24 Dec 2009
So many people come on this blog and try to denounce our arguments by saying things along the lines of “it doesn’t matter,” “there are more important issues,” “people don’t want more elections.”
Amazingly enough, I agree with monarchists on this one, at least to an extent: the retention of the monarchy or its replacement with a republic is definitely not the most important issue facing Britain. If, at the next general election, a candidate were to stand for Parliament solely on the issue of making Britain a republic, I would not vote for him. I would vote for the candidate whose party had the best environmental policies, the best economic policies and the best education policies, not just whether they believed in the abolition of the monarchy.
That is not to say that the issue of the monarchy is not important: building a new school in Grimsby is not as important as solving the economic crisis; building a new road in Stockport is not as important as preventing dangerous climate change. But would we stop such projects simply because “there are more important things”? If not, then why do we dismiss a debate about one of the greatest constitutional and political issues in this country simply because some other things are of great urgency?
The claim that the British people aren’t interested in having more elections as a defence for the monarchy is ridiculous. The logical extension of this argument would be, “well, nobody’s bothered about voting, so let’s stop having elections full stop.” Which reasonable “democratic” monarchist would be seen dead advocating the abolition of general elections just because people are fed up of politicians? It is yet another demonstration of the sheer contempt monarchists show for democracy.
Let us look at a case study: Britain, 4 June, 2009. Only 34.7% of voters cared enough to visit a polling station to make a decision about the future of the country and the continent. Nearly half of those people voted for a fringe or extremist political party: the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties received a measly 57.7% of votes accumulatively. Disillusionment was so intense that the British National Party secured their first ever representation in a national election, winning two seats in the European Parliament. People were incensed and wanted change. They wanted the political system to be shaken-up for greater accountability and representation. So, at the first Prime Minister’s Questions following the election on 10 June what did the PM and Leader of the Opposition argue about? Not what could be done to deal with the fears of those people who had chosen to vote for the BNP. Instead, they both denounced the proportional representation system of the election, claiming that it was the democratic nature of the voting that had allowed the Party to win seats, not the failure of mainstream politicians. The lack of commitment towards British democracy was horrifying.
Compare that with the United States of America, 4 November, 2008. That night a man was elected by a majority of American voters to be their head of state. The entire nation was involved: every American believed he could make a difference and believed that he had the ultimate say, not some power from above. The US put its faith in a man who inspired millions the world over not just to turn out on election day but to dare to dream that things were not set in concrete but could change. They dared to dream that the mistakes of a racist past could be put behind them. It remains to be seen whether the Americans made the right decision but at least they were allowed that decision. They were able to enjoy democracy.
Could this scene ever be replicated in Britain? Yes, but not at the moment, because of the Iron Curtain that exists between politicians and the electorate. It is not good enough to pretend that prohibiting MPs from having second homes will usher in a new golden age: the system needs shaking from top to bottom so that the bottom has power over the top. Only once people are truly empowered is it even probable that they will be interested.
I am a republican for a number of reasons. But I would suggest that there is one reason above all as to why I am a republican: my borderline-dogmatic belief in the value of democracy.
I watched my granddad dying in hospital over the last few days. He fought a war so that I could live in a democracy: a country where you do not risk your liberty if you speak out against the government; a country where you are not persecuted for your religion or political persuasion; and – most fundamentally – a country where you choose your own leaders. Until we can say that we can elect our head of state, I will continue the fight of both of my grandfathers and the millions of others who sacrificed so much for us to live in a democracy.
We underestimate the value of democracy at our peril.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 24th, 2009 at 11:00 am and is filed under British constitution, Case for a republic, Constitutional reform. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
December 24th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Well said, Liam!
I’m afraid I’m still not convinced about PR, though. I completely agree that the success of the BNP in the Euro elections should be attributed primarily to New Labour’s failure to tackle the issues which gave fuel to the far Right, but I’m a tad uneasy about a system in which minority parties are potentially able to hold the government to ransom. However, I’m sure there will be plenty of opportunity to debate this further over the coming months.
I’ve got a letter in the Telegraph today calling for an elected upper house, published alongside a letter from Lord Sudeley – former chairman of the Constitutional Monarchy Association – calling for the restoration of hereditary peers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6873204/Dont-blame-the-expenses-system-blame-the-wrong-kind-of-peer.html
My blog on Conservative republicanism will be up on the 30th.
Merry Christmas everyone!
December 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Maybe people will only realise how important having an elected Head of State actually is once it starts happening. The way the power of the Crown and hereditary privilege, wealth and power permeates everything in the construction of our ‘democracy’, which has its hands tied behind its back and wears a blindfold, is an invisible pervasive poison that I would think subconsciously affects things detrimentally a lot more than people realise.
Once we’ve got rid of it there should be a new clarity and vision, all the possibilities will suddenly open up to everyone. It’ll be so freeing. You’re right, Obama being elected certainly did cause the world to “suffer a sea change”. People said it would never happen but when people who wanted it to really believed it could, it did. The world shifted on its axis and we woke up one morning and people couldn’t say any more “white men rule the world”. And it nudged the apparition of our ridiculous, outdated, unelected, inexplicably continuing monarchy that bit further into the land of untenable.
See sense everyone, the future is freedom. The freedom that Liam’s grandads fought for, that a lot of our fathers and mothers did.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
@ Matt
Re PR: minority parties can hold the government to ransom with FPTP and any other system. I don’t like this hostage terminology anyway because it implies that those elected to a parliament don’t have the right to influence legislation.
At the end of the day do you think it is acceptable to have parties winning a fifth of votes yet gaining a majority? Yes, you can have coalition governments coming from PR (which aren’t necessarily a problem) and a number of problems – I would never seek to deny those – but we could also have these with any other system. Under FPTP, though, we’d have these problems yet have virtually no democracy in the mix.
December 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Becoming a Republic should become one of the most important issues. Whilst most should and probably would agree there are more important things, ideals that should become more palpable like Schools, Hospitals etc. Who we choose to decide who is the best people to put these issues on their agenda should be just as important. No one who takes the time to observe what has happened should be in any doubt that recent Governments have eroded our Democracy.
William Hague summed it up Brilliantly this year when he said:- “The Prime Minister nobody elected has been kept in office by a Deputy nobody voted for at all, making up a Government with the least moral or Democratic authority to govern in our lifetime. And it is that lack if authority and lack of Democratic accountability that has been a corrosive weakness at the core of British Politics since Gordon Brown took office”.
He then let himself down when he tried to pass of the Conservatives Sovereign Bill as the equivalent of France & Germany’s legislation as their legislation is entrenched in a Constitution. “Never again” was the slogan “Only on the PM’s say so” is what it should have read!
It just seems the Conservatives just want to inherit the archaic framework and carry like they did before, However I would still consider voting for them because they care about issues like Afghanistan, more proof that Republicans aren’t a one trick pony!!!
December 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Hi Liam
It is true, of course, that hung parliaments and coalition governments can happen under FPTP (please God not next year!) But PR seems to positively encourage these scenarios: now you might ask how that’s a bad thing if the result is a true reflection of the people’s wishes, but that brings me on to the ‘hostage terminology,’ by which I refer specifically to a situation in which a party with a tiny minority of seats holds the balance of power, again much more likely under PR; yes all MPs should participate in the legislative process, but should parties which under any system would only speak for a tiny minority really have the final say over whether or not a bill is passed, is that really democratic?
I suppose, however, I wouldn’t be completely averse to the idea of experimenting with PR in an elected upper house, on the grounds that the lower house would still be the dominant one. The Alternative Vote Plus system could then be used in the lower house. But even if I could be persuaded to wholeheartedly support PR, I would still consider its democratic significance secondary to a written republican constitution based on popular sovereignty, elected upper house etc; specifically because those measures on which we agree will surely do much more to end widespread popular disenfranchisement, and a politically engaged electorate will play the biggest part in building a healthy, fully-functioning democracy.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
This idea that when we have an elected head of state everything with be so wonderful does make me laugh. You choose today to praise how wonderful it was a year ago when Mr Obama was elected, great timing considering what happened today. Do you know how many millions of Americans hate the guy’s guts because of what has taken place over this past year? The guy is destroying their country along with his democratic friends. Americans are worried about their republic. Whilst i was always concerned about Obama, even i didnt expect him to be this radical and dangerous.
We all know that as head of state our Queen has far more support and respect than President Obama has from the American people. 45% voted for the other guy last year and yet polls show around 70% want the continuation of the monarchy with even more support the Queen.
And people think its monarchists that want to live in some fairy tale fantasy land?
I watched the election with great interest, it was hard not to get swept up with all the emotion that existed for obvious reasons with Obama being the first black president elected. Millions of Americans put huge faith in Obama for change, many think they have been let down.
There is ofcourse one issue glossed over, they were voting for their head of government more than voting for him as their head of state. Most republicans here agree the American system is not ideal and want a ceremonial president, something i agree is a far better form of republic. Would Americans have been so desperate to vote in a head of state? The whole message of hope and change would have not taken part in the campaign because a ceremonial president wouldnt have such powers to bring about change. Obama is like Tony blair in the early days, this country sadly fell for his lies and elected him.
Lets also ignore all the hype about how great election day was and look at the figures shall we? 63% of eligable American voters took part in the presidential vote in 2008. That is estimated to be a 40 year high. So not quite every american bothered to vote did they? Compare that to our 2005 UK general election which saw 61% of eligable voters take part. In 2001 the turnout was 59% the lowest since 1918 apparently. In 1997 over 70% of the population took part in the election. Also whilst turnout for presidential elections can be high in the USA and France it is the case the turnout for the legislature elections which is also important is always lower.
We can get people interested in politics again without having to become a republic.
Ash,
This country has huge problems which need urgent attention, the idea we should waste our time on constitutional matters is laughable.
Matt,
Agreed on the PR issue, i wouldnt have a problem with the second chamber becoming a fully elected senate using PR, infact there would be benefits to having a completly different system to that in the house of commons. It is certainly the case that PR leads to far more coalition governments which is not a good thing for government and national stability.
The Italians are the perfect example, the main political party got in bed with a far right wing one. Italy continues its dangerous decline back into a fascist state.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
The idea of a second elected chamber based on PR seems to be very popular.
Why not go further……?
Let’s assume that we have a formal Constitution.
If the “upper house” were to be effectively “Guardians of the Constitution”, it could validate against the Constitution (and propose amendments) to the laws passed by the Commons.
The Head of State’s first responsibility as head of the “House of Constitution” would be to represent the Constitution. He/she would, by definition, embody the country and become a personifcation of the Constitution. However, the role would also require the Head of State to scrutinise and to challenge illegal acts by the Commons.
We could also make the upper house aparty-political – Grant membership via chartered organisations that represent all walks of life – teachers, unions, landlords, unemployed, public authorities, professional bodies, commerce, industry, etc.
To receive the Charter, organisations would have to meet certain criteria with regards membership, conduct, good practice and accountability. Only then would their nominee be permitted to take a seat in the house.
Individual citizens could then register their single vote through the chartered organisation of which they are a member and/or that is most appropriate to them.
The Head of State would therefore be chosen from the members of the upper house. The final election as presented to the public could be based on, say, six nominations from the upper house.
This solves the problem of PR and FPTP surely?
It would also surely mobilise the public at large and give them a stake in the country’s affairs.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Dear Martin, A very good idea !
December 24th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Well i like some of the above suggestion, ofcourse we could do that but keep the monarchy and Queen as head of state. There is no reason why the upper house couldnt be the guardian of a constitution which must approve something before its passed to the Queen to give her Royal Assent.
Im sure we all have ideas about how wonderful the elected upper house could be (this is a reform i support) but the trouble is whilst Martin and others here can come up with wonderful systems do we honestly think its something the labour or conservative parties are capable of introducing?
When they reform the house of lords and make it into some form of senate i doubt very much it will be the wonderful democratic and power institution we would like to see. This comes to the nub of the problem, people here say the mainstream parties support the crown because it gives them power, but its these same people you ask to write our constitution and system which will have radical implications for this country for decades to come.
Its a huge risk and certainly not something id want to take. I want a conservative victory at the next general election but i do not want them writting some form of constitution which would bind our country for generations to come. Whilst we here on this blog can come up with a wonderful constitution and electoral system its not the sort of thing we should trust the current or next mob of MPs with. The basic principle that no parliament can bind another is a very powerful one and should not be underestimated.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Is there a competition to see who is the first person to post here on Christmas Day ?
December 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
SIMON SAID – “We all know that as head of state our Queen has far more support and respect than President Obama has from the American people.
I picked this one sentence out of your post. Would you care to tell us how you know the queen has more support and respect than President Obama? And who is this “we” who all know? How do “we” know? When was the vote? Why didn’t I have one?
You say above that the next government will just be the next “mob” so why are you so content with our system of government?
December 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Bob Wiggin,
It is ashame you choose to focus on such a statement instead of the other key points i made in my previous posts. You ask about how i think the Queen has more support and respect than Obama, that would be based on approval ratings / opinion polls. Support for the Queen is far higher than Obamas approval ratings.
Most of the people here are liberals who think Obama is wonderful. For large parts of America they hate the guy and what hes been up to. As ive said before, the USA is the only republic on this planet i actually have a large amount of respect for and ive been deeply disturbed by whats going on over there. The amount of corruption, media bias and lies over there is shocking. Obama stood on a platform of hope and change, its quite clear now that the change has been for the worse.
