EDITOR'S CHAIR: Whatever your views on Syria air strikes, democracy was the winner in Commons debate

But I will make an exception this week.

If, like me, you watched much of the ten-hour debate ahead of Wednesday night’s vote in favour of air strikes in Syria you might just have been impressed by the sight of our democracy in action.

I certainly was.

All too often, the House of Commons is a bear-pit of name-calling and juvenile behaviour.

That was not the case on Wednesday.

Instead we saw serious people debating a serious issue in a serious manner.

Okay, there was a little bit of the Punch and Judy stuff most of us have come to loathe, particularly over the Prime Minister’s alleged reference to those planning to vote against air strikes as "terrorist sympathisers".

But in general we saw all that was good about democracy in this country.

There were thoughtful and well-delivered speeches on all sides of the House, respectfully heard even by those who vehemently opposed the views of the speaker.

There was power and passion. There were even tears from one MP.

I was particularly impressed with Birmingham Ladywood’s Shabana Mahmood, a Sunni Muslim who condemned the butchery of the so-called Islamic State while admitting she would be killed for expressing such views under an IS regime.

It might not have been enough to drag the vast majority of the television audience away from The Apprentice or I’m A Celebrity ... Get Me Out Of Here, but there was drama aplenty in the House of Commons.

How many Labour MPs would vote against their own leader, even though Jeremy Corbyn had granted them a free vote?

How many Conservative MPs would go further and defy the party whip to vote against air strikes?

Did the Commons have the stomach for war, given the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan were still so fresh in the memory?

In the end, there was a substantial majority in favour of the government’s motion.

Enough Labour MPs voted with the government, and too few Tories against, to make the result a foregone conclusion long before the votes had been counted and delivered to the Speaker.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn has been widely praised for his oratory at the end of the debate, particularly the way in which he exhorted his Labour colleagues to stand up to what he called fascism.

And it was spell-binding stuff.

I met Mr Benn some years ago when he was a minister touring flood-hit areas covered by the daily newspaper I then edited.

Despite his political pedigree, he did not strike me as a natural or inspiring orator.

I had a different view on Wednesday evening.

Much has been made of the number of Labour MPs who "rebelled" against Mr Corbyn.

The Labour leader was either weak or strong for giving his MPs a free vote, depending on which political commentator you listen to.

In my view, Mr Corbyn’s decision – however it was reached – was the right thing to do.

I am not sure I have the same opinion of Mr Cameron’s decision to whip his MPs on an issue that should have been deemed too important for party politics.

But the way in which MPs of all political hues spoke said something important about Britain.

The way in which Labour MPs were allowed to defy their own leadership said something important about Britain.

The fact that Mr Corbyn, despite all the criticism he receives from a largely right-wing national media, retained the courage of his convictions said something important about Britain.

It says that we are free.

It says that democracy, however imperfect it might seem at times, should be valued and cherished.

It says that the alternative, the very medieval dictatorship expounded by the likes of IS, should be fought against. Always.

There are many people who will disagree with the decision taken by our MPs. I am one of them.

I have yet to see evidence that you can bomb for peace.

I have yet to see evidence that we truly possess the means to avoid civilian casualties through air strikes.

And I am resolute that previous military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has not made us safer. Quite the reverse, in fact.

That does not make me a terrorist sympathiser. I loathe the IS death cult and want to see it defeated.

I am not against military action, but I want to see a more holistic plan that involves more than bombing, and that does not see us enter another conflict without an exit plan.

But I respect those who hold an opposing view.

And I know one thing – such respect, such tolerance would vanish forever if the monsters of IS were to be victorious.

That is why the overwhelming majority of people are united in their hatred of these terrorists and their desire to seem them defeated.