Please note that the post below was published more than ten year ago on 21st November 2009 Nick Herbert MP, shadow cabinet member for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, was in Cumbria this morning to see the areas affected by the flooding. He writes on Conservative Home about his visit. Here is an extract. I’ve been in Cumbria today to see the areas affected by the floods. I arrived early in Keswick where I met officials from the Environment Agency. Although the river levels had fallen considerably and homes were no longer flooded, the damage to homes had been done. And the water which had got into houses wasn’t just from the river – it was foul water which had risen from the drains. I talked to fire crews who were pumping flood water back into the river, and discovered that they were from Tyne & Wear and Lancashire. They had been called in at an hours’ notice and had been working on the scene ever since, staying at a local hotel. You cannot fail to be impressed by the...
Comments
where are they then? The only place i can think of that comes anywhere close to being a democracy is Switzerland. Not that i have anything against Switzerland its fantastic, but then the quote should read "our single great democracy".
Though the politicians there can act to be as stupid as they they like. It does not really matter as the Swiss people will make the decisions because, well, because its actually a democracy.
There is more than one form of democracy and participatory democracy a la Switzerland is one, kind, Representative democracy is another.
The original democracies in ancient Greece such as Athens also entrusted some important decisions to panels chosen by lot. We would not consider that democratic for most things today.
Granted, countries which have the word "Democratic" in their title tend to be nothing of the kind, but my working definition of a democracy is a country which elects their legislature using a reasonably free and fair method.
Meanwhile outside the bubble:
Representative democracy is not democratic. I think a better term would be "selected dictatorship". After all that's what it is really, sure people can elect a representative every 5 years, but thats it. During those 5 years the elected representative can do what ever they like, willy nilly, and there is nothing the electorate can do about that (short of not elect them again 5 years later.)
one example that springs to mind was the feeling from most people in Copeland was not to sign the Lisbon treaty with no referendum, of course we dont have democracy here so the vote was made on behalf of those people by a representative, so did the representative ask the people he is supposed to represent "shall i vote to sign the lisbon treaty without a referendum, you know without practicing democracy?" did he heck - he heard the labour party tell him we should do that, so voted for it, not giving two hoots about the very people he is supposed to be representing.
politicians tend to bleat about you vote based on the manifesto which tells you what will be done in said 5 years, you know a bit like equal size constituency's and things.
i dont recall any single mention of buying a school lunch for all kids aged under 7, i dont ever recall being asked if I was happy to pay the tax needed to fund this. I dont ever recall a single party ever, not once, standing on an election manifesto saying "if the banks mess up due to recklessness, then we will force the tax payer to bail them out". I dont recall ever seeing a manifesto promising to "sell of the nations gold for toilet paper" Do you?
The lib dems stood under one manifesto and people voted acording to what it "promised" i use the term loosly, for example no raise in tuition fees.
The conservatives stood under another one (rather full of "big society" (what ever that is) stuff, it was laid out an invitation to join the government (quite ironic in a democracy that, which by definition is a government formed of the people)
so the election went ahead, and we had a hung parliament. Then a coalition agreement was made, but the people never voted on it.
No, there is only one kind of democracy, if you want to use the word democracy, and that is Direct Democracy. Anything other "kind" is just using "democracy" as a meaningless word. like you pointed out "The democratic republic of Korea".
in both cases its just a word, there is no democracy there. Its just a meaningless word added to a phrase to try and give it some air of credibility where none exists. A bit like a strip club that sells food really.
Here is another perfectly balanced mathematical equation, you see both sides must be equal in a balanced equation.
Representive democracy = Selected Dictatorship
even if 1/3 of them are compromised by becoming executive as well as legislature (a bit like being judge, jury and executioner) but I digress.
Electing the legislature every 5 years.
a lot like having the choice of "which bullet would you like me shoot you in the head with"
I think it is possible to argue that the limit was too easy to raise and has been set too high, but as it stands it is rather less than a sixth, not a third, of the legislature.
I'm not saying "representative democracy is a democracy because I say it is" any more than you are saying "representative democracy is not democracy because I say it is."
I think that representative democracy is a form of democracy, however imperfect, because office holders who obtained their posts through election and will have to successfully stand for re-election if they wish to hold on to those jobs will act in a fundamentally different way to office holders who the public cannot remove.
It follows that the most important test of whether representative democracy is working in practice is the effective ability of the electorate to "throw the rascals out" if they wish to do so.
All the electorate can do is not offer them another 5 year contract.
if you own a garage and you hire a new mechanic on a 5 year contract.
Ok, so if he is a good mechanic who does the job you want then you may offer him another contract at the end of his 5 years. Why not if its working both ways.
if he is not so brilliant but does not make a total pigs ear, or do anything that really annoys you, then you may wait until his contract expires then not renew it.
of course if he is not a good mechanic, keeps turning up late, or not at all, stealing money from the garage takings and in general treats you (the boss) like something he just stood in, and dictates the rules on how the garage is to be ran in the future, then what would you do? do you have to wait for his first 5 year contract to expire, paying him all the time, or do you want to "throw the rascal out" There and Then, doing your best Alan Sugar impression "Mechanic, YOU'RE FIRED".
The ability to "throw the rascals out" is one of the many things that is missing from this country before we can get close to making it a democracy.