CANADA’S DEMOCRATIC BALANCING ACT

Posted on May 19, 2004 by Dave Pollard
gerrymandering
Recently I lamented the US Supreme Court’s legitimization of the heinous process of gerrymandering — the rigging of the boundary-setting of political constituencies in each state by the party in power so that even unpopular incumbents are guaranteed re-election and so that most voters are effectively disenfranchised — and I suggested any country whose judiciary could find such a travesty was constitutional was effectively no longer a democracy.

Democracy Watch is a 10-year-old non-partisan, non-profit Canadian organization whose mission is “to empower Canadians in their roles as voters, citizens, taxpayers, consumers and shareholders, and help reform Canadian government and business institutions to bring them into line with the realities of a modern, working democracy.” Its Directors have worked closely with Ralph Nader. It played a significant role in the introduction and passage in Canada (this January) of one of the most progressive campaign finance reform laws in the world, effectively ending the ability of corporations, unions and special interest groups to fund and hence ‘buy’ political parties, campaigns or candidates.

Not content to rest on its laurels, Democracy Watch is now working on a 20-step Program For a Modern Working Democracy:

  1. Proportionate representation and similar reforms to ensure government is fully representative of voter interests.
  2. An accountability process to track performance against election promises, responsibility for government action, and protection for whistle-blowers.
  3. Complete prohibition of financial and other involvement by corporations, unions and special interest groups in the electoral process at all levels, and creation of a ‘level playing field’ to prevent rich and powerful individuals from unduly influencing political decisions.
  4. Meaningful mechanisms for citizen participation in government policy development and decision-making.
  5. Restrictions on and full disclosure of the activities of lobbyists.
  6. Development of an active, practical civics curriculum for all citizens.
  7. Increased scrutiny and prevention of corporate waste, fraud, abuse and misrepresentation.
  8. Increased accountability of the judiciary to the public.
  9. Removal of protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for corporations.
  10. Citizen-controlled, full-access scrutiny of government efficiency, spending and purchasing decisions.
  11. Strengthening of ethical codes and enforcement for government officials and the public service.
  12. Citizen oversight for the management and use of public assets.
  13. Recognition of the inalienable public ownership of the airwaves.
  14. Strengthening of citizens’ ability to obtain timely, accurate access all information on government activities.
  15. Public funding and organizational support for consumer watchdog and advocacy organizations.
  16. Recognizing employee ownership and increasing employee control of pension funds and assets.
  17. Increasing the participation of all shareholders in corporate decision-making.
  18. Increasing the rights of non-shareholder stakeholders (employees, community etc.) in corporations, and extending participatory mechanisms available to, and accountability to, these stakeholders.
  19. Setting minimum standards for corporations to invest in the communities in which they do business.
  20. Encouraging the creation of local currency systems (LETS) to support community economic development and community service.

Today, I am proud to report that the Canadian Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Canada’s election law, and specifically a clause which severely limits political advertising by special interest groups during election campaigns. The challenge was brought by the arch-right-wing National Citizens Coalition, an organization that espouses reducing government authority, business deregulation, reducing taxes, ‘family values’ and other conservative agenda programs, some of them quite extreme. The NCC was planning on a huge conservative-issues promotion during the upcoming Canadian federal election campaign. The NCC used to be led by — surprise! — federal Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper. Had the constitutional challenge been successful, it would have made a mockery of the new campaign finance reform laws. And the case was problematic: It’s difficult to say with great clarity what constitutes ‘political advertising’ when it doesn’t come from a political party or candidate, and hard to argue why ads that are acceptable at other times unduly influence public opinion during elections. And the very principle of banning advertising that isn’t fraudulent is troubling. But the Court struck a delicate balance, and their argument in support of their decision is compelling, pragmatic, and, well, utterly Canadian.

I’m not bragging, though. Canada still lags behind most European countries in the introduction of proportional representation, and majority governments in Canada have a frightening amount of power (though so far, except for the Mulroney debacle, they have had the sense not to abuse it). The Liberals have been in power so long that they got lazy and complacent and allowed some civil servants to rob them (and Canadian taxpayers) blind. And as I’ve reported, an unholy alliance of animal testing labs, corporate farmers and hunting organizations have been able to strong-arm Canada’s unelected Senate three times to scuttle a modest, government-supported strengthening of Canada’s 100-year-old, shamefully inadequate animal protection laws.

