Historical Analysis of Democracy’s Evolution and Limitations

A Campaign for True Democracy

Preamble

We start by saying that democracy, as presently understood, is based on a deliberate falsehood, which can be traced all the way back to the Athenians and possibly earlier. The electorate was always restricted to a privileged class of patricians. The rest of the population had little or no constitutional say in the affairs of state. Slavery was permitted, and obviously, slaves were disenfranchised.

The Roman Republic adopted a model which, having rejected monarchy in 509 BCE, gave power to an elite oligarchy led by two consuls. Over the following centuries, in response to widespread discontent, the elite were forced to concede more and more ground to the PLEBS, i.e., the People, permitting it an ever-greater say in the conduct of the affairs of the Republic. A democracy in modern terms never existed.

Those who held office for life were members of the Senate. The Senate was an early example of a privileged upper chamber. It is true that plebeian tribunes were elected rather as Members of Parliament are now in Britain. In reality, executive power lay in the hands of the aforementioned unelected consuls, just two of them. The eventual collapse of the Republic was the result of venal, internecine military conflict between rival power grabbers.

The second century saw Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla in a dogfight. Later, in the first century, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, otherwise known as Pompey, and Julius Caesar followed suit. They were also military rivals. The century saw the warring generals ally themselves uneasily with Marcus Licinius Crassus, the Fixer, and reputedly the wealthiest man in Rome.

After the death of Crassus at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE, and the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE, a second triumvirate approved by the Senate was formed. It consisted of Marcus Antonius, otherwise known as Mark Antony, Gaius Octavius Thurinus, otherwise Octavian, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. A series of squabbles led to war between Antony and Octavian, while Lepidus, proscribed by the Senate, was forced out of office altogether. However, he had allegedly incited rebellion against Octavian in Sicily. Antony was defeated at the Battle of Actium. Octavian then appointed himself sole ruler of the known world.

The amazing decline of the power of the Senate in the face of military dictatorship should resonate. Democracy in name and in practice was subsequently abandoned in Europe for over 1,000 years. The Althing of Iceland, founded in 930 CE, and the Tynwald of the Isle of Man of Viking origin, kept the faith when the rest of Europe had virtually abandoned it.

Democracy in Europe – Historical Context and Key Events

True Democracy… Europe had virtually abandoned it. I suggest that this abnegation was to Europe’s ultimate shame and detriment.

A hint of what would finally ensue came with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. Those who sought limitations on the power of the monarch were what we might call the ‘landed classes’. The peasants, the plebeians, had no say at all in the drawing up of the 1215 Charter, nor the famous Scottish Declaration of 1320. It has to be realized that under the feudal system, the ’landed classes’, i.e. the dukes and lords of the realm, were literally subject to the king. Not just subjects of the king by extension the lower powers or the lower orders, knights, yeomen, freemen, slaves or serfs were subject, in their own turn, to their own immediate superiors as subordinated to them as if their lords and masters.

They were at the bottom of the elaborate pyramidal structure ‘triangle’. in other words feudal duty was a legal remnant of that system. England abolished feudal tenure in 1660. Feudal duty was not initially abolished in Scotland until 2000. The King held his hereditary office in England by the will of god, God, not the will of his subjects. In Scotland, the King ruled with the consent of his ‘people’, as then understood. Even in the early 17th century, King James I of England and VI of Scotland could boldly assert the divine right of kings to rule their subjects. It is possible that the rediscovery of the writings of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato and historians like Herodotus and Thucydides, acted as a catalyst for a movement towards liberalising the electoral system. Allow me to cite an example of the undercurrent of anger and resentment amongst those who felt marginalised by a monarchic system that permitted a self-elected membership of ‘the three Estates’ by the ‘good’ and ’the great’ rubber-stamped by the King. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was no child of the Renaissance. It was a visceral reaction to what was seen as social injustice. It arose from the imposition of a poll tax in 1380. It was only democratic in the literal sense that it engaged a significant proportion of an aggrieved population – the ‘lower classes’ – in acts of civil disobedience. It was seen by their lordships and civic dignitaries as being treacherous dissent and a very grave threat to the king’s peace. Its ringleaders were duly relieved of their heads. The peasants themselves were certainly no angels. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury, and his treasurer, Robert Hales, were murdered.

