………….We Actually Had Democracy.

Now let’s get one thing sorted out for a start. We, here in the United Kingdom, do NOT live in a democracy. On that count, at least, you are, very effectively, being conned. We want to live in a democracy – we don’t quite know why but we have been brainwashed into thinking that it ought to be so. We’ve never really stopped to think just what the concept of democracy actually means – that would mean exercising our brains and making an effort which would quite unnecessarily cut into the available drinking time – so we have no yardstick by which to measure.  Finally, we’ve been told so often that we do live in a democracy then it really must be right – mustn’t it ?  

In a word - NO !! Our rulers want us to believe that because it is the only thing that guarantees them a ready supply of the drug on which they are completely hooked – Power ! They work on the totally correct assumption that anything that is repeated often enough will eventually come to be believed – and we fall for it. We are subjected to endless repetition of ‘democratic is good, undemocratic is bad’;  of ‘we are democratic, “they” are undemocratic’. By implication, therefore, ‘democracy’ is what we have and those that do not have what we have are undemocratic. This really will not do. We are saddled with a living language where meanings tend to change with the times. This is very convenient for politicians who can, and frequently do, make it all up as they go along – usually to their advantage. However, with democracy we are in a bit of a spot because the concept was defined once and for all some 2500 years ago in a language that is now dead – ancient Greek – and so cannot change !! Oh dear, that is inconvenient, isn’t it ? Well it has all been a well kept secret but I’m going to spill the beans.

            I am well aware that ‘semantics’ is a dirty word, and I have discussed this at some length elsewhere, but we are not going to be able to avoid it here. We have to define our terms. It is no use my discussing democracy at some length according to one definition and you reading what I have written, assuming anyone ever does, in the light of your own definition of that same term. Since it’s me that’s doing the work around here writing this I’ll pull rank and we’ll use my definition. That having been so amicably decided (that’s dictatorship for you) – we’ll start at the beginning.

            Democracy, as a form of government, originated in Ancient Greece, or more specifically in Athens, in the early 6th. century B.C. and in the light of what they, quite unwittingly, bequeathed to us and the way it has been abused and corrupted since I have to be very mindful of the one that runs ‘Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts’! Perhaps we had better start again. Back to 5th.century B.C. Athens. Our word ‘democracy’ derives from their combination of their Greek words dēmos meaning ‘the people’ and kratos meaning strength/power (of) which they themselves invented to define the form of their government and to differentiate it from others current at the time. The system involved the direct participation of the citizenry, well the male part of it anyway; all male citizens in Athens (other than slaves or immigrants) voted on decisions of state directly. It was true ‘government of the people, by the people for the people’ in fact. (I seem to have heard that phrase before somewhere !!!)

            During the 5th. century B.C. Greater Athens would have had a population of around 300,000 so it would have been just about practicable for all the adult eligible males to have involved themselves in the decision making processes of government and voted as and when necessary in assembly. Elected officials were not allowed to determine decisions; the Athenians regarded this as undemocratic. (Now, there is a novelty!!). We shall return to this point later. Providing that decisions were kept to a minimum and all of the minutia that currently encumbers government was left to the common sense of the people within a broad legislative framework (‘nannying’ hadn’t been invented yet)  it could all have worked and, indeed, it did work, and rather well. The system lasted in full bloom for nearly 200 years and even then it was Athens itself that changed rather than the efficacy of the system which survived until the arrival of the Romans in the early 1st. century B.C.

            Athens was an example of a full direct democracy. As far as I am aware we do not have any such today. The USA, at state level, does adopt some semblance of direct democratic practices in about half of its states. At the present time, Switzerland provides the strongest example of a modern direct democracy at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum (interestingly, 90% of them have preserved the status quo !). In the U.K. our representatives jealously guard their ‘right’ NOT to be directly democratic. It is over 30 years since we last had a referendum and as I write this they are fighting like hell to avoid the next one without actually appearing to do so!

            With ever increasing population and the ever increasing complexity of our society we have to accept that full direct democracy is now largely impracticable in the developed countries but we can see, particularly from the example of Switzerland, that a pretty high level of direct democracy can be maintained if the will is there. In the U.K we seem to have settled for what has come to be rather euphemistically known as representative democracy. Now, a form of representative democracy could function as a two stage version of direct democracy whereby the representative actually re-presented the majority view of those he/she was representing. Indeed the Oxford Dictionary allows for this in its definition of democracy whereby it states that it is a system of government by the whole population THROUGH its elected representatives. This, of course, is no fun for the representatives who primarily go into the political arena in pursuit of power and through this the ability to impose their own views on others. There is no fun at all in just being told what to say and do by your electorate. They very jealously guard their 'right', subsequent to their election and the plethora of promises which, unless they happen to coincide with what they want to do anyway they have no intention of keeping, to do exactly as they please until forced to confront the electorate again – and we, the electors, are so stupid that we just put up with this - so it serves us right. What we actually have at the present time is government BY our elected representatives and that is not the same thing at all.