But compared to the situation in some countries I need not mention, we don’t look too bad.

Postscript: Today the Canadian government also approved the over-the-counter sale of the ‘Morning After Pill‘ without a prescription. In George Bush’s repressive America, of course, this is illegal. But it is legal in America to buy semi-automatic weapons, and you don’t need a prescription for them. Is it just me, or that seriously twisted?

This entry was posted in How the World Really Works. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to CANADA’S DEMOCRATIC BALANCING ACT

  1. Raging Bee says:
    May 19, 2004 at 11:08

    “3. Complete prohibition of financial and other involvement by corporations, unions and special interest groups in the electoral process at all levels, and creation of a ‘level playing field’ to prevent rich and powerful individuals from unduly influencing political decisions.”Have you ANY IDEA how anti-democratic that sounds? How do you ensure that all of the people get to participate and have a voice, while “prohibiting” “special interest groups?”When does a bunch of people lobbying for a cause that is important to them become a “special interest group?” When their cause disagrees with yours? When they succeed and someone else doesn’t like it? When they start to get money?It sounds like your idea of a “level playing field” means that only the people who agree with you get a voice, and the electoral process is just there to legitimize the foregone conclusion you want.

  2. Raging Bee says:
    May 19, 2004 at 11:16

    And before you guys hitch your wagon to Ralph W. Nader, here’s a little perspective on him:http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocriteIf you think this guy is such a saint, why don’t you give him a job in your own country and see how well he does, rather than try to foist him off on us like you do with Kucinich and Sharpton?

  3. David Jones says:
    May 19, 2004 at 17:49

    I’m not religious….but amen.

  4. Doug Alder says:
    May 19, 2004 at 20:57

    Dave I gotta tell you I’m still chuckling over the the “outrage” Harper and his ilk are spewing about the supreme court’s decision. You justhave to wonder how stupid these guys really are if they truly believe no one is going to call themon their hypocrisy. After all these are the very same people – Harper and the National Citizens Coalition – that were very vocal a few years ago about how the court should step back and let parliament make the laws. Now when parliament has made a law they go to the court to try and get itquashed and when they lose they whine about the court – what a bunch of hypocrites.Raging Bee you should pay attention more before jumping off the cliff, because you apparantly haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. No one is suggestiong that an individual can’t participate in the electoral process. What they are saying is that you can’t use money to unduly influence the political process. Corporations and unions should not be allowed to participate in politics simply because they can not represent 100% of their constituency (shareholders or union members) while at the same time they are spending those same shareholder’s money. In the US PACs have proven to be the single biggest destructive influence on democracy since the republic’s inception. We aim to avoid that stupidity here in Canada. You as an individual are entitled to spend your money ($3K) promoting your beliefs and you are free to attempt to convince others to spend their money ($3K) promoting the same beliefs, what you can’t do however is pool your money to promote the same beliefs. If your beliefs are worthy others will take them up if they are not then you can’t buy the attention (advertising etc) that would allow you to monopolise the consciousness of the public and thereby unduly influence them.

  5. Miguel Pancardo says:
    May 20, 2004 at 08:40

    Doug and Dave:Its quite interesting this post, im learning really much about canadian politics ans the important guys in your politics….but it seems like Raging bee its all right, its sounds like you are asking the freedom to speech to everybody exepts those who things different than you!!!!! what i mean its that law have to regulate the “facts” not hte things at it “should” be… being more specific… the law has to regulate how the big corporations support their candidates but with clear regulations not by forbidden this act!!!! what if my family company want to make a donation for some candidate???,yes i know we can do it separately, but we want to show everybody who we support (that could be a marketing weapon too) so what the law must do its to regulate this acts because they exist, the act of forbiden this kind of support will make this process very dark and corrupted and will be worst.If this is regulated and the information is public you could now if the store you buy in or the company you work for acts in the way they said and if you want to keep helping them; even for the shareholdeers and union members would be usefull!!! imagine this as a union leader: Will you support some one that you know that financially helps a party that propouse social securoty benefits???patadeperro@lycos.com

