This Feudal Democracy section is a set of 9 chapters explaining why present political systems are not, and can NEVER be, truly democratic. The flaws are embedded within the design of the system itself. The only solution is true Democracy. Feudal Democracy eBook Chapter 2 - Irish IndependenceThis chapter happens to be about Ireland but could be about any nation which gains independence after being colonised, or after a revolution (removal of a dictator). Date of original document: September-December 2011 Ireland's Journey Towards (Sham) DemocracyOver the centuries the British had invaded Ireland and gradually Ireland fell under the rule of Britain. The Gaelic (Irish) language was all but destroyed. The Gaelic culture was all but destroyed. The Nation became filled with impoverished, culture-less, language-less submissive downtrodden peasants. All they had was their religion - the Catholic Church, and that set them apart from the British and singled them out for destruction. The 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were centuries of anguish and oppression. The Irish were a defeated Nation. Defeated by an outside force. There had been insurrections in Ireland prior to the 20th century with the intention of overthrowing British rule and making Ireland ‘free’. The most defining one happened at the beginning of the 20th century, in 1916, and is known in Ireland as ‘The Easter Rising’. Nevertheless, this and all the previous uprisings always ended in disaster. Taking on the British military forces, head on, could never hope to be successful. For the majority of Irish people at that time, in 1916, and during the insurrections in past times, the day to day struggle was more than enough to concentrate on. British rule had become the passively accepted way of life. Thoughts of independence and freedom were of no consequence when one was struggling to survive in abject poverty. Insurrections - failed insurrections - were nothing but trouble. There was little appetite or support for them. In their hearts the majority of the Irish people may have wanted freedom from British rule but the organisation of that freedom was not defined or even specific enough to be ascertained, and the chances of attaining it were less than zero. In other words they may have wanted freedom but that freedom held the presumption that stability would automatically follow. It is an unpalatable truth that the Easter Rising in 1916, when a small ‘army’ of Irish patriots, both men and women, took over strategic buildings in the city of Dublin and elsewhere around Ireland to defy the power of the British Empire and its control in Ireland, was not given much support by the majority, or even by a large minority of the Irish people. In fact these brave people, initially, were jeered and hissed at and made fun of by the Dublin citizens. For the most part this is very understandable. Unless there was a definite prospect of success, any attempt in overthrowing British rule in Ireland would only end up making things worse for the people than they already were. It is totally understandable that to many people the ‘Rising’ would bring nothing but trouble, and also achieve nothing positive. To a certain extent the Easter Rising, purely from a military viewpoint alone, was a pointless exercise and laughable as it could never have succeeded. To be interested in politics and freedom was pointless in a system run by the British where the citizen did not have a say. Being disinterested was, to a certain extent, a wise attitude to have. It prevented more unnecessary frustration, for you were better off accepting the status quo, bowing your head and getting on with your own life, rather than standing up to the British forces and being punished for it. The ‘Easter Rising’ lasted only a few days - no more than a week in fact. The ‘rebels’ were all arrested. Most were sent to British internment camps. Some of the leaders of the Rising were executed. The short ridiculous comical insurrection had been crushed by a much greater superior force - the force of the British Empire. Then. Somehow, Gradually. Tentatively. Historically. The citizens of Ireland saw a possibility of defying the British and the support for the Irish freedom fighters grew and grew. The fact that some of them had been executed stirred the hearts of the Irish citizens. That laughable little military joke in 1916 had turned out to be something very very different indeed. It had succeeded in what it wanted to achieve. Those lives that had been sacrificed had not been the foolish and senseless waste they initially appeared to have been. Their bravery, against all the odds, and their determination not to be oppressed or to lose hope of a free Ireland, had lit the fuse and slowly but surely the Irish people actually began to become a Nation. For the first time in hundreds of years, perhaps the first time ever in Irish history, the Irish people were becoming a Nation. When those prisoners who had taken part in the 1916 Easter Rising returned home from British prisons and internment camps, they were not jeered at, they were not sneered at, they were welcomed by the Nation as heros. The Irish citizens were filled with the hope and determination that things would never ever be the same again. And things were never the same again. The secret guerrilla citizen army of Ireland, headed and organised by Micheal Collins, an intelligent, resourceful and truly brave individual if ever there was one, began to fight the British in a guerrilla war, the ‘War of Independence’, and the odds finally turned in favour of the Irish. Micheal Collins and his ‘army’ fought such a fight that finally, in 1922, Britain realised that the guerrilla war was un-winable in the long term, and Ireland finally got back partial freedom with the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Over the following two decades Ireland became an independent Nation. By 1937 we had our own new Irish Constitution (the previous one, in 1922, although it had been written by the Irish it had been endorsed by the British as part of the peace agreement, ‘The Treaty’, between Great Britain and Ireland). Ireland was now a totally Independent Nation with a democratic political system. Hip, hip, hooray! So. End of story? Another happy ending for a Nation obtaining its freedom from colonial (dictatorial) rule? No, that is NEVER the end of the story. Usually that is where it all begins .... to go wrong. It is all very predictable. So the question could be - after all the struggles and after freedom had finally been attained - what went wrong? Where did it go wrong? How did it go wrong? Did it go wrong? In 2012, just ninety years since Independence, Ireland is in its most financially bankrupt state it has ever been in. The Nation is being forced to sell off some State assets. Our financial independence has been removed. The citizens for the most part realise that there is no democracy as such in Ireland - that democratic Ireland is a lie. The hopeful promises of an Ireland fit for Irish citizens, with a bright future, has turned into a nightmare of wastage, corruption and ruin - and oppressed citizens. At present there is so much antagonism towards the politicians that one would expect a revolution to start up any day. The attitude towards the politicians is similar to that of the Irish towards their previous rulers, the British - that of hatred and resentment towards their foreign overlords. The attitude of many Irish citizens, what could be described as a National obsession, is the constant attempt at ripping off, and getting the better of, the Government and the State, as if it was still a foreign oppressive power. The citizens of Ireland have become the victims of the present political system. Yet the revolution doesn't happen. Why? The worst aspect of the financial destruction of this Nation is the terrible realisation that in this feudal-democracy the citizen is utterly powerless. The political system grinds on carrying the citizen with it, dictated to and controlled by those at the top. For many Irish citizens today the situation they find themselves in is desperately, and despairingly, bad and added to that, their political impotence, together makes their position as citizens of this democracy a blatant lie and a terrible farce. So what is the ‘truth’ regarding the Irish political system? The fact is that the Irish aren't marching and protesting because it is part of our psyche to accept the political situation when there is no prospect of altering it. We have been accepting submission like this for centuries. We didn't have democracy before the British came over to take control and ‘plant’ this country (ie throw the Irish out from their land and install loyal British subjects). The Irish didn't have democracy during British rule. And the Irish don't have democracy after gaining Independence. The Irish people have never been assertive for they have never really been free. Political impotence is our heritage. It is in our blood. The Irish, as such, in 2012, are a broken people. And, just like a horse which has been broken, the Irish have given up all hope of independent thinking and assertive action. This is the terrible truth regarding the situation of Irish citizens in Ireland in 2012. The truth of the matter is that it didn't ‘go wrong‘. The reality is that firstly, the democratic system which was put into place on attaining our independence was a natural continuance of the past hierarchical political structures, the only difference being that instead of being dictated to by the British Government we were to be dictated to by an Irish Government. The presumption that ‘free and fair elections’ defined a democracy was automatically accepted by all those involved and so we are now in a situation like all the other nations which followed the same flawed thinking. More of that later. Most Irish citizens would be very uncomfortable acknowledging the fact that some of those who fought for Irish freedom were in the same mould as those who fought for freedom in other nations, who on attaining political power themselves denied the citizens the promised freedom. Those who use force to ‘get their own way’, sometimes maintain the same attitude when the colonial powers depart. It is a sad fact that in many nations the freedom fighters can quickly take on the mantle of dictators. This is very natural. This is another aspect of the human nature I keep rambling on about. The unacknowledged problem of attaining freedom for a nation and its people, is that that freedom, in reality, is only a void which needs to be filled. It is the freedom to organise the nation and thereafter true freedom may develop or not, depending on whether or not it immediately becomes a dictatorship. Many people have the erroneous idea that attaining freedom is the end when in fact it is only the beginning - of all the problems. In all cases of a nation gaining its freedom there has been little understanding, if any, of how to organise and design the structure of the political system within that nation. Usually what happens is that they copy the political system of other ‘democracies’, thereby condemning that nation to suffer the same catastrophes and injustices as the other failed nations (for example some middle-east countries including Egypt, 2012). In many cases gaining freedom is as much a danger and curse than a blessing, and together with the lack of knowing how to organise the nation, along with the greed of the freedom fighters, has had the result of being totally destructive to the citizens of many nations eg Zimbabwe, Cuba, USSR, China, and many African and South American nations etc, where the freedom fighters easily slipped into the role of dictators, or became mere cardboard democratic rulers (usually puppets of the USA). The ‘founding fathers’ of the USA did try and lay down rules and organise what they thought was going to be a democratic nation, but vested interests along with that dreaded human nature intervened (they were human too!) and that political system has failed so spectacularly that the USA has turned into a bullying hated Empire - a monster whose gluttony at so many levels has no bounds, even to the point of national moral and financial self-destruction. Although the US Constitution may have been seen as appropriate when it was written, it is failing the citizens today. It has not stood the test of time. On the face of it, many may question whether Ireland should be included in the list of failed nations, with a failed political system. After all, aren't we here, now, in existence as a nation? The fact is that nations don't just pack up and leave, no matter how dysfunctional they are. Most Irish perhaps would not have considered, at least until recently, that Ireland should be included in this list of such nations. The history we were all taught in school, as happens in many other countries, tells us that once we were free from British domination we were a democratic nation - blah, blah, blah. But that fairytale story and propaganda is very different from the truth of what actually happened. The first Constitution of Ireland (Constitution of the Irish Free State) was not written by the Irish politicians as such, but a committee overseen by Michal Collins (though he only attended the first meeting of the committee). It had to abide by the agreements within The Treaty but had plenty of leeway as regards rights for the citizens etc. We could ask the very sobering question as to what those first politicians would have done if they had been totally free and not constrained by that Constitution? I don't think we necessarily would have liked or applauded what may have occurred. But thankfully the Constitution was written without the personal subjective self-interest of the politicians, only too eager to consolidate their new positions of authority. In the Constitution of the Irish Free State there was an Article (50) which allowed the Dáil (Parliament) to amend the Constitution without having to hold a referendum, for a period of eight years from the date the Constitution coming into operation, but that thereafter a referendum would have to held before any further amendments could be made. To a certain extent this made sense because the Irish Free State was a new entity and obviously changes may have been required to the Constitution within a very short period of it coming into usage. But there was a huge flaw to this Article. In fact there were two flaws involved. The first was that this very Article, allowing the politicians to make amendments to the Constitution without any referendum for a period of eight years was not exempt from being altered within those eight years. The second flaw was trusting politicians to do the right thing at all ie the flaw being human nature and its greed for power. In 1929 the Dáil made an amendment to the Constitution (Amendment No 16). They amended Article 50 to extend their period of ‘dictatorship’ by another eight years so in effect the Dáil had a full sixteen years where they could change the Constitution according to their will and ‘legally’ be allowed to totally and utterly ignore the citizens of this brand new, shiny, democratic Irish Free State. Not very democratic? I think you will agree! But that is not the end of the Constitution of the Irish Free State and it's lack of democratic processes.
