Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[Oleg Bach]

Has anybody explained in laymans terms what and how prorogueing came into being and what was the original purpose of such an act?

[jbg]

Not true - it is actually a rather streamlined process conventionally - same as the senate

****************

Canada isn't a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy.

the US isn't a democrachy either it is a confederation of states which select representatives to pick a president (much like our system) the difference is term is for life or until resignation in canada and there is only one.. in the US there is only one who runs the state while they are appointed for life in title.

It is a bit like thinking you are eating real beef when you are really geting a bit of beef and a whole bunch of meal worm.

You can think it is beef but it ain't all beef.

Most functioning democracies employ a roundabout process to choose both the head of state and the PM or its equivalent. In the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Afghanistan and a few other places they're one and the same.

Even "direct election" countries such as Mexico, Brazil, and Afghanistan employ a runoff if the candidate getting the most votes comes in under 50%.

[g_bambino]

Canada isn't a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy.

Could you possibly explain the difference for us, please?

[g_bambino]

Has anybody explained in laymans terms what and how prorogueing came into being and what was the original purpose of such an act?

It was to accord parlaimentarians a break once the legislative agenda was complete. Back in the days of yore, it took them some time to get home and back.

[myata]

So, yea, pretty f*cking similar.

You'd think that volume (or strong epithets) could obscure or even entirely eliminate substance, and yet anybody with a slightest clue about democracy would instantly see the (lightyears) difference between "elected by popular vote" and "elected by nobody".

I already said that on that level of discussion everything is the same, everything is a vibrant and blah modern democracy, Afghanistan, Canada, China and Bhutan. No further argument.

To T-B: I'll try to spell it one more time and very slowly:

1) The President of Irish republic is elected by popular vote and for that reason has independent and sovereign democratic legitimacy.

2) Their powers are explicitly defined in the Constitution including the one to reject the advice of executive in certain circumstances.

3) I could not find any reference of the power of prorogation granted to the executive or the President. Note that even it is (we'll need a constitutional expert on Irish political system to confirm that), then it would likely to formally fall into the Presidents responsibilities, and then the already mentioned qualification would make possibility of prorogation to avoid confidence motion highly questionnable. At least to the extent that would make a government considering such option think twice.

In Canada, being unelected GG lacks democratic legitimacy, and therefore cannot play sovereign political role with any credibility. Her role is reduced to being a formal conduit for the will of the executive, with the effect that no meaningful checks or qualifications on the powers granted to the executive exist.

[g_bambino]

You'd think that volume (or strong epithets) could obscure or even entirely eliminate substance, and yet anybody with a slightest clue about democracy would instantly see the (lightyears) difference between "elected by popular vote" and "elected by nobody".

First you were talking about the Westminster parliamentary system and how undemocratic it is. Now that you've been proven wrong by your own comparisons, instead of admitting such, you choose to make hypocritical barbs and move the goalposts so that now the only way there could be similarity is if the method by which the head of state is chosen is identical for both countries. You're a joke!

The President of Irish republic is elected by popular vote and for that reason has independent and sovereign democratic legitimacy.

As does the monarch of Canada by virtue of the office existing and being filled according to constitutional law drafted and supported by the elected representatives of the people.

Their powers are explicitly defined in the Constitution including the one to reject the advice of executive in certain circumstances.

As are those in Canada.

I could not find any reference of the power of prorogation granted to the executive or the President.

Then, given that your whole theory of what makes or breaks a democary has rested on the ability of the government to prorogue parliament at will, on what grounds did you ever see fit to place Ireland as the brass ring we're to reach for?

In Canada, being unelected GG lacks democratic legitimacy, and therefore cannot play sovereign political role with any credibility.

Bullshit.

[myata]

Bullshit.

Thought so. Anyways, from that perspective (lack of democratic legitimacy of the unelected office of Canadian viceroy), it would be interesting to examine hypothetical situation with the coalition, like one in the fall of 2008. So, suppose the coalition held and did end up voting non confidence in January 09, not two months after previous elections. Supposing the outgoing PM wants to extract political gains against the opposition and advises GG to dissolve the Parliament and call the elections, while coalition asks for a mandate to govern.

