Books and documents:
Agustí Chalaux de Subirà, Brauli Tamarit Tamarit.
Agustí Chalaux de Subirà.
Agustí Chalaux de Subirà.
Agustí Chalaux de Subirà.
Magdalena Grau, Agustí Chalaux.
Chapter 11. The social rule or archy.
- Dialectics between archy and anarchy.
- The different archies.
When we must suggest a social aternative, one of the main questions which
must be solved in the first place is that of who and how will rule, which
will be the political structure of this new society, which institutions
will take care of its direction.
As far as we are concerned, we cannot think -at least in the present
evolutionary cultural level- of a human society without a rule, without
a person in charge of ruling, deciding, in every field of the social activity
In all the social levels there is rule, but now we are interested only
in the highest social rule, that is the one which is practised on geostrategic
levels: district..., town..., county..., ethnic group..., interethnic group...,
And the technical term we apply to this social rule is that of archy.
is a word of Greek origin, derived from a Greek verb which, originally,
appeared to mean «to take the initiative, to start», and later
became also «to rule».
But, what is implied in the idea of rule, generally speaking, and in
the idea of archy (or of «supreme command»), in particular?
It is necessary to exactly describe these ideas, in order to avoid possible
misunderstandings with other social realities of a very different sign.
Ruling is the action of a commander-in-chief elected by the members
of the society on which he rules; this action is oriented to take the suitable
practical measures in order to really carry out the political will declared
by these members: it is then an action in the service of the members
of the collectivity or community being ruled; finally, this commander-in-chief
must be personally responsible for all his actions, and therefore must
account for his actions at the end of his term of office.
If these fundamental requirements of freedom of action and total responsibility
of the chosen commander-in-chief are respected, it is easy to understand
that ruling becomes a just and healthy social function, which contributes
cohesion to the social structure, and constitutes its keystone.
To this high command we can then oppose the idea of power above and
against persons. Power is a term of latin origin. The verb potere
meant originally «to be the master of», later it meant «to
exert power on». In the eyes of any person it is legitimate «to
be the master» of any object, of any thing, but it is unfair,
illegitimate and ignoble to be the master of a person (individual,
collective or communal).
Any ruling of persons implies, necessarily, a power above things:
without this power, the commander-in-chief would be disabled, he could
not act; because the commander acts on things, modifies things, in the
service of persons.
On the contrary, it is necessary to prevent absolutely the rule on persons
to become power over and against persons, which would be slavery
(more or less concealed) and tyranny, control, oppression, repression,
right of life and death, objectification of persons...
This hateful situation is the one which takes place when the ruling
is concealed and irresponsible. And in any social proposal expected to
be liberating and libertarian, the first thing to do is to formulate the
specific mechanisms which will prevent, in practice, the transformation
of the ruling of persons into power above and against persons.
2. Dialectics between archy and anarchy.
The number of principles which make up our archic conception
are resumed in the expression dialectics between archy (high
social command) and anarchy (the absence of a high social command):
this means, simply, that any free and responsible archy must provide
itself -besides the mechanisms which ensure this freedom and responsibility-
with mechanisms of self-limitation.
The counterpart of any free and strong archy, with an actual
ability to act on things and to rule on persons, is its constitutional
limitation in the following fields:
Limitation in the number of persons exerting the archy. The archy
must be monarchical, that is limited to one only elected commander-in-chief,
free and responsible at the end of his term of office; the goal pursued
with this measure is twofold: the concentration of responsibilities on
one only person, and the unification of all the archic actions in
one line, single and consistent, easily to be distinguished by any observer.
The number of collaborators of the monarch (ministers, counsellors, secretaries...)
must also be limited (for example, no more than six), for similar reasons.
Limitation in the length of the term of office. The time period during
which a given archic mandate is exerted must be established constitutionally,
and it must not be possible to extend it -that is, no monarch can present
himself for re-election, because there is a very strong tendency to take
advantage of the continuity of the same person in a position of the highest
responsibility-. So, each monarch will exert his mandate during a very
short period of time -enough, however, to carry out his programme- and
be immediately after be judged for his performance.
In order to avoid the discontinuity of persons to cause a discontinuity
of rule which would not be desirable, it can be established among the collaborators
of the monarch an automatic succession order, to provide at every cessation
a successor: the elections would be carried out, every time, not to choose
the commander-in-chief, but the last of his collaborators. In this way,
everybody reaching the highest responsibility would have a long experience
obtained during the years in which he acted as collaborator.
Limitation of authority. Finally, it will be necessary that the authority
and the field of action of the monarch be limited to the minimum necessary.
