No longer a democracy

[myata]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're the Borg.

Anything goes for a detachment from reality. People tried pretty much all and anything is good if it works for you. You're not the first and certainly not the last. Whatever pleases you, have it all no comments.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Anything goes for a detachment from reality. People tried pretty much all and anything is good if it works for you. You're not the first and certainly not the last. Whatever pleases you, have it all no comments.

Hmmm....

[myata]

No longer "one day more". Today we may, and likely will see another principal step away from a contemporary, responsible and accountable democracy in Canada. Rule by extraordinary powers bestowed by unaccountable governments onto themselves, "for as long as necessary", is not a glimpse, remote possibility of the third world. It's within reach, right here. And the physical and economical attributes will follow, make no mistake. In the long, long history, there's been no exceptions.

Edited February 21, 2022 by myata

[myata]

We just saw how a two century old democracy stood up to an eccentric and hectic executive who wouldn't stand above public exaggeration and misrepresentation. And we can observe now live, in real time, a literal unraveling of the prized Canadian democracy under a minimal of risks in the artificially created climate of fear and mistrust. Put them side by side and the conclusion cannot be avoided: a democracy by default, by coping an old playbook and dancing happily to it is not viable and will not survive. There's no replacement, nor bypasses to the process of designing and building of a functional responsible democracy, conscious, thorough and deliberate, by the citizens and for them. The alternative is only a laughable and sad painted parody.

Edited February 22, 2022 by myata

[SpankyMcFarland]

Some sensible proposals, as usual, from Michael Chong:

https ://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/08/24/unbelievable-weve-got-to-this-point-canadas-prime-minister-should-have-less-power-mp-says.html

 

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Some sensible proposals, as usual, from Michael Chong:

https ://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/08/24/unbelievable-weve-got-to-this-point-canadas-prime-minister-should-have-less-power-mp-says.html

 

If Michael Chong ran for the job of PM I'd likely vote for him without hesitation. I'd probably even campaign for him.

[myata]

We can set a checkmark for each:

free independent media (no)

impartial effective and competent judiciary (where was it when Emergencies was adopted - no)

transparent and responsible governments accountable to the citizens (none).

The country is not a modern democracy by any meaningful count, forget the ratings. Talking chats of useless heads (nothing changes - a fact) won't make it, don't be ridiculous. A happy mindless ride will not go forever.

[myata]

On 8/25/2022 at 2:18 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Some sensible proposals, as usual, from Michael Chong:

The problem runs much deeper and it's right at the core of the system: we cannot elect many parties (majority, first past the post system prevents it); and we don't have independent representatives of citizens, only some grotesque cross of elected representatives - party employees. So there's no true independence anywhere in the governance system pretty much like in China. Party leaders have complete control over the party and can use near unlimited powers in a majority government. This is a dangerous setting as it settles into mentality and practice. And it creates a rigid hierarchical system that is a huge detriment to the quality and efficiency of governments just as can be seen. Modern democratic governments in this century cannot function this way.

These proposals are far short of fixing either of the fundamental problems. In no way would they restore or rather establish true independence of MPs. But even they won't happen just watch. Why would they? Things are working just great as they are for everybody... at the trough. That's what we bought ourselves with decades and centuries of tired complacency.

[Nationalist]

Myata your issue I think is with parliamentary style government. We should be voting directly for leaders. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

The country is not a modern democracy by any meaningful count, forget the ratings. 

But the ratings are researched and have a rationale.  Your post is simply you stating 'no' to a question.

It's true that we're at a crossroads for democracy, but it requires some deep discussion and even leaving politics at the door to address.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Myata your issue I think is with parliamentary style government. We should be voting directly for leaders. 

You're thinking outside of the box which is a good thing.

Parties do form naturally and are a good way to increase the speed of the legislative process.  As slow as it is today, it could be much slower.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're thinking outside of the box which is a good thing.

Parties do form naturally and are a good way to increase the speed of the legislative process.  As slow as it is today, it could be much slower.

The bureaucracy is slow. Most of the politicians are just whores.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The bureaucracy is slow. Most of the politicians are just whores.

