Accountability and The Big Lie - Part One
by Patriot Pete aka Peter Dimitrov; Twitter: JusticeNow_2288
There be little to no accountability to citizens by provincial or federal politicians unless we, the people, awaken from the BIG Lie that has been perpetrated by the media, the corporations and the oligarcy of political parties. The BIG Lie is that the institutional design of our parliamentary system is a democracy. The truth is that what we have is NOT a democracy.
Now, why would I make such a seemingly outrageous statement. The principal that Montesquieu elucidated is still true in these modern times, namely: "Any man who has power is led to abuse it; he continues until he finds limits. So that one cannot abuse power, power must be checked by the arrangement of things."
Few who are knowledgeable will disagree that there are three prime attributes of democracy: the representative principle, the elective principle, and the dividing principle of state power - these three make it possible for the people who are governed to elect, dismiss and control government, thereby preserving fundamental political and human rights freedoms of individuals and collectivities/groups.
As I have written and spoke about many times over the past years, our system of governance is dysfunctional, is an outdated corrupted meme of governance, a colonial, authoritarian system, as outdated as windows 3.1 is in the modern computing world.
Whilst there are several aspects that are dysfunctional, the worst, is that the executive power in a parliamentary democracy is completely immune to the demands of accountability. Regardless of which prevailing political party assume power, this is so.
On this continent many principles relating to the democratic exercise of power owes its genesis to the Mohawk First Nation system of governance, from there to the American federalists (Madison, Hamilton, Jay, who also looked to European intellectuals such as Locke who elucidated about division of powers, Bolingbroke on the equilibrium of powers and Montesquieu on the balance of powers.
In Canada/BC the executive branch of the Premier/Prime Minister and his Cabinet are not separate from the legislature, they are voting members of the Legislature who hold great sway over the Legislative authority of the Legislature, especially so, under the Party 'whip' system. Further the Executive branch has unchecked powers to appoint the Judicial branch of government and numerous other 'appointment' related powers.
To create a more accountable functional form of democracy the people need to directly elect the Legislative members and the Executive of government separately - and those two branches of governance, along with the Judiciary must be kept so that checks and balances to the abuse of power by either of the three branches of state power can occur - now, in Canada there are few to none!
The Executive does as it wills, Orders in Councils, appointments to tribunals and Judiciary, law rubber stamped by the Legislatures which the Executive controls throught the whipped party system.
Finally, if we ever move to a Multi-Member Proportional Representation election system, based on a list - closed or open- the executive of the political parties will put together the list of party members for voters to decide upon - and then we will have moved ever more definitively to an oligarchy of parties - and democracy will be done like dinner. In British Columbia, the BC NDP lobbied against the STV voting system during that referendum, which system of voting received some 58% support by citizens and correct me if wrong, BC NDP Party policy is supportive of the Mixed Member Pro-Rep system. Needless to say I support both a STV voting system. Needless to say I assert that the inherent soverignty of citizens can be exercised in a divided fashion thereby leading the direct election of the Executive and Legislative branch separately, even if need be direct election of the Judicial branch - of that I am not in favour as surely a separate Legislative branch has powers to question, vet, control and limit the powers of appointment of the Executive. As an aside, interestingly, in May 1826, Simon Bolivar made public his ideas on a grand Bolivarian constitution, which in addition to the division of powers between the three branches of state power, added a fourth electoral power- now taken up in these modern times by Hugo Chavez, elaborated and called 'communal power' - entrenched within thousands of communal councils throughout Venezuela.
Stumble It!
My argument isn?t fully formed, so bear with me!
I read an article this week by Paul Gecelovsky (Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, Vol. 15, no. 1, p. 77-93, http://www.carleton.ca/cfpj/) on the role of Canada as a ?middle-power? in International Relations. At the outset of his discussion, he complains that this concept is vague, explores this idea and how it originated. He presents an account of the process by which ideas become introduced into policy decision making as consisting of three stages: emergence of the idea, adoption of the idea, and embedment of the idea. When he was discussing this process, I couldn?t help but reflect on how ?democracy? emerged and was accepted as a principle to for governance and for foreign policy.
I am specifically thinking about the concept of ?liberal democracy? that has formed the basis of Western culture and that has emerged from the writings of Montesquieu, and Locke, etc. This concept is also arguable vague?
I do not have any qualms with the stage of emergence of this idea, and think that Gecelovsky?s notion that individuals or ?norm entrepreneurs? think up and find opportunities for the introduction of their ideas is pretty straightforward. At the adoption stage, however, Gecelovsky suggests that the extent to which new ideas are adopted and accepted by others within relevant groups depends on ?early successes? that are experienced. I have a problem with this account, because it implies an empirical basis for accepting principles or arguments, which was not introduced into political science until the behavioural revolution in at least the 20th century. At the time when the principle of liberal democracy was being manufactured and incorporated into the American Constitution, no previous ?experience? of democracy had occurred (the Founding Fathers had been the original proponents of this particular brand of democracy). Further, the establishment of democracy is a gradual process, and is still in the process of taking root? (ie. I agree with you that we do not?yet?live in a democracy).
Further, our understanding of democracy?what it entails, and how to promote its establishment in other regions?seems to have changed with our changing experience of it as it has developed. Notions of ?human rights? did not formally emerge in Canada until 80s and now democratization is believed to require local/grassroots efforts, etc. So. Not only are we experiencing difficulties with our own democracy, we are exporting this in other regions?it is no wonder to me that there have been so many problems associated with our democratization efforts abroad.
I agree with your perceptions of the ?elitist? organization of Canadian government and Political Parties?
However, your reference to Windows 3.1 reminded me of a different article on the role that the Internet and communications technology has played in opening the realm for discussion and participation in Canadian politics. With respect to Canadian Foreign policy, many believe that these advances will work towards ?democratizing? foreign policy, as had occurred in the ?Ottawa Process? on Canada?s position on Land Mines. I tend to disagree with this argument, and agree with you in your criticisms that participation is still limited. Any online/feedback features on the Liberal/Conservative party websites are cumbersome and thus ineffective. The Green Party seems to be the only one that has invested attention into this aspect.
This was longer than I indented...