Previous
editorials
Current editorial
February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016 (supplement)
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December supplement
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
|
 |
 |
 |

These are regular editorials
produced alongside the corresponding issues on Nonviolent
News. |
“You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But
I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950),
"Back to Methuselah" (1921), part 1, act 1.
Some people are surprised at the low
percentage of people who vote in some, Western, elections. The question is then
asked whether people simply do not value democracy. The answer is, largely,
that people do not see the value of voting (and governments only have so much
power, particularly in relation to economics and large corporations). Some
political activists see other important things to be doing. The bigger
question, hidden in plain sight, is “what is democracy?” and how important or
unimportant are the right to vote and other democratic rights.
The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland introduced safeguards in terms of voting within the Northern Ireland
Assembly on contentious issues, to ensure cross-community support, as well as
using the d’Hondt system for electing/selecting ministers and posts. This fact
notwithstanding, in neither Northern Ireland nor the Republic has the definition
of democracy, as such, advanced much beyond the nineteenth and early twentieth
century take on it; it is still fairly much ‘majority rule’ with a tokenistic
mention of minority rights. Proportional representation (PR-STV) may exist for
most elections, North and South; this does give a fairer distribution of seats
than the appalling system used in the UK for parliamentary elections (‘first
past the post’) but PR is certainly not perfect. In the twenty-first century
this is inadequate; we need to move on in both democratic theory and practice
if we are to be true to democratic ideals and to really involving people in a
meaningful way (e.g. participation in elections is declining).
At the moment politicians can ignore the
will of the people and the only check on them is the following election (aside
from referenda in the Republic – see below). Some people would say ‘we elect
the government to govern – let them get on with it’, and also ‘the government
have to be prepared to take tough decisions which popular opinion might not go
with’. The first of these views represents an antiquated view of democracy;
‘they’ govern, ‘we’ are governed. The second is certainly true – but ‘taking
tough decisions’ may not mean taking the right decisions. Was Tony Blair’s
decision for the UK to go to war in Iraq ‘right’? Certainly not, in a situation
where it is quite clear a large proportion of the population actively opposed
such a war, the majority were correct, the government was badly wrong. Is the
Fianna Fail handling of the banking crisis through NAMA, at the moment,
‘right’? Very debateable.
The Republic has a written constitution
which requires a majority of those voting to approve changes, and this means
that adults are consulted on some big issues. But the way these issues are
framed into simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ options is so simplistic as to be laughable.
How can you reduce complex issues such as abortion, or indeed the Lisbon
Treaty, to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers? It can be done but it so distorts the issue,
and gives such a blunt answer, as to be relatively meaningless as a
representative response from the electorate. These referenda are also conducted
on the basis of “50% + 1”, which again makes the ‘answer’ a travesty of
meaningful consultation and a failure to respect people’s democratic views.
And, as we have seen in relation to Nice and Lisbon treaties, if the people
give the ‘wrong’ answer then the government simply keeps asking the question
again until the people get it ‘right’.
The answer, or partial answer, in this
regard is to introduce a consensus voting system, such as the Modified Borda
Count (see Peter Emerson’s article in NN 169 and also www.deborda.org) or
preferendum. This gets out all the options and, through a voting system which
rewards people making a choice on all options, delivers the answer which has
the broadest possible support across society. Not only is it giving a more
sophisticated answer, it also delivers a more sophisticated debate – it is not
a question of answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but of deciding what you consider to be
the best possible options. The same kind of system (Quota Borda System) can be
used for electing public representatives at all levels as well.
An objection from some radicals may be that
such a system will prevent change because of the difficulty of getting society
agreed on the changes needed. While there is an element of truth in this there
is simply no other way to go except to take people with us. That is what
democracy is about. It also does not prevent us acting in other democratic ways
(see further in this editorial). And so far as electing politicians are
concerned, Margaret Thatcher simply could not have introduced the radical
right-wing changes she implemented from 1979 onwards with such a system in
place; she was elected with a minority of the electorate supporting her. With a
more consensual voting system in place, the result would have been very
different and so, indeed, would have been UK history.
Thus far we have spoken about electoral and
decision making politics; equally important are human and civil rights, without
which democratic voting mechanisms are very empty and meaningless. The whole
structure of civil society, from community, voluntary and pressure groups,
which form the bedrock of citizen engagement with society, are an essential
part of the democratic jig-saw, a particularly colourful part of the patchwork
of democracy. We, in peace, human rights, green, and solidarity groups, will
continue to work for what we passionately believe in. None of this would negate
our work. Indeed, in relation to a variety of issues like the Lisbon Treaty, it
would actually move the debate onwards in a more meaningful way because the
government in the Republic could not simply take a simplistic second bite at
getting the answer they wanted. In a very meaningful way, pressure groups of
various kinds are the conscience of society; people who feel strongly enough on
an issue are the essence of democracy. Again, grouping together in such a way
does not make us ‘right’, but the ability to do so, and the ability to create a
debate on the issues with a view to change, is one of the most fundamental
rights of all. Any definitions of democracy must include this whole element.
Within the EU, and a large structure like
the EU, there is the larger question of what ‘democracy’ is like and about.
What is possible in such a structure? The answer must be that we should expect
no less from such a structure than we do from our national structures. Of
course there is greater complexity through greater numbers, more widely
diverging cultures and viewpoints, but why can the people of the EU not be
consulted in the same way on issues? The current centralising, militarising
tendencies of the EU could well be checked by such citizen democracy. And it would
enable people throughout the countries of the EU to feel that they are being
consulted and involved in a real way, thus bringing the EU closer to its
citizens – a supposed but totally neglected aim currently. But whether the
powers that be within the EU could possibly agree to such citizen democracy
would remain to be seen.
