Discussion of Canadian democracy

[DrGreenthumb]

A good explanation of the workings of our democracy by Rick Mercer. Conservatives should watch this since they seem awfully confused as to how our system works.

[Bugs]

A good explanation of the workings of our democracy by Rick Mercer. Conservatives should watch this since they seem awfully confused as to how our system works.

I understand this is a taunt, but I didn't see at all where 'Democracy' figured into it.

In Athens, they chose their leaders in panels, by lot, to be sure that the rulers were a cross-section. They thought that was democracy, without a election being involved.

We have elections, but somehow ... we don't have the Democracy. Parliament evolved from a group that held a veto on what the King could do to get money out of them. It is an institution meant to put a drag on a monarch's consumption. It's true, the office of chief chamberlain has managed to usurp the power of the monarch, and that the chamberlains are themselves elected, sometimes by as many as 30,000 or more people.

We have the rituals of some democracy, but as soon as we get behind the closed doors of Parliament, and we find that it can't get anything done. A private member's bill can pass ... so what? It can be like pushing on a rope. It's because Parliament only gives its assent to policies of the monarch!

That's what they don't tell you in school. You want democracy, you have to get rid of monarchy, and put sovereignty in the people of the nation. Everything else is a sham.

[ToadBrother]

I understand this is a taunt, but I didn't see at all where 'Democracy' figured into it.

In Athens, they chose their leaders in panels, by lot, to be sure that the rulers were a cross-section. They thought that was democracy, without a election being involved.

We have elections, but somehow ... we don't have the Democracy. Parliament evolved from a group that held a veto on what the King could do to get money out of them. It is an institution meant to put a drag on a monarch's consumption. It's true, the office of chief chamberlain has managed to usurp the power of the monarch, and that the chamberlains are themselves elected, sometimes by as many as 30,000 or more people.

We have the rituals of some democracy, but as soon as we get behind the closed doors of Parliament, and we find that it can't get anything done. A private member's bill can pass ... so what? It can be like pushing on a rope. It's because Parliament only gives its assent to policies of the monarch!

That's what they don't tell you in school. You want democracy, you have to get rid of monarchy, and put sovereignty in the people of the nation. Everything else is a sham.

I really do dislike these sort of myopic views of democracy; that either it's one particular breed of electoral and governmental system, or it's not a democracy. Heck, people will declare "the United States is not a democracy". If those who exercise the political power are elected via a general vote, or via some sort of electoral college, then you have a democracy.

Our system works, certainly better than most, and not much worse than some others. The monarchy is not the problem with our system. I fail to see how getting rid of the Queen would fix the problems we have. In fact, I'll tell you right now that opening up the Constitution to let guys like you play with it would be an outright, unmitigated disaster.

Besides, our system hasn't worked with the monarch effectively on top since 1688. Parliament is supreme. No monarch has been able to mount policy without the support of the majority of Parliament in over three and a half centuries. So please stop talking out of your a$$.

Edited January 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Dithers]

I really do dislike these sort of myopic views of democracy; that either it's one particular breed of electoral and governmental system, or it's not a democracy. Heck, people will declare "the United States is not a democracy". If those who exercise the political power are elected via a general vote, or via some sort of electoral college, then you have a democracy.

Our system works, certainly better than most, and not much worse than some others. The monarchy is not the problem with our system. I fail to see how getting rid of the Queen would fix the problems we have. In fact, I'll tell you right now that opening up the Constitution to let guys like you play with it would be an outright, unmitigated disaster.

Besides, our system hasn't worked with the monarch effectively on top since 1688. Parliament is supreme. No monarch has been able to mount policy without the support of the majority of Parliament in over three and a half centuries. So please stop talking out of your a$$.

On the whole, I agree. Our system functions better than most. I am certainly thankful nto to have the ultra-partisan nonsense that we witness in the United States. That said, our senate is pathetic in every way. They do not fulfill the limited function they were intended to carry.

[ToadBrother]

On the whole, I agree. Our system functions better than most. I am certainly thankful nto to have the ultra-partisan nonsense that we witness in the United States. That said, our senate is pathetic in every way. They do not fulfill the limited function they were intended to carry.

Well, Mulroney did try to fix that two decades ago, but various regional interests blew his attempts out of the water. After that, no one wants to open the constitutional question again, so we're stuck with it. It's a strange institution. If it acts as a rubber stamp, then everyone bitches about how it's just an old folks home for political hacks. If it does exercise its powers, then everyone is up in arms at how an undemocratically constituted body dares to interfere with the goings on of the House of Commons.

