With our government challenging court decisions regarding the repatriation of Canadian citizens by invoking “Executive Privilege” under the guise of “Nation Security” perhaps these extracts from an old speech by David Kilgore are worth considering. He says so much clearer than I, and with greater authority given his service in the House, the things that I think need to be said loudly and often if we are to protect our Democracy. In his speech, of which this is but a few small extracts, he was talking about democracy across the world but it is applicable to our own democracy, particularly given recent events.
In 1947, Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill’s words were prophetic. Democracy is a difficult and necessarily arduous process. It is about citizens and states organizing through an institutional core in a common effort for societal betterment and justice. We democrats know that our system is not easy; nor has it been perfected. But it is in this very difficulty and imperfection that the strengths of democracy are present. It is in our struggle to maintain the democratic systems some have enjoyed for hundreds of years; it is in our fight to consolidate flourishing new democracies. Indeed in gatherings such as this one the richness and strengths of the democratic process are evident………..
Threats to Democracy
If there is one overriding truth about democracy, it is that it is precious but vulnerable. The twentieth century shows that the enemies of democracy are as numerous as they are threatening. Over the course of my 21 years as a parliamentarian and through travels as Canada’s Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I have witnessed many threats to democracy. While many are obvious, the most dangerous are subtle. It is not empty stomachs, impunity or corruption alone that necessarily jeopardize democracy; it is their accumulated effects. The greatest threat to democracy does not always come from the barrel of a gun, but from the collected effects of poverty, apathy, and economic insecurity. Another obstacle to democracy is that the value of its name often exceeds the principles of its practice. The past century demonstrated that the banner of democracy was used to sustain just about any system. Democracy does not include oppression, corruption, division, segregation, terror and murder. A genuinely democratic nation thrives on diversity and difference, through which it builds on its collective wisdom and strengths. We must now forge a new trail in the twenty-first century where the merits of democracy are not in its name alone, but in its non-negotiable, irrefutable truths……………..
Rule of Law
Fundamental to a healthy democracy is a strong judiciary. Alexander Hamilton noted that there could be no liberty if the power of the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive branches of government. In some cases, the tyranny of legislatures was considered to be the most formidable impediment to the proper development and functioning of constitutional democracy. In Canada we feel that an independent judiciary, with real power to review acts passed by legislators, is a safeguard against potential harms that may be caused to the rights of individuals. (I am not at all sure that this is true in some cases and some areas of Canada. Rural.) The rule of law and independent judiciaries, consistent with international human rights standards, are not present in all democracies. Judges are dismissed in some jurisdictions if they do not pass judgments that are acceptable to the government, and more obsequious replacements are found. There may be threats of violence against judges in order to persuade them to act in accordance to the will of a dictator. Under these conditions, there can be no impartiality as judges must choose between their own personal safety and the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. This is an extreme example; but more subtle means are deployed by regimes that seek to project an image of a constitutional democracy, and yet rule as a dictatorship of the legislature or executive. Striking an appropriate balance between majority rule and protection of individual and minorities’ rights is one of democracy’s most enduring challenges. John Locke expressed the notion of inalienable rights in a society: those rights which are so fundamental to the well being and happiness of an individual that a state has very limited rights to infringe upon them. In more modern times these inalienable rights have taken the title of fundamental rights or human rights in the perspective of international law. One needs only to look at a newspaper to find instances where individual and group rights are being infringed. Democracy’s reliance on a vigorous judiciary makes it possible for minorities and marginalized groups within a state to live peacefully as full members of society. Such groups are no less entitled to live a happy and fulfilling life than those of us who had been lucky enough to be born into freedom. All nations give their judges and lawyers the authority to ensure justice for all, even in the face of mob anger and prejudice.
Canada, Multilateralism and Democracy
What has Canada learned from its experiences in the Commonwealth, the OAS and La Francophonie? I think that we first have concluded that there is no single model for how to address threats to democracy. In the contexts of the Commonwealth and the Americas, CMAG and the OAS have respectively worked well. For Canada, engaging global partners in democracy through multilateral institutions has been our preferred approach. The second conclusion is that each threat to democracy must be addressed in its own context. In many cases, the best approach is one of what we might call accompaniment. That is, we need to be supportive of local initiatives and ideas on how to strengthen democracy and send a message that external actors are there to support, and not necessarily to force change. Wherever possible, we should let local actors take the lead in resolving their own challenges. In other cases, however, particularly when there are violations of fundamental principles, we must be prepared to take stronger measures. This again argues against universal models, but instead supports the idea of taking a country-level approach to democracy strengthening. Third, our experience has shown that while in a few cases, threats to democracy can be resolved in short order, most of the time, we must travel a long road and have patience. As external supporters, we need to be ready to listen, enter into dialogue, and provide technical advice and assistance where needed, and be willing to do so over an extended period. Finally, we must always be careful that in our efforts to be creative and supportive, we do not compromise basic principles or offer bad advice, and keep our actions in-line with the promotion and protection of human rights consistent with international human rights law. Otherwise, we will not have democracy and we will have betrayed the people we are trying to help. While the threats to democracy may seem great, we must never let them overwhelm us. As I stated earlier, the strength of democracy is in the struggle. It is a struggle to build the conditions in which democracy can grow and it is a continual struggle to maintain it where it is strong. With a full appreciation and understanding of what threatens democracy, let us continue the critical endeavour of strengthening it.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democra2.htm David Kilgour was one of the two longest-serving MPs in the House of Commons for the 38th Parliament. First elected in 1979 in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona, he was re-elected seven times.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/bio.htm
Unfortunately we cannot dismiss his comments as being only applicable for emerging democracy’s when our government is constantly challenging our courts, our “independent” watchdog commissions and departments and indeed even our electoral processes!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
A blog to give a voice to our concern about the continued erosion of our democratic processes not only within the House of Commons and within our electoral system but also throughout our society. Here you will find articles about the current problems within our parliamentary democracy, about actions both good and bad by our elected representatives, about possible solutions, opinions and debate about the state of democracy in Canada, and about our roles/responsibilities as democratic citizens. We invite your thoughtful and polite comments upon our posts and ask those who wish to post longer articles or share ideas on this subject to submit them for inclusion as a guest post.
Contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com
Contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Is "Majority Rule" democracy?
