A common confusion in many people's minds is that freedom and democracy are synonymous, and that the ancient Greeks invented both. Although it might be said that the Greeks invented freedom in the sense that they were the first to establish a government without a king or tyrant, where all citizens had certain inalienable rights, democracy was quite unknown in ancient Greece. The many inhabitants of Greek cities who were not citizens had no rights at all, nor of course did the numerous slaves.

The word "democracy" is, indeed, Greek, and it literally means "rule of the people" - These days this has been interpreted to mean majority rule. Unfortunately, majority rule does not lend itself to freedom, because the majority invariably imposes its will (based on its own self-interest) on the minority. Freedom is the right to lead one's life as one wishes, regardless of the views of others - in other words, it is the opposite of majority rule. How is it then that freedom and democracy do sometimes co-exist?

The answer is that in most civilised countries there are Constitutions which attempt to guarantee certain individuals rights, and to protect the minority from being trampled on by the majority. The oldest and most famous of these is the American Constitution, perhaps the finest political document ever written. Most countries have Constitutions today, although most of these Constitutions are rather recent. However, many of the countries in the world that call themselves democracies - that is, countries where governments are elected by majority vote - do not have Constitutions. In Africa, in the Arab world, in Asia, and in South America, there are countless countries that call themselves democracies, but in which the degree of freedom is very limited.

England has never been a democracy - it has always been a Constitutional Monarchy, with a House of Lords. Until recently, the English political system worked reasonably well, but its Achilles heel has always been that there was no written Constitution, and this Achilles heel has been fully exploited in the last fifty years, during which much legislation has been enacted that goes violently against English traditions, and against the wishes of the English people. The English political system is such that rarely, if ever, does any political party have the majority of the country behind it. Mrs Thatcher never received more than 42% to 43% of the popular vote, while the last Labour government received only 37% or 38% of the popular vote. Yet even with a minority of the popular vote, the Government is able to impose its will on the country.

In the late 1930s, when President Roosevelt, who had won an electoral majority, wanted to pass various legislative measures which were Socialist in nature, he was prevented from doing so by the US Supreme Court, which rejected several such laws on the grounds of unconstitutionality. If England had had a Constitution similar to the American one, much of the legislation enacted by both parties over the last fifty years would not have been possible, and some of the controversial issues that are debated today (the banning of hunting, for example) would not even be discussed, because they would be in contravention of any Constitution.

What is the solution then for England? Under the guise of "the common good", freedoms are continually being taken away by both parties, and further freedoms are being taken away by the EU. How is one to protect one's rights in this atmosphere? This is perhaps the most important question that the younger generation must address.

If there is one thing more than any other that distinguishes a civilised country from an uncivilised one, it is the existence in that country of a "rule of law" - that is a firm legal system that is invariably upheld. Countries which lack such a system, have only a "rule of man" - There are no firm laws, and decisions are arrived at only according to the personal whims or self-interest of whoever happens to be deciding the case - rulers, ministers, judges, juries, etc.

It has been clear for some years now that "rule of law" has been slowly disappearing in America, and that it is no longer possible to predict the outcome of any case in the law courts, regardless of how clear the facts are. When a burglar who falls through a skylight and hurts himself can recover damages from the owner of the house; and when a U.S. Supreme Court judge openly declares that he is not obliged to decide cases on the basis of the wording of the Constitution, but can "interpret" that wording in accordance with his own political views, we are no longer under a "rule of law". As a result, the level of civilisation in America is being continually eroded. This trend has in recent years spread to England, and there have been many examples recently in English courts, of cases that were decided neither by the wording nor by the intent of the law.

This breakdown of law is connected with another phenomenon that is just as unacceptable in a civilised country - namely, the use of force to obtain political ends or other self-interests. A recent case in England graphically illustrates both of these points. Three women broke into a British Aerospace factory at night, and did £1.5 million worth of damage to a plane, because it had been sold to Indonesia, a country which did not find political favour in their eyes. Nevertheless, the women were found not guilty of causing criminal damage by the jury, who accepted the defence that the women's action was justified "on political grounds," i.e. that the plane might be used in a way that they did not agree with. Now once political views are accepted as a valid defence for commiting a crime,the rule of law disintegrates - everyone has different political views, and there is no crime (not even murder) which can not be justified by someone's political views. Rule of law is then soon replaced by the law of the jungle. (An interesting question to ask oneself is whether three ordinary middle-class women forty years ago would have been concerned with events taking place ten thousand miles away, and entirely unconnected with their own lives, let alone would have dreamt of breaking into a factory at night and destroying expensive property).

It is also important to understand that many so-called "peaceful demonstrations" are not peaceful at all. If people want to assemble in Trafalgar Square, that may or may not be a peaceful demonstration. But if a stranger walks into your house, sits on your sofa, and refuses to move until you do something that he wants you to do, that is not at all "peaceful". The fact that he has not used force to come in does not make it "peaceful", because he is putting you into a position where you can only evict him by force. He is "peaceful" only as long as you do what he wants. The crucial point to understand about such demonstrators is that the "justness" or unjustness of their cause is entirely irrelevant. We all have causes that we think are just, but the mark of a civilised country is that no one except the government can ever be allowed to use force. The moment anyone else is allowed to do so, civilisation begins to fall away. Unless serious efforts are soon made to arrest these trends, we will follow America on the road to barbarism.