It would be a grave mistake to believe that the effects of Covid 19 could be analysed in isolation. Life in Britain would be affected not only by this single factor but by three factors which are: the consequences of the pandemic, Brexit and the misguided belief that populism is a true manifestation of democracy. We should prepare ourselves to face this ‘trilogy of troubles’ while we still can. 1. The pandemic forced us to think for ourselves. It also taught us that our future depends on cooperation. We should learn to re- exercise this re-discovered faculty. 2. Brexit, on the other hand, is yet to teach us the exact opposite: from now on we, as a nation, would have to fight our battles on our own. 3. Populism is not a manifestation of democracy. Populism is the door-opener to autocracy; Donald Trump, Putin, Netanyahu and Erdogan are just a few examples of this frightening trend. Populism is about negativity, slogans and referenda, while democracy ought to be an exchange of ideas about the character and make-up of a better society. The most important lessons we should learn from the forced isolation of Covid 19 are that we are capable of thinking for ourselves and by exercising this renewed ability we must conclude that if we want a better world we must act now and we must act together. Had it not been due to the distraction by the pandemic, Brexit would have been uppermost on our minds. It is beyond doubt, though, that Brexit would play a major future-role in our lives but, not being a prophet, I am unable to foresee the true and full impact of Brexit. Populism is indeed a natural by-product of democracy. Unfortunately, populism is evil. It thrives because there is an absence of true ideology. Waiting for a leader with the ideas of a better world has been proven to be a forlorn hope in my lifetime. It is up to us, the people, to do something about this vacuum and lack of true leadership. For democracy to survive the corrosive impact of populism we must revert to fundamentals, to the examination of our diverse vision of the nature of governance. Contrary to a life-long habit of entrusting few elected people to discuss and determine those issues on our behalf, it should be undertaken by us, the electorate, to formulate those basic concepts which are: life within an organised society, the essence of democracy, of politics and especially of Governance. Although it should be up to us to decide on the principles, we would still need elected representatives for the implementation of those fundamentals. It is illogical, though, to entrust our elected representatives with both formulating our ideals on our behalf as well as the implementation of those wishes. Some might claim that this idea is old hat. It might be argued that we have already had Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy which in reality are no more than misrepresentation of the Athenian Agora: a small assortment of randomly picked citizens chosen to discuss important, but pragmatic, matters (which are not chosen by them) such as deciding which action is preferred; repairing potholes or building a new hospital, is not a true democracy in action. We need a Nationwide Debate on the fundamentals of governance, not about current issues. We must indicate to our elected representatives the nature of the society we would like to live in, and the rules by which we would like to be governed. We should ban the fraudulent use of referenda which allows the demagogues to misrepresent the issues and the facts, thus avoiding having a true debate. It must be emphasised that this is not a call for a written British Constitution because the issue whether we should have such a document must be determined by the proposed National Debate. Whoever has a doubt of the need for a National Debate rather than leaving the matter to be decided by our representatives should be aware of the elected American president deciding that free speech must include his right to incite his followers to riot. The scope of such fundamental rights as free speech must be decided by us, and for our representatives to abide by it. This is what the National Debate ought to be about. A National Debate ought not to be about current affairs or practical day-to-day problems. The National Debate ought to be about the principles by which current affairs should be determined. Those principles ought to be determined by the nation as a whole. The most critical elements of a National Debate are: 1. The choice of subjects to be debated and 2. The practical management of the Debate. Both elements must be entrusted to unbiased and politically neutral institutions. Britain is indeed gifted in this respect. Britain possesses two unique institutions which have been the envy of the world, our Civil Service and our B.B.C. Both institutions were renowned for non-bias and honesty. Both were funded by the people and both were meant to serve the people. We must not allow “weirdos” to run our Civil Service and we must not allow the Service to be politicised. Equally, we cannot allow the B.B.C to be either politicised or be made to compete in the world of entertainment. Under no circumstances could we allow the B.B.C to cease being an unbiased newscaster and broadcaster and turned into a propaganda tool by any government. We must protect those two institutions from encroachment by governments and let us make use of their unique politically-neutral position in devising and running the National Debate in the way it should be run. The combined expertise of the civil service as the proposer of the agenda and the B.B.C as the supervisor of the day-to-day running of the Debate is as near as we can get to a fair and free National Debate. The world is
762-11