Why I am hung-up on Democracy

Preamble
I’m going to take up from Rural’s post with this sentence: Canadians know far less about how our democratic system functions than they would like. Even a basic working definition of democracy is hard to come by. For example, the definition my Gage Canadian Dictionary gives is this:

1 a government that is periodically elected and thus controlled by the people who live under it. Under a democracy, the people rule either by direct vote at public meetings or indirectly through the election of certain representatives to govern them. 2 the ideals and principles of such a government, such as equality of rights and opportunities and the rule of the majority. 3 a country, state or community having such a government. 4 the treatment of others as one’s equals.

Quite frankly, that is a pretty bad definition, except maybe for number 4. Democracy is not the equivalent of “majority rule” for example. It is also not guaranteed simply because there are elections. We have elections, but we do not have democracy. I will explore the definitions and requirements of democracy and how it came to be that we no longer have a democracy in later posts. But for now, suffice it to say that it’s pretty bad when our own dictionary defines something as important as democracy so incorrectly. It is symptomatic of a much larger picture of the purposeful and systematic decay of democracy in this country by the proponents of unregulated and rampant market capitalism (the corporatists) and their puppet flunkies (the politicians); in short, of the few and the greedy. I will write much more about this later, and I will also talk about our role in this breakdown too; for indeed – we are all culpable, all responsible. We have all been too easily seduced. My writing on this blog is for the entry-level citizen into this topic; I’m sure I will bore my blog partner to death with such basic stuff – but someone has to write for people like me who are just now realizing that we ignore politics at our peril. I also recommend the writing of Ed Finn as a good introduction to what is going on in Canadian democracy (or rather, what is NOT going on).

~~~

The question I want to address now is this one: if democracy isn’t working right now, why keep clinging to it? Perhaps it is not the best system for Canada anymore. As one friend pointed out, democracy started in a city (Athens), not a country, and was the privilege of male citizens only (ie, no women, no slaves, no immigrants). Perhaps democracy can not be done properly in a country as huge as Canada. We have certainly not seen democracy work for our Southern neighbours either. Perhaps human beings are too selfish, as some say. Perhaps we have become too uneducated (which I will likely argue another time). Perhaps it is simply too late.

But as my research unfolds, I see some things that really catch hold of my imagination, some things that re-spark my idealism and my hope for the kind of world I want my children to grow up in. What is most compelling for me is the recognition that democracy is not a perfect system; that it does in fact suffer many flaws. Despite the flaws, however, it is the best system we have ever invented because it is the only one that takes human error into account. As Paul Woodruff wrote in his book First Democracy:

Human beings make mistakes, and human beings are prone to follow their personal interests at the expense of others. So it was for Athens, and so it is for us today. We had better work out a kind of politics that takes error and special interest into account. Democratic practices are the best defense against human weaknesses, and the most important of these is the liberal use of adversary debate. ( p 77) In democracy, there is always a critic around, always a competing leader with arguments for an alternative policy. More than that, democratic ways actually promote the kind of reasoning that we need to use when knowledge fails. (p 176)

Or, as Winston Churchill said even earlier:

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." 1947

Democracy is the only system that provides average people like us the right and responsibility to be the directors of our own lives and to come together in a collaborative genius to solve the problems that affect us; to fulfill the basic human needs both for autonomy and for community. There has been a lot of research that shows that human beings experience a greater sense of overall well-being when they practice altruism and active concern for other people; being selfish and greedy is not good for us.* Furthermore, the current paradigm of individualism is destroying our planet, and yet we acknowledge that people suffer endlessly when not respected as individuals. We have to move into a new paradigm that respects that we are both members of a community and individuals in that community (and that the community includes the entire natural world in which we are a part). Democracy can bridge this span, allowing people to speak as individuals on matters that affect everyone – to feel pride and purpose in attending to or fighting for “the common good”, whichever the case may be. Maybe one day simply “attending to” will be enough, but right now, as this blog argues, we have to fight.

Kerans and Kearney, in their book Turning the World Right-Side Up, paraphrase and then quote Benjamin Barber (1984:xv): Individual autonomy is not where people start. They do not find themselves free people and then, on the basis of that freedom, decide to act together democratically. Quite the contrary: acting communally and democratically is how they forge their autonomy as adults:

“Without participating in the common life that defines them and in the decision- making that shapes their social habitat, people cannot become individuals.

Freedom, justice, equality, and autonomy are all products of common thinking and

common living: democracy creates them.” (p 123)

As a mother, and a person, these values are crucial to me; freedom, justice, equality and autonomy. They can only occur within a context of sustainability and community, and the best tool to give full life to all this is democracy. This starts with involvement in our civic lives; with an investment in our common spaces, both literally and figuratively, with the acceptance of our responsibility to let our collective genius do the work that needs to be done. Sustainable and equitable human living can not be forced; it must be created out of the collective will of a people.

