Well may you ask where the fault lies.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Craig D. Lounsbrough
When a nation leaves the fate of his country to an ignorant and fool person, then that nation itself will be remembered in history as an ignorant and fool nation!”
Mehmet Murat ildan
From Wikipedia we learn that: Dictatorship is a form of government where a country or a group of countries is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure that the entity’s power remains strong. A dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, in which politicians regulate nearly every aspect of the public and private behavior of citizens. Dictatorship and totalitarianism societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems.
When reading the preceding paragraph is impossible not to compare those conditions with those currently in existence in the United Kingdom. Accepting those conditions as fact – and it is difficult not to – then it must also be logical to describe our present system of representative democracy as democratised dictatorship because this nation is ruled by one person (a Prime Minister) and his/her political party, their power is exercised through various mechanisms (the media and fake charities); and nearly every aspect of the public and private behaviour of people is regulated. Once elected the power of politicians is virtually absolute and they will go to great lengths to ensure that their ‘coterie’ is not ‘invaded’.
Where the quote by Lounsbrough is concerned, its relation to our political class is particularly apt. When David Cameron made his statement in 2010 on the steps of Downing Street about politicians not forgetting that they are but the servants of the people and that it is the people who are the masters, he knew damn well that it would never be actionable as he had no intention of ceding one iota of power to the people. The people of any nation need ‘leaders/managers’ to direct the day-to-day functioning of their nation, but those leaders/managers need to be ‘controlled’ by their people – especially when the politicians introduce policies with which the people disagree. Returning to Lounsbrough’s quotation it is becoming more and more obvious that politicians need to learn to combine ‘lead’ and ‘serve’ – and that would be forced upon them by the adoption of direct democracy.
Turning now to the quote by Mehmet Murat ildan, the United Kingdom is a prime example of a nation that has left its fate in the hands of ignorant and foolish people. Where our society and its ‘mores’ is concerned, what greater mistake could be made but to allow – and promote – the idea that different cultures could live in ‘peace and harmony’? What greater mistake could be made but to hand the nation’s sovereignty to a supranational body over which our nation had no control – and in allowing that, to blatantly lie to the people in the process in order that it may happen? When one considers the forthcoming general election on June 8th, bearing in mind the political class have now decided that they – and only they – will decide on what constitutes an acceptable ‘Brexit’, what greater mistake could the electorate make but to vote for any politician who has no understanding of matters EU?
Following on from the preceding paragraph, ‘du jour’, the forthcoming election will, contrary to the efforts of Jeremy Corbyn, be ‘centered’ on Brexit and all its remifications – and the LibDems appear ‘hell-bent’ on making it so, as does the leader of Ukip, the biggest ‘Nutt(of)all. All political parties will produce a manifesto containing many ‘promises’, none of which, we have discovered, can be enforced by those to whom they are addressed. So, a further question: of what use are political manifestos if a prospective government, at election time, says it will do so-and-so and subsequently reneges?
Daily we read in the media about how the people are unhappy with ‘government’ and its proposals/direction; yet why is it that those objecting seem unable to research a system of democracy that would, in fact, give them ‘a voice’ in the future direction of their nation? Such a system has been promoted, known as The Harrogate Agenda (THA), yet what has happened to it?
From this post we read:
- Thus, the election-winning slogan “Labour isn’t working” did not succeed just because it was a clever play on words. It spoke a fundamental truth, based on the distillation of thousands of statistics, gathered by hundreds of people over time, and distilled down into that single phrase, to form a succinct, coherent message – so why no such slogan for THA? Distill: Be a nation of participants, not just observers?
- So we return to Autonomous Mind, one haven of reflective calm amid the baying mob, who has concluded that The Harrogate Agenda cannot stand aloof from the anti-EU movement, and wait until it has achieved it aim, in order that we should be able to progress ours……..a small group of us are to meet to discuss integrating the anti-EU agenda with The Harrogate Agenda……There are those who then come to us to sneer and jeer, telling us that The Harrogate Agenda is almost completely unknown, as if that is news to us. Yet we intend it to be that way – er, the logic of formulating a new idea and intending it to be unknown? The logic of having THA as Stage 6 of FlexCit must be open to question when, if you wish to hit the nail on the head, it should be Stage 1?
If, as I am, discussing logic; in view of the foregoing just what is the point of the electorate visiting a polling station, or casting a postal ballot – the validity of which is open to question – if their voice doesn’t count, which as explained above, it doesn’t. In which case just what is the point of representative democracy?
Somewhat like those of our political class, who profess to serve but don’t, there are those in the blogosphere who do serve, in that they educate those of the electorate who read their work by means of their expertise in the area of research. However, they also attempt to lead, but then appear to adopt what may be termed dictatorial attitudes in their responses to those who disagree with the ‘content’ of their leadership – which is hardly the best way to gain adherents to one’s ideas.
It is noted from the Wikipedia link above that dictatorial and totalitarian societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of proponents of alternative governing systems. Another ploy used in the United Kingdom is that whereby those of the public questioning policy or talking about direct democracy are just ignored by the political class and, more importantly, the media. This begs the question, proposed a few times on this blog, which asked, when discussing the relationship twixt politician and press, in whose pocket is who. Both are reliant on each other: politicians need the publicity of the press; and the media need politicians for their ‘newsworthiness’. When one, or both, deign to ignore that which they should be discussing one can only assume there is collusion – each so doing to preserve the ‘cozy club’ which they have created; one to the detriment to society and the people that they should both be ‘serving’. Unfortunately both have forgotten the ‘serving’ and ‘leading’ bit, while imposing the ‘dictatorial’ aspect.
Aung San Suu Kyi stated that a parody of democracy could be more dangerous than a blatant dictatorship, because that gives people an opportunity to avoid doing anything about it. The people have, no doubt, been conditioned by the political class to believe they must be led, that the state will ‘provide’; hence her point is well made that the people can avoid doing anything to rectify that which they obviously know is wrong.
On the other hand, direct democracy is based on the principle that the people are the ‘masters’, not the political class; thus the people must decide the future direction of their nation. Yet given the opportunity of a public forum, even those who expressed an interest in direct democracy appear apathetic. Yet given the opportunity to ‘start the ball rolling’ in the effort to rectify their current dire position vis-a-vis democracy per se, it would appear they cannot be ‘bothered’. In which case, please let me not see another tweet, article or comment from one person, or a group of our society, bemoaning their fate.
To the electorate of this nation, I can but repeat something I wrote a day or two ago: As ye sow, so shall ye reap.