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
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
posted by Renot at 7:35 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home