[Kory Yamashita]

I'm not sure why this post has "Lebanon" in the subject, as it's not directly referred to, but...<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]So the US basic strategy is that if you spread democracy around the world, then this will make us safer because democracies don't attack each other.<br /> <br /> Simple enough. <br /> <br /> But is not inherently contradictory to use war to support democracy?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), which you describe above, tries to explain the phenomenon of no (or almost no) democracies ever going to war with one another. It justifies this phenomenon in two ways:<br /> 1. People are inherently peaceful and wish to avoid war. Thus, a democracy, in representing its people, will avoid war in whatever way possible.<br /> 2. Democracies have an inherent tendency to resolve issues through debate and discussion (and compromise). Thus, an inter-democratic conflict will be resolved through non-military means.<br /> <br /> The first argument (1) can easily be disproven by statistics: democracies are just as likely to go to war as other forms of government, provided that the war isn't against another democracy.<br /> <br /> Is it contradictory to use war to support democracy (with the assumption that democratic peace will follow)? Well, yes it's contradictory, but it's strategically brilliant if DPT is true, because it eliminates a potential adversary.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]WHy can't Canada show the US and the world how to spread democracy without using war as a means?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Canada's record on this point is a lot better than the US. Elections Canada often oversees elections in young democracies to ensure they are conducted legitimately. The US, on the other hand, invades foreign states and forces democracy upon them (the Bush Doctrine).<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]Why does Paul MArtin have to play it safe all the time, but also achieve no greatness?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Paul Martin has aspired to be Prime Minister his whole life. Now that he IS Prime Minister, he seems a little burnt out. Not only that, he has to contend with the hardships of governing through a minority government. As for not achieving greatness, it's because he's spineless and won't stand up for Canadian ideals. Were Martin to have been against the Iraq War and Ballistic Missile Defense from day one, and had he been for gay marriage, marijuana decriminilization, properly-funded public healthcare, protecting the Canadian Pension Plan, and striving towards free post-secondary education, he would be heralded as the patriotic protector of Canadian values. However, he is but a rich corporate businessman who wasn't even willing to operate his business within the tax and workers' rights regimes of Canada.

[Marcarc]

You have to be careful here, because 'democracy' can have a whole lot of meanings. In fact IN soviet russia the 'communist party' considered itself the highest form of democracy (communism and democracy are NOT contradictory, contrary to what you've heard). Likewise, China considers itself to be the most democratic nation in the world. We in Canada have an obtuse idea of democracy-here it means voting for a party to make all decisions, few of which permeate the economic agenda. <br /> <br /> If you look closely, 'democracies' which grant any powers whatsoever can be restricted to the United States and Switzerland, the latter is far more democratic as the citizen's initiatives are available to the population at the canton and federal level, whereas in the states individual action is completely unavailable at the federal level (where many agree it is most necessary), and only half of the state levels.<br /> <br /> Germany had all of the accoutrements of democracy that Canada had, which didn't stop it annexing it's neighbours and attacking, well, everybody. So that particular theory doesn't hold up so well. As said, the US can easily be described as the second most democratic nation in the world, yet it has pretty much been in a constant state of warfare since it's inception. Many of those on the recieving end are those who had the misfortune to elect a democratic, usually socialist leader and brought down the wrath of the most powerful nation. However, it also depends what you mean by 'war' since the US doesn't often bother 'declaring it'.<br /> <br /> As far as your other comments, Martin is leading a minority government, and I"m unsure what kind of 'greatness' you are referring to. You expecting him to conquer the known world? I really can't think of any politician that I'd describe as 'great', they are mostly cowards who usually don't even have the courage of their convictions, and, of course they're lawyers!

[Kory Yamashita]

Democracy: a political system in which the people elect their administrators from a set of choices selected by groups other than the current government.<br /> <br /> Developed Democracy: a democratic system that is protected by institutions that are not answerable to the government.<br /> <br /> Those are working definitions from one of my political sciences courses at UBC.<br /> <br /> Marcarc: it seems that you're using a broader definition of democracy than the one I was thinking of.<br /> <br /> As for Germany, well it was no longer a democracy when it declared war. In fact, Hitler was elected on the premise that he would do away with democracy. People voted for it because there were something like 16 parties, which made it impractical to get anything done. Democratic peace doesn't apply there because point 2 from my above post doesn't apply when the democratic structure has been abandoned. And Point 1 isn't really valid anyways, as democracies fight other countries on a regular basis.<br /> <br /> As for the countries that elect socialist leaders and are consequently attacked by the US... well, the US never really attacks them. They just secretly fund guerilla militias to overthrow the democratically elected leaders and replace them with a more US-friendly authoritarian regime (see Haiti, Venezuela, etc).

[Marcarc]

It’s quite frightening that you got that definition from a poli sci textbook, very frightening in fact. Here’s the ‘basic’ definition from Wikipedia: "Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law." <br /> <br /> You’re definition would be unrecognizable to most democracy theorists, and to ancient Greeks. To many as soon as you mention a 'central government' then you've dismissed the idea of democracy. It also doesn’t even take into account municipal elections where people vote directly for their ‘leaders’, and of course Paul Martin was essentially chosen (at first, as was John Turner and Kim Campbell) by the group who represents the government. But perhaps nobody is claiming that Canada falls into that democratic category. ‘Communists’ such as Russia and China argue(d) that the ‘communist party’ represents ALL people, therefore there is no reason to conduct elections for different administrators. It makes sense in a twisted way, but no more twisted than attempting to persuade somebody like me that ‘the ultimate power’ lies with the citizenry of Canada. <br /> <br /> I’m not sure what is meant by a ‘developed democracy’, I can’t think of any structure which protects the system which is not answerable to the government. Perhaps a constitution or some other charter? Just to add diversion to your list though, there are plenty examples of direct military action by the US- Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Grenada, to name a few.<br /> <br /> As far as Germany goes that’s a horrible thing to say, that people voted to get rid of democracy, and I’ve not seen any evidence of it. The following is general timeline:<br /> <br /> 1933 Schleicher resigns due to his unpopularity in the Reichstag. Von Papen agrees to form a mainly-Conservative cabinet with Hitler as Chancellor. He thinks he and the others can control the Nazis. <br /> 1933 Reichstag Fire: Germany’s parliament building is burnt down. Goering claims he has proof that the Communists are responsible. Thousands of anti-Fascists such as Communists, Socialists and Liberals are arrested. Industrialists and big businesses pledge money to the Nazis. <br /> 1933 The last Reichstag elections see the Nazis increase their vote to 44 percent. The Communists are banned and the Reichstag passes the Enabling Law – which allows Hitler to make laws without asking the Reichstag.<br /> <br /> <br /> This brings up a central thesis of modern democratic theory, particularly in Canada, where if there is NO recourse to getting rid of a lying, evil government then by what measure is it truly democratic? In Canada the people have no recourse, and even theorists can only resort to the specious ‘well if they want to get elected again then they won’t do bad things’. Hardly a populist thesis.<br />

[Kory Yamashita]

Marcarc, to start, I just want to emphasize that the above definition is one from my school, not one that I believe in. And most disturbing is that no one challenged it.<br /> <br /> To be fair, we were studying India at the time, so the context was one of a multi-party democracy. And the purpose of the party, I was informed, is to create political stability (perpetuate current power distributions??), and moderate political discussions (ie: appeal to the broadest possible demographics by compromising). <br /> <br /> As for the Germany/Hitler issue, I saw a video clip of a speech in which Hitler informs a cheering crowd that he will provide the type of decisive leadership that the 16-party parliament was unable to deliver. The wording seemed pretty open to me, although that could have been at least partially due to the translation.<br /> <br /> A developed, or consolidated, democracy is one in which democratic norms are established. For example, we take for granted, in Canada, that every 3-5 years we will conduct a federal election to choose our leaders. Every citizen over the age of 18 will be entitled to vote. The candidates will be chosen by various citizens' groups (political parties) that are not under the control of the government (although the government is usually composed primarily of members from one party; however there is a formal structural disconnect between the party and the government). These norms are protected by the constitution, the judicial system (which, again, isn't DIRECTLY submissive to the federal government, although judges are appointed by the PM), Elections Canada, our government structure (Monarchy with Governor General).<br /> <br /> The point is that our democracy is protected in a way that an emerging democracy isn't. If a country democratically elects an authoritarian dictator who then chooses the length of his term, how he is replaced, etc, then it is not an established democracy because the act of choosing one's leaders cannot be taken for granted.<br /> <br /> However, I must admit that the definition of democracy I presented is a very narrow one indeed. When I brought up the idea of direct democracy in my discussion group, the TA tried to recast it as anarchy. What troubles me most is that our diplomats and political advisors have gone through the same political sciences channels that I'm going through and so they have probably been against true democracy from day one. Kind of makes me think of Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"...