I'd love to see a Triple-E Senate, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. I'm 38 this year, and I'll wager I'll be an old man before there's anyone ballsy enough to grab for that ring again.

[g_bambino]

That's what they don't tell you in school. You want democracy, you have to get rid of monarchy, and put sovereignty in the people of the nation.

Apparently what they also didn't tell you in school is about constitutional evolution since 1215. Do you still believe in witchcraft and demons in your plague boils, too?

[sp]

Edited January 20, 2010 by g_bambino

[Dithers]

Well, Mulroney did try to fix that two decades ago, but various regional interests blew his attempts out of the water. After that, no one wants to open the constitutional question again, so we're stuck with it. It's a strange institution. If it acts as a rubber stamp, then everyone bitches about how it's just an old folks home for political hacks. If it does exercise its powers, then everyone is up in arms at how an undemocratically constituted body dares to interfere with the goings on of the House of Commons.

I'd love to see a Triple-E Senate, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. I'm 38 this year, and I'll wager I'll be an old man before there's anyone ballsy enough to grab for that ring again.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. Perhaps a conservative majority would find the impetus to do it, but recent senate appointments have destroyed any credibility Harper has on the matter.

[myata]

Besides, our system hasn't worked with the monarch effectively on top since 1688. Parliament is supreme. No monarch has been able to mount policy without the support of the majority of Parliament in over three and a half centuries. So please stop talking out of your a$$.

The system, as designed in the dawn ages of governance politics, was intendended as the ultimate check on the governing power, and not necessarily as an instrument of efficient and direct expression of the will of majority. We inherited it as-is without any signifcant modifications or adjustments for the modern age. As a result, it contains a variety of instruments, ploys and outlets that allow governing power to influence, mitigate and even obstruct the expression of will by the majority of elected House. It is true that ultimately it contains the test allowing the House to constrain the government; it is also true that it grants it undemocratic instruments and avenues to interfere with, delay and obstruct the will of the House. Therefore the statement of supremacy of the Parliament cannot be taken as true anymore, not in de facto state of affairs.

I agree that the system has been functioning reasonably well till now, not in the least due to broad democratic tradition outside of political domain. I also said that no past is a guarantee of the future to be taken for granted. The situation today may be changing, though slowly and gradually, with aging population possibly having much more interest in stability and comfort than in the active political process. Combined with compromised political system heavily skewed to favouring the government in power, it may give us all a cause for concern. Ultimately, no system could help if population looses interest to democracy, however a well tuned system with adequate checks on the government that ensures transparency of government's operation and unquestionnable supremacy of the elected House would be far more efficient in detecting and addressing such problems.

[ToadBrother]

The system, as designed in the dawn ages of governance politics, was intendended as the ultimate check on the governing power, and not necessarily as an instrument of efficient and direct expression of the will of majority. We inherited it as-is without any signifcant modifications or adjustments for the modern age. As a result, it contains a variety of instruments, ploys and outlets that allow governing power to influence, mitigate and even obstruct the expression of will by the majority of elected House. It is true that ultimately it contains the test allowing the House to constrain the government; it is also true that it grants it undemocratic instruments and avenues to interfere with, delay and obstruct the will of the House. Therefore the statement of supremacy of the Parliament cannot be taken as true anymore, not in de facto state of affairs.

I agree that the system has been functioning reasonably well till now, not in the least due to broad democratic tradition outside of political domain. I also said that no past is a guarantee of the future to be taken for granted. The situation today may be changing, though slowly and gradually, with aging population possibly having much more interest in stability and comfort than in the active political process. Combined with compromised political system heavily skewed to favouring the government in power, it may give us all a cause for concern. Ultimately, no system could help if population looses interest to democracy, however a well tuned system with adequate checks on the government that ensures transparency of government's operation and unquestionnable supremacy of the elected House would be far more efficient in detecting and addressing such problems.

At any moment the Opposition could end this simply by voting no confidence. They don't because they, like the Tories, are not interested in our governing system, but only in their own skins. Every single MP in the House is a useless, worthless coward.

Edited January 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with the points here that the system more-or-less works.

I also would caution that major changes should be put off until our mediascape has been stable for 20 years or so.

[fellowtraveller]

At any moment the Opposition could end this simply by voting no confidence. They don't because they, like the Tories, are not interested in our governing system, but only in their own skins. Every single MP in the House is a useless, worthless coward.

But wouldn't the act of voting no confidence be a demonstration of that governing system in and of itself?

Assume that every MP was not a coward, and voted out the Tories.

How exactly would you have them act afterwards to improve the sytem you hate?

[fellowtraveller]

The system, as designed in the dawn ages of governance politics, was intendended as the ultimate check on the governing power, and not necessarily as an instrument of efficient and direct expression of the will of majority. We inherited it as-is without any signifcant modifications or adjustments for the modern age. As a result, it contains a variety of instruments, ploys and outlets that allow governing power to influence, mitigate and even obstruct the expression of will by the majority of elected House. It is true that ultimately it contains the test allowing the House to constrain the government; it is also true that it grants it undemocratic instruments and avenues to interfere with, delay and obstruct the will of the House. Therefore the statement of supremacy of the Parliament cannot be taken as true anymore, not in de facto state of affairs.

It may have been designed that way, but it is no longer functioning at any level.

I'd suggest our particular brand of Parliament is one of the worst remaining from the British legacy. The UK has done it a bit differently than us, for example the parliamentary committees are much more powerful, and MPs may choose to dump the PM, their leader(eg Margaret Thatcher).

WEhat has happened here is the Senate was once designed and operated as a check and balance to the Commons, and now is simply a useless and provocactive appendage. The Commons has become a place where the majority ruling party is obliged to run through the sham of debating a legislative agenda, then pounding it through regardless. The few minority govts we've had can be exceptions, but only to a certain extent. It is the only time that the Opposition has any relevance at all, really.

The end result is that, for a long time now, the Prime Ministers Office is the government. What they want, they get.

[ToadBrother]

But wouldn't the act of voting no confidence be a demonstration of that governing system in and of itself?

Assume that every MP was not a coward, and voted out the Tories.

How exactly would you have them act afterwards to improve the sytem you hate?

Oh, I don't hate the system. I'm a supporter. Heaven knows it needs improvements, but the system has, by and large, worked very well for well over three centuries.

The point of throwing a government out for acts that minimize Parliament is to send the message to any potential leader of the Government that Parliament is the boss. The Government exists only at the sufferance of Parliament, and Parliament always is supreme, it's will (and that extends, yes folks, to any and all documents produced by the Government) is not to be gainsaid without great danger to the Government.

Surely that's something, regardless of political ideology, we can all stand behind.

[fellowtraveller]

Parliament imp[lies the Commons and the Senate, both of which have really very little to say about the governance of the country. Our country is run via the PMO office, with occasional lulls into something approaching democracy during minority govts. If you like how our Parliament works, you must be happiest with the rule of Harper or Paul Martin at few years ago. It does not work at all during majority govts. The PMO presents legislation, they pretend to discuss it, then it gets passed. End of story.

A recent example of 'Parliament is boss' occurred when the loyal Opposition attempted a legal coup to accomplish what they had failed to do at the ballot box just a few weeks before. The govt of the day stalled their legal coup with some entirely legal manouvering of their own. Do you think either episode was Canadas finest hour? A demonstration of how well it all works? Do you recall the visceral reaction that followed from normally apathetic Canadians

I noticed you did not answer my question of how you would fix the deficiencies in our system. Oversight?

[Michael Hardner]

It may have been designed that way, but it is no longer functioning at any level.

I'd suggest our particular brand of Parliament is one of the worst remaining from the British legacy. The UK has done it a bit differently than us, for example the parliamentary committees are much more powerful, and MPs may choose to dump the PM, their leader(eg Margaret Thatcher).

WEhat has happened here is the Senate was once designed and operated as a check and balance to the Commons, and now is simply a useless and provocactive appendage. The Commons has become a place where the majority ruling party is obliged to run through the sham of debating a legislative agenda, then pounding it through regardless. The few minority govts we've had can be exceptions, but only to a certain extent. It is the only time that the Opposition has any relevance at all, really.

The end result is that, for a long time now, the Prime Ministers Office is the government. What they want, they get.

I concur with your points about the Senate, but it has been largely ineffectual for years now and so I don't think hurts democracy, just wastes money.

Having the MPs dump the PM would be nice, but I think MacKenzie Bowell had effectively the same thing happen. And it's a rarity anyway, so that doesn't mark our system as being that much better.

The part about the sham debate - that strikes me as being the same as the UK.

As far as improvements - I'd like to see Service Canada expanded, and have large sections of ministries concerned with service delivery moved to branches of service Canada - to be overseen by multiparty committees.

[myata]

At any moment the Opposition could end this simply by voting no confidence. They don't because they, like the Tories, are not interested in our governing system, but only in their own skins. Every single MP in the House is a useless, worthless coward.

