Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

[William Ashley]

Democracy is more than a word.

You have multicoloured sheets don't you.

None the less dude, I fully well know democracy, so trying to push a westminster system such as Canada or an imperial system such as the US off as democracy ain't gonna do it. It is understandable why it hasn't happened with these states, but this is not to say they don't espouse to cherish democracy. Cherishing something and having it are two different things.

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

Not news to me. I can see the control prompt execute

[William Ashley]

---

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[DrGreenthumb]

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

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

Great post W.A.!

From those definitions it sure looks a lot like Canada falls under the second category right now. It has been getting a lot worse under the Conservative government. Secrecy, unnacountability, a minority cabal running amok forcing their will on the majority who do not want any part of it. How much have these bastards soaked us for on these action plan ads I wonder? Conservative Adscam. How much does a TV ad cost to run anyway? They have really ramped up the rotation lately, watch TV for an hour and you will see an "action plan" ad at least 4 -5 times.

The ads are clearly being used to promote the government. I want to know how much they are spending to run these ads. We already know they spent 45 million just on the action plan billboards.

[g_bambino]

I fully well know democracy, so trying to push a westminster system such as Canada or an imperial system such as the US off as democracy ain't gonna do it.

I'm not sure you do; you seem to vest too much value in the dictionary definition of a word rather than in the concepts behind it. As I said, there is no one universal form of democracy - there is direct democracy, representative democracy, consensus democracy. Generally, however, what's meant by the word "democracy" in conversation is "liberal democracy": a system wherein a balance is maintained between the main branches of government, the majority of the adult populace expresses its will through voting, but common rights are still ensured for all, not just the majority.

[sp]

Edited February 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[William Ashley]

I'm not sure you do; you seem to vest too much value in the dictionary definition of a word rather than in the concepts behind it. As I said, there is no one universal form of democracy - there is direct democracy, representative democracy, consensus democracy. Generally, however, what's meant by the word "democracy" in conversation is "liberal democracy": a system wherein a balance is maintained between the main branches of government, the majority of the adult populace expresses its will through voting, but commons rights are still ensured for all, not just the majority.

Democracy will exist when I have a vote I cast myself on issues, and so does every Canadian I know, and so does every Canadian I don't know. That is democracy.

Democracy isn't pick which one of these people the accountants support and who paid to run for the office you hate the least. I don't need someone else to express my views, especially if they choose not to, or don't represent them correctly or are muzzled by a minority corporate party.

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Democracy will exist when I have a vote I cast myself on issues, and so does every Canadian I know, and so does every Canadian I don't know. That is democracy.

Ah, right. Direct democracy. In a federation. Of 30,000,000 people. Okay, well, let us know how that turns out.

[+]

Edited February 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Democracy will exist when I have a vote I cast myself on issues, and so does every Canadian I know, and so does every Canadian I don't know. That is democracy.

Democracy isn't pick which one of these people the accountants support and who paid to run for the office you hate the least. I don't need someone else to express my views, especially if they choose not to, or don't represent them correctly or are muzzled by a minority corporate party.

People who have no grasp of the democratic traditions of the West are still allowed to vote foolishly.

You are welcome

[M.Dancer]

We already know they spent 45 million just on the action plan billboards.

I'm pretty sure we don't know that.

[William Ashley]

Ah, right. Direct democracy. In a federation. Of 30,000,000 people. Okay, well, let us know how that turns out.

[+]

The federal government employs 1 in 10 Canadians. It shan't be a hard push to be inclusive of the other 90% in government.

Edited February 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

The ads are clearly being used to promote the government.

Maybe that's because they're government programs.

[DrGreenthumb]

Maybe that's because they're government programs.

Oh give it a rest, there is no need for them to waste any more of our money re-running these ads. Everyone in Canada has seen them at least 50 times by now. They are using these things like pre-campaign ads, and we are paying for them. Pathetic. I can't wait for an election so we can throw these wasteful bums out.

