Democracy is failing us.. What next? - opening a discussion
Chakuwi | 07.02.2004 12:45 | Oxford
Representative democracy does not represent. There are no popular checks on those who sit in parliament; the media are either corrupt or cowed down. The law now allows us all to be termed terrorist. This is far from the democratic ideal that I hold.
What is a possible solution?
What is a possible solution?
British Democracy is failing us. (did it ever really work?)
Representative democracy does not represent. There are no popular checks on those who sit in parliament; the media are either corrupt or cowed down. The law now allows us all to be termed terrorist. I admit we are not yet living under a full dictatorship such as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin's Russia or even Saddam’s Iraq, but this is still far from the democratic ideal that I hold. I don't want to live in a system that only supports the interests of the rich, the arms dealers, the environmental destroyers and the imperialist warmongers.
What is a possible solution?
Some have said it’s a new politic party... Do they think this will work? Respect Coalition is just another SWP front group that is doomed to failure through lack of internal democracy.. Just like the Socialist Alliance. The many other small irrelevant parties are similarly weak... even the Green party or Scottish Socialist party won't hardly make much of a mark in a system deliberately stacked against them.
It is also worth wondering whether power is what we really want after all. Do we want others to be corrupted by its influence? Do we want to look like Blair, tiered warn out, crazed eyes?
A better solution in my mind is to think like the Zapatistas - don't seek power, but seek to change the nature of power.
I'm happy to let someone like Blair do all the hard bureaucratic work if he wants to but I want him to do so through genuine representation and participatory democratic means. There is no legitimate government except one based on consent and participation. It therefore follows that we need to flip this system upside down. Real power must be with ordinary people, empowered and participating in all decisions that affect their lives.
No surprises we've heard this before, in fact there are many more radical and utopian ideas. But recognising that Utopias are unattainable dreams that should nevertheless be aimed for in everything we do, it seems to me that we can support an ideal while pressuring for more moderate but significant changes to our system. Changes forced through from the bottom up not by taking power.
Even small changes can have big effects: Proportional representation could allow many more ideas to be opened up for discussion... voting Green, Socialist or Monster Raving Looney party will no longer be a protest vote once every 5 years. Abolish Corporate funding for political parties, put them on the level playing field by making membership the only source of finance. Make it illegal for our government to us British troops for wars outside of our country. Get rid of the monarchy. Much more decentralised power and recall powers to stop representatives not representing. Referendums on every international trade agreement we sign. [These are only some quick suggestions]
A suggestion for discussion therefore:
A platform of active political non-cooperation to force democratic changes on this government. In the last election the clear winner was those who didn't vote (some 40%)- we were told they were apathetic - why not start a high profile Ballot spoiling campaign --> everyone writes "Democracy please" or "democracy Now." Whatever people want but make sure that it is obvious that we are standing on a united platform for democratic change not isolated angry people. Link these spoilt ballots with a set of immediately achievable improvements to our system decided democratically through an anti-authoritarian network.
All the non-hierarchical means that we have could be used for this program, we could even use it as part of the dissent network idea - Uniting around what we agree on and diversifying on what we don't.
Just because we have our own utopias does not mean we shouldn't engauge with the political system that we live in. We should just do so on our own terms.
Ps. this is not a polished program for change its a suggestion for a discussion starting point
Representative democracy does not represent. There are no popular checks on those who sit in parliament; the media are either corrupt or cowed down. The law now allows us all to be termed terrorist. I admit we are not yet living under a full dictatorship such as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin's Russia or even Saddam’s Iraq, but this is still far from the democratic ideal that I hold. I don't want to live in a system that only supports the interests of the rich, the arms dealers, the environmental destroyers and the imperialist warmongers.
What is a possible solution?
Some have said it’s a new politic party... Do they think this will work? Respect Coalition is just another SWP front group that is doomed to failure through lack of internal democracy.. Just like the Socialist Alliance. The many other small irrelevant parties are similarly weak... even the Green party or Scottish Socialist party won't hardly make much of a mark in a system deliberately stacked against them.
It is also worth wondering whether power is what we really want after all. Do we want others to be corrupted by its influence? Do we want to look like Blair, tiered warn out, crazed eyes?
A better solution in my mind is to think like the Zapatistas - don't seek power, but seek to change the nature of power.
I'm happy to let someone like Blair do all the hard bureaucratic work if he wants to but I want him to do so through genuine representation and participatory democratic means. There is no legitimate government except one based on consent and participation. It therefore follows that we need to flip this system upside down. Real power must be with ordinary people, empowered and participating in all decisions that affect their lives.
No surprises we've heard this before, in fact there are many more radical and utopian ideas. But recognising that Utopias are unattainable dreams that should nevertheless be aimed for in everything we do, it seems to me that we can support an ideal while pressuring for more moderate but significant changes to our system. Changes forced through from the bottom up not by taking power.
Even small changes can have big effects: Proportional representation could allow many more ideas to be opened up for discussion... voting Green, Socialist or Monster Raving Looney party will no longer be a protest vote once every 5 years. Abolish Corporate funding for political parties, put them on the level playing field by making membership the only source of finance. Make it illegal for our government to us British troops for wars outside of our country. Get rid of the monarchy. Much more decentralised power and recall powers to stop representatives not representing. Referendums on every international trade agreement we sign. [These are only some quick suggestions]
A suggestion for discussion therefore:
A platform of active political non-cooperation to force democratic changes on this government. In the last election the clear winner was those who didn't vote (some 40%)- we were told they were apathetic - why not start a high profile Ballot spoiling campaign --> everyone writes "Democracy please" or "democracy Now." Whatever people want but make sure that it is obvious that we are standing on a united platform for democratic change not isolated angry people. Link these spoilt ballots with a set of immediately achievable improvements to our system decided democratically through an anti-authoritarian network.
All the non-hierarchical means that we have could be used for this program, we could even use it as part of the dissent network idea - Uniting around what we agree on and diversifying on what we don't.
Just because we have our own utopias does not mean we shouldn't engauge with the political system that we live in. We should just do so on our own terms.
Ps. this is not a polished program for change its a suggestion for a discussion starting point
Chakuwi
Comments
Hide the following 20 comments
Important debate . . .
07.02.2004 13:52
I'm currently working on a load of political & economic proposals to try and get some constructive debate going. A summary so far:
> Representatives must be recallable. This is a far more democratic approach to holding representatives to account than 'rule-by-referendum', where the rulers pick the question asked (see Lord Hutton) and the corporate media has extraordinary filtering power.
> The 'vote-for-a-manifesto' system is clearly designed to limit democratic expression to the minimum. Although supposedly presenting a set of coherent, complimentary policies; voters are forced to accept the program they most agree with, but cannot influence specific policies, even with record demonstrations (see Feb 15th).
> Political parties are fundamentally undemocratic; candidates are vetted before they stand, independents are reduced to single-issue campaigning as they have little power outside of a major party. Representatives loyalties must lie to the party leader and not their electorate, or they are punished, see the whipping system, what happened to George Galloway etc...
>More Participatory democracy is desirable, but largely impossible under the current debt-financed economy, where each generation is necessarily in more debt than the last, i.e. tied to future income, and so tied to work as much as possible. Economic reform is essential, perhaps along the lines suggested by Michael Rowbotham in 'The Grip of Death'.
>I am coming to the opinion that incremental but genuine changes are preferable tp revolutionary ones. This will no doubt trigger cries of 'status quo loving liberal' or 'closet capitalist'. If a would-be revolutionary could explain how a country such as Britain that is dependent on imports to feed its population could have an anti-capitalist revolution and avoid mass famine, I might change my mind.
>The Zapatista approach is very interesting. Generally revolutions seek to seize power, not to change it's nature. Bottom-up change is the only way to greater democracy, as any centralised power will tend to take, not give, almost automatically.
>Most people i talk to who are pissed off with Tony Blair will not vote New Labour, but are hardly convinced by the Tories or Lib Dems. People want democracy but have no faith in the present system. A mass election-boycott campaign coupled with some workable proposals could drain the legitimacy from our government and force meaningful change. A positive example in one country could lead to a rippling effect, but distinct from Communism etc... the Economic proposals of Michael Rowbotham and the Political measures outlined above can stand alone in one country, yet be integrated into the rest of the world whilst reducing poverty and increasing democracy domestically.
>Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, the 'major' voices in the anti-war movement (largely self-appointed leaders), are not seeking to change the system, merely to control it. That is what the respect-unity coalition is about; new oligarchs, not democracy.
(When i've put all my thoughts together i'll get them up here, theres still a lot of detail to flesh-out. I don't want to create a manifesto of my own, but to demonstrate that there is a plausible alternative system; and where there is one, there are others, which open debate will discover and refine better than any one individual could).
DEMOCRACY IN THE UK!
TG
just found this
07.02.2004 17:17
Chakuwi
Why vote?
07.02.2004 18:33
I don't agree with our so-called democratic system, but that hasn't stopped me from campaigning in local, national and euro elections. The only way to gain access to the routes of decision-making that politicians have used to turn this country into a globally active, discriminatory, polluting self-serving corporation is by working from within (working in the belly of the devil).
Having been a local Councillor, and having friends in the Scottish Parliament, European Parliament, GLA and local authorities, I can confirm it is possible to change from within if you really want to.
It's time more people had the courage to vote, rather than dismissing our poor excuse for a democracy. I used to say (during local elections) if every person who said they would vote for me if I could win actually voted, then I would win (and I did!). Not being a Councillor for the last 2 years has really proved to me how possible it is to change things from the inside - all it needs is healthy cynicism, the ability to ask "why", an a large dose of honesty.
Everyone should use their vote before it's taken away!
Elise
Use your Vote
07.02.2004 18:42
Whatever other forms your political activity takes, it is your responsibility to cast your ballot in every election. However compromised, the vote is a real source of power, and it is an act of criminal irresponsibility to not use it.
The only interests served by your refusing to vote is the status quo. You must calculate the best possible recipient of your vote.
Now, I want to make people who read the original post aware of something. The British State is waging a campaign of disinformation against RESPECT, central to which is spreading the rumour that this is "another SWP front". There is real fear in the security services that in an election like the European elections where turn out is low, a mobilized and energized Left turning out to vote for Respect, will win a number of seats.
At the same time, New Labour also would prefer those of us who have come to loathe them, to stay at home, rather than to vote tactically for whichever Lib Dem or Green or Respect candidate seems most likely to win.
The disinformation merchants will try to ensnare you by what they think is your own ideology, by mouthing the jargon of anarchism. In typical fashion, as above, they layer two or three posts which purport to be from different people, in order to generate 'buzz' around their agenda.
But reject this attempt to "suggest" that you should not vote, and that we of the centre and left who opposed the war should distrust each other more than we do the British state. Look them over Respect, look over the Lib Dems, look over the Greens, and use your vote as best you can. Keep up all other kinds of political activity you like, but always vote. Too much was sacrificed for that right.
Bronterre O'Brien
'Rollocks
07.02.2004 21:04
I will finish this comment by saying Michael Howard is a Prick. 'Big Tone' I don't really have a vies on. Some people are just being pedantic with him recently. He hasn't sent armed police on protesters like the Tories.
No to go and hack someone who just 'pinged' my computer, while listening to Iron Maiden.
Brian
Voting is counterproductive
07.02.2004 21:05
Comments such as "Not voting is dictatorship by the back door" and "It is the height of airyfairy nonsense to talk about spoiling the ballot, or refusing to vote." are merely Status Quo affirming propaganda.
The swing needed for a new party to emerge and take power would be huge, as no-one votes for a party that won't win, meaning there has to be a sudden shift in public attitudes. This would be such a huge shift it would be truly revolutionary, and yet all that optimism would simply leave a new party in power with no way of holding THEM to account.
Democracy means so much more than a vote every 4 or 5 years for pre-vetted party political candidates. At the very least there needs to be a way to recall representatives by petition, e.g. from half way through their term like Venezuela.
My problem with the respect-unity coalition is not with them, or some British State propaganda as is implied. It is that, should they get elected, the only way the electorate can actually get make them deliver on their manifesto policies is to threaten to vote Tory or New Labour or Lib Dem five years later, that'd scare 'em.
I acknowledge that some good work can be done 'from within', but with a view to what? Surely the point of this is to bring about meaningful change, which the present system structuarly inhibits.