As established earlier, lacking sovereign democratic legitimacy, that in a modern democracy could come only from being elected by people or their representatives, GG cannot make sovereign decisions, and the most logical decision from that perspective would be to defer to the people as the ultimate authority.

And so two months after elections we have another one, and suppose they produce similar outcome with the same party in the minority position and coalition commanding majority in the Parliament. Following the script, the same PM is appointed, and immediately defeated by the Coalition on the throne speech. Then situation repeats itself. Forever (or as close to it as sanely possible in reality).

Yes that is why the office of elected President exists in Ireland, because people have actually thought of possibility of the government losing majority support, and considered coalition as a normal situation in a vibrant and functioning democracy. While here in Canada we still stick to the (some two centuries) old view that the government of the Sovereign will always have majority support and there's no need to worry about "rare" or "unlikely" situations when they wouldn't and coalions are nothing short of being political aberrations and/or plain anaphema.

Well, as said there're two ways to learn, on others examples or one's own. Presuming that is, that one is still capable of learning.

[Smallc]

(lack of democratic legitimacy of the unelected office of Canadian viceroy), .

The other day I got myself twisted up in something that I didn't really mean...because of statements like this. The above is why I don't like....that word...at times.

[g_bambino]

Thought so.

Did you? Because you just went and parroted it again:

As established earlier, lacking sovereign democratic legitimacy, that in a modern democracy could come only from being elected by people or their representatives, GG cannot make sovereign decisions...

It was, of course, established nowhere other than your own imagination; in fact, it has been proven to be patently false by the existence of countries that are considered by other states and international organisations to be democracies despite having non-elected heads of state with almost the same decision making powers as Canada's: the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Denmark, & etc. Hence, your assertion is bullshit. You're merely repeating this unfounded claim on the new topic of heads of state in order to cover the embarrassment you feel at having had your opinions on prorogation and Westminster parliamentary democracy proven to be wrong and/or ignorant after you were so rash and arrogant about them.

[T]here're two ways to learn, on others examples or one's own. Presuming that is, that one is still capable of learning.

Yes, and with you that presumption is wearing quite thin.

[c/e]

Edited February 14, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Could you possibly explain the difference for us, please?

Democracy - Is power of the citizens in determination of process of country

constitutional monarchy - Is rule of law established in the monarch as provided by constitutional documents

There is a difference between vote by privilege that some constitutional monarchies may provide, and universal suffrage by merit of citizenship alone as a real democracy is.

For all intents and purposes a constitutional monarchy cannot be a true democracy as it is not possible to contain direct representation. Canada is not direct representation it is reduced representation of the majority of privileged voters. Not all citizens have the legal right to vote in Canada anymore due to requirements put in place for social association and registration for the right - even though the constitution provides for limited suffrage of some adults. Universal Suffrage doesn't exist in Canada due to election laws limiting the right to vote even by adults. Even though the constitution provides for no discrimination by age as well as mobility rights to take up residence. However there are exclusions for both of these in elections laws,... effectively rendering election law unconstitutional.

Edited February 14, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Democracy - Is power of the citizens in determination of process of country

constitutional monarchy - Is rule of law established in the monarch as provided by constitutiuonal documents

Both true. However, who, in a constitutional monarchy, writes and approves the constitutional documents?

[myata]

It was, of course, established nowhere other than your own imagination; in fact, it has been proven to be patently false by the existence of countries that are considered by other states and international organisations to be democracies despite having non-elected heads of state...

I know, it must be getting a bit complicated for somebody who has learned about political systems from coloured picturebooks: ceremonial heads of state could still exist in democracy without "democratic legitimacy" (in the sense of described principles of responsible democracy) as long as they play, well obviously, only ceremonial role and do not make sovereign decisions in the political process, which are the exclusive privilege of institutions with direct democratic mandate from the people.

[g_bambino]

[C]eremonial heads of state could still exist in democracy without "democratic legitimacy" (in the sense of described principles of responsible democracy) as long as they play... only ceremonial role and do not make sovereign decisions in the political process, which are the exclusive privilege of institutions with direct democratic mandate from the people.

Except that the heads of state of the countries I mentioned each have a role in government that is almost, if not completely, identical to that of ours, and those states still call themselves democracies - yes, right now, in this 21st century, modern world! - and are recognised as such by other countries and organisations.

[c/e]

Edited February 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Both true. However, who, in a constitutional monarchy, writes and approves the constitutional documents?

People tasked with it. It varies from one constitutional monarchy to the next. In Canada the ultimate choice rests with the monarch as they are the head of state with absolute power to approve or decline law in their realm. The way this plays out isn't as absolutist as you might think I suppose. There is a plethora of bounds and tests; however, be mindful of what the short answer is and the long answer as it may not be the same as you suppose it to resolve to. This is the short answer.

The only limitation of the Monarchs powers are those which the British limited. Canada "only" , and I say only lightly, has conventionally ignored the Monarchs exercises publically, and vice versa.

Convention not contradicting previous capacity is not a strong argument. It is like saying because we didn't drink the water, the water doesn't exist. The water very much was drank, and still exists, so if you opt to drink it in the future it might. The other half of that is why drink the water? Law is weird like that, in my unlearned opinion.

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[jbg]

Democracy - Is power of the citizens in determination of process of country

constitutional monarchy - Is rule of law established in the monarch as provided by constitutional documents

Right away a steaming load of BS. Britain doesn't have "constitutional documents".

There is a difference between vote by privilege that some constitutional monarchies may provide, and universal suffrage by merit of citizenship alone as a real democracy is.

Canada and Britain have universal suffrage.

For all intents and purposes a constitutional monarchy cannot be a true democracy as it is not possible to contain direct representation.

Neither the U.S. nor any Republic has "direct democracy". Maybe some small governments that can operate as town meetings do. Otherwise anything but representative systems are impractical. Basically the difference between republican representative systems and parliamentary ones, in practice, is limited to the fact that the functioning executive in one serves a fixed term and the other serves based upon confidence or lack thereof of the legislature.

Canada is not direct representation it is reduced representation of the majority of privileged voters.

That sentence makes no sense.

Not all citizens have the legal right to vote in Canada anymore due to requirements put in place for social association and registration for the right - even though the constitution provides for limited suffrage of some adults. Universal Suffrage doesn't exist in Canada due to election laws limiting the right to vote even by adults. Even though the constitution provides for no discrimination by age as well as mobility rights to take up residence. However there are exclusions for both of these in elections laws,... effectively rendering election law unconstitutional.

How are votes unequal, aside from differences in per riding population?

[myata]

almost the same decision making powers as Canada's: the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Denmark, & etc.

Not so fast; as we already know from the earlier example the devil is in detail. So why don't we approach your examples one at a time, with as much time and attention as needed to establish the truth of the matter?

Leaving aside maybe the UK as the origin of this system we have in Canada and Australia (having lived in the latter, I have to concede that it has very similar system to Canada, the "executive democracy" though even they have actually accomplished something that we only still have in our dreams - elected Senate, by proportional vote, and an active debate about republic). Anyways, where would you like to start?

Finally, to avoid any confusion (and I thought I made it very clear a number of times) the statements about Canada's (and similar) political models do not imply that they are not democratic or illegitimate (I think that I already commented enough on futility of attempts to determine legitimacy of government of other people). Only that those models do not comply with a set of self obvious principles, the principles of "modern and responsible democracy" (in my interperetation and without taking any credit - I recall reading about it during hystory classes in high school instead of those glancy picture books).

[William Ashley]

Right away a steaming load of BS. Britain doesn't have "constitutional documents".

I surmise you know very little about the British Constitution. Documents such as the Magna Carta, Act of Settlement, and Bill of Rights as well as other documents form the basis of the British constitution. There are many constitutional documents.

Canada and Britain have universal suffrage.

They have a limited adult suffrage not universal suffrage.

Neither the U.S. nor any Republic has "direct democracy".

What is your point?

Maybe some small governments that can operate as town meetings do. Otherwise anything but representative systems are impractical.

Why are the impratical, because they don't give people the right to vote on matters that effect their lives, or redress? There are plenty of ways to organize people into voting blocks with human resources, especially in a technological age we are today, so don't give me that impractical.

Basically the difference between republican representative systems and parliamentary ones, in practice, is limited to the fact that the functioning executive in one serves a fixed term and the other serves based upon confidence or lack thereof of the legislature.

Totally false. It is definitely not based on that premise.

That sentence makes no sense.

"Canada is not direct representation, it is reduced representation of the majority of privileged voters."

Ok if you didn't know Canada isn't direct representation - regular people can't vote on issues or propose how the country functions formally - it is left up to the MP's to consent to this. The MP's are put in place by a portion of people in a given area which is often well under a majority of eligible voters.

How are votes unequal, aside from differences in per riding population?

Where did I say the word unequal. I said not all citizens have direct access to vote, the elections act limits the capacity to vote based upon criteria, including criteria that is controlled by other governmental processes, and have fees. This is a method of forcing voters to pay to be eligible to vote. Voting should be free and fair. Likewise the right to run in elections should be free and fair. It isn't in Canada - and it ought to be.

Also just so you are aware, constitution means " A system of laws which formally states people's rights and duties"

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

People tasked with it. It varies from one constitutional monarchy to the next.

It doesn't vary much. There is one constant, very key player in the legislative process; without it, there would be an absolute monarchy; it's the democratic aspect you say doesn't exist in a constitutional monarchy.

In Canada the ultimate choice rests with the monarch as they are the head of state with absolute power to approve or decline law in their realm.

Only in the most rare of circumstances. Otherwise, as I said above, Canada wouldn't be a constitutional monarchy.

[g_bambino]

Leaving aside maybe the UK as the origin of this system we have in Canada and Australia (having lived in the latter, I have to concede that it has very similar system to Canada, the "executive democracy" though even they have actually accomplished something that we only still have in our dreams - elected Senate, by proportional vote, and an active debate about republic).

Who gives a crap about elected senates and republic debates? Stick to one topic. Unless I'm mistaken, the current one is: unelected heads of state with a role in governance of democratic entities.

Finally, to avoid any confusion (and I thought I made it very clear a number of times) the statements about Canada's (and similar) political models do not imply that they are not democratic or illegitimate. Only that those models do not comply with a set of self obvious principles, the principles of "modern and responsible democracy" (in my interperetation and without taking any credit - I recall reading about it during hystory classes in high school instead of those glancy picture books).

Yes, well, again: you can't be referee and participant at the same time. Your personal feelings on legitimacy and irreverence for history constrain my thoughts in no way whatsoever.

[fix]

Edited February 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

It doesn't vary much. There is one constant, very key player in the legislative process; without it, there would be an absolute monarchy; it's the democratic aspect you say doesn't exist in a constitutional monarchy.

It doesn't make it more of a democracy, you still have the situation where the majority of people in the country arn't enfranchised.

Only in the most rare of circumstances. Otherwise, as I said above, Canada wouldn't be a constitutional monarchy.

As opposed to what. Fact being Canada is a type of Westminster parliamentary rule. That system is not a true democracy - while you can fancy it as such, it ain't. Until you allow all opinions to

be heard and to question, it ain't democracy. It is oligarchic rule by a minority.

