Real democracy can only be achieved by getting the consensus view of all the population on every matter, prior to enacting rules, laws, etc. on that matter. Simply to infer "I represent you in the House of Commons. You voted me in, therefore you must be in agreement with all my views on all matters. It just so happens that, for the sake of my political survival, my views exactly match the views which the party whips say I should hold, and therefore I shall vote as I am told by the party", does not constitute any form of democratic system at all, and yet this is what is going on all the time. We have become too familiar with it to see it for what it is. A great big SHAM.
The public can not feel part of a system unless they have some form of direct contact with, and input into, that system. The public can have no respect for a system that does not respect them, and the above paragraph illustrates perfectly the amount of respect shown by the system and its sycophants to us, the general public. We, who pick up the cost of all and every one of their multitudinous peccadilloes and blunders. We, who count for so little that we are not allowed to know where all the money, taken from us, goes, it is a state secret, "security of the Realm" and all that. After they have removed the money from our pockets, almost by force, they then sometimes talk, in a most condescending way, of “spending more Government money” on this or that, as though it had not come out of the publics pocket at all. However, we are told that more money will be taken from us for the “benefit of the country”. Some in direct tax, some in indirect tax, some in the form of "Council tax" or "Poll tax" or whatever name can be used to keep us in a state of doublespeak hypnosis.
Since we have no respect for the system and its sycophantic parasites, we have little in the way of positive expectations of it, or them. Little wonder then that there is hardly a ripple of disapproval when each new political deceit or personal scandal is uncovered. As a result of this lack of public outcry the political freeloaders continue with their deceit, and their illicit schemes, safe in their conviction that a) they will not be found out, b) if they are found out there will be little or no fuss and c) the public will foot the bill anyway.
This word "conviction" is also used in connection with trial by jury and this is just where our salvation lies, in the jury system. Or at least in a governmental system based on the same premise as the jury system.
What is required is a system where the rules, laws, and needs of the people of this country are discussed by true representatives of the people of this country, from all sections of society, not just those individuals out to make a "Career" of politics. When these true representatives of the people come up with one or more possible recommendations then the decision of the people would be sought through a national referendum.
The system could work like this.
We have an existing electoral register from which random selections are currently made for jury service. This ensures that jurors are drawn from right across the different layers of society. The juror has no choice about taking part, it is his duty as a citizen. He is compensated for loss of income and expenses, and he must participate.
We would use the existing register (since there would be no more elections its name would have to be changed !) and from it a computer would randomly select an appropriate number of representatives for "government", be it local, national or European. The administration of justice has for long only required twelve people to ensure an unbiased conclusion, with a larger number of people the unbiased condition must be even more assured.
Since the final decision on any matter will be taken by the people, all we require is a body of people’s representatives with a wide enough cross section of knowledge and experience to put forward and debate all the possible points of view on a matter, so that the pros and cons could be pointed out to the people, and a balanced judgement would then be made, by the people, in the subsequent referendum. These appointed people’s representatives would be from all walks of life and from all levels of education, so that the view expressed would be truly community wide. They would also have to be “older” people with experience of the world and its ways. It is only necessary to look around and see what a complete mess has been made of this country and its industries by inexperienced “whiz kids” out for self enhancement.
Because political parties would no longer be tolerated and would have ceased to exist, there could be a sensible redivision of the country into "national" and "international" "representative constituencies" containing approximately the same numbers of people and from each of these constituencies a computer would randomly select a representative. In the case of the national "government" the number of these could be kept to about half the number of electoral constituencies at the present time. For county and local "governments" the current constituencies could be used after sensibly redrawing them to the satisfaction of local people.
The word "government" used in this context is, in fact, a misnomer, because all that our randomly selected representatives would do, as far as legislation is concerned, would be debate and discuss. The word "Parliament" is more appropriate, because its root is the French word "parler" - to talk. In the case of the national Parliament a number of the representatives would be randomly appointed to various groups and committees, for a variety of purposes, such as controlling and monitoring the performance of the civil service, looking into suggestions emanating from the people, steering our relationship with foreign countries and a host of things currently supposedly monitored by House of Commons committees, in addition to taking part in general debate from time to time. Their findings would be reported to the people and, where necessary, a referendum would ensue.
As far as county and local Parliaments are concerned representatives would be randomly appointed to the various groups and committees that would be necessary, such as "housing", "highways", "planning", "finance" etc. Similar to the present structure but without the politics and with the public making the decisions about its own environment etc.
