Natural Humanists believe in true democracy, in every organisation, home, community, region and country, but acknowledge that, in reality, this hardly ever exists.
Natural Humanism itself is a constantly evolving and democratic religion. Its core values will never change, but the individual beliefs linked to these values will always be open to change over time, and Natural Humanists believe they each have an equal right, and an equal duty, to be involved in this gradual process of evolution.
Individual amendments and additions are always possible, democratically, with each of the world’s Natural Humanists having an equal say, and also, when changes are made, all Natural Humanists are free to either follow the original Natural Humanist beliefs, or the revised ones, as long as they always respect the right of all other Natural Humanists to make their own separate choice about which of these to follow, and always try to work together fully on all aspects of Natural Humanism on which they agree.
Natural Humanists believe in direct democracy, rather than representative democracy, believing that all citizens should be able to vote in person, on all policies and laws. This hasn’t been feasible until recently, due to the time, money and effort that would be required to organise it, but in today’s world, most people have a computer or smartphone, electronic voting is simple, instant and requires no staff to supervise it, and details of every proposed law and policy could easily be viewed on the internet, in simple language that everybody can understand, so direct democracy is now, without question, totally feasible.
Natural Humanists recognise that not everybody has the time or interest in politics to want to vote on every issue, and that representative democracy is a good back-up option, under strict conditions, where each citizen, approximately every 4-5 years, votes at an election for one politician, to represent their interests in all votes about their country, or their county, town, village or parish, and where that politician then votes on behalf of all citizens who have chosen not to take part in that vote in person, voting in whatever way they see fit, not necessarily in the way that each citizen would like them to.
At an election, there are usually numerous people (or candidates) that citizens could vote for, usually at least three. Each of these people is usually part of a political party, which has specific beliefs and values, although some may be ‘independent’, so won’t be linked to any political party.
Each candidate usually details their personal beliefs and their proposals in an election leaflet, and each political party details theirs in an election manifesto, but each person and each party can, in theory, change their minds about anything that’s detailed in these leaflets and manifestos, so that no voter is ever certain about how the person or party they’re voting for will themselves vote on any particular policy.
Some citizens don’t want any of these people to represent them, but, in this case, their only options are to not vote at all, which denies them any control over how things are run, or to vote ‘tactically’, where they vote for whichever person is most likely to stop their least favourite person, party or policy from being successful.
In each local area (or ‘constituency’) only one of these people ‘wins’ at each election, and only that person then represents everybody in that area, whether they voted for them or not, even if they have directly opposing views. None of the other people who were candidates in the election in that area then have any power, or any voice at all.
This is a particular problem for citizens who are in minority groups, for example who (in the UK) are Black or Asian, are an immigrant, are of a minority sexuality, gender-orientation or religion, or have a lifestyle, values, beliefs, or political views, which are not shared by the majority of people.
Such citizens may never, their whole lives, have the opportunity to vote for somebody who shares their beliefs, may always have to vote for people whose views are directly opposite to theirs, or may even have to vote for people who wish to directly discriminate against, or abuse them, as the only alternative is to not vote at all.
This form of representative democracy is designed to put all of the power in the hands of citizens and politicians who have ‘popular’ mainstream values and beliefs,and to directly discriminate against those with minority beliefs, values and lifestyles.
Britain is sometimes seen as the ‘birthplace of democracy’, even though it was practised centuries earlier in Greece, and elsewhere, but British ‘democracy’ was often far from ‘democratic’.
For example, in 1832, only men who owned property of a certain value could vote, and it was then only gradually that the right to vote was given to some urban working-class men from 1867, to more men in rural areas from 1884, to all men over 21 years old, and all women over 30 years old, but only if they had property, from 1918, and to all women over the age of 21, from 1928 [i],[ii].
This minimum voting age has now been reduced to 18, but this still means that, worldwide, 2,415 million people, who make up a massive 29.8% of the world’s entire human population,[iii]all of whom are under 18, have no say at all about how their country and local area are run, meaning that they’re deliberately ‘disenfranchised’, have no power at all, and are not represented in the political system, putting them at significant risk of being abused, controlled or degraded by politicians, by the Government, and by all of the people who vote for them.