That may have been so, if willing factions in the Parliament, having ensured support of majority, could then form a government of their own. That is not the case, as the government in power even having lost confidence of the House, could and would continue to hold on to it under a threat to cause an election, often completely unnecessary. This causes all kind of political and about games, instead of one thing real and functioning democracy should be about, clear and unhindered expression of democratic will.

To M-H:

I also said that the fact that something has worked in the past is no guarantee of the future, just check your old TV or that first car. Or, in the social science / history, any number of societies that went away having been unable to adjust to changing reality.

[Michael Hardner]

To M-H:

I also said that the fact that something has worked in the past is no guarantee of the future, just check your old TV or that first car. Or, in the social science / history, any number of societies that went away having been unable to adjust to changing reality.

I guess you're right. It worked in Ancient Greece, and in the west since the 18th century so maybe it's time is up, hmmm ?

I've never been a fan of leaving things be when it's time for them to change, however democracy has been forced to change on the back of media change over the past 150 years or so. Changes in newspaper technology, radio, polling practices and the like have made politics unrecognizable from the mid 1800s. I have a recording of a Senator - made in the 1930s - and he sounds like a woodshed hillbilly. The senator they elected yesterday looks like a B-Movie star.

I wonder what Youtube is going to do to politics. Hopefully it will illustrate things more clearly, as this Double YouTube of Alex Jones does so well.

[bjre]

Who cares. How many Politicians care about Canada? I think they care more about themselves and their own party. That's the reason that I think anyone to be PM is the same.

[g_bambino]

[T]he government in power even having lost confidence of the House, could and would continue to hold on to it under a threat to cause an election.

Why do you keep saying this as though it were true?

[William Ashley]

Our country is run via the PMO office

Clearly we don't live in the same country. Since when does PM = provost major.

A recent example of 'Parliament is boss' occurred when the loyal Opposition attempted a legal coup

Real coups involve physical violence to upsurp control, not forming a government with a majority of the house charged with forming government.

Edited January 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[myata]

I guess you're right. It worked in Ancient Greece, and in the west since the 18th century so maybe it's time is up, hmmm ?

I guess we're talking about different things (democracy in general - whatever it may mean, given that e.g. Afghanistan is also a "democracy", now) vs. particular variant of it that exists here in this country, and now.

I wonder what Youtube is going to do to politics. Hopefully it will illustrate things more clearly, as this Double YouTube of Alex Jones does so well.

No, Youtube won't do your brain's work for you, at least I very much doubt that.

Edited January 20, 2010 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

No, Youtube won't do your brain's work for you, at least I very much doubt that.

But it will change politics, just as the telegraph, radio, railroads, television, computers... etc. etc.

Do yourself a favour and click that Alex Jones link again.

[Alta4ever]

That may have been so, if willing factions in the Parliament, having ensured support of majority, could then form a government of their own.

That is not the case, as the government in power even having lost confidence of the House, could and would continue to hold on to it under a threat to cause an election, often completely unnecessary.

This causes all kind of political and about games, instead of one thing real and functioning democracy should be about, clear and unhindered expression of democratic will.

To M-H:

I also said that the fact that something has worked in the past is no guarantee of the future, just check your old TV or that first car. Or, in the social science / history, any number of societies that went away having been unable to adjust to changing reality.

Whats wrong with this, I would vote in election after election if the opposition kept bringing the government down. eventually we would have a majority government either formed by the opposition because they were right or by those forming the minority government. This is one of the things that is fundamental in democracy, the more elections the better.

[myata]

Why do you keep saying this as though it were true?

It it weren't true, we wouldn't have every single "government in trouble, confidence motion may fail" discussion started with "do we really need an election now". It it weren't true, you'd be able to point to the examples of majority coalitions governing the country without moronic or dishonest - or both - at the same time - accusations of undemocratic plot, coup d'etat and yada. OK may be more than can be counted on the fingers of one hand in the entire glorious history of our democracy (I don't know any).

No I'm not necessarily saying that coalition governments are better than the majority ones, only that they are better than a government that lost democratic mandate to govern hanging on to power via undemocratic ploys, or blackmailing by threat of election. That is not a modern, open and functional democracy as I understand it.

[g_bambino]

It it weren't true, we wouldn't have every single "government in trouble, confidence motion may fail" discussion started with "do we really need an election now".

Such discussions are usually started by people who don't understand the system. The Prime Minister may threaten an election however much he wants, but once non-confidence has been expressed, his advice to the Governor General is no longer binding and the viceroy may legitimately ask the opposition if they feel they can form a government. If the Prime Minister advises an election before non-confidence can be voted, then it's up to the electorate to let their opinions be known.