The Swamp logo

Democracy, Its Survival Is at Risk

How do we save democracy?

By Peter RosePublished 5 years ago 4 min read
Like

Democracy—it's survival is at risk.

July 2019

The British tax payers are funding, through the Economic and Social Research Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, ways to support and improve democracy around the world.

Praiseworthy aims, and probably useful. As far as can be seen, these worthy organisations are not involved in improving British democracy. They do not have a remit to examine voting fraud in the UK, nor in the accountability of government bureaucracies, nor the problems being created by the total dominance of the party political system.

The party political system ensures independent thinking and innovative ideas, get squashed out of existence. It ensures that only those who follow the “party” line get a chance of being elected. It also gives real power to those who fund the party, maybe unions on the left and big business on the right. It also may be far more sinister secret fund providers, on both sides.

Taking power, and that means money, from central government and the similarly structured existing “local” authorities and creating genuinely independent much smaller, genuinely local bodies, is one possible improvement.

Banning the whip system, whereby members of parliament can be coerced into following the “party line” may be another.

Getting rid of the present house of lords would seem a good first step, having people who are political appointees, to check on political decisions, is just absurd; the inmates running the asylum.

By all means have a second chamber of influence, able to curb the wilder excess of governments, but making this chamber up with ex judges, seniors members of the church of England, and people who are owed favours by the political parties is not the way to do it.

Money and power are both necessary parts of the evolved organisation of human societies, they result from our overcrowded populations, but both are corrupting influences on the people involved. The complexity of laws that now engulf us have created a vast bureaucracy and industrial style hierarchy of those who administer the law. I recall a lawyer once telling me that, on the book shelves in their practice were every law published in Britain going back to the very first laws written on behalf of a King. The following is not an exact memory of their words, but the meaning is the same: the first 20cm of the shelf contained all the laws made in the first 50 years of written laws, and every year after that has gradually needed a little more space; but in modern times, this need for space is now incredible. A year's laws will now need two whole lengths of shelving, around five meters. The effect of this is that even the trained lawyers do not understand all of the latest laws. Specialisation has had to take over. The extra complication adds cost and shuts out all but the legal profession from being any part of the process of administering the law. This is one obvious enemy of democracy.

The party political system is the other enemy of democracy. Some statistics show one or more independent, but even these are actually members of minor parties such as Greens; so out of 650 members elected in Britain, not one is really independent. Even if one or two, or 20, independents were elected, they could not form a government. They could be included in a government formed by a majority party, but internal game-playing and the usual political egos would ensure that this was very unlikely. Would it be possible to get rid of the party system and have every constituency elect a truly local independent? Theoretically yes; but in practice, hard to see how this would work. Once 650 independent members gathered for the opening of parliament, how would they decide who is to be Prime minister? Maybe the UK could adopt the American system and have a separate public election for Prime minister, but then the various ministers of state, such as home secretary and chancellor, would have to be appointed, not elected. Curbing the power of the parties so that any member could be free to vote as instructed by their constituency, on any issue, would help, but another problem would be getting clear instructions from the constituency. In the Leave EU Referendum, the vast majority of constituencies voted (measured by majority vote) for leave, but the elected members opposed leaving and acted against the wishes of their constituents.

In every democratic nation, the problems of finding what the majority want is getting more difficult. The huge increases in population are making the existing systems hard to manage. The colossal increase in public communication has made people more aware of political changes. It has also facilitated the spreading of false information, propaganda and down right malicious lies. Finding ways to ensure the electorate are well informed with truthful information is getting harder despite the increase in communication technology. Power has shifted from newspaper owners to those who facilitate electronic communication. There is no guarantee these new power brokers are any less biased than the old-style paper owning moguls. Money and influence are still going to control information.

Improving democracy is not going to be easy, but a start must be made. The sooner a widespread public debate is initiated, the better.

activism
Like

About the Creator

Peter Rose

Collections of "my" vocal essays with additions, are available as printed books ASIN 197680615 and 1980878536 also some fictional works and some e books available at Amazon;-

amazon.com/author/healthandfunpeterrose

.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.