Nothing is necessarily as you thought it was, and you should never believe what you're told until you've had a chance to study it for yourselves
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
Our writersPopular Articles |
 |
The State of Democracy
So it has just gone, election time 2005 and everyones talking politics. The House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Prime Minister, all these words are there for a reason, but what do they actually mean?
In Summary:
The House of Commons:
A committee consisting of common people (e.g. a selection of members representing the population). The members are elected because not every common person can be present. Those elected are called Members of Parliament
or MPs. The house exists to ensure that Royalty or Lords cannot pass laws unfair to the people.
House of Lords:
A board of members representing the land owners of the country. The memberships are passed down through family lines. Land owners are a major part of this country, and land owners do provide many jobs for the population too, so thats why this house exists. They don't want their livelihood jeopardised by what the commons wants to do, so therefore land owners must have a voice too.
Houses of Parliament:
The joining of both the houses to make decisions about how the country is run.
The idea is that all members of the population are represented in a house where
the final choices are made and agreed upon, where the entire populations
interests are at heart.
Ministers (by definition):
1. high officer of state appointed to head an executive or administrative
department of government
2. an authorized diplomatic representative of a government, usually ranking next
below an ambassador
3. a person serving as an agent for another by carrying out specified orders or
functions
Roughly translated, a person running a department of government who should be
carrying out specified orders/functions. But whose orders?
Prime Minister:
The Prime Minister is simply the leader of whichever party currently has the
controlling majority in the House of Commons. He simply represents a political
party, and whilst in power, he is the voice of the common people.
Political Parties:
Groups of people representing a particular ideal. Each party represents a
particular set of views
For example, Labour:
The Labour party represent the labour (or the working) class. It was formed by
trade unions, socialists and working people in 1900 "a new party for a new
century" Originally they set out to "destroy the five 'evil giants' of want,
squalor, disease, ignorance and unemployment"
And another of the main parties, The Conservatives:
This Party has been around since the 17th century, as the "Tories" but nowadays,
under the heading "Conservative" They originally represented the view that
traditional English values are what matters, the family unit, national
institutes, and to "keep Britain British"
Democracy (by definition):
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a
community.
Simply, every single one of you reading this, every person you see on the
street, everyone who votes, and all those who dont. Every single person who
lives within the borders of our country who pays tax, by the definitions of
democracy, you run the country.
How many times throughout your lives have you felt that this is true, or that
you are even being represented in parliament? For example many people expressed
their concern over the Iraq war. My concern was about the way in which the war
action was decided (on the behalf of the UK). The 7th of September 2002, Tony
Blair spoke with President Bush. He then pledged his support of a US invasion.
He returned to the UK and presented us with a decision. He then countered every
opposition to that decision and forced it through until finally it was too late
to turn back.
Regardless of how he felt, he is our Prime Minister. As we learned before, the
prime minister is supposed to represent the people
after all we elected him.
This is not a stab at Tony Blair or Labour, but the reality is that even though
every decision cant be put the vote, something as large as this is surely the
peoples choice to make and not the Prime Ministers alone (regardless of who
the prime minister may be).
We are not selecting a Prime Minister for their personal views, but they are
selected as a representative of ours. If it had gone to a referendum or
similar, the end result could have been in favour of the war, but well never
know, and this is a clear example of why Im writing this article.
It seems to me a bit hypocritical that we, a supposed democratic people,
disposed of a tyrannical dictator to bring freedom and democracy in his stead,
if the meaning of democracy is lost to us, and the decision was effectively
made by one man. How can we successfully establish something we no longer
understand?
We formed the House of Commons so we were no longer ruled just by a single head
of state, or the House of Lords. The Prime Minister is not a King/Queen, they
are neither a dictator, nor a President. Im not convinced that people are sure
what the Prime Ministers role is.
The common people appear to be drifting further and further away from
involvement with the politics of our country. How is this possible, when the
common people are the democratic ruling body? Is this due to a lack of
education or a lack of interest? If so, whose responsibility is it to encourage
education or interest? Do we understand our own responsibilities to what happens
to our country? Are we, in fact, still a democratic country at all?
Maybe we are just confused. After all, it doesnt seem as if our elected
representatives are very keen to remind us. In fact our current Prime Minister
defends his actions by the simple statement of I had a decision to make, and I
made it These are not the words of a leader who appreciates how democracy
works. We need to remind our elected representatives who it is they represent.
When a decision is made in parliament that you feel is wrong, write to your MP,
petition against it, march on parliament, do not just sit back and accept it,
and if these actions are ignored, then we really need to think about who is
leading our country and where they are leading it too.
