the basics
of current politics. If you continue to press him for explanations, you will get
nothing but an assumption that you are a hopeless idiot.
In connection with the example above several theoretical questions arise:
· What is the role of truth and impartiality in the current world?
· Shall we consider the western Democracy as something different than
what is declared?
· How should people in a Third-World country assess this paradox?
Arik Hart

· What are the factors which make the modern democratic society
partially blind?
· Why does nobody speak about these factors?
This double vision phenomenon is reminiscent of the well-known double
standards tool used by government professionals managing foreign relations.
People accept the double standard as a valid tool of diplomacy, because they
are taught to believe in the complexity of external affairs. The double vision
case is different - it describes the difference in the stance of ordinary citizens
and the officials of the same country. The double vision generates a
divergence within the western society itself.
This policy brought to power multiple despots throughout the world. They did
what they genuinely were supposed to do and were capable of - to grab, exploit
and kill. Now western countries pay a high price to handle the situation there by
substituting old players with new ones without even noticing that the game is
still the old one. People in subject countries see the double standards and
double vision of the democratic West and begin to hate not only western
governments, but western societies, their values and people as well.
Injustice and poverty, incidences of war and genocide are growing in many
spots of the planet. People flee from war and the West is getting packed with
refugees. Religious extremism enters into the western life in the form of the
suicide bomber, which becomes a messy tool against all developed, successful
democratic societies. As asymmetric weaponry it announces:
· If you do not value our lives, we will value neither your,
nor our lives.
Terrorism and suicidal resistance are becoming social weapons. It will be
extremely hard to conquer them if we continue to misunderstand their real
meaning and strength.
One can find strange abnormalities in many other aspects of our life as well.
We often think that these anomalies are temporary, but necessary byproducts of
current global policies and will be resolved soon. But the established culture
of our decision-making refuses to see the problems in their factual essence,
potential and might. We prefer not to see, hear, be informed or find solutions.
Time passes, opposition between the West and third World countries and inside
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

the western societies builds up, processes escalate, but we prefer to stay aside
and keep silence.
Most of the global problems of our time were/are created and managed by
group interests. Ordinary people recognize this situation, but have no leverage
to cope with these still   vetoed problems. The situation is much more
depressing in higher hierarchic levels. Instead of coping with these fundamental
shortcomings of our decision-making, career people prefer not to fight, but to
cooperate with group interest. A new culture of professional corruption and
public tolerance is already in place. This culture considers a fair stance as
naivety. The immoral posture of a policy maker in a complex matter in
essence is a rule, rather than an exception. The history of the Iraq war perfectly
illustrates this situation. In this book, it will be shown that the Iraq war and
many other existing internal problems were initiated by group interests, and
continue to be managed by them.
In order to find answers to this self-destructive stance and silenced aspects of
our time, we need to go back into history and understand the fundamentals:
What is a State, how was it formed and how does it function now? Who is a
leader and who is a citizen? What is Democracy? Who are the decision-makers
and how do group interests influence decision-making?
Only after the destruction of old, but extremely viable taboos of our mentality
can we think about changing our decision-making. Renowned political
analysts have described our world as flat, crowded or curved. My goal is to
bring another measure into this description - how it works in reality.
Three conceptual time periods, along with their logic, are discussed in this
book: Prehistoric developments, current social, political and geopolitical
processes and the coming global world. The first two aspects were the subject
of countless scientific studies. More than 99.9% of our life is based on this
knowledge. The coming global world is uncertain for us. We cant predict that
world, but we can analyze the trends of current processes and project them into
the near future.
Up to now the development of humanity unfolded independently of our will
and design. Hidden inside our nature, instinctive motives have led us
throughout history. Eventually, we unintentionally developed the current
civilization. From now on we are doing. The previous era of biological-
Arik Hart

unrecognized development is over. Now we are facing a limited space a
global planet, and must take into account this limitation. The ecological
understanding of the confinement came to us first, but humanitarian, social and
political aspects are more complex, internally aggressive, and dangerous for our
The bipolar world was balanced and less dangerous due to the limited number
of decision-makers and the equality of opposing military powers (the balance
of power politics). The current uni-polar (or according to other views, multi-
polar world) is highly uncertain. We continue to act according to our biological
instincts, though the need for new approaches was urgent even yesterday.
In order to disclose the essence of processes and events, it is necessary to model
them. Often, the best models of current events are old, simple political
prototypes, where interrelations and policies are more open to an observer.
In this book I discuss such models, and on the basis of revealed parameters and
requirements, make bridges to current sophistications. These models can fill
certain gaps in the puzzles of current life.
Academic scientists may sharply disagree with such oversimplifications,
deductive conclusions and approach as a whole, but I have no claim on
scientific precision. I am acting as an observer who is committed to
understanding and discussing our historical path as well as the current
fundamentals which were overwritten, subjectively or objectively shadowed,
and went unnoticed.
Our life has hundreds of interconnected problems which deserve to be seen
impartially and from the span of the 21
century. It is extremely hard to
organize all these questions into a causal row and go from basic, simple aspects
into higher ones. However, in the first three chapters (Prehistoric
Developments, Democracy and Mechanisms of Advance) basic settings of our
social and political organization are described. The main topics of the book
group interest, decision-making, democracy, geopolitics and globalization are
discussed in relation to one another. There are no precisely separated chapters.
Analysis may go back and forth between topics, since the aim is to reveal
connections between processes and discuss current complex social structures
and events in concurrence.
Prehistoric Era
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Emergence of the Markets

We do not have accurate knowledge of how the ancient human tribe was
organized - how many members on average it had, how big the area in its
control could be, how substantial the linguistic differences between the
neighbors were, etc. It is commonly accepted that in conjunction with progress
in tool-making, and when different tribes began to grow and produce goods in
excess, they began to exchange products with neighbors. Soon, when more
than two exchangers were involved, a need for a common marketplace became
essential. The need for a marketplace was classical - to have more choices to
choose from, which was beneficial for both the sellers and buyers.
Additionally, the market gave small tribes an opportunity to specialize in the
production of a certain product instead of engaging in the primitive gathering of
different goods.
In Figures 1A and 1B the initial steps of market relations are hypothesized. In
1A, different tribes (small circles) coexist within an area (large circle). Some of
them have learned to produce goods, and are exchanging products with one
another (circles, connected with
arrows). In 1B, some producing tribes
are sending their representatives to a
centrally or otherwise conveniently
located place with the goal of
exchanging the produced goods with
other necessary ones. This area must
be considered as a prehistoric
marketplace. The appearance of the marketplace represents a qualitative change
in the progress of humanity.
Fig. 1


Arik Hart

In Fig. 2 the formation of a more sophisticated common market place is
schematically presented. With time, other neighboring tribes are also learning
to produce goods and their representatives are moving into the market as well.
In order to facilitate supply and demand oscillations,
dealers inside the market begin to function. The market
attracts new people who are capable of creating new
services and products. These people settle around the
market. Specialized work in the marketplace allows
generating wealth faster. A product smaller in the volume
and mass, valuable, separable, and durable begins to
function as an exchange equivalent (in the scheme it is
indicated with a circular arrow). Obviously, during the market establishment,
the tribe in whose territory the market emerged, gains some extra power over
the market participants and in the area. Depending on his overall leading
capabilities in new conditions, the leader of this tribe spreads his influence over
the market and on a much larger area that participates of the market. It is hard
to specify what factors at the time were more essential for establishing the
power of the market - location, military capability of the leading tribe, the
leader s abilities, etc. The outcome for each case was a complex function of
multiple factors.
The large circle describes the periphery from where the tribes get involved into
market relations. It also defines the border between this and other neighboring
markets. The whole area represents a structure - functional, self sustainable
social unity. This entity identifies itself according to its overall potential and
differentiates its union from neighboring ones. Each member of this structure is
represented in cohabitation according to his achievements, measured by his
In the described settings, along with physical means of influence, the
marketplace ruler gains ability to exercise a remote influence - political power.
· The market established new relations between people:
tribes came together and formed a new environment, in
which people are represented according to their input into
common life
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· A new measure of human involvement in social life was set
into play: wealth
· Wealth gave a boost to a new type of power - political
power. This power became accumulated in the hands of the
market owning tribes leader, who became a decision-
maker of the whole area
· Wealth and power began to cooperate and be united in
many manifestations, including decision -making
· Money as an abstract equivalent of value, mechanism and
goal of power became the second subject on the earth, after
the humans
Along with humans, money will be a powerful actor in future policymaking in
the history of humanity.

Emergence of the State

In Fig 3A the interactions between different markets are modeled. Different
local markets interact with each other and as a result, the most successful
market takes a leading position among others. A certain suitable exchange
equivalent begins to be accepted as universal exchange equivalent for all
participating markets. Although smaller markets continue to operate, servicing
locals, the emerged central market has higher potential in supply-demand
power and largely uses a more advanced, universal exchange equivalent -
currency. Later, precious metals and eventually silver and gold became the
universal exchange
equivalents - money for the
As I discussed earlier, along
with the development of
markets, some members of
the tribes because of closer
relations with the market process - were moving from their tribal area closer to
the marketplace (3B). Because of these specific moves, sparse peripheries and
Fig. 3
Arik Hart

dense metropolises began to develop. In these cell-like habitats the periphery
was producing goods while the nucleus was providing services and carrying
out centralized defensive and other mandatory functions. Apparently the
population of metropolis and peripherys at this stage were already talking a
common language and make up a self-sustainable unity physically,
economically, demographically, socially and militarily. They had close genetic
roots, common cultural traditions, common survival interests and a collective
feeling of homeland , which needed to be protected from invaders. It is
important to emphasize that the structural divide into periphery and metropolis
was generated as a result of the sophistication of the same space. The urban
area around the marketplace, where the decision-maker resided, became the
capital city. (The circular and square shaped signs in Fig 3C will be used further
to denote self authority).
One can see that structure 3B resembles the structure of a biological cell. From
a common sense view, this cellular structure represents a unity. The nucleus
and periphery are interconnected. The nucleus carries the regulatory functions,
the periphery carries the live supportive functions Neither of them can exist
without the other. Obviously, the territory belongs to people living in that space
as a common habitat. On the other hand, it is also clear that the inhabitants of
the center and periphery have different rights in executing the authority in
internal and external affairs. Beginning in ancient times, capital cities
functionally became increasingly similar to a cellular nucleus. These military,
political, economical and cultural centers were carrying out all the social,
intellectual, technological information for the reproduction of the cellular unity
at the time as well as in the future.
It is reasonable to assume that in a larger terrain the process of cell formation
could happen in several spots simultaneously. In each case the periphery-
nucleus relations had to be developed according to specific conditions:
demographic activity, resources of the land, geographic peculiarities, relations
with rival tribes, etc. Along with the development of the markets, more
competitive tribes were able to conquer other neighboring tribes and seize
territories, spread their economic, military, political, linguistic superiority and
eventually assimilate others. Although in such sovereignties several economical
nuclei could exist, the political nucleus was always just one.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Along with developments mentioned above, one can suppose similar processes
in linguistic progress and unifications. Verbal vocabulary had to grow along
with the complications that life was introducing. People within a common
market area had to speak approximately the same language or at least
understand each other. Linguistic unification implied common cultural
practices as well. As a result of these sophistications of intertribal relations, a
higher entity ethnicity appeared at a certain point.
The cellular organization, which was the fundamental form of biological life,
turned out to also be a vital form of our social - political association.
At this point of tribal internal organization and external relations, it is important
to mention that within the social, political, economical and military decision-
making structures new professional positions and a new hierarchy emerged. In
a separate primitive tribe, the leader was a dominant individual, who was
evidently relying strongly on his physical and mental superiority. In a market-
operated cellular association, the need for sophisticated decision-making
emerged. Such cellular social structure of ancient people was already a
complex and specialized structure. It is more appropriate to define this structure
as a STATE. It doesnt matter how primitive it may be. It had all important
specific parameters, the ones that current states have - distinct territory, defined
borders, certain population, organized defense, self supportive economy,
decision-making institution (ruler), laws, etc. It is hard to point to any
contemporary vital state function of which they could not be aware. Current
states still have the same unchanged cellular structure. From this period on,
different types of states were formed, including large territorial states as well as
ancient city-states. The spatial dimensions of the state, as well as the concept of
sovereignty, changed over ages, according to the development of markets,
technologies, means of transportation, and the shooting range of weaponry. It
varied from the initial several dozen square miles 10-15 millennia ago, up to a
quarter of the globe in our times.

Arik Hart

Political Development

Scientific evidence supports the concept that pre-market human tribes were
governed by tribal leaders. At the time, the role of a tribal leader had to be
relatively modest - to regulate intra-tribal relations and motivate tribes people
to go to war with neighbors. The intertribal wars could have different
motivations. In the absence of tools to produce goods, and ways to store or
carry excess goods, which was typical for hunters and gatherers period, it is
hard to imagine a primitive tribe capable of conquering neighbors for reasons
other than:
· To seize better living areas for their tribe
· To eliminate other tribes, and thus elevate nutritional safety of the tribe
in the area
· To satisfy eugenic or other biological intentions by capturing better
Though all these intentions were common for all members of a tribe, the actual
process of conducting the war was under the tribal leader s will. In other words,
the tribe had a single leader - decision-maker, who typically directed and
accomplished mostly the collective will of the tribe members. We do not know
if the leader had any formal advisers, but it is reasonable to assume that some
hierarchy of influences could be in place.
The emergence of wealth brought qualitative change in human behavior. Now
they could go to war with the sole aim of seizing and robbery. By conquering
others, they could take goods, and, more importantly, exchange equivalent, and
have supremacy over losers.
The goals and function of the leader - the political nucleus in market operated
tribes - generates a set of new characteristics for the sovereignty and its further
development. The analysis indicates that:
· In an open terrain, a unified, market-operated, successful ancient
human tribe, step by step conquering or sometimes yielding to
neighbors, would expand and spread its control over the neighboring
tribes and areas until it reached particular military and physical
boundaries, from where it was unable to expand.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· At the endpoint of the expansion,
the tribe would establish some
border agreements with its old
and new neighbors.
In Fig 4, a scheme of such a peace
period is presented. Let s consider that
the expanding tribe is the darker
square, and, for simplicity, presume
that this tribe invaded from a large
open terrain to the right. As I mentioned above, the decision-maker of this
cellular sovereignty is the political nucleus. In order to reach new agreements
with neighbors, this nucleus negotiates (by political means, based on its
military, economic, demographic and other potentials) with other neighboring
nuclei. Only the nuclei (governments) are able to interact with foreign
authorities (also nuclei), because only they are decision-making subjects (the
peripheries are objects). As a result of these negotiations, a new border and a
new set of other important conditions are taken into account and established.
The agreements between the invading nuclei with immediate neighbors nuclei
affect all other subjects within the larger area. Depending on the history -
whose area this occupied territory was before, and what relations were in place
before, the new reality may fundamentally change the political map of the
area (region).
Because of humans genuine drive for expansion, it is reasonable to assume
that ancient states were in permanent, barely controlled hostility with
neighbors. In order to survive in this naturally hostile political environment, the
state had to have adequate decision-makers and leverages, such as different
professionals - warriors, weapons manufacturers, etc. We do not have reliable
historical proofs that would support this or other assumptions about specific
paths of human development. At the same time, there are some particular
historical events which may help us understand the transitions from tribal
settings to sovereign states and from tribal leaders to current governments.

Fig. 4
Arik Hart

Expansion (Turkish Model)

During the first few centuries AD, Turkish tribes that historically lived in Altai
and the North-West of current China, were expanding from their homeland into
the North, North-East and West (the South was extremely mountainous, the
East - desert). The Militarily most aggressive ones, who expanded towards the
West, eventually created the Ottoman Empire with its vast territories. As a
result of this advance, several Turkish-speaking tribes became settled along
their advance path (Fig 5). Other tribes, which moved north, occupied Siberia.
There was a remarkable peculiarity in this process. More aggressive tribes
preferred to invade their western, more advanced neighbors and move on
according to military expansion philosophy. The male population of conquered
local tribes was usually exterminated. The females and children were preserved
in order to complement the Turkish nation in the next generation. Current
western Turks represent an entity born from Turk fathers and foreign mothers
for almost 100 generations. As a result, there is a rainbow of Turkish
phenotypes differing from
Mongoloid to European along this
At the same time, the other Turkish
tribes that were losing wars against
more aggressive warriors were
possibly forced to leave their lands
and find survival in harsher
conditions of the North. Most of
Siberia is now populated with
ethnic Turkish people. There are several Turk-related autonomies in Siberia,
and there are half a dozen Turkish states in the area from Turkey to China.
Obviously, the division in behavior between these two branches of initially
united tribes occurred over a historically extended period of time. The overall
Turkic process as a big historical expansion developed over the ages. On the
chronological scale, this process happened in recent times of written history and
Fig. 5
Current Turkey
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

it may serve as an example of similar events occurred much earlier for other
For our discussion, it is important to understand how the internal relations
within the Turkish tribes developed along with their expansion. We do not have
tangible evidence about these processes. One can only assume that at each
point in time there had to be a consensus between the leader of the tribe and
ordinary members in the philosophy and methodology of reaching the goals.
In the minds of tribal members, the success of the tribe is the measure of its
achievements in comparison with other neighboring tribes.
There is no scale in the human mind capable of evaluating achievements other
than comparison. The biological task of a human community was and is the
expansion. Since the wellbeing of the tribe was success in expansion, the leader
had to play a major role in collective expansionist efforts. Aggressive wars
require central coordination, tactics and strategies, which only a single decision
center -the leader, is capable of managing. The western bound Turkish tribes
were obviously led by aggressive leaders. They were successful in military
expansion and in providing goods and comfort for the tribal members.
According to historical data, the western neighbors of expanding Turks had
higher overall technological developmental and cultural levels. On the other
hand, if the Turks succeeded, it is accurate to conclude that they had dominance
in military and political strategies. Historians have their opinions about the
peculiarities of Turkish military success. For my point, it is sufficient to state
that militarily expanding Turkish tribes were fighting with other organized
cellular entities, and they overpowered them. Turks occupied a land exceeding
their initial possessions hundreds of times. Was this a success? Of course!
The northern-bound tribes were losers in comparison with western tribes, but
instead, they were more successful in surviving in harsher northern natural
conditions. There were no other tribes in their path to the North. Only Taiga
and further Tundra, previously uninhabitable vast space was ahead. The main
enemy of these tribes was Mother Nature. The northern spreading out wasnt a
military expansion. No warrior or leader could fight against unpredictable and
harsh nature. Everybody had to accommodate to harsh weather conditions.
That is why there was no place and need for a leader in these tribes. Instead of
military tribal leaders, other players appeared in these tribes - spiritual
Arik Hart

leaders- shamans. It was far more important for people to know what they had
to expect from Mother Nature tomorrow than to fight with neighbors whose
problems were the same - to have food tomorrow. Thus, as a result of western
expansion, Turks instituted Sultans and later Presidents. In the northern
direction, the same people lost their cellular structure and set up shamans.
Figure 5 represents a final schematic outcome with established Turkish states
and relations between them. The Turkish case is remarkable in a sense that in
the end several Turkish states were formed far away from their initial
homeland. Obviously, the army was a state-forming agent in its raid towards
the West. This was an effective tactic of success, based on the annihilation of
sources of possible local resistance and on replenishing military resources by
new soldiers born from local mothers. It is reasonable to conclude that this type
of expansion was a universal tactic in ancient times, but the Turkish case is
prominent with its effectiveness across centuries, reaching up to current days.

Parameters of the State

The schematic representation 5 produces two significant and universal
· The cellular structure of a state is a combined result of
internal and external relations. It is viable exclusively in a
competitive human environment with similar parameters
and motives of existence in the neighborhood. Internal
relations alone cant preserve the cellular structure.
· The cellular structure of a state is useless in the absence of
competition between neighbors.
Considering these aspects, one may conclude that a state is a structurally
specific organization, supporting equilibrium between internal and
external relations.
· It is reasonable to consider a state as a self-sustainable,
reproducible and organized unity of human entity having
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

cellular structure, political and territorial sovereignty, and
coexisting in some regulated agreements with neighbors.
A state must have a cellular structure. A few known existing non-cellular tiny
states survive because of some exceptional conditions. For example, the
enclave state of the Vatican is viable because of the religious and sentimental
attitude of its neighbor, Italy, and the large religious community of Catholics
around the world. Monaco, Lichtenstein and Luxemburg have certain financial,
political, and other buffering capacities for neighboring states. The cellular
structure of the states reveals two important aspects: internal and external
relations. Both of those are equally essential for the existence of a state.
· A state must have precisely defined borders and negotiated
relations with all immediate and remote neighbors.
There cant be a state without borders. Even an island, in order to be considered
a state, must negotiate its relations with every other state which may express
interest in it.

States Protection

The Soldier

Beginning in the tribal era, in order to survive, all tribal members had to fight in
wars. In the era of early states, when the cell nuclei were formed and
specializations deepened, a layer of physically more capable people evolved as
professional fighters - soldiers. Their function was twofold; to protect the state
and to go into aggressive war and overpower the enemy. The function and
definition of the soldier hasnt changed for centuries. It is the same - to protect
the homeland. The existence of the soldier is a universal solution for all social
entities. For a society, the continuation of its existence is the highest goal and it
is ready to sacrifice individuals for this purpose.
The methodology of protection is out of discussion. The soldier and society
have an unwritten contract - the soldier agrees to die but to accomplish the goal
Arik Hart

to protect the society. The commitments of the society towards the soldier are
vague, ideological and abstract. In essence the society has no commitments
towards the soldier.

The Suicide Bomber

Suicide bombing as a massive and asymmetric weapon of the resistance has
turned out to be extraordinarily powerful against democratic societies. It
introduced new dimensions into the fight of militarily powerful and weak
nations: - courage, the possibility of retaliation and disorganization of the
enemy. During the Iraqi war the use of suicide bombing was elevated to new
heights. It became a weapon of chaos making. The front line between
opposing forces lost its traditional meaning. Iraqis were deliberately killing
themselves, in order to morally affect western societies. It worked perfectly.
The US was unable to find really effective alternatives to this weapon. It is
obvious that the leaders of Iraqi resistance exploited the psychological
readiness and courage of some of their people and began to use this weapon
methodically against western mindset. People in the Muslim world consider
protective suicide actions honorable deaths. They dont see difference between
a soldier and a suicide bomber. The western psychology refuses to accept the
ethical validity of such resistance, though conceptually there is no difference
between a suicide fighter and soldier. If the soldier is meant to die but protect,
he has the right to choose how to die. This is a harsh, but more realistic
description of the phenomenon of suicide bombing. In essence Mahatma
Gandhi s methodology of non-violent resistance can be considered a precursor
of the current suicidal fight.
The West doesnt accept soldier-suicide bomber equality, manipulating higher
ideas of humanity. The US is losing the war and is trying to find an explanation
for its miscalculations.
Western policy- makers didnt take into account the possibility of the use of
such asymmetric resistance and lost the war conceptually. Interestingly, not
only the US military and president, but the entire western society also wasnt
ready to accept this asymmetric weapon as a valid one. The public opinion
about the war changed when the numbers of casualties dramatically went up
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

and chaos became overwhelming. One can compare the number of Iraqi war
supporters in 2003, 2005 and 2008, according to public polls. In last years there
is a sense that western societies acknowledged the suicide resistance and are
ready to accept it as a legal means of self defense.

Role of Homicide in Human Development

Before a substantive discussion of current complex political events there is one
essential societal factor, which needs to be analyzed as well. This factor is the
homicide. Throughout human history the homicide was an accompanying
factor of our social and political life. It played a fundamental role in our
development as homo sapience.
We do not have tangible evidence detailing our human prehistoric development
as individuals and as society. The only way to reveal how the processes
unfolded is to rely on assumptions.
During our historical development we accomplished a variety of tasks which
are not obvious at first glance. Comparing available historic information as well
as currently accepted scientific information about hypothetical biological
motivations during the tribal era and later eras, one may speculate that
humanity accomplished different essential tasks during these periods:
· During the tribal times, countless intertribal wars highly
accelerated the shaping of our ancestors as current Homo
Unviable ones lost to more competitive individuals and were physically
removed from further competition of survival. According to Darwinian Theory
the straggle for survival in the environment and in competition with other
species shaped existing species in millions of generations.
· In the case of humans, in addition to biological mechanisms
of evolution, a new tool - homicide, profoundly sped up the
eugenic progress.
Humans current intelligence and superiority in nature, female beauty and male
determination are qualities, for which an immeasurable amount of blood was
paid. This phase of our development can be called the era of human intellectual
Arik Hart

superiority and physical excellence development. This wasnt a recognized
goal, but came as a byproduct of our aggressiveness by default.
· The next era of our development, the era of the markets and
states, elevated us socially, technologically and politically.
Other parameters of our current sophistication - economy, science, culture,
forms of governance - were also dynamic. Over the last 5-7 millennia humanity
has founded its wellbeing on accumulated and continued technological
progress. At each step of our progress we used already developed brains and
experience, accumulated by previous generations, and went further.
At the second stage of our development there was a recognized goal among the
humans as well - money and political power. Both these matters elevated the
role of the leader-decision-maker as a central requirement of human political
and social advancement.
No other species besides humans used extermination as a tool in their
evolution. Such a tool is illogical from the biological point of view.
Then why did humans employ this tool? Why it is acceptable for us to kill each
The arguments of this phenomenon are rooted in the fact that we are self
interest holders (subjects) and individual decision-makers. Living in
community with others, we have conflicts with one another. Conflict resolution
in such cases implies the use of compensations or adequate compromises in
order to reestablish peace between the parties.
Because of our mental capabilities, we judge and evaluate the compensation. If
it is not satisfactory for one side, and that side thinks that can achieve more, it
escalates the conflict to next level.
On this new level, new agreements can be achieved and conflict can be solved.
If the new conditions are still not satisfactory for one of the sides, it keeps
escalating the conflict.
At a certain point the conflict reaches an edge, behind which the only
remaining way of conflict resolution is the annihilation of the opposite side. If
no one yields, homicide comes into effect. The stronger side annihilates the
weaker side and the conflict is solved.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The process of conflict escalation is a genuine situation which is based on the
subjectivity of conflicting sides. Both are right from their standpoints and no
one wants to yield.
· Homicide as a conflict resolution tool in essence came to us
along with our mental development.
As a tool of conflict resolution, homicide became natural for our subjective
mind. We have implemented a complex cultural and societal system, valuing
homicide as a positive or negative tool, depending on the purpose. In modern
history we have employed additional political, societal and judicial tools of
conflict resolution in order to reduce the use of homicide. But we are still
unable to exclude it from our life.
There is a strong internal logical connection between homicide, capital
punishment and war. They all constitute the links of the same chain - conflict
resolution. If the homicide is a conflict resolution tool on the level of conflicting
individuals, capital punishment and war are similar tools on the social level and
in external relations. (Western societies replaced capital punishment with life in
prison, but the essence of the event is the same-annihilation of the conflicting
\The goal of a war initiation is the same - elimination of the opposite side of the
conflict. Two conflicting states must negotiate their relations. The relations may
have different levels of complexity.
There is no judge in nature which would show the exact balance between any
two states. This uncertainty may generate a conflict. At each level of
complexity of the conflict, states have certain tools in possession to cope with
the problem - diplomatic channels, preventive notes, negotiations, economic
sanctions, military postures and the last one on the table, is the war. If none of
non-deadly tools work, the only way to solve the problem is to annihilate the
other side.
This axiomatic simple phrase is perfectly taken into use by politicians, but
nobody can check if all lower-level tools are really tested for the case.
The acceptance of war has 2 roots:
1. Subjectivity in our judgments about the balances in relations with the
neighbors, and
Arik Hart

2. The rule of biological expansion, which also requires resolution of the
Historically homicide and war were accepted practices. Evidently in order to be
acknowledged, these practices had to be tolerable for the society culturally as
Currently, we do not accept violent homicide - neither culturally, nor for any
other reason. But instead we accept capital punishment and wars - mass
homicide on a different level and a larger scale, as tools and mechanisms for
societys and states protection.
· We cant afford to lose our states cellular structure while we
are surrounded by aggressive others, having the same
The war was and still is considered to be a unique tool of the social-political life
of states.
During the decision-making to go to war there is an undeniable complexity: did
the sides use all the lower leverages of conflict resolution to avoid war? Were
any non-military solutions overlooked by decision-makers in order to go to war
intentionally? Those are some of the fundamental problems of our decision-


One may conclude that the processes of tribal development would unfold
independent of the personality of the leader. This isnt accurate; in reality, the
role of the leader has always been crucial throughout history. The ancient
leader evidently seized the power himself and imposed his supremacy over the
others by his physical supremacy combined with a sufficient mental potential.
According to biological motives of existence, expansion is the sole criteria of
progress. Likewise, in order to survive as a leader, the ancient leader had to
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

expand and spread his influence permanently. Beginning from that period on,
the leader used any new invention as a tool for his advantage and as a weapon
against his enemies, be that an external or internal foe. They were never
thankful even to the innovators who had given them the means for supremacy.
Sometimes, the first victims of the leaders became the innovators themselves.
· This was and still is our nature - anyone of us who takes a
leading position becomes a different person.
As a rule, with time the leader leans towards dictatorial ruling and behavior.
Why do we have such ability rooted in our nature? In all likelihood, this comes
from the fact that we, as humans, are social beings, and we must live in groups
and be directed by leaders. Due to spatial limitations and inhomogeneities of
the environment, neighboring groups always have conflicting interests with
each other. In order to solve these conflicting interests, we kill our enemies and
even each other within the same social group. Thus, our essence is not that
altruistic. Our tribal leader couldnt behave altruistically either, because he
would be overturned by another one, who would lead the group by more
expansionistic policies. And the fact is that the tribe would always welcome
such an aggressive leader. Each individual in the tribe benefits from successful
aggressive policies. Thus, an aggressive, leader was desirable yesterday, and
little has changed today. Even in democratic societies we elect somebody to
lead according to his aggregate leading abilities, which surely include the
ability to be aggressive at need. At the position he/she expresses whatever is
required, rather than who he/she is.
There are many instances in history which show that this or that particular
development was a result of decision-making by somebody: Moses, Jesus,
Muhammad set new value systems for millions. Alexander the Great,
Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte and others
destroyed countries and habitual barriers, thus revealing the power of the ego.
We consider these military leaders as historically important figures who
changed the world. At the same time we know thousands of great philosophers,
thinkers and scientists of all times, who developed us as a great civilization, but
strangely, we do not consider any of them as historical figures. Isnt it ironic
that Alexander or Peter are Great , or Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants are
Arik Hart

historical figures, but great inventors are not. This is not an irrational or unjust
outcome, but a major shortcoming of the human essence.
· We dont value people, inventions and processes that gave us
technological and social progress, happiness, wellbeing and
joy. Instead - we fear and prize evil.
Human history is the history of our leaders - mostly bad guys or tyrants. The
mechanism of our valuing system works specifically:
We have a unique mechanism of social decision-making-evaluating. It realizes
in two consecutive actions:
· We accept somebody to rule according to certain principles (by power
usurpation, appointment, election, etc).
· During the period of his rule, we evaluate the accomplishment of the
leader according to our value system, social psychology and practical,
behavioral philosophy set by our previous experience.
If the leader has been successful in getting more benefits for the majority of us
and has been able to convince that his accomplishments and methodology were
positive for the rest, we encourage him to lead further. If not, we find another
one who would be more aggressive and act more effectively, according to
traditional standards. This process is greatly reminiscent of the Darwinian
method of evolution consisting of two phases: First, a generation is given an
opportunity to be born and endure a life. Then, at the second phase, the actual
survival is checked by the success in giving birth to the next generation.
Whichever individuals were successful in having more presence in the next
generation are the actual winners. We judge the leaders the same way, after
similar two steps only.
Can a human society survive and be successful without a leader? This is still a
theoretical question. Philosophically, the No answer is more reasonable,
because the society has no mechanisms of generating and executing decisions
on urgent tasks. This is an unsolvable dilemma for the society. The root of the
problem is in the contradictions between individual versus collective, social
decision-making. The scheme of this process is presented in Figure 6.
The large circle with smaller circles represents the society with subjects-citizens
(Fig. 6A). The arrows by the small
circles indicate that all individuals
Fig. 6
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

are decision-makers for themselves. (Arrows are aimed in different directions.
The same question will be seen in different aspects in the scope of these
individual decision-makers.) On the other hand, the society needs to choose and
execute only a certain decision. How can a human entity solve the problem - to
choose a decision that is satisfactory for the majority and execute it?
By a certain mechanism (voting, compromise, common sense averaging, etc)
majority of the people in a society may acknowledge that there is an acceptable
solution for all of them (Figure 6B). This act is not a decision-making. This is a
reactive response, an indication that concern is acknowledged by the majority
and may have a certain solution. On the next step this solution must be
implemented into life by some executive subject. In reality this task is hardly
achievable in a group. There are several conflicting reasons: The process of
choosing the needed solution is a long and complicated process of negotiations
and agreements between individuals. Such a prolonged procedure is ineffective
for the resolution of any urgent problem. Assuming that some particular
solution somehow was accepted by the majority of the society, who is going to
take the responsibility of executing it? -A) The one, who gave the idea or B),
the aggressive one, who was not capable of generating a good idea, but
supposedly can execute the negotiated idea better?
The uncertainty here is very high. The person who gave the idea may be
weaker as an organizer or leader and cant even begin the execution, because
nobody obeys him. On the other hand, the aggressive person may be good on
the initial stage of execution, but he might fail in case of any complications
during the process of realization, when new decisions must be taken urgently
(Iraq War case).
It is clear that there are many theoretical and practical arguments which
indicate that during the transition from individual to collective decision-
making, there must be some compromise between the best ideas, best
executions and greatest satisfaction for participants, in order to generate and
execute the needed task optimally.
Our ancient social mind found such a solution in the form of a single leader -
single decision-maker, who is permanently responsible for decision-making
and execution. (Although people consider the task of idea generation as the
Arik Hart

leader s responsibility as well, in reality it is under the control of advisers and
will be discussed later.)
Current sophistication of governance has no qualitative difference. Instead of
the tribal leader, we now have presidents or prime ministers with their cabinets
and a huge staff of advisers, speech writers, etc.
Thus, as was shown, the need in a single decision-maker is a requirement based
on fundamentals of social life. In essence, we, as humans cant make and
execute decisions for ourselves when we are in a group. Individually, each of us
can see the problems and offer solutions for each problem. But we have no
mechanisms to harmonize our judgments, find the best solutions to problems
for a group and execute them - the leaders do.
In order to live in society, we voluntarily yield our portion of power to a more
influential person. We elect, appoint, approve, accept or tolerate somebody to
act instead of us. The leader leads and executes using his position as a leader
and carrier of our portion of power yielded to him. Because of the uniqueness
and opportunities coming from the leading position, leaders seize and usurp as
much power as they can and act as long as possible. In modern history, we
eventually understood that if we cant find a better mechanism of social
governance, we must at least curb some negatives of the power by
implementing restrictive laws, procedures and regulations.
Even in our days, the leader s main actions and responsibilities are associated
with the decisions to go to war. In other words, the role of the leader was and
still is to decide whether or not to annihilate the rival. This may seem like a
harsh extrapolation of the leader s role in human society. In essence it is not. As
mentioned earlier, the role of the leader was and is to create better conditions
for his people. This task represents a row of actions in which the need of
conflict resolution is practically at every step. Since homicide is a final tool in
the conflict resolution hierarchy, the leader s main role was and still is to decide
whether it is right or not to go to war. The problem of peace is subordinate to
this drive.
Thus, at the very beginning of our social life, the leader was a judge and a
decision-maker in the most profound matters. There is not much difference in
current times - the presidents decide to go or not to go to war. This threatening
power is the highest universal tool which can be used in the resolution of other
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

unrelated problems as well. This uniqueness and power of the decision-making
center were recognized from ancient times, and conflicting sides tried to
directly influence decision-making at the level of the leader. Current interest
groups do the same: in order to achieve their goals in any sphere within the cell,
they get access to the highest levels of decision-making and exert influence on
that level.
Considering this logic for the current political world, we see that often the
nucleus and periphery of our social cell became so distant culturally and
philosophically that the leader (nucleus) may rush into war, while people (the
periphery) dont perceive it reasonable. In most cases, the war is conducted by
the nucleus (government) for itself. The only reason that the nucleus sells the
war to its population is the fear that the nucleus may not be reproduced at the
next term, or crushed immediately by a determined revolutionary opposition.
This logic of nucleus/periphery relations has been valid throughout human
history. Now these relations have severe functional internal inconsistencies.
Even the factor of reelection-reproduction is not a critical factor anymore,
because the election of the leader is under the control of interest groups, but not
the society.
Along with described evolutional mechanisms, providing gradual but reliable
technological and cultural progress for societies, countries often face sudden
political changes which carry potentials of transformation for the society as
well (coupes, revolts, revolutions). With the exception of few historical
progressive cases, such changes are mostly regressive.
· In general, a minor internal threat to the stability of the
government is positive for the society and country: it
permanently keeps the government and society alert against
deformations, reveals group interest activities and other
abnormalities within the governance.
Any change in the governance, accomplished with the help of an external
interest may be dreadful for the country and cataclysmic for the society. The
fundamental problem of the society is to keep its governing mechanism free of
influence, be that interest groups, foreign nations or external and internal false
goals fabricated by interest groups.

