WarDeclared/IsBritainADemocracy

No. I am saying that the government shouldn't unilaterally take major, world-changing action that the public overwhelmingly objects to. If they have good reasons to take such action, they should let the public know them. If the public are not convinced, the government should accept that they are wrong, *or* accept that they are not a democracy. - MoonShadow

Britain is not, and never has been, a democracy in the sense you seem to mean. It is a parliamentary democracy: we elect parliament, parliament makes decisions. There has never been a referendum on whether or not to go to war, to my knowledge.

This is a good thing? We hold polls on minor and local matters. People campaign about all sorts of things, both minor and major, and things get done about it. Look at RIPA and ID cards, for instance. The former is an example of government legislation being swayed by public opinion. The latter is an example of the government gathering information before making up its mind. If we do this for issues so much less important on the scale of things than a war, why can't we do it for a war, especially when public opinion has been made more than clear? What I am trying to say is it is most certainly not the normal state of affairs in Britain for government to bluntly ignore public opinion, and it is not a good thing that it did so over this war. - MoonShadow

(Can we try to stick at least vaguely to the same typographical styles? You were non-bold italic, as I recall) Because doing whatever 'public opinion' wants is not democracy, but mob rule. I recall someone pointing out that if we did what the majority wanted we would be hanging paediatricians.

Sorry - I was trying to keep arguments on two different subjects separate; this is probably better achieved by moving one of them elsewhere :)

The difference between democracy and mob rule is the mob (a) doesn't know what they are doing and (b) tries to do things themselves without consulting anyone. Like the parliamentary democracy you describe, the communication between government and mob in mob rule is one-way, whereas it should really be two-way. Part of the solution is to inform the mob, ideally before they become a mob, e.g. by explaining to them what paediatricians do.

I'm not convinced that holding a poll within a short time scale (say a parlimentary term) is necessary a good thing. One theory of representative democracy is that the people elect representatives so that those representatives can spend the time getting informed on obscure issues and the public doesn't have to. The implication of this is that there will be times when the public and their representatives are going to disagree about issues, and it wouldn't be a good idea to bow to a poll of public opinion UNTIL the government has had time to educate the public on that issue. A counter example to this theory (where the public generally knows better than their representatives) might well be the links between running budget deficits, inflation, GDP and economic depression. --DR

In the posts above declaring war on Iraq was mentioned as the counterexample. If the government can't make a convincing case for starting a war that the populace is opposed to, why should they be allowed to? Moreover, as is already stated above, if the government is willing to hold polls and bow to the public's will on less important, more obscure, more localised matters, why not something this major that affects so many people? - MoonShadow

DevilsAdvocate: Partially because PublicOpinion? is that PublicOpinion? is not to be trusted on the big issues? After all - we all know that if everyone polls selfishly then the worst result emerges - but in a big group that is exactly what everyone does. But OTOP the role of a democratic government is to represent the will of the people - it's not to change the will of the people, or decide what that will ought to be. That's what newspapers are for ;) --Vitenka

: That's precisely it. In theory, government either rules by sheer force (the west usually denounces this sort) or requires a lot of cooperation from the people in order to be able to govern. In something that purports to be a democracy, that cooperation is usually given because people trust the government to do what's best for them, or what they ask for, which they presumably think is best for them; this is not always the same thing, but when the government claims it is not the same thing on something this important/major and is unable/unwilling to back up their claims convincingly, yet still goes ahead and does it with public opinion against them - why does it deserve the name "democracy"? Why is it any better in this respect than any other regime where someone on high just tells people what must be done and ignores the dissenters? Or has "democracy" now come to mean merely "we don't torture people or have a secret police" instead of "we are the people's representatives"? - MoonShadow, who'll stop with the rhetoric now and go and work.