~~~

Democracy, as practiced in Canada, has never been perfect and currently is close to non-existant as both Rural and I will elucidate in further posts. Massive change is needed. I don’t want to get into how parliament works or doesn’t work because I think it needs to be totally restructured (I question even having a Prime Minister – why not a Federal Council made up of members of each province/territory?), but if we can get the CEO’s (who we did not elect) out of parliament (which indeed we must), if we can address our antiquated electoral system and our tolerance for lying, ignorant and fearful politicians, if we can build a system in which everyone is represented and no majority is able to tyrannize a minority, if we can withstand any economic sanctions leveled at us by other nations while we change our rules of global conduct – then we can move onto building a future for all the generations yet to come. Either way, we can no longer continue to accept “business as usual”. It’s killing us, as Canadians and also as a species, slowly but surely.

We can – we must – become world leaders on this ever-dwindling stage that is our only home, our only planet, our only country. We can’t hide from this. We can no longer afford to be like the buffalo of long ago, blindly rushing toward the cliff in total ignorance, but in our case, taking a whole lot of other species along with us. We, the people, can clean up our act on this planet and build a good life (not an excessive life, not an over-extended life) for every living person, but not without a collective political will – not without democracy.

………but forgotten is the true meaning and purpose of politics, to create and sustain the conditions for community life. Politics was not intended to be the province of money, but the arena wherein individuals could collectively discuss and manage those elements of life that affected the whole of their town, city, or state. In other words, politics was very much about food, water, life, and death, and thus intimately concerned with the environmental conditions that supported the community. When business introduces money into the discourse, it will by its very nature corrupt the dialogue.
~Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce, p. 166

*Excellent reading: From Empire to Earth Community by David Korten and The Brighter Side of Human Nature by Alfie Kohn.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Report on Canada’s Democratic Institutions.

This post is based upon the report on “Public Consultations on Canada’s Democratic Institutions and Practices:” as commissioned by our “New” Conservative Government in January of 2007. Whilst the process was questionable, consisting of just 12 largely unpublished forums across the country and a “national survey”; and little new came out of it, it is perhaps worth reading. The 82 page (465kb) PDF report has seen little light of day but would seem to confirm what most of us know intuitively, namely that “there is a sense that politicians are not to be trusted.”

I have taken the time to copy and paste portions of the overview part of the report and post them here in that I believe this report must not gather dust on a shelf but needs to be the basis for change. (The extracts have been reformatted and contain major snips for ease of reading, and my bold highlights, please see the original article for the full unedited report)

Introduction
The forums explored the engagement of citizens in their society and in democratic institutions, and the efforts of the federal government to consult and involve citizens in its decisions.

Forums Overview
All the forums were presented with essentially the same substantive introduction to the subject of the role of the citizen in democracy, as detailed in the Participants Workbook.
At all forums, participants saw much value in citizens participating in both voluntary organizations and in the democratic process but did not see much relation between the two.
At all forums, participants saw genuine government consultation as highly desirable but voiced unawareness that government actually consulted people.
To the extent that they perceived government consulting the public, participants did not perceive the consultation as genuine. Participants were frequently skeptical, occasionally cynical. They wanted governments to report back to the public on actions take or not taken following consultation exercises. They want to see results or feedback or both, and also more respect. To the extent that they were aware of MPs’ constituency offices, they tended to see potential for such offices to play a helpful role in consulting the public.

Apart from the recurring theme of better, more respectful consultation, another recurring theme was better education. The schools ought to make a stronger effort to teach young people how our democratic system works. This view emerged at every forum, usually eliciting much support.


The House of Commons Forum Overview
The general sense is that people tend to know more about the House of
Commons than the Senate and some other topics, and yet feel that they ought to know more. A desire for more civics instruction in school re-emerges as a theme. Media-reported Question Period figures prominently in what they know.
They have mixed feelings about how much priority Question Period should have among the roles played by MPs. On the one hand, some forum participants felt strongly that the open debate of Question Period is essential to democracy. On the other hand, quite a number of participants called for more decorum, substance, and to some extent cooperation among Members speaking in Question Period. Many participants wanted a stronger hand by the Speaker in ensuring decorum.
When discussing the House of Commons, forum participants placed special emphasis on Members, far more than on the Chamber as a whole or on its Committees. Mistrust of MPs and the House of Commons as a whole figures prominently in what forum participants said. A recurrent theme is that citizens do not always understand MPs, what they say, or the nature of their motives.
Another recurrent theme is skepticism about MPs’ willingness and ability to follow through on promises. MPs are often seen as powerless because of the importance of party lines or merely un-genuine. Quite a number of participants highlighted a conflict between Members’ obligations to their constituents and their obligations to their party line.
Crossing the floor—leaving one party for another— emerged as one of a number of factors arousing mistrust, especially in some of the Western forums.
Participants weighed the right or duty of Members to leave a party in principled disagreement vis-à-vis the desire of Members to leave a losing party for a winning for career-building considerations. One recommendation was to allow Members to become independent but require them to win in a general or byelection before joining another party.


