DEMOCRACY is a much abused word today with party politics hi-jacking the concept for their own ends, which rarely , if ever, meet the aspirations of the electorate. The model is presented as the UK, however, the principles can be applied anywhere.
This site gives an alternative i.e. True Democracy
have a look at how corrupt the current system is :- http://www.silentmajority.co.uk
Please comment on the call for a DEMOCRATIC voice for the public. Comments
A correspondent raised this very important question.
A dictionary definition is :- government by the people; state so governed.
By that definition, we have never had a democracy.
There are two definitions of democracy :-
1:- Government by the people, where the power is retained, and directly exercised by the people.
2:- Government by the delegation of that power to elected representatives.
The first is what I am proposing. The second is what we, and most countries, have got, but even that principle has been hi-jacked by party-politics.
The polarisation of the representatives has confused the issue to the point that the polarisation is the prime function of the government i.e. the perpetuation of the party is the prime objective.
Yet is it? The vested interest's who fund the whole operation, also have a motive, is it to keep the public's 'eye off the ball'? If one looks at the growth of some companies it makes one wonder. How can it be that the growth of certain company's have grown to such an extent in a disproportionate length of time, and only since the advent of political parties?
1:- Local.
'Parish' Council
'District' Council
'County' Council
2:- Regional
Scotland. assemble
Wales. assemble
England. none
3:- National
Member of Parliament
House of Commons
House of Lords
Monarchy
There is no direct link between the local hierarchy and the regional or national
hierarchy.
An MP is often the representative of constituency in at least two 'Districts', and two MP's covering parts of the same 'District'.
MP's from regional assemblies sit in the 'National' parliament and vote on policies that effect English, yet English MP's cannot vote on Regional policies.
The ONLY link between the different levels is the political parties, and if that
is not a prime example of institutionalised confusion, I'd like to know what is.
A typical National government is elected on the votes of about 30% of the TOTAL qualifying voters, which must mean 70% of the electorate do not agree with them, of the 30% it is likely that
half of them voted for the "least of the two evils".
Local government (all levels) is based on the number of elected members who subscribe to a political party.
Added to this hierarchy is the civil-servants, the Sir Humphrey's of 'Yes, Minister' fame, the
un-elected officers of the 'council' who play one party against the other in order to achieve THEIR objectives.
Candidates (all levels) are selected by the party selection committees, these select on the basis of the ability to obey "the masters voice", by implication this means the ability to follow the needs of the party, yet they are required to swear an oath that obliges them to serve the country and the inhabitants, nowhere does it mention serving the party first, or last.
Yet I can find no evidence of Democracy in any of the Parties. The 'sales pitch' (manifesto) they give the voters, does not correspond with the reality when they become government. Why is this? the answer lies in the fact that in order to get enough money to become a government, they need money, in order to get money, they have to go to the people with money, the 'hidden' agenda that they sell them, has to be paid back in 'services rendered'. The 'hidden' agenda is a lot near the reality of government than the manifesto.
The latest, and most dangerous, threat to democracy, is the current fad of 'cabinet decision making', this over-rides the involvement of the government, who are given a decision that has been made to vote on. As the 'cabinet' is the majority party, the other MP's either have to fight their own party (that will be the day), or back it. With the present government, it has been taken one step further in that the party makes the decision which is presented to the cabinet. Hence, Tony Benn's, amongst others, complaint of Tony Blair's presidential style of politics.
Just remember "there is no such thing as a free lunch".
Parties need money.
Government need voters.
Voters need democracy.
The current political hierarchy
Voting
* Electing a representative from those wishing to stand.
* The candidates must be resident in the constituency.
* They must be nominated by residents.
* They must declare own, & family, interests.
* Marking is done on 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc choice. If a candidate fails to get X votes, then another candidate should be looked for.
* The term of office should be 4 years.
* Elections to be done on a rotational basis, NOT nationally, so that a continuity could be maintained.
