I think W. H. Auden summed it up best in 1 September, 1939. He wrote:

I and the public know
What all school children learn:
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

I’ve often wondered if a statuatory element would be possible in foreign policy – legal restrictions on the diplomatic/military/trade relations we can have with different countries dependant upon how many, and which, of our criteria for a free state they fulfil. It probably wouldn’t work, of course, but at least the statement that governments (and similarly corporations) can’t arbitrarily apply or dismiss ethical concerns would be a nice one.

I’m not a fan of legislating this kind of thing; people ought to do it anyway. However, we’re into control-freaking our representatives at the moment, and there’s not a lot of trust, so maybe we need a rule which says: “Hey, idiot! Not sell munitions to bad guy in exchange for oil! Not outsource labour to child factory! No, no, NO! You do bad thing, you go to prison FOR EVER. Geddit?”

Revolting though it is to imagine that we need to legislate to prevent our governments from behaving like monsters.

Even for the very noble-minded amongst politicians (who said ‘tooth fairy’? Quiet in the cheap seats!), democracy is often a means to an ends – I don’t mean that cynically, or to suggest they’re using it for just as long as it takes for them to found the next dictatorship, I mean it literally – so convinced are they of the absolute necessity and righteousness of the changes they wish to make that, should democracy temporarily become an impediment to them, they’re willing to renege on even their own principles.

Even relative moderates do it – like the Liberal Democrats effectively kiboshing debate over the Lisbon Treaty by calling a three line whip on an absurd amendment calling for a referendum on the whole issue of EU membership instead. Sometimes the questions get so big that those in office (power/authority – what you term the station depends very much on what you think of it) really don’t dare let them be discussed or decided elsewhere.

Direct democracy becomes ever more appealing to the ordinary person, ever more terrifying for the naturally political. Ultimately – and even without the presence of malign intentions on their part – I think there’s something about those who choose ‘leadership’ or ‘responsibility’, as they would see it, which means that when it really comes down to it they’re just not willing to let us all choose to do something which they think is dangerous. Control freakery. They’re convinced we’re going to elect Allende otherwise.

The thing about freedom is that you live with the consequences. I think most people are perfectly at ease with that. Politicians, diplomats, Whitehall civil servants and all the rest of it, clearly are not.