On The CONgress, Westminster, And Olde London

As we have been religiously doing for 60 years, we have done so again – and voted. And, as usual, the CONgress has won. Chacha has some more bhateejas. Ho hum.

The editorial in the Express is interesting. It specifically refers to the challenge of urbanization that Maharashtra faces. The editors say:

The biggest story of this election is urbanisation. Once again, both the larger cities — Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur — and the many smaller urban agglomerations across the state have been central to determining which combine came out in front. And how this next government handles urbanisation is crucial; managing that process should top its agenda.

As if on cue, the central cabinet has announced its decision to reserve 50% of all seats in municipalities for women. Just as the central Total Chacha State has made every Bhateeja State into a client; just as they have made every panchayat into a client; so too are their efforts directed towards converting municipalities into clients. Their only desire is to inject politics, reservations and clientelism into civic affairs. Under such perverse central direction, India’s teeming cities and towns will never ever be well governed.

History sheds light on how we need to proceed. We call our democracy as based on the “Westminster model.” Westminster is that part of London where parliament meets. Yet, history tells us that Westminster did not exist when the first Lord Mayor of London was elected in 1183, some 30 years prior to the signing of the Magna Carta. In other words, urban local self-government lies at the base of the English constitution. We have imitated Westminster. We now need to emulate the citizens of Olde London, the City, the famous “one square mile.” It is this one square mile of Liberty and self-government that has always been the bastion of British capitalism.

What history reveals is that the Lord Mayor of London was never a client of the King. Indeed, the institution was erected to keep the King out of the city. The title “Lord” was never given by the King; rather, it was bestowed upon the head of the civic government by the citizenry. Throughout history, Lord Mayors of London have been wealthier that the English kings. They lent vast sums to the crown. Indeed, when Henry V set off to Agincourt, he secured the necessary funds from London’s Lord Mayor by pawning some of his jewels. At the civic reception held to wish Henry V well in his forthcoming battle, the Lord Mayor of London was seated to the immediate right of the King. Since then, tradition holds that the Lord Mayor of London is second only to the King of England.

The traditions that have been meticulously maintained till today reveal the seriousness with which civic independence was taken. The Lord Mayor carries the “civic sword.” When the King of England visits the Olde City, the Lord Mayor meets him at the gates and surrenders this sword. The monarch touches the hilt in acceptance. There is much to read in this tradition.

Thus, the King of England cannot march his army through Olde London without the permission of the Lord Mayor. Whereas Bobbies patrol Westminster and the rest of Greater London, the Olde City has its own police force.

It needs to be stressed that these extremely wealthy Lord Mayors of London have never been clients of the King. History also tells us that this was never an “office of profit,” and whoever was elected always spent more money than he received – especially on grand banquets. This is why many, many men refused to accept the office – and they were then fined heavily. It is said that Mansion House, the official residence of the Lord Mayor, was built for those who wanted to become Lord Mayor out of the pockets of those who did not.

On the amazing wealth of these gentlemen who not only built English capitalism but also erected and maintained the greatest institution of civic independence the world has ever seen, the best story is of Bartholomew Rede, Lord Mayor in the early 17th century. It is recorded that, at one of his banquets, an Italian approached him offering to sell a big jewel for 1000 guineas. However, this Italian made the mistake of telling the Lord Mayor that the King of England could not afford to buy this jewel. Bartholomew Rede immediately bought the jewel for 1000 guineas, and had it ground into his glass of wine. He then drank the contents of the glass in one big swallow and told the Italian: “Speak honourably of the King of England, for thou hast just seen one of his subjects drink 1000 guineas in one quaff.”

Our “Westminster model” is thus a “con” – a con perpetrated upon us by the CONgress party, the greatest confidence tricksters the world has ever seen. We are made to look upon the mighty central State as the fount of government and democracy. In truth, it is just Laputa. If we want to run our cities and towns well we must develop mayoralties on the “London model.” Think about it.

If you want to read more about the Lord Mayor of London, buy this book.