Most people think so. It’s one of those myths that we have clung to for a long time. But when the Athenians, the architects of democracy, created a system that would guarantee “freedom from tyranny”, majority rule was not a basic tenet: “The essential features of First Democracy were freedom from tyranny and the inclusion of all citizens in governance. These go together. Any kind of tyranny – including majority rule – keeps some citizens out of government.” Paul Woodruff, First Democracy
In Falkland we are being given a $6000 referendum on whether or not to purchase a particular product; in this case, mosquito control. This “choice” is being given to us because we had 3 horrific weeks of mosquitoes last spring, and it’s an “all or nothing” kind of thing. We either ALL pay for this product (whether we want it or not) or we ALL don’t get this product (whether we want it or not). It actually isn’t much of a choice, because up to potentially half of us could end up very unhappy with the results, and if we vote “yes”, then we have the burden of that $6000 to repay, plus the cost of the assessment done by the biologists/salesmen last year. This is the kind of choice that can strain relationships amongst neighbours and friends. Like I said, it isn’t much of a choice.
There are more democratic and cheaper ways of doing things. A survey could have been sent to each household with the following questions:
_____ I would like some form of chemical mosquito control program to be done in Falkland as soon as possible.
_____ I would like the mosquito situation monitored for a few years and public education to be given about mosquito life cycles and how to prevent them.
_____ I don’t think one bad year of mosquitoes constitutes taking any action at this point.
_____I would like to learn how to build bat houses, attract frogs and other predators to my back yard and would appreciate workshops on these topics.
Such a survey, delivered to each house with a note that every voice counts, would have gone a long way to avoid this current either/or situation. As it is, if we vote “NO” now, we won’t get a chance to re-visit this issue for potentially many years. If we vote “YES”, we will pay an extra $150 on our property taxes next year, and then an extra $122 every year there-after, and if we ever decide we don’t want or need this program, then we will have to pay for another referendum (and I am honestly very curious why a referendum in Area D costs $6000).
Now I personally am voting NO. I don’t want this product, much as I don’t ever want air conditioning. There are no guarantees that it isn’t harmful to the ecology of our area, there are no guarantees that we indeed have a problem and that this Bti will solve it, and money is tight; I don’t want to pay extra for something that I don’t feel we need. If the majority says “Yes” then I won’t be very happy. I will be stuck paying for something that I don’t want. My voice, and the voice of the rest of the 49% or less people, will count for nothing. And vice versa with a “NO” vote; the people who can’t handle mosquitoes will be unhappy. No – this referendum is not democracy in action. Calling a meeting of all concerned residents to discuss and come up with a plan together – that would have been democracy. So if we can’t even manage to do things democratically at the local level of the regional district, then what hope have we of ever re-gaining our democracy provincially or federally? As we just proved here in BC; the “majority” does not want democracy, and so we have none. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
In Falkland we are being given a $6000 referendum on whether or not to purchase a particular product; in this case, mosquito control. This “choice” is being given to us because we had 3 horrific weeks of mosquitoes last spring, and it’s an “all or nothing” kind of thing. We either ALL pay for this product (whether we want it or not) or we ALL don’t get this product (whether we want it or not). It actually isn’t much of a choice, because up to potentially half of us could end up very unhappy with the results, and if we vote “yes”, then we have the burden of that $6000 to repay, plus the cost of the assessment done by the biologists/salesmen last year. This is the kind of choice that can strain relationships amongst neighbours and friends. Like I said, it isn’t much of a choice.
There are more democratic and cheaper ways of doing things. A survey could have been sent to each household with the following questions:
_____ I would like some form of chemical mosquito control program to be done in Falkland as soon as possible.
_____ I would like the mosquito situation monitored for a few years and public education to be given about mosquito life cycles and how to prevent them.
_____ I don’t think one bad year of mosquitoes constitutes taking any action at this point.
_____I would like to learn how to build bat houses, attract frogs and other predators to my back yard and would appreciate workshops on these topics.
Such a survey, delivered to each house with a note that every voice counts, would have gone a long way to avoid this current either/or situation. As it is, if we vote “NO” now, we won’t get a chance to re-visit this issue for potentially many years. If we vote “YES”, we will pay an extra $150 on our property taxes next year, and then an extra $122 every year there-after, and if we ever decide we don’t want or need this program, then we will have to pay for another referendum (and I am honestly very curious why a referendum in Area D costs $6000).
Now I personally am voting NO. I don’t want this product, much as I don’t ever want air conditioning. There are no guarantees that it isn’t harmful to the ecology of our area, there are no guarantees that we indeed have a problem and that this Bti will solve it, and money is tight; I don’t want to pay extra for something that I don’t feel we need. If the majority says “Yes” then I won’t be very happy. I will be stuck paying for something that I don’t want. My voice, and the voice of the rest of the 49% or less people, will count for nothing. And vice versa with a “NO” vote; the people who can’t handle mosquitoes will be unhappy. No – this referendum is not democracy in action. Calling a meeting of all concerned residents to discuss and come up with a plan together – that would have been democracy. So if we can’t even manage to do things democratically at the local level of the regional district, then what hope have we of ever re-gaining our democracy provincially or federally? As we just proved here in BC; the “majority” does not want democracy, and so we have none. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Parliamentary Sideshow.
Often the search for those within government who truly support democracy seems all but futile but once in a while a bright light shines out. One such recent brilliant moment came from David Chudnovsky, NDP MLA in the BC legislature shortly before it shut down for the recent election. His remarks to that body are unfortunately all too accurate, would that all our MLA’s, MPP’s, and MP’s across the country take note and then DO something about it.
Here is an extract from his remarks courtesy of the BC-STV website
“... Madam Speaker, I've spent four years here, so it seems to me I have the right and, I think, the responsibility to say some things about this Legislature and how it works — or doesn't work. If the people of the province actually spent some of their time watching us here, they'd be appalled. Every one of us knows that. It's not just that we heckle and yell at one another. It's much more fundamental than that.
They sent us here to govern, and we don't. Everybody who works here knows that the real governing takes place in the Premier's office with a few handpicked friends and advisers. That's not just this government. I'm not talking about just this government.
We here in this chamber are a kind of sideshow — an important sideshow but a sideshow nonetheless. We're part of the show that results in the choice of the next Premier in whose office the small group of advisers will again make the important decisions.
Who's winning question period? What's the tone in the Legislature? Who's made the best quips this week? Add those questions to the results of the latest polling and the opinions of a few pundits, and presto, we have what passes for politics in British Columbia. Rather than substance, this chamber is filled with sound and sometimes fury, but it signifies not very much.
The people sent us here to listen to one another, but we don't. They sent us here to negotiate with one another, but we don't. They sent us here, every one of us, to advise government, to take the debate seriously and to be taken seriously, but we don't. That's mostly because the debate hardly matters.”
