Deselection as important as Election

under 600 words

The casting and correct counting of meaningful votes is at the heart of democracy. Any use of the word without such is abuse of language. It remains abuse even if it has become routine, for example, when the expression “liberal democracy” is used to refer to political entities which have abandoned universal suffrage in any meaningful sense.

The expression “liberal democracy” is mainly used to mean something desirable, but different, namely a liberal dispensation with the rule of law, property rights, freedom of speech and properly regulated markets. Such a dispensation does not necessarily include voting for political representatives. Least of all, political representatives that can give a direction of travel and act as a check & a balance.

This said, the casting of meaningful votes should not be restricted to election alone: it should also encompass the possibility of de-selection.

In the UK there has been a small step in this direction with the possibility of sitting MPs being forced to stand again, usually in the wake of gross misconduct. Not, interestingly, when they have pursued in parliament major policies the exact opposite of those they were elected to support. This occurred massively after the Brexit vote, when MPs of both parties did all they could to sabotage the decision of the British nation.

I wish to go much further.

This not least in response to what has transpired since 2020. Public figures and officials, i.e. persons who have not been elected but appointed, have consistently made decisions which defy all logic, reason, common morality or indeed the facts.

These people include many judges, public prosecutors and heads of police. They have taken a stance to maximise harm to society. We are not talking about occasional errors of judgement but about measures to reverse and sabotage the ancient fundamentals of English society. They are traitors.

My proposal is that such decisions and rulings must be catalogued, each with the name of the perpetrator; this information must be made easily available to the general public. Mass media, now partly financed by government, must be compelled to publish it.

Once a sufficient number of citizens have registered their distrust of any individual judge, public prosecutor or head of police, a de-selection vote can be held on whether they should continue in office. In some cases, deselection might mean loss of pension rights and debarment from earning income from professional work.

There are technical details to attend to. The electorate should not be overwhelmed with long lists of names of persons facing deselection. The solution is for each of those indicted for deselection to stand only in the locality of their place of residence or place of action (including inaction). That locality might be a county, for example.

The deselection process is needed not only for rogue judges and similar officials engaged in law enforcement. It is appropriate for all appointees to public office.

This would include directors of the BBC, which is financed through mandatory subscriptions by all who own a television irrespective of which channels they view. BBC news staff have not only — maliciously and deliberately — distorted the words of a US President, but have suppressed all debate about the dangers of vaccination; they have persistently propagated blatant lies about climate change and carbon dioxide. All journalists and gatekeepers who have participated in these massive deceptions should themselves face exclusion from professional life, but for that different processes are needed such as those I propose at https://www.klasseverantwortung.com/ .