Could Canada be more democratic?

[RNG]

You have no idea what you're talking about, that much is clear.

Yes, oh wise one. [/sarcasm]

Edited April 12, 2011 by RNG

[[email protected]]

I's sooner rest my good life on some solid ground rather than nebulous "precedent" that any activist judge can interpret however he/she wishes.

Good discussion.

That is one of the flaws of our system, nothing is in writing. Lets have a REAL written Constitution that explicitly lays out who has what powers.

Regarding 'stable' government, stability should not trump democracy.

On FPTP and the creaky Westminster system, it actually works sort of ok when there just two protagonists but once you get to three, four, five parties the whole structure collapses. That is why we need to move on into the 21st Century.

[Michael Hardner]

Regarding 'stable' government, stability should not trump democracy.

If you have a parliamentary system, then you have democracy. Within that, stability is important.

[g_bambino]

Lets have a REAL written Constitution that explicitly lays out who has what powers.

The validity of a constitution does not depend on whether it's written or not. Written constitutions tend to be inflexible, which isn't good when situations the writers could not forsee arise in future, and nobody can predict every possible scenario.

Regarding 'stable' government, stability should not trump democracy.

Instability tends to lead to the end of democracy.

That is why we need to move on into the 21st Century.

Boring rhetoric.

[c/e]

Edited April 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Yes, oh wise one. [/sarcasm]

He's wiser than you on the subject of the conversation, anyway.

[GostHacked]

The validity of a constitution does not depend on whether it's written or not. Written constitutions tend to be inflexible, which isn't good when situations the writers could not forsee arise in future, and nobody can predict every possible scenario.

Instability tends to lead to the end of democracy.

Altering the constitution won't do us any good, because that in of itself causes instability, which leads to the end of democracy. And if it's not in writting, then you have a situation where anything goes and it's a he-said, she-said, battle and the 'constitution' is open for wide interpretation.

The constitution should be inflexible when it comes to dealing with our rights and freedoms. People have taken an oath to defend it.

[eyeball]

If you have a parliamentary system, then you have democracy.

You make this sound like some immutable law of nature or physics.

Within that, stability is important.

It's simply a desired state not a guarantee.

Rigid inflexibility can also imply brittleness - a proneness to shattering.

[TimG]

Where is our ideological representation? If this isn't an important part of politics, democracy or our governance then why are we all here?

Who says that:

1) everyone is entitled to their ideological representation in parliment.

2) that parties are the best way to achieve that

I know many right wing voters are feeling abandoned by Harper because he has moved to the center. This means Harper is representing the interests of centrist/liberal voters even if they did not vote for him. In a functioning democracy governments should be catering towards the center and ideologically extreme views cannot be represented.

[Saipan]

Altering the constitution won't do us any good, because

...we don't have constitution worth much.

[eyeball]

Who says that:

1) everyone is entitled to their ideological representation in parliment.

2) that parties are the best way to achieve that

Not me, I just threw the question out to you. I don't for one minute buy the assertion that my locale is somehow represented by my MP in Ottawa. I represent my neighbourhood by sitting on my local Area Planning Committee, it represents my area to the Regional District I live in. Local is, you know, local.

If anything MP's represent their parties ideologies to the region, not the other way around.

I know many right wing voters are feeling abandoned by Harper because he has moved to the center. This means Harper is representing the interests of centrist/liberal voters even if they did not vote for him. In a functioning democracy governments should be catering towards the center and ideologically extreme views cannot be represented.

You must be feeling quite left out if that's the case.

Strangely enough I don't know many people who would come right out and say that local issues like leaky septic fields are ideological issues, but in my experience as an APC member for nearly 30 years now it's funny how often they are.

[g_bambino]

Altering the constitution won't do us any good, because that in of itself causes instability, which leads to the end of democracy. And if it's not in writting, then you have a situation where anything goes and it's a he-said, she-said, battle and the 'constitution' is open for wide interpretation.

The constitution should be inflexible when it comes to dealing with our rights and freedoms. People have taken an oath to defend it.

Altering a constitution doesn't mean the end of democracy. Did democracy die in Canada when the constitution was amended to give Nunavut representation in parliament, or when it was changed to give French and English equal status in New Brunswick? All constitutions, whether written or not, can be altered. But, it shouldn't be easy to do so, and, in that regard, unwritten convention stands up as solidly as written statute; convention isn't a matter of "he said, she said"; it's centuries old practice that's followed again and again, when the need arises. There's no way the governor general could refuse to appoint a prime minister, for instance, simply because the position isn't set out in any of the written parts of the constitution; that governor general would find himself quickly unemployed.

That said, a constitution shouldn't be too rigid or binding; those that are tend to be ill-prepared for circumsances that were unforseen to the document's framers. Look at the events that transpired in December, 2008, which had never before been witnessed in the history of parliamentary democracy. Had the Governor General's hands been completely tied by statutes, how well would the country have weathered that little fiasco? The viceroy's ability to make a decision unique to the situation, though based on written and conventional law and precedent, was a bonus.

As for rights and freedoms, many of them are set out in writing: in the Charter, the Bill of Rights 1689, and even the Magna Carta.

Nobody takes an oath to the Canadian constitution.

[+]

Edited April 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[wyly]

Altering the constitution won't do us any good, because that in of itself causes instability, which leads to the end of democracy. And if it's not in writting, then you have a situation where anything goes and it's a he-said, she-said, battle and the 'constitution' is open for wide interpretation.

The constitution should be inflexible when it comes to dealing with our rights and freedoms. People have taken an oath to defend it.

why haven't constitutional amendments in the USA haven't caused instability or the end of democracy there???

