Democracy in Action

By Wednesday evening, Theresa May will be sitting in Number 10 as Prime Minister, and that’s frankly mollifying to somebody who not only votes against Tories, but also is typically given the opportunity to vote in the first place. Given her previous voting history, it’s clear that she’s against pretty much every progressional movement of the last twenty years, and whilst we’ve yet to see what she’s like as PM, I think I speak for many more people than myself when I say that we don’t particularly want to find out.

The fact that Theresa May has been chosen, not elected to lead the country speaks volumes about our stance regarding democracy as a country, and to those who will immediately raise the issue of Gordon Brown being an unelected leader, I say that, well, I was freshly twelve at the time and understandably wasn’t taking much notice of politics. And besides, calling out one bad PM to justify another doesn’t really constitute a strong argument, in my books.

I like to believe that Larry speaks for us all.

As for David Cameron, I always believed that when he resigned, it would be a day of elation, but as a certain character who’s name I forget in the Matrix once said… not like this. David Cameron may be an utter pillock (my own views, of course), but he was an utter pillock who ushered in same-sex marriage, and whether that was a political stunt or a legitimate interest of his, it yielded a pleasant result. I’ll be honest and say that I don’t spend my entire life studying the achievements and disgraces of politicians like some over, more professionally political oriented blogs and people might do, but I get the general impression that Theresa May is far more of a bad cookie than David Cameron. And if there’s one thing I cannot forgive, it’s somebody spoiling a cookie to make a political point.

In all seriousness, though, the lack of say that the general public has had regarding the appointing of Theresa May as Prime Minister is simply appalling. Sure, it’s how it’s been done in the past, but the past falls further and further into obscurity and outdated values with each passing year, and we are encouraged to learn from our mistakes rather than repeat them. Some will say that Theresa’s appointment is still part of a democratic philosophy, because of the idea that you could ask your local Tory MP to vote for the leader that you want, as the vote was strictly among MP’s. But that is a wholly less official and reliable system than public polling, as these MP’s mostly have their own agendas and are most likely to ignore the concerns of the public, because they, of course, know better. And when all of this is brought up, they get around the matter by saying that MP’s always have the exclusive right to vote for their party leader.

Sure. So appoint her party leader, and then hold a general election. Theresa May herself has already stated that there will be ‘no general election’, likely due to the already unstable nature of the country (source), but for all I know that could be an easy excuse to secure her seat in power. Before we know it, Larry the Downing Street Cat might be strung up as an example for all male cats who chase other male cats.We might be going to war more easily, seeing more nationalisation, what have you. But maybe those are just the panicked ramblings of an uneasy left-winger.

I’m not done yet, though. On the topic of going to war more easily – remember the vote on Syrian airstrikes? I detest that big, country-affecting decisions like this are made exclusively by MP’s. This follows the aforementioned philosophy of the public going to their local MP and asking for them to vote in a particular direction, and I refer to my aforementioned argument against this. I’m aware that it would be impractical to hold a country-wide referendum for every decision made by Parliament, but I personally believe that many, many more of the important decisions should be put to the public, if not as a percentage of the overall vote, then as a mandatory point of discussion within Parliament before a decision is made. The current system is antiquated, and allows for the richer few to control the poorer many in manners sometimes reminiscent of dictatorship.

(Side-note: I’m trying to make my politically charged blog posts less angry and more pleasant to read. I hope this comes as a welcome change.)

Devil’s Advocate

I feel like people approach the term “open minded” nowadays in much the same way they as they publicly identify with quotes of grand selflessness. More specifically, they take the idea as willing to hear, instead of willing to listen, to interact with the idea, to form logical counter-arguments or most importantly, have the heart to accept that your mind can be changed.

Here’s some quick background: I’m what many people would consider “left wing”. I’m a pacifist. I believe that David Cameron is ruling with ignorance; I believe that certain papers are selling by capitalising on prejudices and megalomania. I believe that we should be accepting refugees and putting more money into things that will make life better for the majority (NHS) than safeguarding with paranoia (Trident). And I believe, in my heart, that I am right, and that this is the recipe to being a decent human being.