Rarely were the opinion polls taken during the run-up to the war conclusively against it. You might think that what happened was a triumph for democracy, and that to allow the people who shouted loudest and marched longest to get their way in defiance of the quieter majority might be the undemocratic option. --ChiarkPerson

: Do you have any evidence for this assertion? A quick [Google] digs up a [bbc article] citing a Times poll reporting a 25% UK minority who think the war is justified as the top hit, with plenty more to follow.. - MoonShadow

Note the question asked. Look at the smaller bar. - ChiarkPerson

The smaller bar? Do you mean in the fold-away graph marked "graphical data" halfway down the page? How is that relevant to your case? The events that actually occurred were those described by the larger bar - or do you mean to say we actually got fresh UN support before we went to war but no-one save you was told? - MoonShadow

That shows the number opposed to the war per se was very, very small. -ChiarkPerson

By "the war", I mean "the war we actually had, which the government embarked upon with no UN support and in the face of public opinion", not "the imaginary war we might have had in which we could have been supported by the UN". Most people were opposed to going to war under the circumstances, yet the government went ahead and did it anyway. That is my point in its entirety, for the nth time. Yes, I agree that if the government had been able to demonstrate that the war was just, perhaps by showing that it had support of the UN, public opinion may have been in favour of the war. This did not prove to be the case. What is your point? I do not understand it. - MoonShadow

I mean, and the polls meant, the war we actually had, which was the same war whether or not the French decided to play silly buggers. - ChiarkPerson

Care to expand on that? I'm not sure I understand. AFAICT, you seem to be looking at a graph that says over 70% of the population will oppose a war that does not have UN support, 30% will still oppose it even if it gets UN support, and you are telling me that the war we actually had - the one without UN support - was supported by the majority of the population. One of us must clearly be misunderstanding something. - MoonShadow

Actually it's only about 15% who actually opposed the war. Most didn't oppose the war, they opposed proceeding with the war without UN support. Subtle but important difference. - ChiarkPerson

: Yes, whatever. Putting the war with UN support aside for now (since UN support didn't happen), the UK government did in fact go to war without UN support, even though as you have finally admitted most people were opposed to doing this. Do you have a problem with this statement, and if so can you say why you have a problem with it without contradicting statements you made earlier? - MoonShadow
: Yes - it's an important difference and an interesting discussion. (Why does international support change your belief about whether or not something is right?) - but it's not the discussion being had here. Which is "Plan x does not have public support" "Do plan x". You are arguing "Ah, but situation y had public support" to which MoonShadow is giving you a fairly well deserved "So what?" Now, if that doesn't clarify it, I really am going to start deleting ChiarkPerson edits on sight. --Vitenka

Depends. Do you interpret the results as saying 'we shouldn't go to war at all if the UN doesn't support it', or 'we should go to war, and get the UN to support it'? - ChiarkPerson

: Those statements do not need to be mutually exclusive, although you have stated them as such. "We should get the UN to support the war" and "We should not go to war unless they do" seemed to be the interpretation at the time. You've still... Ah forget it. - Vitenka
: Can you explain how anyone can interpret the results as the 'we should go to war, then get the UN to support it' if the results clearly say 70% think "we should not go to war without UN support" and going to war before getting the UN to support it would involve going to war without UN support? Or do you imply something different by your 'and', in which case what and why does it matter which way you interpret it? - MoonShadow

Let's look at this logically. We have two figures before us as evidence - 70% of people thought we shouldn't go to war without further UN backing; 15% of people thought we shouldn't go to war even with further UN backing. This means that 55% of people only objected to the war because of the lack of UN backing. Which means that it wasn't the war itself that they objected to, but rather the circumstances under which it would be started. In other words, the people who objected to "war under any circumstances" were in the minority. That's the point. --M-A

Why is that relevant here? The discussion is about what actually happened, not what could have done. The people objecting to "people going to prison under any circumstances" might be in the minority for instance, but the majority wouldn't want people sent to prison without being convicted in a court first. People might not object to investigation in general, but investigation without rules or oversight is generally opposed and seen as totalitarian. The government does not do these things under those circumstances because the majority oppose them, although Blunkett and the like have demonstrated the government would be willing to try. Why is the war not another instance of the same pattern? - MoonShadow

