An alternative view

I now wish to turn to what I had intended to do in any case. I want to consider the kind of "manifesto" I think would be more useful. I feel somewhat stampeded because I do not think I am anywhere near ready to do that: I would have preferred far more discussion and exploration before committing to anything concrete: but this has moved on and so I will make a first stab at it here.

I want to say at the outset that I do think any manifesto needs some detail. But not what NathanSanders appears to have assumed I meant by detail. Not the nuts and bolts of a method: but detail as to why the basics are desirable, and indeed why they are basic at all. Inclusion of that leaves it open to debate, and I think that is a good thing

So the first thing I would say is that I think the system should be a democratic one.

The way I see it, everybody knows about the issues. They may not know about the same issues as you: they may not think the same issues are important as you do. But the notion that they do not know where their own interests lie is an odd one. In the end that is what people pursue, and so every one of them must be included. That is the point of democracy: it founds on a hypothesis that if everyone can have an equal influence on the uses of power, they will not be wholly exploited, for they will not allow that to happen, and they have the means to prevent it.

It seems to me inescapable that each of us is better informed about our own circumstances than about those of others: and that influences what we believe to be important. It also limits how far we can see the consequences of what we propose on the lives of those who are in different circumstances. We are not very good at that, even when we are trying: hell, we are not very good at seeing the consequences of what we do on ourselves, a lot of the time.

Of course people can be manipulated: We can certainly try to apply critical thinking, and that will help, but we can only apply it to the facts we have. And none of us have very many, in the scheme of things: government covers all sorts of things and we cannot know about them all: or even most of them. But there are limits to manipulation: there comes a point (it often seems surprisingly far down the line, admittedly) when the adverse consequences of policy on their lives cannot be spun or denied. It is ofen said that people do not starve in democracies: there is a chicken and egg question there, and it is not universal; but I think it is broadly true, and it is broadly a consequence of the democracy itself.

The second basic principle I would suggest is that each individual has equal worth..

From this it follows that all the people should be able to live with dignity, and they are entitled to the support of the community in achieving that. There are fundamental things which, if denied, universally preclude that: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, protection from violence, education, health care, dentistry, the ability to partake of those goods and services which are the norm in that society. Not an exhaustive list by any means, but this is intended to serve as a yardstick against which any policy proposal should be measured. Before anything is adopted we should be sure that it will not deprive any citizen of those basics, and we should be sure they have those basics without being financial wizards: because most of us are not. The industrialised countries are rich. This should be well within the capacity of any of those states to ensure, and if there is some reason why they cannot then there should be no reduction in the standards of any group below that minimum, unless every individual is similarly affected. A corollary of that is that these things need to be exempt from the democratic process: the protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority is not at odds with democracy, though it is a constraint on it. Obviously there needs to be a means of securing those rights if they are lost either by accident (because voters missed some consequence of their votes) or by design (because some group managed to manipulate people into missing something like that):and so there would have to be an explicit legal route to enforce the rights. And it would have to be free, and quick.

That gives rise to the third principle: all decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level consonant with preservation of full citizens rights. So, if one person is deprived of the fundamental rights I just described they should be able to regain those through a simple and very local process. It might be that whatever caused the loss would have to be dealt with at a remove: but the restoration of them needs nothing big, and the neighbourhood should be fully capable of dealing with the problem. In turn that means that there has to be some very local tier of government or bureaucracy with power to take all decisions which can be reasonably effected there. The dangers of partiality are not lost on me: there is always potential for the witch hunt. But that is not worse than what we have now given the manufacture of the "underclass" which has necessarily accompanied the creation of the plutocracy. There have to be safeguards, certainly. Better ones than we have now. One possible solution is that any such claim should be met in full while the decision is taken and while it is under appeal, if it is denied.

The rule of law is sacrosanct All citizens would have equal protection under the law, and in order to effect this lawyers would be employed by the state (at whatever level) as well as judges. Whether they could also have private practice (as doctors do now) is for discussion: but access to the law should be free at the point of need, as health care is. This is because equality before the law cannot be achieved if it is too expensive for some. On the face of it this is actually covered by the "equal worth" provision: but I wanted to put it separately because the rule of law is is a benefit for the community more directly than food for the individual is: given that it is the area which regulates the position of those accused of crime and of victims of crime.

Once a state can meet the needs for dignity under the preceding provisions there should be an explicit committment to securing those same rights for citizens of other states. Thus the principle is that we are all citizens of the world.. I do not think that we can move directly to such principles from where we are now: but I do think we can take the steps in that direction which are open to us, at least within our own borders. So legislation should be considered in light of the effects elsewhere: and the actions of individuals or companies should be open to challenge on that basis. This would include actions which tend to increase famine: such as commodity trading in food which we have previously discussed. If that leads to famine anywhere, the people who make those trades should be subject to sanctions. I do not underestimate the practical difficulty of that: but as a principle I think it is important.

Most of this is predicated on the existence of the nation state. I am not wedded to that and I certainly think that some things should be subject to international law: but for me the most important thing we face at present is the transfer of power to business from the nation state; because business is not subject to democratic control. That transfer is a consequence of the relative wealth of states v companies: that needs to be reversed. We were faced with a stark choice recently: bankrupt business or bankrupt the state. We made the wrong choice. So restoration of the supremacy of the power of the democratic body is another princiiple we should adopt. That will not be easy, but neither is it impossible. I do not know enough about the mechanisms available but it is certainly something which I would see as essential

Some of this can be achieved through politics: indeed there is no other way. But what I suppose I am suggesting is that these are principles which should be enshrined in a constituion so that they do not change when the party in power changes. Any policy proposal should be measured against these yardsticks because the purpose of politics is to allocate resources and that should not be a free for all.