He goes on to say that Party discipline should not be invoked for anything other than “matters of confidence” and that some form of proportional voting would do much to ensure that all views are better represented in the legislature. Having been making these points for some time now about our federal legislature, I am encouraged by an elected representative actually saying it in one of our country’s legislature’s. Then there is the recent newsletter from the Greens reminding me that there are others who recognise this problem and who seek to change the status quo if only we will give them a chance.
From the Green Party Newsletter
No one who loves Canada and its proud democratic traditions can be anything but horrified at the wretched state of our political institutions. Vision, leadership and any coherent sense of direction have ceased to exist.Parliament and its committees are a national disgrace—verbal free-for-alls where the partisan tribes congregate to taunt and bray at each other. There is no debate worthy of the name and hardly any policy even worth debating. Cabinet ministers move their mouths but everyone knows that it's Stephen Harper and his advisers pulling the strings.
The old-line political parties cling to the archaic first-past-the-post voting system that sustains them, conveniently ignoring the fact that it mocks democracy by effectively disenfranchising millions of Canadians and crushing political diversity.And still after every federal election there are post mortems into why voter turnout has declined yet again; why young people in particular feel increasingly alienated from politics, politicians and their government.
It's time to turn back this rising tide of cynicism and apathy. Our democracy is worth fighting for and we must act quickly and decisively to restore public confidence in our political institutions.The Green Party believes that the old partisan battles of left against right are yesterday's politics. Good government in the 21st century is not about what divides us, but what brings us together to accomplish the things that we cannot do alone.We want to restore respect, dignity and statesmanship to our houses of parliament. We want a fair voting system that reflects the will of the people, not the survival instincts of a few old political parties.Most of all, we want a government that works for us, the people—a government we can be proud of again.
Let me be clear here, we here try to be as non partisan as possible in promoting democracy but it is clear (at least to me) that the national Greens are the only political party who have expressed any real concern for what is happening in our legislatures across the country. Witness the following extracts from their “platform”, a direction which seems to be almost the complete opposite of where things are headed right now..
Green MPs will work to:
· Amend the Accountability Act to ensure that all those who monitor government are selected at arms length from those they monitor, to eliminate the blanket exemptions on public release of government documents and to guarantee transparency and openness for all government activities.
· Restore Parliamentary Committees as a vehicle for non-partisan, constructive improvement of legislation and require that the improved version of such legislation be the version put to Parliament for vote.
· Enact effective whistle-blower protection for public and private sector employees.
· Institute a code of conduct and an independent complaints process to ensure that tax dollars are not used for pre-election partisan purposes.
· Institute mandatory training in ethics for MPs and their staffs, requiring all MPs and staff to take in-house training on the basics of good management and ethics in Parliament.
· Reform the appointments system to discourage patronage by establishing an independent agency for ensuring that appointments to government tribunals, boards and senior positions are done through a qualification-based process and are not politically motivated patronage appointments
· Strengthen the mandates of Independent Officers of Parliament, including the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner.
· Implement stand-alone legislation to create an independent Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development, removing the office from that of subservience to the Auditor General.
· Replace the current Ethics Commissioner, who reports privately to the Prime Minister, with an independent Ethics Commission reporting to Parliament and appointed through a merit-based process with strong powers to investigate government officials and lobbyists.
· Provide parliamentarians with independent regulatory audits through the Auditor General’s office on the effectiveness of government regulations in meeting their stated public purposes.
· Make service improvements a higher priority for all agencies and departments, with systematic citizen feedback and a schedule for periodic program review.
· Require the independence of public sector employees who oversee industry, such as those responsible for such areas as fisheries science and drug licensing, from those industries.
· Require long-term public departmental service plans to report on government program purposes, costs, reforms and performance.
· Strengthen the rules of conduct for lobbying. All lobbyists’ contacts with politicians and government bureaucrats both formal and informal must be reported and made public.
I cannot see anyone who cares about our democracy NOT wanting those things (and much more along the same lines) and as without such protections all else is rather meaningless, such “platforms” are very actractive irregardless of other ideas which I may not embrace with such entheusium. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Here is an extract from his remarks courtesy of the BC-STV website
“... Madam Speaker, I've spent four years here, so it seems to me I have the right and, I think, the responsibility to say some things about this Legislature and how it works — or doesn't work. If the people of the province actually spent some of their time watching us here, they'd be appalled. Every one of us knows that. It's not just that we heckle and yell at one another. It's much more fundamental than that.
They sent us here to govern, and we don't. Everybody who works here knows that the real governing takes place in the Premier's office with a few handpicked friends and advisers. That's not just this government. I'm not talking about just this government.
We here in this chamber are a kind of sideshow — an important sideshow but a sideshow nonetheless. We're part of the show that results in the choice of the next Premier in whose office the small group of advisers will again make the important decisions.
Who's winning question period? What's the tone in the Legislature? Who's made the best quips this week? Add those questions to the results of the latest polling and the opinions of a few pundits, and presto, we have what passes for politics in British Columbia. Rather than substance, this chamber is filled with sound and sometimes fury, but it signifies not very much.
The people sent us here to listen to one another, but we don't. They sent us here to negotiate with one another, but we don't. They sent us here, every one of us, to advise government, to take the debate seriously and to be taken seriously, but we don't. That's mostly because the debate hardly matters.”
He goes on to say that Party discipline should not be invoked for anything other than “matters of confidence” and that some form of proportional voting would do much to ensure that all views are better represented in the legislature. Having been making these points for some time now about our federal legislature, I am encouraged by an elected representative actually saying it in one of our country’s legislature’s. Then there is the recent newsletter from the Greens reminding me that there are others who recognise this problem and who seek to change the status quo if only we will give them a chance.
From the Green Party Newsletter
No one who loves Canada and its proud democratic traditions can be anything but horrified at the wretched state of our political institutions. Vision, leadership and any coherent sense of direction have ceased to exist.Parliament and its committees are a national disgrace—verbal free-for-alls where the partisan tribes congregate to taunt and bray at each other. There is no debate worthy of the name and hardly any policy even worth debating. Cabinet ministers move their mouths but everyone knows that it's Stephen Harper and his advisers pulling the strings.
The old-line political parties cling to the archaic first-past-the-post voting system that sustains them, conveniently ignoring the fact that it mocks democracy by effectively disenfranchising millions of Canadians and crushing political diversity.And still after every federal election there are post mortems into why voter turnout has declined yet again; why young people in particular feel increasingly alienated from politics, politicians and their government.
It's time to turn back this rising tide of cynicism and apathy. Our democracy is worth fighting for and we must act quickly and decisively to restore public confidence in our political institutions.The Green Party believes that the old partisan battles of left against right are yesterday's politics. Good government in the 21st century is not about what divides us, but what brings us together to accomplish the things that we cannot do alone.We want to restore respect, dignity and statesmanship to our houses of parliament. We want a fair voting system that reflects the will of the people, not the survival instincts of a few old political parties.Most of all, we want a government that works for us, the people—a government we can be proud of again.
