NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM

DEMOCRACY is a much abused word today with party politics hi-jacking the concept for their own ends, which rarely , if ever, meet the aspirations of the electorate. The model is presented as the UK, however, the principles can be applied anywhere, see New Political System-USA

Please comment on the call for a DEMOCRATIC voice for the public.
Comments and/or join the New Political System discussion group.

A correspondent raised this very important question.
A dictionary definition is :- government by the people; state so governed.

1:- Government by the people, where the power is retained, and directly exercised by the people.
2:- Government by the delegation of that power to elected representatives.

The first is what I am proposing, the second is what we, and most countries, have got, but even that principle has been hi-jacked by party-politics.

The polarisation of the representatives has confused the issue to the point that the polarisation is the prime function of the government i.e. the perpetuation of the party is the prime objective.

Yet is it?
The vested interest's who fund the whole operation, also have a motive, is it to keep the public's 'eye off the ball'? If one looks at the growth of some companies it makes one wonder. How can it be that the growth of certain company's have grown to such an extent in a disproportionate length of time, and only since the advent of political parties? It is even more intriguing to look beyond the companies, and then find that there are a few people controlling the whole thing via the financial sector. 'Fact? Fiction? or Hypothesis?' barely scratches the surface.
Confusion, on an international scale, is the objective and it allows the real power to do anything it likes.

Local	'Parish' Council 'District' Council 'County' Council
Regional	Scotland. assemble Wales. assemble England. none..yet
National	Member of Parliament House of Commons House of Lords Monarchy

There is no direct link between the local hierarchy and the regional or national hierarchy, or even within the local structure.
An MP is often the representative of constituency in at least two 'Districts', and two MP's covering parts of the same 'District'.
MP's from regional assemblies sit in the 'National' parliament and vote on policies that effect English, yet English MP's cannot vote on Regional policies i.e. there is no regional assembles in England, but there are 10 regions.

The ONLY link between the different levels is the political parties, and if that is not a prime example of institutionalised confusion, I'd like to know what is.

It could be assumed that this is merely political anomaly of the UK, it's not, look at the system in any other country and you will find similar oddities. I worked with animals long enough to recognise when I'm being herded into a pen, and I don't like it.

A typical National government is elected on the votes of about 30% of the TOTAL qualifying voters, which must mean 70% of the electorate do not agree with them, of the 30% it is likely that half of them voted for the "least of the two evils".

Local government (all levels) is based on the number of elected members who subscribe to a political party.

Added to this hierarchy is the civil-servants, the Sir Humphrey's of 'Yes, Minister' fame, the un-elected officers of the 'council' who play one party against the other in order to achieve THEIR objectives.

Candidates (all levels) are selected by the party selection committees, these select on the basis of the ability to obey "the masters voice", by implication this means the ability to follow the needs of the party, yet they are required to swear an oath that obliges them to serve the country and the inhabitants, nowhere does it mention serving the party first, or last.

Yet I can find no evidence of Democracy in any of the Parties. The 'sales pitch' (manifesto) they give the voters, does not correspond with the reality when they become government. Why is this? the answer lies in the fact that in order to get enough funding to become a government, they need money, in order to get money, they have to go to the people with money, the 'hidden' agenda that they sell them, has to be paid back in 'services rendered'. The 'hidden' agenda is a lot near the reality of government than the manifesto.

The latest, and most dangerous, threat to democracy, is the current fad of 'cabinet decision making', this over-rides the involvement of the government, who are given a decision that has been made to vote on. As the 'cabinet' is the majority party, the other MP's either have to fight their own party (that will be the day), or back it. With the present government, it has been taken one step further in that the party makes the decision which is presented to the cabinet. Hence, Tony Benn's, amongst others, complaint of Tony Blair's presidential style of politics.

*The current political hierarchy*	*The NEW political Hierarchy*

UK	USA
Prime Minister	President
Parliament	Legislature
House of Commons	Congress
House of Lords	Senate
Member of Parliament	Representative
Lord	Senator

The main criteria being that the number of people should be small enough for everyone to know the other members. (The stumbling block of the current election procedure, is that multiple checks have to be made to validate an elector, hence nobody knows the individual and computers have to be used to check the qualifying status, which can leave the system vulnerable to corruption).

Electing the 'community' officers would be done by all the members voting for their choice of those wishing to serve. Some of the community representatives being elected on to the Parish committee. Election of the 'chairperson' being done by the committee, all levels of representatives being the spokesperson for their group, not making arbitrary decisions. As an individual climbs the structural ladder, the voting power of the individual is carried forward by virtue of the accumulated votes ('for' & 'against') of the committees they represent. The representatives (at all levels) only have their vote at the 'community' level, eliminating the potential of being influenced by other interests and compromising the community vote.

Voting to be done on the basis of declaring the 'community 'for' & 'against' votes, thus eliminating the need to equate 'community' population numbers. Community decisions (numbers for & against) to be recorded in a register and subject to scrutiny, and a slip issued to the elected representative for voting use. Members reservations (regarding any proposal) should be recorded and passed to the higher committee so that procedures can be investigated, and used to control any resulting actions.

Individuals elected for public office i.e. MP's/Councillors/etc. should be paid by the area electing them, not from the national budget, additional remunerations for ministerial positions to come from the appropriate ministry.

