Citizenship on the Sidelines

Being on holiday has induced in me a certain mental torpor, so please forgive me if this post states the obvious. Those of us who write politically-oriented blogs are, of course, engaged intellectually and emotionally in the machinations of those we elect. And I suspect it is to our regular consternation and disappointment that more people do not recognize the vital role that the political realm plays in so many aspects of our lives, from the taxes we pay to the physical, social, and economic conditions in our cities, provinces, and the country as a whole. Failure to recognize those facts can lead us into some very dark situations.

While many many people have pointed out the flaws of our current first-past-the-post democracy, the larger problem, it has always seemed to me, is the failure of vast swaths of the population to even bother to vote. We all know, for example, that less than 40% of those who voted federally in 2011 had the power to elect a Harper majority. But perhaps a more current and even more telling illustration is the soap opera continuing to unfold in Toronto, one that had its genesis long before Rob Ford became its mayor, a result which has made Ontario's capital city the subject of international derision.

Was the election of Rob Ford a failure of our system? Obviously not. Those who voted for him had every right to choose as they did, as did the almost 50% who refused to vote. However, that latter choice, as the choice of almost 40% not to vote federally in 2011, means the we all have to endure the consequences of disengagement/citizen inertia.

These thoughts occurred to me upon reading a story in today's Star by Catherine Porter, in which she went to the Toronto suburb of Etobicoke, described as the heart of Ford Nation. Porter went there soliciting comments about how the people feel about Ford, and the overwhelming majority 'stand by their man.' Unlike the right wing, which tends to be exceptionally intolerant of progressives, I say they have every right to feel as they do and to vote as they do.

But I guess you can see the problem I am getting at here. Diversity of view is great, but if one part of the electorate is active and engaged, even in policies and orientations with which we do not agree, and too many others just yawn, look the other way or go back to the latest in reality television, the larger society suffers. So please don't tell me there is no one to vote for or your vote doesn't count. That is only a self-fulfilling justification tantamount to an ignoble and deeply injurious abdication of the responsibilities of citizenship.

What Is Democracy?

The other day I wrote a post on the decline of democracy under the Harper regime. Included was reference to Bob Hepburn's recent piece on the same subject. Although I am not quite as cynical as the letter-writer, Star reader Al Dunn of Kingston, in responding to Hepburn, expresses the view that democracy is, in fact only a mirage. See what you think. Here is his letter from today's edition:

Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, Column, May 2

David Herle is supposedly deep in thought about our fading democracy, looking for answers to fix the status quo. He feels installing a new government will not create meaningful change. Duh! Look at the failed promise and dashed worldwide hopes of Barack Obama's election. The “old boys” would not allow him any success; it might initiate a series of challenges to their rigged game. The failed democracy in Canada is but a small part of a global phenomenon. Democracy is a mirage, a fiction the “1 per cent club” allows to continue. No, Mr. Herle, searching within the smoke and mirrors political game will yield no useful answers — people already know this, even if they don't fully comprehend why, and that is why they feel that elections don't matter. And they don't. Big money, lobby groups, etc. run the game. Any new developments on repatriating any of those billions in tax havens so recently made public? No. Politicians are there to please the plutocrats, not the serfs.

The Dominoes of Democracy - Part 2

What is one of the chief effects of the Harper regime's preference for an ideologically-based policy model over one premised on logic, facts and empirical evidence, as explored in my earlier post? The decline, perhaps even the demise, of a healthy democracy in which citizens are engaged and informed participants, thereby allowing an ideologically-driven government to pursue its agenda largely unimpeded.

In today's Toronto Star, columnist Bob Hepburn writes about the state of our democracy and the growing gap between Parliament and Canadians. An interview with David Herle, former Paul Martin campaign strategist and principal partner at The Gandalf Group, a Toronto-based research and consulting company, yields a portrait of a population deeply disaffected with politics in general and Parliament in particular.

And there are ample studies and surveys to back up that portrait:

For example, a poll last fall suggested barely 27 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa is dealing with issues we really care about.

Most people are worried about daily issues, such as their children’s education, looking after aging parents and getting decent health care. But other than writing cheques to the provinces, Ottawa has opted out of health care, education, transportation and other issues that affect our normal lives.

Instead, there is a narrow set of issues that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pursuing and for the most part the opposition parties are adhering to them. Because voters have stopped looking to Parliament for help, Ottawa has stopped responding to their needs, Herle believes.

“People are no longer putting demands on government (bold type mine) and aren’t flocking to politicians who claim they can help them,” he says. “They’ve simply given up on Ottawa altogether.”

Although I am not a person given to conspiracy theories, I have written extensively on this blog about both democracy and democratic participation, and long ago concluded that one of the secondary goals of the Harper regime is the discouragement of an engaged electorate, thereby making it easier to push through an agenda in which the role of government in people's live is minimized, one of the chief beliefs of the reactionary right. What better way to pursue that goal than to convey to people, via policy pursued through the very narrow prism of ideology and rabid partisanship, that their voices mean nothing and their engagement in the democratic process is both unnecessary and unwelcome?

Conservative MP Michael Chong, the only former member of Harper's cabinet who has ever displayed real integrity, puts it this way:...if voters have given up on Parliament, it means they have lost faith in politicians to look after their interests.

Part one of this post dealt with causes, and I would argue that Chong's observation is precisely the effect that the Harper regime so avidly desires.

A Lesson From Egypt

The other day I wrote a post contrasting the fervent engagement of the Egyptian people as they pursue their demands for a representative democracy, contrasting that passion with our own seeming indifference to the deficits we face here at home.

This morning's Star has published a letter from James Quinn, a Hamilton area activist and biology professor at McMaster University, on the topic of what we can learn from Egypt. I reproduce it below:

Re: Morsi calls in the military ahead of constitution vote, Dec. 10

I think we can learn a thing or two from the protesters in Egypt.

They have won the right to elect their own government. They went through the election process. They did not face robocall scandals and ended up with what was deemed a fair election. They thought they were in a democracy.

But Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has made decisions that were not part of his platform when he was elected. The protestors recognize that their elected leader should not be free to do as he chooses until the next election. They recognize that this is not democratic. Are they just being idealistic?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has passed two omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45, that devastate our environmental and waterway protection in very dramatic ways. He has declared open season on nature. He has paved the way for dangerous rapid expansion of the Alberta tar sands.

I do not recall these dramatic changes being mentioned in his election platform. The people of Canada have not had any democratic input into these dramatic changes.

We have lost our democratic rights to this Conservative dictatorship. We should learn from our Egyptian colleagues and take to the streets.

Harper Strategy Succeeding

Here's the proof.

A Speech From Which We All Could Learn

I suspect, however, I know how the right-wing would react to this:

H/t William B Devitt III

'Where Is The Outrage?' Asks Alex Himelfarb

I have written two previous posts about Alex Himelfarb, Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs at York University, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and fellow blogger. He is a man whose passion for democracy and societal fairness I deeply admire.

I was therefore pleased to see him sharing his thoughts on the state of our democracy in today's Star as part of a series that began yesterday with a piece by Allan Gregg entitled In Defence of Reason.

Today, Himelfarb begins with an observation with which I think most of us would agree:

We ought to be outraged. Almost daily our media provide new accounts of the decline of our democracy: the inadequacies of our electoral system and allegations of electoral fraud; the high-handed treatment of our Parliament through inappropriate prorogations and overuse of omnibus legislation; a government ever more authoritarian and opaque, resistant to evidence and reason, and prepared to stifle dissent.

But he also cites a sad truth when he asks why so many Canadians do not seem to care; it is one that I know many of us have pondered in frustration as the abuses of democracy under the Harper regime continue to occur on an almost daily basis.

Himelfarb goes on to discuss how the market mentality, the notion that material gains made under a philosophy of minimal government 'interference' has, in many ways, supplanted traditional notions of democracy, resulting in large benefits for the few and growing inequality for the many.

However, he does see some hope for change and renewal in the Quebec student protests:

Student leaders from Quebec have launched a cross-Canada tour to promote activism and the creation of social movements that provide a richer democratic experience than offered by contemporary politics, but also to explain to those who feel disenfranchised why voting and political participation still matter. They understand the dangers of leaving any government to its own devices, unconstrained by a vigilant citizenry.

Himelfarb's article, as was Allan Gregg's piece yesterday, deserves to be read and disseminated widely.

Defining Democracy

Just back from a very brief holiday in western New York, I'm still feeling a bit too relaxed to post anything lengthy, but I do have a reading recommendation for anyone concerned about democracy in its various forms.

Earlier this year, The Star's Rick Salutin took time off from his weekly column to do research on democracy. The results of that research begin today in the first part of a series. Entitled Democracy: Thinking outside the box, the piece offers some surprising statistics that challenge the notion that elections are the pinnacle of democratic expression.

Despite the fact that Tunisia was the birthplace of the Arab Spring, it turns out that when elections were finally held, only 55% cast their ballot, a statistic that leads Salutin to reflect upon notions of democracy and disaffection.

By examining various countries and systems, the writer goes on to opine that perhaps government consultation with the people is more important than the election experience as democratic expression.

Personally, it is an opinion I take issue with, as I see a quite intimate relationship between an engaged citizenry at election time and the responsiveness of government to its people. In other words, given the kind of poor turnout at the polls we experience in Canada, it is hardly surprising that we currently have a government that represents only a very small minority of its constituents.

While the above may sound like a gross oversimplification, for me, fear of electoral retribution is the beginning of wisdom for our 'representatives'.

I look forward to the next installment of Salutin's series in tomorrow's paper.

Looking for Democracy

I am sure that like me, many despair over the state of democracy in Canada. Not only is it under continuous assault by a federal government that has repeatedly and consistently shown its contempt for the concept, but it also suffers from widespread citizen disengagement.

Probably the two are inextricably connected.

In an interesting column today entitled Canadians need a forum to raise their voices against undemocratic leaders, The Star's public editor Carol Goar writes about a public trust called The Carold Institute, whose mission is to promote active citizenship, democratic participation and social change.

A recent panel discussion hosted by the institute stressed three essential observations and lessons that put our present perilous state into perspective:

- those with power — politicians, police and bureaucrats — don’t think they should have to share it. “They don’t like citizens and they don’t think they have any role.”

- governments are quick to slap pejorative labels — violent, dangerous, anarchic — on people who challenge them.

- citizens have to use the tools they have — solidarity, the willingness to stand up to authorities, the ability to reach beyond their own ranks — to keep democracy alive.

These are lessons we all would be wise to remember and take to heart in the long hot summer of discontent ahead.

The Sad Saga Of Our Declining Democracy Continues

During the past year I have written many posts on the sad spectacle of a Canadian democracy in decline, citizen cynicism and apathy rather than vigorous engagement becoming the default position of more and more Canadians. I have also offered the opinion that this is in large part the result of practices purposely pursued by our political 'masters', most egregiously by the Harper regime, so as to leave the field pretty much clear for the 'true-believers' to exert a disproportionate influence on election results when they turn out and the rest of us tune out.

Extreme partisanship has relegated the public good to an afterthought, an example of which is highlighted in Martin Regg Cohn's column today in The Star. He writes about how the clash of politics has impeded anti-bullying legislation that was supposed to proceed smoothly as a response to the suicides of gay students, but has instead degenerated into open displays of bigotry, taunting, tweeting, sulking and shouting (or heckling, as parliamentarians call it).

An even more penetrating assessment of the price we all pay for the debasement of the political process is to be found in Chantal Hebert's column today, also in The Star. Entitled Ballot box seen as dead end rather than means to an end, Hebert first uses the ongoing Quebec student unrest to advance her thesis that our elected representatives are no longer looked upon as a viable source of representation, a notion which, when you think about it, strikes at the very heart of democracy:

Their movement increasingly boils down to an extreme manifestation of a widespread disenchantment toward Canada’s elected institutions; one that is leading alienated voters of all ages and in all regions to see the ballot box as a dead end rather than as a means to an end.

Hebert then turns her sights on the Harper regime:

In the national capital, a government elected with barely four in every 10 votes a year ago has since been going out of its way to disenfranchise the majority that did not support it.

Over the opening year of their majority mandate, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have moved to discourage civic dissent — in particular but not exclusively on the environmental front.

They have replaced federal-provincial dialogue with diktats and adversarial litigation.

They have placed themselves on a collision course with the courts over the place of the rule of law in the exercise of ministerial discretion.

The concept of ministerial responsibility has been reduced to a quaint historical footnote and parliamentary accountability is on the same slippery slope.

In the House of Commons, the government has moved to stifle the input of its opposition critics at every turn, systematically curtailing debate on bills or more simply subtracting legislation from competent scrutiny by cramming it inside inflated omnibus bills.

It should surprise no one that governments who treat the rule of law as a pesky inconvenience will eventually breed the same attitude in those that they purport to legislate for.

Hebert ends her piece by referring to ours as a debased democracy.

I have one questions that burns in my soul - Is there anyone or anything that can reinvigorate us at this point to reclaim our birthright?

The Uphill Battle to Save Democracy in Canada

At the risk of appearing tiresomely repetitive, I am posting once again on the problem of political disengagement. The fact that only about 30% of Canadians bother to follow politics, as if it is a sphere of activity totally separate from the lives they live, is troubling, and one that is being regularly exploited by the Harper regime.

In today's Star, columnist Bob Hepburn writes about The uphill battle to save democracy in Canada, pointing out the two main obstacles to achieving that objective: both the isolation and transitory nature of groups that try to promote democratic renewal, and the blind eye that the Harper government turns to every and all complaints.

About the latter, Hepburn writes:

Their (the general public) letters are ignored or receive innocuous replies, backbench MPs dismiss them as cranks, media commentators pay no attention to their petitions, and apathetic friends and neighbours tell them they’re crazy to think they can change the political culture in Ottawa.

He adds,

That’s just the way Harper wants it. Although he initially vowed to increase government accountability, he has shown zero interest in improving our democratic institutions since coming to power six years ago.

He seems convinced he can get away with it because only about 30 per cent of Canadians regularly follow politics and public policy issues. The rest of us are either turned off, fed up or have given up. Harper is counting on that indifference to continue through the next election.

I hope you will read the entire piece and send an article link to those you feel might benefit from it.

The Cost of Political Disengagement

Thanks to LeDaro's link, I was able to catch up on the At Issues panel that I missed on Thursday night. While the discussion revolved largely around the F-35 debacle, the point I found most discouraging was the statistic that only 30-35% of Canadians follow politics at all. It is a shockingly low number for a democracy, one that, of course, has allowed Harper and his acolytes to begin to wreak havoc on our traditional way of life.

It is indescribably sad that the majority of Canadians see politics as something distinct from and essentially irrelevant to their lives, rather than one of the main determinants of its quality. Those of us who write political blogs are very much aware of this fact, but the conundrum with which we perpetually wrestle is how to communicate that to the wider population.

Perhaps part of the answer is implied in Tim Harper's column today in The Star. Entitled Conservative government fights to keep budget cuts in the ‘back office’, the piece examines the ramifications of the elimination of civil service jobs while the government paradoxically insists that no front-line services will be affected. This past week, both the public service unions and Tom Mulcair have rather effectively attacked this risible assertion.

Perhaps if enough scrutiny is given to the issue, we can see an increase in the abysmal statistic I mentioned at the start of this post.

On Corruption and Political Disengagement

Last night I had a long telephone conversation with my good friend Dave, who lives in Winnipeg. Like me (and probably more so), Dave has a keenly developed sense of justice and fair play, and when those values are violated, he is outraged. Last evening, as he was telling me about the latest developments in what seems to be a deep well of corruption, cronyism and conflict of interest infecting Winnipeg municipal politics, I asked him how the malefactors, who barely seem to be making an effort to conceal their nefarious deeds, escape civic accountability.

A good part of the answer, and the part I feel I can discuss here, is voter apathy and disengagement.

I have written previously on the problems our democratic traditions are experiencing these days under a federal government that displays egregious contempt for what the electorate thinks or wants. My own theory is that the Harper regime is doing everything it can to disillusion and estrange citizens from participation so that only the true believers (right-wing ideologues, for example) turn out at the polls while most others remain at home. That surely explains, at least in part, what happened in the last federal election when a minority of Canadians gave Harper the majority he so long coveted.

And it explains Harper's refusal, to take any responsibility for having lied to the public about the true costs of the F-35 jets. Equally damning and shameful, he refuses to require any ministerial responsibility, in this case from the incompetent and dishonest Minister of Defense, Peter MacKay.

However, this is one small speck of light on the horizon, as explained by Bob Hepburn, who writes about Harper’s cynical assault on democracy in today's Star. I hope you will find the time to read his piece.

Why Don't Politicians Like Democratic Participation?

Yesterday I opined on why democratic participation in our country is so muted, and offered two examples of what can be accomplished when people are willing to get involved.

One of the obstacles to greater participation is surely the belief that we have little chance of making an impact because our elected representatives do not listen to us, indeed, seem to actively discourage us from becoming involved.

I definitely got them impression while following the budget debate in Toronto, which saw a record number of citizens making deputations on the cuts that were being proposed. One of the city's most obnoxious councillors, Giorgio Mammoliti, a man quite happy to belittle anyone who questions him, a man who seems to have changed political stripes for the allure of power offered by conversion to the Ford agenda, is now getting his shorts in a twist over ' repeat deputers,' those citizens who have the temerity to make more than one deputation to City Council.

In a story appearing in today's Star, Catherine Porter reports how Mammoliti takes grave exception to people like Mary T. Hynes, a retired teacher whom he lumps into a group he has decided are exercising their democratic duties far too much.

Perhaps the best answer to Mammoliti's carping criticisms comes from Ms Hynes herself:

“I learned that people can make a difference, if they struggle long and hard and respectfully,” she says. “If people hadn’t come down to city hall, what would have happened?”

I suspect there is a lesson for all of us in her words.

Rick Salutin's Thoughts on Democracy

I am so glad that Rick Salutin has found a home at The Star after having written for many years at The Globe and Mail. As I mentioned in an earlier post, his writing always offers a unique perspective on issues, and he rarely disappoints.

In yesterday's column, he addresses some of the shortcomings of our democracy, yet concludes it is one still worth participating in. I encourage everyone to take a look.

Do We Need A New Political Literacy? Part 1

I take much comfort in reading the political views expressed by many members of Progressive Bloggers, giving me as it does a sense of community, shared purpose and the knowledge that passion for politics and love of our country is alive and well.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but be discouraged by poll results showing strong ongoing support for the Harper Conservative Government, despite its regular and unapologetic attacks on what many of us see as the fundamentals of democracy and good governance.

While there is hardly a need to provide a comprehensive list of those attacks, a few of the more recent and egregious examples will serve to illustrate that my antipathy toward this government goes well beyond philosophical disagreements:

- The request by the opposition members for the Afghan detainee documents was met by deep resistance and cries of confidentiality. Even a ruling by the Speaker of the House ordering those documents be made available was met with an unsatisfactory compromise, foolishly accepted by The Liberal Party.

- The unnecessary proguing of Parliament by Stephen Harper to avoid defeat of his Government in the House was a gross misuse of privilege, sadly abetted by former Governor-General Michelle Jean

- The contempt shown to Parliament by speaking lies about the need to reform the Census with the claim that many hundreds had complained about its intrusive nature when, in fact, there might have been no more than a dozen objections.

- The refusal by the Government to permit Ministers' aides to testify before Parliamentary Committees, despite the fact that the latter have the power to compel such testimony.

- The entire tissue of lies surrounding the cessation of funding to KAIROS by Bev Oda.

I have asked myself why, despite these serious offences, they are dismissed so readily by so many. Of course, there are several combinations of possible answers, ranging from people's inertia, indifference to, or alienation from the political process to being too busy working and maintaining a family life to have the time for such concerns. I wonder, though, if there might be an additional factor at work: an ignorance of and therefore an inability to understand the very principles that are the foundations of our government.

We hear many cries coming from government and business that it is time to teach financial literacy at a young age so that people can avoid falling into crippling debt in the future. While I don't disagree with that notion, in my mind of equal if not greater importance is the imparting of a kind of political literacy by our schools that will help to bring about a more knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.

In future posts, I will try to suggest what such a model might look like, and some of the changes that would be necessary to bring this about.