What is this ‘Direct Democracy’ thing, and Why the Passion for Referenda?
The meaning of Democracy is made up of ‘The People Rule’ from the Greek words Demos (the people) and the verb Kratein (to rule). The concept had its birth in the early Athenian Constitution - but specifically in what were known as Exousia Rights in which the people were the final arbiter of law. This was less about the voting of people into office (although that was a feature too), it was primarily about the people having the right, power and even duty, to judge independently the justice of legislation. The people do this in each and every situation that comes before them in a court of conscience.
This tendency to prefix the word Democracy with a qualifying adjective like ‘Direct’ Democracy or ‘Representative’ Democracy doesn’t really make sense. Democracy already has a meaning in itself that is quite sufficient!
In the English law tradition, this authority of the people over its own ‘government’ later took the form of what we call Judicium Parium - Common Law Trial by Jury - in which the people decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused and, simultaneously, judge the statute that brought the defendant into court. At the heart of this concept is the fact that justice is organic. Care must be taken not to punish a man unjustly based on some blanket, predetermined standard. Every situation is different and individual: what is morally correct in one situation is not necessarily morally correct in another.
This does not mean that we adopt a kind of moral relativism but simply that the conditions and circumstances that led to a defendant’s action might be radically different in morality but result in the same action. Therefore you cannot say that a certain action, even if intended, is always moral or always immoral. Punishing a defendant for transgressing legislation without also applying tests of conscience runs contrary to Natural Law and the way the Universe wishes to function. However finely you define the legislation, you can never cater for every eventuality.
Giving too much power to legislation (or ‘codified’ law) can lead to a clumsy approximation of justice and this is a dangerous path for society to take which inevitably leads to the removal of people’s ability to exercise their free will. Crime is about intent and context: there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ when it comes to justice.
There can be legislation under the constitution, but it is really meant to operate as a mechanism that brings a defendant before a jury of their social equals - always! For that reason, under constitutional and natural justice, it is never the statute that brings about the punishment but the moral decision of the jury through their consciences.
So the primary characteristic of Democracy is not voting but the people’s power and right to decide on the Justice of the law of their community. Voting in elections is actually called Suffrage but this has been conflated with the term Democracy causing people who rightly condemn the voting system to denigrate also the term Democracy. What is needed is a push to understand the trick played here and reclaim Democracy with its proper meaning at every opportunity - and not to continue to support the confusion through misuse!
A referendum is suffrage on steroids - which is precisely why this concept is repugnant to a Democratic Constitution. The constitution re-expresses an already naturally-existing principle - which is this:
|You have freewill. At the point that the exercising of your freewill encroaches upon the ability of someone else to do the same, you are committing a crime - specifically when doing this with intent and knowledge
Violating someone else's free will is contrary to Natural Law and a crime at Common Law. The Democratic Constitution has, at its heart, the mechanism of Trial by Jury and Jury Independence which is how the people identify these crimes through conscience. The Jury is the final arbiter of law independent of any ‘government’ legislature or state paid ‘judge’. The Jury is the judiciary.
The term ‘Direct’ Democracy is being used to describe a system of policy-making in which the entire population is invited to vote for each piece of legislation, essentially though a referendum and this is problematic as there is no accountability. With a representative system currently, you at least have some level (all be it limited) of accountability.
Deciding upon a blanket policy for the country through a majority vote (a referendum) is potentially committing a crime against those who disagreed: the minority. If a single individual cannot impose upon another’s free will without committing a crime, then so is it the case for a large group or a majority. The size of the group majority makes no difference.
- The majority is often lazy in their thinking
- The majority have often reached their opinion simply because it’s easier to follow the crowd
- The majority sometimes adopt an opinion because thinking the opposite might cause them to have to face difficult truths - and they lack the courage
- The minority hold their opinion in the face of massive opposition, and yet still do so despite this
- There must be some profound truth in the minority’s opinion that contributes to their obstinacy
- The minority often takes more trouble and spend longer reaching their conclusion
- The truth is often unpleasant!
- The opinion of the greater number is not necessarily more correct
All of the above points show that the majority often represents an unconscious choice and one that is reached through a psychosis and an inability to reflect on the reality around them and the reality within themselves.
A society that favours majority group-think is largely made up of people who want the easy path, lie to themselves, wish to outsource difficult decisions and are generally not taking responsibility for themselves. That society is demonstrating that it cannot be trusted to self-govern and is not ready to move to the ‘top table’ of enlightenment.
An additional reason why we are facing these challenges, is because governance itself has become something different. Real governance is about making moral decisions and deciding on matters of justice. But the act of governing seems to have gone beyond its compatibility with Natural Law by including matters of policy and social organisation. Now we have a problem that is directly related to the structure and scope of our society, because in order to have a society that is centrally-organised, large, convenient and big on compatibility and standardisation of systems, then trampling on each other’s free will becomes inevitable. The convenience we gain from systems nationwide operating with compatibility, for example, so allowing us wherever we are in the country to operate consistently and predictably, may have to be sacrificed to a large extent.
Central control and organisation that is imposed on us will infringe on people’s free will. In order to mitigate against this collective desire to organise others but instead return to a community that functions in alignment with Natural Law, we would most likely I suggest, have to return to a localised community in which policy is determined by people through a tribunal and is implemented by local public servants whom we could meet in person if that is so desired. Centralised, national policy-making requires us to outsource aspects of our lives to distant, hidden controllers who are completely separated from the immediate and local needs; and that is not how the Universe wishes us to live, whether you like it or not. Responsibility can only be engendered in a community in which its citizenry can closely witness and take part in the decision-making process and can bring accountability.
A society that clamours for blanket, central rules and policy by a faceless bureaucracy is a sick one and is living in opposition to Natural Law - the very principles that underpin the constitution. Hence this is why a referendum is repugnant to the constitution - because the constitution is there to protect the liberties of the people from a bullying collective.
Andrew Bridgen’s Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill
In order to demonstrate some of these misunderstandings that are prevalent even in the freedom movement, I’m going to use Andrew Bridgen’s recent bill: the Parliamentary Sovereignty (Referendums) Bill as an example.
Andrew has been brave in speaking out about various aspects connected with the Covid event and the vaccine, for which he is to be applauded. However, there are some serious misunderstandings and contradictions in this bill, the enthusiastic support for which by members of the freedom movement, is further cementing our condition of slavery. Briefly there are three points in particular:
- This is unnecessary, because any handing over of the country’s sovereignty and our liberties is already precluded by the constitution.
- The concept of the Referendum - which is unconstitutional for the reasons given above - promotes the erroneous belief that there is some inerrant greater value in the opinion of the majority
- The false claim of parliamentary sovereignty
And now to expand on this a bit! This is hugely important…
Point 1: This Bill is Unnecessary
There is no need for precluding the government from giving away our sovereignty at some point in the future. Any attempt by government to do such things as hand our sovereignty to the EU or the possible future actions of handing over decision-making powers and therefore sovereignty to organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) or the World Economic Forum (WEF), is already unlawful under the constitution. The reason they continue to try this, or threaten this, is simply because there are insufficient numbers pointing this out and drawing attention to this fact - and therefore they are getting away with it in practice.
By ignoring the constitution, the freedom movement - who should know better(!) is further propping-up the lie that there are no lawful constraints placed on the government to limit its powers. Very few actually challenge them on this.
Point 2: Referenda
This action of using referenda is unconstitutional for the reasons explained already in this article. Worst of all, it promotes the erroneous belief that there is some greater inherent value in the opinion of the majority. The constitution does not support this for the simple reason that a majority is often dangerous. If a large proportion of the population have been mind-controlled, miseducated, misdirected or otherwise manipulated through long-term psychological operations or nudging, then the majority becomes lethal to its own freedoms through confusion and misunderstanding. The people are encouraged to betray themselves through this mechanism: they become their own enemy through a condition of psychosis.
