Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Broken democracy? Bah humbug!

by Paul Wells on Monday, September 28, 2009 7:14am - 57 Comments

Colleague Potter demurs.

Bookmark and Share
  • jarrid

    "…given the citizenry's ongoing refusal to go along with ideas cooked up by our political elites, from Meech Lake to last fall's ill-fated coalition government,…" Potter nails it.

    The people sense that oftentimes the so-called cure is worse than the disease. Sometimes, it's not just a sense but it's obvious for all the people to see.

    This was never more so than in the ill-fated December 1st Coalition. The absolute worst aspect of it was that it gave unprecedented legitimacy to the Bloc Quebecois and its agenda, to break up Canada. It did this by the words of the Agreement that referred to "Canada and Quebec" as two separate political entities, it did this by making the Bloc the power brokers for Quebec in the new government by way of the "permanent consulting mechanism".

    If the Bloc truly spoke for Quebec, Quebec would already be independent. But Quebec isn't independant, and it's because the majority of Quebecers reject the Bloc's raison d'etre – an independent Quebec.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

      Yawn. Hyper partisan shills are soooooo booooring.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

        You're right, Robert, you really are.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      The people sense that oftentimes the so-called cure is worse than the disease.

      I would submit that it is the RISKS associated with the proposed cure, not necessarily the cure itself. And, channeling Rumsfeld a bit: these risks are both known and unknown, with known unknowns and unknown unknowns. In other words, the disease has to be pretty awful for everyone to embrace the known and unknown risks associated with the cure. The disease isn't that bad (update: if the disease exists at all). The cure will have to wait.

      And, as Potter correctly points out, earnest attempts have been applied in some provinces, and (democracy DOES work) the people have spoken: No, Thank You. That there is some element of collective inertia to wholesale change is by no means evidence that democracy is broken. It means that time and again the people have declared themselves satisfied.

      • kcm

        The first BC go round with stv was pretty much a yes, iy just didn't hit all the benchmarks Campbell set. To his credit he gave it a second shot and a real flaw in the proposal became clear – much larger voter districts, and the public understandably said no. I think you're right about the risks angle. The burden of proof must lie squarely on those who wish to change the system. That said, it was a missed opportunity. BC with its polarized politics would have been the ideal place to test drive such a system. If the wheels then fell off, so be it. It wasn't as if we couldn't turn the clock back. There really are times when i heartilly wish Canadians weren't so risk adverse but i guess it's better than being blown around by every vagrant breeze that comes along.

  • Anon

    "Nor is there much new when it comes to the solutions on offer: Fixed election dates, free votes to empower MPs, a more civil question period, a more responsible media, a reformed Senate, and — above all — a switch to a form of proportional representation in the Commons. For many observers, PR is the alpha and omega of democratic reform, the one magical tweak that will set the whole system aright."

    In other words, "All of these solutions that have been suggested before but never tried STILL haven't worked."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    I don't know how anyone can believe our democracy isn't broken after Harper shut it down to avoid being ousted from power. The fact that it can be shut down so easily should worry everyone.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      I was no fan of the move, but it's fair to note that it was the GG who actually prorogued. Which means there was something of a "check" in place (granted, an unelected one!). I don't think we need to worry too much that it will become commonplace, and it doesn't worry me half as much as some of the more underhanded tactics we've witnessed in recent years.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        but it's fair to note that it was the GG who actually prorogued.

        What choice did she have. Harper threatened to have her husband murdered. Yeah, I know, I don't know if that was the case. But then, you don't know if it wasn't because we still don't know what actually took place in that closed door meeting.

        The GG simply isn't a check on the ridiculous power that a PM has to shut our democracy down. And it is quite worrisome. The only real check in place is the fear our politicians have of losing the next election. That however, can be negated by someone who simply doesn't care about losing the next election.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

          In the grand scheme of things, it ultimately produced a budget more in keeping with the desires of the House. It cost Harper considerable political capital, and voters are free to punish the Conservatives accordingly at the next opportunity.

          If you don't believe that elections are a powerful voice in a democracy, I don't quite know what to say, to be honest.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Some voters may punish, some may reward, some may choose some other more powerful motivator as they bring the pencil to the ballot. And we shall not even remember to celebrate that our governance will have been renewed without a single shot fired.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

            In the grand scheme of things, it ultimately produced a budget more in keeping with the desires of the House.

