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 recent incident, if there had been a specific agreement on policies, and if there were no authority for anything other than those policies, 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 Teacher 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 side 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, Teacher T seemed pure. I couldn't tell if Representative K was a true politician, or if what he showed was just a facade, or if it was his true intention.

The fundamental 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 may be 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. The pure people who participated in that party must also feel the same regret.

When looking at the comments on the videos, the SS Party videos are mostly supportive, and the T-sensei videos are mostly in agreement with the teacher, which clearly shows a 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 start. 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, when looking at the explanation from S Party K-san, it seems that T-sensei was making one-sided strange statements, and the two sides are completely at odds.

In the end, T-sensei was speaking from a pure position, with nothing hidden. However, K-san was thinking about how to say clever things to win the election, and after winning, they were planning to consider specific policies. T-sensei's words and actions were consistent from beginning to end, while K-san, 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 they became estranged.

I had seen Mr. K's videos before, and I felt a little uneasy about how he was so critical of modern society, gaining popularity and receiving such enthusiastic applause. He seems like a very intelligent person, so he probably understands what to say to gain popularity. He always has a "big smile" and I thought he was "smooth and articulate." Perhaps this was done even better by agitators like Robispierre during the French Revolution, who stirred up non-existent anxieties and led people to overthrow the French monarchy. In this case, it might be a good thing that the problems with the House of Councillors were exposed early. Rather than waiting until they grew larger before something like this happened, at their current size, they are unlikely to shake Japan to its core.

And even if their initial intentions are good, the current political system allows them to be quickly taken over by a few people in this way. If "policies" were created as "promises" and their authority were limited to those policies, problems wouldn't occur so often.

This is unrelated to whether that party will improve in the future; it may or may not. However, rather than the innovative party I initially hoped for, it seems to have ended up being just an ordinary party.

Generally speaking, you can judge these kinds of matters based on the following two criteria:

The beneficiaries are suspicious. (Who benefited from the turmoil?)

The one with the big smile is suspicious. (Someone explaining with a big smile is strange. The angry one is (often) right.)

* The one who is good at talking is suspicious. (The opposite is also true, but generally speaking.)

"Who benefits" is the most important criterion, and furthermore, suspicion emanates from their attitude, so in all respects, Mr. K is definitely (generally) more suspicious, but this case may not necessarily fit this description. This is merely a generalization. Since we don't know much, let's reserve judgment for now and wait and see; their true nature will eventually be revealed. Just leave them alone. I'm not a party member, so I'm just observing from a distance. I think we'll be able to find the answer eventually.

To be honest, I'm not that interested in this turmoil itself. The question of who is at fault is actually a minor point. More importantly, I (personally) believe that the fundamental structure of politics, as described above, is what is causing this turmoil.

▪️Additional Note

This is further subplotted: even the political system in the Jerusalem mission is based on "promises." Going back even further, a prototype of this system existed in the 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 to keep 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 accountability.

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 can finally be established.