An excellent beginning. You have put words on some of my thoughts, the way you so often do. I do not think I could agree to any measures, however well meant or however good the effects would be, unless these principles were followed in the process.

I am off for a few days now, but I really look forward to discussing this further.

Bravo, Fiona. Finally an excellently thought out constructive effort with ideas towards putting a manifesto together.

One of your criticisms of my preliminary manifesto was that it was not revolutionary and that my ideas were already available in mainstream politics.

I would say this is also true of your statements above:

-Exactly what I said in my OP. This, is also "in the realm of mainstream party politics"

-Again, the majority of mainstream parties would agree with you here, and it is even enshrined in the US constitution in a similar form. Nothing revolutionary here.

Again- I feel this is analogous to my promotion of common good and concern for the individual over that of profit. Again, nothing revolutionary there.

Quite right, I made no real mention to this in my manifesto as I, rightly or wrongly, took this as a given. Again, mainstream parties on both the right and left would have no trouble in agreeing on a statement like this.

I have shown in discussion and by the choice of name for the organisation that I agree with that and with
This is what I was alluding too with my comments on immigration. Again, these are not revolutionary ideas.

I don't see how any democrat could argue against that, I for one do not. I also state similar in my original manifesto, that democracy needs to be rid of unwelcome influence, helping 'restore' the democratic body. Again, nothing new.

In my opinion, our manifesto's are very similar, yet written in very different ways, with focus on different aspects. I tried to point out things that I believe are rotten in current systems, and promote discussion of alternatives within a framework of general ideas. You have also offered an alternate frame of ideas, that are general enough to leave room for discussion, similar to mine.

It feels to me like we are very much on the same page when it comes to our political opinions as I fully agree with many of the things you say above. What I am trying to point out here is that many of the criticisms yourself and Vninect have offered for my manifesto could equally apply to yours.

I think that I acknowledge that these are to be achieved through politics something in the nature of a bill of rights: but these are priniciples: they are not policies but yardsticks against which policies would be measured.

They are similar to yours in some ways, because they are, of course, hurrah words too. But there are very significant differences: for example, under my proposals your "othering" of the religious would be illegal, because freedom of belief is part of the "equal worth" provision. It is intrinsic to a human being's dignity that their beliefs be respected. I will acknowledge that I did not spell that out (it was extremely late when I wrote this: and, as I said , I am not actually ready to do this properly). But it is obvioius to me that you cannot meet the "equal worth" proposition if you label a person's beliefs "profoundly harmful"

Similarly with immigrants: you cannot meet that provision if you insist that people adopt a particular culture: because an individual's culture, whatever it may be, is part of his or her identity as a human being and it is of equal worth to that of anyone else.

I had meant to spell that out in an additional sentence or two in that section: because there is a further level of "dignity" and that is the basic dignity which a human being determines for themselves. As I did say elsewhere, but omitted in this post, politics deals with the question of how we share resources. It has no business interfering in anything else much: and that is, I think, implicit in most of the above. So if you wish to pass law relating to how people should use their share of those resources; or what kinds of behaviour they need to display to secure that share, the proposal would be struck down. They get those resources as a right: and it follows you cannot make conditions. A person's religious belief; their "culture", their drug use, etc are all about how they use the resource. And that is for them to determine. The state has no role at all unless it can be shown that the behaviour adversely impacts on the basic share that others get.

I have decided to return to this topic, because it is clear that the basic principles suggested in my OP need to be applied to actual policies in a second tier of proposals. This is in line with my objection to the inclusion of specific policies in a general statement of aim, as in NathanSanders original post wrt drug policy. We established in earlier discussion that his list was personal, and it is obvious that any list of priorities will be like that. But there must be substance, and it must be possible to show how the general principles would be applied to specific questions: this might take the form of a political platform which would form the manifesto of a mainstream political party, as the UCW people seem to want. Or it might be formulated as an illustration of how policy proposals from such parties would be tested against the yardstick of constitutional rights, as in American politics. Neither of those are radical: they are limited to what might happen in a representative democracy (or a direct democracy: which of those is enshrined in the general principle that the system should be democratic is not settled and it does demand in depth discussion). But I conceive them as a place to start given the current situation: we have to start from where we are, it seems to me

It is immediately obvious that determination of priorities is going to be difficult: it rather depends on one's own circumstances and it is very difficult to separate one's own interests from the interests of the community as a whole: that is a strength of a democratic system: but it limits the scope for agreement. Nevertheless I think we can find some common ground, and to do that we have to state our positions. That is at odds with NathanSanders notion that a wish list should not be translated into specific proposals as that would undermine the potential for unity: unity of that sort is not real: and it is not conducive to debate if one refuses to set out a platform which can then be discussed. Far from increasing the scope for input from a "membership" it prevents that from happening: because there is nothing substantive to discuss.

On that basis we would need to make a list of those things which should have priority, and why. They are broad brush proposals: there is of course a need for third level of analysis which would look at real specificity: but before that is reached we need some consensus on what issues are central for the kind of society we would like to see, I think. So with that said this post argues that the very first priority is refining the notion of democracy, assuming that this first general principle is agreed.

