Democracy Requires an Educated Citizenry

     Anyone who works in an election campaign (say door knocking) soon discovers the average citizen knows little about our political system, let alone the constituion.  Average Citizen (AC) will confuse federal, provincial and local jurisdictions, and often operates on a completely incorrect understanding of our political realities.
     Take for example, the dreaded COALITION.  AC does not even understand how one gets to be Prime Minister.  They talk about "voting for X for Prime Minister".  News Flash.  Canada does not have a presidential system.  The election is about voting to choose 1 of the 308 members of the House of Commons. Period. After that, all the decisions are made by those 308 individuals, and the Governor General. 
    It helps to understand how it works if we remember that our system developed before there were political parties as we know them today.  So imagine that we have a group of 308 individuals chosen at random to advise a big corporation owned by, say, Mr. Big.  Mr. Big has agreed in advance that he will choose his board  of directors from among the 308 but requires that that board has the support of the majority of the 308.  Then Mr. Big wants to deal only with one individual so he also asks that the board have a leader who can speak for them.  Mr. Big appoints that individual to be his CEO and asks her or him to introduce the rest of his board.  Mr. Big accepts these board members and appoints them to manage various departments, as his CEO has advised him. 
     Well, you may have suspected, Mr. Big is actually the monarch, in our case Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.  Yes, Canada is actually a monarchy - a constitutional monarchy - having both a monarch and a constitution.  Surprise!  Her role is performed usually by the Governor General but only in the name of the Queen.  Nothing legitimate in Canada can be done without the Queen's approval.
    Now, to return to our analogy, over many years Mr. Big delegated most of his powers to the board of directors, and he has accepted the principle that he will be bound by their advice, provided that this board continues to have the support of the majority of those 308 elected members.  Mr. Big still owns the company, and he still loves his company, but, for better or worse, he has decided to let the board of directors, led by the CEO, call the shots.  He even pretends that their decisions are his decisions and their policies are his policies.
    However, the board must continue to have the support of the majority of the 308.  If that appears not to be the case, then Mr. Big can see if anyone else among the 308 could form a board that did have majority support - or he can call an election to chose another 308 individuals and see if a majority of them will support a board.
    In to this scenario we now add political parties.  Because AC is politically illiterate we keep it simple and label them by colours - say blue, red, orange and green. Instead of the 308 individuals the system was designed for, now we count how many of those 308 are on the blue team, the red team, etc.  When this started to happen back in the late 18th and early 19the century, "partyism" was widely criticized as a corruption of the constitution.  And, it is.  Rather than help advise Her Majesty as to what is in the best interests of Her subjects (the true role of a Member of Parliament) now those elected are focused on what is best for their "team" [say, "Team Harper"?] It also makes it more difficult to work together because doing so might help an opposing "team".
    So, what about the COALITION?  Actually, a coaliton is an entirely legal, constitutional, and sometimes appropriate solution.  A coalition currently forms and supports the government of the United Kingdom (the mother of parliaments).  Mr. Harper and the Conservative team did a disservice to our constitution by demonizing even the word coalition.  Like many of Mr. Harper's political gamesmanship moves this could rebound to his disadvantage.  If his team fails to win a majority in the current election, he has seemingly talked himself out of one very legitimate and viable option to form a stable government - forming a coalition led by himself.
    On the other hand, Mr. Ignatieff too long avoided and denied the possibility of coalition so that his eventual acknowledgement of it as a possibility seems a backdown.  Mr. Layton has been more realistic and transparent on this issue although a little hesitant at first as well.
    In any event, a formal coalition - where seats on the board (i.e. cabinet) are shared, as in the UK today, or a more informal agreement by one "team" to support another are both legitimate and potentially workable ways in which those elected could get on with the business of advising Her Majesty on the best policies for Canadians.

