In one of Invenire's most popular articles, we criticised the concept of a democracy, for the reason that it is illogical and unreasonable for everyone to have an equal level of power in deciding new laws and choosing public officials. In this article, we will expand on the ideas behind restricting voting to certain people.
In the United Kingdom, historically, there have been restrictions that barred women and poorer men from voting in public elections. By the year 1918, all men over the age of 21, were eligible to vote, and by 1928, the same voting rights were extended to women. As a result of the Representation of the People Act (1969), all legal residents of the United Kingdom, over the age of 18, regardless of the value of their private property, are eligible to vote.
While making political franchise universal helped create a fairer country, it cannot be denied that there are great flaws in the system. This mistake is destined to cause an even greater mistake, and it likely already has. It is a sad reflection that an informed, productive member of society has the same voting rights as someone with no knowledge of the issues at hand. In the case of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), we reserve the right to utilise WMDs to a select group of individuals (from a specific State) because they have enough information at their disposal to make informed decisions.
In order to ensure that those in positions of great power are those that are able to lead effectively, we must begin to treat public officials as "skilled labourers." For example, a surgeon must be incredibly skilled to make certain that the health of his patients his preserved. Voting someone to such a position would be irrational; a less skilled surgeon might be appointed, thus risking the health of the patients. We should treat candidates for public office likewise.
While the threat of an unknowledgeable, unqualified public official is less imminent than that of heart surgeon performing a heart transplant, it cannot be denied that weak, ineffective leadership results in great national debt, susceptibility to foreign invasion, and internal turmoil. A primal example of this is the reign of Louis XVI of France (reigned 1774-1793). He was described as a man who was better suited to hunting than to rule. As a youth, he had been taught that timidity was a strong aspect of monarchs. Although Louis was not democratically elected, it is definite that such a leader could easily have risen to power in a democratic society; a wealthy man with the right connections could easily deceive the electorate.
To preserve the security of the United Kingdom, we must repeal all Acts of Parliament that grant rights to all citizens; we must introduce new legislation to ensure that political knowledge and history tests are conducted so that those who make decisions are those with the knowledge to do so.
While making political franchise universal helped create a fairer country, it cannot be denied that there are great flaws in the system. This mistake is destined to cause an even greater mistake, and it likely already has. It is a sad reflection that an informed, productive member of society has the same voting rights as someone with no knowledge of the issues at hand. In the case of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), we reserve the right to utilise WMDs to a select group of individuals (from a specific State) because they have enough information at their disposal to make informed decisions.
In order to ensure that those in positions of great power are those that are able to lead effectively, we must begin to treat public officials as "skilled labourers." For example, a surgeon must be incredibly skilled to make certain that the health of his patients his preserved. Voting someone to such a position would be irrational; a less skilled surgeon might be appointed, thus risking the health of the patients. We should treat candidates for public office likewise.
While the threat of an unknowledgeable, unqualified public official is less imminent than that of heart surgeon performing a heart transplant, it cannot be denied that weak, ineffective leadership results in great national debt, susceptibility to foreign invasion, and internal turmoil. A primal example of this is the reign of Louis XVI of France (reigned 1774-1793). He was described as a man who was better suited to hunting than to rule. As a youth, he had been taught that timidity was a strong aspect of monarchs. Although Louis was not democratically elected, it is definite that such a leader could easily have risen to power in a democratic society; a wealthy man with the right connections could easily deceive the electorate.
To preserve the security of the United Kingdom, we must repeal all Acts of Parliament that grant rights to all citizens; we must introduce new legislation to ensure that political knowledge and history tests are conducted so that those who make decisions are those with the knowledge to do so.
Comments
Post a Comment