Tag: Democracy

Guy Fawkes, Revolution and the False Promise of Political Violence

By Huw Edwards for Huwspace.com

The revolutionary argument is as old as politics itself. When institutions cease to serve the people, when governments become unresponsive, and when citizens lose faith that change can occur through democratic means, some begin to argue that violence becomes not merely justified but necessary.

It is a powerful idea. It is also one that deserves far greater scrutiny than it often receives.

Throughout history, revolutionaries have claimed that peaceful reform eventually reaches its limits. If the courts are corrupt, the legislature captured, and the political system incapable of meaningful change, then force becomes the only remaining instrument of political action.

Yet an uncomfortable question remains.

Even if institutions fail, why should anyone assume violence will make matters better?

In modern America, what exactly has failed so completely that civil conflict or revolution is seen by some as a rational answer? And what evidence exists that a bloody struggle would produce freedom rather than simply a different form of oppression?

These are not questions of left or right. They are questions of history, morality and common sense.

The Revolutionary Argument

The intellectual case for revolutionary violence is perhaps most closely associated with Frantz Fanon, whose writings on anti-colonial struggle argued that violence could become necessary when oppressed people were denied any meaningful path towards political self-determination. For Fanon, violence was not merely destructive. It could become a means through which the powerless reclaimed agency, dignity and freedom. [researchgate.net], [digitalcom…ns.usu.edu]

The logic is straightforward:

  • Institutions become irredeemably corrupt.
  • Peaceful reform becomes impossible.
  • Resistance becomes a moral obligation.
  • Violence becomes the mechanism through which freedom is achieved.

History contains examples where such arguments carried genuine force. Colonial subjects denied rights, representation and self-government often found themselves confronting systems designed to prevent peaceful change.

Yet accepting that violence may sometimes become understandable is not the same as concluding it is wise.

Hannah Arendt’s Warning

Political philosopher Hannah Arendt offered one of the most important critiques of revolutionary violence.

Arendt argued that violence and power are not the same thing. Violence can destroy institutions, but it cannot by itself create legitimate political authority. Freedom requires trust, participation, civic engagement and durable institutions. Guns alone cannot provide those things. [digitalcom…ns.usu.edu], [researchgate.net]

Her warning was simple but profound.

Revolutions are often successful at tearing down existing structures. They are far less reliable at constructing better ones.

The French Revolution toppled a monarchy only to descend into terror and eventually dictatorship.

The Russian Revolution overthrew Tsarist rule yet produced one of the most authoritarian systems of the twentieth century.

Again and again, history demonstrates that removing an unjust order does not automatically create a just one.

The assumption that freedom naturally follows violence is one of the most dangerous misconceptions in political thought.

America’s Contradiction

Modern America occupies a peculiar place within this debate.

Many political voices appeal to the language of revolution, resistance and even civil conflict. References to 1776 appear regularly in political discourse. The image of the armed citizen standing against tyranny remains deeply embedded in parts of American culture.

But unlike many societies that experienced genuine revolutionary conditions, America still possesses functioning democratic mechanisms.

Citizens vote.

Governments change peacefully.

Political parties compete for power.

Courts continue to rule against governments.

Journalists openly criticise political leaders.

Citizens organise, campaign, protest and publish freely.

None of this means America does not face serious challenges.

Political polarisation has deepened. Trust in institutions has declined. Economic inequality remains severe. Housing costs, healthcare costs and social division continue to affect millions of lives.

These are serious problems.

But serious problems are not the same as complete institutional collapse.

One can argue passionately for reform. It is considerably harder to argue that all peaceful means of reform have been exhausted.

What Exactly Is Failing?

This is perhaps the question most absent from modern revolutionary rhetoric.

What precisely has failed so completely that violence represents a preferable alternative?

If elections still occur, why abandon elections?

If courts still function, why abandon courts?

If free speech exists, why abandon persuasion?

If activism remains legal, why abandon organisation?

Too often, calls for revolution seem rooted less in objective institutional failure and more in political frustration.

An increasing number of people appear willing to regard democratic institutions as legitimate only when those institutions produce outcomes they personally favour.

That is not necessarily opposition to tyranny.

It may simply be disappointment with democracy itself.

Democracy is frustrating by design. It guarantees disagreement, compromise and political defeat as much as it guarantees victory. It promises a process, not a predetermined outcome.

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November

It is fitting that these questions are being asked on Guy Fawkes Night.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

The rhyme recalls the failed Guy Fawkes plot to destroy Parliament in 1605.

Today, some view Guy Fawkes as a symbol of resistance against a broken system. Yet the same question remains as relevant now as it was then: does violence create freedom, or merely more violence?