Arik Hart

Decision-making in Representative

In Fig 7 the scheme of group
representation and mechanism of
decision-making is presented.
In multilayered social entities
(parliaments, parties, professional
associations, NGO, civil and
international organizations, etc)
subjects within the same group
(level A) with close value systems
and principles, elect (or choose by
appointment, lottery or other type
of promotion) a group leader (level B). They delegate him as a representative
onto a representative forum (level C). From C by a similar mechanism, a leader
(D) is elected (appointed) to be a representative on level E (this and further
levels are not shown in Figure. Sophisticated hierarchies may have more
levels). This scheme reveals a unique and striking peculiarity of our decision-
making. The elected or appointed representatives have different statuses at each
level. At representative levels there are no decision-makers (levels A and C).
The assembled body itself cannot be a decision-maker because of the
restrictions described for the case of Fig 6. The decision-makers are individuals
on levels B and D. Each representative is a decision-maker for a lower group,
but on a higher representative level, they have no power to decide. Depending
on the height of this hierarchic ladder and the level on which a certain decision-
maker operates, he/she has different degrees of freedom in decision-making.
On intermediate levels, he/she functions within instructed, allowable windows
of freedom, at the watch of subjects from above and below. If he/she is on the
top of the ladder, he has no pressure from above. He is blocked only by non-
personalized forms of control - written regulations, laws, constitutions,
international agreements, etc. On the highest executive level, a leader can
pretty much do whatever he/she wants.
Fig. 7



Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Representative bodies cant carry out decisions; they only approve or
disapprove others ideas and decisions using voting mechanisms. Parliaments
work according to this logic.
We believe that democratic election mechanisms provide sufficient leverages to
guarantee the best harmony between individual and public interests, but the
reality is more complex. Philosophically, a citizen is a political subject and
represents the smallest unit of human political autonomy. As any other subject,
the citizen carries the authority to make decisions involving his interests. The
citizen elects representatives and is supposed to oversee their activity. The
problem is whether the citizen has any real leverage to protect his everyday
rights through the elected representatives.
Obviously via the mechanism of vote we average our personal interests and
delegate somebody to take care of it. As mentioned, during the transition from
personal interest to public interest, huge deformations take place. These
deformations are unaccountable. We elect somebody who combines in himself
some affiliations to our personal views in particular areas. But he is different
from each of us profoundly. As a result, an average elected representative can
be the supporter of my interests let s say, with only 60-70% harmony. This
representative further elects or chooses another person to represent him (and me
as well) on a higher level of hierarchy. This one now may support only 30-40%
of my interests. This is already an inferior situation. At the end, a citizens
interest can be trashed and even rejected as conflicting. (Senator Joe Lieberman
is an excellent example of such interpolations)
Scheme 7 also shows that on each circle of elevation in representative-decision-
maker ladder, a substantial reduction of initial commitments takes place. We
believe that this dilution of citizens individual share in power is a reflection of
the formation of public interest - each of us yields- the society wins. (In
subsequent chapters, I will present evidence showing that this believe is
· In order to live in a society, humans constructed a social mechanism in
which the need for a decision-making mechanism - a leader is a
requirement; society needs to be governed
Arik Hart

· We, as citizens, delegate our portion of power to representatives and
executives for limited time periods. Within the term we have limited
power to regulate activities of elected people.
· We obey and tolerate leaders and express our opinion about their
performance only at the next election. During the term, the government
acts without proper responsibilities towards citizens-the genuine
power holders
· The more sophisticated the leadership mechanism, the
greater is the chance that an elected authority will act
voluntarily in his duties, because of the dilution of the power
each elector grants him

Group Interest in Decision-Making

Apparently the position of the leader is an attractive target for many ambitious
people. Being a leader is a dangerous job- many fight and die for it. But there
are ways to lead without being a declared leader. Beginning from ancient times,
when governing required sophisticated knowledge, decision-makers became
dependent on help and competent advice in different matters. For this purpose,
the leaders relied on the help and advice of different official and non-official
advisers. It is reasonable to conclude that such people have influence on highest
decision-making through their advice, initiatives and ability to offer solutions.
Thus, along with the official decision-maker, the advisers in essence constitute
an important part of the government and decision-making in a state. Depending
on the personalities and abilities of the leader and his/her subordinates,
sometimes it is hard to reveal who the real leader is. We know multiple
examples of Grey Cardinals, who were happy with non-declared leadership -
they were leaders without being considered such. Furthermore, these
individuals were smart enough to survive several formal decision-makers and
continue to rule.
The hidden, shadow position is a perfect arrangement for a person who is
motivated by the goals, but not ambitions. He/she can operate with less
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

exposure and bear no responsibility for mistakes and negative consequences. It
is reasonable to conclude that the shadow influence can be functional around
any official governmental decision-maker or representative - everybody needs
advice. (For instance, at the moment of Iraq war initiation in 2003, two
influential Grey Cardinals were operational- one in the White House (Dick
Cheney) and second in the Pentagon (Paul Wolfowitz)). Apparently, the
position of the adviser-helper is an extraordinary leverage for motivated
individuals or interest groups to achieve their goals; this is why we see 34,000
lobbyists in Washington DC.
The decision-making system is aimed at serving the State and society. The
influence of advisers on decision-making contradicts these basics of
If the biased advice deals with internal affairs, it compromises social matters. If
the advice deals with external affairs, it harms the sovereignty of the state. We
do not like hidden, non-public moves and decisions, but we tolerate these
practices. Undeserved privileges and unjust career moves were and are
becoming increasingly damaging for modern states and societies. We dont like
this either, but have no leverage to correct the situation yet. Throughout the
book, the mechanisms, involvement and the role of group interest in decision-
making will be shown.
The western societies have chosen democracy as social construction,
mechanism of governance and cultural, business environment. Democracy has
proved that as a mechanism of governance it is the best among previously
known. At the same time, history shows that with time all previous social
constructions were becoming less and less relevant to changes growing inside
We willingly or reluctantly modify our social constructions and governance
when irresolvable new problems arise in front of our genuine progress. Now
we are facing similar problems: current western democracy has internal
problems involving decision-making, different aspects of governance and
social settings as well.
Will we be able to reveal what is wrong with it and fix it? What leverages and
how much time do we have to improve or profoundly change our self-
Arik Hart

governance mechanisms in order to be adequate to current global challenges?
This is a fundamental question of our time.
In order to accomplish this goal, an inclusive analysis of our social construction
and operational mechanisms needs to be done.
The main object of this analysis must be democracy itself. We have a vague
understanding of democracy. Different people and even scientists will portray
different images of democracy. In order to reach a consensus with the reader in
terminology, peculiarities, potentials and weaknesses of democracy, I will
present my vision and understanding of democracy: how it was generated, how
it functions now and how it can be modified for the future.

Island as a Promoter of Democracy

As I hypothesized, in an open terrain a tribe will form a cellular structure in the
presence of neighbors and will lose it in the absence of competing rivals. A
competitive tribe will expand at the expense of neighbors. The logic of a states
behavior in the presence of a neighbor is surprisingly typical - how to
overpower this neighbor. Such tense equilibrium between the neighbors in a
terrain was and still is the essence of worlds geopolitics. The aggressive
attitude of states and humans towards each other is rooted in the principles of
the human ego.
Let s see what changes one can expect if a cellular entity absorbs all its
neighbors, grows and reaches some physical barriers from all sides and gets
isolated as on an island. We have several historic, more or less relevant cases
which repetitively show the development of elements of democratic
mechanisms inside an island society. Ancient Greece and Rome can be
considered such examples as well: they were located on peninsulas with the
mountainous isolation from the North. These democracies were developed in
technologically advanced societies, honoring knowledge, humanitarian
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

progress and inventions. The hostility of technologically primitive enemies in
the north was another factor of isolation.
When the cell of a state reaches physical borders on an island, this new
situation is critical for the nucleus, but not for the periphery. The periphery can
continue to function as before and serve the nucleus. In such conditions, the
nucleus loses one of its main functions - external affairs. Without external
functions, the autocratic nucleus becomes less capable of regulating internal
functions as well. The main argument of the nucleus, the defense from external
invasion, is now senseless. As a result, two parallel processes are growing
inside the cell.
· The people of the cell see the degeneration of functionality of the
nucleus and demand more individual rights.
· The nucleus loses its two main leverages over the people: A) Lets
invade neighbors and prosper at the expense of their wealth, and B)
Be loyal to me, otherwise we may lose our power and get overrun by a
Often we dont understand why the leaders initiate and easily go to war. The
explanation is simple: they generate a danger for the society, mobilize society
by exploiting concerns of survival or dangers of losing existing prosperity, and
keep people loyal. External threats are intolerable for people and they will do
whatever is needed to protect their homeland.
Thus, on the island, conspiracy, bloody coups and corruption instead of guiding
take the stage in such a nucleus. What are the options for this bordered society?
They had a previous history of cellular development. They cant lean towards
the northern bound Turkish tribe scenario thus losing their cellular essence;
up to now they havent lost to anybody. They were winners, determined
people. The problem is now inside the society. Multiple questions arise: if the
leader is now genuinely weak, who determines the hierarchy? How to regulate
who deserves what? Who is who? Each person assumes that he also can be the
leader. The existing one is no better than everybody else! This is a crisis of
identity. Fortunately, in most historic cases the solution was unique: institution
of democracy. The main principle of ancient and current democracies was and
is the agreement about equal rights of participants-citizens, because there is no
need to be led to war. At the time no one knew what democracy was, no one
Arik Hart

could say let s establish democracy. If nobody knew about democracy then
how was it discovered and established? Obviously it was developed through
the ages, on the basis of accumulated experience, sometimes exceptionally
bloody experience.
In Fig. 8 some schematization of the events is presented. Circle A represents
the isolated on the island cell, which was successful in overpowering all
neighbors and reached physical borders. In this state its external affairs are
already impaired. In reality, there are no external affairs at all (circle B). In
these conditions the society becomes divided, atomized and polarized along
new ideological, conceptual divisions (C). In circle D, the political division of
the power within the nucleus is represented.
In a new, unknown environment, humans behave quite specifically. First we
establish who is who. Our ego yields to another persons will only when we are
unable to prevail over him. We cant accept a priori that we are weaker or are
equal. We always think we are superior. If somebody needs to prove that
he/she is better or stronger, he/she must challenge and prove it in practice.
Thus, in conditions when there is no higher authority which defines
somebodys position in the hierarchy, we determine it in competition. Each of
us attempts to take a higher position, but, as a result of conflicts with others,
eventually gets localized in his/her niche (if he is lucky!J). The principles of
conflict resolution stipulate that in this process we can use the entire arsenal of
tools, if we are determined. Thus, in pre-democratic spots where the situation
was reaching the island conditions, people were obliged to determine who was
who. In reality, this situation generates enormous tension within the society,
which must be solved according to the rules of conflict resolution. The rule
says: move up using more and more harsh/bloody conflict resolution tools and
annihilate the other side. Interestingly, the same logic reigns in prisons. In the
Fig. 8
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

limited space of the prison, the most vital trouble is the problem of
determination of hierarchy. Conflicts which happen there are mostly hierarchy
defining clashes. Thus, in the island situation we are dealing with a dilemma:
· To continue the ego niche pursue idea with the use of harsh methods,
up to homicide, or
· To find compromises, create and establish rules of coexistence and live
in harmony with others.
Apparently, first we take path #1, then, at a certain point of mutual
extermination a social concern grows - how long can we tolerate anarchy-until
we exterminate ourselves?
The increased aggression and political polarization within the society generate
the main question how to cohabitate with each other in the limited space of
the island. Many begin to think - if it is impossible to establish hierarchy, isnt it
better to accept equal rights at least on some critical issues? It is easier to say
than to find a mechanism supporting this requirement. How to quantify and
establish equality? The only appropriate way is to set up a shared representation
in some representative governing body. Historically the realization of this
requirement gave birth to parliaments: in all known historic cases of
democracies, people have elected representatives into different representative
bodies. The need in three branches of governance became clear even in ancient
One may argue that there is little similarity between ancient and current
democracies. But it is obvious that they are basically similar. The English
parliament was established in the 13
century. Why did it happen in England
and not in continental Europe? The only reasonable answer is that Britains
isolation was a factor promoting democracy.
· In island-specific conditions the individual rights
prerogative prevails over individual interests.
In this respect, the USA s model of democracy establishment is instructive.
Although the US is not an island, the democracy in the US was established on
the basis of English philosophical and religious outlook and in conjunction with
the necessity to protect individual rights among the heavily armed population.
Initially, the US wasnt a classic state in terms of cellular structure. It was a
poorly organized colony, where immigrants were struggling to survive. It was
Arik Hart

mostly a melting pot , rather than a civilly organized political space. There
were no neighboring states to invade. The adjacent territory was structurally
worthless, and the process of territorial expansion was going at a slow pace.
Though it was senseless to conquer externally, it was meaningful to take a
neighbor s wealth. Because of aggressiveness, the problem of physical safety
inside the society was becoming a prerogative.
At the time, the American model of democracy made it possible to combine
characteristics hardly compatible at a first glance: heavily armed population,
slavery, and democracy with the guarantees of individual and civil rights.
As in previous historic cases, the American democracy was also generated in a
situation when social-political-economical conditions were imposing
limitations on the members of the society. Obviously for its birth in the US,
democracy used a different from the British set of tools, which was specific for
this country.
Because of spatial differences, different social settings and motivations, the
spread of democracy in continental Europe was delayed by several centuries. It
is not clear if democracy would be meaningful for continental Europe, if it
hadnt been imported from England. In most modern countries,
democratization is still a dream.
· The presented logic of historical events supports the idea that
democracy can be established in conditions when people are restricted
in their expansionistic intentions and are forced to protect their
individual rights;
· Democracy cant be established in a society that undervalues
individual rights and freedoms.

Political Subjects
We think that all citizens are equally motivated in carrying out their democratic,
public duties. In reality, this is an exaggeration. Different people are involved in
the democratic process differently. Some are involved as citizens or party
members; others are involved because of personal career requirements and
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

ambitions; some, - because of minority interests, etc. While talking about
democratic mechanisms and approaches, one must remember that real
democracy is far from ideal schemes and descriptions.
Comparison of subjects expressing their demands in power sharing in England
and continental Europe reveals remarkable peculiarities. Beginning in the 12

century, evolving business entrepreneurs in England demanded their share in
decision-making, though they were all interested in a centrally organized state
shelter. The goal was the creation of a business- friendly political environment,
which would be constructive for new economic relations in limited space.
Along with these subjects, clergy and aristocracy was involved in the political
process as well. All these people had diverse individual, economic and political
interests. Ordinary people were far from these processes and were only
remotely following the ongoing events. In Europe the relations between the
economically active subjects and the sovereign were placed in an utterly
different scope. European monarchs and Knights were economically and
militarily more or less self sustainable subjects and apparently couldnt share
their power with others. Even a common language was unable to unite German
knights; they were busy in wars with each other. Besides causing social and
political grievances, wars were reducing the pace of technological progress as
The origination of capitalism primarily in England is a remarkable proof that
the island generates unique conditions which are beneficial for overall progress.
Japan developed its specific social construction, which is far from western
democracy, but also substantially different from social relations in continental
The limited space changes the mindset of technologically advanced people. In
order to survive in a limited space, instead of getting accommodated to
conditions (North-bound Turkish case), one had to protect his ego rights (which
was paralleled with the birth of Protestantism religion valuing ego rights),
create (technological development), and demand political rights and equality
(parliament). In this respect, an important question arises: who were the
political subjects in island democracies? Historical facts indicate that as a rule,
only the wealthy layer of society was active in demanding their share of power.
In ancient Greece, only male citizens having some minimal wealth had the right
Arik Hart

to exercise their civil rights. In 14th century England, only 3% of the population
was granted the right to vote. They had to present a 20 shilling wealth proof in
order to secure their civil rights.
Accordingly, the Parliament in England was established as a representation of
wealthy knights, clergy and bourgeois. With time, the share of voters among
the population was growing, but even in the 20
century, western democracies
still had limitations in voting rights.
The spread of democracy in continental Europe passed through extremely
painful revolutions in which the nuclei (single decision-makers - kings,
monarchs), were yielding their power with great resistance. Contrary to
democratic processes in England, where democracy was advancing mostly
through negotiations of elites, in the continent the establishment of democracy
was a permanent clash between classes. The involvement of massive numbers
of people in the negotiation process with each other, authorities, clergy and
aristocracy, was yielding no meaningful outcomes. The only means of conflict
resolution at this period were revolutions with uncountable casualties.
Currently, when almost 100% of mentally and socially eligible people have
voting right, only 60-70% of them usually use it. This passivity of citizens as
power holders gives an extra leverage to incumbent power holders and lessens
the urgency of the problems demanding imperative solutions.
The problem of citizens isolation from their rights and obligations is one of the
main problems of current democracy.
Though the democratic traditions constitute a part of the culture and social
mentality of the West, the initial requirements of democracy must be in force
today as well.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Quasi-bi-partisan society

One may notice that during initial democratic developments on the island, three
processes are progressing simultaneously:
1. Appreciation of equal rights. A growing concern and
understanding grows in the social mindset that subjects within the cell
must have equal rights and participate in decision-making
2. Political divide. The society becomes divided according to the
posture of individuals towards power and wealth
3. Philosophy of individual independence. The isolation factor
gives birth to a philosophy of individual vision, beliefs and rights. In
the case of England this was the departure of people from Catholicism
to Protestantism, to religious individuality.
On the island, the two opposing dominant ideas - conservative and
revolutionary, become more aggressive towards each other: the conservative
wing owns the power and wants to keep it. The revolutionary wing wants
changes and aims to take the power in order to accomplish its ideas. The
essence of their clash is the power, but the ideologies underneath, have definite
conceptuality as well. The clash of these internally opposing wings for the
power over the nucleus generates a political environment within the society.
Part of it supports the conservative ideology, part of it, -the revolutionary
ideology. The difference in the stance of people within the society escalates
political confrontation and requires more accurate mechanisms of satisfaction
of opposing rights. Eventually partisan divide, the mechanism of civil tolerance
of the opposite opinion and a corresponding social-political system develop.
The entire mechanism of democracy is viable, specifically because of partisan
divide and opportunity of free choice between diverse ideologies and goals
offered by different parties. It is widely believed that the most dynamic and
advanced type of multi-partisan divide is the current quasi-bipartisan system
adopted by the majority of western democracies. In Figure 9A the quasi-
bipartisan divide of a democratic society is schematized. I-VI represent political
parties. I and II constitute two major influential parties, the rest are minor
parties, including independents. One of the major parties holds the power at a
Arik Hart

time. As a rule, none of them enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority
of the society. During the elections, (Fig 9B), the opposing major parties in
essence neutralize each other as voting powers and are obliged to make
alliances with the minor parties in order to gain the decisive majority.
This scheme describes many of known peculiarities of current partisan divide.
For example, it shows that supporters of major parties have less decisive power
during the electoral process than the members of minor parties and
independents. The stance of major party supporters is predicted initially and
politicians dont pay much attention to their problems. Instead, they are very
interested in the support of
undecided or third party
members and offer them
higher political concessions.
Thus, the final results of the
election often depend on the
opinion of people who have
little knowledge and interest
in social affairs and politics.
Another aspect of the quasi-bipartisan divide is the conservatism and political
blindness of the supporters of major parties. They follow partisan dogmas, no
matter how unsuccessful or even disastrous their partisan accomplishment was
before. The problem is partially rooted in our mindset: we are committed to our
teams and team leaders.
Strangely, the fate of social decision-making of the society; the victory in
elections, often depends on followers of minor political directions and
nonpartisans. This is an inadequacy which remains overlooked by democratic
(It is interesting to mention that in the political process the term opposition
was born because of the sitting ordinance of representatives in the rectangular
hall of the English Parliament. The supporters of the incumbent power sat
behind him, and the oppositionists sat in the front of him, on the opposite side.)
The establishment of democracy brought big changes into social relations:
Fig. 9

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· Members of the society (in ancient times - a few of them; in recent
history - a substantial part of them; now - most of them) were
declared equal in civil rights.
· The citizen was born.
· Separate branches of power were established.
· The power of the central decision-maker was restricted,
and rights of ordinary people elevated by new social
settings and laws.

Theoretical Model of Democracy

The global spread of democracy as a modern tool of unbiased social decision-
making and State governance raises many questions about its effectiveness,
relevancy and harmony at locations and in specific social environments. In
order to predict the outcome of escalating new interactions between the
democratic and non-democratic traditional cultures, one must clarify the
mechanisms of democracy and its interactions with non-western social and
cultural traditions.
Democracy fundamentally changes the apparatus of power. In democracy, the
power of nucleus is divided between independent branches, responsible for
dealing with various aspects of sophisticated social life.
According to our previous analysis, the legislative branch, constructed as a
representative body, has no subjective authority. It establishes political
freedoms for citizens and limits the power of the executive branch. It develops
negotiated principles, mechanisms and restrictions for the sake of society, but
cant implement them: -the executive branch implements the principles of fair
governance into life.
The executive branch is also empowered by representative elections. It is
authorized to act as a central decision-maker within the law and according to
limits established by the parliament. In order to make these two branches of
power function, another, third independent power had to be implemented: - the
Arik Hart

interpreter - the judge. Thus, historically, three independent branches
(legislative -parliament, judicial-court of law, and executive -the government)
appeared as the result of the raised ego of the people. In modern times it
became clear that these three separated powers cant function properly if there
is no control over all of them by people who delegated them their share of
power. In our days Mass Media (MM) became a part of power. We consider
MM as the fourth power. It is apparent that democracy is a mechanism of
governance. As any other mechanism, there must be a way to schematize and
illustrate this mechanism as well.
Modern western theoretical democracy can be described as a mechanism of
governance, having a strict design of structure-functional unity. Structure-
functional mechanical correlations are well recognized in physical, technical,
biological and mathematical realities. This correlation emphasizes that a
function requires and establishes a certain structure executing that function.
Let s say vision as a function can be carried out only with an optical system
(according to current scientific knowledge). Any other tool is useless for this
purpose. Muscular function must be carried out with a certain structure capable
of contracting, etc. Such correlations can be represented via simple graphical
Having this in mind, it is appropriate to visualize theoretical democracy as a
hollow pyramid, having a triangular base (Figure 10). (This graphic has no
relation to the authoritarian
pyramid, which is
multilayered. In an
authoritarian pyramid each
official of hierarchy enjoys
superiority over lower
levels. The highest person -
the authoritarian dictator -
rules single-handedly.)
This pyramid describes
interrelations of all 4
powers of democratic
governance. The
Fig. 10. Pyramid of democracy. Arrows
pointing to acting subjects are aimed to
indicate essence and dynamics of
processes in executing the function.


Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

democratic authority includes the three separated powers and the independent
Mass Media as the fourth power (the left figure). The vertices of triangular base
represent legislative, (L), judicial (J) and executive (E) branches of separated
powers. The top of the pyramid, (the upper ellipse), represents the high eye of
the MM, which is destined to watch the function of the three powers and blow
the whistle to citizens about malfunctions. Among the triangular powers, only
the executive power is single-partisan. It is represented by the team of the
elected president and career professionals. The other two branches of power are
multi-partisan. MM is supposed to be impartial. This scheme indicates that the
executive branch, which is the central decision-maker, is supposedly restrained
by other branches. The veto power is a reserved right given to the executive
branch with the idea of overcoming critical moments in decision-making. The
scheme shows that a substantial compromise or a hybrid in this structure of
functional democracy is hardly acceptable.
In general, an established, functional democracy must have a roughly similar
shape. It is hard to imagine a real democracy with, let s say, a rectangular base,
or with two tops, or with other deformations. The existing real democracies
have roughly similar pyramidal structures with slight differences. Some argue
that there can exist underdeveloped, just rising, primitive democracies. But no
conclusive evidence of their existence has been collected yet. Some surrogate
democracies in the Third-World cant be considered independent cases of
underdeveloped democracies, because they are under continual material
support of western democracies.
This theoretical model implies prerogatives on the part of the MM: The main
task of the MM is to enlighten citizens about the events happening in power
branches. The MM must inform the democratic society about who is doing
what in the government, what is allowed by the law, and what is not. The MM
must see throughout the whole social body of the cell, inside and out. Because
of freedom and competition, the MM is supposed as having the power to blow
the whistle on self-malfunction as well. The lower levels may interact with each
other and negotiate deals about different problems. But all this activity must be
carried out openly, under the permanent scrutiny of MM. It is assumed that
triangular branches have no reverse control over the MM.
Arik Hart

On the basis of the analysis of this theoretical scheme, I would define ideal
Democracy in the following way:
· Democracy is a permanently balanced, self-controlled
mechanism of governance of a homogeneous society and its
state, on the basis of fair representation of the citizens share
and interests in power execution.
(I would offer the pyramid pictured on the cover of the book as a symbol of
As mentioned, most democratic parameters, principles and tendencies are
aimed at protecting rights. These rights span from humanitarian to economic
spheres, including civil equality, decency and fairness, property rights, free
entrepreneurship, etc.
Political scientists talk about more than two dozens specific, required
parameteres and characteristics of current real democracies. Among them the
most important appear to be:
· Separation and independence of branches of power
· Sufficient technological advance
· Free Mass Media
· Free market economy
· Freedom of speech
· Freedom of political parties
· Free elections
· Anti-monopolistic legislation
· Capitalism with tangible economic growth
· Priority of human rights
· Non-aggressive external policies
· The right to vote and to stand for election
· Freedom of association
· Protestant ideology
· Free NGOs
· Legislation protecting the rights of the minorities
· The rule of the majority, etc
Political sociologist Seymour Lipset considers cultural factors to be more
important for democracy than economic ones. He thinks that moderate
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

opposition and a nation's historical political culture are important factors
promoting democracy. He believes that Protestant religious traditions are more
associated with democracy than Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam or
I consider the following factors also to be the essential parameters of
· Legislation and social tools excluding any influence of group interests
in governance
· Strict legislation preventing monopolization of Mass Media
· The right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment)
· A culturally more or less homogeneous society
· A citizenry motivated by its personal rights and informed about
common social concerns
· Limited serving terms of elected representatives
· Legislation, stipulating a strict principle: one person - one vote during
· Legislation, restricting abnormal (more than 1,5 times)
overrepresentation of minor ethnic, racial and religious groups in
decision-making and representative bodies
In existing real democracies, these requirements and other parameters may be
compromised to different extents. The local peculiarities may substantially
influence the effectiveness of democratic mechanisms. For example, the
Electoral College in US presidential elections is an enormous antidemocratic
leverage. This tradition is not only counterproductive during elections, but
weakens the basics of democracy: the one person - one vote fundamental
requirement of equal representation. Moreover, in predominantly Democratic
or Republican states the minority is cornered because of repetitive, traditional
victories of majority. In many states, the dictate of the majority is
overwhelming. In essence, the minority doesnt participate in the elections
enthusiastically, since it is senseless to lose again and again for decades.
Specifically, the Electoral College gives group interests room and leverages to
manipulate and offer candidates help during the elections and secure
perpetual privileges for themselves.
Arik Hart

The rule of the majority is considered by political scientists as one of the main
defining parameters of democracy. This is a false reflection. The majority
doesnt rule in a broad sense. The majority has a voice for a short period of time
during the elections, but it never rules. It may elect an executive, form a
majority in representative forums, but after the election, these subjects perform
according to their opinions and the requirements of the situation. Even when
the approval rating of executive branches is higher than 50%, it is irrational to
state that the majority rules. The decision-maker is the one that rules. If the
majority were to be the ruler, then at no point could the rating of a parliament or
president go lower than 50%.
The requirement of homogeneity of the society has recently become the most
urgent problem of the current democracy. The success of interest groups is a
direct result of underestimation of this requirement.
In order to carry out socially positive decisions (fair elections, balanced internal
and external policies, fairly selection and appointment of qualified specialists
into positions, etc), a democratic society must be cemented by equal rights,
identical beliefs, common social goals, similar cultural, habitual and civil
values, politically neutral religious affiliations, etc. Any organized and covert
business, religious, ethnic, racial or other interest group within the democratic
society which pursues its particular ambitions and goals can distort the
democratic society out of its acceptable boundaries. The requirement of
sufficient homogeneity is one of the critical parameters of democratic
mechanisms of governance.
By definition, democracy is an agreement between all members of society
about equal rights, responsibilities, demands, shares in power, etc. In an
established democracy this agreement must be in force undoubtedly and
permanently. All newcomers into the democratic society either must accept the
requirement of equality, live according to democratic agreements and obey, or
must be expelled from that space. I do not see any other option for democracy
to survive under the pressure of non-signators inside the society.
Who are convicted criminals? In a broader sense, they are members of society
who break the law and become non-signators of the civil agreement. Even in
ancient Greece ostracism was implemented into practices with the idea to
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

temporarily isolate the society from renowned public figures, who were
stubbornly and witlessly acting against the society.
As mentioned, on the unified island democracy arises when a substantial
number of subjects begin to demand their rights. The democratic process is
carried out by subjects who live on the island. All the strata of society -
subjects, including the criminals, scientists, manufacturers, clergy- everybody
was on the island before. They didnt come from elsewhere. None of them had
a second homeland to cherish, a different, hostile religion or culture to cultivate.
Together they found the compromise to share their homeland, their common
territory, more progressively, - democratically. In other words, democracy was
established within a culturally, religiously complemented, and multi-
dimensionally homogeneous society. Newcomers, who would accept the
existing reality, give up their external relations, connections and particular
ambitions, are welcomed to stay and integrate into this society. But if they stay
and enjoy the social and political privileges of the society and continue to
pursue their hidden motives, then they cant be welcome. As a rule, such people
organize covert groups and continue to chase their particular goals using
antisocial tools. By behaving this way, they are compromising the main
requirement of democracy; - the equality of citizens. The democratic
mechanisms have the power to take into account any open offer or demand of
the members of society. If it passes the requirements on social constructiveness
or, at least, neutrality, the demand will be approved, if not - rejected. This is the
main rule of democracy. Any covert action within democracy is harmful for
democracy and must be revealed and prevented.
· Members of the democratic society must be sufficiently
homogeneous in their social culture, civil values, goals,
motives and methodologies of self-governance and
philosophy of conflict resolution;
· The granting of equal rights to people who differ in aspects
mentioned, compromises the vital conditions of valid
democracy. Access of such people to advisor status of
decision-making is dreadful for the society.

Arik Hart

Democratic Political Culture

In western societies, the democratic principles and requirements became a part
of tradition and we consider western democracy as a social culture. On the
other hand, the fact of already existing abnormalities requires a conscious
scrutiny - what was wrong in democratic mechanisms that allowed these
degenerations to take place?
Let s examine how the ideal democracy makes adjustments in ongoing social
processes according to theoretical principles.
The long- term correction of a democratic apparatus is provided by the
mechanism of elections. It is assumed that based on the results (success, failure,
etc) of the inter-electoral period, citizens decide thumbs up, or down for
representative folks. We assume that periodic elections and the right to recall
elected representatives are sufficient to keep democracy functional.
The short term adjustments are limited to everyday democracy mechanisms:
periodic hearings and debates in the Parliament and revelations of the MM on
different political and public matters.
The everyday democracy, supported by a fair MM, is a kind of permanent
inter-social war of interests. It is a permanent conflict between the three
representative powers themselves and MM. The triangular branches clash
permanently, trying to take as much power as possible. But the people- thanks
to high eye of MM are the ultimate judges. The people decide what to keep and
what to trash at the next elections. We think that the permanent monitoring and
criticism about accountability of different social subjects confines all political
and social players within the democratic limits.
If short-term control tools are malfunctioning, deformations accumulated
during inter-electoral periods deepen the divide between people and authorities.
· The everyday, permanent control is the most important
recovery tool of democracy.
Theoretically, the long and short term control mechanisms of democracy have
the power to catch malfunction of democracy at the very beginning of its
appearance. These tools are designed to act preventively and not to wait until
someone takes the power and acts above the law.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

I have always wondered why a large number of western citizens do not
participate in elections in our days. A turnout of 60-70% is considered normal
for western countries. Previously I believed that all the people were eager to
exercise their right to power, that their inactivity is a result of political
indifference or laziness.
The assessment of the behavior of people during the crash of the USSR brought
me to a different conclusion: In a human society, the leader and follower
psychological types exist in crucially misbalanced proportions. The motivated
subjects are the leaders, who make decisions. The followers are lined up
according to their vision of things. Most of the people even refuse to discuss or
evaluate the actions (right or wrong doesnt matter) of the leaders. The focus
group leaders interpret the decisions of leaders, the rights and wrongs to the
majority of us.
Apparently, some non-voters are afraid to express their position openly,
because they are not sure if they are competent enough to judge. Another
reason for passivity is the fear. A large part of society is afraid of power. I
remember when in 1988 mass protests began in the USSR: - at the beginning
just a few brave activists openly expressed their opinion during gatherings.
Slowly, when previously fearful observers understood that it was safe to talk,
that after public speeches people were still at large - they took the stage. The
initial layer of really brave people was smashed by new players. In several
months, when the power became more corrupt, a third layer of actors came into
play - the criminals. During and after all these events, a large portion of the
society was still silent.
Thus, we can conclude that:
· Democracy was established due to civil activity of members of society
concerned with their rights, representing just a portion of the entire
· Many of us dont express our opinions and interests until we feel utterly
· Democracy has specific tools for long and short term corrections.
· The everyday, permanent control is an important recovery tool of
democracy. It provides permanent checks and balances of power
branches and prevents their degeneration;
Arik Hart

· Democracy is a dynamic mechanism of governance, which requires
permanent involvement of all opposing political and social
participants. Society cant elect a government and leave it without
supervision. (It is like riding a bicycle: - you must ride continuously,
otherwise you will fall down - my Fathers remarks).
Currently we are used to saying that democracy is not the best, but the least
unfair type of governance.

USA Model of Power

With the mechanism of election we form 3 separate powers - the Legislative,
Judicial and Executive branches of the government.
Congress has little power to interfere with current decisions, but does have the
power to set the rules and in essence create a new environment for future
decision-making. The Judicial branch functions at the edge: it prevents us from
big mistakes which may happen as a result of misinterpretation of the law or
unprecedented conditions. Thus, for urgent decisions and short term solutions
we have a single decision-maker - the President (the leader); for long term
solutions the Congress. This may not be the best governing mechanism, but
we were able to generate nothing better.
The executive and legislative branches of the government are managing past,
present and local problems. Reality raises new challenges - the government
reacts to them. Any government is mostly reactive rather than proactive. The
launch of new strategic initiatives and programs looking into the future
(globalization, ecology, peace, renewable energy, health, human rights, social
stability, urbanization, transportation, coping with religious and ethnic
extremism, fanaticism, etc) are practically out of the vision of current
This is an extremely strange situation: There is not a single legitimate person or
group in the government, which would be responsible for future prediction,
moreover design. Instead, there are tens, hundreds of private think-tanks, which
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

are busy exclusively with this matter. Thus, the legal decision-makers of our
society are occupied only with the problems raised in the past. Private
individuals and groups are busy designing the future. These groups work for
financial and political interest groups, certain influential shadow actors, who
have access to the highest executive figures in the government. They predict,
generate and evaluate scenarios for future actions. The generated multiple
scenarios produced according to designers interests are flying in the air.
Eventually one of them will surely fly to the highest decision-maker.
As a rule, 99% of ordinary people have only moderate abilities to generate
ideas and be in the vanguard of future design. Accordingly, a President also
needs advice on this matter. He must love advisers who would every day
whisper seemingly great ideas about miraculous future actions for free.:
If the president takes this advice, after one or two steps he becomes an addicted
slave of these advisers. He doesnt know how to continue the initiated
process and asks for new advice (the crisis of a bully described for the case of
Fig. 6). With each following step he sinks further in the swamp created by these
advisers. In such cases, as a rule, along with scenario generators and
suppliers, there is a central manipulator, who orchestrates the process of
enlightenment and clearly recognizes that he is playing a colossal game.
Although current games are dealing with the fate of humanity, these people
continue to play no matter the price.
Most policies and initiatives in 2000-2008 and current projects in Afghanistan
( war on terror, axis of evil , unilateral extreme and unreasoned actions
against sovereign nations, single terrorists, groups etc) were adventurous moves
designed to satisfy group and ethnic interests within the USA. Instead of
dealing with expected large economic and geopolitical changes, the US went
into a misguided and costly war in Iraq according to an uncalculated scenario.
Time and the image of the West were lost. The presidency of George W. Bush
and the subsequent economic turmoil of 2008 will stay as textbook examples of
decision-making failures. Today, the US continues to spend its shrinking
resources and social strength on problems offered and artificially created by
group interests. Tomorrow these interest groups will disappear from the stage,
but the initiated problems may destroy our civilization.
Arik Hart

· The government reactively responds to problems and is
coping with problems raised in the past
· In global matters the highest decision-maker acts according
to private advice and guidance

Mechanisms of Advance
Advancing Democracy
For different countries different motives of democratization may be essential.
Historically, a main element of replication of democracy in other countries was
the success of Great Britain. The governing advantage brought by democracy
later allowed Britain to get a worldwide supremacy quickly. This change in
Britains functionality in external relations showed in practice that if
implemented, democratic mechanisms could be equally successful for external
success as well. By becoming a world power, Great Britain regained the states
regular cellular structure. The British society perfectly understood that their
achievements were a result of democracy and was smart enough to strictly
uphold the democratic social culture intellectually.
· The history of Europes democratization shows that if serviced
correctly, after the implementation, a democratic state can be effective
in non-island conditions as well.
This is an important peculiarity, because currently the whole world is
discussing the problem of democratization in Third World countries and in
rising new powers.
In contrast to the theoretical, idealistic image described earlier, the real
democracy has its specifics in different countries. In recent years, along with
globalization and sophistication of the uni-polar political world, we see
growing deformations of this image even in the hubs of democracy. During the
Cold War era, the political tension between the two camps required permanent
clarity of the western democratic environment and in decision-making. Now,
because of absolute supremacy of the superpower, we see how the group,
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

corporate, ethnic and religious interests distort the image of democracy in the
West and throughout the world.
The West desires Third World countries to accept democracy, because it has
proven to be effective in the West. Apparently this is an extreme
oversimplification of the situation. Most of these countries may formally accept
democracy, but it is unclear if there are genuine conditions for democracy there.
We have emphasized that Protestantism is the cornerstone of western
democracy. Without a similar mindset one can hardly pursue democratic values
in any social environment. Even a religious belief close to Protestantism -
Orthodox Christianity, does not honor individual rights adequately. Can a
society, which prefers religious vs. individual goals, be democratic? If a nation
or society declares a collective religious dream as a primary goal and ignores
individual rights, how can democracy be implemented or survive in that
society? There can not be two opposing major and simultaneously ruling social
forces within one society. The notion that the church and the government
affairs are separate in modern countries is not fully applicable to these societies.
The Protestant society represents an entity with essential attitudes rooted in its
religious and historical philosophy. Similarly, other societies carry their
philosophy rooted in their vision of the world. By examining the value system
of a society one can judge if a country is capable to accept democracy or just
mimic it. Many Third-World societies and countries pretend to be democratic
in order to be accepted into global politics and get western political shelter and
financial support.
Trade and information spread much faster than culture, beliefs and traditions
change. In some growing economies, people become billionaires in a matter of
months, but their social and personal behavior remains unchanged. Are the
newborn Russian, Chinese, Indian or Mexican billionaires democratic in their
minds or personal behavioral philosophy? Are we confident that the wealth and
global information will convert every society into a democratic one, in the
matter of one, two generations? These are still theoretical questions which need
to be answered.
The advance in trade seems indomitable. Information and technologies
continue to flow into the hubs of Eastern production centers, but are social
changes in these countries equally adequate? People expect fairness and
Arik Hart

improvement of their life, but change is lagging behind in these countries. The
so-called partial democracy rules there. The West invented this term in order
to validate the existence of loyal to the West, but deficient and sometimes
criminal regimes in localities.
Two distortions are coming into contact now in localities: the biased, deformed
western democracy and local traditions, often honoring values opposing
democracy. Both of them pretend to be fair: the West closes its eyes to
continuing electoral fraud and unjust social practices; the locals pretend to be
pursuing democracy.
For any society which intends to pursue democracy, the understanding of its
initial social, political, cultural and religious parameters must be the first step.
Precisely this knowledge is the cornerstone of relations within a society. The
acceptance of democratic principles represents a colossal task of mental and
cultural transformation for local societies.
Western democracies have seen economic fluctuations during the last century
and were capable of sustaining such ups and downs. The impressive growth of
Eastern economies coincided with the formal spread of democracy as well.
When the economic growth was positive, it was easy for non-democratic
governments to comply with simple limitations of implanted democracy. But
it is a question, whether they will honor democracy in times of economic

Human Rights

If asked, what the main achievement of democracy in comparison with other
social constructions is, many would mention the individual rights prerogative.
The rights issue has some ambiguity in it, because of confusion in the terms
individual rights and human rights. We consider that individual rights are
connected with our economic and civil accomplishments as acting economic
subjects, while human rights are out of national, religious and economic
dimensions and given to any human being as social guarantees of humane
treatment. In rich western societies, because of high living standards, the human
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

rights issue has lost most of its sharp aspects. While the human and individual
rights of people are properly respected and balanced in legal matters, in higher
functional levels the equality in rights is of less value. Capitalism assumes
economic inequality; therefore people become used to accept non-economic
inequalities, such as social, civil and political inequalities as well. The western
societies live perfectly with these deformations and certainly have the best
record on the rights protection among other societies.
The human rights appreciation is different among different nations, religions
and societies. In each specific environment human rights are valued according
to the social culture of a given entity. The western interpretation of human
rights may partially be presented or completely neglected in local value
systems, but the important thing is that the majority of people in these locations
will value their concept of human rights higher than the western standard.
Entrance of democracy into these societies is blocked specifically by these
incompatibilities, rather than economic or other social differences.


