Hypocrisy

All of the main parties have made a big thing about not just being in favour of, but there being a serious need for Constitutional change. The seriousness with which that change is being proposed varies. The Tories do not propose scrapping the Hereditary Peers, for example. But, if long awaited Constitutional Change is to be discussed, should the whole thing not be put on the table? Indeed, should not the basis of that be through the convening of a Constitutional Assembly, where proposals for establishing such a Constitution, be opened up to everyone?

Everyone recognises that the introduction of electoral beauty contests, via the Leaders Debates, takes us further down the road to a Presidential system. Diane Abbot, on This Week, last night, recounted how, on the doorstep, when she asked people, who had voted for her, last time round, how they would vote, they said they were waiting until they had seen all the debates. But, in that case, if we are to effectively move away from electing parties to electing individuals, then we should do it consistently. In just the same way as there is no point having a Lord Mayor if you have an elected Mayor, so there is no point having a Monarch if you have an elected Head of State.

And that would also mean disestablishing the Church of England, because an elected Head of State might be an atheist, a Muslim, Sikh, Scientologist etc. In fact, the question the leaders were given, over the visit of the Pope, illustrated a similar level of hypocrisy. All of them, including the atheist Clegg, said they welcomed the visit of the Pope. Yet, this is a man, who, if he were not protected by the power of the Catholic Church, would probably be under serious police investigation for running an organisation that has covered up serious child abuse! However, much we might desire to allow people to have freedom of religion, and to believe whatever medieval nonsense they like, that is far from the same thing as welcoming the visit of someone like that, let alone someone whose views, on many other things, are pretty indistinguishable from those of the BNP.

Gordon Brown said he thought that it would be good, in order to promote a coming together of all religions. But, the fact is that all religions hold similarly reactionary views to those promoted by the Pope and the Catholic Church. Why would anyone with progressive views, let alone socialist views, want a group of separate and thereby weakened reactionary organisations to come together, and thereby become stronger?

Worse, Gordon Brown said that, even though he is a Presbyterian, he welcomed the Pope's visit. But, traditionally, the Presbyterian Church has viewed the Pope as being none other than the anti-christ! How can anyone, who treats their own faith seriously, welcome the visit of the anti-christ???? They can do so, because the reality is that the only people who actually do take their faith seriously are the religious fundamentalists, the people who the vast majority of society views as being complete nutters! But, if you can't take your faith seriously then what is its use, what basis do you have for clinging to it? The reality is that, for such people, it is based on total hypocrisy. It is like someone who having discovered that Santa Claus doesn't exist, makes sure not to tell anyone, because they like still receiving presents!

If the Expenses Scandal has exposed the need for Constitutional change, a fact that Marxists have argued for a very long time, then let us have it, but let us have it resolved in the way bourgeois revolutions have resolved it in the past, with the convening of a Constitutional Convention, through a thoroughgoing national debate on the types of institutions, and mechanisms we want. perhaps we could revive the People's Charter? Better still, we could revive the revolutionary tradition of the Chartists.