Saturday, 5 June 2010

Yes, You Can 'Control' Those That Control Us!

Melanchthon posts on Conservative Home:
"First, don't give me some line about how everybody who does anything of any significance must be elected in order to be legitimate.  They don't.  They just don't.  We don't have to elect our judges or policemen or tax collectors or jurors or head of state or top general or national football manager or legislators or other important influences in our national life in order for them to legitimately do their jobs.  We could choose to elect all of these people.  One might even devise various systems whereby elections for these people would work, after a fashion.  But we've got on perfectly happy up to now without electing any of these people apart from some of the legislators, and it's just plain wrong - and obviously wrong - to say that everyone else was illegitimate."
To include people like generals or national football managers just demonstrates the stupidity of that statement. It must be an acceptable fact that those in charge of any public service with which a member of the public has to interact should - and must - be accountable and therefore be elected. When witnessing the 'dictatorial power' that organisations, for example NICE, are able to wield, it is becoming more and more essential that accountability is introduced - which kinda demolishes the statement that 'we've got on perfectly happy up to now without electing any of these people'.

I would point readers to this post by Raedwald which illustrates the 'power' yet another collection of 'self-appointed' public servants wish to impose on the public.  Paraphrasing, it was Sir Humphrey Appleby who said that if the right people don't have power, the wrong people get it. Well, it is about time that power was transferred from the wrong people (politicians & bureaucrats) to the right people (voters).

Oliver Cromwell is credited with the words "I find the country bleeding, nay almost dying', a statement which is only too true centuries later, demonstrating that we have leant nothing. We now have a situation, earlier seen in Soviet Russia, whereby we operate in parallel worlds; that of the official pamphlet and politicians speeches, and the real one. Where freedom is concerned - to follow Hayek's reasoning - where the delegation of power to separate, unaccountable, bodies is undertaken it results in the first step by which a democracy progressively relinquishes its powers.

To those who do not and cannot accept the status quo, one has to say they should go study the principles of direct democracy. The implementation of direct democracy, which truly would bring 'power to the people' - something all political parties advocate - would really deliver a revolution the like of which this country has never known.

5 comments:

Sean O'Hare said...

I do like the idea of electing every official in authority. However I can see that there would be a few problems, for example:

1) Very few people would know or care anything about the candidates for office (e.g. for those of chief constable) so wouldn't bother to vote.

2) Those that are sufficiently interested to find out about the candidates and minded to vote would be tripping to the polling station every day.

Witterings From Witney said...

SOH, People would take an interest (point 1) as they have never had that much opportunity to take interest and referendums do need a process to be followed, which takes time and effort (point 2) so 'every day' is a slight exaggeration - no?

Sean O'Hare said...

Alas I think you overestimate the percentage of the population's interest in things politic.

Sean O'Hare said...

Admittedly "every day" is a slight exageration. But if on 60% can bother their arses to turn out for a general election what chance of more then 10% turning out to elect a chief constable?

Witterings From Witney said...

Acknowedge your point, on other hand would contend that once people do know and appreciate their vote matters, more will vote.