Written by Mary Curran

 

~~~***~~~

 

Democracy is defined as government by the general will but does not equate to freedom. Our current “representative democracy” gives the elected party carte blanche; its result is blatant corruption of politicians and tyranny. Plato warned rightly over two millennia ago that democracy always leads to tyranny. Indeed, huge state power and wealth is now being turned on us and removing all our civil liberties including negative rights and wealth, producing an intolerant socialism that brooks no criticism or other worldviews; and the degradation of our culture and political discourse.

OFSTED enforce teaching of “fundamental British values” such “tolerance,” “rights and obligations” and the deliberately vague term “democracy.” But this has no historical basis and is in fact a very “un-British,” “modern” idea that does not reflect common law. The system is possibly inspired more by the French Revolution. Britain never had any pre-existing sets of values set in stone.

In spite of representative democracy, we lost all our constitutional rights and the principle that all authority is subject to the law of the land and the people’s will. We once had the freedom to nominate party candidates granted by the Bill of Rights but parties removed this right when they claimed the power to nominate candidates, giving voters no say in the matter. As a result, we are left with only the arbitrary power of Parliament instead of constitutional rights.

Participatory Democracy may not be a viable alternative. This involves referenda (obviously on only really major issues only) empowering voters. I think we could trust the voters to get it right over Brexit! And probably immigration too. But on other issues, eg. more funding for the NHS, or Covid laws, could voters be easily swayed and manipulated by interest groups just as politicians have been? And do the majority of voters invariably have the necessary wisdom? After all, did we not get ourselves into this plight partly because so many voters vote for more state nannying instead of practising self-reliance? Surely we need less, not more, government?

Here is a passing observation, which does not necessarily advocate proportional representation, but just saying: in countries with that voting system where at times no party got a clear majority or mandate to get things done, it was sometimes observed that things ran much better!

Party machines have replaced our legal constitution, yet politicians claim falsely that this is democratic “because we elected them”. It is also claimed that Parliament not the Crown is sovereign, and that the Queen should not interfere. But her Coronation Oath required her to interfere in certain circumstances, for example handing sovereignty to alien powers. She has broken her Oath and abdicated her responsibility.

On other occasions she should possibly have been asked for her assent but wasn’t (eg. the circumstances surrounding the passing of the “Benn Bill”. I understand that if it needed Royal Assent but didn’t get it, the Benn Act was invalid. If it didn’t need it, Robin Tillbrook was right that we had in fact left the EU in March 2019. Either way, Boris Johnson was knowingly guilty of chicanery since he had been advised in advance.

We have the right to petition the Crown. Posturing MPs complaining about illegal lockdowns cunningly never mention this right, which they are denying us. Police now physically stop anyone trying to get near Downing St or Buckingham Palace, labelling them “protesters.” There was an attempt to petition in 2001 about EU integration treaties, but the petitioners gave up too readily, thus setting a bad precedent.

There should be checks and balances such as refusal of Royal Assent, and discussion by the executive judiciary and legislative on politically motivated proposed laws. But there has been no refusal of Royal Assent (not to be confused with Royal Consent) for over a century.

Occasionally the “Queen’s cousins” declare Royal Assent, saying “la reine le veut” but this cuts out the due process that should ensure separation of powers, of discussion between judiciary legislature and executive.

In his 1978 book “Dilemma of Democracy” Lord Hailsham uncannily predicted our present day plight under centralised parliamentary democracy, with parliament the most oppressive thing in the world. There is nothing left in this “democratic” system to protect us from our own tyrannical Parliament. He also predicted how it would promote material rather than spiritual values yet fail to deliver material wealth, and the resulting tensions and divisiveness between different factions.

C.S. Lewis in his book “The Screwtape Letters” describes Screwtape, a demon in Hell who trains junior demons how to corrupt human souls and destine them for Hell! Screwtape recommends using the term “democracy” but that it is never clearly defined. It can then be used to “justify” the most cruel and inhumane actions. It is in effect based on the politics of envy, that everyone is as good as the next man and therefore equally entitled, for example, to determine national destiny by voting. It is evidently untrue that everyone is equal in all respects, so this leads to mob rule, the tyranny of the majority.

[Stay tuned for Part 3 coming soon.]

Photo by S_K_S

Print Friendly, PDF & Email