[Ed: this concluding Part II continues from Part I which you can read here]

(2.10) In NO British General Election did millions of voters say ‘I have read every Party Manifesto, and I wholeheartedly approve of EVERY policy of THIS party and wholeheartedly disapprove of EVERY police of EVERY OTHER PARTY.’

(2.11) In NO British General Election did millions of voters say ‘We live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, so I’m going to vote for THIS candidate because he (or she) is one of the 650 most knowledgeable, most talented, and most rational people in the country. He (or she) can take whatever decision he (or she) likes, and do whatever the hell he (or she) likes because by placing my cross next to his (or her) name I am authorising him (or her) to take decisions on my behalf. I am authorising this candidate to ignore any promise made in his (or her) party’s manifesto.’

(3.1) In the 2017 British General Election, of the 32,161,991 crosses available, Theresa May got 37,718 or them. THAT IS – 99.88272492209826% of the electorate DID NOT vote to make Theresa May a Member of Parliament.

(3.2) In the 2017 British General Election, no one in the constituency of Louth and Horncastle said ‘I’m going to vote for Victoria Atkins BECAUSE I want Dawn Butler to attack James Oliver because she decided he used the word Jerk inappropriately.’

(3.3) China affects Britain. No one in Britain voted for Liu Kun.

(3.4) Saudi Arabia affects Britain. No one in Britain voted for Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

(3.5) No one in the UKofGBandNI voted for Leo Eric Varadkar. Yet he is affecting the electorate of the UKofGBandNI.

(3.6) James O’Brien’s parents conceived him. His mother gave birth to him. He has an effect on the climate of opinion. Who voted for that?

(4.1) et cetera.

So – What might Sherlock Holmes conclude from the above? I suspect he might conclude that the “Rule by the People” is not what it’s made out to be – Not what the likes of Nick Clegg, Chuka Umunna, and Baron “Alf” Dubs make it out to be. It does not mean “Rule by anyone and everyone who doesn’t wear a powdered wig, listen to harpsichord music, and walk around holding a perfumed handkerchief under his nose.”

I suspect Holmes would detect, as did Locke, the ‘frivolous use of uncouth, affected, or unintelligible terms’ and ‘vague and insignificant forms of speech, and abuse of language’ and ‘misapplied words, with little or no meaning’.

I suspect he’d detect confusion – an Orwellian fog designed to disguise rather than describe or designate.

I suspect he’d detect something as intangible as a four-sided triangle.

But what, then, is Democracy?

It might be something like – Rule by SOME people which 70-80% of the electorate didn’t ACTIVELY vote FOR, or voted actively AGAINST.

‘Somewhere between 70% and 100% of the electorate’, Sherlock Holmes might say ‘put their crosses (including tacit crosses) against the LEAST WORST OPTION. That is, they put their crosses at the side of the candidate they think MIGHT DO the LEAST BAD. They do not VOTE FOR the candidate they KNOW will do the MOST GOOD.’

They vote, on balance, to keep the WORST OUT.

So, to ask again, what is Democracy?

Aristotle, Politics, 131b6 – 1319a24, might give us a clue –

The many are more interested in making money than in winning honours. An indication of this is to be found in the fact that they put with tyrannies in the old days and oligarchies at the present time … To have the sovereign power to vote at elections and to scrutinise outgoing officials makes up for any deficiencies which those who have ambition may feel … Also, the class of person which is constantly milling around the city and the market-place, can all too easily attend the assembly. On the other hand, in a population dispersed over the country; its members neither appear at meetings nor feel the need of such gatherings to the same extent. And, in addition, where the people are widely dispersed, it is easy to make a good democracy and polity: the population have their homes far away from the market-place.

In other words – To give them the illusion of power, allow them to stick a cross on a bit of paper every five years, and make the actual processes of government, the barriers to government, so tortuous and tangled and labyrinthine that anyone who has to spend time making a living will be selected out and driven away.

Democracy is an illusion. It’s as intangible as a four-sided triangle. Some of us have known this for a long time. Since 2016, it should have become obvious to everyone.

Of course, some people don’t give a toss about democracy, freedom, or winning honours; they’re happy just sitting in front of their 60-inch screens and shovelling pig swill down their throats. These people we know as Remainers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email