Democracy Prescribed for Health Care

     The quality, accessibility, and affordability of Health Care are important issues today.  How can democracy be applied to remedy the ills of the current "system"?  First we keep in mind our new definition of "democracy" as "a society which recognizes, celebrates, incorporates, and protects the inherent value of each individual".  For those of us who have spent 6 hours waiting on a stretcher in the hallway of an ER unit, it is immediately apparent that the current "system" de-values us.  In no other context would we put up with such shabby treatment.  Would we wait 6 hours to see our hairdresser, our auto mechanic, our lawyer? No.  In part, because we have alternatives.  We could take our business to another hairdresser, mechanic, etc.  So one obvious problem with our Canadian health care system is that it is a statist monopoly.
     I once commented to Gary Mar, when he was Alberta's Health Minister, that we had a "soviet-style health care system".  He dismissed my comment out of hand, with all the contempt of those who subscribe to the fantasy that we have this "wonderful Canadian health care".  However, it is indeed like the soviet reality, where hapless peasants stood in line-ups for hours to receive shoddy goods from surly bureaucrats.
    The antidote is to empower the individual consumer.  The question though is how?  Introducing elements found in a market economy is one way of doing this.  It is not a perfect solution either but to evaluate the pros and cons we need to consider one other central element - power.  During my years teaching political science I developed an effective definition of "politics" as "the struggle for the power to set the rules for a society".  This definition helps us to focus on the fact that what is crucial is who has the power to decide how resources will be allocated.  In a market economy, power derives from money.  Those who have money can command resources.  The Canadian health-care alternative substitutes administrative bureaucracy, rather than money, as the source of power.  This "political power" is, in theory, capable of a more equitable distribution of resources than the "economic power" model. 
    However, both systems have their own inherent logic.  While the "rich will attempt to get richer", it is much more the case that "those with political power will use it to grow and preserve their power".  While in the economic model there is some incentive to improve the quality of "customer service", since by doing so I might get even richer; there is no such incentive in the political model.  Improving "customer service" will not give me more power.  In fact, growing and defending my power will require me to be less sensitive to consumer concerns.
     What then are the solutions? Many can see that the political power model is not working.  Is there any way the economic model can work to the benefit of all individuals and not just "the rich"?  Well, if we focus on the inherent value of each individual, one approach that suggests itself is based on the old maxim - follow the money.  This would mean funding support for the consumers of health care, rather than funding the producers (doctors and hospitals) or administrative bureaucracies. 
     As of 2009, Canadian governments spent an average of $5,452 per person on health care (Alberta was highest at $6,072 per person). 1  All major political parties have recently committed to increasing this amount by 6% annually for the foreseeable future.  What would happen if we ended all top-down funding and instead provided each and every Canadian with, say, $4,000 annually toward health care.  There would be a saving to Canadian taxpayers of $50 billion annually (not an insignificant number) but more importantly, money in the hands of individuals would allow them to make decisions that could reward good outcomes and punish poor performers.
     The soviet style food distribution system of standing in line all day for cheap but often poor quality bread eventually collapsed.  Maybe someday we will look back on Canadian "health care" with the same rueful smile and ask; "What were they thinking?"

Democracy Needs to be Re-thought

     We need a new definition of "democracy".  Around the world today we hear of pro-democracy movements, of a democratic deficit, of promises by political parties to "restore democracy".  These uses of "democracy" are varied and tired.  However, they all resonate to some degree because of a wide spread hunger for greater respect for the inherent worth of each individual. While the demands are often for broader access into the power structures of institutions, organizations and society generally; they are all really saying that all individuals should matter, that no one should be ignored, or dismissed, or treated as though they are only an inconsequential cog in a machine manipulated for the self-satisfaction of some arrogant elite.

    Therefore, let the new definition of "democracy" be: "a society which recognizes, celebrates, incorporates, and protects the inherent value of each individual."  In order to achieve such a society, we need revolutionary changes to our political and societal institutions.  In discussion of some of these themes, Professor Fouad Ajami recently compared the "Arab Revolution of 2011" with The Year of Revolutions in Europe (1848).[1] That outburst contained numerous demands from liberals of that era for greater access to the instruments of power through the adoption of written constitutions and the implementation of parliaments with a broad electorate choosing legislative assemblies that supposedly would control executive branches of government.