            The ends do not justify the means, nor do they guarantee a benign result. I'll give you a scenario to demonstrate that.

            Lets say the US invaded Iran and the Prime Minister decided to join the invasion without getting a vote in Parliament. If the opposition balked at that and declared they were going to bring forward a motion of non-confidence would the PM be justified in proroguing Parliament in order to avoid losing power until our country was involved in the war? How would that sit in the grand scheme of things?


            If you don't believe that elections are a powerful voice in a democracy…

            They're simply not able to stop the abuse from occurring. In the above scenario the people could indeed vote the PM's party out of power at the first available opportunity in order to reverse the situation. But by then we'd already be hip deep in the carnage.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

            One has to assume that deploying our military without House consent would entail a radically different context for the GG's consideration. As opposed to allowing a month to come up with a budget the House could live with, versus sending us back to the polls or giving a coalition government a shot. If the prorogue was such a sin (and as I said already, I didn't like it one bit), then why aren't the opposition parties making it THE central issue for the next election?

            Because the voters are too dumb too know what's 'good' for them?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

            One has to assume that deploying our military without House consent would entail a radically different context for the GG's consideration.

            The GG doesn't appear to have any power whatsoever (in fact, many argued that was the case at the time) so why would you think the outcome would be any different.

            If the prorogue was such a sin (and as I said already, I didn't like it one bit), then why aren't the opposition parties making it THE central issue for the next election?

            Because nobody cares that it was done and far too many people–even many who don't vote Conservative–think it was acceptable. The reason for that is, as far as I can see, simply that nobody has really given any thought to what the incident meant or how it would alter our democracy. And now that it has happened with no repercussions and with public approval you can bet it will happen again.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

            How did it fundamentally alter our democracy? And if it has public approval, as you suggest, isn't that democratic?

            On what do you base the claim that the GG appears to have no power?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

            How did it fundamentally alter our democracy?

            The Prime Minister can now shut down Parliament whenever it interferes with his grip on power.

            And if it has public approval, as you suggest, isn't that democratic?

            The public once approved of denying women and minorities the right to vote so forgive me if I don't find solace in public approval. Besides, our democracy shouldn't be susceptible to the whims of public approval. That is simply mob rule.

            On what do you base the claim that the GG appears to have no power?

            I base it on the majority of people who argue that any power exercised by the GG is tantamount to giving the British monarchy a veto over our sovereignty and the majority of people who think we no longer need a GG. The GG might have once had actual power but due to a lack of using that power it's been allowed to atrophy.

    • http://dustinfitchett.wordpress.com Dustin Fitchett

      sorry to say this heshe but your in denial about our democracy being shattered

    • Dustin Fitchett

      your totally right its that religious jerk steven harper who shattered our democracy

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

    If people are so disaffected, they'll exercise the salutary option of voting the bums out.

    It's been done… any number of times before (most recently in '93, or in '06 and '08 Stateside), and it'll be done again.

    The general public isn't there yet. When they are, we'll know.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    It doesn't follow that, just because most people think our democracy isn't broken, our democracy isn't broken.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Further, it does not follow that, just because a few unelected people with a podium tell us our democracy is broken, our democracy is broken.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        You're right. That's why we're trying to discuss it.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          That's odd. I thought you were occupied calling people boring. By all means, discuss away, Bob.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        Indeed. IMHO, the main way our democracy is broken is that we have ceased to see it as a mechanism for regulating the divergence of opinion; instead, we generally take "democracy" to mean the collective expression of opinion. (That there are no collective opinions is conveniently overlooked.) Thus the potentially engaged citizen feels that his / her opinion counts for nothing before the almighty Democratic God, as expressed through His oracles, the pollsters. Got an outlandish but heartfelt opinion? Sorry, it won't fly politically, and you're a bad person inside for that reason. Conform, ye citizens! Or, failing that, begone from the holy precinct!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          we have ceased to see [our democracy] as a mechanism for regulating the divergence of opinion…

          I guess I have been reading different media outlets covering our legislatures and our election campaigns than you have. Divergent opinion appears to be alive and well.