Article 48: Basically it stated that if the Dáil didn't provide for the possibility of the citizens being able to initiate both laws and amendments to the Constitution, if the minimum required number of signatures were gathered, a referendum would have to be held to ‘force’ the Dáil to bring in legislation allowing the citizens to do so. What did our beloved politicians of this shining light of democracy do when confronted by citizens who dared to intend to have a say in the running of this democratic Irish Free State? They amended the Constitution, without having to hold a referendum, and deleted that Article 48. In plain and simple terms the Irish politicians denied the Irish citizens their right to actively participate in the running of this Nation. This was the state of democracy in Ireland just a handful of years after gaining independence. It may have been independent from British rule but is was not independent from authoritarian rule. Yet again, in Ireland, the citizens had no say. This trule was the beginning of feudal-democracy in Ireland.
Amendment No 6 (1928): So, thereafter, the Members of the Senate (Seanad) were not to be directly elected by the citizens anymore.
Amendment No 24 (1936): In all, the Constitution of the Irish Free State was amended 25 times by the Dáil and no referenda were ever held. Sadly, this amply describes the quality of Irish democracy as first envisaged by the Irish politicians. They did their best to deny the citizens any say in the democratic process. I sincerely believe that it was only the fact that they knew they would have started another Civil War had they attempted to actually cancel the need for any elections whatsoever that they condescended to hold elections. The politicians demonstrated a boundless contempt for the Irish citizens. Whenever possible they did their best to usurp the power which the citizens have a right to hold in a true democracy. Admittedly, these were difficult times. We had just come out of a Civil War, after gaining Independence, and hostilities were not over, and to be brutally honest, the Irish citizens, then as now, for the most part, were considered as being stupid, backward peasants who couldn't be fully trusted with political and National responsibilities. Before I continue with this saga of failed opportunities, I must do some basic theory rambling. Human HierarchyIn a democracy the primary concern of those in political authority should be focused on the wellbeing of the citizens. This may seem either simplicity itself or seen as the view of a simple-minded individual out of touch with reality. Surprisingly, or not!, this primary concern is not the case as regards the politicans in Ireland, Britain, and USA and other feudal-democratic countires. Just scratch under the surface of these political systems and you will reveal a sickening sight of corruption, greed, incompetence, fraud, and a very purposeful and calculated attempt, for the most part successful, to herd and control the citizens to the point where they have no choice but to become a compliant submissive passive peasant, unable to change the circumstances of their servitude. This is the reality of present day democracies. One of the contributors to the problem is that human organisation and co-operation - politics - has drifted, or evolved, in a meandering way, for the most part without any conscious rational planning or input by the citizens. Although many leaders in the past thousands of years did plan the creation and expansion of their empires, the motivation was greed and the result of their actions on the ordinary civilians was of no consequence. This wasn't planning for the benefit of the citizens. It was merely selfishness, bullying, terrorising and slaughtering for the glorification of the ‘Empire’ and its leaders. In effect it was nothing more than tribal, or gang warfare on a grand scale - thievery on an international level. But, there has been no real planning as regards democracy. It is natural that human society is based on a hierarchy of power, this isn't only confined to the human species, for most animals, especially the social ones, have to have some sort of hierarchy. It makes sense. It is natural. But being natural doesn't make that method of social (political) organisation correct or ideal in all circumstances. The problem stems not from this natural tendency, and need, for a system of hierarchical authority, but from the fact that the natural group, or tribe, or extended family, has grown and expanded to encompass the Nation. This is the start of the problem. And although the elected leaders of a feudal-democratic country have been chosen by the citizens, the level of interaction and connection between a member of the group and its leaders decreases as the size of the collective group increases. As the organisation become more and more complex the power of participation by each member - the ordinary member being at the bottom of course - decreases to the point where be becomes nothing more than like a speck of dust in a whirlwind, merely being carried along in the flow without any hope of having a say as regards the system as a whole. The problem is that if the rules don't change when the community group enlarges then the rules and natural organisation of authority which may have been sufficient to control the leaders in the past become weaker and weaker to the point where they are meaningless and those in charge become more dictatorial and unanswerable to the individual members of that National community. The citizens end up having less and less power while the leaders increase theirs. Also, the larger the organisation, the further the citizen is from the leadership, the easier it is for those at the top to mould the system to their own liking - via secrecy. So, the problem is not the collective nature of the human society - this is good for us, rather it is the hierarchy of authority where the weakness resides. The power structure has not developed sufficiently to ensure the freedom and wellbeing of the citizen within the large structure of the Nation. The very raison d'etre for having a democratic community system in place, as any tribal political system in the past, was to protect the citizen and provide safety and security - physically and financially, in which each citizen could seek a comfortable life and wellbeing for beself and bes offspring. It was also meant to provide the citizen with a say in how the community was to be run and organised and this was usualy achieved by allowing the citizen to choose those who should be in authority. Unfortunately the present form of democratic organisation is lacking those regulations which would guarantee the citizens the freedom and justice as promised by the democratic system. It is missing the fundamental democratic principles - principles which would guarantee a just and fair system for citizens which would prevent the rulers from becoming the uncontrolled elite. Unfortunately, positions of authority attracts many whose only motivation is self-interest. Naturally enough, if you have power you are then in a position to feather your own nest. Then to make matters worse, those people in the positions of authority attract others whose only motivation is to further their own interests by being generous to those who hold power. This has happened in all political systems from the beginning of human history. This is human nature - not at its finest! But in a democracy if this negative aspect of human nature is left unregulated and uncontrolled it spells disaster for the citizens of those Nations. Throughout history the hierarchy were the rulers and their accomplices, and below them came the religious powers, the legal powers and the wealthy - also accomplices. These were the people who ruled the lives of the people for their own personal gain and self elevation within society. These rulers, on all the various levels of