Emancipation
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
The rules of collective responsibility
As a Cabinet Minister from a British political party I solemnly swear that....
No matter what I witness in Cabinet I will have seen no evil, heard no evil nor spoken any evil. A decision we take will be supported by palitable justifications only. It is admissable to knowingly avoid mentioning of the real and often partizan reasons for a decision and that we should err on the side of never admitting any negative implications for those who do not support our policies. It is also preferable to avoid mention of any known alternative options or of the admission of the existence of any facts or evidence which might uncover or support those options.
I also understand that in order to remain in Cabinet with its associated perks I must ignore the wishes of my constituents and follow the instructions of the Prime Minister and/or Party whips. I also understand that since all Cabinet colleagures undertake to abide by these rules we can operate like a secret society at the heart of government. This secrecy will secure for each of us an ability to remain above the law because in this way we can remain beyond the scrutiny of the very people who elected us into office. |
|
Cabinet secrecy and sovereignty
The rights of the people of Britain can only be upheld if those elected to represent the people are subject to the scrutiny of the people. Agents, those who represent the interests of principals, have no right to hide their arguments of representation from those they represent. The argument of "collective responsibility" is more often a hollow idol fashioned to defend the interests of political parties.
A well-established principle of national sovereignty is that it is composed of the individual sovereignty of each person. Therefore the social legitimacy of a representative of the people, in the form of a member of parliament, is supported to the degree they act as an agent on behalf of their principals, the people. The legitimacy or coherence of representation can be measured by the degree to which the expression of the agent represents the expression of his or her pricipals. Unfortunately, most British politicians are members of political parties and a part of this association take up an off-hand attitude towards those of the social community they represent. In many cases the electorate are considered to have a limited role of electing them into office through a system managed, funded and manipulated in favour of political parties. The political role of the electorate is not that of sovereign individuals to be served by representatives but of a rabble to serve the ends of political parties. Once elected, the political party exercises a somewhat scurrilous behaviour involving the manhandling of elected members to discourage them from representing the interests of the sovereign individuals who elected them to representing the exclusive interests of their political party in Parliament. This behaviour parallels a form of repetitive and illigitimate coup whereby Britain's tiny private political parties can gain control of national governance from a base of memberships of no more than 0.5% of the electorate and a total electorate support of less than 20%.
If democracy in Britain is a process of representation of the will of the people then Cabinet government should be open where the articulation of arguments reflecting the will of the people are recorded. Naturally issues of national security can be legitimately kept secret so as not to expose people or the nation to specific types of danger. Such a basis for freedom of information would require that Cabinet meetings do not mix security and other issues so as to prevent such associations being used as a means of imposing secrecy on issues of a partizan or lobby interest rather than those such as national security.
|
|
 |
|