Thread: Are we a democracy?

Two questions spring to mind:

* are we a democracy?

* do we want to live in one?

which brought up a third:

* what on earth is a democracy anyway?

Is it majority rule (which is, essentially, might makes right by psuedonym because its essentially "there's more of us than you so it happen the way we say")? If it is, you can keep it. Its the proverbial 3 wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

Is it where each person is free to participate as they see fit and no-one is policed/coerced by any others? If it is, then you have a potentially good approach, if only we can get past the level of immaturity that has everyone looking out for themselves rather than each other.

Do we have either of these? Well, we nominally have the first, at least in theory - even if in practice the vast majority of undereducated public vote like slightly retarded plankton and the system is skewed to put the latest figure-head puppet in charge who'll give them the pizza and tv (the modern equivalent of "bread and circuses")

Originally Posted by Millennium3

Rather than pursuing a variety political outcomes - wouldn't it be better for pressure groups, whose causes is supported by the majority, to unite with the purpose of changing the system so that governments were obliged to obey the will of the people [through petitions and then referenda?]?

I'd go further.

What about having no single party in 'government'. Why not have a bunch of people whose job is simply to lay out the issues, ask for opinions, take a vote and see the result through. We could vote for these people, but they should stand not as part of a party, but as an independent person with a personal manifesto telling us about who they are and what they believe and how they want to move forward in key areas such as defence, health, social security and education. These people would be paid an average wage on the understanding that working in government is as much a privilege as a duty, and that the experience it affords them will set them up well for working in other sectors.

Hopefully, the cream truly would rise to the top and we would get closer to a system of government that depends less upon where you went to school and who is part of the in group, and more upon individual personalities having to work together for the common good.

There would be lots more debate as a wider range of opinions - and solutions - will be presented.

Oh. And we need a few bean counters to keep a track of the cash.

No party line or party whip to follow. No back room deals where power gets handed from one person to another without a vote being cast. No more storing up financial problems for the next government to deal with once you figured out that at the next general election you'll be out of a job.

There is a problem.

This type of democracy allows the public more direct control. But, with great power comes great responsibility... Many people don't have the time to research and understand issues. We are used to being drip fed information in 60 seconds of condensed chit chat which simplifies what can be quite sophisticated problems, how to get around that?

The Civil Servants should be able to take care of the cash. The internet does open up a lot of doors for direct participation. If my bank can operate a system which makes sure I am who I say I am before allowing me access to my account, then clearly an internet voting system is possible which is 99.99% safe. 70% now have access to the internet and that number is growing.

Although the gradual disappearance of political parties and a rise in independents would be likely under this system, there would be no need to force the issue. The change needed is initially some areas are opened up to direct democracy, followed by more if these were successful. Those where large income or expenditure is not involved would be the most easy to start with.

Originally Posted by David Agnew

Actually, we're a kakistocracy

Unfortunately - that might be the elitist view taken by a fair proportion of the population - of a system where laws were made by some form of direct democracy.

I don't believe this is so and, given that only about 60% of voters now use their vote [none of the above?], a party which did offer greater participation might advance quite rapidly.

Of course it isn't a democracy, we live in a mass, centralised society and as John Papworth pointed out "mass democracy is an oxymoron" because the signficance of the individual varies inversely with the size of the organisation. Hence such a large and complex system as modern Britain, let alone the EU, makes the individual's voice and control neglible and cannot fail to be mostly controlled by various powerful, centralised interests including the leaders of the state, big business and the media.

The only way to have democracy, freedom and a decent society is to bring more power both political and economic under more local control and to make sure money-power and the media are made accountable.

Originally Posted by Millennium3

Unfortunately - that might be the elitist view taken by a fair proportion of the population - of a system where laws were made by some form of direct democracy.

I don't believe this is so and, given that only about 60% of voters now use their vote [none of the above?], a party which did offer greater participation might advance quite rapidly.

But if would have to work within a mass, centralised systems that crushes participation at every turn.

Have you ever read John Papworth's Village democracy? I really recommend it.