          And I am trying to think of the last collective opinion insisting on conformity. The best I can come up with is that most would agree that we should abide by the laws of the land, whether we like them or not. Otherwise, it is a delightful messy cacophony of opinions out there, Jack.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            "A delightful messy cacophony of opinions"? Goes to show how little disharmony it takes to make a cacophony, in Canadian ears. Sure, there are lobbyists and zealots for: the environment, lower taxes, higher spending, a larger army & more ships, legal pot, an independent Quebec, an independent Alberta, no abortions, higher corporate taxes, more research money . . . & maybe a couple other things, including fringe racists and fringe Trotskyists, to the tune of about 1000 members each.

            These are the same issues that we've been debating my whole life. The landscape of opinion is absolutely unchanged since my birth, allowing for exterior shifts like the fall of Communism and the CRAP merger. If I could literally transport myself back in time — or forward in time — by ten years, I could engage in exactly the same debates without skipping a beat. That breeds malaise and alienation. If nothing ever changes, why should anything ever change? We're into the Brezhnev era of democracy. You might want to stock up on vodka.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            You see engaging in the same debates over time as a problem? I see that the individuals within our society remain emboldened enough to keep trying to convince their fellow citizens of their point of view. The "landscape of opinion" isn't supposed to change radically just to keep certain observers interested. That landscape is there for a reason. It should be hard to change. Doesn't mean impossible. Just hard. And things have certainly changed: Free trade is actually an ok idea. GST went from being so hated to having a modest reduction in its percentage being ridiculed. A woman has a right to terminate pregnancy. The freedom to love and live with whomever you choose. Give me more time and we could come up with others, most assuredly.

            To sum up, it is not : "If nothing ever changes, why should anything ever change?" Rather: "Since things are so hard to change, I'm gonna keep bending your ear to convince you to see things my way." Broken, shmoken. That is the very essence of democracy.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            It is indeed the very essence of democracy, and its twin sister is mass apathy and disinterest. Who said that democracy is supposed to be healthy and vibrant? Now that we've solved all of the main challenges of industrialisation and post-industrialism, as far as they affect people's real lives, and we are left to quibble about the details, it's no wonder people have ceased to care. It's like a reverse NHL season, with the playoffs at the beginning and the season, with its predetermined winner, clawing its way onward to the home openers.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Jack, are you lamenting that we have it so good that most people desire to avoid radical change?

            Democracy's fine. If we didn't have it so good, more people would certainly be in on the debate. Recall the massive Quebec voter turnout the last time momentous upheaval was proposed. And the verdict (adjusted for the treachery unleashed upon democracy by the "oui" side with the ballot rejection shenanigans) was as close to nail-biting 50-50 as you could get. And the "oui" side lost — barely. And the verdict was accepted. With no guerrillas setting off bombs or shooting soldiers and police officers and civilians.

          • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I am indeed lamenting that we've got ourselves into a situation of such profound spiritual and civic malaise. There are downsides to having it so good and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. In particular, the sight of so many people wandering around slapping themselves on the back for being such good democrats is rather nauseating. But of course one does not want it otherwise, for patriotic if not for personal reasons. Still, it's relevant to the debate about why our civic life is so morose: I'm suggesting it's in the nature of things for it to be like that.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            I confess I have never seen "so many people wandering around slapping themselves on the back for being such good democrats." Just what kind of neighbourhood do you live in, Jack?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            A pleasant one, but heavy on the thetes.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

          I've got a new theory I'm trying to test drive, that speaks to the 'collective' dilemma. It's that culturally, we privilege the individual above the collective, and symbolically construct a society that caters to individual tastes, expressions, emotions and lifecourse (who we marry, our occupation, etc.) Never mind the irony inherent in all of us being individuals in largely the same way – humans are rarely consistent in matching their symbolic ideal worlds to their actual lived ones.

          The 'problem' with democratic politics is that they can never satisfy our habit of individualism, as they necessarily demand compromise and communal action. The 'apathy', I'd argue, is more a cognitive inability to cope with the gap between our lives of individual focus and the collective demands of group decision making, debate, and compromise.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Sean, if I read you right here, you are wondering how much the "leave me alone" element is responsible for low turnout at the polls. I bet there is some element to that, but I am not so sure that it's overwhelming. I suspect the bigger elements are "I don't care" and "I'm too lazy" and "there's no point" and "I don't know enough."

