Citizenship

[OddSox]

With all the concern about low voter turnouts and general apathy towards politics - is it time to rethink citizenship? Is it enough to be born in a country, or should the country be justified in seeking some kind of ongoing commitment?

[capricorn]

IMO most Canadians value their citizenship for the rights it guarantees them. This is not surprising since the 23 year old Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains the yardstick by which this country is governed. All Canadian federal legislation adopted since 1985 flows from the Charter. All federal legislation is evaluated, challenged and amended through the Charter lens. The starting point is one fixed on rights.

One only has to look at the table of contents of the Charter.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental Freedoms

Democratic Rights

Mobility Rights

Legal Rights

Equality Rights

Official Languages of Canada

Minority Language Educational Rights

Enforcement

General

Application of Charter

Citation

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

But how many Canadians understand that with citizenship also comes responsibilities? Voting is the paramount responsibility.

The responsibility for maintaining our democracy sits not just on the shoulders of the government, but also on our own. We as citizens need to have a strong enough sense of civic duty that we make it a priority to figure out how to participate, to register to vote, to get informed, and to actually go to the polls on Election Day and cast our votes.

We should not take for granted that we live in a society where we have the freedom to protest our government, to say what we please, and to start organizations and businesses as we wish. All you have to do is look around the world to know that it is not the norm, and it does not happen by accident. We have a responsibility to the ideals of freedom and equality upon which our society is founded to continue to keep our democracy alive by participating in it.

Moreover, it is in our interest to have a say in who our leaders are because, in the end, you too have to obey the traffic laws, you too have to pay taxes, and you too enjoy the freedom to say and think what you please. Whatever your political views may be, make sure to get informed and participate in this election because we all have a stake in it.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55740

I don't know how this message could be communicated in a manner that would resonate with the voter. Thinking about the abysmal voter turnout on October 14 makes one feel almost hopeless. Sigh.

You ask about a commitment on the part of citizens. A law forcing people to vote seems contrary of what we regard as a free society. Offering a financial incentive could result in voters making uninformed choices for monetary gain that could have very negative results.

There seems to be a dearth of options, in my mind at least. The question of low voter turnout is serious and one I wish would spark our government's attention.

[August1991]

With all the concern about low voter turnouts and general apathy towards politics - is it time to rethink citizenship? Is it enough to be born in a country, or should the country be justified in seeking some kind of ongoing commitment?

Paying taxes is a greater commitment than voting. You probably have more influence on public policy by the information you provide in a census form than a single ballot in an election.

All of these are dwarfed by the choices you make when you go shopping or you accept a job.

This entity called Canada does not start and end with the government.

[marcinmoka]

All of these are dwarfed by the choices you make when you go shopping or you accept a job.

This entity called Canada does not start and end with the government.

But all this is trivial without the relative social stability provided by the government. Its a 'chicken or the egg' scenario.

As per the original question, Australia has an interesting take on the issue:

http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australi...do%20not%20vote

Don't know quite what to think about. On one hand, the absence of a vote could be a political message in itself (even though I sure as hell would never abstain). On the other, I'm quite sure that the bulk low voter turn out has more to do with laziness or apathy than anything else.

Edited October 20, 2008 by marcinmoka

[drewski]

With all the concern about low voter turnouts and general apathy towards politics - is it time to rethink citizenship? Is it enough to be born in a country, or should the country be justified in seeking some kind of ongoing commitment?

what kind of "ongoing commitment" are we talking here? voting? military service? volunteer work? That would go against what I believe part of the freedoms we enjoy here is the ability to do or not do whatever we wish (within the limits prescribed by the laws)

what about children and/or the mentally disabled, who, through no fault of their own, don't have the ability to "earn" citizenship?

[Pliny]

There seems to be a dearth of options, in my mind at least. The question of low voter turnout is serious and one I wish would spark our government's attention.

Citizenship is a claim upon a person for which certain rights are given in exchange. The right to vote in my opinion should be an earned privilege and not a taken for granted entitlement. In which case, the question of citizenship is raised and should a person have the right to deny his citizenship if he does not have this entitlement? It might be said then that citizenship should also not be an entitlement but an earned privilege. How else to better engage the individual in being a part of a nation than to feel he has contributed and thus earned his right of citizenship. It would be quite an argument to determine his status and rights prior to earning citizenship under such a system.

The Australian method of gaining voter participation through legislation is not bad in some respects but is another government infringement upon the individual. The good aspect of it is that you would bea ble to better gauge general public opinion rather than just "special interest" participation which sways the party system in an unbalanced fashion, giving us idiocies like political correctness.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Pliny

[Hcheh]

With all the concern about low voter turnouts and general apathy towards politics - is it time to rethink citizenship? Is it enough to be born in a country, or should the country be justified in seeking some kind of ongoing commitment?

