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...............

Wake up, wise up - or die!

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt 1783

It is reported today:

• Children are to be banned from taking part in traditional Christmas games, from blowing up balloons to blowing on party whistles, because of new EU safety rules that have just entered into force, rules agreed by the UK Government.
• A man is 'questioned' by police for photographing his own daughter in a shopping mall. 
• A pensioner was fined £75 for brushing his pet dog and leaving fur on the ground in a public park and questioned about his attire, albeit an apology has been issued and his fine quashed.
• Proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill reportedly include provisions for a new 'death tax' to ensure that the death certificate is correctly completed.

These are but further examples of state intrusion into our lives - areas in which the state has no business - and additional to those already well publicised; for example children being prevented playing conkers and people prevented from chasing rolling cheeses down hills.

On the subject of government intrusion into our lives it is worth considering a quotation of Newton Minow, an American lawyer who stated (Time: 18th March 1985):

"In Germany, under the law everything is prohibited except that which is permitted. In France, under the law everything is permitted except that which is prohibited. In the Soviet Union, everything is prohibited, including that which is permitted. And in Italy, under the law everything is permitted, especially that which is prohibited."

It would seem that where this country is concerned we are fast approaching the situation, described above, of the old Soviet Union. Where our democracy is concerned there are those who, like me, admit that much is wrong, but at the same time believing that we can effect change from within the democratic system - a notion I believe to be impractical as the political elite and their bureaucratic cohorts have this nation firmly in their grip, a grip which is tightening by the day.

Where is the person who will arise from amongst us, one to stir the people from their torpor and thus opening their eyes to that which is being done in their name? That the state cannot be fought because it is  too powerful an adversary - and that we are too weak - is a fallacy; and in the words of Patrick Henry:

"When shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a guard is stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?"

Surely the worst possible way to defend our freedom is to allow our leaders to continue curbing them - and surely the best possible way is for people to stand up and say: Enough, no more!