Less so in Canada, but I don't want to be generous either so I will call them gnomes.

[myata]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's true that we're at a crossroads for democracy, but it requires some deep discussion and even leaving politics at the door to address.

Discussion is useless if there's neither will no instruments to act and make necessary change. If the default answer is no, what's there to discuss and most importantly: why (bother)?

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Discussion is useless if there's neither will no instruments to act and make necessary change. If the default answer is no, what's there to discuss and most importantly: why (bother)?

Well we still have elections.

What more do you want?

We also have the tools to put forward ideas for the public sphere to examine...

[myata]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We should be voting directly for leaders. 

Primarily we should be able to look at the reality objectively and not create impossible illusions. Parties and leaders do not create necessary change. Words are not tantamount to reality. We are seeing and feeling the difference daily. A working democracy is an instrument that translates objectives that were determined into the reality. It is not a formal process, document, rubber stamp proclamation from a tribune. It is not trivial or given for granted. It needs to be thought of, thought through, created and implemented so that it is sane, it makes sense it works and works effectively and efficiently for the citizens, not for itself. Just like anything you make for yourself it doesn't happen out of thin air. And we thought a democracy should?

And that is a task way more complex than anyone here has given thought to in approaching on two centuries. We went with the easiest, cheapest and least thought flow to hand it over to post colonial bureaucracy and forget all. Sure it worked for a while because there's a lot of a country to sell and a lot of dough to spend. But all stories come to an end, those that cannot follow changing reality, grow, adapt and change. The mindless ride will not last.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well we still have elections.

But elections bring no change. Moreover, elections in Canada are almost bound to bring only more of the same. The system is carefully gauged and calibrated to maintain the status quo, to which any essential change is a risk and anathema. Why should it cost a fortune to register a candidate so that only two-three major parties could afford it? Why party execs decide who can be a candidate? Why supposedly "representatives" have no say of their own?

In Putin's Russia there are elections, and only those who he likes can register. If you limit the choice to an absolute perfect minimum, you can call it elections but is it, in essence? Or more like Putin's at some point?

The scale is clear: a modern transparent, open free choice democracy at one end and we aren't there that much is obvious. On the other, Putin's and other dictator "democracies" they learned democratic tricks of "elections", "judiciary" all looks nice if not looking close (and thinking of the meaning). And you are pushing and edging tiny bit at a time .. to where? There's only one destination. Who are you trying to fool?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Less so in Canada, but I don't want to be generous either so I will call them gnomes.

Yet you are OK with their shite and abuse.

[Nationalist]

34 minutes ago, myata said:

Primarily we should be able to look at the reality objectively and not create impossible illusions. Parties and leaders do not create necessary change. Words are not tantamount to reality. We are seeing and feeling the difference daily. A working democracy is an instrument that translates objectives that were determined into the reality. It is not a formal process, document, rubber stamp proclamation from a tribune. It is not trivial or given for granted. It needs to be thought of, thought through, created and implemented so that it is sane, it makes sense it works and works effectively and efficiently for the citizens, not for itself. Just like anything you make for yourself it doesn't happen out of thin air. And we thought a democracy should?

And that is a task way more complex than anyone here has given thought to in approaching on two centuries. We went with the easiest, cheapest and least thought flow to hand it over to post colonial bureaucracy and forget all. Sure it worked for a while because there's a lot of a country to sell and a lot of dough to spend. But all stories come to an end, those that cannot follow changing reality, grow, adapt and change. The mindless ride will not last.

THIS mindless ride will not last.

I can tell you this from experience...if you go to work in a government bureaucracy, they will tell you to play by their rules or be dismissed. But there's the rub...their rules make everything more expensive and less favorable for Canadians.

Canada needs leadership that has the spine to tell large unions and such..."No...what you propose is bad for the citizens."

Edited August 28, 2022 by Nationalist

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

 

The scale is clear: a modern transparent, open free choice democracy at one end and we aren't there that much is obvious. On the other, Putin's and other dictator "democracies" they learned democratic tricks of "elections", "judiciary" all looks nice if not looking close (and thinking of the meaning). And you are pushing and edging tiny bit at a time .. to where? There's only one destination. Who are you trying to fool?

