I Couldn't Agree More

H/t Occupy Canada

Something To Gladden The Heart

This morning's Star editorial cartoon:

When The Elites Aren't Happy

I will readily admit that political perturbations abroad command much less interest from me than those that occur domestically on both the federal and provincial level. Nonetheless, the upheavals currently underway in Thailand provide a rather fascinating lesson into what can happen when the elites (aka the rich) experience a democratically-elected government that does not do their bidding. They simply declare it 'illegitimate.'

A story in today's Star reveals that Thailand’s prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, has announced her intention to dissolve the lower house of Parliament and call a snap election, the decision precipitated by increasingly restive protests in the street and the fact that the Democrat party, led by a former premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has pulled out of the lower house. The reason, according to Vejjajiva, is that Yingluck’s government has become illegitimate, this despite the fact that her party came to power in a landslide vote in 2011 that observers said was free and fair.

So what is the problem? The official reason is that she tried to obtain amnesty for her brother, the former prime minister, but the real catalyst is something much darker, and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of her reign. The truth is, the elites of the country don't like the fact that too much has been given to the country's poor.

An analysis by Gwynne Dyer establishes some inconvenient truths that few in the mainstream media seem willing to address. Entitled The war on democracy in Thailand, the article reveals the true nature of the protestors' discontent:

The main thing that distinguishes the Civil Movement for Democracy is its profound dislike for democracy. In the mass demonstrations that have shaken Thailand since November 24, its supporters have been trying to remove a prime minister who was elected only two years ago—and their goal is not another election.

“We don't want new elections because we will lose anyway,” one protester told Reuters. “We want (the prime minister’s family) to leave the country.” If they succeeded in driving Yingluck from power, they would skip the whole business of elections and hand the country over to an appointed “People’s Council” made up of “good men”.

What is the source of their disdain for democracy? According to protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, the majority of the Thai people are too ignorant and flighty to be trusted with the vote. The basis for this distrust of democracy, he says, is that elections in Thailand do not represent people’s (real) choices because their votes are bought.”

It is important here to note, as Dyer points out, that there is no bribery or corruption involved here. No, the truth is votes were 'bought' by Thaksin Shinawatra, the current Prime Minister's brother, through policies that most would deem progressive:

He set up programs like village-managed micro-credit development funds and low-interest agricultural loans.

He created a universal healthcare system and provided low-cost access to anti-HIV medications.

Between 2001 and 2006, the year a military coup ousted him, the GDP grew by 30 percent, public sector debt fell from 57 percent of GDP to 41 percent, and foreign exchange reserves doubled .

Income in the north-east, the poorest part of the country, rose by 41 percent.

Poverty nationwide dropped from 21 percent to 11 percent, and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS declined.

He even managed to balance the budget.

So one can see what is really bothering the elites of the country. Enlightened policy means they have to share some of the pie, something the rich never seem to be very good at.

Of course, there is little danger of such upheavals in North America. Both Canada and the United States, as we know, serve their elites very, very well.

Something To Rejuvenate The Human Spirit

I suspect that as a lot of us get older, especially with the context that the years behind us provide, it is difficult not to submit to deep cynicism, even despair. Words that may sound fresh to some are ones that we have heard enough times before to interpret as the platitudes they frequently are. And yet, there is always something or someone that comes along to rescue us from absolute, soul-numbing despair. Nelson Mandela was one such person, and I believe Pope Francis is becoming another such individual.

On this Sunday morning I offer you two letters from today's Star on Mandela's legacy, and an excerpt of a piece by Daniel Baird on the Pope. I hope they provide you, as they did me, a measure of solace.

Africa’s icon of freedom and justice, Editorial Dec. 6

Most exceptional about Mandela’s tenure as president of South Africa was his refusal to punish white South Africans for the power they had unjustly wielded for so many years. For him, reconciliation trumped revenge. A lifelong defender of sovereignty for oppressed peoples and marginalized nations, Mandela used his global stature to defend various independence movements in Africa and around the world. At times, Mandela has also been a severe critic of the United States and the United Kingdom, accusing both of interfering in the affairs of other countries.

He will be remembered as one of the world’s greatest politicians, champion of human rights and one of the most inspiring figures of this century. His death will be mourned for years to come. While the dark clouds of racism, bloody conflicts and violence swell ominously on the horizon today, Mandela’s heartening message is more timely than ever: “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

Javed Akbar, Ajax

We are constantly bombarded by reports of the evil deeds of tyrant-dictators, suicide bombers, serial killers, drug lords, etc., so it’s good to be reminded from time to time that there are also great role models like Nelson Mandela for our children to look up to. Mandela could have become a dictator, instead he became a democratically elected president who spread hope instead of despair, forgiveness instead of revenge and love instead of hate. Never have so many Africans, and many non-Africans, owed so much to one man. Nelson Mandela was a great leader for all reasons.

William Bedford, Toronto

Daniel Baird writes of a pope who seems to practice what Christ preached: humility, compassion, and the avoidance of those things that take us from our true humanity and spirituality:

Francis, in his first Apostolic Exhortation, entitled Evangelli Gaudium, issues the following observation and warning:

“To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed,” he writes. “Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us.”

Coming from a man who reportedly sneaks out at night in the guise of a regular priest in order to visit Rome's homeless, it is the kind of message I think we can all positively respond to.

Ingenuity And Goodwill

Sometimes, seemingly intractable problems can be solved through a combination of ingenuity and goodwill. This story, about a solar lamp that initially seemed out of the financial reach of African villagers, is one such example:

Tim Hudak's Vacuous Vision

Young Tim's Mad Face

Readers of this blog will know that I have no use for Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, an acolyte of Mike Harris who learned the essence of that hated leader's philosophy when he served in his cabinet in the 1990s: divide, conquer, sow dissension, lambaste instead of lead, etc., etc.

