Mediaboss Marketing

The British National Party is proud to be in possession of some of the most modern and progressive concepts of democracy which are firmly at odds with the other parties increasing totalitarianism.

The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a politically correct elite which thinks it knows best.

On immigration, on capital punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and LibDems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues.

The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels.

Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them.

We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive governments over the last 40 years.

We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people.

We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

In addition, the BNPs policy is to:

Abolish anti-discrimination laws which prevent people from making a free choice

Abolish the Human Rights Act which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world parasiting off this nation

Abolish all restrictions on traditional free speech; common law provisions against incitement to violence are the only proper limits in a free society

Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent

Introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom

Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on Parliament

The BNP Britains most democratic party.

comments

Here is the original post:
DEMOCRACY - British National Party

Overview

All around the world there has been a flurry of protest in the last couple of years as a new generation of activists challenge the transnational corporations and the governments that represent them. Why is there this backlash against globalization, which was supposed to generate peace and prosperity? Why is this happening in Canada, designated by the United Nations as the most desirable country in the world in which to live?

The real issue for most of us is the loss of security. Our jobs have been put at risk, and at the same time the social safety net in this country is being systematically shredded. Access to adequate unemployment insurance, welfare assistance, health care and old age security is rapidly becoming a luxury rather than a right of citizenship in this country. Citizens are feeling abandoned by their governments.

Previous generations of Canadians had struggled to extend their economic, social, and environmental rights. But their efforts to democratically regulate the economic sphere and redistribute national income encountered increasing resistance from corporations anxious to improve their profits.

Over the past thirty years, a power shift has been taking place--out of the hands of citizens and nation states and into the hands of transnational corporations (TNCs).

In this new climate of global competitiveness, governments compromise when corporations threaten to leave the country. They offering lower labour costs, lower environmental standards, lower corporate taxes, and lower social spending. The state is thus effectively re-tooled to serve the interests of big business. Increasingly, the prime role of governments today is to guarantee security for profitable transnational investment.

Giant corporations exercise more power than most nation states in the global economy.

Transnational corporations capture the public policy agenda and re-write the rules at local, national and international levels. People's values, attitudes and tastes are determined by a bombardment of corporate images and logos, beamed into their daily lives through satellite communications. Corporations trigger a sudden rise in stock prices by announcing a massive downsizing of their work-forces, paying lower corporate taxes while reaping the highest profit margins in history, and paying their chief executive officers 150 times more than what they pay their average worker.

Politicians are no longer the prime movers and shakers. Instead, those who own substantial assets are represented by a nexus of financial institutions the International Monetary Fund, bond rating agencies on Wall Street, the Bank of Canada, national banks on Bay Street, and financial investment houses. Investors and their agents dictate the priorities that govern our economic system.

It's not hard to identify the most powerful among them. The Business Council on National Issues is the senior voice in the business community - composed of 150 chief executive officers (CEO's) from the major, transnational corporations with over $1.6 trillion in assets, $500 billion in revenues, and 11/2 million employees. The leading business association in Canada, it orchestrates a consensus among other business organizations and brought untold rewards for themselves. They have orchestrated, among other things the Canada-US free trade agreement, and NAFTA, and the adoption of the Goods and Services tax, the fight for deficit reduction and increasingly the fight for tax cuts. These policies, and more, create more profits for corporations and effectively curb the role and size of the state.

Low and moderate-income people, our communities and our civic institutions have lost power to large corporations and asset-owners in the top 5 percent of households. At the root of the problem is an imbalance of power. Given how economic power and political power are linked, we need a two-part solution: reforming the democratic process to reduce concentrated power, and changing the rules governing our economy to increase equity and reduce concentrated wealth.

1. Expanded democracy We have to strengthen our democratic power in order tackle corporate power and reduce inequality. Or in simple terms, we need organized people power to counter the power of mega-corporations and their owners. This means:

2. Economic fairness We need to change the rules that govern our economy to reduce inequality and ensure that our prosperity is shared. This means:

The corporations are calling on us to sacrifice our power, our wages and our quality of life to help them lower their costs and increase their profits. We must cease putting their interests above those of the majority. Their policies do not bring enough jobs that provide living wages. Avenues to control them include solutions that level the playing field, reduce corporate power and profits, and break up concentrated wealth and power. Despite the opposition they will pose, we can and must make the case that we can have economic security and greater equality, individual liberty and stronger communities.

See original here:
Centre for Social Justice | Democracy & Corporate Power

DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE: The Global Struggle for an Independent Press follows teams of journalists into some of the most dangerous and secretive corners of the world to show how they obtain their stories in the face of suppression, lies, imprisonment and threat of physical harm. To highlight the central role a free press plays in building and preserving democracy, Producer/Director Cal Skaggs and his team combed through two hundred hours of footage to create this dynamic portrayal of independent-minded journalists.

At their best, courageous journalists share a common mission worldwide: bearing witness to the truth as they see it in order to serve their fellow citizens, providing them accurate information, acting as their watchdog over those who hold power and speaking out in behalf of those who have none. Journalists inform; they warn; they analyze and interpret, all to help the public make sense of the world.

From Africa to Latin America, from the Middle East to Russia to the mainstream media in the United States, DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE looks at how members of the news media fulfill their common mission.

Throughout, the film provides vivid reminders of how valuable serious journalism is, and how vigilantly it must be practiced to ensure the health of democracy. American viewers who see how valiantly journalists elsewhere must work to tell the truth may hold their own press corps responsible for a greater degree of truth-telling. Viewers get a comparative look at the state of the press around the world, and see that the walls of secrecy that stand in the way of press freedom can be toppled. DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE sheds light on the pivotal role journalists must play around the globe.

Read about filmmaker Cal Skaggs's motivation for making this film >>

Learn about how technology has changed journalism >>

Find resources to further explore the state of independent media >>

Read more here:
Independent Lens . DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE . The Film | PBS

A democracy is a form of government in which the leaders are chosen by the citizens votes, and in which the people have a say in decisions about the states affairs. The primary characteristics of democracy include political freedom, rule of law, and legal equality. In order for these principles to be authentic, every eligible citizen must have equal access to the legislative process, and the legal system. To explore this concept, consider the following democracy definition.

Noun

Origin

1525-1535 Middle French dmocratie

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. A democratic government contrasts with forms of government in which the power is wielded by a single individual, or a small number of privileged individuals, such as a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.

In modern times, the concept of democracy is often misunderstood. The terms freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing at all. While democracy is a set of fundamental beliefs and principles of freedom, it differentiates from freedom, in that it involves the implementation of procedures and practices to ensure freedom. Most governments in todays world are a mixture of governmental methods.

While most Americans consider their nation to be ruled by a democratic government, the truth is, the U.S. operates as a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that, while Americans embrace democracy, the actual operating of the country is complex. Because individual states retain a great deal of autonomy, a written constitution is necessary to define the authority, responsibilities, and limitations of the federal government, and its relationship with the states.

In the U.S., the power remains with the people, both on the state and federal levels, as they elect representatives through the voting process. While this is commonly thought of as a true democracy, that would require the people to have direct control over legislation. Instead, U.S. citizens participate in the legislative process only through their elected representatives. This is where the term representative democracy originates.

A direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created or abolished by a direct vote of the citizens. This would mean that everything from a change in speed limit on the state highways, to the guilt or innocence of someone being tried for a crime, would be put to a direct vote by the people, rather than their representatives.

Many Americans dont give a lot of thought to the large number of representatives at various levels of government who make decisions on their behalf every single day. From state and federal senators and representatives, who make laws for their constituents, to elected judges and other government officials, the great wheel of the nation runs by the actions of these representatives.

Imagine what todays society would look like if the United States operated as a true democracy, requiring the people to take time out on a regular basis to vote on every important decision to be made. It is likely that todays complex society could never have evolved had this time commitment be required of the nations citizens.

In ancient Athens (about 508-322 B.C.), all citizens voted on all major issues. Athenian citizens were actively involved in all aspects of political life, from voting on the operation of the city, to the trying of all crimes. In fact, in every court case, the assembled citizens voted to determine the outcome. In this example of democracy, it may be true that a direct democracy breeds more political participation. However, the reality of the commitment involved in such an undertaking may deter a great many people in modern times.

Direct Democracy Now! is not a reference to democracy in todays world, but a grass roots organization of ordinary Greek citizens who were actively involved in Greek protests over the organization of their government, in 2011. Direct Democracy Now! Found they could no longer support any of Greeces traditional political parties. The movement is not a political party, but operates as a forum for members to exchange ideas on the political situation in Greece.

A system that works for many nations is the representative democracy, which allows the nations citizens to be involved in the workings of government, without the heavy burden of needing to make daily decisions in its operations. In a representative democracy, all eligible citizens of the nation elect representatives to enact laws, create legislation, and judge legal complaints.

Also known as indirect democracy, or representative republic, many consider the representative democracy to have been born of the French and American revolutions, in the 18th century. As chaos and brutality flowed from the lack of a central government in medieval times, the people sought refuge from pervasive death and destruction. The stronger people provided such protection for the weaker people, in exchange for their labor and allegiance. This was the rise of the kings.

As time went by, the people began to feel oppressed, as many were kept in squalor, with little food or other necessities of life. Poor housing and filthy conditions bred disease and death. The people questioned the kings right to rule them, especially in such a manner. In the 18th century, English philosopher John Locke held that a kings right to rule came only from the consent of the governed.

