05. Republicanism - First Ideal of the New Political Philosophy (3 of 3)
Continued from 04. REPUBLICANISM - FIRST IDEAL OF THE NEW POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. (2 of 3)
MORE ASPECTS OF REPUBLICANISM
This discussion rounds out further the understanding of the ideal of republicanism, with particular reference to democracy and corporatism
These are all matters that regularly come up in any debate about republicanism and so need clarifying
They are presented under fourteen headings and these are set out in no particular order
1. History of Republicanism
2. The American System. Voting, Voting, Voting
3. Republicanism vs. Democracy
4. The Primacy of the Constitution
5. Long Term Interests of the Nation
6. Republican Institutions
7. The Upper House as Republican Institution
8. Virtue vs. Happiness
9. Republican and Civil Institutions
10. Corporatisation of Institutions
11. Accountability
12. Representational Democracy
13. Electoral Colleges
14. Globalist Attacks and Corporatism
1. HISTORY OF REPUBLICANISM
We have, in the world, 2500 years of experience of (not entirely continuous) Republican practice and theory to draw upon.
We have much less experience of Democracy, although all Republics have included at least a measure of Democracy, if by Democracy we can mean election - even by a very restricted electorate.
The Roman and Venetian Republics were based on the representation of different classes, defined in different ways
In Rome, there was an element of popular democracy as the different “tribes” voted to make up the Tribunes
The Venetian governmental structure was similar in some ways to the republican system of ancient Rome, with a non-hereditary, elected, executive power (the Doge), a senate-like assembly of nobles, but with the difference that there was no popular vote. It was strictly an oligarchy
This idea of different bodies representing different sections or interests in society is not the way of modern republics where everyone is considered equal.
Nevertheless, the Venetian Republic demonstrates how republics can be successful over a long period without any popular democracy. Rotation of offices was inbuilt into the Venetian Constitution and this prevented tyranny, at lease when Venice was in its prime and before corruption had set in.
Venice was an oligarchy, not a democracy, but it was still very definitely a republic. So this demonstrates that we should draw a define line between republicanism as an ideal and democracy as an ideal
By contrast, in ancient Athens we see a democracy but not a republic and this probably explains why Athenian democracy was so short lived.
Democracy comes into the picture as a mechanism of change - this is why it can reasonably be described as the oil that lubricates the republic.
HISTORY OF REPUBLICANISM IN BRITAIN
English soil has long been fertile ground for the three R's of Radicalism, Reformism and Republicanism.
The fact that, in the history of Republicanism, Britain has lagged so far behind other nations in actually becoming a Republic can only be described with one word - ironic.
No land has played a greater part in the development of Republican Ideals than England apart from Ancient Roman, Renaissance Italy and Modern America.
And Britain did create the world's first Modern Republican Nation State (as opposed to Republican City State) known as the Commonwealth in the seventeenth century - although it was short-lived.
It is possible to explain the tardiness of the final move to Republicanism by the fact that Britain was so far ahead constitutionally that Republicanism had simply arrived too early and could not be sustained in the face of a Europe that had not brushed off Monarchist attachments.
Perhaps a more significant factor is that reforms had taken place that meant that the British Monarchy was deprived of much of the power that Monarchs had elsewhere and so the need for a Republic was less pressing.
Parliament and the Executive (the Monarchy) had achieved a real degree of independence which, following the Civil War and the ensuing legal trial and execution of the King, the Monarch dare not threaten.
A less well recognised factor is the outward expansion of the Kingdom's influence with the gradual construction of an Empire in distant lands.
An aggressive foreign policy always works to stifle reform at home and this is often one reason why it is favoured by an established ruling class.
And a significant factor must also have been the grinding poverty and virtual slave labour endured by the majority of the Monarch's subjects especially from the early nineteenth century.
This happened, at least in part, because rights of skilled craftsmen, that were embodies in the guild system, which went right back to the start of the mediaeval period, were undermined
ENGLISH INVENTION OF MODERN REPUBLICANISM
The real birthplace of modern Republicanism was England because that was where a Parliament, that was truly independent of the monarch, that is, the executive, was created.
This worked with other certain basic elements of modern Republicanism that already existed.