            I just don't see a large portion of non-voting losers philosophically struggling with their identity as rugged individualist hermits incongruously cohabitating in society with others.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

            Thank you – right away there's something I need to clarify! It's actually not a 'rugged individualism' I'm noting – because that implies one doing things for one's self. We expect the world around us to cater to us, I'd argue, in everything from courses in high school, to toppings on a hamburger, to TV channels, to media (think of the blurring between punditry and reporting these days – much of it due to people seeking out ideas they agree with in place of 'news').

            The emotions and desires of the individual, the rise of victim mentality, and the general atomization of our society into disconnected private spaces and lives, all play a role in making the individual the central focus of our society.

            We have IPods filled with exactly the music we program (no more collective experience via DJ's for example). We raise our kids as though absolutely everything they do is wonderful and special, just by virtue of their own wonderfulness and specialness. And then we turn to voting, and find that we have to settle for lesser evils, for partly shared ideals, for listening to views we don't like.

            None of this is meant to suggest we need to change the system, it's more a theory to explain what we keep calling apathy, but may in fact have deeper cultural forces at its root.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      If you accept the assumptions of democracy, then It does follow that the majority of people determine what is or isn't broken. You also accept that those in the minority can continue building a case to persuade those who disagree with them.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

        When the majority is a plurality everyone's a minority.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        With respect, Ed, you have unintentionally illustrated my point. One cannot persuade anybody of anything new if they take the accepted, collective wisdom as their basis for determining what they themselves believe. Thus if one says "our democracy is broken," it is immediately pointed out that most people do not think that; ergo it is not broken; ergo arguing that it is broken is mistaken. But the same thing goes for pointy hats. Most people do not like them; moreover, most people do not like them because most people do not like them; therefore you cannot persuade people to like them until people start liking them. But most people will not start liking them until most people start liking them. That goes for almost everything, ad nauseam. The results are what we see, and there is no bottom.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

          I'm all for questioning collective wisdom, the rest of your reply loses traction for me. Being a small 'c' conservative, I have no problem with the nature of majority rule, that requires a lot of persuasion for new ideas to gain acceptance.

  • Mulletaur

    "There is every reason to think that in almost every province, there are similarly content majorities who are similarly wary of what they perceive to be elite driven attempts at political engineering."

    Absolutely. There is no grassroots movement for proportional representation. There are a few disaffected Dippers who are tired of never having a share of power, and a few on the right who think that by getting their ideas heard through the platform of a political party they will be more likely to be accepted and adopted. Any system to pick who legislates will have its conveniences and inconveniences, benefits and drawbacks. The way to make democracy truly meaningful is to share power directly with ordinary people, particularly on issues that directly affect their welfare. Give the people their sovereignty back. They actually do know better than government.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

      The way to make democracy truly meaningful is to share power directly with ordinary people, particularly on issues that directly affect their welfare.

      I agree. Lets start by implementing proportional representation so that all the people are adequately represented and the party that can get a mere 40% of the votes won't be able to neglect the other 60%.

      • Mulletaur

        We can easily do that by making a two vote run off. That will ensure that there are clear winners so we can give Canadians the majoritarian government they crave. It will also ensure that nobody has to 'waste' their vote – instead, they will be forced to make a clear choice on the run off.

        You proved my point, McClelland. Only losers want to change the electoral system. Losers like you.

        • kcm

          It's not helpful to label the 60% or so of folks who are routinely not represented in our system "losers". Perhaps you're just using the term in a literal sense, i hope so. As to your point re: the run off, the more i learn about this the more i like it. Progressives must face the fact, as you pont out, that there are flaws in any system and if perfection is our goal, well good luck. We can start advocating for a perfect system when they start making perfect people.

          • Mulletaur

            "Perhaps you're just using the term in a literal sense."

            Yes, that was precisely what I meant.

            It is untrue that 60% of those who vote are not represented in the system. Political parties do not disappear the second the votes are counted. They still have influence. The NDP, for example, prides itself on the influence it has on the political process even though they have never had formal power federally. They still represent those who vote for them. The Greens also have influence even with no Members. Even PR systems have a threshold, so it's no argument to say that the FPTP system discriminates against the Greens unfairly.

