Friday, 1 February 2008

The Fallacy of British Democracy

The Fallacy of Democracy

Somebody said : “ Democracy is the rule of the majority, for the majority, by the majority… but who wants to be ruled by the majority?” The majority is English, isn't it?
If you are one of the majority…..maybe there is no problem for you. But what about if you are one of the minority, possibly one of the 48% who lost the election?

We have had autocracy, theocracy, oligarchy and democracy, at various times and in various places.

Is democracy the answer to equitable and ethical government? The President of the United States would say so, and he would like to impose American-style democracy on every nation in the world, as a cure for the world’s political ills. Indonesia claimed to be democratic under Suharto, and the government chose and approved the opposition candidates. The Philippines is ruled by an elitist oligarchy, intent on staying in power, yet it is vaunted as a democracy. Democracy comes in a number of guises.

The Democrats in America are in the minority – just, but the country is dominated by the majority – the Republicans. In fact it remains split down the middle. Many have diametrically opposing views, but only one side calls the shots. Can any country be democratic if the majority party is elected, and the minority is not also in power? Is this truly democratic? In a multi-party ‘democracy’, the majority party may be in power by gaining only one third of the votes. It would seem that any opposition to or criticism of American policy (the policy of the majority) is considered unpatriotic. This harks back to McCarthyism.

It took 400 years for democracy to evolve in the United Kingdom, and we have observed that true democracy does not exist without all the people being represented. Three candidates stand for election to a constituency, one wins, and the votes cast for the others are discounted. Can this be in any sense truly democratic?
Democracy is claimed to be the best form of government we have, but is it suited to every nation and every circumstance? Can it work in a country which has had no tradition of democracy? A country benefits from the quality of its leadership, not necessarily from its form of government. An example of this is Singapore under Lee Kwan Yew.

An answer might be a gerontocracy - a Council of Elders, perhaps, where the nation is guided by a group of wise men and woman who are chosen for their altruistic service and integrity.These people may be chosen by a consensus of the people. Do you feel that you are truly represented, and do you agree with what is being done in your name? If you do, you are obviously part of the majority. If not, what?

Alan in Dyfed

2 comments:

Prasit said...

Democracy?
less than 25% of the welsh wanted an arsembly and yet got it?
Something wrong with that!

Cockthatfuckscunts said...

Democracy is an illusion of freedom. We know this because in the UK there is only labour or tory as a viable political wings , in the case of labour they bleed out the country coffers to help the needy, and then after the banks broken the tories get In and claw it all back , face it nothing is going forward, Decade after decade same thing.