I agree. Born citizens should take some kind of test or whatever. The only difference between someone who was born somewhere else and someone born in Canada is that the people born in Canada were more fortunate.

[Kitch]

But how many Canadians understand that with citizenship also comes responsibilities? Voting is the paramount responsibility.

Is it really a responsibility though? And is it really not voting if one decides to not choose any candidate?

[August1991]

But all this is trivial without the relative social stability provided by the government. Its a 'chicken or the egg' scenario.

I fundamentally disagree, marcinmoka.

Our private social conventions matter far more than government regulations. Canada is far more than Stephen Harper, or even Pierre Trudeau.

Canada didn't start in 1867 with Confederation. Canada is older than the federal government, or the Canadian federal government's claim to Canada. Canada belongs to We the people of Canada. It is our place, and it does not belong to the federal Government of Canada. This place called Canada is not the same as the federal government of Canada. The two are distinct.

Canada will exist long after the Canadian confederation ceases to exist. Far into the future, regardless of our government, Canada will have rocks, trees, space and clear lakes - such is the heritage of Canadians whatever their State. I can say the same of the knowledge and wisdom of Canadians. We will pass on our ability to get along.

We Canadians make the social stability of Canada largely through our private arrangemnets.

Edited November 7, 2008 by August1991

[charter.rights]

Canada didn't start in 1867 with Confederation. Canada is older than the federal government, or the Canadian federal government's claim to Canada. Canada belongs to We the people of Canada. It is our place, and it does not belong to the federal Government of Canada.

I think you are fooling yourself. Canada BELONGS to the Crown. It works on behalf of business and government is set up to redistribute the wealth so that businesses within Canada can compete on an equal basis. The federal government administers on behalf of the Crown and provides services to the people on behalf of business.

Voting is a waste of time since the candidates are not selected by us, nor do they represent us. They represent businesses and are put into our ridings and supported financially by people who stand to benefit. By the time we are supposed to vote, we simply endorse 1 of 3 or 4 selections laid on the ballot for us. That is like saying that Hitler, Stalin and Musselini are on the ballots and we get to choose which one is the least evil.

This place called Canada is not the same as the federal government of Canada. The two are distinct.

You are right in suggesting that the federal government is distinct. Canada is not a country with a land base since over 80% of all land is still unceded native land and the other 20% is under agreement with various First Nations to share equally. Canada is a collection of people from all over the world and the federal government manages HRM loyal "subjects" on behalf of the Crown.

[August1991]

I think you are fooling yourself. Canada BELONGS to the Crown.

Uh, what is the "Crown"? Or is this just another word for the "State"?

[charter.rights]

Uh, what is the "Crown"? Or is this just another word for the "State"?

While it is a cheezy definition it fits.

Crown: Definition: In Canada, the crown refers to the sovereign or to the power and authority of the monarchy. In Canada, the powers and authority of the sovereign have been delegated to the Governor General of Canada.

Canada is a Crown corporation whose duty is not to its citizens but first to the Queen, and secondly to wealthy. Our constitution is nothing more that a set of by-laws set out by our letters patent and singed by our Chief share-holder - the Queen. It is not a constitution of freedoms but one which defines where the Crown Corporation is allowed to interfere in our freedoms.

Now what is really interesting is that in Canada, Crown land is land that has been treatied with First nation people. Canada owns no land nor holds no land base but occupies "territory" that has been granted for use to the Crown by treaty. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the insistence of the Queen in recognition of the special contractual relationship between the monarchy and First Nations people. (Contracts between the principle shareholder and the second party that permit a third party to operate their business hold precedence over any by-laws or practices performed by the third party).

Citizens then are nothing more than minor shareholders in "the Company". Taxes that we pay are there to support the wasteful spending of the Company and since we are only minor shareholders there is little we can do to change that course. The election process under which our duty as citizens is feigned is an exercise in futility since the major share-holders (wealthy) hold the majority control. The owner of the Company is only needed so long as the wealth gets distributed and the rights of those the monarchy made agreements with, are upheld.

So to make it short, our rights as citizens are limited, are not as broad as First Nations for contractual reasons and we have no say it what happens to the future of the Company we call Canada.

[margrace]

But all this is trivial without the relative social stability provided by the government. Its a 'chicken or the egg' scenario.

As per the original question, Australia has an interesting take on the issue:

http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australi...do%20not%20vote

Don't know quite what to think about. On one hand, the absence of a vote could be a political message in itself (even though I sure as hell would never abstain). On the other, I'm quite sure that the bulk low voter turn out has more to do with laziness or apathy than anything else.

