Our (Canadian) democracy isn't very democratic

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I’m mainly pissed off about the party system, which is dependent on an adversarial relationship within government. It has bugged me increasingly over the last few elections but, for some reason, the ongoing election campaign has surpassed some sort of threshold in me.

If I vote Conservative, then I’m possibly choosing wise economic management and some common sense (in my opinion) security as well as opposition to face coverings (niqabs in this case) in certain situations. But I also am choosing ideologically driven “tough on crime”, marijuana-is-inherently-evil stuff that isn’t necessarily supported by data; and no concern about the environment.

If I vote NDP then I’m possibly choosing some positive, compassionate measures but, notwithstanding the current platform, bad financial management and the total military withdrawal from the fight against ISIS.

If I vote Liberal, which I used to do before the sponsorship scandal, I might also be choosing some positive, compassionate measures but with promises of future and deliberate deficits.

And the politically wise amongst us tell me that the opposition parties are supposed to keep the government in check and challenged etc etc. But it is an incredibly stupid system. What other organization would choose something like that. I was in the military for 32 years - how about this. “Captain Sir, we have an unknown subsurface contact at 030 range 24000 yards.” “Roger ASW, let’s have the opposition captain and ASW officer speak…”

I used to do community work in Ottawa so we dealt with the municipal government a fair bit and sat in on city council meetings. There were no parties. There were ward councilors who represented their constituents; we, theoretically, could have our cake and eat it, rather that being stuck with these stupid Hobson’s choices of packages.

And the fucking debates. I hear people saying things like “Harper looked the most prime-ministerial while Justin didn’t” - so what? That’s completely meaningless and the debate only demonstrates a candidate’s ability to debate on television, and nothing else.

And I hear younger people explaining that they couldn’t be bothered to vote because the candidates aren’t “engaging them” or “speaking to them”. That’s like saying I won’t get surgery because I don’t find the doctor entertaining enough. WTF??

And read the comments crap in the online news articles. By about the third comment, regardless of the story, some commenter tries to blame Stephen Harper and then it turns into a Tory vs Liberal pissing contest.

FFS I truly do not know who to vote for. Both the economic situation in the Eurozone and the refugee crisis in Europe and the middle east, IMO, are extremely serious situations that could possibly destabilize the whole shiteroo and all we can do is choose the best of the petty political options.

And stop calling them our “leaders”. They are our management staff. I don’t give a rat’s ass if he or she is charismatic or “prime-ministerial”. I want someone who can ably manage our damn affairs.

2

Well, okay, I’m going to stop you there and comment on this.

That would indeed be a very stupid way to run a guided missile frigate. How you run a warship has really nothing at all to do with how you run a country; you are making a comparison so insanely illogical I can’t even come up with a good analogy.

The purpose of a warship is fairly straightforward and its mission and purpose is externally determined; its captain and crew have to execute that mission as they are instructed. The purpose of a COUNTRY is to promote the general welfare of its citizens and to be reasonable responsible to the welfare of all humanity, and running a country is about one million times more complicated than running a warship. The crew of a warship serve the ship and its mission; the citizenry of a country do not serve the government, they are served by the government.

In the context of running a really large, complicated country, having a number of competing viewpoints is exceptionally important simply because we have 35 million people and they don’t all want or need the same thing from the government. Open dissent and disagreement is how issues are brought up, debated, and the course of policy determined. Were it not for opposition and dissent, women would not have the vote, Canada would be unilingual and structurally racist, and we wouldn’t have the really cool flag we have.

“Hobson’s Choice” does not mean “several choices which are all similarly mediocre.” It means no choice whatsoever. If Canada was a one-party state where you could only vote for a Communist candidate, that would be a Hobson’s Choice.

That said, you make an interesting point here. It is curious that party politics generally are not see at a municipal level - though in large cities like Toronto candidates are often very, very closely aligned with the major parties, and tend to vote accordingly. One could, I think, start a whole thread about why this is, but I think generally speaking at the city council level in a small-to-medium sized city, the council is busy simply running the city at a functional level. There isn’t a lot of ideology in making sure the roads are paved. City governments do not have to set foreign policy, determine criminal law, or any number of other things that a large government does that is subject to a degree of ideological influence.

Having said, that by personal experience in working with city councillors is that they are, with a few exceptions, remarkably stupid people. Just my experience, though.