Let me be clear here, we here try to be as non partisan as possible in promoting democracy but it is clear (at least to me) that the national Greens are the only political party who have expressed any real concern for what is happening in our legislatures across the country. Witness the following extracts from their “platform”, a direction which seems to be almost the complete opposite of where things are headed right now..
Green MPs will work to:
· Amend the Accountability Act to ensure that all those who monitor government are selected at arms length from those they monitor, to eliminate the blanket exemptions on public release of government documents and to guarantee transparency and openness for all government activities.
· Restore Parliamentary Committees as a vehicle for non-partisan, constructive improvement of legislation and require that the improved version of such legislation be the version put to Parliament for vote.
· Enact effective whistle-blower protection for public and private sector employees.
· Institute a code of conduct and an independent complaints process to ensure that tax dollars are not used for pre-election partisan purposes.
· Institute mandatory training in ethics for MPs and their staffs, requiring all MPs and staff to take in-house training on the basics of good management and ethics in Parliament.
· Reform the appointments system to discourage patronage by establishing an independent agency for ensuring that appointments to government tribunals, boards and senior positions are done through a qualification-based process and are not politically motivated patronage appointments
· Strengthen the mandates of Independent Officers of Parliament, including the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner.
· Implement stand-alone legislation to create an independent Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development, removing the office from that of subservience to the Auditor General.
· Replace the current Ethics Commissioner, who reports privately to the Prime Minister, with an independent Ethics Commission reporting to Parliament and appointed through a merit-based process with strong powers to investigate government officials and lobbyists.
· Provide parliamentarians with independent regulatory audits through the Auditor General’s office on the effectiveness of government regulations in meeting their stated public purposes.
· Make service improvements a higher priority for all agencies and departments, with systematic citizen feedback and a schedule for periodic program review.
· Require the independence of public sector employees who oversee industry, such as those responsible for such areas as fisheries science and drug licensing, from those industries.
· Require long-term public departmental service plans to report on government program purposes, costs, reforms and performance.
· Strengthen the rules of conduct for lobbying. All lobbyists’ contacts with politicians and government bureaucrats both formal and informal must be reported and made public.
I cannot see anyone who cares about our democracy NOT wanting those things (and much more along the same lines) and as without such protections all else is rather meaningless, such “platforms” are very actractive irregardless of other ideas which I may not embrace with such entheusium. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Saturday, May 16, 2009
To Vote or not to Vote….
…..is the question a very prolific blogger has recently raised by advocating NOT voting whilst still pressing for electoral and democratic reform. Having been strongly promoting STV for BC in the last few weeks I understand her frustration however I do not believe “opting out” is a productive way of addressing the flawed system under which we now operate, not accepting commentary that strives to ask the question “how does this help” or puts the other point of view does little to help with the dilemma we all find ourselves in. It is, in my view, anti-democratic in and of its self!
This post is to simply ask this. How do you expect to enable change democratically if you do not work within our, admittedly flawed, democratic system by voting for the best (of the worst) and pressuring that person (as best as you can) to seek change in both the electoral system and the actions and accountability of those who represent us. I suppose that one can pressure them without voting for them but that still does not excuse all those BCers who did not even bother to vote on the STV referendum, if that other 50% had voted perhaps you would have a democratically decided new system next time.
I invite that blogger and any others that have decided that “it is just not worth it” and did not or will not vote when given an opportunity to explain their logic to me, for I truly do not understand. I truly believe that the only way to change a democratic system DEMOCRATICALLY is to do so from within, using the existing system, and that means getting more involved not less. The only other option is to descend into civil unrest and “overthrow” the current government, but then what?
For your interest here is the comment which that blogger chose to delete…
“Whilst I understand you frustration I fail to understand how you expect to promote change democratically if you do not at least attempt to do so using the current (admittedly flawed) system. How does not voting change things for the better, how does it help those partys who may be striving to get their foot in the door to try and change things? There is much wrong with our political system, mostly due to undemocratic actions by the established partys but opting out (in my view) simply gives them a free ride.”
If you have some thoughts on this you may add your comments below, we will listen to BOTH sides of the debate even those who’s actions I may view as anti-democratic! Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
This post is to simply ask this. How do you expect to enable change democratically if you do not work within our, admittedly flawed, democratic system by voting for the best (of the worst) and pressuring that person (as best as you can) to seek change in both the electoral system and the actions and accountability of those who represent us. I suppose that one can pressure them without voting for them but that still does not excuse all those BCers who did not even bother to vote on the STV referendum, if that other 50% had voted perhaps you would have a democratically decided new system next time.
I invite that blogger and any others that have decided that “it is just not worth it” and did not or will not vote when given an opportunity to explain their logic to me, for I truly do not understand. I truly believe that the only way to change a democratic system DEMOCRATICALLY is to do so from within, using the existing system, and that means getting more involved not less. The only other option is to descend into civil unrest and “overthrow” the current government, but then what?
For your interest here is the comment which that blogger chose to delete…
“Whilst I understand you frustration I fail to understand how you expect to promote change democratically if you do not at least attempt to do so using the current (admittedly flawed) system. How does not voting change things for the better, how does it help those partys who may be striving to get their foot in the door to try and change things? There is much wrong with our political system, mostly due to undemocratic actions by the established partys but opting out (in my view) simply gives them a free ride.”
If you have some thoughts on this you may add your comments below, we will listen to BOTH sides of the debate even those who’s actions I may view as anti-democratic! Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Threats to Democracy
With our government challenging court decisions regarding the repatriation of Canadian citizens by invoking “Executive Privilege” under the guise of “Nation Security” perhaps these extracts from an old speech by David Kilgore are worth considering. He says so much clearer than I, and with greater authority given his service in the House, the things that I think need to be said loudly and often if we are to protect our Democracy. In his speech, of which this is but a few small extracts, he was talking about democracy across the world but it is applicable to our own democracy, particularly given recent events.
In 1947, Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill’s words were prophetic.
Democracy is a difficult and necessarily arduous process. It is about citizens and states organizing through an institutional core in a common effort for societal betterment and justice. We democrats know that our system is not easy; nor has it been perfected. But it is in this very difficulty and imperfection that the strengths of democracy are present. It is in our struggle to maintain the democratic systems some have enjoyed for hundreds of years; it is in our fight to consolidate flourishing new democracies. Indeed in gatherings such as this one the richness and strengths of the democratic process are evident………..
