After either the NDP or BC Liberals get elected, and if, following that election, the "Interior communities" continue to get treated as second class citizens, "ripped" and "shafted" by colonial policies that predominately benefit the coast, then, perhaps, hopefully, we might see the rise of the Kootenay Party, the North Coast Party, the Vancouver Island Party, each with their respective platforms and leadership from their geographic community, accountable to their base of support, namely, all the people who reside in that region.
Then if elected to the Legislative, these regional parties and their respective elected reps could indeed form an ad hoc and later Alliance or Confederation, negotiating amongst themselves to more equally receive beneficial policies and monies from Provincial Treasury. What has happened to rural BC over the past 20-40 years is an unmitigated disaster, a disaster that has also caused increased urban migration and the problems attendant to that, a disaster caused by enormous inequities in the distribution of political power within the province.
Indeed, political parties originating from and more connected to their respective territorial base, essentially a ward system for BC, is in my opinion the preferred way to invigorate our low-level democracy...not STV! Of course - many will disagree...preferring more centralized political parties, and a continuation of the centralization of political power in the Premier's office & Executive Branch of government. My preference is for more decentralization, subsidiarity, and an internal provincial constitution that more fairly distributes powers between Victoria and the respective regions/cities/municipalities of BC., coupled with fiscal decentralization agreements. Then never again, will a Premier, of whatever party, be able to wreak havoc on this Province by implementing policies designed by a small "group" of people within the Premier's office or Executive branch of government. The "cuts" have caused the "hurtland" because the political power is centralized in the Premier's office - by virtue of dysfunctional political institutions and no equitable internal BC constitution. The concept of the Crown and the centralized Minister's of the Crown are the major impediments to re-vitalizing BC's low level democracy.
I recall that during the BC NDP Leadership Campaign of 2003, during a public meeting, a women from the East Kootenays asked me- what my plans were for day-care, for schools, hospitals, etc for their region. Frankly as a Leadership Candidate for the BC NDP I did not have any plans - I did not view my role as to propose "plans" to solve problems in that community of which I knew very little about in comparison to the knowledge of local residents. My concept was that people in the regions needed to "empower themselves" and not look to leaders to supply answers/solutions- which is a fundamental tenet to build a participatory democracy in BC/Canada.
I said, hey, for the past 35 years billions of dollars from coal, timber, and the now defunct Sullivan Mine went straight to the Centralized Treasury in Victoria and very, very, little came back to your region under your control. Can you just imagine if there was an internal constitution and a "fiscal arrangement" such that the Kootenay region got the "first cut" from the revenues and they stayed in the region, and what was left went to Victoria? Then you, and every region that had the same benefits from such arrangements would never have to suffer from the foolish and often inconsiderate decisions of centralized decision-makers in the Premier's office and from other "Victoria" bureaucrats. I said you would have the power, the monies for day-care, schools, hospitals, to diversify your economy, and no "idiot" Premier in Victoria could ever take that away.
I still don't think she or many others in the "hurtland" really understand that idea: an idea of building a participatory democracy, an idea of an internal BC constitution, an idea of fiscal decentralization, an idea of "empowerment" of regions and their peoples. Regrettably, as a result of the 'colonialization', the decades of oppression of the interior by the coast, and by large capitalistic firms emboldened by a Capitalistic State, is that many peoples of the interior have a mind-set where they don't recognize their own power, where apathy and despair have set in, where they continue to be fooled and manipulated by "centralized" political parties that promise the "moon" and give nothing but the painful cuts of ashes and fire. Certainly, youth have a lower voter turn out rate, because the "system" is dysfunctional - and no matter how they vote - the results are the same.
The time is coming to end the oppression of that colonialism- an oppression visible not just in BC, but extending outwards from Ottawa to each of the provinces, and thence to the "interiors" of each province.
As we witness the on-goings in this BC provincial election, and the Gomery inquiry in Ottawa which may result in the fall of the Liberals, the rise of Steven Harper and the very neo-con & super -continentalist Conservatives, and the rise of sovereignty -power in Quebec, this indeed is a time for "critical consciousness" - or as Paulo Freire said in his "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" - a time for "conscientizacao".
Source:
On Regional Political Power
Stumble It!
