VirusWiki - View Source: UkVirianManifesto

You are viewing an old revision of this page. View the current version.
__General Assumptions

The problem of politics, as Bertrand Russell observed, is that any adequate form of social organisation must recognise that the individuals within said society are not 'rational' in the fullest sense of that term.  In Friedrich Hayek's elaboration on this,  the totalitarian disasters of the twentieth century occurred when utopians attempt to redesign society according to their rational plan; showing just how little we know about the workings of the complex system of rules on which the social order is based. Since Virus seeks to propound rational modes of thinking this presents a problem; since social institutions are not simply a form of pragmatic arrangement but also represent the (not necessarily rational) cultures and wishes of the people they serve, certain questions must be asked; should social arrangements seek to accommodate the inherent irrationality of the citizenry or seek to assuage said irrationality by founding society on a more rational basis. The example of communism seeking to create a more rational society certainly calls the latter choice into question. Put more simply in the words of EM Forster, two cheers for democracy; only hail the beloved leader deserves three (liberal democracy and capitalism are unique amongst political ideologies in terms of being recommended on the grounds of their failings and incompleteness rather than providing a utopian solution; just as well as attempts to impose utopian solutions of various kinds (religious or political) have historically been violent).

This manifesto concludes that the best means to untie this particular Gordian knot is that advocated by John Rawls, namely the concept of the veil of ignorance within which the body politic is required to envisage itself in an original position of equality, ignorant of historical and social circumstance. Within this state the aims and principles of the body politic may be deduced;  Rawls suggests that  emphasis is likely to fall firstly on the preservation of personal and political liberty and secondly on the amelioration of socio-economic inequality.

The principles he defends are: (1) each individual is to have a right to the greatest equal liberty compatible with a like liberty for all; (2) (a) social and economic inequalities are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b) such inequalities are justified only if they benefit the worst off (the difference principle). The first principle has priority over the second (as Tocqueville might have put it, equality and liberty are related but not identical and the former is easily undermined in the interests of the latter). Equal liberty rules out persecution, discrimination, and political oppression. Equal opportunity ensures that those with equal ability and motivation have equal chances of success, whatever class they are born into. The difference principle allows unequal abilities to produce differential rewards only to the extent that this is instrumentally necessary for the good of all, especially the least fortunate (for example, by providing the incentives which fuel productivity).

It should be observed that while the concept of the veil of ignorance suffers from being excessively hypothetical (we are not in such a state nor can we imagine ourselves into one), it does afford a useful mechanism  for intermittent constitutional reviews of the kind suggested by Jefferson, without yielding to ossification of the political system caused by excessive deference to tradition. The principle implication of this approach in the short term is that considerations of right and left divides have become increasingly obsoleted by authoritarian and libertarian divides and the question of whether the individual is to be regarded as the property of the state or not.

Economics - General Discussion

With the above principles established, it becomes a matter of establishing the form of 'economic base' required to support them. Although capitalism and its political counterpart liberal democracy were frequently perceived to falter during the course of the twentieth century, this manifesto does not accept the existence of a viable alternative to either at this point in time (The problem with communism, as articulated by Hayek being that market exchange works because people value thing differently. The planned economy rests on the unlikely assumption that everyone can agree what to produce, and how.). More specifically, capitalism may be considered the best means of attaining what Giddens refers to as a post traditional society (due to the capitalist need for more fluid, flexible and individualistic social structures; Marx certainly regarded capitalism as a revolutionary force in this respect, displacing feudal structures). When tradition dominates, actions are regarded as being prescribed rather than being subject to individual ratiocination.  In a post-traditional context, society becomes much more reflexive and aware of its own precariously constructed state.  Accordingly, modernisation mandates the dissolution of traditional structures (gender inequalities being an obvious example). Since, it is precisely the purpose of Virus to displace irrational ideologies accepted on the basis of tradition, this manifesto accordingly has little alternative other than to regard capitalism as the best model, especially since socialism was arguably a continuation of traditional ideologies by stealth (see Joe Dees, Christianity and Marxism).

Political Issues

The expansion of the middle class during the eighties and nineties meant that a party committed to discredited socialist models of economic management could not possibly win a general election; and so reform eventually came and the left was forced to move towards the political mainstream. With most parties clustered around that point (since the right is similarly afraid of looking extreme  - another lesson the electorate have taught them) the notion of 'clear blue water' between parties disappears and politics becomes little more than dull process of administration (or in the case of the Blair government, an uneasy combination of sensation and managerialism).

