According to the official definition, democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Most people that I know, believe this to be the fairest system and the one that most effectively represents the views of the people. This in turn should, in an ideal world, lead to the best decisions being made for the country. Until, I suppose, it doesn’t.

So it’s worth noting that two-thirds of the UK electorate cast their vote in the general election

Brexit, again in the opinion of most people I know, would be one example of a democratic decision not in fact in the best interests of the people who voted for it. It is widely accepted that many voted for Brexit in 2016 as they were misled in terms of what Brexit actually looked like.

However, with Boris Johnson and the Conservative party getting such a “thumping majority” as it has been described, in last week’s election, it would appear that the UK has endorsed their desire to “get Brexit done”. Low voter turn-out can also lead to a failure in democracy.

So it’s worth noting that two-thirds of the UK electorate cast their vote in the general election. It was said after our recent poor by-election showing that the constituents of the areas where the by-elections were held had now no right to complain about their representatives as they failed to show up.

The same could be said for the IFA elections of late.

My curiosity was peaked as to who could be considered so suitably non-afflicted by the challenges of our modern world to govern in a more effective manner than an elected Government

As I was driving into Kilkenny the weekend before last, the radio clicked onto the Mario’s Sunday Roast on Today FM. Mario and his guests were talking about the problems that we are experiencing in our democratic countries.

A suggestion was made that we would be better served by a committee of 10 to rule the country with a rotating chair. Mario was queried on who he would see sitting on this committee.

The point was made that they should not have any vested interests and had to be “good” people. My curiosity was peaked as to who could be considered so suitably non-afflicted by the challenges of our modern world to govern in a more effective manner than an elected Government.

The names were Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Peter McVerry.

I am simply saying that there are very few people that have no deep-seated interest in something that wouldn’t dominate their views if given the power to rule the country

You would have to be living under a rock not to know that our former Irish president Mary Robinson plays a vocal role as a climate justice advocate. Similarly, Mary McAleese is vocal in relation to her views on the Catholic Church.

And Fr Peter McVerry is known across the country for his work with the homeless. I am not suggesting that the advocacy roles taken up by these individuals are not important.

I am simply saying that there are very few people that have no deep-seated interest in something that wouldn’t dominate their views if given the power to rule the country without recourse to an electorate.

Aside from IFA, I see that one of the newer groups is holding elections in an attempt to organise themselves

It has been said now that Boris has this “thumping majority” and is no longer simply trying to get re-elected, we might see what he really wants.

Similarly we will see the same with the farm organisations now the elections are over and the work commences.

Aside from IFA, I see that one of the newer groups is holding elections in an attempt to organise themselves. Governance and having people in place that are accountable for decisions is important.

Doing it in a democratic fashion is the best way we have to achieve that at the moment.

Read more

The importance of farmers supporting other farmers

Life would suck if everybody was the same