Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives.Does that sound anything like our country under the current political climate? Personally I believe that it doesn't, especially after the way Gordon Brown corruptly bought our liberty prior to the vote on extending detention without charge to 42 days. I have very little doubt (if any) that some Labour and the nine DUP MPs were offered incentives to vote with the government. I understand that whipping MPs to vote in favour of the party is common practice, but in this case Gordon Brown over-stepped the mark by trading our money (taken in tax) to buy our liberty. For that alone he deserves to be removed from power - never again to practice politics in this country.
Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy is required to have:
The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power.
The second is that all members enjoy universally recognised freedoms and liberties.
The problem with democracy in our country is that it has been twisted and warped so that it no longer serves the people - democracy now serves whichever political party happens to be in government. Democracy has been transformed into a gravy train for the political elite. I'm afraid that when a government has a large majority, and its MPs are willing to allow their morals and principles to be bought, then democracy becomes just a hollow word, not a system of governance that represents the will of its citizens or protects their basic freedoms.
So what is the alternative? Well I would not propose to abandon democracy, I believe that it just needs fixing (Not Gordon Brown's idea of fixing):
1. Whipping above 'two line' should be banned.
2. All (ALL) votes in the House of Commons should be free votes. Anyone trying to coerce support through threat or favour should face criminal charges.
3. Anyone found taking bribes or favours for their support should face criminal charges.
The reason I believe whipping above two line should be banned, is that anything above two line is a direct abuse of the representative democracy we are supposed to practice in this country. We vote for our MPs, and we send them to Westminster to represent us - not their political party. No one, I repeat, no one should be able to obstruct (by force, bribery or any other illegal means) my MP from carrying out that primary and solemn duty to represent me.
Three Line Whip:Do you think that a government should be able to three line whip its MPs on matters of civil liberty? Can you think of any other ways to make our country more democratic?
A strict instruction to attend and vote in a particular way, breach of which could have serious consequences; binding for both attendance and voting. Non-attendance permission can be given by the Whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and may lead to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply. The nature of three line whips and the potential punishments for revolt varies dramatically among parties and legislatures.