Meanwhile the traditional supporters of either side of the spectrum are left  unrepresented. On the right of the spectrum; we increasingly have a worldview that is essentially a siege mentality writ large. The modern secular world is something to be despised and loathed with  threats seen  to traditional values everywhere. The collapse of public morals and the decline of the nation state is seen as leading irrevocably to 'everything going to the dogs.'  The left is in essence the same thing in reverse. They see the malign influence of large corporations and market forces everywhere and view them as responsible for the atomisation of society - something the right blames of the liberalism of the seventies. The most malign are the greens, who can in many respects be more accurately characterised as being feudalistic and in this are beginning to unify a broken circle and meet up with their counterparts at the other end of the political spectrum. For example, both the far left and the far right are now increasingly inward looking and withdrawn,  the right fearing globalisation as eroding national sovereignty, the left seeing as it being the instrument of the ever demonic large corporations.

Equally, as politics has become more mainstream, the populace have become more diverse*; to the point where differing trends can barely address each other in the same language. The more disparate a social grouping, the more difficult it is to be able to address the needs of a society at large (and hence the paralysis of New Labour as it tries desperately to please everyone), simply because group consensus becomes more difficult. This combination of apathy and diversity is increasingly ensuring decreased votes for mainstream parties and the rise of demagogues from the far right and left. Accordingly, a realignment of political structures would appear to be required, and one of a more exacting kind than that proffered by new Labour.

While Labour were correct to observe the need to reconcile social justice with a competitive economy, and the implicit trade-offs this entails, the derogation of social democracy this caused has left policy deeply inconsistent. The Tory combination of social conservatism with free market economics is a ridiculous combination (befitting a part described by Mill as the stupid party since their unwitting approval of anything old has invariably led them into accepting inconsistencies in their policies)which encapsulates Hayek's observation that conservatism against social change is a self defeating project. The Liberals are the only party to retain any conception of social liberty, but have failed to recognise that economic liberty is a component of this. The need is to re-align politics to a 'pre-political' rather than 'post-political' structure, with libertarianism being the main opposition to conservatism prior to the advent of socialism The loss of this perspective has been the most severe failing of British politics in living memory.

*The diversity is partly due to increased awareness of minorities (sexual or ethnic) but also due to the fact that the idea of community isn't especially meaningful at the present time, when much of the population are much more mobile and don't remain in the same area for very long (as well as often travelling more). Similarly, when they have Internet access many come to identify more with people online (even from other countries) than their immediate neighbours. In other words, the more influences people are exposed to the more diverse their viewpoints become - whereas politics has traditionally relied on the notion of speaking to a relatively homogenous community with a much more limited number of influences on it. As stated in the economics section increasingly individualised lifestyles also pertain here.

Summarised from: http://www.chronicle-future.co.uk/debate3transcript.html

Quote:England can increasingly be described as a 'post-nation;' just as England was  first into industrialisation and first out of it, so it was first into blood-and-soil nationalism in the 15th and 16th centuries and out of it in the late 20th (particularly given the lack of anything that could be called an English race).  Traditional nationalism was a  backward concept,  entailing a closed society. Rather than relying on shared myths and symbols (The old symbols are dead and there is no sign of any new ones),  English (and American) sense of identity is different. It relates more to institutions and economic well-being.  Post nationalism is like post modernism. It's fluid and changing and flexible. Fixed identities belong to a dead world.


Constitution

A written constitution to be adopted, albeit one conceived of as an evolving document (ideally in the manner of the European Human Rights Convention), grounded on the authority of the populace. This should combine the Helsinki accord with the Dutch protections of liberty, and a completely separate judiciary, in addition to other provisions outlined below (i.e. introduction of a federal system and an elected presidency, a freedom of information act modelled on the US system and a bill of rights).

Elected Presidency

Since the values of a post traditional society require recognition in the institutions of said society, this manifesto has accordingly determined to propose replacement of the system of constitutional monarchy with an elected Presidency, modelled on the French system, rather than that of the United States. The monarchy unavoidably remains a feudal institution (the populace of the UK are subjects not citizens) and is difficult to reconcile with democratic standards of transparency and accountability (not to mention either equality or meritocracy) that encourages values of deference and elitism.

One of the strongest argument against monarchy lies in the deficiencies of the present system, even when analysed in classically conservative terms. According to Bagehot, the term 'constitutional monarchy' is meaningless, since there is little administrative role for the monarchy, and the term 'quasi-republic' is more accurate. Within this, the monarch represents the 'dignified' part of the constitution, since being the recipient of popular awe and reverence it brings stability that allows essentially republican government to continue. Clearly, the monarchy is not the recipient of awe or reverence anymore and as such this argument falls; the lure of celebrity is a meagre substitute for pseudo-religious awe. One should also consider that the current Prince of Wales is far from being under the impression that his role is simply a 'dignified' one.

