(no subject)

[avevale_intelligencer]

This post, by fjm, is quite short and worth a look.

I know that as a member of the human race in the developed Western world in the twenty-first century I'm supposed to believe that democracy is, if not an ideal, at very least the least worst political system we've come up with yet. The worst except for all the others, as somebody clever once said. And now, as we head back into four or eight or eighteen more years of hell under the Tories, with this budget a clear signal of what's ahead, I'm looking at the results of democracy and thinking maybe Genghis Khan wasn't so bad.

Of course, this election wasn't pure democracy in action. There was media manipulation, there were irregularities, and when it comes down to it we're not a democracy, we're an oligarchy whose oligarchs play musical chairs for our amusement every four years. And yet, reading the article fjm links to, and considering the bleak conclusion drawn from it, I have to accept that there are people in this country who truly believe that civilisation is only for the rich and privileged, and that they have votes. And that there are more of them than there are of me. It's like making a gang of bullies and their victim vote on who should get the lunch money.

And not all my well-intentioned, egalitarian, see-both-sides fair-play-chaps all-on-the-same-team insert-stupid-cliché-here liberalness can make that seem right to me.

Theoretically, yes, everyone should get a vote. I believe that and so do you. But can anyone doubt that the ultimate dream of the people now running this country, the forbidden vision they hug to themselves late at night, the one they don't think they'll ever manage but gosh wouldn't it be scrummy, is to take even that away from us? They know they can't fool us for ever. They know the other lot will have to get back in sooner or later. If only...

Oh come on Zander, you cry. You've been at the sherbet again. Democracy has been a grand tradition with us for, well, just over a century now, since we got rid of the robber buttons and made the whole system look almost completely fair. How could such a time-honoured custom be stripped away? You were wrong, you point out shrewdly, about Bush's lot. They let Obama get voted in. Obviously they have more respect for democracy than you (meaning me) thought. And this lot have made a firm commitment to look at alternative voting methods, otherwise Nick Clegg and the LibDems would never have got into their pocket--er, I mean, on to their bandwagon.

Well maybe. I'll believe that last one when PR, or something like it, actually becomes law.

But look at what they're doing now.

Look at what they did last time.

And give it a year, and then tell me I was wrong.

Tell me that people who think single parents don't deserve the support they need to live and bring up their children should have a vote.

Tell me that people who think the unemployed and the low-paid deserve to live in poverty should have a vote.

Tell me that people who secretly don't think I should have a vote (because I'm not working, because I don't have children, because I have long hair, because I'm not a Christian, because I've never served in the armed forces, because I'm fat, because I look Jewish...all right, that last might be going a bit far for this lot, but a few changes of leadership down the line and who knows) should have a vote.

Tell me that democracy is worth this. Because I'm finding it hard to keep on believing that.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

We have never had democracy. Actually, I don't know any country which has (the 'democracy' proclaimed by Greece a couple of thousand years ago was built on slaves who didn't get a vote). But anyway, as you have noticed, 'democracy' is nothing more than "I've got the biggest gang". PR is no better (especially in the 'pure' form where you only vote for a party and they decide which people they want in the government).

Bring back Genghis Khan? OK, he was at least honest about it (if you were with him you got treated well (by the standards of that society) and if you were against him you got killed).

However, blaming the Condems[1] is not entirely fair. It was the previous government who spent on wars and "jobs for the boys" (and were still doing it up to when they got kicked out) and borrowed so that we can't even start to service the debt. You can argue that this one is still not targetting the "right people", and I'll agree (there should be an absolute block on higher managers getting 'bonus' payments when their companies or departments have failed, and that goes especially for the bankers), but the truth is that without massive cuts the country would be bankrupt quickly.

[1] I'm not sure who came up with that name. I think it appropriate, however, in several ways.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

No, I think it's entirely fair. Labour have been following Tory-lite policies, with very few exceptions, since they came to power in 1997, and I blame that on the previous Tory government who managed to engineer a climate of fear among the voters such that becoming Tories-lite was the only way Labour could hope to get in. (Note: I am not yet so deep in lunacy as to suppose that Blair actually was a closet Tory...not on my good days anyway.) This lot have certainly traded on that effect ("Labour will raaaaise your taaaaxess....") to swing whatever majority they could get, and having got in are doing exactly what they were going to do anyway. I don't know what "the truth" is about the country's finances, beyond what common sense tells me (the rest of the world's in a mess, therefore we must be too), but while I might trust the leader of a genuinely committed Socialist government if s/he told me this was the only solution (because I would know they had considered everything else first), I wouldn't trust this lot to tell me the sun was shining, let alone that kicking the poor in the teeth and giving tax breaks to bloated corporations was (surprise surprise) the only solution to our problems.

But my most poisonous blame is reserved for Clegg and the LibDems, for going back on his given word (and thus proving himself just another bloody politician), for delivering us into the hands of the enemy, and for breaking my last shred of faith in our or any other political system.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"But my most poisonous blame is reserved for Clegg and the LibDems, for going back on his given word (and thus proving himself just another bloody politician)"

Hang on... What "given word" has he gone back on?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

The quote was in a Private Eye which I've since chucked out, but it was at some sort of meeting of his supporters and was basically "Will I ever be part of a Conservative government? No." Difficult to finesse that.

Those who believe in the democratic process might say that it was an unwise commitment to make and showed a lamentable failure to grasp the basic principles of political expediency. I think, based on subsequent events, it was a lie.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well since I don't have access to the source, I dunno what to make of that.

I thought you might have been referring to one of the umpteen instances in the run up to the election where the press tried toget him to say which side he definitely would / definitely wouullndn't make a coalition with, and he confined himself to bleedin' obvious statements of basic common sense such as "well, if one party gets nearly a majority but not quite, and some other party comes second, and Labour, having just come from running the country for 13 years, end up coming a distant third [unspoken: Which we all know damn well won't happen, you idiots! The only party *other* than Labour with a cat's chance in hell of coming second is us, and with the best will in the world *we won't manage it*, but we all know I can't come out and say that at this time], then I certainly won't go running to make a coalition with the party that came third." And the media jumped on that, saying "He says he won't work with Labour/Gordon Brown!". And then cried foul when, after having got surprisingly good results from negotiating (as he was bound to do) first with the Tories, he then went and had a chat with Labour to see what they were offering. (By which time, of course, Labour had realised they'd be wiser to sit this one out, and thus they handed the victory to the Conservatives. If they'd made at least *some* pretence at wanting to make a go of it with the Cleggies, it might have scared the Tories into granting the LibDems a bit more "reigning in" power. =:o{ )

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, with the best will in the world, I don't see that he was bound to negotiate with the Tories at all, even if he hadn't given a categorical assurance that he wouldn't. Though I can see how the Liberal Party's first chance at an actual sniff of power since Labour came into being might be persuasive. And after all, principles are outmoded.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Principles are precisely why he had to go to them first! You can't legitimately argue the case for PR from a position of having just blatantly ignored what the current result *would have been* under the system you're proposing! The Tories didn't just win the most seats this time, they actually got the most *votes*. Whichever way you slice it, they were the party with the strongest right to form the core of the new government, and therefore the ones that Clegg had to talk to first if the Lib Dems were to get any legitimacy or traction in achieving their objectives.

Add to this the practical fact that even if LibDem and Labour *had* made a go of it, they *still* needed to scrounge up more seats from other parties to actually form a government, and I just cannot see how how you can fault Clegg for taking the route he took.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't want to fight with anyone about this, so let's call it another of my "stupid idea lenses":

A political party which manifestly regards the majority of the people of their country as disposable serfs, created by God to toil for their masters' enrichment and then die quietly, should not be allowed to govern that country no matter how many of the serfs they may trick into voting for them, because they will not govern it fairly and they will not govern it well. Also (must be a varifocal) a political party whose professed ideology is in diametrical opposition to the above should not enable the first party to gain power no matter what promises they think they can exact in return, because they will be cheated.

You may say that that's how all political parties regard us, to which I can only say "true, and your point?" None of them is fit to govern. Something new is needed.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I've posted before on my disbelief in "democracy".

In its purest form, it says that someone that "has always voted Labour, and will do so again next election" has an equal say with someone who has spent days researching the issues, talking to the candidates, joining a party and assisting in changing their manifestos etc.

And it says that voting allows us to have a say in what our government does in our name with our money.