Primary in these was Magna Carta which meant that the monarch was not above the law so introducing the idea of universal citizenship. The king was now an ordinary citizen under the law
This is nothing to do with democracy but with the separation of the judiciary from the executive, in other words this was an advance for republicanism not democracy. This understanding once again brings out the separation of republicanism and democracy
THE CIVIL SOCIETY IN BRITAIN
As well as the Judiciary, other institutions like the universities, the mediaeval guilds and even the monasteries formed part of the civil society that were, to a degree, independent of both monarch and church.
These together made up our third Practical Means of achieving Republicanism – a civil society
This development of a civil society was as fundamental to creating the strong republican element in England as were the constitutional and legal matters referred to
The importance of the civil society is too often neglected in historical studies – to the point of being ignored
It is one of the great tragedies of British history that this civil society, well developed in mediaeval times, was virtually destroyed by one despotic king - Henry VIII. Everyone knows that he destroyed the monasteries, which, as well as sustaining the religious life, undertook much charity work and educated the children of the less well off.
But it is less well appreciated that he also destroyed the guild system, which was the social and economic underpinning of mediaeval society. His reasons for destroyed the monasteries and the guild where identical. One, they represented independent power bases, and two, they had substantial assets which he could seize for himself, and redistribute to his cronies making them nobles in the process
With these benign institutions of mediaeval society gone, Henry’s successor, Elizabeth, was forced to introduce the Poor Laws, which meant people had to depend on charity - provided mainly be the parishes.
The parallel in the late nineteenth century whereby mutual and other friendly societies where undermined in favour of state charity is impossible to miss.
This history is important as it shows the tendency of the executive to attack the civil society (the third estate, under our political science), and as I explain elsewhere this process is ongoing.
2. THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. VOTING, VOTING, VOTING
The USA is the foundational republic of modern times. Students of constitutionalism always reference this premier republican nation
And yet when American Presidents, and pretty well anyone involved in American politics, refer to their country, they always refer to it as a “Democracy” – seldom a “Republic”
It may be just that “democracy” is a more appealing word with a friendlier ring than “republic”, but more likely there is a more substantial explanation
This could well be because of the shear amount of voting that American citizens are expected to engage in
We could start with the fact that the members of the House of Representatives serve a term lasting only two years – hardly time to get their seats warm. This compares with the normal five in the UK and France
Electors also vote for the members of the Upper House, the senators, every six years, whereas in the UK, France and Germany, members of the upper house are not chosen by popular vote
In addition, each state is a bit like a constitutional microcosm of the federal nation so that introduces a whole new raft of people requiring a popular vote
And public officers, like sheriffs and District Attorneys, and others, also have to be voted in by the people
This is without mentioning that the President sits for only four years – the shortest term for a head of state in any major modern republic or constitutional monarchy
And, of course, election of the President is preceded by the primary elections of would-be presidential candidates
For a European it becomes exhausting to even think about all this voting. How can anyone maintain a clear head about what they are voting for and reasonably assess the quality of the candidates?
Nevertheless, not just in the US, but in Europe, democracy is thought of as “apple pie”. But, as we know, you can have too much apple pie. You can have too much democracy
Well, I suppose due to force of habit most Americans don’t want to lose all these elected positions and replace voting with a different form of selection. But that is for them
The important point is that this bring out the fact that democracy and republicanism are not the same thing and too much of one can undermine the other
3. REPUBLICANISM vs. DEMOCRACY
But this preponderance of popularly elected positions and the shortness of the terms they carry, I would suggest, are alien to most Europeans
It is not that we do not like democracy. Democracy is fundamental to the European political mindset.
Here it forms the third ideal in this political philosophy
But we intuitively feel there has to a balance between democracy and other means of governing the country
As I would put it, we feel there has to be a balance between democracy and republicanism
In this sense, republicanism, even if we don’t realise it, is ingrained in the European mind and in the British mind as much as democracy
We don’t want to be burdened with voting every five minutes. We want to be able to put some faith in the system to run by itself without continuously consulting us
Of course, the British, in particular, have no conscious understanding of what republicanism is about.