Queen Elizabeth II has the support of the Labour Party, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, BNP and UKIP combined they get over 90% of the vote, none of them want to remove the Queen. There are two parties in the USA, one party does not support Obama and voted for the other guy to become President. Your disapproval of our Queen is taken into account in polls which show a minority are republicans here (its not like they show 100% support her), even republic accepts these dangerous and revolutionary views are a minority one in this country.
I have said many times that there are many reforms i would like to see, however that does come with a disclaimer that the priority must be the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland itself. We have serious threats which will always be the priority over constitutional reform which may be nice but its not urgent.
Where we disagree is people here view the main problem is that we have a Queen as our head of state. I simply do not agree with this view and think we could bring about huge reforms to our system whilst keeping the Queen and monarchy. The trouble is its you guys that want the current mob or the next mob to make reforms like giving us a written constitution which would bind us for generations and i think if we became a republic it wouldnt solve our real problems. I think its far too dangerous and would give them too much power to screw things up. If i was running the country then id bring in radical reforms which would improve things, sadly we are not so lucky and are stuck with Mr Brown and perhaps Mr Cameron after the next election.
Whilst i would want to see them make reasonable progress, like powers to recall MPs, more powers to parliament from the executive and doing something about the house of lords, i dont want them making changes which bind us for generations like a written constitution. Id like cameron to win the next election, i dont want him and his party writting our constitution although id rather them than labour / the liberals do it.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
@SIMON – You’re in favour of tinkering around the edges with our constitutional arrangement instead of tackling the corrupting and rotten core of it all. Tinkering around the edges is what has brought us to where we are now. I do not want “this mob” or the “next mob”, (your words not mine), to be solely responsible for the reform of our constitution, I want the people to be involved from the outset, by way of something like a citizens’ convention, where we would tell the “mob”, (your word not mine), what we want our constitution to say. You, on the other hand, although you claim to be in favour of reforms, will not entertain a single thing that might impinge on your queen and her family and the tiers of sycophants that surround them. The monarchy is at the core of everything in this country, it permeates every aspect of the constitution. You cannot have meaningful reform without tackling the core of the problem.
SIMON SAID – “i dont want them making changes which bind us for generations like a written constitution”
A written constitution does not bind us for generations. It has been pointed out to you before that there are procedures that can be in place to enable constitutional change ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
The United States constitution for example has been amended 27 times since its inception ;
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_amendments_are_there_to_the_US_Constitution
You look on approval ratings based from polls as a true indicator of popularity when the only true indicator of a person’s/political party’s popularity is only ever truly established via the ballot box. (It’s known as democracy). John Major defied all the polls to win a general election in 1992. Based on your logic we should not have had an election but just kept Labour in office as the polls at the time indicated they were more popular.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Obama is doing some good things.Of course he is not perfect, and does not always get things right. He has also not been around for very long, so he needs a chance to get things going. For a start he is making sure that the less well off Americans are going to have a fair share of Healthcare. Of course some people hate his guts. This is partly due to Racism and partly due to those people who do not not want to see genuine and fair social changes. We are familiar with this type of person in our own country. Obama is not dangerous and is not damaging the country. Our country has a lot of problems to deal with,and this includes the problem of monarchy. All these problems can be tackled at the same time. There is no priority, although I think that monarchy reform will necessarily be at a slower place at present than the urgent need ,for example, to sort out unemployment .
December 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
“Queen Elizabeth II has the support of the Labour Party, Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP, BNP and UKIP combined they get over 90% of the vote, none of them want to remove the Queen.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
“I think its far too dangerous and would give them too much power to screw things up.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
“I simply do not agree with this view and think we could bring about huge reforms to our system whilst keeping the Queen and monarchy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
December 26th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
SIMON SAID – “even republic accepts these dangerous and revolutionary views are a minority one in this country.”
Would you just care to explain what is dangerous about republican views in general, given that there are quite a few stable republics around the world, (Germany and the U. S. A. being two examples), and given that the vast majority of republican views aired here are done so entirely in line with the best principles of democracy and accepted standards of debate?
Is it because republicans espouse policies which, if implemented, would threaten the position of your queen? And we all know, don’t we, that any constitutional reform, as far as you are personally concerned, and no matter how badly needed, has to first pass the “does it threaten the queen and her extended family’s position” test.
Is this what you mean by “dangerous”? Can you tell us why it is dangerous for us to want the best democracy for our country and why we should settle for something less?
December 26th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
@ Matt
\But PR seems to positively encourage these scenarios\ I still disagree, Matt. I think democracy comes first. PR can work and does work. Other systems, in my view, make some people’s equality in elections more equal than others. That ain’t democratic. Sorry for the dogmatic attitude.
@ Simon
\This idea that when we have an elected head of state everything with be so wonderful does make me laugh.\
What makes me laugh is the garbage you regurgitate day after day and the way you then twist our words in a fashion like this. When have we ever stated a republic would mean utopia?
\You choose today to praise how wonderful it was a year ago when Mr Obama was elected, great timing considering what happened today.\
Oh, you mean that piece of legislation which is going to mean that millions of the poorest people in the country will be able to afford to live? Yeh, that really is destroying the country.
\Do you know how many millions of Americans hate the guy’s guts because of what has taken place over this past year?\
Do you know how many millions hate all sorts of other public figures, including your lovely Lizzie? If this is the case, shall we get rid of the mechanism which chooses them?
Serious point, Simon: You’re putting forward as an argument against a republic the fact that Obama is disliked by a large number of Americans. Basically, you’re arguing that we can’t have a democratic head of state because they might be unpopular. Why not extend that argument to its proper conclusion: let’s get rid of any sort of electoral aspect of the country, just in case we end up with someone you don’t like. Is this what you’re proposing?
\Whilst i was always concerned about Obama, even i didnt expect him to be this radical and dangerous.\
Are you one of these Tories who views the NHS as a sixty-year \radical and dangerous\ mistake? A mistake which gave my grandparents an extra twenty years’ life expectancy?
Just out of interest, Simon, so that we all know for once and for all where you’re coming from, would you be so kind as to tell us how old you are, what class you are, what your job is, what your background is, in general? (Honest, it is relevant to what I want to argue).
\The entire nation was involved: every American believed he could make a difference and believed that he had the ultimate say, not some power from above.
And people think its monarchists that want to live in some fairy tale fantasy land?\
So what do you disagree with in that statement?
\Lets also ignore all the hype about how great election day was and look at the figures shall we? 63% of eligable American voters took part in the presidential vote in 2008. That is estimated to be a 40 year high. So not quite every american bothered to vote did they?\
Largely down to the fact that it was virtually certain that Obama would win the election. Many factors affect voter turnout: probability of victory/defeat; magnitude of potential change, etc.
\We can get people interested in politics again without having to become a republic\
Of course we can, but it would be so much easier if people could make real change. An analogy: would someone be more interested in becoming a musician if they felt that they could be a mulit-million selling rockstar or someone who would only ever play two gigs, to a total crowd of fifteen people? We are currently the latter in terms of democracy.