Had the Gunpowder Plot succeeded, would England have become freer, or would it simply have descended into retaliation, repression and further bloodshed?

That is the challenge modern advocates of revolution must answer. Destroying a political system is far easier than creating a better one. History is filled with movements that successfully overthrew institutions only to replace them with fresh forms of tyranny.

The Fifth of November reminds us not only to remember the plot itself, but to think carefully about what comes after the explosion.

The Historical Record of Political Violence

Supporters of revolutionary violence often emphasise successful struggles for independence and liberation.

Far less attention is given to the countless movements that produced chaos, instability and suffering.

Civil wars are among the most destructive experiences a society can endure.

Even after the fighting ends, the consequences frequently remain for generations.

Communities fracture.

Infrastructure is destroyed.

Political extremism becomes normalised.

Retaliation follows retaliation.

Research into revolutions suggests that violent revolutions can sometimes prove more resistant to counter-revolutionary threats because they create strong security structures capable of defending the new order. [cambridge.org], [cambridge.org]

Yet that observation raises another dilemma.

A state capable of enforcing stability through force is not necessarily a freer state.

Many revolutionary governments become highly effective at suppressing dissent once they achieve power.

The revolution survives.

Liberty does not.

The Liberal Dilemma

Liberals are often criticised for placing too much faith in institutions.

They are accused of excessive patience, endless compromise and a reluctance to confront injustice.

Sometimes those criticisms contain an element of truth.

Yet liberal democracy rests upon a recognition that violence develops its own momentum.

Once violence becomes an accepted political tool, it rarely remains confined to a single purpose.

It changes societies.

It changes movements.

It changes leaders.

Eventually, it changes the people who employ it.

The danger is not merely that violence might fail.

The greater danger may be that it succeeds.

A successful armed movement acquires armed leaders, armed structures and armed habits. Political disagreements that were once settled through debate increasingly become questions of force.

History suggests those habits often outlive the revolution itself.

Wisdom or Weakness?

Some will always argue that refusing violence is an act of weakness.

That real change requires force.

That power never concedes anything voluntarily.

Perhaps there are moments in history where such arguments carry weight.

But there is another perspective.

Perhaps refusing violence reflects an understanding of human nature itself.

Perhaps wisdom lies in recognising that the destruction of institutions is easier than their construction.

Perhaps wisdom lies in understanding that violence often unleashes forces far beyond the control of those who initiate it.

And perhaps wisdom lies in preserving democratic processes precisely because they provide a way of resolving disagreement without killing one another.

Conclusion

On this Fifth of November, as bonfires burn and fireworks illuminate the night sky, it is worth remembering that political violence has always carried an allure far greater than its actual record of success.

The revolutionary argument deserves to be taken seriously. History contains moments when oppression became so severe that resistance appeared unavoidable.

But modern America is not colonial Algeria. It is not Tsarist Russia. It is not a military dictatorship that has extinguished every avenue for peaceful reform.

Before anyone speaks casually about revolution, two questions deserve answers.

What exactly has failed?

And why should anyone believe that bullets will produce a better future than ballots?

The burden of proof lies with those advocating force, not with those exercising restraint.

History suggests that removing what we hate is often much easier than building what we hope for. The wisdom of democracy may not be that it prevents conflict, but that it offers a way of navigating conflict without setting society on fire.

References

As America wrestles with growing political polarisation and increasingly revolutionary rhetoric, the central question is not whether institutions are imperfect, but whether violence has ever proved a reliable route to freedom. On Guy Fawkes Night, Huw Edwards examines the historical case for revolution and the stronger case for restraint.

Van William – Revolution (Music Video) ft. First Aid Kit

When Maga Money Meets Democracy: The Night America Sent a Message

For years, political commentators have argued that modern elections are auctions, won by those with the deepest pockets and the largest advertising budgets. Tonight, many Americans delivered a different verdict.

A Political Earthquake in Texas

The election result in Texas stands as one of the most significant political developments in a generation. According to the document provided, Democrat James Talarico won the Texas U.S. Senate race, defeating Republican Ken Paxton and ending a decades-long Republican hold on state-wide power.

If this result holds its historical significance, it represents far more than a change of party colour on an electoral map. It signals a deep shift in what voters believe matters.

Texas has long been presented as a symbol of conservative political dominance. Yet elections are ultimately about people, not assumptions. Tonight, voters demonstrated that no state is permanently red and no state is permanently blue. Democracy remains capable of surprising those who mistake today’s reality for tomorrow’s certainty.

