Anyone reading these words already knows our political systems are broken beyond repair. They already know that trying to patch them up by changing one political party for another every few years merely conforms to Einstein’s definition of insanity: ‘Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’ The great man also said something else worth reapeating: ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.’

Given that we know things are broken, surely the debate must now move on to what exactly should we DO about it?

The purpose of this essay is to publish some new thinking, to provoke debate, and to describe three simple steps that anyone could take to properly fixing our broken systems.

George Orwell pointed out more than sixty years ago that our rulers deliberately distort language so that everyday words are used by them in a manner exactly opposite to what they are supposed to mean. Like Ministry of ‘Defence’, for example, which has nothing to do with defence, and everything to do with beating up anyone it can thousands of miles away from home. Terrorists actually mean freedom fighters and vice versa; anarachists are really liberators and liberators anarchists. ‘Encouraging free competition in the market place’ is better translated as ‘promoting tyrannical corporate monopolies’… and so on. However, perhaps the most sinister misuse of everyday language by our rulers is their interpretation of the word ‘democracy’.

Nothing better demonstrates the success of all this elitist propaganda than the fact that the majority of citizens living in the western world seriously believe they have ultimate control over their leaders. The proof of this is the fact that they keep on turning up at elections; they have not yet learnt that it doesn’t make a shred of difference who they vote for — so there’s really no point in bothering. Tom Paine, writing more than two hundred years ago, clearly saw it when he penned:

‘Change of ministers amounts to nothing. One goes out, another comes in and still the same measures, vices, and extravagance are pursued. It signifies not who is minister. The defect lies in the system. The foundation and the superstructure of the government is bad.’

Fixing the job is not easy. Not because of the problem of coming up with a better system, but because of the considerable vested interests of those powerful forces benefiting from the existing system, and who will therefore fight tooth and nail to keep it just the way it is. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Indeed, we cannot really look the future in the eye unless we try. Identifying and publicising the problem is an important start; but we must now use that knowledge to evolve a solution.

Although ‘democracy’ as we know it is admittedly better than Stalinism say, it is nevertheless a very long way from good government. The best that can be said for it is that it’s better than any other existing type of government. But we can improve it. After all, we can send people to the moon, and bring them safely back, analyse all the proteins in our bodies, and perform surgery on them; communicate instantly with anyone anywhere on the planet and watch them while we do so — why should we not be able to improve a system of administration that was known to be broken two hundred years ago?

I’ve spent most of my adult life trying to do exactly this. The system I devised is called Free Democracy, because I believe that freedom is the most important human condition, and that real democracy (not the existing Orwellian kind) is the most perfect form of government.

Free Democracy is very simple. Its central premise is this: any citizen, properly informed, should be able, if she chooses, to make the decisions of her government. If you start with this basic absolute and then try to devise an administration that delivers it, you’re taking the most important first step to improving what we have.

The most common objections to the notion are:

1. Ordinary people are too stupid to understand the complexities of government, and be entrusted with the responsibility of its proper administration.

Stupidity has never before barred some people from gaining awesome decision making authority — therefore even if this was a legitimate concern (and I don’t believe it is for the reasons shown below), it’s no worse a situation than what we already have.

Truly stupid people are actually quite few in number, and would either be too disinterested in the business of government to bother taking part, or be so heavily outnumbered by reasonably bright people that the effect of any damage they may cause would be cancelled out (unlike our existing system where the actions of truly stupid people cannot be cancelled out by brighter beings, and are therefore regularly catastrophic).

That the citizen should be able to make rational and responsible decisions in a Free Democracy is, of course, essential. This hinges on three conditions: good education, good information, and simple, cheap, trustworthy communications, all of which are perfectly deliverable (although considerable improvements to what we have in all these fields will be required).

Contrary to popular belief there is actually quite a lot of hard evidence for the success of trusting ordinary people to make big decisions. The first example with which we in the west are all familiar is trial by jury. Trial by jury is trusted more than any other form of justice because it relies on ordinary people. Less well known is the Swiss government, which has for hundreds of years routinely had its decisions made by ordinary Swiss citizens. My final example is the almost entirely unknown Summerhill School in England which, for about a hundred years, has been almost entirely run by its pupils whose ages range from 6 to 16, and who manage without any difficulty at all to leave school as well balanced, well educated young people.

2. There’s no guarantee that a Free Democracy would be any better than what we have.

True, but what we have is a leadership obsessed with keeping us engaged in permanent war, and a planet locked into a self inflicted ecological death spiral. How much worse could it be?

3. It’s too expensive to administer.

The taxpayer is already obliged to pay for horrendously expensive government — a government over which he has absolutely no control. There is no reason to believe that a Free Democracy will be any more expensive than what we already have, but at least it would have the virtue of being entirely and directly under the control of the taxpayer funding it.

4. It’s too complicated to administer

Thirty years ago this may have been a legitimate concern. Today, with twenty first century communications at everyone’s fingertips, this issue is not quite so relevant. Although a robust, cheap, simple, secure and trustworthy voting mechanism would indeed be essential, it is not beyond the wit of woman to invent one. We already trust our financial transactions to the telephone system, why not our votes?