\This country has huge problems which need urgent attention, the idea we should waste our time on constitutional matters is laughable.\
Again, the hypocrisy is palpable. If you think that this is so unimportant, why have you spent so many hours upon hours on this blog since August? I would suggest you are the single most prolific blogger here yet you think that the issue is of total irrelevance. Eh? I’m not trying to get rid of you at all, your arguments are too bad to waste.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Comparing the current situation in the USA with our lot in the UK is interesting…..
1) If the Americans don’t like Obama, they can get rid of him in four years time.
2) Obama is accountable to Congress and the Senate.
3) If Obama breaks the law (to which he like every other American is subject to), he can be impeached and got rid of sooner, if necessary.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:36 am
“Just out of interest, Simon, so that we all know for once and for all where you’re coming from, would you be so kind as to tell us how old you are, what class you are, what your job is, what your background is, in general? (Honest, it is relevant to what I want to argue).”
Liam and others, Simon’s arguments are as laughable as they are ridiculous. He slates other nations in order to bolster and justify his own sorry sychophancy!
What makes his ‘argument’ weak is NOT that he’s a royalist. No. It is because firstly, he makes a LOT of grand statements and assumptions without being able to back ANY one of them up. I and others have challenged him to put in CLEAR and CONCISE terms why he supports the monarchy. Instead he thinks that a thousand YouTube links is a subtitute for intelligent debate.
Secondly, he has the brass neck to accuse the U.S. of having biased media. Well, yes it does. So does Britain. More to the point is his own personal bias. He readily admits to:
A) Taking the news from the highly biased Sky / Fox News and taking it at face value.
B) Listening to highly biased right-wing commentators and using this to form an ‘argument’ against Obama and republicanism in general. Without realising that these guys are going to be anti Democrat WHOEVER was a Democrat president.
C) Admitting he is taking a view of Obama from his Republican freinds. Of course they’re going to be critical of a Democrat govt just as Tories here will be critical of Labour.
Simon reminds me of a rather batty school teacher I saw a few years ago on a CH4 documentary about a small town objecting to the construction of a center for asylum seeekers. Nearly three quarters of the town were against this new centre, including this teacher. The fact that she was against this centre was not the main issue. It was when she treid to support her argument by opening an arch file containing lots of newspaper articles supportig her case. And which newspapers were these:
The Daily Mail
The Mail on Sunday
The Daily Express
The Sunday Express
The Sun
The News of the World
She did not have any other paper which could give an opposing view such as the Mirror, Independant or Guardian. An absolute disgrace to her profession if this is how she encourages her students to conduct their reseach!
So Liam’s reasnonable request for a little bit about Simons background seems quite fair to me as it would allow us to see how and why he formulates his ‘arguments’ the way he does, as quite frankly, they are somewhat hatstand!
December 27th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Simon does not care about genuine social issues. He is stuck on a narrow track. This is the epitome of the blinkered ” I’m All Right Jack !” attitude. “This and That “doesn’t bother him, whether it be class inequalities or social injustices, as long as royalty is on its throne and all is in its natural hereditary order. I believe Simon has got his nest well feathered and has not suffered any effects of difficulties in our society. ( If I am wrong, I naturally apologize ). His attitude is a strong component of a classic narrow minded royalist position. He also has an incredibly thick skin. He ,deservedly , gets a lot of “stick” , and yet comes back with the same well worn “royalist pith ” time and time again. Oh, what are we going to do about him ?
December 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I am not keen on this double comment blocking thing!
@ Simon
“It is certainly the case that PR leads to far more coalition governments which is not a good thing for government and national stability.”
Hugely debatable. One would assume that working together is going to lead to greater stability than being divided.
“The Italians are the perfect example, the main political party got in bed with a far right wing one. Italy continues its dangerous decline back into a fascist state.”
Well, just imagine what would have happened if the far-right one had got a huge majority with a tiny number of votes which would be possible under FPTP. It would be an even more aggressive decline then. You really should avoid Italy if you’re a monarchist, Simon. You know the story about Mussolini…
“do we honestly think its something the labour or conservative parties are capable of introducing?” Ah, bemoaning the only two parties which have a chance of winning an election, yet opposing a system which would end their monopoly on power. Simon, you’re too easy, mate.
“its these same people you ask to write our constitution”
A constitution which we want to ratify through a referendum, meaning it would receive our consent. If it didn’t, the politicians would have to do what we wanted to change it before it received our consent.
“As ive said before, the USA is the only republic on this planet i actually have a large amount of respect for ” What a damning view you have of the world, then. Depressing, really.
“Obama stood on a platform of hope and change, its quite clear now that the change has been for the worse”
Would you like to give us examples? Or are we only to rely on your pathetic youtube video of schoolchildren?
December 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Naturally I believe in Blog Discipline, but I too, like Liam ,think that the double blocking system might be a little harsh. Sometimes someone might like to make a few,( but not excessive number ),of remarks in order to reply to more than one person about issues, when the site is not very busy,yet doing so would mean they would be “double-blogging” . Surely double blogging is not such a bad thing, so long as some people do not go “over the top” and abuse the system.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Liam:
PR can work and does work. Other systems, in my view, make some people’s equality in elections more equal than others. That ain’t democratic. Sorry for the dogmatic attitude.
Nothing to apologise for my friend. We stand united on the need for a republican constitution based on popular sovereignty, the lack of which – presumably you agree – is the biggest obstacle to democracy in this country.
December 27th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Liam / Matt,
PR has to be considered to play a part in a modern democracy even, as I have suggested above (# 7), that it should be the gift of the upper house to validate laws against a Constitution.
This solution would prevent fringe parties holding all the cards because, even if they did form unholy alliances in the Commons, the stop-check would still persist in the apolitical upper chamber (“The House of the Constitution”) to prevent laws being introduced that would be against the will of the Constitution.
Just taking the suggestion further, such an option would really give power back to the people instead of three major political parties we have now in England that have effectively removed choice because their policies are all practically the same.
Who was it who said: “Whomever you vote for, the Government always gets in”?
December 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Liam says “there is one reason above all as to why I am a republican: my borderline-dogmatic belief in the value of democracy.”
Republicanism is not democracy. Never has been. Never will be. Republics can be democratic or undemocratic (the Venetian Republic is a good example of the latter). Democracies can be republics or monarchies.
You say your grandfather fought so that you can live in a democracy. I doubt if he fought for you to live in a republic. He would have understood the difference.
If you are seriously interested in understanding democracy read John Lukacs’ Democracy and Populism (2005). It is an easy read and contains the wisdom of a life time.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@ Peter
Republicanism in itself isn’t democracy but there is such thing as republican democracy. What do you think we are campaigning for?
Monarchies are not democracies: democracy – in the sense that we are campaigning for – demands that those in public office are employed by the people and can be removed by the people. This cannot happen with somebody whose only qualification for the job is their DNA.