I have been very interested in the huge voter turnout in the US. My question has been to the people I come in contact with is," Would you wait in line four hours to vote" and the resounding answer has been "NO". What is this all about?. What does this say about us as Canadian Citizens?

[capricorn]

I have been very interested in the huge voter turnout in the US.

I don't know that I'd call it huge margrace, at least at the national level.

Despite lofty predictions by some academics, pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.

According to a report and turnout projection released today by American University’s Center for the

Study of the American Electorate (CSAE) and based, in part, on nearly final but unofficial vote

tabulations as compiled by the Associated Press as of 7 p.m. Wednesday, November 5, the

percentage of Americans who cast ballots for president in this year’s presidential election will reach

between 126.5 million and 128.5 million when all votes have been counted by early next month.

If this prediction proves accurate, turnout would be at either exactly the same level as in 2004 or, at

most, one percentage point higher (or between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent).

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/1...8turnout.au.pdf

It seems the final ballot recount could increase the turnout but not by very much.

This election had the highest overall voter turnout in an American election since at least 1964 -- with a lowball estimate of 62.6%, with ballots still being counted. But our turnout will still be lower than most other well-established democracies, and even that overall rise can be misleading. According to preliminary data, nearly a third of our states (16) experienced a decline in turnout this year. Fourteen of these states were ignored in the presidential race as non-battlegrounds; the only battlegrounds with lower turnout are Pennsylvania and New Mexico. These results are consistent with CIRCLE's findings in 2004, when eligible voters under 30 were a third more likely to vote in the ten closest states than in the rest of the nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/t...t_b_141989.html

Apparently, some states saw a large increase in voter turnout and in some other states turnout was way down.

For comparison purposes, our voter turnout was 59%.

My question has been to the people I come in contact with is," Would you wait in line four hours to vote" and the resounding answer has been "NO".

Maybe if we got to vote for our Senators and referendum questions were on the ballot we'd have to spend more time in line too because more time would be spent in the voting booth. Under those circumstances, Canadians who care about our democracy would take the time necessary to add their voice to those important decisions. But we'll always have a large group of voters who prefer staying home to watch reality TV and dance contests. Heck, some won't bother voting if it rains or snows.

[marcinmoka]

I fundamentally disagree, marcinmoka.

Our private social conventions matter far more than government regulations.

Canada didn't start in 1867 with Confederation. Canada is older than the federal government, or the Canadian federal government's claim to Canada. Canada belongs to We the people of Canada. It is our place, and it does not belong to the federal Government of Canada. This place called Canada is not the same as the federal government of Canada. The two are distinct.

We Canadians make the social stability of Canada largely through our private arrangemnets.

Is government (the concept, not that of a particular institution) not a social convention, at least amongst modern liberal democracies?

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by "private arrangements". These may work all fine & dandy on the micro level (familes, tribes, etc), but amongst a larger group, let alone on the national or international levels seems absurd. Than again, I'd prefer you explain your idea before I elaborate any further.

[August1991]

Is government (the concept, not that of a particular institution) not a social convention, at least amongst modern liberal democracies?

Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by "private arrangements". These may work all fine & dandy on the micro level (familes, tribes, etc), but amongst a larger group, let alone on the national or international levels seems absurd. Than again, I'd prefer you explain your idea before I elaborate any further.

The government is an expression of the State. The State is the ability to coerce.

By private arrangements, I mean the "deals" we make among ourselves. Call them social conventions if you will. We agree and when we disagree, we have ways (accepted standards) to resolve our issues quickly. Most of civil law in Canada is private, and then we have many accepted conventions including the delightful "eh".

The State (government) is not what makes Canada a successful society - although Canadians have managed to have a functional State.

[marcinmoka]

In transiting through questionable French neighbourhoods during the fall of 2005 , above all else, I found the coercive powers of the state, in the form of 'Monsieur CRS' and his muzzled Malinois to be a far more effective means of guaranteeing my well-being than mere faith in my ability to make 'deals' with the less-than-friendly locals.

The State (government) is not what makes Canada a successful society - although Canadians have managed to have a functional State.

Has there ever been a successful society without a state or government, other than in the writing of More? If no, why not?

Though I respect your opinions, I can't help but recall an old adage about academics, obsessed with the question of It works in practice, but does it work in theory ?

Edited November 14, 2008 by marcinmoka

[Pliny]

In transiting through questionable French neighbourhoods during the fall of 2005 , above all else, I found the coercive powers of the state, in the form of 'Monsieur CRS' and his muzzled Malinois to be a far more effective means of guaranteeing my well-being than mere faith in my ability to make 'deals' with the less-than-friendly locals.