* If, because of illness, death or misdemeanor, the elected officer was incapable of carrying out the functions required of that office, then the upward migration of 'Deputies' would automatically occur. For
misdemeanor's, it would be the responsibility of the 'council' that elected the individual
as to the course of action.
Political hierarchy
1:- A 'Ward' to made up of 'X' number of citizens, No 1 becomes the representative on the 'Parish' council. The 2nd candidate becomes the deputy etc.
Each elected person to maintain contact with the constituents on a rotational
basis so that effectiveness of the representatives can be made. A 'ward' should
serve a minimum of one year as a officer before being eligible for 'parish'
office. Their duties to
include:
Canvassing for opinions on issues.
Constituents concerns.
Schemes such as 'Neighbourhood Watch'.
Maintaining the upward, and downward, flow of information.
2:- The 'Parish' council members elect 'chairperson' who become the representative for the 'District' council, No2 becomes the
vice- 'Chairperson', No3 becomes the 'Deputy'.
3:- The 'District' council elect an MP, No2 becomes the Chairperson' who is the representative on the 'County' council, No3 the
vice- 'chairperson', No 4 the 'Deputy'.
4:- The 'County' council elect the representative for the 'House of Lords',
No 2 the 'Chairperson', No 3 the vice 'chairperson', No 4 the deputy.
5:- The MP's elect the 'Cabinet' on the basis of their qualification to be the
head of a department (including the Prime Minster as head of the cabinet).
In each case the 'Chairperson' should be the 'Spokesperson' of the unit, NOT dictating the policy.
Logic would indicate that there would be a limit to the number of 'Councils' that one could represent, therefore, when one was selected for MP or County
representative, they would be removed from 'Ward' status, and their 'Deputy' would take that responsibility. If one was selected for 'Cabinet', then the 'Parish' status would go, for the 'House of Lords' or 'Prime Minister' the 'District' status would be removed.
Yet the qualifying factors, that put them there, remain. If they move out of the Ward then they lose ALL of their status, a timely reminder as to their origins.
The highest office (Prime Minister/President) would have five
levels of control i.e. Ward, Parish, District, First Chamber, Cabinet. The
Second Chamber (House of Lords) would have four i.e. Ward, Parish, District,
County. The person holding office would have re-elected for ALL levels at the
end of their term.
Each level would have a structure for conflicting issues, a sub-committee 'for' and one 'against' each issue, each to quantify and submit it's reasons to each other, and the 'Council'. The sub-committees to be made up from the public, and 'chaired' by a 'Council' member with the public submitting comments to both. The 'Council' voting/setting appropriate controls on the basis of the committee's findings. If the implications, of any 'council' decision, had an effect on neighbouring 'councils', then the
investigating procedure would be passed to the high authority, i.e. 'Parish' to 'District', or 'District' to 'County' etc.
The public having direct access to ALL levels in the hierarchy, but following a prescribed
format, i.e. going through the hierarchy from 'Ward' representative upwards, but only using the upper levels if failing to receive a satisfactory response.
ALL elected members to have E-mail, in order to have rapid response to public opinion, "when I get round to it", is not good enough.
Holidays to be taken by arrangement with others in the hierarchy, so that continuous government is maintained.
Ward officers should know their constituents, and have routine
contact with them. The public should KNOW who their 'ward' representative is.
The 'parties' are not going to lie down and play dead, that is for sure.
The first thing is not to fight them using their procedure, i.e. creating yet another party, but to :-
1:- Identify their weak points i.e.
a:- with the voters, there are a lot of 'fed-up' voters out there.
b:- their track record (all parties), i.e.
b1:- the lack of democracy
b2:- the EU
b2:- the cost of the EU
b3:- our rights as citizens of the UK
b4:- our legal system
b5:- sleaze
2:- Create an Association of Independents for UK, the requirements being that they swear to :-
2a:- uphold the rights and wishes of the citizens of the UK.
2b:- having no connection with any party.
2c:- not being of the legal profession (they should advise on legality, not be part of it).