Using examples of other republics to try and denounce Britain’s ability to become a proper democracy is cheap and daft. Yes, North Korea and Zimbabwe are democracies. But Tsarist Russia and Saudi Arabia are monarchies – does that mean that the British monarchy is like that?
I have never suggested that either of my grandparents fought for a republic (even though the one grandfather I met was a republican). But one of the many things we fought for in the Second World War was to protect our democracy against dictatorship. How can we be living in a democracy when we get a say in the selection of only one out of 646 MPs, no say over the government, no say over the PM, no say over the Upper House and, of course, no say over the head of state?
I will certainly do my best to read that book. In the meantime, I would ask you to take a slightly less patronising tone in your suggestions, whether this was your intended attitude or not.
I shall assume, Peter, that you are a monarchist. Please could you try and explain to us why we should keep the monarchy and why we can’t have the right to choose our head of state?
December 27th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Peter Kellow said – “Democracies can be republics or monarchies.”
No country with a system of government which has a Head of State chosen by DNA is a democracy. How can it possibly be democratic for a country to have a hereditary Head of State? Our Head of State has not done, cannot do, and will never do a single thing to protect the people from politicians. We deserve better.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
It seems that the definition of “republic” is taken by monarchists as simply being “the absence of a monarchy”.
“Res publica” is the Latin phrase from which the term comes which literally means “items (or affairs) of the people”.
A republic can have many meanings – the German Democratic Republic, for instance, was clearly not a democracy nor, I would contest, was it a republic under the strictest terms. Nor was the English Protectorate of Cromwell a republic – the “Taliban” of its day. (I’ not sure that Parliament of the day even described the regime as a “republic” at the time – maybe someone can confirm or correct that?)
Just because a state declares itself a “republic” or “democratic” does not mean that it is.
On the other hand, implicit in the makings of a proposed British republic would be the creation and maintenance of an open, responsible and accountable constitution, something that we clearly do not have with the British monarchy today.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Liam Finn says: Monarchies are not democracies
Bob Wiggin says: No country with a system of government which has a Head of State chosen by DNA is a democracy
So both of you say that the UK is not a democracy. I think what you mean, guys, is that the institution of the monarchy is not democratic. But we do have some democratic institutions as well – and quite few republican ones. In saying to the British people that in general they don’t live in a democracy, you’ve got a tough sell on your hands.
@ Martin G. Thanks for your thoughts. Your ideas for a House of Lords based on institutions is interesting and it is good to see someone getting away from kneejerk calls for more democracy.
Of course there is an existing precedent for this that you don’t mention with the bishops who represent the Church of England. And you would have Alexander Hamilton and James Madison turning over in their graves at the idea of having “factions” built into a state institution in this way.
This is why I favour a wholly appointed Lords. That is the best way to tame the party machines in the Upper House. But you cannot rely on that being absolute and so it would be dangerous to do as you suggest and select the Head of State from their number, albeit with the final choice by popular vote
Where I am totally at odds with you is on PR. If you are interested in another alternative to PR or FPTP you might like to look at http://www.republicanparty.org.uk/NEWSLETTER%20NO%2041.htm where I explore the “weighted representation” system.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
PETER – I agree we have “some” democracy, but “some” democracy isn’t enough, at least not for me. I also accept the point that telling people we don’t live in a democracy is a hard sell and we should concentrate on trying to expose the undemocratic parts of our constitutional arrangement, and how they effect the supposedly democratic parts. eg. The prerogative powers, the use of which by the PM cannot be challenged.
Who is going to do the appointing for your wholly appointed House of Lords, what will be the criteria used by those doing the appointing when choosing candidates, how will the appointed legislators be accountable to the people, and how long will your appointed Lords be in situe?
December 28th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
PETER – I’ve got the message and will in future strive to be one of the “Classical”, “civic” or “constitutional” republicans. Apologies to everyone for the double post.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
@ Peter
“So both of you say that the UK is not a democracy. I think what you mean, guys, is that the institution of the monarchy is not democratic.”
No, I know what I mean, thanks. I won’t mention about our unrepresentative parliament, our unelected government and unelected prime minister, our unelected second house and unelected head of state… oops, I just did!
“But we do have some democratic institutions as well – and quite few republican ones.”
Could you list these please, it’s a very interesting comment.
“In saying to the British people that in general they don’t live in a democracy, you’ve got a tough sell on your hands.”
Have we?!
Calling for more democracy is not a knee-jerk reaction. Go to Iran or Afghanistan or Zimbabwe and tell those people that they are acting on a whim.
I have already talked at great length about PR. It simply seems to me, Peter, that you don’t really give much of a toss about democracy.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
BOB, Thanks. The criteria for appointment to the House of Lords should be much as they are now for life peers, i.e. on the basis of merit, qualification and experience.
As regards who should do the appointing this is really up for grabs but it certainly should be not as now, i.e. mostly down to the Prime Minister. The Lords already has its own House of Lords Appointments Commission and this seems a good idea and should continue. A cross party House of Commons Appointments Commission would seem a good idea as well.
As to how appointed Lords will be accountable the whole point is that they should NOT be accountable. At least not in the sense you mean. Lords must be appointed for life so that they have security and will not take decisions to allow then to profit after their term of office. This way they can stay out of the political fray. They can certainly tell the party machines where to get off.
We have other state institutions such as the Judiciary that are appointed and no one ever argues that they should be subject to popular vote. No one is saying that appointment is better than democracy – both have their virtues but they work best of all in combination. Some people like me believe strongly in such a “mixed” or “Roman” system.
If you are not convinced, just consider what David Cameron wants to do with the Lords. His proposal is a highly “democratic” system where people would vote for the Lords at the same time as for the Commons. Brilliant! We would loose the bicameralism that this country gave to the world. And Cameron would control executive and both houses in the Legislature. More democratic? Certainly. More republican? Certainly not. Better? Well, you decide.
In spite of all that we DO need more democracy but it has to be in the right places. The Upper House is not such a place. Most importantly we need it in respect of the executive leader. An elected ceremonial president would be deeply anti-democratic for the people would have no DIRECT say in the choice of their leader.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Peter,
Many thanks for your comments.
I see your point about the Bishops of the Church of England in the upper house but I would be minded to extend qualification of the upper house to include other “faith” groups, including humanist and aetheist organisations, too.
The position with regards the established Church of England is somewhat controversial since bishops are appointed by a Crown committee.
I feel that there ought to be a representation from religious and non-religious groups in the upper house (providing “membership criteria” is adhered to) and I also believe that the Church of England would be much better able to act in conscience (for or against the Government of the day, as required) if it became disestablished and independent of the state.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
@ Peter
“As to how appointed Lords will be accountable the whole point is that they should NOT be accountable. ”
No, they should. Why do you believe you should not be able to decide how to run your country?