The Bill is claiming that (through referenda) the people must be asked before sovereignty is handed away, but this is saying that a wayward and mistaken majority of the people could decide to hand that sovereignty away - just because it’s a consensus. That same consensus, by the way, that came dangerously close to deciding that the rest of us in the minority who might not wish to take a vaccine, for example, must essentially be restricted in our activities and shunned from society. Even if the majority is making a ‘sensible’ decision, it cannot be imposed upon a minority.
The Brexit victory itself, for example, was ‘won’ unconstitutionally - in that it would always have been unlawful to hand over the sovereignty of the nation, in the first place! The government only purports to do these things - but in reality it can’t legitimately. Implementing a referendum to ‘correct’ this was unlawful and not, in fact needed. All that was needed was enough of the people to recognise that taking us into the EU in the first place breached Constitutional and Natural Law and call it out!
Point 3: The on-going false idea of parliamentary sovereignty
Unfortunately this bill reinforces the false notion of parliamentary sovereignty. Andrew says in his speech that ‘This bill will prevent any future government from overturning the democratic will of the British People’! How? A piece of legislation can never bind any future government - because, as the government claims itself correctly, any government can amend or repeal any prior piece of legislation.
This means that legislation is weak and is not long-lasting. It does not mean that government is powerful or parliament is sovereign! This is the root of their misunderstanding and incorrect claims of parliamentary sovereignty.
The only thing government cannot repeal or amend is constitutional law. All legislation must be in alignment with the Constitution and government cannot write or amend constitutional law. The articles of Common Law expressed in the 1215 Magna Carta that were already in existence hundreds of years prior is not legislation and therefore cannot be repealed by government. So the higher constitutional law binds government and its own subsidiary ‘laws’ called statute. Anything they write in statute cannot alter the framework in which the government itself sits.
Conclusions and Some Home Truths!
By not being alert to these contradictions, members of the freedom movement are scoring own goals on the condition of their own slavery. The one mechanism that was designed to bind government and prevent it from becoming tyrannical, was the Constitution. But the awake freedom-lovers are largely ignoring it, falling into traps and facilitating the ignorance of it by cheering-on these contradictory notions.
Liberty lovers need to spot the absurdity of aggressively attacking government when it purports to take your liberty through legislation - whilst at the same time handing it straight back with the other hand.
Whilst pointing at constitutionally-aligned statutes (statutes that are lawful and agree with the constitution) can sometimes be useful and beneficial, it is primarily to the constitution itself that you should be making reference, not their own weaker statutory legislation. There is no discernment going on here: just look at the comments underneath the Youtube video! People are sucking up the rhetoric whilst walking further into enslavement.
No consent can ever lawfully be given by any portion of the people to enslave others just because it’s a majority. It can happen in reality (and has!) when enough people believe that that is legitimate - but this will never rest for any length of time without the Universe delivering serious lessons of contrast back to us in the form of consequences. This is not punishment as such, but, instead, a dispassionate reflection or mirroring of consequences in the form of spiritual lessons for our ultimate benefit and uplift of consciousness - and currently we are failing those tests.
Understand these important principles: the majority cannot and must never have the power to hand over a minority’s freedom. Not only must that not happen, but it ultimately cannot happen whilst remaining a reality in truth and in law without serious repercussions in the form of karmic kick-back. Clamouring for central ‘authoritative’ government or a majority though referendum to command through legislation is fundamentally working against the functioning principles, patterns and tendencies of the Universe. It is a distortion of the way the Universe wishes to operate and it will unravel painfully for all of us if this lesson is not learnt and understood.
WJK - 09/11/2023
Since writing the above I have been reminded that the WEF is itself promoting Direct Democracy: