Could Canada be more democratic?

[[email protected]]

That in itself is not a definitive definition of democracy.

Ok, here is Wikipedia's definition.

"Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law."

Is this ok?

[g_bambino]

Is this ok?

It's selective. Why did you leave out the rest of the definition?

While there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

Democracy

[wyly]

Not at all. I think the result for Canada's standard of living is what proves that it's good.

This makes the insistence on calling Canada 'undemocratic' (by some) utterly baffling and alienating.

crediting democracy with standard of living?...china has a rapidly improving standard of living but zero democracy...Bangladesh is a complete democracy yet still one of the world's poorest countries...

[[email protected]]

It's selective. Why did you leave out the rest of the definition?

That's fine. I am just trying to get a definition of democracy we can use to assess Canada. You pick one then.

[Saipan]

Degree of democracy depends directly on personal freedom of each individual.

[ToadBrother]

crediting democracy with standard of living?...china has a rapidly improving standard of living but zero democracy...Bangladesh is a complete democracy yet still one of the world's poorest countries...

The standard of living is rapidly improving for some. A large portion of China's population is agrarian and still lives in considerable poverty, and this is proving an enormous challenge for China. Whether or not China can maintain an autocratic system of government and universally raise the standard of living is an open question at this point.

[ToadBrother]

That's fine. I am just trying to get a definition of democracy we can use to assess Canada. You pick one then.

The Wikipedia one seems reasonable enough. Using that, I posit that Canada is very much a democracy, and not some limited one as some seem to suggest.

[[email protected]]

Degree of democracy depends directly on personal freedom of each individual.

Toad Brother, g_bambino, M. Dancer please explain why there is a high degree of democracy in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

crediting democracy with standard of living?...china has a rapidly improving standard of living but zero democracy...Bangladesh is a complete democracy yet still one of the world's poorest countries...

That's a good point. I defer to the ongoing discussion on the Wiki definition on this thread...

[ToadBrother]

Toad Brother, g_bambino, M. Dancer please explain why there is a high degree of democracy in Canada.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for a historical explanation? A cultural one? A social one?

[ToadBrother]

That's a good point. I defer to the ongoing discussion on the Wiki definition on this thread...

I wouldn't let China off the hook yet. As I said, the standard of living is reasonably high in the cities, but China is by no means an industrialized country, and the continued inability after several decades to raise the standard of living in rural China is creating some substantial unrest in those areas.

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for a historical explanation? A cultural one? A social one?

I asked earlier if Canada's democracy was a poor one. I got three rapid nos from Toad Brother, g_bambino, Mr. Hardner. So I was asking why they thought Canada's democracy is not poor.

[ToadBrother]

I asked earlier if Canada's democracy was a poor one. I got three rapid nos from Toad Brother, g_bambino, Mr. Hardner. So I was asking why they thought Canada's democracy is not poor.

1. We have the rule of law.

2. We are all equal in legal rights and freedoms, and this guaranteed by constitution and by our long-standing rights as a free people.

3. We have open and independently run elections, and laws to enforce this.

4. There are no legal impositions on becoming involved in the electoral process. I can join a political party, start a political party or seek election.

5. We can petition our elected representatives, the Government and the Queen or Her Viceroy without fear of imprisonment or other punishment.

6. Our elected representatives are protected by the long-standing rights won by them over three centuries ago.

That's off the top of my head.

[Michael Hardner]

I asked earlier if Canada's democracy was a poor one. I got three rapid nos from Toad Brother, g_bambino, Mr. Hardner. So I was asking why they thought Canada's democracy is not poor.

Free elections with strong regional representation. The party that wins a majority gets to drive the bus for 5 years or so. Minority governments are about compromise.

This allows the occasional Conservative government to advance major initiatives (such as Free Trade) that are important to them and to the 30-40% of Canadians who support them. It allows Liberals to advance their usual business-as-usual policies the rest of the time, and gives the NDP balance of power from time to time as well as a chance to form the government once in a long while, when they have a leader that Canadians like. ( As with Broadbent. )

The regions are well supported, which supports national unity. MPs represent their local constituents when they're in Ottawa.

It's democratic. I don't think I would call PR undemocratic, exactly, but it sacrifices things like regional support to give more power to, well, the NDP. It also creates a continuous line of minority governments as far as the eye can see, into the future.

Is that a good thing ? I don't think so. But in any case, somebody has to explain why we should decide to change our system to semi-permanent centre-left minority governments without resorting to hyperbole such as "we don't have a democracy".

There are ways we could modify the system to give the Greens, for example, a small number of seats for a threshold of support. Even then, they would hold the balance of power from time to time which is arguably more power than they deserve, given their low support.

[[email protected]]

1. We have the rule of law.

2. We are all equal in legal rights and freedoms, and this guaranteed by constitution and by our long-standing rights as a free people.

3. We have open and independently run elections, and laws to enforce this.

4. There are no legal impositions on becoming involved in the electoral process. I can join a political party, start a political party or seek election.

