[Marcarc]

This is, I think, 'sort of' true. To add to it I remember a quote from Northrop Frye to the effect that people will follow a charismatic evil man more than an honest, amiable backslapper. <br /> However, I think we need to remember the indoctrination of the system. People are taught that although it is a democracy it is a very specific type of democracy. Namely, that one chooses a leader who best personifies their best interests. <br /> If we add on to that a couple of other features, namely, the 'high profile' position of politician (who gets far more media attention in Canada than entertainers); the 'representational' aspect of the job-especially the Prime Minister who abroad serves almost as the symbol of its constituents; plus the impression that there are more parties in Canada than the states (there aren't, it's just that the two there are higher profile). <br /> We also can't forget that voter turnout is among the lowest in the world (we're just barely above the states). This means that a high percentage of the population (usually younger people) feel either that everything is fine (which almost every study disputes, but it may be true), or that they want no part of the system. They could just want 'different' leaders that's true, but I highly doubt it. Whenever referendums are held in Canada people show up in droves no matter what the question. To the average canadian taxpayer who works, pays bills, couldn't care less about Quebecers or natives (who they never see), we saw a turnout of over 80% in 1992 on a dry boring constitutional question(s). In Quebec, of course, nearly everybody shows up. Even in New Brunswick during the last referendum on video lottery terminals, a question which affects a tiny minority of the population you had much higher voter turnout in a severely mismanaged referendum. <br /> Personally, I attribute it to the propaganda of the media. Quite simply, nothing gets done in this Country without a continuous high profile from the media. After every election for about a week they talk about how maybe we can implement such a minor change as PR voting, however, there is rarely even that. We have a hard slog to change this system, there are a lot of people who make a lot of money by keeping things the same. Combine that with the fact canadians work among the longest hours in the world and you have a severely dysfunctional democracy. In fact, the few people I talked to discounted DD completely even at the municipal level because it would be 'too chaotic'. Most people just want the government to go away (which it won't).

[gaulois]

An other great thought stimulating question from Calumni! <br /> <br />People (francoes or angloes) act like sheep (my next article BTW is "the role of Black Sheep in La Francophonie"). Sheep follow a pack leader. You can have several pack leaders and the reasons why a sheep follow one leader -vs- an other one are not always as logical as we would like it to be. <br /> <br />So DD will only come about if a leader with the stature of the Trudeau, Lévesque, MacDonald can rouse out the pack to the next "paragdim shift" in Democracy. The current breed of politicians has certainly not been taught the fine art of handing things over. <br /> <br />The biggest problem that I see is complacency here in Canada. So I will expect such a leader of DD to do this elsewhere in a country with more urgent needs for changes. Canadians are too bloody complacent in general and I will give my hi 5s to our Quebec sovereignists for not being so complacent. <br /> <br />But for whatever reason, Quebec does not seem to want to lead the pack in the area of DD. Perhaps there is a blind spot here resulting from too much focus on the good old dream, and maybe still not enough confidence in the dream. I personally think that DD could lead to a sovereign Quebec. But the old guard will have to handover the reign 'cause they are just as complacent than in the ROC IMHO. Common ground?

[Marcarc]

Good letter Gaulois, but I disagree that it will take a 'charismatic leader' to come along. It certainly wasn't Preston Mannings charisma which created the Alliance Party, and it wasn't Rene Levesque who created the PQ. Both these parties have something in common, in that in order to 'play in the big leagues' they had to drop their grassroots affiliation. In other words, they had to get rid of direct democracy mechanisms. <br /> You'll note how the media denigrates any aspect of actual democracy. They play it up whenever some big mouth politician shoots off their mouth in ways they think will create a stir. Look at how it's been played up about states voting for anti-gay rights and ignoring the hundreds of environmental and social legislation that was also voted for. <br /> We are taught that these great people come along and change things, this is rubbish. The civil rights didn't happen because of one guy, or even ten guys, but millions. Once Trudeau was in power and making decisions his approval rating plummetted just like virtually all politicians in Canada. I think that may be one of the reasons people didn't vote for Harper-because they don't know him. In canada, you spend eight years in opposition arguing against government policy (which is generally in agreement with most of the people), then they'll vote for you because you've voiced their concerns and the government has pissed them off enough. As we've seen, this is a sham and a lot of hot air because once in power they do the exact same. <br />

[gaulois]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Good letter Gaulois, but I disagree that it will take a 'charismatic leader' to come along. [/QUOTE] <br />How else do you move packs of sheep? Or course it takes the right pre-conditions (aka real problems to solve and a ripe environment). The 1837 Patriots failed not because they did not have the charismatic leaders but the environment was not ripe yet for winning; the ones that will prevail will wait until the conditions are ripe. I say the conditions for DD are now ripe, likely somewhere else unfortunately. <br /> <br />But the catalyst in the history of mankind has always been a warm body that can motivate others to actions, often painful ones out of their complacency. Normally young people do that. But it looks like they may no longer be capable of doing this, given the size of the task ahead?