power, were in their lofty positions because of their ability to use and abuse their power for their own greedy ambitions. Unfortunately because of weak Constitutions which do not limit the power of those who rule, the wealthy have become the accomplices, and sometimes the controllers of those in power. Whereas in the past hereditary, or being a member of an elite group (religious, judicial), was a guarantee of influence, now in Capitalist systems it is the dollar, pound or euro which has the biggest influence. It is large corporations and the very wealthy who now have the ear of those in authority. These are the people who hold sway over the political leaders and influence their decisions, and to some extent, greater than we would care to admit, they have become the masters of those elected by the citizens. The democratic principle has been turned on its head and whereas the political system, if democratic, should right the wrongs and put the citizen in charge, now enslaves the citizens at the behest of the monopolies and corporations who grow fat feeding on the wealth created by the citizens. True freedom of the individual would automatically lessen the power and self-importance of the ruling hierarchy and their accomplices, and so, this they won't allow. This, they will never allow. The present feudal-democratic system has made the citizen more submissive and more controlled and the elite more unanswerable as times goes by. Serfdom Is Not A Thing Of The PastIt is all too easy for people to be mislead into thinking that the political system has changed drastically and fundamentally since the middle ages with regard to equality of all sections of the community. It is natural to think that democracy automatically leads to a type of classless system where justice and equality is the same for everyone and merit goes to those who deserve and who have earned it. That is the theory, but that is certainly not the actuality. Human nature has not changed at all. It turns out that the era of serfdom which would be considered by many to be a thing of the past - the very distant past, is not so very far away, in fact it is not gone at all. In the middle ages it was the serfs, those at the bottom of the political and financial ladder, who created the wealth through work and toil which was used (usually wasted) by those at the top of the political and financial ladder. The people served the feudal hierarchy. The feudal lords and feudal hierarchy did not serve the people. The feudal lords, and their associates in authority at the top, squandered that wealth without any consideration for those who had to work hard to create it. The system at that time was such that those at the bottom were powerless as regards changing or improving the system. They were passive slaves to the political system. The decision making was held by those at the top and held with a fierce grip. There are a few reasons why most people today are blindly and foolishly mislead into thinking that the situation is very different now, and they mistakenly attribute it all to the consequences of living in a wonderful quality of democracy. We would all agree that life is so much better than life in the middle ages, no matter how much or how little we actually know of that period in history. People can move from one part of the country to another. In their perception they do not belong to the feudal lord. As far as the citizens living in the West goes, everybody has plenty to eat, to the point where a huge amount of food is wasted and thrown out every day. People have luxuries beyond the imagination of those living even just a few decades ago, let alone a few hundred years. Life is good. Life is comfortable. The citizens, for the most part, lack for nothing. In a lot of people's minds they equate the comforts and possessions they happen to have to the quality of the political system (the quality of democracy). So, in many countries, because the quality of life is good for most of the citizens the perception is that the political system is good. But this equivalence is incorrect - in many cases the quality of life has no relation to the quality of the political system. Most of the quality of life for the citizen, so much improved than that in the past, is because of technology - not democracy. Items are very cheap because of mass production. It is only in the last two or three centuries that travel and the transport of goods became an essential part of the quality of people's lives. Furthermore, it is only in the twentieth century that the speed of transport around the globe increased to the point that the desire for foreign produce can be satisfied almost immediately. The size of the ships and the vast cargoes they can carry has brought down the cost of transport to incredibly low figures. This international transport system of foreign produce is now utterly taken for granted and we pick and choose all the products which we surround ourselves with, without any consideration or thought of where it comes from, and foolishly think that the system of democracy is good for the citizen, that it provided the good life, and the products necessary to maintain that good life. It is an unavoidable fact that goods are cheap, not only because of this technology and transport, but regrettably also because there are millions working in terrible conditions in many countries around the world - working for very low wages to the point where they are, in effect, enslaved to their employers, in order to supply the citizens of feudal-democracies with luxuries, unaffordable by those very same low paid workers in those sweat-shops. This is very similar to the Romans living two thousand years ago having a wonderful life (relatively speaking) because of the enslavement of millions of others. This is also similar to the British, over the past few hundred years during their Empire, their glory days (though it was only the scraps which the ordinary British citizen ever received, as in Roman times, as in present day democracies). The USA is the supreme modern example. Now it is the West, in general, who have enslaved the Second and Third world citizens as production slaves, serfs and peasants, in order to maintain a lifestyle of luxury for the citizens who are unaware, or uncaring, of the suffering of their providers. As long as ‘others’ are guaranteeing the comfort of those living in the West, the conditions of these lowly paid workers does not usually register in the minds of those availing of those comforts. The good life of the citizens in the West is built upon the suffering of the lowly paid oppressed workers elsewhere. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with democracy. Despite the improvement in the lives of the citizens in the West, it is still the case that even the citizens in these feudal-democracies are being exploited by those at the top. It is just the case that they are being less exploited than those working for subsistence wages in sweatshops. Or to put it more truthfully, the exploitation of citizens in the West is much less visible and obvious, though it turns out to be as invidious and enslaving as any system could ever be. Today, in feudal-democracies, those at the top are still amassing their wealth and feathering their own nest and ensuring, as those at the top have always done, that the producers of that wealth - the citizens - have no opportunity to overturn that system. Nothing has really changed at all. As I said , human nature cannot change. The citizens in feudal-democracies have as little chance of changing their oppressive system as those working in sweat-shops have of changing the system they work under. Life also seems so good and comfortable because of all the technologies we surround ourselves with are based on the good fortune of having an electricity supply. This is nothing to do with whether the political system in place is a good democratic system