Communications between groups etc, could be done via the internet, voting to be done exclusively with a paper trail to give full trace-ability. A level three (Ward) web-site publishing community/parish/ward news and results etc. plus information coming down from higher levels. Whilst this may seem to exclude the members of population without internet access, we are talking about a community concept, the probability of no one in a community having internet access is unlikely, and it should be a pre-requisite of being a community representative. If the 'community' members elected someone without access, then the group could investigate ways of accessing the required equipment via shared/fund raising/etc.

Chairperson to be the 'Parish' representative on the next level, 'community' duties being shared with the number 2 candidate.

Proposals
Any proposal's being put forward, should be presented in a common format, itemising advantages/disadvantages, cost/return, how it's to be funded etc. Whilst the probability of being able to complete the form at proposal time, is extremely unlikely, it would remind people that everything has a cost, and that cost has to be justified, as it comes out of someone's pocket.

Proposals for action should be submitted to an investigative committee only if passed by the proposing community i.e. preliminary screening. It should also have a 'revision' period attached, what maybe 'good' for a short period, can be disastrous if run unchecked without a specified end/revision. Whilst 'for' and 'against' committees would/should pick up most potential problems, nothing is perfect, and 'unforeseen circumstances' do happen.

If, because of illness, death or misdemeanor, the elected officer was incapable of carrying out the functions required of that office, then the upward migration of 'Deputies' would automatically occur. For misdemeanor's, it would be the responsibility of the 'council' that elected the individual as to the course of action.

Political hierarchy
1:- A Parish is made up of 'X' number of 'communities', selection by the electorate for the 'chairperson', who then becomes the co-ordinator on the 'Ward' council. The 2nd candidate becomes the deputy etc. Each elected person to maintain contact with the 'communities', and they with their constituents on a rotational basis so that effectiveness of the representatives can be made. A co-ordinator should serve a minimum of one year before being eligible for next level office.

2:- A 'Ward' could be a town, large village, or a group of rural Parishes. The electorate elect a 'Ward' council member to become the 'chairperson', who becomes the co-ordinator for the 'District' council, No2 becomes the vice- 'Chairperson', No3 becomes the 'Deputy'.

3:- The 'District' elect an MP from the committee, No2 becomes the Chairperson' who is the co-ordinator on the 'County' council, No3 the vice- 'chairperson', No 4 the 'Deputy'.

4:- The 'County' elect the co-ordinator from the committee for the 'House of Lords', No 2 the 'Chairperson', No 3 the vice 'chairperson', No 4 the deputy.

5:- The MP's elect the 'Cabinet' on the basis of their qualification to be the head of a department (including the Prime Minster as head of the cabinet).

In each case the 'Chairperson' should be the 'Spokesperson' of the unit, NOT dictating the policy.
The reason I suggest that the appropriate 'committee' select their 'spokesperson' is that (in the case of parliament with 640 MP's) it would be an impossible task for the public to choose without all of them giving a televised speech. 640 five minute speeches equals 53.33 hours, and is 5 minutes an adequate time to assess their true potential.
Each appointment can only be made of public nominees via the prescribed structure.

Logic would indicate that there would be a limit to the number of 'Councils' that one could co-ordinate on, therefore, when one was selected for MP or County co-ordinator, they would be removed from 'Parish' status, and their 'Deputy' would take that responsibility. If one was selected for 'Cabinet', then the 'Ward' status would go, for the 'House of Lords' or 'Prime Minister' the 'District' status would be removed.

Yet the qualifying factors, that put them there, remain. If they move out of the Ward then they lose ALL of their status, a timely reminder as to their origins.

The highest office (Prime Minister/President) would have six levels of control i.e. Community, Parish, Ward, District, First Chamber, Cabinet. The Second Chamber (House of Lords) would have five i.e. Community, Ward, Parish, District, County. The person holding office would have to be re-elected for ALL levels at the end of their term. This may seem a daunting prospect, in reality it would not be, we are not talking about a change in government, just an individual who is a co-ordinator, a part of a continuous government that doesn't 'about-turn' every 4 years (that should frustrate the media).

Issues
Each level would have a structure for conflicting issues, a sub-committee 'for' and one 'against' each issue, each to quantify and submit it's reasons to each other, and the 'Council'. The sub-committees to be made up from the public, and 'chaired' by a 'Council' member with the public submitting comments to both. The prime function of these groups, is workout the long-term consequences of any proposal, which could over-ride the short-term advantages. The 'Council' setting appropriate controls on the basis of the committee's findings, then resubmitting the proposal to the public. If the implications, of any 'council' decision, had an effect on neighbouring 'councils', then the investigating procedure would be passed to the high authority, i.e. Ward to District, or District to County etc.

Public access
The public having direct access to ALL levels in the hierarchy, following a prescribed format, i.e. going through the hierarchy from 'Parish' representative upwards, but only using the upper levels if failing to receive a satisfactory response.

ALL elected members to have E-mail, in order to have rapid response to public opinion, "when I get round to it", is not good enough.

Holidays to be taken by arrangement with others in the hierarchy, so that continuous government is maintained.

Community/Parish officers should know their constituents, and have routine contact with them. The public should KNOW who their representatives are.

None of this is written in 'tablets of stone', what actually happens is for the public to decide, this is my suggestion as to a potential way that democracy could be given to the public. I've tried to assess the potential for corruption in each part of the election of delegates, and for the voting of issues, this does not mean it's 'bullet-proof', or that I haven't missed anything. Building up from 'communities' should allow potential weaknesses to be found before it's to late.

I've not chosen electronic voting as the medium, there are too many elements that are not under public control in the initial stages, this does not eliminate it's use when fully installed, that again is for the public to decide, but I would warn that there are higher levels of potential corruption than local/national politics.