Canadians Deserve Democracy -- Will Politicians Give It To Them?

Politicians will not give Canadians democracy because it is an idea completely opposite to their pursuit of power. Guys like Paul Martin and the Liberals are already rich, and they have all the access they want to the federal treasury, so what is left for them to pursue but power?

Power to impose their will on Canadians, to define the social order as they see fit is what drives them. We'll wait a long, long time for democracy if Canadians keep voting only one party into power, the Liberals have no need to alter their autocratic style of government.

Half the federal budget gets doled out with Liberal Party stickers on it, so it is understandable that many large groups of Canadians will be much too afraid to move away from one party government, they are led to believe their income is directly tied to the Liberal Party.

"Half the federal budget gets doled out with Liberal Party stickers on it, so it is understandable that many large groups of Canadians will be much too afraid to move away from one party government, they are led to believe their income is directly tied to the Liberal Party."

Nope. This is way off the mark. Most Canadians, being moderate, vote for the Liberals because the Liberals, generally, are centrists who benefit from the appearance of being progressive while practicing a more liberal/neoconservative economic policy.

The side effects of same-sex marriage or government divesting itself from business (petro-can) are things one would expect a centrist like our wishy-washy, fence-sitting PM would do. This is how they've been able to form stable governments for long periods of time.

So what are the options? A while ago I read something that went along like "the last three PMs have been lawyers from Montreal, we need someone different. Vote for Harper".

What a joke, I thought. These Cons can't be serious. They expect something new by supporting an economist from Calgary over a lawyer from Montreal! It's the same f---ing difference.

The best illustration of this is how they both have refused to defend the citizenship of Canadians such as Mr Arar. As far as I'm concerned, the (non)actions of both Martin and Harper demonstrate that they cannot be trusted with the well-being of our nation.

Well, the reality is that there is no incentive for the Liberals to give up any power whatsoever, they can't get voted out and will have all the access they want to the treasury.

So while pressure from the citizenry or media can be applied on certain issues for the government to decide things one way or another after consulting their pollsters, this is still a wilted form of democracy.

Certainly not an example that Canada could proudly show the world, especially considering the blatant financial corruption of the Liberal Party.

I think that referendums could be one way to break the ties that bind us to the politicorporate mob. Proportional representation is a good idea too, but we are faced with a massive battle to get either idea implemented. Perhaps we need to steal a page from the reform party by starting a new party which has no historical baggage to carry. If Jack Layton thinks that a state visit by a convicted war criminal should not be marred, by demands that the government arrest him or at least that he be barred from entry into the country, then the NDP is not ready to govern our nation.

This is where I think my volunteer government would really work well. People would be called at random to govern as they are for jury duty and would have only their expenses covered. The only awkward thing about a government like this is that you couldn't really start it as a party? What "altruistic" party do we have now that would implement such a move? In my mind this would be so good for everything. You wouldn't ever know who would be working in government. You could only be working for your country. It would be pointless to try and use your position as a stepping stone towards corporate prostitution. If you're not in government for years on end it would be almost impossible to keep the contact-lineage going to be used as a career move on exit from government.

---
"Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

Not to stray too far from the political basis for this discussion,<br />
<br />
The following document (pre-2002) describes a movement to change legislation to allow financial coops and credit unions (provinicial jurisdiction) to own banks federally under the cooperative corporate model (one-member-one-vote as opposed to one-dollar-one-vote).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/coop-1e.html">http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/coop-1e.html</a><br />
<br />
Where is this project, three years later? Finance seemed to be behind it--that shows some promise since people are usually hacking on finance for being unaccountable plutocrats.<br />
<br />
To push our elected government for political reform of any kind, while keeping your money with our other, unelected economic government (the private, corporate banks), is sure to fail. On the other hand, imagine the power if a significant portion of this country's assets (and financial services providers) wielded collective influence at the federal level. <br />
<br />
The most interesting proposition is that the cooperative bank would aggregate assets and thus finanical power while leaving most of the operational details to the individual co-ops. This suggests a movement towards a federal-level "People's Bank of Canada" unlimately directed by the one-member-one-vote cooperative system, including a component of regional autonomy and responsiveness. Canada's not that big--it is "doable", at least more than enhancing democracy by a vote every few years.<br />
<br />
Again, does anyone know where this project is? Duff Conacher might, he tracks banking issues...<br />
<br />

Of course our leaders will not give us a proper democracy. What motive do they have? A majority of the Canadain public has been fooled into believing that the only problem facing our electoral system is lack of voter turnout, and that Canada is some kind of democratic utopia. We sit idly by as our ruling party commits blatant financial corruption, yet many still vote for them. What will it take for Canadains to realise that we must do something about our government and electoral system if we want a decent democracy? Becasue obviously the government isn't going to change anything.

This is the same problem that many 'democracies' face, primarily those of british origin and using the 'first past the post' voting system. The cards are stacked in the favour of the people who deal, so how do you beat the house?

First, I'd disagree with the above poster, next to the US Canada has the worst voting turnout in the democratic world. That doesn't mean anything in itself, perhaps people are so happy with the system that they feel no need to vote. Although polls have shown this to be the case with new immigrants, depending on their country of origin, there are enough polls to show that Canadians are disgusted with politicians in general. A government study of non-voters showed 40% felt there vote meant nothing (not far from wrong), 40% didn't have time to vote or learn the issues, and 20% gave other reasons.

Second, voter turnout is not the most important gauge of democratic function, Switzerland, a direct democracy with a history of referenda, citizen's initiatives, and recalls often has only marginally better turnout for elected officials than Canada. However, the difference is the number who vote in referenda and the polls which show Swiss people, while not overly fond of their representatives, are exceedingly fond of their system of government. In Canada, easily the largest turnouts are the incredibly high sovereignty referenda in Quebec, and the 93 referendum in Canada.

Third, Canadians are well aware that they have no power in their system of government, this has led to a similar 'anti-politics' agenda similar to the federal system in the states, where people tune out of politics completely.

Fourth, I am aware of NO government which has ever existed which has 'given' democratic powers to their citizens. None. In looking at any of the advances in education or medicine the federal government has always been forced into the consessions by canadians while the governments continue with their 'study and stall' tactics they've used for over a hundred years.

The CCF is one of the most instructive studies I have come across. Here a 'movement' was transformed into a party which resulted in almost all of the programs canadians have come to associate strongest with. So, how do you start a movement?

Such a movement is already well under way, unfortunately it is in somewhat disarray and spends much time fighting simply for existence. Environmental groups, civil liberties groups, anti-corruption groups, welfare groups, and on and on.

My contribution to what is an ongoing process is to run as a direct democracy candidate, first in my ward, then in my ridings. Basically, the system is to let people vote and gain control. My company is producing several documentaries on direct democracy, one which will feature the 'how to' of it's operation and implementation. I recommend people do the same, WE are canadians, and if we won't stand up to TAKE power (fortunately this way is peaceful) then we can expect no sympathy from those in power, who do what comes naturally to hang on to power.

My personal belief is that the federal government, itself pretty beholden to the states, will become so belligerent that people of like mind will relocate to some province and vote for separation, personally, that is what I would do, and if I thought there were any evidence that Quebec's 'new' government would be much different than the old, then I'd move there now and lobby.