---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche
our self -governance, to build a participatory democracy,
and hopefully generate more transparent &
accountable governance by fostering small "territorially"
based political parties - that once elected - would need
to 'co-operate' to govern---indeed a 'co-operative,
asymetrical federation or if that doesn't work a
'co-operative confederation' of quasi-independent
states. The Canada as we have institutionally
configued it --with that colonial constitution...is going,
going, gone. ...but I'm confident there will still be a
union of the peoples on this side of the 49th parallel
..but in a different institutional form. Time will tell.!
indifferent, apathetic, lazy, uncaring, or were thought to be
inherently incapable of understanding. Jews, for example. Or
women. In Canada, the snobby git would get a swift wallop upside
the head. And deservedly so.
Well, I just want to say that "most people" (that is, the voting public)
aren't stupid or incapable of understanding. They get blamed too
often for the failures of our social system. Nobody is born with a
political science degree. Hours, days, years must be invested in
gaining political perspective.
But "most people" are running hard to keep a job, feed their kids,
repair the roof, hoe the garden, support the community, read a
book, help with homework, watch The National, and get some
sleep. They simply do not have the time or extra energy to study
the law or the political climate.
The woman who asked you, the candidate, what your plans were
for day-care, hospitals, etc., deserved a better answer. No matter
what question is posed at a public meeting geared to the
choosing of a leadership candidate, the questioner should be
honoured. She was quite properly seeking help within the social
structure we happen to have.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think you deserved to lose when you,
a potential party leader, proudly informed her that you had no
plans ... and that it was her job to undertake those duties. Her job.
Oh, and it's her fault, too, for "not understanding" your lofty point of
view. Really.
Honesty in government is the problem. Communication is the
problem. The guy with the 1-page newspaper he's tacking up in
his region -- he's probably achieving far more than insults aimed at
the general population.
Sorry, Peter, but a little more empathy is indicated. Ever think that
this kind of philosophical arrogance is colonial and oppressive,
too?
It's sure as heck not one of the N.D.P. principles as I understand
them.
---
Mary
The idea represented above is that somehow the woman was deficient, not at all, but when you are proposing a new paradigm you have to get people to understand that. It's not that they are 'stupid', it's that they are 'ignorant'-meaning they don't know. He could have said all the wonderful things that people assume other hard working people deserve, however, empowering people is not about humouring people. To me that is the biggest form of disrespect there is. He could have told her all those pompous promises that politicians make, then immediately forgot about her and everything he said five minutes later.
People NEED to understand that they have power, over a certain age I've noticed most people just glass over when a new way of doing things is suggested, because people, as you say, are BUSY. They have a life. Unfortunately the ignorance that comes with working massive hours, having to worry more and more about their kids, worrying about their future, and only barely having time to be brainwashed by the media is a vicious cycle. It is like that BECAUSE people have no time and have become disenfranchised. In France they have a 35 hour work week and one month compulsory paid vacation FOR EVERYBODY, not just government employees. So people actually have time to get involved. In Canada we don't have that luxury, and as people work harder and see fewer options, make no mistake, life ain't gonna get better.
There are dozens of ways to impart this information to people, and no doubt perhaps the authors 'manner' may have offended some. That happens. Voters don't 'deserve' anything just because they are voters. The woman could have been a child beating, coke sniffing, mass murderer, who knows?
The remarks about the economy are right on the money, right out of Schumacher pretty much. The rural areas of Canada would be floating in wealth if they could actually control their 'commons'. This is why there is such a fight with natives, because the government knows that if people in rural areas see a group of people, working communally, sharing wealth equitably, and using the resources to create employment and 'lifestyles' rather than simply as a product that employs fewer and fewer people while devastating more and more; they wouldn't stand for it. They'd be demanded self government themselves. And they'd be right.
reply.
Well ... if you read what I actually said ... I was talking about "most
people" -- the ones who are too often accused of being apathetic,
lazy, etc., and I don't think Dimitrov used those specific words
either. But he did use the woman as a specific example -- accused
her and "most people" of not understanding -- therefore, I
mentioned her, too. You're splitting hairs in an effort to defend
Peter Dimitrov's comments.
I'll repeat my premise: that it's unfair to blame "most people" for not
being well-informed and politically astute. They do the best they
can. And before we denigrate them, we should ask ourselves if
we're doing all we can, to encourage a more fair-minded media.
---
Mary
I am a direct democracy advocate, which means people taking power over their communities, so a lot of what he said resonated with me. WE have no power to change the media, to tell a person to stop trying to change things politically and focus on the media seems a bit askew. We don't even have any power over the CBC and NFB and they are public institutions. We certainly can't get the Aspers to change their media strategies. It is hard work finding out these things, and nobody here (me or the author) denigrated those people. People have every right to be apathetic and tuned out of politics, because even if they were, they simply have no power.
Of course our media teaches us to think people are like that-lazy and apathetic, and even on this site you'll find many who think that they are more enlightened simply because they spent more time talking about politics. We have a government which controls virtually every aspect of our society and they have a vested interest in keeping things status quo. So even those who want change are supposed to just want different leaders, they are supposed to think 'they' are right, and that average canadians are too stupid and lazy to be worth the trouble for democracy.
Those are some powerful biases and sometimes they are hard to fight, and sometimes people like the author sound standoffish, when they are simply trying to explain something most people have no experience in.
There's nothing wrong in what you've said or, for that matter, with
what I said, namely, that empathy is better than arrogance.
If there's one notable characteristic of the B.C. public today, I'd say
it's the feeling they've been abandoned. "Misunderstood" doesn't
begin to describe it, because when nobody is listening, there's
surely no power flowing uphill to government. People simply feel
abandoned. And then they feel angry.
Best wishes, for sure.
---
Mary
You make the point about empathy, and of course the whole point of direct democracy is empathy, meaning empowerment in this sense. So my question is, how do you introduce new ideas to somebody who feels, as you say, abandoned?
Life isn't tidy, doesn't give simplified rules. So follow your passion.
You'll be amazed -- someday -- when you find out that many
people were indeed listening, and that they quietly carried your
message away for future reference. Many years from now, they
might well have incorporated your thought into their own
performances.
I don't believe in joining the biggest or strongest pack in order to
win. Too often, as we have seen in B.C., they turn out to be
mercenaries, lacking a basic concern for the population.
But I do believe in focusing one's forces. I really wish you were
battling the Liberals alongside some of the honourable people
who carry the N.D.P. banner.
---
Mary
I just read your comment today for the first time, May 20,
2005, and I want to say that when I use the word "hey"..it
is only when I write, english is a second language to
me..so it is not so pefect. In no way was I being
disrespectful to the women in the Kootenays who
asked me the question about daycare - my answer was
not just to her, but to many others at the meeting,
including the media...and the answer was a stated in
the article, minus the "hey". I comprehend my writing
style may be a bit 'sharp' sometimes as may my
speaking style too on occassion, but this is not the rule.
If anyone was offended please accept my apology.
Further your remaks Mary about 'empathy' of a political
leader is very important, but as important as that, it is
also important that political leaders not be 'know-it all',
not 'take all the power to make decisions' , but rather try
to communicate the fact that people have power, that
they can empower themselves to find better solutions
for their communities then politicians or aspiring
political leaders. My article speaks about the need to
end 'colonialism' within provinces & within the country,
and in fact, the concept of direct democracy as Marcarc
elucidates, where constituents views have more voice
& power then politicians who are 'whipped' in obeying
the party line is critical to that reform. Finally, you're
right...I tend to philosophize perhaps too much...but
surely there is room for that, intellectuals ought to have
some useful role to play in this country...aside from
those who use their education & position of power to
sell the sovereignty of this country out.
I n my article I have never "called" anyone:
"...Just imagine if any other visible group of people got
called stupid, indifferent, apathetic, lazy, uncaring, or
were thought to be inherently incapable of
understanding. Jews, for example. Or
women."
...but after experiencing many of the electorate in BC,
and remember 50% don't vote, I remain steadfast in my
opinion that most don't understand the concepts that I
spoke about in my article..and why that is so...well, that
could be another large discussion, having to do in part
with the 'political culture' of the province, the existence
of 'oppressors' and 'the oppressed' groups within the
province, and many of the ideas spoken about by Paulo
Freire in his landmark book "Pedagogy of the
Oppressed".