Peasants engaged in drink-fuelled looting, loutish torture, and even murder and general mayhem. There is a surprisingly contemporary feel to what happened 640 years ago in London. All that seems to have been missing were, as now, are the billboards, posters and loud hailers. No doubt the instigators of the French Revolution could have taken lessons from Watt Tyler on the subject of crowd management. I deliberately highlight that rebellion, one of many, because I believe that it illustrates that popular insurrection is the inevitable, and dangerous outcome of prolonged oppression of the will of the people. Advocates of genuine democratic government eschew violence. They never confuse popular protest with demagoguery. The world has changed existentially since then.

Democracy and Political Representation

The world has changed existentially since the 14th century, but over time rulers have learned even at the expense of their own lives that some people can be trampled on all the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time. There appears to be a natural law of liberty embedded within the human psyche that cannot be gainsaid without ultimate retribution. However, it’s also true that the history of what we choose to call democracy is essentially the history of a conspiracy to deny exactly what it proclaims.

A well-endowed and self-serving political establishment ensures that the will of all the people is never adequately, or at least fully, and fairly resolved.

The commonwealth interregnum of Oliver Cromwell cannot be cited as a progressive move towards empowerment of the people. On the contrary it exchanged an overweening monarchy for an arrogant military dictatorship, And this is repeated again and again in other historical contexts and centuries. A classic example of course is what used to be called Burma, it’s now (2025) called Myanmar, where democracy has been trampled on and military dictators have arrogantly and cruelly taken over.

Representative governments, so-called, primarily represent themselves and enable their own survival and perpetuation. Nevertheless, because a system has always been flawed does not imply that it must always remain flawed. There has been progress, undoubtedly, over the last four or five hundred years. Universal suffrage was finally approved in the twentieth century, but a problem still exists. Unfortunately, a subtle form of dictatorship remains. The ballot paper shoved through our letterboxes offers us a choice of candidates and or manifestos. One choice we might have is still officially denied to us.

Comprehensive choice is effectively denied because a requisite minority of the people, are not permitted to formally register their disapproval. except perhaps by a decision to destroy their ballot paper. That disapproval can be of all the candidates or disagreement with part or all of their respective manifestos. The thesis offered here is one which argues that there is a very simple remedy to hand. It is really fully capable of fixing that remaining anomaly. It involves registering, without prejudice, non-conformist electoral decisions. Lacking in any awareness of nonconformity, absent therefore is the political will and integrity to recognize nonconformity’s electoral importance and its legitimacy. As it stands just now, voters with conscientious reservations are invited to either compromise their convictions or not vote at all.

This applies in many countries and in many centuries. I do not assume that undemocratic government is incompetent or inefficient government. It may well be quite the reverse. Genuine democracy guarantees nothing except a voice to all the people. Leaders must still lead. Laws must still be obeyed, made and obeyed. And people must still take full responsibility for their own actions.

A benevolent dictator can ensure that the roads are kept safe and that the trains run smoothly. People may well be quite content to live within the authoritarian environment and not be unduly confused, obsessed, sorry, with the political aspects of their position.

True Democracy and Electoral Process

Those who are content with authoritarian rule do not obsess themselves with securing social justice for all within the community.

I have something to say at the close of all this in respect of that perspective which may not go down too well with the members of the Communist Party. Why then is democracy regarded as the preferable alternative to any other system?

It is admitted by historians that under the Emperor Augustine, amongst others, most of, the then known world was at peace. The Jews, of course, as always, were troublesome, but many people, including St. Paul, acquired Roman citizenship.

Disputes arose, of course, though with people later calling themselves Christians because they would not accept Augustine’s self-proclaimed deification. The majority of people as now got on with their own lives, paying only lip service to the Emperor and as nowadays found little to complain about except rapacious merchants and excessive taxes. People might well then have asked “Why democracy?” I am asked,” What’s that all about then brother? What does it mean?” Today democracy is glibly spoken about but in terms that betray a serious confusion. It is being used as a euphemistic description of a mixed capitalist economy. All current Western democracies subscribe to a situation where a very small number of very wealthy individuals and corporate entities act behind the scenes as influencers and they influence the whole parliamentary and electoral process. Parliamentary sovereignty is thereby gravely whittled down and threatened. Whenever asked, many people will say,” Well, democracy is the rule of the people, of the people, for the people.” In itself, it’s a fair theoretical definition of an ideal situation.

Unfortunately, it is very far from the reality we face politically at present. Universal suffrage is barely a century old, I should say, and even then, it isn’t correct. The Athenian model existed for centuries before universal suffrage and even the current system, I argue, does not alter the basic drawback.