A Vote Against Corruption

Many supporters of the Democratic victory see this result not simply as a partisan triumph, but as a rejection of a political culture that too often appears shaped by money, influence and powerful interests.

The campaign was heavily influenced by questions of campaign finance and political integrity. According to the source document, James Talarico built his campaign around grassroots support, anti-corruption themes and concerns about inequality, while overcoming enormous financial opposition.

For many voters, the election appears to have become a referendum on whether democracy is still capable of resisting concentrated wealth and political influence.

The answer from the ballot box was clear: voters cannot simply be purchased.

The Limits of Wealth

Perhaps the most striking lesson from this election is that vast sums of money did not guarantee victory.

The source document states that billionaire-backed spending, including substantial advertising support linked to Elon Musk, became a defining feature of the race. Yet despite this, voters chose a different path.

This matters because modern politics often cultivates a sense of inevitability. Citizens are encouraged to believe that powerful individuals, massive corporations and endless campaign spending determine outcomes before a single vote is cast.

Tonight’s result suggests otherwise.

Money can amplify a voice.

Money can buy advertisements.

Money can dominate headlines.

But money cannot cast a vote.

In a functioning democracy, that power remains with ordinary people.

A Vote For Humanity

Supporters of the Democratic surge will understandably celebrate electoral gains. Yet reducing tonight’s events solely to party politics risks missing the larger significance.

Many voters were motivated by concerns about fairness, accountability, healthcare, economic opportunity and the protection of democratic institutions. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, these are fundamentally human concerns.

People want governments that work.

People want honesty from leaders.

People want an economy that offers hope rather than permanent insecurity.

People want to believe that future generations can inherit a better society than the one they received.

Seen through this lens, the election becomes more than a Democratic victory. It becomes an expression of faith in democratic participation itself.

Democracy’s Enduring Strength

Across the world, many citizens have become cynical about politics. They see corruption scandals, growing inequality, misinformation and the influence of extreme wealth. Understandably, some ask whether voting still matters.

Tonight offered a reminder that it does.

Democratic systems are imperfect and often frustratingly slow. Yet their strength lies in a simple principle: no billionaire, corporation, government official or media empire ultimately possesses more votes than the people themselves.

The lesson from Texas is not that one party has all the answers.

The lesson is that democracy remains alive.

The lesson is that political power can still change hands peacefully.

The lesson is that ordinary citizens are still capable of shaping history.

And perhaps most importantly, the lesson is that hope remains a powerful force in public life.

Conclusion

The story of this election is not merely that Texas appears to be moving politically. It is that voters demonstrated a willingness to challenge assumptions, reject inevitability and make their own judgement about the future they want.

For supporters, the result will be remembered as a vote for humanity over cynicism, accountability over corruption, and democratic participation over political fatalism.

Whether one celebrates or laments the outcome, one fact remains undeniable:

The people had the final say.

And the best part is, no amount of money could ever replace that.

The Nightmare of Modern Authoritarianism

Martin Luther King had a dream that was one of freedom. But what if today we face new chains instead and enslavement due to Trump, Putin and Jinping? We seem to be voting for mob rule and being governed by gangsters. I want to explore the reality behind the nightmare of not exactly living the dream.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of universal freedom against the modern geopolitical landscape presents a stark reality: what King himself later called a “tempered… nightmare” remains an ongoing struggle against new forms of global authoritarianism.

Sadly in this day and age it seems people most most attracted to power on the global stage are least worthy of holding onto it. It seems we are in an age of Machiavellian plots where cunning, deceptive, and highly calculated schemes are used by political leaders to gain or secure their power. Relying on the core idea that “the ends justify the means,” ignoring traditional morality in favour of cold, effective strategy which seem to be trumping all other forms of political power and will, again and again not just in the US but across the globe. Bringing sadly the very fabric and structure of our world to an existential crisis threatening our planet, species and way of life, and at this time an unholy trinity of political leaders seem to be learning and gaining strength from one another and would more likely be honoured and inspired by each other to be at the forefront of our demise, rather than do anything to assist to actually prevent such a catastrophic event from occurring. Sadly time might not not be on our side at the rate that things politically remain statically dangerous or worse our deteriorating environment or ecological destruction. But fortunately they have yet to develop the technological knowhow or break through to enable there own immortality within which to give them an opportunity to then enslave or destroy us all old age and death might reach them before they reach all of us.

I’m genuinely torn between what right now would be worse or better an alien invasion, an ai takeover or a continuation of the unholy Trinity of Trump, Putin and Jinping!

While the “chains” of the 21st century differ from the legalized chattel slavery and Jim Crow segregation Martin Luther King fought against, political analysts and democratic theorists increasingly warn of an era defined by digital surveillance, economic oligarchy, and aggressive autocracy spearheaded by leaders like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping.