VOTING SUPPORTS THE STATUS QUO. DON'T VOTE, DEMAND RECALLABLE DELEGATES.
TG
What rubbish!
07.02.2004 21:44
If people seriously believe that the secret state is so scared of 'Respect' that they are the ones reponsible for spreading the 'lie" about the coalition being an SWP front then they should see a doctor 'cos they have a dillusional personality disorder.
As for the "not voting" rubbish being an afront to people and dictatorship by the back door - what unthought out reactionary rubbish. Do you have any semblence of anti-authoritarian radical analysis in your brains at all? And why are you posting this on indymedia?
A Nonny Mouse
Use your vote
07.02.2004 23:28
Those who write about "rubbish", "absolute trash", "delusional personality disorder", "reactionary rubbish", and then mouth meaningless cant about "anti-authoritarian radical analysis" while offering absolutely no arguments whatsoever, do need to think a bit harder about what they are doing here.
The great mistake of leftish people in the United States in 2000 was to think that it really didn't matter-- that both parties were corporate shells, that big money ran Gore, that they could just cast abstain, destroy their ballots, cast their protest votes for Nader, or stay home smoking spliff on election day. The end result was Bush, and the most reactionary and dangerous regime imaginable.
There may be a few delusional people who believe that the revolution is at hand, that the state can be smashed through non-cooperation, that all you need is to bellow loudly, wear sandals eat lentils, beat a drum and wear some bright clothes and the walls of Babylon will come tumbling down. That if we get "non-hierarchical" and "anti-authority", somehow things will change just like that.
Unfortunately that won't work. Change comes in strange increments, and you have to fight for it at every possible level, through your friendships, work and home environment, trade unions, churches, talking to your kids' friends' parents, writing letters, petitions, marching, demonstrating, doing NVDA AND voting.
Voting not because you believe in any of the candidates or parties as the solution in themselves. But voting because there are difference between the options, and because once in a bloody five years you can shake things a little.
I don't know about you, as far as I am concerned Blair and New Labour have to be humbled. They've got to be punished for their betrayal of their core voters on every kind of domestic and foreign policy issue. The only way to destroy Blair and to give space to more Left interests within the Labour Party is to give Labour a bruising in elections. Its not a question of voting OR more radical kinds of political action-- it is voting AND every possible kind of struggle.
(And why do you think it so crazy that the secret state engages in spreading disinformation about entities it considers as enemies of the state? That's what they are paid to do, and have done systematically throughout the last 80 years, from the Zinoviev letter to the smear that Galloway had taken oil money from Saddam. )
Julian Harney
Vote with pride
08.02.2004 00:19
Charlotte
Waking Life
08.02.2004 02:44
We saw it all through the 20th century, and now in the 21st century its time to stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze, we should not submit to dehumanization!
I don’t know about you but I’m concerned with what’s happening in this world I’m concerned with destruction. I’m concerned with the systems of control, those that seek to control my life and those that seek to control it, even more. I want freedom! That’s what I want and that’s what you should want!
Its up to each and every one of us to turn loose of just some of the greed, the hatred, the envy and yes the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control, make us feel pathetic, small so we’ll willingly give our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny.
We have got to realize we’re being conditioned on a mass scale; start challenging this corporate slave state!
The 21st century is gonna be a new century, not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance and classism and stateism and all the rest of the modes of control.
It’s gonna be the age of human kind standing up for some thing pure and something right. Not a bunch of garbage liberal democrat conservative republican, its all there to control you, two sides of the same coin, two management teams gaining for the CEO job of slavery incorporated.
The truth is out there in front of you but they lay out this buffet of lies, I’m sick of it and I’m not gonna take a bite out of, do you got me?!? Resistance is not futile, we’re gonna win this thing, human kind is too good! We’re not a bunch of underachievers!
We’re gonna stand up and be human beings, we’re gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter; creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit! Well that’s it; that’s all I got to say. I’ll see you in court."
Alex Jones
Vote with intelligent anger
08.02.2004 16:08
If you hate Blair, Blunkett, Hoon, Straw, Mandelson, the whole corrupt New Labour show, bombing children, invading countries, collaborating with US imperialism, selling out to the corporations, fees for universities, privatizing the NHS-- you have to hit them where it hurts: in the ballot box.
Voting won't create utopia, it doesnt remove the needs for all other kinds of political activity. But until New Labour gets a severe bruising in the polls, the Left and Centre of the Labour Party have little room for manoeuvre.
As far as I am concerned it is RESPECT all the way in the European elections, although Lib Dems in some cases, Green in others will be better options. If we can turn that even a fraction of that tide of antiwar movement of last year into votes in the European elections for non, we will give strength and courage to rebels within Labour, we can shake the political system. There are those who say there are too many SWP types in RESPECT-- my own feeling is who cares? There were lots of SWP types on February 15 last year, and there will be in every thing which the extra-parliamentary opposition does in Britain. The SWP are difficult to deal with, tiresome sometimes, but they are part of our family, and they are wonderful organizers and hard workers. If we are serious about a united left opposition, we have to work with them.
What the Right and the State want is DIVIDE AND RULE -- divide et impera -- split the left up into dozens of trivial little factions which hate and distrust each other more than they do the opposition. We must work together and build a united opposition. For me, the best vehicle, at least for the next year is RESPECT.
Black Dwarf
Complete misunderstanding as usual
08.02.2004 16:40
In fact I am suggesting the opposite.
1.We create a platform - i.e. a number of points for change (see above for some suggestions -this process must be entierly democratic and decentralised)
2.We agree to associate this with a specific phrase e.g. "Real Democracy!"
3.We encourage a national campaign whereby people spoil their ballots with this phrase. (1,000s or even millions of people voting for "real Democracy" will be noticed!!)
4.This is coupled with other actions to raise awareness of the failing of our democracy.
5.Through this a mass movement similar in size to the Anti-war or countryside alliance movement develops. By sheer numbers we are delegitimising government power and thus forcing them to change the democracy structures.
6.This movement through mass ballot spoiling acts like an "anti-party" - it is a program for change with out any hierarchies or leadership, no one is seeking power they are simply asking for the nature of that power to change and become genuinely accountable to people in this country.
WHY? because the system of "democracy" we live under is fatally flawed and an insult to all those people who fought so hard for the vote. I agree always vote, simply not voting is an insult to history, but I am trying to raise a debate about the viability of subverting that voting system so that it can be more democratic not less.
This is civil disobedience. A ridiculous pipedream maybe... but not a status quo supporting "dictatorship from the back door".
Ps. I don't remember being a MI5 opperative sent to indymedia to depoliticise everyone and spread rumours about Respect. Maybe I have a chip in my Brain that I don't know about whch is controlling how I think?!!
I'd vote for Respect if it was a coalition, a real united left Party. But its not, Its George Galloway and the SWP!!
Chakuwi
Cats among pidgeons
08.02.2004 19:38
I don't think Galloway is lying or an idiot. I think he is a man of great personal courage, and has called many things right when others in his party pussyfooted around. I wouldn't imagine that you are comfortable with his defence of Palestine, for example?
And where you wrote "He said he was dissapointed with being kicked out of the Labour party, yet he hated Tony Blair. Why would he want to stay in a party, that was in his opinion, had a leader and cabinet that was lie and a sham", did it ever occur to you that for Galloway and many of us the Labour Party belongs to us and not to the Blairite pirates who have seized command of the vessel?
The unbalanced fury of your attack makes you want to add you to my "Disinformation" file.
But to return to the main theme, I'd just like to add my voice to some of those above: Vote, Use your vote, don't spoil your vote.
Doc for Spock
hit them where it hurts?
08.02.2004 23:15
> show, bombing children, invading countries, collaborating with US imperialism,
> selling out to the corporations, fees for universities, privatizing the NHS-- you
> have to hit them where it hurts: in the ballot box.
Well of course, if you *only* have a problem with New Labour, you could hit them at the ballot box.
But if it's the whole system you have a problem with, you have to hit them where it *really* hurts - on the streets, in our workplaces and communities.
active nonvoter
Fight and Vote
09.02.2004 10:00
But the key thing is not to squander any real bit of leverage one has: the vote is a form of power, however circumscribed: unleash that power for progressive ends
Active voter
Its Interesting,
09.02.2004 11:27
Those defending the vote would surely like it to have more power, to be able to hold candidates to account? This is what my proposals about recallable candidates were about.
Its all very well stating that 'our ancestors died fighting for the right to vote' - what do you think the Suffragettes or the Chartists would be doing today if they had seen how meaningless the vote had become? They would seek further democracy, something surely only those with power, or aspirations of power, would oppose.
There are two problems here.
The narrow problem is who is in power. Most people on Indymedia would probably prefer the government to pursue an agenda closer to Respect or the Greens, as opposed to neoliberalism and war. So we have a problem with who holds power. However, even a massive 20% swing from New Labour to Respect would make Michael Howard Prime Minister, as a direct result of the present party-manifesto electoral system. This leads to problem no.2:
The wider problem is the nature of power. Whoever is in power, the structure of the system creates clearly visible consequences. For instance, the party-manifesto system presents an all-or-nothing proposal to the electorate. If you want to be 'tough on crime', you vote Tory; but what if you have no problem with immigrants? The present system makes it inevitable that parties make a small number of 'soundbite' pledges to grab votes, then use that mandate to do whatever they please. As candidates are not recallable, there is no punishment for lying candidates. Therefore over a period of 8 - 12 years the electorate slowly forgets the corruptness of the main opposition and assumes them to be less deceitfull and self-serving than the government of the day, and the two factions swap places. Nothing that noticable changes. Domestic policy does vary slightly as a result of elections but foreign policy doesn't miss a step.
This makes a mockery of the concept of our society being a democracy. At best it is electoral-oligarchy. Really it is a form of totalitarian government. That sounds extreme, but consider the meaning: totalitarian governments are not defined by brutality or repression of their own population. They are often charicterised by these things, as unchecked power does as it pleases, but they are defined by a massive centralisation of power. The present electoral process barely decentralises any power to the electorate at all. I am not saying voting is a bad thing, merely that it is hugely inferior to the democracy I want.
If we really want to honour those who sacrificed so much to win the vote at all, then we need to build upon their legacy.
TG
Let us focus on the next four months
09.02.2004 12:00
In neither of these is it true that "even a massive 20% swing from New Labour to Respect would make Michael Howard Prime Minister". That can only happen in a General Election when MPs are chosen for Westminister.
The European elections are on June 10. Let us focus on these. Let us be optimistic, and experiment with organizing massive support for Respect. If they win then we can see what happens-- if they fail us, we arent worse off than we would have been anyway. But even just strong support for non-labour candidates will send tremors through the political system and give room for an internal struggle within Labour. The point is not 'winning', it is tilting the political equilibrium in our direction through showing that the Left is not just about colourful one day marches in London, or scattered strikes or protests, but is serious about pressing for power.
Look, its nice to talk in dreamy ways about how nice it would be to be able to recall our representatives when they fail us. But that's not the system we have at the moment. It is our responsibility to strain with the system to achieve progressive ends. As others said, the choice is not to vote or to struggle, but to struggle AND to vote and maybe even to use the vote as a means of struggle.
Piper
Point Taken
09.02.2004 17:56
The very nature of our political system is reponsible for many of the problems people have with it, because it predetermines certain outcomes such as power blocks (parties) who's loyalties lie to the centre and not to the electorate. Ultimately Respect is the same in this, er, respect. I would much prefer a respect/green government to the current one, but this does not solve the underlying problems. Same with John Kerry in the US; should he become the Democratic candidate and defeat Bush he may well improve US policy; but I'll believe it when I see it.
I also think its dangerous to slip into the trap of defining yourself, 'us' or whoever as 'the left'. Obviously this term is understood and describes a broad group of people; but it subscribes to the one dimensional left-right paradigm of establishment politics.
Political beliefs are empiracally at least 2 dimensional, left-right describing the role role of markets and economic equality and up-down describing the strentgh of the State, with fascism at the top and anarchism at the bottom. In this way it can be seen that an anarchist probably has more in common with a small-government centrist Tory than with an authoritarian Stalinist (or Trotskyist) lefty (hence the constant sniping at the SWP from our libertarian comrades).
Beware of established paradigms, they are invisible prisons that guide and confine thoughts more effectively than the sexiest sexing-up the State can muster. Conventional views of money and orthodox economics are another example of this willful blindness, but thats another story . . . (see Rowbotham, M, 'The Grip of Death' for a good debunking of this particular paradigm).
Its true Respect may gain seats in non-general elections in a way that takes power from more environmentally plundering neoliberal imperialist warmongers, which from my point of view is a good thing. However, this would mean replacing oligarchs I disgree with with ones I agree with. It may put a smile on my face, but that doesn't constitute democracy. Another proposal; lower than 50% turnout? No candidate is returned. Don't be afraid of Democracy, its OURS (as in everyones).
TG
agreed
09.02.2004 19:15
I also want to make it clear that I had the general election in mind for the idea in question. Not only are the local/European elections slightly more democratic, i.e. we can win seats, but they are also too soon to have any hope of a successful mobilisation against them.
I wanted to add an example of the weakness I see (agreeing with TG): Take the example of electoral reform. Both Labour and the Lib dems, and the SDP before have stood on a platform of electoral reform. They supported Proportional Representation (a workable form not like Italy or Isreal). But once in power they drop this position, it would be ridiculous for them to implement it. They have been successful in first past the post hence it is now biased in their favour. If the last election was done through PR labour would have no where near the majority it has now and would thus be much more accountable. It would also encourage the growth of new parties and ideas so we wouldn't have to constantly vote for change through these two institutionalised monsters.
Chakuwi
The Protest Vote Party changing the nature of politics
26.04.2005 17:26
The Protest Vote Party is new and emerging, born like so many new parties registered with the Electoral Commission out of a frustration that the British people were not being listened to by their politicians.
As a political party we do not seek power in out own right, we have a unique approach.
We have one main objective – to make MP’s listen more to their constituents and less to their party hierarchy.
To achieve this aim our method is very simple – we give the voter the opportunity to reject all candidates sitting in their constituency - the right to vote “None of the Above”. When a Protest Vote Party candidate wins an election they will resign after sitting their first day in Parliament.
Any sitting MP’s who ignore their constituents could find themselves cast out of Parliament when a Protest Vote Party candidate stands against them – regardless of whether they are a backbencher, minister or a shadow minister. We believe that the public have the right to say:
“Sorry, but none of the candidates are good enough to represent me. You are not who I want. I don’t know enough about any of them to give them the power to vote on laws that critically affect me and my family.”
The Protest Vote Party will not normally put forward a candidate in a by-election its resignation creates. It will only stand again if one of the main UK parties fields an ex-MP who was rejected by voters at the last General Election, or a candidate who has lost to a Protest Vote Party candidate since the last General Election.
In essence this means that any sitting MP or party candidate who does not command the trust and respect of their constituents could find themselves out of Parliament for a whole parliamentary period.
We aim to stand in up to 100 seats in the next election, half of them chosen at random. All MP's of the next parliament, regardless of party, will have to create a rapport with their constituents, acting on constituents requests, voting in line with constituents wishes (irrespective of the party whip). If they do not, they personally risk losing to a Protest Vote Party candidate at the next election even if they are in a 'safe' party seat. That personal risk is what will re-address the balance between loyalty to the party and loyalty to the constituents. That is the true strength of the Protest Vote Party and why we are attracting such cross party support.
As a newly formed party we are fighting just one seat this election due to a lack of time and resources but as previously stated, we aim to put forward up to 100 candidates at the next election. The seat we are fighting is Arundel & South Downs, infamous for being the constituency where Michael Howard personally sacked and de-selected Deputy Chairman Howard Flight against the local party’s wishes. There is a lot of anger in the constituency at his intervention. We are giving local voters the opportunity to pass judgement on Michael Howard’s actions without them having to vote for one of the opposing main parties in this 7th safest Conservative seat. It is a seat we believe we can win.
More information is available on our website www.ProtestVoteParty.org
It would be appreciated if you would read our manifesto, available on the website, and comment on it.
Best Regards,
Mark Stack
Protest Vote Party Leader
Email:
The Protest Vote Party
Room 221
91 Western Road
Brighton
BN1 2NW
Mark Stack
e-mail:
Leader@ProtestVoteParty.org
Homepage:
http://www.ProtestVoteParty.org