In a multi party representative electoral system, which is not a democracy per se, but everyone calls it that, the minority rules. The minority of the reps you send, who lie so routinely to the electorate, and refuse to carry out policy or platform, that all you end up with is an autocracy of lawyers who have a liberal idealistic agenda. In Canada that is either a prime minister from Quebec or a groups of reps from Quebec. So we get a two minority system.
The first democracy so called was the Greek city state, Athens. It was in fact one party with forced attendance of the citizenry. It had a small population so it was viable in this way. It was ruled by citizen councils and demagogues who could sway the crowds. Voting was by ostrakos or small tablets.
There were may other councils and legislatures set up with voting set up since then. Tribal celtic traditions were more or less democratic. They elected generals in times of war, and had no organized government at other times. Ireland had Earls but never a king. The Romans started the campaigning system with civic elections and platform promises. Although the Roman system had many emperors, they in fact always had elections for the senate. The Russians had a Duma or council of town leaders, the poles had an elected legislature. Iceland also had an electoral democratic system. Frances republican system after their revoution was on party to start and resembled communist totalitarianism more than it did democracy.
Several ancient greek philosophers agreed that the best system was a tyranny, which to them in those days meant a single leader. Their most efficient governments were tyrannies. Sparta however was an autocracy of a ruling class that harassed its peasants, but gave freedom to its associated city states. Athens was a free democracy, but coercive and harassed its associated city states far worse than Sparta its citizens. So in this ideal world there were many contradictions.
I think anarchy is the best government. That is what people actually mean when they say democracy. In fact with our representative systems there is zero say for the individual or any group, no accountability, professional buck passing, corruption and waste rampant and stagnation in progress. With anarchy, or a less organized system of government there is no means to prevent the voice of people from surfacing and having effect. Organization is only a means of not hearing voices or petitions. Englands governmetn used to operate by anarchy, Kings and charters from peasants and barons. Then it went to representatives and charters or petitions. The reps then got in league with the King who learned how to stack the deck with trainees for his system who were lawyers (Lords) and they spent all their time drafting laws to repeal or work around the constitution or the Magna Carta. In 300 years they had defeated it and it was back to autocracy. It was still illegal for the commons to be lawyers. The profession of lawyer was invented by the fr. Kings of England who desired to circumvent freedoms. If you examine all legislation today you will find in it, that congress or the senate are using a fr. system called Robert's rules of order to confuse the free exchange of discussion, and table bills whose one purpose is to get more money from the people, and limit their freedom. They are called bills of law and order, security and taxation. People do not realize it, but they in the US with its grand constitution are living in the least free state in the history of mankind. In some ways it may seem benign. It has more regulation than any other country. I could not believe my eyes when seeing these reality police shows. You get a person stopping their car in a neighbourhood and the police "routinely" search the vehicle. What cause was there under the constitution whose amendments prohibit unreasonable search and siezure? According to the police it was because "the area was a known drug buy area" Whew! Right or not, it is purely a police state move. There is no effective constitution.
Sadder still was the case of Canada. For one hundred years, not one judge, all of whom were Masons, (what conspiracy?) and all of whom voted liberal, would admit there was a constitution that allowed scrutiny of arresting officers, accused rights, or right of presumption of innocence! They would insist that they were solely bound by statute Law!
The judges ignored the incorporation of the Statute of Westminster and the British North America act, which inherited the body of English common law, and the Magna Carta. In fact some judges said in so many words that the Magna Carta was not precedent in Canada. It was a setup. They ignored constitutional law in order to give the illusion that we needed a separate constitution from Great Britain. Yet these same people allowed the incorporation of Napoleonic code within Quebec, as they said it was traditional. Perhaps, but why deny one tradition and admit another. I smell a rat. A fr. liberal rat.
There have been threats from without and within for all time. It has never been found efficacious or necessary to increase surveillance or limit freedoms of law abiding citizens as it does nothing to increase the rate of apprehension of professional criminals. Once freedoms are gone they may be gone forever.
EC<:-} |