[Calumny]

Welcome to Vive, Marcarc. Although I haven't had much time (or the necessary working computer...thanks to my own foolishness) to visit Vive lately, I've read your posts with interest. Members who think before they post are a welcome addition. <br /> <br />Your point re: indoctrination is well-taken. Along this line, I was watching a news segment the other day concerning the issue of politicians breaking their pledges after being elected (I believe it had to do with a group wishing to take Dalton McGuinty to court for exactly this reason.). The interviewer's rather smug spin on the matter was that in our system the potential 'punishment' for this type of behaviour was the pledge-breaker would losing office come the next election. <br /> <br />The question of why a government which achieves its position through a misrepresentation of its ability and/or intent should retain the right to govern, and do God knows what, for a specified period of time never seemed to occur to the interviewer. Which is odd, because most of us are aware of what is likely to occur should our own employer find we overstated our ability or misrepresented facts during our hiring process. <br /> <br />Essentially the message we receive is that this is the system, so live with it. Or, as you point out, the media will give some play to proposals that are in actuality relatively insignificant changes, e.g., PR, and which in the end are mostly window dressing with little real impact. <br /> <br />Why would people imagine DD would be chaotic? <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[Reverend Blair]

You guys are all assuming that a leader has to be a politician who wins a political race. I don't think that's true. I think we need leaders, but expecting politicians who have done what it takes to win to fulfill that role in this day and age is a pipe dream. <br /> <br />A leader is somebody who inspires people to do better, to believe in themselves. A leader gives voice to ideas that come from the people, not from some guys in a back room someplace. <br /> <br />We have a lot of leaders, but we keep assuming that they have no power because they haven't been elected yet. Tommy Douglas was never Prime Minister though, and Martin Luther King was never President. They changed everything, not just in their respective countries, but all over the world. They were successful because, in the end, they were voicing the wants and needs of people. <br /> <br />They were real leaders. <br /> <br />I'm not sure that can transfer true leadership to what we consider to be leaders now. Look at Lech Walesa...he was a good leader until he actually gained power. Same with Castro. Same with Nelson Mandela. <br /> <br />Pretty big names. Huge accomplishments. What did they do when they finally reached power though? Not much, sometimes worse. Their real accomplishments came on their way up.

[4Canada]

<br /> <br /> I was having a similar discusson with my guy about some of the "Greatest Canadians" i.e. Douglas, Pearson, Bell, Fox, Suzuki for instance and all so called "great" people appear to have similar qualities. <br /> <br /> They all normally have difficult tests starting at a young age that help to prove to them they can withstand yet another and another difficult test. <br /> They all (likely because of lessons learned from the testing), care about the human condition. So for instance these people could have lived anywhere and still would have made great contributions to the world. <br /> <br /> To be great people I don't believe you need to be a leader. To be great people in my mind you need to want to improve the human condition. You need to know how to be the other person. You need compassion. <br /> <br /> If we are just talking politics here?? I agree we do not need leaders. We need some representatives. I like the idea of everyone making their own decisions about how our country should be run. I don't like party politics if we can avoid it. <br /> <br /> Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein's new movie "Take" sounds like the beginnings of that kind of governing. I haven't seen the movie but I did see a very thorough interview on CPAC with Rockwell and Lewis. The Argentine workers take over their bankrupt factories because they refuse to lose their livlihoods and make them people run businesses. One woman suggests this is how they will eventually run the country. I don't know what it is about the South Americans, but they sure can teach the world a thing or two about passion! Passion can be a powerful force for change.

[Marcarc]

I just wanted to agree with the poster who said we don't need leaders, we need reprentatives. I really don't know whether we need 'a figurehead' to champion direct democracy, if one did they literally would have to be a figurehead as real power in one individual is the complete opposite of DD. If somebody like that came along though, fine, if not, I'm not waitin! <br /> Most of the reasons I heard for why DD would be too chaotic came from people who only had limited experience with our fractured political system. They had been to one or two 'town meetings' which were basically yell offs between two sides, resolved nothing and the government of the day went ahead and did whatver the hell it wanted anyway. It's 'the appearance' of democracy which is important in those cases. This is why I push for a more individual based, internet and letter forum. Like on here we often bicker away for awhile til we get to the point of specifics and find that there are strong similarities there. I would never suggest having a public open meeting right away in a newly founded democracy. At first I have no doubt people wouldn't know how to approach, that 'community' aspect does not yet exist. But reading and seeing various views in the privacy of your home and then voting, I think is a good way to go. Again, though, as long as it's democratic I'm pretty flexible.

[gaulois]

Marcarc: sounds like you have been tracking DD for some times now; are there not countries ahead on this worth watching? My best guess is that DD will have to show itself workable by dealing with relatively well focused issues (in some kind of a pilot) at first before people get comfortable with it. The electoral reform DD initiative in BC looks like a rather large task. I think many politicians and vested interest will do everything they can to derail it.

[arc628]

I think it's just human nature to want a leader. It is a remnant of our past animal instincts. If you look at our closest living ancestors (apes) they all have strong heirarchies and as superior as we humans like to feel, we are not that far removed from our evolutionary past.

