Canada's choice: mediocrity or outright failure

[myata]

Canada is not a democracy. The tradition of colonial administration smoothly merged into the experiment of a benevolent technocratic bureaucracy that runs the country with a thin political facade. It used to have principles and standards, but with no real, independent oversight and accountability its in the past now: these days it's just running itself.

If bureaucracy likes the project of the political shell, it will attempt to deliver it on the best level it's capable of: mediocrity. And if it doesn't like it, it will drag, delay and undermine it until either it fails outright, or the political faceplate, label changes. One or the other, same result.

This pattern cannot change because there isn't any real independent, outside power in the system: it was designed from day one to keep it away and never allow in. Neither genuine, independent representation of the citizens; nor an idea strongly supported by them, via proportional representation.

The bureaucracy runs the country; mediocrity or failure are the only results it can deliver. And there are no realistic ways out of this conundrum.

Congrats Canada. Sleeping through critical choices and decisions does that.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

Canada is not a democracy. The tradition of colonial administration smoothly merged into the experiment of a benevolent technocratic bureaucracy that runs the country with a thin political facade. It used to have principles and standards, but with no real, independent oversight and accountability its in the past now: these days it's just running itself.

If bureaucracy likes the project of the political shell, it will attempt to deliver it on the best level it's capable of: mediocrity. And if it doesn't like it, it will drag, delay and undermine it until either it fails outright, or the political faceplate, label changes. One or the other, same result.

This pattern cannot change because there isn't any real independent, outside power in the system: it was designed from day one to keep it away and never allow in. Neither genuine, independent representation of the citizens; nor an idea strongly supported by them, via proportional representation.

The bureaucracy runs the country; mediocrity or failure are the only results it can deliver. And there are no realistic ways out of this conundrum.

Congrats Canada. Sleeping through critical choices and decisions does that.

 

There's not much to disagree with here, but also the barriers to improvement are entirely cultural.  And there are other aspects to our culture that could help us move beyond this.  You can't square a circle, and the propensity for trickle-down political economy seems to have reached its end... and people aren't accepting it.  Our memories are short, but not so short that we can't recall a time when we could afford homes, and food.  

[myata]

Not into conspiracy theories, but it's difficult to imagine that thought and intent didn't go into construction and perpetuation of this, status quo model. How is Canada sold to the citizens and the world? A country of immigrants.

As an immigrant, what would one do in 90, 99% of cases, for the first two generations? Trying to settle in and establish themselves. Bingo. Whatever you do as long as I can work and there's food on the table. The third generation already deeply rooted into the system.

Maybe there's a manual on that program written by its founding fathers. Or its passed from head to head. Small practical difference.

No prophesies, but any genuine program of change would have to gather at least matching momentum of thought and will: how the country could and can work in this century? What real, genuine and necessary changes are needed? Sleepwalking, great sleep talks swapping bobble heads won't do much to change the reality.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Not into conspiracy theories, but it's difficult to imagine that thought and intent didn't go into construction and perpetuation of this, status quo model. How is Canada sold to the citizens and the world? A country of immigrants.

As an immigrant, what would one do in 90, 99% of cases, for the first two generations? Trying to settle in and establish themselves. Bingo. Whatever you do as long as I can work and there's food on the table. The third generation already deeply rooted into the system.

Maybe there's a manual on that program written by its founding fathers. Or its passed from head to head. Small practical difference.

No prophesies, but any genuine program of change would have to gather at least matching momentum of thought and will: how the country could and can work in this century? What real, genuine and necessary changes are needed? Sleepwalking, great sleep talks swapping bobble heads won't do much to change the reality.

Here's the thing about ideology - most people are so unaware of their own that they can ONLY see others' ideologies as impossible to carry.  

The immigrant model is a modified American one.  The economic model is old too.

You see negligence and imagine that it is planned.  Just look at the posters on here - and these are informed citizens compared to the rest.  Most of us can only post according to our tribe.  You even catch populists posting Marxist-like sentiments and thinking themselves to be conservative.  It boggles the mind.

[myata]

Don't want to dwell on it, but look, is a coincidence that not a single province in the country has proportional representation, the de-facto standard of democratic governance for about a century? Can it be only a coincidence? What if every time its attempted someone would step out from the shades, sure you want to do that, think of all the extremists and here's some nice federal grant just in case?

But in some ways you're right of course; paternalistic government is a two-way street if citizens have become the pueblo, want and expect it. At some point it's hard or maybe impossible to separate the cause from the outcome, chicken from the egg. Look at Mexico and zillion other places.