Home page The Weapon of Mass Destruction in our midst During the English Civil war (1642-1651) the rampant murder, social upheaval and anguish helped to throw many issues into high relief. How to avoid failures of governnance through constitutional reform became well analysed issues. One year Parliaments One of the interesting details of works written by a group who called themselves Levellers was the demand for one year Parliaments. The motivation for this was to prevent duration of power degenerating into an arbitrary force amongst select groups and the inevitable corruption associated with this. At first sight, the idea of one year Parliaments seems to be almost an impossibility in administrative terms, but then that is exactly the point. The Leveller's were not in favour of large administrations. They aimed to prevent the government machine becoming a ship of state whose direction was largely controlled by interest groups and civil servants and which, progressively distanced the population from the Captain's bridge, increasingly confining them below decks. Allowing of course, the public to be free to smell the fresh air again on election day. Political parties stimulate confrontation by discriminating between peoples' legitimate concerns; they divide nations The specific reason for one year Parliaments was to prevent the formation of parties and factions. It was also proposed that members of Parliament could not obtain a seat in consecutive Parliaments. The sense here was the same, that of avoding the development of power cliques, but more fundamentally, the Levellers believed that it was important to allow as many people as possible be able to have a voice in Parliament. This would expose public discussions to a wider range of pertinent local, and perhaps, national concerns. To make this a practical issue, the Levellers, also proposed that members of Parliament be local people from the communities (constituencies) they represented. Since the time these ideas were first presented they have been given little support. However, much of what is wrong with our current body politic can be seen to relate to such issues. The United Kingdom and political parties The political development of the United Kingdom, during the last century, has been dominated by so-called political parties. These have been characterized increasingly by their slogan-building and simplification of issues. The enormous drawback has been that such parties are constituted at the national level. This has enforced a need to simplify and "package" issues, which are of interest their own members or corporate supporters, as issues of national importance. As a result, at election time, the electorate is presented with an impoverished list of contending issues which the "parties" deem to be important. Broader view narrower representation Now, if the membership of political parties was expressive, one might argue as to the logic of this approach. But the membership of political parties in Britain is a minorities issue and, the electoral system now produces so-called majority governments are elected with less than 25% of the votes of the electorate. The falling voter turnout is broadly a reflection of lack of interest on the part of the public in what parties present to them as well as the broader feeling that individual concerns count for nothing. On getting the message There is a paradox in the fact that some turn on the public to chastise them for not being interested in democracy. Others admonish those who do not want to vote to, no matter what, exercise their right to vote. In particular politicians demand that people turn out to vote. The extraordinary sham is that even although parties foist politicians onto local communities and present demented lists of issues in their manifestos, those who reject this are accused of undermining democracy. What sloth! What intellectual impoverishment! Individuals who, through their inaction, already demonstrate their disppointment in the polticial agenda, should not be bullied into going through the actions of voting simply to satisfy the role and game-playing of others. The fact that less and less people feel inspired to vote with enthusiasm is a direct reflection of the extraordinarily poor quality of debate, analysis and presentation of issues by parties. Debate is largely a waste of time when minority governments have locked in majorities so they can always "win" the vote against majority interests. People see through staged photo ops, pre-defined im promptu remarks and have become tired of the promises of politicians who, at each election demand a leap of faith on the part of voters. A need for change We need fresh ideas, real local issues and, above all, new people presenting them. Some members of Parliament have been in that House most of their lives and, indeed, during much of the lives of the peoples living in Britain. It would serve the public better if such people got on with a normal productive job and only put themselves forward for election when they have something to say on an issue of concern or significance to their community. The current dim intellectual light, which flickers like dying candles, which passes for debate, cured with cynicism and preening itself on point-scoring is something which really has to go. We need men and women of substance, who carry the substantive issues of their communities, and not of parties, to the House. Erosion of communities The current basis for organizing national politics severely undermines community representation. Party hacks will argue that with modern shopping centres the length and breadth of Britain, with mass consumption, with easy communications and with newspapers and television, there is no such thing as local issues. This thrust of argument is, of course, the result of exactly the sort of party-inspired polarization described above. No matter which colour one's party is on the left-right spectrum, each creates a sort of binary fission of the community to promote a primitive kind of collectivism around their party flag. So individuals no longer count, the party knows best and a party can gain control over the decision making of a country, which affects us all, with less than 25% of the electorate's support! The growth of parties, with their slogans and "positions" creates many false schisms and indeed this is what parties want. They want, first of all, to create factions which will adhere to their banner. This leads to a partisan fanaticism and even to normal people, let us say over lunch or dinner, and feel free to be confrontational to the extent of insulting each other because it becomes evident that each supports a different party. Weapon of mass destruction This whole system has become an effective weapon which seems to be destined to bring about the mass destruction of British democracy. It is worth taking note of this and to begin to make an effort to resist further incursions. The system really needs to be abolished. But being the only political system we have known, and the only one currently on offer, the only effective action will be through popular extra-political action. A return to community conscience The people of Britain might reflect if that being of a family and a local community, that their efforts should be directed towards the development of that community, regardless of political party hoardings telling us what is important. Without pre-judging everything by becoming a member of a "party" should we not stand ready to judge each situation on its merits and accord to each person an appropriate support, advice and sometimes organize a collective action? What a difference it would make, if our member of Parliament was a person known to the community and who represented each and everyone without recourse to advice from party bosses or in voting to some arbitrary enforced vote under the system of Whips. Would it not be better if we could remain content in the confidence that our community has a representative who votes with his conscience on each and every issue?