Party Democracy and Its Importance in a Democratic Nation

http://yourbnp.com/2010/05/26/red-white-and-blue-2010-cancelled/

The Red White and Blue is the BNP's annual summer event.

It has been cancelled, it has been suggested, in order to stop people getting together to discuss leadership challenge for which nominations have to be in by mid-August.

Having read the new constitution as best I can, online, I have now formed the opinion that it is in fact practically impossible, under such a constitution to dislodge the Chairman.

All right if he is the one who has built up the party to its present size and influence, not so good if he is one no-good sonofabitch getting fat on the party donations and dragging it down.

Perhaps not all right even if it is St Nicholas who is the Chairman because the principle of party democracy should protect individuals members from the arbitrary decisions of the leader.

The party should exist to serve its members and supporters, not the interests leader.

It is virtually impossible to change the constitution too.

Party democracy, anyone?

This problem is not confined solely to the BNP either. The Tory Party constitution is also another autocrat's charter.

At least the BNP constitution is online and you can find it at

http://www.bnp.org.uk/?q=constitution-british-national-party

The Tory Party constitution is nowhere to be seen, locked away in the way Mr Rochester locked up his mad wife.

The moment you ask for it, they will be put on notice that you could be a trouble-maker.

Was it right for

1. Enoch Powell to be expelled from the Tory Party for saying that uncontrolled immigration is perhaps not a very good idea and would probably have long-term future consequences for the indigenous population of this country?

2. Nigel Hastilow to be withdrawn as a Tory candidate simply for saying that his constituents had said "Enoch was right"?

2. Patrick Mercer to have been demoted for discussing what does or does not constitute racism?

3. Alan Duncan to have been demoted for telling the truth about MPs being treated like shit and forced to live on rations?

4. Chris Grayling to not become Home Secretary because he dared to suggest that B&B owners should have the right to refuse the custom of homosexual men demanding a double bed, if that is what they want to do? (Theresa May will be awful. Jacqui Smith was dire. Any female Home Secretary will be dreadful because most women cannot keep order. I would probably be the noble exception, but we will never know now.)

5. Peter Mandelson to join the wrong party and therefore fail to become the Prime Minister he could have been? (I dedicate my one-party idea to him, with all my love and respect, and more!)

In case this is not quite clear, let me point out that a one-party state frees the politician to change his mind about things at any time in the light of experience and maturity, while a multi-party system chains him to his tribe for the rest of his career. As we all know, tribal loyalty is amoral rather than principled.

Differences can always be resolved intra-party because it can be done more swiftly and efficiently than the inter-party method we currently have, which is sclerotic, corrupt, oligarchical and frankly no longer fit for purpose either for those in government or those who are governed.

The Chinese Communist Party constitution is in English online for people everywhere to admire.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/25/content_6944738_1.htm

You can be sure after what Mao did -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign

- the Chinese would try to make damn sure nothing like that ever happened to them again.

That was why they over-reacted to the personality cult of Falun Gong. Mao, in case anyone didn't know, was a massive personality cult.

The British do have something to learn from the Chinese when it comes to issues of party democracy, but they would rather die than admit it.

Or at the very least suffer more decades of decline and misrule by fools and knaves.