Discussion:
defetishization of democracy
(too old to reply)
Oleg Smirnov
2018-01-21 12:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
These days the Lords have gone from rich hereditary landowners
(aristocrats) to friends of the (previous) prime ministers.
The unelected powers still can affect and constraint policymaking.
While it's true for any nation, the UK regime is one of more special
examples where some of such powers are legitimized in a constitutional
manner, which is somewhat similar to the Iranian democracy.
<http://tinyurl.com/yb7pz8mc> truepublica.org.uk

Many of the rules and institutions which constrain the actions of elected
governments are by their nature not democratic - in the narrow sense - because
they are not subject to popular endorsement. To take the most obvious
instance: if governments are to operate under the rule of law, then government
actions must be subject to review by the courts, and few in the UK believe
that judges should be appointed by popular election.
When British government ministers believe their plans are being obstructed by
the judiciary, the civil service or the House of Lords, they commonly now
argue that such resistance is politically illegitimate because these are
unelected institutions. It is only executive government which has legitimate
political power because it enjoys popular democratic endorsement. ..

...

Here an aboriginal thinker argues that too much elected powers is not good
while the fact that the elected powers are constrained by unelected ones is
actually good for the UK regime. He claims that 'over-representation of
democratic legitimacy' is rather a perverse virtue. 'The concept of democratic
mandate .. has arguably become dangerously over-extended.'

Putting aside the petty domestic issues related the island sovereign politics,
I can see that he basically wants to push the idea that while the ignorant
masses do vote, the establishment (the persistent 'deep state', 'elites') can
better know what is better for the nation, - so a disrespect to the unelected
powers is not good.

The question of interaction between elected and unelected powers within a
nation is itself a large and complex topic, and it's out of my focus here (I'd
simply noticed as statement of fact without good-bad evaluations that certain
unelected powers exist and affect policymaking in all nations, including those
that consider themselves democracies).

It's more interesting to me that the writer can't honestly recognize what the
UK regime really is in a constitutional sense: a hybrid of electoral democracy
and unelected power, where the latter constraints the former (and the thinker
himself considers such a situation a virtue). His stance is understandable,
given that 'democracy' has become heavily fetishized in 'western' usage, kind
of symbol of faith. People have been accustomed to use it without a rational
understanding of what it really is supposed to be. So, if a political system
is labeled 'democratic' then everything, even an unelected power, within it
must be somewhat a democracy, otherwise it wouldn't sound nice. So he chose to
slyly introduce 'democracy in the narrow sense' vs 'democracy in the broad
sense', where the latter includes unelected non-democratic powers. But when he
tries to reveal and clarify what exactly the euphemism 'democracy in the broad
sense' means, the only way he can do it is, - this is something that looks and
feels 'western'-like ("collection of attributes found in Western Europe and
North America"). Such a way of reasoning is pathetically feeble from the
perspective of rational social theorizing, however, it explains well the true
'western' attitudes about what to put 'democracy' label on.

Ultimately, it boils down to primitive baser tribalist concepts (with 'mature
democracies' - despite the fact that they actually aren't 'true' democracies -
against the rest of the world), which is a thing essentially of Nazi flawor.
m***@btopenworld.com
2018-01-21 15:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
These days the Lords have gone from rich hereditary landowners
(aristocrats) to friends of the (previous) prime ministers.
The unelected powers still can affect and constraint policymaking.
Not so much power as Parliamentary convention that is rigourously adhered to.

For instance. Any Parliamentary bill that has survived a third reading in the Commons *must* go to the Lords for review under which the bill will be gone over line by line and possibly amendments made before being returned to the Commons. Back in the Commons, then suggestions made by the Lords may be taken into account or the bill may be sent back without amendment.

This presents excellent opportunity for inadvertent errors in any bill to be ironed out and most Lords amendments are 'nodded through' but unless it has been amended by the Commons it cannot *by convention* be returned to the Commons again and must be passed on for Royal Assent.

Similarly again *by convention*, no Finance bill (budget) can be delayed by the Lords neither can any bill that was part of the governing party's manifesto at the previous General Election.

This system works well and one can be reassured that if ever the situation arose whereby these conventions were broken so that the legislation programme of the government were obstructed then they would go to be replaced by legislation.

The government always does have the upper hand quite rightly as the elected house. It was mooted just this morning that the Lords will not attempt to block exit since if they did then Theresa may would use her powers under the Parliamentary Act to swamp the chamber with Tory peers and that would spell the end of it.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Many of the rules and institutions which constrain the actions of elected
governments are by their nature not democratic - in the narrow sense - because
they are not subject to popular endorsement. To take the most obvious
instance: if governments are to operate under the rule of law, then government
actions must be subject to review by the courts, and few in the UK believe
that judges should be appointed by popular election.
I would hope not since that would entirely destroy the independence of the judiciary which I believe to be its cornerstone.

Popular elections are fought by political parties which is why such exist. We would very quickly be adjudicated by Tory, Labour, or Liberal Democratic judges depending upon which government were in power or where we lived.

If we desire the politicisation of our judicial system, then this is the shortest route to that end. We went too far down this route when we introduced Police commissioners. That one is still running before the ears start to flow.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
When British government ministers believe their plans are being obstructed by
the judiciary, the civil service or the House of Lords, they commonly now
argue that such resistance is politically illegitimate because these are
unelected institutions. It is only executive government which has legitimate
political power because it enjoys popular democratic endorsement. ..
...
Here an aboriginal thinker argues that too much elected powers is not good
while the fact that the elected powers are constrained by unelected ones is
actually good for the UK regime. He claims that 'over-representation of
democratic legitimacy' is rather a perverse virtue. 'The concept of democratic
mandate .. has arguably become dangerously over-extended.'
And the aboriginal thinker is dead right!

Personally I would favour abolition of the HoL in its present form and it's replacement by a "House of Technocrats" even if for the sake of continuity it continues to be known as the House of Lords.

It would be elected by the popular votes of members the various professional bodies etc. that are already present in society. It's function would be to review Parliamentary bills pretty much as it does now but without powers to initiate legislation. It would advise the Commons on the practicalities of legislation they intend to introduce A much needed pool of expertise in other words.

What it would not be is a club of superannuated politicians waiting for God.

Membership of the HoC would be a lifetime bar to membership of the HoL and vice versa.
Oleg Smirnov
2018-04-08 22:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<http://tinyurl.com/yd96ek9s> moonofalabama.org

Syria - Timelines Of 'Gas Attacks' Follow A Similar Scheme

April 08, 2018

An alleged new 'chemical incident' in Syria reminds of a similar series of
events we saw last year. We are told to believe that each time the U.S. pulls
back from the war on Syria the Syrian government is responding with a
'chemical attack' that pulls the U.S. back in. ..

Read more with specific facts, references <http://tinyurl.com/yd96ek9s>

Over the last months the Syrian army secured 90% of 'rebel' enclave in
east-Ghouta right next to the Syrian capital Damascus. Only the town of
Douma, held by the Saudi financed Salafist Takfiris of Jaish al-Isalm, was
left in enemy hands. Negotiations about an evacuation of the terrorist were
ongoing. At one point last week the hard core leaders of Jaish al-Islam pulled
their negotiators back from the talks and reportedly executed them. ..

The terrorist in Douma hold several thousand of hostages who were abducted in
2013 from the town of Adra. The prisoners were paraded around in cages. The
abducted men were forced to dig the extensive tunnel network Jaish al-Isalm
uses to hide its weapons and fighters.

Two years ago Jaish al-Islam admitted that it used chemical weapons against a
Kurdish suburb of Aleppo. Just two days ago the Russian military command said
that it detected 'rebel' preparations for new false flag gas attacks.

Now the terrorists and their supporters claim that a new "chemical weapon
attack" happened and blame the Syrian government. ..

Read more <http://tinyurl.com/yd96ek9s>

...

The last news say they still started the evacuation just recently.

I suspect there's a significant participation of the British stinkers in the
promotion of all these 'chemical' fabrications and machinations. The stinkers
are desperate to find something to blame Russia for, and the 'chemical' topic
is a proper tool, because it excites well the imagination of the cattle-like
majority of the ignorant 'western' public. Atlanticism has resorted to play
very dirty, their crazy lies are now close to the medieval level, which shows
a high degree of desperation of their policymakers.
State sponsorship of terrorism by U.S. government.
<http://tinyurl.com/y85kh6js> nbcnews.com
ISIS weapons .. purchased by U.S. government
<http://tinyurl.com/ybyrgh2t> newsweek.com
HOW ISIS GOT WEAPONS FROM THE U.S. ..
<http://tinyurl.com/y9v3td6c> newsweek.com
U.S. MADE SECRET DEAL WITH ISIS ..
<http://tinyurl.com/y9uyu5n5> newsweek.com
.. U.S. MILITARY TRAINING ISIS ..
<https://tinyurl.com/ybfdjzsv>
Did Barack Obama arm ISIS? The question strikes many people as absurd, if
not offensive. How can anyone suggest something so awful about a nice guy
like the former president? But a stunning report
<http://www.conflictarm.com/publications/> by an investigative group known
as Conflict Armament Research (CAR) leaves us little choice but to conclude
that he did. .. This is damning stuff since it makes it clear that rather
than fighting ISIS, the U.S. government was feeding it. ..
Oleg Smirnov
2018-06-05 13:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<http://tinyurl.com/ycco69f5> independent.co.uk

US, Britain and France inflicted worst destruction 'in decades' killing
civilians in Isis-held city of Raqqa, report says
Patrick Cockburn | 2018-06-05

Air and artillery strikes by the US and its allies inflicted devastating
loss of life on civilians in the Isis-held city of Raqqa, according to an
Amnesty International report. It contradicts claims by the US, along with
Britain and France, that they precisely targeted Isis fighters .. "On the
ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything
we have seen in decades of covering the impact of wars," says Donatella
Rovera, a senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty. She says that the
coalition's claim that it had conducted a precision bombing campaign that
caused few civilian casualties does not stand up to scrutiny. ..

