Participatory Democracy Versus Representative Democracy

Although the attention of the British public has long been distracted by Media Disinformation campaigns there are still occasions when the press publish a small fragment of an issue of constitutional importance.

For example, when reading about the recent troubles in Eqypt I was intrigued by a comment contained within the article Hillary Clinton says Egypt needs transition towards democracy. The article reported that

'US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said a move towards a participatory government [my emphasis] has to be initiated but cautioned that the Egyptian establishment should make sure there is no political vacuum in the process of transition'.

Just like you I was convinced that in the United Kingdom we lived in a representative democracy where constituents elected their representatives to take up issues on their behalf in Westminster. What has become clear in recent decades is that Governments may change colour but there is no difference in policies between the competing political parties. Neither do they honour their manifesto promises. Your vote no longer counts. Does the style of 'participatory government' that Clinton is promoting for Egypt already exist in the UK?

What Is Participatory Democracy?

Participatory Democracy is the form of Democracy that is favoured by Globalists who inhabit the United Nations and the EU. According to the UN eminent persons' panel -

'Traditional democracy aggregates citizens by communities of neighbourhood (their electoral districts), but in participatory democracy citizens aggregate in communities of interest. And thanks to modern information and communication technologies these communities of interest can be global as well as local'. We the peoples: civil society, the United Nations and global governance, June 2004.

Remember this:

'NGOs provide the interface between globalists and the rest of society ... Every CSO-NGO is empowered by a funding source that pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether public or private, works to advance an agenda that is coordinated by, and developed through, the NGO triumvirate working with UN agencies and national governments'. 

Henry Lamb, in his article Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future, enhances our understanding of this new system when he tells us that

'the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment (Earth Summit I) had far more international significance than was ever reported. It institutionalised the environment as a legitimate concern of government and institutionalised NGO's as the instruments through which government could varnish its agenda with the appearance of public support'.

Lamb also informs us that

'the practice started by Maurice Strong at the 1972 conference of cloaking the agenda with the perception of public grassroots support from NGO's culminated in Rio in 1992 with the largest collection of NGOs ever assembled in support of Agenda 21. Only those NGOs that were "accredited" by the UN Conference were permitted to attend and only those which had demonstrated support for the agenda were funded'.

This new system of Global Governance has displaced our traditional model of Representative Government and undermined our democratic principles by disenfranchising the British electorate. An example of the phenomenon known as 'astro-turfing' appeared in the  Telegraph in January 2009 when it reported that Government are 'fixing health consultations' with taxpayer funded groups. Within this article it stated that

'Alan Johnson announced that the display of cigarettes and tobacco in shops would be banned in England & Wales from 2011. Mr. Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an "overwhelming majority" of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject'.

The Telegraph then went on to tell its readership that

'Only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.

Participatory Democracy In Action

The most blatant example of how the voice of the British electorate has been silenced and replaced by the views of favoured NGOs is best illustrated by reference to the following short extract from the Hansard Report of the House of Commons debate concerning ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

David Miliband: Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has pledged its support for the provisions of the treaty - [Interruption] Let me make the point.

Several hon. members rose -

David Miliband: No. I am going to make the point. The NSPCC pledged its support, as have One World Action and Oxfam - [Interruption] I will give way in due course - [Interruption] Environmental organisations support the treaty provisions on sustainable development and even the Commission of Bishops supports the treaty.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): Would not the Government be in a much stronger position to defend a treaty...if they had not promised a referendum, yet are now denying it? Is it not the real issue that people in Britain...believe that the Government have gone back on their word?

Representation By The Unelected

In relation to our continuing involvement with the European Union a referendum could have been held. Instead, the six European Treaties were ratified without our approval, consultation, or consent. Did you give consent that your views could be expressed to Parliament via the NSPCC, One World Action, Oxfam, Environmental Groups or the Commission of Bishops?

I thought not.

Whilst our attention has been distracted elsewhere the United Nations model of Participatory Democracy has been introduced by stealth.

Could this 'sham democracy' be the style of Government to be imposed on the Nations of the Middle East by the United Nations & its Agencies, I wonder?