or not. It is Nicola Tesla we have to thank for the electricity supply. he invented it, designed it, and created it. It is because of him we have comfort on a level unthinkable by those in the past. In fact, before I go any further, I must point out the fact that although most citizens in the West would condemn the old feudal system of serfs creating the wealth to be used by the feudal lords while the peasants eked out a living on scraps, yet they themselves, the modern citizens are partaking in a system whereby peasants, in sweat shops around the world, are creating the cheap products which they are happy to consume and waste. As I have stated - this is human nature. We don't notice it because we are on the receiving end - we happen to be the lucky ones. There are many who would condemn those in the past for living off others, and most likely condemn those elites toad, living off the wealth created by the citizens, but then they must also condemn themselves. This is why the West has such a good life. This is how Nations, and the citizens within it, can prosper - usually at the expense of others. This is what humans are all about. To thoroughly dispel the notion that the quality of life in the West reflects the quality of the democratic system just try and imagine if there was a conflict in the world whereby the transport of good from foreign countires, including oil etc, was prevented. Within a very short period, without oil, food and electricity, and the produce from these countries, we would be living lives even worse than those serfs who toiled under the feudal system. It would be a catastrophe on a monumental level. It would be the end of any form of civilised life within most countries. That demonstrates just how unconnected the quality of life is to the actual quality of that country's political system. The Vote - Free And Fair ElectionsCitizens are also greatly misled into thinking they are at present living in a democratic system because of the fact that they can choose who is elected to govern them. This fools the citizens into believing that they are free citizens in a free democratic Nation. To many the logic is: if you can choose your leaders then you have democracy. Therefore the political system is democratic. The power of the citizens collectively, or even more to the point, the power of the individual citizen, defines the level of democracy of that particular political system. To be able to choose ones rulers is of no consequence if the individual has no power to change the rules or the system itself. Yet, the citizens of many feudal-democracies are proud of the fact that they live in a democracy, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the true purpose and goals of these feudal-democratic systems, theoretically set up primarily to look after the wellbeing and freedom of the citizens, have been hijacked to the point where they are tailored solely for an elite who to a very dangerous extent control the political and legal structure for THEIR own benefit. Though, at this point in our history, after the financial destruction of Ireland, some citizens (still only a few) are finally realising that there is something very wrong. Nevertheless, most citizens still believe in the system itself and hope that the politicians will do something positive, on their behalf. (note bene!). As a citizen living in a feudal-democracy, being able to elect those who rule over you is like being in a position to choose ones torturer and subsequently being led to believe that having that choice gave the victim some sort of control - a freedom of choice! This is the most apt analogy I could imagine. The citizen can choose the politician but cannot choose the laws, regulations or control the politician or political system. Blindly, many would argue that in present democracies the citizen does actually has a say because be has a vote. Even many seemingly intelligent people make that connection. There is a saying which reflects this incorrect notion: the people get the leaders they deserve. It is easy to think thus. But this is just not so. In fact it is totally incorrect in many instances. It turns to be much more complicated, devious and sinister than that. Anyone who has any iota of awareness, not necessarily even political awareness, should be able to acknowledge that the system does not take the wishes of the citizens into any real consideration. The citizen may vote but be has no voice, in real terms. Voting for a different politician is no more constructive, or empowering, than voting for a different torturer. Many will be conscious of just how little power the citizen has when it comes to changing that very system under which be is governed and has to live. In the most simple of ‘definitions’, one could say: if the citizens of a nation cannot change the political process itself, then they are nothing but serfs, peasants and victims of that political system. It is as fundamental as that. Being allowed to change politicians, in itself, is of no consequence, for changing the politicians does not change the system as the last few decades of not only Irish history proves beyond any doubt. This also refers to British, USA and other feudal-democratic Nations. Even changing the ruling political party has very little effective long term consequence - the political system still remains feudal in structure. Also there is a very dangerous and invisible aspect to present feudal-democracies which in essence control how the citizens vote. In simple terms this could be defined as propaganda, both positive and negative. In other words, citizens can be controlled by how much information they are allowed to have, along with how truthful that information is. Admittedly there is the press and other media outlets in all feudal-democracies but most of these are not run by ordinary citizens with the interests of the citizens in mind. but in most cases, by members of that elite group who are associates of the politicians, or profiteers of the feudal nature of the political system. Many media tycoons and corporations have vested interests in the status quo and are often part of the threat to the freedom of the citizens rather than their protectors. In the West political parties hire PR advisers, along with experts in: advertising, citizen manipulation, the media and psychology etc and the only aim and purpose of all this is to fool the citizens - propaganda. The politicians (and media) want to, and usually do, control what information the citizen can access. They want to manipulate the decisions made by the citizen as much as possible. On the surface it may seem that the feudal-democracies are an open system but again, as with most if not all aspects of our so-called democracies, if you scratch under the surface the disturbing twisted truth is revealed. So the passive citizens, unaware of their manipulation, are guided in how they vote and how they view the current Government and more importantly how they view the present political system they have to live under. How can citizens who do not know the true facts make a suitable political choice, or even be able to judge whether their present political system is even democratic or not? They cannot. These feudal-democracies are organised in such a way as to totally prevent the citizens from knowing the true facts about the system. In Ireland, Britain, the USA and many other countries the electorate are given a choice but that choice is dictated by the politicians and the political system and is a narrow and predefined choice at that, and is limited by the information the citizen is allowed to have. In reality, the citizens have no more say or control at all - in real terms, than the serfs and peasants of old feudal times. So this notion that the political system is a democracy because the citizen can vote for their political leaders is pure myth - a fabrication of lies - political propaganda.
