.
As I See It……………by L. Berney
BRITAIN IS AN AUTOCRACY -- NOT A DEMOCRACY
The British General Election will take place in May 2010. It will NOT be an election for voters to choose the candidates who will best represent in Parliament the interests of the people living in the constituency. It will, to only a limited extent, be concerned with the ideologies of the various political parties. The election will simply and only be to decide which one of three men, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, is going to be the next Prime Minister.
As I see it, the political classes have finally succeeded in shifting the form of government in Britain from the Parliamentary Democracy that it is supposed to be, to an Autocracy: a form of government in which one person, a Ruler, possesses unlimited power. The only bit of democracy left is for voters to choose which of the three contenders is to be their next Autocratic Ruler / Prime Minister.
And how will that choice be made? It will be made on which of the three contenders has the best TV personality!
“WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE THE PRIME MINISTER?”
Before voting, voters should consider the motivation of the men who want to be the Prime Ministers.
On the face of it, the job of being Prime Minister has many serious disadvantages.
- It is potentially dangerous. There is a constant risk of an attempted assassination.
- Considering the responsibility, he is paid less than comparable jobs in industry and commerce.
- Everything he does or says is minutely scrutinized. Every opportunity is taken by the media, the opposition, even by some members of his own party to criticize him.
- It is impossible, at best very difficult, for him or his family to enjoy a private life.
- The work schedule and pressure must be tremendous.
If Brown, Cameron and Clegg were asked, “WHY do you want to undertake such a job? WHY are you fighting tooth and nail to get it?”, their answer would probably be something like this:
“I firmly believe that my policies are absolutely right for our country -- for all classes of society, for the young, the students, for families, for the elderly. My policies will ensure financial stability and economic growth, for this generation and for generations to come”.
“I vow to strive for the good of all, and I will devote the whole of my abilities for the welfare of our people. I believe I am the right person to lead the Country”.
If they were to speak the truth, the real reason why they want the job would go something like this:
“Many years ago, I had to decide what career I would follow; I liked the Power and Status that professional politicians have. Their work-load seemed to be not too onerous; they have long holidays, the pay is quite good and there is a generous expense allowance”.
“I reckoned I was good at making speeches and convincing people. I decided to become a Career Politician, a Member of Parliament. I wasn’t too concerned about which party I would join.”
“My ambition, having become a MP, was to be Prime Minister. Think of it! I would be The Most Powerful Person in the Whole Country! I knew that, in addition to the six-figure salary, there would be considerable additional income from writing newspaper articles and the like. And, of course, while in office, a luxury all-expenses-paid life-style, for me and my family. At the end there would be substantial incomes from memoirs and lectures, and an appointment to the board of one or more of the major private sector companies I had been able to ‘help’ while I was in office -- with the appropriate financial reward. And, no doubt, a Knighthood for services rendered”.
“That is what I want -- I will fight very hard for it”!
As I see it, the motivation of the three men currently fighting for the Prime Minister’s job is solely SELF-INTEREST, LUST FOR POWER, STATUS AND PERSONAL ENRICHMENT. It is NOT what they claim it to be: the welfare of the people. Is this the ultimate in hypocrisy?
The question about these would-be Prime Ministers that every citizen must, or should, ask is this:
Since a mentally well-balanced normal person would not want the job, and as these men are so clearly desperate to get the job, they must, to some degree, be unbalanced, not normal. Moreover, since their basic motives are egotistical and self-seeking, their motives are not, as they claim to be: ‘for the good of all’.
Question: Is any one of these men a fit and proper person to govern Britain?
Answer: Almost certainly NO!
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
Democracy was best defined by Abraham Lincoln, one of the founders of Democratic Government as, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
A True Democratic Government creates laws in a Parliament consisting of people’s Representatives (Members of Parliament, “MPs”). Proposed laws, including tax laws, are debated by the Representatives who cast their votes, for or against, based purely on their considered opinion of the wishes of their constituents and of what is best for the nation as a whole. All MPs votes are “free votes”. The country’s laws are applied impartially by administrators (civil servants). The activity of the administrators is monitored by committees formed from the representatives.
In a True Democratic Government there is no need for an individual Ruler, a “Prime Minister”, no need for the Ruler’s personally appointed politically motivated “Ministers”, no need for a closed door “Cabinet”.
There would be no Political Parties. Political Parties aim to achieve a benefit for their members at the expense of the rest of the population. By definition Political Parties are anti-Democratic.
In a True Democratic Government system the voters choose their Representatives purely on the basis of his/her potential ability to represent their interests in Parliament. A Representative’s ONLY allegiance is to the constituents and to the well-being of the country as a whole – it is specifically NOT to any political party or other vested interest.
COULD THE COUNTRY BE GOVERNED WITHOUT A PRIME MINISTER?
In a time of emergency and danger, there is a case for the country needing a charismatic Leader – a Winston Churchill in World War II. But in this 21st Century, as I see it, the people of Britain do not need a one man all powerful Ruler, a Prime Minister.
For its government, Britain needs a Parliamentary Democracy. In a Parliamentary Democracy there is no Ruler -- government of the people is by the people and for the people through Parliament.
COULD THE COUNTRY BE GOVERNED WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTIES?
In the present system of government there is a ‘Ruling Party’ and one or more ‘Opposition Parties’. The party Rulers and their lieutenants take every possible opportunity to score points off of and to belittle the other party’s Rulers and lieutenants. We have ‘Punch and Judy’ debates (Cameron v Brown v Clegg). The only objective of the Ruler and the party in power is to stay in power – the only objective of the parties in opposition and their Rulers is to oust the current ruling party and to take power themselves. The Democratic concept of the ‘welfare of the people’ and ‘the good of all’ is not even on the menu!
Given the way under the present Party Political system the House of Commons conducts itself – the absurd spectacle of the point-scoring and school-boy slanging matches between the opposing parties – the animal howls and cat-calls more appropriate to a zoo than a Parliament -- the Party Leaders’ very obvious obsession for Personal Power -- important issues being debated with only a few MPs attending – the scandal of the ‘loans’ and ‘donations’ made to political parties in the hope of a financial benefit in the future – the scandal of ‘cash for honours’ – and the many other shortcomings – this can’t be the best way to run the country! It is amazing how the nation’s tax-paying citizens continue to put up with the current Autocratic Political Party form of Government, and to accept the behavior of Politicians whose incomes and expenses they pay.
In any case, with the system as it is now, the peoples’ Representatives, the MPs, have little or no say in government; Parliament is virtually impotent. Decisions about new legislation, the economy, taxation, foreign policy, education, health and in fact all the decisions to do with the government of the country are made personally by the Ruler, the Prime Minister.
WOULD A TRUE DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT WORK?
Could a True Democratic British Government operating without a Ruler / Prime Minister and without Political Parties succeed? I believe it could; not only could it succeed but in the Britain of the 21st Century a True Democratic Government would succeed far better than the pseudo-Democracy system in use today.
For an outline of how a True Democratic non-partisan Government would work, please see:
Democratic Government.
L.Berney
April 2010
(The opinions expressed are, of course, purely those of L. Berney)
.
