Proroguation of parliament raises many startling questions about Britain

The fall of tyranny in Athens in 510 BC, prompting the first recorded "democratic" political system, is regarded as a landmark moment in ancient history. Led by a prominent law-maker Cleisthenes and an orator Pericles, they guided Athens through its Golden Age, when the thriving city initially became a centre for literature and art. How the product of democracy has changed. 

Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks in September and October, effectively curtailing any opposition plans to stop a no-deal Brexit occurring on 31st October, caused widespread disbelief amongst Britain as the country gears up for a crunch few weeks before crashing out of the EU. The move raises more questions about what we call "democracy" and its operation in this country than it provides answers as to how Britain will leave the EU. 

Suspending parliament, whilst rightfully legal, is a bold move from Johnson. Proroguing parliament to establish a new government's reforms is common enough, but with Brexit, a nationally important issue that exists purely due to an underlying British desire for sovereignty, just weeks away, it is despotic. The act would certainly have been challenged by Cleisthenes and Pericles. 

I believe the system of parliament has its flaws, some of which have become apparent in the last few years. But that a Prime Minister has been able effectively dissolve it to force through a desired outcome, one which will impact many trade deals and relations with geographical neighbours, threatens the system of democracy we all seem to admire. 

Not only has democracy exacerbated divisions, it has torn through the idea of collective freedom. These are broader conversations for another day though, as right now I would rather proclaim this political system archaic.

To even force this prorogation of parliament, former Mayor of London Johnson has had to seek approval from the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as is custom with laws in Britain. That is tradition, and perhaps was the reason why Britain never experience a tumultuous revolution similar to that of France or Russia in the previous few centuries.

But, when the sole political purpose of the Queen is to rubber-stamp laws without intervening, even when our chambers of democracy are put in jeopardy, you have to ask the question; is it obsolete? 

I understand the argument for the monetary gain the monarchy bring in, although I still strongly oppose the concept alone. But even if it is an unwritten rule that they don't interfere in parliamentary matters - surely the law needs scrapping? 

Recent developments cast some doubt over to what extent she may have been duped by the scheming Johnson. Speculation suggests that he lied to her about attempting to seek a deal with Europe in the upcoming five-week break, which he doesn't seemingly plan to do. 

Those are accusations which, as likely as they may seem, are unsubstantiated. Few bar the two individuals know the truth over what was really agreed that afternoon, as much as the media will spin it. 

The fact that the monarchy has not overturned a decision since 1707 suggests that she wouldn't have refused royal assent anyway and still poses an issue. After all, what is the point in having a law that dictates the Queen says yes to every political act? Does it satisfy our national sovereignty? Does it make us feel a sense of pride to have a monarch as an assenter and nothing more?

Perhaps. But it represents the only distinct remnant of feudalist society that we look back on today, and its purpose is becoming more and more widely questioned by the day.

That won't matter to Johnson and his cronies, who will stoop at nothing to force through a no-deal Brexit. And with how they will financially benefit, it is no surprise. Dominic Cummings, newly appointed "special adviser to the government", is dictating plans for a no-deal, and to many is seen as the orchestrator of the pandemonium that could soon ensue. 

Maybe surprisingly, Jacob Rees-Mogg isn't in an outward position of power concerning Brexit, at least not to the public, despite his controversial statements in recent days. Instead, reports are circulating that large money betting on a no-deal is placed in hedge funds, undoubtedly from all those hard-line suspects involved. Rees-Mogg's friend, Crispin Odey, made £220 million in a day after the 2016 Brexit vote by transferring his money into gold. Make of that what you will.

Ably supported by Johnson's Cabinet, a bunch of yes-men who's beliefs have changed constantly with only one thing on their mind - power - this machine is well-oiled and has seemingly broken the boundaries of our democratic system. If a well-off few, motivated by money alone, claiming to represent the people can make a mockery of our political system, in doing so the lives of the common people, what have we done? How has it got to this point without change? This seems a watershed moment in the future of democracy.

In Athens under Cleisthenes and Pericles, to preserve the interest of equality, lots were drawn to determine juries and governmental officials. Even that would be more democratic than allowing Johnson and his charlatans undermine our system of elected officials. If it hasn't been so for three and a half years, we can now comfortably proclaim this period as a national crisis.