If you ask almost anyone from the British Isles what republicanism is, they will equate it with anti-monarchism
This is unbelievably shallow and I hope in the first part on the ideal of republicanism I have explained something of the true depth and meaning of the term, republicanism
I did so without mentioning the monarchy, except in reference to history. True republicanism does not define itself as anti-monarchist
Just getting rid of the British monarchy a republic would not us make
It is more useful to regard the opposite of republicanism not as monarchism but democracy.
Now here we must restate an absolutely fundamental principle of this political philosophy which is the following
We hold to certain Ideals. These are five in number
They are ideals because none of them can ever be perfectly realised. We have to use judgement in employing them for they may sometimes contradict each other
This deeply held principle derives from the fact that we believe that reality and the world are fundamentally indeterminate
We can never understand it completely not because we do not have the intellectual capacity to do so but because reality by its nature is indeterminate
This is a hard truth for ideologists to swallow, but it is also hard for many educated people because they have been brought up to believe science and the positivist approach associated with science can enable us to know everything
We must not attempt to force reality into a premade theory. This is what ideologies do. We oppose all ideologies
4. THE PRIMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
About 2600 years ago the genius of ancient Rome made a profound innovation in the nature of a state.
The state was conceived of as an impersonal entity separate from the Leader. Coupled with this the Leader was not selected by birth
This separation had not previously existed anywhere. For instance, in ancient Egypt the Pharaoh was the state (not to mention its God as well).
And the Romans were ruled by hereditary kings prior to the Republic
But if the state was no longer identified with a person or a dynasty, what exactly was it to be identified with?
The answer is Law and a Constitution - and these are above all its citizens, and this includes the Leader, or Executive, and all members of the government and armed forces.
Leaders may come and go, but the Constitution remains.
Now the law must be written down (even the “unwritten constitution of the UK is written, but not in a single document) and so the earliest written legislation of ancient Roman Law, the Law of the Twelve Tables, was formally posted in 450 BC, on bronze tablets, in the Roman Forum. The written recording of the law in the Twelve Tables enabled the plebeians both to become acquainted with the law and to protect themselves against patricians’ abuses of power.
When we talk of a Republic, literally the "Thing that is the People", (as opposed to the "Thing that is the Ruler") we talk about a Constitution. This is the way we define a Republic.
This is why the Constitution is essential to any discussion of Republics or Republicanism. This is why in Republics the Constitution is revered above any principle or any leader.
5. LONG TERM INTERESTS OF THE NATION
The nation state has long term interests, we could say, permanent long term interests.
Note that the first Practical Means of creating a republic is the creation of separate institutions of government and these institutions must include a democratic element in the selection of members
The expression “democratic element” is important as it suggests that there are different degrees of democracy in selection of members of a democratic institution
Now simple popular democracy means election of representatives for a limited period of time and so those so elected may be inclined to a shorter view of the interests of the state than is desirable
Take the example of the US President. He or she is elected by democratic vote for just four years
As a result, decisions made by the popularly elected Executive may not in many cases be best for the long term future of the nation, for they are subject to the pressing demands of the next election
Pure democracy leads to endless swings in policy and planning
When a president is less influenced by this factor, we say they are statesmen meaning they put the state before personal interest or power. Only exceptional individuals are capable of sacrificing their own interests for a long-term view.
(John F. Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle are examples that spring to mind)
Furthermore, the electorate is locked into the same four year cycle and there is little compulsion for the Executive to educate them to think differently.
Democratic Institutions are inherently short term. But to counter this problem there are other aspects to the republic.
Republics had to devise institutions whose members are capable of taking decisions for the long term, not just for the duration of the lives of the members of that Institution but beyond.
6. REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS
Whereas all the institutions that make up the government, or the First Estate, have a democratic element in the selection of their members sometimes this democratic element may seem relatively minor
Where this is the case such institutions we call “Republican Institutions”. These are institutions with a strong republican element
Republican Institutions are one of the Practical Means of achieving the Ideal of Republicanism.
They are part of the bedrock upon which the Republic must be built and we need to understand how they are different from Democratic Institutions and how they balance them latter
We need elements of government that can counter the short-termism that tends to be natural to democracy.
A Republican Institution can be defined as an Institution "whose members are appointed, according to merit, qualification or achievement"by democratically elected persons.