Natural Humanists acknowledge that, according to the libertarian socialist, Noam Chomsky, governments often like to disguise their ‘crimes’ and ‘injustices’ by using words like “democracy” and “freedom”[iv], and that western countries that claim to be liberal capitalist democracies aren’t really democratic at all, with at least 80% of the population having no control over economic decisions, which are instead made by the ‘management class’, not by the majority of the population, whose lives are controlled by a small, wealthy elite[v].
They also share Noam Chomsky’s opposition toall forms of economic exploitation, global inequality, and careless or deliberate destruction of the environment[vi], for which they consider capitalism to be significantly responsible. Like Noam Chomsky, they’re also against the authoritarian socialism, or ‘communism’, of the former Soviet Union[vii], but believe, instead, in a deeply moral ‘libertarian socialism’, with decent socialist principles, combined with maximum freedom, to allow people to have autonomy, and to live in small communities, run by direct democracy and proportional representation, which have the greatest possible respect for individual rights, and which allow freedom of action and movement, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech[viii].
They believe that all human beings should have autonomy and freedom, and that the State and capitalist organisations and businesses shouldn’t control, degrade, enslave, abuse, or in any other way take advantage of, or ‘dehumanise’ anyone. They believe that, in all areas of life, all human beings, of all ages, should be free to do anything they wish to do, regardless of other people’s views on the matter, as long as it doesn’t cause other human beings harm or distress, but regardless of whether it causes other people offense.
They believe that, when it comes to nurturing children, they should be given a strong moral education throughout their childhood, which focuses on equality, compassion and empathy, and that children should be enabled to foresee for themselves, the negative consequences of unwise decisions, rather than being denied the right to make such decisions, and that the roll of parents, teachers, society and the State, should always be to educate and to safely enable, not to groom, brainwash, or in any way coercively control or abusively punish anybody.
They believe that the State should only exist to ensure:
- That every human being can live a safe and decent life and have freedom and self-control.
- That the country is run in the most efficient and effective way possible, which makes the most responsible use of all natural resources, including land and human labour.
- That the country’s food, and every other essential item, is only ever sourced, produced, transported, retailed, maintained, repaired and eventually disposed of or recycled in the most cost-effective and environmentally responsible way.
- That the environment and wildlife is protected and, whenever possible, land can be rewilded to increase biodiversity and species’ habitats.
- That every country collaborates and cooperates for the common good.
- That every citizens’ needs and natural drives can be fully satisfied and safely enabled, including those of children and those with intellectual impairments, and
- That wealth is shared fairly by all citizens.
Natural Humanists believe that the State, in its current form, is a hugely powerful, self-serving organisation, which allows a powerful majority, or more often a powerful minority, of both voters and politicians, to control, degrade, abuse and deny the natural rights and freedoms of human beings, particularly those human beings they don’t like, or disapprove of, or don’t value. It does this in the pretence that, because it’s classed as ‘democratic’, it’s somehow moral and decent.
Natural Humanists believe that all human beings are equal, so should have equal rights, and an equal amount of control over their lives and over how things are organised. Consequently, they reject conventional democracy completely and believe instead in ‘absolute democracy’.
Absolute Democracy
Natural Humanists believe that all ‘general elections’ for national and regional governments should be by ‘proportional representation’, which means that every citizen’s vote, has the same impact on which politicians and political parties ‘win’ the election, and on how much power each politician and political party has, in every vote that they ever cast.
To give the UK government as an example, Natural Humanists believe that, in national government ‘general elections’, everybody should be able to vote for 2 separate things, firstly they should cast a vote for the national political party they support, and secondly, they should cast a separate vote for the candidate who will represent their local constituency or region of the country.
If, during an election, a particular constituency had, say, four local constituency candidates, but nobody at all voted for one of these candidates, then each of the remaining three candidates should automatically become a politician, and should be able to vote on every single bill and amendment that ever goes through parliament, either in person, or, if physical space in parliament prevents this, then from their own home or office, via a secure internet link.
This would mean that, whichever election candidate somebody had chosen to vote for in an election, and no matter how few votes that candidate received, as long as it wasn’t zero, that candidate would become an elected politician, and would represent that member of the public in every vote in parliament, until the next general election, in 4-5 years’ time.
Artificial Intelligence would automatically adjust the ‘power’ of each of the votes that these elected politicians ever cast in parliament, to reflect the exact number of people who voted for them during the last general election. For example, if there were 50,000,000 voters in a country and 500 people voted for a particular elected politician during the last general election, then every vote that that elected politician ever cast in parliament would count as 500 of the total 50,000,000 votes for that particular bill or amendment, i.e., it would have a ‘power’ of 0.001% of the total number of votes.