Equally so, the checks and balances that should be present in most constitutional arrangements are located at the wrong point in the UK system; between Parliament as a whole and the monarchy rather than between the legislature and the executive. One of the worst aspects of this is that it has become clear that the role of Prime Minister has grown increasingly prominent over the years (i.e. the present Prime Minister has established a personal office in the style of the Whitehouse, none of whose staff are accountable to Parliament and its select committees in the manner that a normal departmental civil servant would be), but without the forms of checks and balances that would apply to an elected President. The powers of the Prime Minister are not formally defined within the English constitution and are essentially founded on the Royal prerogative (i.e. the Prime Minister can declare law without requiring a vote in favour of doing so from Parliament).  This proposal would remove the above anomalies and would remove the cultural anomaly of having a head of state whose office lacks any democratic consensus concerning its right to exist; regardless of any electoral disputes concerning any individual candidates, it seems doubtful that it would be possible to question the legitimacy of a democratic mechanism for electing the head of state. It may also be observed that the citizens of both France and the United States have little apparent difficulty in separating out the political and symbolic components of the office of head of state.

There will be provision for an impeachment procedure. The position of Prime Minister, as Head of Government, will remain.  The President will be equal before the law (as any other citizen), and will take an oath at the inauguration ceremony to serve the people, uphold the law and protect the constitution.

The term of office will be fixed, at five years, with a maximum of two terms to be served by an individual. Presidential elections will be held at a separate time from General Elections. As stated above, the powers of the President will be similar to that of the French counterpart, including having recourse to referendum in certain  cases of stalemate between legislature and executive.

The President will not be a member of the legislature, and will have no constitutional link with any religious faith. Officials or persons who are at present required to take oaths of allegiance to the Crown, will publicly swear an oath or make an affirmation to uphold the law.

As a consequence of this proposal, the commonwealth will be disbanded, as will the present honours system. This would be replaced with a system similar to that of the French Academy and recognise meritocratic achievement in certain fields (arts and science especially), thereby perhaps resembling the Nobel prizes rather more. The Academy should accept members from academia and through public nomination with learned societies and recognized groups having a voice. The ratio between the population and total academy numbers would be fixed, but not the total number of members. In a similar vein, lottery grants towards sports events (which are a commercial matter) will be suspended and directed towards arts and heritage.

Parliamentary System

The Parliamentary system to be redesigned, as part of a federal system along the lines of the German and Swiss Federal systems. The devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies to be incorporated into this system, which will replace the anomalies concerning the ability  of Scottish MPs to vote on English matters but not vice versa. These assemblies would largely replace the existing structure of local government.  A reformed and directly elected second chamber at Westminster would be able to scrutinise legislation from the federal assembles under a referral system.  This chamber, remodelled as a senate composed along meritocratic lines (with an attendant minimum age limit) would be modelled along the lines of the Dutch second chamber; members would not be permitted to campaign for election and would be elected on a rolling basis for a more prolonged period of years than for the first chamber. It should particularly be noted that this proposal essentially recommends rationalisation of the local government system, particularly when removal of state powers in most public service areas comes into play. In particular, the post of Mayor would be abolished.

A greater number of emergency debates in the Westminster Parliament to be timetabled; the present two week system being inefficient and failing to address the concerns of constituents. Timetabling of debates and votes to be undertaken by the Speaker, who would be elected by Parliament, but who would be required to resign his seat once appointed.

The select committee system to be extended and to be given greater powers to compel attendance. Governments would be obliged by the constitution to respond to and amend policy as a result of select committee advice. Appointment of select committee members to be undertaken by a specialised committee, with nominations being ratified by Parliament. All MPs would be obliged to hold at least one select committee post. Since this change would remove powers from the whip's office, said office would be abolished. The select committee system would also be required to act as a gateway to advisory bodies (and to an online public consultation process) such as think tanks, which would remove the need for governmental special advisors.  A civil service act would therefore be passed banning political appointments to the civil service.

Following Burke, Members of Parliament are not bound, in their parliamentary work, by instructions from voters, interest groups, parties or parliamentary groups. All Parliamentary sittings to be required by law to be open to the public (which includes the broadcasting of Parliamentary television).

To ensure their possibilities of taking action parliamentary minorities are accorded many different procedural rights, such as the right to move procedural motions, on which a vote must be taken, or the right to make demands which must be met (e.g. the setting up of study committees and formal reports). A system of state funding of political parties, along the lines of the French model to be introduced.

