It's a perfect
world
It would be naive to think so,
but there are dangerous people about who would like us to think
it could happen. People of high moral character, like Bill ‘We
did not bomb civilians' Clinton. These people look at Austria's
new coalition of democratically elected representatives and say
that the majority are wrong and must be taught a lesson. There
must be sanctions from those who occupy the moral high ground.
The majority are not always right - True, who can argue with
that? Democracy needs to be tempered by moral guidance - ah ahhh!
Just suppose their dream comes
true. A Europe united as one nation with an elite of those "who
know best" to guide us all with wisdom and fairness on how
we should think and behave. What happens when these enlightened
people die? A morbid question, I know, but it has to be asked.
How do we decide who is to take their place? Do we have an election?
Oops, no, that would take us back to the bad old days of democracy.
So do we keep it in the family then? The progeny of supreme beings
taking their rightful place after the death of their parents.
That doesn't sound very New Labour to me, in fact that idea pretty
much died with the signing of the Magna Carta in 784BB (Before
Blair).
So what could all this noise
from the moral high ground mean? Could it simply be an arrogant
"I am right, you are wrong" sort of noise. Or is it
more sinister - Noam Chomsky's new book "The New Military
Humanitarianism" suggests that morality is simply a cloak.
Could powerful people be using morality as a weapon to achieve
change required by hidden mandates? Not a new idea, Alexander
Hamilton (one of those who signed the American Declaration of
Independence) said "dangerous ambition often lurks behind
the specious mask of zeal for the rights of people".
These alternatives spring to
mind because if world leaders really do believe in their morality,
then I have to ask: How can it be moral to supply arms to Indonesia,
which, over a period of twenty years or more, committed genocide
in East Timor with support and arms supplied by Europe and the
USA? How could it be moral to financially support a regime of
a man like Pol Pot? How can it be moral to sell arms to African
nations involved in slaughtering each others populations?
I guess you could say: Ah but
at least they weren't fascists were they! Though the USA has
never been reluctant to rush to the support of fascist dictators
in South America. It's a wonder the USA didn't offer an arms
deal to Austria on hearing the good news.
But of course, all that is ancient
history - things are different now. A phrase that must strike
a chord in the minds of parole officers all around the world.
If there is one thing history
can teach it is that we too easily ignore the possible changes
the future can bring. Who can say what new minds the future will
bring, minds that will decide it's time for a new direction.
This is not a problem in a world were power is spread democratically
among many, it is a problem in a world were power is concentrated
in hot spots by large federal structures.
Impulse Voting
It seems New Labour wants to
have new voting. Within 5 years we may be voting from the comfort
of our bedroom - or wherever it is you keep your computer. Or
perhaps you'll select your new government on the shopping channel
- after a short sales pitch from each party. There may even be
loyalty card points for registering your vote, or perhaps I'm
getting confused with something else.
There is a danger that electronic
voting will make it too easy. Will you agonise for days beforehand
on all the choices for and against each candidate, or will you
find that you're the only person who voted for Norway's entry
into the Eurovision song contest.
Before you get carried away with
all this hi-tech excitement, take a look at what it means in
the USA: Spotlight
on Electronic Voting |
