The title of this post is taken from a book written by an American political scientist named R.K. Rummel who coined various phrases such as ‘democide’ and politicide’. democide is defined as: the murder of any person or people by their government; and politicide as: deliberate physical destruction of a group whose members share the main characteristic of belonging to a political movement; or: an action which irreparably damages a person’s own political career; or finally: a systematic attempt to cause the annihilation of an independent political and social entity.
In respect of politicians taking decisions that irreparably damage their own political careers I make no further comment as examples are legion: think Profumo and Vaz…….?
Where democracy is concerned, two quotes by Rummel are worth mentioning:
Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth;
The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide.
Let us first consider ‘democide’: The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition, occurs when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
Murder can be defined as the deprivation of an individual’s ability to continue his/her life and liberty; so it can be argued that political decisions to change/deprive an individuals right to the continuation of the enjoyment and continuation of his/her society and traditions – without their agreement – is murder. As such did not the political decision by subsequent governments to accept unconstrained free movement of people, coupled with the ‘throwing open of our borders’ by the Blair government, constitute the murder of British society as we knew that? Did not the ability of government to act arbitrarily according to the whim and desires of the political elite, again without recourse to public opinion, constitute the murder of this country’s society and way of life?
Consider ‘politicide’: have not successive governments (aided and abetted by the media) attempted (and succeeded) in the destruction of a political and social entity by completely ignoring the views expressed on blogs and in FlexCit? Have not successive governments committed ‘politicide’ by the decisions they have taken which have weakened their own auhority, if as they would have us belief they are the font of all knowledge and the only ones able to direct our nation; is it necessary to produce a list of their mistakes?
Returning to the second quote; have not successive governments made war on others whilst murdering its own people by failing to grant the people, who will actually do the fighting, the right to agree to war on another country? Why is the ability to decide to go to war in the hands of just 650 when logic dictates that those related to those who may lose their life far exceeds that of the 650?
Where democracy per se is concerned, just what purpose do our political elite serve? Why do we pay thousands to keep them on the public payroll? They are supposed to represent their electortes, but it is all too obvious the only ones they wish to represent are themselves and the political party to which they belong.
The burning question ‘du jour’ must be Brexit, yet one political party’s sole interest ‘du jour’ is who will be their next political dictator; while another political party is tearing itself asunder on the Brexit question, encapsulated in which are their political elite who have no knowledge of what is involved – and our ‘independent and free’ media happily ‘play along’ with these charades to the supposed democratic process (where Ukip and the LibDems ‘fit in, heaven only knows as logic dictates it is questionable if even they do). Does that not all confirm Rummel’s definition of ‘democide’, because where is the voice of the people- and only the people? Does not the foregoing have an effect on how people can continue to live their lives and decide their future, not only of themselves but also their nation? Does not the ability of a section of society to decide how the remainder should live constitute ‘democide’?
I make no apology for – to use a ‘Cameron’ phrase – ‘banging on’ about the question of and what constitutes democracy, but it is a subject of great importance. Bearing in mind democracy, translated from the original Greek, means people power, just where under representative democracy is the power of the people to change the course of government prior to the next general election?
I now turn to a related subject; namely the meeting on October 1st, to which I have been invited, at which progression of The Harrogate Agenda (THA) is to be discussed by a select few who have expressed an interest in same. One can only hope that ‘brains have been engaged’ by those attending; otherwise said meeting will be a waste of everyone’s time. I have no intention of disclosing my own views of how this can be achieved; but one thing I will promise is that a full and frank disclosure of that meeting will follow in due course.
‘Stay tuned’, do please, as all the questions raised by ‘domicide’ and ‘politicide’ are relevant to how THA is progressed.