To attain the maximum archic decentralization, according to
the subsidiarity principle, it is necessary that no archy of a given
level take part in any matter which may be dealt with at a lower level.
Finally, it is necessary to leave to the free decision of every citizen
and citizenship, to the anarchic freedom, as many things as possible.
It must be pursued that the life of each person (individual, collective
and communal) within the empire be as anarchic as possible, and as little
as possible submitted to the archic discipline.
3. The different archies.
As we have already pointed out, the archy is the highest social
rule, but this is exerted at different geostrategic levels, which we shall
The first distinction to be made, is between imperial archies
and civil archies.
The imperial archies are those exerted on the total whole
of the geopolitical community or empire. They have been built up, legitimately,
on the federal agreement among the different ethnic groups which make up
The civil archies are those exerted on each one of the
communities integrated in the empire: districts..., towns..., counties...,
ethnic groups..., interethnic groups..., ex-empires (that is, old empires
at present integrated into a larger one, better adjusted to the present
geostrategic conditions). Also these archies -previous to the imperial
have been building up legitimately through the agreement among the members
of each one of the mentioned communities.
The imperial archies, as we have already said in the previous
chapter, are two: the political archy and the justicial
The political archy is exerted through the State: it is
the manager of the empire, the executor of its projects and of its political
will, but with respect to relations with abroad and to the domestic organization.
In our suggestion, the State is made up of:
A monarchic Executive body, strong and short: that is with an elected head
of State, solely and personally responsible, with a real capacity of executing
his decisions, and with a council made up by a small number of members.
A Legislative body, independent from the Executive one, and therefore elected
separately. The Legislative body, following the principle of legislative
abstinence, will legislate as little as possible; in no case will the Executive
body depend on its votes to be able to act. We want to avoid as much as
possible the executive parliamentarism, the confusion between executive
and legislative functions, a confusion which only leads to an abandonment
of the responsibilities inherent in each one of these two functions so
Consulting organs or Consulting Chambers, specialized in each sector or
field of activities, which will be compulsorily consulted for the preparation
of any law.
The justicial archy is exerted through Justice: this is the
protector of the empire, the peacemaker in all the many conflicts generated
Particularly, Justice must be the protector of all the imperial archive
of cheque-invoices: it will only be able to use this archive in matters
concerning a proceedings case under way. It will then have objective and
positive documentation at hand concerning that specific case.
Justice will also undertake judging all the persons which will have
held a ruling post (political, justicial or civic, that is archic;
but also non-archic liberal) at the end of their term of office.
But in order to warrant the integrity of Justice in carrying out its
task, it is necessary to legislate its total independence with respect
to the State: it is well-known that nobody can be a judge in one's own
case. To this end, a step to be taken is the constitutionalization of the
attribution to Justice of a fixed percentage of the communal monetary mass
(see following chapter); with this amount, Justice will be able to organize
its budget in the best way.
The civic archies are manyfold and on many geostrategic, sub-imperial
levels. Every Republic and civic Authority will have complete freedom to
organize itself as best it can through archic-civic institutions.
These institutions will also have their executive, legislative and consulting
bodies. Their functions will cover all that the State will not have explicitly
taken up -and which, we must remember, will have to be little and on the
basis of minimal laws, which every civic archy will have to develop-.
Finally, there are very special archies, which are made up by
the fit-for-war forces -we say fit-for-war, and not armed forces,
because these will have to be ordinarily un-armed, and will only use arms
when carrying out missions in which they have been expressly ordered
to use them-.
As long as a situation of full self-pacification on a world level has
not been attained, the existence of fit-for-war forces will continue being
But it will also be necessary to submit them to a very hard discipline,
so that they will act only in the execution of the mission entrusted to
them by the imperial community: the defence and protection of all the citizens
and citizenships in the empire.
Following this discipline, the fit-for-war forces will not have, in
any case, a full archy, but they will always be in all respects
rigidly submitted to the preceding archies: according to cases,
to the respective politic, justicial or civic rules. The commanders-in-chief
of the above-mentioned archies will be finally in charge of the
fit-for-war forces depending on them.
These fit-for-war forces can be the following:
Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control of the head of the
State, the fit-for-war forces of the State: the Imperial Army and the Imperial
Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control, respectively, of each
examining judge in charge of a specific justicial case, and of the protection
judge of each person condemned, will be the Judicial Police and the Penitenciary
Under the direct, exclusive and responsible control of each president of
a civic, autonomous Republic, will be the Civic Armies and the Civic Peace