Force for a change in Democracy

Force for a Change in Democracy.

This is Treason.

The terrible deliberate acts of organised bombs to murder, by British subjects in the name of fanatic Muslim religion, targeted against us in July, in London, has made the topic of treason for this crime a point of discussion by the government. It does however offer a broader aspect for consideration to place the treason act in some context and the implication of using it in a situation that it was not designed for.

The treason acts generally mean action against the interest of the crown. The 1559 Treason act and the ‘1884 treason felony act’, are now suggested to be superseded (curtailed) by the European Community human rights act and it has been argued that there is no need to repeal the 1884 act, as no one has been, or is likely to be, prosecuted for any call for the removal of royal sovereignty by print, force or peaceful means in recent times. Never the less it still acts as a weapon against proponents of royal dissolution, and can be used or interpreted as required as a tool in the armoury to forestall any attempt to repeal the rule by a sovereign. The current interpretation of the 1884 act, when meshed with the advent of the EU human rights act and the forthcoming EU constitution, offers the provision in the interpretation of the 1884 act, to limit discussion on the removal of royal sovereignty to print and peaceful means. It is argued that this provides sufficient scope for the democratic argument, to pursue for the dissolution of royalty, without the fear of running the risk of being charged with treason under the various elements of the treason acts. However as extended and stipulated in the 1650 Act declaring what Offences shall he adjudged Treason under the Commonwealth, states “be it enacted by this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same, that if any person shall maliciously or advisedly publish, by writing, printing, or openly declaring, that the said Government is tyrannical, usurped, or unlawful; or that the Commons in Parliament assembled are not the supreme authority of this nation; or shall plot, contrive, or endeavour to stir up, or raise force against the present Government, or for the subversion or alteration of the same, and shall declare the same by any open deed, that then every such offence shall be taken, deemed, and adjudged by authority of this Parliament to be high treason”. The retention of the later 1884 act and other earlier powers may well be a very useful way of stopping any or all effective protest or demonstrations to convert to a republican form of governmental rule, should enough organised group wish to do so. That doubts still exist in the safety of calling for the overthrow of royalty or parliament is mainly because the superiority of the acts (EU vs. UK law) has not been tested. This element of confusion is precisely what any government of the day would want, so repeal or changes to the treason acts is not likely.

The interlocking links between the sovereignty of state powers exercised by parliament and the tenuous power derived by it from the sovereign of the day is becoming a barriers to the development of greater democratic processes.

At a time when politics is becoming less popular and potentially undemocratic, there is urgent need to review both forms of rule. It is very comforting for the state to hide behind the anachronistic royal / crown sovereignty when in actual fact the effective rule of the country is taken by the established hierarchy, two party system, fixed civil oligarchy and forces who’s loyalty is bought to the ‘crown’. There may be many people that still have some fondness for the royal trappings but as has been publicly evident for some time, royalty offers no guidance on how to be a good human being let alone a good citizen. There is an illusory assumption that the sovereign has some innate and actual prerogative power that is used for the benefit of the people however the royal prerogative has no power unless tendered by the state government of the day and royal pronouncement are little more than certitude of state intentions. So why keep the system as it is?

That other options for managing a country are not really explored is simply that the status quo is easier to deal with and compliments heavy vested self-interest, yet as has been experience recently, the increasing creeping centralisation of power to a self-selected cadre is not supportive of a democratic process. Consider that the infliction of war on another country that might be considered illegal, carried out without the consensus of the commons, deliberately restricted in democratic process and the proposed imposition of ID cards with sweeping powers under the terrorism acts – all without clear democratic mandate and disregarding public debate, are signs that there is a real shift in the due process of government that has moved away from the presumption of power residing with the people.

Although this was election year, in May 2005, there is still the awful perpetuating illusion that we exist in a democracy. Yet this democracy is only evident on the one day in five and has increasingly less people voting due to disillusionment or apathy with the political system that has devolved from the people, it underscores the slow collapse of confidence in the existing representational process. In view of this it may be better to reinstate some real power back to the holder of the crown so that some appeals can be made direct for a ‘dictatorial’ ruling. What would be the response if the queen really did have the power to refuse to dissolve parliament (pre election) or not accept a new government or to produce a real independent queens speech at the opening of a new parliament?
Given the current unpopular nature of some elements of the ‘firm’ and the lessening of adoration for it, the reinstatement of direct sovereign rule would not survive, so the alternatives – actual or elected dictatorship, republic or greater proactive democracy have to be feasible.