“We have other state institutions such as the Judiciary that are appointed and no one ever argues that they should be subject to popular vote. ”
No, because the judiciary (should not) make our laws. (I also believe we need a radical overhaul of the English legal system to diminish judicial creativity). The judiciary (should) only put our laws into practice.
“An elected ceremonial president would be deeply anti-democratic for the people would have no DIRECT say in the choice of their leader.”
I don’t know if it’s due to typos but that sentence doesn’t make sense. An elected president of any sort would mean that people would have a direct say in the choice of their leader. I’m confused at what you meant, sorry Peter.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Liam. I did say “An elected ceremonial president would be deeply anti-democratic, for the people would have no DIRECT say in the choice of their leader.”
There is no typo. I assume that by “leader” we mean “leader”. A ceremonial president would never be that – by definition.
You’re thrashing around. If you want to lead a discussion you should look at how Graham and James do it. They are always polite, concise and focused in their comments and never loose there rag even though those around them may be losing theirs.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
No, I’m not thrashing around or losing my temper, Peter, I just didn’t understand what you meant (and still don’t).
A ceremonial president would be a leader, just not a leader of the government. An elected ceremonial president would be a leader and the people would have had their say in his appointment.
I don’t even want a ceremonial presidency, I favour an executive one.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I’m sorry Peter I have deep reservations about having Peers appointed for life. People, even those deemed to be of the highest moral probity, sometimes do not live up to expectations and so even if we were to appoint legislators by way of some democratically arrived at convention, with no time limit on their sitting in the upper house, there ought still to be some accountability, not to the lower house or any politician such as a party leader but to the public.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Bob, you’re right. It’s a risk. Ultimately, it is about faith. Humanism is my faith. Put trust in people at all levels from the bottom to the top. But you have to have the right structures for that to work and that we don’t have. Democracy is one element in the mix. But don’t rely on it exclusively. And we have seen recently how bad democracy can go with the expenses scandal. The Supreme Court in the USA is wholly appointed. It’s not perfect. This is not about perfect. The question of virtue and how we can nourish it is an essential element of all the greatest republican thinkers: Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Harrington, Madison. We live in an age when people know the answer to this question: virtue cannot exist so have more democracy and make people accountable. That is the theory. People cling to it like mad even though they have seen how it goes in practice. In the end we have to confront the age old question of how to create a virtuous society. To rely on ‘accountability’ is to give up that pursuit. They are all bastards. Don’t trust them. Is that what you believe?
December 29th, 2009 at 12:51 am
“They are all bastards. Don’t trust them. Is that what you believe?”
“They” don’t start off as rotters, “they” deteriorate and become rotten.
Power & Money are the 2 most corrupting forces. The fight to gain a system were they are least likely to get away with it must continue.
I too share your concerns about the erosion of the bicameralism quality the Lords may have put to good use in the past, however most in that House are resigned to the fact that change is now needed. One suggestion I recently heard on TV from a Peer was about put a fixed time cap on peerages instead of life time peerages. This would make more sense as the numbers within that House after the Election is expected to rise to 800.
If their was at least a Democratic element within the Lords, it would be more plausible to look at amending the Parliament Act that excludes Lords from having a say in money. At the moment, spending is out of control. Government Ministers approach the Chancellor demanding Billions for their own Departments, but you wouldn’t want an unelected minister preventing money going to all the needy causes now would you?
December 29th, 2009 at 5:07 am
So, if you worship democracy so much, you would happily allow the people of Britain to have a referendum on the monarchy, even though you are fully aware that the vast majority of polls (legitimate polls, I might add) put the support of the monarchy over 50%, sometimes nearing 80%?
December 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am
@ Ash Walsh
It is a fundamental constitutional principle that there should be no taxes and no laws without representation. This is why the Lords currently has no fiscal control and cannot make laws but only amend them. If the House of Lords could pass laws and influence government finances then I would never propose that it be appointed. Under those circumstances it would have to be democratically elected. By way of comparison the US Senate can pass laws (except tax making laws) and so has to be democratic. However, the US constitution wisely protects bicameralism by having the electoral system and timing totally different from the House of Representatives. (See my comment 33 on Cameron’s proposals for the Lords).
As regards your other point “Power & Money are the 2 most corrupting forces.” You are right there. A way of tackling this problem that you may not have considered is the development of a robust civil society. The reason why Thatcher, Blair and Brown have consistently attacked the civil society is because they understand that it represents the best counterbalance to the hold that power and money have over us.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Peter, I’m quite sure that not a single advocate of an elected upper house would disagree with your assessment that the electoral system and cycle would have to be different from those of the lower house – certainly I wouldn’t.
The expected backlash against my letter in the Telegraph calling for a democratic second chamber has yet to materialise. But my post on Conservative republicanism will be up on here tomorrow, and that should hopefully get some good debate going.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@ Jay
“So, if you worship democracy so much, you would happily allow the people of Britain to have a referendum on the monarchy, even though you are fully aware that the vast majority of polls (legitimate polls, I might add) put the support of the monarchy over 50%, sometimes nearing 80%?”
Yes, that is the whole point of our campaign.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
If a referendum produced a majority of monarchy support, then so be it. This would not make the moanarchy “right” however. It would just mean that it was more popular than a different system ,( republican system),at a certain point in Time. The great point to be remembered is, that History produces changes, whatever happens. Great Oaks grow from little acorns. Therefore although the republican movement might be a minority now, it has the potential to develop in the future . For this reason alone, Republic must not give up its principles and efforts.
December 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Peter – “They are all bastards. Don’t trust them. Is that what you believe?”
No, but I agree with Ash that our current constitutional arrangement aides and abets those who choose to work the system for their own profit, be that monetary or power, and who will therefore resist change to that system come hell or high water.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Peter
“A way of tackling this problem that you may not have considered is the development of a robust civil society. The reason why Thatcher, Blair and Brown have consistently attacked the civil society is because they understand that it represents the best counterbalance to the hold that power and money have over us.”
I have considered it & agree with your sentiments. I think you’ll find the erosion started to set in before the days of Thatcher. Ever since the Industrialisation of the UK, Government has grown and takes decisions where it never used to before. Nearly every element of British life is meddled with by the Government as the appetite for Government guarantees on everything has increased (Health & Wealth are examples that spring to mind). If you want society to become more robust, you must trust society to make their own decisions.
Republicanism is an appetite of both Rights AND Responsibilities of decision making. Our right to choose our Head of State & limit the power of the executive and our responsibility to hold them to accountable for their actions!
December 29th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Ash.
You started off with the civil society but you brought it back around to accountability again.
Let me try another question. Democratic institutions are accountable to the electorate, but who are the electorate accountable to? That may sound like a daft question but think about it. Is the electorate accountable to minorities? Is the electorate accountable to future generations? Is the electorate accountable to the requirements of human rights?
As Jay pointed out if you ask the electorate they would support the monarchy over a republic. They would also vote to bring back hanging. Are you sure you want to put exclusive trust in the electorate?