Threats to Democracy
If there is one overriding truth about democracy, it is that it is precious but vulnerable. The twentieth century shows that the enemies of democracy are as numerous as they are threatening. Over the course of my 21 years as a parliamentarian and through travels as Canada’s Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I have witnessed many threats to democracy. While many are obvious, the most dangerous are subtle. It is not empty stomachs, impunity or corruption alone that necessarily jeopardize democracy; it is their accumulated effects. The greatest threat to democracy does not always come from the barrel of a gun, but from the collected effects of poverty, apathy, and economic insecurity.
Another obstacle to democracy is that the value of its name often exceeds the principles of its practice. The past century demonstrated that the banner of democracy was used to sustain just about any system. Democracy does not include oppression, corruption, division, segregation, terror and murder. A genuinely democratic nation thrives on diversity and difference, through which it builds on its collective wisdom and strengths. We must now forge a new trail in the twenty-first century where the merits of democracy are not in its name alone, but in its non-negotiable, irrefutable truths……………..
Rule of Law
Fundamental to a healthy democracy is a strong judiciary. Alexander Hamilton noted that there could be no liberty if the power of the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive branches of government. In some cases, the tyranny of legislatures was considered to be the most formidable impediment to the proper development and functioning of constitutional democracy.
In Canada we feel that an independent judiciary, with real power to review acts passed by legislators, is a safeguard against potential harms that may be caused to the rights of individuals. The rule of law and independent judiciaries, consistent with international human rights standards, are not present in all democracies. Judges are dismissed in some jurisdictions if they do not pass judgments that are acceptable to the government, and more obsequious replacements are found. There may be threats of violence against judges in order to persuade them to act in accordance to the will of a dictator. Under these conditions, there can be no impartiality as judges must choose between their own personal safety and the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. This is an extreme example; but more subtle means are deployed by regimes that seek to project an image of a constitutional democracy, and yet rule as a dictatorship of the legislature or executive.
Striking an appropriate balance between majority rule and protection of individual and minorities’ rights is one of democracy’s most enduring challenges. John Locke expressed the notion of inalienable rights in a society: those rights which are so fundamental to the well being and happiness of an individual that a state has very limited rights to infringe upon them. In more modern times these inalienable rights have taken the title of fundamental rights or human rights in the perspective of international law. One needs only to look at a newspaper to find instances where individual and group rights are being infringed.
Democracy’s reliance on a vigorous judiciary makes it possible for minorities and marginalized groups within a state to live peacefully as full members of society. Such groups are no less entitled to live a happy and fulfilling life than those of us who had been lucky enough to be born into freedom. All nations give their judges and lawyers the authority to ensure justice for all, even in the face of mob anger and prejudice.
Canada, Multilateralism and Democracy
What has Canada learned from its experiences in the Commonwealth, the OAS and La Francophonie? I think that we first have concluded that there is no single model for how to address threats to democracy. In the contexts of the Commonwealth and the Americas, CMAG and the OAS have respectively worked well. For Canada, engaging global partners in democracy through multilateral institutions has been our preferred approach.
The second conclusion is that each threat to democracy must be addressed in its own context. In many cases, the best approach is one of what we might call accompaniment. That is, we need to be supportive of local initiatives and ideas on how to strengthen democracy and send a message that external actors are there to support, and not necessarily to force change. Wherever possible, we should let local actors take the lead in resolving their own challenges. In other cases, however, particularly when there are violations of fundamental principles, we must be prepared to take stronger measures. This again argues against universal models, but instead supports the idea of taking a country-level approach to democracy strengthening.
Third, our experience has shown that while in a few cases, threats to democracy can be resolved in short order, most of the time, we must travel a long road and have patience. As external supporters, we need to be ready to listen, enter into dialogue, and provide technical advice and assistance where needed, and be willing to do so over an extended period.
Finally, we must always be careful that in our efforts to be creative and supportive, we do not compromise basic principles or offer bad advice, and keep our actions in-line with the promotion and protection of human rights consistent with international human rights law. Otherwise, we will not have democracy and we will have betrayed the people we are trying to help. While the threats to democracy may seem great, we must never let them overwhelm us. As I stated earlier, the strength of democracy is in the struggle. It is a struggle to build the conditions in which democracy can grow and it is a continual struggle to maintain it where it is strong. With a full appreciation and understanding of what threatens democracy, let us continue the critical endeavour of strengthening it.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democra2.htm
David Kilgour was one of the two longest-serving MPs in the House of Commons for the 38th Parliament. First elected in 1979 in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona, he was re-elected seven times.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/bio.htm
Unfortunately we cannot dismiss his comments as being only applicable for emerging democracy’s when our government is constantly challenging our courts, our “independent” watchdog commissions and departments and indeed even our electoral processes!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
In 1947, Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Churchill’s words were prophetic.
Democracy is a difficult and necessarily arduous process. It is about citizens and states organizing through an institutional core in a common effort for societal betterment and justice. We democrats know that our system is not easy; nor has it been perfected. But it is in this very difficulty and imperfection that the strengths of democracy are present. It is in our struggle to maintain the democratic systems some have enjoyed for hundreds of years; it is in our fight to consolidate flourishing new democracies. Indeed in gatherings such as this one the richness and strengths of the democratic process are evident………..
Threats to Democracy
If there is one overriding truth about democracy, it is that it is precious but vulnerable. The twentieth century shows that the enemies of democracy are as numerous as they are threatening. Over the course of my 21 years as a parliamentarian and through travels as Canada’s Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I have witnessed many threats to democracy. While many are obvious, the most dangerous are subtle. It is not empty stomachs, impunity or corruption alone that necessarily jeopardize democracy; it is their accumulated effects. The greatest threat to democracy does not always come from the barrel of a gun, but from the collected effects of poverty, apathy, and economic insecurity.
Another obstacle to democracy is that the value of its name often exceeds the principles of its practice. The past century demonstrated that the banner of democracy was used to sustain just about any system. Democracy does not include oppression, corruption, division, segregation, terror and murder. A genuinely democratic nation thrives on diversity and difference, through which it builds on its collective wisdom and strengths. We must now forge a new trail in the twenty-first century where the merits of democracy are not in its name alone, but in its non-negotiable, irrefutable truths……………..
Rule of Law
Fundamental to a healthy democracy is a strong judiciary. Alexander Hamilton noted that there could be no liberty if the power of the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive branches of government. In some cases, the tyranny of legislatures was considered to be the most formidable impediment to the proper development and functioning of constitutional democracy.
In Canada we feel that an independent judiciary, with real power to review acts passed by legislators, is a safeguard against potential harms that may be caused to the rights of individuals. The rule of law and independent judiciaries, consistent with international human rights standards, are not present in all democracies. Judges are dismissed in some jurisdictions if they do not pass judgments that are acceptable to the government, and more obsequious replacements are found. There may be threats of violence against judges in order to persuade them to act in accordance to the will of a dictator. Under these conditions, there can be no impartiality as judges must choose between their own personal safety and the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. This is an extreme example; but more subtle means are deployed by regimes that seek to project an image of a constitutional democracy, and yet rule as a dictatorship of the legislature or executive.
Striking an appropriate balance between majority rule and protection of individual and minorities’ rights is one of democracy’s most enduring challenges. John Locke expressed the notion of inalienable rights in a society: those rights which are so fundamental to the well being and happiness of an individual that a state has very limited rights to infringe upon them. In more modern times these inalienable rights have taken the title of fundamental rights or human rights in the perspective of international law. One needs only to look at a newspaper to find instances where individual and group rights are being infringed.
Democracy’s reliance on a vigorous judiciary makes it possible for minorities and marginalized groups within a state to live peacefully as full members of society. Such groups are no less entitled to live a happy and fulfilling life than those of us who had been lucky enough to be born into freedom. All nations give their judges and lawyers the authority to ensure justice for all, even in the face of mob anger and prejudice.
Canada, Multilateralism and Democracy
What has Canada learned from its experiences in the Commonwealth, the OAS and La Francophonie? I think that we first have concluded that there is no single model for how to address threats to democracy. In the contexts of the Commonwealth and the Americas, CMAG and the OAS have respectively worked well. For Canada, engaging global partners in democracy through multilateral institutions has been our preferred approach.
The second conclusion is that each threat to democracy must be addressed in its own context. In many cases, the best approach is one of what we might call accompaniment. That is, we need to be supportive of local initiatives and ideas on how to strengthen democracy and send a message that external actors are there to support, and not necessarily to force change. Wherever possible, we should let local actors take the lead in resolving their own challenges. In other cases, however, particularly when there are violations of fundamental principles, we must be prepared to take stronger measures. This again argues against universal models, but instead supports the idea of taking a country-level approach to democracy strengthening.
Third, our experience has shown that while in a few cases, threats to democracy can be resolved in short order, most of the time, we must travel a long road and have patience. As external supporters, we need to be ready to listen, enter into dialogue, and provide technical advice and assistance where needed, and be willing to do so over an extended period.
Finally, we must always be careful that in our efforts to be creative and supportive, we do not compromise basic principles or offer bad advice, and keep our actions in-line with the promotion and protection of human rights consistent with international human rights law. Otherwise, we will not have democracy and we will have betrayed the people we are trying to help. While the threats to democracy may seem great, we must never let them overwhelm us. As I stated earlier, the strength of democracy is in the struggle. It is a struggle to build the conditions in which democracy can grow and it is a continual struggle to maintain it where it is strong. With a full appreciation and understanding of what threatens democracy, let us continue the critical endeavour of strengthening it.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democra2.htm
David Kilgour was one of the two longest-serving MPs in the House of Commons for the 38th Parliament. First elected in 1979 in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona, he was re-elected seven times.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/bio.htm
Unfortunately we cannot dismiss his comments as being only applicable for emerging democracy’s when our government is constantly challenging our courts, our “independent” watchdog commissions and departments and indeed even our electoral processes!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Friday, May 8, 2009
How Parliament Works…..
…is a mystery to many of us, but as I said in my reply to Senators McCoy’s post we must understand it to debate what is wrong with it and where the democratic processes are being eroded. The information is all there on the Parliament of Canada web site but some of the information is buried deep and hard to find particularly information on the Senate. This then is my effort to summarize the important stuff and provide direct links to some of the information that we may debate the faults and problems with our system from a position of knowledge.
The Legislative Process
All bills normally go through a similar series of steps in both the Senate and the Commons.
1) Introduction: The process begins when a bill is introduced.
2) First reading: (the bill proposing a law is received, printed and circulated)
3) Second Reading: The principle of the bill is debated. It is then voted on and the bill is sent to a parliamentary committee.
4) Committee Stage: A committee hears witnesses, (which may include Ministers, department officials, experts and members of the public) examines the bill clause by clause and submits a report recommending the bill be accepted as is or with amendments, or that it not proceed any further.
5) Report Stage: Additional amendments to the bill may be moved, debated and voted on.
6) Third Reading: The bill is debated a final time and voted on.
7) Message: Once passed, the bill is sent to the Senate, where the process starts again from first reading.
Passing bills in the Senate
Passing bills in the Senate is similar to that in the House of Commons. There are five steps:
1) First reading: The bill is received, printed and circulated. This is an introductory proceeding without debate or vote.
2) Second reading: The principle of the bill is debated: Is the bill good policy?
3) Committee stage: Ministers, department officials, experts and members of the public who have an interest in the bill appear as witnesses before a committee. Committee members then study the bill clause by clause. Amendments or changes to the bill may be proposed. In the final stage, the committee adopts a report on the bill, recommending to the Senate that it be accepted as is; that it be accepted with amendments; or that it be rejected.
4) Report stage: If the committee report recommends adopting the bill as is (or with no amendments), there is no report stage in the Senate and the bill goes directly to third reading.If, however, the report recommends amendments, the Senate must debate the report and either accept, amend or reject the amendments, in whole or in part.
5) Third reading: Final approval of the bill. Further amendments can be considered at this stage.
If the bill originated in the Senate, the bill is sent to the House of Commons, which will examine it through a similar three-reading process. If the bill originated in the House of Commons and was not amended in the Senate, it is now ready for Royal Assent.
If the bill originated in the Commons and was amended in the Senate, a message about the amendments is sent to the Commons to ask for their agreement. Bills are usually proposed by the government and introduced in the House of Commons. The Senate also initiates legislation, but any bills to collect or spend public funds must originate in the Commons.
The Commons and the Senate must agree on the exact contents of a bill before Royal Assent can be granted, making it law. Both Houses must approve bills in identical form before they can become law. Bills become law when they receive Royal Assent, on a date specified in the bill or on a date set by Order-in-Council.
Royal Assent: The Governor General or a deputy gives the bill Royal Assent, this is largely a symbolic stage representing the Monarchy’s former influence on parliament (the same is true of the British parliamentary system upon which ours is based)
Probably the most important part of this process is the committee stage (in both the House and the Senate) but seems to be the one which receives the least public attention perhaps because unless there is some contentious and partisan issue we simply do not hear about it. I will focus upon the Senate in this post as the HoC Committee process, and the problems therein caused by overly partisan nonsense, is fodder for a whole other article. Of particular interest in debating how to change or improve the rules under which our parliamentarians operate may be this senate committee .