In the general principles proposed it is stated that the system should be democratic: nice hurrah word there, but as previously discussed that is a big word. Democracy comes in many forms and I have observed that some scandinavian people are very wedded to a measure of "direct democracy". In other countries, such as Ireland, there is a committment to "proportional representation", and that, too, is valued highly by the citizens of those countries. Many people in the UK oppose those ideas, and are very comfortable with the "strong government" which they perceive as a consequence of "first past the post" arrangements. All systems have strengths and weaknesses, but it seems to me that it is of the first importance to decide what we mean by democracy and to argue out what features of each version are helpful. I do not think the answer is at all obvious, and I am not fully committed to any one answer: but the difficulty of reaching a conclusion does not exempt us from making a decision: we cannot go any further without it, actually. So the first priority, as I see it, is to develop a view on what democracy means in the context of the general principles laid out above.

It is helpful that this is addressed to an international community because it is hard to make a strong case for the benefits of a system one has not experienced: we tend to be rather comfortable with what we know, on the whole, and not very familiar with the arguments in favour of other ways of going about things. So my remarks are probably culturally bound and may be open to ridicule because of assumptions I smuggle in through ignorance.

I would like to approach this on the basis of what I think is the ultimate aim: and for me that is the power of individuals to influence policy and decision making in order to defend their fundamental interests, no matter where they are placed in the polity. I have already said that I think that the purpose of politics is to determine the allocation of resources, primarily: so that limits the terms of the debate to some extent. With that in mind it is evident that whatever arrangements are put in place, they must ensure equal access to power for all: and it is usually considered that "one person, one vote" ensures that outcome. But it doesn't, in my view. It can perhaps be characterised as a necessary condition; but not a sufficient one. As Vninect has already pointed out, a vote is an end point: it is rendered less useful where information is limited or controlled by vested interests, and so there needs to be some way of recognising that. There is power, but there is also influence: and sometimes the latter is more important in determining outcomes: this is a problem, because influence is covert, and very difficult to control in a democracy. Full information on all issues is hardly imaginable: it does not seem to me that it is possible in practice, so we have an immediate difficulty.

The question then is how to ensure that all people have equal access in a democratic system: it has never been solved, so far as I know. But my knowledge is very limited and I am sure that others have more information or different information which can be brought to the table. Within my own limitations I can say some things:

1. Direct democracy is attractive because it appears to meet the aspiration, set out by NathanSanders, for the individual to have more power than the group. I assume that this intense individualism is a philosophical position, and I do not actually believe that any form of democracy results in that outcome. It is perhaps arguable that it is possible in the context of a small community such as a city state: but even there I am doubtful. I certainly do not think it is effective in a large nation state: because in order to raise an issue in that context one must have the ability to communicate one's proposition as well as anyone else. That means money and access: and so we would have to devise some system for equalising that. Which seems to me to be a regression problem.

The example of the internet can be adduced as a way of solving that difficulty: but experience so far tends to show it does not do that. The sheer volume of traffic militates against it and it can be easily seen that discussion boards succeed better if they are associated with, as an example, a famous name. Which brings us back to influence. Certainly if a forum for discussion is open, then arguably the association need not be a hurdle: but it is, because folk tend to go the places which reflect their pre-existing views: and so there will be discussion between those who take a position on one side or the other of a particular debate: but it will not include those who do not already care about that issue. Or so it seems to me.

Perhaps that can be addressed by a forum (or some other platform) which is specifically designed as a "direct democracy tool". I do not know. If it could be shown that it was effective rather than cosmetic, that might work: but at present not everyone has access (though that can change of course) and not everyone likes that form of communication. Even if that can be solved it seems to me that for it to work we would all have to be prepared to give it a lot of priority and time: call me pessimistic, but I don't see that happening.

More importantly, it seems to me that people are dual: and therefore a focus on empowering them as individuals is doomed to failure a priori. We form groups: I think it is part of our nature as social animals. If that is true then anything which depends on truly independent thought, from everyone about everything, cannot work. So the case for direct democracy falls. I think that dependence on that is therefore dangerous: because if that is the principle enshrined, then the group formation will be hidden for a variety of reasons: and it is not good if there are things at work which we cannot see.

2. Proportional representation. This is fashionable as an alternative in this country at present. There are many forms of it, with different strengths and weaknesses, and I confess I am not au fait with them. Others will have a better grasp on that. But I will say that I am not all that clear why it is put forward as an obviously desirable thing, which needs no justification. Because it is not obvious to me, at all. It is admittedly popular in those countries which have it: and they point to the limits it places on the executive power: in a proportional system compromises have to be made and they are made. That is a benefit: but to me it is also a limitation: because it means that I cannot be sure what I am voting for. What actually happens depends on the horse trading which goes on after the election: and any challenge to broken promises can be met by pointing to the necessities of the coalition. It may be that there are ways to avoid that outcome: I will be interested to hear what they are. And, of course, broken promises exist in all systems, they are not unique to that form of democracy. Yet a manifesto, as vague and short as the politicians can make it, still contains some specific policy undertakings: and I can expect them to be kept, if the system is first past the post: for the government has the power to keep them, and it is difficult to pretend otherwise. The cynic will say that the politician does not care but I do not believe that: even where the promise is quite clearly broken, it is still an issue and there is always at least an outcry about it: that is why the manifestos are short and vague: and it is why the politician who is breaking a manifesto commitment goes to great lengths either to deny he is doing so; or to show that circumstances have forced the change. That is not nothing, though not as much as one would like to see. There is no such discomfort in a coalition, so far as I can see.

