Aha! At last I think I’m ‘getting’ it …
Let me explain how you – okay, what I really mean is I – can hold two on-the face-of-it completely contradictory political views at the same time.
It’s as simple as this.
Firstly, I take the view it is a given that democracy (in its Western liberal ‘one man, one vote’ form) is a decidedly absurd and inefficient manner of conducting politics.
Take the House of Commons, for example. We have 650 constituencies which return 650 MPs to Parliament and then, whatever their political hue, or indeed stated personal views at the hustings, for the next five years said individuals are then totally at liberty if they wish to ignore their party’s manifesto, their party leaders and indeed any commitments they made to voters on the stump during the General Election. The justification (such as it is) for this comes under the heading “Voters do not elect robots – they elected me because they expected me to use my moral, logical and rational judgement to make decisions (including upon which way to vote whenever this is necessary) on their behalf”.
In fact “Er, no they didn’t!”, folks.
Most General Election voters cast their ballot box ‘X’ in favour of someone representing a political party which they either believe in and/or (just as likely) hope will be most able to ensure that the opposing party of a different hue – whose policies and plans they detest – doesn’t get in and become the party of Government for the next half-decade.
However, secondly, I also believe that you must work to the letter of the laws, rules and regulations that your country, society or continent has put in place – whether they be right, wrong, or just plain loopy – to govern the electoral process by which it chooses its politicians and governments.
[By now you’re probably already ahead of me, but let me continue].
Thus, in a situation where (for good or ill, and someone like me might argue it is the former) ‘one man, one vote’ is constitutionally enshrined and the Government is then foolish enough to hold a General Election, or even a referendum, on the basis of asking the electorate an answer to which they – the Government – cannot guarantee the answer or outcome, it risks getting everything it deserves.
Or as Sir John Major so succinctly put it recently, risks placing itself at the mercy of “the tyranny of the majority”.
And what’s so wrong with that?
The concept goes with the territory.
If you espouse the ‘one man, one vote’ principle, then surely the alleged tyranny of the majority goes hand-in-glove, doesn’t it? Ultimately, that’s what ‘one man, one vote’ means!
To conclude my post today – but still to remain somewhat counter-intuitive and/or contrary – I find myself for the first time ever almost agreeing with a statement of the arch-EU bureaucrat of all, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Junker – who has apparently warned EU leaders against holding referenda in future.
His actual words were:
“Regarding referenda on EU membership, I think it is not wise to organise this kind of debate, not only because I might be concerned about the final result but because this will pile more controversy onto the huge number already present at the heart of the EU …”
Way to go, Jean-Claude!
He seems to accept my points outlined above, viz. (1) that democracy is a ridiculous way by which to run anything in the 21st Century, not least because (2) once you have chosen it, you also have to accept the logic of its implications.
At this rate, by some date to be determined in the summer of 2017 I think I will have become a genuine committed pro-EU article!