Zimbabwe appears to be on the brink of finally getting rid of Mugabe and establishing proper democracy. At the very least, Mugabe's party has lost control of the parliament, but still has 94 of the 210 seats, with the main Opposition party only two ahead on 96. So it is hardly a crushing defeat for him - but a defeat nevertheless.

We can all hope that this result means that the end is nigh for the tyrant Mugabe. We can all hope that Zimbabwe can at last go down a democratic - and hopefully less economically destructive - route in to the future.

Mugabe should accept the defeat and step down. If he forces a Presidential run-off vote, he will almost certainly be humiliated. And if he doesn't, he will just end up with the same result as in Kenya - certainly not a good thing for anyone. But if he steps down now, he can ensure a better future for Zimbabwe and a less damning legacy of his own regime*.

This is an opportunity for Zimbabwe to move in a new, democratic, and brighter future. Let's hope that opportunity is grabbed with both hands.

* Less damning, but damning nevertheless.

Nick Clegg proposes such a plan. Now the flippant answer to this is simple "remove the Lib Dems, then". But this doesn't answer the question. And besides, there never will be 150 Lib Dem MPs to remove.

On a serious note, Clegg's justification doesn't work. He wants to remove 150 MPs from the Commons - taking it to around 500 - to save money. Well, primarily to save political parties from having to raise money from big donors. Let's have a little pop quiz:

So why do political parties raise money?
a) To pay MPs
b) To run the rest of the party
c) So they can swan off on holiday

So Clegg's idea that fewer MPs equal less need for party fund-raising just doesn't make sense... especially since he also wants more state money to go to political parties. Which would eat up the £30m savings he said would be generated by cutting the number of MPs. There is, of course, another way of saving money - cutting MPs salaries or expense allowances.


The idea of cutting the number of MPs also raises other questions - such as the potential impact on democracy. Is fewer MPs a goof thing? Not in and of itself. If anything, actually, more of a bad thing as MPs become more and more distant from their constituents. Any reduction in the numebr of MPs would have to be matched in devolution of powers to local councils, or as part of a proper devolution system - equal English, Scottish, and Welsh parliaments.

The plan to reduce the number of MPs sounds good in a press release or a speech, but in reality it isn't much cop. The downsides of the loss of representatives simply isn't worth the tiny amount of money that is [supposedly] to be saved.

As the news informs us that MPs have decided not to allow us a democratic vote on the Lisbon Treaty...

Read the rest here.

My We The People column, now up at the Wardman Wire:

Jack Straw is hinting that the government wants to draw up a written Constitution for the UK, with a process that could take up to 20 years. But why does Straw want to do this? Because

most people might struggle go put their finger on what [their] rights are or in which texts they are located. The next stage in the UK's constitutional development is to look at whether we need better to articulate those rights which are scattered across a whole host of different places and indeed the responsibilities that go with being British... [And to] bring us in line with most progressive democracies around the world.

But why on earth does this mean that we should have a written Constitution?!

What Is A Constitution?

A constitution is basically the rules by which the democratic system of the nation state is run. Th is can either by an "unwritten", though in reality this more means "uncodified", constitution which relies on accepted conventions in order to run or a formalised, written Constitution.

Britain has an uncodified constitution, not an unwritten one. Pretty much every bit of it exists written down, in documents such as the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the Parliament Acts. The British constitution also exists in every single piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament, since there is no division between primary and secondary legislation. It also exists in common law, treaties with foreign powers, and analaysis and commentary made by experts [such as Bagehot]. But it also exists in conventions, which guide the way in which the system works - one convention being the role of Prime Minister.

America is the prime example of the written Constitution. It has a piece of paper which lists the rights and responsibilities of Americans, and is very hard indeed to modify. These kind of Constitutions are typically created after war or revolution, in order to satisfy the populace that their rights are defended.

Go here to read the rest.

The Wardman Wire has seen some very good articles over the past week on the subject of MPs and the money they claim, both as salary and expenses. It's not my intention to weigh in on that debate, but use the opportunity to examine the role of MPs in our democracy.

Read the rest at the Wardman Wire.

Another instalment of my We The People column over at Wardman Wire. I'm delaying what had been intended to be the first posts for this column yet again because this story caught my eye, and I felt in the mood to write about it. So here it is:

Read the rest here.

Nick Clegg has broken his party's 2005 manifesto commitment to supporting a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty. He is, however, following on from Ming Campbell, who also opposed letting the people of Britain vote on the one piece of legislation which will dictate how this country works for the foreseeable future. Clegg said:

But he is wrong - in every way. It is not "playing games with the treaty itself" or specifically 'party politics' to suggest that the very people who are supposed to give parliament it's power should be allowed to vote on it, considering that all the main parties were elected with promises of a referendum on this issue in their manifestos. Since two of those parties have broken their pledges, they really don't have that democratic right any more to decide this issue at the very least.