What is true is that proportional representation openly acknowledges that a democracy serves groups, not individuals: and that is honest, and therefore seems more practical than direct systems. The compromises are open to the extent that coalitions are formed: though the details may remain hidden. That could probably be solved, for example by making the negotiations public: we could put them on the telly . And we could even hold a second vote on the new coalition's proposed manifesto, once it is hammered out. More elections? Yes, why not? That has the potential to solve the other problem of proportional systems: the fact that power can end up in the hands of very small parties with little popular support, who find themselves in the position to be "kingmakers".

3. First past the post. This is said to produce strong government, and is some ways it does. There is no excuse for not doing what you said you would do, so accountability can be said to be stronger. But the danger lies in the fact that hidden agendas, left out of manifestos, can be implemented. For the period of the government's term they can do anything they like: and some things cannot be readily undone even if the electorate decide to make a change next time the vote comes round. As we have seen in this country, the problem is compounded if the executive adopts a more "presidential" style than is commonly assumed: and if the MP's are supine in face of that development. The patronage of the excutive can presumably be limited: but it has not been in this country, and I am not sure why not.

4. Mixed systems. There are a number of systems which allow of either FPTP or PR, but which include provisions for direct democracy under certain conditions: so that, for example, one can garner a load of signatures on a petition and that results in at least a debate on the issue; or possibly a referendum. This has the merit of fostering participation between elections, and this seems to me to be a good thing. Continued engagement is something I value and ongoing debate, however limited in content at the national level, has to be good, surely? A different and more limited version exists where a referendum can be demanded, or offered, on certain limited kinds of issue: for example the uk had no such direct element in the system at all; but a referenedum was held on entry to the common market as an exception because it was held to be a matter of profound constitutional importance. That particular example seems to have generated a very productive in-depth debate, and all parties freed their members from the whip, so that they could argue for their position without constraint of party loyalty. A little more of that would be welcome: but what issues should be subject to it is more problematic to agree.

Even if we agree on what type of democracy we seek to implement there remain structural questions: how many chambers and with what powers? If more than one, then a similar process for election to each chamber, or a different one? Separation of legislature and executive, or not? To what extent? A permanent civil service, or not? If not, then are officials also to be elected, as some are in the US? Appointed by the incoming government, as also obtains widely in the US? Or some other arrangement?

There are also more radical possibilities. As an example, it is possible to envisage a government which is constituted through a random selection: as in the jury system, for example. Is that a good idea? It is not even within the normal conception of democracy because it does not involve voting: but if democracy can be said to be about giving everyone an equal say in the use of power, it does. Well arguably it does: if one accepts that there are group interests rather than individual ones only, it does: and I think you must accept that if you accept any form of representative democracy at all.

I find it attractive for a number of reasons: it seems to me to be a good way of avoiding undue influence from power groups outside parliament: because the members would serve one term and would not be known before selection, so they could not be bought easily after the event. They would give some of the advantages of a PR system, because they would genuinely represent all sections, however they self identify: which PR cannot achieve. They would return to their old jobs or situation after they served so the distance from the ordinary concerns of their communities would not be the problem it is now, because professional politicians on permanently high wages and existing in a rarified "westminster village" ( or its equivalent in other countries) would not exist.

It may be counter argued that this system would give rise to uncertainty for the financial community, or for others who have an interest in long term stability: but to me that objection can only be raised if it is accepted that we live in a divided society where one part of the divide will never have power: either all of us value stability, in which case the objection disappears: or we don't, in which case the justification for only allowing those who want that to have power is questionable, is it not?

Some will say that a random selection would fail because the people would not have the skills: to which I say, "what skills"? A politiician has no skills which are intrinsically valuable in government: they have skills relevant to getting elected, which is not the same thing at all. If that objection is valid we should not have juries: and indeed some argue we should not. I don't agree with them.

So that is my opening shot. Any thoughts ?

Edited by FionaK - 10/5/2015, 11:34

Thanks for those thoughts, Vninect. Couple of questions:

1. You don't have juries in your criminal justice system? I was completely unware of that and I would very much like to hear more about how it works. Is it an inquisitorial system? That is probably for another thread though: perhaps we can make one to discuss criminal justice because although I think it is an important issue for this thread the composition of the system probably needs quite a lot of explanation first.

2. If you believe skills are required then what are they? Do you mean that under any new system skills should be required. And again, if you do, what are they?

3. I don't understand what you mean about buying members of parliament? Obvioiusly in a random selection system it could not happen before the appointment. So you must mean after? From my point of view such a system is at least less vulnerable to that than what we currently have: because the politicians only serve one term there is little time to "build a relationship" in the subtle ways that such corruption would normally require: there is little certainty that the person approached would not immediately shout it from the rooftops and name names: the certainty that the person would return to their old life after their term is up makes some safeguard too: though I recognise that it is practically difficult to enforce that I don't think it is impossible. So what is the danger you see here?

4. I have not given your final proposal much thought: but my first reaction is unease. The allocation of resources is in some ways necessarily competitive. It might be very beneficial for each "faction" to fight exclusively for their own sphere of interest, but in the end rationing has to occur and so I think it important that there is some way of gettng an overview. Secondly I think there is more scope for corruption in this system for there are fewer to target in each interest. Not saying it does not have advantages and they might outweigh the downside: just haven't though of this before. ]

I don't think there is a reason it should be limited to the national level: but as I said, I am trying to start from where we are now. But I do think it very strongly has to be across all aspects and groups in society. That is what it means to have equal influence: we can't exclude anybody at all. Though that might not be what you mean?

OK. It is something we need to explore in this context I think: but one thing at a time


This is a substantive point. At present in the UK there are MP's who never speak; and those who speak on a very limited range of subjects; those who speak a lot, but are fed their lines by the party whips; and those who have good debating skills. Fact is, an election is not really a debate. So the skills necessary for election are not the ones ideally required in a functioning parliament. And the ones which serve well in that parliament are not necessarily any of those you quote, either: though it is possible they should be. What is important is first: money, if the system is as it is in America: second: membership of a big party, if the situation is as it is in this country;third: well I don't know: perhaps debating skills are crucial in your country? If so that is a plus for PR

I am not personally a big fan of debate as that term is normally applied in this country in any case. Parliament is the model for (or perhaps modelled on) the school debating society. In that setting the skills are honed: but they are honed in a peculiar way. One must be able to effectively argue any side of a case. I understand that this is a good way of getting people to understand an opposing point of view, arguably: and perhaps to foster logical skills in spotting fallacies and stuff. But it is rooted in other skills as well: and it necessarily means that people will use rhetorc and fallacy deliberately in order to "win". It also means that people must be able to make a case they do not believe, convincingly: I call that lying, usually. But it turns into something else in politics (and in the press, as it happens): or so those involved in those fields would have us believe. Only it doesn't work: and for me this is part of the distrust which bedevils us: for those groups are not trusted, and it opens the way for attacks on democracy which I find very scary indeed.

There is a case to be made for that kind of skill: "the art of the possible" is not meaningless. The need for a decision is clear, and collective responsibility is genuinely useful too: For many things need compromise, and once a compromise is reached there is good reason to get behind it, rather than sabotage it. The arguments are not simple.

When a jury sits there is no debate in public: but the arguments they hear are made in public. They hear from experts: sometimes those with skills in a particular field, and certainly from witnesses (who are expert in a different way). In our parliament there are select committees who call witnesses to get information which informs the chamber debate and the policy formation. That is relatively recent in our system, I think: and it is generally held to be a good thing. We also have a second chamber which is formed without election: the question of the constitution of a whole parliament is not simple and those kinds of things need to be addressed too.

In thinking about the kinds of feature we would wish to see in a democracy we have agreed the desirablity of full information, I think: and also on the difficulty of achieving that. A politician is there to devote their full working time to deciding how to allocate resources: and they can be expected to be better informed, for that reason alone. Because there is a party machine and a party line, at present, politicians don't have to: and many do not, or do not on subjects which do not already interest them. That would probably be true of a random system as well: but not so much. I think people would take the responsibility very seriously: juries do.

One feature of an inquisitorial system of law is that the decision taking body, however constituted, can call for information not presented initially: and can question the witnesses directly. That is not true in an adversarial system: and debate is quintessentially adversarial. I do not see why a parliament could not move in the direction of inquisitorial, whatever we decide is best for the justice system: and I think there are reasons we should consider this.

At bottom you make my case for me: those who get elected have a particular set of skills: I think not skills which relate to governance: but even if they do is it right that only those who are verbally adroit should represent the people? Is it a valid assumption that every self identified group has silver tongued folk available to make their points? Perhaps it is. I am not convinced. We have talked before about whether there is a difference between more visually inclined folk and more verbals ones: not sure about that: but I think there is certainly a difference between those with a good edcuation and those without. While we were making that more equal, it was clear that articulate folk did exist in the ranks of the poorest: so maybe that is not a concern: but it matters when we are in the realm of belief in an underclass we need not listen to and who we encourage to inarticulacy, whether we admit that is what we are doing or not.

I can envisage a randomly selected parliament reading and listening to broad based information, and calling whoever they like: and then voting in secret, but with a feature seen in the Italian system: that is, writing a full account of their reasoning for their decision which we can then all read. That still leaves a lot of influence in the hands of those who talk well: but it is potentially better than what we have now, I think. And it means we can at least judge if what we consider to be important about an issue has been fully taken into account


Think I already addressed this. Corruption is always a potential, and some (like me) would say that the system we have now has been largely bought: whether a different system would do better is moot. I think it would, for reasons already outlined, both in this thread and in the corruption thread. I may be wrong, but I do not think folk are as venal as it implies, on the whole. I think it is true that they can become so if they are in power for a long time and are isolated from the general population: as happens now. Judging from the excuses given in the Lord Tayler thread it is easier to corrupt a system than an individual, too: they rest on "everybody else was doing it". But it is a slow process of subversion so one, short, term helps to prevent it. Very strict rules such as applied to the civil service and outlined in the corruption thread do work: though the short-term nature of this system actually makes that less effective because that founds on a loyalty to the service itself- tenure if you like. The fact of return to one's previous situation balances that, I hope: and your peers and the press should certainly notice if a year after returning to your job as a dustman or a surgeon you move to the seychelles as a member of the board of "boughtim plc" Open tax returns etc would also help. A blanket ban on freebies, draconian in its consequences and well enforced is essential: and that was covered in the accountability thread to some exent. There it was argued that an alternative power base is important: and without pre-empting the later part of your post this is being discussed in the context of a "lowest possible level of decision making" principle which means it is not just family and work mates who hold to account: but every other tier of government.That fact also meets your wish to reduce the scope of this level: far too many decisions are made centrally which do not need to be. If that is accepted we have further safeguards built in, I think



No. A well informed populace is of course desirable: but see my remarks on why it should be a democracy at all. Farmers voting about banking absolutely is right: because bankers decisions about banking will affect farmers in ways the bankers cannot even imagine. The world will not slice that way. But lowest level decision making meets some of those problems: a well informed populace does more: and a body of people genuinely working an 8 hour day to understand the ramifications of what they decide on, does something as well. A requirement to give full reasons for the final decision allows challenge where things have been missed: and the security of basic rights as a yardstick gives a means of overturning unintended detrimental consequences (for those will always arise) Nothing is perfect, I think: but to allow the "experts" in a particular field to make all the decisions is dangerous: if they are truly expert and their case is good it will be persuasive: let the bankers persuade the farmer reps in the parliament.


Agreed and enshrined in the original statement of principle, I think? First in the principle of lowest level decision making and second in the citizens of the world one. Am I missing something?

As an afterthought I think this is a handy illustration of how the general principles are to be used in evaluating the more specific tiers: that is heartening because sometimes big picture stuff is not useful: I am finding that this set are, however crude they still are

Edited by FionaK - 20/8/2011, 15:21

I was thinking a bit more about this, and it occurred to me that it is possible to come to the question from a different angle. So far I have been trying to find out how different versions of "democracy" work, and to get some idea of their strengths and weaknesses (at least for those ones which exist).

But if it is your view that the current situation reflects a failure or usurpation of existing democracies (and that is clearly my own position) then we can perhaps compare them in terms of how robust they have been in face of a global attack (whether conscious or not).

If you look at it that way, then I can say that FPTP has failed comprehensively. Both America and the UK have travelled the same road, and the outcomes are similar, with due allowance for lag. There are differences between the two systems. One thing which is quite depressing is that America has a written constitution, with a bill of rights; and in view of the attempt to outline fundamental principles which started this thread, I clearly had the idea that something like that would tend to protect citizens from "tyranny of the majority" problems. Obviously it does not in a FPTP system

What about PR? I don't know so much about the situation in countries which have that system, and obviously they vary enormously. As has been noted before, Scandinavia seems to have resisted the "attack" more effectively than most places: and that may also be true of other countries with PR. However from what has been said here (and I know we are few and hardly representative) the direction of travel is the same in both the Netherlands and in Scandinavia. It is possible that going down that road is harder in a PR system, but it is also possible that those who wish to establish plutocracy cannot do everything at once: perhaps they started with America because that country was more amenable to such ideas for historical reasons; and perhaps the same can be said of the uk, because the concept of an "anglo american" approach is apparently quite strong in the british narrative, for whatever reason. The "special relationship" is dear to the hearts of british politicians, and while I think it is mainly a mirage, it does seem to affect the attitudes of those who win power in this country.

If that is true then it may be that the move to plutocracy is slower elsewhere simply because it originated in the USA ,and it maps less easily to countries which have a different history of relations with that country. The experience of Ireland would tend to support that view, because Ireland has a strongly PR system, and is yet far down the road of adverse consequences arising from plutocracy. Nevertheless it seems to me that the establishment of a hegemony is more difficult in a PR state: though obviously it is not a complete safeguard in itself, if the gradual move to the neoliberal position is truly occurring as seems to be reported here.

From what Vninect has reported, the policies are further advanced in Holland than they are in Scandinavia: and the difference in their versions of democracy appear to lie in the "direct" element in Scandinavia, from what little I can tell. To the extent that the form of democracy has any bearing on the capacity of a people or a state to resist the undermining of the democratic ideal, it seems logical to deduce that of those existing systems the hybrid does best in the current situation, for whatever reason.

But the undermining by a plutocracy is not the only danger: and the rise of neo-fascism is one example of attack from a different direction. I cannot know how far that particular element has advanced in any particular state: In this country it remains a small force, not much to be feared, so far: and that is because of the FPTP system,I think. Neo nazis have the same obstacles as any other minority party here: and for all the disadvantages of that that is one big plus.

I was thinking about that too: and it seemed to me that there may be two different kinds of "attack" which can be mounted. In the case of minority (or as we tend to call them here, "extremist") elements, FPTP is reasonably effective in resisting that. These are directly political movements and it is hard for them to gain ground (though far from impossible)

The attack from plutocracy is different because it cloaks itself as "a-political", and it can sustain that because power is ceded apart from the ballot, or any overtly political process. But it is ceded by politicians nonetheless: so PR is a more effective barrier, arguably, because PR allows of a wider spread of opinion within the body which can surrender that power.

I am only groping towards some kind of understanding, and it is very likely that my notions are deeply flawed. I simply don't have enough information. Perhaps nobody does, or very few at least. But while musing on all this it seemed to me that once again we are thinking in too short a time frame, and too narrow a conceptualisation.

One example of that came from something I have noticed in talking to americans (and, again, far from a representative sample) as compared to europeans. As a very broad brush statement, Americans appear to see that dangers to their freedom come from government: the very same threats are not recognised if they arise from big business: and I think that goes back to their history. When the constitution and the bill of rights was being hammered out the issue was the relative power of the federal government vis a vis the states. There was a resistance to "big government" at the heart of that debate and it may be that this informs the perception of threat to this day. The bill of rights was an "add on" and it also seems to me to have an element of protecting the citizen from an over-mighty state which, unchecked, would tend to oppress. All the focus is on government v the individual as I read it. I think this persists. As I talk to Americans there is a deep distrust of their politicians which predates the same phenomenon here (though we are folllowing that path too). There appears to be a difficulty in seeing the government as genuinely representative: and at times I have the impression that the distinction they draw between a "democracy" and a "republic" goes very deep. Underlying assumptions are masked by the words we use in common and there is force to "separated by a common language" for me: but the outcome is that government is seen as "them" to a greater extent than seems to be true in europe

By contrast the european seems to have greater trust in politics (though that is not saying much); but a deep distrust of big business. As the plutocracy establishes itself it seeks to change that perception in the (again shorthand) direction of the american view: and it has met with a great deal of success in this country at least. But the difference remains. It does not sit easily in europe to identify "freedom" and "democracy" with "the free market" They are different concepts here. Or at least that is my impression.

As you can see I am struggling towards something not easy to conceptualise: but for what it is worth I am suggesting that different perspectives arise from further back in history than I have so far considered; that the history makes a difference to the kind of enemy one can identify; and that the form of democracy adopted is influenced by the threat perceived. Different forms defend against different threats, but that is not made plain because the assumptions are not examined

If any of that is true then it would be productive to consider what the threats might be and to try to devise a system which would be robust in face of them all. I don't ask much, do I ?

As a first example I would therefore consider what constitutes a threat to a democracy: and that brings me back to the basic principles in my first post. I have noted that a bill of rights does not automatically help: on the basis of american experience. But it occurs to me that may be because it was not integral to the constitution in the first place: the constitution did not start with those "rights" or aims: they were added on afterwards for quite different reasons, and to mitigate particular threats perceived.

If we start with those kinds of basic aims and principles then it is clear that the threat to the citizen is not confined to the actions of government; nor to the actions of big business; nor to the actions of extremist groups of whatever stripe: it can come from any and all of those. And that is all politics, because in each case the question is still allocation of resources.

One thing I keep coming back to is that there are, or have been, only two parties in the US and the UK. We (as I like to call Sweden ) have not had less than five in our parliament in modern times. i wonder how much of a difference that makes?

Oh, and for some reason, our biggest conservative party (and the one currently in power, in alliance with three other conservative, much, much smaller parties), which seemed on its way to becoming extremely neoliberal, has turned towards a much more traditional liberalism. The only reason for that change, as far as I can see (but then I do not see very far), is that their neoliberal stance clearly lost them more and more voters earlier.

Perhaps we (you know, Sweden) are still too strongly rooted in our social democrat past.

I think that in this part of the discussion we are trying to see what effect the particular form of democracy can have. It is not clear to me that any of the forms currently in existence affords protection from totalitarianism by itself.

It seems to me that all democratic parties are constrained by the fact that getting too far out of line with public opinion will lose them votes. That is a separate issue, I think, and will lead to consideration of how the general outlook (zeitgeist?) changes:that is deeply mysterious to me and I am hoping that others can shed some light

But meantime, you are correct that there are effectively only two parties in the UK and the US: neither has been apt to turn totalitarian in the medium term past, so far as I am aware. I am not sure what form of democracy was in place in Germany when that country famously did move from democratic to totalitarian government: and I think that is the best example we have of such a transition, because Italy was a relatively new state, and Spain fought a civil war to achieve the same end: whereas germany made the initial change through the ballot box. That might be wrong: I am not very versed in european history, and others will know better.

It is perfectly possible that all forms of democracy are equally good or equally bad at preventing totalitarian movements from taking hold: and that the form matters for other reasons while something else is more important to that particular goal.

In light of the move to privatise the NHS in the UK, which is perilously close to achievement now, I have to withdraw the assertion I made in the previous post. Getting too far out of line with public opinion is an important constraint: but it is not a sufficient one, patently. In this instance (as with many which are based on ideology) there is good reason to suppose that those promoting the change have recognised the difficulty and have been prepared to move in small steps towards their goal over a long period, while denying they are doing so. They have engineered a situation whereby they are making a radical change to the nature of the state itself, and have left little to no scope for effective opposition. There are those who will say that is a conspiracy theory: it is not. It is the expected outcome of an ideologically driven view of the world. It could not happen unless the world view was widely shared, and that has also been achieved. The neoliberal nostrums have stood unchallenged at their core for a long time now in this country: and indeed are gaining ground world wide. That is obviously not because they are correct: the global crisis demonstrates that beyond doubt, IMO. But I think that the ex-left which has replaced the true left here and elsewhere believe one can be a little bit pregnant. That is in one sense what the post war consensus was about: and it worked ok while there was a consensus. There has not been such a consensus for at least three decades, however. The project has consciously moved away from what used to be the centre ground. That was not recognised, and so the centre moved step by step: it is like when a south american has a conversation with a brit at a party: they cross the room because of a difference in the size of personal space required by the different cultures. At least that is the best metaphor I can think of.

In this situation I see the benefit of the hybrid Scandinavian system: if we are not to adopt the more radical idea of the "jury parliament" then at present there does need to be some constraint on the sovreignty of parliament between elections. I have no idea how matters go to referendum in Scandinavia nor how the outcome is implemented (if it is). I do know that the mechanism is there in the UK, but has only been used once when the issue was seen as a matter of the constitution and national sovreignty.

To me, the neoliberal project now presents itself in precisely those terms, and that is perhaps difficult to argue within the limits of the current mindset. It is assumed that in a democracy the elected government does represent the will of the people, and as stated in the OP, universal adult suffrage is meant to ensure that. It does not. always do that, however, and the example of Greece is instructive. I think it is perfectly rational to think that the Greek government does not represent the interest or the will of the people at present: it represents the corporations and international financial institutions instead. If there were an alternative party that might not matter: but as here and in America, there is no such alternative, so far as I can see. And this has been achieved through influence, rather than debate.

What I am therefore arguing is that in large parts of europe the actual constitution comprised a mixed system whereby the state contracted to ensure the people's basic rights to the essentials of life: and to regulate vested interests in order to do that. Since that is not overtly enshrined in any constitutional document I am aware of, it was a somewhat subconscious expectation. It is true that the people have voted for many of the changes which have gradually subverted that expectation. I suspect that it was because they took for granted those constraints would be there, and that all proposed changes were predicated on that shared assumption. But the neoliberals do not share it. In the context of a mixed economy changes to improve prosperity through the market are not anathema: and if you think that the basics are safe you will not recognise an attack on them readily: especially when the attack is specifically and vehemently denied ("the NHS is safe in our hands" is an example of one such big lie, which many were primed to believe, on the basis of what I have just outlined). And the divide and rule strategy of "othering" the poor reduced the scope of the basics which were taken for granted, too.

But to me it seems clear that this is the actual debate: and the neoliberals are scrapping the constitution. In handing all power to the bankers and financial institutions they are also ceding sovereignty. And that is a matter of huge concern. Thus I now think this is an issue which should be subject to a referendum, if anything is.

Vninect has indeed pointed out the difficulty of framing a question: but in this case, though the debate could and should cover the core question of the constitution and sovereignty, the acid test is easy: we can address the introduction of private companies into the NHS with relative ease. It is a proxy for a much wider debate: but it is not an inappropriate one. And the need is urgent for there is nothing left of our constitution if this is conceded: we will have irrevocably adopted plutocracy and turning back will not be easy

Hmmm.


If you take that view, then the notion of democracy is out the window. That is not to say you are not right, you may be. I don't think you are. As I said at the outset, people are the best judges of their own interest, even if they are not very good at it.

It is perfectly true that influence is a problem. I suggest that it works best on those issues where people do not have a direct interest, and I think you agreed with that in an earlier post. I honestly think that a PR campaign is not irresistible, even if it does last a year. But more than that I think a great deal of the effectiveness of that kind of influence rests on the overload of information and the ephemeral nature of news. I think we can counter that. A referendum is one way of doing that: because it is a concrete event with an outcome on a particular day. It is hard to use the media in the familiar way in that case: because much of how it works is by familiarisation, I think. That is, they raise a proposition which is unacceptable and there is a big hoo hah and they drop it for while. They then raise it again,and now you have heard it before so it is not quite so shocking: and of course it is not quite the same because they have noted which bits were really sticking points. This process is repeated and it becomes a test of patience rather than a substantive debate. And all the time the familiarity undermines the opposition. That is a process I seem to see on many issues and it is not dissimilar to advertising. We cannot have a perfect system but a referendum which is truly binding in its outcome should be a time limited campaign and people should be more engaged because their vote will matter.

You are correct that it is difficult to define the conditions when a referendum must be held. A couple of notions occur to me:

1. The petition process which you already have in your country. You have advised that this is ineffective and you have explained why. Do you think it would make a difference if the petition could generate a referendum if a given threshold was met? As I understand what you said it does not do that at present and so there is little power attached to it and it is more of a diversionary tactic; what we call in this country "kicking it into the long grass" (we do that not by petition, but by setting up a parliamentary commission: comes to much the same outcome, so far as I can see). A petition which leads to a referendum may be how it is done in Scandinavia: I do not know.

2. A veto. There are two possible mechanisms for this. In the first any citizen could literally veto any proposed measure on a claim that it violates one of the safeguarding principles set out in my OP. So if the bill can be shown to undermine the equal worth principle, or the supremacy of the democratic body, for example, the process of passing it into law would be automatically halted. This is somewhat in line with taking out an injunction to prevent someone from doing something and it would necessarily involve the courts. In America such a process ought to be available because ultimtely some things are ruled to be unconstitutional: but it takes years. I am suggesting that this should be almost instant and should be always granted if a prima facie case is made. There would then need to be a second level of process to resolve the limits of the veto and to determine if it should be lifted.

It is true that such a process could be very disruptive, in that there would be vexatious claims. It will be argued that government would come to a halt. But very few things need instant action, and under the lowest level of decision making principle a great many of them would be confined to local matters: not to national decisions. In any case slow and well constructed law is preferable to reactive legislation in most instances: even wars don't usually come with no warning. So I am not convinced the theoretical dangers will actually materialise. Particularly if there is a period of abeyance between such vetos such that once the process had been concluded the matter cannot be raised again by either side for some longish period.

Would it lead to more litigation and greater power for the courts? Yes. I am not uncomfortable with that, though.

The other mechanism would allow the veto only on some threshold of support demonstrated and again your country's existing petition structure might serve.

In both of these instances one of the outcomes would be that the people would have a direct responsibility to protect each other and their fundamental values; and a means of doing so. To me that is a very positive thing because it is obvious that leaving our protection in the hands of others is not working too well