Juries and Politicians

Juries and Politicians

The principles of democracy are similar to those applied to the jury system. We elect a group of individuals to listen to the evidence of a given scenario and then act in accordance with the best interests of all concerned. However, whilst a jury is bound by laws of perjury and contempt, a politician is only governed by the rules that his colleagues deem fit to impose.

We have seen this in the UK with the present government's pre-election declaration that they would not raise taxes. Yet once elected they indulged in a spree of tax hikes which, even after two terms, is continuing unabated to cover increasing public sector budget deficits.

The more recent, infamous declarations by Prime Minister Tony Blair that we needed to make war on Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction have not been punished. Instead we have seen a degree of media grumbling but nothing of any import from within Westminster. Could it be that every Member of Parliament knows in his/her heart that they would have told the same fairy tales to support our major economic partner?

The current American administration has been through the same loops, making statements prior to the Iraq invasion which have since been proved inaccurate or untrue. The recent disclosure that President Bush did know about the likely impact of hurricane Katrina in spite of earlier denials is passing unmarked. Could it be that the politicians around him know that their slate in none too clean either given the American practice of loading Bills with unrelated finance allocations to get the primary content agreed and voted through?

Even cross border politics suffers from the same lack of trust. Note the recent accusations that the husband of the UK Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has laundered money allegedly given to him by Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi in 1997. No hard evidence has been forthcoming, but had the realms of politics had a higher public trust rating this probably would not have warranted more than a single page 2 mention. As it is we have suffered days of accusation, defence, innuendo and speculation fuelled by the innate distrust of the so-called democratic establishment.

Perhaps we should exchange the jury for the politician and have every passage of law and regulation voted upon by twelve good citizens and true. Unfortunately I can just imagine what the foreman of a political jury would say at the end of a case '....well your honour, under the previous jury the verdict would have been guilty, but I can promise you....'



	The principles of democracy are similar to those applied to the jury system. We elect a group of individuals to listen to the evidence of a given scenario and then act in accordance with the best interests of all concerned. However, whilst a jury is bound by laws of perjury and contempt, a politician is only governed by the rules that his colleagues deem fit to impose. We have seen this in the UK with the present government's pre-election declaration that they would not raise taxes. Yet once elected they indulged in a spree of tax hikes which, even after two terms, is continuing unabated to cover increasing public sector budget deficits. The more recent, infamous declarations by Prime Minister Tony Blair that we needed to make war on Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction have not been punished. Instead we have seen a degree of media grumbling but nothing of any import from within Westminster. Could it be that every Member of Parliament knows in his/her heart that they would have told the same fairy tales to support our major economic partner? The current American administration has been through the same loops, making statements prior to the Iraq invasion which have since been proved inaccurate or untrue. The recent disclosure that President Bush did know about the likely impact of hurricane Katrina in spite of earlier denials is passing unmarked. Could it be that the politicians around him know that their slate in none too clean either given the American practice of loading Bills with unrelated finance allocations to get the primary content agreed and voted through? Even cross border politics suffers from the same lack of trust. Note the recent accusations that the husband of the UK Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has laundered money allegedly given to him by Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi in 1997. No hard evidence has been forthcoming, but had the realms of politics had a higher public trust rating this probably would not have warranted more than a single page 2 mention. As it is we have suffered days of accusation, defence, innuendo and speculation fuelled by the innate distrust of the so-called democratic establishment. Perhaps we should exchange the jury for the politician and have every passage of law and regulation voted upon by twelve good citizens and true. Unfortunately I can just imagine what the foreman of a political jury would say at the end of a case '....well your honour, under the previous jury the verdict would have been guilty, but I can promise you....'