OK, right, I see now... PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ... There has been a misunderstanding just up the page from here ... END PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ... ChiarkPerson was saying that, according to the polls, people weren't definitively against having a war against Iraq. He wasn't passing any comment on what people might have thought about the war we actualy ended up in. [My interpretation, admittedly, but it would explain all the talking-at-cross-purposes going on around here] --M-A

: Um. Not sure that's it, you know, 'cos I've pointed out that I was talking about the government's actions re the war we actually ended up in rather than any war in general half a dozen times now and ChiarkPerson has insisted above that he was talking about the war we actually ended up in too. - MoonShadow''

I am talking about the war we actually ended up in. The war, and what the UN thought about the war, are separate issues: if the French and the Russians hadn't blocked things and the UN had passed the proposed resolution, it would have been the same war. - ChiarkPerson

Quite. I think I have to give up around this point, since judging by your responses I am clearly unable to make myself understood. -MoonShadow

Is this possibly a clash of axioms? On the one side, you've got "it's the same war, regardless of the UN's opinion of it" and, on the other hand, you've got "If the UN had approved of it, it would have been a different beastie entirely." It's not a question of making each other understand; you just have different axioms. --M-A

But that's beside the point; the argument here is "/IsBritainADemocracy", and if so, why did the government feel it had the right to act against overwhelming public opinion in the case of the war? The clash of axioms itself is irrelevant to this discussion - the important part was that the majority held the second of the two axioms, so if we're a democracy, why did the minority win? - MoonShadow

NoNoNoNoNo, I'm saying that ChiarkPerson holds the first axiom, and you hold the second, so the debate can't go anywhere. I shall address the other point separately. --M-A

Sorry, I'm being obtuse, but I still don't understand why we can't go anywhere. The issue being debated isn't "does the UN opinion matter" (I don't think it does, personally, I was one of the (allegedly) 15% that thought we shouldn't go to war either way), it's "did most people think it does when the government decided it didn't". The polls seem to me to make the answer to that quite clear. Where's the clash? - MoonShadow

The clash comes because ChiarkPerson isn't debating that point, but a different one. --M-A

: OK. I'll go away and do something else until someone responds to the point I actually made, then. - MoonShadow

"70% of people thought we shouldn't go to war without further UN backing; 15% of people thought we shouldn't go to war even with further UN backing. This means that 55% of people only objected to the war because of the lack of UN backing." [M-A, above]
So what did this 55% of people really think? What was it about UN backing that made the war OK in their eyes? Was it that "UN backing" was a buzzphrase at the time, so it sounded good? Was it that they felt that a "UN-backed war" was a Different & Better thing than a "non-UN-backed war"? Or was it that they didn't feel able to judge for themselves whether or not the war was OK, but if the UN said it was OK, then that would do? Or, finally, was it that "war" was OK, but without UN backing it risked global instability?

I suspect that there were/are people who fell into each of these camps, and we can't pigeonhole the majority (55%) of the population without further evidence of their real feelings on the matter. Whatever ones own thoughts are on the subject, it's tempting to think that those 55% of people were just like oneself, but one mustn't fall into that trap.

Coming back to the topic of the page, all the polls I've seen (inevitably) try to reduce a large and complex issue to yes/no questions, which is great for newspaper headlines, but not a good way to govern a country. --M-A

: I think the point is either that many of those opposing the war only opposed it because the international community did. Or possibly the point is "I like to argue even in the face of overwhelming evidence and a self-contradictory position" - which is a point I agree with ;) --Vitenka

Ok, what? 87% of germans oppose the war, is the article I see - with no bar, or question definition. It then goes on to talk about lesser numbers who disliked the US. What is the relevance to either of you? --Vitenka

: It mentions UK poll data in the fold-away graph and in the paragraphs just under the heading "Decisive factor?". - MoonShadow

