The Post Democratic Era

Some schoolboys may still learn that the idea of democracy began in Ancient Greece about 500 BC, not that it was a one man one vote affair. Women were excluded. Only citizens participated and the reason that they had so much time for debate and disputation was that the drudgery associated with living whether in the household, on the farm or wherever, was done by slaves. Slaves did not have a vote.

We had to wait until the 8th Century for the first recorded Parliament in, of all places, the Isle of Man where the Tynwald, which consists of a House of Keys and a Legislative Assembly, still meets in the open air. It was a further four centuries before a true democracy emerged, that is to say government by the people. In 1291 AD three forest cantons, in what is now Switzerland, bordering on Lake Lucerne, banded together to resist the Hapsburg Princes of Austria who were their overlords. Even in Switzerland it was the middle of the 20th Century before voting was extended to women. In the battle of Morgarten 1325 AD the Hapsburgs were defeated and the three cantons assured their independence. They were joined in 1353 by two more cantons, Zug and Glarus and by the city states of Lucerne, Berne and Zurich. The foundation of modern Switzerland was thereby established.

There were stirrings in England a little before that time. In 1250 King Henry III was running into difficulties with his nobility who were concerned about the cost of some of his schemes which included the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey. By 1258 the Barons had enough and that year by the Provisions of Oxford the Barons imposed on the King a permanent baronial council. The leader of those Barons was Simon de Montfort.

King Henry later repudiated the Provisions of Oxford and challenged the Barons. Civil war ensued. Simon de Montfort, to boost his support, summoned a Parliament of Knights of the Shires and Burgesses from the towns. Thus the idea of a representative assembly was born. The practice was repeated in later years although Simon de Montfort was defeated and killed at Evesham in 1265.

In the 14th Century it was accepted that there would be no taxation without Parliamentary consent and it was on that principle that henceforth the power of Parliament depended and in theory still does.

The system set up in Switzerland was very different from what developed in England. Every male did take part in decision making. Every legislative proposal was subject to challenge by referendum and any citizen could propose law provided that he had a minimum of support. Although many more cantons have joined to make the modern Switzerland and although the system has been modified to cope with much larger populations the original system in essence still exists. It is the only near perfect democracy in Christendom.

In England what developed was representative democracy so-called. Who was elected and how is a subject clouded in the mists of the past. That they were always men of substance or nominees of men of substance can hardly be doubted. It was not until the Reform Act of 1832 that the issue began to be seriously addressed. That Act almost doubled the number eligible to vote but it was still only one in five of the male population. The qualification was ownership of property of a minimum value. Even in the late Victorian years that still applied.

As a small boy I remember my paternal grandfather showing to me a prized possession. It was a black silk top hat in a heavy leather fitted case. He only wore it on special occasions he told me, specifically at family funerals and when he went to vote. In the south Yorkshire village where he lived he was a substantial figure. He was a master joiner and wheelwright. He built heavy carts and drays for the farmers, milk floats, governess carts, gigs, and carriages for the gentry. He owned a house big enough to raise a family of 11 as well as the outbuildings where he plied his trades. As such he was one of few people who had a vote – a duty which he took very seriously. After the carnage of 1914-18 the Representation of the People Act 1918 brought in universal manhood suffrage and votes for women at 30 years of age. In 1928 women were voted equal rights.

The 20th Century which followed this extension of the franchise was one of irrational political enthusiasms which had catastrophic consequences. I refer to Communism, Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) which were sustained, however mistakenly, by popular support voting into power people who promoted ideologies which were the bedrock of mass political parties.

These parties had features in common. Each had an idolised leader (Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler). Each had a distinctive philosophy. Each had a desire to spread the word and to dominate. The upheaval of the second world war was the consequence. Britain was not immune.

The same period saw the development of the Labour Party claiming to speak exclusively for the working class. The politically active among them adopted the philosophy of Karl Marx, though not the description ‘communist’ which would not have gone down well with that working class for whom they claimed to speak. The difference in Britain was that they failed to find a charismatic leader.