But of course, I could be so grossly wrong. I’ve never been in a position of wealth and power; I’ve never been a leader, and I’m not the one who has to make difficult decisions and hide the uncertainty to assure my image remains strong willed, whatever the outcome.

Every time I discuss political and humanitarian matters with my friends and we get annoyed at the opposing views, there’s always a tiny part of my mind that says, “What if?” 99% of me is as vehemently against the latest controversial policy as my friends, but 1% of me says, “What if?” And I think it’s important that we take that 1% (for I’m sure that plenty of other people who have it too), and we extrapolate it, using it to view every possible angle and bias.

Sometimes it’s a matter of understanding why the opposing “wing” believes what they do. Are they ignorant and prejudiced, or are we stubborn and self-righteous? I certainly don’t think we are, but it surely can’t be unhealthy to consider this. Today, I saw an article on a group of students who stood up and walked out of the lecture when a controversial figure who hungers for attention (and shall therefore not be named) finished talking. And I was right there with these students, until I saw the comment, “Should have debated with her, typical students, think only their opinion maters…” And of course whilst my initial reaction was that she could not be reasoned with, I then had to stop and realise that the very core of my beliefs is that more people need to put their pride aside and talk. Walking out was a brilliant display of protest, but ultimately you’ve not taught that person anything new. In fact, you’ve probably incited them, more than anything. Closed minds twist events into something they can digest and turn against others instead of themselves.

I feel very strongly about allowing refugees into the country. They’re fleeing warzones, and it is our duty as fellow humans – of no nation but one world – to shelter those in need as best we can. I think that keeping them all out due to the potential danger of terrorists hiding among them would be to fall prey to the very nature of terrorism: spreading fear, disrupting all that is good in the world. But. BUT. The 1% remains.  At least some of those who want to close the borders do so not out of irrational prejudice, but legitimate caution. I’m sure that if I were put in direct danger due to the refugee situation, I’d regret my stance. It’s not something to be taken lightly.

It is something to be discussed like civilised people.

Democracy does not work when people are not heard. And it’s not just the common person who isn’t heard, it’s the government. We’re not listening to them. I abhor saying that, but look at any comments section in social media when official news sources post parliamentary matters. We behave like beasts, and whilst it’s only representative of a vocal minority in the direct sense, it’s not all that less extreme with the majority. Whilst I disagree heavily with most of what the government says and does nowadays, it’s no surprise they’re not listening when our best retorts are to call them names and form arguments on false facts and hearsay. If we truly oppose the very nature of what they are doing, we must listen closely to their side of the argument, understand why they believe how they do, and use facts and measured, in-depth discussion of universal topics such as the nature of being human to debate against them, and implore them to view events from perspectives outside their own pockets and legacies.

 

 

History Repeats

The lovely folks, our lords and leaders over at the British Government have just passed a vote through all fair democracy to bomb Syria, and many of them left with a smirk and a smile on their face, satisfied that what they’ve done is right and that we’re winning the war on terrorism.

Thousands will die, and with a swish and a flick of the pen, some rich white people over on some island a world away have decided that it is right to let this happen, for the greater good. Homes will burn and children will bleed and it will all be for a greater cause, and we are right.

My voice was heard tonight. Your voice was heard. Tonight, we stood up in the House of Commons and told these privileged few who get to make the decisions why they are wrong, who they will be hurting, and how this has all happened before, hundreds and thousands of times.

We have elected to sling fireballs at crowds so we can hit the cowards hiding among them, whilst we busy ourselves with civilised lives in groups, avoiding the strangers in dark coats among us, horrified at the notion of fireballs landing at our feet.

Tonight, we sat down like civilised animals and signed away the lives of thousands to right the wrong of the hundreds that were killed on our side.

Next week’s blog post is already written. I will not be changing it but I can’t guarantee I’d be writing “Devil’s Advocate” after the decisions made tonight.