Ok, well there are good points here.

Is there, though, some idea or viewpoint that a new party would address?

Because new parties appear and find attention fairly frequently.  I can think of half a dozen or so in the last 25 years, some of which I voted for.

I strongly believe that there are systemic problems with our public sphere, how we voice and discuss things, that alienate people.  But I don't think that a lot of complaints I hear about are authoritarian policies pushed down.  Where they are, they're often neoliberal policies that entrenched economic interests feel are necessary.

Those tend to be opposed by minor parties that anyone can vote for though.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yet you are OK with their shite and abuse.

No, not really.  The MPs aren't anything though... Just faceless votes in the House of Commons.

[myata]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I strongly believe that there are systemic problems with our public sphere, how we voice and discuss things, that alienate people.  But I don't think that a lot of complaints I hear about are authoritarian policies pushed down.  Where they are, they're often neoliberal policies that entrenched economic interests feel are necessary.

Before we can seriously talk about forming and choosing policies we need to create instruments that form actions and policies needed by the society and implement them in the reality, not only promises and talking head shows. That capacity has never been thought of; thought through; discussed; agreed and engineered in this country, ever. In essence we have post-colonial administrations divided into two cliques running the country for two centuries in a default, autopilot mode. That happy mode of public governance cannot and will not go on forever. First bells are already ringing ever louder.

The only way forward that I could think of could be a new party of change with very much a sole mission of renewal and reengineering of political and public management system. Cannot be any of the default duo and a bit, simply not interested all is working fine as ever (for them). Does the society have a request for a meaningful change? There's only one way to find out. And the window will not be open indefinitely.

Personally I think first past the post system should be among the first vestiges of the mindless past to go. It just isn't compatible with the complexities of the modern society and the world. If the interests of the society are not represented in the government, how could it act in it, the society's interest? We need to remember always that it's never a given and governments always have the default option - to work for themselves. But sure, would a great topic for a society-wide discussion once there's the party of change. Otherwise no point just another talking show.

[WestCanMan]

On 8/25/2022 at 12:18 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Some sensible proposals, as usual, from Michael Chong:

https ://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/08/24/unbelievable-weve-got-to-this-point-canadas-prime-minister-should-have-less-power-mp-says.html

 

So, the Senate became useful in 2022, and the Star published an article that suggested that the PM's control over his MPs is undemocratic - while there is a Liberal PM in power???????

2022 is the craziest year yet.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, myata said:

1. Before we can seriously talk about forming and choosing policies we need to create instruments that form actions and policies needed by the society and implement them in the reality, not only promises and talking head shows.

2. That capacity has never been thought of; thought through; discussed; agreed and engineered in this country, ever. In essence we have post-colonial administrations divided into two cliques running the country for two centuries in a default, autopilot mode. That happy mode of public governance cannot and will not go on forever. First bells are already ringing ever louder.

3. The only way forward that I could think of could be a new party of change with very much a sole mission of renewal and reengineering of political and public management system. Cannot be any of the default duo and a bit, simply not interested all is working fine as ever (for them). Does the society have a request for a meaningful change? There's only one way to find out. And the window will not be open indefinitely.

4. Personally I think first past the post system should be among the first vestiges of the mindless past to go. It just isn't compatible with the complexities of the modern society and the world. If the interests of the society are not represented in the government, how could it act in it, the society's interest? We need to remember always that it's never a given and governments always have the default option - to work for themselves. But sure, would a great topic for a society-wide discussion once there's the party of change. Otherwise no point just another talking show.

1. 2. 3. 4. This seems good but the challenge is how to make true reform happen without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I like how apolitical this all is too.

[myata]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I like how apolitical this all is too.

It cannot be apolitical but it, the effort certainly has to be non-partisan. Democracy works for the society for the citizens; while its imitations only or mostly for those involved with it. And if we aren't careful and vigilant it almost invariably ends up as the latter.