Addition - January 2012: I don't know the true situation in Iran but one thing I am certain of and that is that the US media is controlling what the US citizen is seeing on their television news stations and is thus dictating how the US citizen is to think. The American citizen may not be one of the smartest citizens around, but what hope do they have of making a correct judgement when the information they are being fed is propaganda - issued by the Government and those connected with the military. There are many different definitions of a ‘free press’ and unfortunately the USA definition includes the term - ‘free from truth’. The Constitutions Of IrelandThis section shows how just a handful of people can decide how a nation is run, despite the appearance that the citizens make the choice. The first Constitution we had as an ‘independent’ Nation was adopted without any say, or input, by the Irish citizens. In fact the citizens of Ireland were never allowed to vote whether to accept this Constitution or not, though they did get to vote to accept the ‘Treaty’ with Britain. In reality it was the British Government, in the House of Commons, who adopted the Irish Constitution - for the Irish! The Irish citizens were TOLD - this is your new political system. There was certainly no choice as regards the content of the Constitution, though it must be taken into account that Ireland had just emerged from an enormous battle with the British Empire and any form of self governing was a step forward in the right direction. There was also the more than inconvenient problem of the Irish Civil War which, as all civil wars tend to do, divides the community as no other activity can, and puts neighbour violently against neighbour leaving its mark of antagonism for many decades after the last bullet was eventually fired. The legacy of the Irish Civil War is even today still in existence, though for the most part under the surface, yet it ‘colours’ the political scene. Nevertheless, the politicians very quickly became comfortable in their wielding and abuse of power and used their position and the flaws in that Constitution for their own benefit. To some extent, this was just a simple continuation of the past hierarchical structure and a demonstration and reminder that democracy isn't handed out freely, and should not be expected to be, and also that the freedom which the citizens are entitled to, based on democratic principles, must be constantly watched and protected from any misbehaviour by the politicians attempting to decrease or hijack those rights. The political party which had ruled the new Irish Free State since Independence was put out of office in 1932 when after a General Election that year the Fianna Fáil political party, led by Éamon de Valera, received enough seats in the Dáil to form the next Government. This anti-Treaty party had been on the losing side of the Civil War. It had replaced the previous pro-Treaty Government and was in power for the first time in its political history. It soon set about settling in to the power and authority which all politicians crave. Mr de Valera decided to put into place a group of experts and advisers to write a new Constitution - the Constitution of Ireland. It is interesting, or very worrying, to note that ONE politician had the power, because he was leader of the political party which had the majority in Government, to decide to create a new Constitution to put before the citizens (for them to accept or reject). In the new Constitution there was a provision for the Government to alter that Constitution for a short period, without having to hold a referendum, but which itself could not be extended. It did NOT mention any method whereby the citizens could initiate any laws or proposals for any changes in that Constitution. The politicians on all sides had the same contempt for the Irish citizens and were of the opinion that the citizens shouldn't be allowed any active participation in this so-called democratic system.
Here is the key Article in the Constitution:
Article 6
1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to
designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to
decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.
2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the
authority of the organs of State established by this
Constitution.
Basically this Article ‘giveth and taketh away’, as they say. Part 1 says that ALL power derives from the people and then Part 2 goes on to say that only the State bodies can wield those powers. In other words - the citizens are never allowed have the use of these powers except through the politicians. In other words the citizens have no say whatsoever between elections unless it is decided otherwise by those politicians. In other words the politicians are to have all the power and the citizens are to have NONE. Welcome to feudal-democracy! The Constitution of Ireland (1937) was adopted in 1937 after a plebescite. The new Constitution did away with the connection with Britain as regards the monarchy being the head of state etc. It, as such, made Ireland a totally Independent Nation with no supervisory role whatsoever for Britain. We had finally broken the ties with Britain. Now, we were truly a free democratic Nation! Yes? No! In most cases a Constitution, although seemingly in existence to give and protect the freedom of the citizens, in fact has merely reinforced the previous hierarchical structure because it doesn't tackle the inherent weaknesses of the hierarchical nature of society. Humans expect a hierarchy of authority and fail to understand this this needs to be questioned and examined - for its effectiveness, and its dangers. There was no consideration of allowing positive participation by the citizens. The old attitude had been, and remained, that those at the top should rule, and those at the bottom should be ruled by them. This is a very natural viewpoint for politicians to hold. The last thing they want is for the citizens to have any of the political power. The citizens would still be allowed to elect the politicians, but that was the limit to their participation in the political life of the Nation. No thought whatsoever was put into the ever-present, though probably not ever-envisaged, problem of how to control the politicians when they have been given the power and authority by the citizens in a General Election. Either it was presumed that the politicians could be trusted, or possibly it was presumed that the citizens couldn't be trusted not to abuse their power and authority if they were allocated them. Nevertheless, in effect, once the citizens have cast their vote, the politicians can use the power and authority transferred to them as they please, without any constraint whatsoever, excepting the few feeble safeguards in the Constitution. There wasn't even one iota of thought given over to what the citizens could do in the event that the politicians would abuse and misuse their positions of authority. None whatsoever. Who writes the Constitution? Is it the people? Of course not. In realistic terms it would be impossible for every citizen to be able to have a Constitution of bes own choice. It is the politicians, lawyers and, in some cases, possibly the religious leaders who decide what regulations and rules should be in the Constitution. It is those at the top who create the Constitution in so-called democratic countries. This is what happened in Ireland. This is what happens in all the other so-called democratic countries. A recent example is Egypt. It is always those at the top who decide the level of protection which should be provided for the citizens. It is always those at the top who decide the regulations which were to be put in place. It is always those at the top who create the Constitution with the mindset that they should maintain the status quo - the hierarchical feudal power structure. It is always those at the top - the select few - who decide the structure and nature of the political system. In straightforward terms, it is those at the top deciding on the powers allocated to themselves, and to those at the bottom - the citizens. And what power did the Irish citizens get? We were ALLOWED to choose the feudal lord and thereafter, we were to remain servile, we were to provide the wealth to be used at the whim of the feudal lord. We were expected to accept our fate - ruled by those at the top. Of course, even if the people did have a say when the Constitution was being written most would not have understood those rules and regulations which are really vital to the creation of a true democratic system. They would have fallen into the trap of the natural hierarchy of authority. Human nature yet again! These state institutions, set up by the Constitution, rathen than reinforcing and stabilising real protection for the citizens from the possible abuse by the hierarchy of authority - by empowering the citizens, are set up in such a way that the citizens have very little say in the decisions of these institutions. The Constitution does say that the citizens have final say - but only in a referendum, but the citizen are not empowered to decide to hold a