Select committees in the UK, or Congressional Committees in the US satisfy these criteria and so are republican institutions, for they are chosen by elected politicians, according to (at least in theory) merit, qualification or achievement
7. THE UPPER HOUSE AS REPUBLICAN INSTITUTION
Now I am going to go into more controversial territory by saying that the House of Lords under this definition could with a few changes be a Republican institution
An obvious change is that we would have to get rid of hereditary peers.
Life peers are mostly selected by elected people on the basis of merit, qualification or achievement – in theory
Again, this statement must be followed by a mighty proviso, for we are all witness to the corruption that has occurred in the creation of life peers where the selection is done purely on the basis of political or, even worse, financial favour
The upper house should have only life peers and the appointment of members should be made by a college system or some such
And into this must be built checks and balances. For instance, parliament could have the power of veto on any appointments.
This idea sticks in the throat of many as they are so imbued with the idea that pure popular democracy is the answer to all our problems and we can never have too much of it
But we certainly can have too much of it and a primary reason is the following
If all, or many, of the institutions of government result from popular election then all will be divided equally along the same party lines
This is a recipe for rule by one party or maybe a pair of alternating parties
If all government institutions are selected by the same method then separation of power is destroyed
Also, as already pointed out, popular election means short-termism
A popularly elected upper house would do nothing to prevent this. And even now, bad as the means of selection is, it can sometimes function as a block to bad legislation in the lower house
In other countries with modern constitutions (except the USA), the upper house is never elected by popular vote.
Rather selection is by some sort of college system, so distancing this house from the rough and tumble of popular democracy
It cannot be stressed too strongly that a principle of republicanism is that there must be a different method for the selection of the different powers of government
Otherwise you will have pure democracy and not a republic
I mentioned the USA as being different in that the upper house, the Senate, is elected by popular vote
Without explaining in detail, the system of popular voting for Senators is different from that for voting for Representatives and of course from voting for the President.
For instance, the term of a Senator is six years, not two (as for Representatives) and not four (as for the President)
All these differences make for a true republic, for they contribute to the true separation of powers within the First Estate
8. VIRTUE VS. HAPPINESS
Virtue was set out as the first of the ends, or goals, by which we wish to achieve for our society. Being first on the list does not, of course, mean it is more important than the others for they are all equal in this respect
We all want to a good life, however we may define that, and to quote a famous document we want “the pursuit of happiness”
But clearly, virtue and happiness are not at all the same thing
The ancients talked a lot about how virtue could be instilled in government, and ethics was central to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, to cite the most important of them
But they never mentioned the word “happiness” as the US Founders conspicuously did
That said, the US Founders were also very much concerned with virtue
This contrast between virtue and happiness parallels the difference between the long-term interests of the nation and the short-term interests of the individual
My summer holiday may make me happy, but it is only short term. Achieving virtue is a longer haul.
The vital, if supremely obvious, point here is that the lifespan of the nation endures far beyond the lifespan of the individual
Furthermore, at any moment the concerns of the nation extend far beyond that of an individual
The life of the individual in personal terms extends to their family. Parents and children form in this way an extension of a single life
But this is not as extensive and permanent as the life of the nation
We cannot talk of the nation embodying happiness. But we can talk of the nation embodying virtue. Of course, the US Declaration of Independence did not seek to enable happiness but rather the pursuit of happiness – not at all the same thing
We seek virtue as a prime element of our nation
If our nation were purely concerned with happiness and pleasure, then it would be a very superficial, probably immoral, society. The ancient city of Babylon comes to mind – although no doubt this popular characterisation is unfair
Interestingly, the so-called Utilitarians of nineteenth century Britain, mainly Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, thought that the prime concern should be for “happiness of the greatest number”
But, common folk wisdom tells us that happiness seldom endures. Life is not like that. This is why the Founders made the “pursuit of happiness” a goal not “happiness” itself
But, yes, in general, we all want to be happy or, at least, content with our lives, but this can come about only through a realisation of all of our republican goals – virtue, liberty, aspiration, wealth, peace
Without these we only enjoy a very superficial kind of happiness and one that will not endure. Indeed, as we all know from our own experience, it is in the nature of happiness to be, if not fleeting, certainly insecure
If one of those five goals is missing, we will not be in a position to successfully pursue happiness, or in the words of a very wise document, the Desiderata, to “strive to be happy”.