To preserve the cohesion of the country, it would be much healthier for democracy to form a new political democratic alliance with the public and it should be a prime concern of any new government to move towards a new alliance that can engages with the public more, with some greater degree of trust, respect and consensual motivation; stripped of the spin, prevarication and deliberate ambiguity we have become used to. In addition as no elected party has a popular majority it cannot be said that they have a democratic mandate when 30% of the populace do not vote and the balance is split between the divers proponents.

The new alliance could be built on; teaching political responsibility in schools, compulsory voting, the inclusion of a no confidence vote, the establishment of PR, the creation of referendum on key strategic issues, the abolition or restriction of parliamentary privilege to limit parliamentary protection for decisions that are proved costly to the public purse or evidently against the peoples interest. Referendum and PR would be a great step to reinforce the representation of the people acts. Why should MP’s be ‘whipped’ to party support and they then be able to pursue costly ideological dogmatic experiment that have no overall public mandate after which proponents of specious acts walk away completely free without surcharge, censure or impeachment. There should be some direct accountability.

However the pressure to foster such change will not take place via the fractured ballot box because there is too much at stake for the organisation of the existing state hierarchy to want to pursue more democratic options. No amount of print or peaceful means will change the existing structure and the only other alternative must be a possibility of using force. It is in this light that one can judge the extraordinary steps proposed by the state to limit and control peoples historical limited rights and in this context, without a strong challenge to highlight the dangers, it is possible to drift into a worse form of elected dictatorship than now.

Throughout the age all major movement in social advancement have been achived, initially via the build up of demonstrations to raise concerns, often at the expense of some personal freedom and the breaking or infringement of law. Power has not been willing given over to the populace even though the civil war and Magna Carta offered some transfer of power, it was effectively high jacked by the landed gentry to manipulate, as they desired in their own favour. While the modern state can tolerate and practically ignore peaceful demonstrations with some impunity and rely on exhausting the strength of any opponents – this being one of the strong / weak points of a undervalued unrepresentative free system - ultimately the use of force has to be applied to put pressure behind the protest and in turn state force is then used against the protesters, eventually to shape a new perspective that allows change to make some headway. This situation arises when it is evidently clear that the state lacks the support of the people, act against the majority, is unresponsive to single issue frustrations, it becomes intently introspective in its own existence, it sees a threat to its perceived foundations, and it alienates elements of its nation.

It is quiet evident that for more than four decade, the state would have liked to introduce some form of peacetime domestic ID smart cards to ‘secure’ the identity of people, so that in times of stress to know where and who the state is dealing with and apply control measures. This control difficulty came to a head during the miners strike when for the first time in peace time individuals ‘right’ to free movement on public highways was deliberately restricted, prompted instigations of false arrest during peaceful protest and subsequently allowed extraordinary “robust” police charges. That ID cards were never really pursued was due the to the conflict with the principle of freedoms, the perception of a move to a police state and the lack of a secure technological feasible ID process.

A number of things have changed that now drive the imperative nature of developing ID cards and control measures. Immigration, porous boarders, terrorist acts, internal direct actions and fracturing of society as well as number a riots have shaken the confidence of the state that it can control its population by the normal persuasive means. This perceptive loss of control has subtlety changed the democratic order and moved strength in favour of the state. The measure to have ID cards and a broad ranging terrorist legislation are only the beginning of the squeeze that will eventual lead to the ultimate loss of a healthy democratic process under the guise of protecting the state, protecting individual ID information, and safeguarding the populace as a whole. Such a move will eventually result in compulsory DNA logging at birth, integration of all civil / social information systems culminating in civil disquiet at the loss of anonymity.

Whilst it is the absolute right of every free culture to defend itself against blatant aggression it is only legitimate if it has the democratic majority support of its people, therein lays the predicament for the assumers of authority. Does it know better?
The internal discord that generate such insane violent indiscriminate murder has to be tackled but whereas fine focused forceful action against he perpetrators is needed, the treason acts does not offer a solution nor does the broad application of new excessive executive power. Yet there does seems to be support to move towards the introduction of ID cards (although no poll has been carried out) on the basis of what has recently occurred and that innocent people have nothing to hide or fear. Unfortunately there is a lot to fear, it is the amalgamation of unwritten ‘rights’ that will be lost and the eroding of the democratic process that is the greatest danger not the effect of transient actions.

As it stands pressing for the replacement of the sovereign and parliament with say a republic based on much greater democracy, is possibly treason. The charge of treason is unlikely to be used against people that want to demonstrate for a change, for if tested, neither have the legitimacy of the majority of the people. It is also not designed to be use against violent acts perpetrated against the general populace. But the new executive powers do provide much greater authority by the simple expediency of declaring any undesirable action as being against the ‘states’ interest and therefore actionable.