            The current version of representative democracy, as practiced in the U.K. at the present time, is really an Oligarchy. So what is an Oligarchy ? The word is derived, once again from the Greek, as a combination of the Greek words oligoi meaning few and arkhō meaning to rule and so we have the meaning ‘government by a few, or by a small group’. An oligarchy may be aristocratic, it may be appointed by virtue of wealth, it may take over by force of arms or it may even be elected, in which case its duration could be limited to the extent that the law allows. This assumes that once in power the few are prepared to abide by pre-existing law in this respect. Actually we have got to the point, here in the UK, where we have a time limited dictatorship. Government by Prime Minister in fact. The degree of deference, of fawning, of servility to the point of obsequiousness shown by many (usually, of course, for very self serving reasons) to the then holder of that office is really getting to the point where it makes me want to vomit ! They’ll soon be retreating from an audience with the PM backwards bowing as they go !  (Perhaps they already do – it wouldn’t surprise me !!)

            The current oligarchy consists of the P.M. and an inner priviledged caucus of the Cabinet. This inner group will, of course, be composed, almost without exception, of staunch, loyal supporters of the PM. Within the Cabinet, however, the PM wields an enormous amount of power and frequently uses it. If the Cabinet is not supportive, then the PM has more or less absolute power to change it and introduce people who are supportive. The rest of the members of the House of Commons, of whatever political persuasion, are merely voting fodder. If the R101 and been filled with the hot air emanating from this institution instead of hydrogen it would still have flown and it would not have blown up !! Of course, it does behove any Prime Minister to keep well in with those MPs who are members of the current ruling party. There could be a coup and, indeed, party leaders have been replaced whilst in office. But if the PM is delivering the goods, as far as popularity with the electorate is concerned then, for reasons that we shall discuss shortly, it is unlikely to happen.

            It is interesting to note that a serving PM, relieved of the leadership of the majority party at that time in parliament, is not constitutionally required to resign as PM. as a result. So far, they have resigned but as the competition becomes more cut-throat I wonder for how long this ‘honourable’ state of affairs will continue. A vote of ‘no confidence’ by the House could secure that resignation but, as a parting shot and before resigning, the PM could then call a general election.  Remember, any MP’s first, and over-riding priority, is to remain an MP.!!  Any decisions taken are likely to reflect that overwhelming priority. There are, however, exceptions to this.  A political party is no different to most other organised aggregations of human beings in that when the leadership of the organisation is open to competition then almost inevitably the biggest bastard gets to the top. Since the leaders of political parties frequently become Prime Ministers then there is an obvious conclusion to be drawn and I will not insult your intelligence by spelling it out.

            If there is the chance of a leadership election there are always the gamblers. The more they want it the greater the temptation to gamble. By definition, of course, the more they want it the less suitable they are likely to be for it – but that’s another story. The attraction is the use and abuse of power. It’s like a drug. The mere thought of being in, more or less, total control is quite enough to temporarily unhinge some of these people. This was well illustrated after the 1945 elction when, as history records, a bunch of elected idiots went charging into the ‘chamber’ shouting ‘we’re the masters now’. The situation is exactly the same at local level. You can forget the idea of Councils making decisions. They merely rubberstamp the decisions already reached by the leader of the council and the inner ‘clique’. This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, we are all being conned and we are falling for it ! We have allowed democracy to be hijacked and it really is time that we asserted ourselves and hijacked it back.

            Our ‘representatives’, as we euphemistically refer to them, in our national and local forums need to be reminded that in a democracy their place is to be our servants. In a democracy the people make the decisions. They may well, frequently, make the wrong decisions –  but c’est la vie. At least it will be very obvious who is to blame!! If the only modern example that we have of anything even vaguely approaching a true democracy, namely Switzerland as we have seen, is anything to go by, then the quantity of legislation passing into law would be decimated. Wouldn’t that be a relief for a start !  Without all of that legislation to be thought out, drafted, squabbled over, enacted, organised and administered the civil service could be halved – that would really give Unison something to think about. Think of the savings that that would bring about and the consequent reduction in taxation.

            Without all of this unnecessary legislation to bother them, and generally waste their time, our elected representatives could concentrate on doing what they often tell us they do so well and help us to resolve the myriad of personal problems largely created by the load of useless garbage they have wasted their time and our money enacting in the past. And they would have time to do it properly – every time. Since they would no longer have to keep going, cap in hand, to the treasury for funds for every hair brained scheme that they came up with, because the situation would no longer arise, then in circumstances where an individual might be the victim of injustice involving the treasury they would no longer need to run like frightened rabbits and headless chickens as they do at present. They would, hopefully, still be having the ideas, some of them no doubt hare brained, but we, the people, would be deciding on their usefulness and, where necessary, instructing the treasury !)

            Of course, to have a democracy would impose some form of duty and responsibility on us, the people. We would have to redevelop the ability to think – which has largely disappeared. We might have to spend a larger part of our free time sober – now there’s a thought – in order to sensibly consider the questions of the day. The population of this country has largely degenerated into an ill-disciplined, ill-tempered, ill-mannered and illiterate rabble. Don’t take my word for it; if you are sober enough and thoughtful enough and disciplined enough just look around you and take note. This would definitely have to change. Which, I suppose, brings us to the $64,000 questions: are we really, any longer, capable of running a true democracy in this country; do we actually want to be bothered with a true democracy in this country;  have we,  in fact, become too stupid, too self centred and too bone idle to care ?   

We have a system of government that seems, for the most part to work – for us. It is frequently said that it is the best system in the world and this may be so. The one hard fact is that it is not democracy - but will it, not withstanding this, continue to suffice? I will leave you to seriously ponder on these questions for yourselves – that is, if you can drag yourself away from the Television, delay your departure to the Pub, actually put your brain into gear or, in any way at all, really be bothered !