THE POLITARCHY 3

This article could be subtitled, "I told you so!"
 
In a previous paper I referred to the Irish voting in a referendum against the Lisbon Treaty.
 
In 2008, they voted 'No.'
 
Then, like naughty schoolchildren, they were sent back to the polls so as to come up with the 'right' answer. Pressure was applied, and promises made.
 
With uncharacteristic haste bordering on the risible, a new Referendum was organised for 2nd October 2009.
 
'Little member state, we feel certain you weren't quite right in your head when you voted 'No.' We rather think you may have lacked the necessary political maturity to understand what's best for you (and of course we do know what's best for you!) Perhaps it was a bad hair day? Or your leaders failed to properly communicate the full magnificence and munificence of the European Vision? So, away with you, and have another go, and this time get it right!'
 
We should have expected that the European Politarchy would have its way.
 
It's not the first time of course, during the European project that a member country has held a referendum and has voted against a pan-European initiative, and it's the second time that a sovereign nation state has been coerced into a return to the polls.
 
As many comedians have pointed out, it is noteworthy that none of the countries that voted 'yes' have ever been asked to vote again!
 
And which state was sent back to the polls before this referendum re-vote because of this wicked 'wrong answer' syndrome?
 
Why yes, it was the Irish. Such wilful craturs! Having voted against the Nice Treaty in June 2001, they obligingly gave the 'correct' answer in October 2002.
 
So the Irish went back to the polls, and this time, surprise, surprise, voted 'Yes', and the Eurocrats can get back on track and on with the European juggernaut, no doubt careering along towards the creation of another major power-bloc, another Empire, in an effort to rival the world super-powers.
 
Power has its way, again.
 
And now we have suffered a further betrayal of the democracy in whose name the Politarchy claims it acts.
 
The Irish government betrayed its people because it allowed their clearly expressed will to be over-ruled.
 
Secondly, the European Politarchy betrayed its own often avowed democratic principles by cajoling and coercing the Irish government into organising a second vote
 
No one respected the initial Irish decision, because it was not the desired outcome, and under the rules, if one country refused the Lisbon Treaty then it could not be ratified by the other member states.

 
Thirdly, having been promised our own referendum, we in the UK have also been betrayed, primarily by our Prime Minister Gordon Brown, subsequently by David Cameron, leader of the Opposition. Both have now decided the UK will not be holding one.
 
You see, we are not to be trusted with such important matters. We might produce the 'wrong' answer!
 
And all the reasons given for these reneged promises are always plausible, rational, persuasive.
 
The truth is that the relationship between the rulers and the governed is tenuous, and in another age, or with more volatile people, there would be have been an uproar by now, if not an attempted revolution.
 
A further truth is that we do not live in a democracy. As I have already stated, we live in an ochlocracy, which calls itself a democracy, and thus pretends to a virtue it does not have.
 
A subtle fist is wearing a velvet glove, and loudly proclaims its piety. We even export war in democracy's name, insisting that other cultures must also share in the blessing of our wondrous and obviously morally superior system.
 
What is particularly galling is that we now possess the technology to actually operate something akin to a true democracy.
 
With Information Technology comes the opportunity for all the electorate, whether from home or via Internet cafes, to vote on single issue matters in the House of Commons, and in local government chambers. Our MPs and other elected representative could become legates, casting their vote in accordance with the majority opinion of their registered constituents.
 
Briefing papers could be emailed out beforehand, and proper consultation and debate conducted for several weeks by way of preparation.
 
These ideas are neither impracticable nor original.
 
To read more, I recommend the speculative fiction of Christopher Stasheff.
 
Of course there would be problems. Who selects the agenda, who initiates legislation, how should this interface with the Executive?
 
However, you and I both know this kind of democracy won't happen.
 
First, because it challenges the current party system in the UK.
 
Secondly, and more importantly, because it would break the power of the Politarchy. And she/he/it will do anything to remain in power. Vested interest groups always move to protect their influence.
 
Thirdly, because the European Union is even less of a democracy than the UK. It is ruled by its Executive, via various organs, and its Parliament has very limited powers of oversight and initiation.
 
Fourthly, because you and I don't really care. If we truly cared we would take action.
 
We would refuse to pay our taxes, take to the streets, explode pulse bombs to fry the government infrastructure, agitate, and perform acts of civil disobedience.
 
We would be debating Gandhi and other heroes of political resistance.
 
It is because of this lethargy, that the Politarchy survives. Indeed it relies upon our inertia. It judges how far it can go, and it regularly visits that line of indifference by the ruled to the rulers, masking its polite contempt for the proletariat, i.e. you and me.
 
And please don't for a moment think that I am some type of old-fashioned left-winger or hot-blooded anarchist. I understand power; I know that it has to be exercised, and that there is such a thing as proper authority.
 
I only wish, if only once, I had encountered it!
 
So my reluctant conclusion is this. I can whinge and whine, bleat and splutter in papers like this, but it won't make a scrap of difference.
 
We don't care enough and we have the government we deserve. So, feeling marginally better for this monograph, I guess I might as well put up and shut up.
 
One final thought. This reaction makes me no less morally reprehensible than the members of the Politarchy themselves.
 
I wonder what it would take for many of us to actually be stirred into costly action rather than cheap and easy complaint? Meantime, I remain compliant.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
¹ It seems that I have been arrogant, and must apologise to my readers.
 
I thought that I had devised the term 'Politarchy', as a portmanteau neologism, as set out in my first paper.
 
However, I have been kindly corrected by Dr Lambropoulos, whose email I set out below.
 
'Dear Sir, I would like to draw your attention on the term "politarchy" you claim that you have devised. In the Latin languages the term is used -according to my knowledge-by Herbert Spencer. In Greek the term is contained in every dictionary.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
Konstantinos Lambropoulos, Dr., Economist.'
 
Sorry! In my defence I plead the possibility of happy serendipity (thus maintaining a claim to some sort of intellectual originality), or perhaps I have actually seen the word before, and trawled it up from the Deep !
 
I note the French use the term 'la politarchie'. I can't trace the term in any current English dictionary, although we do have 'polyarchy.'
 
Any further contributions on this topic will be gratefully received. Until then, I beg to continue my usage as comprehensible, even if inaccurate. Besides, I like its timbre!
 
I also ask this Honourable Linguistic Court, i.e. you, my readers, to take into account (by way of plea in mitigation) the appalling misuse of 'epiphany' by many modern English writers, thus displaying a worse classical knowledge than mine!