Let's do away with so-called democracy

[aeolium]

This indicates another sort of response to democratic failure and the danger of leaving things to unaccountable and unregulated elites.

I was wondering whether anarchism was beginning to make something of a comeback as a result of the widespread discontent with political authority and its tainted association with the grotesque financial mismanagement of recent years. George Woodcock is a good guide to the different strands of anarchist thought, though this book is a few decades old and obviously predates the impact of social networking sites etc.

[MrGongGong]

you mean its time to dig out my Crass albums again
I don't expect that they have "travelled" well though

[Serial_Apologist]

you mean its time to dig out my Crass albums again
I don't expect that they have "travelled" well though

Last time I checked Crass was/were living rurally as a self-support hippy collective in the vicinity of Harlow, Essex - anyone welcome, bring own kazoo, (forget the address ). They did have a regular slot at the old Vortex. Improv, not punk rock.

Problem with anarchism, reflected in today's belief in and reliance on social networking, is that the powers that decide our lives are centralised, (they'd deny that: free competition, what what?), whereas ours are individualised, ergo atomised from a pov of practicalities.

Neither a good starting or finishing point for taking them on...

[Vile Consort]

As I see it, the important part of democracy is not the ability to put a government in, but the ability to turf one out.

If we didn't have democracy, it wouldn't be the dear old Queen who was running the country: it would be the likes of Fred Goodwin. Or Stalin. And there would be absolutely nothing short of armed insurrection you could do about it. Back to the 14th century then - great.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...fine as far as it goes Vile Consort, but after they are turfed out the same old same old keeps coming back again ...

[Vile Consort]

And doing away with democracy would stop that happening would it?

[Lateralthinking1]

There would be less corruption with an absolute monarchy. The royals have huge amounts of money and are born to power. There just wouldn't be the same mindset there as seen with MPs fiddling their expenses and all the usual dodgy dealings, eg Fox. Automatically, this would lead to greater happiness among the population. They wouldn't feel conned in that way. Nor would there be the pretence of choice between so-called alternatives through competition - eg elections - which leads to disillusionment.

There wouldn't be the upset at promises on policy not being followed through because there would be no such promises. While there would be inequality, it would be felt less harshly than the inequality between one non-royal and another because there would be little sense of similarity with royals. There would be less expense on bureaucracy. Big business would also be put in its place.

The international networking would be at the level of royal families. It would largely bypass all the shadowy organisations and even the supposedly fair and transparent ones - eg EU. It could be more efficient. The economics would be simpler because the royals aren't very bright. It was complexity that caused the problems in the first place. Britain would be liked more abroad. For that reason, dumping our politicians could lead to a huge boost to the economy. There are a lot of advantages.

The errors would be in seeing it as similar to a dictatorship - that is very different in many ways, not least that dictators often emerge without any lengthy history and from the sticks - eg Gaddafi - and in seeing it in pre-democracy terms. An absolute monarchy in a post-democratic era would be viewed entirely differently and perhaps with some surprise to many as a relief.

[Flosshilde]

No we don't have a proper democracy. I want to vote for the Cornish Nationalists at the next election but there aren't any candidates in Surrey.

In what way is that not a 'proper' democracy?

Perhaps we should do away with the constituency-based system (since most MPs are more loyal to their party than their constituency), & simply have a list of parties. You vote for the party, & the number of MPs it has is based on the number of votes it gets. Candidates who have no party alegiance can stand as 'independent' & be listed individually - the ones with the most votes are elected (the details of this would need to be worked out). This would also introduce an element of proportional representation, & get rid of the in-built bias towards Labour or Tory that is a feature of the present system.


In response to Lat's first post, no, I don't think the Queen qould have done better over the past 30 years, or 50 years. I think that there are a great deal of social legislation she wouldn't have introduced.

[Lateralthinking1]

If you are referring to gender, race and sexual orientation, I disagree. The Queen was on the throne 27 years before we had the first woman Prime Minister. The succession rule is less sexist than the party political system at the highest level although it gets more complex as it broadens out - eg various offspring. Race - my evidence is the welcoming of peoples from the Commonwealth decades before the 1976 RRA. It is genuine and ongoing. Orientation - the royal staff. In all cases then, way ahead of democracy.

(I was being slightly flippant on Mebyon Kernow to make a clumsy point. But the more I am arguing this case, the more I am warming to it. Now I look back and see it, the 2008 crash might just have been the moment that I ceased to be a democrat).

[Anna]

To be honest, although I have huge respect for HM, her family is even more dysfunctional than mine.

So, what's the difference between an absolute monarch and a benign despot?

[Lateralthinking1]

Nothing is problem free. I would easily make the choice of a benign despot, once, over uncaring crackpots, five yearly.

Incidentally, the royals never had to go through the sixties revolution. They have been the sixties ever since records began.

[teamsaint]

well, I must say its a bit of a turn up finding Crass making onto the R3 forum pages.

Bit of a mixed bag their stuff....but at least they did what they wanted to do. The Poison girls did some ok stuff, i think, including a decent single with Honey Bane.......

I would imagine some of them are down at occupy londonSX............

[MrGongGong]

well, I must say its a bit of a turn up finding Crass making onto the R3 forum pages.

Bit of a mixed bag their stuff....but at least they did what they wanted to do. The Poison girls did some ok stuff, i think, including a decent single with Honey Bane.......

I would imagine some of them are down at occupy londonSX............

I think that the OAE are going to be doing a period instrument version of "Reality Asylum" at the Proms next year

Now THAT"S what we want on Radio 3 , sad loss when they axed "Mixing it" (though "where's the skill in that" was continuing for a while)

[Flosshilde]

The succession rule is less sexist than the party political system at the highest level

!!!!!!!

Do you mean the rule that says that the male children of the sons of the monarch, and their children, have priority over the oldest daughter (even if she is the eldest child)?

[Lateralthinking1]

It delivers a far higher percentage of female monarchs than democracy gives us female Prime Ministers. There is also a far higher percentage of women in the royal family than in any Cabinet to date. That is a fact that will continue for ever more.