2015-06-26 Governance, Electoral reform.

Does OPPORTUNISM rule?   I see an opportunity right now.   Should that be our focus?  (Derek asked the question)  . . .

THE CURRENT OPPORTUNITY   is in electoral reform:

• Old-timers in our network will know that I was, for a time, on the Saskatchewan Chapter of Fair Vote Canada (FVC).   Our network has helped with awareness of the need to re-design our voting system.   First-past-the post (FPTP) is part of the problem with our democracy.   I became pretty convinced when FVC made an excellent presentation to the Green Party of Canada Convention in 2006.  I also looked into Equal Voice (getting women elected in equal numbers as men, in ALL elected bodies).  . . .   FVC has been the educator, the strongest voice, has staying power, and is the best-recognized name in the effort to change the voting system.

I think The Liberals (Justin Trudeau)  have done a pretty good job of developing a plan that would see Canadians work through to implementation of a better voting system.   This is a recent announcement, an opportunity to capitalize on.  The Greens have been part of the educating force on this, for a decade now.  They will support the Liberals.   There’s a good chance  the NDP will.  And who knows?  the results of the October 2015 Federal Election might bring enlightenment to the Conservatives!  A re-designed voting system is coming within reach.   Stepping further  …

• I trust the leadership of Elizabeth May.   Quite some time ago, she said that the Canadian Senate is so badly broken that it should be scrapped.  The NDP (Thomas Mulcair) is solidly in favour of dismantling the Senate.  We can push for MORE than a change to the voting system!  Our governing institutions need re-thinking.   Things are on the cusp of a move in that direction – – just need a gentle push!

If we manoeuvre well,  we could make real progress   . . .  voting system, Senate . . .

BUT there’s more!   With that kind of support for ideas that have been pushed for years, and especially if we can get a minority Government, with the Greens (Elizabeth May) holding the balance-of-power we might expand the package!   (Elizabeth understands things – – she is consistently out in front on issues.)

It gets a little (r)evolutionary now . . .

The Party system is a huge problem.

I started touching on it four years ago, maybe earlier.   (2011-04-12)     What are some answers for our system of governance?

I could not think of a practical alternative to the problem of Political Parties.

THEORETICALLY,  but not in realty, the party system allows us to hold people accountable because they promise to do such-and-such.  We buy their ideas with our votes.   The winner then delivers on their promises.  But we did not vote to join the war in Afghanistan.  We did not vote to give patents on life forms;  there was not even discussion – – the Federal and Provincial Governments just handed over hundreds of millions of our dollars for the genetic engineering of plants (with animals and insects to follow?), with its concomitant ownership (patenting) of seeds – – control of our food system.  Nothing went through Parliament, or any form of public discussion.   It was the Liberals federally and the NDP Provincially in Saskatchewan that did that good deed for corporate interests.  But back to point:

Problems with the Party system were identified, 200 years ago!:

•  George Washington’s warning against the party system, from his Farewell Speech , 1796 . . .  Read that – – George Washington lays bare the Party system.   Excerpt:

It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration…. agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms;

kindles the  animosity of one…. against another…. it opens the door to foreign influence and  corruption…

thus the policy and the will  of one country are subjected to the policy  and will of another.

 “One country” and “another” could be the U.S. and Canada.

There are a few observations in “What are some answers…?” The Territories in Canada do not use the party system.    I have heard Elizabeth May say, on more than one occasion:  the Constitution of Canada establishes the Government of Canada.  There is not one word about a party system in the Constitution.

It would be a battle to put an end to political parties (corporate and financial interests would mount huge opposition because the party system serves them so well.  They have two or three political parties to wine, dine and manipulate.  338 individual legislators independent of Party control would be a challenge to them.   (The Green Parties internationally subscribe to a set of common, excellent principles;  de-centralization of power –  strong democracy  – is one of them.)

We’d need a strong vision of how the replacement for the Party system works, but if the door is open to a re-design of our system of governance,  maybe the Party system should be discussed.   Under it, we are stalled out.  The status quo is not working.   George Washington described the dysfunctionality of the party system more than two hundred years ago.

I believe that we have to bring an end to “public-private-partnerships” (PPP’s) if we are to reclaim our democracy.   Through the years I have trotted out the statements to support that view-point.  PPP’s are a recipe for corruption.  There is a cause and effect relationship.  We  know it from experience.  And the statements by various authorities state it eloquently.   Those statements are repeated in “What are some answers …?

 

THE WAY THE PRECEDING IS WRITTEN DOWN LEADS TO TWO QUESTIONS:

–   Animus is the motivation to do something, the spirit driving something.   Can IDEAS be the animus behind a system of governance?   (currently we organize around a group of people who, as a collective,  seek power.  That is the prime motivation.)

If we voted for what we want, we would vote for

• Trudeau’s idea for change in the voting system
• Mulcair’s idea about getting rid of the Senate
• figure out what to do about the party system.  We need ideas, that can be tackled on a cooperative basis.  Adversarial is not serving us well.    In the North, elected representatives have a process for electing the Premier or Prime Minister by and from amongst themselves.  Maybe the outcome could be a Parliament that works together to do the job assigned to them collectively:  their job is to legislate, in the public interest.
• We need ideas: If we designed our system of governance around IDEAS, might we be able to remedy another long-acknowledged flaw in the current system:   four-year election cycles lead to decisions by elected representatives that are VERY short-term in outlook.   (Maybe rotational voting – – a four-year election cycle with one-quarter of the Legislators elected each year?   But someone will have a better idea.)

Go where the opportunities are?  Right now that would be Reform of our system of governance.