Hello internet,
I have long been a reluctant democrat. Modern politics is full of damning representation of direct democracy at its worst, such as: the overwhelming mass suicide of the British electorate in the AV referendum, the Swiss minaret referendum, and Californian referenda where they chose to ban gay marriage and not to decriminalise marijuana when they had the chance. These are just the first examples that spring to mind. However, when you compare more direct democracy with the alternative: which is ever more distant elitism often masquerading as representation (but sometimes not even bothering at that), I know which direction I want to move in.
Successive British governments have been keen centralisers. The new coalition was supposed to reverse that trend and bring in a bright new age of localism but I have seen little evidence of it. The token gesture of elected police commissioners is an unhelpful distraction, and could risk turning something as important as public safety into a mere political playground. Giving councils or regions actual powers could help, but that would involve the government keeping their promises and apparently they're allergic to that.
Elected Lords (for fifteen years no less) is a depressing prospect. It is not as if the problems in our democracy come from not having enough politicians. Personally, though I think it needs much reform, I like the idea of a House of Lords filled with people who have done exceptional things not career politicians.
I have been avoiding reading about the grit and grime of the phone-hacking fiasco, because I don't think what little hope I have left in the leadership of this country can stand such a whalloping. Yet even from my distant vantage point, picking up factlets and gobbets of opinion as if by static electricity, I find myself deeply miffed at the people who have taken it upon themselves to be both important and, let's be honest, scoundrels. Just reading about the depraved (insert sexual taboo metaphor here) of the police, the journalist profession, politicians and the super-rich is upsetting. It seems to validate all the most tin-hatty claims of the far left about hegemony and neo-imperialism and all that sort of thing. And gosh I would feel bloody silly if they turned out to be right after all. There I was optimistically thinking that probably most people were rather decent most of the time, and a stink-bomb like this explodes all over my hypothetical breakfast newspaper.
I trust those folks over in London less than I ever have before. They must have less power: asap. And I don't mean I want more referenda, easily manipulated by a gleeful press. I don't even just mean decentralisation, though that would be nice. The problem is everytime some well-meaning soul wants to make a positive difference in the world by political means, they have to start with inventing the wheel. By which I intend to indicate, by means of a well-used metaphor, that they need to start all the way from scratch without sufficiently robust institutions and procedures to smooth the way. I have a simple question which, if the answer was more readily available, could make this country a better place to live. If I have what seems to me like an excellent idea, or an uncommon level of motivation, to make the world better, how exactly do I go about doing it? That's the kind of direct democracy I can stomach: a democracy of enablement. A system that gives people who want to improve their world the means to and lets them get on with it. I still think that most people are pretty decent. I just don't necessarily think the same of the Ocracy we've got down in Westminster.
Caleb
No comments:
Post a Comment