Human society is a dynamic entity which changes with time. It is highly
conservative, but there are mechanisms within its construction which provide
means for changes. A progressing society has the ability to filter and accept
new knowledge, technological innovations and eventually culture as well. The
filtered information creates new conditions in the society, in which new and old
traditions are slowly merging. The schematization of this process reveals very
important details (Fig 11). At any moment, a society lives in an environment
created according to conservative traditions and modern ideas and practices.
The society rests at the crossroad of two currents; of the old, proven and
accepted traditions, values, myths and rituals and new knowledge, which
comes from innovators and is yet unverified. There are individuals in the
society (among celebrities, revolutionary vanguard, radicals, certain group
members, elite, scientists, high professionals, technocrats, etc), who are
enthusiastic to accept any invention (Fig 11, stage 1). They take these new
Arik Hart

ideas and begin to use them in their everyday life. The motivations of such
behavior are extremely broad. The shortest and most rational explanation of it
is that such behavior is their nature. On the other hand, by doing this they
accomplish several extremely important functions for the society:
· They carry out initial screening among multitudes of newly proposed
· They question the old stereotypes of the society and recommend new
· By persistently introducing new inventions into life, they voluntarily
evaluate the social value of the invention and eventually introduce it to
They act very much like people volunteering to test new drugs. These people
risk to looking foolish, losing respect, social position and much more, but they
do this. No other member of
society personally sacrifices
more for societal progress than
these people. Even the inventors
remain in the shadow, because
they dont initially advertise
risky innovations. These people
define the narrow path, through
which the New goes into the
society. Whatever is passed
through these peoples minds and
hearts shapes the next turn of our
development. Such people act
during phases 1 and 2. Another
small portion of the society - the
extreme wing of conservatives - is
actively opposing to any new
changes. At these stages the
overwhelming majority of society
is inert. It neither accepts nor
rejects the innovations. It passively

Old knowledge

New knowledge
1. Changing society
2. Some members of the society accept
new knowledge
3. Young members of the society get
comfortable with new knowledge
4. Society accepts changes in the form
of new rituals.
5. New traditions and myths are being
set up as conservative values
6. Current society
7. Decision-makers

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

follows what the outcome of the clash between the radicals and conservatives
eventually will be. They dont judge, dont participate in this battle, they wait.
In order for new inventions to be accepted by the society, several other stages
need to be accomplished. With a small time lag, the young generation finds it
reasonable to accept practical innovations and discard less meaningful ones
(stage 3). At this stage, thanks to the young generation, the balance of opinions
among the inert people shifts towards the new approaches and the battle for the
new goes further into the society (stage 4). The majority rushes onto the scene
and takes the innovation as its own invention, and nobody remembers who did
what during the initial battle of opinions. Very often we even consider a not
related, new person as the real inventor of the new (stage 5). At this stage a
myth about the invention as a useful procedure, thing, behavior, style, occupies
the minds of almost the whole society. This myth travels into all remote spots
of the society and establishes a homogeneous in relation to the new, tolerable
society. This society is already an old, conservative, traditional society (stage
6). Stage 6 is a phase where conservators, pessimists, optimists and the
majority of the people live most of the time. The problems of this stage
motivate innovators to create, radicals - to criticize the existing present, others -
wait until their time to act comes.
Radicals and oppositionists do not accept the present time and present reality.
They always look into future, for other, new ways of life. They permanently
live and function in stage 1. This stage is not a comfortable living space, though
the people mentioned live there permanently. Stages 3-5 do not represent
permanent living spaces. These are mostly imaginary phases during which
processes occur. People living in stage 6 participate in all processes described
for the other phases. Part of the crowd, regulating the passage of the new into
society acts in stage 1, but may permanently live in stages 1, 2 and 6. Phase 2 is
a permanent exhibition, revelation and intrigue. It is the frontline of our
I didnt mention the place of decision-makers and their crowd in this scheme.
In essence, these people are out of this scheme. They live in a separate reality
(Ring 7) which is out of social processes. They dont participate in the process
of social development, but actively interact with the main circle (spiral) as a
conservative force.

Arik Hart

This scheme represents the dynamics of social development. It doesnt describe
the division of the society according to the value system and ideology.
Depending on internal oppositions, the accumulated changes in box 6 initiate
new political processes inside the society. Different societies and nations
exhibit different capabilities of generating and accepting innovations.
Apparently the American society showed the highest dynamics in this sphere
and greatly benefited from this ability.
· Societies possess certain mechanisms, enabling permanent reception of
new approaches, solutions, techniques, innovations into their practices,
culture and toolbox.
· This process is carried out by different motivated and independent
people, who perform according to their personal intentions and
affiliations. They act individually and in opposition to socially
established opinions. They do not serve external or internal goals and
do not expect to be compensated in any way.
· The government is dissociated from innovation and acts as
guardian of existing principles.
· This scheme is functional as a long term mechanism of social advance.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Career Advance

The described spiral process of development is typical for social advance. The
progress in individual and private spheres can be described with a different
The scheme of career moves in private
sphere is presented in Figure 12. A
motivated individual acts according to
the following setup: He/she chooses a
sphere, where he/she thinks can be
successful. By coming up with a
decision on what to do and initiating
some activity, the person enters into
level 1. (1, 2, 3, 4 represent levels of
career moves and achievements). At
level 1 the person launches his
professional activities. As time goes on,
he becomes more professional in the
sphere and is capable of accomplishing
higher volumes of work. If he succeeds,
he enlarges his activities into larger areas
5 (described by middle and larger
ellipses at the level 1). This expansion of
activity represents a quantitative growth. Most of small businesses people stop
at this level of activity. Many high professionals are functioning at this level.
Sometimes even rich businessmen act predominantly on this level. For
example, multiple restaurant owners or entrepreneurs specialized in a narrow
field function on this level. This uni-level functionality was and is the main
component of the American dream - to have a reliable job and create wealth via
simple expansion.
The performance on this level may be simple intellectually, but is highly
competitive as a field of operation. People who are reluctant to compete more
sophistically do whatever it takes to stay on this level. Competition in this field

-Motivated individual,
1, 2, 3, 4- Levels of intensive
(qualitative) expansion, 5 -
Areas of extensive
(quantitative) expansion 6-
Business career elevator
Arik Hart

boosts innovations, which provide diversity and technological progress as well.
Some of us who demonstrated superior functionality and achievements on level
1, or are motivated to explore other options, may consider expanding activities
in other spheres. At the moment a person may be functional on any of ellipses
of level 1. He may be a successful boss, already expanded in the largest areas,
or a motivated professional rationally evaluating his potentials. Levels 1 and 2
may differ in one or multiple aspects. The difference can be the field, subject,
idea, functionality, complexity, etc. During the passage from level 1 to level 2
the person may terminate or continue his activities on level 1. Level 2 requires
new knowledge, new abilities, a different value system, attitude and stance on
many questions, etc. A newcomer may get the wrong impression about the
differences between the areas and levels. In essence, the difference is crucial.
The expansion within the areas requires the ability to work scrupulously, hard
and with the use of technological innovations. Passage into higher levels
requires innovative, relational and managerial abilities.
The need to move up has several objective motivations.
· The competition on level 1 is severe. Too many people invested all their
potential at this level and do not see other ways but to compete through
gradual improvements rather than by radical changes.
· The quantitative expansion is limited because the society has a limited
consumption of certain services and products.
· Upper levels are attractive for ambitious people who accept challenges
and explore new spheres.
· Family traditions require higher positions and activities.
On Level 2, one may find that competition here is qualitative, rather than
quantitative. The space is more open for new ideas. Much of the success
depends on knowledge, creativity, new approaches, tactics, etc. On level 2 a
new round of horizontal, quantitative expansion and competition takes place.
The higher levels are being filled similarly with the same analogy and ideology.
The higher the level, the higher is the scientific innovation, knowledge, new
relations and freedom to create. The higher levels of business activity include
more financial, banking and relational components. The passage into higher
hierarchies of activities goes via the career elevator (6), which carries out
screening functions as well. In order to be accepted into the elevator and go
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

higher, one must show proof about successful accomplishments on lower
levels. As a rule the elevator moves only one level up at a time. This elevator is
the main elevator serving in business spheres.

Career Advance in Decision Making

While moving higher, a person gains
better positions to operate
individually and express himself. He
organizes his new business and
arranges an executive pyramid
where the management is organized
from top to bottom (pyramid 1 In
Figure 13). He appoints supervisors
to manage downwards. On each
level there are executives personally
aspiring to move up. Professionally,
they have a specified freedom to
manage down, according to general
instructions from above. In this
executive scheme, there is a limited
freedom of operations even one step
lower from the top. As a career
environment, the pyramid is filled by
professionals hired according to legal
promotion mechanisms, through
competition (elevator 2).
For career advancement in the governmental hierarchy, especially in less
exposed spheres, moves are mostly carried out by appointment. In these cases,
parallel to official career elevator, a shadow mechanism of elevation works
1. Executive hierarchical pyramid
with stratification
2. Elevator of legal of promotion
3. Shadow elevator
4. Pool of interest group backed
candidates waiting to be lifted.

Fig. 13





Arik Hart

(Fig 13, 3). This shadow elevator has continued to work throughout human
history and is even more active today than ever before. The shadow elevator
has only two levels - the ground level, and the top level, from where
appointment to any lower level positions takes place. The highest decision-
making subjects and group interest persons are in close relations. The high
executive deliberately appoints a group interest candidate (from pool 4) into a
position without competition between this individual and officially applying
professional. As a result, the positions in governmental hierarchy are getting
filled by group interest people and soon entire spheres are becoming controlled
by group interest. The career growth of group interest candidates is organized
properly and cant be disputed easily. There is no strict mechanism of selection
which would restrict such moves. Because many positions are already occupied
with interest group candidates, the process of newcomers enrollment into the
levels is not a problem at all.
The relative activity of two elevators depends on the degree of corruption of top
executive levels.
The success of a person in a position depends on his performance, ambitions
and personal relations with others. A career person usually reaches a certain
level of hierarchy and stays there, due to limits of his/her professional,
organizational and social-communicative abilities.
There is a largely acknowledged opinion that in our career we occupy the
position at which we are highly competent. According to Laurence Peter s
Principle, humorously presented in his 1968 book, professionals reach and
permanently occupy a position one step higher than their level of competence.
The Peter s Principle says that in his/her career, a person goes up and reaches a
level, from which a step higher he/she will be incompetent. He strives to
continue his career and applies for a higher position. People around are eager to
promote him/her, because the person was successful at lower levels and the
chance is high that he/she will be successful higher as well. As a result, he/she
gets the promotion. Now he/she faces some problems in performance, but
people around think that he/she will eventually get used to new requirements
with time. As a rule, by making personal connections with others, the
individual eventually gets incorporated into the system faster as a person, rather
than as a professional. Personal connections and some mechanical proficiency
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

in his duties keep him/her on this level, where - in essence - the person is
incompetent. Taking into account the fact that lower levels of professional
activity are the basic paths of career advance for many people, it is reasonable
to assume that these levels are completed mostly by competent professionals.
The higher the career level, the lower are the dynamics of change; and the
higher is the chance that the person there will be not competent, since the level
is permanently occupied with people who reached their level of
There is great deal of ingenuity in this principle and I think that exclusively this
eccentricity of our professional evaluation helps the shadow elevator stay
There is widespread belief that in a democracy, the shadow elevator is mostly
disabled or limited to small moves for family members or friends. This is an
oversimplification - the mechanism of connections-driven success is a part of
human nature, and its impact is enormous. There are many indications that in
high executive and often elective positions the shadow elevator works in full
power and family members category represents just a small portion of
elevator s passengers. The bigger flow consists of group interest mediated
career moves, which are achieved via kickbacks, compensations and expensive
favors. Furthermore, in highest decision-making spheres, most of
passengers reach their positions only via the shadow elevator. Although
certain people reach higher echelons of power through family member and
connection driven channels, they represent lower risks for the society. As a
rule, such people have less powerful connections, limited personal potential for
further advance and are usually stuck at the last pushed level of hierarchy. In
contrast, through the shadow elevator interest groups fill most of the
appointed positions and in essence control entire decision-making.
Unfortunately, during recent years, the activity of shadow elevators is growing
at an extremely high pace. Practically all spheres of governance are suffering
under the pressure of this machine. The shadow practices have already
developed into elements of culture. Because no mechanisms work against this
elevator, it is becoming more powerful and sophisticated. The culture of
shadow advance is well known to non-naïve people. The traditions and
philosophy of this culture shape the behavior of future professionals.
Arik Hart

Specifically, this culture coaches individuals long before their expected actual
career moves into the targeted positions. It teaches them principles, nuances
and techniques of interest games. This culture corrupts and degrades normal
young, bright professionals and converts them into extraordinary careerists,
ready to serve group interests, to lie, to be blind to urgent social problems and
human tragedies. It shapes most of our future leaders, representatives and other
governmental administrators.
What are the factors which keep the shadow elevator this powerful? Some of
the factors are rooted in human nature and hence unmanageable. The other part
is subjective and can be managed, though it is under the control of interest
Among the objective factors are:
· The tolerance of society towards mistakes of renowned people (A
mythical and biblical truth)
· The apparatus of any decision-making institution represents a mosaic
of knowledgeable impartial professionals and interest group people
implemented by the shadow elevator. In this mixed environment, it is
hard to judge who is professional and who is not.
· Higher levels are occupied mostly by people who reached their level of
incompetence, who tend to support each other.
· Human inability to instantly evaluate the results of a wrong decision.
We evaluate things only in comparison. For ongoing processes and
hardly comparable things we get the real estimation only after a time
lag, when the outcome becomes apparent. For big political mistakes
this lag may be as long as years and decades.
At any moment none of us are taken seriously when we question this or that
initiative. Let s remember the Congress approval of neoconservatives idea to
attack Iraq: the overwhelming majority of Congressmen supported the idea
without questioning the motives and facts. Only later, under the revelations of
the new, unpredicted situation, did many Congressmen accept their mistake. As
a rule, people consider a conservative, self confident, calm attitude, which is
dominant among officials, as truthful (Dick Cheneys phenomenon), and obey
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The career moves in MM also represent great importance for the society. The
MM is designed as a sphere where professionalism is to be valued first. In a
monopolized MM, instead of professionalism, unequivocal conformism is
currently in power. The group interest involvement in deliberate appointments
in MM is out of common sense limits and in essence, appalling.
· The executive branch of democratic governments is organized in the
form of a hierarchical pyramid. Direct appointments are typical for the
decision-making apparatus.
· The need to correct the mechanisms of career advance requires urgent
attention, because most of current negative initiatives and continuing
harmful practices are rooted specifically in this deformation. In a
democratic society the defective mechanisms of appointment and
election are the most critical aspects of governance.
Driving Forces and Motives in
Personal, Social and State Affairs

While an entrepreneur is free to do whatever he finds appropriate, necessary or
desirable, a paid worker or an elected public person must act according to the
responsibilities and commitments his position prescribes. In essence, in high
governmental hierarchies an individual accomplishes two goals: 1 - pursues
his/her personal objectives and 2 - carries out positional, professional
responsibilities. Depending on personal settings, ambitions and pressure of the
environment, this individual may allocate different efforts to these goals. This
means that different people will perform differently at the same position, no
matter how strict professional requirements are. Different reasonable people
may express different ambitions in pursuing his/her private interests. Someone
may become satisfied with a decent job and salary; another may continue to
pursue a Nobel Prize or presidency no matter the difficulties and the immense
Arik Hart

Obviously, this approach loses its objectivity, when we consider the actions of
fanatics. Even the latter person is less motivated in comparison to someone
who has no common sense in his actions and is driven by fanaticism. In this
respect, accomplishment on higher social and state hierarchies requires
extraordinary drive, since people in these positions must compete with foreign
counterparts, who are often pressured or driven by fanatical personal or public
Current state affairs require highly sophisticated structures and functions.
Service in state structures requires extraordinary knowledge, drive and
devotion, bordering fanaticism. The destruction of empires was a result of the
discord between leaders ambitions, elites overall drive and the complexity of
the states problems. In other words it was a result of bad management in
complicated state affairs.
Society has no reliable tools to test the performance of a candidate before
appointing or electing the person to such a position.
Cardiologists found a unique method to check heart functionality. The person
undergoes a stress test . During the test, the heart is watched under the
workload and deficiencies, which are not visible in relaxed conditions, become
severe during the test. Society has not yet discovered a similar test for its
leaders and we see their accomplishment only when they are already granted
full power to rule. If an incapable person is in the middle of the hierarchic
ladder, he can be replaced by a more capable one. If such a person is on the top
of hierarchy, there are no mechanisms to recall him/her, and he functions as
is .
The problem is not in low professionalism of the leader, but in insufficient
personal ambitions and drive , which motivate him to act. It is the
complication of the situation and lack of equivalent drive which results in
insufficient management.
The incentives, which give comfort to a leader, arent attractive in condition of
complicated state affairs. For example many high bank executives refused to
continue employment when millions of dollars worth of bonuses were not
allowed to be granted to them (April 2009). In our days, when group interest
has entered into all significant levels of decision making, lack of motivation of
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

the leaders becomes a critical factor of the states functionality and gives extra
strength to group interest to offer its solutions to problems.

Relational Networks

Each of us is involved in specific
relations with other people. These
relations include multiple
reciprocal components, which
represent an approximate
cumulative balance of
relationships between the two
individuals. The aggregate
relationships can be drawn as a
balanced equilibrium quantified
according to the weights and
corresponding arms (levers x
and y) of persons in relations (In
the theory of social networks (a)
and (b) are defined as Nodes and x+y as Ties) In Fig 14 1,2,3 and 4, possible
types of relations and resulting balances are schematized. 1 describes a case
when relations of two individuals are fair according to an external viewer. 2 and
3 describe cases when the relations are more beneficial to the individual on the
right. The weight (case 2) is attributed to extensive potentials of the
individual - such as administrative, social, and material positions of a person,
his overall wealth, etc. The arm (case 3) defines the individual s personal
intensive abilities - relational power. It includes personal communicative skills,
influence in decision-making hierarchy (through private connections),
flexibility, ingenuity, etc. The influence may comprise solely personal
psychological domination over a particular person, or may also include network
connections behind this particular relation. Thus, without any history of
2 3
Fig 14
Arik Hart

interrelations, individual (b) has extra influence over person (a) due to his/her
initial privileges, qualities, connections, etc. If the positional (weight) and
relational (arm) factors are combined (and usually this is the common case),
then interrelations between these two individuals are extremely misbalanced
(case 4). In extreme case such relations may be comparable to slave - master
relations. It is important to mention that this is a default setting which is
effective, even when the real activity in relations is absent completely. Often an
individual, dominant in a certain relationship, can be in the slave position
in relations with others (case 5 c, d).
The misbalanced equilibrium is a societal setting, which cannot be
changed easily. At the initial point of interaction neither the stronger side (b)
exerts any efforts to achieve superiority over the person (a), nor does the
weaker side somehow participate in the development of the misbalanced
relation. As a rule, in the process of building up practical relations, individual
(a) considers initial misbalance acceptable and usually tends to honor it, while
individual (b) strives to obtain even better positioning and presses the
individual (a) for more concessions.
The described principle is valid for relations between all types of subjects,
including individuals, parties, states, negotiators, heads of the states, etc.
The established misbalance will last as long as it satisfies both sides.
The relations are abandoned only when one of the sides refuses to
serve the misbalance any longer. In a marriage, the corresponding event is
a divorce; in the work place - lay-off or resignation, in politics it is a new law,
walk-out from negotiations or the announcement of war.
The relations in societal level are making the misbalance even
worse, since a new component - network synergy - enters into play.
Since, individuals (a) and (b) belong to different mindset; they interact,
communicate and socialize mostly with their type of people. Thus two different
networks a(n) /a1, a2, a3, a4, etc/ and b(m) /b1, b2, b3, b4 etc/ are functional
for these different groups of people. The areas of influence of these networks
can be represented as areas of circles a(n) and b(m) (Fig 15).
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The proportion of the networks b(m) and a(n) represents the actual effective
power of the group of people (bm) over the people (an) in involved aspects of
activity. It is essential to mention that the (m) is much smaller than (n) since
individuals b represent mostly the managing, ruling entity. Networks (an) and
(bm) usually have fundamentally different views and opinions practically on
every socially sound events, facts and solutions, since they have different
Obviously there are numerous networks within one society, having slightly
different constructions and internal organizational peculiarities (right diagram
on the Fig 15).
In a broad sense, relational networks can be attributed to social networks.
Though, contrary to social networks, which are built on mutually desirable
associations or affiliations, relational networks represent different layers of a
society having in essence opposing or critically different attitudes on issues and
political goals.
Over time, the interaction of networks formed by groups (an) and (bm),
deepens the misbalance between the opposing individuals and networks. Due to
dominance, the b (n) networks get more concessions from the opposite
networks a(n). In everyday life this divide is expressed by the increasing
segregation between the wealthy and poor layers of the society. Specifically,
the increasing divide between different layers of society generates economic,
societal, cultural and political crises, which require fundamental changes.
Usually a more acceptable new balance becomes established only after serious
social, economic or political turmoil and with the change of old players.
Relational networks constitute the organic part of any society. They operate
according to an internal agreement (usually unfair), which is accepted by the
members of the networks and by the society in the whole.
The existence of different groups within a society produces confusion in
understanding of their particular goals and principles. Often interest groups
b(m) a(n)
b3 b4
Fig 15
Arik Hart

mimic relational or social networks, in order to be accepted by the society.
Contrary to interest groups, which have no opposite networks and operate in
essence against the whole society, relational networks (a) and (b) are tied to
each other. Specifically, individual ties between each a and b pairs design the
relations within and between the networks a(n) and b(m). None of these
networks can benefit from external potentials without sharing them with the
opposite network.
The network a(n) is considered as naïve by the dominant mass-psychology of
current societies, since it is less sophisticated. The actual problem is not the
sophistication itself, but the type of connections within the networks. The
network a(n) is open for the truth, since it has nothing to hide. The b(n) network
is a closed network, since it is built on misbalance and tends to cover the truth.
In external relations of the states, usually two b(n) networks interact, which
was OK up to the stage of the single-polar world. In the global world, the
transparency of interrelations reduces the gap between naïve and sophisticated
networks in open spheres. In its turn, this change brings a great deal of
uncertainty in current geopolitics, in unilateral and multilateral international
relations, which are grounded in absolute military power or deceptive

Interest Groups
Spheres and Targets

Unfortunately during the transition from the bipolar to uni-polar world, the
influence of interest groups has become disproportionably high. Most
destructive problems of the current world are associated with the activities of
interest groups. The group interest is presented in all spheres of our society,
ranging from financial to ethnic, economic to health care, from military affairs
to arm sales, etc.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

In essence, an interest group tunnels its interests (over the social agendas and
procedures of approval) right into the stages of final legislative approval or
decision-making. Since we dont see many revelations of such practices we
must assume that most of the unbiased discussion of group interest problems is
successfully blocked in Mass Media as well. Accordingly, it is reasonable to
conclude that the MM is equally controlled by the same interest groups. There
are taboo questions and even large spheres of socially- sound interests, when
even an apparent truth is considered heretics.
Regrettably, the current construction of democratic societies allows the dictate
of group interest over the decision-making on practically all levels of
governance. There are no effective social and political mechanisms against
interest groups. Main areas and targets of interests groups include foreign
relations, banking, finances, , news media, healthcare system, spheres in
businesses etc.
As mentioned, upon the transition from single subject to collective
representation, the responsibility for decision-making goes down from 1 to 0.
The governmental official is supposed to be accountable towards the society,
but at close to 0 responsibly, obviously, he/she has great freedom to act
voluntarily. Specifically this irresponsiveness of the governmental official is the
target of group interest. In practice any governmental official or elected
representative is actually under the pressure of two factors: interest groups and
social concerns.
What is the resulting balance of these pressures?
Public pressure is mainly a vague tension. As a rule, it is an imaginary threat a
threat not to love the official in case he/she does something bad. This
pressure advises mostly to be passive rather than proactive. It tends to block the
decision-maker s freedom.
The interest group guidance is the opposite. It is specific and attractive: on
lower levels it offers tangible incentives, on higher levels, - it advises . It
advises practically for free, expecting just favors in exchange.
Usually, the advice is a deceitful conspiracy, packaged to appear like a genius
initiative, which will bring recognition for the decision-maker and promising
changes for society or humanity. The substantiation of such advice is in
ideological sphere and works through transcendent channels.
Arik Hart

As we see, the pressures exerted by group interest and society are far from
being equal. There are other specifics in this equation as well. The public is
physically far from the decision-maker, but the interest group member sits in
the same building: he is among his official advisers.
Since the interest groups have equal representation in both major parties, they
take needed steps to shape public opinion on a particular issue long before it
appears on the table of the decision-maker. In international affairs, the
controversy is covered by bipartisan patriotism; in internal affairs; - by
bipartisan concerns.
The sophisticated social structure of advanced democracies contains ruptures
which allow group interest to lobby its interests in decision-making levels, and
eventually gain enormous shadow influence. In some cases, whole areas of
governmental competencies are under the control of group interest.
The interest groups work on all possible public and social fronts and spheres.
They ask, offer and advise the public on whom to elect. They ask, offer and
advise elected subjects and decision-makers on what to do. Finally, they dictate
to MM what to distort, what to tell, and what to conceal.
As a result of interest group influence, the legislators implement dishonest laws,
Presidents authorize bloody wars and people get fed false information. Interest
groups squeeze and get from every subject whatever is necessary. The
flourishing activity of group interests in western democracies is a result of the
ignorance of some critical requirements of democracy, including homogeneity
and equal rights issues:
The western societies think that because in democracy the majority rules,
there are no dangers from minor groups having different attitudes. This is a
deceptive impression. The minor groups dont act according to their numerical
potential. They use covert, uncontrolled, antisocial methodologies and are
gaining disproportional influence. The mechanism of real democracy doesnt
have tools against interests, pursued secretly.
Though the techniques and approaches of Mafia and group interest may appear
similar, their impact on society is incomparable. The main goals of the Mafia
are in the economic sphere. The interest groups pursue mainly political goals.
If the Mafia is happy with limited criminal activities, the interest groups act on
the highest political, economic, scientific, cultural and practically all other
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

spheres and levels of the society. In order to carry out criminal activities the
Mafia enters into alliance with governmental individuals. Group interest enters
into the governing structures and decides itself. In our times, interest lobbying
has become a specialty, a consortium of certain small but extremely influential
groups and nations, ruling over entire governments, including parliaments.
Executives, acting on behalf of group interest manage to block all possible
sources of information to the large public. Behind the iron curtains of
totalitarianism, the Soviet people were much more aware about what was going
on inside the country and abroad than a freely informed US citizen can
imagine today.

Methods of Interest Groups

Depending on the country, corruption may have different levels of occupancy
within the layers of society and governmental institutions. The higher the
cultural, developmental level of the society, the more covert and invisible the
corruption is.
In a poor country, the corruption is visible. It is on the streets, at every step. It is
in the relations of all members of the society. In this extreme case, corruption is
a tool which helps the society to stay alive physically. Such corruption solves
peoples everyday survival problems, though it blocks any social progress and
justice. Governmental workers, who deal with the people, demand to be paid
for accomplishing their duties: the postman takes money from ordinary people
to deliver, the policemen, judges and prosecutors take money to not punish for
nothing. Tax collectors, customs officials, etc, all take money to do or not to do
something. People often wonder where the corruption comes from - from the
bottom or from the top. Executives in power blame the local culture; they
allege that people are lawless in their social behavior. Contrary to this, people
say that the fish start smelling bad from the head first. This seems to be
precisely the case for poor countries. The proof is straightforward: In a poor
Arik Hart

country the governmental officials have the power to approve or disapprove,
punish or block any initiatives. They can raise different barriers against
ordinary people without a proper reason. The only way to overcome the official
is to obey and pay the demanded. People pay in order to be allowed to function
according to laws.
· They dont pay to overcome the law; they pay to enforce the law.
In these societies there is only one group of interest - the government itself. No
group can function there - the resources are too scarce, even for this small
group of thieves. In these societies the level of corruption doesnt depend on the
declared social construction. The country can identify itself any way it wants. It
can even have all formal institutions of democracy, but still be extremely far
from it.
In developed societies, corruption is excluded from the lower levels of
governance. Governmental officials carry their duties without corruption.
Moreover, they are paid sufficiently to decline any offer for favoritism in
exchange for bribes. Though corruption is not effective in everyday life, it is
effective on higher levels of interests.
There is a neat indicator of the existence of corruption in a developed country:
if an ordinary citizen can see that a social, political, or other problem stays
unsettled for years, it means that the problem is under the protection of interest
groups; somebody is benefiting from that abnormality.
How can the interest group do this? In order to keep the problem as it is, they
must continually block the legislators or executives accountable for the
problem from solving the problem.
There are two mechanisms: - kickbacks and psychological influence. The
psychological influence cant be effective for legislators. It is too hard to
hypnotize so many people. Kickbacks work here. It is wrong to name this
corruption . As mentioned earlier, corruption is a demand on the part of a
governmental official to get extra pay in exchange for a positive favor. In
western societies the offer comes from the interest group.
· Contrary to the case in poor countries, an interest group offers pay not
to enforce the law, but to block or change it according to interests
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The interest group practice is different in essence; it offers the kickback. The
reaction of the bribed official may be based on either temptation or fear.
Temptation - the governmental official has no initial idea that he/she can be
paid for some strange activities on his/her part. He/she sees that opportunity
only after the offer is on the table. Later he/she may possibly get used to such
favors and find other buyers according to the primitive corruption scheme as
well. But as a rule, initial offers usually come from interest groups.
Fear - the governmental official already knows that a certain problem is under
the control of group interest. He/she knows that if he/she tries to get involved
against it, he will be punished: not reelected, lose his post, etc.
Evidently the existing abnormalities were initially implemented according to
the first mechanism (temptation), but they stay alive due to the second
mechanism. With time, the second component, fear of fighting against
already established realities - became a critical factor of moral corruption. Any
position holder is perfectly aware of the issues, fields of interests and
distortions. He/she accepts these abnormalities and behaves loyally, with the
sole aim of not jeopardizing personal career and wellbeing.
Along with these two components there is also a permanent player in this
process, who perpetually reminds officials to behave properly. This
intermediate actor is the lobbyist. The lobbying activities are permissible by
American laws.


The validity of lobbying is grounded on the right to petition which
originates from the medieval English Parliament. In its current expression
lobbying has nothing to do with the right to petition. Lobbying activities are
partially regulated by different governmental decrees. Currently, lobbyism is
active in all spheres of governmental power on a massive scale. It is not clear if
a certain law specifically describes the list of interests, entities and subjects
which the lobbyist may represent. It is reasonable to assume that any human
interest can be lobbied. The lobbyist-governmental official negotiation is
Arik Hart

Bill Clinton has said. What gives the lobbyists influence is the people who hire
them to work for them. It's all the people they represent.
Lobbyism has a hierarchically well organized complex structure, which serves
the interests of different entities. The type and nature of the entities is diverse: it
can be a group of producers or service providers in a business area, a state, or a
nation, intended to get favorable treatment or privileges. Usually, the lobbyists
are universal and open for brokerage on any matter. Thanks to connections,
they can act in any capacity and area. In general, lobbyism serves subjects
having high financial, business, national, military or political interests.
Congressmen are elected to represent the interests of their constituency. By
interfering with the activities of congressmen and guiding them to behave
according to group interests, the lobbyist in essence steals all the shares of
power of citizens of the electoral district. If a lobbyist lobbies a certain question
before different congressmen, then a single lobbyist can get laws, regulations
and even final decisions, desirable for himself, but negative for the whole
country. This outcome alone may crush any belief in democracy.. Lobbyists
numbers are growing in Washington, DC, and this situation has continued
throughout decades. In three years (2005 - 2007) two formal regulations
designed to restrict lobbying activities were implemented, but instead, lobbyism
is booming. If lobbyists working with the Congress and with the President s
office continue to succeed in their goals, this country cant be considered
democratic anymore. The influence of group interest in external relations is
especially overwhelming. During the 2008 presidential elections John Edwards
ran on a platform of dismantling powerful group interest activities. Later,
democratic nominee Barack Obama made a commitment to accomplish this
goal. After a year in office, President Barack Obama didnt yet accomplish his
commitment to pressure lobbyism.
The problem of lobbyism is complex. It has to do with political freedoms and
tolerance of people. Common sense says that a society which accepts and
tolerates lobbying cant be considered democratic. A parliament working with
lobbyists cant be considered democratic.


Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

In bipolar world the opposition between competing camps was multi
dimensional: - military, political, social, cultural and economic. Each of these
areas was professionally managed from both sides. After the defeat of the
USSR, the western team of professionals was left without a proper challenger.
With time, because of the absence of a real opponent, the western team became
packed by non-professionals and interest group people. Currently, in this global
and uni-polar world, these professionals are offering ideas and solutions
which are not adequate and competitive anymore. They continue to simulate
the process of real work pursuing private interests and goals.
The impression is that much of what happens now in the world is spontaneous.
At the same time it is perceptible that many interest driven intentional moves
are being implemented into the process of our development as genuine ones.
Sometimes the false idea is wrapped in a realistic package, but in essence the
whole initiative is aimed at accomplishing hidden goals. For example, the
official narrative of the 2003 Iraq war was to remove "a regime that developed
and used weapons of mass destruction, which harbored and supported
terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the fair
demands of the United Nations and the world" (the reason, as described in
many official publications).
Not many people in reality bought this story at the time. But most of us
accepted the second, supposedly hidden layer of packaged conspiracy - the
unspoken oil factor . Later, there were indications that the real goal could be
utterly different: - to have a permanent US presence in an exclusively important
geopolitical spot the Persian Gulf. There was an actual fourth reason as well,
which will be discussed further. Thus, this war was covered with two, even
three external layers of conspiracy.
Officially the war was sold as humanistic. UN and humanity were
encouraged to support this kind initiative. In order to be attractive to less naïve
people, a covert reason, - the oil factor was presented in gossip mode as well.
The idea was simple: those who will not believe the official story will rely on
the second or third layer.
Individuals and interest groups use conspiracy techniques because the
conspiring subjects cant reach their goals by legal means. They have neither
the power nor the means to reach their goals, nor can they sell their
Arik Hart

adventurous, antisocial and overall criminal initiatives to civil decision-makers.
The only way is to encourage and influence the decision-makers to take this
goal into their own agenda and accomplish it as a genuinely useful task for the
people and society. The layers of conspiracy help the conspirers avoid
responsibility and attention in case of failure. In retrospect, at the end, it is
difficult to uncover which scenario was initially central. By layering the matter,
the conspirers generate an advantage in time as well: when people understand
the main essence of the process, it will be too late to stop it. Most importantly,
by introducing socially and politically sound but intriguing goals into the
discussion, conspirers acquire unintended but devoted supporters of declared
false ideas. In the process, the army of deceived people can hardly accept their
personal naivety and will continue to support initially false ideas.
Along with mentioned layers, the conspiracy packages also have protective
shells. One of these shells declares, Since there are no conspiracies in nature,
this cant be a conspiracy either. The other shell announces another myth
whoever believes in conspiracies is a narrow -minded idiot, unable to see the
larger, objective image of reality.
These shells work perfectly, because not many of us are ready to compromise
their earned intellectual image in front of the silent majority, trained to consider
conspiracy a myth.
The use of conspiracy is instinctive for human nature. We all tend to dream
about complex, sometimes unrealistic goals. There are legal ways to
accomplish such goals, but usually these goals are unreachable for ordinary
dreamers. In order to accomplish such goals some of us are ready to agitate,
convince, encourage and even bribe more powerful people to do that for us,
instead of us. In our everyday life, we so often use this tactic that we sometimes
dont even realize what we are doing. In higher hierarchies, such unintentional
favor may reach up to declaration of a devastating war half a planet away.
History knows hundreds of cases which were the results of conspiracies.
Many branches of governments act secretly. We, citizens, have an internal
watchdog which censors us, but refuses to question the ambiguous actions of
the government. In most of us, this watchdog is in full operation at any
moment. This stand is also a reflection of our dissociation from the
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

government-decision-maker. We think that western governments are well
tuned and there is no need to interfere with governmental affairs.
Practices of the last decade show big wrongdoings in western decision-making
structures. In the global world, citizens dissociation from decision -making has
already produced disastrous consequences which deserve at least a conscious

Main Spheres of Group Interest
Mass Media

The role of the free Mass Media is critical for the health of democracy. MM
can be the only barrier against the enormously growing influence of interest
groups in decision-making. The scheme of theoretical democracy (Fig. 10)
assumes that the mechanism of democracy has an internal ability to repair
thanks to the MM. It is supposed that malfunctioning on the lower three levels
of governance is watched by MM and any problem there will be noticed and
whistle blown to public. From this peculiarity follows that the democracy cant
be functional if the MM itself malfunctions. This problem is well known to
people in non-democratic societies, where the MM is obstructed. Society being
denied free information is a good indicator that democracy is already in
jeopardy and unwanted things are happening behind the scenes. In recent
decades, as a powerful tool of public opinion-shaping, MM became an
important focus of interest groups activity and influence. The Federal
Communications Commissions repeal of the fairness doctrine and the
liberalization of MM ownership rules in 1995, fundamentally changed the field
and role of MM. Due to these reformations, MM monopolization sharply went
up and concentration of different media outlets in the same hands became
overwhelming. Monopolization of media changed its role and essence. MM
became a concentrated power in the possession of non- representative players
and forces. We continue to consider the MM as the Independent MM. We
watch different media hosts and commentators discussing the same matter from
Arik Hart

different perspectives and viewpoints. But in reality, the process is highly
regulated. Each portion of truth coming on the TV screen is filtered and
checked on the subject of its harmfulness for group interests. Most of us dont
consider the MM as a carrier of power and pay little attention when the MM
broadcasts carefully picked crime stories 24/7. We consider the news MM a
business, rather than social servant. That is why the role of the independent
MM stays in the shadow.
Historically the MM began to be established only at the beginning of the 20th
century (after the invention of radio). In the 18
centuries the democratic
mechanisms were functional due to the high authority of printed media and
thanks to the determination of people to protect their rights. Currently though,
the MM activity is mainly entertainment oriented; the news media is
transformed into a political intrigue sphere operated by group interest.
Different interest groups work in news MM. The acting several media
magnates perfectly correlate relations and roles with each other. They
themselves represent interest group leaders and know when and how certain
prearranged information needs to be sold to public, and to other powers
inside and outside the country. In essence, a non-declared censorship is in effect
in the mainstream media, providing filtered and distorted political, social and
otherwise important news and information. In 5 minutes, a news channel may
discuss 20 different topics of decisively different matters and importance. It is
hard to believe that a normal mind is capable to classify and accept such a mix
of information properly. The use of this tactic over decades has shaped a viewer
who is dissociated from the reality. In essence a news channel is a decision-
maker, which digests the real news, distorts it according to its interests and
reports a story, which has little common with the reality.
The current MM is the main source of disinformation. Though the Internet use
continues to grow among the young population, its political and social
influence will continue to be lower in comparison to MM in the near future.
The reason for the limited influence of the Internet is in the peculiarities of our
perception mechanisms.
We take a position on a certain issue according to some guidance coming from
outside - from the focus group leaders, opinions of renowned people and other
sources in general. This peculiarity of our perception is perfectly disclosed in
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

the theory of the theater: it states that in order for a performance to happen,
three simultaneous requirements must be enforced - the actor, the scene and the
herd feeling of the spectators. People get oriented in their evaluation of
events only by seeing each others attitude.
Though one is free to choose the subject on the Internet, he/she is limited in
making judgments; if that is right or wrong, good or bad. He either looks for
opinions of the others on the Internet, poll numbers, or turns the TV on and
learns what his opinion should be. Moreover, we dont like to be in the
minority - it is much safer to be in the majority. TV has a big advantage over
the Internet to unite people into majorities.
In this regard, the MM is already a big brother in many aspects. It doesnt
follow each of us individually, but surely guides us on what to do. The MM
interpretation of the events is aimed at designing our civil actions as well. We
see what is happening, how it is being managed and finalized. On no occasion
do we see the need for our involvement or opinion endorsement. Currently, a
Media anchor has much more power than a senator or a cabinet member of the
government. Sometimes it is clearly visible that a senator managed to appear on
the TV screen and is happy with such success.
When a big task needs to be accomplished, the powerful interest groups do not
spend energy on convincing congressmen or the decision-maker: they begin an
initiative first by shaping the public opinion on the topic through MM. Only
after the initial preparations in MM, do they raise the question into the
discussion and execution to the decision-making level.
TV set discusses, analyzes, evaluates, predicts and prescribes everything
instead of us. Through the TV we know how we will vote in our majority
today and tomorrow; how we will respond to this or that event today and
tomorrow; how we will behave in a certain situation. Crucial aspects of politics
and social life became a part of entertainment. Main TV news outlets explain
about every single publicly and politically sound event with the involvement of
carefully picked people (supposedly high ranking public figures, negotiators,
political analysts and other professionals). Since only these people interpret
politics, it is reasonable to assume that in essence these people usurped the
truth . They continue to appear on the screen for years, thus more deepening
an already troubling situation.
Arik Hart

The MM establishes unified public opinions about everything. Initially,
designed ideas come to the TV screen from financial and political interest
centers. Then, during the discussion of the idea different motivated players
polish the initial idea to the extent of digestibility by the large public. After
public opinion shaping, the decision-maker has a final product, which is a
hybrid of what it was before and what it needs to be, according to other
important players. The shaped public opinion is usually supportive towards the
initiative, but vague in details (in order to have a room for retreat in case of
failure). As a rule, the fancy package of the initial idea appears humanistic;
socially or economically sound - establishment of democracy, elimination of
terrorists or dictators, etc. But during and after the realization of the idea, big
contradictions or even disastrous consequences emerge, which go far beyond
the primary goals and estimates. Currently, as a result of perpetual realizations
of such initiatives, the US is in a real war with a substantial part of the world, in
tense economic, cultural opposition with more than half of the world and in
internal uncertainty with the majority of its population.
There is another irony in MM s activity as well: it encourages us to
participate in the design and
tactics of the next adventure, by
taking polls and expressing
opinions. Thus, we are pressed not
only to tolerate the uncalculated
adventures and spending, but also to
accept that we share the
responsibility for different actions.
A scheme of democracy, controlled by group interest MM is presented in Fig.
16. The scheme may be inaccurate in the proportions, but, I believe, the essence
is described correctly.
We are withnessing an unfortunate spiral in the history of democracy. The
complex mechanism of checks and balances of four powers of democratic
governance was created and installed over centuries. This mechanism is now
operating against democracy: under the guidance of interest groups and
misinforms people.
Big Brother
Fig 16
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

During the past 7 years the western world failed to get a meaningful and
reasonable answer to the most important and simple question of this century:
· Why was the US attacked on 9/11? Why did this unprecedented,
terrible tragedy happen?
The scenario considering awful Islamic terrorists acting as brainless bacteria is
not credible. There must be a sacred motive in the behavior of hundreds of
suicidal people sacrificing themselves with the aim of causing harm to the USA
and the West. The real motives of these suicidal fighters (or terrorists in more
common terminology), can be ignored or silenced for a short time. But
eventually this question requires an answer. The future will show that by
camouflaging the situation, the US and the West have lost a whole lot more
than was the political cost of the terrorists demands. This is an example of how
high the value of impartial information can be.
Strangely, it is becoming obvious that the Orwellian prediction - whoever
controls the information rules, has already become a tragic reality. Societies
and citizens are rapidly losing their right to be fairly informed. The
effectiveness of democracy, particularly the Mass Medias fairness, is already
critically damaged in different hubs of democracy. This malfunction advances,
instead of recovering.
There is much larger plurality in European MM. But as a superpower, the US
must care most about supporting its democracy. Europe acts as a neutral
observer of what is happening in the world, because there is a higher authority
in the world, -the Superpower. None of the European countries can proceed
individually, because they are not sure if their actions will be approved by US
decision-making, heavily regulated by group interests.
Now most of the people in the US are in an unexpected situation: a few totally
control one of the four powers - the MM. Because of this fault, the democratic
mechanism of the governance is seriously malfunctioning in other spheres as
well. On the other hand, because of previous relative economic prosperity, the
majority of US citizens dont believe that anything is seriously wrong with the
mechanism of governance. This calmness reveals a striking peculiarity:
· An economically stable and socially prosperous society is
blind internally.
Arik Hart

This was possibly the main distinctive reason for previous social catastrophes
as well, when the prosperous majority was blind to see what was really
happening around. In the same way, when the Soviet Union broke down in a
matter of months, nobody inside the country was able to see what is going on.
Even outside the USSR, western political analysts did not see what would
happen and when.
Concerned citizens and journalists must impartially analyze the problems of
democratic governance, discover the foreseeable troubles and tell the public
about the existing or coming problems. The control, censorship, bias or
restrictions imposed on MM due to special conditions (war, national security,
terrorism, etc) is an unacceptable practice for any democracy, at any moment.
It may seem unbelievable, that minor interest groups have managed to
implement deadly viruses in the mechanisms of governance of this most
advanced superpower with a population of 300 million. The recovery must pass
through revitalization of the civil rights of all 300 million people.
People regarded the election of Barack Obama as a panacea against all
problems the group interest implemented into the highest decision-making; -
The Good Tsar idea worked in the USA!
A year later the Good Tsar is slowly losing his goodness to the group
interests, which so tightly and overwhelmingly enclosed him.
It is imperative to know that:
· In order to demand and protect individual rights today, one
must be fairly and comprehensively informed about things
· In order to recover, democratic society must have the power
to regain its authority over the group interest controlled MM
· The primary holder of power in a state is the citizenry. The
recovering potential of a society depends on its ability to
reestablish its rights

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?


The most frightening internal social problem in the US is healthcare. The
problem is cavernous and spans several layers of social life. The healthcare
system is the main consumer of peoples earnings, reaching 18 percent of the
nation's economic output. This sphere carries critically excessive negatives for
the society, and it is imperative to understand what is wrong here. All previous
attempts by Congress to reform this sphere were unsuccessful.
Different subjects involved in the matter evaluate the system using different
parameters - healthcare representatives argue that USA s healthcare is the best
in the world, without talking about the cost and culture of the system. The
opponents try to include the cost and accessibility issue in the equation. So far,
proponents of current healthcare proponents are winning the battle and the
healthcare cost continues to increase.
A simple estimative approach presented further can be instructive in revealing
the main problems in the sphere. In order to understand the situation, some
statistical data, average meaningful numbers and common sense logic must be
According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, over $2.2 trillion
was spent on healthcare in 2007 or just under $7,500 per US resident. This
number is equal to 16.2% of the GDP. The average share of total healthcare
costs that are paid out-of-pocket was 34% in 2004. For comparison, in 1970,
the US healthcare spending was about $75 billion; or $356 per resident 21
times less than now.
In 2007, US residents made 902 million visits to physician offices (~3.0 per
person), from which 48.9% were made to primary care physicians most
commonly for general prophylactic medical examination.
The number of hospital outpatient visits comprised 102 million a year, or 0.34
visits per person. (This must be the number of real medical treatments.)
According to other sources, US patients spend 1 hour on average per year in
doctors offices. In other developed countries this time is much higher. For
example, in New Zealand it is 120 min, in Australia 150 min, etc. The numbers
of visits and time allocated to each patient gathered from different sources are
close: - on average, a regular visit to the doctor takes 15-20 min of a physicians
Arik Hart

attention. Thus 3.34 visits last approximately 1 hour. In other words, in one
year we pay $7,500 for a combined 1 hour visit to physicians. Considering that
our average life expectancy is 77.4 years, we must assume that according to
current numbers, we pay $7,500 x 77.4 years=$580,500 to the healthcare
system during our life.
Although I couldnt find data about the average number of surgeries a person
undergoes in his lifetime, let s assume that on average we get three surgeries in
our lifetime. Let s also assume that an average surgery costs $40,000. Thus, we
spend $580,500-$120,000=$460,500 for all 77.4 1-hour visits to doctors during
our lifetime. Therefore, the real pay for a combined one hour visit is
$460,000/77.4 =$6,000. This is a remarkable number: in 1 hour the healthcare
earns $6,000. By comparison, a US congressman earns $169,300 a year, which
is equal to $80/hour. The US president s salary is $400,000, so correspondingly
he earns about $200/ hour. An average US worker s hourly wage is $16. In
order to have his combined 1 hour /year visits to physicians, the US president
must work 30 hours (~4 days), a US congressman must work 75 hours (9.4
days). An ordinary US citizen must work 375 hours (47 days). But during these
47 days, he has to pay for his other expenses as well, including food. Also,
considering that an average person speaks approximately 60 words a minute,
and that during the examination at least half of the time the patient does the
speaking, we find that each word of an average physician is worth $3.40.
(Compare this number with your personal accomplishment!)
All these data together raise a legitimate question; how do people manage to go
to doctors? The only meaningful answer is unexpected - because of a
deception. Employers withhold the healthcare money from workers salaries.
People dont count on this money considering it a gift from the employer.
Furthermore, because this is a gift, and because there are several middle men
in the process, people never bargain about the price. In essence, this is a deep
illusion constructed for the entire society. People are programmed to think that
this is a gift, and not to see the reality.
There is a different layer of deception as well; most health insurance plans have
deductibles, which comprise anywhere from $700-$10000. A regular 20 min.
visit to a physician alone costs approximately $300-$400. If people visit
physicians 3.34 times a year, most of them pays for their visits without even
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

using the insurance (obviously, people of working age have lower than average
statistical visits to doctors and surely they pay for visits entirely out of their
This is a chilling statistic and a disgraceful lack of awareness on the part of the
society: people pay just for medical attention - not treatment - with their own
money and consider that a gift.
This is a remarkable conclusion:
· People pay for their ordinary health needs themselves, directly to
physicians, without involving insurance.
In fact, the insurance company enters into the process when there is a need to
rescue a patient in case of costly surgeries, or other life threatening
complications requiring prolonged hospital stays. In essence, the insurance
company legally confiscates $460,000 (even more, because surgery cost is
unjustifiably high) from each of us for no service.
If we convert this conclusion into normal, descriptive language, it will simply
mean that the health insurance system literally acts as a well organized gang,
which seizes a substantial portion of peoples earnings by using essentially
terrorist techniques: Pay me beforehand, otherwise you will be denied help,
should you need it in the future. In contrast to the current attitude and
methodology of coping with terrorism, people obey the group interest s terrorist
will in the sphere of healthcare. People pay beforehand because there is a
chance that they really may get seriously sick and die. We, humans value our
life and the life of loved ones. This is our nature and our weakness , which is
being so successfully exploited by this pyramid, strangely named healthcare.
Another demonstration of healthcare providers real nature is the fact that
people with preconditions cant get health insurance at all. Life is a nightmare
for a person who has a pre-existing condition and no proper employer. If he is
self-employed or temporarily jobless, the only real help is God.
Most of us think that $40,000 for an appendix surgery is a fair price. But 30
years ago, the cost of this half an hour long surgery was $300 and the average
US salary in 1978 was $17,000. There is no meaningful explanation for this
non-proportional growth of healthcare cost in times of extraordinary
technological advance. Current sophisticated medical equipment has surely
Arik Hart

made physicians work easier, but instead, the cost of surgery has gone up 40-
fold in comparison to the increase in salaries.
In a democratic society, where most services are regulated by market
mechanisms, healthcare is the only sphere, which is out of competition, real
criticism and any legislative regulation. Whoever tries to discuss this problem
gets blamed as socialist, anti-capitalist, non-patriotic, naive, primitive, etc.
Many politicians say that the government must get means to pay for the
uninsured, but no elected public person has the courage to tell the truth that the
problem is in a different scope - the problem is in the cost and mechanisms of
healthcare. Healthcare is hijacked by insurance companies and interest groups;
so medical procedures are overpriced tens and hundreds of times.
There is another false impression among people as well - they are taught to
think that the cost of healthcare is so high because we pay for very expensive
sophisticated equipment and for medical research as well. This is not true: a
short visit to the emergency room with the use of a CT scan may cost a patient
as much as $7,000. The patients gets enormously high doses of X-rays, the
process lasts 10 min, the instrument can be used for years. Such cost
overpowers any normal imagination. No healthcare company spends a penny
on research. The funding for science and research comes from other sources,
mainly from governmental grants and private donations.
After these scary facts, several urgent questions come to mind. Why can a
healthcare worker bankrupt and take over somebodys house, who works 375
times more? Why is the society blind to see this moral guilt and legal
absurdity? In the US, the prevailing amount of bankruptcies results from unpaid
healthcare bills of insured patients!
Bankruptcy regulates peoples activities in the business sphere: whoever makes
uncalculated business moves must get economically punished for his/her
mistakes. Health is not a business sphere. We, as individuals, cant do business
with our health. Mother Nature decides who is going to be healthy, who is not.
Human society has accumulated medical knowledge to resist the harsh nature
over the ages. No single physician is God, but just a specialist, as others are.
He/she was trained to do physicians work. This kind of job is no more or less
complex than other jobs - it is a regular job. A physician must work as a
specialist, but the healthcare system orders him/her to act as a businessman.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Disproportional spending on healthcare, retirement and housing are other
shocking aspects as well.
During our lifetime we pay much more to the healthcare system than we
allocate for our retirement. Usually, we contribute 4-5% of our income to
retirement plans. At an average salary of $44,000, this equates to $2200 a year.
Considering that we allocate only during working years (35-40 years), we
invest $2,200x40 years=$88,000 into our retirement. This number is at least 6
times less than the cost of healthcare: - $580,500/$88,000=6.6.
An average house in the US now costs $175,000. Most of the people in this
country will be unable to afford to own a home during their lifetime. According
to some data, only 10% of US houses are fully paid-off. Considering that an
average family has 2.57 members, we can determine that with the money spent
on healthcare, a family of three working elderly people theoretically could own
8.3 houses ($580,500 x 2.57 / $175,000 =8,3). There is no mistake here - the
number is eight point three!
Healthcare uses the market tools of bankruptcy, but operates as a monopolistic
interest group, out of any market regulations. There are no market relations
between patients, doctors and insurance companies. There are no market
relations even within healthcare companies, hospitals or physicians. They all
act separately, without any competition.
The usual visit to a physician is itself a disgraceful ritual against the patient s
civil and professional decency. A patient has to make the appointment several
weeks earlier. A usual human sickness lasts 3-7 days. How can a person, who is
not a chronic patient, predict that he is going to get sick at the appointed time?
The reasonable answer is simple: either you go to the emergency room and pay
thousands, or wait, chewing Tylenol, in order to see if you die or recover.
I think that physicians must work as service providers, without any middlemen.
If they are good professionals, they will get paid by patients accordingly. A
surgeon or therapist, who struggles for the patient s life, must be paid directly
and at higher rate, let s say $7,500 for a heart surgery. But for a health system,
sitting in comfort of its office, robbing patients and delivering no service for
$7,500 an hour, is an absurdity.
The high health insurance cost is also reflected in driver s insurance premiums.
Arik Hart

It is well known that insurance companies negotiate lower treatment prices for
insured patients. It is striking that uninsured patients are charged almost 2 times
more than insured patients. When I asked a physician about this inconsistency,
he explained that insurance companies provide them with the patients, which is
why they agree to insurance companies discounts. Everybody is happy with
this: insured patients have free or cheap healthcare, doctors get more patients,
and insurance companies provide cheaper healthcare. This seemingly truthful
argument is a big deception, obviously invented by insurance companies. The
truth is multilayered and is opposite to established opinions and practices in
literally all aspects.
The number of patients among the population is more or less consistent.
Accordingly, the proportion of busy physicians and patients is continuously
invariable. There can be some small fluctuations in patients numbers due to
seasonal or social prophylactic measures, but in essence the insurance
companies cant generate more patients. The waiting rooms of physicians
offices are full of patients. It is rare to see a doctor without patients.
Apparently, at the beginning of their business in the US health system, it was
beneficial for insurance companies to slightly cut physicians bills in order to
get better positions in the market. But soon, when most of the patients in the US
got insured through insurance companies, these practices became a powerful
tool for insurance companies to dictate the prices. In essence, this practice is
also an instrument with which insurance companies pressure people to buy
their services.
There are no accepted average price margins for medical treatments in the US.
The insurance companies are the ones who do that. As market involved
subjects, physicians price their services as high as possible. Physicians clearly
know that their initial bill will be cut in half, but they continue to price higher,
because these are the rules of the game. Each insurance company could give
the physicians their price list and require the doctors to charge them precisely.
This would cut a lot of internal accounting and really be a market approach.
But that doesnt happen; the practices of overcharging go unchanged.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Because specifically this illusion is the main deception of the game. The
doctors higher asking price is a practice, aimed at supporting the insurance
companies monopole positions.
The culture of higher pricing by doctors is one of the critical cornerstones of
this big bluff named insured healthcare.
There is no competition among insurance companies, though there is a barely
noticeable competition between doctors. People can select the doctor they want,
but it is senseless to choose among insurance companies: - there are no real
differences between these companies price-wise. Moreover, the same doctor
accepts practically all insurance companies. If insurance companies are similar
price-wise, and the actual care givers, the physicians, are the same individuals,
how can insurance companies be in competition? This is an absurd and clear
indicator that all insurance companies are united and act as a single monopolist.
There is a striking heartless core in this practice as well: The physicians agree
to work for insurance companies for twice less, but may refuse to see a patient
who is uninsured and is surely unable to pay the astronomical bills out of
his/her pocket.
And the last point - healthcare is a retail service. How did a retail service get
centralized to such an extent? Obviously, extraordinary and continual efforts by
interest groups were put in, to monopolize the sphere completely.
Even this subtle analysis shows that the problem of healthcare is a fundamental
social, political and moral issue. The problem is serious from all points of view.
Healthcare must be understood and recognized by society and by each of us. It
is a fundamental requirement of our personal and social life. We live in a
unified society and negative problems in one sphere will easily pass borders
and penetrate into other spheres. People hardly distinguish which is the essence
and which is the surrogate behind their professional knowledge. A billionaire is
an entrepreneur, who accumulated his wealth according to rules of market
economy and democratic society. People used to think that the health system is
also a business subject and physicians can act similarly. But this is a deception.
Common sense dictates that:

1- Physicians must take care of patients as Hippocrates did .
Arik Hart

2- Every US citizen and lawful resident has the right to basic
health care. Basic health care includes emergency medical
attention and other life threatening procedures, including
surgeries. This right should be provided by the US government
to all, legally living in the US.
3- For covering these expenses, a basic health care tax (~2%)
must be implemented. New, governmental emergency centers
and surgical facilities must be built to provide this service.
Existing private medical centers and facilities also may
participate in this program, charging the government within
the established limits.
4- The government must provide healthcare to every member of
society who wants to accept it, be that a jobless person or a
5- Health care is not a business and must be regulated by the
government as a socially vital professional sphere, similar to
safety (police) and protection (fire fighting).
6- No health care professional, including insurance executives,
can earn more than The President.
7- Along with basic insurance provided by the government,
people may privately purchase additional coverage.
8- Health insurance companies must offer at least 5 levels of
insurance, providing coverage for all possible particular
8.1- for covering physicians visits
8.2- for covering all kinds of analysis and tests.
8.3- for covering emergency and surgeries in non-
governmental facilities.
8.4- for covering chronic illnesses, requiring extended hospital
8.5- comprehensive coverage.
9- A person should have right to purchase any combination of
10- Insurance companies with loyal physicians may continue their
practices as before; with the exception that healthcare cannot lead to
a patients bankruptcy.
11- Hospitals and physicians must have no rights to bill insured and
non-insured or involved or non-involved in groups patients
differently. A physician has no right to charge uninsured patients
any higher than the lowest insurance allowance for this visit or
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

12- Along with governmental emergency clinics, each private hospital
must have a full or part-time one emergency (24/7) physician and
one nurse, who must serve uninsured patients with minor medical
problems, absolutely free of charge. The cost of this service can be
reimbursed to the hospital in taxes, on the basis of statewide average
per/hour salaries and half of that in materials spending.
13- Every such physician must be skilled properly in order to diagnose
and cure simple, first aid conditions and surgical cases / by using
palpation, not a $ 7,000 CT scan). Otherwise there is no need in non-
surgeon physicians. (Any ignorant person can send a patient to CT
scan, NMR, x-ray, stress tests, etc, get the results analyzed in the
Philippines and transfer the answer to the patient).
14- The prices of all medical examinations, treatments and per minute
physicians charges must be posted in the front entrances of all
hospitals and physicians offices. The physicians must give patients
a pricelist of their services beforehand. The time of the attention of
a physician should be calculated as actual minutes spent with the
patient. The minute charge of a physician should not exceed The
Presidents minute salary.
15- The insurance company must include physicians actual pay in the
bill as a separate line. The insurance company has no right to slash
physicians charge.

I think that competition between the socialized and private spheres may bring
some reality into this most important issue of our social life.
How can such suggestions be passed through the Congress or implemented
otherwise? Apparently, as long as the interest groups are intact, nothing can be
changed. The problem of healthcare can be the initial link which will bring to
peoples attention other fundamental distortions of our society which are
invented, implemented and exploited by interest groups.

Group Interest in Partisan Politics

People live according to their individual global GPS (global political
surveillance) abilities. They compare everything around at any moment and
make decisions according to this information. Why peoples GPS doesnt react
on group interest activity? Obviously interest groups violate some fundamental
Arik Hart

principles of democratic mechanisms. What are the particular aspects that went
unnoticed for an otherwise alert and sophisticated democratic society?
In parameters of democracy was mentioned that all members of the society
must be homogeneous, equal in their rights, values, goals, vision of things, etc.
What do we now have in reality? Interest group members, with affiliates, are
separated from the society by their mercantile, nationalistic, religious or other
particular interests and act contrary to the requirements of democratic
mechanisms. In all known examples the goals of interest groups are out of
social dimensions.
The unnoticed activities of group interests in partisan politics are among the
cornerstones of their success.
The rendezvous of group interest with decision-makers starts long before they
get into their offices. Interest groups are getting involved with the electoral
process much earlier than ordinary people do. They invest in the election
campaigns of both party candidates. This is not only a 100% win-win game,
but simply an antisocial, corrupt methodology.
The existence and stability of a democratic society is based on the fairness of its
electoral mechanisms. During the election each person is supposed to express
his opinion as one vote. By contributing big sums to both campaigns, the group
interest hijacks the elections from ordinary people. In the current electoral
setup, the results of elections greatly depend on the money the candidate raises.
If the popularity of the candidate is based on group interest money, then he/she
will serve the group that gave money and basically elected him/her.
Common sense tells that if a political subject (let say party or other politically
motivated social entity) disagree with the existing opinions, it must offer own
ideas and candidates. Instead, the interest groups bribe both candidates and
secure the power to control either elected leader later. This tactic has nothing to
do with democracy, this is simply piracy. There is not much difference between
the stuffing of ballot boxes in Third-World countries and interest group
contributions to both candidates election campaigns in the West.
This inadequacy is the main root of group interest effectiveness in the
democratic society. Specifically the negligence of this factor in the electoral
procedure created the power of interest groups. With the involvement of
interest groups in the electoral process, ideological differences between parties
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

as civil and ideological positioning principles lose their meaning. Ordinary
people are somewhat aware of this glitch, but they dont consider the impact of
these practices critical. Why dont people judge this problem adequately? The
roots of this incapability are deeper than they may seem at the first glance. A
big mechanism of deception is in use in order to keep the situation unexposed.
Several actors and factors are in play:
· The Mass Media, which avoids any deep investigation of really
important political and social matters. For example, MM spends
months on a sex scandal, but is unwilling to reveal how $65 billion
could be stolen by a single thief. Instead the air is full of announcements
aimed to fool and make us believe that almost all clients of this monster
were charity magnates and had lost their charity funds destined for
· Decision-makers themselves protect the interest group activities.
Decision-makers reached their positions with the help of interest
groups; therefore they will deny any involvement of group interest in
their affairs. However, President George W. Bushs refusal to pardon
Scooter Libby indicates that he eventually understood how badly he
had been advised by group interest people.
· The overwhelming power of group interest adds apathy into peoples
expectations and separates the society from its commitments to
supervise the government
· Conspiracy

Arik Hart

Structure Functional Similarities
between Interest Groups and Viruses

A striking analogy arises when one compares the structure functional
similarities of viruses and interest groups. Viruses (Fig.17) live inside a host
cell. By their mass, viruses are millions of times smaller than cells. Outside of
cells viruses exist as non-functional crystalloid formations. Viruses cannot
carry out their life-sustaining and
reproductive functions without a host cell.
They dont have the machinery and resources
to do that. Instead, invading a host cell, they
overrule, reprogram and control the host
cell s governing functions in a way that
instead of carrying cellular functions, the cell
executes only the viruss genetic orders.
The virus uses all the resources of the host
cell and produces a new generation of thousands of new viruses. These new
viruses leave the hosting cell (mostly via killing it) and go out to infect new
If the cell is not tolerant to the virus initially, it cant resist the invasion of the
virus. In an organism the viruses are fought (with great difficulty) by the
immune system, - an extra-cellular central defense system that uses extremely
sophisticated and in essence low effective mechanisms to combat the virus
Obviously viruses constitute some form of life - a parasitic form of life.
Modeling the mechanism of a viruss vital circle, one may see that viruses
contain information and mechanisms for several critical functions:
· To invade the cell and unnoticeably get implanted into the host cells
governing center-DNA
· To paralyze the host cells governing center
· To reprogram the host cells governing center in a manner favorable
for the virus
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· To reproduce itself by using the host cells resources
· Finally, to leave the host cell by killing or enormously damaging it
How does the group interest act?
· A group interest unnoticeably enters the high decision-making spheres
(government) of the state. (Members of a group interest are usually
already in the territory of the state, so there is no need to invade the
· It blocks the governments power in making critical decisions on
internal and external affairs. It lobbies the passage of legislation and
decisions favorable to itself
· The group interest moves its non-professional and antisocially
motivated representatives into all levels of decision-making, thus
compromising the viability of the state
· It leaves the state structure after scandalous revelations of treason,
corruption and large- scale crime (Madoff, Abramoff, Libby and his
bosses, etc)
Structural similarities between the viruses and interest groups are equally
remarkable: the main element of the virus body is the head, packed by DNA
or RNA- information carriers. Usually it represents 70-90% of the whole mass
of the virus. The other parts of the virus consist of molecules which dont carry
informational functions. They serve as actual tools for the realization of some
initial operations - to penetrate into the cell, to help in reprogramming, etc. The
life cycle of the virus may seem life-like, but the logic of this life is outside of
the conventional biological rationale. The viral life cycle is a perpetual
execution of an idea (sole reproduction), rather than a complex process which
we call life. Scientists consider life as a process progressing in time and space.
Viruses havent progressed in a billion years - since life appeared on the planet
earth. They are as primitive and effective as before.
Scrutinizing interest group structures, we will find the same eccentricities: the
interest groups main mass is in its decision-making center-head. As a rule,
the body is a tiny surrogate of an entity meant to be the social base of the
interest group.
Arik Hart

Considering philosophical, biological and social aspects, and assessing the
norm and deviation, we see great similarities in the structure and functions of
viruses and interest groups:
· They both live due to parasitism on much bigger host organisms;
· They both use a hosts resources for their survival and growth;
· They both cause disproportional irreversible damage to their hosts;
· They both act according to the same mechanism: - they paralyze the
government, the decision-making center of the host;
The body of the interest group also has additional specific functions, serving
solely the goals of the interest group. It is aimed at creating a favorable image
for the group and blocking countermeasures. They use their internal
connections and exert enormous activity on large masses of ordinary people.
People constituting the group interest s body write letters; spread e-mails,
actively sit in all gatherings somehow linked to their interests, and block other
civil activities in the same field of interest. They occupy MM outlets and block
passage of any unbiased information to people. In essence, the body of a group
interest in its turn is not a part of a homogeneous civil society, but concentrated,
separate factor acting against the civil society. For example, if one tries to
express his reservations about any group interest s issue with that groups
body member, he will be challenged with fierce opposition, with even
undisputable facts called into question. Unlike ordinary citizens, who are
relatively impartial and open to any discussion, these people are united,
interconnected, well organized, extremely active and innovative in using
offensive techniques in their actions and disputes.
They are uniform with the society in plural aspects, but opposed to society in
their particular interests. They are unnoticeable for others, because people think
that a single person is too small to substantially alter the whole society in his
particular areas of interest. People dont take into account that there might be
other such individuals, who are similarly active in other communities and are
interconnected with this one.
The growing prosperity of western societies has diminished the civil alertness
of people during last decades. The explanation is simple: if things are going
well, why worry? As emphasized earlier, a prosperous society is blind
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· It appears that a rich society has another problem as well -
the problem of guarding its resources.
If the resources are extensive, thieves who strive to steal resources will always
appear. We consider thieves as subjects stealing something tangible. This
classification of thieves appears outdated. Groups, organized according to their
interest and acting in huge synchronized ensembles, must also be considered in
this category. They pursue not tangible things, but favorable laws and political
privileges. This is a robbery on a higher - social level.
· The group interest steals not from separate individuals, but
from the whole society. The robbery act is not a single final
event, but a massive process implemented into law, politics,
traditions, which may last generations - as long as the biased
law or tradition is safeguarded.
This discussion brings us to a conclusion that the growth of interest groups
activity is a much more dynamic process than civil activity within the society is
able to cope with. Different interests can get organized quickly and secure
privileges for themselves. The society has no mechanisms to resist particular
activities. It operates with a larger scope and is not sensible to supposedly
minor losses.
Nature found ways to combat viruses: It enabled some cells to fight viruses on
the cellular level (tolerant to viruses cells) and others on the organism level.
The immune system eventually turns the protection shield on and usually
overcomes the viral infection. For now, our social organism is sickened with a
similar disease. Either we will find a solution and survive, or group interests
will kill our social shelter - the state. Group interests themselves wont stop. As
viruses, these groups also are brainless to see and understand that without the
state they will vanish as well.
· Obviously, I am not the only person who knows about things in
healthcare, Mass Media and other spheres controlled by group interest.
Most of Americans surely know more.
· The politicians and the President acknowledged that the situation
within healthcare is already catastrophic and they promised to reform
Arik Hart

· It is not clear if anything can be changed without reforming our culture
of group interest tolerance itself. The impression is, that the state is
already in the service of group interest


The main characteristic of the global world is the new reality, where all political
subjects are interdependent in informational, technological, cultural, financial,
political and other universal matters. Whoever acts -positively or negatively -
echoes all around the world, even in remote and negligible locations. This
new and unprecedented unique actuality requires a different view and perhaps
revision of many old societal settings, which were included into our previous
moral, societal and political codex and which served well at the time.
In order to reveal main peculiarities of the new reality, I will analyze its
elements separately, with the aim to see the objective image. I will do my best
to limit inputs of emotional, cultural, political, national, religious and other
particular interests typical for such analysis, often based on yet barely visible
characteristics and accents.

Forces of Globalization
Modern globalization is considered to be an unfolding progression of social,
political and economical multilateral interrelations between the nations and
countries. People from different countries travel and make new connections,
markets enlarge their importing and exporting areas and activities globally.
Countries make broad alliances. Information and money are flowing practically
freely. Anything having a higher potential, flows in a direction of the lower
value, similar to the behavior of electricity or water.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

At a first glance the situation may seem chaotic: everybody does whatever they
consider rational. One may think that the extremes will be averaged and
eventually everything will be organized and equalized on the planet.
Eventually, humanity will live its happiest times in history. This is in theory.
The progressing realities look different.
In last two - three decades we have seen multiple demonstrations of anti-
globalists in different countries. The Mass Media doesnt discuss the essence of
events and the question is taken out of the public interest sphere. If asked, an
average person will express his/her neutrality in relation to the question, rather
than interest.
Who are the conflicting sides here? On one side are ordinary people, organized
into anti-globalist groups and movements. The other side is represented by
police or military, blocking the anti- globalist s activities. This is a strange
opposition: there are no even minimally organized groups of ordinary citizens,
supporting globalization: a colossal process is going on, but no discussion of it
is perceptible.
In order to comprehend the process, we need to simplify the situation and
understand what globalization is. It is essential to examine the dynamics of
globalization in different spheres including cultural, technological, financial,
informational, and political. This will help us see the process in its scale,
directions and predict some outcomes.
Eventually any innovations or achievements in the spheres mentioned are
copied by others and exported to other states and cultures. Island-born modern
democracy was exported throughout the world. Military innovations, tactics
and strategies were copied wherever it was possible. Technological
achievements are in the possession of all advanced nations. Cultural values, old
and new traditions, and all kinds of information are open at practically any spot
of the planet. Finances are flowing through their channels more and more
Apparently, different aspects of globalization developed at different paces
during our previous history. The 21
century will be the point in time when all
unfolding changes will simultaneously be effective globally.
Up to now neither western countries, nor countries outside the West have been
able to establish new rules and mechanisms for the global multilateral relations.
Arik Hart

Interrelations are managed separately, as before. The world stage has become a
huge arena of battles, where everyone fights against others without any rules -
as gladiators. There is only one aim, to get a better position. This is a silent fight
and most of us are unaware of what is going on. Europeans organized
themselves as a union politically and economically and are happy with that.
China and India are progressing as the biggest producers and service providers
in the world; they are happy with that. The US is fighting against terrorists;
Arab states and Israel are in a deadlock with each other, they are all happy
with that. Refugees continue immigrating to Europe, they are happy with that.
But who knows, what this happiness will produce tomorrow?
There is not a single decision-maker who would express a reasonable opinion
to the questions, what is going on? What can we expect next?
We need to understand globalization multi-dimensionally in order to evaluate
the dangers and benefits it brings. The future has to be predictable, manageable
and acceptable for all parties.
Globalization came into realty by itself. No decision-maker or inventor gave it
a green light. Now, two decades after the collapse of the bipolar world, there is
not a single responsible subject (international or domestic), who would validate
that globalization was and still is good for at least the majority of humanity.
Western countries are sovereign cellular states. By definition, a state must
have immunity and understand that it is the nucleuss responsibility to protect
sovereignty, borders, financial and political systems of the state. Nobody
canceled the humans state form of organization, the need in military or foreign
relations. Why do the nations immune mechanisms not work now, when
globalization threatens to destroy the state form of humans social
organization? In the main aspects, globalization and a states interests are in
· State interests require individualism - globalization works
towards homogenization.
· It is in the states interests to pursue its ambitions independently -
globalization requires mostly uncompensated cooperation and
multilateral disproportional tolerance.
If these considerations are truthful, what is the rationale that western
governments mostly support globalization?
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

There are certain declared motives which make states governments supportive
of globalization:
· Governments of advanced countries think that by exporting
technologies and investing in other countries, they will eventually
establish democracy all over the world, thus creating a more peaceful
and better international environment. Additionally, they will get back
cheaper products, have higher profits and overall will benefit.
· Refugees who came to western countries will fill the gap in the need of
low skilled workforce.
In my opinion these are shallow objectives, which may be attractive only
theoretically. The West has no proofs that this scenario is politically, socially
and philosophically the only possible outcome. It is more realistic to expect that
something else may happen. Former Russian Prime Minister V. Chernomyrdin,
long before President Georg W. Bush, would often talk in isms. Once he
said, We were expecting the best, but got as always.
Is globalization beneficial for donor countries? Obviously it is beneficial for the
business entities inside donor states, but the results of these policies are already
disastrous for the societies and sovereignty of western countries. The western
governments undermine the main philosophy of the state; - to survive and
prosper as a cellular sovereign entity.
The developing countries are interested in getting new opportunities for
progress, new technologies that will allow them to be involved in global
production and consumption, to advance and prosper. This is a short-term
tangible goal and they are achieving it without a doubt.
Common sense advises that the globalization had to be regulated long before,
but that is not happening. Countries are strict in regulating the passage of 1
pound of meat through their borders, but are powerless to prevent the transfer
of their intellectual and technological heritage for free.
What we see now is that people inside western countries are not aware of what
is going on and they are unable to question governments on the subject of the
efficacy of continuing policies of globalization. The propensity of governments
to care only about short term solutions is a characteristic of their nature.
Western decision-making has a fair portion of incompetence as well, and it
reacts according to its abilities.
Arik Hart

· Globalization can be considered a process of unification of
world markets as a result of free flows of technologies and
· Different countries are entering into the global world with their own
· The western developed countries act as donors of free know- how
packages. The developing countries accept the gift, but are reluctant to
embrace globalization with a similar attitude
· Globalization is fatal for advanced states, because as subjects they are
losing their power and place, in the global world with non- globalized
Some problems of globalization are recognized by people, some are not. We
behave as spectators and dont interfere with the processes, leaving the stage
open for interest groups.

