Post in I am a citizen not a consumer

Jul 22 22:57 UTC

Steve Magruder - Louisville History & Issues forums administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:52 PM
> Wow!  Thank you John!  My sentiments exactly.  I too often bristle at
> these two words being used interchangeably, and for the same reasons.

Like Steve, I would support John Miller's analysis and position.  But I would
remind the international membership of this group,
that here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are
no "citizens"  -  we are all "subjects of the
monarch" (English constitutional law taking de facto precedence over the
constitutional law of the other parts of the UK).  In
saying that I am not playing with words, nor am I expressing some anti-royalist
sentiment.  Rather I am concerned with the residual
(but very real) political effects of being a "subject" and not a "citizen".
This is most obviously manifest in the "royal
prerogative", exercised in all matters of any importance by "the crown in
Parliament", i.e. the Prime Minister of the day.  Some PMs
have reduced the sole ability of their office to exercise the royal prerogative
by making some decisions subject to a vote of the
(horribly unrepresentative) UK Parliament.  But all that has done is to spread
"the crown in Parliament" among a very slightly
larger political elite.  This has reinforced the view of most professional
politicians, and many others, that Parliament is
"sovereign"  -  it most certainly is not the "subjects" who are sovereign.
(There is a different view in Scottish constitutional
law, but English constitutional law takes de facto precedence in such matters
within the UK.)

We have had devolution in governance at various levels within the UK, and that
is to be welcomed, but devotion ("from the top,
down") is all part of our being "subjects" and not being "citizens".  That was
expressed succinctly in the  phrase "Power devolved
is power retained" (attributed to Enoch Powell MP, an opponent of devolution).
If we were citizens, power would be built from the
bottom, up.  That would be subsidiarity, not devolution.

I live in a development of 146 dwellings (mainly flats) in which subsidiary is
provided and enforced through a Deed of Conditions
that both burdens and benefits every property within the development.  I alone
am sovereign in making decisions that affect only the
inside of my flat.  The proprietors (owners) of the 21 flats in my block are
sovereign in making decisions that affect the common
areas of this block.  For decisions that affect, say, the roof of the whole
building (four blocks comprising 62 flats), the 62
proprietors of those flats are sovereign.  For decisions affecting the common
areas of the whole development (e.g. gardens, car
parks), sovereignty lies with the 146 proprietors.  So the power of
decision-making is built from the bottom up.  I sometimes wonder
whether any of the new opportunities e-facilities provide could help make
subsidiarity a reality in the wider public sphere  -  but
I suspect the real barriers to such a revolution will remain.

(However, don't think such "citizen power" will automatically result in great
increases in participation, e- or otherwise.  If our
experience within the development where I live is anything to go by, only a
very small proportion will participate, even when it’s a
simple postal vote that directly affects their future personal expenditure!
Perhaps they have lost sight of their being "citizens"
and have accepted their lot as "customer subjects"!!)

James Gilmour

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 21/07/2008
18:36