A garden, though comprising different plants and colours, is manifestly more beautiful and pleasing to the eye for being so.
This morning I saw Andrew Marr interviewing Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Business, Investment and Skills, on BBC's TV 'The Andrew Marr Show.' Mr Marr asked Mr Javid to answer 'yes', or 'no', as to whether when he told the British electorate about his opinion that Britain leaving the European Union, the country would suffer some very damaging consequences.
It was quite clear that Mr Javid needed to be honest, and said, to Mr Marr, 'yes', I really did believe that those consequences would occur, if Britain voted to leave the EU, and, yes, I still believe that they could/or will, unless, the British Government - as soon as the Conservative Party finishes the internal blood-letting and decide, not only who is to become the new Prime Minister and leader of the their Party, but also who is to be part of the 'reshuffled government - its political parties and European and EU leaders can work together to avoid what could become an extremely grave situation.
That might have been the honest thing for Mr Javid to have done, but, was that what he did? No. He began his response by repeatedly dodging the question and giving a 'statement' which had little, if any relevance to the question which he was being asked. Which was, were you being 'honest when you said what you said before Britain's EU referendum?
His response, therefore, would suggest that Mr Javid - and there are probably many other politicians in the same 'boat' - was not being honest, but was trying to 'scare the electorate.' If not, why would he be putting at risk his personal and political credibility? This man who has only very recently been in the forefront of planning to save the jobs of steel workers in Wales, UK.? No, it makes no sense at all, and leaves the listener to speculate about the Secretary's motives for refusing to answer a simple question, with a 'yes' or a 'no', and then going on to add whatever qualification or mitigation he honestly believes he should add. Could it be that he is worried about losing his job in the pending new Conservative government, which is probably likely to have a preponderance of Brexit politicians?
And what will happen, if most of the people - in whichever country - were to conclude that their, and all or most politicians, do not say what they really believe, but what they want the electorate to believe and/or what is expedient for them to say at any given time? Yes, it could mean that the electorate would soon get to the point where 'they no longer know what to believe anymore', and even become super-gullible, or, as a significant proportion of the global electorate have already become, repulsed by politicians and 'traditional politics.'
This leads on to make a brief, initial foray into the issue of whether a politician, or a government, should always 'keep their promise to the electorate, no matter what?'
Take, for example, David Cameron's, the British Prime Minister, decision to 'let the British electorate decide whether or not Britain should leave or remain in the European Union.' It might have been the 'democratic' thing to do, although the quality of a 'democratic decision' which is opposed by nearly 48 per cent of the population, is not beyond serious flaws. If good quality 'democracy' is to be realised, it cannot be based on a 'first past the post' or 'winner takes all' principle and practice. The issue of proportionality needs to be an integral aspect of good quality 'democracy'; something which is hardly reflected in the outcome of, eg, Britain's EU referendum, whereby you have the views of 52 per cent of the voting electorate 'invalidating' or marginalising that of the remaining 48 per cent.
We might also consider whether on not the government has any right, 'democratic' or otherwise, to refuse to implement some 'referendum decision', should it consider it not to be in the best interest of the nation and its people, for it to do so. Consider what would happen if a country's armed forces were to be allowed to make decisions as to whether it would be in the country's best interest, for them to fight or not to fight in a particular conflict? Leadership, and prudent leadership is what a country, and, indeed, humans, need, and that is not the same as leaving or giving the people the burdensome privilege of making decisions on matters which the government should have a more comprehensive perspective of the merits and viability of implementing.
Arguably, instead of being a true aspect of 'democracy' referendums can end up being expressions of governments' inability to deal with and resolve major dilemmas confronting them. In other words, it can be perceived of as a failure of 'government to govern prudently and effective, resulting in the government 'passing the decision to their electorate.' In terms of the 'issue of accountability', one can therefore pose the question: 'what then happens if the 'decision which has been made by part of the electorate', results in major problems for the country, such as are indicated by the Brexit vote, and, even war? Is it the government or the people, the electorate, who will be accountable, and be accountable in a meaningful way, including even being liable to legal action being taken against the accountable body or bodies?
These questions, I believe, are just some of those posed by the use of referendums to determine difficult decisions.
Like smoking, politicians and politics are dangerous for the health of the people over whom they rule, and should be labelled accordingly. However, since, because they are also the 'law-makers', they are unlikely to label themselves as such, let the citizen be aware of and on constant vigilance of the the danger they pose.
If we have to have barriers between people, then let up also have strong bridges.
No comments:
Post a Comment