Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
Let me make no bones about this before I start - I loathe the British National Party. They are the wolves of Nazism in the pseudo-respectable clothing of all the other political psychopaths; trying to be honey tongued while hiding an agenda dripping with hate. I don't believe most of the people who may vote for them in just over a week appreciate their background or would want to see most of their policies even remotely implemented. And they should remember when they stand in the polling booth that it took just four years for the BNP's historical inspiration, the NSDAP, to go from 2% of the vote in general elections to 37% of the vote and catapult Hitler into effective absolute power. The BNP is not the vehicle with which your vote can give the government or the boondoggling and exploiting MPs at Westmonster a wake-up kick in the pants.
But the BNP are merely a symptom of a problem, just as the rise of the NSDAP in Germany was; the problem of a decadent and failing democracy. Both the state of the economy and the expenses issue are other symptoms. Democracy creates the situation in which different groups of people vie with each other to persuade as many as possible of us that they will be able to perform miracles by taking others' property or curtailing their freedoms. And the more that proves not to work the more inured we become to their promises and tribal in our votes.
And yet we hear nonsense such as from Alan Johnson recently about their leaders being the sole messiahs who can run Britain and get her out of her problems, cynically ignoring the part their beloved system has played in causing those problems. As if we are a nation of numbskulls who would collapse without Our Dear Leader. And if we lose patience with their failed promises we drift around looking for some other silver tongued hero, and latch on one we either think is telling it how it is about the others, or baffling us with the science of how they can do better with our money and security.
There has been much talk recently about how the fall from grace of parliament over the expenses issue and so on ought to lead to big constitutional change. That at last there must be an appetite for proportional representation, or of independent scrutiny of this, that or the other. I'm sorry - we elect these people as our representatives. If we trusted them that much with the best part of half our production and property why on earth do they need some higher watchmen to watch over them? The system is clearly broken, and is making the country broken, leading some to make rash decisions that someone new, almost anyone, no matter he be a extremist at heart, could do better than this lot.
PR is no longer enough for me. We are, I believe, at that moment of which David Hume wrote in 1745, where we need discover the system is irretrievably broken and need to decide to do things differently. That democracy itself, at least this electoral democracy of state government, is the thing that has failed. That it gives to much power to too few over too many with too little of a mandate. It is fertile ground for all sorts of corruption and psychopathic nastiness, but only because we grant them this power over us as if we concede we need it. We do not.
I don't think I can be both a Liberal and a Democrat. They are irreconcilable ideas. It is time to abandon the quest to reconcile them.
Here are some stories that may be on related subjects, based on the tags used in this post:
|
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
Comments
Sounds like you'd really like to see a good dose of DEVOLVED democracy to me Jock - which is, of course, what we Lib Dems should be shouting for, alongside PR and all the rest of it.
Well, I was going to add that democracy seems like a fine mechanism to me for those things we can join in voluntarily or not - like companies, co-operatives, local initiatives and unions. Above that, or in a situation where it is impossible to "opt out", which at a national level it is, it seems to take on the characteristics I'm really having a go at in this blog.
As you know, I favour Fred Foldvary's idea of cellular democracy, which is truly "bottom up" and at a very local level - like elections for a street representative with an electorate of a size in whicih everyone can probably reasonably expect to know the candidates personally and with resulting elected bodies dealing solely with things that those neighbourhoods have decided, for themselves, they cannot achieve in the market individually or in small groups.
Those small councils would be the basic default unit of accountability, and if a number of them agreed amongst themselves to collaborate on some larger project (not necessarily geographically contiguous but likely in many issues) they can do so, though obviously such mutual arrangements would be the subject of discussion in the individual cells' election campaigns ("can we provide a school for ourselves or do we need to work with another cell to do that and if so who/where", or "can we afford to hire our own local constable or shall we get an agency in or share the cost with the next door cell" and so on).
At that level the democracy does become virtually voluntary, in the sense that competition between "cells" would be a market place insofar as a household could move no more than a "cell" away ptoentially to find a jurisdiction more suited to their outlook and the feedback as to whether a "cell" was being reasonable would be pretty obvious. Also "cells" themselves could secede from high up arrangements they had previously made if they didn't turn out to deliver the benefits hoped for and change their approach or partner "cells".
There is, clearly, room for campaigning here within the party, and most of this is of course enshrined in the preamble, albeit not the bit we see all the time on our membership cards and which it seems too many believe is the totality of the preamble!
But I detect no real appetite for the idea that Westminster is not the supreme body that somehow simply must exist in order to guarantee all the rest, and that to me is a problem around which I do not know how to get!