The government's jurisdiction is to limited to areas specified in a written constitution and that do not violate the bill of rights. Once approved by both houses, new legislation is also subject to approval by the people in an optional referendum. Should the government wish to pass legislation regarding matters not allowed by the constitution, a constitutional amendment is required, which would only be possible with a two-thirds majority in a referendum.

Political manifestos issued prior to each election will become a constitutional requirement. A "principle of joint Cabinet decision-making" will require the Prime Minister and the Ministers to decide jointly on matters of general political importance. When there are differences of opinion between Ministers the Prime Minister mediates (as a "primus inter pares"). Cabinet decisions are based on majority rule.  The appointment of the cabinet would have to be ratified by Parliament.

Voting Reform

The voting system across national and federal government to be standardised on the system of proportional representation known as AV+, wherein each elector has two votes, one regional and one national. Candidates may be ranked on the ballot paper in order of preference, including a 'none of the above' option. In the event that no candidate receives more than fifty percent of the vote,  the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and voters' second preferences are redistributed among the other candidates. This process is continued until one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote. Subsequently,  a set of top-up MPs would be elected based on the number of second votes for each party divided by the number of constituencies gained in Top-up area plus one (adding one avoids the impossibility of dividing by zero). A top-up member is then allocated to the party with the highest adjusted number of votes. This will be the party which was most disadvantaged in terms of the proportion of the vote it won in the constituency section.

An MP-constituency link would be preserved under AV+. Even regional MPs would be based in recognisable areas such as counties and cities.

Voter choice will be increased with two votes and preferential voting for constituency MPs. This will more truly reflect how voters feel about different parties, and reduce the incentive for tactical or negative voting. No MP will be elected on less than 50%+ of the vote. This means that candidates who more broadly represent the views of the voters will be elected.

Parties will not be able to take as easily for granted seats where they poll more strongly, as voters will also be able to vote for a Top-up member in their region. Supporters of parties in areas which have been 'electoral deserts' will have some representation at a regional level if they reach about 10% of the vote. Opinion polls to be banned during the period of an election.

Europe

Too little attention has been given to the successes of the European Union; by pooling sovereignty and providing an elegant mechanism for co-operation between states it has ensured the perpetuation of the Pax Americana imposed after WW2 and has enforced human rights and democracy from Spain to Turkey. This manifesto takes the view that while the European Parliament should be strengthened (the commissioners should be elected, not appointed), this structure should be maintained and the EU should not attempt to become a state (since such a state would be imposed top-down rather than being a result of popular sentiment; which enforces concerns over democracy in the EU; with Denmark and Ireland having had the same referendum put to them twice since they had the temerity to vote against EU proposals). Accordingly, the trappings of a state should not be adopted; no rapid reaction force, overseas aid, security or foreign affairs departments (unlikely to be feasible in the long-term in any case especially when Turkey's candidature is considered ). A constitutional settlement is required to enforce the principle of subsidiarity replacing the treaty of Rome.

Religion

At present, Britain is one of the most secular societies amongst the industrialised nations. While far from being especially atheistic in their attitudes, the majority of the populace are simply indifferent to religion. This fact is not reflected in the structure of the state institutions, where church and state are imbricated with a closeness that bears a stronger relationship to Iran than to other liberal democracies. As such, the following proposals are suggested:

A formal separation of church and state to be explicitly enacted and stated in a written constitution, thereby barring ecclesiastical representatives from either chamber of Parliament (applying at present to Bishops and Rabbis, but also pertaining to any other religious group seeking admittance at any later point.)  The bar applies only to serving ecclesiastical representatives and may not be enforced against individuals who no longer hold any official standing within any church. Conversely, the Prime Minister will lose any powers to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury. Public bodies will be required to certify that legislation and other government documents are in compliance to that constitution and to the separation enacted therein. As such, symbolic functions such as the presence of god within oaths sworn by MPs seeking admittance to Parliament and the equivalent oath in court would be barred.

The Church of England to be disestablished. With a separation of church and state in place, it follows that the concept of a state church becomes anachronistic. The head of state will accordingly cease to be the head of the church of England and instead of becoming defender of faiths (a meaningless concept since few religions regard the possession of faith as adequate when set alongside rigorous submission to doctrine) will instead be charged with  the responsibility of maintaining the division of church and state. All tax exemptions  granted to churches are to be rescinded, with an exception in the case of preserving historic buildings.

