Democracy - Would We Be Better Off Without Political Parties That Wield Such Powerful Control Over All of us and who are Controlled by Globalists Elites (The WEF) Without our Conscious Knowledge in nine-out-of-ten of the people'

        

  

"A democratic government is by the people, for the people and of the people".

Abraham Lincoln'

“If a law is wrong, not only is it okay for them to disobey it, but they should disobey it.”

Thomas Jefferson

Outwardly they appear to be for the people, but internally they are for themselves and the party, as the party is the conduit for their personal financial enhancement and that is ultimately, what really counts for them, not what counts for the people.

Economic Change and Dynamism

This does not happen through government dominated by political party policy and thinking, but the freedom of the people to think and more importantly to get things done that the people want, not the Party machine. When one looks at the Party political system, the people are not in control, but 'The Party'. This is the difference that many voting people just do not understand.

For in a pure democracy the people vote for the people who will get things done for them. But in reality when a Political party is put into power, it is not the people who are in charge, but the Party. They can then do what ever they wish, break promises and undertake their pet internal political policies that may have been dormant and not even in any political manifesto. In other words, they invariably go back on their words to the people and where this happens time and time again.

Therefore democracy in the UK is not really democracy, but the democracy of the Party and the control that this yields to them. How many times have we all looked back and seen very little change and in fact, seen change for the worse happen? I would say every time a new election is called, but where the people never analyse this, just taking the new untruths and undeliverables as gospel by the majority of voters who just live in hope that what they say this time, will be done. But it never does now does it.

Therefore no matter how we look at the so-called political democracy in the United Kingdom and places like the USA, we have not in reality ‘people democracy’, only ‘Party democracy’. That is the real control that is used and what happens, but the people are definitely not the ones in control. This has to be clear, even for the die-hard political believers that live in an artificial world that the people are in control. Therefore the people have no real power in reality under the present so-called democracy, only to vote in one party after the other in a rotating system from the two main political parties, a duopoly with no real change and what has been the case for decades. In this respect the rich get richer, but the masses get poorer, having to beg at times for a job paying low wages  whilst the rich do whatever they wish – import cheap labour, no problem from both of the political parties in the alternative revolving door power system is the game in one respect, as they let powerful business interests and wealthy people sway their minister's decisions behind closed doors and their senior Whitehall civil servants. No, the reality that the people do not understand is that we are controlled by the ‘Party' political system and they have all the power, not the people. Indeed the ‘Party’ is everything and the people, well, can you tell me who they are?

When one analyses political administrations over the years (from time immemorial), we do not see many people’s benefits. The NHS just being one in a blue moon, but where politicians are actively seeking to privatise it behind closed doors and where you only have to look at Branson in this respect and how Blair allowed him to start his inroads into the NHS. Therefore if you don’t believe that Labour like the Tories too behind closed doors effectively seek to privatise the NHS, do a little historical Google research yourself and look into which political party introduced more privatisation than anyone to open the flood gates and which continues today.  I can tell you now that labour will not save the NHS and I will take a bet on that with any political pundit or person who says that they will. For the only real way that the NHS can be saved, not through voting for a political colour, but the people taking control of their destiny. The main political parties just will not give you this I can tell you also, as their agendas are not those of the people, but for themselves and their Party.

So what is the answer? I believe that the solution is that we have No political parties at all and where the people are not cajoled and tricked ever again.

To do this political parties would be made illegal. A strange and radical movement in how the Establishment operates and where the Establishment would not rule as today, but the people. For this major change in the people’s mindset would open up the very application of where true democracy resides, putting power into the hands of the people and not the Party and its hierarch. For in may ways, political parties can be seen as a cult to a great extent and much like a religious leaning where people are made to believe in something that may be or may not be. That is the same with Political Parties, as they too provide imaginary scenarios for the people and if the people like these pipe dreams, they vote for them time and time again like brainwashed sheep.

People will say that this is not possible, but where history tells us that certain civilizations did actually live like this and without leaders to tell us what to do.

Indeed the Harappan civilization existed for thousands of years according to leading historians and evidence indicates that this ancient civilization avoided War for 2,000 Years. I think that just based upon that superlative that people on that basis alone would welcome to know about this leaderless civilization – the most advanced in history at the time.

For a quick overview the Harappan civilization dominated the Indus River valley that began about five thousand years ago and where many of its massive cities sprawling at the edges of rivers, still flow through Pakistan and India today. But its culture remains a mystery. Why did it leave behind no representations of great leaders, nor of warfare?

Archaeologists have long wondered whether the Harappan civilization could actually have thrived for roughly 2,000 years without any major wars or leadership cults. Obviously people had conflicts, sometimes with deadly results — graves reveal ample skull injuries caused by blows to the head. But there is no evidence that any Harappan city was ever burned, besieged by an army, or taken over by force from within. Sifting through the archaeological layers of these cities, scientists find no layers of ash that would suggest the city had been burned down, and no signs of mass destruction. There are no enormous caches of weapons, and not even any art representing warfare.

That would make the Harappan civilization an historical outlier in any era. But it's especially noteworthy at a time when neighboring civilizations in Mesopotamia were erecting massive war monuments, and using cuneiform writing on clay tablets to chronicle how their leaders slaughtered and enslaved thousands.

What exactly were the Harappans doing instead of focusing their energies on military conquest?

Harappans appear to have been traders who welcomed people to their cities from pretty much anywhere. But that doesn't mean they were disorganized or anarchic. To know more and how they did this in outline, visit ‘Did This Ancient Civilization Avoid War for 2,000 Years?‘.

But how would such a new and modern system of human development and experience work in overview?

1. National & Local Elections

1.1 The People's National Candidate Choice (Member of Parliament)

All candidates would be ‘independent’, as there would not be any Political Parties. Note that the local constituency system would be retained and where a person within any particular constituency could stand for parliament (like today, but not up against the power and clout of ‘The Party’ and due to this unbalanced overriding political advantage, the best person possibly to represent the people, never getting elected previously). Those standing would have to pay a deposit like they have today and if a certain section of the community liked a person, but where that person could not raise the required deposit sum, the community could jointly put forward the deposit sum so that their candidate could stand. All deposits would be non-returnable and paid into the local council funding to be used by and within the constituency area concerned. A maximum of 10 candidates could be selected based upon majority voting and these would be selected again by the people in a first draw situation prior to any general election to eliminate all others and where the people had selected those that they predominantly wanted to elect, not the Party’s choice. Therefore there would be a two-tier voting system, first so that all who could raise a deposit was allowed to stand and then the 10 candidates stand to represent the people and not ‘The Party’. This would make for a level playing field as no-one would have the backing of a powerful resourced ‘Party’, as they would be illegal. Consequently only those chosen directly by the people and not in a pre-selection process that happens today, where a lot of parties parachute in their preferred candidates (not the people’s candidate) to represent in the majority of cases the people that they do not know and live outside the constituency. This would stop and where it would be the people’s ‘real’ local choice of candidate and not ‘The Party’s choice’ – true democracy and not the ‘Party Democracy’ that we have today which always has hidden agendas, not known to the people prior to any elections.

2. The People's Local Candidate Choice(Local Government Councillor)

All candidates would be ‘independent’, as there would not be any Political Parties. Note that the local constituency system would be retained and where a person within any particular constituency could stand for local government as a councillor (just like today, but not up against the power and clout of ‘The Party’ and due to this unbalanced overriding political advantage, the best person possibly to represent the people, never getting elected previously). Those standing would have to pay a deposit unlike today and if a certain section of the community liked a person, but where that person could not raise the required deposit sum, the community could jointly put forward the deposit sum so that their candidate could stand. All deposits would be non-returnable and paid into the local council funding to be used by and within the constituency area concerned. A maximum of 10 candidates could be selected based on majority voting and these would be selected again by the people in a first draw situation prior to any general election to eliminate all others and where the people had selected those that they predominantly wanted to elect, not the Party’s choice. Therefore there would be a two-tier voting system, first so that all who could raise a deposit was allowed to stand and then the 10 candidates stand to represent the people and not ‘The Party’. This would make for a level playing field as no-one would have the backing of a powerful resourced ‘Party’, as they would be illegal. Consequently only those chosen directly by the people and not in a pre-selection process that happens today, where a lot of parties parachute in their preferred candidates (not the people’s candidate) to represent in the majority of cases the people that they do not know and live outside the constituency. This would stop and where it would be the people’s ‘real’ local choice of candidate and not ‘The Party’s choice’ – true democracy and not the ‘Party Democracy’ that we have today which always has hidden agendas, not known to the people prior to any elections.
 