[TimG]

You must be feeling quite left out if that's the case.

Not as much as you might think since I expected Harper to do this because that is what he has to do to be the PM.

Strangely enough I don't know many people who would come right out and say that local issues like leaky septic fields are ideological issues, but in my experience as an APC member for nearly 30 years now it's funny how often they are.

Whenever you get into issues of risk assessment you are asking people to make value judgements. The only way to make value judgments is to turn to your core beliefs (a.k.a. ideology). The trouble with the environment is everyone insists on hi-jacking science and claiming the science dictates what should be done when the science does no such thing.

[ToadBrother]

Good discussion.

That is one of the flaws of our system, nothing is in writing. Lets have a REAL written Constitution that explicitly lays out who has what powers.

What's unreal about our constitution? Some aspects are written, some are convention, all are well known. The advantage to an organic or semi-organic constitution is that it is considerably easier to change aspects of it. Our biggest problem, to my mind, is that the Constitution Act, 1982 has in fact made change much more difficult.

It strikes me that you don't actually know a lot about our system of government or about the nature of written vs. unwritten constitutions.

Regarding 'stable' government, stability should not trump democracy.

Nobody said it should trump democracy, but democracy without stability is almost besides the point. If you cannot deliver a stable government, then democracy doesn't do much good.

It is a balancing act, and I think some countries have systems that are serious unbalanced. I do not want an Israeli-style electoral system that would give undue weight to small parties, which can supersede the democratic will of the majority.

On FPTP and the creaky Westminster system, it actually works sort of ok when there just two protagonists but once you get to three, four, five parties the whole structure collapses. That is why we need to move on into the 21st Century.

I haven't noticed anything collapsing. Yes, Parliament is a bit more hostile, but other countries deal with minority governments and coalition governments all the time. In fact, I'd say we probably have the most democratic government we've enjoyed in fifty years.

Canada, with a minority government and a Parliament obsessed with the minutia of privilege and jockeying for position, has weathered the economic storm far better than countries that have had majority governments or stable coalitions.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Not as much as you might think since I expected Harper to do this because that is what he has to do to be the PM.

Whenever you get into issues of risk assessment you are asking people to make value judgements. The only way to make value judgments is to turn to your core beliefs (a.k.a. ideology). The trouble with the environment is everyone insists on hi-jacking science and claiming the science dictates what should be done when the science does no such thing.

EVERYTHING is ideological. You wouldn't believe how heated a discussion about a variance to allow...a covered porch for example...can get.

[Michael Hardner]

You make this sound like some immutable law of nature or physics.

I think this is "by definition".

[ToadBrother]

Rigid inflexibility can also imply brittleness - a proneness to shattering.

And our system is hardly rigidly inflexible. We've certainly made aspects of it harder to change with the Constitution Act, 1982, but even there we have a not unreasonable amending formula. I see no evidence, even with all the jockeying of the latest minority phase that anything is going to break. The system has in fact functioned very well, giving clear rules on how a government can be formed and who can form it, on the rights of Parliament over the Government. We just had a government forced into an election because of it refused to deal with Parliament as Parliament demanded it did, thus enforcing a three hundred year old doctrine that states that Parliament is supreme over the Sovereign and His or Her Government. Now maybe the Tories around here don't exactly see that as a victory, but for democracy, it makes alive again the Glorious Revolution, that fountain of liberty that gave birth not only to Parliamentary democracy, but even inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States, and from the US constitution it indirectly inspired many other democracies.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I's sooner rest my good life on some solid ground rather than nebulous "precedent" that any activist judge can interpret however he/she wishes.

Got any examples of that? The last case that I'm aware of that involved a pre-Constitution Act, 1982 precept was some lawyer in Ontario trying to get the Act of Settlement, 1701 declared unconstitutional because it restricted Catholics from the Canadian Monarchy, and the Ontario Supreme Court simply said that the Act of Settlement is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution, and thus is not bound by anything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prior to that was, I guess, was the Delgamuukw decision, which in large part made the Royal Proclamation of 1763 a part of our constitution, or rather reminded Parliament and the Provinces that they and previous governments of Canada could not ignore the Royal Proclamation, which they had been doing for a couple of centuries.

But perhaps you have some examples of how the unwritten parts of our constitution have been used by activist judges. I'd be greatly interested in hearing of these examples, for, as a student of our constitution, such rulings are extremely helpful in understanding the constitution.

Edited April 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[[email protected]]

If you have a parliamentary system, then you have democracy. Within that, stability is important.

Well there are degrees of democracy. I content that Canada has a very poor democracy, parliamentary or not. Agreed?

[g_bambino]

Agreed?

No.

[ToadBrother]

Well there are degrees of democracy. I content that Canada has a very poor democracy, parliamentary or not. Agreed?

I certainly don't agree. I think what you've written is utterly unjustified.

[Michael Hardner]

Well there are degrees of democracy. I content that Canada has a very poor democracy, parliamentary or not. Agreed?

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

Democracy is the degree that citizen's have control over political decision making.

So what I am hearing is that Canadians have a high degree of control over their politics. Correct?

[ToadBrother]

Democracy is the degree that citizen's have control over political decision making.

This seems a very self-serving definition. And it's hard to see what you mean by "control". You are using very broad definitions to win an argument that ought to be based on very concrete definitions.

So what I am hearing is that Canadians have a high degree of control over their politics. Correct?

What do you even mean by this? It's such a broad statement that I can't quite nail down what you think Canadians should or should not be able to do?

[M.Dancer]

Democracy is the degree that citizen's have control over political decision making.

That in itself is not a definitive definition of democracy.