[Rural]

I recently found this piece by former long time MP David Kilgour, which echoes my views as to the “party” system as it exists today. Despite being 3 years old it is perhaps even more relevant today. That Mr Kilgour served in both the Conservative and Liberal partys as well as an independent give even more weight to his contention that “Canadian democracy itself would benefit if we put our present mind-numbing party discipline where it belongs - in the history books.”

The following are but a few excerpts in which I have shamelessly picked out the bits which cut to the chase! (It was submitted to the news editorial section and didn’t make it, on reflection it perhaps should be here?)

Whither Democracy in Canada?

Notes for Talk by Hon. David Kilgour, MP
16 March 2005

A representative democracy is supposed to function as a means for the nationals of a country to voice their opinions and concerns. MP’s, MLA’s etc are elected by constituents to represent their interests. They can only maintain legitimacy by acting in accordance with the wishes of their electorate most, if not all of the time.

In our current electoral system, the ability of an elected official in government to represent constituents is seriously impaired by the high degree of party discipline prevalent in the Canadian system since about 1900. Some degree of party discipline is necessary in order to maintain the coherence of political parties as viable institutions; this should not preclude an elected person’s ability to represent their constituents.

Currently, the role of the member as a representative is seriously compromised by the fact that the real political power lies with the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister has the power to dismiss a member of his caucus at any time; to make all cabinet appointments, all appointments to the senate, to the Supreme Court; all ambassadors to name but a few. The combination of the Prime Minister’s explicit power to discipline through censure or expulsion; and the implicit power to discipline through denial of cabinet appointments, or other appointments creates an environment in which it is severely disadvantageous for caucus members to deviate from any agenda set by the Prime Minister……………………………….


The threat of being expelled creates a major dilemma for the MP or MLA whose greatest desire is to be faithful in their service to their electorate.

An expelled MP is forced to sit as an independent and is virtually excommunicated from the political process. He/she must try and conduct their work with severely diminished resources and an extremely limited procedural ability to ask a question or raise an issue in the House of Commons, which diminishes their ability to serve their constituents. Such members have little means of influencing government policy to the benefit of their constituents in any way because they can no longer count of the support of their former party. While true that any non-cabinet member has the right to put forward a private member’s bill, this ability is of little practical value………………………


It is very difficult for an MP to vote against any piece of government legislation that the governing party has designated as a matter of confidence even though one’s constituents are not in favour of it. One is faced with a choice in which their ability to serve as representative is undermined regardless of what choices they made. If one toes the party line on a piece of legislation their constituents have deemed undesirable, you lose the faith and trust of their electors and are seen as a political figure that lacks legitimacy. If one obeys the wishes of their constituents, one’s ability to serve them becomes severely constrained as a result of being dismissed from their political party………………………….


Another important consequence of the current system is that it often effectively closes the door to any sort of cooperative efforts in the policy-making realm among parties. Where parties dominate the process as they do now, there is no real forum for substantive policy dialogue to take place among members of different parties when one has a majority……………………………
(Or it would seem when one has a minority! Rural)

If we are to continue to have a vibrant democracy in Canada it is clear that the relaxation of party discipline and the facilitation of greater opportunities for free votes will go a long way toward increasing the degree of engagement that Canadian citizens now have with the political process.

Canadians will feel that our elected representatives have a greater degree of accountability toward them as opposed to their party if a member is empowered by having the ability to vote in ways that accord with the wishes of their constituents on a regular basis. This will be an important step in reversing voter apathy. Increased accountability of MP’s to constituents will increase the degree of engagement Canadians have with the political process; it will encourage them to get more involved not only at election times but in between as well…………………….


If party discipline is relaxed, representation for all areas of Canada would be improved. It would be easier for, say, Western MPs to defy their party establishments, if need be, in support of Western issues. Coalitions composed of members of all parties could exist for the purpose of working together on issues of common regional or other concern. The present adversarial attitudes and structures of Parliament or legislatures in which opposition parties oppose virtually anything a government proposes might change in the direction of all parties working together for the national good.

At present, few government and opposition MPs have any real opportunity to put constituents first in votes in the House of Commons. Real power is concentrated in the hands of the three party leaderships. Canadian democracy itself would benefit if we put our present mind-numbing party discipline where it belongs - in the history books.

http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/Whither ... Canada.htm

David Kilgour is currently a Fellow of the Queen's University Centre for the Study of Democracy and a director of the Council for a Community of Democracies (CCD). He was one of the two longest-serving MPs in the House of Commons for the 38th Parliament. First elected in 1979 in the riding of Edmonton Strathcona, he was re-elected seven times.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/bio.htm


Also see http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/discipline.htm

And http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... n-politics

[sasquatch2]

Much of what Kilgour says is true. This has lead to the unconstitutional concentration of power in the PMO---which has become an unconstitutional executive branch of government.
The US Congress by comparison is much more democratic. A party bill does not automatically get total support of all members of that party.