2. Selection of Ministers & Prime Minister

 All MPs would be ‘independent’, and would have a vote on their fellow MPs to select the best MPs for the relevant Ministerial jobs. This undertaken by consulting their local constitency and where the people would be asked to vote on the different ministerial positions within any new parliament. Therefore the people agains would be fully interactive in choosing the best MP for the ministerial positions. In this way the people can choose who they think would be the best junior minister, minister, secretary-of states and prime minster. Therefore there would be national votes by the people for,
2.1 Members of Parliament - The people's selection of who they wanted to represent them in Parliament.
2.2 State Ministers et al - The people's selection of who they wanted to represent their country as a junior minister,minister and secretary-of-state.
The process would therefore be highly interactive between the people and Parliament.
In this way, the people would get the best political candidates, based on experience, qualifications and knpwledge, for each and every specialist ministerial position, unlike today where allegiances of Party members cloud the whole arena of impartiality.  Indeed, the ministers et al would have no choice but to interact with all members of parliament on a consultative process to determine the best solutions to the nation's problems.

2.3 The Prime Minister - The people's selection of who they wanted to represent them as prime minister and where as there would be no political Parties, he or she also would be an independent person, chosen by the people as the best person to become Prime Minister.

3. Whitehall & the Senior Civil Service

 As Whitehall for a very long time and most probably from its inception has appointed advisers on behalf of the government, this would be changed and where an independent vetting department would be created to determine the best adviser for a specific area of government and the national effort. This would not mean that say a scientist with a Nobel Prize would not automatically be set on and where the selection process would look at all candidate's expertise and knowledge prior to the final selection of the best candidate. This process would continue for the selection of all experts in different fields and where the United Kingdom, through Whitehall, would search the world for the right person for the right advisory position within government. Therefore the old boy's network, where Whitehall appointments including themselves (Mandarins et al), would not come from the perceived top universities (such as Oxbridge), but from all sectors of UK society, business and industry. In this way again, the 'real' wealth and nation change-masters will be allowed at the table, for in relative terms, the first time. This is what is lacking with Whitehall, it has never emerged from a 'steady-state' and 'do not rock the boat regime mentality. That is why Whitehall has never been a dynamic asset for the country and where they are rewarded no matter if they do something or nothing. This can be seen in the way that consecutive governments have been advised and where the nation has not converted to a dynamic economy, but one where our debt has increased alarmingly. Indeed, if those in Whitehall were so good at their jobs, the UK would not be in the state that it is, with relative poverty (over 4 million children are living daily in poverty alone) and a nation without the creative infrastructure that it has been crying out for decades. If anything, this is the greatest damage to the future of the UK that Whitehall has inflicted upon its people. In this respect although Whitehall has been told on several occasions that  the United Kingdom is the most innovative and creative nation in the world, they have done nothing to build the innovative structures that the people of the UK needs. This is not the university system either, which should be only a support system to such an interactive innovation infrastructure that if Whitehall had put in place, would have created the most dynamic economy in the world. But, as those who lead Whitehall have not a clue, this will never happen in the present so-called system of political democracy. Therefore things have to change, not just in whom our representatives in parliament are, but those also who support our government.

Note in part, the above strategy has been based upon the fact that international research by Japan (former MITI) and Germany determined that 53% and 54% respectfully of the 'fundamental' thinking that has created the modern world to what it is today, emanated from the minds of the British people and where around 75% did not come from our universities or advanced corporate centres of research and development, but from British people outside these confines.

Note also that the local constituency system would be retained and where a person within any particular constituency could stand for parliament (like today, but not up against the power and clout of ‘The Party’ and due to this unbalanced overriding political advantage, the best person possibly to represent the people, never getting elected previously). Those standing would have to pay a deposit like they have today and if a certain section of the community liked a person, but where that person could not raise the required deposit sum, the community could jointly put forward the deposit sum so that their candidate could stand. All deposits would be non-returnable and paid into the local council funding to be used by and within the constituency area concerned. A maximum of 10 candidates could be selected based upon majority voting and these would be selected again by the people in a first draw situation prior to any general election to eliminate all others and where the people had selected those that they predominantly wanted to elect, not the Party’s choice. Therefore there would be a two-tier voting system, first so that all who could raise a deposit was allowed to stand and then the 10 candidates stand to represent the people and not ‘The Party’. This would make for a level playing field as no-one would have the backing of a powerful resourced ‘Party’, as they would be illegal. Consequently only those chosen directly by the people and not in a pre-selection process that happens today, where a lot of parties parachute in their preferred candidates (not the people’s candidate) to represent in the majority of cases the people that they do not know and live outside the constituency. This would stop and where it would be the people’s ‘real’ local choice of candidate and not ‘The Party’s choice’ – true democracy and not the ‘Party Democracy’ that we have today which always has hidden agendas, not known to the people prior to any elections.