The Senate Forum Overview
Forum discussions of the Senate represented a marked change from discussion of the Commons. The key difference is how much less forum participants felt that they knew about the Senate than about the Commons.
Participants’ previous lack of knowledge about the role and activities of the Senate led to some mixed feelings about the institution. Some misgivings about the utility of the Upper House were paralleled by separate misgivings about Senators being appointed by the Prime Minister instead of being elected. An underlying concern was apprehension about the patronage or partisan basis of selection.
In discussing the Senate, many participants nonetheless embraced the idea of the Upper House as a chamber of sober, second thought and hence as a counterpoint to the Commons.
A sizeable number of participants, especially in the West, were concerned less about the absence of Senate elections or the role of patronage in selection than about the numerical under-representation of the West. Many would like Western representation increased to reflect demographic changes. Many would also like to see parity of regional representation to the benefit of Western and less populated provinces or regions. Yet they were often reluctant to embrace a multilateral process entailing provincial consent for fear of opening a kind of Constitutional Pandora’s Box. “Moderate Senate reform or no Senate reform,” said one Newfoundland and Labrador forum participant, “we don’t want big constitutional change.”
Participants in the western forums tended to be uniform in advocating stronger provincial or regional representation, albeit sometimes with different justifications. Attendees at the forums in Alberta and B.C. were apt to justify greater representation in order to reflect the reality of their increased provincial populations. Attendees at the forums in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were apt to justify their desire for greater representation in terms of the need to have their voice heard.


Political Parties Forum Overview
The general image emerging from the forums is one of parties losing attention and respect from their potential clientele or members. They are generally perceived as non-accountable and, in some instances, as secret.
Parties were generally characterized as not immensely interested in recruiting members or hearing from ordinary citizens. They are perceived as neither good nor especially honest in communicating. Aspersions were cast on the quality, clarity, and ethical integrity of party platforms. Many participants wanted the parties to take the lead in galvanizing and integrating youth. Yet, participants remained doubtful of the integrity of parties.
In the spirit of their skeptical views of political parties, forum participants were unenthusiastic about public funding for party-affiliated foundations or think tanks that would undertake outreach programs to youth or other low participation segments in the electorate. As in the case of the other topics explored at the forums, participants saw a role for schooling and education to encourage an understanding of and participation in political parties.

The Electoral System forum Overview
Given the broad scope of the consultations, participants were not asked to choose one electoral system. They were asked to focus on the broad principles that should underpin the federal electoral system and if there is a need for change. In practice, it was not always easy for participants to prioritize their values. Some participants valued fairness above all, others accountability, and still others effective or stable government, simplicity, or direct links between a Member and a local constituency or community. Some participants placed an equal importance on all of these values as well as on other potential values. Furthermore, participants did not always agree about what each value signified.
For some participants, accountability meant the accountability of governments; for others, it meant the accountability of individual MPs.
In practice, the key sentiment that emerged in the forums was a sense that the Canadian electoral system, defined narrowly as how votes are counted and transformed into seats, is not sufficiently problematic to require fundamental change. The general disinclination to change among forum participants is paralleled by evidence of strong satisfaction with the current system from the survey research, as reported in section 6.3.
Observers attending the forums would likely note tentativeness and mystification in the remarks of participants when discussing electoral systems. Forum participants’ thoughts on electoral systems and their principles seemed more inchoate or preliminary than on other topics. One might conclude either that the public has not yet formed opinions on the electoral reforms it would welcome or has concluded that our system is working well enough as it is.
The strongest case that the public is open to reform rests on comments made at the forums. Many participants said that they were open to change even if they were not currently calling for it. The strongest case that the public opposes change rests on the survey data. Survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the electoral system. Furthermore, they tended to embrace values and principles that favour our current plurality electoral system rather than potential alternatives to it, as discussed in section

Conclusion
Research studies often produce a combination of clear conclusions and
uncertain ramifications. From this study, the clearest substantive conclusions are that Canadians know far less about how our democratic system functions than they would like, and call for greater efforts by provincial governments through Ministries of Education and the federal government through Parliamentary and departmental communications and program efforts to inform Canadians, especially young Canadians, how the system works;
Want to know a lot more about the roles of MPs in consulting the public and in their Committee roles, which the public values highly, than they do about MPs’ roles in Question Period, which Canadians value less and perceive as undermining respect for the House of Commons;
Desire a quantum leap in the quantity and quality of governmental efforts at consulting the public on prospective policies and bills with far greater effort at clear communication and genuine consultation;
Embrace elections to the Senate and are receptive to parity of representation by region while wishing to avoid Constitutional changes that would require provincial consent; express strong satisfaction with our first-past-the-post or plurality electoral system and the values it embodies while being open to considering options for change; and are mistrustful of federal politicians and political parties, whose promises they cannot often trust and whose communications they cannot often understand or identify with.