All representatives would need to be people who had reached maturity, and had no great burning ambition left, and so the minimum age would be say 60. The "appointment" would be for a period of 10 years with the option of stepping down after 5 years. This, coupled with the effect of some premature deaths, would ensure that only about 20% or so of newcomers formed each years intake, and a rolling continuity would ensue.
In practice, after the initial selection following "the revolution", replacements would be selected at random by computer as each vacancy occurred for whatever reason. There would be no need to have a special day or time to do this.
As with the present Parliament a "master of ceremonies" would be needed to keep order, and control "who speaks next", just as the present "Mr. Speaker" does. This person would be elected by representatives who had served at least five years, and would also be a person who had served at least five years. This again would provide rolling continuity and experience, and would apply to all parliaments, national, county and local. Again, as above, this could be done as the vacancy occurred, due to retirement or death.
In order for the peoples better understanding of all the discussion within the various parliaments, the form of speech used would be normal, polite, everyday English. In the national parliament the current inverted question type of jargon would be abolished, along with "my honourable friend" etc. Obviously there would be no place for rudeness and coarseness, but otherwise everyday language would be the norm.
As far as recompense is concerned the representatives would be paid the amount per week/month which they were accustomed to receive, prior to selection, plus x % (for disruption of their lives). This x % would vary depending on whether the person was a national, county, local or European representative. Obviously national and European would necessitate much disruption and so 25% could well be in order. County could be 15% and local 10%. In addition to this they would be able to claim any out of pocket expenses such as travel, meals and refreshment, accommodation etc.
Secretarial and research facilities would be provided by the permanent Civil Service personnel both national and local. Because party politics would no longer exist there would be no need to keep shuffling civil servants about, which again could lead to more continuity and experience.
As far as financing of the system is concerned, it could be wholly supported from the central exchequer, which in turn could be financed from a national taxation scheme (starting off with income tax and VAT until the new system came up with something better). All county and local funds, which could replace the income from the current iniquitous "rates", "poll tax" or whatever, could be supplied by the central exchequer and could be on a "per capita" basis for local services. An exception to this might be the maintenance of roads, which being a "nationally" used asset, could be funded centrally.
Obviously all current legislation would need to be reviewed and submitted to the people for judgement in referenda. In addition to modifying the existing, there will be much new to create, and so a proper regular referendum system will need to be set up. These referenda will need to be held probably monthly and will encompass many matters each month. As a result, should it be so desired, the current procedure used for voting could be used, with an enormous number of new jobs created. ( The reduction of wasted money and the better monetary control at all levels of "administration" would go a long way to pay for these extra jobs.) An alternative way could be to use what is referred to these days as "Information Technology" i.e. computers. A small network of computers could be set up in a "polling station" and could be linked to other polling stations and to a national network, giving results almost "at the close of play". Initially this would be more expensive to set up but once set up it would certainly be the better system and would cost a fraction of the present manual scheme. This system could also be set up to be interactive whereas the current type of system tends to be more of a passive one. The savings could obviously be ploughed back into some other scheme beneficial to the community. The network of computers set up for the National Lottery gives an indication of how swiftly, and smoothly it could all work.
What is needed is for the population of G.B.ltd.co.www to waken up to reality, break free of political doublespeak hypnosis, see what could be in place of what is and set about supporting the notion of True Democracy. The way forward is for the formation of a new “political party” whose sole policy is to get elected with a large enough majority to pass the necessary enabling legislation, set up the appropriate mechanisms and then dissolve the “Mother of Parliaments” for ever, handing over the decisions about everything that influences the lives of the people of this country to the most important people in this country….the people of this country.
It will take a great effort after centuries of inertia, but for the good of the future population of this island it should be done. With luck, the success of True Democracy could well then follow the path of the old Mother of Parliaments, stretch right across the globe, and bring release to those worldwide who are suffering more than we in the U.K.. If we succeed in getting rid of “World Leaders” for good then we shall certainly get rid of war and poverty for good, and, with a bit of luck, a lot of the religious hypocrisy that has held back the true development of the human spirit for thousands of years.
The current view of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country, of whatever previous political persuasion, is that politicians are failing us, ( this could not help but be so,) and with this sort of disenchantment so widespread, the time is now more than over due for a change of system. With the ever increasing torrent of hysterical, harebrained and outrageous desires and whims of the home grown and continental Europhiles our time scale for bringing about change is limited. Should our apathy allow us to be sucked into the morass which has been known variously as the EEC, the EC, the EU etc. then we will never be able to change the system, principally because of the mass of humanity involved. A secondary reason, though, is the even greater political apathy endemic in Europe. (One has only to look back into history to verify this.)