It should be noted also that the people are our greatest asset and wealth creators for the UK. This is not the .Establishment’, including all institutions, powerful corporates and the super-rich. As the people need the right environment to be able to flourish and express themselves. The present political system is restrictive and repressive as the Party (and the Establishment) control the people and stifle innovation, creativity and wealth creation. Indeed, the people can never excel as the system does not allow it and where that control starts at the political system that we presently have. This has to be disbanded and outlawed for the long-tern good and benefit of the people themselves.

Another major reason why the system has to change to ‘real democracy’ is that the institutions that support government (or take them for a ride) are not functioning as they should do for the people, but for personal gain. This can be seen clearly by simply looking at one aspect of the Establishment system, higher education. But all establishment support systems are just the same and there for themselves in reality when one undertake an in-depth analysis of the whole system supporting party politics and more importantly, party policies (where they are engaged from start to finish once ‘The Party’ is in power).

In this respect like the university system, it is not the students that they are bothered about or indeed higher education, but what financial enhancement those at the top in these institutions can receive in monetary rewards. Indeed some of the most recent adopted university status institutions from the old polytechnic system charge the highest student fees. Indeed their vice-chancellors are some of the very highest paid. This again is therefore not really about the welfare of the people (students in this respect who will be the future adult people in this nation), but about how much certain people can get out of the system for themselves. Forget about the vast debts that these hundreds of thousands of students each year leave university with a momentous financial debt ball and chain hanging around their necks, it is our personal take and wealth that the university leaders is the ultimate concern, not the people (students). Indeed, it was the vice-chancellors who were for the introduction of the new university fees and voted for it in droves. So don’t be deceived by these and all government funded institutions, as they are bluntly, all for themselves, not in reality who people think that they have at heart, the people they supposingly serve. The change to charge enormous education fees came from the USA as usual where higher university officials have made themselves into millionaires in a very short period of time and the UK university establishment saw what this meant for them as well. For basically it was just getting on the ‘band wagon’ for them as they could see and smell the riches at the end of this fees rainbow. Indeed there are not many UK vice-chancellors and senior university executives who ae not now multi-millionaires. People have to get wise to all this and what has really happened in public service at the top and why these people at the top voted for all these changes with open arms. Wouldn’t you?

Summary & the Change Needed for ‘True’ Democracy Exist

1. The people elect their MPs and leader without parties.

2. The people decide who should be in Parliament and local government working for them, not the major political parties.

Now we have the Globalists (ultra-super rich) who want to totally control us all by 2030 and where even the UN is backing this future dystopian world, where the people are mere slaves to the elites that our political parties and political leaders are driving forward through the infiltration of our western governments for these elites and who now own over 55% of the world's wealth according to Forbes. This in all truth is what is coming in the next 7-years for humanity as mad as it sounds and where most of the people are still oblivious to this human nightmare of total enslavement. 

Dr. David Hill

CEO, World Innovation Foundation

25 June 2017 (updated 5 May 2023)

References

Did This Ancient Civilization Avoid War for 2,000 Years? - http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-civilization-without-war-1595540812

But what is actually coming and the absolute opposite to Peace and the Harmony of the World

The Continual NIGHTMARE WORLD “AFTER” the World Economic Forum’s (The WEF) “GREAT RESET” and where the World’s People and Humanity will be Totally Subrogated to a Life Without Freedom in Perpetuity…

https://world-freedom.co.uk/2022/12/15/the-continual-nightmare-world-after-the-world-economic-forums-the-wef-great-reset-and-where-the-worlds-people-and-humanity-will-be-totally-subrogated-to-a-life-without-freedom-in-per/

Indus Valley Civilisation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

Indus Valley Civilization - http://www.crystalinks.com/induscivilization.html

The Harappan Civilization by Tarini Carr - http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappa-mohenjodaro

Democracy died a death when 'Partyocracy' (a party-ruled 'democracy) and 'Corporatocracy' Corrupted the System and became the New way to Control People and run a Nation - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/democracy-died-death-when-partyocracy.html

The Indus Valley civilisation is 2,500 years older than previously believed - https://qz.com/694925/the-indus-valley-civilisation-is-2500-years-older-than-previously-believed/

Can Democracy Live Without Political Parties Politics Essay - https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/can-democracy-live-without-political-parties-politics-essay.php

World's Future Existence CAN ONLY be Guaranteed by the People and not the Establishment Elite Who Destroy Planet Earth by the Year - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/worlds-future-existence-can-only-be.html

Non-partisan democracy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy

Chomsky: The U.S. behaves nothing like a democracy - http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/

What ‘Successive’ Governments of the United Kingdom and Whitehall have covered-up and ‘Not’ told the British People about Hard Drug Addiction Treatments that simply will never work and the only one that does they have 'secretly' suppressed - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/what-successive-governments-and.html

Globalization has failed Humanity and Capitalism will ultimately dispatched the Human Experience to the ‘Ashes of History during this century - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/globalization-has-failed-humanity-and.html

“Democracy Without Political Parties: Constitutional Options” - http://www.constitutionaltransitions.org/publications/democracy-without-political-parties-constitutional-options/

Visions of the Future World - Politics is all talk because politicians and political pundits have not a clue how to create a dynamic and prosperous economy, other than in mere intellectual words and hyperbole that always leads to nowhere for the people’s future and the future of all future generations to come - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/visions-of-future-world-politics-is-all.html

The ‘Establishment’ Makes Amends but where the ‘Establishment’ does not change its spots when it comes to its own - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-establishment-makes-amends-but_720.html

Meaningful Democracy - https://chomsky.info/1988____/

The 'Corporate' EU Referendum that the Stay-In Vote Want us to Sign Up Too, Will Kill UK Democracy and our Sovereignty as a Nation for Good - Goodbye Great Britain Forever Never to be Seen Ever Again Under EU Rule - But 'Obama' Wants It That Way, but again, Would He Want That If It Was the United States of America? I Would Say a Definite NO, NO, NO... ! - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-corporate-eu-referendum-that-stay.html

Democracy without Political Parties - http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=yls_sela

COP 21 (Climate Change Agreement) - Welcome to 'Planet Hell' in a Mere Generation - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/cop-21-climate-change-agreement-welcome.html

Can Democracies Exist Without Political Parties - https://medium.com/@KarnS/can-democracies-exist-without-political-parties-dae3923aa0a1

Western Government's Death Wish for Their People - Government does not protect the people anymore as corporate profits are far more important than human life and long-term health - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/western-governments-death-wish-for.html

Now the EU has signed up to Kill us slowly and to Give us Cancers Through Carcinogenic Crop Sprays & GM Foods - How long will we stand for such madness to continue is the big question? - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/now-eu-has-signed-up-to-kill-us-slowly.html

Politicians are Allowing Corporations to Kill us - The TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is so evil that our political negotiators are now allowing 'Cancer' creating carcinogenic crop sprays to be used in the European Union - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/politicians-are-allowing-corporations.html

Would governments be better [without] political parties? - http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/44366/would-governments-be-better-without-political-parties

Global Containment and Control - The 'Game' of Controlled and Systemized Human Conditioning - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/global-containment-and-control-game-of.html

CONTROL - The Most Powerful Word in the World and What Corporate Leaders and the Political Elite Crave For to the Extent of Being Psychopathic in 'Their' Thinking and Actions Against the People - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/control-most-powerful-word-in-world-and.html

Corporate & Political Sociopaths and Psychopaths are Destroying the World Order, but where the Political and Corporate Psychopaths are Not aware of what they are doing to the world-at-large - Globalization is the Weapon they are using to Sequentially destroy the planet and the People are the Only Ones who will ultimately suffer, not the rich and powerful who have created this monster - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/corporate-psychopathy-is-destroying.html

The Destroyer of Worlds...the present Globalization 'model' - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-destroyer-of-worldscapitalism-and.html

Politicians and Whitehall are the greatest enemy for the UK's future Prosperity - A single example is the UK’s Coastal Erosion and the Nation’s immense Landfill problem that could be solved if Government and Whitehall would only listen to the peoples' innovative thinking - https://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/politicians-and-whitehall-are-greatest.html