Some local constituency candidates may choose not to take up their job as an elected politician, if they don’t receive many votes in a general election, and, if so, they would have appointed, before the election, two other MPs to take over all of their ‘voting power’, and would have informed all voters before the general election of who those MPs would be.
One of these MPs might be a member of the same political party, from a different region of the country, and the other might be an MP of a different political party, who was from their own local area. When they decided not to take up their seat in parliament, everyone who voted for them would have the opportunity to state, online, which of these two MPs they would like to take over the power of their vote. If anybody didn’t state a preference, then the power of that elected politician’s future votes would be shared equally between the two of them.
An alternative to this would be that anyone who voted for a candidate, who chose not to sit as an elected politician, would then have the right to change their original vote and give the ‘power’ of their vote to any of the other local candidates, or to any other elected politician in the country who is of the same political party as the MP that they originally voted for. Artificial Intelligence would then automatically adjust the ‘power’ of each of the votes that these MPs then went on to cast in parliament.
If all of this resulted in the total share of voting power, of any particular political party in parliament, not being exactly the share of voting power that the public had voted for that political party to have, in the last general election, then the ‘power’ of the votes of all of the elected politicians of that political party would then be automatically adjusted by Artificial Intelligence, so that the combined ‘power’ of all votes cast by all MPs of that particular party, was then exactly equal to the share of the country’s voting power, that the public had voted for that political party to have, at the last general election.
This would also be necessary, for example, when a local candidate had chosen not to serve as an MP, due to a low number of votes for them at the last general election, and had chosen to appoint somebody from their local constituency (to take over their voting ‘power’ in all future parliamentary bills and amendments), who was from a different political party, or was an ‘independent’ candidate, so was not linked to any party.
To increase the total number of people who vote at elections, anyone could register, in advance, a preference for a particular political party, or candidate, and then, if they chose not to vote in person at any election, a vote would automatically be placed on their behalf for that particular party (or for that candidate, if they’re still standing), at every general election from then onwards. They could change their registered choice of party or candidate at any time, if their views changed, so that an automatic vote would, from that point onwards, be made on their behalf for this new party or candidate instead, in all subsequent elections. If at any time they did vote in person at any election, this would prevent their ‘automatic’ vote from being placed, so they didn’t end up voting twice.
With the current, hugely immoral and unrepresentative ‘democratic’ system, if there are, say, five candidates in a constituency at an election, only one of them will ever ‘win’, and all of the other four won’t become elected politicians at all, and will have absolutely no power at all to vote in parliament, meaning that all those who voted for them, will have no say at all over how their country or region is run; they will effectively have been disenfranchised, and this is not a small number of people at all. If there were 1,000,000 voters in a constituency, and four of the candidates each received 199,999 votes, but one candidate received 200,004 votes, then virtually 80% of voters would be ‘disenfranchised’, and would have no say over how their country and region was run for 4 or 5 years.
The current system also means that the ‘winning’ candidate can then vote for anything they want to, even if it deliberately goes directly against the needs and wishes of people who voted for other political parties or candidates, and even if what they’re voting for will deliberately harm, degrade, discriminate against or abuse them.
In some constituencies, where a particular political party always wins elections, everyone in that constituency who doesn’t support that party will always be ‘disenfranchised’, for the rest of their lives.
The current ‘pseudo’ democratic system can also result, for example, in two different political parties receiving exactly the same number of votes nationwide, but in one of these two parties then having twice as many seats in parliament as the other, giving them twice as much, ‘voting power’ in parliament as well, all because, regardless of how many votes their candidates received, it was not always more than every other candidate in their constituency, meaning that every one of that candidate’s votes were effectively completely ignored.
The current system can also result in hundreds of thousands of people, nationally, voting for a particular unpopular or minority party, but this party then having no elected politicians at all in parliament, and having no ability to vote on laws and amendments at all, because none of their candidates, anywhere in the country, received more votes than all other candidates in their constituency, meaning that their political party, and all of the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for them, have no power at all to change the way their country is run.
In short, the current immoral political system, results in popular political parties, usually or often, gaining power for 4 or 5 years at a time, and controlling all of our lives, but many other parties, and all of the members of the public who voted for them, never having any power at all, and never getting what they want, or what they voted for.
This is a particularly major problem for minorities in society, of all sorts, for example, minority races, genders, sexualities, religions and belief systems, and for the minority of the population who live in rural areas, because the chances are, that the powerful parties will never bring in or amend any laws to benefit them, and that they may well bring in new laws to abuse or control them, which they’ll have absolutely no power to stop.
The Solution
Natural Humanists believe that, at each general election, each political party should summarise, online, in a ‘manifesto’ document, each one of their policies, including which laws they intend to introduce, amend or abolish, and that all of that political party’s candidates, should have to clearly state, in their own personal election document, how they themselves intend to vote on each of the policies of their party, for example, if they intend to vote against one or more of their party’s specific policies.
They believe that, if after being elected as a politician, any candidate then chooses to vote in a way that goes against the official policy of their party, but they haven’t informed their voters in their own personal election document that they intended to do so, then every person who voted for that elected politician at the last election should then, if they wish, have the right to cancel their previous general election vote for that elected politician, and to give their vote to one of the other candidates who stood at the last election instead, or to withdraw their vote altogether, particularly if the main reason they voted for that candidate, at the last election, was because of their stated plan to vote in a particular way on that policy. Artificial Intelligence, a superb invention with the potential to liberate all human beings in many different ways, could then instantly amend the ‘voting power’ of each MP in parliament to reflect such changes in the public’s votes.
Because many people do not follow politics closely in the news, they could request, online, at the time of a general election, to be automatically informed, in the future, every time that the politician they voted for votes in a way that’s different from the way they said they’d vote at the time of the last election (on any policy, or just on policies which that member of the public states, in advance, that they’re most concerned about), so that they can then decide whether to retrospectively change the elected politician that they voted for.
Natural Humanists believe that every voter in the country who voted for a particular elected politician, even a Prime Minister, should automatically be informed if that elected politician is ever found to have been in breach of any parliamentary standards, for example, if they break a law, lie to the public, or to parliament, or submit an inaccurate financial claim, and that all of their voters should then have the right to immediately give their vote to a different elected politician instead.
Informed Choice
Natural Humanists believe that, to ensure that citizens are well-informed, an independent body should provide an unbiased summary, in language that most people can clearly understand, of every bill that goes through parliament, the reasons for it, and its various positive and negative implications, which is available for all citizens to read online, before each member of the public decides whether they would like to vote, in person, on any particular policy, or whether they’re happy to leave it to the elected politician they voted for at the last general election, to vote on their behalf.
Some voters might, on the whole, support one particular elected politician at a general election, but disagree with one, or more, specific policies that they’re supporting. Artificial Intelligence would allow all voters to state this at the time of the election, so that it could then automatically remind them when a vote on that policy is about to be made in parliament, giving that member of the public time to vote in their own preferred way on that policy, rather than allowing their chosen elected politician to vote in a different way, which that voter doesn’t agree with.
In fact, all citizens could choose to vote, in person, via the internet, on as many policies as they wish, thereby bypassing their elected politician altogether, whose own voting power on that policy would then automatically be reduced accordingly, by Artificial Intelligence, to reflect the fact that they no longer need to vote on that citizen’s behalf, in that particular vote.
Justice Panel
Natural Humanists recognise that in every vote in parliament, some people ‘win’ and get what they want, and others ‘lose’ and do not. Consequently, they believe that an official independent body of unbiased, highly-trained, skilled, experienced and monitored professionals should exist, with a strict code of professional conduct, all of whom have a high I.Q., and a high level of emotional intelligence too, whose responsibility it would be, to determine which particular groups of the population would be negatively affected by each bill that’s voted for in parliament, and to look at every possible way that each of these groups of the population could be excluded from any negative consequences of any new law that resulted from that bill.
They believe that every attempt should always be made to ensure that no law is ever passed which unduly restricts, degrades, harms or discriminates against any citizen or group of citizens, including deliberately disenfranchised citizens like children, prisoners and new immigrants, if there is a way of safely preventing this.
Every single voter could declare, online, that they belong to one or more particular groups of the population, for example, that they’re a particular race, gender, sexuality, religion, or have specific moral beliefs, or follow a particular lifestyle, or have some form of disability, and could then, automatically, be informed by Artificial Intelligence, when a vote was about to happen in parliament, that might particularly positively or negatively affect them, so that they could choose whether to vote on it, in person.