French political philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron Montesquieu, commonly known simply as Montesquieu, was the first to describe a system in which three separate branches of government executive, legislative, and judicial kept one another in check. In his example of democracy and freedom, Montesquieu wrote:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor. There would be an end to every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals

By this notion, both communities and nations would be most honorably governed by the majority will of the people. This advanced the idea that, while rule of law is imperative to a peaceful and harmonious society, individual freedoms should not be sacrificed to a monarch.

A parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which citizens elect the ruling body, referred as a parliament, by popular vote in a democratic election. The members of parliament then appoint a leader, known as a prime minister, who then chooses members of parliament for his cabinet. Parliament, and the prime minister, remain answerable to the people.

Because the prime minister remains a member of parliament, even while he serves in this elevated role, he is able to draft legislation himself, submitting it to parliament for approval. This further differentiates parliamentary democracy from the representative democracy used in the U.S., as the President is no longer part of the legislative body, but is set apart in the executive branch of government. Parliamentary democracy has its origins in Britain, where it is still in effect today. Many of Britains former colonies have adopted some form of parliamentary democracy.

In May, 2016, Arizona voters approved Proposition 123, by the skin of their teeth. With 51 percent voting yes, and 49 percent voting no, the state was set to infuse an additional $3.5 billion into Arizonas K-12 public schools over the next 10 years. Opponents of Prop 123 didnt give up when the people exercised their democratic right to have the final say on issues put up for popular vote.

Raising concerns over the source of the additional funding for the school systems, the states land trust fund, Arizona resident Michael Pierce filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the funding plan violates the states Enabling Act. Pierce claims that the state needs congressional approval in order to increase the amount of monies paid out of the land trust.

Many citizens of the state are concerned about the legitimacy of the lawsuit, pointing out that having the people vote on an issue is supposed to be giving them the final say. In this example of democracy, to ask the courts to intervene when one is unhappy with the outcome of any election is seen by many to be a slap in the face of democracy.

See the rest here:
Democracy - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

The value of democracy

Why should the people rule? Is democracy really superior to any other form of government? Although a full exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article (see political philosophy), historyparticularly 20th-century history demonstrates that democracy uniquely possesses a number of features that most people, whatever their basic political beliefs, would consider desirable: (1) democracy helps to prevent rule by cruel and vicious autocrats; (2) modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another; (3) countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments; and (4) democracy tends to foster human developmentas measured by health, education, personal income, and other indicatorsmore fully than other forms of government do. Other features of democracy also would be considered desirable by most people, though some would regard them as less important than features 1 through 4 above: (5) democracy helps people to protect their fundamental interests; (6) democracy guarantees its citizens fundamental rights that nondemocratic systems do not, and cannot, grant; and (7) democracy ensures its citizens a broader range of personal freedoms than other forms of government do. Finally, there are some features of democracy that some peoplethe critics of democracywould not consider desirable at all, though most people, upon reflection, would regard them as at least worthwhile: (8) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to live under laws of their own choosing; (9) only democracy provides people with a maximum opportunity to take moral responsibility for their choices and decisions about government policies; and (10) only in a democracy can there be a relatively high level of political equality.

These advantages notwithstanding, there have been critics of democracy since ancient times. Perhaps the most enduring of their charges is that most people are incapable of participating in government in a meaningful or competent way because they lack the necessary knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, experience, or character. Thus Plato, as noted above, argued that the best government would be an aristocracy of philosopher-kings whose rigorous intellectual and moral training would make them uniquely qualified to rule. The view that the people as a whole are incapable of governing themselves has been espoused not only by kings and aristocratic rulers but also by political theorists (Plato foremost among them), religious leaders, and other authorities. The view was prevalent in one form or another throughout the world during most of recorded history until the early 20th century, and since then it has been most often invoked by opponents of democracy in Europe and elsewhere to justify various forms of dictatorship and one-party rule.

No doubt there will be critics of democracy for as long as democratic governments exist. The extent of their success in winning adherents and promoting the creation of nondemocratic regimes will depend on how well democratic governments meet the new challenges and crises that are all but certain to occur.

At the beginning of the 21st century, democracy faced a number of challenges, some of which had been problems of long standing, others of which were of more recent origin.

Although decentralized market economies encouraged the spread of democracy, in countries where they were not sufficiently regulated such economies eventually produced large inequalities in economic and social resources, from wealth and income to education and social status (see income inequality). Because those with greater resources naturally tended to use them to influence the political system to their advantage, the existence of such inequalities constituted a persistent obstacle to the achievement of a satisfactory level of political equality. This challenge was magnified during regularly occurring economic downturns, when poverty and unemployment tended to increase.