So please, remember what it is to be democratic and exercise your rights.
Democracy is a privilege, and we are dangerously close to losing it.
Michael Guina
Sources
http://www.parliament.uk
http:/www.dictionary.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.labour.org.uk
http:/www.conservatives.com
Message was edited by: 203-117-87-596-783
Submitted on Fri, 2005-05-06 16:13
Re: The State of Democracy
Nicely put, in fairly simple, and if I may say so in the nicest possible way, slightly naive terms!
In my opinion, you actually hit on part of the problem yourself. While everyody is talking politics at present (apart from the large part of the population that really couldn't give two hoots) you can bet that this will not be the case by the middle of next week: everyone will have gone back to talking about the footy, the telly and getting drunk. There has been a huge amount of discussion in the last month about the deficiencies of the electoral system; this too resurfaces more or less strongly every election, only to disappear (to the victor's undoubted relief) a week afterwards.
The problem is that our system has been left to rust by the inherent conservatism of our national temperament, to the point where it no longer serves very well the aspirations of a modern, supposedly egalitarian society (not that it was ever intended to be egalitarian on the first place - the basic system has been in place for a lot longer than universal suffrage has!) Neither has the nation's political elite had any interest in reforming a system which serves its own interests only too well, at the expense of the 'governed'.
The fact that the whole thing is based on a set of unwritten 'understandings' reinforces the ability of the incumbent to manipulate the system to his own advantage. In how many other countries is an election called at the whim of the Prime Minister, who can cut and run at what he deems to be the most opportune moment? Sounds like the alcoholics are running the brewery to me...(please no comments about what they couldn't organise either...)
Then we have all the distortions of the FPTP system. The argument goes that it makes for strong governments; well maybe - but is strong, unrepresentative government really better than less powerful but more representative ones? 'Less powerful' might easily be read as 'more responsive'! In my constituency, I have recently pursued a particular issue with my now former M.P.; the new M.P. is from the opposite party, and with the best will in the world he will not pursue this issue, which runs contrary to his party's policy, as assiduously as his predecessor. What is more, he represents the Opposition, and therefore has no more direct influence on the government than I do myself. Hence, on this issue I am unrepresented! A more proportional system would at least reduce this problem, and perhaps therefore persuade a larger number of people that they actually had a stake in the system.
You said the
‘common’ people are the democratic ruling body- oh that this were the case! It has not been so for a very long time, and I fear it will not be so for much time to come. Be not deceived - THEY are the rulers and WE are the ruled; now the election is past, we have no means of redress for anything that Mr. Blair does for the next four or five years; even after Iraq the electorate has not been able to apply effective censure. What Lord Hailsham said is right: this is not a democracy, it is an elective dictatorship - the government can do what it likes until it has to submit to the next five-yearly ritual. And why? Because in all its glorious, heritage-obsessed conservatism, this nation has seen fit to change neither the way it elects its "representatives", nor the power they wield, to suit the needs of the modern age(or has not had the constitutional power to do so). The rules are made not by the people who wish to be governed, but by whichever cabal ends up running the country. Now he's back in power, will Blair suddenly regain an interest in electoral reform? Don't hold your breath...
Message was edited by: sandistock
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
Let me get this straight. Your man lost, so the system is broken? Is that really the only explanation possible for your man losing?
Re: The State of Democracy
Oh Please!
If that is the level of reply you can make, then I think it says more about you than me! You may disagree with my comments, but please at least credit me with a little more rigour than that. I was merely citing a recent personal example of ONE of the dilemmas thrown up by the present system. I have been making criticisms of the present electoral system long before this week's events. You may care to look at some of my other contributions to this site if you want more evidence.
Any system where a party can win 35% of the vote but 55% of the seats is not right, whether it works in your favour or not. I happen to live in one of the most marginal constituencies in the country, where Labour had a majority of about 300. It was clear that this was going to be overturned, which it was. Fair enough, under the present rules - but that doesn't make them right. For all its flaws, a PR type system would still have handed Con the largest share, but would not have disenfranchised those who did not vote for him. I was effectively forced to vote against someone rather than for someone else under those conditions, and I was not at all happy about it. The new (Conservative) M.P. seemed decent enough when I saw him, but I stand by my other comments - try addressing some of them, rather than going in for cheap jibes.
Message was edited by: sandistock
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
I think you should recognize that Ttrryosborn is not here to debate but to try and upset as many people as he can with silly and simplistic statements that bear little or no relationship to what is being debated.
I think that a boycott would now be in order and maybe this will succeed in removing this joker from the scence.