[Rural]

“Democracy demands vigilance, and a willingness to pose difficult questions and to take risks. I do not mean by that only taking to the streets to complain about what is wrong, but also advocating constructive alternatives.”
David Kilgore

Here are some extracts from another speech by David, he says so much clearer than I, and with greater authority given his service in the House, the things that I think need to be said loudly and often if we are to protect our Democracy.


Threats to Democracy

In 1947, Winston Churchill said: "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Churchill’s words were prophetic. Democracy is a difficult and necessarily arduous process. It is about citizens and states organizing through an institutional core in a common effort for societal betterment and justice. We democrats know that our system is not easy; nor has it been perfected. But it is in this very difficulty and imperfection that the strengths of democracy are present. It is in our struggle to maintain the democratic systems some have enjoyed for hundreds of years; it is in our fight to consolidate flourishing new democracies. Indeed in gatherings such as this one the richness and strengths of the democratic process are evident..
Threats to Democracy
If there is one overriding truth about democracy, it is that it is precious but vulnerable. The twentieth century shows that the enemies of democracy are as numerous as they are threatening. Over the course of my 21 years as a parliamentarian and through travels as Canada’s Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I have witnessed many threats to democracy. While many are obvious, the most dangerous are subtle. It is not empty stomachs, impunity or corruption alone that necessarily jeopardize democracy; it is their accumulated effects. The greatest threat to democracy does not always come from the barrel of a gun, but from the collected effects of poverty, apathy, and economic insecurity.
Another obstacle to democracy is that the value of its name often exceeds the principles of its practice. The past century demonstrated that the banner of democracy was used to sustain just about any system. Democracy does not include oppression, corruption, division, segregation, terror and murder. A genuinely democratic nation thrives on diversity and difference, through which it builds on its collective wisdom and strengths. We must now forge a new trail in the twenty-first century where the merits of democracy are not in its name alone, but in its non-negotiable, irrefutable truths.
<large snip>
Rule of Law
Fundamental to a healthy democracy is a strong judiciary. Alexander Hamilton noted that there could be no liberty if the power of the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive branches of government. In some cases, the tyranny of legislatures was considered to be the most formidable impediment to the proper development and functioning of constitutional democracy. In Canada we feel that an independent judiciary, with real power to review acts passed by legislators, is a safeguard against potential harms that may be caused to the rights of individuals.
The rule of law and independent judiciaries, consistent with international human rights standards, are not present in all democracies. Judges are dismissed in some jurisdictions if they do not pass judgments that are acceptable to the government, and more obsequious replacements are found. There may be threats of violence against judges in order to persuade them to act in accordance to the will of a dictator. Under these conditions, there can be no impartiality as judges must choose between their own personal safety and the rights of an individual or a group of individuals. This is an extreme example; but more subtle means are deployed by regimes that seek to project an image of a constitutional democracy, and yet rule as a dictatorship of the legislature or executive.
Striking an appropriate balance between majority rule and protection of individual and minorities’ rights is one of democracy’s most enduring challenges. John Locke expressed the notion of inalienable rights in a society: those rights which are so fundamental to the well being and happiness of an individual that a state has very limited rights to infringe upon them. In more modern times these inalienable rights have taken the title of fundamental rights or human rights in the perspective of international law. One needs only to look at a newspaper to find instances where individual and group rights are being infringed.
Democracy’s reliance on a vigorous judiciary makes it possible for minorities and marginalized groups within a state to live peacefully as full members of society. Such groups are no less entitled to live a happy and fulfilling life than those of us who had been lucky enough to be born into freedom. All nations give their judges and lawyers the authority to ensure justice for all, even in the face of mob anger and prejudice.
<large snip>
Canada, Multilateralism and Democracy
What has Canada learned from its experiences in the Commonwealth, the OAS and La Francophonie? I think that we first have concluded that there is no single model for how to address threats to democracy. In the contexts of the Commonwealth and the Americas, CMAG and the OAS have respectively worked well. For Canada, engaging global partners in democracy through multilateral institutions has been our preferred approach.
The second conclusion is that each threat to democracy must be addressed in its own context. In many cases, the best approach is one of what we might call accompaniment. That is, we need to be supportive of local initiatives and ideas on how to strengthen democracy and send a message that external actors are there to support, and not necessarily to force change. Wherever possible, we should let local actors take the lead in resolving their own challenges. In other cases, however, particularly when there are violations of fundamental principles, we must be prepared to take stronger measures. This again argues against universal models, but instead supports the idea of taking a country-level approach to democracy strengthening.
Third, our experience has shown that while in a few cases, threats to democracy can be resolved in short order, most of the time, we must travel a long road and have patience. As external supporters, we need to be ready to listen, enter into dialogue, and provide technical advice and assistance where needed, and be willing to do so over an extended period.
Finally, we must always be careful that in our efforts to be creative and supportive, we do not compromise basic principles or offer bad advice, and keep our actions in-line with the promotion and protection of human rights consistent with international human rights law. Otherwise, we will not have democracy and we will have betrayed the people we are trying to help.
While the threats to democracy may seem great, we must never let them overwhelm us. As I stated earlier, the strength of democracy is in the struggle. It is a struggle to build the conditions in which democracy can grow and it is a continual struggle to maintain it where it is strong. With a full appreciation and understanding of what threatens democracy, let us continue the critical endeavour of strengthening it.
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democra2.htm