Universal suffrage did away with all barriers. suffrage except age and mental capacity. The error resides though in equating ‘the people’ with those who are politically savvy and literate, who fulfil certain criteria of ethnicity, or property, or ownership, or location, or control, or impact on social media outlets. We are still wee lambs led to the slaughter driven by a herd instinct. It is extraordinary that women were aware for centuries of their suppression but took it to be their vocation. They were deprived of their right to vote until the early 20th century as a result of a campaign waged by the suffragettes in my own mother’s lifetime!

First of all, if they reached the age of 30, their right to vote though was initially age restricted to women over the age of 30. In 1928 all adult women won the vote.

In what respect can it be said that their heroic struggle has been rewarded a century later? Male attitudes towards women remain depressingly dismissive. On average, around 60% of the electorate trouble to vote. Around 60% of 60% may vote for the policy or person who polls the majority of registered votes. At best 36% of the electorate vote a government into power.

In effect, Only a fool would suggest that the loners have no just cause to be satisfied. Loners being those who choose not to exercise their democratic right. Yet that is exactly what is implied by the consensual view of the electoral process. If you don’t vote, you get the policy or person you deserve to get. It is arguable, but it is only half the truth.

I repeat, that there may be a section of the electorate who are not convinced by any candidate, any listed candidate, or any specific policy being proposed by the selected candidates.

Inclusion of Fence-Sitters in Democratic Processes

Those who cannot make up their minds are sometimes regarded as being fence sitters of the world. Are they just a nuisance? Do they have any right to exist at all, democratically speaking? I say definitely yes. Can it not be seen that by discounting the possibility of a not sure or a not persuaded vote, we are exercising a form of unjustifiable exclusion?

If we are genuinely concerned to involve all the people in any decision-making process, we must include the fence-sitters in the process. We should query rather than criticize the reluctance to commit. Thus, recusancy may in certain instances actually rescue the majority from the tyranny of democracy or indeed therefore from itself. On the other hand we must make it our business as, activists to inform and educate people about the manifestos being presented by the candidate or supply the background to a specific policy being promoted. In any reputable constituted body those who decline to vote for or against a, given motion are described as abstainers. I argue that it is extremely important to record abstentions. Such abstentions can of course still permit a given candidate to be elected in a core eight assembly by default or a policy to be ratified which in the longer term might prove to be detrimental to the common will. Then you may ask why record abstentions at all?

The main reason is that if universal suffrage means anything at all, it means that the whole electorate should be included in whatever voting process is being employed.

In a representative democracy, it is very unusual, if not arithmetically impossible, for a parliament majority to closely coincide with a democratic proportion of the electorate. More often than not, roughly 40% of the electorate in representative democracy is normally sufficient to obtain an overall majority.

It is very obvious that a simplistic description of democracy simply does not apply once parliamentary representation is permitted. In other words, in an ideal world, I should say, everyone would have a vote on every issue of importance all the time. In effect, the current system would be replaced by a system of constant referenda.

It is now technically possible to operate such a system at the touch of a keypad or on an iPad or laptop. It would mean that people would be constantly reminded of their personal civic duty to engage in public matters, res publica as the Romans would say, and not leave it to others to tell them what to think and what to do. Social media has gone a long way to familiarise people with the notion of ‘instant democracy’ A much higher proportion of the electorate would be included within the percentage of the overall poll. In such a system, the not-sures and the don’t-knows would have the same right to have their vote recorded as anyone else does. The word majority is itself misleading. It is true that a 4% majority of the electorate voted for Brexit in 2016. However, of all the total electorate only 52% of the electorate turned out to vote for Brexit on the big day The Scottish Referendum polled over 89%.Very few elections poll more than 60%

UK’s Democratic System Flaws and Referenda

As stated, 52% of the electorate turned out to vote for leaving Europe and voting for Brexit. And Scotland voted, as we know, with a majority against Brexit of about 62%. The total electorate on the day was stated to be 46,500. Actually, 33,570 voted on the day. That’s to the nearest thousand. The margin favouring leaving the EU was just 3.8%. The vote in favour of leaving the EU represented just 37% of the total electorate.

In other words, a major constitutional change was approved by a minority vote. There can be no excuse for such gerrymandering. But the Commission does not seem to have any say because the UK hasn’t got a written constitution.

It is government by parliamentary advice, consent and precedent. In other words, it is unique. The first past the post, FPTP for short, system, simply compounds this error. It should be pointed out here that Scotland voted to remain by a margin of 24% on a higher turnout of around the total Scotland electorate was four million three hundred thousand. On that figure just 48% of the total electorate was expressing ‘I wish to remain in the EU’, If the abstentionists had voted in numbers for Brexit, an even smaller percentage of the electorate would have expressed a wish to remain in the EU. It would have favoured the Brexit movement.