I would argue that the electorate is just one constituency amongst others. OK, it is an important one, maybe the most important one, but it should not be thought that it can automatically override all the others.
We live in a society where the only political concept that has any real currency is “democracy”. With it goes the concept of accountability – democratic accountability.
The supreme irony is that people have lost confidence in democratically elected politicians, but the ONLY solution that they see to putting back confidence is in more or different democracy. We will never go anywhere unless we learn to look beyond democracy. And that means developing institutions that are patently undemocratic.
That is what I mean by the civil society – undemocratic, elitist, meritocratic. The civil society represents another constituency that is capable of taking different views to those of the democratic one. It can take a longer term view for instance. And it is much more capable of resisting the dominance of money and power.
You said that the decline of the civil society goes back to the nineteenth century and you are right.
To have a mature debate now, we must find a vocabulary that goes beyond “democracy” and “accountability”.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Mr. Kellow,
You make very interesting points, in very special eloquence, and you sound very learned. Still, you are mistaken. Hear me:
You refer to the “electorate” in a perjorative way; in other words, you meant the hoi polloi. You don’t seem to have much faith in the people. You are afraid that they may make the wrong choice, or become tyrannical over the minority, and so forth. Those type of issues have been discussed in the past by political scientists and the like, going back to ancient greeks. As a learned person, I’m sure you are familiar with James Madison’s argument regarding Republic versus pure democracy.
You posed the question “Let me try another question. Democratic institutions are accountable to the electorate, but who are the electorate accountable to? That may sound like a daft question but think about it. Is the electorate accountable to minorities? Is the electorate accountable to future generations? Is the electorate accountable to the requirements of human rights?”
The simple answer is that the electorate includes all. The minority is part of the electorate. The electorate is accountable to itself. The electorate is the true source of all power. Albion should be a land of Laws and not man. The electorate is subject to the laws. The electorate is held accountable by the laws. The laws protects the minorities, future generations, and human rights.
You then stated “The supreme irony is that people have lost confidence in democratically elected politicians, but the ONLY solution that they see to putting back confidence is in more or different democracy. We will never go anywhere unless we learn to look beyond democracy. And that means developing institutions that are patently undemocratic.”
People are demanding “true democracy”, not a different kind of democracy. First, we have to have real democracy, and perhaps quibble about the type of governance. We know what democracy is, and more importantly, we know what it is not. Once a basic democracy is established, and mind you, Monarchy can never be a part of a true democarcy, then, governance can differ according to locality and culture. We should never look beyond democracy. Once we look beyond democracy, illegitimacy fills the space. As far as institutions are concerned, as long as they are accountable to the people and/or their representatives, explore away. But on democracy itself, until you come up with something better, I believe the campaign for a true democracy should continue. The problem with a Monarchy is that, it is never accountable to anything. If people lose confidence under a monarchy, the thought never crosses anyone’s mind that the blame should be squarely placed on the monarchy, it is horridly placed on the few elected representatives of the people. It’s a form of sycophancy at best, and psychosis at worst. You must know that Parliament is in a servile mentality when it comes to interaction with the monarchy. When the head of state is unelected, a country is undemocratic regardless of how the other parts of the government are derived. Anybody can spin this fact as much as they like, it is simply a fact. Great Britain is not a democracy, sure it has a Parliament, sure people go to the polls to elect members of the Parliament, that does not make it a democracy. It’s a monarchy.
You concluded with, “To have a mature debate now, we must find a vocabulary that goes beyond “democracy” and ‘accountability’ “.
Let’s get to democracy and accountability first, before we look beyond it. Abolish the monarchy, setup a democracy, a republic, with a written constitution, where all power emanates from the people.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@ eclub1
Just to be clear I never said we should jettison democracy and democratic accountability what I said was.
“the electorate is just one constituency amongst others. OK, it is an important one, maybe the most important one”
As you say past republicans were often wary of democracy as they were afraid it would lead to “mob rule”. That wariness has been shown to be reasonable for, of course, it was democracy that brought Hitler to power and in our own time gives the BNP power time and time again. If you hear a BNP spokesman talk on TV they never put a sentence together that does not include the word “democracy”. They know it is their friend.
The answer to this problem of democracy from those who like me believe in a “mixed” or “Roman” system is not to downplay democracy but to recognise that democratic institutions work if they function alongside other types of institutions that are not democratic, i.e. do not depend on the popular vote.
This has to be for if you think about it democratic accountability is a pretty blunt instrument. The electorate is like an employer that can hire and fire but has no control whatever over the employee in between. We need something else in there and this is where the civil society comes in.
As well as a better developed civil society, we do need more democracy, not less, as I said before but it has to be in the right places. I agree with you that the monarchy is a barrier to democracy. We need to replace it with an elected head of state. But that elected head of state must have full powers of the executive. To elect a ceremonial president with only marginal powers would mean more voting but not more democracy.
December 30th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Peter,
Again, your contribution is very thought-provoking.
Personally, I would regard democracy as “doing the things that you don’t like for the sake of the things that you do like”.
A very simplistic observation I agree but if the electorate wishes to bring back hanging, for instance, we should have the information to hand in order to provide an educated and informed debate prior to making a decision.
Our elected representatives would take on board the response of the electorate and act accordingly (unless, in a republic, this was a matter for a referendum or a plebiscite,where the decision would be taken by everyone).
Note: I said “take on board” rather than fulfill the wishes of the massed hoards! …….
….. because the other part is that democracy is about voting for people who will represent us, not necessarily that will make the executive decisions we long for (e.g. on the popular views about capital punishment, although I’m sure that there will be other examples). We expect responsibility and accountability from our elected charges and, in return, they can claim to represent us.
Maybe this is how modern Britain is supposed to work but without the quid pro quo of full responsibility and full accountability at the executive level, we cannot claim to be properly represented.
December 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
@ Peter
“Let me try another question. Democratic institutions are accountable to the electorate, but who are the electorate accountable to?
As Jay pointed out if you ask the electorate they would support the monarchy over a republic. They would also vote to bring back hanging. Are you sure you want to put exclusive trust in the electorate?”
That is a very, very interesting point and I can’t answer it in any way other than saying that democracy is truly awful – something we all know – but, quite simply, is better than any alternative. I don’t believe that democracy is putting exclusive trust in the electorate – the electorate still has to abide to the rule of law.
“We will never go anywhere unless we learn to look beyond democracy. And that means developing institutions that are patently undemocratic”
I couldn’t agree more that we need to be moving towards a new system of government. But that is not something I, and I’m guessing the rest of us are capable of doing. We ain’t Plato. In 300 years’ time hopefully we will have a new and better system. Those institutions will be patently undemocratic. But if you mean patently undemocratic in the sense of returning to tried-and-failed methods of reactionary autocracy and unelected second chambers then I have to disagree with you.
“You said that the decline of the civil society goes back to the nineteenth century and you are right”
But are we suggesting we go back to the 19th century?