Lack of faith in your abilities would definitely be a problem.

Has there ever been a successful society without a state or government, other than in the writing of More? If no, why not

There has always been someone with a propensity to be a politician.

[g_bambino]

With all the concern about low voter turnouts and general apathy towards politics - is it time to rethink citizenship? Is it enough to be born in a country, or should the country be justified in seeking some kind of ongoing commitment?

It would seem to me that "the country" already seeks a commitment from its citizens/subjects. The Citizenship Oath is: I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.; for people born in the country, their taking of the oath is implied. As August is right in saying that "the Crown" is synonymous with "the state", it's then clear that citizens are expected to be committed to the Canadian state (monarch), and respect its (her) authority, as vested in her by the constitution; in return, the monarch swears an oath at his/her coronation, promising to govern us according to our laws and customs. Where it becomes fuzzy, though, is in the commitment made by the citizenship oath taker to fulfill the "duties" of a Canadian citizen; another expectation is therein being placed on the individual, but what these duties are isn't made clear. I'm inclined to agree with August in that we Canadians make the social stability of Canada largely through our social conventions; but, how does one codify that and/or make a person give a realistic promise to abide by these customs?

[marcinmoka]

Lack of faith in your abilities would definitely be a problem.

“Experience is the best teacher but a fool will learn from no other”

Edited November 17, 2008 by marcinmoka

[Pliny]

“Experience is the best teacher but a fool will learn from no other”

Experience has definitely taught me a few lessons. Oh - and yours hasn't been overlooked.

[Michael Hardner]

There's a lot of discussion around issues such as voter turnaround, voter responsibilities and the like:

Capricorn summarizes one line of thinking here:

Voting is the paramount responsibility.

While Capricorn is correct, there is another responsibility that is encapsulated within that of 'voting', and that is 'informing oneself'. I believe that government has grown in its size, complexity, and scope over our lives - to the point that the average citizen can't be expected to spend the time required to gather the information they require.

Using myself as an example - I spend dozens of hours per week discussing politics and reading about government policy online. I do this because like many of you I enjoy it. However, I don't consider myself an expert on government matters, and during election time, I still have to do extra research on several topics in order to make my choice.

It's unrealistic to expect every citizen to put in the work necessary to make an informed choice.

The problem, I believe, could be somewhat rectified if we took some of the responsibilities of government away - those of managing social services, mainly - and gave them to institutions that would be better suited to managing government operations. We would leave the federal government to discuss only the "big questions".

These "big questions" are far fewer in number, and require more attention. They include such things as:

- Canada's role in world affairs

- Questions of military involvement

- The environment

- The global economy

Western democracy was never designed to require the huge government apparatus (and the resulting demands on the electorate in keeping tabs on it) that we have today. If we want government to run all forms of social insurance and licensing then so be it, but it doesn't need to come up during question period.

[capricorn]

I believe that government has grown in its size, complexity, and scope over our lives - to the point that the average citizen can't be expected to spend the time required to gather the information they require.

Another reason I think a lot of voters don't keep informed is they have this notion that regardless of which government is in power, it knows and does what's best for the citizens. For lack of a better term I'll call it misplaced trust.

It's unrealistic to expect every citizen to put in the work necessary to make an informed choice.

That is the exact excuse used by those citizens who coast through the political aspects of life in a democracy. They are either lazy and/or apathetic, or trust the government to make all their decisions.

The problem, I believe, could be somewhat rectified if we took some of the responsibilities of government away - those of managing social services, mainly - and gave them to institutions that would be better suited to managing government operations. We would leave the federal government to discuss only the "big questions".

These "big questions" are far fewer in number, and require more attention. They include such things as:

- Canada's role in world affairs

- Questions of military involvement

- The environment

- The global economy

Western democracy was never designed to require the huge government apparatus (and the resulting demands on the electorate in keeping tabs on it) that we have today. If we want government to run all forms of social insurance and licensing then so be it, but it doesn't need to come up during question period.

IMO the majority of Canadians would be averse to such an overhaul of how the country is governed. One way toward smaller government is to increase efficiency within existing programs and operations. As for question period, everything falling within the federal government's jurisdiction is fair game, even matters such as licensing.

[Pliny]

I agree with Mr. Hardner as to what should be but also agree with the statement that Capricorn makes regarding Canadians being averse to such an overhaul as long as no overhaul is taking place voter turnout will be low.

[Michael Hardner]

It was not long ago that Canada Post was a government service. It's now a Crown Corporation. Why can't EI go the same way ?

In fact, why shouldn't all insurance be run by one agency ? And why do we have such duplication of services provincially, locally and federally. What purpose does it serve ?