All the referenda of the past three decades have done is to expose a systemic faulted line in what we choose to call representative democracy. The flaw can be identified as the existence of a very evident under representation of, in this case, the silent minority. I wish to elaborate on the reason why true democracy is hindered by outworn conventions and naive assumptions. To do this I believe I need to present three scenarios. They are based on referenda results in Scotland in the past 30 or so years.

Scenario A

In 1979 a referendum was held to, determine the public’s approval of a devolved, legislative body for Scotland. Just 64% of the electorate chose to exercise their right to vote. Of that number, 51% voted, ’yes!’ to the proposal. In short, a slim majority of the voters delivered in favour of the proposal. However, it was determined by a Labour amendment, in the House of Commons, that those who had not troubled to vote would be registered as ‘no’ voters. That is not strictly correct. What the amendment actually stated was that 40% of the total electorate had to approve the proposal, which is a slightly different way of expressing maybe the same idea. That stipulation falls right into line with my view that a meaningful referendum would allow for the fact that the whole electorate would be expected to participate, if only in some instances to abstain from a decision either way.

The amendment was read by me and others at the time as a devious rejection of a fair and honest majority vote. What if those who had registered to vote had all been legally accounted as abstainers if they did not vote?

Assuming that all the non-voters who were abstainers had been included, and that they had registered to vote, that their number was shown to be safe. but that two-thirds of the non-voting 36% were opposed to any change. it might then have been quite proper to suggest that the margin of victory for the no vote was still sufficient to counter the reality that 24% of the non-voting electors or non-voting electorate remained unconvinced either way on its merits or otherwise of a devolved assembly. Alternatively, it could have been proposed that given the uncertainty of a significant portion of the electorate, it would be right and proper to require that the decision be postponed and public opinion retested again on a second occasion at a later date.

In the interim, that would then be available to convince, a substantial number of abstainers of the merits of devolution, or conversely, convince them of its danger and pitfalls.

Voting Abstainers and Constitutional Legitimacy

Assuming that all the non-voters who were abstainers had been included and that their number was shown to be, say, two thirds, of the non-voters, in other words, 36%. It might then have been quite proper. to suggest that the margin of victory was still sufficient to counterweight the reality that 24% of the non-voting electorate remained unconvinced, either way, of the merits or otherwise of a devolved assembly. We’re then looking at, obviously, 12% of the voters, the abstainers, who have made a commitment, one way or the other. It could have been proposed that given the uncertainty of a significant portion of the electorate, i.e. 36%, it would be right and proper to request that the election be postponed and public opinion be tested again on a second occasion at a later date.

In the interim, that time would then be available to convince at least some of the abstainers of the merits of devolution or, conversely, convince them of its dangers and pitfalls. The ballot paper would have a tickable and traceable box which permitted voters to record his or her not sure, or in the event of alternatives, none of these.

Of course, the vote for devolution was, in any event, postponed for, believe it or not, 18 years. The delay stemmed, predictably, from the fallout from a highly irregular and seemingly undemocratic ploy, namely the heavily criticised Cunningham Amendment, which has already been mentioned.

The argument should have been brought to an abrupt conclusion at the very outset by insisting that any major constitutional change requires, a two-thirds majority of the total electorate before it can be agreed to and ratified. I remain totally bemused as to what this obviously standard requirement, in every case that I know about, has never been adopted by the mother of all parliaments, Westminster. The only explanation that can be made of this is that, in fact, the only explanation that can be offered that to litigate legitimately, enforced such a stipulation is a written constitution and that would be required in every case where a major change of constitution is being considered.

Scenario B, the 1997 referendum

The statistics, courtesy of Wikipedia, show an amazingly marked change from 1979, though once again the proportionate voting figure persists around 60 percent, in this case the ‘yes’ vote rose to 74.29% and the no vote shrank to 25.71%. How do these figures equate with my contention that abstainers ought to be officially included in the count? Superficially, their presence in this case, you might say, was not required. There was little or no dubiety about the outcome. However, the result concealed an important and relevant issue. It was that, just under 40% of the total electorate chose not to exercise their democratic right.

The percentage of the total electorate voting for a devolved legislate assembly was 44.5%, fractionally below a simple majority. I repeat, major constitutional reforms normally require a two-thirds majority of the whole electorate.

