The dangers of 'representative' democracy

The Mail reports on a deal concocted by Blair, which had the backing of Peter Hain (then Europe Minister) in which co-sovereignty of Gibraltar would be 'granted' to the Spanish as part of 'manoeuvering' within the EU in order to nullify moves by Germany and France. Peter Hain also reveals that Blair - and he - were prepared to 'ride roughshod' over any objections. And Hain has the audacity to describe Blair's towards the attitude towards the Gibraltarians as 'contemptuous'? Blair may well deny he thought Gibraltar should be “run by Spain” and nor was he “contemptuous” of it - yet why should we believe the denials of someone belonging to a class of our society who have shown a preference for the arts of lying, venality, unprincipled and dishonourable behaviour?


The sad fact is that within our current system of democracy, had this plan 'gone through', what exactly could the Gibraltarians or the people of this country have done to block it? Bearing in mind this decision took place in 2002, just where in Labour's manifesto for the 2001 general election was this policy mentioned? This matter is a prime example of what I have termed 'democratised dictatorship' in that it shows that politicians will use people as pawns in their desire for self-aggrandisement.


As to whether Hain is correct in his recollection, or Blair is correct in his denial can best be summed up by two quotations - the first by Bertrand Russell and the second by Leo Tolstoy. Russell is reported to have said that a stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. Tolstoy reportedly said that in order to get power and retain it, it is necessary to love power; but love of power is not connected with goodness but with qualities that are the opposite of goodness, such as pride, cunning, and cruelty.


To repeat, this 'Gibraltar matter' demonstrates that for ages politicians have treated those they are suppose to serve as mere chattels, ones to be bought, sold, exchanged, or even killed, in their pursuit of power - and these practices need to be halted, permanently. That our governments have too much power is, again, underlined by another quotation - one from R.J. Rummel in "Death by Government":

"The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide."

The first sentence of that quotation demonstrates why we presently suffer a form of elected dictatorship and the second sentence why a form of direct democracy, with a dose of 'referism, is so urgently needed. 

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.