Financial Flows in the Global World

Along with the sophistication and development of our world, the initial
exchange equivalent-money gained different new functions and capacities.
With time, money became the second subject in the world, after humans. We,
humans make decisions according to our goals, motives, relations, intentions,
emotions, needs, etc. The second decision-maker, the money, acts differently: -
it moves freely into certain spheres and locations according to its specific rules.
We think that we have the power to regulate this movement, and act as a higher
decision-maker. Up to now, there are no registered cases when an open society
was capable to substantially restrict the movement of the capital.
Starting from its invention, money became a measure of our relations with each
other. Money quantitatively describes our relations within the society - who did
what, earned how much, spent how much, accumulated how much, etc. All
these processes in essence describe our relations with other people. Finances
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

contain overwhelming aggregate information about each of us how you are
paid is what you are, - a crushingly simple correlation for fair cases.
Money behaves specifically: Money flows into spots where conditions for
its reproduction are the best. We run after it and try to have as much of it
as possible.
We even kill each other in order to own it. The more we have of it, the safer
and more powerful we feel. Thus, through money we found a substance which
organizes, motivates and drives us. Scientists have studied and described the
human nature for centuries, but surprisingly little was done to study money as a
new subject on the planet. Up to now, we cant even guess how the markets
and finances will behave at the next moment. This is the power of money as a
separate decision-maker.
We, humans might eventually gain the power to regulate the movement of
capital. I am hopeful, that this will be done not by restrictions, but by
implementing changes in our relations within the society.
As for now, finances rule human behavior, politics and the future.

Manhattan- the Island of Money

While people were fighting with each other, making ordinary and extraordinary
scientific and technological discoveries, money was accumulating in the hands
of some people, then in the banks, then in financial hubs. The latter type of
accumulation is unique. At the beginning of the 20
century, Manhattan, an
island, became the financial center of the world. Why an island again?
Democracy was born in an island, financial center -in an island. What is the
explanation in this case? Is the island a special requirement for money
accumulation as well? The answer is definitely Yes. The description of this
phenomenon is pretty much similar to the case of democracy. The possible
explanation is the following:
-The biggest accumulation of finances had to occur in the most advanced
country, which was, and hopefully is, the US.
Arik Hart

-A bank is a place where the power, wealth and consequently the future of
individual people are kept. Therefore, it must be a safe and prestigious place as
-The main peculiarity of a prestigious place is its location and principles of
access. In cities the banks are located in the downtowns. They tend to come
together and occupy the center of cities as the markets did in ancient times, as
the Malls are built currently. The marketplace is a common spot, where
products are exhibited, judged and evaluated in comparison. The market
compares tangible matters; crowded banks in downtowns display themselves as
market subjects to be judged according to their location, appearance, and size.
When the whole space in the downtown is already occupied, a prestigious bank
wishing to have a representation in this city has just two options: 1 - To build a
new, larger building nearby, or 2 - To buy an old building in the center, destroy
it and build a taller one, grow into skyscrapers. The process of building up is
limited technologically, but the second option expansion - has no limitations
within the city.
This option is missing on the island. The island is the limit. Either you have the
money to buy within the island, or you are a loser in comparison with others!
The bankers have built Manhattan following the needs of finances. In its turn,
the competition for prestige established Manhattan as a the worlds unique
financial- political center.
The relations of people and money are complex. In essence money is directing
us, but this global process is heavily influenced by human nature. The
competition of people with each other represents a big part of our subjective
nature and a factor which drives both us and money. We, humans cant live
without competition. It is our essence and the driving force which keeps us
going faster, higher, further. Specifically our competitiveness and subject-
nature created democracy for us on the island and chose an island again as a
home for the global financial hub.
Thus, Manhattan is a compelling example of the subject nature of money, of
our dependence on finances as a hidden decision-maker instead of us.
Manhattan is the extreme island of the world. It is an ultimate nucleus of the
financial world.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The emerging new global market places are also spots with limited capacity for
further spatial growth.
Thus, in island conditions, in limited space, we create and innovate. Later we
pass the results to the rest of the world. Now the whole globe is becoming an
island for us. What will this island generate now - a global constitution, a new
set of cohabitation rules, or a new war?


Market economy stipulates that in a spatially limited market area of production
and consumption, all parameters of the market must eventually become more
or less equal for the involved competitors (see Fig. 12 - areas of extensive
expansion). The only known source of progress in these conditions becomes
the reliance on technological advancement. Up to recent decades, the West has
been accomplishing its advance according to this requirement: by relying on
technological, scientific and social-political innovations. This approach was the
essence of the western mentality. The West progressed via new approaches and
solutions (Fig. 12 - areas of elevation -intensive expansion). At different stages
of progress, the restricted space and resources imposed limitations, but the
western society overcame these barriers with creativity and innovations. As
mentioned, this was the general approach of the western mentality in a limited
space. At the same time, in an open terrain, the economy encourages extensive
growth. For a particular entrepreneur, the use of intensive tactics is senseless:
instead of creating new, they prefer to repeat already known practices and get
the same or even higher profits.
Thus, when a struggling local company moves its production into the cheaper
labor markets, it gains an edge in competition without new technological
improvements. In essence economically, globalization represents a
methodology, aimed at gaining higher profits through extensive growth, as
opposed to intensive modus operandi. The switch from intensive to extensive
growth is a regressive factor for a leading economy, because it loses its leading
Arik Hart

positions in pursue of innovation. This process is currently called
outsourcing .
Eventually, at a certain point of globalization, when the variations in labor
markets in different countries will become less significant, intensities in
economical moves will weaken as well. At that time, the only fundamental
result of globalization will be the deterioration of western social integrity. This
is a prediction. The outcome will depend not only on the people who design
and govern, but also on people who watch, see, but continue to keep silence.

West - Third World Relations

Globalization generates a new social environment in localities, in the West, and
around the globe, fusing into a mix values, cultures and mentalities.
Historically, contrary to western societies, the population in Third-World
countries was generally autochthonic for ages. They came to these places long
before, became accommodated and preferred to stay. They are closely
connected to their native land. Undertaking new challenges, discovering new
opportunities in the neighborhood was out of their scope of actions. This
outlook was cultivated for centuries, and is grounded on the conservatism and
satisfaction with the existing conditions. Typically, they would prefer to stay
rather than explore new places with the hope of better prospects. At the same
time, these societies live in politically organized neighborhoods and must have
cellular statehoods with corresponding ambitions and mechanisms of
statehood. As a rule, governments in such societies are built on tyranny and
corruption and their main function is to keep the power. The tradition of
obeying the ruler was and is a culturally and politically tolerable practice for
these societies. Moreover, the hierarchical superiority and social division was
raised to a cultural level and the majority of people in these societies prefer this
type of self organization over democracy.
The collision of different cultures and social values happened all throughout
human history. In the past, apart from a few exceptions, the winner usually
implemented higher social, political and cultural standards and parameters in
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

the loser s territory, with the aim of getting an everlasting superiority at the
place. During the era of classic colonization when the West was establishing its
superiority through war and aggressive diplomacy, social and demographic
problems remained inside the colonized country. The West was getting access
to natural and human resources and thus gaining measurable economical and
political bonuses. The invaded society was also getting some positives in the
form of new knowledge, culture and technologies.
Over the last 60 years, the adventurous foreign policies and group interests
motives ruined the West s reputation as humanistic power. Currently, as before,
people in the Third-World continue to value western technological, scientific,
social and cultural achievements and standards of life, but they hate western
policies in their countries. The West continues to act according to the ancient
tradition of external relations divide and conquer. It is not clear what the West
is gaining by this policy now.
After WWII and the establishment of the UN, there was a hope that West-Third
World relations would constitute the main agenda of global politics and would
be managed conceptually. But no meaningful concept was offered: The UN
failed as a mechanism suitable for this mission. Oil fetishism and the bipolar
world crushed other hopes as well.
Nothing was done, but instead a strange degeneration goes on: The winner is
only hammering, without implementing new, higher social and humanitarian
values and standards. A striking example of this approach is the situation in
post-Soviet countries. The Soviet Union has lost the Cold War against the
West. The country imploded distantly. Millions died because of starvation. The
image of the West lost its clarity among post-Soviet people. What is the real
outcome of these policies? The sense that the West is stronger, is better
organized, better socially, stronger militarily?
All these psychological senses are pointless if the result is immeasurable in
rational terms. Did the world become safer? Did the quality of life become
better in the West and in former USSR countries? Did the amount of loose
nuclear arsenal become less? There is not a single outcome of the Cold War
which was undoubtedly beneficial for the West. In the same way, most other
wars initiated after WWII left nothing but a trail of refugees in the West and
Arik Hart

local wars at the places. The outcome of the last war, - the Iraq war - is as usual,
Aside from occasional small antiwar protests, the western public has become
accommodated to the culture of war and acts as an inert observer of the events.
The business of selling the war to the public works well. No matter if war is
an obligation or adventure; it needs to be sold. Contrary to the West, the
invaded societies got accommodated to a different logic of adaptations: they
learned to become refugees.
The first contact persons controlling the arrival and initial functionality of the
western initiatives in new spots are local authorities. The initial involvement of
local authorities into western activities in the locality is already a sign indicating
that the process of fair, partnering interrelations will be hijacked and corrupted
by them. If the western initiative survives this first contact, this is often a sign
that a corrupt agreement between the government and the western initiative
bringers is already in force. In the example of many post-Soviet countries, one
may notice that as independent states they have hundreds of rules, formally
providing democratic freedoms to entrepreneurs. In reality these rules are
unbeatable for making any initiator s life miserable. Under the cover of this
nonfunctional multiplicity of rules, the government agrees not to harm
newcomers by imposing local formalities in exchange for regular kickbacks.
This is a typical gang- sheltered protectionism, which is intolerable in the
western society. Depending on the moral and cultural internal standards, not all,
but some western newcomers form monopolistic economical groups and
Mafioso networks with local authorities and begin to exploit the local
Besides getting paid, with the help of
newcomers, the criminal local
authorities make personal
connections with western
governments and secure substantial
political advantages for themselves
against local opposition.
Having no political or social means
to resist these developments, the local
Fig. 18 Political aspirations of
different subjects in the Third-
World countries
Dictatorship Democracy
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

population and opposition becomes frustrated with western values and loses
hope for positive social-political changes. The more this biased process
advances, the more people become angry at the policies of western countries in
that locality. With time, the external support of corrupt governments makes
them even more aggressive and unaccountable towards their citizens. In such
conditions, the more people deal with local corruption, the more they strive to
Thus, in a locality, people are prone to democracy, the governments, to
dictatorship (Fig. 18). What is this - a geopolitical necessity, blindness, cruelty?
Of course not! This is a recognized policy. Otherwise, how did the same
outcome become universal for different countries in different geopolitical
locations? This is a result of corrupt decision-making towards Third-World
countries prevailing in democratic hubs (see Kirkpatrick s doctrine further).
The initial aim of western initiatives was to promote democracy, economic
growth and stability in localities. In reality it turned out to be a disgrace for our
sophisticated world.

Doctrines and Imitations in Global

The external relations of western democracies have an undeniable theoretical
inconsistency. According to the logic of cellular functionality, the nucleus of a
democratic authority must serve democratically in internal affairs. On the other
hand, it has to accept non-democratic external policies in external relations,
since the partners are not democratic and no understanding can be reached with
them. In order to avoid these inconsistencies in foreign relations and in
particular domestic issues, US policy makers implemented practices of so
called doctrines since 1823. The purpose of policy doctrines was to provide
general rules for executing practices in particular external and internal relations.
Arik Hart

Historically, doctrines gave specific answers and standpoints for the main
contemporary problems. Among the doctrines having great impact on western
policies in human aspects was Jane Kirkpatrick s Doctrine (1981), which was
aimed at justifying the USA s support for Third-World anti-Communist
dictatorships in the context of the Cold War. Under the doctrine, the US gave
support to dozens of regimes worldwide that committed murder and genocide
against their own people. The basis of her ideology was quite questionable.
She expected that with the help of these countries, the US would lessen the
influence of the USSR on neighboring states. She believed that:
· Totalitarian regimes are more stable than authoritarian regimes.
· The process of establishing democracy would be easier in formerly
authoritarian than in formerly totalitarian states.
· Authoritarian states are more open to gradual reforms in democratic
direction than totalitarian states are, etc.
Her main arguments turned out to be not true: - the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, while none of authoritarian regimes became democratic. There are no
examples to prove that an authoritarian regime would democratize more easily.
The destruction of totalitarian USSR generated different types of governments;
more or less true democracies in Baltic States, totalitarian regimes in middle
Asian states, autocratic regimes in other states. In this real example, one can see
that post-Soviet countries changed their social construction according to
previous national political traditions, rather than according to Kirkpatrick s
doctrine. Ironically, even 28 years later, main arguments of this doctrine are still
in full power as external policy tools. They serve as modern foundation for the
current double standard policies. This doctrine discredited human rights values
and implemented a new measure into modern democracy, - acceptance of
alliances and friendship with murderers in public policies. The doctrine
purposely allowed considering some ally countries with fraudulent election
results and criminal leaders, as democracies. While being disastrous for subject
countries, these policies generated great pessimism and despair inside local
societies. People understood that principles of democracy are negotiable for
policy makers. In the West this policy has jeopardized the fate of democracy; in
countries of interest, it generated local rulers and tyrants. They continue to
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

behave criminally and drag their societies and cooperating democracies back in
In order to understand the difference between western and Third-World social
ideology, we need to analyze the distinctions between the western and non -
western social settings.
This is a very broad field, but we can at least schematize some substantial
differences which are easily visible. A good example is the stance of the society
towards the elections. Elections were and are decisive tools of democratic
society. After WWII, in order to be accepted into the family of nations, the
western model of social governance became a necessary feature for Third-
World countries. No matter what country you are in essence, it became safer to
declare that you are a democracy, or at least moving towards democracy. If in
the West the elections are part of the culture, in many Third-World countries,
they became a meaningless ritual-imitation. In Fig. 19, the construction of
western and Third-World societies and states is schematized. The democratic
West supposedly respects the following chain of political subjects (formed
through democratic elections): citizen political parties- government -state.
None of the subjects of this chain can exist separately. Higher subjects honor
the rights of lower ones and vice versa. The Third-World and particularly
Muslim World can be described by a different chain: tribal leader homeland.
Relations between the supposed subjects are loose, without civil commitments
and legal protections. Elections (if any) depict preferences among the family
leaders. The ideas of nation and country are close and symbolize a common
homeland for all related families.
China, India, Russia and other states can be described with separate models
which will always somehow differ from the western model.
The scheme shows that in the Third-World there is no place for elections in
western terms. Democratic elections are a complex mechanism of leader
revelation and validation. We name the process simply elections, but in reality
it includes several procedures which are combined in this single act.
Arik Hart

First, parties put forward candidates;
society compares their abilities in
competition and eventually elects.
Stage two- the comparison, is the
most important phase of elections. At
this stage, the candidates engage in
debates and the media reveals their
pros and cons. People discuss the
issues of debates, parties correct their
positions on actual issues and the
whole society elevates itself to a new
level of political understanding and
awareness. In a non-democratic
environment, neither real discussion
nor comparison is possible. The
Media is completely controlled by
the authorities, extremely biased and
hostile to opposition candidates. The voting procedure is controlled. Often there
is just one allowable name on the ballot, which must be marked and put into the
As a result, the formed authority may appear democratic, but in reality that is
merely an illusion. The majority of that society feels stressed with such a state
of affairs. But what can they do? Inside they face powerful clan authorities;
outside, - the double standards of the West. People in these countries are unable
to fight and change their social values, political culture, traditions, and choose
to emigrate.
Up to now the West has behaved unfairly. It didnt show a proper attitude
towards this abnormality for decades. The West preferred a criminal despot at a
distance (who bullies internally and in the neighborhood) to a normal individual
who would build an independent, decent society. This was and is the root of
western geopolitical incompetence and the failed policies of double standards:
· Western decision-makers conduct policies which are equally harmful
for the locals and for the West.

The West
Third World
1 2 3 4
5 6
1-Citizen 2-Political parties, 3-
Elections, 4- State with its elected
authority, 5- Family, tribal leader
6- Homeland with clan authority
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Forged Elections

The entrance of democracy into non- western societies begins from so called
democratic elections. The West considers free elections to be a primary sign
of democratic propensity of the local authority and society. The West believes
that through the imposed formal changes in the governing rules and through the
installation of ceremonial democratic institutions it is possible to establish real
democracy in previously non-democratic countries and societies. Thus, under
the pressure of the West, in Third-World countries the elections became a
required attribute of government formation. In these countries the government
periodically organizes unfair and sometimes bloody games under the name
elections. On the surface this game may recall the process and procedures of
elections held in the West, but in reality these are just games. Everything is
decided by repetitive electoral fraud which doesnt leave room for arguments
against corrupt authorities. The electoral forgery became a widely spread plot to
cheaply secure power legitimacy for an otherwise criminal governments in
Time goes on, but no improvement has been seen yet. The impact of such
elections on the current global world is colossal. After each such game,
hundreds and thousands of opposition activists are prosecuted in their home
countries and forced to leave the country. Many civil wars are permanently in
effect in these countries.
Even slightly fictitious elections are as disastrous as largely faked elections.
During such events, people feel that their share of power and rights of citizens
are stolen. First they try to reestablish rights. Losing the battle with criminal
authorities, they are getting separated from the society. They dont believe in
democracy and care mostly for themselves and their families. This is the
opposite of what a member of a society striving to democracy is supposed to
Another dramatic aspect of forged elections is the massive degeneration of
local society. In order to fake elections, a huge mechanism of forgery needs to
be installed and supervised: a large number of local electoral committee
members, police, and criminals are getting involved in electoral fraud. In order
Arik Hart

to complete massive falsifications in all polling stations and electoral districts,
the number of people who participate in the process, increases hundreds and
thousands of times. The people involved, have no other choice than to support
the elected criminal government. From this point on, there is no room for
democracy in that society. The society becomes atomized. People begin to
emigrate. The emigrated people serve as a new source for the forgery during
next elections. On electoral lists of these countries, one can find people who
emigrated or died decades ago. In some countries, governments stuff the ballot
boxes with up to 30-40% of nonexistent emigrated votes.
The mechanisms and tools of elections have been developing in the West over
centuries. That process had a high degree of fairness and transparency in the
mid 20
century. From that time on, there are multiple indications, which show
that something is going wrong with electoral mechanisms worldwide. I think a
great deal of negative impulse was brought into this process after the Cold War.
In the whole post-Soviet space, with the exception of the Baltic States, many
elections were forged starting from 1992. In Armenia, for example, all local
elections, parliament elections (1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007) and presidential
elections (1996, 1998, 2003, and 2008) were faked enormously. In all these
elections the opposition won with high margins. The forged final results
declared criminals as winners with shockingly forged big margins. Often, 60-
70% of the ballots for the opposition candidate were counted in favor for the
incumbent or a new criminal candidate. In post-electoral clashes with criminal
gangs of authorities, hundreds of people were killed, hundreds are still in
prisons. About 50% of the population emigrated from the country. As a result,
the society today is in full collapse, the state is a fiction. This is an example of
how a previously more or less civil society degraded in a matter of a decade
because of electoral fraud. The tragedy of the situation is also the fact that,
because of continued fraud, the criminals gained power on all public and
appointed positions. The idea of democracy is now in disgrace in that space.
People are surprised that the USSR crumbled as a bad guy, as en evil empire,
but instead, much crueler governments were installed. Instead of a
dysfunctional politburo, now a gang of criminals is doing whatever it wants.
Among the European billionaires, the Russians now are at the top. They may
live in Europe and simultaneously hold public or appointed positions in Russia
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

(For example, the governor of Chukotka, - billionaire V. Abramovich, was
permanently residing in England). It is hard to estimate for how many years, if
not generations, the electoral fraud practices pushed these societies backward.
Barely visible internally, the external double standards of the West had
catastrophic consequences for many countries. One may argue that the illness
was inside the local society that the West kindly did whatever it could to
promote democracy, to help these people.
The question is in a different scope: the West had to perform as a doctor,
according to the culture of Hippocratic Oath; not to harm. Instead, the West
acted recklessly. The double standard policies generated criminal
governments, impoverished hopeless people in localities and refugees in the
In addition to double standards, the West had other bugs in its policies as well -
the geopolitical incompetence, inflexibility and interest group driven bias.
Particularly these inadequacies did a big disservice to the West itself.

Flows of Globalization

Viewing the flows which are active at globalization it is hard to overlook that
the underlying parameters of global relations are asymmetric (Fig 20). Along
with new technologies and investments, the West tries to transfer its social,
cultural and political values into the East in a package. But the East passes
these offers through specific filters and takes only whatever it finds
necessary. The informational flows are market driven. The refugee flows are
war driven.
The western package for the Third-World is concentrated information:
technological, cultural, social and political. In essence this is the knowledge
accumulated in the West during centuries of its hardship.
The East also offers a package to the West: - consumer mass products,
billionaires, massive numbers of refugees, religious and extremist groups, and
criminals. This entire matter can be characterized as products and troubles. The
Arik Hart

only needed stuff here is the mass product, which the West could produce itself,
without any globalization.
The extensively competitive products, produced in cheaper Eastern labor
markets, initiate job cuts in the West. Capital generated by western investments
returns back as Eastern capital and goes into housing, servicing and other low
technological spheres first, which shifts the specialization parameters in the
West. Students, specialists, fortunate businessmen and their relatives are
moving to the West from
demographically and socially
stressed subject countries in
pursuit of higher living
These asymmetric relations
generate a new reality in the
East and in the West as well.
The unsupervised use of
imported democratic tools
elections, and the bias of
western policies generate social
inconsistencies in subject
countries. Soon these abnormalities degenerate into civil and interethnic wars.
As a result of new relations and provoked interethnic wars, masses of refugees
move into West and form enclaves of newcomers. Ethnic, religious and social
incompatibility between newcomers and hosting society increases and
generates anomalies in the hosting country as well. Along with these troubles,
the newcomers constitute a new high load on the social services and
humanitarian mechanisms of the western societies. The western democratic
environment begins to deteriorate. This situation is now named No war - no
peace hostility.
Apparently, no one in the West would initially agree to such barter and
predict the full set of mentioned socioeconomic boomerangs. But strangely,
even after the disclosure of the real essence of events, the West continues to
accept the barter in the package. The West tolerates the fact that ethnic and
1. West in a No war - no peace condition
2. Defensive filters
3. Permanent wars in the subject countries
4. Embedded with newcomers regions

Fig. 20. Globalization flows
Products, refugees
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

religious enclaves of newcomers in their homeland already rule in the
neighborhoods according to their social standards.
· Up to now the West underestimated the power and consequences of
massive emigration from the third world countries. Having no
competence in states affairs and being criminal in essence,
governments of these countries continue initiating either internal civil
wars or patriotic wars against neighbors. These wars breed new
waves of refugees.
· Though asymmetries and tension which are growing in the West and
East are becoming unmanageable, the West is busy with different
matters. The West is fighting with stateless cave dwellers in remote
mountains in order to free humanity from terrorists, extremists,
fanatics, suicide bombers - a really colossal task, appropriate for a
superpower country!

Demographic Invasion into the West

Millions of immigrants, who are currently in the West, are changing
demographics, and social, political philosophy of western societies. The
principles of democracy which were supposed to protect individual and
minority rights of all members of the society now face fundamental political,
moral and social inconsistencies. The process continues to deepen; in some
instances, the demography and social life of the host country has already
changed critically. It is uncertain what will happen when culturally and
religiously different newcomers form a tangible minority in the western host
country: will society continue to function as democratic, or will newcomers
enforce their traditions of governance? There are third generation immigrants
in Europe who still honor their native tribal lifestyle and religious rules. Shall
the West honor their aspiration and yield to their demands for cultural or
religious autonomy? Common sense says that there cannot be equality in civil
Arik Hart

rights between the immigrants and local citizens in a democratic society,
unless the newcomer accepts the democracy in its whole package.
History has known many occasions when aggressive newcomers
succeeded in overturning more advanced societies and establishing their old,
governing traditions. The newcomers value system failed to form sustainable
states in their homelands. Corruption, permanent wars, poverty, technological
inadequacy are typical characteristics of that culture. Will they abandon these
traditions so easily?
It is one thing to embrace a newcomer into an advanced society in the
proportion 1 to a hundred: he/she will be assimilated quickly. But it is utterly
different story to accept newcomers in the proportion 1 to 4 or even 1 to 3
(These are the real proportions of locals and newcomers for many European
countries). It is hard to evaluate the tolerance of democratic society towards
the dilution of its cultural, political and social potentials and define limits, out
of which there cannot be any viable democracy.
· The demographic massive influx generates two realities: one in the
West and one in the countries of origin.
· The immigration of newcomers may have fair causes, but their
insufficient (in essence fake) incorporation into the western society may
change the western social and political environment critically.
· The West is dealing with emerging political, social, economical,
cultural, religious tensions inside its societies.
· In the countries of origin, a new situation is growing, centered on the
formation of a Diaspora.
A previously autochthon nation gains a Diaspora, which is a powerful tool for
the rulers in countries of origin to exploit (internally and externally) the division
of their society. The refugees, who are in the western countries, deliver
substantial financial help back home, to their relatives. These resources are
spread by corruption mechanisms among local power executives, who realize
that the more they limit the freedoms and rights of local people, the more likely
the people are to emigrate and the amount of back transfers will grow. This is
an unspoken policy of many oppressive regimes, which survive mostly due to
the Diasporas financial back injections. Exactly such a mechanism of
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

emigration is effective in many post-Soviet countries, as well as many African
and Asian countries.
In the western European host countries, the conflict is multidimensional: it is
between the newcomers and hosting society, between religions, cultures, etc.
The antagonism is practically overwhelming in all spheres. Because of
historical traditions of tolerance and the demographic weakness of the West,
immigration was considered a positive process up to now. But the pace of
immigration during the past years has exceeded all acceptable limits and people
in hosting countries are alarmed by changes introduced by newcomers.
The problem of newcomers represents the most important theoretical and
already practical problem of the current global world. The interaction of
western and newly imported cultures generates a tension which has no
immediate solutions. The conflicting sides represent different eras of human
development. Newcomers operate according to their tribal and religious beliefs
and traditions. The West operates according to its human values and standards.
It is reluctant to surrender its social, cultural and political principles. At the
same time, the western society finds it heartless to lower its humanistic attitude
and oppose newcomers with harsh practices more familiar to newcomers. This
moral weakness of western societies gets heavily exploited by newcomers.
People who culturally have a different appreciation of human rights are using
western attorneys to wage legal proceedings against western societies. One
genuine refugee who has entered the West can bring dozens of his relatives and
friends, who were never in the war zone or somehow involved in political
As for now, the West does nothing and has no mechanisms to predict what is
going to happen in the near future, when newcomers will constitute a
substantial segment of the western population.
The democratic West and societies with old, traditional practices are hardly
compatible socially. Actually, the physical proximity of cultures has generated
the illusion among the Third-World countrys illiterate people that they also
deserve to live as Europeans, without the corresponding social reformation and
hard work. If such mentality is considered unacceptable and socially forbidden
in the West, in Third-World countries it is almost a tradition - many dream to
seize power and become a ruler.
Arik Hart

The massive movement of people from the Third-World into the West is in
essence a demographic invasion. In contrast to well known historical invasions,
when the invader was an army, this invasion is peaceful , with a great deal of
humanistic attachment.
Though peaceful, the results of this invasion are already appalling for hosting
societies. History prepared a multilayered tragic fate for refugees as well.
Embarrassed and deprived in home countries they now bear a miserable life (by
western standards) in new places. They must deal with new values and realities
in the democratic West. They face a dilemma: to accept and cherish western
values, or reject them and find a new way of cohabitation. Another dilemma is
in front of the westerners: continue to be blind, or see the problem and find
What are the scenarios currently in play?
On the part of newcomers: Up to now no thoughtful approaches are
visible. Just the opposite; they continue to live according to old traditions.
Their ethnic culture doesnt contain democracy as social value. Religious
fanaticism and national primitivism are in control. They were unhappy in their
homeland because of criminal governments, now they are unhappy in the
West because of democracy. They threaten to establish their beloved type of
governance tyranny, by exploiting the fact of their growing demographics in
western countries.
The problem is remarkable; these people became refuges not because of
ideological differences, but because they were weaker individuals in their
societies. Now if they got a chance to govern in a western country, they surely
would establish their medieval rules, just with different players. There are
multiple indicators which show that things are already going in this direction.
On the part of the West: Up to now the situation has not been managed
conceptually, according to western interests and safety. There are no
coordinated approaches, neither on the part of governments, nor on the part of
democratic societies. From all parameters of complex democratic governance
and ideology, the human rights prerogative is elevated into unrealistically high
honorable positions. The human rights activists push their vision of human
rights as the cornerstone of democracy. The human rights ideology blocks a
western mind from seeing and analyzing what is going on.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The individual rights ought to be protected within the democratic society. But
such rights are senseless for ethnically separated, culturally divergent societies.
Immigrants are not minorities in western societies. They behave as an
ethnically and socially isolated layer within the society. They do not share
cultural, religious, and social values of the local population. They are equals as
human beings, but not as civil subjects. This inadequacy threatens to ruin
western democracy itself.
Historically, immigrants were the source of new energy and diversity for the
advancing West. They were integrating into the society practically instantly
and society was benefiting from the newcomers. Because of this previous
positive experience, western democracies strive to assimilate newcomers with
the host society, and treat newcomers with great respect. On the other hand,
besides this previous positive experience, the culture of tolerance has no other
socially or practically substantiated foundation.
During the course of history, the assimilation of small numbers of newcomers
with the local dominant population was the only possible outcome. If not in the
first generation, surely in the second generation the newcomers were becoming
homogeneous with the hosting society.
Now the confusion between demographic invasion and peaceful immigration
acts as a deceitful factor and keeps western people in a relax mode. The
westerners think that eventually the newcomers will assimilate in the western
environment and it is senseless to worry. But modern history has shown other
outcomes as well;
Many in the West arent aware that actual disintegration of the USSR was
greatly assisted by abruptly emerged interethnic problems. Interethnic tensions
within a country can be generated instantly in regions with a prevailing
population of certain ethnic groups. In a multiethnic society, the ethnic relations
are superior in comparison to other factors (economic, social, political, religious
or cultural).
A deductive and recent example of an already completed similar process in
history is the fate of the Russian Empire. During the time interval 1917-1991,
the Russian Empire grew into the USSR, developed into a political superpower,
then degraded into pieces and ceased to exist. During that short period, though
the country was succeeding in geopolitical and military power, the share of
Arik Hart

Russians in the country was decreasing. In 1930, out of the whole population of
the Russian federation of 100 million, approximately 3-4% were Muslim, the
rest were Christians. Currently, from the 132 million population of the Russian
federation, 90 million are Russians, 42 million are Muslims. Even during
relatively successful Soviet years, Russians were unable to keep their overall
demographic numbers reproducible, but Muslims have multiplied 10 times.
According to estimates, in 2015 the soldiers of the Russian army will be mostly
Muslim, but the generals still Christian. Funny army! Impossible country!
Up to the point of breakdown of the USSR, this problem was an unnoticeable
internal problem of the USSR. There were no significant ethnic moves inside
the Russian federation within the USSR. The misbalance between the Russians
and other nations was growing only due to changes in passive demographic
parameters such as birth and death rates. After independence in 1991, Russia
became attractive for economically collapsed former Soviet nations. Millions of
impoverished people rushed to Russia, mainly to the cities. Currently only 31%
of Moscows population is Russian. More than 40% of the population of
Moscow is Muslim.
Two distinct periods of Russias demographic developments are noticeable -
the first - Soviet era of passive changes- 1917-1991; second, aggressive stage:
1991-up to present, when foreigners began to immigrate (invade) into the
country in massive numbers.
This example shows how dramatic a demographic invasion can be. A similar
situation is now growing in European countries. The proportion of Muslims in
some European cities is now over 50%. Can anyone predict what this may
signify for the very near future? There cannot be a serious talk about
assimilation into the host society. 50% Muslims cant be assimilated into 50%
Christians and atheists.
In Europe, the process is named gently - Immigration. The survival of this
term for three - four decades is remarkable: it shows the degree of tolerance and
inability of the West to clarify its stance towards the problem. As a rule, the
terminology defines the attitude of people towards the event. The decision-
makers in these countries are unable to cope with the problem and they have
preferred to keep the term, instead of accepting the harsh truth. It is obvious that
each of the newcomers is an immigrant, but that doesnt mean that when they
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

come in millions and change the demography in the host country, the process
must continue to be named immigration. There is a good analogy to this
terminological confusion: the rain is a natural, useful thing, but a hurricane is a
disaster, though the hurricane is also a kind of rain. Strangely, we use two
different terms for two natural processes, and only one term for two different
social processes.
What will the outcome of this demographic invasion be? The emergence of
6000 new Mosques in Europe in just the last decade indicates that newcomers
already formulated previously undisclosed goal - the spread of their religion
and their values in the host societies. Massive numbers of immigrants will get
organized around religious or ethnic leaders and will demand a separate state of
affairs for their communities.
Along with the problems mentioned, associated with the differences in the
mindset and social values of newcomers, the democratic electoral mechanisms
in the western countries will also face a new challenging problem. Obviously,
during the elections, the majority of the western population acts as citizens and
elects according to democratic principles. Newcomers act as a separate group
and elect their tribal leaders, no matter what the problems of the society and the
state are. As a result, all elected bodies are becoming embedded with
representatives, who advocate not socially sound civil issues, but tribal
problems. The activity of such representatives can be tolerable in small
proportions, but the situation will change substantially in the near future and the
outcome of this factor is predictable.
Specifically, the democratic electoral mechanism will be a time bomb for the
invaded western civilization. It would be accurate to name this fault of the
electoral mechanism the naivety bug . The confrontation, permanent internal
social unrest and in essence invisible war will continue until the newcomers
take power. This situation is very much similar to Russias fate. The outcome in
Russia is more or less clear. No other scenarios are more reliable for the West,
unless it changes its cultural settings on societal and governmental levels.
Obviously many institutions and members of western decision-making teams
are aware of this problem, but they all are silent. If the whole system keeps
silence, there must be a meaningful explanation.
Arik Hart

In contrast with the social troubles mentioned, this one is in our individual
internal psychological sphere: Apparently many of us have already asked
ourselves the question- what is my solution? If you consider yourself a
humanist or simply a normal person, can you offer a solution that is inhumane;
for example, deport newcomers? Moreover, each of us thinks, how can it be
done? A massive deportation is impossible to accomplish. In other words, as a
decision-maker, each of us is unable to find a satisfying solution and
accordingly refuses to demand it from higher decision-makers.
Why did the West go to war in Iraq? Did it go there because of an unproven
ampoule of a powder, aluminum tubes, or because that was a terrorist -
harboring country?
None of the above! The West went there because that was an outside target and
there was a decision-maker (it doesnt matter who personally, - the President or
others) who was pushing the US into the Iraq war.
In the case of a demographic invasion, both of these factors are disabled:
· There is no decision-maker who would push society to fight. (Protection
from external threats requires motivated leaders who are free to use
the whole scale of protective arsenal)
· The fight is internal and not attractive for the societies in question
There is a third factor as well - the problem of unity of the West. Before
initiating any actions against newcomers, all western countries must be assured
that all countries will support each other and act similarly. In other words, a
unified attitude and synchronized actions of western societies towards
demographic invasion must be negotiated first. This is an extremely complex
task and neither the European representative body nor the US Congress has
been able to cope with this problem yet.
Thus, because of the subjective and objective political, psychological and
societal factors mentioned, the demographic invasion continues. This is an
unusual situation - the western society may accept massive wars outside its
borders, but is unable to protect western values inside its territory.
The demographic invasion is a new type of war - a silent, invisible war. If
western societies dont acknowledge this war, that doesnt mean the war will
disappear. For centuries the West was developing western social environment
according to its aspirations and mentality, for itself. Up to now, the West still
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

has authority over its territory. Now, because of the atrophy of certain social
senses, the West surrenders. It surrenders not to an open enemy, but to its own
inability to judge rationally. It loses the battle because of its conservative beliefs
about abstract values of humanity. The West is unable to judge that western
social achievements represent higher values than the fanaticism and
primitivism of newcomers. Any country has the right to protect himself against
external aggression. Why does this right not work in the case of demographic
The two-camp political world created and established WMD opposition. That
rivalry was ready for mutual destruction at any moment. Even an unintentional
mistake could ruin the planet. Why was the bipolar world so aggressive, while
the current, peacefully invaded West is so tolerant?
The answer may be the following; - the bipolar world had leaders who were
agitating their people to hate the other side. Accordingly, people were hateful.
Even after two decades, people of former camps are still not friendly towards
each other. Now, the leaders are quiet on the question of demographic invasion
and nobody else is worried either.
This is natural. We are humans - social beings, relying on leaders will!
It isnt hard to expect a high similarity between the current Israeli-Arab conflict
and the predictable West-newcomer conflict. Israel is now trying to reestablish
its state on previously abandoned national territory, which came to be occupied
by Arabs. Because of demographic unfavorable proportions, the conflict has no
winning outcome for Israel now (see further). Israel is fighting with the entire
available arsenal of weapons without visible success. In addition, the worlds
sympathy is leaning towards the Arabs. Does anybody know where that
sympathy will be when the West will be forced to protect itself similarly in the
For now, it is imperative to mention that
· Democracy is powerful as a social construction. It is
aggressive as a state, but fragile as a protective shield
· The interest groups, newcomers and any separate entities
inside democracy are much more powerful that one might
expect a priori
Arik Hart