Unless the drift of power to minority governments is restrained and more strength given to a new democratic process with perhaps the measures as outlined, there is little possibility that a form of actual dictatorship can be avoided beyond 2029.






P. 2.4.05 FIED

UK Democracy's Termination

UK Democracy.

Democracy, that is the supposed act of government by the people for the people under various democratic structures, is assumed to have started and was practiced by the Greeks. Albeit at the time it did not apply to the whole population, it was operational for a structured few and yet it has now been adopted as a way to govern in a modern era. However so far as recent time is concerned democracy is a relative newly adopted practice that had been fought for over a period as a means to a more enlightened consideration of the whole social structure development. In modern terms, only a few countries have practiced democracy and only in the past 80 years has it had any real impact with the participation of the general populace within the UK. The base idea of democracy is that the people are free to vote for a party that may represent their own view or aspiration and a choice of parties may exist to foster a following, with the maxim ‘one-man one vote’ (sic) under the principle. - Government by the people for the people.

The world’s richest countries following the democratic path show that this mode of popular representation and government has been successful. Its prime benefit, compared with other forms of government has been its attempt to foster some measure of inclusiveness in the governing of a country and acts as a counterbalance against other forms of un-democratic government - communism, oligarchy, dictatorship, and royalty rule etc. Its success though is measured in the development of economic, social, certain freedom and universal benefits for the majority that have improved the infrastructure and well being of the preponderance of people. Given the suffering of many people of the past and of many even today, the lifting of the oppressiveness of undemocratic state control is not such a bad thing but to think that democracy is the only form of government that can be successful is wrong. If success is measured with different controls for dissimilar outcomes, a similar superficial view of social organisation or improvement could be seen. A current example would be to compare China, India or Saudi Arabia,

There are no doubt flaws in the social structure of these counties that democracy is not going to resolve, as there are useful flaws in the democratic systems that control the west, never the less, the success of the current system of democracy is under some considerable threats and those threats come from the creeping fragility of the democratic process itself.

The assumption is that democracy allows people to express their preference in the form of government that they would wish to see and have their view taken into consideration in the forming of laws, under which the whole populace will live. One of the ways that people may judge the suitability of a party is by an assessment of their manifesto. However any cursory examination of manifestos over the past 30 years will show that all governments have placed in print one thing but often done something different and enacted laws and policies that had no mandate or public debate. It is not enough to rely on MP’s being the voice of the people, clearly they are not as they have to bend to the power of the party whip, exercise their own preference of choice and do not, in any practical sense, have to take notice of their constituent people until re- election time.

Politics as practiced in the west has always been and has increasingly become the toy of a select privileged element of the population that have the inclination, resources, connection, party encouragement and is ‘home’ for a few ‘heredity’ family parliamentarians with examples to follow. These fortuitous people, with some small exceptions gain the power to exercises their personal view and model strategies that benefits their own mind map idealisms for the populace. It seems clear that such positions of privilege colours their whole view of life and their interpretation of what is best for the rest of the populace. It is difficult to see how they can effectively discern the majority view of a social system without a formal reference point, which the current crude voting system cannot cater for. Such a weak process is increasingly open to the pressure that can be applied by corporate interest as they often have far better organised access to the various ministerial ear. The danger is endemic in that they enact laws and take powers that are for their own needs rather than the social structure. That this has happened and still does may be discounted as a danger because it is balanced by the retort ‘that is how democracy works best’ by strong diversity and that having the safe guard of being able to potentially kick out a party after a set period in office, means that excesses do not get out of hand.

Such relaxed view ignores the inherent ossification of impasse policies that over time become to be seen as the norm and are not challenge. They are taken as proper facts of life, as for example was slavery, usury, child labour, prejudices against women, two man votes, inflicting war, poll tax, privatisation, low tax etc – where all seen as normal and of a right without the input of the majority of the people yet have a profound effect on the economic social order.

The growing worry is that for reasons not fully understood, the voting populace is declining to an apathetic level that is in danger of exacerbating the non-representative nature of politics. The young are not inclined to vote and the older generation become more jaded in their trust of politicians. This attitude has been most useful for politicians as it allows the first past the post system to govern on a minority vote, take overall power and impose its own peculiar party prejudices. Democracy offers a discordant largely unorganised public platform that first past the post can safely ignore and this populist non-formal chaotic voice does not often polarise into a challenge of state status quo. However as the polling system drops closer to the undemocratic unrepresentative break point, the UK falls closer to becoming a known undemocratic and potential covertly dictatorial state.

