profhig

I beg to differ even though I share some of your ideas concencerning the American and British electoral system and its effects. But when it comes to defining a democracy the electoral system and its shortcomings is only one aspect to consider. There other criteria which define and characterize a democracy like the right of free speech and press and I think we all agree that the media are an effective means of voicing and influencing public opinion. There is the right to form and/or join a party, union, grass-root movement etc.; the right to organise e.g. demonstrations etc. Looking at the behaviour and attitude of the governments in and of Europe at the moment you can get the impression that after having been elected the Prime Ministers, Presidents, Bundeskanzler, MPs etc. do not care much about public opinion and cannot be controlled continually and effectively by the electorate. The core of the problem is that we all live in representative/indirect demcocracies and that the only effective influence we seem to have is the ballot paper. When Germany was reunited again in 1990 it was discussed if our constitution should be changed reinstating referenda and some other elements of direct democracy. The main argument of the supporters of more elements of direct democracy was that that would be a way to engage more people in the democratic process and to make decision-making more democratic. The opponents of the idea of referenda refered to the Weimar Republic and the negative experiences. Unfortunately the opponents won the day and the constitution was not changed. I personally support the idea of more elements of direct democracy even on a national level (as I said in my previous posting the constitutions of some of the German Laender allow referenda on a local and regional level) because people then can have a more direct say in the running of the country. This also could have the positive effect that people are more interested and enganged in politics. I take your point about free speech and press. The problem is, do we really have free speech and a free press? (I am concerned mainly with the British system). A case in point, Robert Relf in the 1970's. When the UK introduced, quite rightly, its anti-racism legislation, Mr. Relf advertised his house for sale to 'a white person only.' He was convicted and served a prison sentence for flouting the new law. I am quite sure that we will all agree that his conviction was morally correct. It does, however, mean that Mr. Relf has had his right to free speech curtailed. However much we dislike his opinions, should he have the right to express them? As far as free press is concerned, I could not afford to start a newspaper to express opinions I am in agreement with. And ultimately the editors of papers decide what to print, so trying to have my opinions put into print through letters pages etc. is dependatnt on an individuals decision. I would also make the point that newspapers are obliged to print the truth, but truths can be manipulated to read differently than the intention of the originator. For example: the 1984 miners strike in the UK. The Saltley coke works had a mass picket to stop lorries going in. A headline on the front page of the 'Evening Mail' read 'policeman injured on picket line' or words to that effect. Most people who read that headline immediately had the impression that the pickets had caused the injury. Reading on, it transpired that the officer in question had slipped on a kerb, sprained his ankle and no picket was involved. It was a pure accident.But people had already condemmed the pickets due to the headline, and reading on to what really happened did not alter opinion. Readers still had it fixed in their mind that pickets were responsible, in as much as they were there. So free speech? Of ourse we can never have it. It is more a question of where we draw the line.

I would like to say catagorically that neither Britain nor America are democracies. Both because we have no affective opposition, both countries having a choice between moniterist, capitalist parties, and that is not a choice. It puts me in mind of an advertisement that was current many years ago. A typical British landlady asking her tenant "How do you want your eggs? Fried or boiled?". I Would also draw your attention to the 1974 general election. I was politically active at the time in as much as I was a trade union representative, and kept abreast of the political scene. Edward Heath, the leader of the conservative party at the time lost the election, but was invited by the queen to form a government. The fact that he could not form an alliance with the then liberal party meant that he could not hold a majority in parliament. The queen then had no option but to invite Harold Wilson to form a government. This shows us that ultimate power, admittedly within certain parameters, lies with an individual, not the electorate. Just as a secondary thought, hopefully provoking further comments and opinions, I hold the view that the Native American Indian, as opposed to the generally accepted Ancient Greeks were the originators of and had the best democratic system in history. Most , if not all of the Indian Nations had a system of power, where a chief or medicine man held sway, under the auspices of a governing council of elders who held ultimate powers of decision making. And yet an individual member of a tribe had the option to ignore protocol, and do what he thought appropriate given individual circumstances. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for a brave in the throws of battle to leave the battlefield if he saw a deer running by and felt that the hunting of the said deer to feed his family was more important than to contribute to the fight. This action would not be questioned by his fellow braves, nor would he be considered unworthy. Real democratic decision making, retaining the rights of the individual.

Thanks very much. I have found some other interesting artilcles by searching 'COLQUHOUN peel's police act', in google.

Thanks, John. I think I have the spelling wrong, but I am sure it was 'Farqueharson' or 'Arquefarson' or something similar. My web searches have produced no information either! I have checked my books at home, so think I have probably read about it in passing while reading about a related subject from a library book. I shall try your suggestions, and keep looking. If I come across the answer I will post it for anybody else who may be interested. paul higgins. [profhig]

I must tell you that I am not a teacher, but do work part time at a local school, and this post is a purely personal request. This site was suggested when I emailed another site for the information. I am sure, as educators you will, if possible be happy to help. The information I am looking for is below, from the original email. I hope you can help me. Some years ago I read a book which mentioned a relatively obscure politician. My only recollection is his name was Farqueharson (or similar). He may have been either a peer or an mp, but the subject matter, which I believe was in passing, was that some 100 yrs or more before Peel, he had attempted to introduce a police bill into parliament which was virtually indistinguishable from Sir Robert Peels successful bill, as I remember. This attempt did not become law because one of the two houses said that the introduction of a police force would be an infringement of civil liberties. I have spent some considerable time trying to track down information on the politician in question, or at least some reference to his bill, but have not been very successful. I must admit I am not certain of the spelling, and he may even have been an ‘Arquefarson’. (Please forgive my attempt at the spelling.) I would like to research the matter further, purely for personal satisfaction, and would be grateful if you could help with identifying the mp or the rejected bill. Many thanks in advance.