    In large measure, we are still stuck with these mid-19^th century institutions.  It must be admitted, though, that parliaments are hollow shells, composed of what former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau termed “nobodies”, easily outmanoeuvred, when they are not simply ignored, by executives which are increasingly dominated by presidential figures wielding arbitrary power.  Examples range from United States’ presidents declaring war without reference to Congress to the vast array of dictators around the world who operate on the premise that their country is their personal fiefdom whose main purpose is to enrich them and their small inner circles.  

   Representative democracy, with its elections of parliamentarians, is an obsolete technology.  In Canada, over one-half of adults have at least some university level education and yet the main opportunity for political engagement consists of trying to express their input by marking one X on a ballot every few years. Parliamentarians are notoriously susceptible to influence, whether direct intimidation by party bosses; by graft, corruption or bribery; or just from the lack of courage to say something "unpopular".  We now have the technology to allow citizens to have much more direct and immediate involvement in policy decisions.  We need to employ these technologies in ways to move power from elites to "the people" - the orginal meaning of "demos-ocracy".   We need to rethink and reinvent political society as a necessary means to free the human spirit and raise the level of both individual and group consciousness. 

---

[1] Fouad Ajami, “How the Arabs Turned Shame Into Liberty”, New York Times, Feb. 26, 2011.

Much Ado About Democracy

     Canadians don't give a lot of attention to the process by which party candidates are chosen. In the United States, primary season is well publicized and large numbers participate.  In Canada, the selections are made at party organized nomination meetings, or NOT, as described below.
     In Edmonton - Sherwood Park, prior to the 2008 election, according to allegations, Tim Uppal did not appear as a candidate for nomination "until the last minute" and then was supported by a large number of "last minute party members".  Uppal won the nomination but the previous favourite, James Ford, choose to run anyway, as an Independent.  Ford received 15,860 votes in the general election, trailing Uppal by only 1,741 votes.  Ford's supporters also failed in efforts to regain control of the Conservative Constituency Association, and their efforts to precipitate a new nomination process prior to the current election were also blocked - a move obviously supported by the Conservative party hierarchy in Ottawa.  All of these political machinations were also coloured by accusations of racism given Mr. Uppal's obvious Sikh background.
     In the adjoining federal constituency of Vegreville-Wainwright, a strong faction of Conservative party supporters wanted to hold a nomination meeting with a view to replace Leon Benoit as the Conservative party candidate.  Mr. Benoit, an MP since 1993, was viewed widely as ineffective and unresponsive to constituency concerns.  The long running battle for control of the constituency organization was lost by Mr. Benoit and his critics pushed their call for a new nomination all the way to the Conservative Party Convention in Winnipeg.  Despite their best efforts, the Conservative Party hierarchy derailed the attempt, disillusioning a number of formerly active Conservative Party workers who have promised to sit on their hands this time around.  Their withdrawal is unlikely to hurt Mr. Benoit's chances of re-election as he routinely wins by huge margins (24,042 votes more than all opponents combined in 2008).
     While the two examples above are both from the Conservative Party, such "guided democracy" manipulations are extant in all parties.  To some extent they may be justified to prevent candidates from the lunatic fringe emerging.  On the other hand, careful examination of the processes within parties reveals the hypocrisy of much of the preaching about "purer than thou" democracy.

What's In It For Quebec?

The French Language Election Debate was depressing.  Actually it wasn't about French Canadians - nothing there for Acadians let alone Franco-Albertans.  It wasn't even about Quebec - no Anglos or immigrants considered.  No it was all about Nationalist demands and complaints voiced by Duceppe, while the other three "leaders"? jockeyed to pander to these demands, like so many store-front whores in the red-light district of Amsterdam.
We AltaSask folks have seen this movie before.  Indeed, Canadian politics has this continual theme of bribing Quebec voters with our money so that this party or that party could seize the reins of power.  We keep electing MPs to clean up the corruption, whether they be UFA, Social Credit, CCF, Reform, or more lately the "new" Conservatives.  At least PM Harper is almost honest with his "the best way for you to get the goods is to elect insiders" approach. 