The reader may oppose to first argument saying that, not being democratic,
Russia was also invaded demographically and couldnt do anything. The
answer may seem unrealistic, but the truth is that the USSR and Russia, though
not being democracies, were culturally closer to the West: they share the same
Christian values with the West.
The dynamics of last years show that:
· Demographic invasion critically intensified because of globalization
· The dysfunctionality of the governments and societies
against demographic invasion is rooted in democratic and
humanistic restrictions of the western mindset
· The culturally more sophisticated West may lose the contest with less
advanced competitors.
· It is hard to predict the behavior of western states and societies having
WMD, when their societies will face the actual transfer of power to
Current economic hardship will surely change the western attitude towards the
problem of low-skilled workers. It will eventually accept the fact that the main
economic problem of the future will be employment. All types of jobs will be
in demand by the western local population. At that time, the western people
will be obliged to compete with excessive numbers of low skilled newcomers
and will surely lose because it is hard to expect that a religiously and culturally
divided, demographically imbalanced society will honor mechanisms of fair
The hope is that the naivety bag is already detected and taken seriously by a
tiny layer of conscious people in western societies.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Internet Enclosed Global
The Truth and Global World

There is an unspoken taboo on the use of the word truth due to its
philosophical dogmatism. According to many dogmatic theories, the truth is
relative, subjective and in essence non-existent. On the other hand, we take an
oath in court, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. Here and further, I will be using the word truth in its casual meaning,
which is the description or interpretation of events according to established,
common opinions of ordinary people, who should be considered as relatively
impartial observers. Philosophers may strongly disagree with such
oversimplification, but no other term can substitute the word truth. We all
know what the truth means. I am using this word specifically in such
Today, the Internet-enclosed global world is a reality. People consider our era a
beginning of new civilization. The Internet breaks political self-censorship on
multiple topics. People are slowly showing interest in political involvement.
They strive to comprehend the essence of powers, mechanisms of global
decision-making and the reason of its deformations. The Internet has become
an arena of fights between all conflicting sides - countries, politicians,
individuals, group interest, etc.
I hope that eventually, the Internet will be free of political bias and control, but
until that time it is essential for us to understand the basics of current political
affairs in the world. Being a united informational space, the world is divided
politically, nationally and religiously. Global economy is passing through its
nastiest times. We are all occupied with the question - what is next
economically, culturally and conceptually?
As mentioned, in historic times, the states were engaged in relations only with
their immediate neighbors. Later, distant and multilateral relations came into
play. With time, more sophisticated state functions required more complex
Arik Hart

approaches in internal and foreign affairs. Soon most state affairs were to be
carried secretly. The professionals who bear that function became a part of the
incumbent leader s team. Their work could be judged only through the
incumbent s performance. Truth was not considered a component of the states
affairs. Just the opposite - the more deceptive the practices of states were, the
greater was the chance that aggressiveness of enemies would be suppressed by
uncertainties of secrecy. In essence, the secrecy of state affairs was a
requirement in the previous world. Even during the bipolar world, deception
was a critical parameter of the poles relations: - secrecy and deception were
professionally managed tools which required high professionalism.
The professional deceptions of the pre-global world and current primitive
double-standard lie have nothing in common. The secrecy is an unknown
potential, intention or goal. The double
standard (lie) is a hopeless policy.
In Fig. 21, historic differences in political
relations in the world are presented. The
construction 1 represents the West-East,
bipolar geopolitical world. Because of
severe confrontation between the camps
effective decision-making was critical for
the survival of either opposing pole. The
teams of leaders were represented by
professionals. People within the camps
were patriotic. No major wrongdoing or
mismanagement on the part of politicians
and professionals in internal and external
affairs was noticeable.
Model 2 represents a multi-polar
geopolitical world, consisting of a Superpower +regional powers +new
developing economic superpowers. The confrontations between geopolitical
subjects are multilateral, the accountability and professionalism of external
affair designers is much lower. The interest groups have free access to decision-
making. They can push the superpower and regional powers into irresponsible
military adventures around the world without proper justification. There are
Fig. 21 Geopolitics: Emergence
of the Internet as critical factor
of policy making

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

multiple indications of mismanagement and lack of professionalism in the
execution of this structure. The members of decision-making teams do not
bear any responsibility and most of them are non-professionals. Emotional,
inertial, unbalanced confrontation and non-professional decision-making is
typical for this structure.
Model 3 represents the world which we are currently entering, the Internet
enclosed world. This, in essence, is a new civilization. Because of the Internet,
the truth is becoming an important element of policy making. It is harder and
harder to hide mismanagement. Free opinions and conscious judgments are
available on many issues.
Now we live on the border of models two and three. Internet takes a leading
position in information delivery and situation analysis. The political world
continues to perform according to model two, while the civil society already
lives in world three.
The Internet modifies the worlds political and social logics according to new
realities. True information about events contradicts official versions on many
occasions. The divide between citizens and authoritys opinions brings into the
light the problem of the truth. Neither deception, nor double standards are
effective anymore. People can get less and less biased information about every
political, geopolitical process, about the misinterpretations of events by
governments and its officials. The truth is more accessible and makes its way to
people. The need for reasonable accountability on the part of authorities
becomes an urgent requirement. The problem of the pursuit of global peace,
revelation of political and military aggressors, interest groups, comes into the
forefront of politics. Because of progressing truth, the traditional geopolitical
maps are changing. This is an unprecedented situation for policy makers, who
were taught to hide or fabricate the reality. The truth is becoming an imperative
element in global decision-making, though the authorities are reluctant to
accept this new reality.
The future will show how humanity will solve this critical philosophical and
political challenge, - ruling with the truth around. The further decision-making
in the political world populated by informed citizens must be carried out
according to rules, respecting the truth.
Arik Hart

The current geopolitical world is facing a fundamental challenge: - how to
move further. Shall we invent something ourselves, or will life itself choose for
us? Up to now, things are going according to the second choice. It is hard to
imagine that the world is ruled by a single supremacy. Such governance
contradicts the basic concept of human nature conquer the enemy. This is not
even human nature; this is the philosophy of nature - to have an alternative on
each spiral of its development. The genius of George Orwell constructed the tri-
polar world. What will we invent, keeping in mind that:
· Democracy granted equal rights to people within the society; the truth
may grant equal rights to states on the globe.
· The truth may serve as a mechanism of the governance of the global
world, since the truth is an environment, as is democracy. It is a
mechanism, as is democracy.

The Truth and Diplomacy

The role of diplomacy in the current complex world was a big part of the last
US presidential campaign. Traditional and modern views on diplomacy came
into conflict but were left unanswered.
In previous geopolitical constructions the worlds geopolitics was rooted in the
balance of power. The system was kept in stability due to real military
opposition. The other element of opposition was diplomacy, with its arsenal of
classical approaches and tools, including deception. These two leverages of
policy making, - diplomacy and military might, were equally powerful. In the
current global era, diplomacy continued the use of its old techniques,
pretending that nothing has changed. Specifically, this inadequacy created a
huge breach between the ordinary people relying on reality, and policy makers,
relying on deceitful diplomacy. The military has lost its direct functions and
become a servant of diplomacy. It had no other objective than to run around
the world and show muscle at the need of outdated diplomacy, controlled by
decision-makers biased apparatus. Conflicts in different regions began to arise
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

as in virtual games. The huge US military with its colossal mass became
manipulated as in a computer game, - with buttons.
Up to now, in the American toolbox of diplomacy, double standards, threats,
deceptions and aggressive stands were the most used and popular ones. All
these tools can be useful in the future as well, but it is illogical to hope that the
tools operating against the truth will be as powerful as before.
The problem of global peace will be the cornerstone of the future world. There
are no ways to establish at least relative peace without changing the essence of
current global policy traditions. The arsenal of tools and approaches of classic
diplomacy included everything but the truth. During the last decade, the
Internet and disproportion of masses and military potentials in war zones
brought into the equation the truth. Currently the truth is the only argument for
the weak side. It crosses the sides and goes into the society of the mightier side.
The suicide bomber is not only a soldier, but a truth deliverer as well. A suicide
bomber announces that his/her society has nothing to oppose the military might
with, but sacrifice of his/her personal life in exchange for truth. It mobilized the
local population for defense and already disorganized the opposite side in a
humanistic sense. In our times, the truth slowly climbed higher into the global
matters. Now it is almost around us, but we keep pretending we dont see it.
Implementation of the truth as a main factor of policy making in external and
internal relations is question number one of the current global world.
The dilemma is whether the truth will be honored by global powers voluntarily,
or will it have to severely introduce itself in each particular instance. The fact is
that truth will be the basis of global affairs of the global world.
The free flow of finances and information (Internet) are core features of the
global world. Any covert political, military or irrational act is discovered very
early. The revealed truth has already critically damaged the image of the US.
Further ignorance of truth may be extremely costly even for our generation. We
are witnessing that in global matters visually documented and obvious facts are
impossible to hide, or moreover, fake. During the 2008 presidential campaign
Senator Hillary Clinton characterized President Barack Obamas readiness to
talk directly to Iranians as naivety. During her service as States Secretary
Hillary Clinton will hopefully witness that naivety (truth) is a much stronger
leverage than any deceitful diplomacy can be.
Arik Hart

Apart from the ambiguities of the future political organization of the global
world, there is a growing sense that the birth of a new, global citizen is
underway. This person may speak in his/her native language, get salary in local
currency, continue to hate close and distant neighbors, be extremist, anti-
globalist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist, but he/she will honor the truth
for himself and for others. He/she will understand that this planet is his/her
island, the place from where he/she cant escape. He/she must establish new
rules of coexistence - new democracy for the whole world. It is hard to predict
if that democracy will be fair or peaceful for each of us, but surely it will take
into account the global, inconvenient truth, a truth which cant be covered by a
biased Mass Media, ill minds or criminal governments.

The Truth and Group Interest

The main rival of the truth in the new era is the group interest. Group interest
pursues private goals at the expense of social interests; therefore it can be
functional only in an uninformed social environment.
Thanks to the influence on highest decision-making, and, often, direct control
of spheres, group interest can easily get the desired unfair solutions and
privileges from time to time; the society will not see the link between the unfair
decision and group interest. But in order to be permanently operational,
deception and disinformation must be everlasting. This means that the entire
society must be covered with a thick layer of lie, dishonesty, and corruption.
Group interest uses different techniques of deception in different spheres. The
mechanisms of group interest activity in MM and healthcare were discussed
earlier. The group interest activity in political matters has its peculiarities. In a
bipolar world, much of group interest s geopolitical goals were implemented
into the ideology of global political opposition and therefore invisible to
ordinary people. In our days group interest persistently exploits the old card
campaigning against terrorists, rogue nations, old enemies, /Russia/, etc. This
tactic still works. It will do whatever possible to keep this primitive enmity
game alive, in order to justify failed politics and to have grounds to continue
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

unfair initiatives in the future. Contrary to growing influence of Internet, area of
group interest activity continues to expand. Initially achieving success in certain
fields, now group interests are successful in practically all spheres of our life. In
order to be operational and prosper, group interest created its environment of
deception, distortion and anti-truth. It will do whatever possible to continue
these tactics in the future

Multidimensional relations between the states in a region establishes certain
configuration of borders and relations with each other. In peaceful conditions,
all countries have strictly negotiated territories, borders, rights, privileges and
responsibilities. This configuration is balanced and relatively stable for a
certain time period. The balance of contributing powers is dynamic and
represents a critical factor for the stability of the whole structure. On the other
hand, all the involved states must permanently reinforce their rights, show
certain ambitions and readiness to protect their independence. The existence
of the states in a relatively peaceful region is a result of an invisible, but
permanent political struggle between the neighbors on the subject of viability.
Any weakness of a state is a good reason for neighbors to invade or exert
aggression. As a rule, there is a superior
country - a regional leader in the area. The
regional leader has an extra power to
impose additional restrictions, and
regulations as needed. The divide
between the regions can be geographical
or political. In either case the isolation is
higher between the countries of different
regions rather than inside the region. Countries in the region are closer
economically, and culturally as well. People are fluent in the most important
languages of the region. The language of the leader state is universal for others.
Fig. 22 The two- camp
geopolitical World
Arik Hart

After WWII, because of technological and military advance, most of the
regions of our planet became a part of the biggest political structure - opposing
political camps (Fig. 22). The Socialistic camp was formed on the basis of
USSR, east European socialist countries, and with some commitments on the
part of Cuba, China, Mongolia, North Vietnam and North Korea. In terms of
the membership, the western camp wasnt strictly defined. The leader was the
USA. All the members of NATO were within the camp, but so were many
other countries, such as Japan and Taiwan. The camps integrated into their
bodies some regions which were previously relatively independent political
subjects. The integration of regions into the camps certainly lowered the
superiority of regional powers in their relations with the regional states. This
conversion made little changes in the principles of global political organization.
At the same time, the emergence of the camp leaders introduced new, higher
standards in relations between the regional states and regional leader. This was
certainly a positive result of the two camp globalization.
Similar to regional developments, the two-camp world was also a result of
objective historical developments. As a result of fierce opposition, a multilevel
technological, scientific and ideological competition between the camps went
into a high- speed spiral. Russians invented spacecraft, Americans landed on
the moon first. The USSR established high educational and healthcare
standards, Americans succeeded in technologies and higher living standards. At
the end, Socialistic decision-making failed in flexibility and USSR broke down.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Dissolution of the USSR: Facts and

In 1991 the Soviet Union went into the annals of history. Why did that happen?
What were the reasons for this massive historical move?
As we all know, the historical truth may be judged differently depending on the
standpoint. Politicians judge simply: - the socialistic USSR lost the battle to the
economically more relevant capitalist West. Historians go a little further. They
discuss some particular irrationality in the USSR s political, economical and
social mechanisms. But eventually, they make the same simplified final
judgments about societal inadequacy and the inevitability of the Soviet finale.
Now, after almost two decades since the Soviet Unions disappearance, it is still
not clear what happened. There are hundreds of analyses about the USSR
disassembly, but no agreement in the debate is reached.
In this respect, there are three primary questions which can direct us into a
further analysis of the matter.
· Was the Soviet collapse an objective, inevitable political, economical
and social process?
· Was the Soviet disassembly a self-initiated, unregulated internal
process, or was it a designed and orchestrated process, introduced
· Were the Soviet leaders responsible for it and if so, how?
In order to talk about these problems, one must take a large scale historic view
of the 1917-1991 years of Soviet existence first. With the exception of the
Baltic national states and some other small territories, the Soviet Union was
formed mainly on the territory of the Russian Empire. It is reasonable to
distinguish two discrete and substantially different periods in Soviet history
the Stalin era and the post-Stalin era. During the Stalin era he was single-
handedly in charge of everything in the country. The way he was ruling was
typical for a bloody tyrant, and the country could be considered as an empire of
this man. After Stalin the country changed profoundly politically. Instead of an
emperor- Stalin, a collegial governing body-Politburo began to appear
Arik Hart

functional. Over the course of changes of leaders: Stalin Triumvirate
Khrushchev Brezhnev - Andropov - Chernenko - Gorbachev - one may
notice that the power dissipated more and more from the central authoritarian
person to the Politburo without a certain authority to execute independently.
The strange thing during the last 40 years of Soviet existence was the fact that
in whichever sphere the leader was surrendering power to others, that sphere
was becoming unmanageable.
The way of Politburo governance was something new in the course of the
history. One may consider this type of the authority as an ochlocracy - but that
wasnt an ochlocracy either. The construction of Politburo was such that it had
tools to limit the authority of the central person, but it had no mechanisms to
transfer the responsibility to a legitimate authority that would professionally
take care of the task. The dual nature of the governance - political (Politburo)
and professional (government) had a genuine ineffectiveness. In essence, two
people were in charge of each task - one party representative, one professional.
Additionally, the Politburo was unable to modernize itself. The two step
screening system of the political promotion (candidates to Politburo (30-40
people) and real members of the Politburo (10-15 people)) was an irresponsive
assembly, which couldnt hire and supply new people into the hierarchy of
governance. The people who were already in Politburo were mainly ailed
seniors. The only aspiration of these people was to have a motionless life
without big domestic and international complications. Practically all military
adventures of the post-Stalin Soviet era can be considered stupid responses to
external political and military provocations.
The two- camp division of the world after WWII had a distinct psychological
element in it: people within the camps had different attitudes towards their
countries. In the eyes of the western people, the USSR was the aggressor
(against Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Poland, etc). In the eyes of the
Soviet people, the West was the real provocateur and the Soviets were the
stupid responders. The problem of ill-governance was the cornerstone of the
undeveloped Soviet political system. The ideological problems (Socialism
versus Capitalism) dividing the West and the Soviets werent the essence of the
global opposition, but the structure of the authority, mechanisms of decision-
making and execution were. Specifically inadequacy of governance was the
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

main root of Soviet inefficiency. The rigidity, lack of energy and common
sense in the governance were the root and main force of Soviet destruction.
From1985 narcissistic Gorbachev did everything possible and impossible to
disintegrate the Soviet Union.
There is a widespread belief that the destruction of the USSR was the inevitable
finale of the evil empire. But was the USSR an empire? According to
shallow criteria of multi-nationality and huge territory, the USSR had to be
considered an empire. But: Around 80% of Soviet territory was in essence
inhabitable (North of European Russia, most of Siberia and deserts of Central
Asian states). The Soviets were the inheritors of the Russian empire, but the
fundamental nature of Soviet Empire was atypical: there was neither a
dominant elite nor a privileged core nationality in that country. The territory
was unified around the ideology of the socialism (with the goal of
communism). The Russians, who should have had supremacy in their empire,
were as ordinary as other nations within that state. The military was an
unprivileged layer of the society. The real power was in the hands of several
people in the Politburo. But after Stalin nobody in the Politburo was powerful
enough to be considered the sole person in charge- decision-maker.
The beginning of Soviet decline began anywhere in the middle of Brezhnevs
governance (1966-1982).
What was happening during 1975-1991 in Soviet history? What new changes
came into effect that led to Soviet destruction? Socialist Cuba, with a much
smaller economic and professional potential is still alive. Communist China
is booming. Therefore, simplistic explanations about Socialisms deficiency
arent serious. The problem wasnt the style or type of social construction; the
problem was rooted in something else:
In the 1960s, the Soviets achieved high standards in education, healthcare and
social spheres. Employment wasnt a problem for a job seeker. Socially it was a
more or less homogeneous society with a highly positive attitude for the future.
In fact, extreme poverty was eradicated.
The ups and downs of the USSR from 1917 up to the 60s are extraordinary:
after the terror of 1937 and the devastation of WWII, when the USSR lost 27
million people and 80% of its economy, Soviets were the first who launched
spacecraft (1957) and man into space (1961). They became a geopolitical
Arik Hart

superpower in a bipolar world. In the 1960s, most of the country was covered
by a unified electric grid.
Socialism of the USSR as a mechanism of governance and social construction
was not developed either theoretically or in practice. It was a custom-made
social construction shaped by different people. Stalin did something according
to his dictatorial mind, the others acted similarly within the limits of their
Beginning in the 1960s, the western pop culture and lifestyle became attractive
to the Soviet people. Every day, multiple western radio outlets were delivering
opinions, analyses and factual information about the events inside and outside
the USSR. The life of Soviet leaders, including anecdotes and intrigues about
Politburo members, were the essential part of this broadcasting. This was a
well-designed aggressive campaign of the western camp against the USSR.
The main arena of the Cold War was exclusively ideological.
The Soviet leaders didnt find any effective way to resist this pressure. Slowly,
the growing number of Soviet casualties in Afghanistan, western technological
flexibility and the everyday ideological pressure over people - that Soviet life
was a misery, -worked perfectly. People became indifferent towards their
country. The Soviet citizen had lost his/her guidelines as a member of society
and goals- as a person.
In 1960-1985, overall, life in the USSR was relaxed and enjoyable, without
major concerns, though the indifference of people towards their own country
was growing - not because the life was bad inside, but because they were told
that life was better outside. That was a jealous outlook of people.
Disaster in the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1985 crucially changed soviet
peoples attitude towards their country. From that time on, people began to see
Soviets as technologically lagging country, operated by reckless leaders and
professionals. In the late eighties, this attitude became overwhelming. The
developed apathy within the society made Soviet sovereignty extremely fragile.
The actual collapse of the USSR happened because of the physical paralysis of
railway connections between the Soviet republics and the associated economic
collapse. In 1988 interethnic wars were provoked in several spots of the USSR.
The conflicting sides began to block railway transits in order to force the central
government to make concessions for them at the expense of the opposite side.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The conflict resolution principles went higher and higher, but didnt solve any
conflict. In many Soviet countries war casualties reached tens of thousands.
Factories began to halt production. Eventually the production of any goods
throughout the USSR completely stopped. People were considered employed,
but couldnt work and produce goods because of the absence of raw materials.
Because of high inflation rates, money had lost its power and became
worthless. The only means of reliable exchange became the barter of goods.
300 million people went into the Russian winter relying on bartering.
The primary subject, who would best know about the causes of Soviet
dissolution, is the USSR citizen. He could tell the true story about the essence
of the USSR, appreciate its advantages and criticize the negatives. But the
opinion of this central witness was never called for. During the past two
decades, this citizen went through enormous life-turning transformations and
was busy managing the day to day life.
In the fall of 1991, the initially more or less unified Soviet people found
themselves in nationally separated, independent states, incapable of self-
sustainability. On the wave of ideas of democracy and national independence,
new people were elected into the governing bodies of these states. But
independence and democracy came with ugly faces. The Soviet common
currency the ruble, went into an inflation spiral and ceased to exist. The
supply-producer chain of the unified Soviet economy disintegrated. In a very
short time (in some post-Soviet states in a matter of months), the newly elected
leaders become dependent on criminal helpers. Thanks to their criminal
connections, these people managed to solve the most vital problems of the
crumbled country and society - the limited supply of food, fuel, and other very
first necessities of people. They prevented society from starvation, but countries
sank into corruption and criminality. The Mafioso style became the only viable
governing methodology of new authorities. This pattern was typical for the
most of post-Soviet states.
People who have no idea what happened there, may think that I am
exaggerating the conditions and events. At that time I personally have lost my
father and my father-in-law because we were unable to properly heat our
houses. No gas, electricity or other means were available for heating. Electricity
was available for one hour each day. In essence there was no transportation in
Arik Hart

the city of a million, during two years. Unemployment was 90%. My father
was insisting that the WWII years were much easier than winters of 1992-1994.
Now, after the disappearance of USSR, all newly independent nations claim
that they were oppressed by Russians. This is hardly true. Soviet Union was a
diverse unity of different nations, with different historical heritage and social,
political cultures. With the exception of Baltic States, the political culture of
governance in different Soviet countries was previously nonexistent. During the
Soviet era most of Soviet nations gained profoundly, rising from tribal to
national status. None of them lost in territory, or in social advance. Now, in
these countries one can see a rainbow of differences stretching from NATO and
EU member Baltic States, to Caucasian states, trapped in territorial, interethnic
and social problems.
Currently, Russia is among the top dozen of countries by its number of
billionaires. Moscow is one of the most expensive cities on the globe. Poverty
rates in all these states are tens of times higher than they were 20 years ago.
After the Soviet collapse most of post-Soviet countries became hostages of
their old social and ethnic genuine instincts: in a matter of months the political
power was taken by criminals, perfectly manipulating with nationalistic
slogans. The first elections in the post-Soviet space were relatively reliable
ones. What happened next was unexpected and remarkable. With few
exceptions, elected leaders soon became corrupt and hated by their people.
What was that difference, which generated harmony in the Baltic States, and
chaos in others? The only reasonable answer is the difference in the social
traditions and political culture of the new independent countries. The Baltic
States had European traditions of statehood; the others had nothing but bare
nationalism. Belarus was able to keep the socialistic regime and remains a
primitive model of China up to now.
During the Soviet times one would have a hard time finding big differences
within the elites of different Soviet nations. All of them were quite educated
and respectful. After the Soviet crush, it took just two electoral terms to
overturn the existing social structures and adjust it for new criminal rulers.
Criminal billionaires appeared, and surrounded themselves with armies of
killer-bodyguards. A specialist, a capable man, became useless in that space.
Political analysts used to describe this phase as the initial and necessary stage of
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

primary accumulation of capital. Theoretically this may be correct, but it also
can be described as war - a war against educated people. The new rulers came
from the very bottom of the social strata. They turned the social pyramid upside
down. This was a revolution, directed not against the socialism, but against
society and specialists. The new power now consists of criminals and some
previous party bosses. Even Lenin, after 4 year of unsuccessful economic
innovations, understood the necessity of specialists and implemented rules
favoring the return of emigrated specialists. Authorities in post-Soviet countries
never showed tolerance for specialists. This process is still continuing, after
almost 18 years.
The developing countries are trying to climb up from a sociopolitical
minimum, where they have always been. The post Soviet countries fell down
from previously higher living and social standards. This is the main difference
between the political processes in the post-Soviet countries and in the Third-
China executed nearly a thousand people in Tiananmen Square, but it retained
its social system and political unity as a state. By adding some market tools into
its economy China became one of the most dynamic and progressing countries
in the world. The USSR didnt execute people during demonstrations (from
1988-1991 just a handful people were killed in small political incidents).
Instead, up to a million were killed in provoked interethnic wars and millions
died because of economic chaos and starvation. In 1993, the Democratic
president of the post-Soviet, new Russia Boris Yeltsin shelled the parliament of
the country with tanks. As many as 2000 people, including many
parliamentarians, were killed and executed in the center of Moscow. Now
Russia is a poor, degrading country with great uncertainties in its future. See for
example /In Russian and Hebrew/
In my opinion:
· The USSR collapsed because of the indifference of its citizens for the
future of their country.
· There was a great deal of western propagandist influence, targeted
towards peoples mercantile aspirations.
· The main cause of Soviet defeat was mostly psychological
rather than economic, political or ideological.
Arik Hart

Geopolitics as a Point of View

Different politicians have different visions of geopolitics, which may vary
from chess board model up to oil pipeline geography. Each country has its
geopolitical priorities.
In my understanding:
· The geopolitics of a state represents a set of external policy
priorities, designed for a political globe with the description
of states potentials (economy, military and alliances) and
group interests on it.
There is a big difference in the perception of geopolitics within ordinary people
in Europe and in the USA.
In Europe, people and politicians see the world according to the left image of
Fig. 23. In their perception the world is multi-polar, consisting of a
Superpower (USA) +Regional powers, +Russia, +Israel. In the scheme there
is a permanent war zone where the US President is carrying on his war. For
Europeans, Russia is a distant neighbor; Great Britain - sometime ally. They
know about the rest
of the world through
TV and printed media
news, Internet and
travel. Most
Europeans know
where a certain
country is located on
the world map, and
how big, traditional,
productive, terrorist, religiously active or culturally different the country is.
They assess the countrys political weight according to its multi-parametric
potentials, including military and economic strengths. For them, the planet is a
place where 6.8 billion people live. They dont follow stereotypes.
Israel, USAs
Presidents war
Israel and terrorist
harboring country
China, Europe
Russia, India
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

For the politicians and ordinary people in the USA, (Fig 23 right scheme), the
scheme may seem similar, but accents and proportions are exceedingly
different. People, in general, have little knowledge about other states and
nations. There is a separate powerful player on this map as well, - Great Britain.
In this image, the terrorists are attacking western countries, and they pose a
great danger to humanity. The old and in essence permanent enemy is Russia,
which is seen as a mix of the unknown, evil and corruption. Iran is not
presented on the scheme, because neither in European nor in American average
minds it is significant. Iran is considered a temporary problem. Americans
judge the rest of the world qualitatively and emotionally. Great Britain and
Israel are considered as parenting countries: Great Britain as an ancestral
national predecessor, Israel as a philosophical, cultural, religious father.
Correspondingly, along with the USA, these countries are considered as the
only true democracies and biggest political forces in the world. Overseas, the
US is fighting against evil, terrorist people in order to establish and secure
democracy in the world.
The main difference between the European and American views is the
permanent war. For Europeans the war is a remote process. They live with their
own problems. The problem of who is right or wrong in the war is clear for
them; politically they may support the war, personally oppose it.
This divergence in perception produces a different interpretation of world
events in the different countries of Europe and in the USA. The Russians and
British are trying to use this discrepancy in their foreign relations. Other
countries also play on different aspects of the differences. As a result, none of
international players stands on realistic grounds during the discussion of
specific matters. Any particular question gets exceedingly polarized and taken
out of context.
For example, let s say Americans think that they must press Russia on military
matters and put rockets close to Russian borders. Europeans must support the
US on these initiatives because of common military commitments. But Europe
is much closer to Russia, and in case of any crisis, the risk coming from Russia
will be much higher for Europeans than for the USA. A dozen European
countries, big and small, are involved in this matter. The stand of each in the
problem generates such a complex round of talks and opinions that the initial
Arik Hart

task, the positioning of the rockets, loses its actuality. Thus, the tension
generated by the introduction of an intention is enough to destabilize two
continents - Europe and Asia. In this example the distortions were intentionally
exaggerated to extremes, in order to emphasize the complexity of the global
world in case of uncertainties in initial stand points. But the reality is not that
far from distortions. Foreign affairs are dealing with so many emotional
matters, intentions, affiliations, threats, sympathies, old connections or
impressions that it is hard not to fail.
Often geopolitics is considered a chess game. It may have similarities with the
game, but it is not a game - it is the most responsible aspect of a states
function: - the stakes here are human lives. People who carry this function must
have the ability to play this genuinely emotional game without additional
destructive emotions.
It is important to examine a specific term, which is in use in US s politics - the
term US national interest. As a superpower, the US assumes that it has
special interests at any spot of the planet. The logic of this forceful stand has
simple historic explanations:
After the collapse of the
Socialistic Camp, the world
became uni-polar with a
Superpower, regional powers
and individual states. (In Fig.
24 - The basic scheme with
one region is presented.) In
uni-polar world the USA
became a subject which
gained the right to exercise
influence at any spot of the
planet. As we discussed, all states in a region are involved in a permanent
balance-supporting task with neighbors. As mentioned, in a region, all subjects
must exercise their rights at any moment in order to keep their sovereignty. On
the other hand, in order to keep its superior position, the USA must respond to
all threats and moves against existing geopolitical construction viability as well.
This is a required and in essence obligatory political behavior of the
Fig. 24 Uni-polar world with a
Superpower and regions. The
horizontally dashed cell defines
regional power.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

superpower. By saying US Interest , the US decision-makers mean
specifically this right. If they do not protect the USA s interests throughout the
world at any given moment, eventually the USA will lose its superiority by
People in the rest of the world see a different meaning in this notion. They
think that by exercising its interests at any spot, the US violates the
sovereignty of independent states. In reality the US must show its muscles and
ambitions in order to keep the uni-polar world alive (see more in Global
Positioning). The US must somehow coordinate; manage the world if it wants
to enjoy the status of superpower.
But the ambition and muscle show has nothing to do with adventurous, interest
driven ongoing bloody wars, which in essence are against US interests. The
quintessence of continuing US military adventures throughout the world is
hardly justified.
Sometimes the US tries to make critical changes in such geopolitical spots
where the political vectors are strongly opposite. This case is described in
scheme 24. Often the USA is trying to change sovereignty, ideology or
affiliation in a certain country, (transition a-b) of the regional construct 1. This
is a seemingly simple move - change of color of a small spot. In reality this
is a huge transformation of the regional construct 1 into regional construct 2.
The countries in the region are balanced multilaterally and any transformation
requires reestablishment all of them.
The chess board model theoretically considers this problem. As in the chess
game, in geopolitics also, the countries carry functions and positions which are
specific, often non-transferable. Any changes in regional parameters carry
hidden potentials of larger destructions. Changes implemented in regions by
force are too costly and bloody. They need to be introduced gradually through
cultural and technological changes and innovations.
Currently a few states can be considered regional powers. One of such powers
is Russia, which is surrounded by former Soviet republics. After the breakdown
of the USSR, with the exception of the Baltic States, the rest of the countries
were in disarray; how could they exercise independence? After some lag
period, the states which had natural gas or oil resources benefited from rising
oil prices and managed become economically sovereign. The other states until
Arik Hart

now heavily relied on Russian gas and oil supply and are dependent on Russia.
The interrelations of these countries with Russia are complex: they cant
survive economically without Russia, at the same time, they are enjoying
western humanitarian and financial aid. The West (the US) pressures them to
resist Russia on the political plane, but doesnt offer solutions for economical
problems. The behaviors of the US and Russia are identical and must be
assessed as within normality: the regional leader has the same rights in his
region that the superpower has in the world.
One recent example demonstrates this reality: the superpower was trying to
make a change in Russias region of power. With this idea in mind, Georgia
went into military aggression against Russia relying on western military,
political and financial support. The West did everything possible and
impossible to portray Georgia as a victim of Russian aggression. Russia
exercised force and imposed its conditions of peace. The conflict is now
temporarily frozen. The Georgian adventure took hundreds of lives and left tens
of thousands of refugees. The change of Georgias color in this region would
make a colossal change in the geopolitics of the whole space from the Black
sea to China - almost 3,000 miles long. The stakes were high: Russia paid the
price in the form of civilian and military casualties and losses in the military
arsenal (at least 4 aircrafts including one stealth super bomber and hundreds of
other vehicles). The West paid Georgia almost 2 billion in humanitarian aid and
for recovery. The Georgians took the money and are ready for another attack.
Of course this is the beginning of a colossal geopolitical game, even bigger than
the Iraqi adventure. It involves Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Iran, Middle
Asian States, China.
The wars from the Korean War to Gulf War were at the edge of the geopolitical
camps and were servicing bipolar opposition. The Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo
in 1999 had both the geopolitical and interest - driven components. Motives of
2003 Iraq war will be analyzed separately. Current covert adventures in
Caucasus are favorable for Turkey and hardly understandable.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Nationality, Religion and Extremism in

In political matters societies express and defend their interests according to two
fundamental parameters of their identity, - ethnicity and religion. Historically,
nationality rather than religion was a higher priority for an entity having a state.
According to historic evidence and currently dominant political views, religion
cant be the critical state-forming factor. In a state, as we discussed earlier,
people are cemented according to common economical, national and cultural
interests first. Religious homogeneity is a secondary factor. Even in religious
Muslim countries, in conflicting zones of the Middle East, religious tolerance is
still somehow honored. There are two dozen different sovereign Arabic states
(Arab World). Arabs in these countries speak the same language, but prefer to
have sovereign states, though Arabs are overwhelmingly Muslim. The
emergence of different Arabic states resulted from previous historical
developments. Each authority in these countries is itself a powerful subject,
which has its strong arguments to continue its sovereignty instead of merging
On the other hand, if exploited, religion can become a critical factor in politics.
In contrast to state-cementing factors the religiosity is highly emotional and
easily exceeds the limits of the common sense. Religion mostly divides rather
than unites. Religion was the reason for the division of Pakistan and India,
Kosovo and Serbia, some republics in the former USSR and autonomies in
current Russia, etc.
During the Iraq war three acting subjects entered into play - Sunnites, Shiites
and Kurds. The first two belong to two branches of Islam. Kurdish is a
nationality. During the previous regime no serious conflict between them was
noticeable. Now these three forces have their specific objectives: Kurds are
fighting for their national independence, Sunnis and Shiites are fighting for
power in Iraq. This division categorized the priorities of the internal conflict.
Simultaneously, it revealed the oversimplifications of the initially designed
geopolitical scenario.
Arik Hart

In recent years, because of mystifications of Middle Eastern geopolitics, many
fundamental parameters of that region are mixed up. People dont comprehend
the real motives of different political players of the region, including internal
and external players.
Many processes which currently take place in the Middle East have analogies
with the events which happened during the last years of the USSR. It is
instrumental to know that in 1988, three years before the disintegration of the
Soviet Union, a strange term was introduced into use by the central government
in Moscow. They invented a common name for the nations living in the
Caucasus people of Caucasian nationality. Everybody in the USSR knew
that there is no such nationality. The fact was that nations existing in that region
were of different descent and religion. The Armenians and Georgians are
Christians, and Azerbaijanis are Muslims. Georgians are of Iberian descent,
Armenians, - Indo-European and Azerbaijanis - Turkish. In other words,
ethnically, anthropologically and linguistically, they are far from each other
since prehistoric times. What was the motive of this obvious intrigue? The
interethnic unrest within the Soviet Union was growing and the government
couldnt find anything better but to mix these nations into a single junction of
evil and blame them for all Soviet problems. Many people in Russia accepted
this farce and the division within the society went up rapidly. Thus, a primitive
linguistic affair became a powerful tool for the implantation of hate into the
Now a similar intrigue has been implanted into the Middle Eastern policies as
well. Instead of classifying acting subjects according to their real political
motives and objectives, we consider them as good and bad guys, terrorists,
extremists, or indisputable allies. The geopolitical design machine continues to
insist that the Sunnis and Shiites hate each other so deeply that they will
exterminate each other endlessly; that Syria and Iran are evil countries by
default. Islamic parties and movements are extremist by definition. This
primitivism has proven to be destructive, but it stays operational. In part, this
comes from the isolation of people from global politics.
In the current global world, the distances are too close; - processes are
interrelated, and sometimes already overlapped. We should know who is
designing what and with what purpose.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

During the bipolar era, geopolitics in the Middle East region was a subordinate
field, servicing the global bipolar opposition. In the current uni-polar world,
continuations of conflicts in this region are provoked by unbalanced policies
and group interest -driven intrigues.
· The western geopolitical blueprint must accept the reality, simulate
scenarios and design policies according to new potentials.
· What we see now is the opposite: without seeing the vectors of global
processes, essential local affiliations and rejections, the West continues
to construct unrealistic oppositions and alliances. In all these scenarios,
the West considers the superiority of some old principles as
unquestionable. No change can be achieved in this bloody area, if the
West continues its old traditions.
· If the West puts Israel as a region-forming power, then the rest of the
worlds geopolitical map builds up automatically according to the
logics of this chess board scheme. That is why this spot has been and
continues to be the center of the worlds geopolitics since the last half of
the century.
· The West must understand that large demographic shifts changed the
reality fundamentally; previous scenarios of confinement dont work.
Israel with a population of 5 million cant impose restrictions on 25
Arab countries with population of 325 million.
Acting Geopolitical Powers and Forces

The analysis of the current powers on the world stage shows that along with the
superpower, there are two other major geopolitical players and a few factors
with different motives, ideologies and driving forces.
Superpower player #1 is the US, with its hardly understandable policies of
aggressive wars, colossal military spending, and fanatical fight against
terrorists, with ignorance towards ecological, demographic and economic
Arik Hart

Player #2 is Israel with its enormous lobbying capacity in the US and other
western countries. This nation of 15 million, concentrated the entire worlds
attention on its problems. The Israeli - Arab conflict generated hatred among
religions and become a surrogate of the real challenges humanity faces.
Currently the Israel is in danger of losing the worlds humanitarian sympathy
and support. There is a good historic example which needs to be taken into
account by Jewish leaders: in 1985 the idea of narcissistic Gorbachev was to
economically transform the Soviet Union. Instead of intended goal, the inertia
of initiated events destroyed the Socialistic camp, the USSR, and even Russia
as well. Still there is no end to the destruction in the previous Soviet political
space. Israel is playing a similar game of self-destruction, which may end up
with a completely different outcome than was previously designed.
Player #3 is China, with its enormously growing economic and military power.
China has the potential to grow from a regional power into a superpower or
even opposite to US, a polar player. Currently China is busy with its
economic advance. Its real power will be exposed in the near future.
On the world stage, there are also factors which bring essential input into global
politics. These are stateless players, which arent currently centrally organized
and directed. Because of enormous dynamic potential, these factors may soon
become managed and converted into global level players as well.
Factor #1 is the demographic invasion of immigrants into western developed
countries and the dilution of western cultural values and demography by
Factor #2 is the Muslim religious and political hate towards the West. There is
a lot of evidence which shows that the root of this stance is the historical
injustice in the interpretation and management of Middle Eastern conflicts. The
power of this factor is the fanaticism of its supporters and the use of
asymmetric weaponry.
A great dispute among scientists and politicians goes on: what will be the next
era of human behavior - clash or dialog?
In his book The Clash of Civilizations , political scientist Samuel Huntington
predicted that the primary axis of conflicts in the future would be along cultural
and religious lines. Mohammed Khatami responded to this prediction with an
alternative idea - dialog among civilizations.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The western politicians are silent in this matter. As always, they dont design
the future, they only mismanage already ongoing processes.