The "Lisbon Treaty" as it is now called is not "a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place" but far more than a codification of existing treaties - and even that would be subject to a referendum, just like any codification of the British constitution would have to be - since it provides the very foundations of the removal of sovereign power [even if, as some claim, that has already begun] in the creation of an EU President and Foreign Minister.

Quite simply, Clegg's refusal to push for a referendum on this puts the lie to the very name of his party - the Liberal Democrats. Maybe that's why there are rumours of him wanting to change to to the "Liberal Party" instead?

The idea of a referendum is not about getting the treaty voted down, but about democratic legitimacy. If a popular vote has been held, no-one who opposed the treaty can possibly argue against it being ratified and becoming law. If we the people vote for the treaty then those of us who oppose it would accept it. But if it is passed through a Parliament which promised to hold a referendum on this when it was voted in refuses to meet it's promises, then the opposite will happen.

Such large changes as proposed by the "Lisbon Treaty" require a referendum - or at least it should in the eyes of any true believer democrat.

UPDATE: At least all Lib Dems aren't as anti-democratic as their leaders [via DK].

UPDATE 2: Norfolk Blogger yet again shows why his blog is one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother to read.

Even MPs are being denied the ability to vote on the EU Constitution - sorry, Lisbon Treaty - now.

So we, the people, aren't to be allowed to vote on this "treaty" and now even the ability of MPs - who are supposed to be deciding this issue for us - aren't being allowed to either.

Yes, we're living in a European Democracy... Not.

Is this really the speech that all politicians would like to make?

I'm sure that more than a few MPs will be reading that and agreeing with it - but just as many are likely to be disagreeing with it. Whilst some of the claims make so sort of sense, others are misleading or just plain wrong:
It's perfectly possible to fund political parties without either taxpayer's money or taking dodgy donations! If they really think it isn't, they need to try looking in other places - like, maybe, ordinary members rather than rich individuals. And they knew about the possibility of getting voted out just like that when they signed up for the job. I have no sympathy for them.

The core point of this satirical column is that the people aren't pulling their weight in the democratic system. But the whole point of the democratic system is that the people decide - even if they decide not to vote. If people aren't voting, that is something that our elected representatives have to think about - how to get people to the ballot box.

The electorate may not be perfect, but certainly neither are our elected representatives or our political system. But to call any of them specifically not "fit for purpose" is to go too far.

Hat-tip: Kerron Cross
Image: The Coloring Spot

It's a week earlier, and on a different topic, than I had intended, but here is my first We The People column for the Wardman Wire, on the recent problems in Kenya and Pakistan:

What could be called crises of democracy has occurred in Kenya and Pakistan, both accompanied by bursts of violence - one caused by the assassination of an opposition political leader, and another by alleged and suspected electoral fraud. Neither of these countries have a highly developed or deeply-embedded democracy, and are still riven by tribal differences. Fifty Kenyans have died in a torched church - a place normally regarded as a safe-house - because they were members of the same tribe as the President.

But are there really crises of democracy in these two countries?

Read the rest...

This may seem controversial, but it doesn't really seem very much so to me at the moment. That the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has left a void in Pakistani politics shows that the political leadership in Pakistan is still weak and massively personality focused.

What also makes me doubt Pakistan's devotion to democracy is the choice of replacement for Benazir Bhutto as leader of the Pakistan People's Party - her 19 year old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. I mean, a nineteen year old who is still at university?! Have they really got no-one else? Why do they need a Bhutto at the head of the party so much that he even has to change his name? To me, that doesn't demonstrate a readiness for real democracy.

After all, if any of the party leaders in the UK was assassinated, there would always be several people who could step into the role. It certainly wouldn't lead a "void". And neither would there be any call the son - or any other relation - of the now-deceased leader to take over.

Pakistan may well be ready for democracy, as in electing who they want to lead them, but it certainly doesn't appear to me like they are truly ready for or capable of what I would regard as real democracy with all that that entails within the political system.

What does need to happen, however, is that this election goes ahead - maybe not on the original date, but with only a short delay at most.

I thought that I would write a bit more about my new bi-weekly column starting in the new year: We The People. Even though I haven’t had the opportunity to actually start writing it yet! ...

The basis of We The People will be democracy - in theory and in practice. I am going to try and look at different democratic and governmental systems and analyse them together and in comparison with each other and in relation to the next section of this post...

Go read the rest.

So Gordon Brown has signed the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty" today, even if several hours after everyone else had. But the point I want to make here doesn't rely on whether you are pro, anti, or ambivalent towards the treaty, or whether you support parliament or the people deciding whether or not we should sign up to it.

The point is simple: why has Brown - or any other national leader - signed the treaty before it has been ratified?

Whether you think that parliament or the people should vote on it, they have not yet, so why has it been signed? What right does any government have to sign this sort of treaty [or any sort of treaty] before it has been ratified? Until the vote has been cast, the outcome cannot be known. It can be guessed, but not known.

