Ultimate Control

Some items of news today cause me concern where our democracy is concerned and, as an introduction to this post, I quote from a post of yesterday:

"One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes, that's about cleaning up expenses, yes, that's about reforming parliament, and yes, it's about making sure people are in control and that the politicians are always their servants and never their masters."
David Cameron, first speech as Prime Minister, May 11, 2010.

When considering the following news items:
 http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/25859/davey_unwise_to_rule_out_joining_euro.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-proposes-way-to-end-big-money-political-donations-7615548.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124781/Secret-justice-plan-crumbles-Clegg-says-hell-block-report-MPs-peers-damns-ministers-close-u-turn.html
it becomes increasingly obvious that the people are most definitely not in charge - we have Davey stating that we must leave the door open for adoption of the euro, that the present government will be seen eventually as more euro-friendly than that of Blair's; we have Clegg deciding how political parties are to be funded from public money; and we have Clarke attempting to turn our system of justice on its head.


I trust readers will forgive the repetition that follows but it cannot be repeated enough. Presently, under our system of representative democracy what in effect we do is hand the car keys to a collection of learner drivers who have no idea of the rules of the road and subsequently turn them loose. In other words, between general elections, we allow a group of politicians to act as dictators who then impose laws on us, laws we may or may not agree with, whilst accepting we have no recourse to stop those laws.


Readers will be in no doubt that I favour a system of government known as Direct Democracy - it is the only system of which I know that does, firmly, put the people in control of their own destiny - both national and local. It has been suggested, in comments on my blog, that people can't be bothered with the 'minutae' of democracy - to which I counter that if they can't, then they may as well immediately submit themselves to slavery and bondage, because that is the aim of politicians - coupled with the fact that it would save us a shed load of money funding the political elite in achieving their ultimate aim. Consider, democracy can only work when people claim it as their own because the present system only works as it involves choosing your next set of dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.


If it is the will of the people that the status quo should remain, ie representative democracy, then should we not press for a change to 'delegatory democracy' which would at least force politicians to vote according to their constituents majority view, rather than their view (Burke's law). If the people are to retain a status of being the master, with politicians being no more than servants, then it becomes necessary that the people must have the ultimate option of saying 'No' - and in that regard I can but refer readers to my post of yesterday and the views expressed therein.


That democracy is important to us all and that it is therefore important we all take an interest in our system of democracy is underlined by a quote from Robert Hutchins:

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Despotism

From Wikipedia:

"Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a singular "despot", an individual......Colloquially, despot has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularity a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates."

In the United Kingdom it is also known as representative democracy.


H/T: Fausty's Libertarian Blog for the idea.

Chicken and Egg

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...........

From ill-thought out ideas for electoral gain......

......flows problem after problem after problem.

When Tony Blair, in the 1997 general election promised devolution to Scotland and Wales, it was without doubt done to gain electoral advantage and, it could be argued being the advocate of EU membership that he was, it also allowed him to further the division of the United Kingdom as a nation thus fulfilling the aims of the EU where the creation of 'regions' was concerned.

With devolution all Blair did was to fan the flames, especially in Scotland, of independence from 'Westminster' - a policy which, in common with most policies drawn up by politicians, was not 'thought through'. This failure could be said to be part of the process by which politicians perpetuate their own requirement to exist in the first place, one that allows them to continue on the basis there is a need for them to 'correct' their past errors.

Any fool with only one brain cell could have foreseen that the situation we now have with what one may call the 'Scottish Problem', would arise.  It was also obvious that it would result in the present position wherein we now have the political elite flying round in the manner of the proverbial 'blue-arsed' fly attempting to maintain the 'status quo' - aka the continuance of 'central rule' encapsulated in which is their own individual power.

It has been noted that Alex Salmond may well include a third 'option' in his required referendum, one which would permit Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, on certain conditions as yet not specified (to my knowledge). The fact that this entire 'devolution' question could have been resolved far easier - and more amicably - by means of the introduction of Direct Democracy across the United Kingdom is becoming more and more undeniable. That our politicians did not consider this is obvious as the old phrase comes to mind, namely do turkeys vote for Christmas - in other words, would politicians vote for their own demise where the exercise of power is concerned?

When will politicians learn not to open a 'Pandora's Box' without realising what it contains? A rhetorical question as whilst politicians are allowed to continue with their 'elected dictatorship' - aka representative democracy - that realisation will never dawn. It is with a view to changing the status quo, to stir debate on the type of democracy under which we wish to live, that the site talkconstitution.net has been created wherein an attempt to resolve the problems caused through continual political usurpation of power by politicians is being discussed.

If, like me, you consider this question of democracy - and the ramifications thereof - to be one of importance, then do please get over there, register and get involved!

It is, after all, the future of us all that is up for discussion.