No matter what the statement you think you might make by voting (Labour, Liberal, Tory or Socialist), the continuous onslaught of truth shows our choices to be empty gestures devoid of any real effect. Take a case in point: as Thatcher helped fund Saddam in the 80's (so that he could afford British weapons to use against the Kurds) 'New' Labour was in opposition, and as such had no reason to support such nefarious actions and by proxy support the tyrant of Bagdad. However, no-one of the New Labour leadership (either then or current) raised objections to our funding of a dictator. Both the Thatcher government and the opposition supported the US imposed policy of "stability" by supporting tyranny instead of democracy (though they would have prefered a "strong military junta which would rule [Iraq] with an iron fist", but were perfectly happy to sponsor Saddam as a credible alternative).

Years later, Tony Blair denounces the man he tacitly supported and bombs his civilians (ignoring better plans, such as removing the sanctions that UN diplomats Halliday and von Sponeck had denounced as "genocide") whilst inexplicably causing little damage to the actual military infrastructure and oil rescources.

This is not surprising, considering western governments' previous records. When the World Court ordered the US to stop giving military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua (in order to depose a left-leaning democratically elected government) they ignored its ruling, vetoed any UN security council resolutions to reinforce said ruling and redefined all such aid as 'humanitarian'; thus allowing them to claim that they were doing good works, so long as no-one bothered to check where the money was going. This was under the rule of Reagan, and promptly forgotten when he died and was hailed as a hero in much of the mainstream press (though doubtlessly he is less fondly remembered in Nicaragua and other South American countries). Returning to Thatcher, her orders to destroy the Aregentian ship the General Belgrano (sold to them by the Americans no less) despite the fact it was retreating at the time were hailed as a heroic move; and the civil servant who corageously broke ranks and reveal this fact was taken to court, and when the ruling failed to go her way, Thatcher changed the law to prevent anything "in the public interest" (as it was dubbed at the trial) being revealed again and preventing the case from becoming a legal precedent.

The destruction of democracy (if it ever existed) continues apace, as moves towards free speech are made in both the major coalition countries. Our own country is bringing in laws to deport and remove peoples' citizenship should they be deemed as supporting terrorists. Tangable support is all very well, though high likely to be abused by the home office, as even now there are still people in jail with little evidence available against them. But not even these measures are enough; "indirect incitement to violence" is a harshly punished crime now - if you belong to an organisation that the government thinks might influence members to later progress to violent atrocities (even if the organisation itself stresses non-violence) you can be incarcerated, or even deported should you not have the correct papers. Considering the police are allowed to shoot people dead even if they have no real cause to believe they're dangerous (i.e. they just look a bit foreign) it's likely this power will be repeatedly abused. If, as i have done in the case of the Bolivian people, you express support, even tactily, for groups branded as terrorists (as the Bolivian peasants were during their blockades), you can be arrested.

In the case of what Noam Chomsky calls "democratic deviation", the decision by a government to listen to its people, such countries are punished severly. Turkey's application to join the EU was most vhemenantly opposed by Britain on the grounds of a poor human rights record. Whilst these concerns are viable, Britain's real objection can be traced back to Turkey's "democratic deviation" during the build-up to the Iraq war. The Turkish people were aggressively opposed to a war (including groups of Kurds in the south, who realised that their kinsmen on the northern Iraq border would bear the brunt of an assault from that border), and eventually the government broke ranks and joined its people, denying the US and British forces use of its borders for a ground assault. Thusly, Turkey must be punished, denying her access to the improved economic benefits provided by EU membership is fitting retribution in Westminsters eyes. As for human rights abuses, we find it easy to ignore those commited by our own people, as well as those in Guantanamo and Egypt. Another fine example, as it happens, lies in Egypt also. It's elections were hailed as a "step to democracy", paving over its restriction of voting rights by denying the franchise to women and various other groups. Mugabe's elections were widely denounced (quite rightly) as a sham. Both have brutal and comparable human rights records, the difference is that Egypt is an ally of ours, willing to torture people our laws prevent us from torturing, in other words, an outpost of US-UK terrorism.

This much for our claims to be democratic.