Here is an exploration of how these three figures reflect modern anxieties about the erosion of freedom, contrasted with the enduring philosophy of MLK.

1. The Global Landscape: Three Pillars of Modern Authoritarianism

The modern “nightmare” is often framed not as a single empire, but as a multi-front assault on democratic norms, institutional truth, and personal liberties.

LeaderMechanism of Control / “New Chains”The Reality Behind the Nightmare
Donald Trump
(United States)		Democratic Erosion & Oligarchy
• Populist polarization
• Challenges to electoral systems
• Transactional, power-based foreign policy		An American Oligarchy: Critics argue his second administration weaponises state power and wealth to consolidate control. However, the U.S. features robust institutional guardrails, judicial resistance, and a highly active civil society that pushes back through democratic elections.
Vladimir Putin
(Russia)		State Terror & Neo-Imperialism
• Violent suppression of domestic dissent
• State-controlled media monopolies
• Territorial expansion (e.g., Ukraine)		Totalitarian Autocracy: Russia operates under severe domestic restrictions where anti-war protests or political opposition result in heavy prison sentences. This aligns closely with traditional 20th-century authoritarianism.
Xi Jinping
(China)		Techno-Authoritarianism
• Total digital surveillance (AI, facial recognition)
• The Social Credit System
• Elimination of term limits and absolute party loyalty		The Panopticon State: China represents a highly sophisticated form of digital control. Citizens trade absolute political compliance for economic participation, leveraging state technology to pre-emptively crush dissent.

2. What MLK Said About Dictatorships and Truth

Dr. King was acutely aware of totalitarian threats. In his final speech, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” (1968), he explicitly contrasted America’s unfulfilled promises with the overt oppression of autocratic regimes:

“If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech…”

King argued that the unique danger to Western democracy was hypocrisy—failing to live up to its own foundational principles. Today, the fear is that populist movements in the West are voluntarily adopting the illiberal tactics pioneered by Moscow and Beijing.

3. Structural Exploitation: Economic “Enslavement”

King’s later work, particularly the Poor People’s Campaign, shifted toward economic justice. He famously noted that freedom without economic security is merely a variant form of oppression.

In the modern context, critics note that global capitalism under the influence of tech monopolies and oligarchs has created a different kind of economic bondage:

  • Stagnant Wealth Distribution: The vast division of wealth limits true self-determination.
  • Algorithmic Control: Gig-economy workers and everyday citizens are heavily manipulated by proprietary algorithms that dictate information flow, wages, and consumer habits.

The Reality: Is the Dream Dead?

The reality behind the nightmare is that freedom is a dynamic struggle, not a permanent state. King himself realized that his initial 1963 optimism was somewhat superficial. He adjusted his view to a “solid realism,” acknowledging that progress meets fierce backlash from those terrified of losing power.

The rise of modern autocrats does not mean humanity is permanently enslaved. Instead, as democratic theorists emphasize, it exposes the vulnerabilities of modern societies. The existence of resistance—from domestic voters organizing for upcoming midterms to international solidarity movements—proves that the “network of mutuality” King dreamed of remains the primary weapon against modern authoritarianism.

The British Press Crisis: Disconnect and Accountability

The Cost of Noise: How and why the British Press Lost the Public

Introduction: A System That No Longer Serves

There is a growing disconnect in Britain-between the public and the press that claims to inform it.

Once positioned as the “fourth estate,” the British press was meant to challenge power, expose wrongdoing, and provide citizens with the information needed to make informed decisions. Today, many critics argue it has drifted far from that role.

Instead, it increasingly reflects a system driven by corporate concentration, political alignment, and commercial survival, often at the expense of truth and public interest.

This isn’t just a media issue. It’s a democratic one.

A Concentrated Voice: When Few Control the Narrative

Britain’s press may look diverse, but structurally it is anything but.

Just three major corporations control around 90% of national print circulation and a significant share of online reach.

This level of concentration gives enormous influence to a small number of proprietors, including billionaire-owned media groups and large public corporations.

Why this matters

When ownership is concentrated:

  • Editorial direction becomes centralised
  • Certain political or economic perspectives are amplified
  • Others are marginalised or ignored

The result is not outright censorship—but something subtler: a narrowing of the national conversation.

Case Study: Phone Hacking and the Limits of Accountability

One of the clearest examples of systemic failure in the British press is the phone-hacking scandal.

The now-defunct News of the World, part of News UK, was shut down after widespread illegal surveillance of individuals, including celebrities and ordinary citizens.

The consequences were significant:

  • Over £1 billion paid in legal settlements by News UK
  • Public inquiries into press ethics
  • Exposure of close relationships between media and political elites

Yet despite this, critics argue the structural issues remain unchanged:

  • Self-regulation continues to dominate
  • Legal action remains inaccessible to most citizens
  • Cultural incentives within media organisations have not fundamentally shifted

The lesson is stark: even the most high-profile scandal did not fully reform the system.

Sensationalism and the Attention Economy

Modern journalism is no longer shaped purely by editorial judgement—it is shaped by clicks, shares, and engagement metrics.

The shift toward digital media has intensified this pressure, encouraging:

  • Outrage-driven headlines
  • Simplified, polarised narratives
  • High-volume, low-depth reporting

This has led to a growing reliance on “clickbait” and emotionally charged content, often at the expense of accuracy and nuance.

Example: Health Misinformation

The document highlights research linking media misinformation to increased NHS costs, with tens of millions spent on preventable hospitalisations.

This demonstrates a key point:

When the press prioritises engagement over accuracy, the cost is not just informational—it is financial and societal.

Political Alignment: Reporting or Campaigning?

Many British newspapers openly align with political ideologies. While this is not new, its impact has intensified due to concentrated ownership and declining trust.

Publications frequently:

  • Support specific parties or policies
  • Frame issues to reinforce ideological narratives
  • Selectively omit inconvenient facts

Example: Brexit Coverage

While perspectives varied, critics have argued that sections of the press:

  • Promoted simplified or emotionally charged narratives
  • Downplayed complex economic realities
  • Framed political choices as inevitable rather than debatable

This aligns with findings in your document that economic issues are often presented without sufficient nuance, limiting public understanding.

The result is a public discourse shaped less by evidence—and more by narrative.

The Quiet Harm: Ordinary People Without Protection

The impact of a failing press is not limited to politics—it affects individuals directly.

Under the current system:

  • Legal action against media organisations is prohibitively expensive
  • Independent arbitration mechanisms have been weakened
  • Citizens have limited recourse against false or intrusive reporting

Real-world impact

For ordinary people, this means:

  • Reputational damage with little chance of correction
  • Invasion of privacy without meaningful consequences
  • A sense of powerlessness against large media institutions

This imbalance reinforces the idea of “virtual impunity” within the press.

Democracy Under Pressure

A functioning democracy relies on an informed public.

When the press fails in its role, the consequences ripple outward:

1. Reduced Scrutiny of Power

Political decisions face less challenge, allowing:

  • Poor policy-making
  • Wasteful public spending
  • Potential corruption

2. Economic Misunderstanding

The document highlights a lack of economic literacy in reporting, leading to:

  • Oversimplified fiscal debates
  • Misleading narratives around public spending

3. Social Division

To drive engagement, media increasingly:

  • Amplifies cultural conflicts
  • Promotes polarising viewpoints
  • Circulates fringe or misleading narratives

The result is a fragmented society, where agreement on basic facts becomes difficult.

When Truth Becomes Secondary

Perhaps the most damaging shift is the erosion of truth itself.

Truth is often:

  • Distorted through selective reporting
  • Replaced by emotionally driven narratives
  • Undermined by weak correction mechanisms

Example: Corrections That Don’t Correct

Even when inaccuracies are acknowledged:

  • Corrections are often buried
  • Published long after the original story
  • Fail to reach the same audience

By then, public opinion has already been shaped.

The Bigger Picture: A System Built for Itself

Taken together, these issues point to a deeper structural problem.

The British press is no longer simply flawed—it is incentivised to behave this way.

  • Commercial models reward outrage
  • Ownership structures reward alignment
  • Weak regulation enables repetition

This creates a system where:

The pursuit of truth is often secondary to the pursuit of influence and revenue.

Conclusion: What Is Lost

This is not just a critique of journalism—it is a warning.

When the press fails:

  • Citizens lose access to reliable information
  • Power operates with less scrutiny
  • Society becomes more divided

Ultimately, the cost is not just economic or political.

It is the erosion of a shared reality—the foundation on which democracy depends.

The Case Against Monarchy in Modern Democracies

Many a revolution and civil war has played out across the world in many a country including the UK to sever the head of a monarch from the political control of a country. It seems bizarre in this day and age that Britain has a monarch as the head of it’s state, political and religious institutions. But what is even more bizarre is the strength of will at the heart of the establishment to maintain the status quo and make no change to this set of institutions, state of affairs or even review or to ensure transparency concerning where money goes to the monarch and how or why it is then spent.

For me this is not an argument about whether a King or Queen are good people or not but whether they have the right to be born into the role they play and I strongly believe that there should be no birth right to any position in our state let alone that of the head of state.

Arguments against supporting monarchies in democratic societies generally center on principles of equality, accountability, and the desire for a modern, meritocratic state. Critics argue that inherited power is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic ideal that all citizens are equal and that leaders should be chosen by the people.

  1. Lack of Democratic Accountability 

A core tenet of democracy is that leaders must be answerable to the people they serve. 

No Choice or Removal: Unlike elected officials, monarchs cannot be held to account or removed at the ballot box by the public.

Hereditary Risk: Relying on inheritance means there is no selection process to ensure the leader is capable; a nation risks being stuck with an incompetent, “petty,” or “vindictive” individual for decades. 

2. Incompatibility with Popular Sovereignty

Democracy is rooted in the idea that power belongs to the people, not a specific family. 

Anachronism: Critics view monarchy as a vestige of a feudal past that has no place in a modern world where legitimacy should derive from the consent of the governed.

Secrecy and Lobbying: In some systems, monarchies are exempt from transparency laws (like Freedom of Information requests), allowing for “lobbying by stealth” for private business interests. 

3. Economic and Social Costs

Opponents often point to the tangible burdens of maintaining a royal institution. 

Taxpayer Expense: Critics argue that the significant funds spent on the “extravagant lifestyle” of a royal family—including security, travel, and palace maintenance—could be better used for public services.

Colonial Legacy: For former colonies, retaining a distant monarch as a head of state can be seen as an obstacle to fully reconciling with their history and achieving true national independence. 

4. Institutional Resilience vs. Democratic Values

While some argue that constitutional monarchies provide stability, critics contend: 

Borrowed Time: Monarchies in democratic countries are often described as “operating on borrowed time,” requiring manufactured goodwill to survive.

Fragile Neutrality: A monarch’s perceived neutrality is easily shattered if they attempt to intervene in political matters, leading to constitutional crises.

Will the UK always have a monarchy?

Whether the UK will always have a monarchy is uncertain, as it is not guaranteed by law and relies on public support, which has shown a long-term decline. While it remains popular as a symbol of unity and tradition, support dropped to a record low of 54% in 2023, with around 25% favoring abolition. 

Key Factors Regarding the Future of the Monarchy:

Public Opinion & Trends: While a majority still support the institution, backing has fallen from 76% in 2012 to 54% in 2023. A growing minority, now around 25%, supports a republic, marking a 10% increase in just five years.

Constitutional Pathway: There is no legal barrier to abolition; it could be achieved through a parliamentary act and a referendum, creating a new, elected head of state.

Arguments for Removal: Critics argue the institution is incompatible with modern democratic values, lacks transparency, and that its wealth (e.g., the Duchy estates) should belong to the public.

Arguments for Retention: Proponents highlight the monarch’s role in providing political stability, acting as a non-partisan head of state, and contributing to tourism and international soft power.

Future Adaptability: The monarchy’s survival has relied on its ability to adapt to changing times, a strategy that future monarchs like Prince William will likely need to continue to maintain support.

The monarchy’s future depends on the “oxygen of public support” and its ability to remain relevant to future generations, making its permanence not guaranteed. 

Removing the power base of a born and bred King or Queen from the head of the UK will not be easy or happen overnight but it does feel like a form of constitutional madness to still have a monarch today as the head of a democratic society and is very much one that has been in place for so long it is sadly perceived to be a normal state of affairs.

I’m with stupid!

So why is democracy seen as the worst form of government bar all other forms of governance tried?

Democracy is often characterized as the “worst form of government” primarily through a famous aphorism attributed to Winston Churchill: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. 

In the UK we could end up having a Reform government led by Nigel Farage in after the next general election or the very threat of this happening could in effect keep him voted out, the idea of a Britsh Trumping of social norms and political structures is a delight to some and terrifying to others. The political party Reform now has so many dangerous former Conservative Politicians in it they are more regurgitated Tories than they are reformed human beings.

Life, the world and technological futures seem to be creating the perfect storm for our future endeavours which as we vote and how we are governed will show the best and worst of us all. Do we care for ourselves or others, rich man, poor man, beggar man or thief. How should we act and treat one another when a crisis is right at our feet.

The political sentiment for democracy being the best of a bad bunch reflects a pragmatic recognition that while democratic systems are riddled with inherent flaws—such as inefficiency, corruption, and the potential for “mob rule”—they remain preferable to authoritarian alternatives that lack accountability and individual justice. 

Russia, China and Iran all must supress, lock up and kill their own citizens as well as ones abroad in order to maintain their supremacy and there are not enough words on a board to express the horror and suffering they inflict on others in order to get their own way. Democracies do not aspire to be brutal totalitarian regimes but in stead aim to fend of the madness of such regimes from inflicting their brutality and suppressing nature onto us all.

Core Philosophical and Practical Criticisms of democracies

The perception of democracy as a “bad” or “flawed” system stems from several long-standing arguments:

1. Competence and “Mob Rule”

  • Voter Ignorance: A central critique, dating back to Plato, is that democracy gives equal weight to the votes of experts and those who may be “incompetent” or poorly informed. Modern studies have shown that many voters lack basic civic knowledge, making them susceptible to emotional manipulation and propaganda.
  • Tyranny of the Majority: Critics like Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill warned that a “poor majority” could dominate decision-making at the expense of minority rights and individual excellence.
  • Mob Law: Churchill himself distinguished true democracy from “mob law,” where armed groups or “gangsters” seize power under the guise of popular will to implement totalitarian regimes. 

2. Structural Inefficiencies

  • Slow Decision-Making: Unlike autocracies, where a single leader can act quickly, democracies require constant deliberation, negotiation, and compromise, which can lead to stagnation or gridlock during crises.
  • Short-Termism: Electoral cycles incentivize politicians to prioritize immediate, popular benefits to win votes, often ignoring long-term risks like climate change, debt crises, or pension sustainability. 

3. Corruption and Elite Capture

  • Influence of Money: Democratic systems are often criticized for becoming “oligarchies” in practice, where economic elites and special interest groups have significantly more influence over policy than the average citizen.
  • Iron Law of Oligarchy: Sociologists have argued that any organization, including a democracy, eventually becomes dominated by a small elite due to the practical demands of organizing power. 

Contemporary Challenges (2025–2026)

Current political analysis highlights specific modern threats that exacerbate these negative perceptions:

  • Erosion of Trust: As of early 2025, global trust in democratic institutions like parliaments has significantly declined, while trust in the police has risen. This disillusionment often leads to support for populist leaders who promise to dismantle existing democratic structures.
  • Information Ecology: The spread of algorithmically-driven disinformation and “fake news” has made it difficult to establish a common factual basis for democratic debate.
  • Polarization: Modern democracies are facing extreme political fragmentation and the formation of “echo chambers,” making social discourse across political lines increasingly difficult. 

The “Least Bad” Perspective

Despite these significant failings, democracy is defended as the only social order consistent with justice and human dignity. Proponents argue that its “built-in flaws” and tendency to decay are actually safeguards; a certain level of skepticism and the ability to change leaders without violence are advantages that other systems, which are often more brittle, do not possess. 

Democracies hold a kinship to freedom like a shining beacon in the dark

Political freedoms to vote, freedom of expression, Freedom to think and freedom to do and be.

Though these freedoms have in some ways restrictions so that one persons freedom does not inflict damage or disregards another persons freedom it is I feel our freedoms that are the eternal beacon of hope which guides and shapes our democracies to not just survive but to live on into a forever future like the eternal flame of freedom, hope and democracy.

The “eternal flame” serves as a global symbol for freedom, hope, and democracy, manifesting in several prominent memorials and monuments worldwide: 

Key Memorials & Symbols

  • The King Center Eternal Flame (Atlanta, USA): Located at the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it was recently restored to reaffirm King’s vision for justice and peace. It serves as a reminder that the work of freedom and democracy is a shared, ongoing responsibility.
  • Flame of Democracy (Constitution Hill, South Africa): Lit by Nelson Mandela to commemorate the 15th anniversary of South Africa’s constitution. It burns outside the Constitutional Court as a symbol of the country’s liberation and the enduring spirit of human rights.
  • Flame of Peace (Hiroshima, Japan): Lit in 1964, this flame is intended to burn until all nuclear weapons are destroyed, representing hope for a world defined by peace rather than conflict.
  • Freedom Park Eternal Flame (Pretoria, South Africa): A symbol of gratitude and remembrance for those who played pivotal roles in South Africa’s liberation struggle.
  • The Centennial Flame (Ottawa, Canada): First lit in 1967, it commemorates the first hundred years of Canadian Confederation and symbolizes the spirit of national unity. 

Cultural and Global Context

Artistic Expression: Musicians like Bruce Springsteen have recently launched tours (e.g., “Land of Hope and Dreams”) explicitly centered on themes of democracy and defending the American ideal. 

United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres has used the metaphor to urge the world to “keep the flame of democracy alive” for future generations.

International Day of Democracy: Observed annually on 15 September, this day reinforces the idea that democracy must be nurtured and defended as a “flame” that requires active citizen participation.

Don’t Cry – Seal












Fascism has never been slain it has only been sleeping

Modern fascism, is a post-WWII far-right, ultranationalist ideology that adapts classic fascist characteristics like authoritarianism, a cult of the leader, and aggressive nationalism to modern contexts, incorporating contemporary tools such as social media and identity politics to promote xenophobia, racial nationalism, and often a perception of national decline. While rejecting the overt totalitarianism of historical fascism, neo-fascism shares a fundamental distrust of democracy, liberalism, and pluralism, aiming to create a unified, ethnically homogenous nation-state through populism and the suppression of opposition. 

How Far Is It From Here to Nuremberg? By David Rovics

Key Characteristics of Modern Fascism (Neo-Fascism)

  • Populist Ultranationalism:A central focus on a fervent, exclusionary form of nationalism that emphasizes the nation’s identity and perceived victimhood, often tied to ethnic or racial superiority. 
  • Authoritarianism:Support for a strong, centralized government headed by a cult-like leader who claims infallibility and suppresses dissent. 
  • Identity Politics:The use of immigration, ethnicity, race, and gender to create an “us vs. them” narrative, identifying scapegoats for societal problems. 
  • Modern Tools:The use of new technologies like social media and AI to spread propaganda, organize, and recruit members. 
  • Nativism and Xenophobia:Strong opposition to immigration, globalization, and multiculturalism, fostering a belief that these elements threaten national culture and identity. 
  • Opposition to Democracy:A rejection of liberalism, democracy, pluralism, and social democracy, seeing them as weak or divisive. 
  • Disdain for Human Rights:A focus on national “purity” and a willingness to disregard or suppress human rights for the perceived good of the nation

When we start to dehumanise an individual we risk dehumanising everyone and to what end that could lead is as yet unclear. Sadly the politics of hate and difference continue to grow heavy on my mind. I have a number of social media accounts that I sit and watch when wanting to unwind and unplug and this weekend for the first time ever, there were a lot of pro English, White pride and hate to others content seeping onto the pages that I scroll through, being promoted on social media posts underlined with the view I have my right to hate and not care what you thing. Ignorance is their weapon of mass media manipulation.

The bullshit is easy to spread across fields of social media accounts and watch the seeds of hate grow across across the pages which they then harvested likes and further their spread of opinions of ignorance and hate. I believe with all my heart there is more that unites humanity than divides it but that seems a tough sell at present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#:~:text=Race%20is%20a%20categorization%20of,characterized%20by%20close%20kinship%20relations.

On Wikipedia in relation to ‘Race (Human) stated the following:- Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

Aggressive apathy

Went out on the town tonight to meet with a friend and one thing that struck me with two men we met in the smoking area of the first pub was that we went into and met is that they started talking about politics, but in a very disparaging way they gave the impression that they have no belief in the importance of voting and the power of democracy. 

The fact that we have an election in parliament about to happen and that they boasted about their complete contempt for whoever has been elected in the past and also contempt for whoever will be elected in the future. Comments such as ‘they all bend the knee to the king’ and it’s all a waste of time ‘their all in it for themselves’, ‘they don’t represent the working man’.

Such negative views and contempt for UK democracy, I just don’t understand and sadly the older I get I choose not to challenge people face to face, that I don’t know (or trust), concerning their views and whether I agree with them. It did not feel like an appropriate place or time to challenge them. I feel sad for them and feel it’s a shame that they have the perspective that they do and I guess they have their reasons which I do not know.

Television broadcasters on TV love to ask members of the public for a variety of opinions on topics and politics is no different and when you hear people on TV interviewed about politics one of the views that sometimes tends to hit the TV is people saying they don’t care about politics, they are (politicians) all in it for themselves and nothing will change so there is no point in voting.

I do think such a view is again a sorry state of affairs to think and it’s hard to be critical while not being offensive to those views. Ultimately if you do nothing, boast of not thinking or having an opinion and say it’s all pointless then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy to you. If you detach yourself from the political views of others and those in power or have potential for power then you make your negative view your version of reality.

I feel like I am a citizen of the UK and not a subject – Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others.

On Thursday July the 4th 2024 across the whole of the United Kingdom we the people, citizens of this country will walk into a polling station and vote by putting an X against a person’s name on a piece of paper, which will then ultimately impact on the choice of a nation as to whom will be elected as Prime Minister and govern the for the citizens of our country.  

Yes no one citizen elects the ruler or governor of this country (thank god, as that would be a dictatorship a little like Russia), but collectively we will make a decision as to who will govern the United Kingdom.  

Born in a Storm – Deacon Blue