From the second world war Britain emerged not only victorious but also bankrupt which was unfortunate for the Labour Party which came to power in 1945. Part of its appeal was a certain Robin Hood attitude towards other people’s money. They were certainly in the business of taxing the rich to give to the poor, whoever they might have been in either case. The doctrine was redistribution of income. Dennis Healey as a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer once famously said that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked. In the event the Labour Party very quickly found that the wealth they wanted to redistribute had been expended on national survival and that the only practical source of funds was from rich and poor alike.

Two elements were well learned by the Labour Party from its soon to be defunct contemporaries. One was discipline and the other was the use of propaganda which went hand in hand. It became the greatest crime to do anything or say anything which damaged the Party. Hence it was necessary that all members should be singing from the same hymn sheet and when it came to votes in the House of Commons it was obligatory to toe the party line. Members of Parliament ceased to represent their constituents and became instead obedient agents for implementing party policy, which could be no more than the policy of the man at the top supported by his ministers who depended on him for their present job and future promotion.

The Conservative Party which had not been organised on quite these lines had no choice but to follow suit to compete, which they did with gusto. The worst manifestations of this change were seen in the passage of the European Communities Bill in 1972 and in the forcing through of the Maastricht Treaty by John Major, when the most outrageous behaviour in most cases secured compliance with the leader’s will.

Things have gone much further than this lamentable state of affairs. Parliament had been for centuries the seat of power in the realm. It was sad to see that power arrogated by a clique or even by one man. In 1972 however, with the passing of the European Communities Bill, Parliament ceased to be that centre of power. By that Act and by subsequent Treaties it has ceded power to the European Union and if the new Constitutional Treaty goes through unchallenged it will be in charge of the lavatory brush and not much more.
It is now the function of Parliament to perform a daily charade and to present the new situation as the status quo – to detach the British people from their history – to represent a great part of it as a matter for shame – but above all to prevent any movement to restore independence, which common sense indicates to many would be the wise course of action.

They are trying to achieve this by forming a political cartel. Together they cluster on what they call the centre ground. It makes little difference which of these parties electors now vote for. Whichever achieves office will not be in power – will have little freedom to act of its own volition. Anybody who disagrees with them is by definition an extremist and whatever else can be thrown at him. They agree amongst themselves that withdrawal from the EU will not be an issue and therefore there is no way the public will can be expressed except by getting rid of the lot of them.

For practical purposes therefore the electorate is emasculated. At the national level within the Union any member state is one of 25, and although votes are weighted to take account of differences in population national vetoes are being eliminated and there is no intention that any member will be able to assert its own interests over the rest. At the same time there is every intention that groups will be able to do just that.

Of course the European Union has equipped itself with a Parliament elected by the whole population. This is a fig leaf of democracy – it does little more than provide politicians with a salary and generous expenses in exchange for participating in a charade.

The Constitutions of some member states in their wisdom provide for protective referenda in some circumstances, notably when the Constitution itself is being tampered with. There have been over the years some adverse votes in Denmark, Ireland and most recently in Holland and France. In the cases of Ireland and Denmark they were required to vote again and the second time round the Union got the positive vote which it would accept. Voting No apparently is not allowed. In the case of Holland and France the No votes are being ignored and the Constitution which was voted down is being reintroduced as a Treaty which will not trigger a referendum. So much for democracy.

In Britain today public participation in the planning process is being eliminated, no doubt under instruction from Brussels and no doubt on the pretext of increasing the efficiency of government. It is known that 10 nuclear power stations, two large incinerators and extensions at almost every major airport will go ahead rapidly, regardless of their effect on local populations, once the new regime is in place.

This is what I mean by the post democratic era. Even at the domestic level there are proposals that local authority inspectors will have the power to enter premises, including private dwellings, looking for improvements which might attract more council tax or infringement of countless regulations which nobody knows anything about.

The political class throughout Europe is busy, where necessary as in Britain by stealth, creating a politicians and civil servants paradise where public opinion or the interests of individuals count for nothing, where they can fix their own salaries and pensions and where mere people are there to be taxed and manipulated by closely regulated sources of information.

The future is frightening unless people are prepared to stop the decline into oblivion whilst they still can.