Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Deconstructiing the Binary Opposition of Politics and Policy in the Harper Regime
Where good politics meets good policy :Dan Gardner's column in the citizen today. I can count on one finger "good policies" from the Harper Regime, and that finger shakes when the wind blows and twitches when I sleep. Yes, no question Harper would seem to choose politics over policy consistently, and when he would seem to choose policy at all, it's for political reasons, as in the ship building contracts through absentia. But when, on occasion, he would seemingly choose policy directly - unlike the ship building contracts - at the expense of politics, the policy is almost always not in the interest of all Canadians, but instead serves a narrow voter rich segment of the population, as is the case with the tough on crime bills, the Wheat Board abolition, and the slaying of the long-gun registry - which thus means that the policies are in reality politically motivated. And of course using surrogates, as in the gun registry business, is in itelf a political strategy to distance oneself from direct blowback should there be any. Sorry, Dan, such simple binary oppositions always fall apart. it doesn't matter whether the Harper policies are good or bad. It's politics - sometimes overt, sometimes subtle - all the time for the Harper Regime.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca
Since day one of the campaign, Harper and his gang have been consistently spining the message that a majority goverment for his party is good for us because it will provide stability. Let’s take a closer look at that highly dubious proposition.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
First off, is a majority government in and of itself, no matter what party, necessarily a good thing? Despite our parliamentary traditions, I think not. Under our first past the post system, it obviously concentrates power undemocratically in the hands of one party which may or may not necessarily represent the full spectrum of Canadian citizenship. Discounting those who did not vote at all in the last election, for whatever reason, and given that three out of four people who did vote in the last election did not do so for the Harperites, Harper’s goverment, it would seem clear, did not represent the majority of Canadian citizens or necessarily their value when it assumed power in 2008. That’s a very significant exclusion of direct representation for a large number of people -- and that’s not taking into consideration how many who did not vote might not have been supportive of the Harperites, a perspective about which we can only speculate. So in and of itself a majority isn’t axiomatically a better form of goverment or a better form of democratic representation.
A similar question can be asked about stability. Does a stable government in and of itself automatically yield “better” goverment - whatever that might be - or a more democratically responsive goverment? One could argue that a stable goverment provides the ground of power to get things done, to move legislation and implement policy. But what if, say, two-thirds to three-quarters of Canadians disapprove of those policies and their legislative forms? Other than grass roots protests and political activism outside the system and perhaps, in limited ways, through the proxy of opposition parties can any sort of poltical objection be mounted. The problem is, however, that these forms of democratic action, as self-satisfying and sometimes effective as they might be, lack the efficacy that a voice in parliament would yield.
Democracy is, as many have said, a very messy business. We should rejoice in that fact, not bemoan it, as so many in the main line parties seem to do. Real democracy involves real participatory work that needs to be embraced by us all. From what I can see, the only formal remedy to speed up that full embrace is electoral reform based on proportional representation -- a form of broadbased democratic goverment well established around the world, the only exceptions in the western world being -- surprise, surprise -- the U.S., Canada, and Britain, this last, however, gearing up for a move towards real proportioal representation soon. Isn’t it about time that we begin gearing up too?
Take a look at what Fair Vote Canada is trying to do: Fair vote Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
Here are some suggestions for gearing up:
1) Establish a network of all the grassroots organizations across the country who have or would support proportional representation -- a sort of ACTION NETWORK focused on democratic reform.
2) Seek resources and - judiciously - support internationally.
3) Work the media assiduously in an effort to create a wide public discourse about the issue.
4) Begin serious lobbying of the main line parties that might benefit from proportional representation. (After this election, that may number two, not one.)
5) Lobby provincial parties that would benefit from proportional representation in their jurisdiction to bring them on board the NETWORK.
5) Consider legal options if necessary and possible.
We should all probably have a good conversation about mandatory voting and the notion of a preferential ballot first. The latter is very attractive as a fall-back position to proportional representation. When one votes, one chooses a preferential order of candidates. Political parties use this system, but it too has its problems. Proportional still seems the fairest, most democratic method even if the results are messy and involve agreements and negotiations. That's what democracy is all about, one could argue
via Stable Majority Goverments and Electoral Reform | rabble.ca.
Postscript May 8, 2011 3:09 PM : Of course, AV was overwhelming defeated on May 5 in the U.K. I'm not reading much into this since there was such massive propaganda from everyone apparently during the referendum campaign, not to mention that AV is very problematic. But a question remains: was the vote a rejection of AV or an endorsement of FPTP?
I should add India to the list of countries still on FPTP.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Elizabeth May and The Politics of Exclusion
How can a group of five television executives decide to exclude a party running in 308 ridings when they include a party that can never form government as it runs in only one province? How can debates, a critical part of the democratic process, operate in such a high-handed and arbitrary fashion? How can a party with the support of one in 10 Canadians be excluded? And most fundamentally, how can TV executives tell Canadians that a vote for Green candidates is not a real choice? That is in fact what they are doing. Far from facilitating a full and fair discussion in a democracy, they are interfering in democracy by dictating what choices are worth making. Elizabeth May”, Globe and Mail, March 30, 2011
There is nothing entertaining about Elizabeth May’s exclusion from the federal leaders’ televised debates. Once again, Canadian main stream media has exercised its habitual politics of exclusion. Why is such an arbitrary group as the television Consortium allowed to determine who should and should not be involved in the fate of our country? In what possible way does this gaggle of suits deserve such exclusionary, arbitrary power? What can they possibly fear except the possibility that Harper, as his nasty wont, will threaten to withdraw as he did in 2007? (Just speculating) Even the Americans, who frequently exercise exclusionary powers in the mainstream media, transcend such concentrated and arbitrary power through their Commission when it comes to national debates. How embarrassing for Canada once again on the world stage!
The Green Party of Canada is a legally constituted federal party, the Party is running candidates in all 308 ridings, and Elizabeth May (unlike Michael Ignatieff) is a duly elected leader of the party. If anyone should be excluded, it’s Gilles Duceppe, whose “federal” party is dedicated to the withdrawal of a province from Confederation, and whose party is running candidates in only one province. But to do so would be every bit as exclusionary and undemocratic as excluding Elizabeth May.
Where’s the petition? I want to sign up now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)