In another speech he said:-
“All too often in Canada and elsewhere there has been a tendency to equate democracy with the holding of elections, forgetting that democracy must be continuously nurtured – not just once every four or five years. Democracy demands vigilance, and a willingness to pose difficult questions and to take risks. I do not mean by that only taking to the streets to complain about what is wrong, but also advocating constructive alternatives.”
David Kilgour
http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/democrac.htm

[Diogenes]

When I read at the political commentaries on these and other pages I am struck by what’s missing more than by what is spoken about
Political commentaries are confined to the very narrow spectrum of parties and what happens on the floor of the house and that neglects the topics of power brokers, lobbyists and the wealthy elite above the concerns of those few who haphazardly vote.

Democracy seems more to be a meme, a mind virus that the only cure fore is total participation by those under it grasp.

Whither Democracy in Canada?


“Live Free or Starve Slowly and Whither Away to Death”

I have heard whither used in the context of a thing shrinking and dying as it is seen in the above quote. Although the usage may be archaic or colloquial or simple a matter of words with the same sound it is still apt to the concept of democracy.
Democracy demands vigilance that being the case whither the vigilance and by whom?

I take the notion of vigilance to be squarely in the domain of the electorate for whom the politician derives his authority, but vigilance has become a near thing of the past when it comes to the voter, or should I say the missing votERS? They, the voters have withered away and in their stead we have the power shift either by design or by indifference

One of the very first maxims of law is “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”
I suggest that as law and politics are entwined, Ignorance of politics (their goings on) is no excuse!
The political situation in the world to-day occurs not by chance they occur because of the balance between action and inaction” Their action /our inaction.

[Rural]

I had not seen the irony of the title, our democracy is indeed withering away!

It is true that we focus on “the very narrow spectrum of parties and what happens on the floor of the house” most because that is all we hear of. Even some of the shenanigans going on there fail to see much light of day in our MSM. The committee fiasco occasionally gets a little light of day (see http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... -parliment) but much of the BS going on in the background is hidden from us all.

That “vigilance {should be}squarely in the domain of the electorate for whom the politician derives his authority” is also somewhat true in that it’s the way it SHOULD be but the way its working now it would seem that the MPs seem to believe that their authority comes from either the PMO or the Party.

“The political situation in the world to-day occurs not by chance they occur because of the balance between action and inaction “
The Partys and the PMO will continue to take over our democratic processes unless “we the people” do take some action. The question is what effective action can we take? Some on these pages have given up and refuse to vote, whilst that is not my choice I can understand their frustration when the choices are one oligarchy or another. Personally I believe they all need a MAJOR shock at the poling booth when next we get a chance. The only choice I see is to vote ABC, but even go further and vote, but vote for none of the Partys now in the HOC. After all it cannot get any more dysfunctional. Or can it?

[uwish]

our parliamentary system is in dire need of an overhaul. I don't think you will find many Canucks that do not agree with that is some regard. EEE senate, free votes in the house are just one small step to a more representative government. I would also like to see representation by population I don't think a government should be able to take office just because they won the most 'seats' even if they only received %30 of the popular vote.

I really think it is time to re-visit some of our ceremonial positions like GG for example. And a re-working of that 1982 peace of toilet paper called a charter would be nice.

