NOURNEWS - "Boris Johnson" resigned from the position of Prime Minister of England, while according to the current laws in this country, a national election was not held to replace him and "Liz Truss" was chosen by party members.
The laws of England at the time of the resignation of the prime minister, limits the reference to the members of the party who won the majority in the national elections, so if a party finds that the conditions of its secretary general, in the post of prime minister, to continue working in this position are distorted, forces them to resign and their new successor is chosen from among the ruling party and only by the majority of the members of the same party.
Although at first glance it seems that this method considers the winning party as the legal entity responsible for the affairs of the country, but considering that the post of prime minister will make decisions for the both minority and the majority of the people and the so-called nation of England, in fact, its legal relationship with a minority that they don't vote for that party practically takes over the representation of the few who are official members of the ruling party.
In the current England, this number is about 160 thousand members of the ruling political party, i.e. the Conservative Party. This is despite the fact that 47 million people were registered to vote in the last national elections.
This model of mutilated democracy in England, which is confined to the narrow limits of the hereditary monarchy, was criticized by the rationalist and new generation of English nation this year more than ever before.
In the meantime, considering the figures of the composition of the members of the party, the real nature of the concept of elections in this land is more familiar.
Research shows that about 39% of Conservative Party members are over 65 years old. People who are between 50 and 65 years old also make up 19 percent. This means that more than half of the members are old or prone to aging. Only 6% of members are up to 25 years old and the rest are classified as middle-aged. Also, gender statistics show that 63% of this party are men and 37% are women.
But the more important thing is that 80% of the members of this party are among the economically prosperous of the country and the remaining 20% are considered to be the growing middle class. In other words, the fate of the people of England is determined by a minority of three tenths percent of the rich old people with the overwhelming majority of men, who obviously cannot claim to represent the whole country.
Participation in self-determination by the people, regardless of social class, race, religion and gender, has been virtually ignored by the complex mechanism of English democracy, and complaints about the unfairness of this process in the past, despite being recorded, have gone nowhere with the opposition of old traditionalists.
Over the past half century, more than half of British leaders have been elected by the currently criticized method. The rulers of this country have so far tried to use an irrational argument to justify this practice by glorifying the previous traditions, which are itself the object of the protest of the new generation of England, using registered record in the Guinness, as a fact.
Distrust and dissatisfaction in this way became more apparent at the same time as the coronation anniversary ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II, when 65% of young people wanted their country to withdraw from the monarchy and wanted to establish a republic.
It is obvious that the using keywords such as "the unique political structure of England" and "a relatively common thing" to introduce the political structure of England cannot be the originator of democratic principles that the West considers itself to be the harbinger of its defense and expansion in the world and with continuous emphasis on the necessity of participation of the citizens in the political mechanisms and accuse the countries that violate these principles of opposing freedom and violating human rights. In some cases, even by calling for riots in other lands, West incites the people of that country to get the "right to vote".
A country like England, that claims to support the values of democracy, by claiming the priority of respecting human rights in political systems, has repeatedly made cases, incited riots and street protests, and even war against other countries under this pretext, but has never been willing to respond to the demands of its citizens in this field.
How can London recognize the self-interested view of a minority of three tenths percent of its population while proposing a version of democracy and the right to self-determination with free elections for other countries?
The practical result of the democracy of 160,000 people has emerged in the performance of British statesmen for years, as in recent months, while the British people are paying the price for the full support of their statesmen for the war instead of dialogue in Ukraine, which documents show that at the same time, billions of dollars The pockets of capitalists have been deposited in the form of arms manufacturers and what they call energy suppliers, and a huge wealth has been created for them.
Meanwhile, double-digit inflation and the food and energy crisis have made life difficult for millions of British citizens, and the government's prescription for them is nothing but: "You have no choice but to bear the costs."
BY: Mohammad Ghaderi
NOURNEWS