5. We can petition our elected representatives, the Government and the Queen or Her Viceroy without fear of imprisonment or other punishment.

6. Our elected representatives are protected by the long-standing rights won by them over three centuries ago.

That's off the top of my head.

Hey Toadbrother,

1+2+5 has more to do with rights and freedoms and aspects of civil society, separate from democracy.

3+4 = yes, we do have free elections (although the FPTP is flawed).

5 Yes we have that right.

Ok, so Canada is not a total loss but free elections does not democracy make. We have almost no ability to influence politics. Consider:

1. We do not select our leaders.

2. We do not select our government.

3. Our representatives do not represent our interests.

4. There is no way to influence, petition, or direct our political system without it being mediated by a party or government.

5. Parliament is not able to counter and restrain government (which is what it is for).

I think until we can address these flaws then we should restrain ourselves from saying that Canada is a model for democracy.

[Smallc]

1. We do not select our leaders.

That depends what you mean by leaders. In many ways, we do, even if we don't vote for them directly.

2. We do not select our government.

See above.

3. Our representatives do not represent our interests.

That depends who you talk to in a certain place at a particular point in history.

4. There is no way to influence, petition, or direct our political system without it being mediated by a party or government.

And? Who cares?

5. Parliament is not able to counter and restrain government (which is what it is for).

We've seen Quite clearly in the 40th Parliament that you're wrong about that.

[[email protected]]

That depends what you mean by leaders. In many ways, we do, even if we don't vote for them directly.

1. Exactly we do not directly select them. If we don't who does? Parties select our leaders and parties dump them, all without our permission.

2. In Canada the legislature picks governments (its called Legislative Sovereignty versus Popular Sovereignty). If the PCs don't get their majority we may have a PC government or a coalition, who knows? Point is we don't get to decide. Real democracy gives the people these decisions to make themselves.

3. Representatives are required to vote the party line else they are cashiered.

4. With every channel mediated then parties have all the control. They are private organizations that operate out of self interest. The citizen is essentially a hostage to them politically, if an issue say is a good idea but hurts the party it is a dead issue. Without means to circumvent them on occasion they can block and manipulate our national politics. So there is no surprise that none support Recall legislation because that represents a loss of control, even if it is a modest and good idea.

5. Parliament is hostage to the executive, that is what the Westminster system dictates (as opposed to the separation of powers in the US). As a result the PM essentially runs everything (and is far more powerful than any US president) especially if a majority is present. Without a formal ability for Parliament to block the executive you have too much power in one place and that not only is corrosive to democracy (witness Chretian and Harper) it leads to poor policy formation over time.

Lets face it our system is left over from a time when powerful elites made sure they controlled politics and kept the 'mob' out.

Edited April 12, 2011 by [email protected]

[Smallc]

5. Parliament is hostage to the executive, that is what the Westminster system dictates (as opposed to the separation of powers in the US).

Most of what you said was wrong, but this absolute bull. Parliament is the boss of the government, not the other way around.

[eyeball]

Free elections with strong regional representation.

This means just about squat to anyone who's livelihood is swimming outside their front doors and yet who must by everything that is Constitutional and of course Traditional, depend on and yield all decisions pertaining to their livelihoods, to the will of some Crown appendage that's based 3000 miles away, and some 1200 miles from the nearest ocean I might add.

I'm listening to pundits on national TV talking about Canadians looking for signs of...Prime Ministerialism...in the debates tonight. Yeah, that'll certainly address the sad declining state of the local fish stocks our region depends on about as good as it did the last time and the time before that...

Our system is better suited for electing representatives to deal with what should be the relatively easy task of simply getting along with other mass democracies and such. As for dealing with the local complex myriad issues that affect people's lives and livelihoods on the ground where they live it is useless and often worse.

It's probably suited for helping regions be more self-governing or managing but it doesn't, instead it insists on being the end all and be all of virtually everything. It's too big a job.

Edited April 12, 2011 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Toad Brother, g_bambino, M. Dancer please explain why there is a high degree of democracy in Canada.

That's an odd question. Why is there a high degree of democracy in Canada? Because we've inherited a system that's been evolving for more than 1,000 years now, building on mistakes and successes along the way? Just a guess.

[ToadBrother]

Hey Toadbrother,

1+2+5 has more to do with rights and freedoms and aspects of civil society, separate from democracy.

3+4 = yes, we do have free elections (although the FPTP is flawed).

5 Yes we have that right.

Ok, so Canada is not a total loss but free elections does not democracy make. We have almost no ability to influence politics. Consider:

1. We do not select our leaders.

Many democracies don't. US voters don't get to vote for the Speaker of the House, and an electoral college decides the presidency. And I'd like you to define what you mean by "leaders". Parliament is supreme, any political leader is ultimately answerable to Parliament.

2. We do not select our government.

We select the Parliament that makes the Governemnt.

3. Our representatives do not represent our interests.

That is a completely separate question, and I wonder whether you mean "our" interests, or "your" interests. In general, politicians have to face the electorate, and if your representative has not represented your interests, you can vote for someone else.

4. There is no way to influence, petition, or direct our political system without it being mediated by a party or government.

We have this thing called an election, and we also have the right to petition everyone from the Queen down to our MP. What I usually read your complaint as is "I don't get my way".

5. Parliament is not able to counter and restrain government (which is what it is for).

Parliament just decided an entire government was in contempt and brought them down. If that isn't restraining a government, I don't know what is. For over three hundred years Parliament has been supreme over the Government, and that principal was upheld a couple of weeks ago.

I think until we can address these flaws then we should restrain ourselves from saying that Canada is a model for democracy.

I don't think you know enough about our system to name its flaws.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

1. Exactly we do not directly select them. If we don't who is? Parties select our leaders and parties dump them, all without our permission.

I agree that the political parties have too much power. But altering the electoral system won't change that, and in fact, I can see how PR systems like MMR would only make it worse. Reducing the powers of the political parties is something that can be accomplished, in my view, without substantial alteration to our system of government.

2. In Canada the legislature picks governments (its called Legislative Sovereignty versus Popular Sovereignty). If the PCs don't get their majority we may have a PC government or a coalition, who knows? Point is we don't get to decide. Real democracy gives the people these decisions to make themselves.

And here goes this "real democracy" tag. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. I have no idea what you think a replacement to our system would be. Other than the direct democracy aspects of Switzerland, no major democracy functions without a layer between it and the political leadership. Even in parliamentary republics, in general, the elected president has powers pretty similar to the Queen's, used very rarely.

3. Representatives are required to vote the party line else they are cashiered.

Yes, this is a problem, but part of the solution is a political one, not a structural one. The other part, that governments must enjoy the confidence of Parliament means that governments will have to assure their own party maintains that confidence. To alter that means changing in a fundamental way the power of Parliament.

4. With every channel mediated then parties have all the control. They are private organizations that operate out of self interest. The citizen is essentially a hostage to them politically, if an issue say is a good idea but hurts the party it is a dead issue. Without means to circumvent them on occasion they can block and manipulate our national politics. So there is no surprise that none support Recall legislation because that represents a loss of control, even if it is a modest and good idea.

Again, this is a political issue, not a structural one. The solution is weakening parties, or alternatively, convincing sufficient numbers of people in your riding to vote for a non-aligned independent candidate. You know, that whole democracy thinh.

5. Parliament is hostage to the executive, that is what the Westminster system dictates (as opposed to the separation of powers in the US). As a result the PM essentially runs everything (and is far more powerful than any US president) especially if a majority is present. Without a formal ability for Parliament to block the executive you have too much power in one place and that not only is corrosive to democracy (witness Chretian and Harper) it leads to poor policy formation over time.

This is utterly false. Parliament has the ultimate say. The Government cannot act in defiance of Parliament.

Lets face it our system is left over from a time when powerful elites made sure they controlled politics and kept the 'mob' out.

And this is quite a piece of historical revisionism. Our Parliamentary system has deep roots, but the direction ever since Edward I's Model Parliament has been towards greater liberties. The powerful elites were largely sidelined during the great Reform Bills of the 19th century, as the politicians in the House of Commons consistently increased the franchise to gather greater power to themselves, and always, and I repeat this, always at the expense of the aristocracy and the Sovereign.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[[email protected]]

Most of what you said was wrong, but this absolute bull. Parliament is the boss of the government, not the other way around.

Feel free to point out my errors.

Parliament is not the boss (you must be thinking of the US), a PM with a majority (the intended scenario) is the boss. He/she can initiate national policy (like putting people of the armed forces into war zones) without even having to alert the cabinet let alone backbenchers.

"Parliament is not working, and it has not been working for a long time" - Joe Clark

[Michael Hardner]

This means just about squat to anyone who's livelihood is swimming outside their front doors and yet who must by everything that is Constitutional and of course Traditional, depend on and yield all decisions pertaining to their livelihoods, to the will of some Crown appendage that's based 3000 miles away, and some 1200 miles from the nearest ocean I might add.

You might add that, but you'd be wrong. Western-based parties would enjoy more power under FPTP than under PR.

Our system is better suited for electing representatives to deal with what should be the relatively easy task of simply getting along with other mass democracies and such. As for dealing with the local complex myriad issues that affect people's lives and livelihoods on the ground where they live it is useless and often worse.

Local issues get less attention under PR, just by the numbers.

[ToadBrother]

Feel free to point out my errors.

Parliament is not the boss (you must be thinking of the US), a PM with a majority (the intended scenario) is the boss. He/she can initiate national policy (like putting people of the armed forces into war zones) without even having to alert the cabinet let alone backbenchers.

"Parliament is not working, and it has not been working for a long time" - Joe Clark

As we saw in the UK when Thatcher was given the boot by the Tories, even a majority isn't an absolute guarantee. Parliament is still supreme. And again, the problem with caucus discipline, and the solution there is a political one, not a structural one. But if you assume that political party dominance is only a problem in Westminster-styled democracies, then you know very damned little about systems of government, period.