Friday, 24 February 2012

The case for direct democracy

Regular readers will know that I have, of late, become an advocate for direct democracy, encapsulating 'referism', to be introduced in our nation; a system to replace the present 'representative democracy' which I maintain is no more than 'democratised dictatorship'.

Politicians present themselves as the only means wherein their forming a government is the only vehicle by which a nation can deal with the outside world through international relations and in so doing decide, facilitate and guide what are a nation's interests; as it is maintained by politicians that only they can protect and safeguard all that lies within its borders. In which case a democracy would only permit a government to be responsible for its military, defence, security and economic policy. Contrary to current political belief it is not the role of government to create wealth and prosperity - although they have this idea that that is something they can do.

The 'primary' responsibilities of a government are those set out above, which means that any others are 'secondary' and are, therefore, not concerned with the survival of a nation but more of development of a nation and its society. Bearing in mind human nature, whereby once an individual gains a power it attempts to acquire yet more power, politicians have a tendency to confuse and conflate secondary responsibilities, thereby creating a suggestion that those secondary responsibilities are in fact of vital national interest - and must be 'regulated' by them - and thus increasing their power.

In a true democracy national interests cannot be removed from an electorate's interests otherwise what has been created is government by fiat. If democracy is to be the system by which a nation is to exist, then the benefits that the people enjoy and the rules of the society in which they live must mean that the people have a fundamental role to play in the guidance of a nation's future and must be able to act as the "port of last resort" where decisions affecting that nation are concerned. It is for that reason - and that reason alone - why the active and participative involvement of the people is not just desirable but is, one could suggest, mandatory. It therefore follows that the more distant from the people that decisions are taken, the closer democratised dictatorship becomes.

Where 'government', as presently practiced, is concerned it will always be rooted in a possession of power and expansion of that power, or a preservation of the status quo with a view to expansion of that power - and therein lies the danger of the people's individual freedoms being eroded - which in turn means that there can be no 'demos'. Clausewitz famously declared that a nation's behaviour  is motivated by its need to survive and prosper - and who better to make that decision than the people of a nation? The fact that the European Union is desperately seeking "a soul" - a "crie de ceour" of Jacques Delors - a characteristic that it surely lacks, shows that because each individual nation wishes to be itself, the European Union cannot, logically, succeed in its aims.

That the foregoing shows the present system of democracy cannot be allowed to continue, is undeniable. That the people who fund democracy must be allowed to dictate the system of democracy under which they live, is undeniable.

In ceding the power to dictate, guide and decide our nation's future - have not our politicians abrogated their right to 'power'? Is it not time that the people reclaimed their right to decide their nation's future? Is it not time that the people re-assumed their inalienable right to decide their own future?

Does not the piper call the tune?

Just asking...............


livescore said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Restoring Britain said...

Nice post WfW, raising many of the questions I keep asking myself.

I often wonder where our own "Tea Party" is. I see endless comments of outrage on MSM websites along the lines of "someone should do something", but nothing follows.

I often think that it's okay to want to save the country but at the same time it has got to want to save itself. I think a lot of dumbing down has been implemented to dull this recognition in people partly but at the same time there has to be a recognition that it will not change unless collectively they become aware of that powerful cocktail of their right to a great nation and their responsibility to bring it about.

Whilst they sit there waiting for someone else to do something, their "representatives" push on with their unfettered self indulgence at the cost of the taxpayer.

Tarka the Rotter said...

Very good post WfW, as ever...totally agree on what should be the primary concern of government and why the secondary stuff is really none of their business. Was hoping for more from the coalition when they took over but that, clearly, was a pipe dream. Agree with referism, particularly for all constitutional change issues - the politicians should not be the ones who determine how the rest of us have to live. By the by, was down your way last weekend - stayed in a nice gaff in Benson - and thought about nipping round to yours for a cuppa, but alas (and wisely on your part...) I didn't have the address. Just kidding!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

RB: Agreed - and thanks for the link on your post.

TtR: You would have been more than welcome! You shud have emailed me through my blog and I could've given you a telephone nbr!

iniref said...

Agreed that we need to introduce direct democracy so that the electorate can intervene if need be to correct or veto government.

We need the democratic "tools" of proposition ("initiative") and the right to instigate binding referendum. A short account of how these work may be found here

We cannot avoid the reality that the elected parliament currently holds the reins of power so we must elect MPs who agree to pass "The Democracy Act". This will contain the "tools" mentioned above and will affirm that in our constitution all political power belongs to the people, above the parliament.

A broad reform movement with people from many backgrounds, from several political parties and none will be required to achieve these reforms.