Most of us have grown up being indoctrinated into the belief that democracies are a good thing. How many of us question that assumption? We tend to accept it as true. Maybe we are unhappy with the results, but we put that down to a few unfortunate blemishes, but in the final analysis we still tend to believe that democracies are the best possible way a society should be run.
But let’s assume that democracy needs to prove itself, and why not?
How does the system work?
Basically, the idea is that people get together on a particular day and vote about how they think their country should be run for the next few years. Sounds reasonable, but that only works if several other important factors are also in place.
Wouldn’t it help if those voters were informed of what was going on, and what the options were, and what they were likely to cost? Maybe it would help a lot more if those voters were motivated by the common good. Maybe it would be best if the principal of the survival of the fittest was the base aim of the electorate. Or should it be some other principle? If so, what?
And then there is the problem of the way voting should take place. Should there be a single transferable vote, or some other system, or is the old first-past-the-post system the best?
Maybe the whole problem with democracy is that it is misconceived right from the start.
This whole subject has been pushed centre-stage with the complete fiasco which is the last UK election. Very few people are ever satisfied with election results, but the latest has been a fiasco of mega proportions and leads to the question as to whether the current form of democratic government is fit for purpose.
I maintain that clearly it isn't. We need a modern system for a modern world. Interestingly, that is perfectly possible.
First let's run through the UK's latest election and what it has produced.
If we look at the last three elections we find the Labour party's victory was based on a severely reduced vote. They have a massive majority as a result of garnering approximately 18% of the possible votes. On any calcuation that is ridiculous.
Not only that but they were returned on fase pretences, having claimed in their manefesto several points which they subsequently reneged on.
I also note that the constitutional monarch seems unphased by the fact that he was induced to lie in his speach to the houses of parliament.
The ultimate recommendation for a rethink about democracy is the fact that a petition numbering nearly three million signatures is calling for a fresh election. In other words, whatever your thoughts, something is clearly wrong with the system.
The next question is, what can be done about it?
Let’s slide our thoughts back to the original democracies in fifth century BC Greece and see if we can work out what has gone wrong, and whether we can fix things.
The ancient Greek city states; that’s where all adult males had the vote, right?
Wrong. The vote was only given to males, yes, but also only to free men, not to slaves.
There was one other very important part to early Greek democracy, and that was that decisions were largely taken on open outcry. In other words, decisions were taken by consensus taking into account all the facts known at the time.
Modern democracies dont work like that at all.
First, anyone who is over a set age can vote irrespective if that person even has a view; irrespective if that person knows anything about the decisions under discussion; irrespective of whether that person has a capacity to think rationally about the topic under discussion.
We have several roadblocks in the way of effective democracy in the modern age.
First, there are too many of us to effectively decide something by open outcry. This means we have to vote for representatives to take part in the discussions for us. That was definitely not part of Greek democracy.
Even that simple remedy for a very important problem has fallen foul of progress. In the UK the decision-making devolves into an argument between two sides, and very often between two versions of the same side.
What was originally planned in the UK was to divide parliament into two opposing sides which in theory ended up with the government on one side, and what was amusingly called the loyal opposition on the other side. This has nothing whatever to do with the original idea of democracy.
The first big problem with this idea is that the opposition more often than not does not exist. Over and over again on really important issues the opposition doesn’t do its job. They are paid to oppose. That’s their job description. What happens to representation on behalf of people who do not agree with government policy if the opposition parties do not oppose? Just under half the population, or maybe even more, is not represented at all. That isn’t what I would call an ideal democratic situation.
What about the next problem? We are currently living through an outrageous period when misinformation is rife. Let me give just one example, although the political arena is awash with instances.
I note large parts of the populations of Europe and North America are protesting about the bombing of Kiev by the Russians. I ask only one question: where were those complaints ten years earlier when Kiev was bombing the Donbas, and carried on bombing the Donbas for the best part of a decade before anyone came to their rescue despite the agreement ratified in Minsk back in 2014?
On every front from Facebook to Twitter to Google people are being silenced because their views dont fit the current viewpoint of the boards of these companies.
How can there be true democracy behind a wall of disinformation?
When I studied politics and economics at a rather prestigious college I learned a whole different set of precepts to those promulgated today. I learned that a free press was an essential arm of democracy. These days the press is owned by individuals that dictate what can and what cant be published. You get on your breakfast table a severely unbalanced view of the world, so how can you make up your mind which way you might prefer to vote?
The obvious answer to that question is that you cant.
So where does this leave our precious principles concerning democracy?
Let me throw up just another example of a debatable point.
How many voters debated rationally the serious questions confronting leavers and remainers alike concerning that great divider of our times, Brexit?
Here’s the proposition.
The USA wants Europe to be reasonably well-off so half a billion people will be able to buy their goods. But the USA most definitely does not want Europe to become a super power, so the development in that direction must be stopped. The Brits are loyal honorary Americans, and conveniently do as they are told, and pull out of the EU, thus seriously weakening the bloc. After all, what was intended for that tired old continent? Brussels was clearly boasting that the continent’s stock markets should be centralised, so should the continent’s financial centre, and the natural place to centralise them would be Frankfurt.
Things were getting desperate. There were plans already drawn up for merging Footsie with the Dax. This needed to be stopped.
The UK were good children and voted appropriately for a split.
This is where I will quite deliberately make a disgraceful about-turn, and start arguing with my apparent intentions running in the opposite direction.
Those of you with a useful amount of brain power will no doubt realise that the majority of the UK’s foreign earnings come from finance; what is loosely referred to as The City. The amount may have changed since I last looked, but it used to represent 70% of the country’s foreign exchange income. Suppose, as planned, all that expertise went to Germany, where would that leave the UK economy?
The clear answer is that the UK would drift rather rapidly into a third world waste-land. No more bananas for you!
Now I’ve probably confused you as to where I stand on Brexit. If so, jolly good. That’s how it should be.
But let’s add another strand to the weft I am weaving.
If you have received a reasonably good education you know to ask these questions; you are probably used to sitting in your favourite armchair thinking about such things.
But supposing you left school at sixteen, but as far as furthering your education was concerned you effectively left at fourteen because that’s when you switched off, you wont be interested in the points I have just raised. You wont be able to think the matters through. You certainly wont be able to reach a considered opinion on the subject.
Now let’s have a look at the number of people who have reached a reasonable standard of education. That will be a debatable figure in any event, but one thing will be certain. It will not be unreasonable to suggest that the number of people able and willing to come to an opinion on the points raised above will no doubt be barely half of those who are not able.
There was a guy at college who used to say at every conceivable opportunity: “The average person is not very bright.” He could very well be right, but think of the enormity of that statement. By definition half the population is even stupider than the average. That is a sobering thought.
It also means something else. It means that any democracy is directed by the votes of the less bright.
I ask my readers to ponder that, and tell me whether they think that is a good basis for governing a country.
My own view is that democracy as we know it today is a pathetically useless method of governing a country, and should be drastically overhauled. It guarantees decisions are made dependent upon the combined weight of those least likely to have the ability to make them. I dont know about you, but that doesn't sound right to me. Not only that, but the results of our wonderful political system are quite clearly a disaster.
Now look across Europe and tell me with a straight face that things are going well there.
(Please note these blogs are culled from a book I wrote several years ago about the current state of politics which was originally called Reform or Ruin. Here is the link to the complete book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CDVJ61PM)
Share this post