The UN - a Failed Initiative

After WWII, the UN was formed as a representative political forum of the
world countries. People had a hope that the UN would act as a high judge in
conflict resolution and in critical international matters. But during the 60 years
of its activity, one can barely find any sizable and successful UN
accomplishment. After the analysis of the historical accomplishments,
structure, regulations and mechanisms of UN functioning, it becomes obvious
that this is a powerless forum. Being a representative body, the UN cant
operate as a decision-maker. According to scheme 7, the head of the UN could
be a decision-maker, but his power is curtailed by the Security Council and
veto rights of its members. Additionally, as a decision-maker, he has much
smaller executive powers and capabilities in comparison with state leaders
(because of the limited resources under his control). In essence, the UN is
designed as an international legislative body with some executive mandates. It
would be logical to develop some mechanisms enabling the UN to influence
the legislative branches of the nations governments as analogue powers, but no
effective measures have been taken yet.
The UN remains an ultimate example of the fact that collective human will is
inferior to the individual s subjective will. The UN is powerless even for
bringing to justice tiny, corrupt or criminal regimes, which are in permanent
wars with their own people and are responsible for the genocide of millions.
Ideologically the UN is a fig leaf on the body of humanity. The UN is
practically a dead-end postbox for hopeless complains of weak states about

Arik Hart

9/11 The Silenced Tragedy

I remember the morning of 9/11 in my workplace. People were silently
watching TV in the conference room and humanely expressing their pain about
the tragedy. Around 12 p.m. the TV room was almost empty. Besides a remark
that the world has changed today, nothing, or close to nothing was said about
the scale of what had happened.
Before that, I witnessed the crash of the USSR from inside. Nothing equal
imaginary had happening at the time in the USSR: the process was slow,
though the destruction was much bigger.
· The implosion of the USSR announced the end of the bipolar
9/11 was just a moment in its length and a local event in its scale, but it changed
the world.
· 9/11 announced the arrival of the global world.
The 9/11 event happened before our eyes, but few of us had the willingness to
evaluate and interpret the tragedy on its political scale. From that day on, I
understood that some essential problems in the world are out of social interest,
discussion and control.
In opposition to Europe, there are key political and social problems in
American life which are silenced. I use the term silenced in order to
emphasize that many people know that there is a problem, but they prefer not to
speak about the problem loudly and in essence. This might be partly a
characteristic of the American mentality, partly an evidence of voluntary self
isolation from decision-making. The Soviets disintegrated because the people
of that country were silenced and detached from the state affairs. This country
prospered, because people were allowed to express their opinions openly. Why
have they become silent now?
Apparently there are several reasons. Many of them are described in this book
as anomalies and, specifically these glitches have their contribution in the task
of silencing.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Group Interest in Geopolitics

Along with the full control over certain fields of business, interest groups
supervise processes in large spheres of our social and political life. The more
the process advances, becomes actual for the society, the more this field
becomes managed exclusively by interest groups. The group interest in the US
is working on higher governmental institutions, in at least three distinct spheres:
3. Spheres, aimed at gaining business privileges (banking and financial
spheres, healthcare, health insurance system, pharmacy, etc).
4. Spheres, aimed at gaining
national, racial and religious
privileges for minorities living
inside the country.
5. Spheres, aimed at gaining
political military, and
economic privileges for
nations outside of US.
There is some lobbying for foreign
countries having no substantial
Diasporal representation in the US as well. But this type of lobbying is
ineffective and in essence negligible in the US. Moreover, the US officials are
rarely involved in such activities.
A schematic representation of group interests activity in the USA is presented
in the Fig. 25. The group interest lobbyists are acting within the US nucleus -
the government. The bodies of type 1 and 2 group interest activities are located
within the US. The type 3 activity lobbies for its body within the US as well as
outside of US, in the foreign country of the same nation. In the scheme, #4 is
the region where the national state of subject 3 is located. #5 is the rest of the
world, which is substantially affected by the asymmetry of US relations
towards country 3 and region 4.
This scheme portrays a scenario considering US decision-making to be under
the control of different interest groups. According to the Constitution, the
USA s decision-making is supposed to serve the collective will of its citizens
Fig. 25. Group interests in the
nucleus and body of the US.
Arik Hart

and must be the main protected bastion of the country. The current state of
affairs indicates that the US is unprotected against the influence, methodologies
and tools of interest groups.
According to different reports, in
recent years the activity of interest
groups in the US nucleus is increasing.
As an indicator of this process, the
increase of the number of registered
lobbyists in the US can be considered. This process is schematized on the Fig.
26. Interest groups occupy more and more areas of decision-making in the
nucleus (white area in the nucleus). One may conclude that this practice
involves only the nucleus of the state and has little effect on the periphery and
on the country as a whole. What happens in reality is much deeper: the nucleus
manages the whole cell. The potentials at which the interest groups are aimed
are essential for the entire country. As a result, when the decision-maker yields
to a request of the interest group, it sequesters that claim from the whole US
overall potential. (The right part of the scheme: the whole cell shrinks).
If an interest group lobbies for a favor inside the country, it diminishes the
fairness of market mechanisms, social and national interests, minority rights
and other balances and potentials of the country. If the interest group gets
privileges in external relations - by getting military support and unfair political
stand outside the country - it ruins the image and real leverages of the US in
many distant spheres as well. The result of these actions is very much similar to
The government is designed to protect the cell every moment and by all means.
Each country must pursue its own interests. No irrational privilege for a foreign
country is acceptable. This is the requirement of the cellular nature of the
current states. This is even a biblical requirement!

Fig. 26
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Degeneration of the States Cellular

The cellular nature of the
state imposes certain
limitations on the internal
relations between the
periphery and the nucleus. It
is supposed that because of
common goals, the nucleus
and the periphery must act in
harmony. The elements of the
cell must form a structure-
functional unity (Figure 27.
1). A particular periphery will
generate a particular nucleus.
There is a widely known
saying: Each nation deserves
its government. This notion
perfectly describes periphery-nucleus relations. As a rule, a government strives
to be free from commitments towards its population at any moment. People act
in the opposite direction - they are trying to confine the government within its
commitments. The struggle between citizens, group interest and government
generates specific deformations (Fig 27. 2). Depending on the outcome of this
struggle, a shift towards condition 1 or condition 3 may occur. The transition 2-
3 is in essence separation of the nucleus from the periphery, simply the
segregation of government from society. Condition 3 is an extreme situation. If
democracy is functional within the society, during each electoral circle,
condition 1 or at least 2 is restored and the process begins again. If condition 3
doesnt change after the elections, it means that elections were stolen, forged or
carried out in a way that people didnt care about their states condition. The
emergence of condition 3 shows that the government is under the total control
Fig. 27
1. A states cell appearance
2. Changes implemented into the nucleus
by interest groups
3. Extreme dynamic changes in the state
4. Interest groups share of power inside
the nucleus
5. Implemented by interest groups
selective filter isolating nucleus from
the body of the cell. This role now is
carried by Mass Media
Arik Hart

of interest groups. A long- lasting separation of nucleus and periphery is lethal
for the state.

Recovery of the States from

In the model of theoretical democracy, among essential factors of democratic
environment, the Second Amendment was mentioned. This right is currently a
topic of disputes in the society. The dilemma is associated with the ideology
and methodology of the maintenance of fundamentals of the state. Fig.28
describes cases of degeneration of nucleus - periphery relations. In conditions 2
and 3 the power is taken by a tyrant or interest groups correspondingly. In both
cases there is separation of power from people. The character of the power in a
state is a result of an agreement (written or unwritten) between people and
nucleus. The agreement can be democratic, autocratic, fair, unfair or entirely
brutal for the people, but there is always an agreement. Even when the power is
taken by a tyrant, the agreement is there. If people tolerate the tyrant - that is the
agreement, which announces that the society is atomized and degraded socially
and culturally, that the police and army are ready to kill their relatives in order
to serve the tyrant. Usually the power is becoming usurped slowly, as a result of
two diverging processes:
· The authority strives to take as much power as possible and to lessen
commitments towards people
· After several unsuccessful protests, people gradually yield and
dissociate themselves from power
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

As discussed, a democratic society protects its authority from deep
degeneration thanks to election mechanisms (case 5). At each electoral circle
the accumulated degenerations within the power are corrected with the arrival
of new representatives and new leader, who supposedly has no strong
connections with group interests. Depending on the involvement of group
interest in the bodies of
governmental institutions
and determination of a
newly elected decision-
maker, the situation may
develop in two directions.
Either the new leader will
be able to destroy old
connections of interest
groups within the
government and lead as an
independent decision-
maker or yield and
govern as an internal
puppet of group interests.
Barack Obamas remarks
that he is not going to serve
group interest were an
indication of already
ongoing clash for the real
power between the legitimate leader and group interests.
What is the role of citizens in this clash? According to current democratic
culture, which includes the usurped by interest groups MM and other branches
of power, the role of citizens is negligible. This means that the fate of
democracy in the country depends on the will of the newly elected leader and
existing bureaucracy. Ongoing processes show that at least in the war and
healthcare issues the leader is not winning the fight.
How can the situation be changed in case of tyranny? In history, the ways of
overturning tyranny were revolt or revolution. (Even the death of the tyrant
Fig. 28 Degeneration and
recovery of the states
1. A theoretically balanced state;
2. Tyranny with the separation of
nucleus from periphery;
3. Democratic state under the
control of group interest;
4. Revolt or revolution in tyranny;
5. Elections in democracy;
6. Recovered state.
Arik Hart

doesnt change the situation, since the bureaucracy puts into the power a new
puppet meant to become the next tyrant). This means that the recovery from
condition 4 to 6 is possible only via the militant resistance to existing corrupt
apparatus of the power.
Though the conditions 4 and 5 are substantially different, they are closer in the
dynamics. Depending on the involvement of people, conditions 4 and 5 may
mutate towards each other. A revolt in a tyranny may establish a more tolerable
government and degeneration of democratic institutions may generate an
autocracy or tyranny in a previously democratic country. In both dynamics the
main player is the citizen.
The tyranny is an institution, consisting of the tyrant and a huge army of
supporters, including governmental officials, army, police, and corrupt
citizenry. The tyranny perfectly knows how important the monopoly on the
guns is and disarms people first. It knows that even a single armed retaliation
act may ruin the whole system of tyranny and the officials of tyranny will not
feel safe while behaving corruptly; the people will see that retaliation is
possible and will rise for a revolt.
Contrary to this, a fair democratic government must have no fear from an
armed populi. The personal protection of governmental officials from a
deranged individual can be carried out by a small team of bodyguards. Thus,
the two opposite types of governance - tyranny and democracy - have utterly
different attitudes towards the Second Amendment. This amendment was
introduced with the aim to protect individual rights of citizens from both the
criminals and the tyranny. If the transition from 4 - 6 or 5 - 6 is not
accomplished via fair elections, then supposedly the power of the Second
Amendment must come into play.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Relations and Hierarchy Within
Interest Groups

How do lobbyists and interest groups work? What tactics and approaches do
they use that cant be seen and overturned by the cell?
We know that interest groups have access to governmental officials, elected
representatives and senators. It is unclear what they are talking about, but
apparently after some negotiations officials accept lobbyists views on the
The activity of interest groups is highly secretive and we can only guess about
their practices. In this respect, two important assumptions need to be assessed:
Assumption #1:
All interest groups, if not incompatible in their goals, are interconnected.
The main tools of lobbyists are their connections with governmental officials.
Seemingly, all lobbyists competitively operate on the same fields and surely
see each other s moves. At a moment, all weak players are eliminated in
previous rounds and only the ones who were successful and tolerated by
others stay functional. For all of them it is beneficial when one gets the desired
privilege. This is a unifying and stabilizing factor for all players because:
· The winner becomes a universal helper for others. In further moves,
this winner can help others to get access to the same official. The
specialization here doesnt play the most significant role. More
important is the cooperation of the official and lobbyists, who are
aware about the internal moves, policies and interests on all decision-
making levels
· Obviously, the groups operating on the mentioned three different fields
mentioned have some isolation from each other and hierarchy in
operations as well. This comes from the matter of the tasks too. For
example, a particular business motivated group cant be very helpful in
lobbying for external national matters. That is a far more complex and
higher level task. At the same time, the individual specialized in external
Arik Hart

relations can use his/her connections and operate on lower levels
· Strong internal connections between the interest groups
make it extremely difficult to block them.
Assumption #2:
The religious feelings of the majority of Americans and their humanistic
sympathies towards victims of the Holocaust - Jews, created a separate holy
file in peoples minds about Jews. According to this file, Jews need exceptional
attention and must be helped at any occasion. Favoritism towards Jews shaped
privileged conditions, where they managed to secure continual military,
financial, technological help for Israel. In order to do that, multiple interest
groups, think-tanks and other motivated organizations were set up. This well-
organized lobbying apparatus enjoys a privileged attitude of people around and
serves different group interests, overpowering competitors in many fields.
Israel gained its state and sovereignty in 1948, after WWII, with the help of the
main world powers. Obviously, the Arab countries were against Israel and
began to militarily question its right on existence. As a result of 60 year long
wars and with the help of American political and military support, Israel
secured its position and currently enjoys a relatively safe life. Israel has
regulated its relations with some neighbors, but still has severe problems with
Palestinians living inside Israel and in occupied territories. Approximately 6
million J ews and 6 million Arabs live in Israel, the Gaza strip, the West Bank
and the Golan Heights. At a very high density of population (about 330 people
per square kilometer in Israel, 670 in Palestinian territories) it is hard to imagine
normal relations between entities striving to make their living. Israel has
excessive military superiority and has managed to make the life of Palestinians
miserable. Initially, the confrontation between the sides was simple - war until
annihilation. Israel won the war. But Arabs didnt give up and fight continues.
As brokers of peace, the worlds leading countries either had to find a new
place for Arabs or pressure the Israelis to make negotiated concessions. But
they and UN did nothing.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

For Jews, Israel is a Holy Land, and they obviously couldnt give up their
dream. It was much easier to offer some solutions to Palestinians. The two
dozen Arab states didnt offer anything either.
The Arab population was growing at a higher pace and it was obvious that with
time demography would be the critical player in the conflict. During the last
decades, the Arab-Israeli conflict occupied the highest stages of world politics
and drained all the efforts of humanity, leaving no energy for other global
matters. With the efforts and money that the world has spent on the Arab-Israeli
conflict, it would be possible to buy a Palestine, or even an Israel anywhere on
the planet. But neither side now accepts any concessions, and the old logic
Over time, the motive of the conflict has changed and moved far away from its
initial basics. Events indicate that the main essence of the current conflict is the
conflict itself. The core goal of Israel is to maintain the USA s continued
political, economic and military support for Israeli activities. Such scenario is
beneficial for the Jewish lobby in the US as well. As long as the conflict stays
unsolved, the Jewish lobby will have high positioning in the USA s internal
and external decision-making.
The American public is loyal to J ewish concerns and will continue its
unequivocal support of Israel. In the past 20 years, the Jewish lobby managed
to merge the Israeli and American geopolitical objectives into a single package.
It now appears that Israel and the US are acting as a single body in all
international relations.
It is understandable what Israel and the J ewish lobby want, but why is the US
this loyal to their will? There is only one reasonable explanation for this
political bias of the US in its relation to Israel. The explanation is the
A religious and philosophical module became augmented in the American
mindset. According to this philosophy, Americans are loyal carriers of the
Judeo-Christian heritage. The slight change in the evaluation of the American
mentality from Anglo-Saxon-Christian to Judeo-Christian brought big changes
in the attitude of Americans towards Jews. According to this attitude, the US
inherited from J ews the culture, the philosophy, the mindset and the vision of
the world. Correspondingly, the American wealth, the prosperity and
Arik Hart

achievements are due to this heritage. Americans began to perceive in J ews
their philosophical ancestors, - fathers, whom they always must obey. Millions
of religious Americans go to bed with the wish to see the Holy Land liberated.
Religion and politics were meant to be separate in the current political
environment. Americans dont have any religiously inspired political goal for
themselves, but are occupied with national-religious ideas of Jews and act on
their behalf. There would be nothing wrong in this attitude, if this wish stayed
as a religious aspiration. Regrettably, this aspiration crossed all formal and non-
formal borders and turned into a ongoing bloody war in which one side is
fighting for its physical survival and the other side is continuing to fight for the
Holy Land.
British historian Arnold Toynbee described history as the rise and fall of
civilizations: Civilizations arise in response to some set of challenges of
extreme physical or social difficulty. Civilizations decline when their leaders
stop responding creatively and the civilizations then sink owing to nationalism,
militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority and interest groups.
"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder" - he wrote.
It seems that this is the shortest and possibly the best portrayal of the civil and
political processes of humanity. This is the description of conditions and
problems that nations face at any moment. It reveals the superiority of optimal
decision-making as a critical parameter of social and political success.
The USSR collapse was obviously a classic suicide. It is hard to imagine
similar stupidity here, in the US. On the other hand, suicide cannot be excluded
completely, if interest groups leave no room for maneuvers of unbiased
decision-making. It is hard to determine the edge behind which the absence of
freedom in internal and external affairs may irreversibly harm this country. The
policies of previous administrations towards the Middle East, the Arab world,
Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan were designed under the influence of
Jewish geopolitical priorities. Now, for the failed initiatives in this region,
people blame neo-conservatives. Of course these people ought to be blamed.
But the higher question is silenced: on the global chess board, most of the
squares is marked according to Israel s interests. What is the reason that the US
continues to follow Israel s objectives?
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

According to different available data (for example see ( many renowned officials of
USA s public, internal and external policies, had dual loyalty -to Israel and
Constituting only ~2% of the US population, the Jewish lobby is heavily
presented in the US congress: 13 senators (13%) and 32 representatives (~8%).
In comparison: African Americans currently make up about 13% of the US
population, but have 1 member in the Senate (1%), and 41 members (9.5%) in
the House, Hispanics represent over 14% of the U.S. population. In Senate they
have three members (3%), in the House - 25 members (5,7%). American
Indians, representing 1.5% of the population, have only one member in the
House (0.25%).
Thus, Jews are overrepresented in the Senate 6.5 times; in the House, - 4 times.
Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented ~1.4 and ~2,5 times in the House,
13 times and ~4.5 times in the Senate, correspondingly.
Journalist Leonid Radzihovsky writes that in Forbes list of 400 billionaires, -
140 are Jewish. This corresponds to a proportion of 1 Jewish billionaire out of
43,000 Jews living in the USA. In comparison, among Anglo Saxon
Americans only one out of 600,000 is a billionaire (15 times less). For
Americans of other national descent, the proportion is les and more or less
constant; on average 1 billionaire out of a million (25 times less). According to
this author, the progress of Jews into the wealthiest layer of American society
incredibly accelerated during the last 40-50 years.
No meaningful explanation of this imbalance of the enormous Jewish presence
in the USA s banking, finances and decision-making can be considered other
than group interest involvement.
Many of my friends and good teachers were Jewish. Most of them are high
professionals; really care giving, ready to help others, nice people. I have
never seen personally unappealing or a failed J ew. They really are smart
people. Thirty percent of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish. There must be
some explanation of their historically proven national success. In the past 2000
years, Jews are the only nation that didnt assimilate while living as a spread
Diaspora. Instead they managed to become the most successful nation (in terms
of per capita achievements).
Arik Hart

Evidently, Jews have a mentality different from other nations. They all live
with each other in harmony, as cells of a tissue in an organism, which is the
Jewish nation. They are all devoted to their national aspirations, personally
know other Jews around and support each other with great passion and love.
There are no big disagreements between religious and secular members of
Jewish community. Each of them carries a carefully chosen load,
commensurate with this individual s potentials and abilities. They created
mechanisms and networks of connections, helping members of the Jewish
community to be successful in their personal career moves and in the public
sphere. Jews operate in the highest decision-making centers, cultural and social
hierarchies of advanced western countries and constitute a substantial part of
national elites of Western countries.
Thus, the J ewish world itself is a detached from American society organism,
which pursues his interests, as a separate interest group. This group has a great
influence on USA s governmental affairs and social settings as well. Currently
it controls the finances, banking, MM and other important spheres of this
superpower country. It is hard to imagine, if any initiative may come into life
without the approval of Jewish lobby.
As mentioned, the motives and goals of a leader and his advisers are in utterly
different scopes. I would be happy to live in a country governed by smart
people. But no one is comfortable in a country, covertly directed by interest
groups consisted of smart people.

Motives of US and Israeli Policies

As a rule, the potentials of countries having Diasporas dont correspond to their
objective internal capabilities. They have some additional hidden potential,
which isnt visible in the countrys official data sheets. This excess can be in the
form of additional financial injections or technological and informational
contributions, provided by relatives abroad, which may facilitate economic
growth and soften social problems in the country. Israel is the extreme case of a
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Diasporal country: from the officially registered 15 million Jews in the world,
only 5.5 million live in Israel. The political, military and financial aid, which
Israel gets from oversees is enormous. Structurally, Israel may seem to have a
state-like cellular structure a nucleus and a cell body. But in essence it does
not. The main body of Israel is outside the country - it is spread worldwide.
(Fig. 29)
The nucleus is divided into
several pieces and operates in
Israel and in different nuclei of
other countries. The potentials,
which flow within Israel, are
tens of times higher than its land
and people can produce. Israel is
a unique ideological, religious,
political and military construction, accomplishing transcendent political,
national and religious aspirations of Jews. Most of the nations in the world are
struggling to solve their everyday needs, while Israel is permanently at war in
order to accomplish its religious beliefs and national political ambitions. The
overall social niche (combined prosperity) of J ews in the world, or in any given
country, is possibly the highest among any other nations. They are smart people
and were successful in organizing the life of their nation in any spot. Samuel
Huntington considered Israel as a unique state with its own civilization.
According to the cellular model, Israel cant be regarded as a regular state. It is
a Holy Land , a dream of the Jews, but not a state in its classic parameters and
definition. All known states are a part of the region, where they are located. Its
borders and conditions of existence must be negotiated with neighbors. One
may argue that Israel is in the process of establishing these relations; that
classical parameters of states temporarily cannot be taken into account in case
of Israel.
Unfortunately, the reality is different: Israel doesnt want to negotiate and
establish borders at all. It wants to fight endlessly, in order to keep the Jewish
consolidating dream alive. Israel was a dream and is designed to stay as a
dream for Jews, in order to keep their unity intact.
Fig. 29 - The Jewish world: 1-2 nuclei
and body of Jewish Diaspora, 3 - Israel
and its war.

Arik Hart

The Jewish national network spans the world. It gathers information and ideas
and returns needed resources back to Israel. Over the past 60 years Israel has
always had a war, prewar or postwar tension with any of its neighbors. War has
much broader functions for Israel: it consolidates Jewish body and nuclei into
a purposeful unity. It categorizes Jewish national prerogatives living in other
countries and motivates Jewish political, scientific and MM actors to
permanently work for Jewish national goals in harmony. In order to keep the
permanent war pace, huge political lobbying machinery is in force
permanently. The US political centers are loaded with Jewish political concerns
and are in essence serving the dream of Holy Land. The UN is loaded over its
limits with claims against Israel and US vetoes on that matter. The USA
operates with the same political vocabulary as the Israeli terminology. USA
determines its geopolitical goals according to Jewish preferences. In essence
the US yields to Jewish geopolitical scenarios designed for the Middle East,
Arab World, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. This situation was remarkably described
by renowned politician Pat Buchanan, talking about the January 2009 Gaza
operation of Israel during an MSNBC discussion. He replied- To all Israeli
initiatives President Bush was answering Yes, Sir.
Geopolitical powers on the world stage operate according to their economic,
military, territorial and demographic potentials. The Israeli power is entirely
based on the J ewish lobbying potential in the US and partially in other western
countries. Financially and politically influential powerful Jews dont represent a
separate power. Their power is already in play as a lobbying power. The only
separate argument of Israel as a global player can be its nuclear potential.
Though many countries have greater nuclear capabilities, but none of them is a
global player.
It is hard to understand much of the USA s current external policy asymmetries
in relation to different countries. In every recent US external move there are
aspects which are ambiguous from declared standpoints. The existing
geopolitical constructs and the USA s stance towards them are profoundly
inertial. Usually, the US involvement escalates the negatives rather than
alleviates the situation. The USA s current anti-Iranian, anti-Syrian or anti-
Russian rhetoric has nothing to do with the objectives of reasonable geopolitics.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

In essence, due to efforts of different Jewish nuclei, Israel acts as a global
decision-maker number 1. The use of uncoordinated with allies advancing
tactics in military adventures leaves no room for other global players to respond
timely and reasonably. They are pressed to follow and accept any new Israeli
The Middle East is such a microscopic spot that it doesnt deserve our 24/7, 60-
year attention, energy, and resources. The world is changing quickly. It is now
in transition to a new era, new global logic and new relations. New industrial
powers are growing and the lost time will be enormously costly for the West. A
solution to J ewish problems needs be found; otherwise, the whole world may
suffer severely.
The religious feelings of the majority of Americans and their humanistic
sympathies towards victims of the Holocaust - Jews, created a separate holy
file in peoples minds about Jews. According to this file, Jews need exceptional
attention and must be helped at any occasion.
Favoritism towards Jews shaped privileged conditions, where they managed to
secure continual military, financial, technological help for Israel. In order to do
that, multiple interest groups, think-tanks and other motivated organizations
were set up. This well-organized lobbying apparatus enjoys a privileged
attitude of people around and serves different group interests, overpowering
competitors in many fields.
· Analyzing the results of Middle Eastern geopolitics during the last 60
years, one can see that Jews assembled a geopolitical construct of their
nation which is dangerously fragile. What did they achieve? Life in
Israel is a misery. They are at war with all neighbors. There is a
growing feeling in many spots in the world that they are to blame for
reactive terrorism and the growing hostility between religions. They
are seriously damaging their and the USAs national interests.
· Jews are nice, wise people, but group interests in the US are under
enormous Jewish influence. (See for exampleThe Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt). Jews
offer disastrous advice to the USs nucleus. This political configuration
is unstable and threatens to fail.
Arik Hart

In current, intensively developing global world, Israel continues to pursue
interests typical of old political logic - physical expansion and restricting the
What is the solution?
Obviously, it is senseless to protest against Jews. These people are programmed
to revive their Holy Land. This is their national goal, ideology and tragedy at
the same time. This is the main element of Jewish identity, which was
implemented into the J ewish mentality upon birth, in the span of 2000 years.
They are acting according to their motives, implemented into instinctive levels.
They will do whatever is possible to protect their holy dreams. No one can
change somebodys dream.
Due to its enormous potential in finances, in banking, in external affairs and in
existing humanitarian favorable atmosphere, Jewish lobby has dominant
positions among other lobbying groups. Considering, that lobbying community
operates in harmony, it is hard to deny, that Jewish lobby controls a substantial
part of US decision making.
Obviously this situation is beneficial for radical Jews, and they are doing their
best to block any initiative contradicting this status. Moreover, they blame any
meaningful offer which may solve the problem, as anti-Semitic, with the sole
aim of continuing the game. As of now, radical Jews are winning.
What will the outcome of this political inadequacy of the USA be? China and
other emerging powers will gain more and more economically, militarily, and
culturally. The USA will lose its supreme position. The Jews in the US,
including bankers, Senators, Representatives and those in President s office
will be less powerful. Is such a future the best for them and all of us? Can Jews
immigrate to China and prosper there? There is no doubt that Chinese are much
less religious and sentimental. It is hard to imagine that they will share their
achievements with others for a dream. Why is it wrong for Jews to continue to
live in democratic, decent conditions, but give up some illusions?
This is the reality: either we find a solution, or we fail. I have no optimism that
the US decision-making is capable to act independently.
But the hope is that eventually Jews themselves will understand and accept
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· It is impossible to overpower coming reality, which is harsh; Arabs are
growing demographically (President Bill Clintons comments) and
eventually a huge army of hateful people will not allow Israelis to
sleep at nights
· Soon Arabs may offer casualties in tens and hundreds of thousands
and new Muslim casualties will devalue the Holocaust. The moral
superiority of Jews due to the Holocaust will disappear
· The sophisticated national political construction of the Jewish world,
comprising a worldwide Diaspora and military nucleus in Israel is no
longer viable. A new construct must be considered
· Current Jewish supreme positions in global decision-making and
global politics correspond to the power of an empire. All empires
disappear sooner or later. The Jewish historic kingdom failed because
other tribes overpowered it with new tactics and tools. The current
Jewish global political supremacy is in crisis, and Jews themselves
must consider new approaches and solutions
· They must accept a certain plan for peace with Arabs, stop exploiting
arguments about their exceptionality as victims. They must reprogram
themselves into normal humans
· Each Jew outside of Israel must choose whether to continue to live in a
Diasporal country and become its devoted citizen, or immigrate to
Israel and act as an Israeli citizen. Israeli loyalty of Jews living abroad
is unacceptable for other citizens of sovereign countries
· National aspirations and civil rights of Jewish individuals are carefully
respected in the host countries. Jews must respect minorities rights in
Israel the same way
· Israel must not get any excessive military or financial help from
abroad. This country must earn its life itself
· The fate of Jews and other nations must be considered in the same
terms. Genocide was and is dreadful anywhere and anytime. 6.5
million Jews were killed during WWII. 1.5 million, or 60-70% of all
Armenians, and 500,000 Greeks were eliminated during WWI. 20%
of Cambodians and 1 million Rwandans were killed in our days. It is
Arik Hart

inappropriate to exploit the Holocaust as an excuse to continue
unbalanced and hopeless bloody wars in the current fragile world
· The human life base value must be regarded as equal for all nations
· The US supported Israel as an adored ally. As a result, Israel
grew into a unique superpower which is self motivated and
acts according to psychological and imaginary goals of its
nation. It is not certain if the US is capable of resisting any
Israeli demand.
There is a big tragedy and irony in the J ewish accomplishment: A nation of
wise people struggles with its ancestral brothers the Semites, for almost two
millennia, with the aim of regaining the Holy Land. Group interest entered into
this holy fight and depreciated it into an intrigue-driven permanent and bloody
war. The civil world watches this tragedy and is powerless to intervene.
Obviously, other explanations for this brutal treason can also be found. But it is
time for all of us to stand above our instincts and impose a reasonable solution
to this bloody and infectious conflict which threatens to blow up the world.

Global Positioning of the Superpower

One of the most important problems of the current world is the rationalization
of its logic. We remember that the function of opposing poles during the
bipolar world was to serve the balances - military, economic, social, scientific,
etc. All countries constituting the poles were involved in this process according
to their potentials and interests.
What are the current functions of the countries which were released from these
responsibilities? The Socialistic pole degraded completely. Most of the
countries of this camp distanced themselves from Russia and accepted western
political objectives. Russia has lost its positions in almost all spheres and is
currently struggling to protect its territorial and national integrity and regional
geopolitical player status.
The western countries gained some additional sovereignty in their internal and
external affairs and relaxed their commitments in geopolitical matters. The US
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

became a superpower with unclear goals and functions. This was and still is a
philosophically unusual geopolitical situation: -What are the USA s external
policy goals - fight against individual terrorists, rogue nations, global support of
human rights, spread of democracy?
We hear these goals from time to time on different occasions and it is becoming
clear that neither the US, nor the international community found new
reasonable global roles for the US. It is obvious that the US is in a difficult
situation conceptually. What to do next? Are there real enemies? The US is the
superpower, but what does that mean?
There are continual attempts to fake an enemy. Different candidacies are in
place: - Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, etc. This game goes
forward with big difficulties, because even all of them together are too little
from being a matching enemy. Potentially the only capable counterpart - China
is smart enough to stay away from these challenges and is busy with its
economic and military development. In contrast to China, in recent years the
USA has spent all its potential on imaginary goals and enemies and has already
lost critically. The question about the role and functions of the Superpower is
still open.
Meanwhile, the problem of understanding the goals and functions of the
superpower is the most important matter of the USA s policies and needs to be
considered urgently.
Let s see what the superpower position dictates conceptually and what is
possible to accept and what to reject.
It is important to be certain that the US really intends to remain a superpower.
Besides renowned politician Patrick Buchanan, nobody else is advocating for
isolation of the US from global matters. The politicians, the decision-maker and
the United States citizens dont show inclinations towards Buchanans scenario.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to consider that the US decision-makers and
society want the US to remain a superpower.
What advantages, opportunities or limitations does this position give?
As a superpower, the US can impose and pursue positive or negative goals and
values around the world depending on its vision of the world.
As a positive force, the US can act as a powerful locomotive of innovations,
social, political and technological progress. It can advocate for humanitarian
Arik Hart

and democratic standards around the world and impose sanctions against those
who ignore, or are reluctant to accept these innovations. The US can do many
nice things.
As a negative force, it can accomplish every opposite of the above mentioned.
Additionally, the US can destroy any country in the world and make life on
planet Earth miserable.
The US can act as:
· A friend of the world
· The policeman of the world
· The military oppressor of the world
· The high judge of the world
The superpower position provides all these alternatives. Almost everything
depends on the US itself. In the future, when a challenging power will emerge,
these capabilities of the USA will vanish, but for now, the US can choose and
do a lot.
Some dispute about all these aspects is currently going on among politicians.
Strangely, the friend and judge options are out of discussion. The main
quarrel is within the alternatives of being a policeman or oppressor. The option
of being oppressor nobody considers either, but everybody questions the
policeman option. This is a remarkable situation. There are no options left;
either the US must choose a role or refuse to be a superpower.
Each era of human history was a glorious time for a certain power(s). It is
reasonable to recognize that 21
century will be the fortunate era of emerging
new economical, demographic and military powers, which advance at a much
higher pace than the US does.
Looking deeper into the practices of the most dynamic countries, one would see
that they are accumulating potential which will be more important tomorrow.
What will the difference be between, let s say, China and the USA tomorrow?
Technologically and scientifically, China will be closer to the level of the USA.
Economically and militarily, China will be much stronger because of the higher
demographic potential. In most of the last 19 years (after the Cold War) instead
of leading the world in spheres, where the US already had considerable edges; -
in science, technologies, economy, democracy, the US continued reckless and
meaningless wars.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

What did the US gain in the Iraq war or with its biased politics in the Middle
East? Only hostility, or at least discouragement of the rest of the world. The lost
time now, will be critical for the future positioning of the US in the world. The
US was spending its fortunate time of the winner on erroneous goals. Now,
when this game is over, the only loser is the USA.
Even this small analysis shows that the oppressor option, exercised up to
now, is deadly for this country. If current loss of reputation and economic
consequences are more tangible negatives of previous policies, soon
geopolitical and humanitarian aspects will prevail and the US may face
enormous challenges throughout the world.
The current concept of the superpower role is the main tragedy of this country.
It is impossible to comprehend the oppressor behavior within the boundaries
of political or social sanity. The logic of the Internet-imbedded global world
requires a new, completely revised approach in policies, based on the truth.
Considering that the US wants to remain a superpower, the friend, policeman
or judge options are the only acceptable US roles for the current worlds
A reasonably informed US citizen will possibly agree with the following list of
the current most important global troubles:
· Growing opposition between the West and the Muslim
· Repositioning of world powers due to Globalization
· Prospects of future economic uncertainty
· Ethnic and religious intolerance in western enclaves
populated by newcomers
· World energy problems
· Global ecological problems
All these troubles represent a certain conflict of interests: between countries,
societies, cultures, religions, etc. Viewed without categorization, this list
doesnt tell much about underlying links and roots of these global problems.
· All these troubles dont exist a priori. They were built up slowly, because
of our global mismanagement.
For most of global problems there are two opposing viewpoints on the matter.
Arik Hart

· The majority, including government officials working in international
fields, thinks that these aspects represent independent problems and we
must work on all of them separately. Eventually we will come closer
and closer to the solutions of these problems.
· The minority thinks that there are critical, basic problems in this list
and the solution of these root problems will facilitate the resolution of
other troubles as well.
As for now, only the first approach is in force. All governmental machines and
international institutions have worked according to this methodology for at least
60 years. The results are appalling. These institutions are busy on a strange
task: they are monitoring situations in countries of the world in multiple spheres
and report progress every day. One monitors the function A, the other B, the
third one C, but they never contact each other and discuss the larger interrelated
image. These people see the world as a mosaic of unrelated events. They
consider that the world stage is full of different independent power players and
it is impossible to reach agreements with everybody.
These people speak to us as concerned humanists and we believe them. Time
goes on, nothing changes. They will continue to see the artificial image of the
world as they are taught, because that is the core of their employment and their
political function, - to complicate and mask reality. It is unreasonable to expect
a meaningful brokerage of a conflict resolution from these people because the
mosaic image does not take into account the truth.
Let s analyze an important example and see if the processes in the world are
that unrelated. Let s reconstruct a hypothetical scheme of 9/11 motives and see
if there was a better approach to neutralize terrorism towards the US and the
Evidently, the 9/11 terrorism was an enormous retaliation act. A larger aspect
of the episode was designed for the Muslim world as well: - to show that
effective suicidal retaliation could be a powerful tool of the weak side. (It is
hard to draw a direct link, but in the Iraq war, suicide bombing became the only
weapon of resistance.)
The western categorization of the 9/11 tragedy as a war declared by terrorists
against the US was unjustified. One big tragedy is not a war. It is a colossal, but
single act of retaliation for certain US action(s) (right or wrong, doesnt matter)
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

against sensible feelings of terrorists. Specifically the identification of the event
as war gave the US decision-makers a motive to initiate counter-measures in
the scale of full wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 19 hijackers were from different Arabic countries. This means that their
unifying motive had to be something, which was essential for Arabs. There are
25 Arab countries. If the point of anger would be the USA s unfair action
against one or two Arab countries, then a meaningful representation of that
country had to be visible in the terrorist team. Out of 19 hijackers, 15 were from
Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one
from Lebanon. Saudi Arabia and UAE are allies of the US; Egypt and Lebanon
are at least neutral to US. I do not recall anything negative done by the US
against these countries. Obviously religion could be a critical factor for that
team as well, but there is not a single Muslim among these 19 who is not an
Arab. Thus, the motive of this tragedy was an aggression or a stand by the US
against Arabs. Obviously one may find some historic injustices the US could
have done against Arabs, but the main imbalance of the USA s policies in the
region was its position in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The USA s everyday
military, financial, technological, humanitarian and overwhelming political
support of Israel is undeniable. Thus, the US could be considered by these
Arabs as an enemy equivalent to Israel or even mere, because the US is much
mightier and the US is supplying Israel with sophisticated weaponry.
Why was no Palestinian involved in the team? The group was constructed as a
team of more or less wealthy, ideologically motivated fanatics who were going
to accomplish an epochal event of history. The core of the team was Saudi
and they wouldnt accept new people into team without having the utmost
confidence in them. The Palestinians are divided into factions, and it was
unrealistic that Saudis would confide such a great task of secrecy to them.
These arguments are on the surface. Obviously, even more detailed motives of
the 19 hijackers could have been on the highest decision-maker s table just
minutes after the second plane hit the tower. It seems the reasons presented
were sufficiently credible to at least accept a small chance of this scenario and
discuss it publicly. What we saw and witnessed later was shocking - the US
declared that these terrorists were staging war against the US because they were
Arik Hart

Now, 9 years after 9/11, the motives of this horrible tragedy are still concealed
and out of public discussion.
Considering that the asymmetry of US involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict
is the core motive of 9/11, we can simulate alternative scenarios in retrospect
and evaluate possible outcomes of different scenarios.
If the true motive of 9/11 was in force from early stages of the conflict, the US
would be restrained from unequivocal support of Israel and act as an impartial
peace broker. Israel would have been more flexible with the neighbors and a
peace agreement would be in force long before. The energy problem would be
less critical, since the region would be less volatile. Accordingly ecological and
other safety problems could get more attention. West-East religious and
political opposition would be less aggravated, because fewer refugees would
flee into the West. There would be fewer chances for this extreme economical
turmoil in the world.
One can simulate different scenarios with different portions of truth in them.
The results will vary, but surely none of them will be as disastrous as the
current global situation.
These simulations will surely show that all global problems are interrelated and
cant be solved separately, as current world stage players are trying to do.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The New Reality
Current Geopolitical Uncertainty

As a result of surprising scientific, technological and cultural achievements,
humanity found himself in a new geopolitical, ecological environment, which
is completely different from all previously known. We have achieved lifestyles,
practices and political culture which are in deep contradictions with our
previous social and political culture. There are no more neighbors to invade;
there is no more space to expand.
We are in the 21
century! We are in the global world!
There are no barriers anymore. The physical borders of the states are still
intact, but the intellectual, informational openness of the world is
The main paradox of our time is the fact that while living in a global world, we
are continuing to operate according to old rules of our biology - kill, seize and
expand! This is very much similar to brainless bacteria, which converts all the
substrate into the product in a Petri dish and dies from self-poisoning of its
environment. I dont mean the environmental aspect, but political, geopolitical
self-destruction. We hope that somebody else will solve the problems of the
global world: the decision-makers, the presidents, the congressmen, the UN
will do something. But this is an illusion. By definition these subjects and
institutions are designed to act according to old, pre-global world rules and
instructions. In none of these assignments can one find a mandatory obligation
to find new ways or principles for the life of humanity in the global 21

century. Never in our past were such problems solved by decision-makers. We
dont have historical instances when leaders were ever able to offer solutions
and overcome conceptual critical challenges. Time and evolutional
developments were the real problem solvers.