On the other hand, the corporatists and globalists, which constantly impose on our lives today, can dispense with these goals and indeed always seek to destroy them
They do seek not happiness. They laugh a lot amongst each other. Or rather they guffaw. That is surely an indication of a deep lack of anything corresponding to being happy in a real sense.
If they do seek pleasure it is of a Satanic sadistic sort. But what really interests them is power – pure, naked power
Virtue for them is a laughable concept
But for we humans is it essential. We need Virtue because we want a Good Society.
An efficient state (such as the technocracy the Globalists seek to impose on us) that somehow managed to deliver material wellbeing without any sense of ethical human values would not satisfy us.
And, in any case, it would not work.
9. REPUBLICANISM AND CIVIL INSTITUTIONS
Republicanism gives the nation an existence beyond an individual's immediate or short-term interests.
It does this not through popular democratic institutions but through republican and civil institutions
An institution lasts, or should last, way beyond the individual's lifetime and this is why they are necessary as elements of a state.
They are a means whereby the individual, as a member of one of them, is implicated in the grander historical scale.
It is through institutions that the individual connects to long term republican virtue
Through republican institutionalism, individuals project themselves onto the larger historical time scale.
The republican approach requires that we have faith in people to seek virtue as well as personal gain and perhaps put virtue before personal gain.
But it is more than just faith that we rely on, and I will explain elsewhere how civil institutions are designed to foster virtue. This is a very important concept that is, to my knowledge, ignored
This contrasts with the Democratic approach which implicitly does not trust politicians to be virtuous and so they can be thrown out.
Civil society only works if we have a level of human virtue.
In our personal experience we see that this virtue does exist. The issue is for the Constitutional/institutional arrangements to embody it.
10. CORPORATISATION OF INSTITUTIONS
We have all seen, and are probably tired of seeing, how democracy does not breed virtue but can encourage shameful acts of corruption, deceit and sleaze.
And in an unhealthy politic, democracy seeks to attack republicanism and the long-term virtue it seeks to uphold
This is very much the case at the moment in Britain and other western countries, notably the United States, where the civil society is constantly attacked and degraded in the most vicious way
I referred to the way this goes back to Henry VIII in Britain
When we understand that democracy and republicanism are two different things or, as I call, them two different ideals we can appreciate why democratic elements often attack republican elements
The former constantly seek to corporatize republican and civil institutions (as Mussolini famously did) and replace republicanism with what amounts to corporate fascism
I should give credit here to UK Column which has described this in detail over many years as it is happening in the UK. It is a valuable resource on a subject that is mostly ignored even though it is an ongoing assault on values that most UK citizens hold dear if they stop to think about it
In particular, UK Column constantly documents the growth of the Cabinet Office
This might sound a bit dull and bureaucratic but it is of massive importance for the future of Britain
The Cabinet Office is directly under the control of the Prime Minister and sweeps in under its umbrella as much of the Civil Service and the civil society as it can destroying their independence as institutions contributing to a diverse political life
The attempt to corporatize civil institutions is not new. Thatcher, as Prime Minister in the 1980s, had a well-advertised aversion to any Civil Institution of the kind that make up the Civil Society referred to in the third practical means of the first ideal of republicanism.
Thatcher's comment that "there is no such thing as society" refers as much as anything to the Civil Society.
For example, she successfully undermined the status of Universities by abolishing tenure for lecturers, she diluted the role of the Civil Service in government and undermined the independence of the BBC.
She attacked the professional institutions of architects, accountants and lawyers with a mixture of success.
Professional institutions need to be able to protect their members in order to provide an impartial service to society. But Thatcher threw the term “restricted practices” at them.
The desire of such attacks is always the same - to force Institutions to operate more like private corporations thereby undermining their institutional role and turning them into more pliable constituencies.
This is done under the Populist pretexts of "opening up" or combating "elitism" and "restrictive practices".
The effect is always the same - by gnawing away at the Civil Society, the power of the government is enhanced.
There is also the effect that the richness of life is eroded as more and more activity becomes reduced to the denial of virtue, coupled with the singular pursuit of self-interest.
Mussolini would have been in admiration of the development of the innocuous sounding Cabinet Office
11. ACCOUNTABILITY
There is no hotter topic than accountability when it comes to political discussion today
There are many aspects to this but one that stands out is the increasing tendency for the prime minister to rely on “special advisors” in policy making rather than on elected colleagues
The special advisors of course are accountable to no one. Dominic Cummings is a relatively recent example – a man that achieved extraordinary power and influence without a shred of accountability to anyone – at least not anyone we know about
When we talk about accountability we are usually talking about democratic accountability.
It is easy enough to see how this works. If the electorate do not like the performance of someone, they have elected, they can kick that person out at the next election. Just the threat of this brings a sense of accountability
But the fixation on democracy can lead us to ignoring that there is not only democratic accountability in a modern republic
Republican institutions and civil institutions create accountability but not to an electorate. Rather it is to the nation and its interests as a whole
And crucially this means not just to the society of today but also that of the future and of future generations
In this way, the way we are governed reflects the long-term interests of the country not just interests geared to the electoral cycle
The ideal of republicanism finds this desirable and necessary. This wider sense of accountability goes along with a greater sense of virtue
But why should those selected by merit, qualification or experience be especially interested in the long term?
A primary way of ensuring this is that they hold their position for life
This means they are taken out of the cut and thrust of the politics of the day and can take a long-term point of view
To take the examples of the Supreme Courts of both the UK and the US, membership is for life
It has to be this way for if they always had to have an eye on their own position as justices this would inevitably colour their decisions
The non-hereditary members of the upper house of the UK, the House of Lords, are there for life and this is proper according to the principles of Republicanism. Unfortunately the means be which they are selected today is so totally corrupt it is of little surprise that people are against appointment rather than popular election.
But with a proper method of appointment that did away with the granting of favour and graft is possible under the new constitution. As explained above having the upper house popularly elected would be a disaster
The same principle applies to civil institutions like the professional institutions. Once you are gain entry to, for instance, the legal or medical professions, you are there for life and can only be able to be removed in exceptional circumstances
Of course, it might be objected that non-elected members of institutions might be equally corruptible and lacking in virtue
They might be. But remember two important points
Their selection is subject to checks and balances which means the personal qualities that make them suitable is subject to great scrutiny and debate from those of all political persuasions. In a well constituted republic this scrutiny will be far above that involved in a popular vote
And secondly, we will have in place the “iron wall” that I describe in detail elsewhere, which creates a strict division between those in government and those involved with finance, multinationals and other with “special powers”.
The iron wall means that no one in government can accept any money or favour from anyone outside government who is part of the second estate without incurring the severest of penalties, and this applies for life
Likewise anyone who has worked in a bank, multinational or others with “special powers” cannot be part of government either in an elected capacity or employed in the civil service
This will put an end to the “revolving door” between the first and second estates that is so damaging to our society and enables so much corruption and corporatism. It may sound severe - but it is the only way forward
This is far from being all there is to say about civil institutions and how they can (and still do to some extent) embody virtue and accountability and this I describe in a post specifically devoted to this subject
We cannot leave this subject of accountability without referring to the matter of those without any accountability interfering with governments purely on the basis of enormous wealth
These are most obviously the globalists, such as Bill Gates. Gates has literally no other means of gaining the ear of political leaders and government services than his obscene wealth
With the republican protections I have described such people cannot penetrate the workings of our national government
The globalists require parasites and traitors working within the nation to gain traction on national affairs and the republican systems I describe, here and elsewhere create a total barrier to the manipulations of the globalists
12. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
When we think of democracy in Britain, or virtually any other country, we are thinking about representative democracy
Representative democracy is so normalised that we may forget that there are other forms of democracy and these may be much purer forms
We do not normally vote on issues. We vote for a person to represent us in parliament, or the local council, whom we then trust to make their own judgements on our behalf
We may not think of it in this way but representative democracy contains a strong republican element
Direct democracy is what they had in ancient Athens, where everyone who can vote assembles in the agora and approves measures by each one voting, with the majority winning the day
Today referendums are direct democracy, as we vote on an issue with no representatives as intermediary
Most modern states only hold referendums on major constitutional matters, the outstanding exception to this being Switzerland where referendums are sometimes held on policy matters
Some American states hold use direct democracy to decide major issues and a prominent one is that of capital punishment.
