As far as I recall from my lectures on 'State Development' as part of my Archaeology Degree, prehistoric non-nomadic agricultural homesteads appear to have been egalitarian (non-political) societies which revolved around kinship bonds (i.e family ties) between society members. When an egalitarian society of this type reached over approximately 100 people, thus stretching social and genetic relationships by a limitation on regular face-to-face interaction and genetic distancing, such kinship bonds are broken down in favour of a centralised governing body. This governing body can drift between a dictatorship and a true democracy. Democracy seems a pretty good package as long as people are heard and understood for what they are truly saying. This would be the case if everyone spoke the same language in order to efficiently communicate their views. I fear that this is not presently the case. As a pre-cursor to Democracy, there needs to be effective communication of experience, a fundamental connecting medium which allows for people's voices to be heard on a purely humanistic and existential level. The effectiveness of our spoken language relies on the agreement of the conceptual definitions of the words we use. If the social definition of concepts such as 'God', 'Dead', 'Success', 'Evil', etc. are unsimilar in major ways (as they can indeed be), then the foundations of democratic communication are shaky from the outset. But in which cases do we seem to share basic common experiences? As the UK has shown in recent months, it's definitely not when out hunting foxes, or in declaring war on other countries, the shared perceptions have to lie below these issues, in our beliefs on WHY we are existing and for what purpose. The main existentially (or 'spiritually') connecting medium in Western culture is The Church. I apologise if the following statement causes offence, but I think that The Church has lost integrity with the majority of people in the United Kingdom, and I believe this is due to antiquated moral views and political corruption. The control The Church imposes on the public via the concept of 'sin' can only be backed up by infallible integrity and scientific proof of the Clergy's supernatural contact with their God. Neither of these are present and therefore the UK is left dislocated from their existential/spiritual foundation. It follows on from this that if a culture is existentially dislocated then there are no true common perceptions between the society members, except, of course, for the feeling of dislocation itself. This uncomfortable feeling of existential separation may be dampened down by media distraction and physical intoxication, but what about those people who wish to take part in the deciding of their society's future? A democratic argument in an existentially dislocated culture needs to rely on a generalised common conceptual framework of some sort, so how does such a culture continue to develop?> It seems arguments are put forward by means of an academic world view or body of knowledge; a pseudo-universal conceptual vocabulary. As such this complex conceptual framework, dangerously dislocated from objectivity, becomes an intellectual tool which politicians may use to embellish arguments, weave social realities, and create illusions of mental superiority. We thus live in a culture of Word worship and conceptual manipulation where the intellectually isolated are without a voice. Until this difference is tackled and people are truly listened to on a humanistic level, regardless of their education, I fear our democracies will never be as 'open' as we would wish.