  6. David Johnson says:
    May 20, 2004 at 10:09

    Good progress on the finance reform laws but the biggest problem with democracy in Canada, and elsewhere, is that every single politician lies to us during election time. See McGuinty, Dalton, Premier of Ontario as a perfect example. And once he gets into power, by misleading us about his plans, he effectively is a dictator. In a majority government the Prime Minisiter or Premier holds so much power that pretty much whatever he says goes. Jean Chretien was called the Friendly Dictator for a reason. Democracy goes to hell in a hand basket when a friendly dictator gets bought off by a rich corporation, a special interest group or even a few close friends (who want to become rich at the hands of the taxpayers). What Canada really needs is to figure out how to give more power to the individual MP and MPP and take some away from the Prime Minister and Premier. Doing this will go a long way to fixing point #4 as the citizens representative will have more influence.

  7. Raging Bee says:
    May 20, 2004 at 10:22

    Doug: perhaps it is you who should be paying more attention. Let’s go through your text point by point…”What they are saying is that you can’t use money to unduly influence the political process.”Define “unduely.” People and organizations ALWAYS need money to get their messages out to the masses, and to get input from them. If I pay for an ISP to maintain a blog, I’m “using money to influence the political process.” Is that wrong?”Corporations and unions should not be allowed to participate in politics simply because they can not represent 100% of their constituency (shareholders or union members) while at the same time they are spending those same shareholder’s money.”And does every political party represent 100% of its dues-paying members at all times on all issues? This rationale (or perhaps I should say “rationalization”) is not only unrealistic, it is contrived and hypocritical. It is also a blatant denial of the basic right of free speech.”You as an individual are entitled to spend your money ($3K) promoting your beliefs and you are free to attempt to convince others to spend their money ($3K) promoting the same beliefs, what you can’t do however is pool your money to promote the same beliefs.”This is pure divide-and-rule politics: you’re perfectly free to influence the political process, provided you remain an amorphous, unorganized gaggle of isolated individuals, incapable of any sort of meaningful unity. Here in America, we have something called the “right to assemble peacefully.” Have you tried that up north?”In the US PACs have proven to be the single biggest destructive influence on democracy since the republic’s inception.”And the robber-barons and gangsters of the nineteenth century don’t count? Those goons used ARMED FORCE to subvert democracy, which today’s PACs do not do.Also, it should be said that PACs were the direct result of campaign finance “reform” laws passed in the ’70s, which restricted political parties’ ability to fund their candidates. Most advocates of “campaign finance reform” fail to mention this, which shows how brain-dead and misdirected the whole movement is.”If your beliefs are worthy others will take them up if they are not then you can’t buy the attention (advertising etc) that would allow you to monopolise the consciousness of the public and thereby unduly influence them.”If I can’t spend enough money to get my ideas out to the people, how will they be able to judge their “worthiness?” You sound like the KGB: totally terrified that the people’s conciousness will be “monopolized” by dangerous ideas. If you don’t trust the people’s conciousness, or their ability to reason, maybe you should just stop pretending to advocate “democracy” and set up a hierarchical church instead.

  8. David Johnson says:
    May 20, 2004 at 12:56

    Raging Bee wrote:”This is pure divide-and-rule politics: you’re perfectly free to influence the political process, provided you remain an amorphous, unorganized gaggle of isolated individuals, incapable of any sort of meaningful unity. Here in America, we have something called the “right to assemble peacefully.” Have you tried that up north?”I think the goal is to allow people to assemble, but to assemble behind your local candidate, of which you have a few to choose from, and not behind a special interest organization which buys off a party leader.The right to organize has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is defined in a number of ways according to dictionary.com.1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. It is all about the individual and the individual holding all the power. Special interest groups and big corporations are in a way very anti-democracy because they take the power away from the individual. Remember, there is no democracy in most special interest groups. If you give $3000 to some group and the big corporation down the street gives $3,000,000, who do you think will have more influence within that special interest group? Let’s just say it won’t be you.

  9. Raging Bee says:
    May 20, 2004 at 13:42

    “The right to organize has nothing to do with democracy.”Horsemuffins. Tell that to a group of Native Americans who are about to lose their land because some big business wants the minerals underneath it, and who have no choice but to organize to campaign for their vital interests. Tell that to the Americans and Europeans who had to organize to stop Hitler’s conquests. Tell that to the people who had to organize to create this republic in the first place.People WILL organize to advance their interests, whether or not the law allows it. Restricting the right to organize only benefits the most powerful, as they will always have the means to dodge the restrictions.”If you give $3000 to some group and the big corporation down the street gives $3,000,000, who do you think will have more influence within that special interest group? Let’s just say it won’t be you.”If a big corporation even exists (as you just postulated), then us ordinary shmoes will have no choice but to pool our money to defend our interests against against whatever threat it creates. Your empty prattle about “the individual holding all the power” won’t protect the little guy.