Participants in the forums arrived at the gatherings with a certain mistrust of politicians. Public mistrust and disrespect in the case of politicians represents an important challenge. In the view of forum participants, public misapprehensions about politicians are a factor driving the long-term decline in voter turnout, participation in parties, and public attentiveness to national issues.
Public misapprehensions about politicians are a major challenge because of the paucity of tools for turning around public sentiment. One tool, recommended by survey respondents and forum participants, is for the leadership in the Commons to exercise more discretion in the tone and demeanour of Question Period. It is unclear what other tools might become available.
The public wants more honest talk from politicians and fewer promises that are not kept.
Politicians can change their conduct to help enhance the public regard in which they are held. But changing the public image of politicians may require the efforts of more than politicians alone. As both the forum participants and the survey data showed, federal and provincial efforts at educating and informing citizens about the democratic process would help produce a more informed public. The media may also have a role to play, strengthening their reporting on the elements of the Parliamentary process that the public values and respects highly (e.g. Committees and public consultations) and downplaying elements that are valued less (Question Period). Canadians value their democratic institutions but want improvements. Too often, there is a sense that politicians are not to be trusted. The degree of public misapprehension is remarkable given that politicians are meant to represent the public interest and paradoxical given that politicians are often ordinary, nonelected citizens for years before embarking on Parliamentary service.

Looking to the future, the ability of Canadians to draw comfort, satisfaction, and pride from our democratic institutions will depend in no small measure on the country’s ability to strengthen bonds of trust between citizens and the people elected to serve them.

……………………………

In short, our citizens do not trust our politicians, know little about our parliamentary system and do not believe that what little “public consultation” that takes place is genuine.
They do however want to know more, believe that our children must be taught more about our electoral and parliamentary system and want “a quantum leap” in the quantity and quality of governmental communication with the public.

This almost exactly mirrors our own feelings and is why this blog was started. The only surprise was that the participants did not see our electoral system as a major part of the problem. I will be exploring each of these issues further in future articles, meanwhile let us know what YOU think. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

About us & Submitting articles

We are a pair of concerned citizens from opposite sides of this country who are trying to highlight how fragile our democracy is and the need to protect what we have and build upon that. We both believe that for any positive change to take place it must be done within the democratic framework; however, as our rights and the public's participation are gradually eroded this is becoming harder and harder. This then is an effort to halt that erosion by education and open debate.

Part of our concern is, in our view, the ever increasing partisanship and internal lack of democracy of our political parties, and so we will endeavor to be as non-partisan as possible in our articles and commentary.
We intend to seek and re-publish articles and opinions about Canadian Democracy, voice our own opinions upon the dangers of doing nothing, and highlight the actions of those that are supporting or attacking it.

We will initially be concentrating upon the Federal scene, the what's and why's of Canadian Democracy and the need for all Canadians to be more educated about it, the actions of our MP's in the House of Commons and the The Senate, Federal electoral rules and reform, and items in the news that have a bearing on those subjects. If you feel you would like to join us in this endeavor please contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com.

Submission Guidelines

All posts, comments and articles must adhere to the principals of common human decency and be non-violent in that they are not discriminatory, inflammatory or disrespectful to individuals, other bloggers or groups of people in any way. We can all agree to disagree, but we must do it with good manners. We can also be critical of politicians and those that have the ear of government; indeed the scope of this blog demands it. That too, we can do with good manners (ie, not attacking anyone personally – just their actions, policies and agendas as they affect Canadians).

We ask that all posts or articles submitted reflect honest and accurate information. One of the purposes of this blog is to open up dialogue and debate about democracy in Canada, but we do have a specific purpose, which is to expose the reality that our democratic institutions are no longer working in the way that was originally intended, and we will not publish work that undermines this purpose. Our agenda is to educate ourselves and our fellow Canadians about what is really happening in parliament and politically in this country at this time. To this end, we will not knowingly propagate any mis-information.

Any and all submissions will be carefully considered. However we cannot guarantee that we will publish all articles submitted or invite all those interested to become a guest blogger. If we reject your submissions we will certainly take the time to tell you why. We are not anticipating doing much of this; we want to create an open space for re-claiming democracy in Canada and we really hope you will join us. Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers