Talk:Chartism

Annual general elections is a good thing I am "convinced"

annual general elections is a good thing I am "convinced"

Hello from Perth, Western Australia. I have read your informative web page on http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartist I had somewhat of a "road to Damascus" experience re: democratic processes, back in 1986. After all these years I am still strongly "convinced" that what we need is annual general elections. One of my fundamental beliefs is that this would help all people engage more in their community. And since we are by definition a "social animal" I think it therefore fair to assume this would assist our sense happiness. Below is a piece describing why I think we (i.e. every country in the world) should have annual general elections. My "Bible" of democratic thought is A. D. Lindsay's book The Essentials of Democracy (from his series of lectures in 1929). He states: "There is a good deal to be said ... for the view that a modern industrial democratic society, with its oligarchically governed industry and its democratic political structure, is a house divided against itself, and that unless we somehow make our industry more democratic, our politics must become more oligarchic. But it depends on ourselves which of these two things shall happen." Lindsay does not go so far as to promote annual general elections (AGE's). However to my mind, AGE's would be - amongst many other things - a good role model for industry, home, school, social & civic society, etc. Your comments are welcome. Please reply to davidtehr@gmail.com ^^^ Compassion to be effective requires detailed knowledge and understanding of how society works. Any social system in turn requires men and women in it of imagination and goodwill. What would be fatal would be for those with exceptional human insight and concern to concentrate to ministering to individuals, whilst those accepting responsibility for the design and management of organisations were left to become technocrats. What is important is that institutions and their administration be constantly tested against human values, and that those who are concerned about these values be prepared to grapple with the complex realities of modern society as it is. I consider the "holy trinity" of democracy to be abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia. Why? Because as far as I can tell (and certainly by all the best psychological & personality testing) good people of great compassion, insight, intelligence, enlightenment, social standing, charisma, leadership qualities, etc etc .... can (and do!) disagree about these issues. And, let's admit it, there is simply no compromise possible (unlike with most other issues where a "middle ground" can often be found). This "holy trinity" therefore points to the fact that there will always be issues for which there are two valid "sides" - be it taxation levels, where the tax is spent, or any other economic or social "policy" a particular government (or alternative government) may put forward. So, let "The People" ultimately be the deciders. If "they" really WANT abortion to be illegal, then so be it. As also with the other two "holy trinity" issues ... or any other issue for that matter. Just so long as one has a freedom of speech to campaign (lawfully & non-violently) against these laws. When I was an undergraduate I remember our psychology 101 class devising a questionnaire that indicated where people stood on the issue of abortion. It was out of 200 points and if you scored below 100 you were "pro-life", above 100 you were "pro-choice". Most of the class scored in the 95-110 range. One other person scored 115 and I scored 164. (I would have scored higher except some of the questions were phrased rather badly.) Not so long after this I was at a dinner party where the topic of conversation centred around the controversy of the (very) young (14yo?) Irish girl who had been raped and had fallen pregnant from the rape. She was subsequently banned by her government from flying to England to have an abortion. Everyone at the dinner party said "The Irish government can't do that." Why was I, probably the most pro choice person in the room, the only person able to argue the case as to why the Irish government could (and indeed should) ban her from flying to England if they saw abortion as murder? I believe the world just ain't going to get the idea about what democracy is all about until we elevate it to where it belongs - a "secular religion" that gives legitimacy to the laws of the day (as opposed to the legitimacy of any antediluvian "good book" - or charismatic leader interpreting said book.) Voting is our most sacred communal "rite", don't you think? Why don't we do it every year, once a year? Then each country's legislature could pass strongly mandated laws from "The People" that restrict and limit the collateral damage from those most heinous of criminals: the globalised corporations that ignore or try to undermine the host country's own cultural norms. And no, I do not believe this would lead to an ochlocracy (i.e. "mob rule"). Especially with a strong & encouraged "alternative government" -- and the majoritarian, preferential voting system Australia presently enjoys. May the Good Lord-Buddha-Allah-Krishna-Jesus-Wagyl (a local Aboriginal Dreamtime Spirit) forbid that we should ever adopt an Aotearoa New Zealand proportional representation electoral system. Although I would be happier with a unicameral system! (i.e. single-House legislature without an "upper House" - like NZ and many other parts of the world.) I do NOT like proportional representation because I do not like "minor parties". I sincerely believe much of the trouble in the Middle East would be alleviated if Israel had a different electoral system (it is fully proportional representation and thus a party to form government must form alliances in the legislature with all sorts of weird far-right [usually religious] or far-left political parties). It is one of my greatest lamentations that Israel adopted this most useless and dysfunctional electoral system. As you may know, the idea of annual general elections were mooted by the 19th century British "Chartists" who also wanted another 5 major reforms to the British political system of the day, viz: Universal suffrage Secret ballot Equal electoral boundaries Any man can stand for election to parliament Parliamentarians are paid a salary These last 5 are now "canons of the faith" of democracy, and to the best of my knowledge Australia was the first country in the world to implement them. (You may wish to correct me on this if I am wrong). No country has yet implemented annual general elections. We have built quite a wonderful House of Democracy in Australia. However we have yet to learn how to maintain it properly. The inability to conceive that the other side's stance/argument may have validity is just one of the many small but important negative "mind sets" that would be far more difficult to maintain if we had annual general elections. I believe it would be a catalyst for a "celebration of uncertainty" rather than the present-day (universal/traditional) religious festival's denial of it. I sincerely believe that annual general elections would go a long way to changing how we all interact with each other: from