2d:- re-instate Democracy into British politics.
2e:- dis-band the Association when an integrated democratic system is installed.
Without a manifesto, to enable them to act according to the wishes of the electorate, and circumstances as they arise.
The Association's function would be to publish the objectives of the members, i.e. the declaration to install an integrated democratic political system.
Initially this would not require a 'land-slide' victory such as a party would need, desirable as it may be, the minimum would be just sufficient to create a negative situation for the majority party.
The parties could react in several ways:-
1:- Call another election. Unlikely, due to the risk of losing more voters once the system was shown for it's weakness.
2:- Form a Coalition government. Unlikely.
3:- Move to PR. Likely, but the liabilities could be exploited by the Association. Also, the lack of integration of the political system could be high-lighted.
Quite simply, it's the Law of Physic's. Where there is a vacuum something will fill it.
The origins of our parliamentary system, comes from the Roman Empire, their leaders were soldiers, (territories were held by the sword, and when you are taking new territory all the time, it had to be a strong sword, in a strong fist), ours grew with the leaders being the knights, who had a vested interest in the well-being of their territory, they also had a vested interest in the survival of the 'nation'. It is also interesting to note, that the rules that they created, are still relevant today.
They had the power at the local level, and at the 'national' level. With the increase of the power of the middle class, followed by the increase in the power of working class, the power of the knights diminished. This left a vacuum, the lack of continuity between local and national power, this void has been filled by parties.
The party take-over worked, in a fashion, up to the advent of television, the media dream, suddenly, politics became a different animal.
No longer was it the candidate who the public voted for, they started voting for the charismatic 'front', the leader of the party. This became more obvious, at least to me, during the Maggie Thatcher 'reign', and it led to her down fall. It is even more obvious with Tony Blair, who, after two years, was being accused of 'presidential' style of government, by members of his own party. The consequence of the public voting for the leader with a party tagged on, is that the MP's are just 'clones', or sheep to make the numbers up, the problem is, that when you have a lot of sheep, you also get a lot of shit, which is exactly what we have in having our 'soul's' being sold to a foreign power.
Just how can an elected body sell us out by surrendering our farming, fisheries, manufacturing, mining, judicial system, police, army and soon our monetary system, without as much as a referendum? It is not just one party, it is all of the major parties. The Tories are saying 'save the Pound', they are not saying anything about the rest of it. Labour want in, and no questions asked, or permitted. The Lib's are so hungry for power that they will sell their own souls to the devil. There are various other parties who want out of EU, the problem is they will need money in order to be contenders for the 'throne'. Who has the kind of money that will give them the power to compete? Largely, it is the vested interests that want us in the EU, which is why the major parties are singing the EU song. Catch-22.
It never fails to amaze me, how parties can raise taxes for three years, because the previous party left it in such a state, and then pay out about 2% of what they have rooked us for, in a pre-election budget, and the public fall for it (most of the time).
Every time the governing party changes, the tax-payer foots the bill for the policy changes, again, and again, and again. It is time to call a halt to this insanity.
It never fails to amaze me, how any one can expect to make progress, by driving in a zig-zag, from the left to the right, in a never ending cycle every four years. No one in politics dares to look 20, 40 years in front, the most they do is manipulations in order to survive the next election.
The order of priority, for ANY government, should be 1:- the COUNTRY. 2:- the POPULATION. The survival of the population requires the unit (country) to be intact. There is no place within those priorities for Parties, yet currently they take first place in government thinking.
We HAVE to break the cycle in order to have a future for our off-spring. The legacy that we leave, without a change, is dire, and that is the optimistic view.
We need a permanent and continuous government, the members changed on a regular basis, BUT NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
For the same reasons, the idea of parliament shutting down for holidays is ludicrous, name a company that shuts it's doors for weeks at at a time. NO, holidays are programmed into the operational structure of a business, and so it should be for government.
-----------------------------------------------------
Well it's one blokes thoughts, what are yours? Comments