On this occasion, the Cunningham Amendment was not applied and the result was allowed to stand. However, even as a supporter of the decision, to devolve I remain dissatisfied since 40% of the electorate was for one reason or another, was not inclined to commit on an issue with lasting implications for the governance of Scotland ,in other words, a certain member percentage of the population were acting in my view irresponsibly.

Exploring Apathy in Democracy and the Potential of Technology for True Democratic Processes

Referring back to the phrase “apathy party,” there is a substantial portion of the electorate who consider, perhaps understandably, that voting in elections, especially council elections, is a total waste of their time and energy. I have some fellow feeling on that point. It is not good enough to point the finger and criticize their attitude. It should be objectively questioned in depth. I believe that the so-called ‘apathy party’ should be recognized for what, in the main, it is. That is to say, a recusant party or protest party. It is offering a mute critique of the whole current electoral process.

By insisting that it is a public duty to vote, whatever one’s personal gripes against the system, maybe much greater, credibility is added to an otherwise flawed system. In this instance, registering an abstention might imply that a person believes his or her reservations are not being taken seriously by any candidate or party. I would point out that Australia has made voting compulsory. I am sympathetic to that idea, but I want to make it easier and quicker for everyone to vote with minimal hassle, without compulsion.

The means exist, as never before, to permit people to vote on any subject of importance sitting, in comfort, in their own homes, simply by means of an iPad or an iPhone or a PC. This I have already stated, but I think it needs to be emphasized that the technology for once is helping, and not hindering, a democratic , process. Why are we so slow to take advantage of a great opportunity that modern technology offers us? I suspect that a prime reason is that, though, those who loudly trumpet the perceived merits of our Western democracies live in absolutely mortal fear of a true democratic process ever seeing the light of day. I fear that the truth is that human greed is the wrecker of all democratic ideals. Presume to say, and believe, that Karl Marx absolutely nailed this issue. Those who claim to support popular liberation end up abusing it. I think Karl Marx nailed the issue of false claims to support popular liberation. The betrayal is underpinned by the manifest flaws in the electoral system, Hence the predictable move towards mass protest and even finally, revolution, especially in Soviet Russia. George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which all people who care at all about the political system should read, said it all: the pigs took over the farm meaning that when criticized they, would promptly reply, ‘yes, we are all equal brothers, but some of us are more equal than others.’

I must emphasize that true democracy should never be seen as a magic bullet. It is not in itself a solution to all our ills, but I believe it is the acceptable means of bringing about meaningful participation and beneficial change, change that does not necessarily radically alter the whole system. All that is really needed is some ‘tweaking’ of the existing process in the manner already outlined. True democracy involves total inclusion and nothing less than total inclusion.

Inclusion of Abstainers and Technological Advancements in Tru Democracy

Scenario C-The 2014 Referendum

The case against recording abstention appears to be at its strongest when turnout is abnormally high. The referendum turnout was an impressive 84.6%. Despite the relatively close result, with 55.3% voting NO against 44.7% voting YES for full independence, it likely reflected overall public opinion at the time more accurately than earlier referenda.

However, it was a historic and unique occasion, unlikely to be repeated soon. The stakes are too high now to risk another failure for the independence movement. Most general election results fall well below the two-thirds mark, i.e., 66%, and it is unlikely to change. This fact justifies highlighting the democratic deficit that arises from discounting abstentions.

In the last decade of the 20th century, turnout never fell below 70%. In general elections during the 2000s and the second decade of the 21st century, it hovered around 65%. The lowest figure was 59% in 2001, and the highest, excluding the Brexit referendum, was 68%. In 2017, Brexit produced a turnout over 72%, the highest in the UK as a whole. For more information, visit Statistica.com. In the argument for recording abstentions, consistency requires including even low percentages of fence-sitters. The Brexit debate was highly polarized, as was the 2014 Scottish referendum. From a democratic standpoint, high turnouts are desirable since they better represent the genuine will of all the people. If all turnouts exceeded 85%, the need to record abstentions would be greatly lessened.

However, there are two ethical objections against that assumption. First, whatever pollsters may claim, a binary projection is offered. It treats a sample of the probable turnout on a day as representative of the statistical population involved in the election. Those who do not vote are thus arbitrarily excluded. The second objection relates to classification. It is erroneous, as I’ve said earlier, in terms of a democratic imperative to ignore minority position, even a numerically a small one.