[Rural]

It is interesting that the PM when in opposition was all for limiting what is and is not a confidence vote, but now when in power is making just about every vote one that could bring about an election. The more things change the more they stay the same!

“Recognizing this potential for change, the Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Stephen Harper, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, are proposing a series of changes to the way the House of Commons conducts its business………………………
“Finally, since a minority government is fragile by nature, the three opposition leaders have proposed a specific definition of which votes would result in the defeat of the government and therefore require a new general election. They suggest that only the final vote on the Speech from the Throne, the final vote on the Budget, global votes on the main spending estimates of the government and votes explicitly identified as questions of confidence be considered as confidence votes…………..

From an article by – CPC MP Vic Toews
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/is ... g-demo.htm

Before I saw this information I had proposed something similar, see….
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/print/123529439

[kenmore]

its hard to have democracy when you have an autocrat as PM

[Diogenes]

Rural Rural:

I had not seen the irony of the title, our democracy is indeed withering away!

It is true that we focus on “the very narrow spectrum of parties and what happens on the floor of the house” most because that is all we hear of. Even some of the shenanigans going on there fail to see much light of day in our MSM. The committee fiasco occasionally gets a little light of day (see http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... -parliment) but much of the BS going on in the background is hidden from us all.

That “vigilance {should be}squarely in the domain of the electorate for whom the politician derives his authority” is also somewhat true in that it’s the way it SHOULD be but the way its working now it would seem that the MPs seem to believe that their authority comes from either the PMO or the Party.

“The political situation in the world to-day occurs not by chance they occur because of the balance between action and inaction “
The Partys and the PMO will continue to take over our democratic processes unless “we the people” do take some action. The question is what effective action can we take? Some on these pages have given up and refuse to vote, whilst that is not my choice I can understand their frustration when the choices are one oligarchy or another. Personally I believe they all need a MAJOR shock at the poling booth when next we get a chance. The only choice I see is to vote ABC, but even go further and vote, but vote for none of the Partys now in the HOC. After all it cannot get any more dysfunctional. Or can it?

I am encouiraged by your response, Rual.
Off the top of my unlatte'd head I ask "Could there be a shadow government, one that has perhaps on rotation schedule one of us: we the people asthe vigilant ones?"
One of the first behaviours to be put in check is the exclusiveness attitude that takes hold of the political animal, by that I mean that once elected the general rule seems to be one of separation from thos from who the elected gain their power.
Encourage electorate power could do that.


"The question is what effective action can we take?"

in answer,
Go to the House. on a civic level I have a new neighbour that haunts the civic meeting and tols me of going to one where the RCMP was pitching for more funds. This concerned citizen, on his own went to the RCMP parking lot and photographed police cars that has sat idle for long periods of time. He also located a storage facility where more are in 'in hiding' You can imagine the effect of his presence at the open meeting.
I believe that by simply brainstorming the question of what can be done is easily put to rest

[uwish]

kenmore kenmore:

its hard to have democracy when you have an autocrat as PM

I agree crooked face was awful!

[Diogenes]

uwish uwish:

kenmore kenmore:

its hard to have democracy when you have an autocrat as PM

I agree crooked face was awful!

The sheople get tyhe political repsesentation they deserve. The rest of us suffer.

of poli-tics
Not having figuared it all out by now, ignorace ^ is no excuse

[Red_Eye]

Can we as citizens handle democracy? Basically as Canadians , we whine and complain and don't seem to get off our butt very often to do anything about anything. Because if we did we would change this party structure style of government. Even if there's a constitition and a charter of rights, its the peoples will to choose to support it or deny it. Let alone to understand it. In general we don't even make the effort. I included at times.

If we stood together it would be a different story

[revelator]

Are you kidding me? You think that there is democracy in Canada, when there are so many social issues, relating to that, which are being ignored at the present time.
How about too much power, on the part of those who are elected, to do as they pleased. Do Canadians really participate in the democratic process, as they are led to believed? The truth may really suprised you.

[Rural]

I have not monotored the "forums" in a while, prefering a more restrained debate, however the title caught my eye (having been the one to post it) and so will respond with this....
Our "democracy" is in deep trouble, but how do we change things democraticaly? Anything other than that bothers me greatly, to maintain our "democracy" (you will note I put that in quotes) we must become active to suport and protect that which is right and expose that which is wrong with it.
Join our new blog at http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/ where thoughfull and reasoned discussion is welcomed.

Davids speech is perhaps even more valid today as when he made it!

[Jaydon]

I think it should be money from party officials. They get paid enough.

But at least it's a step in the right direction.