The essence of Canadian disengagement and the consequential political atrophy and decline of our democracy is captured in this paragraph:
Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy.
We are in an election. They matter. The results determine how we will be governed and by whom. The results determine the quality of character of the leadership and by default, the country, both internally and to the rest of the world. The election results impact the daily lives or each and everyone of us. It will set a tone that directs and even determines the nature and nurture of our personal and national dreams and aspirations.
Elections matter.
Any conscientious and concerned Canadian must realize this and get informed and engaged in determining the outcome of this election. Reflect on the admonition of Edmund Burke above. Overcome your apathy.
Then take a few more minutes to read and reflect on David Akin's excellent column in the Sun newspapers today. "Bad Governments are Elected by Good People Who Don't Vote." Dust of your citizenship. Demand a country you can be proud of again and make it happen by electing people of character who see political like as all about public service not the pursuit and practice of personal political power.
I will keep this short - the article is a partisan attack on the government not by an Australian writer but by a polsci professor from Waterloo who happens to be visiting Australia. Seriously - giving this overwrought nonsense credibility by pretending it is an international view is more partisan, attack dog politics.
ReplyDeleteIf you lie with the dogs, you will get fleas. Ken - you are pretending to be new politics, but Harper has nothing on the attack techniques you are using.
We have serious problems, and it is past time for real leadership. It is time to stop throwing crap at our leaders, and step up and lead
Thx Chuck for the source correction - I have edited the post to indicate the piece is published in Australia but written by a Canadian living there.
ReplyDeleteI still believe the content is an accurate assessment of the poor state of democracy as exercised by Stephen Harper. ON that basis it is informative and useful in deciding if he is fit to govern our country.
Interesting that the concern seems to be on the source rather than the real problem itself. The issue is democracy in Canada and who cares who writes it. We have a free voting system not democracy. Real Democracy means governance by the people of a region. It does not mean government by the rich and powerful, does not mean control of the media by the same people. It certainly does not mean non proportional representation. Examples of lack of democratic values in oue society abound and are daily events. Stopping Elizabeth May from participating in the political debates is just another example. The Green Party has as many votes as the Parti Quebecois, is not trying to break up the country, is a strongly progressive voice and just because does not have a seat in the Mafia House does not get a seat at the table? What an ABSURD. If this is Democracy no wonder why people do not care to vote.
ReplyDeleteActually, Carlos, by your idealized definition there has yet to be a "democratic" country on this planet (and probably any other). Canada is, and has been since around 1867, a representative democracy that applies a party system, first-past-the-post, bi-cameral, system to select, as Ken has pointed out from time to time, majority governments the only checks upon which have been their desire to win again, and more recently the Constitution and Charter.
ReplyDeleteAnd turning a decision about a silly "debate" given the incredible lack of relevance of that TV entertainment driven nature of that into another form of critique is also wrong. We imported the idea of leader debates from the US - who actually vote for the person who debates - and it has little relevance to our party system. But regardless, I don't have a lot of problem with using existing representation in the Commons as a criteria.
For what it may be worth, the more serious question that those critical of our politicians should be talking about is not process and fictional "participation", but quality of representation and leadership on complex issues. This is actually where May shines, and if she can convince enough people in her riding (which might be more likely if she did not shift provinces every election, and pick silly ridings to run in), she would be a welcome addition to a talent-challenged pool in Ottawa.
We need people who can understand environmental issues in more than slogans and ad bylines, but who also understand economic impacts. We need people who understand the complexities of our urban centres and the fundamental demographic changes of the past 20 years, and those that can be well predicted for the next 20. We need people who understand our history that defines us, but see our opportunities for what they are.
My favourite line in a political movie is at the end of An American President where Michael Douglas as President tells the press - We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them. I see no evidence of anyone serious at this point - either federally or provincially. Slogans abound, angst over voting participation drowns out the problem that the majority of us don't know enough about our country or our politicians, and what passes for political debate is becoming more and more vile.
Ken - I don't disagree with you on Harper. I think you overstate the danger or his impact - Canada under Trudeau was a centralized dictatorship even more than anything we have seen from Harper (yet - I am worried about a majority government led by him too). But the real problem is that there is literally no alternative in sight! I met Ignatieff and liked him, and thought we finally might be seeing a talented and experienced man who was thoughtful. Instead, we get pandering to every flavour of the month spending opportunity with no regard to our Constitutional division of powers, or strategic opportunities, or international responsibilities - more slogans in disguise as "policy".
It is crazy making. Sorry for ranting.