After World War II, immigration to the countries of western Europe, Australia, and the United States, both legal and illegal, increased dramatically. Seeking to escape poverty or oppression in their homelands and usually lacking education, immigrants primarily from the developing world typically took menial jobs in service industries or agriculture. Differences in language, culture, and appearance between immigrant groups and the citizens of the host country, as well as the usually widespread perception that immigrants take jobs away from citizens and use expensive social services, made immigration a hotly debated issue in many countries. In some instances, anti-immigrant sentiment contributed to the emergence or growth of radical political parties and movements, such as the National Front in France, The Republicans in Germany, the militia movement and various white supremacist groups in the United States, and the skinhead movement in the United States and Britain. Some of these organizations promoted racist or neofascist doctrines that were hostile not only to immigrants but also to fundamental political and human rights and even to democracy itself. In the early 21st century, anti-immigrant sentiment fueled a revival of chauvinistic parties and movements in western Europe and contributed to the electoral victory of U.S. presidential candidate Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Acts of terrorism committed within democratic countries or against their interests in other parts of the world occurred with increasing frequency beginning in the 1970s. In the United States remarkably few terrorist attacks had taken place before the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. The deadliest single act of terrorism anywhere, the September 11 attacks of 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center and killed some 3,000 people, mainly in New York City and Washington, D.C.

In response to such events and especially in the wake of the September 11 attacks, democratic governments adopted various measures designed to enhance the ability of police and other law-enforcement agencies to protect their countries against terrorism. Some of these initiatives entailed new restrictions on citizens civil and political liberties and were accordingly criticized as unconstitutional or otherwise inconsistent with democratic principles. In the early 21st century it remained to be seen whether democratic governments could strike a satisfactory balance between the sometimes conflicting imperatives of ensuring security and preserving democracy.

At the end of the 18th century, in response to the dilemma of size described earlier, the focus of both the theory and the practice of democracy shifted from the small association of the city-state to the far larger nation-state. Although their increased size enabled democracies to solve more of the problems they confronted, there remained some problems that not even the largest democracy could solve by itself. To address these problems several international organizations were established after World War II, most notably the United Nations (1945), and their numbers and responsibilities grew rapidly through the rest of the 20th century.

These organizations posed two related challenges to democracy. First, by shifting ultimate control of a countrys policies in a certain area to the international level, they reduced to a corresponding extent the influence that citizens could exert on such policies through democratic means. Second, all international organizations, even those that were formally accountable to national governments, lacked the political institutions of representative democracy. How could these institutions be made democraticor at least more democratic?

In their effort at the beginning of the 21st century to forge a constitution for the new European Union (EU)eventually abandoned in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (2007)and in their ongoing struggle with opponents of the EU (Euroskeptics) in various countries, European leaders faced both of these challenges, as well as most of the fundamental questions posed above (see Fundamental questions). What kind of association is appropriate to a democratic government of Europe? What persons or entities should constitute the European dmos? What political organizations or institutions are needed? Should decisions be made by majority? If so, by what kind of majoritya majority of persons, of countries, of both countries and persons, or of something else? Do all the conditions necessary for satisfactory democratic government exist in this huge and diverse association? If not, would a less democratic system be more desirable?

For many of the countries that made a transition to democracy in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the problems and challenges facing democracy were particularly acute. Obstacles in the path of a successful consolidation of democratic institutions included economic problems such as widespread poverty, unemployment, massive inequalities in income and wealth, rapid inflation, and low or negative rates of economic growth. Countries at low levels of economic development also usually lacked a large middle class and a well-educated population. In many of these countries, the division of the population into antagonistic ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic groups made it difficult to manage political differences peacefully. In others, extensive government intervention in the economy, along with other factors, resulted in the widespread corruption of government officials. Many countries also lacked an effective legal system, making civil rights highly insecure and allowing for abuse by political elites and criminal elements. In these countries the idea of the rule of law was not well established in the prevailing political culture, in some cases because of constant warfare or long years of authoritarian rule. In other respects the political culture of these countries did not inculcate in citizens the kinds of beliefs and values that could support democratic institutions and practices during crises or even during the ordinary conflicts of political life.

In light of these circumstances, it is quite possible that the extraordinary pace of democratization begun in the 20th century will not continue long into the 21st century. In some countries, authoritarian systems probably will remain in place. In some countries that have made the transition to democracy, new democratic institutions probably will remain weak and fragile. Other countries might lose their democratic governments and revert to some form of authoritarian rule.

Yet, despite these adversities, the odds are great that in the foreseeable future a very large share of the worlds population, in a very large share of the worlds countries, will live under democratic forms of government that continue to evolve in order to meet challenges both old and new.

See the original post:
Democracy - The value of democracy | Britannica.com