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
You could institute a primary system like the United States in order to narrow the field down to a final two candidates, but others on this forum have felt that is idiotic. Do you think it is idiotic?
Re: The State of Democracy
Thanks for the advice, Brolly3.
Embargo now in place, so far as I am concerned...
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
The one who asks the other one to bow out of a debate is doing so because he has run out ou answers.
You lose.
Re: The State of Democracy
Ttrryosborn,
my one and only answer to you: if you consider I 'lost' given the pathetic attempts you made in reply to my original contribution, then Brolly3 overestimates you. If you want discussion, then I suggest you don't insult the intelligence of others. I have far more to say but I suspect it is too complex for you to respond to in a non-facetious way.
Oh and by the way, I don't actually consider openDemocracy to be a matter of winning or losing - it's a little more grown up than that. I rest my case.
Re: The State of Democracy
Sandistock,
Reference the embargo. I have displayed weakness and responded to one Ttrryosborn's posts. My spirit appears to have been unwilling to live up to the advice I gave.
What can I say, other than to apologise.
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
Glad to hear your brooding days are over.
Re: The State of Democracy
Brolly 3 - is this a gentle leg-pull because you can see I have replied to him - or have you really yielded too? Please note that this will be my one and only relapse!
Re: The State of Democracy
A recent conversation with a spokesman at Open Democracy:
GB: What's this I hear that you fellas won't let mah buddy Ttrry on your forum?
OD: Well sir, we don't know what to say. You see when we opened this forum there was a misprint. We meant to title it Open Obsession-- a small misunderstanding, you see.
GB: You mean to tell me that you brits don't wanna hear nothin else but yer own opinions?
OD: Well, yes sir. That's the size of it.
GB: Well what in the samhill way is that to run a railroad? What are ya afraid of? Ah did have three debates of mah own last October--felt pretty good.
OD: I'm sure they did, sir. But we here are just a little uncomfortable with that sort of thing. We like to just huddle in own our little groups and, well, pat each other on the back so to speak.
GB: Well how do you fellas ever get anythin done?
OD: We prefer to talk and and if that doesn't work we like to stick our heads in the sand and hope our problems will pass us by.
GB: You got allot of sand in England?
OD: Brighton, sir. We love our holidays.
GB: No wonder you fellas are in such a mess.
OD: Well, yes sir. We have been known for that. We're once a superpower like yourself and we mucked that up-- twice.
the French too.
GB: Are you talkin about WW2? I just went to a couple a them parties in Europe.
OD: Yes, we saw you, sir.
GB: So yah screwed up?
OD: Royally, sir. Had to come running home the last time with our tails between our legs. Had to leave all the messes for you Yanks to clean up.
GB: Thanks allot; we're still cleanin 'em up.
OD: Sorry about that, sir.
GB: At least we ain't had no world wars under our watch.
OD: That is true, sir. You Yanks have a way of nibbling at problems until they're no longer there. Quite clever.
GB: Well thank you son. You're a nice fella.
OD: We try sir.
GB: You should come and visit us sometime.
OD: Well I have been to a few blue states, sir.
GB: Blue States?
OD: I do believe that is what you call them, sir.
GB: Why shoot, that's just the losers talkin. You can go to any state you want. We'll treat you like family.
OD: That would be jolly, sir.
Re: The State of Democracy
Ttrryosborn,
["GB: You got allot of sand in England?
OD: Brighton, sir. We love our holidays."]
You have revealed your ignorance in your confected dialogue. Brighton does not have a sandy beach - it is all shingle. So there!
Stick to your own side of the pond and everyone will be happy. We don't like the way you 'nibble' at problems and you certainly don't clear much up. In fact you cause a lot of death and destruction and then leave from your embassies on the last helicopters, when you have worn out the welcome you mistakenly thought you had.
Re: The State of Democracy
Sandistock,
I am still transgressing with our misguided 'friend' Ttrryosborn.
I wish he would explain why the 'e' is missing in his username, it puzzles me. Is it just plain affectation, which seems to match his profile generally?
Re: The State of Democracy
sandistock,
mmy nname? Wwhy ddon't yyou aask mme.
Re: The State of Democracy
brolly3,
Shingles in Brighton? My travel agent was wrong.
My side of the "pond" (California) makes me very happy. Nevery a grotty day.
Saigon '75? Yes, we did have our own Dunkerque along the way to winning the Cold War.
Death and Destruction? We heard of it from your Bomber Harris. He used carpet bombing to level German cities, didn't he? We came up with precision bombing.
Re: The State of Democracy
And al-Qaida perfected the technique on 11/09/2001. Thanks for your contribution to human peace and understanding.