You could claim that Brown's signature was signalling the intent of the current British government to push for ratification of the treaty, but you would be wrong. Intent can be signalled by means other than a signature on the bottom of a document.

As Brown has already signed Britain up to the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty", what can he do if parliament declines to ratify it? Say "oops, anyone got any Tippex?" Simply, signatures should be applied to a treaty only after it has been ratified. No matter how you believe it should be ratified, if you claim to be a democrat then you can't support this.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian

As announced earlier by Matt, starting in the new year the I will be starting a new bi-weekly column at the Wardman Wire focusing on Democracy, both as a theory and in practice, in January. New year, new column.

As Matt says:

I'm still working on the finer points, so any comments/suggestions etc are more than welcome!

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez been told to shut up - and not by the King of Spain this time. But, instead, by the people of Venezuela, who have voted against his plans to officially turn their country into a socialist state. Why? Because Chavez's policies are not working:

Does this sound at all familiar?

This is an example of democracy in action - just not the sort of democracy they wanted [h/t Daniel Hannan]. That even a country which has elected Chavez several times votes against becoming a socialist state, preferring democracy over the socialistic imitation, just proves that 'the people' everywhere do not want socialism, despite the usual suspects claims to the contrary.

The people of Venezuela have told Chavez to shut up over his constitutional plans. Hopefully he now will.

Source: The Telegraph, BBC

Russia's parliamentary election has been declared "not fair" by a joint observer team of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. They said that the Russian election

This isn't really very surprising. Russia hasn't been a democracy for even two decades, so there has been little for it to actually sink into the people as a true belief. The politicians involved grew up grew up during the Soviet era, when corruption was rife and expected, and many of them were involved in it.

Democracy simply takes time to sink in in real practice. Claiming to be a democrat is easy, and ever since democracy has become the only acceptable political philosophy, evidenced by the absurd claims of democratic belief from people such as Mugabe and his ilk. And, of course, there were elections under Communism - except the only candidates allowed were approved Communist ones.

Democracy doesn't exist simply through a democratic system being put in place. It requires an acceptance of the principles and actually putting them into practice. Russia hasn't yet reached that stage. It's democracy is still too young and still not deeply embedded. In time, it will. But not yet. And it appears not while Putin is still around - in any capacity.

Source: BBC

The EU seems to want to scrap any national food labelling, and replace it with a "Made in the EU" label. It is unacceptable that such a thing is even considered. The EU should stay out of everything like this. It is nothing to do with them at all.

That they could even consider it shows their inherent desire to expand and expand into all governmental competencies and beyond. And it is just wrong, especially since they have no direct democratic mandate for this expansion. At all.

No-one has given their consent for the EU to inexorably expand. No-one. Whether or not you think the EU and its continuing expansion is a good thing, if you are - or proclaim to be - a democrat, then you cannot accept it under the current conditions. Referendums are essential to decide this.

Source: The Telegraph

The Conservatives will use the Lib Dems lack of interest in a referendum on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty against them at the next general election, William Hague said:

Which is as it should be. The Lib Dems are hypocritical in so many ways and, despite the word "democrat" forming part of their party name, refused to take the opportunity to give the British people a taste of it over this important issue.

This issue is one on which the Conservatives and Lib Dems could have actually defeated the government, but both the declared candidates for their leadership have ruled it out. As Norfolk Blogger, who to his credit accepts that the Conservatives should use this against Lib Dem MPs, says: "What a wasted opportunity" for the Lib Dems.

To those such as Bob Piper, who say that:
What you are missing is those, such as me, who call for a referendum on this "reform treaty" accept that it was wrong not to have a referendum then. But also remember that few were in a position to argue for it then. After all, when Major signed Maastricht I was 7.

But two wrongs do not ever make a right. It was wrong not to hold referendums before. It is just as wrong - if not more so - not to hold one now. Saying "the Tories didn't hold one!" is no argument for democracy. Since, I believe, Labour were claiming that we should have had referendums then this was their chance to put that belief into practise. But they bottled it because they didn't think they'd win.

This is an ex-sovereign nation! Or at least it will be as soon as Gordon Brown signs it away.

We want a referendum. 69% of the country wants a referendum - that doesn't mean that 69% want to vote no, but that 69% want to vote on whether Britain should sign up to the EU Constitution Reform treaty. The result of any referendum is far less important than having one - so that it is the British people who decide, not a Prime Minister who got into his current position without any voting at all.

Brown won't have a referendum because he fears he'd lose it, just like he feared he'd lose a general election, and so didn't hold one. Which, of course, most Tories are secretly very pleased about. But a referendum on this EU "treaty" is essential, no matter what your view on the EU is, so long as you believe in democracy.

This is very nearly an ex-sovereign nation, but this is certainly an ex-parrot: