What is democracy?

The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.

What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.

These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.

So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.

Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.

Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.

Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.

So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.

On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.

Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be

So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.

To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.

Tony Blair 1997-2007: an alternative view

At the end of this week, the United Kingdom will have a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Many people think of Prime Minister Blair as the beneficiary of Thatcherite policies, the PM who benefited most from the Thatcher Revolution, and they would be right. If the Iron Lady had not swept aside all dissenting voices, negated protesters' actions and been so one-track minded to plough through with her reforms, the UK would still be a country run by the traditionalists, the big spenders and the quasi-welfare state would now be taking more tax off us than we earn. As it happens, that might not have been such a bad thing. If you look around at all the countries at the top of the quality of life league, they are all big tax and spenders. Further down the list you find countries such as the US and the UK, who are more in the business of making you pay for what you want, while sympathising with, yet neglecting the needs, of those below the poverty line.

This was what Mrs Thatcher and Presidents Reagan and Bush (Snr) advocated way back in the eighties. They wanted to free-up the world market to make things more flexible, make it easier to hire hard-working, ambitious people and fire the job-for-life comfortable no-gooders. However, their high-yield strategy has some unwelcome side-effects: the sale of anything and everything to pay off national debts and increase buyer power, thus forcing employees to succumb to working for foreign bosses and getting used to their way of working, ending national rules and regulations on working hours, rights and leave, emphasising competition, productivity and client importance.

The result? While some things have been going very well (telephony, energy, to name two), others have paid high prices for their introduction to the free market (public transport, cars). Enterprises which for decades were British (Rolls Royce, British Steel, British Gas) now found themselves in the hands of venture capitalists and free marketeers whose only objective is to get a higher year-on-year profit. We never truly understood just how far we had gone until Mittal and Tata, Indian companies, made their entry into the European markets, and China made moves to establish itself as a new world economic superpower.

Other, more sinister side-effects were also turning up: workers were free to come and go, outsourced companies could have their contracts torn up at any time, and products became more flimsy as enterprises tried to make higher profits.


We have also been slowly de-patriotised. I mean by this that as enterprises buy foreign companies, like for example if Mercedes-Benz were bought by the Spanish or Renault became Estonian, our own national sense of who we are is being eroded and undermined. We hark back to our traditions, like the Queen's Birthday or the FA Cup Final (sponsored by a German company) but our roots are being pulled up by mergers and acquisitions from outside. Coupled with that is migration and freedom of movement Europe-wide. A brilliant idea, but one which needs tracking, because whilst a cosmopolitan Europe is to be applauded, it could have negative consequences resulting in a public outcry to repatriate workers whom they claim have stolen their jobs.

In amongst all this, Tony Blair, the Labour Prime Minister, who had to pander to the new rulers in their executive suites while staying true to his socialist roots. If we compare modern British socialism to that in France, it is quite easy to say that Tony Blair had a lot more in common with Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi than he ever did with Lionel Jospin's socialists. But this makes him the only leader in the world who can cross the frontiers of ideology, persuading leaders that just because you are from the Christian Democrats or the Socialists, there is no need to adopt everything your party ideology dictates. The outcome has been quite interesting. Tony Blair's Third Way has muddied the waters of European politics, making it quite acceptable to mix and match policy to either European norms or to make your laws more competitive.

This Blairite Europe he has created means that in effect all the big decisions are made at the Council of Ministers in Brussels, the 27 leaders taking decisions affecting us all Europe-wide, making it binding and most importantly totally inconsequential which party is in power at national level. Without realising it, Europeans are in a superstate whether they like it or not, because the crux of the matter is Tony Blair and his allies have laid down an agenda which will have far-reaching consequences in future European matters. I am of course not talking about public services (unless they have been subjected to market forces), but the economic and labour sectors have definitely been taken over Europe-wide, and Tony Blair had the largest hand.

The newspapers yesterday said that he might be a future European President when the constitution (or the treaty) is ratified, removing the 6-month rotating presidency from national governments and creating one post at the top. Will he be elected? Who knows? I doubt it. Yet another reason for the tabloid press to moan at undemocratic European ways. I, for one, would have mixed feelings about this as although it is a logical step, it makes it more difficult for governments to make their views known, and would be yet another muddying of the waters.