As we're plunged back into the campaign trail, many in Britain are bemoaning that we're being asked to vote *again*. So, here is a whistle stop tour through history to see what some of our better alternatives have been...
Roman Empire
Back in the good old days, things were much easier. If you fancied having a stab at being emperor, you got your soldiers to proclaim you. Easy really.
I mean, there was then the small issue of then fighting off all the others who had done the same, and then holding power against all those who tried to do the same to you. But it was a very meritocratic system, and these days there is a lack of social mobility, so definitely something to consider.
Anglo-Saxon England
Two possible variations here. The Anglo-Saxon king of the English was semi-elective; in theory the Witan (the collection of powerful Earls and bishops who advised the king) could chose whoever they wanted to be king. In practice it was normally the son of the previous monarch. Not always the eldest son, mind you. Sometimes brothers got a look in, even when there were children still alive. Alfred the Great only became king of the West Saxons after three of his brothers had been king. Alfred's son, Edward the Elder, later had to see off a rebellion by his cousin, Æthelwold, who made a bid for power on Alfred's death in 899; Æthelwold used the fact that his father had been king before Alfred to legitimise his bid for power. Sons born to the sitting king often jumped the order of precedence over any children he'd had before he became king.
The elective nature of the Anglo-Saxon kingship is perhaps best seen in the crisis of 1066. Edward the Confessor died childless, and the nearest related member of the House of Cerdic was only a child. Instead, the Witan elected Harold Godwinson as king, off the back of his military and governing experience. The flaw in this system is also shown in 1066; once you've established the idea that anyone can become king, anyone can give it a shot. And so it was that William the Bastard, the Duke of Normandy and a distant relative of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, launched a long shot bid for the throne. Harold Godwinson went down to defeat at Hastings, and the rest, as they say, was history.
The Holy Roman Emperor was chosen by an electoral college, made up of three bishops and four princes. The winner (who was always magically the son of the previous Emperor) was then crowned by the Pope (until 1530, at any rate). An electorate of seven people is a hell of a lot easier to talk to directly, and the rest of us can get on with our lives without having to worry about all these important things. It'd certainly make political advertising much simpler.
But this was only from the late Middle Ages onwards. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by the Pope during Christmas Day Mass in 800, apparently without any warning. Still I reckon he'd have settled for a new jumper or something. Must have been pretty awkward, as I don't think he'd bought the Pope anything in return.
The first US Election
The framers of the US Constitution had a very clear idea of who the first president was going to be. Only George Washington could bridge the gaps between the various segments in American society that had emerged under the original system of government that had bumbled along since independence from Great Britain. And so once he agreed to have the job, the actual election was a formality. No one ran against him, any many states just nodded the approval through. Washington certainly didn't do anything as unseemly as campaigning for the job or anything. How times differ...
Modern Papal Elections
You lock 120 elderly men inside an art museum, and when 2/3 of them agree on a replacement, they start a fire to signal to the outside world they can be let out. But it's ok as the Holy Spirit keeps an eye on things.
No, really.
Shadowy Conspiracy Government
I am still wading my way through The X-Files. Every few episodes, there is a smoky, shadowy room shown. From this room, a cabal of rich men direct world affairs from behind the scenes. They alone know what is good for the world. The democratic facade they allow to continue is not that actually wields any power.
Now, leave aside how easy it would be to read some dreadful anti-Semitism into this. Or how quaint it is that these people rig elections with ease, but are seemingly incapable of finding Mulder at any given point without visiting Scully and asking her.
No, look at the world around you. Switch on the TV. Open the BBC News website. Does this look like a world that is being organised and planned?
Nope, didn't think so. I'd highly recommend Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with Extremists. You'll soon be worrying more about the people who believe this than those apparently running the show...
Which leaves...
There is an awful quotation, attributed to many of the usual suspects, that says that democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others we've tried. Well, perhaps.
And we have tried many others. Not just the weird and wonderful systems outlined above, but corrupt oligarchies, restricted democracies, and despotic dictatorships. None has served the common good well. None has benefitted ordinary men and women.
But government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Abraham Lincoln really did say, ensures a say in the future by each and every one of us. Yes, we may be fed up of elections. Yes, we may be unsure of the ability of the individual to shape the process.
But unless you want you future determined by clerics, soldiers, people who claim they are gods, or David Icke's lizards, then you are stuck with democracy and elections. Make the most of it. Many of those who came before us weren't even given this tiny say in their futures.
Register, and wait for June 8th. Then go out and have your say. Because you're bloody lucky to have the chance to go and do so. Lizards or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment