After dumping a whole swathe of thoughts regarding the positives or negatives that are coming our way, for a while my mind felt a little lighter, less whirling fog. But no clarity yet.
And then, through the haze of a rugby-saturated weekend, and rain-saturated beginning of the week – anyone seen an ark? – the same old doubts, questions and solution-free void re-emerged.
So, here we go again.
I think, first of all, that we need to separate democracy from politics. They are two very distinct, and in many ways, diametrically opposed principles of operation.
Democracy, at its most basic, should be a means of social inclusivity. Everyone involved, everyone considered, everyone accepting. The problems arise when an administrative structure is imposed, along with man’s inherent inability to accept equality of influence.
And then we get politics. If it was the management of the decisions resulting from democratic discourse, then that would be fine. But it isn’t. It is, or has certainly become, a means of certain factions, who assume a superiority, to control, distort and exploit those decisions for their own ends.
And these same factions then export the exploitative structure to other groups, peoples, nations; given factions within each of these the same control – in the name of democracy.
As the ancient Greeks – oft accused as the designers of democracy – would state, and I paraphrase,”Bollocks”.
Within what we consider to be the advanced countries of the world, the closest to the theory of democracy would be Australia, as participation is compulsory. Although the outcomes are no better than any other less involved democracy.
We have, for centuries, had the most advanced, strongest, powerful countries in the world governed, run, exploited by minorities. Democracy, real social inclusivity, disappeared long ago.
And no decision, selection, election in recent times has proved otherwise. I am going to repeat it, Brexit was 37% of the electorate, Hillary Clinton was chosen by more voters than Trump, and we accept it.
Or rather, those in power, who see power as the goal rather than the people they represent, accept it.
And what I am finding more depressing than that is the acceptance by those who should be bellowing loudly and endlessly against it.
From day 1 I have advocated and argued for the ‘alternative approach’ to politics that emerged in the Labour Party. And I still fundamentally agree with the proposition that government should be inclusive, not combative.
But that also should mean that the Labour Party should be front and centre denying and fighting the ‘democracy’ of Brexit, not complaining about the lack of a plan. And they aren’t. And I am saddened.
Because the only reason that I can conclude is that they are playing politics with the people. That their suffering will, at some stage in the future, hand power back.
And that may be politics, but it is not democracy, or not any form of democracy that I recognise.
Every year, the Oxford Dictionary selects a new word of the year. This year it is ‘post-truth’, and it couldn’t be more apt.
Perhaps they should also pick a word that has totally lost its meaning. That would be ‘democracy’. It means nothing, has no relevance, and has been totally lost to the exploitative behaviour of the power brokers.
And the rest of us, the vast majority? Many accept the sound-bites, and concentrate on the more immediate strifes of modern life; many shrug because they feel, rightly, that they can have no influence; a few stare in sadness and disbelief at the arrogance of the ‘democracy’ proclaimers; and shout and swear, and are hardly heard.
Or if they can get their voices above the mundane rumble, are told to stop moaning and get on with it.
No. Because that is not democratic. Is it?
cherokoffdotcom 