[HPforGrownups] Wizarding world government

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 45441

In a message dated 16/10/2002 22:42:49 GMT Standard Time, 
christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com writes:


> For example, the government of the WW must be a fairly basic democratic with 
> as little interference in the private affairs of its citizens as possible.  
> The reason, carried over from our world, is that the wizards are always 
> armed with wands, which can be used as offensive weapons.  Someone, I 
> forget who but I'll look it up, said that an armed populace means a 
> democraticy, while an unarmed populace can be something less repersentive.  
> 
> 

I have to reply to this.
Remember that this is Britain that we are talking about in the main.
We *are* a democracy and our populace is, thank goodness, for the main part 
*unarmed*. JKR is not writing from the standpoint of one who lives in a 
country where the right to bear arms is equated with democratic rights. Quite 
the contrary.

Historically, there have been many civilisations which were not democracies 
where bearing arms was the norm. Since the WW *does* appear archaic, I don't 
think that bearing arms in itself suggests it is particularly democratic.

What it says to me is that the Muggle government must interfere hardly at all 
with the WW, as carrying a wand would certainly be classed as carrying an 
offensive weapon, which is illegal. Hence, yes, political structures and 
concepts of nationality may be different. But they are still there, as 
evidenced by the need for a Dept of International Magical Co-operation (or 
whatever - the canon's upstairs with sleeping child).

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]