Discussion about this post

User's avatar
CatoRenasci's avatar

Enoch Powell was generally right about the effect of mass immigration on Britain…unfortunately, he made a fundamental error in vastly overestimating the capacity of the English and Scots to get up off their bums, out of the local, and actually do anything about the invasion their betters were inflicting upon them.

Expand full comment
barnabus's avatar

Apartheid was a system South Africa introduced in order not to allow a general one-man one-vote (OMOV) system while black labor was an essential economic component of the republic.

However, if we go back to the English parliamentary system from 1630 till 1920x it wasn't a one-man one-vote system either. And key people like Oliver Cromwell (I think his statue is still in front of the Westminster parliament) were at the forefront of keeping it this way versus the Levellers after the English Civil War...

In England there was a stringent, wealth-defined binary franchise, and some boroughs because of that had no eligible voters - they were called rotten boroughs, lol. In Ireland, franchise also had a religious connotation - most (or almost all?) voters were Protestant. So was there a socio-religious Apartheid in England then?

The binary, wealth-defined franchise system even extended to big parts of early USA, particularly the southern states. Other countries like Prussia has a general franchise but had it torqued by a selective weighting of votes - in Prussia they used a tricameral voting system, where voters responsible for the top 1/3 of tax revenue were given 1/3 of all vote weight. So if democracy based on OMOV system is not working, and "we" still want to maintain an electoral system, we'll probably go back to a wealth-defined (ie tax revenue-defined) franchise system again.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts