The Swamp logo

Preventing dictatorship

Saying no to a one-party state

By Peter RosePublished about a year ago Updated about a year ago 6 min read
Like

Preventing dictatorship

Say no to the one-party state.

Britain has a constitutional monarchy, and this is a protection that obstructs the takeover, by those who would wish to remove democracy. For those without the understanding of the often obscure and labyrinthine, social structures of Britain, the following may help. The monarchy has influence, mostly social but with some political aspects, but no real power. The King or Queen cannot make laws, they cannot overrule the government or parliament. The Government cannot dismiss parliament, but parliament can bring down the government. These aspects of the British constitution lessen the chance of an enforced one-party state. At least one that follows the design that the fascist/communists prefer. Other nations have not evolved the same preventive measures. Even in Britain and in the United States of America, it is possible to have a period where too much power is controlled by those who wish to prevent democracy from succeeding. It is possible to use “puppet” politicians and the “useful idiots” who can be manipulated into believing they are doing things for the good of the nation, when they are only doing things that benefit their controllers. But governments in Britain and the USA have limited timespans, they have to seek re-election. While there are flaws in both electoral systems and while the media can be manipulated, it is hard to prevent public criticism of the governments record. Only in a one-party state is it possible for the ruling party to prevent the emergence of public opposition. With such public criticism and a reasonable level of “secret, free and fair” ballots a complete take over is difficult.

In 1930 to 1944 the German aristocracy and military “officer” class believed, (as did quite a number of British aristocrats, and some American industrialists of that period) that if they helped Hitler and what was to become the Nazi party, to gain control of all of Europe, they could then replace Hitler and they could rule without democracy interfering, just as their families had done for generations up to about the start of the 20th century. It was only when the Nazi war started to go wrong, that is, they started to lose, and the full horrors of the concentration camps became known, did these same people switch sides and started to prepare for the loss of this war. They sought to ensure they did not “go down with the ship”, they distanced themselves from all the support and encouragement they had given Hitler, they made as sure as they could, that they would not be proven to have been his supporters. They did not change their belief that they should govern us all.

People who think they have an inherent right to govern still exist, there is a new generation, spread around the world, who think democracy is a huge mistake. This group does not just include the rich and powerful. At one end of the spectrum are the deepfake specialists, who consider they have a right to make money by ruining other people’s reputations. The concept that what they are doing is reprehensible is dismissed apparently because they consider that if they are doing it, then it must be OK. This group has to include the “drug barons” who knowingly profit from the supply of deadly materials to those least able to fight back. At the other end of this layer of anti-democracy social structure, are some who have wealth and power, they seek to maintain this and the very idea that they could be put in the same structure as criminals will appal them. A relatively new addition to this anti-democracy collective, are the self-righteous zealots who think they have a mission to save the planet and consider they have an absolute right to tell everyone else how they should live. Some of these may be true believers but others are just useful idiots to the more Machiavellian wielders of power. Historically, all round the world, fascist style dictatorships have started off as popular political movements. Free the people, equality, end the vast gap between rich and poor, all valid and very desirable aims. It is the end result that often ends up as horrific and destructive misery.

The huge increase in populations and the enfranchisement of more of those populations, has brought its own problems. At the beginning of the 20th century relatively few people voted now millions can do so. In a nation as large as America they could have 200 million people eligible to vote. A 1% error in the administration of a ballot is 2,000,000 votes affected by that error. Some will say that this does not matter since the error will affect all the parties involved equally, but there is no evidence that this is true. So even a 1% error could affect the choice of governance of a nation.

What can we do? what should an existing democracy do to preserve itself? First must be a recognition that technology has changed since ballots and elections were set up. Next must be acceptance that not everyone wants a free fair and secret ballot, some will not “play by the rules.” Add this to the recognition that populations are now so much larger than when electoral systems were put in place. Accepting that administration of a secret ballot has to be exact with no error. This includes ensuring only citizens entitled to vote can do so. The principle is simple; one person, who is a citizen of the nation, and deemed old enough to make a reasoned judgment, one vote. So, take steps to ensure this simple principle is adhered to. A secret ballot cast after proving the voters eligibility to vote, should not be beyond achieving. Each vote must be cast in person, even if not by a visit to a polling station, the vote must be made, and seen to me made, by the individual. It is vital that we ensure the counting of votes is transparent and honest. The existence of a varied and uncoerced media is important to the dissemination of the candidates’ intentions. The power of the parties to buy media support, needs controlling. A expenses cap is one idea but so hard to ensure honest compliance. A new political movement attempting to gain public awareness needs a great deal of money, where they get this from, may compromise their political idealism and so be detrimental to their cause. To suggest that tax money be spread among every ”new” movement, is to open the nation to absurd levels of financial waste. It should not be beyond the ability of highly paid bureaucrats to solve this, may be some sort of nomination scheme that uses an opinion poll to establish if they have say 5% public support, before they can have tax funded support? The ultimate question is always, who watches the watchers. If a strict system of ensuring only citizens vote and these only once and in person, who checks compliance? If we have a fully automated vote count system who sets this up and supervises it? What ever the answers are to these questions, we have to improve the existing system before they lose all credibility.

activismcontroversiescorruptionhistoryhow to
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.