For example, a proposed new law might result in the taking of a particular new recreational drug being made illegal. However, this panel of experts might decide that this drug could safely be manufactured and distributed by the State, to bypass criminal gangs, growers and producers, to ensure the purity and uniform quality of the drug, to ensure that it was at a price that didn’t lead to some takers committing crime to be able to afford it, and to prevent illegal dealers grooming takers of that drug to move on to, and become addicted to, more dangerous drugs.
The panel of experts may also decide that the State could safely monitor and protect the health of all registered takers of that drug and could also protect the wider public from any anti-social behaviour, for example by making self-driving cars compulsory for everyone, or just for drug-takers, to prevent driving while under the influence of that drug.
In which case, the panel could order that any takers of that drug who are suitably supervised and monitored, could be excluded from that law if the drug was supplied by the State. Potentially, the law itself could also be overturned altogether, as it would unnecessarily restrict the natural rights and freedoms of its citizens, despite it having been proven that such restriction was unnecessary, as it could be safely enabled, which would make it an unjust, immoral and therefore illegal law that went against citizens human rights and natural freedoms.
Similarly, existing historical laws could be assessed by this independent body. These past laws could then be amended or abolished if found to be discriminatory, or unnecessary, or steps could be taken to ensure that all citizens, or certain groups of the populations could be safely and legally enabled to break those laws.
For example, the law preventing people under the age of 16 from legally consenting to have sex, could be abolished or amended, if, for example, it was found that the use of professional chaperones and numerous other safeguards would make this safe for some or all under 16s, in some or all situations, and, at the same time, the penalty for having sex without using such chaperones and safeguards could be significantly increased.
Whenever any new law came into force, or any existing law was amended or abolished, all those groups of the population that would be affected by this law could automatically be sent a message informing them of the law, of how to avoid breaking it, and of what the punishment for breaking it would be.
This would be determined by referring to which groups of the population people had previously declared themselves to be part of, for example, gender, race, age-group, sexuality, etc., and if it couldn’t be decided which groups would be affected, or if everybody would be affected by that law, then a message could be sent to everybody in the country.
It would also be perfectly feasible for such an independent panel of unbiased, professional, intelligent and imaginative individuals, to accept applications from individual towns, villages or communities, to be exempted from the restrictions of any new or existing law, whenever it was possible for this to safely happen, for example, any laws governing drug-taking, or public nudity, could be legalised in that local area, but would still be fully enforced if people from that area broke that law while visiting other towns or regions, and, if considered necessary, anybody not from that area, who broke that law while visiting that area, could still be governed by that law.
Natural Humanists believe it’s never acceptable for the State to abuse, degrade, or remove any of the natural human rights, of any of its citizens, or to discriminate negatively against any particular group of the population, or any individual, even if it’s considered to be ‘democratic’.
They believe that citizens shouldn’t only have the right to vote on policies that have been chosen by the government or political parties, but should, themselves, also be able to ask, online, for any issue that’s increasing in popularity amongst the public, to itself be voted on in parliament, even if politicians have no plans or wish to do so.
The government could be ‘forced’ in this way to have votes on any or all subjects that the public demonstrate a concern about online, and if public opinion has changed since any particular past law was last voted on, for example, on abortion, ‘gay marriage’, or on Britain not being part of the European Union, then the public should, again, be able to demand, online, that a fresh vote be taken on these issues as well.
Also, if the majority of citizens who have declared themselves to belong to any particular minority group, requested a vote (or re-vote) on any subject which disproportionately affected people of their minority, then, again, this should result in the government being required to have a parliamentary and public vote on that subject too.
Disenfranchised Citizens
Natural Humanists believe that ‘absolute democracy’ should be the right of every citizen, including children, and that all children should be allowed to vote, if they wish to do so. In which case, they should be given a course on how to vote, and on the basics of government and democracy, before they place their first vote.
They should also have access to different summaries of every law, and of all of its likely implications, which have been carefully worded to be more understandable to each age-group of children.
To protect them from adult coercion, they should only be allowed to vote at school, or at a designated permanent voting site, in a confidential booth, only accessible via a football-stadium-style, full-height, one-person-only turnstile, which only allows one child to enter the booth at a time, all monitored by CCTV and Artificial Intelligence, or with the protection of an alternative system for anyone unable to use this due to disability, obesity or pregnancy, for example, a voting-booth in each town, monitored by CCTV, which is linked to a national monitoring centre.