[Marcarc]

I’m not surprised nobody challenged it, since you’ve seen Manufacturing Consent you’re probably also aware of Chomsky’s dictum that our education is ‘a system of imposed ignorance’. I didn’t really get educated until I got out of university and learned to think on my own.<br /> <br /> Like democracy, there are a lot of strains of ‘anarchy’ as well, I’m not surprised that direct democracy would be labelled that- it’s part of the indoctrination system. Switzerland is FAR from anarchic, yet it possesses many of the tools of a direct democracy, you might want to mention that. However, keep in mind that Universities are no longer the social institutions they used to be. I’ve done searches at various universities and while I’ve seen university courses on just about every country’s government, Switzerland is always left out. There are almost no books on direct democracy in Canada, and it is difficult to find any canadian professors with any specific knowledge on it, something that’s surprising given that its such a radically more progressive form of democracy (one would think that that would make it a MORE desirable subject).<br /> <br /> You’re comments about Hitler neglect one thing, that he was never elected by the majority of germans, just as our Prime Minister wasn’t elected by a majority of canadians. Of course, there are always those who “want a strong leader”. As Northrop Frye said “a man will fight for an evil, charismatic leader more than an amiable backslapper”. Likewise though, in the media you’ll see the PM surrounded by a cheering public, this is especially evident at party conventions. We aren’t as bad as the states, where from media coverage you’d think He was the second coming! In Canada though, it is much different, when the population doesn’t possess the tools of democracy, then it isn’t necessary to control what they think. As more and more democracy is being demanded, we are seeing that change. <br /> <br /> As I’ve argued elsewhere, I find it pointless to call nations ‘democracies’ since it is such a loose word. In Canada, I don’t find us much more democratic than communist China. Technically, of course, we have never even been referred to as a democracy, we are a constitutional monarchy with a system of responsible government. That your textbook uses such language to define the term isn’t surprising, since it is generally a propaganda tool to keep things as they are. If we are already a democracy then there’s no need of further attention in that regard, the thinking goes. <br /> <br /> We do of course have far more opportunities than other places. If, for example, somebody in your ward were running as a 'representative', meaning that rather than assuming they know what is best, they would be providing information, setting up voting infrastructure, and counting votes, then obviously that's pretty democratic. If something like that were to spread to the provincial and federal arenas, then you'd have the benefits of democracy and an established, and fairly efficient state. That, at least, is the theory behind my running. <br />

[Kory Yamashita]

"Institutions have inertia; movements have momentum."<br /> <br /> Being familiar with physics, the above quote strikes me as brilliant in its simplicity. And I believe it's very revealing when applied to the institutions of multi-party democracies and universities. The universities, in my limited experience, do a poor job of fostering new ideas and a great job of perpetuating existing norms. <br /> <br /> But I think the academic nature of our universities has been compromised. My fellow students don't think of a university as a place to further the collective knowledge of mankind; they view it as a training school for future employment. And no one acts to correct this grave error. With no one standing up for academia, there is no room for improvement. <br /> <br /> How can we explore the merits of direct democracy if a paper must rely on other papers to be considered academic and no paper has explored direct democracy? Our institution of multi-party democracy indeed has inertia - so much, in fact, that alternatives are not even among our options.<br /> <br /> I don't know what to say. I'm very disenchanted with our current system. I can't help but feel that we are forgetting our past, ignoring the future, and striving to consume, consume, consume in the present. Dark Age Ahead? Sorry Jane Jacobs, but I fear it's already here...