The core belief of Free Democracy is that any citizen, properly informed, should be able, if he chooses, to make the decisions of his government.

This belief is all that is needed. No one need join anything or buy anything. All that’s required is that core belief. Designing an administration system that delivers that belief is almost secondary in consideration because the possibilities and various combinations are considerable. Creating a perfect model is not only impossible, it’s also unnecessary. All that’s needed is somewhere to start, an administration system that will then allow the citizen to shape it for himself.

But you have to start somewhere. Therefore the model I designed is simply that: a starting point. It is not meant to be some divine revelation that can never be improved upon. It is, and should remain, a work in progress, a flexible structure permanently open to the people to change as they see fit. Providing the core belief is kept intact, and delivered, Free Democracy will survive no matter how the administration changes.

The particular model I designed comprises two core documents: a People’s Constitution and an Ethical Guide for the Free Democrat. Neither of these is intended as a model of perfection — they are simply suggestions, a starting point.

My People’s Constitution borrows extensively from the Swiss Constitution, which is probably the most democratic model of government in current use. There is much to be learnt from the Swiss. They have one of the richest economies in the world, despite their landlocked position, lack of natural resources, and no empire to plunder. Even though they are clearly wealthy, they nevertheless have a sound welfare system (the preamble of their constitution includes the words: ‘…the strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weak’), and they have some of the tightest green credentials in Europe, with the use of fossil fuels entirely banned in some areas. In addition they have managed to keep their people free of war for about two hundred years, even when completely surrounded by it, twice.

Switzerland is the only substantial nation I know where the people routinely decide government business, and have done for centuries. Personality politics is almost unknown (do you know who the Swiss president is?) There is much to be learnt from the Swiss — not least of which is that when ordinary people are put in direct control of their government, pretty good things happen.

The People’s Constitution is meant to be the only law the citizen will ever need, a document that outranks any conflicting law and which the citizen could use for herself if necessary entirely unaided by expensive lawyers. It opens with an article on human rights, much of which concurs with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It then mentions citizens’ duties, for rights must always be conditional to certain duties. The constitution proposes a decentralised system of government with national government serving only to coordinate administration and security when required to do so by local councils. The economy is based on the free market model providing certain safeguards and protections are in place (such as protecting small business and consumer, delivering consumer choice and providing secure employment). Taxation is fixed at 15% (including National Insurance), and taxpayers are able, if they choose, to determine which government departments should benefit from their taxes. Justice is wholly administered by public servants and accessible to all, with tribunals and juries of ordinary citizens determining right or wrong, guilt or innocence. There are constitutional protections for the environment, national heritage and agriculture. Social welfare and contingencies for states of emergency are covered… and so on.

My second core document, an Ethical Guide, is included because I do not believe there is any place in modern government for established religion. Whilst the People’s Constitution ensures that people would be free to practice any religious belief they choose, this must be qualified by ensuring that if and when that practice conflicts with any part of the constitution, the constitution must prevail. So the Ethical Guide borrows the humane practices common to most religions, without accepting any of the dogma. It tries to take the good from religion and exclude the bad. It suggests the way people should behave, not because of the supposed wishes of some supernatural being whose existence cannot be proven, but simply because the values are of themselves widely recognised to be good and right; and being a guide and not a law, is not of itself enforceable in law.

I promised at the start of this essay to describe three simple steps to fix our broken political systems. For anyone reading these words that is true; but for most there is one other step to take. Anyone reading these words already knows the system is broken, and therefore doesn’t need to learn it – however, almost everyone else does need to learn it, because the little darlings really don’t know. So the first step (of four) for most people is simply to learn how their world really works. Then they can catch up with the rest of us.

Step One/Two

Become a Free Democrat. This does not mean joining anything or buying anything. It simply means accepting that any citizen, properly informed, should have the right, if they choose, to make the political decisions that affect their life.

Step Two/Three

Join with other Free Democrats and draft a People’s Constitution that could actually deliver Free Democracy to the people.

Step Three/Four

Either stand in elections yourself as a Free Democrat, or refuse to vote in elections unless there is a Free Democrat candidate standing for whom you could vote.

I have stood in two elections, with very minimal publicity (I am unemployed so cannot afford expensive advertising). So far I have not been elected, but the last time I tried (last year) I received one in every eight votes cast, and that was on a campaign budget of about £50.

At first glance it may appear that just one Free Democrat elected to office is not going to achieve much. I would dispute that. Simply competing this way promotes the ideal of Free Democracy, which, to an electorate who has never even considered such an alternative, is a move in the right direction.

When I am eventually elected I will be able to canvass my constituents about any forthcoming council debates and then use my votes in those debates according to the majority wish of those constituents — even if I personally disagree with their wishes. Crude I know, but it would be a start, because although admittedly it would be pretty ineffective, it would be hugely symbolic: it would be the opportunity to start delivering to the voter the service we know they should have — direct control over political decision making.

We CAN fix things. We CAN use the existing system to replace it with a better one. It is time to start doing so.