Ah - can't see that grpah. EvilScript, probably. --Vitenka

: You know, every time I resolve to delete your unsigned posts, you go and post something which pushes alllll the right buttons and I just feel obligated to respond. I certainly agree that polling is flawed - though most polling companies use their best stats to try and minimise this. However (nearly) all the polls, right up to the first shot, were >50% against. Not a clear mandate, no - but clearer than many governments. (And I don't recall this government putting 'go to war' in their election promises) The loudness of the shouts - you're righ that shouldn't affect how much influence they have. The length of time however - that probably should. The sustained nature of the protests (as against most 'flash in the pan' protests) suggests it was much more an opinion issue rather than a quick 'join the madding crowd' thing. And your assumption that the quiet majority were for, rather than against, the war is at least as bad an assumption as that they followed the split shown by the polls... --Vitenka

: [Somewhat irreverent definition, but I can't resist]: Democracy - a form of government based on the theory that four people cannot possibly be right about something if they disagree with six others. GDR

But seriously, if they are trying to decide what all ten should do, surely it would be wrong for the ten to end up doing what the four want if the four are unable to convince the six that the four are right? - MoonShadow

Um, no. Something isn't right just because the majority want to do it. Something isn't wrong just because the majority don't want to do it. Sometimes some people are more qualified and/or authorised to make decisions. Not everyone is equal. Nor should they be. If I want to know how to invest money, I will not ask lots of people in the street for advice, I will go to someone who knows about the subject.

: Damn damn damn - I can't find the article. Recently posted, there was something that said, basically, that you should do exactly that. Large uninformed groups tended to make good economic decisions just due to the bell curve and selfishness. --Vitenka

Speaking of which, the very fact that there is disagreement over what to do between the people who are (or should be) the best informed just shows me that it's more complicated than most people are willing to admit. /BlackAndWhiteness

As a separate point, the form of democracy in this country is thus: The electorate choose people to represent them in Parliament. Those representatives are given the authority to run the country as they see fit. If that isn't how people wanted it run, the representatives are voted out and replaced at the next election. The representatives are not there to be a conduit for the people they were elected by; they are simply the person voted Most Likely To Say Things We Agree With by that group of people.

: That's not democracy.

That's parliamentary democracy, which is the form of democracy used to govern Britain. It's not Athenian democracy, no, or Rousseauian democracy, or any other kind or flavour of democracy other than the kind of democracy of which it is. Do keep up at the back.

(PeterTaylor) I have observed in many other places, and will do so again here, that

There hasn't been a democracy in the world for over 2 millennia;
Democracy probably doesn't work for anything larger than a city-state;
Democracy doesn't work without slave labour.

FWIW, MoonShadow accepts that there is a line to be drawn between a national vote for every byelaw and a national vote for (a major issue like going to war), but feels that going to war is well on the "national vote should happen" side of it.

If there had been a public vote in the USA just after the World Trade Centre's destruction about whether they should have gone to Iraq I suspect that it would have been a landslide victory for bombing the hell out of them, whoever was President. Would that make it the right thing for them to do?

It's precisely because war is so big, so complex, that you can't trust it to a referendum. There's an old saying that War is too important to be left to the generals; it is certainly too important to be left to the public, who have not the time, often the inclination, and in most cases the intelligence to weigh the issues properly.

: Isn't this page about democracy rather than ethics? Perhaps this should be moved to IsDemocracyEthical??

That probably makes sense. The conclusion here seems to be that Britain isn't a democracy (whether you accept PeterTaylor's three points above or not) - pretty much everyone agrees on that. The discussions about whether Britain *should* be a democracy will likely overlap in most part with those on IsDemocracyEthical?, and so can happen on that page. :)

I'm sorry -- who came to that conclusion? Britain is a parliamentary democracy -- in fact, Britain is the parliamentary democracy, the model, as it were.

Okay, sorry, I thought everyone had agreed with that. I was wrong.
Looks like it's time to reach for Dictionary: democracy. 1, 2 and 4 are the meanings being discussed here. And the definition of "parliamentary democracy" above is pretty clear that the elected representatives are the ones doing the ruling, not the people "through" the elected representatives. So "parliamentary democracy" as defined above doesn't fit the dictionary definition of democracy, and thus while Britain may be a "parliamentary democracy", it isn't a "democracy". --AlexChurchill

Sigh. Y'wonder why y'bother.

: Yep

I don't quite understand ;) I agree it's silly that compound terms can contain misleading words - a guinea pig is neither a pig nor from Guinea, a parliamentary democracy isn't a democracy - but I don't think that's what you mean... could you elaborate?

: I think this discussion continued on TrueDemocracy and some kinda moving paragraphs around thing needs to be done maybe kinda. --Vitenka

Edith: A question: Much of the discussion above makes the assumption that the public can be properly informed as to the full reasons for the government wishing to go to war in Iraq. If this is not the case at the time (for reasons of international diplomacy, espionage and national security or something. I'm not talking a flawed defence dossier here, I'm talking about something concrete), wouldn't holding a referendum on war be the wrong thing to do? The government would be giving the public a decision on which it would be impossible to properly inform them, and thus biasing them to a decision which may not be in their best interest?

: Can you posit a concrete example? I am having trouble of thinking of a situation grave enough for a country to be justified in going to war over which is not and cannot be made public knowledge. However, I am not a great believer in preemptive warfare - perhaps "what sort of things do you believe would justify going to war?" is a prerequisite question? - MoonShadow

King DJ really shouldn't join this debate but he will anyway. The standard example: You have a spy in the upper echelons of the Iraqi WMD programs who's delivering information to your agent in the Indian embassy. You tell the Public everything you know, the Iraqis work out who it is from the context and torture him to death. His contact is exposed, national scandal in India damages a friendly government and to top it all off he hadn't yet found out were the Sarin was that they were going to use to wipe out Kuwait city.

That is the argument. Normally I would trust the government but I did read the dossier when it was released and it looked to me then like they were scrapping the barrel. The �45 minute claim� which was widely misreported wasn�t nearly as shocking in context, and indeed I remember thinking �so what?� when I read it. The real reason I felt we went to war was Blair was thinking, they could have WMD and the Americans are going in anyway. Let's not ruin our alliance and let's help clear up the mess after them, hey they might even be right. Maybe we can get the UN to agree to this and we can do it without irritating all our allies. Unfortunately you can�t say that and survive politically so he did the only thing he could, he lied.

: If the planned Iraqi attack your agent found out about is far enough off that you have time to hold a public referendum on going to war, I would say that it is likely to be far enough off that you could try addressing the problem in ways that don't involve going to war first. - MoonShadow

I think there was an attempt to do this with UN weapons inspectors. If you can get Iraq to disarm everyone wins. Unfortunately if they mysteriously can't find the weapons you KNOW are there or any proof they have been destroyed you are bound to get a little frustrated with them after a while. --King DJ

: ...except, of course, that doesn't hold water when the reason that you can't find said weapons or proof is because what you "KNOW" is wrong. And I'd say my point still stands - they weren't about to use the weapons there and then, so there was time to try more non-war things before going to war. - MoonShadow

I would like to point out that I'm not arguing any position about the rights and wrongs of democratic government here. I'm pointing out what I think happened as a contrast to the ideal system proposed. While it is unfortunate we have a system that works by punishing (perceived) failure rather than rewarding honesty and intelligence in government ministers, it is the system we have. The number of things ministers can be forced to resign over, often ending their political carriers, that they have no power over or even occasionally knowledge of, ensures people who are prepared to fall on their political swords for the greater good are weeded out early, if not by the media then by their own party.--King DJ

I reiterate I am not expressing my views, I am trying to give the rationale I think the government had for its actions. The government seemed convinced they knew Iraq had weapons, they just didn't have any decent proof. I personally thought Iraq�s weapons didn't constitute a threat even if they did exist. Without you saying what you mean by non-war actions I can't comment. Beyond crippling sanctions and exhaustive inspections I can't think of anything beyond (possibly more limited) military action that you can do. What other ways can you apply pressure?--King DJ