The air and artillery strikes by the US and its allies killed many
civilians .. during the four-month-long siege .. Citing the testimony of
survivors, it contradicts assertions by the US-led coalition that it took
care to avoid targeting buildings where civilians might be present.
Witnesses say that again and again their houses were destroyed although
there were no Isis fighters in them or nearby. .. Many families were hit
more than once by airstrikes and artillery as they fled from place to place
in Raqqa, vainly trying to avoid being close to the front lines ..

Many cities have been destroyed in the wars in Iraq and Syria since 2011,
but the destruction is worse in Raqqa than anywhere else. Streets are
simply lane-ways cut through heaps of rubble and broken masonry. .. The
claim by the coalition that its airstrikes and artillery fire were precisely
targeted against Isis fighters and their positions is shown up as a myth as
soon as one drives into the city. I visited it earlier in the year and have
never seen such destruction. There are districts of Mosul, Damascus and
Aleppo that are as bad, but here the whole city has gone. .. On every side,
as far as the eye can see, there are ruined buildings ..

The report, based on 112 interviews and visits to 42 strike locations, was
sharply criticised by a coalition spokesman even before it was published. ..
The reality in Raqqa, despite claims of the precise accuracy of modern
weapons and great concern for civilian life, is that the ruins look exactly
like pictures of the aftermath of the carpet bombing of cities like Hamburg
and Dresden in the Second World War. .. The Ministry of Defence says the UK
carried out 275 airstrikes and killed no civilians at all. ..

<http://tinyurl.com/yae45keg> theintercept.com

The exact number of civilians who died in coalition strikes on Raqqa last
year remains unknown. The independent monitoring group Airwars has estimated
that the death toll was at least 1,800, though the true figure may be
considerably higher. .. THE BATTLE TO liberate Raqqa from the Islamic State
resulted in the near-total destruction of the city, with an estimated 11,000
buildings destroyed or damaged during the fighting. The U.S. military
admitted to the use of "annihilation tactics" during the campaign, and
Defense Secretary James Mattis rationalized civilian casualties as a "fact
of life.

But for many, the most galling aspect of the battle for Raqqa was that,
after many months of fighting, the coalition ultimately allowed safe passage
for ISIS fighters to leave the city. This negotiated withdrawal raised
serious questions about whether the campaign needed to be waged as brutally
as it was.

"Many people in Raqqa are asking why the coalition deemed it necessary to
kill so many civilians and destroy the entire city, only to ultimately let
the ISIS fighters it was targeting leave," said Donatella Rovera, a
researcher for Amnesty International who conducted field interviews in the
city. "If the coalition had deemed it necessary to take certain risks that
would lead to them killing civilians, but deemed those necessary risks to
target ISIS fighters, why, in the end, did they decide to let the ISIS
fighters withdraw from the city with impunity, taking their weapons along
with them?" ..

...

The main Alanticist 'power' is the power of deception and manipulation with
facts and claims through the MSM. The English are perhaps the most cynical
and brazen in this respect. These folks can lie through their teeth as long
as the gullible populace believe in incredible "accuracy of hi-tech Western
weapons" and inherent reputability of their 'brave heroes'.

Meanwhile, on realistic thought, the Atlanticist military today is rather a
sissified and depraved substance that used to use distant tools, drones and
excessive force "for the guarantee". They see it rather like a computer
game-shooter <http://tinyurl.com/yb4o9t6k>. It's essentially similar to how
the American police have become accustomed to kill people, usually 'color'
ones, "for the guarantee" at the slightest suspicion of danger to their own
obese ass. It works well if you have powerful weapons and sense of impunity,
and in such a situation it would be very naive to expect a small collateral
damage.

As to why they eventually allowed the ISIS troops to withdraw from the city
with impunity, taking their weapons along with them, read more here
<http://tinyurl.com/yc6qwplp>, and the very same [former] ISIS militants are
now being training by the US instructors in the Syria's Tanf area, read more
here <http://tinyurl.com/y7sblvlc>.
<http://tinyurl.com/y8dsnznz>
UNPRECEDENTED DESTRUCTION
Byker
2018-07-15 20:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message








Loading...