Parliament sits for 1 hour a day generally... by turning this to an 8 hour day.. you could increase the level of dialog 8 fold.. this is a start.. and by increasing representation from 1 to 100, 000 to 1 to 10000 or less. It is very easy as you admit to provide direct representation at the municipal level.. 10,000 people is a manageable level of people to get feedback from via those interested in town halls phone ins and internet. If it is a cost question just increase the role of MP to carry out federal duties conducted by the federal service. Increasing the size of parliament or creating a democratic council isn't a disservice to Canadians, it enhances insight and democracy. Even if only increasing the house from 300 to 3000 members. Also even 30,000 people at the municipal levels as wards throughout Canada is not unrealistic - and this would provide one representative per 1000 Canadians. There are 400,000 federal employees this 30,000 could easily assume some of those duties. And it would not mean loss of federal employment, just encourage federal employees to be more active in their communities in service delivery and allow some of the federal employment to be split into a swath of communities instead of major centers. It would provide much more for community safety and even intelligence gathering and other federal insight, and provide a closer form of direct representation. There is too much effort on a study system of a bunch of people sitting in one room and setting the agenda. We don't need to amass people together all the time anymore, we have the technology to allow for communications not only in real time but also via bulletin boards, online polling and web boards. Also it is easy to connect with others on issues that matter. It is good to have public input into issues, and establishing a non partisan structure to do this based on the social unit, is something that could be beneficial, and while 1000 people still isn't as good as 100 people or 10 people.. it is a start from the 1 per 100,000 people. In education and health we like low ratios- so why not in law. It will do a lot of good for the professionalism and dedication - as those building blocks will provide for qualified grounded representatives, and a good resource base. It would be mindful that those people had insight into committees and ministries which effected their localities or whom localities were stakeholders of those ministries. It is a good thing that does no harm, and serves to enhance the system. It need not change the system but rather serve the system by provision of democracy in two levels of council under parliament. - on a centralized federal level rather than the provincial and municipal levels. It would also compliment these levels by providing liaisons, and increased skill and knowledge base to smaller communities.

Instituting a council for first formal instance with a representation level of 1 to 1000, then a council of second instance with a ratio of 1 to 10,000 gives a start. If provincial and municipal levels were more inclusive then it probably wouldn't be needed but the way it is done there is too much unequal division. So a centralized federal democratic process would be a benefit to the federal government. It is a shame when 10% of the population supports a party such as the green party and doesn't even get a seat. They ought to have a way of formally laying down plans and discussing those issues to bring more public voice and expertise to issues. That 10% should represent 30 seats... that isn't the case. Instead of voting for first past the post, instead you form a 10,000 for seating or a 1000 supporters for seating threshold. Everyone with one vote. If there are 2 or 3 people with 500 votes they could consolidate to from joint representation by bringing people together. Votes could also be transferable federally - rather than only locally - although I surmise the majority of people would be localized in support. The at large option provide smaller groups still form a consensus representation.

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

It doesn't make it more of a democracy, you still have the situation where the majority of people in the country arn't enfranchised.

Then you misunderstand what democracy is.

[William Ashley]

Then you misunderstand what democracy is.

No you convolute the notion to play into sentiment and propaganda. I know the full history of democracy. Just cause you were spoon fed tripe doesn't mean I need to eat yours.

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

No you convolute the notion...

Democracy does not have a cemented, universal definition.

...to play into sentiment and propaganda.

Baseless accusations do not an argument make.

[+]

Edited February 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

Democracy does not have a cemented, universal definition.

Yeah, words don't have definitions, that is it. Get real.

Baseless accusations do not an argument make.

[+]

Well what else is the reason to lie and distort meanings?

Open up a dictionary and see for yourself.

Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies

Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy

Date: 1576

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>

4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

If you cling to the weakest notion of something to claim it is the way it is when it more closely resembles something else such as oligarchy then you are trying to fool someone, even if it is yourself.

Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural ol·i·gar·chies

Date: 1542

1 : government by the few

2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

3 : an organization under oligarchic control

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Yeah, words don't have definitions, that is it.

Democracy is more than a word.

Get real.

Look out! Conservative goons are watching you through your computer monitor!