[michou]

self censored

[michou]

self censored

[Marcarc]

Sorry, but I do not believe that it is 'human nature' (however you define it) that one wants/needs a leader. I do not want or desire a leader, just as gaulois said. I do not believe there is something 'unnatural' to our humanity. I would also submit that this 'could' be a large factor in the reason why we have among the lowest voter turnout in the western world and why virtually every current democracy in the world has declining voter turnout-especially among young people. People are rebelling against an autocratic system. A variant of this is the belief that it doesn't matter which party one votes for 'you always end up with a king'. Polls certainly show this for at least 40% of the non-voting population, which, again, rules against this 'want' as being instinctual. Even in the workplace you see large dissatisfaction with one's 'leaders'. I realize that it may be that specific leader, however, I suggest that much industry can be accomplished without the intervention of such a person. I know this is true of my work, as well as my wife's and I"m sure others (and I think it's one of the main reasons people become entrepreneurs) <br /> Although organizations need organization, there is a myriad of ways this can be accomplished, and a careful look at most 'populist' movements shows that the movement started long before media and certain historians 'focused' on a particular leader. My particular theory on that is that by instilling this belief in people you accomplish a number of things: a)associate the motives of the group with a leader so that criticism of the personality of the leader leads to less support of the cause, and b)makes those who are interested in a cause not active as politically active because they are 'waiting' for 'somebody else to lead them'. <br /> While I will grant that there can be a benefit from that relationship to certain types of people, that by no means makes it 'natural'. Even in the animal kingdom we see large percentages of species and individual animals who have no leader, and in fact spend the majority of their lives in solitary. While some 'pack animals' have a 'leader', usually it is a leader very different from the sense we know it.

[Marcarc]

To answer a specific question addressed to me, I answered this somewhere but I will again. I haven't actually been 'into' direct democracy for that long. I even minored in political theory at university and such a beast was never studied and was quickly glossed over. I discovered it thanks to the internet after reading a book on the battle of Marathon, where all greek voters turned out to vote on whether to go to battle or abandon the city, or await their fate. I thought if they could do democracy that long ago, why not now? <br /> So it's been about a year and a half. As I said before it was, I think, three weeks before our municipal election. So I ran on that platform but didn't have time to campaign, yet still got a fair number of votes considering I hadn't the time to talk to many people. <br /> To get back on topic, there is a political system that can be studied in this regard: Switzerland. It is a federalist state yet is highly decentralized with an impressive number of referenda at all levels of government. Considerable power is given to voters and they have seven 'revolving' presidents. It is not perfect, one of the chief complaints is that patriotic growth occurred alongside 'business growth' to a degree that corporatization of government has occurred at a larger level than elsewhere. It was once remarked that there is no worse job than a Swiss Governmental Historian. However, it also means that in challenging the system people have more recourses. You tended to hear alot about 'banking secrecy' laws, and nazi gold (of course all banks, particularly US ones were doing the exact same thing). <br /> On a smaller scale you do not need go as far. A fair number of states also have referenda and ballot initiatives, of course we only tend to hear of the ones that would disagree with our common consensus-thus making us believe that we're better off without it. If you saw 'the corporation' you remember the town in Pennsylvania which outlawed any more chain stores entering it's town. There are thousands of such votes in the states. Canada is poor in this regard, yet in Rossland, British Colombia the town enacted many direct democracy mechanisms so that citizens can gather petitions and initiate referenda. It is also interesting to note that proportional representation is part of our history, the last one was dismantled in the 1950's in Winnipeg, but Alberta and many other areas had similar means of representation. It was always an elected party which then did away with it-it wasn't through referenda. <br /> For those of a conspiracy theory bent, although all our local libraries have tons of books on fascist forms of government such as existed in Germany and even in Canada (the manitoba fascist party, the ontario nazi party, etc), there is virtually no book here on Switzerland's system of direct democracy. Even at the university libraries. Hmmmm.

[arc628]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Sorry, but I do not believe that it is 'human nature' (however you define it) that one wants/needs a leader. I do not want or desire a leader, just as gaulois said.[/QUOTE] <br />True, on a person to person basis it isn't universal. But when you take a large population, heirarchies always assert themselves. If we took a random sample of, say, 100 people and put them on a deserted island some form of "government" would appear [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I do not believe there is something 'unnatural' to our humanity. I would also submit that this 'could' be a large factor in the reason why we have among the lowest voter turnout in the western world and why virtually every current democracy in the world has declining voter turnout-especially among young people. People are rebelling against an autocratic system. [/QUOTE] If people rebel, and dismantle this system, we would just replace it with another one. We've done it many times throughout history [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Even in the animal kingdom we see large percentages of species and individual animals who have no leader, and in fact spend the majority of their lives in solitary. While some 'pack animals' have a 'leader', usually it is a leader very different from the sense we know it. [/QUOTE] <br />True, some animals lead solitary lives. But I was referring specifically to the ones we share the closest bonds to, Chimps, Gorillas, Baboons etc...I've been studying their behaviour in biology and anthropology here at University, and I am astonished at how much we behave like them. And they, like us, have complex social arrangments and class systems. With certain groups or individuals wielding more power than others. Our behaviour is linked, and always will be, to our evolution. Humans are very predictable animals.