-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-05-
18&id=1866
> A democracy depends upon a durable constitution, which will filter
> out extremist passions and reconcile conflicting interests.
> It takes a lot of history to establish a durable democratic
> constitution, and a lot more to produce the political culture that
> enables people to accept being governed by their opponents.
}}}>Begin
DEMOCRACY SPECIAL:
Tyranny of the majority
Ideology, big business and pressure-groups now govern politics, says Roger
Scruton; and minorities barely get a look in Democracy is a procedure that people
adopt in order to make collective decisions. It is not the only such procedure. Nor is
it
always the best one. Some decisions should be made by experts; some should be
made by those in authority or those appointed by the law. Some decisions should not
be made at all. But people are attracted to democracy, since it seems to confer
legitimacy. This doesn�t mean that the majority is always right, or that democratic
decisions are necessarily wiser than the alternatives. It means that, whether a choice
is right or wrong, the people as a whole are more likely to accept it if they think of
it
as theirs.
�Brrr! It�s a bit parky out here today.�
>>>Caption from image at site<<<
A democracy depends upon a durable constitution, which will filter out extremist
passions and reconcile conflicting interests. And a democracy is stable only if people
are prepared to accept an outcome for which they did not vote. It takes a lot of
history to establish a durable democratic constitution, and a lot more to produce the
political culture that enables people to accept being governed by their opponents.
Roman law, Christian institutions, the mediaeval doctrine of Estates and the
Enlightenment ideal of free citizenship all belong to the pre-history of democratic
government as we know it. That pre-history has not occurred outside Europe and its
diaspora, which is why we should not be surprised if democracy has seldom taken
root elsewhere.
We should be a little more surprised that democratic procedure is giving way to
autocratic fiat in so many areas of our own national government � yet more
surprised that we, the British people, seem so unable or unwilling to resist the
change. I doubt that the ordinary British subject in 1945, having lived through a war
in
which we had risked everything and suffered much, could have believed that, half a
century later, most of our laws would be imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats in
Belgium � the country that had done least to defend itself against Hitler. I am certain
that no British subject of that generation would have believed that our national
weights and measures would be ruled illegal by foreigners, and the metric system
imposed in their stead, without so much as a debate in Parliament. And had it been
suggested then, as it is suggested now, that a British subject might be sent for trial
in
a foreign court, for the ill-defined and ideologically motivated offence of �racism and
xenophobia�, itself not a crime in English law, by a foreign police force granted
diplomatic immunity in our country, the first reaction would have been �Why on earth
did we fight this war?� Yet a whole section of our political and opinion-forming class
seems to endorse these changes and to be prepared to pour scorn on those who
resist them. Even for writing this paragraph I risk being branded as a �Little
Englander�, a once neutral description which is now a term of abuse.
Although our governments have an ever-dwindling power to legislate, at least we are
free to elect or eject them. But for how long? When the Austrians elected a
government that displeased the Eurocrats, the latter decided that Austria must be
punished by sanctions, despite being a member of the Union. And when the
European process has required a referendum in order to proceed to its next stage, a
�No� has never been accepted. The Danes and the Irish have tried saying no, only to
be told that they must try again.
It is not only the European Union that has confiscated legislative powers from
Parliament. All international bodies set up by governments have a similar tendency.
The crisis afflicting British farming is due in part to the Common Agricultural Policy
and to the regime of regulations issuing from Europe. But it is rendered far worse by
the World Trade Organisation, which forbids the protective measures without which
farming in a cold climate is economically unviable. Previous governments, being
genuinely democratic, asked themselves whether it is in the interests of the British
people to maintain a flourishing agriculture and to be self-sufficient in food. They
came up with a resounding �yes�, and legislated accordingly. Today they cannot
legislate, and therefore forbid themselves to ask the question. It is embarrassing,
after all, to confront your own futility.
This failure to resist the diktats of trans-national bureaucracies goes hand-in-hand
with a carelessness towards democratic procedures at home. The Scots can now
vote on all English matters, despite having a parliament of their own from which the
English are excluded. This violates a long-standing principle of democratic
government, which is that of territorial integrity. India was once ruled from
Westminster, by a government elected by the British people; but it would have been
a gross insult to the Indians to tell them that they were therefore democratically
governed. Yet we, the English, have to endure this insult every day, and it is
particularly galling when reiterated by a government composed largely of Scots.
Yet more important, to my mind, is the erosion of the political culture on which a
democracy depends. The rights of minorities are no longer factored into the political
equation, and little effort is now made to secure the acquiescence of those who are
adversely affected by the law. Our democracy grew from a system of territorial
representation, according to which a Member of Parliament is elected to represent
the interests of his constituents � and that meant all of his constituents, however
they had voted. Tony Banks recently told the House of Commons that it does not
matter how many thousands of people march through the streets of London to
demonstrate against the proposed ban on hunting, since �none of them would vote
for us in any case�. Gone was any suggestion that Mr Banks is in Parliament to
represent the people of his borough. He is there, according to his opinion, to
represent a party, and those who share the party�s views.
The debate over hunting shows that the principle of toleration, without which no
democracy can endure for long, is readily abandoned whenever the victim is some
detested minority of Englishmen. Procedures have been arbitrarily applied, and as
arbitrarily set aside, in the interests of an implacable majority in the House of
Commons. The government�s own commission of inquiry is being ignored, and the
Parliament Act is likely to be invoked, even though there has been no manifesto
commitment to a ban. The �tyranny of the majority� against which John Stuart Mill
warned in Considerations on Representative Government is now a reality � and the
worst of it is that it is a majority of the House of Commons only, and not of the
people
as a whole, still less of those qualified to judge how pests ought to be controlled or
rural society organised.
Mill argued that the tyranny of the majority could be avoided by a constitution,
designed to balance short-term passions against long-term interests and majority
power against minority rights. The question then arises, who is to enforce the
constitution? The makers of the Scottish Parliament rejected the traditional idea of a
second chamber and proposed a system of committees instead. These committees
were empowered to scrutinise proposed legislation and to recommend its rejection or
amendment on constitutional grounds. When the Scottish rural affairs committee
examined Lord Watson�s anti-hunting Bill, it decided that it must be thrown out, as
unjustified, oppressive and unworkable. The recommendation was simply ignored.
That is the kind of conduct against which Mill was warning us: superficially
democratic in appearance, but profoundly tyrannical in fact.
Not content with rubber-stamping European Directives by the hundred every year,
Parliament is constantly inventing new forms of regulation, new crimes and new
ways of controlling us, with seemingly no awareness of the fact that people are best
regulated when they regulate themselves. Ours is a society based on citizenship
rather than ideological conformity or totalitarian control. And citizenship exists only
where governments respect the distinctions between the private and the public, the
social and the political, the rule of custom and the rule of law. Citizenship requires
us
to refrain from legislating, wherever society can maintain itself in equilibrium
without
the burden of law. And the more the law intrudes into our lives, expropriating the
realm of custom and extinguishing private choice, the less do we behave like
citizens. The rise in crime is directly proportional to the increase in the number of
laws: and while politicians imagine that the laws are the solution to the bad
behaviour, they are, in fact, the cause of it. For these laws, fired at random into the
crowd, serve merely to kill off the sense of responsibility, while bringing the law
itself
into disrepute. If innocent pastimes like hunting are to be described as crimes, then
it
is no condemnation of rape or burglary to describe them likewise.
If we look back to the origins of democracy, we will find something very different from
today�s hyperactive parliaments, driven by ideology, big business and pressure-
groups, and passing law after law without bothering to check the result for mistakes
of grammar, still less for mistakes of thought. Democracy arose because people
wanted freedom, not control. It was born from the resistance to autocratic power,
from the demand for taxation by consent and not by force, and from the recognition
that armies should be composed of citizens not slaves. The real purpose of
democratic government is less to impose laws than to prevent them. The ideal
democratic government is one that goes from year to year without passing a single
Act of Parliament, without trespassing on a single social custom and without violating
a single established right. Such a government can exist � but perhaps only in the
hands of an elite which sees the value of doing nothing. Or, to put it in the terms
favoured by Aristotle, democracy should be part of a mixed government, in which the
will of the democratic majority is tempered by aristocratic liberty and monarchical
pomp. It should conform to the saying of an aristocratic prime minister, Lord
Salisbury: �Delay is life�.
Return to top of page
� Send comment on this article to the editor of the Spectator.co.uk
� Email this article to a friend
� 2002 The Spectator.co.uk
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