: You're missing my point, I think. What I am trying to say is, why go to war when there is time to, well, not? - MoonShadow

This sort of the point I was trying to make. At some point you have to decide that time is up. I didn't think it was the right time but that's beside the point. If your "rogue state" ever does get a nuke you can't attack them anymore, if they sell their weapons to terrorists you can't go in and un-sell the weapons. These points were made by the government and refuted by the facts however there surely must be a point when time is up. If a country is acting in a way you don't like for 10 years and you just tell them stop or else they are bound to reply "or else what?". You say somewhere else you don't believe in pre-emptive war. If you believe it is morally wrong to strike first then obviously you aren't going to agree with me on this but the fact is in the case of WMD you pretty much have to attack before your enemy develops the capability to retaliate. The point is if you accept pre-emption, as I do, there has to be a point at which time runs out and this is a judgement call.--King DJ
Unfortunately little of this seems to apply to the way the US decided to do things as Bush Jr. seems to have decided to do something about Iraq since before he was elected. However if Iraq was sitting there refusing to disarm after 10 years at some point you have to make them, not just to set an example, but to prevent the possibility of a repeat of something like the Iran-Iraq war with killed hundreds of thousands and threatened to destabilise the supplies of oil on which our western economies depend.--King DJ
Now without the threat of military action I don't think the inspectors would have gotten the access they did and if they had been able to prove Iraq didn't have WMD (which is of course almost impossible) then we don't need a war. We can win the battle without firing a shot because our threat of force is taken seriously. This is why while I opposed the Iraq war I would not protest against it because I though the best way of avoiding the war was to convince Iraq that we weren't bluffing. However I think the Americans were playing a different game entirely but it Tony Blair could force them to take the "UN route" (the only legitimate route) then the Americans would be forced not to act if Saddam could convince everyone he was playing ball. Of course like all great plans it didn't quite work. The US got rezo 1441 but nothing more, silly word games were played with the Security Council's language and they went in anyway.--King DJ

: DR wrote near the top that I thought there would be some occasions where it was ok for the government to hold and act upon an opinion different to that held by the populace, until they had had time to educate the populace. Two well documented cases are CapitalPunishment? and TheEuro?. Two issues have since been raised. (A) what if an irrevocable decision based upon the opinion needs to be taken under a time limit that prevents sufficient education? And (B), what if the the government doesn't want to reveal the sources (eg a spy) because that would have bad consequences?

: On issue (A) I'd say that is actually a prime reason why we have representative democracy not pure democracy, and that the populace has the chance, post-facto, to kick them out at the next election if they still don't like it after education.
: On issue (B) I'd say you have to weigh the consequences. The weight of the decision being taken against the weight of the information source being revealed. In the case of the Iraq war, I think the decision being taken was sufficiently important that it was worth the life of a spy in order to inform the public. Regrettable, but it is just too important an issue for the government's reason to boil down to "Trust Us".

: Damnit, I was away for the weekend so I couldn't respond to this promptly. A good concrete example would be the degree of co-operation we received in other theatres in exchange for Iraq. For example if a secret treaty were to be drawn up guaranteeing cheap American loans to Britain for the next 10 years in exchange for aid in Iraq, or access to certain sensitive pieces of information which the Americans had promised not to hand over to us or exchange of weapons technologies (for example, I believe Britain is still the only country that the US will sell cruise missiles to). Even the threat of withdrawing already existing boons if we pulled out (One has to wonder what France lost when it said non, it's possible there was a hidden meaning to Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" speech). Such things, due to the nature of international diplomacy would not normally be made public and yet many of the public (as distasteful as it may be to some) may decide that the pragmatic and correct course of action would be to toe the US line on Iraq. --Edith

[Onion]
[Perhaps that should be, "WAS Britain a democracy?"]

: The above bill (the Regulatory Reform Bill) has been [amended]. --CH