Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Saturday, July 14, 2012

The dangers of defying democracy

If we've learned just one lesson from the last federal election, it is that voters don't define democracy by what happens on Parliament Hill.

Were this the case, surely then minority-government Prime Minister Stephen Harper would have been either tossed out (or at least returned to the purgatory of another minority government) for being found in contempt of Parliament. While this might make Harper the undisputed most-anti-Parliament prime minister we've ever had, does that make him the most anti-democratic? Well, not necessarily. Not according to the voters.

That voters, in their infinite wisdom, 14 months ago decided to give Harper his long-sought-after majority should tell us that the gamesmanship of Parliament is not the aspect of democracy most important to voters. One can see why. Parliamentary fights are seen as the politicians' fight - a scrap over power.

However, voters' views of how democratic a government is can shift over time - is largely dependent on whose and how many oxen have been gored.

Consider last month's infamous omnibus budget bill that: overhauled Canada's environmental review process for industrial projects; weakened food safety inspection; scrapped portions of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act calling for annual reports on climate change; eliminated sections of the Fisheries Act and the Species At Risk Act that once ensured endangered species were protected from industrial projects; scrapped the Security Intelligence Review Committee, National Council of Welfare and National Aboriginal Health Organization; toughened new employment insurance rules requiring recipients to commute as much as an hour for any job that pays between 70 and 90 per cent of their previous income, and changed Old Age Security and pensions so that - starting in 2023 - people would not be eligible until age 67.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about a government forcing such changes through in such an omnibus bill, but tell that to a Saskatchewan rancher who is seeing his community pastures close, or to a Saskatchewan farmer who used the Indian Head tree farm for his yard-site or shelter belt.

In a similar vein, ministerial entitlement usually has very little to do with democratic accountability. But consider the plethora of stories of Harper minister largesse: Treasury Minister Tony Clement's pre-G8 Summit ward-heeling in his Parry Sound-Muskoka riding; Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's $56,000 final penny photo op; Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's self-congratulation for getting tougher on immigrants and refugees; Defence Minister Peter MacKay's flights of fancy; Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz's $271,000 travel bill last year; former minister Bev Oda's love of $16 glasses of orange juices, even fancier hotels and air purifiers to suck the smoke fumes from her office; and, all the ministers' love of limousines.

Now, ask any average Canadian whether the above fits his or her definition of good democratic behaviour - let alone whether it's what was expected from Harper's old freevote-supporting, democracy-loving Reformers who were supposed to rid Ottawa of its "entitled-to-my-entitlements" Liberals.

But perhaps nothing is a bigger an affront to democracy than defying voters at the polls. This is a particularly dangerous game - especially given that voters have no clear definitions of what defying democracy really means. That said, Grant Devine found out what it meant in 1991 when he was severely punished for going long past the traditional four-year-mandate. Roy Romanow found that out what it meant when he was punished for holding an election in the middle of harvest. And Brad Wall may even find out what it means if he pays the price for adding three more MLAs for no valid reason.

It is also what makes this week's Supreme Court of Canada challenge of the Etobicoke Centre federal election result dangerous for a Harper government that might be seen to be tacitly supporting voter irregularities.

There might be absolutely no reason to think that Conservatives played any role in these irregularities, but that might matter little in the court of voter/public opinion - especially in the wake of robocalls and Pierre Poutine.

The Harper government is playing a dangerous game of heightening voter suspicions that Conservatives find it permissible to mess with the sanctity of the vote.

It's the one thing voters don't tolerate.

Original Article
Source: leader post
Author: Murray Mandryk

No comments:

Post a Comment