The recent incident involving the secretariat and some members of the S party, which may or may not be a simple internal dispute, reveals a major problem with the modern political system, especially the electoral system (this is my personal opinion).

- You can say anything until you are elected.
- Once you are elected, you can do anything (because you are bound by what you said during the election).

This principle of the modern electoral system has become so commonplace in the political world that the same rules are applied within political parties. Perhaps those who have been politicians for a long time take this for granted and are not aware of this problem, or they are so focused on manipulating the public and gaining votes that they don't care. I think this tendency exists to some extent. In political consulting, various methods are used to win elections, and it is common practice to say things that are impossible to achieve in order to please the public and gain popularity, making the party appear to be wonderful. Naive people vote for such unrealistic parties, and I, too, was somewhat deceived at first, but it seems that the true nature of things has now been revealed.

From here on, I will talk about something a little more spiritual. Ideally, we should go beyond these conventions and create "policies" in the form of "promises" first, give authority only to those policies, and have people who agree to act voluntarily. If we don't do that, these kinds of things will continue to happen. In this case, if there was a specific agreement on the policies and no authority was given for anything else, there would have been no problem. This type of political system is probably unprecedented in the world, so it is difficult to understand, but the model exists in a different timeline, in a realm of harmony.

In fact, after watching Representative K's explanation video and watching T's video, I didn't initially understand who was wrong or what the problem was. Then, I had a "spiritual" inspiration that "they are both acting according to their own logic. Neither is necessarily wrong." In the end, both sides had differences in "methods," leading to misunderstandings and discord. If that's the case, is it not just the same as other parties, promising everything but ultimately delivering nothing? At least, T seemed to be pure. I couldn't tell if K was a true politician, or if what he showed was just a facade or his true feelings.

The basic principle of this world, as stated in the Bible, is "words." Initially, God uttered words, and whether that was a word or light is a matter of debate, but it was something like a word or light, a high-frequency vibration, that existed first, and from that, the world was created. And, as stated in the Ten Commandments of Moses, that "word" is a "promise" (to God, or to someone).

Therefore, if someone says "I will do..." during an election and is elected, the basic principle is that what they said during the election, which is a "promise" to the citizens and voters, should be the limit of their authority. While there is a need to address urgent matters such as disasters, wars, and diplomacy, the "promise" made during the election should be prioritized as a policy. And, there should be a situation where they have no authority regarding things they did not mention.

If the world changes in this way, peace will come to the world, not just in politics, but everywhere.

If, like now, there is a discrepancy between words and actions before and after an election, there will be no peace in the world. A prime example of this is the internal strife within the SS Party. This is not limited to the SS Party, but occurs in every party and every country, so it is not surprising. However, the faint hope that "perhaps the SS Party will keep its promises and work hard" was shattered. Some of the pure people who participated in that party must also feel the same way, and it must be a regrettable feeling.

When looking at the comments on the videos, the SS Party video is almost entirely supportive, and the T-sensei video is full of opinions agreeing with the teacher, which is a perfect division.

From T-sensei's perspective, it seems that the activity ended so quickly because it was hijacked by some cunning people. Perhaps, from the beginning, they planned to do that, and the people around them were skillfully manipulated and deceived from the beginning. If that were the case, I thought my judgment had improved, but I couldn't see through it, and I was wrong. In reality, it is hard to tell.

On the other hand, S-party K's explanation states that T-sensei is making one-sided strange remarks, and the two sides are completely at odds.

In the end, T-sensei was speaking from a pure position, with nothing hidden. However, K seems to have been thinking about how to win the election by saying clever things as election policies, and after winning, he reached the stage of considering specific policies. While T-sensei's words and actions were consistent from beginning to end, K, who was originally a politician, said nice-sounding things during the election and planned to decide on specific policies after winning. It is no wonder that such a situation leads to conflict.

I had seen K's videos before, and I felt a sense of unease because he was so critical of modern society and seemed to be gaining popularity by doing so. He seems like a very intelligent person, so he probably understands what to say to gain popularity. He always has a "full smile" and I thought he was "good with words" and "eloquent." Perhaps, someone who did this even more skillfully was Robespierre, the agitator of the French Revolution, who stirred up unfounded anxieties and caused people to overthrow the French monarchy. This time, the problems of the S party were exposed early, which may actually be a good thing. It's better to have these things happen on a smaller scale, as they are less likely to shake Japan.

However, even if a party starts with good intentions, the current political system allows it to be quickly taken over by a certain group of people. If "policies" are created based on "promises," and the authority is limited to those policies, then such problems would not arise.

This is not about whether the party will become better in the future; it may or may not become better. But, as I initially hoped, it seems to be more of an ordinary party than a truly innovative one.

In general, these kinds of situations should be judged based on the following two criteria:

- Who benefits from it? (Who gains from the outcome of the controversy?)
- Who has a "full smile"? (It's strange if someone is explaining something with a "full smile." Someone who is angry is often right.)
- Who is "good with words"? (There are exceptions, but generally, it's suspicious.)

The most important criterion is "who benefits." Furthermore, suspiciousness can be seen in their attitude. In any case, K seems more suspicious (in general), but this does not necessarily apply to this particular case. This is just a general principle. Until we understand more, it's best to hold off on judgment and observe. Eventually, their true nature will be revealed. We should just leave it alone. I am not originally a member of the party, so I am watching from a distance. Eventually, we will be able to see the truth.

To be honest, I am not that interested in this controversy itself. Whether one side or the other is at fault is actually a minor issue. Rather, I think that the basic structure of politics, as mentioned above, is what causes such controversies.

▪️Supplement

This is a further clue, and even the political system in the "El⚪︎⚪︎⚪︎" mission is based on "promises." Going back further, there was a prototype of this system in the "Co-prosperity sphere" (Co-Prosperity Sphere).

No matter how many good things are said, it has become clear that in the current political system, parties can seize power and take everything away in a matter of days. It can be said that unless there is a fundamental shift to a society and political system based on "promises," there will be no peace on Earth.

And the basic principle is that citizens must monitor and not vote for parties that do not keep the "promises" they made during elections. Currently, if we apply this filter, the number of parties that can be voted for is very limited, but I think that is acceptable. By letting politicians know that this is the citizens' criteria for judgment, and by actually making it so that politicians who break their promises cannot be elected, politicians will voluntarily start keeping their promises.

Citizens may not understand the details of politics, but at the very least, by not voting for politicians who do not keep their promises, we can maintain a minimum level of integrity.

And eventually, the goal is to establish a system that restricts the power of politicians to only what they promised during the election. By doing this, the foundation for world peace will finally be established.