  10. Dave Pollard says:
    May 20, 2004 at 13:53

    David, Doug: Thanks for your eloquent defence. It amazes me that in many countries people are so used to money and power being used to influence the electoral process that they see a monstrous plot behind the simple idea that each individual should be limited, as much as possible, in the degree to which they can determine the outcome of elections. It’s simply an extension of ‘one man, one vote’. And David, you’re right that majority governments in Canada are a problem — the best answer would be proportionate representation, which would require a negotiated, compromising coalition to govern, and also encourage people to vote FOR, not AGAINST, which would increase support for third parties and increase the diversity of opinions and ideas in government.

  11. David Johnson says:
    May 20, 2004 at 14:11

    “Tell that to a group of Native Americans who are about to lose their land because some big business wants the minerals underneath it, and who have no choice but to organize to campaign for their vital interests.”Thanks for making my point about big business. Big businesses buy governments with big money either directly or through special interest groups. Lets give the power back to the people by eliminating the influence of big business and big special interest groups so the little guy can have a voice. We need to reduce the national political campaigns and get more focus on local political campaigns.

  12. Raging Bee says:
    May 21, 2004 at 07:28

    Excuse me while I belabor the obvious: big business – and other forms of social and economic organization – will always exist, and will always influence the political process, as long as people need to organize to meet their needs. Big business will never be wished or legislated away. The only way to limit the influence of our social and economic organizations is to organize against them, and to leave people free to organize in support of their interests as they see fit.”…each individual should be limited, as much as possible, in the degree to which they can determine the outcome of elections.”I thought you wanted to give power BACK to individuals. Make up your minds, willya?”Reforms” of the type you advocate (in VERY little detail, I must add) will not prevent big businesses from existing. Here’s a trick question: what happens if big business “buys” the government that enforces the “reforms” you advocate? Answer: they now have a powerful legal tool with which to cripple and disband anyone who tries to organize against them.On the subject of big business “buying” government: the fact is, big business has power because many ordinary people see their own interests (rightly or wrongly) as linked to those of big business. This refusal to understand the common ground between big business and the little guy has led the left into a near-permanent state of befuddled, anti-democratic irrelevance – just as it has led you to advocate ridiculous curbs on people’s ability to organize to solve their own problems.

  13. David Johnson says:
    May 21, 2004 at 12:49

    Raging Bee:Your comments are very typical of those on the right. Blame it on the lefties who refuse to understand. It is like saying, if the lefties were only smarter they’d know better. This is neither a good arguement nor is it a very productive way to lead life (i.e. assuming those who disagree with you only disagree because they aren’t as knowledgable as you). Your assumption and conclusions are complete nonsense anyway. First off, I am not a lefty. For the most part I have voted for the Progressive Conservative party in Canada. Secondly, more often than not it is generally the righties who want to curb the ability to organize. The lefties are very pro-union and have many special interest groups like environmentalists, social program advocates, or groups of Native Americans who organize to fight big business and uninformed politicians from taking their lands. Ultimately though, I am not against people organizing, I am against giving those organized groups too much power at the cost of individual power. I shouldn’t have to join a union or own a big corporation or join an environmentalist lobby group. In my opinion, we need to limit the powers of big organizations and lobby groups on the left as well as the right and give more power to the individual which is what democracy really means. Democracy is not about who can create the biggest, best financially funded lobby group, it is about which leader can appeal to the largest number of citizens. As I said above, I want to give more power to the local politicans and take some away from the powerful party leaders and have more focus on your local politician and local issues than the rhetoric that comes from the massively funded, well organized propaganda machines ultimately controlled by a few.

  14. Raging Bee says:
    May 21, 2004 at 13:32

    “Your assumption and conclusions are complete nonsense anyway.”Then why do you not refute them?”I shouldn’t have to join a union or own a big corporation or join an environmentalist lobby group.”And I shouldn’t have to work to pay for my food either. “Shouldn’t have to” doesn’t mean squat.”The lefties are very pro-union and have many special interest groups like environmentalists, social program advocates, or groups of Native Americans who organize to fight big business and uninformed politicians from taking their lands.”So you admit the obvious need for such organizations, but you think we need to limit their power? Why is that – have they totally crushed their opponents? Did I miss the big story about Native American interest groups siezing control of the mining companies? Are the unions now in full and uncontested control of your economy? Have all polluting industries been shut down in Canada?”As I said above, I want to give more power to the local politicans and take some away from the powerful party leaders and have more focus on your local politician and local issues than the rhetoric that comes from the massively funded, well organized propaganda machines ultimately controlled by a few.”I’m sure the big businesses will be happy to help with that, as the powerful party leaders would then have less power to stand up to them, and the people would be more divided in the face of multinational corporate greed.Instead of trying to rig the political system, why not simply let the people organize as they wish, and let THEM decide “what democracy really means?” Or is that not “what democracy really means” to you?

  15. David Johnson says:
    May 21, 2004 at 15:17

    “Then why do you not refute them?”I did but you failed to read them.”So you admit the obvious need for such organizations, but you think we need to limit their power?”The need for them to exists is to fight the other existing organizations. But that isn’t democracy because in the end all the major decisions come down to the few and generally to the few who have the most money and power. That is anti-democratic. They are needed in the current system but my point is the current systems is anti-democratic and needs to be changed to give power back to the people.”And I shouldn’t have to work to pay for my food either.”You don’t. You can grow your own, pick wild berries and fish and hunt or pick though trash bins for scraps. You choose to work so you can afford to buy ‘better food’ and enjoy other luxuries.But getting back to the point, if as a society we want a democracy, we should promote a true and working democracy where the individual has a say in what happens within society. Today, the power of the individual is limited. That is my point.”I’m sure the big businesses will be happy to help with that, as the powerful party leaders would then have less power to stand up to them, and the people would be more divided in the face of multinational corporate greed.”That view is too simplistic. The powerful party leaders are powerful because a) the system needs reform and b) they are made powerful by active, well funded, lobby groups including those big corporations. Give the power back to the individual MPPs who represent individual citizens and the (national and international) corporations and special interest groups will lose power to local interests.”Instead of trying to rig the political system, why not simply let the people organize as they wish, and let THEM decide “what democracy really means?” Or is that not “what democracy really means” to you? “Instead of forcing people to organize and let massive organizations decide what democracy really means, why not let the individual citizen decide what democracy really means. Why should a few propaganda spewing organization controlled by a select few individuals (who often bought they way into those positions) be making the decisions of society as a whole?

  16. Brent Gulanowski says:
    May 21, 2004 at 18:18

    Sigh.No one here really wrote anything worth reading. No facts. Just flame-bait. Arguing to feel good about yourselves, maybe? I didn’t see a single point that had legs. They’re so weak I can’t even bother to think about this any more. Go and do something you windbags.

  17. Raging Bee says:
    May 24, 2004 at 06:30

    David: how can you say something like “…each individual should be limited, as much as possible, in the degree to which they can determine the outcome of elections,” and still say you want to “let the individual citizen decide what democracy really means?”You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

  18. Raging Bee says:
    May 24, 2004 at 09:49

    Oops, in my haste I confused the two Daves. Curse that real job…What I should have said was this: how can you say “Special interest groups…are in a way very anti-democracy because they take the power away from the individual,” when individuals form and join such groups voluntarily in order to advance their message and interests?You cannot say “let the individual citizen decide what democracy really means,” then call it “anti-democracy” when the individual decides to join with others of like mind for a common cause that they consider good. You sound exactly like a Soviet Communist rationalizing their refusal to allow opposition parties.My question remains the same: You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

  19. Raging Bee says:
    May 25, 2004 at 12:16

    Further proof of creeping Brezhnevism:”I think the goal is to allow people to assemble, but to assemble behind your local candidate, of which you have a few to choose from, and not behind a special interest organization which buys off a party leader.”Translation: people should be free to assemble, provided they assemble “behind” a “local candidate” (but not a national candidate?) in a pre-approved manner. Also, you fail to state the difference between a bunch of people “assembling behind” a “candidate” and a “special interest group” “buying off” a “party leader.”

Comments are closed.