[Marcarc]

There's no doubt there is 'reason' for disillusionment, but reason has no business in the affairs of the heart, as they say. When government policy affects people, people respond. If we admit to 'disillusionment' then we are quantifying the existence of illusions, which means that we need not change reality, just the vision. <br /> <br /> In doing that I suggest you look to other sources than here. This is a good and valuable website but it only goes so far. There is no organization and there is no action. For a large part it succeeds as providing a medium for venting, something that perhaps even serves to quell the revolutionary spirit. Perhaps if all this 'talk' had to be bottled up then the result would be that people would be forced into action. <br /> <br /> However, there is considerable reason for optimism. My main focus has always been native rights, which have made incredible gains despite an apathetic and often hostile public. The federal government seriously downloaded services to provinces which did the same to municipalities, while also cutting legislative supports. This has resulted in local organizations taking up the slack. While there is attention here placed on federal activities, one could make the argument that topics are so aimed simply because people know they cannot affect them, so there is limited 'action'. There are many organizations though working nationally, the council of canadians to name just one. Environmental groups are part of the mainstream.<br /> Think strategically, if you are a student then you have many opportunities to affect that learning environment. Write papers yourself, challenge your classmates, there are still many student organizations who need help. Publish papers online, where more people have access to them than ever would in academic circles. Currently one of the documentaries I'm working on comes from a student in New Brunswick whose thesis basically has the numbers that proves the often held belief that the Atlantic and Western provinces were sacrificed as simple 'resource suppliers' for the benefit of Ontario. I must admit some disillusionment myself with this website where (not all) people often refuse to even confront the legitimate problems regions have with the country. This has not been limited to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia cases where federalists seem to subscribe to the notion that 'more' investment in an impoverished area of the country is not necessarily a good thing. <br /> Don't spend too much time here reading, there is limited action coming from discussion. While a good informational tool, it is not an activist centre. In my many months here the only reply to the constant problems has been the occasional 'vote NDP' or some other party. Thinking strategically, I am aware that the NDP is the best of three evils, yet I don't see how they can get more seats federally, and provincially they already proved they had little concern for democratic initiatives. My personal belief is that there needs to be organization of the grassroots organizations that are always lobbying against government, these are in effect the groups I aim at for direct democracy since they supply those 'group votes' and are less likely to be silently content with things as they are. OK, now I"m rambling....

[Kory Yamashita]

Marcarc, now you're sounding disillusioned (with this website). But really, this website isn't ineffective; rather, it reflects the (left-skewed) opinions of the Canadian majority. Its failings are similar to those of other institutions: it perpetuates current beliefs. However, Vive has one advantage over traditional institutions: it provides a forum for diverse interests to come to terms with the fact that other views are not unfounded; rather, all those who are politically active have some rationale for what they believe in. It also allows us to transcend geographical and cultural/racial obstacles in our discussions.<br /> <br /> And Vive DID educate me on matters of sovereignty, which led to research into our economic system and its shortfalls, aboriginal issues, and ultimately it helped convince me to become politically active. And while you and I may not agree on my political strategy (I support the NDP), I also must point out that politics is like any discipline - you must master and understand it to change it. So we're on the same path - you working from outside, me working from inside. And with the same ultimate goals, I think.<br /> <br /> And as for the limited action coming from Vive - it's a member-driven project with no substantial resources other than these discussion forums. My main concern here is that we have yet to tackle a single issue in its entirety (except the Quebec separation issue - which continues to rage on even in its futile stalemate). I have projects, ideas, concerns that I want to address but have no time for. We should be taking a comparative approach and tackling individual issues. That is how a movement is built. Rather than idly critisizing, perhaps we need some proactive members who will propose alternative policies and bring them forth. That was how our Census boycott was spawned. A single comment "I'm going to boycott the census" resulted in the cancellation of a contract that would have seen the information of all Canadians in the hands of the Pentagon.<br /> <br /> As a grounds for political discussion, Vive puts us in contact with one another. Beyond that service, it is up to us, the membership, to provide the political drive of activism. For example, your belief in Direct Democracy, like Calumny's similar belief (where IS Calumny these days?), has rubbed off on me. And I now think seriously of running as a representative of the people in the upcoming civic elections. So inroads into activism ARE being made. However, we need a stronger membership base to drive more specialized discussion. Put people with similar interests in contact with each other. <br /> <br /> For now, all we can do is our best - to discuss, to present ideas, to try to find common grounds. I see Vive as a place where political ideas are formed. Activism is the next step, but before I will act, I must be confident that my ideas are valid. And what better place to validate them then here? As we've agreed, Universities are hardly spawning a diversity of political ideas.<br /> <br /> Sorry to out-ramble you <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Marcarc]

I didn't mean to sound as if I'm disappointed with this website, far from it. I try to get comments here once a day when I have moments to spare, apart from that I don't really have time to do more. I think the website is great, although my activism tends to be more local. There's plenty of websites out there, when I'm disillusioned with this one I won't be back!