Although the minority labour government wants to press on and impose id cards at a high undefined cost for a purpose not proven, it does not see the need to tackle the collapse in democracy in the same ‘robust’ way, yet it is by far the more important subject and has a better chance of technical success.

So a solution has to be found before we drift into the imposition of a corporatisation of a corrupt culture onto a UK population, akin to oligarchy, stasi state, ‘one of us’ ideology.

Democracy has so far been the best option for free and open societies nurtured in an era of unfettered economic exploitation but its time is running out. As the rich and powerful become more rich, hovering up resources into a smaller centres of wealth and exposing increasing number to the snake of poverty without the ladder of success; the opportunity to undermine the existing limited democracy will increase as people turn away from it.

To forestall its collapse, action has to be taken now to revitalise and strengthen the democratic process and a number of options need to be examined


Proportional Representation.
One-person one vote but only for people with residency of min 18 years.
Compulsory voting and ability to lodge a no confidence vote is essential.
Compulsory political education
Set referendum trigger points.
Compulsory referendum on key issues to guide political actions.
A limit to political immunity and parliamentary privilege.
Formation of an a-political wholly elected second chamber.


There are of course difficulties with some of the above such as the likely hood of more militant pressure from active minority grouping and religion extremisms that will attempt to form the dictation of political will, but to counter this the drive should be towards progressive inclusive responsible democracy at all times. All this can only work if the population is educated in the participation, principles and values of the freedom of democracy.

If millions of people can gamble on the lottery every week there is no reason why similar technology cannot be used to hold a vote and referendums! Why would we then need unrepresentative politicians when direct representation is possible and every vote has a meaning?










P14.3.05

To Tie or not to Tie.

The Tie Debate.

The tie. Its origins come from the about 15th century but probably goes back very much further in one form or another as a tie, bow, scarf or cravat etc and over time it has change to become the finishing touch of the modern shirt. It is possibly the only apparel vehicle that men have, allowing them to express a sense of dress appearance in so far that most suits worn by men in the civil / commercial arenas are functional and somewhat bland compare to the female choice of dress. That ties are not general worn as works wear by the ‘blue collar’ workers is due to it being a possible handicap or nuisance not to say a bit poofy.

To wear one or not may depend on the work or the social context one is engaged in. It does seem to display a certain amount of profession status and marks one, as not being in the blue-collar crowd, yet these same white collar people will cast it aside in their leisure time in favour of casual attire. The reverse is not so obvious, blue-collar workers no longer dress up for the weekend pleasures topped out with a tie. All seem to be going the same casual way and opting for the open neck view.

Does wearing a tie influence the effectiveness of one work – probable not but it has the effect of portraying an element of dress care, misplaced respectability or even the perspective of professional trust ability. No doubt that in very hot weather a tie can be a bit restrictive and feel uncomfortable but those day are few and far between. The advent of ‘dress down days’ although a welcome occasional novelty is leading to a regularising of casual dress and the demise of the suit and tie to the extent that apart from the price tag of the clobber one wear, it is difficult to know what care a person takes in preparing themselves for public display.

There has been a certain amount of etiquette in the wearing of a tie and the design has often been used to denote a certain standing, authority, or of belonging to a select group. This is still the case now in some areas and the wearing of the tie comes with additional modes of dress and acceptable behaviour. It is in all respect a form of badge that is recognisable to others of the same clique and for these it is likely to remain but for the general populace open to fads, it may not survive.

So is the tie heading for the bin? If you look around at the form of dress people wear, male and female, it is easy to see that there is an overriding lean towards casual dress yet it looks decidedly inelegant and pretends to a superficially superior designer style displayed with designer labels, bear fat mid riff, bulging bellies, baggy slack arse trousers, draws on display, shell suits, hoodies, bling, trackies and trainers, bodies squeezed into undersized cloth with fat overflowing, matched with uncouth manners and increasingly coarse attitudes.

Gone are the days when there was at least Sunday best attire, often suit and tie, now even polishing shoes has given way to tatty shod feet. Until we all homogenise to the same crappy level, I wish to see the tie kept if nothing else as a bulwark against he deterioration of more elegant and smart dress standards. So please gentlemen keep your tie, have a sense of appearance for the right occasion, be smart, and the rest of you pretentious unwashed ill-mannered vandal slobs can sod off.


P.
9.8.05