Re: The State of Democracy
Well, this started well and has degraded into pointless bickering. Not sure if that proves anything but there you go. In reply to the original post, you're right, our country is in fact entirely undemocratic, which was what I was trying to say. I would rather phrase it in a way that leads others to that conclusion, than thrusting at them, as people respond better if its their idea. To that end, I have sent that article to everywhere I could, to very little response, but still, I'm trying. It will stay this way till the people rise up (as they do eventually, although we are british, so it'll take a while) and do something about it. Lets all try and speed that day along huh.
In response to everything else, America has the worst army in the world, get over it. Brute force and ignorance does win the day, but is not the most effective way to get there. Plus your president is a moron. Flame over, go back to your lives, I won't be returning.
Re: The State of Democracy
203...
Sorry to hear you've decided to cut and run. You are correct. Opinions should stand on their own. You might in the future ask your readers to refrain from Bush-baiting (similar to jew-baiting) to add weight to their arguments.
As for your own Bush-baiting, parting shots are just parting shots. They mean nothing.
Re: The State of Democracy
The title of this thread is abit offensive to me. "state of democracy'. No country in the world is a democracy. The UK is a free society, but that doesn't mean that power and wealth is not consentrated in the hands of a few. Which is a reality in Western nations.
Democracy means: the people rule. The word comes from the two Ancient Greek words of 'demos' and 'cracy' which respectively mean people rule. There are no representatives, ok! That's oligarghy.
Plus the assumptions made about Parliament are completely wrong. Like "The house exists to ensure that Royalty or Lords cannot pass laws unfair to the people." The House of Commons was created as a separate branch of the aristocracy in the Middle Ages to concentrate more power away from rebellious monarchs who didn't follow orders. Essentially persue a veto on major decisions, etc.
Another is "A board of members representing the land owners of the country." That's not true, The Lords was formed to protect the aristocracy generallly. Not just land owners.
"The joining of both the houses to make decisions about how the country is run." Wrong as well. The combination of both was to present to the monarchs a diversity of proffessions in the aristocracy of England to imtimidate the monarch, despite the fact the aristoicracy of England wasn't very diverse at all.
"The idea is that all members of the population are represented in a house" Codswallop! Didn't you do history, wherever you were educated? Or did you forget the House of Commons was formed to provide a more diverse presentation to the monarch of the day at how 'diverse' and 'powerful' the aristocacy was.
"Originally they set out to "destroy the five 'evil giants' of want,
squalor, disease, ignorance and unemployment"" The Labour Party was formed in 1900, not 1942 in response to the Beverage report! Your history is fundementally 'out there'.
"Every single person who lives within the borders of our country who pays tax, by the definitions of democracy, you run the country." Democracy has nothing to do with location of residence or tax. I suggest you look up the word in the dictionary. Ok?
"For example many people expressed their concern over the Iraq war." Lat time I checked the majoraty of Britons opposed the aggression against Iraq! More than 70%!
"We formed the House of Commons so we were no longer ruled just by a single head of state, or the House of Lords." Your misconception of British history is below the gutter. How ignorant can you get?
"The ‘common’ people appear to be drifting further and further away from involvement with the politics of our country. How is this possible, when the ‘common’ people are the democratic ruling body?" The people aren't meant to participate. That's the point in an oligarchy. Or constitutional monarchy as Britain is called, if you look it up in an encyclopedia. That's the way the country was set up! Britain as we know it began with an invasion by Normans led by a French aristocrat called William. The Crown hasn't lots powers since then, and, the purpose of government(in any country) isn't to respresent the general population.
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor" -Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. So Adam Smith's praise of the division of labor is well known, but less known is his condemnation of the division of labor for its inhuman effects which, as he said, "will turn working people into objects as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be" and there fore must be prevented in any improved or civilized society by government action to overcome the devastating market forces. -Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith, who pointed out that the "principal architects" of policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers," who used state power to serve their own interests, however "grievous" the effect on others, including the people of England. Smith's concern was "the wealth of nations," but he understood that the "national interest" is largely a delusion within the "nation" there are sharply conflicting interests, and to understand policy and its effects we have to ask where power lies and how it is exercised, what later came to be called class analysis.
In Smith's day, the "merchants and manufacturers" who were "by far the principal architects" of policy and whose interests were "most peculiarly attended to," whatever the effects on others.
"Are we, in fact, still a democratic country at all?" When on earth did Britan even become a democracy? Hmm? You're quite clearly 'up there' in an abstract, fantastical world that probably hasn't been written about but you decided to reaveal it to us. No matter how strange.
Post new comment |
|
Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 2
Joined: 2005-05-05