INTRO 1:
Information Society

The development of wider, more complex information networks, with more and more direct connections have lead to faster and better intercession of information throughout the world. (...)

INTRO 2:
The Social Network

Society, understood as a social network, is a structure of nodes tied to each other by specific modes of interdependency. It is important to note, that according to the social network analysis (...)

Structural centralization

Adopting the democracy has resulted in immense growth of the legal system. The legal system has become unimaginably large, and the net of laws so dense and detailed that it seems to cover everything, and very often take in consideration very particular things. Moreover, often laws are made for particular cases, but are used generally – which may result of a strange phenomenon of legislation by not-legal-experts, combined with all time more complex legal system. Because, it is not the lawyers, but the members of parliament who hold the legislative power. And they do not often know what they are doing. In fact, few of us do, because the juridical language does not open to everybody, but one needs to take years of legal studies to understand what laws are about. This is best seen, when one enters the court, where one almost always needs a lawyer if he wants to survive the trial. The legal system that controls everybody's life, even that of the legislators themselves, in more and more detailed manner, I call the structural centralization.

This is not necessarily a flaw of the democratic system. While the parliamentary centralization apparently works in a undemocratic manner, the structural centralization is actually one of the central theses of the democracy. The founders of the modern political systems exactly thought about a state of law, where everybody is equally submitted to the legal system. However, there are aspects that don't follow from the ideal of the democratic egalitarian politics, but only from its practice. They are: the growth in detail of the laws, and the influence of the private parties to the legislation.

These two aspects are connectible, because most often the detail in laws is demanded by private parties, or by other social powers, that are lobbying for some detail that would benefit them. People would have more open access to the product of the legislation, the laws and the legal system, if the laws were not so many and not so detailed. If laws were few, simple and general, people could more easily handle them without taking long legal studies. Moreover, people would have more open access to the process of legislation, if it wasn't privileged to the lobbying groups and parliament.

Parliamentarian Centralization