Democracy: Under Construction.

Posted on April 13, 2007
Filed Under Deep Thought, Democracy Under Construction, Politics

I posted a few days ago about my ‘Vision of a Cyberstate‘, it was meant to spark a discussion, get people thinking, sow the seeds of ideas. There was no response, even though I explicitly invited it. I’m going to try again, This time I’m going to spread it across a series of articles/discussions, evolving the ideas as we go. This is an open invitation to participate in shaping an idea, maybe an important idea. Whatever your interests, abilities or expertise, everyone has a say. This is Democracy: Under Construction.

Our government is one of the oldest democratic institutions on Earth. Built on an unwritten constitution over centuries of change, it has become grossly overburdened with legislation and tradition. Tradition is all very well but when building a house you don’t use an old and broken tool to do the work, just because that’s the tool you’ve always used. The 21st century is upon us and our traditions will not serve us in a world where the pace of change is only going to get faster. The bureaucracy built over the years has become sluggish, overweight and inefficient, like the fat kid on school sports day, it is struggling to keep up.

Apathy has taken over the electorate, they know that their vote has no impact upon what is done in Westminster, only upon who does it. When elections should be about important issues and long term solutions they are instead about personalities and short term fixes. Driven by a media that thrives on hyperbole and sensationalism, and limited to terms of office after which any long term plans which have been put in place may be undone by those who follow, our government has become reactive rather than pro-active. Legislation is focussed upon how the media will react and treating symptoms rather than causes. In short: its a mess. The system is broken and is currently held together by chewing gum and string.

What would we have replace it? Which system would solve all these problems and give the electorate a reason to come back to the polls? The very same advances which are making the flaws all too apparent in our current way of doing things may provide an answer to both these questions. Technology is what will carry the human race through the coming century, either to our destruction or our salvation, and technology can be used to bring government back to the people, where it is meant to be, and allow it the flexibility to plan for the long term and react to the pace of change.

We need a new form of democracy. Parliament no longer represents the people who vote in the elections, instead parties are funded by the rich who use that as leverage to get their own interests served, to the detriment of the voting public. The media influences elections so that to get anywhere a politician has to serve whoever has the most readers, and deal with issues chosen for them by moguls like Rupert Murdoch and the editors in their pay. A system is required where the influence of these special interests is diluted to such an extent so as to be totally ineffectual.

Much of politics is done behind closed doors, at lunch meetings and in smoky gentlemen’s clubs. There is no longer, and indeed may never have been, any transparency. Deals are done in the shadows when they should be done in the open, where the public whose lives these deals impact can see. Our representatives are discouraged from voting with their consciences and threatened into toeing the party line. Information is spun and re-spun giving the electorate a distorted view of the motives behind government policies. Things are hidden from us that we should be told and we are lied to on a daily basis. The new democracy should be completely transparent, open and honest. This is the information age and as such we should have all the information made available to us.

I’ve touched briefly on the party system above, such a system is inherently corrupt and as such corrupts all who adhere to it. Those who fund the parties to gain undue influence, those who allow themselves to be influenced, and those who go along with it because it is the way things are done. All are tainted by it. I propose that we do away with parties altogether. Let each man (or woman) vote with their conscience, swayed only by argument and debate and not by the fat wallets of scheming plutocrats. People should not be forced to divide themselves along seemingly arbitrary political lines. We are one nation at the same time as we are all nations of one.

Its time for a change, a new way, a new kind of democracy. I’ll be expanding on this topic over a series of posts relating ideas for, and possible methods of, changing our democracy into something which is ready for the 21st century and not something which is stuck in the 14th. I mean this to be a discussion, a debate, a forum, a place where ideas are thrown about, changed, discarded, adapted and argued over. Eventually I’d like to produce a firm document, a statement of intent if you will. This discussion will not extend to policy, that is not for us to decide. Our aim should be to build a better system, a fairer system, a more democratic system. Then let the people decide policy through that system. It is meant to be our government after all.

I know that this is not The United States, and it pains me that it wasn’t a Briton that said these words but it is my hope that “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

Rate this:
2.5

Comments

2 Responses to “Democracy: Under Construction.”

  1. no imageTom Donald (Who am I?) on April 14th, 2007 7:22 am

    I don’t think you have realistic image of the current political process. It’s easy to dismiss the whole thing, and cynicism about “fat wallets of scheming plutocrats” is a rather easy stance. But it’s not enough. There is an ongoing and unstoppable tension between progressive and reactionary politics, and this is the dynamic which energises political activity at all levels. Blairism is of course both progressive AND reactionary, which has confused things somewhat, but the process continues.
    I don’t think we need to overthrow the state, I think we need to change it. For me, the break up of the UK would be a very good step, removing the context of the conservative traditionalist forces that I despise, while refreshing democratic institutions by the greatest single move towards subsidiarity yet imagined. It is a sign of the huge power of democratic politics in the UK that such a choice is in the hands of us, the voters.

    Rate this:
    		2.5
  2. no imagemandrill (Who am I?) on April 14th, 2007 10:57 am

    “…Fat wallets of scheming plutocrats.” is not the entirety of my argument though. My argument is that MP’s are not accountable to those they purport to represent. They are forced to be accountable to the party, their party’s donors/lenders, and to the ‘civil service’. Its not their fault, they have to work within the system that is there, and the system that is there is no longer sufficient.
    You’re right in that there will always be the dynamic of progressive vs reactionary, and that that is what invigorates politics. It doesn’t invigorate the electorate though who get a view of politics which is distilled down to ‘Red vs Blue (with a touch of yellow)’. This oversimplifies the complexities involved and turns elections into popularity contests. In most cases a vote for an MP is not a vote for that person but a vote for the leader of their party.
    Personally I do think that we need to overthrow the state, but this isn’t about my personal politics, its about the state of democracy in this country. It is a sorry state indeed. Voter turnout at the last election was 61.3% (Keele University general election turnout statistics), which is quite low, the percentage of those who voted labour was 35%(BBC). This means that 22% of the electorate voted for the current government (feel free to check my sums). This undermines the legitimacy of our government, but those elected think this gives them a mandate to basically do what they like. This is not democracy.
    A break up of the UK is not necessary, all that is required is a devolution of powers, through local government, right down to the individual.

    It is a sign of the huge power of democratic politics in the UK that such a choice is in the hands of us, the voters.

    What choice? None of the political parties offer a true choice, their policies may be superficially different but they all boil down to more and more state control over things the state should keep its nose out of. All legislation which strips the individual of any control over their lives. They all treat the electorate as a commodity, to be cared for certainly but only so far as a farmer would care for his herd. We are to be numbered, catalogued, and monitored. Our habits and proclivities to be vetted for acceptability, and our relationships to be regulated. Did we vote for this? 22% of us may have done but what about the rest? I would have less objection to the behaviour of our government if they put all these measures to referenda and the majority voted for them, but as it is all this legislation is being issued by decree from Westminster.
    The government are meant to be our employees, guided by the will of the people. This is simply not the case.

    Rate this:
    		2.5

Leave a Reply