An eternal question to which I believe there is no answer. So, let me pose another:
Are decisions taken by our 'representative' politicians, over which the people have no voice, ones supposedly made for the benefit of the country or are they made for other reasons - say, for future personal financial gain?
To those who aver it is for the first reason, then perhaps (bearing in mind the venality and hypocrisy of our politicians (expenses; promising devolution to the people but in fact doing the exact opposite; ceding sovereignty of our nation, as examples) they would 'cement' their argument with valid reasons, supplying the necessary and obligatory provenance?
To those who aver it is for the second reason, then perhaps they too, would 'cement' their argument with valid reasons, supplying the necessary and obligatory provenance, why we should not adopt the system of direct democracy?
Just asking...........
Change of URL
13 years ago
7 comments:
Suppose it is venality and treason. Does the fact that the voters do nothing about it beyond visiting pub and shopping centre suggest that they are quiescent and accepting of this arrangement ?
Or may I put it another way ? In which year between 1933 and 1939 would anyone reading this blog have risked life, liberty and family to topple a) Adolf Hitler or b) Stanley Baldwin/Neville Chamberlain to change policy; and why in that particular year ?
Arms
Why we should not adopt the system of direct democracy?
We should.
Now how?
James. Fully agreed we should certainly adopt direct democracy, because it is the only system worthy of the name 'democracy'. We know no system is perfect but our so called 'democracy in the 'Mother of Parliaments' has steadily abandoned real democracy by a thousand cuts.
Allowing EU hegemony dealt any last vestiges of democracy a death blow.
As to your "now how"? That is the most difficult part- namely seeking to undo and reverse our current entrenched tradition of the pre-eminence of Parliament.
Clearly, DD and the current system cannot run in tandem - they are incompatible. Equally important is how do we get rid of the tyranny of the Party system and its built in contradictions for the working of ANY DD type of system?
Since the pen is mightier than the sword (or rather the Internet is) then I can only conclude that the best way is to attempt to introduce the idea of DD (perhaps a la Swiss style) which of course is what 'talkconstitution' is seeking to do. IMHO DD is the only alternative to what we have.
I hope this initiative grows sufficiently to awaken the interest of many disillusioned people who know very well the present system is broken. How to do that?
Sorry can't be more positive at this stage!
TT: Reasonable point and question. I would have thought the social conditions and availability to news must affect your question? People are more aware today than they were then of politics and life in general, consequently they have no excuse not to be aware of what is happening around them. Presently I would think that the acquiesence of which you speak is probably to do with the fact they know damn well the choice they make results in just more of the same. That there is no-one in the field of politics or journalism that is willing to raise the subject of a different style of democracy means they never will. Those people to whom I have managed to raise the subject become quickly interested........
JH: Perhaps joining the debate on talk constitution might be a start?
gw: Thanks for the comment. See part of my response to TT as to how to spread the word.
WfW, imagine that those who bombed trains and buses on 7 July 2005 had said their aim was to undermine anti-democratic government and strike a blow for freedom......would people have really flocked to the flag ?
TT: An unfair comparison and I expect better of you - naughty step for you, methinks!
Post a Comment