Conversely, the state will be prohibited from interfering with the private practise of religious belief.  All legislation existing for the purpose of protecting religious institutions to be struck from the statute book. This would include the law of blasphemy (which will simply be repealed, rather than extended to any other religion) and the offence of ridiculing the CofE.

Enforcement of religious practice in state institutions to be banned (for example, public funding of chaplains in prison, hospitals and the armed forces). This applies most clearly to the schooling where it is clearly not the role of the state to proscribe private religious behaviour. Following this, churches may continue to exist as private institutions, but will not be eligible for state subsidy.  Religious education in schools to be abolished and replaced with tuition in politics, philosophy and economics. The deliberately vague phrasing of the national curriculum to be revised so as to prevent the teaching of creationism. Prayer in school assemblies to be abolished.

Civil Rights - General Discussion

Ever since Locke expanded on the Hobbesian notion of the role natural right being that of self defence and Jefferson replaced the Lockean notions of rights founded on property with happiness, the concept of rights has become increasingly elastic; from a notion of civil rights to a rather more diffuse (and broader) notion of human rights.

A notable aspect of this increased elasticity has been the Marxist critique of rights. This asserts that rights only apply within the egoistic capitalist concept of individualism; it assumed the base of society to be essentially an economic one and proceeded onwards from that concept, i.e. that "the laws and interests of the family and civil society must give way in case of collision with the laws and interests of the state." (Marx, Critique of Hegel) The Marxist notion of rights was that they are bequeathed by the state (and are accordingly alienable) in order ensure economic and social equality; "the relationship of family and civil society to the state is that of external necessity, a necessity which relates by opposition to the inner being of the thing. The very fact that the laws concerning the private rights of persons depend on the specific character of the state and are modified according to it is thereby subsumed under the relationship of external necessity?" (Marx, Critique of Hegel). The problem is that when the rights of society have been established as more important than those of individuals, individuals become frequently become impediments to the overall. Moreover, without economic rights, rights in general become meaningless (see below on Locke).

Another factor is that the political right speak of 'right to freedom from crime' and the left speak of the 'right to health care.' Neither 'right' is necessarily easy - or possible even - for any government to be able to grant. The term 'right' becomes identical to 'obligation' (both being positive rights whereas laws should mainly be concerned with negative rights) and both concepts are diluted thereby. Another problem is that where rights are essentially components of social contract governing the relations between citizens and citizens and the state, recent attempts have been made to introduce asymmetric notions of rights for the mentally ill, children and animals. This manifesto maintains that the concept of obligations is applicable in those cases, but not rights per se.

In considering issues of rights and civil liberties two models currently tend to predominate. The model adopted by the United States can be primarily related to notions of possessive individualism. Within this context, the recognition of rights to life, health, liberty and possessions serve to form the basis for a civil society (with property being a central component of this, since it can only be accrued and retained within the context of civil society). The notion of rights propounded by the EU and UN extends this towards a position one of moral universalism, combining such concepts as the right to life and privacy with traditional notions of rights.

Civil and Human Rights Bills

The existing human rights act to be revised, so as to fully implement the European Convention, bar exemptions on grounds of public morals.

In seeking to resolve an increasingly complex area, this manifesto maintains that a more strict notion of rights that are (a) negative (freedom from, not freedom to; permissive of individual behaviour without state interference) and (b) applying to the relations between citizens and citizens and the state. Nonetheless, the European notion of rights is preferred to the North American with the most suitable exposition thereof being found in the Dutch constitution which placed the onus on state authorities to justify interference (i.e government is actively enjoined from interfering in any way with any individual unless they can prove an immanent threat, thus avoiding cumulative incursions against personal liberty).  The guiding philosophy behind this is that of JS Mill; a distinction between public and private behaviour is to be recognised and the individual is not accountable to society for his actions unless said actions inflict material harm on others.

This entails the right to equality of treatment (Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, or sexual orientation or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.), the right to freedom of expression (No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press or be subject to retrospective censorship except such grounds as libel. This right may be regarded as being equivalent to freedom of the press. No exemptions, such as those currently in force over race hate, to be granted on ground other than incitement to violence), the right to liberty, counsel and to be heard in court, right to a fair trial, the right to privacy (this right is subordinate to the right of freedom of the press in cases of public interest. This right may be regarded as being equivalent to a right to secrecy of communication), right to personal integrity (Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person and property, except when authorisation to the contrary as limited by law is mandated by a judge and solely in cases of reasonable grounds of suspicion) - this would require amendment of UK policy on telecommunications. This right would be regarded as being equivalent to the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures), right to vote and eligibility for public appointments, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of association, assembly and movement.

As stated in the US bill of rights, the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The US constitution is imbued with a quasi-religious aspect that has prevented its evolution over the course of time (unlike the European convention of human rights which was intended from the outset to be evolve) and has failed to prevent such abuses as slavery and prohibition.

More generally, in a combination with a freedom of information bill modelled on the US example and a written constitution, these rights would form the basis for  the idea of a modern Code Napoleon, wherein the fundamental principles of the law can be contained and therein made universally available. The main advantage of this being that citizens are able to acquire a much stronger understanding of governance than is possible under the current diffuse arrangements.

These rights would be regarded as an adjunct (not a replacement) to the rights outlined under the European Convention on Human Rights, which would be implemented in full under British law without the current list of amendments. Derogation of certain articles would be permitted during states of emergency but only for a limited time period. Exemptions may be granted in the interests of public order and security but only with a two-thirds Parliamentary majority.

Further Amendments

Recognition of a more rigorous right to freedom of expression would entail removing many of the exemptions on grounds of public morals and forms of regulation that effectively deny many of the rights they purport to ensure. For example, the various media regulation bodies (the BBFC and ITC especially) should be mothballed and left without authority to do other than issue parental advice notices. Both of these bodies have contributed to a deplorable cultural infantilisation wherein the public have been encouraged to regard themselves as having an right not to be offended and a right to dictate the viewing habits of others on the spurious grounds of taste and decency. Libel law woould also require considerable reform as part of a move towards concentrating on 'right to reply' rather than 'right to censor.' Similarly, the equally unenforceable blasphemy laws and obscene publications act should both be wiped from the statute book. With regard to the right to equality of treatment the repeal of section 28 and the gross/shameless indecency laws will be required. Similarly the majority of amendments to the court system undertaken by the last three administrations would be reversed, reinstating the right to silence and double jeopardy.

Legal System

In order to properly implement this code the Home Secretary would be stripped of sentencing and judicial powers, as would the Lord Chancellor. A separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers would therefore be required in order to ensure decisions could be made with due freedom from political considerations. Accordingly, a new Supreme Court would be created to replace the House of Lords. This and other courts would be able to declare legislation counter to their interpretation of the human and civil rights legislation outlined above. No further political functions would be granted, and the powers of said courts would therefore have a deliberate limitation built in.  Unlike the US system this court would make its own appointments without political supervision, though a mechanism for impeachment of judges would be created.  A Department of Justice would be created replacing the Home Office.  This would ensure a separation of powers between the legal system and law enforcement agencies.

The general presumption behind any criminal justice system should be Jefferson's observation that he who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither.

Concerns regarding greater independence of the judiciary would be resolved through the introduction of new sentencing guidelines, through which courts will impose a combination of mandatory and recommended sentences; the former a minimum sentence which the prison system will have no right to shorten, the latter a maximum sentence which may be reduced on grounds of evidence of rehabilitation undertaken during the prison term. This procedure would resolve concerns of prison system officials releasing prisoners early in order to avoid overcrowding. As an indirect consequence of which, prison sentencing should be confined solely to crimes that entail the presence of a victim i.e. the whole concept of incarceration as punishment, as opposed to protecting society would be abandoned

Establishment of a centralised arbitration system, modelled on the examples, designed to take low-level disputes out of the court system. Lawyers to be obliged to advise on use of arbitration as an alternative.

CCTV and Policing

The extensive use of CCTV surveillance in the UK has had considerable civil liberties implications but little implications for crime rates. More to the point, this invasive technology not only has considerable privacy concerns attached to it, but is also extremely expensive  diverting resources from community policing. Accordingly, it is suggested that the use of CCTV by the state be deprecated, and a regulatory act passed concerning usage, which would ban the sale of CCTV footage and require all footage to be blanked after a period of six months unless required in a court case. Since one government study suggested that good street lighting had more effect than CCTV, a corresponding investment in lighting would be required. Licensing of privately held cameras would be required. Police cars would be fitted with cameras to protect citizenry and police alike over accusations of malpractice.

Recently passed terrorism legislation to be reformed to include a more precise definition of terrorism that does not entail such concerns as the destruction of property. The same test will be required as under the German system where seeking to undermine democracy is an offence.  All terrorism legislation must be annually renewed by Parliamentary vote, and may not be permanently incorporated onto the statute book; since emergencies has an unfortunate habit of becoming permanent. Reform would also be required of the official secrets act, the football disorder act and the regulation of investigatory powers act.

Euthanasia

Anyone requesting euthanasia and meeting some simple requirements (clear mind, clear expression, deliberate action (proven by a waiting period) will be assisted in doing so. Formal authorisation from a convened panel consisting of two doctors from a separate facility to that treating the patient and one layperson (a magistrate would be suitable) would be required, but with a time limit within which the panel would have to produce a decision. As implied by recent court cases, patients with debilitating and terminal conditions retain the right over their own body to refuse treatment.

Drugs

The proscription of certain substances belongs to what David Starkey described as the replacement of "a world of shortage (on which all our existing systems of morality and economics are based) with one of excess." The opprobrium directed at drugs is partly indicative of the perceived lack of authenticity of the pleasure induced, and partly a proscription against pleasure in general (since pleasure has typically been regarded as contingent to profligacy and therefore at odds with the christian morality of shortage). Accordingly, this falls under the category of what this manifesto has termed 'post traditional social structures' and which relates generally to the issue of considered ethics replacing inherited morals.  More specifically, the notion of the state regarding the individual as its personal property is essentially typified by the proscription of drugs, and is clearly incompatible with a capitalist society founded on the exercise of consumer choice, and the cultivation of new needs and desires, independently of barriers towards personal gratification. If, as Margaret Thatcher told us, 'there is no alternative' to the market, then the demand for drugs will find its supply. The effect of state restrictions on this market has been to inflate prices and profits, creating criminal networks with the resources to corrupt systems of government and criminal justice around the world; as happened with the US prohibition era.

Accordingly, this manifesto recommends immediate legalisation of soft drugs, which includes ecstasy for these purposes.  Given the problem of local councils being likely to refuse permission for sufficient coffee shops, full legalisation is therefore regarded as being the sole avenue available. In addition. sale of said substances would need to achieve certain economies of scale in order to undercut the existing dealers (who may remain a problem in so far as they do not have to pay tax and rent for premises in the way coffee shops do). Regulation would pertain in so far as growth of such substances was concerned (i.e. purchase of cannabis should not entail subsidising Marxist guerrillas in Columbia when it can be grown within the UK).

Sexuality

Same-sex partnership to be recognised according to principles of precise parity with the heterosexual norm (a period of cohabitation prior to legal partnership recognition to be introduced as a universal requirement). Any other inequalities in such areas as parenting, adoption, inheritance, employment, pensions and immigration would be regarded as being incompatible with the civil rights legislation outlined above and accordingly removed from law.

Proscriptions regarding sexual activities such as sadomasochism to be abolished, except in cases of non-consensual behaviour or behaviour liable to inflict lethal injuries.  Prostitution to be legalised, regulated and taxed. In particular, the regulation should require regular health certification of the kind mandated in Holland and Belgium. As stated elsewhere in this manifesto, the obscene publications act and the gross obscenity laws should both be abolished at the earliest opportunity.

A universal age of consent to be created and set at sixteen (applying in this context to sexual intercourse, but also being the same age for all other functions including voting) following the same lines as the Dutch model i.e. sexual activity prior to that (to be specific, between the ages of twelve and sixteen) will be legal with the permission of the child's guardians. Consideration to any infringements below the age of sixteen will be given to the issues of consent and coercion. Sex education should begin at least by the age of twelve to ensure that informed decisions can be made.

Multiculturalism

As the expansion of free markets raised income levels across society (albeit not evenly, a process that created significant inequalities) the concept of a well-defined working class became more and more diffuse, and accordingly the socialist critique of capitalism also began to disintegrate. One of the forms that resulted from this disintegration was multiculturalism, which sought to map class struggle onto the topologies of race, gender, sexuality and a somewhat fluid list of other demographic factors (age, religion, and disability also being involved on a somewhat erratic basis). The dispossessed other replaces the dispossessed worker. One of the initial problems this faces is that this mapping is far from precise. Where the dispossessed working class previously had to be accused of false consciousness (in order to explain their frequent tendency to seek to improve their standing rather than demonstrating class solidarity) the interests of these heterogeneous groups have to be regarded as being contingent (or indeed, in competition with one another, as when sexuality was excluded from the list of motives for hate crime), a premise that falls apart when confronted with religious views on gender and sexuality.

As a second consideration, the very terms used to describe these conditions (sexism, racism, anti-semitism etc) lack precision and structure, pointing as they do to entrenched ideologies rather than to any aspect of a psychology that is notoriously vague (and hence is very difficult to define in legal terms). A more extreme case lies with terms like 'institutionalised racism' which present a Foucauldean analysis of abstracted structures of power, without reference to the individuals within them or even to the strictures and regulations of said organisations.

As an extension of the Marxist origins of multiculturalism, the focus is frequently on an illiberal equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity (as with attempts to introduce discriminatory practises in the areas of race and gender for Parliamentary candidates), ignoring the fact that complete equality of income and position is almosy impossible to attain in a capitalist society, with or without a glass ceiling, and cannot be imposed by governmental fiat (though government does retain a duty to outlaw discrimination and to promote equality).

The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek's critique of multiculturalism is particularly apposite here. To Zizek, the measure of true love is that you can insult the other (or, as was put rather better by Will Self, it is only gay men who are allowed to be homophobic) inferring that aggression towards the other is an integral component of respect and tolerance that multiculturalism excludes. As Zizek would put it, respecting customs that you despise is little more than an act of inverted racism and a failure to engage with the other.

Quote:"When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children."


With this in mind, the failure of multiculturalism to promote any form of true engagement leaves it wide open to charges of balkanisation at best, apartheid at worst (given that reports on race riots in the North of England stated that a complete lack of contact between communities was the root cause - see supporting materials). The effect of multiculturalism is in short exactly that described by Marxism: a process of alienation. An alternative approach may be provided by Hans-Georg Gadamer and his concept of understanding the other as the "fusion of horizons." Every culture has a horizon, a line dividing what is internal and understandable to that culture from what is external and foreign. But a horizon, says Gadamer, "is not a rigid boundary, but something that moves with one and invites one to advance further."  Assimilation means constantly broadening everyone's cultural horizon (so as to contain a wealth of different experiences and create a broad memetic repertoire), while remaining unable to accept contradictory elements (i.e. that violates principles of liberty, equality and tolerance itself). In the particular context of this manifesto, it is considered that the notions of post-nationalism and increasingly individualised lifestyles are likely to be more helpful than either a primitive notion of assimilation into an frozen form of identity (which in the context of the Uk is dubious; one would have to invent an identity to assimilate to) or multiculturalism. This approach resolves the main issue with multiculturalism, namely that it has created a more fractured society but not a more diverse one (immigration has had much less influence on British culture than the United States media) by expanding the cultural horizons of the entire population. However, this does raise the question of how we may define what does or does not contradict the cultural horizon. In other countries that practise assimilationist models (France and the United States) the question does not arise since they already at least partly predicate questions of national ideology on ideological affiliation. At this point, the question of Virian principles arises.

From a Virian perspective, the difficulty of multiculturalism is its tendency to freeze ideological  and cultural positions as entrenched aspects of individual identity. An obvious aspect would be the recent attempt to proscribe incitement to religious hatred, a piece of legislation that regarded religion as being more than an ideological vagary and as an immutable aspect of identity that could not easily be challenged. This notion provides an impediment to any notion of social progress founded on rational principles, which are difficult to reconcile with vagaries of religious custom (recalling that the act included christianity as well as the other two components of the axis of evil, islam and judaism). Similarly, concentration on aspects of 'genetic affiliation' only serves to perpetuate issues of gender and race, instead of shifting the focus onto issues of memetic affiliation.

Infrastructure Notes

A French style railway network to be constructed, allowing for the use of high-speed doubledecker trains. Funding to be taken from increased taxation of heavy goods vehicles. This system to be integrated into a monorail system, to be considered as a replacement for bus services. The number of airports to be expanded, with the use of airships for either freight or luxury travel to be taken into account. A broadband Internet access system to be constructed, providing national coverage, with an eventual view towards extensive of democracy through an online consultation and voting process. Local education authorities to be abolished and their functions devolved to indvidual schools. The NHS to be replaced with a Dutch style insurance system, with patients being given smartcards containing their medical records and thereby allowing them to seek treatment from a doctor and hospital of their own choice (thereby ending the NHS factory line mentality). Privatisation of individual hospitals to follow on from this. School system to be privatised in similar fashion with abolition of all relevant local authority control; new system to be modelled on Japan's Kumon system. The prison service and all low level council functions (i.e. refuse collection) to be privatised. The functions of the treasury to be split between  economic management and control of government expenditure. All governmental agencies to have a time-expiry date beyond which their continued existence must be reviewed, leading to liquidation, amalgamation or renewal. The Post Office and emergency services to be privatised, the latter after the model established by Denmark, the former after the model established by Holland and Sweden. Abolition of argicultural subsidies.  Reduction of size of present armed forces, and move away from large scale defence towards smaller specialist units.

Acknowledgements

Discussions with Hermit. Other ideas generated from Charter 88, Republic, Liberty, Make Votes Count, Spiked Online.


« Last Edit: 10/12/02 by kharin »
discuss this page on the BBS