All children could vote on a simple, fun, child-friendly computer within the booth, and would be told by the computer, before each vote, that nobody would ever know how they’d voted, so even if an adult had told them to vote in a particular way, they could vote in any way they chose and they could also automatically be given a summary of the pros and cons of that particular policy before placing their vote.
Democratic Businesses
In addition to national and local government, Natural Humanists believe that all businesses should also be run in the most democratic way possible, or at the very least, should consult all ‘stakeholders’, including employees, before making each important decision that will affect them, and should allow the involvement of trade-unions, with powers to ensure that every employee’s voice is heard, and that their needs are met, and that they’re never unnecessarily abused, controlled or degraded.
They believe that, ideally, all businesses should have democratic leadership, with all team members sharing decision-making, free expression of opinions and ideas, and open and honest discussion and debate, with everybody’s input being valued. They believe that, wherever possible, each employee should be allowed to make their own decisions and to take risks, if they’re in line with the team’s goals and objectives, with everybody being able to learn from any mistakes[ix].
They acknowledge that listening to ideas from a wide variety of team members, increases the range of innovative solutions that are available to overcome a business’s problems, and that democratic leadership also encourages creative thinking, and enables businesses to constantly adapt, while also increasing trust and accountability[x].
Natural Humanists may choose to run their own ethical, not-for-profit businesses, either as an individual, or as a Natural Humanist Community, with democratic leadership, where all team members are encouraged to be creative and innovative, to feel empowered and valued, and to have a shared ethical vision or goal, so that they’re all working for the same reason and can each be passionate about their work.
Democratic Religion
Natural Humanism itself is a constantly evolving and democratic religion. Its core values will never change, but individual beliefs linked to these values are open to change over time, and Natural Humanists believe that they all have an equal right, and duty, to be involved in this gradual process of evolution.
Individual amendments and additions are always possible, democratically, with each of the world’s Natural Humanists having an equal say, and also, when changes are made, all Natural Humanists are free to either follow the original Natural Humanist beliefs and values, or the revised ones, as long as they always respect the right of all other Natural Humanists to make their own separate choice about which of these to follow, and always try to work together fully on all aspects of Natural Humanism on which they agree.
In short, Natural Humanists believe that all human beings should have as much freedom and autonomy as possible, without ever knowingly harming others, or the planet, its environment and its wildlife. They believe they should have control over the running of their country and region, over their working lives, and over the development of their own religion and, crucially, they believe that politicians should always be the ‘servants’ of the people, and never their ‘masters’.
Click to read the next chapter!
References
[i] Wikipedia contributors. “Suffrage.” 6 June 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 June 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage
[ii] Wikipedia contributors. “Disfranchisement.” 9 May 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement
[iii] UNICEF. “How many children are there in the world?” 2025. unicef.org. 3 June 2025. https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-are-in-the-world/
[iv] Brian, Paul. “What are Noam Chomsky’s political views?”. September 2 2022. ideapod.com. 2 June 2025.
https://ideapod.com/noam-chomsky-political-views
[v] McGilvray, James. Chomsky: Language, Mind, Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity, 2014. p.15. ISBN 978-0-7456-4989-4. https://archive.org/details/chomskylanguagem0000mcgi_s2h6. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#CITEREFMcGilvray2014
[vi] Brian, Paul. “What are Noam Chomsky’s political views?”. September 2 2022. ideapod.com. 2 June 2025.
https://ideapod.com/noam-chomsky-political-views
[vii] Wikipedia contributors. “Noam Chomsky.” 2 Jun. 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
[viii] Brian, Paul. “What are Noam Chomsky’s political views?”. September 2 2022. ideapod.com. 2 June 2025.
https://ideapod.com/noam-chomsky-political-views
[ix] Shinde, Siddhesh. ”What is Democratic Leadership? How Does it Drive Success in an Organization?”. 20 January 2024. Published 6 April 2023. emeritus.org. 29 May 2025. https://emeritus.org/blog/leadership-what-is-democratic-leadership/
[x] Shinde, Siddhesh. ”What is Democratic Leadership? How Does it Drive Success in an Organization?”. 20 January 2024. Published 6 April 2023. emeritus.org. 29 May 2025. https://emeritus.org/blog/leadership-what-is-democratic-leadership/