The following is extracted from How Does a Bill Become a Law where you will also find similar material about the House of Commons.
An essential element of parliamentarians’ work is the study and examination of issues, policies and programs. Much of this investigative work is done in committee, a forum which allows Senators and Members of the House of Commons to study issues in considerably more depth than is possible in either Chamber.
In the Senate: In addition to their work on legislation in committees, Senators undertake a broad range of investigative work. Senators possess diverse backgrounds and interests — scan the ranks of the Senate and you will see business people, lawyers, teachers, surgeons, Aboriginal leaders and journalists, as well as experts in a range of areas, such as the environment, manufacturing, economics and, of course, politics. The longer tenure of Senators (up to age 75) allows them to build up significant expertise in their areas of investigative interest.
Individual Senators can raise an issue in the Senate for debate — a process that sometimes leads to an “Order of Reference” or even establishment of a Senate committee. In this way, Senators can undertake studies of major social and economic issues that may not be a part of the Government’s legislative agenda. Overall, Senate committees tend to be less partisan than Commons committees and allow more time for exhaustive analysis of important issues.
In the Senate: As the House of “sober, second thought”, the Senate fulfills an important “watchdog” role in Parliament, carefully scrutinizing the Government’s policy and legislation. In some cases, the existence of the Senate may act as a check on the Government initiatives which may not withstand close Senate examination. During Question Period, Senators seek information from the Leader of the Government in the Senate about government actions and policies.
I do hope this has helped to make the process clearer, it is not perhaps a post that will generated much debate but without this knowledge of the system how can we understand when it is being abused or manipulated. I have put a permanent link on our side bar to this as the understanding of process is so important to protecting our democracy. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
The Legislative Process
All bills normally go through a similar series of steps in both the Senate and the Commons.
1) Introduction: The process begins when a bill is introduced.
2) First reading: (the bill proposing a law is received, printed and circulated)
3) Second Reading: The principle of the bill is debated. It is then voted on and the bill is sent to a parliamentary committee.
4) Committee Stage: A committee hears witnesses, (which may include Ministers, department officials, experts and members of the public) examines the bill clause by clause and submits a report recommending the bill be accepted as is or with amendments, or that it not proceed any further.
5) Report Stage: Additional amendments to the bill may be moved, debated and voted on.
6) Third Reading: The bill is debated a final time and voted on.
7) Message: Once passed, the bill is sent to the Senate, where the process starts again from first reading.
Passing bills in the Senate
Passing bills in the Senate is similar to that in the House of Commons. There are five steps:
1) First reading: The bill is received, printed and circulated. This is an introductory proceeding without debate or vote.
2) Second reading: The principle of the bill is debated: Is the bill good policy?
3) Committee stage: Ministers, department officials, experts and members of the public who have an interest in the bill appear as witnesses before a committee. Committee members then study the bill clause by clause. Amendments or changes to the bill may be proposed. In the final stage, the committee adopts a report on the bill, recommending to the Senate that it be accepted as is; that it be accepted with amendments; or that it be rejected.
4) Report stage: If the committee report recommends adopting the bill as is (or with no amendments), there is no report stage in the Senate and the bill goes directly to third reading.If, however, the report recommends amendments, the Senate must debate the report and either accept, amend or reject the amendments, in whole or in part.
5) Third reading: Final approval of the bill. Further amendments can be considered at this stage.
If the bill originated in the Senate, the bill is sent to the House of Commons, which will examine it through a similar three-reading process. If the bill originated in the House of Commons and was not amended in the Senate, it is now ready for Royal Assent.
If the bill originated in the Commons and was amended in the Senate, a message about the amendments is sent to the Commons to ask for their agreement. Bills are usually proposed by the government and introduced in the House of Commons. The Senate also initiates legislation, but any bills to collect or spend public funds must originate in the Commons.
The Commons and the Senate must agree on the exact contents of a bill before Royal Assent can be granted, making it law. Both Houses must approve bills in identical form before they can become law. Bills become law when they receive Royal Assent, on a date specified in the bill or on a date set by Order-in-Council.
Royal Assent: The Governor General or a deputy gives the bill Royal Assent, this is largely a symbolic stage representing the Monarchy’s former influence on parliament (the same is true of the British parliamentary system upon which ours is based)
Probably the most important part of this process is the committee stage (in both the House and the Senate) but seems to be the one which receives the least public attention perhaps because unless there is some contentious and partisan issue we simply do not hear about it. I will focus upon the Senate in this post as the HoC Committee process, and the problems therein caused by overly partisan nonsense, is fodder for a whole other article. Of particular interest in debating how to change or improve the rules under which our parliamentarians operate may be this senate committee .
The following is extracted from How Does a Bill Become a Law where you will also find similar material about the House of Commons.
An essential element of parliamentarians’ work is the study and examination of issues, policies and programs. Much of this investigative work is done in committee, a forum which allows Senators and Members of the House of Commons to study issues in considerably more depth than is possible in either Chamber.
In the Senate: In addition to their work on legislation in committees, Senators undertake a broad range of investigative work. Senators possess diverse backgrounds and interests — scan the ranks of the Senate and you will see business people, lawyers, teachers, surgeons, Aboriginal leaders and journalists, as well as experts in a range of areas, such as the environment, manufacturing, economics and, of course, politics. The longer tenure of Senators (up to age 75) allows them to build up significant expertise in their areas of investigative interest.
Individual Senators can raise an issue in the Senate for debate — a process that sometimes leads to an “Order of Reference” or even establishment of a Senate committee. In this way, Senators can undertake studies of major social and economic issues that may not be a part of the Government’s legislative agenda. Overall, Senate committees tend to be less partisan than Commons committees and allow more time for exhaustive analysis of important issues.
In the Senate: As the House of “sober, second thought”, the Senate fulfills an important “watchdog” role in Parliament, carefully scrutinizing the Government’s policy and legislation. In some cases, the existence of the Senate may act as a check on the Government initiatives which may not withstand close Senate examination. During Question Period, Senators seek information from the Leader of the Government in the Senate about government actions and policies.
I do hope this has helped to make the process clearer, it is not perhaps a post that will generated much debate but without this knowledge of the system how can we understand when it is being abused or manipulated. I have put a permanent link on our side bar to this as the understanding of process is so important to protecting our democracy. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Calling all bloggers.
We are pleased to report that this blog is now carried by the Progressive Bloggers network and therefore hopefully will receive a little more traffic. Please do read our previous postings about Canadian Democracy and have your say about the need to protect and enhance the democratic process both within our various governments and throughout our society. Submissions of articles on this subject are welcome, contact us for further information.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Saturday, May 2, 2009
What are we talking about?
Recently my colleague wrote a piece wherein she said “Canada is a Plutocracy” and this whole blog is about “Democracy” but what exactly do we mean by these descriptions. It may be useful to review some of the definitions of words we associate with various form of government
Democracy - a political system in which the supreme power is held completely by the citizens who can elect people to represent them under a free electoral system. ...
But wait, its not that simple; the Australian site of the Victorian (that’s the District of Victoria, not old fashioned!) Parliament gives these additional definitions in their report on Electronic Democracy:-
Deliberative Democracy
A form of representative democracy which involves groups of citizens who discuss and decide policy issues. The nature of deliberative democracy is similar to representative democracy, but differs in the mechanism by which decision makers are selected. Like direct democracy, this form of decision making can be used in conjunction with the representative form, such as the use of citizen juries to resolve specific policy issues.
Direct Democracy
A form of democratic government whereby citizens have the right to participate in decision making through referenda on legislative initiatives. Direct democracy can exist in parallel to representative democracy, for example, where ballot initiatives allow citizens to vote on legislative initiatives, or replace representative democracy. In practice, direct democracy is limited by the complexity of modern policy making and the capacity for citizens to deliberate issues in a timely and expedient manner.
Representative Democracy
A form of democratic government whereby citizens’ interests are represented by elected officials in open elections. Representatives act in the interests of their electors, either by martialling together electors’ views, or through personal initiative and independence between elections.
Westminster System of Parliamentary Democracy
Inherited from the United Kingdom. The Westminster system focuses on control of government created by majority control of the Lower House of the Parliament, with Ministers selected from Members of Parliament to take responsibility for the executive arm of government (bureaucratic government departments and agencies). Ministers collectively form the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, Premier (in the case of the Provinces), and are responsible for their actions to the Parliament and serve with the Parliament’s confidence.
Democratic Republic
A form of government where ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials or delegates to a legislative assembly instead of directly through the people.
And even this one which is perhaps what we should be trying to move towards:-
Electronic Democracy
The direct and indirect use of electronic technologies (information and communications technologies) to participate in the democratic process. Direct forms of electronic democracy include electronic and online voting, participation in consultation, and interactions between elected representatives and constituents. Indirect forms of electronic democracy include such things as the production and consumption of politically relevant information and community capacity building to utilise information and communications technologies.
Then there are other words you need to know when discussing our system of government:-
Plutocracy - A system of government whereby wealth and the benefits that wealth accrues lead to a concentration of power in the hands of those with disproportionate access to financial resources.
Oligarchy - Rule over the many by a few. While one could read this to mean any type of governmental system because there are always a few in power leading or speaking on behalf of the many, the term "oligarchy" is more in reference to the type of system where a small group with the same principles (mostly due to greed) band together to assure their agenda or will is accomplished. In essence, it is a government on behalf of this small group and not for the people. The people of this government serve the will of the leaders to their end.
Perhaps those two should be combined to give:-
Plutocratic Oligarchy – Rule by a small group of wealthy individuals who serve their own needs rather than that of the people over whom they rule.
Finally there is this one of which we must be very aware and guard against moving towards:-
Dictatorship - Government by a single person or group of people who are in no way held responsible to the general population. Their discretion in using the powers and resources of the state is unrestrained by any fixed legal or constitutional rules.
Which one do you think describes our current situation, which one do the majority of Canadians believe we are operating under and which one do you believe we should be striving to move towards? Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Democracy - a political system in which the supreme power is held completely by the citizens who can elect people to represent them under a free electoral system. ...
But wait, its not that simple; the Australian site of the Victorian (that’s the District of Victoria, not old fashioned!) Parliament gives these additional definitions in their report on Electronic Democracy:-
Deliberative Democracy
A form of representative democracy which involves groups of citizens who discuss and decide policy issues. The nature of deliberative democracy is similar to representative democracy, but differs in the mechanism by which decision makers are selected. Like direct democracy, this form of decision making can be used in conjunction with the representative form, such as the use of citizen juries to resolve specific policy issues.
Direct Democracy
A form of democratic government whereby citizens have the right to participate in decision making through referenda on legislative initiatives. Direct democracy can exist in parallel to representative democracy, for example, where ballot initiatives allow citizens to vote on legislative initiatives, or replace representative democracy. In practice, direct democracy is limited by the complexity of modern policy making and the capacity for citizens to deliberate issues in a timely and expedient manner.
Representative Democracy
A form of democratic government whereby citizens’ interests are represented by elected officials in open elections. Representatives act in the interests of their electors, either by martialling together electors’ views, or through personal initiative and independence between elections.
Westminster System of Parliamentary Democracy
Inherited from the United Kingdom. The Westminster system focuses on control of government created by majority control of the Lower House of the Parliament, with Ministers selected from Members of Parliament to take responsibility for the executive arm of government (bureaucratic government departments and agencies). Ministers collectively form the Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, Premier (in the case of the Provinces), and are responsible for their actions to the Parliament and serve with the Parliament’s confidence.
Democratic Republic
A form of government where ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials or delegates to a legislative assembly instead of directly through the people.
And even this one which is perhaps what we should be trying to move towards:-
Electronic Democracy
The direct and indirect use of electronic technologies (information and communications technologies) to participate in the democratic process. Direct forms of electronic democracy include electronic and online voting, participation in consultation, and interactions between elected representatives and constituents. Indirect forms of electronic democracy include such things as the production and consumption of politically relevant information and community capacity building to utilise information and communications technologies.
Then there are other words you need to know when discussing our system of government:-
Plutocracy - A system of government whereby wealth and the benefits that wealth accrues lead to a concentration of power in the hands of those with disproportionate access to financial resources.
Oligarchy - Rule over the many by a few. While one could read this to mean any type of governmental system because there are always a few in power leading or speaking on behalf of the many, the term "oligarchy" is more in reference to the type of system where a small group with the same principles (mostly due to greed) band together to assure their agenda or will is accomplished. In essence, it is a government on behalf of this small group and not for the people. The people of this government serve the will of the leaders to their end.
Perhaps those two should be combined to give:-
Plutocratic Oligarchy – Rule by a small group of wealthy individuals who serve their own needs rather than that of the people over whom they rule.
Finally there is this one of which we must be very aware and guard against moving towards:-
Dictatorship - Government by a single person or group of people who are in no way held responsible to the general population. Their discretion in using the powers and resources of the state is unrestrained by any fixed legal or constitutional rules.
Which one do you think describes our current situation, which one do the majority of Canadians believe we are operating under and which one do you believe we should be striving to move towards? Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)