Is Our Democracy The Real Thing?
Author's note: On the 10th May 2018, the Telegraph published an article by Fraser Nelson, the editor of the Spectator: â€œIgnore the doomsayers â€“ across the world, democracy is in rude healthâ€. As the online version of the Telegraph has a comments section at the end of many articles, I decided to add my contribution to the discussion. I had previously written some thoughts on democracy and decided to post the whole of my article in the comment box. It was well received by a number of other readers. Here is my article in full.
In the old Soviet Union there was Peoples Democracy. At elections you could vote for a selection of candidates. Just one catch, they were all members of the Communist Party. Something similar has operated in all communist countries. Most British people donâ€™t have too much difficulty in recognising this as a very limited choice and seeing Peoples Democracy as a sham.
Noam Chomsky wrote, â€œThe smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.â€
Not all regimes believe in democracy. There have been various military dictatorships in South America and Europe in the past. In post-colonial Africa, â€˜one man, one vote â€“ once!â€™ was too often the norm. Some Middle Eastern countries have despotic kings. The Nazis proved to be more honest than the communists in regard to democracy. Although they used elections to build support and come to power, Hitler was very open about his intention to destroy democracy once he had power.
Some countries have a limited form of democracy. The Afrikaner regime in South Africa had elections. But the Communist Party was outlawed. The effect was that many communists redefined themselves and fraudulently campaigned as â€˜liberalsâ€™. Also, the majority black population was not thought fit to be allowed the vote.
In the United Kingdom we have genuine democracy. Or do we?
Sure, the UK is not a single-party state. We have a number of separate political parties. But how different are they? They all believe in internationalism. They all subscribe to the idea of global warming and accept that a multi-racial society is a desirable thing. Until recently, they all supported laissez-faire economics and global monopoly business. All the Establishment parties wanted continued membership of the European Union. None of them support a restoration of the death penalty for murder or the return of corporal punishment (the short, sharp shock that stopped many progressing in criminal careers). They have all allowed mass immigration. They have all neglected defence. This is consensus politics.
So then, isnâ€™t our political system just a subtler, more sophisticated, even more deceitful version of Peopleâ€™s Democracy?
In the West, generally, isnâ€™t it interesting that when an individual or party offers something genuinely different from other parties, then they are attacked from all parts of the existing political spectrum? Indeed, isnâ€™t this the sure way of telling when a new person or party is genuinely different?
Writing in 1882, Friedrich Nietzche wrote, â€œParliamentarianism, that is to say public permission to choose between five political opinions, flatters those many who like to appear independent and individual and like to fight for their opinions. In the last resort, however, it is a matter of indifference whether the herd is commanded an opinion or allowed five opinions. He who deviates from the five public opinions and steps aside always has the whole herd against him.â€
In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was about to fight a general election and believed that she could come to power. She was concerned, however, about the National Front. That party had beaten the Liberals into fourth place in several parliamentary by-elections. The Front was standing candidates in over half the parliamentary seats. In theory, if it won enough votes it could have formed a government. Thatcher promised an end to immigration, effectively stealing the NFâ€™s clothes.
But something more drastic happened. The Establishment put the election deposit up from Â£150 to Â£500. It was claimed that this would stop â€˜frivolous candidatesâ€™, however, the real intention was to prevent the cash-strapped National Front from being able to afford to stand so many candidates.
In the Nineties and Noughties, the British National Party was finding it hard to get printing done. More importantly, it was being rejected by all the big banks. It is very hard to run a competitive, modern political party if you cannot print literature or operate a bank account. Interestingly, the far- left parties and the Green Party have never had this difficulty with big capitalist banks.
Both Labour and Conservative governments have enacted ever more repressive â€˜race relationsâ€™ legislation. This effectively criminalises any dissent against their appalling immigration policies. Any party that wants to stop mass immigration and start repatriation on the ground of race is treading a legal minefield.
In the Seventies, a host of far-left parties and their front organisations physically attacked National Front meetings and marches. These were stewarded and robustly defended. But this didnâ€™t stop left-wing mobs attacking the homes of NF members and beating up lone NF members if they found them.
If any of these things had happened to any other party the media would have been screaming to high heaven about a threat to democracy. Indeed, now that MPs are being subjected to a degree of hate, they are calling for special measures to â€˜protect democracyâ€™ (themselves).
As a British Nationalist, I readily recognise the truth in the quotes from Chomsky and Nietzche â€“ in my view they are talking about related phenomena. The Establishment does allow lively debate on a limited part of the political spectrum. British Nationalism is not one of Nietzscheâ€™s five permitted opinions and so has the whole herd against it.
My Conclusion: British Democracy is not what it seems to the casual observer. At best it is a limited democracy. But if your views are out of favour with the establishment then you have been effectively disenfranchised.