Arch Dale's famous cartoon from the
Grain Grower's Guide Dec. 15, 1915


So, fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us; as the saying goes.  How about fool us 100 billion times?  That's about the net amount AltaSask residents have sent to Ottawa just since the Trudeau days.  Our naive hope to clean up the corruption is about as realistic as the farm boy staring at the prostitutes and imagining he can entice one of them to become his wholesome, hardworking, faithful wife as they live out their years on the half-section back home.

Debate Ignores Westerners

My prediction that we would not hear the words "farmer, navy, 1911" in last night's debate was ALMOST true.  Stephen Harper mentioned the word "farmers" in the context of how the long gun registry was impacting "farmers and duck hunters [in Quebec!].  However,my larger point was true - there was no discussion of issues important to Westerners, say agricultural policy, from either a producer or consumer perspective. On another issue of importance to AltaSask folks, energy policy - no discussion other than Jack Layton's gratuitous slur of "the big oil companies".  He doesn't seem to be aware of how many "Canadian families" earn their livelihood, directly, or indirectly, from the oil and gas sector.

Scene from the Heavy Oil Show in Lloydminster, AltaSask

In a similar vein, I don't believe the word "Alberta" occurred during the debate but the word "Quebec" popped up so many times one lost count. None of the citizen questioners featured were from the Prairies.  Overall, the impression was that the debate was largely for the amusement of jaded political junkies who themselves are out of touch with the values and concerns of most Canadians, especially those in AltaSask.

The 1911 General Election

It is sad that there has been no mention during the current 2011 Federal Election of the federal election of 1911.  As a student of Canadian history, years ago, I learned that the 1911 election was one of the great turning points in Canadian history.  In a typical Canadian way, it was a great turning point because it continued the status quo.  The two major issues of the election were: 1. Proposed freer trade with the United States (called "reciprocity" at the time), and 2. a large commitment to military spending symbolised by the Naval Bill calling for the creation of a Canadian navy.
Prime Minister Laurier had taken a huge gamble of running against his previous record on the trade issue of continuing Macdonald's so-called National Policy of high tariffs.  Now, in 1911, he proposed returning to his much earlier sentiment in favour of freer trade.  Perhaps the largest constituency which had been calling for an end to protective tariffs were farmers, especially those in Western Canada.  Laurier had made several tours of the West and, perhaps carried away by the tremendous growth and optimism of Westerners, he attempted to negotiate a broad "free trade" agreement with the Taft administration in the United States.
The other issue arose from the growing arms race between the British and German Empires.  Britain had requested Canadian financial assistance to build more battleships and destroyers.  This unleashed a controversy in Canada with Quebecois opposed to aiding the British.  Laurier attempted to compromise by proposing a Canadian Navy.  Like many compromises, it displeased people across the spectrum. 
From this background, Laurier made another tactical error. He departed Canada to attend the Coronation of King George V in June of 1911.
While Albertans delivered 6 of their 7 seats to the Laurier Liberals, the combination of anti-Americanism in English Canada and Anti-British Empire in Quebec swept Laurier from power and committed Canadian consumers to a prolonged period of high tariffs and energized French Canadian nationalists.
One hundred years later - no mention of this decisive battle - and all too little discussion of any issues, let alone those of importance to prairie folk.  However, there are a lot of parallels.
1. French and English Canada motivated by different issues but perhaps contributing to the same conclusion.
2. Concern about large scale military spending.  This time American jet fighters rather than British battleships.
3. Western concerns overwhelmed by large voter blocks in Ontario and Quebec.
4. Question of the Canadian Prime Minister attending a Royal Family event in pre-election days.

However, it doesn't appear that students of Canadian history will long study the General Election of 2011 as other generations did of the election a century earlier.