Switzerland and US states illustrate well why direct democracy is not a good idea. Direct democracy in Switzerland saw minaret made illegal and in some US states it ensures that capital punishment remains part of the criminal justice systems
But “this is what the people want”, the cry goes up. So why devise a system of representative democracy that means the people’s wishes will not be respected. Does not direct democracy provide a true reflection of these wishes?
No it does not. In the ancient Greek direct democracy whereby all citizens voted in the agora, you could see which way any individual voted. But in modern voting the ballot is secret. This means quite simply you can support something but at the same time be ashamed of this support
With representative democracy every vote a representative makes in the parliament is publicly visible. No one can walk away from their opinions
This openness is basic to our democracy and direct voting on issues does not respect it. I am sure that the results of the latter are distorted because people vote without conscience
So aside from referendums, representation is the order of the day for popular democracy
This means a special class or people, Members of Parliament, are created and they run the country, not the people
As I said, this amounts to an element of republicanism already being built into the constitution
13. ELECTORAL COLLEGES
Electoral colleges are not so familiar to the British voter but elsewhere they are commonplace
The purpose of an electoral college is always to create a body of people, invariably themselves elected through some different channel, to make a decision, for the good of the country as a whole, but that may not reflect proportionately the popular vote
Electoral colleges are very much republican devices
We all have heard about the debate concerning the role of the electoral colleges in the USA that chose the President following the popular vote
If you count the popular vote nationally you may arrive at one candidate as the winner whereas the college, which has the final say, can choose their opponent
They cry goes up “this is not democracy”. Correct, it is not. It is democracy with a strong republican element
The electoral colleges were wisely put in place by the Founders because they saw the difficulties inherent in holding the huge federation together.
If the President were elected simply by a national popular vote, then the big concentrations of population would always dictate the result and the less populated states would have little influence
I won’t go into the details of how this works but this is the principle and it is a republican principle
Another example of an electoral college that is central to the constitution is concerns the selection of members of the upper house in France, the Senate.
This college consists of a number of people elected by other means, such as local mayors, and others. The point it the people do not have a say - at least not directly
An essential principle of an electoral college is that the members of it must themselves by elected in some way. Otherwise, you have an oligarchy not a republic
Finally on this subject let us state again a fundamental principle of republican government institutions. Membership of them must be arrived at by different means in each case
To repeat this fundamental principle, if this condition does not apply, two undesirable consequences will flow
One, separation of powers will effectively be destroyed for the makeup of each institution will be chosen by identical constituencies
Two, the party representations in each institution will be identical, leading to an ossification of the predominant parties with little chance of a breakthrough by a new party
14. GLOBALIST ATTACKS AND CORPORATISM
The civil society is constantly being attacked and replaced by corporatism.
Corporatism is amenable to the globalists as national corporate structures can be easily integrated with international ones,
Strong civil institutions, on the other hand, where they have not suffered at the hands of the corporatists, always, by their nature, resist this
Civil institutions belong only in the nation. They defend their independence as without it that they are nothing and in doing so defend their the nation
Globalist technocracies, as put forward by the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, contain nothing that corresponds to civil institutions
Unlike institutions, corporations have a pyramidal structure and so can be melded into a combined giant corporation
This is what Mussolini did and it is fair to say he invented corporate fascism which is what those, who propel the erosion of the civil society, seek
But whereas Mussolini’s corporate fascism was strictly confined to the state of Italy, the modern version works internationally and the globalists seek to direct this is a single global corporate fascist state
So, when we look to the state of our prized institutions, we should not forget the fact that the attack on them is all part of the globalist plan
When we defend the civil society, we defend the nation. When we weaken the civil society, we weaken the nation
As the globalists make their push for ultimate power, we must defend our civil society at all costs
As I have said corporatisation fits the globalist plan for corporations can all too easily be integrated into greater corporations that extend beyond our shores
The current constant drift to corporatisation in the UK is a threat to our national sovereignty instigated by the globalist traitors without our midst