Arik Hart

Political Illusions

Current state of external relations on the scale of the global world can be
considered as a new island for humanity. In this new era the West is in
disarray, - trying intellectually to find new objectives, approaches and solutions.
The East continues its life according to the cellular state ideology and is busy
with the design of its extensive growth. For the East, the world is still a
Practically and theoretically, the West is in a difficult situation. Over the last 5
or 6 centuries, the West was the innovator and leader in technological and
cultural advancement. The East copied selectively whatever was necessary for
itself. Over the past two or three decades, the acceleration in living standards,
technological innovations and the Internet unmasked the Achilles heel of the
West - it is powerless demographically against the rest of the world. It has the
power to protect itself militarily, but this option is blocked by other weaknesses,
cultural taboos.
It is unclear what will happen next. The previous political and social
development of humanity was a chain of unfolding new solutions coming into
play unintentionally, as a result of overall development. If not interfered with
intellectually, current reality will also change uncontrolled, according to a yet
unknown logic. At the same time, in conditions when the world is packed with
nuclear weaponry, the hope for a peaceful future is slim.
Up to the moment of the destruction of the bipolar world, the logic of
geopolitics was rational and natural in its essence; overpower the enemy by all
means. The defeat of the bipolar world announced the end of this ideology.
Now, when no matching enemies are visible, the remaining single pole, the
superpower, has no reasonable concept of what to do next. Other western
countries are in disarray as well.
The political machine of the Superpower continues to pretend that the old era is
not over yet that there are rogue countries, extremists, terrorists, and bad guys
Taliban, Hamas, or the Hezbollah, which needs to be taken care of.
Obviously, this policy is an illusion, though there are several factors which
serve this illusion:
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· During the last two decades, because of the absence of a real
geopolitical opponent - the second global pole, core professional
institutions advising and serving decision-making of the Superpower
have lost their competitiveness in the professional sphere.
· In conditions of low responsibility and professionalism, the highly
privileged positions in these institutions became attractive for interest
groups and became packed by interest groups people. Specifically
these guys found powder in Niger and aluminum tubes in Iraq.
· They did a big job - deceiving Americans, instead of informing and
protecting them. The irony is that the high public opinion about these
institutions acquired during the Cold War continues to serve them at
time when they, in essence, act destructively.
· The group interest representatives operating inside the US
highest decision-making are the main architects of
geopolitical illusions. Under the guidance of group interest,
the USA is forced to take unfair stances in most geopolitical
· The group interest designed geopolitics and corresponding
national priorities are declared as USAs objective goals.
Using official mechanisms and connections, group interest
control the public opinion and block all attempts of
questioning this false objectives.
A new vision must come from the highest decision-maker. He is the one who
must conceptually design new global settings first. We elect him specifically
for this purpose. His first responsibility is meant to be the design of a better
world. The function of advisers is to professionally develop the idea coming
from the decision-maker, not to offer decisions.
British Foreign Secretary D. Miliband recently showed a sign of rationality in
this matter: he identified the policy of fighting terrorism as a false goal. The
hope is that this wasnt an individual opinion, but a conceptual shift in British
policy making.
One can distinguish two eras in US geopolitics after WWII. Up to the moment
of the collapse of the bipolar world, the USA was acting within the logic of
confrontation. It was aggressive towards the opposite pole and the wars,
Arik Hart

including the Iraq War in 1991, were managed within the logic of that
opposition. The war in Yugoslavia in 1999 was the last one within that logic
and was aimed at annihilating the Russian influence in Europe and curtailing
Serbias power in the region.
The current Iraq war is the USA s first open move outside of previous logic.
We already discussed that the Iraq war had at least two layers of conspiracies:
1- the war for oil, and 2-geopolitical positioning.
Within months after the beginning of the Iraq war it became clear that it had
nothing to do with the officially declared objective (WMD, Saddam,
Democracy, etc) and had little to do with the oil-conspired objective as well.
There was a hope that the idea of gaining geopolitical strategic preferences in
the region would prevail. But when Saddams sons disfigured bodies became
advertised worldwide on TV as a victory, it became clear that the people who
controlled the war had utterly different goals: their goal was to increase the
tension between the US and Muslims, to convert the US into the Arabs eternal
enemy. In the Arab world, this conversion of perception took a while, since it
was horrendous to accept such naivety and at the same time brutality from a
democratic country and society. But six years of war with massive number of
civilian casualties were long enough to finish the job. Now the US is as hateful
in that part of the world as Israel.
Who could do that? I dont know these people by name. I have no idea how
specifically they accomplished this fantastic goal.
The fact is that they did it!
People in the MM, in the government, may know everything much better than
I can guess. The First Amendment is supposed to be in force in this country, but
nobody talks about the absurdity of current geopolitics. Those, who prosper on
tragedies of others, must be stopped. The current western civilization is the
highest achievement of humanity. It cant be lost to a few shadow figures,
sickly occupied by fanaticism, political blindness and shameful intrigues.
In last two decades, we witnessed endless human tragedies and the loss of
hundreds of thousands of lives in wars. None of us authorized these wars. Each
time, the decision-makers and people around him succeeded in shamefully
faking the reality and beginning the next miscalculated adventure. The society
never prevented war. It was watching inertly.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Currently, the weakness of the decision-making of the superpower is already
enormous. The healing (if any) must include all subjects - the interest groups,
the shadow figures, the highest decision-maker and the citizens.
Without clear future prerogatives, the interest groups continue deliver illusions
in the MM, Congress, government, UN and elsewhere as before. The group
interest people are smart and must understand that there is no more room for
future games: they are destroying the foundations of the state.
Social and political processes are extremely inertial: as was mentioned,
Gorbachevs intentions to reform the USSR, initiated in 1985, continued as
uncontrolled destruction up to now.
The appalling results of the Iraq war, unrealistic goals in Afghanistan and the
current economic turmoil are huge signs that something is critically wrong in
the policies of this country as well.
People reacted - they elected and offered their solution: a young, differently
thinking and change offering President. How will interest groups behave?
Obviously they will continue as before. They have no reason to behave
differently. As long as the business works, they will continue.
What can the citizens do? They must see the seriousness of the situation and
behave as responsible adults - citizens. A single act an election, is not enough.
Democracy needs to be supervised permanently by ordinary citizens, - carriers
of the states real power. We have forgotten this simple requirement for
decades. Even a house or kitchen appliance needs periodic repairs and
corrections. But we became so lazy that instead of repair, we buy a new one.
We hate even domestic cars, and buy foreign cars because they require less
attention. We recklessly live in a state- greenhouse which our grandfathers
put together, and refuse to see that this house is coming down.
It is not clear which subjects - the group interest people or ordinary people, will
take such concerns more seriously. The hope is that tomorrow things will be
encouragingly different.

Arik Hart

Permanent War

The existence of permanent war or several wars at a time anywhere on the
planet is the harsh reality of our time. Western people see war through the TV
screen. This is a remote war for most of us. We dont participate in it in any
way: most of our sons arent there. The casualties are not ours. We dont pay
directly for the war (one may observe its dynamics at - Congress appropriates money for defense against
terrorists and rogue nations. We dont see negative correlations between our
well being and the remote war. Just the opposite; we think wars facilitate
economy and overall progress.
The remote war implemented a whole new philosophy of tolerance among
ordinary people towards cruelty. It separated each of us from the essence of war
- casualties and social hardship.
Instead of civil involvement, we watch, hear, learn, but never judge. We are
taught to earn money and spend it. No other function is encouraged. The
remote war critically lowered the standards of human rights and encouraged
broad political neighborhoods to deny it completely.
· The remote war shaped us as detached observers.
· Locally, it instituted murderers and criminals living at the expense of
human life.
Precise weaponry accomplished the next step it changed the appearance of
the war.
· This weapon dissociated society from the war, the army from
the battle, and soldiers from the enemy ahead.
In ancient times, the leaders themselves fought with rivals in order to solve the
conflict. Later, armies entered into play and leaders took positions behind the
soldiers. In our times, even this culture became useless. The only responsibility
of the leaders became to take the advice of the group interest to go to war and
talk about it. The rest is being done without an effort. The MM sells the war,
the Congress stays away for a while, and the war is there, in full force.
Everybody is busy - the MM is lying, the government is supporting the war, the
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

opposition is opposing, the UN is gathering, and group interests are designing
the next war.
No one designs the end of the war. It comes to an end by itself, until there are
no resources: neither in locality, - to continue it, nor in the West, - to support it.
It is much easier to begin a new war.
There is a belief among scientists that the advance of civilizations was a result
of the sophistication of weaponry. Throughout history, the innovators created
new weapons and the leaders used these inventions as tools for their personal
ambitions. Nowadays, the best western professionals design precision weapons
in the comfort of their offices and laboratories. Their contract is to invent and
get paid. No other obligations are in force.
We remember that creators of nuclear weapons had big personal hesitations
about their invention, but current inventors dont have even these doubts; each
of them is just a small, easily replaceable element of the industry.
Any current war is an event which has no clear authors: the group interest
cannot be considered as author - it is just the advisor. The decision-maker is not
the author either - he is just the advice taker. The irony is that no leader can
behave otherwise; he is designed to take advice. The MM and other players
arent authors either. They do whatever they are paid to do. The only subject
who authorizes the war is the citizen, who fails to take care of his/her share of
decision-making. This citizen continues to watch, hear, and keep quiet,
pretending to be blind, deaf and speechless.
· None of us is that inhumane, but together we all are much
more selfish than the current world can sustain.
· We all became small, consumable elements of the big
machinery named globalization, which blindly goes ahead.

Arik Hart

Energy Production and Oil Supply
Arguments in Geopolitics

Among the declared, seemingly reasonable geopolitical objectives there are
ones which were meaningful before, but critically changed during the last years
as a result of technological and scientific progress. Presently, many such
problems have reliable technical solutions. One such objective is the so-called
policy of securing the sources of oil and routes of energy supply.
This previously bloody geopolitical objective already has technological
solutions. Currently, 1vt of renewable power generation hardware costs $6
(some technologies now claim a price as low as $1.00!). The US electric power
generating potential is 1 x10
wt. Accordingly, the replacement of all
electricity production hardware in the US with renewable electric stations and
generators will cost $6 trillion. Not a very big sum: just 92 times more than a
single criminal, Madoff, has stolen (92 x $65 billion~$6 trillion) in a matter of
several years. In another scale, this sum is just our 2.7 year s spending on health
The separation of electricity production from oil and increased share of electric
cars will open enormous opportunities for humanity in other spheres as well. It
will dramatically decrease the tension in the world and generate a new
international global reality.
In order to begin real moves in the direction of renewable energy ideology, our
attitude on power production ought to be shifted from market-aggressive
simplicity towards the common sense global realities and unbiased decision-
making. We have to abandon primitive templates, categorizing complex
economic, political and societal problems in simple dogmas blindly denouncing
possible solutions.

Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

Geopolitical Scenarios

As mentioned, two decision-makers operate in the current world, - humans and
finances. Humans make determined decisions based on their interests, will and
subjective evaluation of their potential and position. Finances do not dictate-
they flow. In the global, developed and peaceful world they flow practically
independent and free of other decision-makers involvement. They flow
according to economic-financial potentials. Finances flow and people follow
finances as sheep follow a goat. The result is incredible: without any decision-
making process or decree, finances eventually decide!
The more people are involved in the global world, the stronger is the power of
finances and weaker the power of individual decision-makers. (Obviously, the
human decision-maker has the power to use WMD and destroy the planet, but
we are discussing the sane options).
It seems unbelievable, but the current essence of globalization is the
disappearance of the homo-sapiens decision-makers and the rise of finances as
the sole decision-maker. It is hard to imagine our civilization in the final stage
of such progress, although, according to current trends we are moving
principally in this direction. Disproportional accumulation of wealth, the
disconnect between the producers and the consumers, permanently generated
and continued interest-driven conflicts, and the inability to substantially change
external policy vectors serve as valid indicators that, parallel to humans, other
factors govern the world.
Very often we hear that nothing will change with the arrival of a new leader.
There is feeling that like a black hole, the future pulls us into its uncertainty.
We were naïve in crushing the bipolar world, now we are naïve rushing into the
global world.
Market generated the state and exchange equivalent, - money. Apparently, the
future world will find its rational modus operandi, with its specific potentials,
factors and principles. Miscalculations or artificial constructs will be
How can the future global world be organized?
Arik Hart

As a common, non-political, linguistically, religiously and culturally
homogenous space without states, but with markets and finances
(partial communism case);
As a politically organized, complex, multilateral world, with multiple
currencies and markets (a more sophisticated current world);
As politically divided into opposing camps, led by superpowers and
using several common currencies, world (the Orwellian case);
As a world, having a single dominant state, which imposes its rules of
behavior, currency and regulations on all countries and markets of
the world (the global slavery case or group interests global
dominance case);
Nobody can predict the relative chances of these scenarios. A great deal
depends on how each of us sees the future. Up to now, the leaders guided us
into the future. Now, in the global, Internet informed world each of us has a
responsibility and share in decision-making. Obviously, somebodys share is
huge, share of others is negligible. But the share is there. It must be used or
others will steal and use it as they want.

USA - China: G2 Cooperation or

In last years international affairs specialists began to consider China as a global
player. A comparison of US and Chinas potentials supports this as well, (see
for example
visual-comparison ).
A new G2 formula instead of the currently existing G8 cooperative scheme was
offered for the world (US +China as cooperative great powers).
The G8 formula was designed as the worlds cooperative forum for relatively
strong international power players. Cooperation is a modus operandi which
considers mostly open membership. On the other hand, non-military
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

cooperation cannot be isolated and directed toward third subjects. Such
cooperation is aimed at uniting more partners and subjects, capable of and
willing to bring their input into common matters. What is the common topic or
goal, which would bring the ambitions of the US and China together and reject
participation of other power players? What are the parameters of the G2 format
which are contrary to others intentions?
The idea of G2 in essence contains a great deal of fear from Chinas growing
might. Independent of others positions in the world, every state must protect its
interests. The US must think about its wellbeing as a superpower, China take
care of its interests.
G2 is a format of confrontation, rather than cooperation. G2 can be a new
bipolar or confrontational world. The USA and China can make alliances
directed against other countries. But it cant be everlasting. According to
scheme 6 there cant be two decision-makers simultaneously. Thus, for a short
time, a G2 alliance, aggressive against all others is possible. But a separated
G2 alliance, as a club of two good guys is impossible. The suggested G2
configuration as a cooperative alliance is possible neither practically, nor even
Even worse, along with the economic and military advance, the US and China
will have more and more rival interests and ambitions in the world. Viewpoints
of American and Chinese people on global matters may differ at the core. For
example, a Chinese may think that it is unfair that Chinas population density in
habitable territory is 10 times higher than in the US. It is unfair that China
produces much more, but living standards in the US are much higher. It is
unfair that the US claims national interests wherever it wants on the globe. It
will be fair if in the global world, many things, including ownership of natural
recourses, oil, are reconsidered as communized.
At the same time an American cant imagine that a Chinese may really think
that way. This yet invisible list of different ambitions and opinions on global
matters can be very long.
The chance is high that eventually a new global pole, opposite to US s
supremacy, will be formed, be that China, India, Europe or another power.
There are signs which indicate that China has seriously taken this scenario into
consideration. It has intensified efforts in space militarization. The idea is
Arik Hart

simple: the US is the superpower and has dense military presence throughout
the world. As the worlds biggest nation, main producer and financial giant,
soon China may have problems protecting its interests in locations.
Accordingly, China will strive to gain adequate political and military power in
the world stage as well.
How can China do that if the US s interests and military bases are everywhere?
In the previous bipolar world, the sides built up their opposing potential slowly,
during 30-40 years. In current configuration the US is already a superpower
and cant tolerate emergence of an ambitious new challenger. The US must
block the process at the beginning. Thus, Chinas only choice is to elevate its
status, by pressuring and weakening other sides. Possibly, some small shares
can be taken from regional powers, but the only real source for redistribution of
global power is the US s might. How can China accomplish that goal in
reality? Can China fight against the US all around the world? Of course not;
that is senseless. The only way is to impose global asymmetric military
supremacy. They see that in the militarization of the space and imposing
pressure on the USA s nucleus. This seems cruel, but at least more realistic
than reliance on G2 cooperation.

Intellectual Solutions versus
Bacteria- Poisoned Environment

The bacteria - poisoned environment model presented earlier was aimed at
helping us understand problems we are now facing. The idea was that in a Petri
dish, a bacterial colony grows until concentration of bacterial growth
byproducts become poisonous for bacteria and they die from poisoning, rather
than exhaustion of the media. For example, the alcohol producing bacteria die
when concentration of alcohol in the environment reaches 13-14%, though it
may still contain the food for bacteria - sugar.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The philosophical analogy between Petri dish bacteria and global world
humanity behaviors has many more common layers in it: One can discuss
different aspects of the analogy, but the main dilemma is whether the humans,
as intellectual subjects, are able to avoid the death from self poisoning
In this respect, the cornerstone problem is the following: do we, humans have a
common goal? Each of us may have specific personal dream: For somebody,
the goal may be a good meal; for another - a billion dollars. The next one may
think how to destroy the planet. Each of us is an unknown ego box. On the
other hand, if asked about our children, everybody will certainly wish for them
approximately the same; a healthy, happy and decent life. Nothing more!
From this simplicity, we can judge what we want en masse theoretically.
· We want to have a healthy life until the exhaustion of
biological resources of our organisms.
· We want to have decent, meaningful and enjoyable life
conditions during our life.
None of us is born with the mission to be a tyrant, to bomb with or without
WMD, invade or annihilate others. These intensions come to us later, during
our lives, when each of us grows, becomes a subject and sees that he can
overpower others and dictate his will.
As adults we are who we are.
Isnt it strange that we are much nicer people towards our next generation than
towards people living around us right now? This is a fundamental philosophical
problem - our ego is much more determined and sophisticated in its actions
than in its dreams. The complexity of contemporary relations and our
subjectivity destroys in each of us the nice, humanistic person. It prescribes us
to behave as aggressive individuals permanently fighting for interests.
· Thus, we need much less than we are fighting for every day.
The real difference between Socialism and Capitalism was rooted specifically
in this dilemma: Socialism was counting on the dream, Capitalism - on
everyday life philosophy. In practice Socialism has lost, demonstrating that our
ego is really much stronger than our dreams.
Now, on the next spiral of our social and political sophistication, we are facing
a similar philosophical problem: how are we going to act from now on?
Arik Hart

· Will we continue the process of globalization as homogenization of all
potentials on the planet or will we look for other ways of progress?
· The continuation of globalization according to current mechanisms
and trends is senseless. It will bring us to the bacteria-Petri dish model,
which is a disgrace for us as Homo sapiens.
This problem is different from the Malthusian concern. We are not discussing
the population growth - scarcity of resources problem, but the philosophy of
our social, political behavior, our relations with each-other.
We need to reveal if there is a way to harmonize our dreams and our everyday
aggressive practices. We could continue as before, if the issues of global
limitations and global homogenization werent this critical for us now.
Earlier we characterized the extensive growth (globalization is certainly an
extensive growth) as a movement intended to occupy all accessible space with
the same practices, businesses and traditions. Globalization doesnt include
qualitative growth or scientific innovation as a goal.
· It is senseless to innovate in the global, homogeneous world,
because no rights can be protected.
· The global world is a hard, single level survival modus
In the global world people must compete with each other in the same fields.
Whoever is successful cost-wise will have an edge in competition. It is
uncertain what the goal of competition and essence of peoples relations in that
global and homogenous world will be.
There are several critical contradictions between the current globalization and
actors of the world scene, - the states as well.
· States tend to pursue their sovereignty; globalization devalues the
authority of the states.
· In order to operate, markets use their local currencies. What will the
common currency of the global world be?
· Historically whoever owned the central market became the main
decision-maker. Now also, depending on which countrys currency will
take the lead that country will dictate its settings. Is that acceptable for
current WMD-equipped global players?
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· Politically and philosophically, what will the homogenization of the
potentials on the planet mean? Is that a new Communism? Which goal
can continue to be the driving force for progress in that world?
· In the global world, along with economic and social homogenization,
eventually money must lose its role as a measure of human
interrelations. Consequently, if people are more or less equal, there will
be no reason to differentiate them as subjects.
· This is a crisis of identity. Can we live as a harmonic society without
· Can any manufacturing be accomplished in a society without money?
Common sense dictates that previously undeveloped countries are benefiting
from globalization because they are elevating their production standards and
becoming a part of the global economy. By outsourcing technologies and
know how, businessmen in rich countries are financially benefiting from
globalization, too.
But, as a result, advanced countries are losing their technological and
intellectual edge because of globalization. Information, which freely flows from
West to East, was the main argument and source of western dominance. After
losing it, the West-East competition will proceed into an open military
confrontation, since there is no other factor which would restrain emerging new
powers from exercising their increased political ambitions. The peace of the
world will be fundamentally compromised.
These, and many other unspecified aspects indicate that globalization has
multiple critical contradictions which have no clear solutions. None of the
mentioned aspects is thoroughly considered by people encouraging and
participating in globalization.
· It seems that the current uncontrolled globalization was an
unsupervised experiment initiated by group interests,
ignoring the basics of our political and social construction.
Western society needs to observe itself from an unbiased point of view.
Observing as an impartial outsider, it will see that this society and a critically
obese patient have an important feature in common: both the patient and the
society consume exceedingly much more than they need. They have a similar
sickness, but behave differently: - the obese person struggles his entire life to
Arik Hart

get rid of extra weight; he is depressed and not happy with his condition. The
western society doesnt see its illness. It strives to earn more, consume more
and spend more. The West is happy with this lifestyle. The whole western
economy was designed on this implanted ideology, - on the cult of spending.
Can this ideology continue to be dominant in the future as well? Are there
clear reasons to produce more and consume more than a person needs?
Previously, the higher pace of production and consumption was beneficial for
intensive growth, the advancement of society, and the state. By artificially
boosting consumption, states were intensifying their overall potentials in all
spheres. This modus operandi was good for boosting economy, technology, for
market intensification and for competition with other economies. But this
culture has reached the point of irrationality now. The produced mass products
became partially useless. This ideology now carries more social, habitual and
political negatives rather than positive economic functional load. For example,
China produces millions of toys; the American child uses a toy for a minute,
and then plays with another one for one more minute and goes on to the third
one. The parents buy the toy habitually; the kid receives and plays with the toy
also habitually. The product on which a lot of efforts and resources were spent
is useless in essence.
In current technological world, an average worker produces products for
thousands of other people. In order to support a decent lifestyle for his family, a
5 or 6 hour work of a single professional is more than sufficient. The extra
work of the whole family and extra production is aimed to satisfy the
exaggerated consumption of the society. The American Dream is a rational
goal, but American exaggerated consumption is a counterproductive culture,
denouncing the American Dream.
The economic turmoil of the fall of 2008 showed for the first time that
sophisticated market tools of the global world went out of the control of
financial institutions, governments and societies.
Obviously, this crisis has deeper roots than solely market mechanisms
prescribe. It is remarkable that specialists dont see potent economic or political
leverages, which would lessen the impact of the current turmoil. The financial
injections into the banking system and different spheres are having no adequate
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The stereotypic optimistic old idea prescribes that the American consumer will
eventually spend money as before and the economy will boom again. This may
happen, but the chance is higher that the previous American consumer is gone
forever. The one which emerged is a person who will think before buying, and
will allocate his/her resources according to needs, but not desires.
The current crisis is deeply psychological and has its economic and political
The economic components are as follows:
· The American economy is spending-based: it produces much more
than a person would consume without additional societal and
psychological pressures to earn more and spend more. Apparently, this
is a crisis consumption philosophy: people are refusing to act as
excessive consumers.
· Consumption-based economy considers people as careless spenders
who have no knowledge of the basics of economic safety. This
oversimplification compromises the entire ideology of a consumption-
based intensive economy.
In last decade a huge army of non-entrepreneurial individuals (different
categories of executives, bank managers and MM players) managed to secure
for themselves unsubstantiated 6-, 7- or even 8-figure salaries. Their earnings
and compensations went out of common sense market mechanisms.
These practices critically compromised the primary function of money as a
measure of meaningful work. Earn more, spend more philosophy is possibly
the main root of the crisis of peoples' confidence in the financial system as a
Additionally, market became loaded with second, third derivatives of money.
As mentioned, the money itself is already a derivative - it is an equivalent of
socially meaningful work. Further derivatives which represent different
packages of financial valuables are meaningless socially, economically, unless
they are certified by the government. These derivatives reflect past
commitments, current or future intentions, tendencies, assurances or guarantees
and dont contain real money equivalent. They can be used as indicators of
processes, but they cant be valued as real money. The counterfeit of real
money with derivatives eventually may crush the whole market philosophy.
Arik Hart

The political component:
Unpopular policies of the previous administration, unprecedented financial
machinations, the inadequacy of thieves punishment and global political
uncertainty have utterly decreased peoples trust in government s ability to
tackle the problems.
Unfortunately, the economy cant recover without consumer trust; consumer
trust cant be recovered without political trust. Even if political trust will be
reestablished successfully, it is not clear that people will consume as before.
Previous experience of recovery from financial and economic turmoil may not
be applicable for this moment. This crisis includes several new components
which were missing in all previous cases:
· The uni-polar world and emergence of new global
· Group interest overwhelming control of decision-making;
· Disastrous war in Iraq and intensifying war in
· Multilayered political confidence decline;
It is uncertain if people and decision-makers of power states will ignore all
these negatives.
On a medieval island, the fierce opposition and bloody conflicts between
political subjects laid the path to democracy. In the current global world, again,
the situation must be resolved by the subjects.
· Who are the subjects now? -Apparently the states are.
· What will the essence of their opposition be? -A new war?
· Is this the goal to which we all are moving?
The current world is somewhere at the beginning of the transition to the global
world. Depending on the dynamics of recovery from the economic turmoil, the
attitude of the worlds governments towards globalization will change.
Apparently, the western governments will pay more attention to negative
aspects of globalization and hopefully the process will be more and more
· I believe that the restraint from excessive consumption in
all aspects will be introduced into the western culture as an
imperative requirement of the global world.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

The appearance and dominance of environmentally friendly and economic cars
in Europe is already a good indicator of this tendency. The change of western
mentality from excessive to balanced consumption will bring colossal changes
into the politics and economy of the world. Our new, multifactor ecological
mentality will include the restraint from extremes as a core ideology of the 21

Capitalism (person driven market and competitive economy), is effective only
under the rule of law. Currently, when the involvement of interest groups
dominates the situation, some elements of socialism (state driven centralized
economy) can be more effective for speedy recovery from recession.
· Our planet is a comprehensively limited space. This space is
equally limited for polar bears and for humans as well. In
this limited space, there must be room for everybody, but
interest groups.

Hardly Achievable Vital Goals:

Yes, We Can!?

As the highest decision-maker, the US president must act on behalf of the US
and do whatever is needed to protect the country and facilitate its progress. The
history of the presidency in the US shows that the two term setup implies a
critical negative moment: shortly after the election, instead of fulfilling his
ongoing direct obligations, the President becomes occupied with the sick idea
of reelection for the second term. The fierce determination of his team, which
establishes powerful positions inside the government during the first term,
pushes and directs him to be reelected at any price.
One may hope that the President will be doing what was supposed to be done
during the second term, but the accumulated momentum of non-
responsiveness, ignorance and selfishness surrounding him advisers and
Arik Hart

interest groups guides him for another 4 unfortunate years as well. Thus,
instead of creating really motivated leadership, the two term presidency setup
produces a decision-maker, who is isolated from the society, works under the
guidance of group interest and is not independent at all.
The other problem of highest decision-making is associated with the legitimacy
of presidential advisers: - Each president enters into his office with his team of
advisers and cabinet, aimed at leading the country. Citizens elect only the
president, but he comes with a group of other people who may have different
specific connections and ideas. (For example the number of neo-cons around
President G.W. Bush was overwhelming. The connections of these people to
interest groups were the subject of multiple revelations).
Citizens have no means and power to check what these people are advising the
President to do. The President begins to act, and strange decisions follow one
after the other. He claims that he is the decider, but things are getting worse.
People wait. At the beginning, they wait 4 years, then another 4 years as well.
Why are the President s decisions bad? People elected him as a rational, normal
patriot. Why is he behaving strangely after the elections? The answer was given
in all previous pages; - the presidency is the most attractive position in the
country and it is under heavy control of group interest. There cant be solutions
which are equally good for group interests and for people simultaneously.
What are the options for society?
There is no big hope that the current society isolated from political affairs is
capable of fixing the problems. On the other hand, it is worth seeing if there are
reasonable suggestions capable to deal with the situation.
The following measures can help to retract decision-making from interest
groups influence:
· The presidency must be limited to only one term, with the
increased service time up to 5-7 years. This time period is
sufficient to accomplish meaningful ideas and promises
· All elections must be funded from public funds
· The Electoral College must be abolished
· Lobbyism must be banned completely
· Monopoly on MM must be barred
· An elected Advising board for the President must be set up
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

· Contributions into both opposing electoral campaigns
should be banned
Any president certainly needs professional, competent advice. As a balance to
existing advisors the citizens must have the power to choose and elect their
special advisers to the President (a Public Advising Board for the President )
for the most important matters: - the future design and prerogatives, war,
foreign affairs, presidential vetoes, overruling, etc.
Such a legitimate representative body may consist of 9 (in the manner of the
Supreme Court) members, elected through direct elections. Each year, 3 of the
lower rated advisors must be up for reelection. The task of this group of
specialists in different spheres (a public commission may be set up and
implement certain criteria for candidacies) is to offer to the President solutions
to important matters and openly inform the society about all advice to the
The President may have the power not to obey, but at least the people will
know that there was different advice for a particular question but the President
chose not to take it. This body should also have the authority to ask for
professional advice from other renowned scientists. The group must have a
separate non-partisan staff, consisting of 100-150 people, who should have the
authority to monitor the political media on the subject of biased interests and
brainwashing. In light of this innovation, the office of the Vice President must
be strictly limited to the Senate, and must have no right to be involved in the
current decision-making.
Like the President, Congressmen and executive officials are surrounded with
lobbyists and group interest advisers. Even after the barring of lobbyism, all
advice given by anybody to any governmental officials must be made public.
The Congressmen must declare that they took advice from a certain individual
or a group of people as a socially valuable initiative, which was worth pursuing
on behalf of a certain constituency or bigger social entity.
With the same motivations as for the Presidency, the service time of
Congressmen also must be limited to one term (6 years). This time is fully
adequate to express their abilities as public servants, serve people, and fulfill
their best promises.
Arik Hart

Congress must allocate grants for financing a new independent public TV
channel, with equal financial potencies of a mainstream private TV news
channel. (It can be done on the basis of C-SPAN). This channel must be active
every day, in primetime let s say, from 5pm till 10 pm. It must be included
into lists of all cable, satellite and local channels. This is the only way to free
the news MM from group interests control.
Western democracy already has an example of practices, restricting external
involvement into specific matters: - courts have mechanisms restricting
involvement of external interests into the judicial process, via gag orders, media
involvement limitations, secrecy of acquired information, witness protection,
etc. I think that similar protection must be imposed by the society on the
members of governmental decision-making.
The US president is elected by US citizens and must serve them. On the other
hand, US are the superpower. Accordingly, the US presidency carries a great
deal of external international affairs. Taking into consideration this peculiarity
of the US leader s responsibilities, it is reasonable to assume that the President
of the USA can be considered essentially as the worlds geopolitical decision-
Thus, along with globalization, an inconsistency grows between a US leader s
internal and external responsibilities: He/she is elected as the states leader, but
performs as a global decision-maker. The USA wants to enjoy the superpower
position, but has no accountability for the substantial part of its performance in
global matters.
If the US is willing to continue to carry superpower functions, some feedback
mechanism on the President s actions on external affairs must be implemented.
The international community can create a representative Ethics Committee of
the World, aimed solely at following the USA s and other power countries
leaders actions in foreign affairs. Members of this committee must be elected
from renowned people of our time and must enjoy the status of the most
respected individuals of their societies. These people must be chosen from
countries, not represented in G8 but elected by all EU citizens. The outcome of
this committees work must be periodic press releases, declarations and other
opinions about the worlds decision-makers.
Group Interest in Decision-Making: Yes, We Can!?

We, humans, are highly respectful of the opinion of renowned bright people.
Their vision on international matters will serve as an imperative restraint for the
world leaders, at least in global matters. In essence, the role of this Committee
is to interpret and introduce the truth into international affairs. Members of this
Committee (9-11 people) must be evaluated by the people of the EU each year
and three members who get low ratings must be replaced by new members via
elections. (I stress the EU as the voting base for the Committee, as far only
people in EU countries currently have tolerable bias in the matters of
international affairs.) The mechanism and format of elections can be
elaborated further, if this idea will be
taken seriously.
The offered ideas are summarized in Fig.
30. 1 represents the US President; 2 -
Interest groups; 3 - US citizens; 4 -
Advising Board to the President; and 5 -
International Ethics Committee . Small
vertical ellipse on the left depicts the
current formula of policy-making. The
large dashed circle schematizes a future
likable formula of the worlds decision-
making (as US the Superpower). IMM represents an Independent Mass Media
released from interest groups control. (There should be a principle limiting the
time frame of policy interpreter practices as well).
I like these ideas, and the chance of their realization is not less than 1/6.8
billion. Quite a big number!

Final Notes

The problems of the global world are slowly becoming exposed. Some of them
are rosy, some are uncertain, and some are already alarming. It is hard to
predict the most probable geopolitical, economic, social or cultural settings of
the global world. But one thing is clear - in the unified global world, the
militarily and economically advanced and demographically powerful states will
Fig. 30
Arik Hart

demand a fair share in global natural resources of the world; let s say a fair
share in oil, in metals, minerals, in oxygen, in water, in forests, in fish in the
ocean, etc.
This is not a fantasy. The Kyoto protocol established quotas on the share of
waste. We are not far from the time, when international agreements will
stipulate rights on the share of resources.
Obviously, resourceful countries cant yield to these demands; they will protect
their interests by all means available to them, including war.
· Thus, even theoretically, the global world is an unstable
environment. Any small move of multiple players on the
worlds geopolitical arena will ruin the balance of global
Many events indicate that the peaceful stage of the global development is
approaching its end. What will happen next is uncertain. Short-sighted
politicians and interest groups wasted western advantages in scientific edge,
high technologies and know-how for immediate greedy profits. This crucial
mistake will demonstrate its consequences soon, if adequate measures of
protection are not taken in time. Considering the overwhelming control of
group interest over the highest decision-making of western countries, it is hard
to rely on optimistic outcomes.