[William Ashley]

Oh give it a rest, there is no need for them to waste any more of our money re-running these ads. Everyone in Canada has seen them at least 50 times by now. They are using these things like pre-campaign ads, and we are paying for them. Pathetic. I can't wait for an election so we can throw these wasteful bums out.

It is just the tip of the iceberg of government waste.

[William Ashley]

Maybe that's because they're government programs.

Yeah cause healthcare and EI are getting ads.. sure there bud.

[myata]

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.

OK, as there seem to be little interest in detail analysis of aforementioned and allegedly "similar" and "Westminister" democracies, let's consider one more example, from your own list, and round it up at that. And so, political system of Netherlands has these "similarities" (as easily found on: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Netherlands ), Parlink interparliament network and a number of other easily available resources):

- Coalition governments has been a norm since 1900. A well defined process exists to establish government coalition and create coalition government.

- The Parliament has a set sitting schedule.

- The Parliament has constitutional privilege to question government and access all documents.

- The Parliament can vote no confidence in an individual minister or the entire government, causing resignation thereof. Vote of no confidence in the government causes its resignation and commonly (but not necessarily), a new election.

- The government has constitutional privilege to request dissolution of the Parliament, but it has not been used in the last 100 years.

- The Queen plays formal and ceremonial role in setting up and functioning of government but has refrained from being involved in the politics since after World War 2.

- The ministers of the government have to resign their seats in the Parliament.

I'll leave up to the readers to judge how "similar" it is to what we have here, but I could make these conclusions:

1) The Constitutional Monarch in Netherlands plays only formal and ceremonial role and does not get involved into active politics.

2) There is real and functional separation of powers, checks and balances defined both constitutionally and by convention that prevent any one branch of power from interfering with and obstructing the others, most notably, government obstructing the work of the Parliament as has been the case in Canada recently (Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E).

BTW while doing this research I stumbled across a point that even among constitutional monarchies the system of "reserve powers and prerogatives" is only common in the British Commonwealth. I haven't found many references to use of these instruments in New Zealand (especially in the more recent period after introduction of proportional elections), but do recall that it's used in Australia.

Certainly, when used commonly in daily political practice like in this country, these powers give significant and arguably, overreaching influence to the executive branch thus undermining independence of the Parliament and integrity of democratic political system. The example of Dutch system does nothing to dispel the point that these powers are incompatible with the principles of modern and responsible democracy and should be removed, formally or through convention that governments, and especially the minority ones should refrain from using them.

Edited February 17, 2010 by myata

[Oleg Bach]

Harper should be told like any other of our employees that if he misses anymore work he will be fired by us- who are the head of this corporation called Canada inc. We are the boss and he is the butler---if he prorouges parliment any longer then his holiday has lasted to long-- and an interesting vaction in Haiti is fine- but Steven- YOU ARE NOT BILL CLINTON. Bill is retired and you are not!

[g_bambino]

Harper should be told like any other of our employees that if he misses anymore work he will be fired by us- who are the head of this corporation called Canada inc.

Harper can only be held accountable by us through our representatives in parliament. Sadly, they're more interested in their own party fortunes than in democracy, despite the face they otherwise present to the public.

[DrGreenthumb]

Harper can only be held accountable by us through our representatives in parliament. Sadly, they're more interested in their own party fortunes than in democracy, despite the face they otherwise present to the public.

No, sadly our representatives are not IN Parliament and can't hold Harper accountable because he kicked them all out so he could avoid accountability until at least March 3rd.

[Oleg Bach]

Harper can only be held accountable by us through our representatives in parliament. Sadly, they're more interested in their own party fortunes than in democracy, despite the face they otherwise present to the public.

Are you saying that our representatives got into politics for all the wrong reasons? To bad we did not have a few dozen people with a messiah complex to go forth and actually do us some good. Looks as if we are suffering the double wammy here..firstly our representatives don't care and now they are not even present to even attempt to care..this is a bad situation.

[g_bambino]

OK... there seem to be little interest in detail analysis of aforementioned and allegedly "similar" and "Westminister" democracies...

In other words, now that your stance on non-elected heads of state with a role in democratic government has been proven ill founded, and your inability to distinguish between "similar" and "identical" has been brought to light, instead of admitting your errors, you choose to chastise others for not following the rules you just retroactively changed. Sad.

let's consider [the] Netherlands:

- The Parliament has a set sitting schedule.

- The Parliament can vote no confidence in an individual minister... causing resignation thereof.

- The ministers of the government have to resign their seats in the Parliament.

The above three points are the only ones not identical in the Dutch and Canadian Westminster parliamentary systems. The first two are, I think, worth considering for Canada; the last one, though, I find problematic. How can a minister explain himself to parliament if not from his seat during question period? And, must voters in his riding vote twice in a row, once for the representative removed to Cabinet, and then again for another representative to replace him? Sounds odd.

[g_bambino]

Are you saying that our representatives got into politics for all the wrong reasons?

Politicians are always a self-interested lot, and we need that. However, party leaders in this country have become so autocratic that their party's interests have become enmeshed with their desire for personal gain. In other words, there may be opposition MPs right now wishing to vote non-confidence in Harper but can't because of the choke-chain their leader has around their necks, keeping them voting the way he wants rather than the way they, or we, want.

[Oleg Bach]

Politicians are always a self-interested lot, and we need that. However, party leaders in this country have become so autocratic that their party's interests have become enmeshed with their desire for personal gain. In other words, there may be opposition MPs right now wishing to vote non-confidence in Harper but can't because of the choke-chain their leader has around their necks, keeping them voting the way he wants rather than the way they, or we, want.

Oh they become stars that are like lead singers in a rock band who even when they hit the wrong notes depend more on being posers than artists....It must be some sort of ego centric sickness that grips them..In order to be a great performer you have to be an excellent listener..or you become second rate...The politicians really have no stage experience and do not understand that it is not about just YOU - that you are part of a great team effort and that the audience must have a meat and potatoes performance that they can actually eat and be strengthened with..a performer that fakes it for glory is never asked to return.

[g_bambino]

The politicians really have no stage experience and do not understand that it is not about just YOU - that you are part of a great team effort...

What we need is to have caucus elect party leaders again, so MPs can go back to forcing their leader to consider their collective interests in tandem with his own.

[Oleg Bach]

What we need is to have caucus elect party leaders again, so MPs can go back to forcing their leader to consider their collective interests in tandem with his own.

You either have democratic benevolent rule or you do not! POWER has a way of stupifying a party leader..They forget that they are simply a presider and not a dictator..they are to chair the party and keep order so the needs of the party can be heard, considered and met. You need a member of a party who is willing to stand up to his own leader and remind him that the king has no clothes...even if this means sacrificing his own career for the common good...BUT few are willing to take the leap of faith..cut throat careerists are overly abundant and do not understand or care that the word MINISTER literally means servant- public servant and you are to serve even if it means getting the boot for doing what is right!

[William Ashley]

What we need is to have caucus elect party leaders again, so MPs can go back to forcing their leader to consider their collective interests in tandem with his own.

Exact opposite is happening in the CPC the party heads are appointing the members of caucus rather than having ridings' members elect representatives. The party is taking away the option of ridings to pick their representatives - instead now they are holding all the cards. They elect their leader , they appoint their members - the members of the parties those grass root supporters don't get say in who, only how much they give. It is all a game by the elitists of the party. Ridings mean nothing to the Conservative Party of Canada. They are alienating their own people for their corporate agenda, and their Republican backers in the United States.

Edited February 17, 2010 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

POWER has a way of stupifying a party leader..

Absolute power corrupts abs... Well, I'm sure you know the saying.