Tyranny

[Dave_ON]

At stake is whether we surrender ourselves fully to the presidential Prime Minister, who commands his cabinet and his caucus, who views Parliament as a means to an end at best, and as a distraction at worst. Parliament, not the Opposition, needs to defeat Harper's attempt to undermine the constitutional compromise that has for so long made our system the most copied and most envied in the world.

Indeed and given that just under half of parliament is directly controlled by the PMO and the other half is divided into three this is no small task. I'm pessimistic that Parliament shall regain its supremacy given that we've been trending away from individual representation and more toward party representation for quite some time. It's sad but parties have really taken over our political system and there doesn't seem to be any practical way to take it back.

[myata]

It's sad but parties have really taken over our political system and there doesn't seem to be any practical way to take it back.

I doubt that going back in time is generally a good idea. Paries are here to stay simply because they are way, way more efficient in achieving their objectives than a random group of individuals trying to force their local priorities (for an example, just look at Ottawa City council, no need to go far).

However, there's a way forward. It's called constitutional division of powers and proportional representation. The need to negotiate majority in coalition governments would make bigger parties far more open to a compromise than they have ever been, and will be in a duopoly we have now. And the risk to lose majority and with it the right to govern at any time would keep them in check much better than meek and disorganised attemps that can be thwarted by the all-powerful government in so many ways. The problem is not that we have parties; but what we have too few parties that have any possibility to govern and that stiffles competition, choice and therefore, progress.

The simple question we need to answer is this: is our democracy there for the government to perform its duties? Or is the government there to operate strictly within its constitutional domain, in a transparent and accountable to people via democratic mechanisms manner? Our current answer still comes from the times colonial; If there's any hope for future progress in the democratic governance here, that view will have to change.

[Dave_ON]

I doubt that going back in time is generally a good idea. Paries are here to stay simply because they are way, way more efficient in achieving their objectives than a random group of individuals trying to force their local priorities.

However, there's a way forward. It's called constitutional division of powers and proportional representation.

I'm not so much proposing going back in time as I am utilizing the system as it currently exists and as it was originally designed. I'm not convinced that PR would solve our issue. There are those that are convinced the days of majority governments are a thing of the past, I sincerely doubt that's the case however, I think it's what we're stuck with for the foreseeable future. Minorities generally aren't an issue and historically it is under minorities that progress has been made. This of course was dependant on a strong opposition. This is not the case currently; fact is no opposition party is in a position to replace the current government. PR I believe, would simply exacerbate this situation and we would be in a perpetual minority situation. Looking at other countries that have a PR system you see innumerable and constantly shifting political alliances, frequent elections and a lot less legislative efficiency.

As for the constitutional division of powers I'm not certain what you're referring to precisely. We already have a fairly solid division of powers in place.

[g_bambino]

Truth is democracy is effort and our society is so convenience driven I sincerely doubt those who are ignorant of our system of government would seek to educate themselves. This combined with the government obfuscating various facets of our system only exacerbates the situation.

We need this issue resolved, and we need some semblance of parliamentary democracy restored. What's truly frustrating for me about the situation is there is a silent revolution going on. We are slowly but surely moving towards an absolute monarchy again, the only difference is we indirectly elect this one. We're in a constitutional crisis and most people are either unaware of the situation or are apathetic towards it.

Yes, I was appalled at Harper's brash mendacity when he made his address on television and radio in December 2008, speaking to the public as though he himself had been direcly elected by them and parliament's confidence in him meant less than nothing in the face of that. It gave those with no prior knowledge of our system an incorrect knowledge of our system, and his supporters were too blinded by their slobbering partisanship to even bother to ask if Harper was right or not.

I'm hoping, though, that, in the end, Harper's pushing of the limits of parliamentary democracy will actually wake people up to how things are supposed to function. We haven't seen any constitutional crises yet, but we came close once and are now on the verge again; each time it has come down to one individual to tell Harper where to go, once the Governor General before and presently the Speaker of the House. There is quite a lot of indifference out there, but I also sense bafflement at why these figures, who most otherwise believe to be ceremonial anachronisms, are being dragged into play in political matters; this, at least, has people asking questions.

[c/e]

Edited April 15, 2010 by g_bambino

[myata]

I'm not so much proposing going back in time as I am utilizing the system as it currently exists and as it was originally designed. I'm not convinced that PR would solve our issue. There are those that are convinced the days of majority governments are a thing of the past, I sincerely doubt that's the case however, I think it's what we're stuck with for the foreseeable future. Minorities generally aren't an issue and historically it is under minorities that progress has been made.

That's right. Because in our rigid system, minority situation is the only time the party in power has any incentive at all to listen to the opposition and come up with projects and solutions supported from all sides of political spectrum.

So, rather than wonder at this observation, why not make it a norm? Any one party would be a minority until it makes an alliance, a coalition to achieve common goal. It would actually be a practical, working incentive to achieve 1) common goal and 2) to ensure accountability and greater openness to the public.

This of course was dependant on a strong opposition. This is not the case currently; fact is no opposition party is in a position to replace the current government.

I share this observation, and again I tend to think that it's not an aberration, but more or less (as all things in a society) a logical development in what we may be witnessing the last phase of evolution of our binary political system. The first phase is (was) of course, the consolidation - in a majoritary system only the united opposition has a chance to break to the government; and it has to stay united to continue to govern;

The second phase would be "cementation" or rigidity competition: the "twin" with a weaker inner structure aka party disciple finds itself at a disadvantage (losing votes; appearing less clear and constitent to electorate at election times) and has to adapt = strengthen, rigidify its structure and cement discipine. The final stage, the one we happen to live through, is the stalemate: both "twins" have grown rigid and controlled to the max, and the only possible i.e safest strategy for them is to wait for a gross fault by the opponent and then take turn at the power and do the same (i.e. and virtually exact same).

Good luck trying to turn this development back, its approaching rock solidity at this stage. The only way it can be moved forward is from outside, ie.: stop voter participation in the duopoly spectacle; require representation of the entire political spectrum in the country legislature; which will make the "twin" duo, having lost their guaranteed power feed, to become more responsive to demands and ideas of smaller parties, and the population they represent.

PR I believe, would simply exacerbate this situation and we would be in a perpetual minority situation. Looking at other countries that have a PR system you see innumerable and constantly shifting political alliances, frequent elections and a lot less legislative efficiency.

I agree. However like everywhere in life it's a tradeoff: change and less stability vs stagnation, rigidity and ultimately, halt of progress.

As for the constitutional division of powers I'm not certain what you're referring to precisely. We already have a fairly solid division of powers in place.

As of now, it mostly exists only on paper. The government wields such broad powers, either directly or by proxy of unelected vice-Sovereign, that it is capable to control virtually every phase of political process. Yes, including judicial via unchallenged nomination of Supreme Court judges.