In yesterday's print edition of The Toronto Star, the lead letter neatly summed up young Tim's vacuity of vision and his vicious vilification of unions. I have taken the liberty of copying it from the paper's digital edition for your consideration:


Re Hudak targets government employees, Dec. 5

Tim Hudak, the master of the politics of resentment, professes to advocate for, in his words, “the hard-working taxpaying families of Ontario.” His is a cynical approach that rankles the very fibres of a caring society. His demagoguery is clothed in phrases purporting to support the financially struggling working poor and the middle class. As a disciple of Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution, his proposals will have the opposite effect and prove, should he win the next election, a pathway to economic disaster for the middle class and further increase the already historical profits and salaries of corporations and their CEOs.

Hudak states, “We need to act on behalf of the 85 per cent of Ontarians who aren’t on the government payroll and made far more sacrifices in these difficult times.” By pitting one group of Ontarians against another, he is hoping to abolish unions because they are an impediment to Ontario’s economic progress. He would like Ontario to become a “right to work” province. Doesn’t that have an innocent ring to it? Who could possibly be against your right to work? It is no secret that folks in right to work jurisdictions in the U.S. are earning slightly better than minimum wage and are having difficulty supporting their families. Caterpillar moved to Indiana, a right to work jurisdiction, and cut their workforce salary in half along with their benefits. That’s what Hudak would like to achieve in Ontario. Such wilful manipulation of an electorate is both crass and unscrupulous.

For a man who aspires to be chief public servant, you would think his main purpose would be the common weal. Strange indeed that he would display such distaste for other public servants wanting to help all Ontarians. Dear Mr. Hudak, if you can’t find it in your heart to represent 100 per cent of Ontarians, do the right thing and step aside. I am sure someone in the Conservative party will embrace all Ontarians.

Nicholas Kostiak, Tottenham

Back To Earth

I had planned this to be my first piece post-holiday, but Nelson Mandela's passing yesterday prompted my post about that giant who walked among us. I purposely kept it brief, since thousands upon thousands of words will be written about him in the days to come, a testament not only to his stature throughout the world but also, I suspect, to the rarity of such dignity, integrity, and moral greatness.

On to other matters.

One of the advantages to a week-long sojourn in Cuba, from which we returned late Wednesday night, is the fact that the Internet there is both slow and expensive; although I compulsively check my email at home several times a day, I feel no such urge when on the island nation. Consequently, I tend to catch up on the reading that I never seem to have enough time for while in Canada - retirement seems to impose its own disciplines, demands, and routines.

I always make sure to bring with me The Walrus magazine, a publication that does not shy away from longer forms of journalism. An article from a few months back made for some interesting reading. Entitled Repairing the House, now available online, its author, Andrew Coyne, offers an overview of the dysfunctional and essentially impotent Parliament we are all familiar with, a Parliament where backbenchers are little more than the proverbial trained seals doing the bidding of the party leader. Never has this been more evident than in the Harper administration, where all utterances are tightly scripted, predictable ('The Prime Minister has been very clear...') and limited. One has only to watch the incessant parroting that poses as answers both in Question Period or on shows such as Power and Politics to see this sad truth.

Yet Coyne suggests it needn't be this way.

Here are his observations and ideas for reform:

Prior to the 1919 Liberal national convention that elected Mackenzie King as its leader, party leaders in Canada had been chosen as they are in the classic Westminster model, still in force in Australia, for instance: by a vote of the caucus. It is this model, Coyne observes, that keeps the power of leaders from being overwhelming. It is what enabled, for example, the removal of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Kevin Rudd and his successor, Julia Gillard, in Australia. If practised in Canada it would, in Coyne's view, make party leaders more attentive to the concerns of ordinary MPs.

A related reform, lest a potentially rebellious member be subdued, is to the nomination of party candidates. In Canada, as a matter of law, no candidate may run for Parliament under a party banner without the signature of the leader on his or her nomination papers. It is therefore very easy for the leader to veto a nomination by withholding his/her signature. Coyne suggests leaving this process to the riding association.

A concomitant and necessary reform for this to work is in the riding association's nomination process:

It is beyond strange that in Canada, in the twenty-first century, nominations can still be decided by stacking meetings with instant members, hastily recruited for the occasion. A cleaned-up process for selecting candidates—if not formal voter registration, as in the United States, then at least a requirement that voters must have been party members for some decent interval—would seem therefore to be a third part of the solution.

Because of the reality of craven desire for power and advancement among our politicos, a fourth reform is necessary, argues Coyne - reducing the size of cabinet and changing the appointment process for key parliamentary positions.
Because cabinet is bloated at 39 positions (Coyne contrasts that with the U.S. at 16, about the same as Japan and Germany) it means MPs on the government side, if they keep their noses clean, have about a one in four chance of making it to cabinet (compare that to Britain, where the odds are more like one in twenty).

There is much more to the article, which I hope you will take the opportunity to read when time allows, but Coyne's ideas surely offer hope that things can be much better than they currently are, and would perhaps have the effect of renewing some faith in the democratic process and convincing more people to turn out at the polls, although I doubt that is something Harper and his cabal would like to see happen.

And yet some of these ideas may have the potential to be achieved, given that Michael Chong, conspicuous among Conservatives for his integrity, has introduced a private member's bill called the Reform Act. While limited in scope, it is nonetheless an encouraging sign.

So I am back on the political beat, where, regardless of whether I take a short or a long holiday, little ever seems to change for the better.