Chevaliers de la Table ronde
Recently I opened up some discussion regarding my misgivings about the quality — and importance — of the teaching in primary schools of civics/ethics. The question arises; how do we educate a population to understand — and therefore take part — in the democratic process? It seems to me this is not something we can treat lightly.
There is a growing dissatisfaction all across the liberal/democratic countries with the combative, counter-productive outcomes of the basically two-party systems. There are also problems with the multi part systems — for example Italy. What happens in fact such countries are governed by unstable coalitions, which in effect join to form two blocs within the legislature.
As Winston Churchill once remarked: ‘Our democratic systems of government are fragile, very inefficient — but look at the alternative.’ He meant of course one-party governments, with their efficiencies yes, but the other side of the coin, the erosion of all civil rights, the scrapping of all ideas of democracy. Surrounding our outposts of democracy, there are howling wolves out there. So yes, for all it’s deficiencies, it’s the best we have, the envy of those people’s around the world, who do not have it. But is it necessarily the only way to proceed?
We take the word ‘democracy’ from the Greeks, but in fact our systems basically descend from northern European antecedents. Let’s take a look at these, to gain some historical background, looking at the early attempts to organise and govern by group consent. In fact go back to the first times when we gained the ability to control fire, tame it and use it. We always take this as that moment as definitive; when Humankind became free of fear of nocturnal marauders. But also significantly, an unexpected upside. it gave us the freedom to sit talking in a circle around camp fires. Language, vocabularies would have become extended, thus began the world of ideas, enabling humanity to organize firstly small tribal groups, to larger regional and national systems.
Lets take a look at Nordic, Saxon and Celtic traditions of egalitarian group organization. These, because their systems lead directly to our present political arrangements.
From earliest times, the Norse were primarily self-governing. Every community has a regular gathering called a Thing — which means “assembly” in Old Norse. Anyone could bring a complaint against someone else to the Thing, or a matter for discussion.
Things held at the local level both in Iceland and Norway, all freemen were welcome to sit and hear the disputes.
Most Norse lands also had both Kings and Jarls, or earls — except for Iceland, of whose proud claim was that they have no king but the law. However, these authority figures seem to have operated parallel to the Thing system, not above it. These kings were expected to be leaders of the armies that would protect Norse lands in times of war, but the Thing was the highest authority in times of peace.
Each community’s Thing acted as a court and legislative body. Only those who owned land could be members. A King could hold his position only as long as the people wanted him. Before a new king could take office, he had to have the consent of the members of the assembly. No laws were written down until around 1100 AD. Before then the laws were really traditions and opinions of the majority of the people.
Norse settlers went from Norway to Iceland and founded a colony. Iceland was the only country to form a national assembly during the Viking Age. Called the Althing, it first met in 930 and is the oldest national assembly in the world.
Celtic law, evolved somewhat differently, but also had democratic underpinnings. The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the Tuath. All freemen who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a Tuath. Each Tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other Tuatha, and elected or deposed their Kings.
The history of local government in Britain descends largely from these two traditions, with gradual change and evolution since the Middle Ages. Still with me? Okay,
Let’s look now at an interesting idea, which may just offer a way out from our political taking of sides, with parties demanding loyalty over national interest.
This proposed model marries the ancient myth of Arthur’s Round table, with the additional possibilities of modern electronics. Imagine this:
A large chamber, in the centre a circular seating arrangement for a legislature. In the centre of this, a president of the assembly, not a political figure but perhaps an influential jurist, accepted by a majority of the elected members. Perhaps we can imagine this personage seated upon a raised, pivotable chair. This person (male or female) does not legislate, but serves as referee. This presiding officer would have the power to eject unruly, disruptive members, and should do this with rigor, accepting no interruption of proceedings. Perhaps imposing fines for repeat nuisances. As each member enters the chamber, his/her seat is chosen randomly by electronic means. It is never the same seat as before. One’s seating neighbours, always different. Beneath the desk in front of the members of the chamber, are three (unseen) buttons to record a (secret) vote.
The options are: yes, no, or abstain.
Obviously, there will still arise groups of like-thinking people who form ipso facto, parties.
But the random seating, plus the secret ballot system, would tend to encourage real conscience voting, in the national interest, not that of special interest groups, as parties would have no way of enforcing party discipline. It would also eradicate that egregious practice, so-called lobbying — or bribing — to gain interest for unelected entities against the national interest. It is a blight on democratic systems of government. Lobbyists would have no way to ascertain how the member votes. Random seating would also encourage real dialogue between randomly chosen neighbours. The assembly would/could have the power to elect from amongst themselves a national leader. Having chosen their representatives on merit, not party lines, the people do not need another election.
As I remarked in an earlier blog, I think we all know that as a result of the pandemic, our politico/economic systems will be under intense pressure, and scrutiny. At such times of dramatic change, sometimes a radical idea gets off the ground.
So there you go — I’ve laid out the basic idea, now let’s hear from the Vox Populi, all points open for discussion.
And remember this: ‘Eternal vigilance is The price of Liberty’
Wendell Phillips
Originally published at https://www.johnworth.com.au on December 8, 2020.
