Jump to content

How to modernize antiquated and entrenched Canadian political landscape


myata

Recommended Posts

Neither of the duopoly party-corporations shows any interest in bringing this country's political scene in line with the contemporary realities and this is entirely understandable - status quo serves them best of any other possible options as rival-twins wait for their turn at non accountable and self-rewarding power. I see only one realistic possibility for a change: increasing the number of real issue and agenda parties, that need to be present in the political arena if not in the Parliament turning into a show and eventually, likely over a long time, move toward a change better reflecting the political landscape of the country.

It means that Greens, PPC, regional and up to a dozen of other parties have to find away to enter and stay in the political scene and discussion for decades. How can it happen in the current reality though?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • myata changed the title to How to modernize antiquated and entrenched Canadian political landscape
7 hours ago, myata said:

Neither of the duopoly party-corporations shows any interest in bringing this country's political scene in line with the contemporary realities and this is entirely understandable - status quo serves them best of any other possible options as rival-twins wait for their turn at non accountable and self-rewarding power. I see only one realistic possibility for a change: increasing the number of real issue and agenda parties, that need to be present in the political arena if not in the Parliament turning into a show and eventually, likely over a long time, move toward a change better reflecting the political landscape of the country.

It means that Greens, PPC, regional and up to a dozen of other parties have to find away to enter and stay in the political scene and discussion for decades. How can it happen in the current reality though?

Italy??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It hinges on the presence of active and involved citizens. If the only thing the population needs from the politics is to replace one face they've grown bored of with another, or look for consolation in uncertain times, then we got the best possible and nothing more could and will happen here. Every organism, social and political including, would adapt to its environment, and do only as much as it requires from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about essentially different models of governance in this century. One is a duopoly of party-corporations whose sole purpose is to govern. They do not have specific issues and / or agendas can change them on the fly ("the election reform") and focus all efforts on gaining the power and keeping it as long as possible. In addition, once in power there's no effective checks on the governing party-corporation, simply none. By voting, citizens pick one of the corporations for the next period and that's it - they have no further say, influence or control of political process.

The second model is based on coalitions built based on the issues and agendas of highest importance to the citizens. By voting citizens can choose the issues of importance, build a government that will be focused on these issues rather than its own priorities, and keep it under control via coalition structure, where constituents maintain full independence and not managed by a single Politburo, that is, party office.

Which of the models can and will perform better in this century known for rapidly developing complex challenges that need quick and intelligent reaction? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PIK said:

Our system is not perfect, but the best. Quit fixing things that are not broken.

It's great to hear a conservative say the system is not broken.  With respect, a lot of conservatives do think it is.  The social policy discussions seem to have no practical application now that we have adopted a socially liberal stance.  And so we argue about abstract questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current political model with two monstrous party-corporations in the governing duopoly focused almost exclusively on the power is naturally encouraging authoritarian trends and methods in the governance of public matters. If anyone needs a confirmation of that they wouldn't need to much but to open the eyes and read the news. Is it an adequate style and model for solving modern problems and challenges? Can it work as effectively in the 21st century as it did in the 18th and 19th? Has anybody promised that?

How can the change be brought about? We are talking about a society where changing a few lines of text can be a barely surmountable challenge spanning decades, then let go of (Senate reform, elections reform, fixing for a generation). Make your conclusions from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact there's another practical way to return to representative democracy, wonder which would have more chances in reality of the country? We can prohibit political parties influence on elected MP in any form, down to criminal responsibility, like interference with justice (that would bring up the question of enforcement and for that one would need an independent from political influence justice system and where would we get one? RCMP is still "tighlipped" on the SNC scandal). No whipping, no obligatory party canvassing, no suggestive phone calling from party office, a party is only a political club to define agendas and discuss matters and anything but "we agreed or disagreed here but of course elected representatives are entirely free to vote in the interest of the public" is a no-no, strong and clear.

Now if we wanted to go this way we would only need to find a majority party that would put it into legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Why don't you give PR a try? If it doesn't suit your political culture then scrap it and come back to FPTP. However, unless you try you'll never know.

Oh that would be the simplest choice of course, but the public seem to not understand it and certainly neither of the duopoly twins would want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...