Put another way, if the abstentionists, i.e., the non-voters, had been included as putative ‘yes’, their vote if included would have swung the result forward to victory for the yes campaigners in a referendum. If they had voted unanimously against separation, they would have prejudiced the existing small majority of Brexiteers in favour of leaving the EU. The abstainers recusancy would have thus played, as ‘swing voters’, a negative but not significant role in the final recorded result.

Scottish Referendum: Electoral System Reform and Independence Debate

The issue remains that since abstentions were not, officially recorded we will never know why 14.6% of the electorate declined to participate in a vote of the century namely the Scottish referendum. A final point to make is that there were considerable local variations in voting patterns and turnout percentages. For example, Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire found majority support for independence. On the other hand, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Scotland, South Lanarkshire obtained majorities in favour of remaining within the Union.

There is now unwisely, unguarded talk of holding yet another referendum sometime soon. It seems evident that the importance of getting the relatively small percentage of ditherers and, to use a Scots term, switherers, to commit, should not be underestimated.

I’d argue that until we revise the electoral system, we should look at that as being unwise or ill-advised. Committal is important in order to avoid a dreary replay of the past of the dubious 2010-2014 result. I should point out that the normal system in Scotland uses a De Hondt system which allows for transferable votes, votes transferring from one candidate to another, and is actually seen to be fairer. Although some will challenge the legitimacy of a list vote, but I don’t. I think it’s quite a reasonable way of spreading the democratic options. A referendum is defined as a form of plebiscite, which seeks to ratify a given executive recommendation or declaration with respect to the governance of a country. I emphasize it should therefore not be initiated prior to any formal recommendation or declaration.

It seems clear that in the past eight years or more, public opinion, as calculated by regular polls, has not swung significantly further towards supporting full independence. There appears to be now, and I quote now from the year 2024, a small majority who favour independence.

In my view, the correct strategy for pro-independence campaigners is to engage the majority robustly with the uncommitted. They are the swingers, those whose future ballot paper would probably include or should include a box that permits a recorded abstention. Abstainers are not strictly floating voters, unless at some point they choose to commit or are encouraged to do so by a reform of the ballot paper and, still do not vote. I believe that reform in that respect is long overdue. An angry line spoken against the rival houses of the Capulet and Montague families in Romeo and Juliet it possibly encapsulates the feeling of those who currently consider themselves trapped, into a binary, dictatorial decision that appears to make no allowance whatsoever for a third, perhaps less extreme, non-binary viewpoint. And the phrase that I am quoting is, a plague on both your houses, as stated by Mercutio, a close friend of the tragic hero, Romeo, it actually resonates very closely with how I feel about the current system. I stood as a candidate at the last local elections in Midlothian for the newly formed ALBA party. Essentially, my vote was a protest vote against a party, namely the SNP, I have loyally supported for years. I genuinely feel that it no longer adequately represents my position on a number of very key issues, especially issues of conscience.

In particular, it lacks a coherent strategy to credibly achieve full Scottish independence. It seemed to me that what we really need at this critical time are procedural changes in the electoral system. I am talking here of the UK first past the Post system rather than the De Hondt system, in Scotland, although that can also benefit from further changes.

These ought to precede any projected changes of governments in Scotland and the UK as a whole. The first step is to reform the ballot paper to allow for genuine dissent.

In compiling this paper, I have primarily relied on the ever-informative Wikipedia for historical insights into governance, to which I extend my full and grateful acknowledgment. Additionally, some statistical data, particularly concerning the Brexit result, has been sourced from Statista.com, as cited in the text. Any factual inaccuracies or opinions expressed herein are solely my responsibility, and I welcome any corrections from readers regarding either factual or textual errors.

Inspiration and Context

My views have been significantly influenced by reading The Trial of Julian Assange by Niels Meltzer, published by Verso Books in 2022. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, exposed the truth about American military actions in Iraq. This work reveals a prolonged campaign orchestrated by the CIA, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia and Ecuador.

This underscores the importance of not leaving the democratic process solely in the hands of purportedly democratic governments. The essence of true democracy must now be embraced.

Reflections on Democracy

Tony Robbins, in his book Unlimited Power, emphasizes the right to say no, not as an ego trip, but as a reflection of personal beliefs and priorities. I extend my gratitude to those who engage with my thoughts and, more importantly, I anticipate positive, intelligent, and well-considered actions to address the current challenges in democratic processes, as exemplified by the United States’ electoral system. The date of this writing is September 12, 2024. While future circumstances may evolve, the core issue remains: true democracy is not realized until the global electorate is involved, even through abstention.