[Kory Yamashita]

Nice to see you'll be around for awhile, Marcarc. I enjoy your comments - they're insightful and provoking. Maybe we can tackle some of the more important issues together... though I think this particular thread has drifted way off topic.

[Calumny]

Well to get things back on track, a country that isn't democratic purporting to export democracy around the world is somewhat ludicrous at best.<br /> <br /> Neither the US or Canada is a democratic nation. There are no truly democratic nations existing today, although some are closer to the ideal than others.<br /> <br /> What does exists is the oft mentioned 'illusion of democracy', in which citizens are given a belief that they have some say in the course of their nation through their ability to elect 'representatives' to government.<br /> <br /> In Canada and the US, among others, this is a joke.<br /> <br /> To be honest, Kory, it's not so much that I have a belief that direct democracy is the way to go, it's more that I can't see any other alternative that holds any hope for the average citizen.<br /> <br /> As I've mentioned elsewhere, my relatively recent thoughts concerning DD arose from Vive. I'm almost fifty years old. I became interested in Canadian sovereignty issues when I was in my teens and Mel Hurtig started the Committee for an Independent Canada. Since then, things have only deteriorated under our various 'representative' governments. So, in terms of maintaining Canada, the only choice I see is to put it in the hands of the people. I'm not sure this would work however, I am sure remaining with the status quo will see the dissolution of our nation, primarily because those who would be our leaders either can't or won't do anything to change that.<br /> <br /> However, since that time my thoughts concerning DD have expanded somewhat.<br /> <br /> The main benefit for me from direct democracy is not related to government or in fact Canada. It has to do with people having to think for themselves rather than depending on leaders to do it for them. Direct democracy is less about government for me than it is about people starting to think for themselves and taking responsibility for the world in which they live, rather than leaving this in the hands of others. <br /> <br /> Once thinking for themselves, or believing that their voices actually mean something, maybe people will start asking the questions I believe many have about our society and way of living, and whether we want to continue in this vein. If people don't start doing this soon, I believe you can kiss humanity good-bye.<br /> <br /> We live under the god of economics which is, no offense to your brother, a very weak god at best. We need to make that god serve us and all people's of the world rather than we serving it and its high priests, and we won't do that within a 'representative' government that is composed of those high priests or serves them. <br /> <br /> Kory, thanks for the earlier comment. Nice to know someone noticed my absence.<br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[Kory Yamashita]

Calumny, since we're on the topic of economics being a "weak god at best", I'll post a comment I posted on The Tyee (BC's leftist independent online newspaper):<br /> <br /> Before we can address the issue of where and how wealth is created, we must ask ourselves an important question: What is Wealth? Wealth, in my eyes, is a quantification of our pursuit of a certain set of values. If, like Gordo, your values are to provide a few elites with a plethora of cell phones, SUV's, and yachts that have twin solid gold sinks in the ensuite of the master bedroom, then yes, our province has been successful at growing our collective wealth. If, however, your values differ even slightly from that model, then you will see the last four years as social devolution. Personally, I would argue that the values that Canadians hold dearest are an increased standard of living for everyone. Thus, standard of living is a much better measure of "wealth" than GDP. And what constitutes standard of living? Why, it's the amount and quality of food you have access to, the quality of the environment that surrounds you, the quality of education and healthcare you have access to, the amount of opportunity even the least fortunate in the society has..... Building institutions that protect and improve the standard of living of all British Columbians is what the NDP has always been committed to. In the past we have faltered, but only when we lost sight of this and began to play by the rules as dictated by the capitalist elites. If we can remember that "wealth" is not a measurement of how many old computers you have in your attic, or how many BMW's sit idly in your garage, then we can truly improve the lives for ordinary people in British Columbia.