Spalpeen

I’m loving this blog, and that’s my fave entry on Beau’s homepage at the moment. The Guardian seems to link there, so maybe I’ll do some myself and see if I can pull some readers my way.

I’ve always hated it when politicians refer to “evil”. It sends shivers up my spine when the people that have/could potentially have a degree of influence over the actions of the state use the word evil to justify their beliefs or actions. The reason for my trepediation whenever a politician brings up evil can be traced back to when I attended a lecture by the shadow home secretary, David Davis. He referred to the detainees at Guantanamo as “evil” individuals. David Davis certainly isn’t the first person to say this: Blair has said it, and Bush has said it repeatedly. In fact, I blame Bush entirely for the increase in popularity of this simplistic word. Search any of his speeches, and you’ll find multiple mentions of “evil” this, “axis of evil” that. Frankly, I think it’s probably one of the most worrying linguistic trends in politics for a while. Rejecting the concept of right to a fair trial and using some arbitrary idea of “evil” to justify your stance is dead wrong.

Anyway, this rant was inspired by Randall.

I was sitting in the library attempting to do some reading about the British Empire, and I remebered the urge I had a couple of days ago to draw Iorek Byrnison from His Dark Materials. Here’s my effort (I used a Wikipedia image of a Polar Bear — on my mobile phone — as a reference).

This is one of the primary reasons that I believe representative-based politics isn’t the right system to run Governments by. Why should $500 million need to be spent to find the next president, why should any money be spent finding a leader? That money could and should be used on actually improving the lives of people in America. OK, so some will argue that the money will improve America by supporting a worthy candidate, although I’d be willing to argue that the majority of that money is about garnering influence over the representative. Each presidential candidate will be hosting events where you’re expected to pay money to attend, and the pay off is an audience with the candidate, and therefore the potential to influence policy.

It’s the same situation with lobby groups. The same group of rich people have an unfair influence over the process of running a Government. Why should money be the yardstick by which a country’s agenda (via powerful and well funded lobby groups) is set, and the barrier to entry to a politician hearing what you need to say (via rich donors)? The answer is that it shouldn’t.

Strict deliberative democracy doesn’t have representatives. Even a mild form of deliberative democracy that exists within a representative liberal democracy could have the effect of reducing the influence of money over the process of Government.