            If we want to raise public participation, give people a higher level of satisfaction with their government and raise the legitimacy of our system, we need to start getting ordinary people involved in governance – give them the power to make decisions, or at least share that power with them directly. Right now we hand over all of our sovereign decision making power to politicians between elections – effectively an elected dictatorship. That is the source of the problem. If ordinary people were involved both in formulating policy and implementing it, their efficacy would increase and so too would their confidence in the system. Tinkering with the way elections are held would not do this. In fact, based on our adversarial political institutions and culture combined with our regional fractionalization, any measure of proportional representation would make matters much, much worse. The study I am looking at right now shows that voter participation is around 60% for FPTP or mixed systems, while it's about 68% for straight PR systems. That's not the 75-80% we should be aiming for. Nevertheless, moving to a two vote run off like they have in France could help reduce disaffection due to 'wasted votes' without all the negatives of proportional representation.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

          How does forcing voters to choose a party they don't support give them a voice in Parliament? I think you're entirely missing the point when it's noted that Green Party voters don't have representation. People are voting for the Green Party because they like that party and they want that party to represent their interests in Parliament. Our FPTP system prevents that however, simply because there aren't enough GP voters in any one riding to attain it. The result is that nearly a million Canadians don't have a voice in the halls of power. That's simply disgraceful.

          • Mulletaur

            The Greens have all kinds of influence on our political discourse and policy, just like the NDP does even though they have never been part of a federal Cabinet. Remember the "Green Shift" ? Why do you think the Liberal Party adopted it ? Why did the NDP in Ontario rebrand, using both orange and green in their signage ?

            Ordinary Canadians also have no "voice in the halls of power" – that is why the solution is deliberative governance, not tinkering with the electoral system.

          • kcm

            I'm caught somewhere between your postion and RMs. I wasn't very precise earlier. I don't think that the 65% of voters who don't vote for the govt have the right to claim under our system that this represents the true majority will of the electorate. This surely a conflating of PR and FPTP. In a straight choice of ABCDE the majority of voters clearly chose A if we were to say A represented for instance the Chretien govts – you can't lump the choices of BCD and E simply because it's convenient. I also agree that opposition parties do have considerable influence within our current system.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    "Besides, our democracy shouldn't be susceptible to the whims of public approval."

    You should put that on T-shirt and wear it around. I think captures your essence.

  • kcm

    On the other hand RM is correct in stating that a million greens without rep is scandalous, particularly when you consider the blocs situation. Something has to be done eventually to rebalance this inequity. It may even be the single biggest problem with the system we have. But i'm starting to come your way – there's no real need for a radical restructuring [ not popular either]. Let's focus on this aspect of our system first. How do you give folks the representation they actually voted for without undermining radically the current system. A run off ballot would go some way to answering this connundrum. It's simple and it mitigates some of the worst inequities of winner take all and devil take the hindmost

  • Kevin Lafayette

    I am always a bit leery when I hear someone claim that democracy is broken. I get downright testy when they also claim to know how to fix it. In my experience, and there have so far been no exceptions to this, people who claim democracy is broken simply do not like the results that democracy has recently produced. When democracy is going their way, I never hear any complaints.

  • http://dustinfitchett.wordpress.com Dustin Fitchett

    Sorry wrong person. Im talking about jack mitchell down lower

  • jarrid

    Robert, if anyone is to blame for shutting down the coalition dream, it's Iggy, who, when given the chance to vote non-confidence in the government in January, blinked.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Yawn, hyper partisan shills are sooooo booooring. Do us a favour, Jarrid. If you have nothing to add to this discussion about our democracy other than your hyper partisan rants just piss off. This isn't about Harper, Ignatieff or Layton. It's about democracy.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

    Democracy is, in our system of governance, inseparable from politics. Peevishly demanding that the actual details of recent history be deemed irrelevant or out of bounds for discussion about "broken democracy" is to miss the point by several light years.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    I'm not peevishly demanding that. I'm using details of recent history to make my arguments. The difference is that my usage is not about Harper but about the process. Jarrid on the other hand, is just engaging in yet another boorish partisan pissing match. We have enough of those meaningless discussions on just about every other post.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Y'know, put RM's face with that phrase, and I'll wear that T-shirt around…

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    "Besides, our democracy shouldn't be susceptible to the whims of public approval."

    You should put that on a T-shirt and wear it around. I think it captures your essence.

From Macleans