scotsboyuk
Vitr Alfr
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 183
Inderjit S said:
Exactly! The entire British system is fundamentally undemocratic in relation to the democracies of other countries e.g. America, France, etc. There is no written constituion to define what can and cannot be done and by whom. In despite of this our system has worked well for centuries, largely based on the premise of tradition and fair play. The electorate trusts the politicians they elect to be committed to democracy and the politicians trust that the Soveriegn will respect Parliament and the Soveriegn trusts the people to elect a parliament that will maintain the system. So far that system has worked very well indeed.
Really? I am not terribly sur eof your historical credentials so I shall not leap into a debate, which others may find boring, but I shall add some pertinent points.
British democracy can be said to have begun with the Magna Carta, which was instigated by the nobles. This document then laid the basis for subsequent British liberalism and democratic movements. Following on from the Magna Carta there were many subsequent events, which were important to British democracy, but for the sake of brevity we shall skip forwards in time to the Hannoverians. The growing dominance of the Commons and the diminishing powers of the Soveriegn during this period are held to be an important stage in the development of the democracy we see today in Britain. Far from involving the bourgeoise, the events of this period mostly centred around the upper class politicians of the day and not least of all the various Princes of Wales during the century.
When we arrive in the 19th century we at last see a significant measure of interest by the middle classes. However, this activity is tempered by the activities of both the upper and lower classes. One obvious example of this is the Labour and Marxist movements of the late 19th century. Both movements relied heavily upon the working classes for support and actively railed against not only the upper classes, but the bourgeoise. If the upper class were the chief instigators of political change in 18th century Britain then it was the working class who powered along the great changes of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The middle class have only recently come to have a strong voice again in the wake of WWII. The trouble is that the traditional British middle class, which would have sided with the upper class Tory party is now in something of a limbo state, with no obvious choice of party to follow.
And how are "those traits" more prevalent than in republics? I am interested in the demographics and stats which back up your views.
Have you ever sat at an American high society dinner? The answer to your question will become immediately apparent if you have or ever do? The same can also be said of a society bash in France.
Republics tend not to have an official upper class, so one finds that there is a self-appointed upper class, which creates its own rules and desperately wishes to legitimise itself against traditional upper class circles.
As for demographics I have never been a fan of using such things in support of an argument because I do not consider them to be facts; they can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but I shall relent and point to a few examples.
The Paris Michelin Star circle is arguably one of the most closed and pompous in the world. It is given reverence and deferential treatment by French society because it is seen as being 'better'. It is not the ground of the ordinary Frenchman, rather the halls of politicians, celebrities and other 'beautiful people'.
The South African women's book cirlce is incredibly snobby. The members are all wealthy society women who command respect and defernece from society. The circle is closed to outsiders, one must know someone to be accepted into its ranks.
These two examples are both representative of a trend in republican countries for the moneyed elite to create an upper class. Human society naturally gravitates to those who ar ein charge and those who are not and w euse a variety of things to represent that power. To imagine that a monarchy instills the traits you mentioned anymore than a republic does is laughable. All societies have their upper classes and in those societies, which have no native upper class there is the distinct tendency for one to be created that strives to define itself so much that it sets itself apart from the rest of society.
In my dealings with the upper class in Britain and abroad I have found there to be a marked difference between those, which come from a monarchial system of royalty and integration into society and those created to fill a void. I will of course not mention any names, but having sat with members of an ex royal house I can honestly say that they were very much a part of society in a way that non-royals were not. The South African women's book cirlce that I mentioned above were all very charming, but they had little connection to the actual society going on around them, in contrast with a certain British peer who is as comfortable with his position as he is wearing his slippers.
Our system is certainly not perfect, far from it, but it has helped to produce a nation that is both stable and free. We have wealth, social care and liberty. Our past is tainted with dark chapter like any othe rnations, but it is also full of hope and light. Our system has inspired great loyalty and acts of heroism from a multitude of people in a variety of situations. The best thing about our system though, is that it is ours; Jonny Rotten lately spoke out in support of Her Majesty, why? Because she is his Queen and he felt a need to defend that, which is British from foreign criticism. Perhaps if we abandon monarchy we can all rest safely in our beds cherishing not having to defer to an upper class anymore, whilst dreaming of being invited to the table of the latest celebrity ...