“t was democracy that brought Hitler to power and in our own time gives the BNP power time and time again.”
Second part correct: but why shouldn’t the BNP have a voice? First part: demonstrably untrue – Hitler never won a majority of votes and was appointed Chancellor via very undemocratic means. Democracy would have prevented a Nazi dictatorship.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Mr. Kellow,
I thank you for some clarification.
After reading your concluding paragraph at post #50, I see no disagreement with you. Hear you:
“As well as a better developed civil society, we do need more democracy, not less, as I said before but it has to be in the right places. I agree with you that the monarchy is a barrier to democracy. We need to replace it with an elected head of state. But that elected head of state must have full powers of the executive. To elect a ceremonial president with only marginal powers would mean more voting but not more democracy”.
I agree with you 100%, and that is rare for me.
On your general sentiment that alongside democratically instituted offices, should be other indirect authorities to make things work properly, that is what we have now, in otherwords, status quo. In most democratic nations, there are many institutions that are not directly elected by the “electorate”, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), in the United States, they hold sway in national discourse and policy, and can generally overide the conventional wisdom, another example will be the American Bar Association, their approval is sort by potential/actual nominees to the federal bench including the Supreme Court of the United States in order to clear United States ‘advice and consent role’ mandated by the US Constitution; these type of institutions is what I believe you refer to as “Civil Society”, there are many such examples. So, they do exist now. And it is proper. Where you may have to reconsider, and that is if I understood your position, is that the ultimately accountability is owed to the people. There should be no unchecked powers, since everyone accepts the notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people delegate all power to their representatives, ALL power, anything short of that is tyranny.
Again thank you for a civil, and intellectual discourse.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Peter
“You started off with the civil society but you brought it back around to accountability again. ”
True , but you missed out my Bridging statement “If you want society to become more robust, you must trust society to make their own decisions “.
“Let me try another question. Democratic institutions are accountable to the electorate, but who are the electorate accountable to?”
The electorate are accountable to their own conscience. They have to live with themselves if they get it wrong.
You mention the opinion polls indicating support for the Monarchy.
as Jay mentions the support is “50%, sometimes nearing 80%”. A tad ambiguous don’t you think?
If there is anything to learn from Opinion polls, it is support for the Monarch is declining. Nearly everyone supported Monarchy in the 50’s, it has dropped drastically over the decades, and it is expected to become worse as a Constitutional crisis looms with Charles edging closer to the throne, whereas support for Politicians since the same period has stayed more or less the same (believe it or not).
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
@Martin G, Bob, Liam, eclub1, Ash. Thank you for your concluding remarks and excellent discussion.
I think we are all pretty close here. The Civil Society of which I spoke is exactly as eclub1 describes. I am not sure if he or she meant to include the Supreme Court in the Civil Society but as an appointed institution it should be in there. I am glad that Ash introduces the word “conscience” in “The electorate are accountable to their own conscience.”
Eclub1 asks me to accept that “ultimately accountability is owed to the people” [by civil society institutions]. I do accept that fully but that accountability does not work through the ballot box. It works in the first place through, to use Ash’s word, conscience. But there is more than that – there are also constitutional checks and balances. For instance, there are the Select Committees (Congressional Committees in the US) which can haul any civil society institution before them (except the Supreme Court).
Select committees are all part of the civil society being totally open and transparent. It is this requirement of total openness that excludes, for instance, private companies or clubs (like the Freemasons) from the civil society.
In this discussion on democracy we have not used the word “open”. But if you say the word “democracy” to yourself, that is what you mean by it as well as accountability. Without total openness and transparency, accountability means nothing. And that is the same for non-elected institutions as well as elected institutions.
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Mr. Kellow:
I thank you for stimulating this intellectual discussion/examination of the very core of democracy. I hereby extend a warm Happy New Year greetings to you.
In regards to your comment: “I am not sure if he or she (eclub) meant to include the Supreme Court in the Civil Society but as an appointed institution it should be in there”.
I suppose we can classify the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) as part of the ‘Civil Society’ as you broadly defined it in your comment; I believe the US constitution gave the SCOTUS a full branch, out of the three branches, the other two being the Presidency (or Executive), and the Legislative branch (the US Congress). The power of the SCOTUS although vast, is checked and held to account by the US congress. The Congress as you know, can impeach any Justice of the Court, the congress funds the court, and sets up the administration of the courts. Therefore, both of our concerns are met. As a matter of fact, in that institution, the SCOTUS, we get
many issues tabled. The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting what the constitution of the United States says or was meant to say, and more importantly, what it does NOT say. Sometimes many people look at a written Constitution as what gives every Citizen their rights, I suppose that is true to some extent, but more importantly, in my view, is that the written constitution is the veghicle by which government gets its limited authority and powers from the people. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of deciding what is constitutional and what is not. That is a big deal. That is why i did not include it in the run of the mill Civil Society. The Supreme Court has a mandate from the people in article 3 of the uS Constitution, which starts off by saying “WE THE PEOPLE…”
I thoroughly enjoyed your participation in this blog. I don’t know if it’s your cordiality, intelligence, manners, well-informedness… but I hope to read a full blog from you soon, if not, your regular comments will be watched for. Thanks again.
Happy New year to all, especially republicans!!
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:37 pm
eclub1, your presence is urgently requested on my ‘Conservative republican’ thread, so that you can give your views on the New Zealand article I posted for you and the debate that’s arisen from it.
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
@eclub1
Thanks for your clarification on the Supreme Court. I will surely use that in the future. With your permission!
I appreciate your kind words. If you would like to read my blog, my name is a link.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Liam, I’m hoping you read this because I need you to post something else under my ‘Confessions’ so that I can reply to your post about the BBC! [You may've noticed we're no longer allowed to make consecutive posts in one thread, presumably because everyone got sick of Simon doing it again and again and again...]
January 7th, 2010 at 12:42 am
“He fought a war so that I could live in a democracy: a country where you do not risk your liberty if you speak out against the government; a country where you are not persecuted for your religion or political persuasion; and – most fundamentally – a country where you choose your own leaders”
Exactly where you are.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I’m afraid not, Adam.
I’m not suggesting Britain is Nazi Germany – God, no. This is a wonderful country and when one looks at it in comparison to many others it makes one realise quite how great it is. But it could be even greater…
A country where you do not risk your liberty if you speak out against the government:
Do you not remember this last year?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7754099.stm
Where you are not persecuted for your religion or political persuasion:
The CofE still receives preferential treatment. Catholics, in particular, still face institutionalised discrimination with regard to the monarchy.
A country where you choose your own leaders:
Who has had a say on all 646 MPs rather than just one? Who has had say on the composition of the House of Lords other than the PM? Who has had a say on the members of the government apart from the PM? Who has had a say on who the PM himself is?! Who has had a say on who the head of state is?
This is a pretend democracy.