nation-to-nation right down to the minutia of family interactions. We are still largely "tribal" driven. i.e. our identification still seems largely with "our kind of people". However in an educated, scientific, post modernist world, surely we are capable of multiple identifications. e.g. I may be a white Anglo/Celtic male in Australia (and therefore "belonging" to a "majority" in Australia) But I may also identify with the issues of married adults without children, pacifists, people with siblings who have disabilities (or, as an even smaller minority, a particular type of disability), or any other number of issues that would cast me as a minority. In particular I believe democratic processes help to "de-tribalise" us. I may still identify strongly with certain cultural markers, but through the wonder of the secret ballot I can, if I wish, nevertheless vote against any leader or policy that may emanate from my strongest social identifiers. In the past (and present) democracy has often been seen to fail where entrenched social identifiers make one "side" a permanent minority - as with Northern Ireland or many emerging (fully enfranchised) democratic states like South Africa or Zimbabwe. I have faith that continuing education, and in particular annual general elections, will help break down these traditional (and false) divides and bring people to realise their differences are more ideological (in a secular, scientific manner) than genetic and/or religious. Besides the practicalities of annual general elections (greater stability, better responsiveness from legislatures, better long-term planning, better accountability, stronger mandates for change where needs-be, better participation in community policy-making & politics, better deliberation about policies, more dialog about policies, etc etc) .... there is also a very important deep psychological need being addressed here: What do ALL religions have in common? Annual festivals that inculcate & CELEBRATE their world view. "The poorest he in England hath as much a life to live as the richest he". So sayeth Colonel Rainboro in 1647 during the Putney debates after the turmoil of the English Civil War. That seems to me the authentic note of democracy. However different men may be in wealth or ability or learning, living their life is their concern and their responsibility. That is for true democrats the real meaning of human equality. It is not a scientific or a common-sense doctrine. It is a religious and moral principle. It is the translation into non-theological language of the spiritual priesthood of all believers. Men who could say things like that (especially in 1647!) have gone deep into the heart of things. When I imagine annual general elections, I see a land of stability & accountability ..... inculcating the principles of democracy to our youth. Just as ALL traditional "religions" celebrate and commemorate their own "world view" via annual festivals (it must be something in the human psyche Horatio, because they ALL do it), so I also would like to see the "religion" of democracy similarly celebrated and commemorated. Did you know that the Greek derivative for the word "heretic" means "able to choose"? In the not too distant past, we handed down to our children our own various creeds and dogmas. This saved us from having to think critically - all we had to do was fight (and kill) anyone who challenged them. Westminster has two red lines separating the two sides of the parliament. The distance apart??? ....... Two broad-swords. The symbolism here of course is that ideas (and creeds, and dogmas, and philosophies etc.) can clash, but nobody may be physically injured or restrained for holding and/or expressing them (at least should they be expressed in the parliament through an elected representative). Outside parliament however the government has the power to use force wherever it deems necessary. Government enforces a monopoly on the use of force so that no other person can use force to settle their differences (i.e. to "take the law into their own hands", as it were). The check & balance to that monopoly however is that if they misuse that force they can be turfed out of office via free, fair and frequent elections. That annual general elections is a good thing I am "convinced" - in the truly religious sense of the word! The only issue I am uncertain about is .... what would be the best day of the year to hold it? I am presently leaning towards Good Friday. It's already a holiday in most democratic nations; it's a long weekend so hopefully the election results would be in before the weekend is over; it has a certain symbolic alliance with the Christian festival since there would be a time of "darkness" when no-one was sure of the result; and it would be a "tipping of the hat" towards the Christian heritage (in that modern representative democracy arose within its culture). Plus of course it follows the historical tradition of Christianity - taking over the main festivals of the day and claiming them for itself! However, if someone can suggest a better day/date I would love to hear it. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& I thought I would also forward a bit of to-and-fro with my Green Friend Adrian on the subject of Majoritarian voting (i.e. one member electorates that require 50% +1 vote to win a seat) v's. Proportional Representation (like Israel). I do hope you might give the idea of annual general elections some serious consideration. I know it is running against the general flow of democratic theory at the moment (everyone wants LONGER terms in Canberra!) I am nevertheless still convinced of it's power. Of course it cannot work until everyone wants it to work (well, most people ... at least a solid majority! :-)) At 21:52 03/08/02, Adrian wrote: Subject: unbridled democracy Dear David, Methinks you are ignoring the role of the party system in grinding up independents, when there is a 'first past the post' vote; the other problem is the extension of the executive which does pretty much what it wants. Compare this with Tasmanian Hare-Clark, with rotating ballot paper lists (so people are voted on genuine popularity)! Warm regards, Adrian From: David Tehr To: Adrian Subject: Re: unbridled democracy Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 Hello again Adrian, as you may have guessed I like the party system, particularly the two-party system. It brings the best of two competing worlds - ability for change AND a reasonable degree of stability. If independents or minor parties are able to win a seat with majoritarian voting (i.e. one-member electorates where 50% +1 vote is needed to win the seat) then good luck to them. As I said the other night, it is even possible a 'minor' party may become the 'alternative government' (and then the govt) as Labour did at the expense of the Liberals in the UK. However I do not like an electoral system (like PR: Hare-Clark or otherwise) that almost guarantees independents and minor parties and makes it almost impossible for one party to gain a majority on the floor of the legislature. I do however think that a good sized legislature keeps the executive reasonably honest (lots of backbenchers they have to keep happy). And of course annual general elections would assist those who have genuine leadership qualities (and are 'popular') over the party hacks who often get safe seats. The debate/discussion/dialog that we are having right now is to me the most important question that faces the human race at the moment. The 'Cold War' was essentially the "single-party state" v's the "multi-party state". The latter has more or less won that debate (albeit with a few minor recalcitrants like China!) The real debate now is: "What sort of multi-party state do we want?" There are certainly a few different models out there: USA, Britain, NZ, France, Germany, Israel, etc etc. I love Australia's preferential voting (over 'first past the post') Personally I don't like the USA 'separation of legislature & executive' model. And I see no reason to have a 'House of review' - Qld & NZ get by quite well with only One House. Just so long as there are free, fair & frequent elections ... If we could get annual general elections in, it would be interesting to think of a voting age from, say, 13. Most 'traditional' societies have set 13 as the age of 'adulthood' (and modern psychology has confirmed that around 13 is when we all our mental faculties have matured - it's simply the 'school of hard knocks' [i.e. experience] that guides us from then on in). Not only would we have a wonderful annual festival celebrating democratic processes, but private rites of passage welcoming the young ones into the rights of adulthood (especially the sacred act of voting). Yeah, I know it's just a dream ... But in the cold hard light of day it's still one I'm happy to hold on to. Is there any particular reason you so like independents and small parties? Especially since so many of them around the world seem awfully right-wing or fanatical! I honestly believe so much of Israel's problems come from the fact that religious fanatics inevitably seem to hold the balance of power there. Does one have to hold a seat in a legislature to get things done? What about a strong lobby group that gets concessions from either/both major parties before elections, or even working within one of the parties? Don't 'balance of power' minorities muddy the waters of accountability? Anyway, as I said before ... I think this is the real debate of today. Let us pray whichever system wins out will be the best for all concerned. In the end I know that's certainly what thee & me and most people want (indeed, who doesn't???!!!) All the best, David At 18:30 06/08/02, Adrian wrote: Subject: Democracy is only democracy when minority interests are protected Dear David, I can't stand the two party system because it leads to polarity (1940s-1950s) or convergence/mediocrity (our current state). The advantage of a New Zealand system is that issues are more likely to be debated than when one side shoves it through. And in the 2 party system bars are so high, it's almost impossible to get a third force elected. Although there is some thought that right-wing and left-wing balance each other out, I think that left-wing tend to come up with more ideas and innovations. The right is more likely to implode on its hate, if it doesn't take the rest of us with it. All the best, Adrian Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 To: Adrian From: David Tehr Subject: Re: Democracy is only democracy when minority interests are protected Hi Adrian, thanks for continuing this discussion. I'm sure you know deep down that we are both on the "same side" when it comes to matters of worldly import ... we just may disagree somewhat/sometimes on how best to achieve the end results we (both) want. I agree that it's almost impossible to get a third force elected - but that's what I like about majoritarian electoral systems! I don't believe it stops minorities or "third forces" from being heard or influencing policy however. Elections are won and lost by a few percentage points. If a minority has a reasonable grievance then it is politic for one or both parties to listen to what they want. If it is not seen as reasonable then the parties can shut them out (especially with Australia's wonderful preferential voting system). I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A BAD THING!!! Australia's experience with the radical One Nation Party is a good case-in-point. Both major parties agreed they were too radical and agreed to "put them last" on their 'how to vote' cards. This "minority" thereafter is faced with the following dynamic: Look to how they are putting their message over to the general public (and therefore the major parties); OR, re-evaluate the reasonableness of the grievance itself; AND/OR the general public will respond to the grievance in some way (in the case of One Nation by better education on the issues the party raises?) However, if a minority gains a balance of power in a legislature it can (in my eyes unreasonably) FORCE their agenda upon the majority. Majority interests need to be "protected" as well !!! One of the main points of having annual general elections is so that things are debated more often and more vigorously. In a modern, educated, scientific community debate is a great thing. Alas, so many of our fellow citizens tire of it and yearn for "easy answers" - when there are none! Is it any wonder that fundamentalists gain converts all the time? Cannot you see the power of CELEBRATING democratic processes annually? I have been out on the town with our good friend XXX and some of her Green friends. I love XXX dearly and she has a good sense of being able to "agree to differ", but I do wonder about some of her friends who take a hard-line on EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE THROUGH CONSENSUS. This is a nice idea at an organisational level (one can "vote with one's feet" and leave - or be kicked out). But it is not only impractical but downright illogical (and wrong) at the level of government (where everything is compulsory - you cannot leave or be kicked out). And these are intelligent people as far as I can see! I also do not believe that convergence is necessarily mediocrity. People are generally happy to use the ballot over the bullet because there is a fair amount of convergence - in life. Most people agree about most things most of the time. It's when & where they don't that makes life so interesting (and most people disagree about some things all the time!!!) Another point of annual elections is to help "lift the game" - of everyone. It forces people and their society/community to deliberate about the issues of the day; it guarantees a degree of moderation in all things (one can't be tooooo radical); while at the same time helping to extinguish sweep-it-under-the-carpet mediocrity. New Opposition leaders have a chance to learn by their mistakes instead of the party having to cull them after each lost election. (Lose three or four elections and maybe and you're out, but that's only one term in today's system.) A political party simply can't afford to (read: WON'T!) hang onto a leader after even two electoral losses when the terms are three or four years between elections. Thee & me may continue to disagree over this issue until that Great & Terrible Day (or whatever :-)). Let us remember that those things which unite us are FAR greater than those things which divide us. You are a good man Adrian and I am always happy to be in your company. Heretically yours, David Tehr Perth, Western Australia

The Chartist Tricolour

I (perhaps mis-) understood that the Chartist called for a British Republic and in fact there is a Chartist Tricolour. What does it look like? [[PaulinSaudi 06:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

Chartism in France and Portugal before?

I'm a casual reader, and have been searching for the early uses of the terms "Chartist" and "Chartism" on Newspapers.com. It seems there were Chartist movement in France (by 1820), Portugal (by 1837), and England (by 1837) before the People's Charter in 1838. Was this a case of embracing the name from other movements, or were they one and the same? I'll comment again if I can find a scholarly source to clear this up. ~ Peter S. Scholtes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.240.125 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Peter, these were different homonymic movements. British Chartism was built around a people's charter, which was a working-class petition demanding electoral reform that was never adopted by parliament. The Portuguese Cartistas supported a constitutional charter (a constitution) introduced by the King of Portugal which was conservative in nature and reinforced the power of the monarch and the nobility. I'm not sure about the French use of the term but I doubt it was related to either of these.

"Charter" can refer to any kind of document, so supporting a charter, especially in different international contexts, didn't necessarily mean support for the same thing - in the case of Britain and Portugal it meant the exact opposite! ~2026-41776-2 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Movie scene included

There is a scene from some work, described as a dramatization of something. Is this an appropriate medium for wikipedia? Tildin (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking if a scene from a movie dramatising Chartism can be included in this article? The answer is yes, if the caption states it's a fictionalised, dramatised depiction of Chartism and if the movie is copyright free, which most are not. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)