Here's a poor analogy. Once every four years I get to stand at the bus stop and wait for the Red Bus (which goes close to where I want to go, but costs a lot of money, and seems to change destination once I am on board), the Blue Bus (which says it will be cheaper, but zooms past the poorer areas with the doors locked) or the Yellow Bus (which has a great sounding route, but somehow never turns up) ... and now the Blue and Yellow Bus companies are running a service together, which doesn't go along the route that either of them offered separately, and once we're onboard, they are doubling the ticket price), and we, the passengers, don't get to get off or try the Red Bus for another four years.

We're not driving, we're not setting the routes, we're not setting the fares, and it's damned uncomfortable in here (and the best we'll get is "it would be worse on the Red Bus") ...

And I've never lived in an area where there wasn't a "safe" majority, and always for the candidate I would not vote for.

And while I don't disagree with your worries about "this lot" ... I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been substantially better under the other lot. Certainly I haven't noticed a world of ponies and puppies for you, The Countess and my other unemployed, disabled, and/or low paid friends under the Labour government.

civilisation is only for the rich and privileged, and that they have votes. And that there are more of them than there are of me
But there's more of "you" (the "un rich and un privileged") then there are of them, and with democracy, "you" should have the power in this case ...

... we can perhaps discuss this more tomorrow :-)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

The ones that bug me are the "unrich and unprivileged" like Jan's father, who vote every time for the people who want to keep them that way. They're the ones who sway the numbers.

Yay for tomorrow!!! (EDIT: and let's not. There are nicer things to talk about.)

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

"One Man, One Vote" -- stand up, pTerry, for the clearest analysis of the concept since the Greeks sort-of invented it.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I'm removing a large part of this because it's based on research and conjecture I don't feel up to defending today. Here's the rest:

They are all Alpha primates and are at least borderline sociopaths.

Obama was elected because these people didn't appreciate the depth of anger toward the far-right in this country -- they didn't appreciate the amount of percentile "fix" they'd have to put in to steal the election as they did in 2000 and 2004. The left-shift moves on. Everything they are trying comes to nothing -- Obama still has a 50% approval rating, and the polls show the Democrats will hold onto their majority in the House and Senate.

For more insight into how they "manage" our respective systems, here's an interview with former Minnesota governor and Independent political activist, Jesse Ventura. He's not particularly eloquent or well-spoken, but he's smart, has a good-heart and is a bona fide war hero and Navy Seal. He discusses how the CIA reacted when he very unexpectedly won the governors race in Minnesota.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

[howeird]

Interesting how Ventura has aged. He looks nothing like his pro wrestler days, or his governor days.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is that we have so much of a -- justified and often necessary -- tradition of picking our politicians' lives apart horribly in public, that anyone who'd voluntarily want to go through that for something probably has an agenda of their own. Distinct and separate from, and often in conflict with, the agenda which would best serve the people who elected them (which is, in its own turn, usually distinct and separate from, and often in conflict with, the agenda those constituents actually prefer of their own choice).

So any politician has at least four separate agendas: the one his people want him to have, the one which would actually be good for his people, the one which will get him re-elected (related to the first, but not identical to it), and the one which was what he wanted so badly he ran for office in order to achieve or obtain it in the first place.

Internal conflicts of interest make for good theatre and lousy public policy.

[howeird]

Just a thought, to take or leave:
One doesn't get to be an MP or Congresscritter without funding. One doesn't get funding without being indebted to one's patron(s). What we have in most of the so-called democracies these days is really a patronocracy (is there an actual word in English for this?). The People™ will never have the means or organizational skills to truly take over a country, something which has been proved by the failed Soviet experiment and the not so gradual slide of the PRC into despotic capitalism.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Funding or other patronage (promises of power, for instance; possibly even promises of support for your pet thing you want to change for the Good Of The People, which is the start of a slippery slope). The patronage isn't always financial, although that's often part of it. In the British system you can either stand as a Independent (if you are independently wealthy) or you have to persuade a party to let you stand as One Of Them. If the party is one of the major ones (i.e. they actually have a chance of getting some people elected) then they will have more candidates than places for them to run so they pick the ones they like best, which pretty much guarantees that you'll have to suck up to them to get any chance. And yes, they will then provide funding and people to promote you, so you will be obligated to them in several ways.

(Even worse, we have the obscene 'whip' system where a party can require all of their MPs to vote one way. I think that has to be the first thing to go in the system, because with it in place PR or any other 'fairer' way of choosing MPs is almost irrelevant.)