|
DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE by Andrew Alexander COLUMN [Daily Mail-June 27,2008] DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East. Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM. Consider two examples. the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by BRITAIN to BEIJING it had NO DEMOCRACY at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully. Our own experience also has much to tell us. BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. More than 3000 NEW OFFENCES have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly 300 POWERS OF ENTRY. Much of this is due to the EUROPEAN UNION whose DIRECTIVES are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives. WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team AN OFFENCE. Another side of our 'democracy' demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being PROMISED REFERENDUM on CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES resulting from the LISBON TREATY The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL. I am not making a party point. FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON IMMIGRATION. especially from the NEW COMMONWEALTH.
While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.
Consider, also, the strong public demand for CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED. Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the 'PRISON REFORM' people -with the result that CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES. What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions. IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT T^HE LAW WILL INFLICT (and that's if you are even caught) then CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK AND PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED. The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by TWO THINGS. THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first. If this urge is not there when they start their political careers THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER. THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE. But the catch here is that most politicians THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES. THEY FORM AN ELITE WHICH LISTENS TO OTHER ELITES Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say THEY FORM A CASTE.
Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will. They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the NATIONAL ELITE - the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.
For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame). Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an ELECTION As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free ONLY ON ELECTION DAY. But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS. And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING.. -and make similar insincere PROMISES makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by PUBLIC WILL.
BUT the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE. BUT WHY NOT? The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . . To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM, MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.
* [Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comment in Brackets]
Ten EU
truths we must tell the public
* [brought forward from June-2008 AUGUST-2008
|