3

RickJay, I don’t know if you were in the military, but it’s not exactly the monolithic thing shown in the movies or on TV. As an ASW officer I would make recommendations to the Ops Room Officer and/or the Captain and, if time wasn’t a massive crunch (ASW tends to have a bit more time than AWW) we would be huddled over the tactical display and there would be some thoughtful discussion about employment of ASW assets and the best search and attack approach.

In my experience in Ottawa, before the municipal amalgamation when there was a Regional Council, there was the “Regional Chair” and the councilors who sat around a sizable round table around which 15 or 16 councilors and the Chair sat. Nobody could be prevented from voting a certain way by their party leader.

Yes my warship example is an exaggeration but apply the model to anything. The rationale that open disagreement and debate are necessary, instead of discussion, debate, and results approaching consensus and agreement, strikes me as ridiculous.

“In the context of running a really large, complicated country, having a number of competing viewpoints is exceptionally important simply because we have 35 million people and they don’t all want or need the same thing from the government. Open dissent and disagreement is how issues are brought up, debated, and the course of policy determined. Were it not for opposition and dissent, women would not have the vote, Canada would be unilingual and structurally racist, and we wouldn’t have the really cool flag we have.” Do you honestly believe that if we had had a collaborative, non-adversarial approach that none of the quoted events would have happened?

4

Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others that have been tried.

5

Except that I’m not against democracy per se. I’m against the party system we have, which isn’t democratic.

6

If you are concerned about MPs being whipped too often, consider Green.

7

I did serve and of course a wise officer listens to the advice of his subordinates.

Open disagreement is not necessary, it is inevitable. There, again, 35 million people in this country and they simply aren’t going to agree on some things; there are issues on which there will never be agreement. The country is too large, too diverse and too complex to be run by a single discussion on an issue. Sometimes we solve problems by consensus, sometimes they can be solved by fiat, and sometimes they can’t be solved.

It’s nice of you to postulate that we could all just get along, but I guess what I don’t quite understand is why you think we don’t.

What we have in Canada is a country that actually DOES work on consensus and agreement. That’s why this isn’t Syria. You don’t notice that because much of the consensus and agreement has already happened, in 1867 and 1931 and 1982 and so on and so forth, or it happens quietly. Politicians of different parties have been working stuff out all along, but that never makes the news. What you’re seeing in election coverage is merely the sharpest and loudest end of the consensus process, and in the grand scheme of things actually a fairly small part of what makes this country run as well as it does. Our unspoken social contract and the tangible institutions that support that social contract work wonderfully, in fact, to help us work out how to run the country based on consensus and agreement.

The existence of political parties (and I must again respectfully disagree with Muffin; were it to ever actually matter, the Green Party will whip its MPs like rented mules) is simply a natural part of the democratic process, which is why every democracy has them. It has disadvantages, but has a lot of advantages, too.

8

Your voting for whomever is running in your riding, you dont elect the PM, they do.

You want someone that helms the country during the aforementioned crisis, then vote Harper. Regardless of what the country thinks of him, his interactions with other governments are going to be the main thing.

The other brands have their choices to put to you, and will in time make the same mistakes, stumbles, bad deals , yada yada.

I got no idea who the NDP guy is, and while I would have voted for Ed Broadbent in a heartbeat, had he been a Lib or Conservative, the NDP of the time, was unelectable. Only took Bob Rae to prove why, and so many years on, a few more Preems have been elected on the Orange ticket, and history will bear watching, as to how they do.

I will say that because of Trudeau senior, I will be voting Harper, warts and all.

Declan

9

I disagree with your premise. I don’t think the Conservatives have any idea how to manage the economy. They are bragging about having a surplus while unemployment is high and rising and the economy is moving backwards. This is good management? No this “steady hand on the tiller” is driving us into the ground. The NDP probably has some good ideas but they will run a deficit and are lying to us about it. The Liberals are honestly saying they will probably have a deficit for three years while fixing some infrastructure and, BTW, trying to do something about carbon emission. To the Conservatives, the more carbon emitted the better. The NDP makes some good points, but I just don’t quite trust them.

Full disclosure: there is a Liberal poster on my front lawn.

10

Unless the person to whom you are speaking lives in Stephen Harper’s riding, you contradicted your very first sentence in your second.

[QUOTE=Hari Seldon]
… Unemployment is high and rising…
[/QUOTE]

Unemployment is not high, and while it ticked up in August, it has remained fairly low all year. Unemployment in Canada has gone down every year since the world fiscal crisis ended.