Modern Democracy: Good or Bad

The morning of 24th June, the results for the EU Referendum came in, the British public had voted 52% to 48% to leave the European Union. Immediately, there was a massive polarisation, between those who were happy with the result and wanted to get the process started, and those who were disgusted with the result. Within hours, a petition had gone live demanding that the EU Referendum be held once more. There was even another petition that demanded London hold a referendum over whether to leave the UK, members of the SNP decried the result and demanded a fair hearing, as Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union.

This suggests that all is not well within the land of modern democracy in the UK. Democracy is purported to be the best political system because it allows the will of the people to be heard. It is usual in the aftermath of elections, where one party receives most votes, for a government to be formed and life to go on. People might grumble a little, but nothing else. This was not the case in the after math of the vote to leave the European Union. There were petitions, protests, and heated debates throughout the country over the result and what it meant. Central to this was the view that both sides of the referendum-leave and remain- had lied or not given proper facts to back up their claims, the most infamous being the £350 million that would go from Brussels to the NHS. This was a figure that was later thoroughly debunked. The Prime Minister resigned, and his replacement Theresa May walked in, having been chosen by her party, not by the people she wished to govern.

The unhappiness with the referendum result in some quarters, mixed with the relative inaction or inability of government to properly decide what they wished to do about the process, as well as the lies coming from both sides of the referendum, suggest an issue with modern democracy. Allowing everyone to vote, is not a bad thing, indeed, it would seem fair that the people who are to be affected by the laws being made, should get a say in who chooses these laws. That was the thinking behind the various electoral reform acts of the 19th and 20th centuries. However, when reports come through stating that campaigners and politicians have lied to the public, and thus in some ways misinformed them, or that the public voted for something as a protest, one must stop and think, is this what it means to be a democracy?

We are not living in the age of darkness, or reading something by candlelight, where accessing information is difficult. The internet has allowed for millions of pieces of information about a variety of things to be put online, in a place that is easily accessible. The excuse for ignorance today is minimal. If there is something you wish to know more about, it is right to search for it and read as much about it as one can, however, it does not seem that this is truly the case in some instances, the case in point being the false information given about how the NHS would benefit from leaving the European Union. That some use that as their reasoning for voting to leave, as some did, or that they believe immigration would reduce completely, even though more immigrants do come from outside the European Union that from it.

Another problem that seems apparent with modern democracy is that in some countries, a government can be formed out of a pittance of votes. The use of First Past the Post in the United Kingdom and the United States, often leads to the creation of safe seats, where it is highly unlikely that a voter’s actual choice for candidate could get elected. This then leads to them using their vote as a protest vote and voting for the lesser of what they see as two evils. This is not democratic; this is simply a vote being used as a business currency. This was something that became quite apparent in the recent US presidential election. Hilary Clinton received 48% of the popular vote, whereas Donald Trump received 45% of the popular vote. But because Trump had carried the necessary 270 electoral college votes, he was voted in as president. The will of the people as designed by the popular vote would seem to be ignored.

The protests that Trump’s election have garnered seems to have further divided an already divided nation. There are those who protest Trump’s rhetoric as non-presidential, and denounce him as a man with no popular support. Then there are those who support him and agree with him, and claim he is their president because of a system that benefits them, whereas before they had wanted said system removed.

On the flip side, countries that use proportional representation often end up with coalition governments which are more representational, but not necessarily more effective in getting work done. That the two best choices for voters stands between majority government and no actual representation, or proportional representation and a divided government, is a worrying sign of the state of modern democracy.

How one might resolve this issue, is not certain, but something does need to be done, to ensure that democracy includes everyone, and not just those who feel they can be bothered to turn out on the day.


Historical Fiction: An Oddity?

So, I’ve just started watching The Last Kingdom, the BBC Television Series based on the series of novels of the same name by Bernard Cornwell. The show, like the books is set in Anglo-Saxon England, during the 9th Century, when there were frequent raids from Vikings, and Paganism and Christianity clashed. I’m five episodes in, and I am fascinated by the show, the story telling, the characters, everything.

If I’m being honest, I’m not really surprised that this show has hooked me in line and sinker. I’m a bit of a sucker for historical fiction, be it in books or shows/movies. From the Borgias, The Crown, The Last Kingdom or Vikings, anything by Sharon Penman and Conn Iggulden and Robyn Young, it’s all good stuff to me. I suppose that comes from my interest in history, as a kid at school I was fascinated by it, learning about different people and times, battles, Kings, all of that fascinated me. It still does. There’s just something so very fascinating about learning about all of these things, and seeing what life and people were like way back when.

There is one thing that I’ve noticed about historical fiction, or at least those in the mainstream, they very rarely, if at all, explore an alternate history. By this I mean, making a small change to events in a timeline and seeing what the consequences of such a change would be. For example, a common one on alternate history boards-yes that is a thing- is what if Harold Godwinson had won at the Battle of Hastings. Fundamentally, a lot could change from there, the Normanisation of England would be stalled for a time, consequently so would the normanisation of Scotland and Wales. England, it seems would be much more Scandinavian focused than French focused. That is just one example of the way alternate history could go, and I am constantly intrigued by the fact that other than on alternate history boards, there is not much alternate history fiction out there.

As I’ve had more time to explore alternate history, and come up with a few ideas myself ( a story in that theme, that I wrote can be found here: Blood of the Lion) it seems that to truly predict what could change in an alternate history and to make it seem realistic is a matter of a lot of research and planning, and a lot of what the author themselves want to happen. That is both a gift and a curse. A gift in that you have a lot to play with, a curse in that, you can end up risking the integrity of the story, to achieve something you desire more than is possible.

Having read the alternate history timelines, and having read more historical fiction, I have an appreciation for both, and I do truly respect anyone who attempts either. Personally, I want to write alternate history, and am currently working on two alternate history stories-if you want to know more, feel free to ask in the comments!- and as such I will see how that goes.