referendum, just to vote in one. It is the politicians, and they alone, who can decide whether to hold one or not. A referendum is required in only very limited circumstances. In all other situations and decision-making the Government can do as it pleases. To go back to our torturer scene; it's like the torturer saying to the victim “you have the right to choose the type of torture inflicted on you, but only if I decide you allow you have and make that choice”. What kind of freedom and what kind of democracy would that be? Less than none. So again, we need to separate the reality and substance of democracy from its appearance. Although many citizens are led to believe that having a written Constitution, together with the fact that it is only they, the citizens, who can decide if a proposal to make any change to the Constitution is in fact accepted, denotes a true democracy and real protection of the citizens from excessive authority, it must be remembered that in Ireland, as in many other Nations, the citizens have no opportunity to propose any changes to the Constitution. That power only lies with the Government - the feudal elite. They, and they alone, decide if and when there should be proposals to change the Constitution, and then the proposal is given to the people - accept or reject. There is no input from the citizen whatsoever. To give, for the most part, unrestricted, unlimited and uncontrolled powers to the political and feudal elite does not have the best interests of the citizens as the priority. As already pointed out the First Constitution of Ireland allowed the politicians to abuse their authority - and this they did to their heart's content. This actually makes the imaginary torture scene more credible and true to the reality of the situation - “you have the right to choose if and only if I decide to give you a choice, and this I won't do”! Some democracy! The new Constitution of Ireland was passed by a majority of 56.5% to 43.5% of those who voted. The total poll was 75.8% of the electorate. Spoilt votes were just under 1%. In certain areas of the country the majority accepting this new Constitution was very large, while in other areas the majority rejecting this new Constitution was very large. It seems as if the plebescite was seen by the electorate as just another choice as to ones favourite political party. This is not what the attitude towards voting in a Constitutional plebescite should be about. But then, this is a part of human weakness - taking decisions based on which particular favourite side is supported. No matter what the behaviour of the side is, nor the future outcome of making that choice based on blindly following ones political party, people takes sides and have favourite political parties and their voting decisions follow that blind unquestioning loyalty. A serious look at the pros and cons of the Constitution - and its effect on the citizens seemed to be of little concern, though when you are only given the choice ‘take it or leave it’, without any choice regarding any particular Article, the choice becomes fairly problematic. On the basis of the number of citizens who actually accepted the new Constitution it was less than 39% of the total number of citizens who had the right to vote. In other words 61% of all the voters did NOT vote for the new Constitution. Yet this is the basis on which Ireland Inc. has been politically organised since then. That fact alone should make ever citizen stop and question the political system. On a superficial level one could say that every citizen of the Irish Republic had a vote as to whether to accept or reject the Constitution. It was the Government who made the decision to create a new Constitution and thereafter decided to put their finished product to the people for their decision. But that, in itself in not democracy - in the real sense. All it was was a stark choice between the new Constitution and the previous one, which in reality was a shambles. That was not a real choice. That was merely an instruction from ‘above’ - take it or leave it. The writing of this Constitution was ‘overseen’ by the then leader of Government at the time, Éamon de Valera and when all is said and done this was his Constitution, and his political party's Constitution - not the Constitution of the citizens. As in the previous feudal systems, the decision making was held by those at the top and a Constitution which does not limit that power fails to protect those citizens and ultimately sustains that very dictatorial feudal system. The Constitution of Ireland entrenched the elite feudal structure of authority while seeming to give the citizens total say over both the politicians and the political system. Another weakness in the Constitution is that in some cases the wording, and thus the intention, is not as clear as it should be. In circumstances where the wording and intention is unclear usually the only method of deciding what the creators of the Constitution intended is by putting it to the members of the Supreme Court to rule on the matter. It is left up to the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. This is highly unacceptable from a democratic point of view as it brings us right back to the days when those at the top were in control and dictated the rules and those at the bottom had to accept the ruling of ‘their betters’. It is continuing a political system which does not allow any say by the citizens. It is a case of the feudal elite interpreting matters according to their viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the citizens. The most fundamental right in any Constitution purporting to be that of a democratic Nation with a democratic political system should be, must be, the right of the citizens to alter that very political system itself. Without that right, all other rights are to a greater or lesser extent, meaningless and the citizens of that Nation are nothing more than servile peasants. The honest and fair description of this political system, therefore, is a feudal-democracy. Also, the Constitution although written in the past must be seen in the context of the present. A dead Constitution can only have a negative effect on the citizens for it doesn't change according to the wishes of the citizens. In effect it is like living according to the values and outlook of people who died decades or centuries ago. It is often the case, during some political moral debates in the USA, for example, when some people want to bring in (or prevent) gay marriage, or prevent (or maintain) the wholesale collecting and hoarding of firearms, one side or the other will declare in unequivocal terms “this is not what the founding fathers of this Nation intended” referring to some interpretation of an Article in the US Constitution. On the face of it this is how we view the Constitution of feudal-democracies. They are seen as being like the ‘ten commandments’ written in stone, rather than as a set of instructions depicting how the political system should be set up and maintained for the benefit of citizens living today, and also those citizens of the future - but certainly not those of the past. Yet this is how most citizens view the Constitution, as being elevated to unquestionable heights. Whether the Constitution suited those of the past, or not, has no relevance to the citizens of today and to those of the future. Despite the fact that one may have great regard for the ‘founding fathers’ nevertheless today's citizens live today, not hundreds of years ago and the interpretation of the Constitution, and the substance of the Constitution must reflect the attitudes of today. A citizen has the right to say ‘who cares’ as regards what the ‘founding fathers’ thought, or intended. That is not to give the impression that the Constitution should be altered on a daily basis but the fact is that the complexities of life change over time. The system of authority must be open to scrutiny and possible change without which the feudal elite becomes a dictatorial elite unanswerable to the citizens. Any Constitution of any democratic worth must have at its core the opportunity for the citizens to amend that political system without the instigation, or hindrance, from the feudal elite. Anything less is not democracy and ties the hands of the citizens to the point where they have as much power over their own lives, via the political system, as those peasants and serfs had in the past. Overall, Ireland's political system is a pitiful situation, but as I said, countries don't just pack up and leave, and Ireland has carried on, regardless. But weaknesses in a political system which cannot be altered by the citizens can only have negative effects in the long run and Ireland in 2012, and for many years preceding this, is at the receiving end of this lack of real democratic vision. Examples Of Feudal-Democracy
Spain The people own the system - the people should own the system. A true democratic system must incorporate engagement - and I don't just mean at elections - but everyday. The citizen must have a way of giving their opinion of laws already enacted, those being proposed and also must have a method of proposing new laws themselves.
Greece
USA Those in power are the paid lackeys of Wall Street and have usurped the political and democratic authority given to them by the American citizens, and have destroyed the economy. Day after day the Nation is becoming more and more bankrupt. The Nation, in 2012, is being run entirely for the benefit of the financial institutions, and the military industrial complex. In 2010 and 2011 the United States of America ‘created’ trillions of dollars and gave this money to the financial institutions thereby bankrupting the citizens of the USA, without the agreement of the citizens. Also, the US Supreme Court, via the Citizens United ruling, allowed corporations to, as such, buy politicians. Wall Street at present is contributing millions of dollars to the political parties - and getting trillions of dollars in return. The Bush Administration brought in the Patriot Act which took away some rights of the American citizens and then the Obama Administration brought in the NDAA which has had the effect of turning the USA into a dictatorisl police state. The American citizens have so little power that they to a great extent cannot stop this process happening. They cannot stop the Nation turning into a corporate dictatorship.
Great Britain Towards the end of last year I came across a very good example of the type of democracy which exists in Britain in 2011.
During the scandal of the phone hacking there was this quote: Suffice to say that in a democratic political system the House of Commons should speak for the public everyday, not just on a special, one-off never-to-happen-again unique occasion. But that statement reflects the attitude of the politicians - the wishes of the people should be considered - only on the very odd occasion!
Italy
Ireland The Government never put the question of bankrupting this Nation to the citizens in a referendum - they knew it would have been rejected. The political system which is expected to protect the citizens didn't. It didn't force the Government to put that question to the citizens. The Government - that feudal dictatorial authority - had the ability and authority, via the Constitution, to ignore the wellbeing of the citizens.
India This is a struggle between both the politicians and the feudal elite, who are draining the financial resources of the Indian Nation, and the citizens of India who toil to create those resources, and so far it is the feudal elite who hold on to power and their ill-gotten gains. This is a very good example of how, on the surface of it all, the political system seems to be democratic where decisions are made for the good of the people, but when you scratch it, when you attempt to make the politicians responsible for their illegal activities as in the case of Anna Hazare and the proposed anti-corruption legislation, all the democratic pretence will fall away and you will be confronted with all the vile corruption and abused dictatorial authority of the feudal elite. SummaryOne of the most fundamental principles of both a Democracy and its Constitution is the empowering of the citizens of that Nation. Ireland's political system and the Constitution of Ireland (1937) have both utterly failed in that regard. One of the main principles of any democracy is a thing called self-determination. In other words the citizens being in control over the destiny of the Nation and being in control over the political system under which they have to live. The Irish citizens have NEVER been ‘granted’ this self-determination by those ‘in charge’ - NEVER, not by the British, not by the Irish. When we examine so-called democracies it is plain to see that, in most cases, the Constitution strips the citizens of all definitive power, and allows the feudal elite authority which is not regulated or controlled to reign unchallenged - and unchallengeable, where the citizens must remain the passive, submissive, and subservient as in the feudal times of the past. The citizens of feudal-democracies, in 2012, are merely modern serfs and peasants. The bottom line is this, and refers back to this notion that things were never ‘right’ as regards democracy in Ireland, that in the final analysis of the political system and its transferal from British rule to Irish Independence, the citizens of Ireland never had the opportunity to assert their power as citizens. THEY WERE DENIED THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. They were told how the system was organised under British rule, without any chance to decide otherwise, and likewise they were told how the system was to be organised under Irish rule, without any chance to decide otherwise. At no point under either type of rule were the citzens ever asked what type of political system they wanted by those in authority - the citizens were merely told what type of political system they would have to live under and be ruled by. If this comes to pass that the citizens want a real change, an upheaval of the present political system, it will be then, in those circumstances that the true nature of our feudal-democratic systems will be revealed for what they truly are. We have already seen the behaviour of the US Government authorities and their forceful control of the Occupy Wall Street movement where citizens are complaining about the fact that they have been robbed and mugged by the financial institutions with the cooperation of their own Government. Feudal-democratic Governments may have a smiling public face but behind that smile is a fist, ready and willing to stop anyone taking away their power and authority. The very interesting question now is whether the Irish citizens can somehow overcome the past four hundred years or so of being oppressed, of being servile, of being submissive, of being subdued, of being broken, and finally become an assertive citizenry. It happened for a very short while 1916-1922 and as a result of that we gained our Independence. Whether we can re-awaken that determination and patriotism will decide the future of Irish politics and the future of Irish democracy. Lou Gogan 13th March 2013 |
|