A second Lisbon referendum is arriving in
the Republic, on 2nd October. There are some who have been persuaded that the
additional guarantees to the Republic, on Irish neutrality, tax, and ethical
issues, mean they can vote ‘yes’ this time. But the broader questions remain
about EU centralism and developing militarism (and common military ‘defence’
under Lisbon), and about the economic neo-liberalism which is at the heart of
so much of the EU’s policies in this area. The people of France and the Netherlands previously rejected the EU constitution, an earlier form of the Lisbon
Treaty, as did the people of the Republic. To press on with such a project in
this situation is the most reprehensible negation of democracy. While the
Republic would be lambasted by pro-EU factions for voting ‘no’ a second time,
it would certainly be in the service of democracy throughout the EU because it
would create a more radical heart-searching about the direction the EU is
travelling. The appropriate response is to go back to the drawing board. By
voting ‘no’ a second time the Republic would be delivering one small voice for
meaningful democracy beyond centralism.
Our definitions of democracy are sadly dated.
Our democratic infrastructure is quite threadbare. And yet some people still
wonder why people do not engage with ‘politics’ (totally aside from any
questions about political corruption which has coloured people’s views); this
often ignores the fact that people at grass-roots level, and in voluntary and
pressure groups of all kinds, are engaged in politics with a small ‘p’. ‘Party’
politics should not be allowed to think it is the only ‘politics’ in town. It
is time to move on. This is the twenty-first century. We need twenty-first
century responses to the issues we face today, and twenty-first century
definitions, not something lightly dusted off from the nineteenth century. This
should apply at every level, from our local council through to the EU and beyond.
- - - - - -
Eco-Awareness Eco-Awareness
Larry Speight brings us his monthly column
–
As old photographs show Ireland has changed significantly over the past 50 plus years. The Ireland of thatched cottages, donkeys laden with turf and car-free roads have long gone, as
are the days when school children would get permission from their teacher to be
absent from class in order to pick potatoes. Gone are the days when our apples
came from Armagh, our shirts from L/Derry and our Corgi cars were made in England. Many remembering hard times will say those were not the good old days, but the bad
old days we are better off without.
It is true that a great deal that
characterised Ireland, north and south, during most of the twentieth century is
better left in the past. However, as a growing global population confronts a
world affected by climate change, collapsing eco-systems marked by massive soil
erosion, the death of the seas, the depletion of fresh water from glaciers and
aquifers and the catastrophic loss of tropical rainforests, many of the skills
that our grandparents would have taken for granted will be lauded and
considered essential for survival.
These skills enabled people to live
self-sufficient lives rooted in community. Fifty years ago, people who had
never been to school could build their own home, thatch a roof, make sturdy
furniture, plant crops as well as harvest and process the produce. They could
dig wells, generate electricity, tend animals, hunt and fish, mend bicycles,
and darn clothes. A trip by car to Dunnes or Tesco to buy a loaf of bread, a TV
dinner or a pot of jam was unheard of. Equally unheard of was throwing one bag
of food out of every three we buy into the bin. Such are the differences in life
today that if a person from 50 years ago who had not experienced the transition
in technology and attitudes were to return, they would suffer cultural shock.
One of the things that would surprise them
is that although a 12-year old is likely to be computer literate they can’t put
a name to birds in their own garden, can’t tell the difference between the
harmful and harmless berries growing in the hedgerows and are not likely to
have ever seen crops growing in a field. In other words, if the national electricity
grid were to collapse they and their parents would not know how to survive. If
living in a city they would not be able to do such basic tasks as harvest water
to flush the toilet. In fact it is likely that a great many houses in Northern Ireland don’t even have a bucket.
Our friend from the past would observe that
although we are technologically literate we don’t know how to mend things when
they break or malfunction. In fact, most of us don’t have a clue how the things
we use actually work. Our friend is likely to consider our idea of progress an
illusion, most especially in not having the skills to meet our daily needs in
the event of the eco-collapse we as a society are making little effort to avoid
or prepare for.
As a new cycle of formal learning is about
to begin each of us should make the effort to learn at least one new skill that
will enable us to become more self-sufficient. If we do this we would likely
make new friends, be richer, healthier and happier. We could even share our new
skills with others, and sharing, as our friend from the past would tell us, is
essential for survival.
- - - - - -
At the end of June, 21 human rights workers
and journalists were seized by Israeli forces and taken off the Free Gaza boat,
Spirit of Humanity, bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza; they were held for
around a week. See http://www.freegaza.org Among those illegally imprisoned
were two people from Ireland, Derek Graham and Mairead Maguire. What follows is
a poem written by Mairead Maguire when she was held in prison in Israel -
Must speak!
Written by Mairead Maguire
Nobel Peace Laureate, during her
incarceration in Ramle prison, Israel, July 1st, 2009:
As long as
The People of Palestine
Have no liberty, no freedom
Those of us with a voice to speak:
Must speak!
As long as
The Children of Gaza
Live in fear of Israeli
Bombs and occupation
Those of us with a voice to speak:
Must speak!
As long as
Six million Palestinian refugees
Are deportees around the world
Those of us with a voice to speak:
Must speak!
As long as
Millions of God’s Children
Are hungry, imprisoned, and without hope
Those of us with a voice to speak:
Must speak!
Because it is in speaking
We find our liberty, our freedom
And no prison bars can take away
Our peace, our love
Which is the true Spirit of Humanity!
|