That noise means it’s working

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Responding to the lament of Peter Van Loan, Dan Gardner praises political gridlock.

You can find divided governments in Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Netherlands. New Zealand. In fact, you can find them in almost any peaceful, prosperous, well-governed country you care to name. Australia has had a directly elected Senate — with 12 Senators from each state — since 1900. And yet somehow, mysteriously, it continues to prosper…

The real difference is negotiation. In the “il Duce” model, it’s not necessary. If the Big Guy wants, he can push things through in whatever form he wishes. But in a divided government, the executive has no choice but to discuss, negotiate, and compromise. Some people don’t like that. They call it gridlock. I do like it. I call it democracy. It can be messy and maddening. But it can work, if we give it a try.

2012: What’s bubbling up

By Peter Nowak - Monday, January 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

I kind of like year-end lists. I dig retrospectives because they remind me of things I might have forgotten–a year is a long time, after all. I also like lists that look ahead because they help me to start thinking about what’s to come. And again, they remind me of things that may not be top of mind right away heading into the new year.

That said, here’s my very own list of things–in order of significance–that are looking likely for 2012 as they pertain to technology in North America, with special relevance for those of us here in Canada. This isn’t so much a list of predictions as much as a roundup of items that seem inevitable because of the momentum building around them.

Continue…

Making sausages

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 2:41 PM - 0 Comments

Andrew Potter questions our stated distaste for politics.

These may be descriptions of actual experiences, but they are also threadbare cultural clichés. This is what Orwell denounced as the corruption of thought by language, “gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else.” Is it possible that when it comes to political engagement, most Canadians are in a position somewhat similar to Schrödinger’s cat: they are neither alienated nor engaged until they are asked by a social scientist, at which point they just fall back on the default public vocabulary of a broken machinery of government manipulated by knavish politicians … Everyone loves justice, but everyone hates lawyers. Or how about lamb chops versus abattoirs? Politics is the process of democracy, law is the process of justice, and the abattoir is the process of getting to lamb chops. It isn’t clear that any big conclusions can or should be drawn from this, apart from a variation on Bismarck’s famous line: democracy is like sausages. It’s better not to see it being made.

They know what they don’t like

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 8:25 AM - 0 Comments

For its latest report on the state of our democracy, Samara consulted the public.

Overall, our research shows that declining political engagement is, at least in part, due to concrete experiences with politics. Indeed, participants’ answers belie the notion that the Canadian public is not knowledgeable or sophisticated enough to understand how their political system works. Rather, the people we spoke to are keenly aware of the forces that affect politics.

Greg Fingas looks on the bright side. Continue…

The House: On time allocation

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM - 0 Comments

We return to our periodic series to consider recent efforts to limit the House’s ability to do one of the things for which it fundamentally exists.

In the thread under this post about the government’s recent penchant for limiting the time allowed for debate in the House of Commons, an astute commenter posited the following.

This is step one.  Step two is to skip the debate entirely, and just call the MPs together to vote on the foregone conclusion.  Step three will be to have the MPs stay home and vote electronically.  step four will be to have the PMO’s office submit all the CPC votes directly.

However sarcastic (or at least wry) this comment was meant to be, it begs the question: How far-fetched a scenario is this? Or put another way: How different would this be from the present situation? Continue…

Occupy democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 28, 2011 at 8:52 AM - 0 Comments

Jeff Jedras questions the suggestion that Occupy protesters would simply be better off voting.

Yes, they should get involved, but we should also reform our political system because, the fact is, it is viewed as irrelevant and ineffective by many Canadians, and not just the young folk. If we want greater engagement by citizens of all ages, we need to start doing something differently.

Off the top of my head, I’d suggest loosening the oppressive yoke of party discipline, empowering individual MPs to have personalities and agendas and represent their constituents and causes, and making the policy development process in political parties actually connected to their election platform instead of an exercise in pointless tedium. For starters.

Have we given up on legislatures?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 9 Comments

Scott Stinson wonders whether we care about our legislatures (or whether our legislatures give us anything to care about).

The speaker was explaining that she didn’t think much of the work conducted in the provincial legislative assembly. “Most of my issues are around the quality of debate and the research and the fact that you can pretty well get up in the house of assembly and say whatever it is you like,” she said. “You don’t have to be concerned with truth.”

… It’s not an uncommon sentiment among members of the public, and if the statement was from one of those ubiquitous morning-radio bits where they stick a microphone in front of someone who is filling their gas tank to measure “the public’s” opinion, it would have been unremarkable. But this was the Premier speaking. Kathy Dunderdale, the newly elected Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I won’t repeat everything I’ve said before (I’ll just link to it), but here’s one measure to consider. Continue…

Idea alert

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 17, 2011 at 8:45 AM - 11 Comments

David Berlin proposes a new kind of parliamentary government.

Provincial and federal systems are more complex. But consider a no-party system in which the public votes directly for MPs and provincial members, and then the members themselves elect the cabinet ministers, who would then elect the prime minister or premier in the same way. Each would-be minister would specify proposals and what portion of a projected four-year budget (estimated by the national bank) it would take to accomplish them. Each MP’s or provincial member’s ballot would have to name a set of candidates whose estimates added up to no more than 100 per cent of that budget.

Berlin’s primary complaint is the party system itself. But the problem isn’t political parties, so much as its the power those parties have to control individual MPs. And while the proposal here might make things somehow better—though I suspect parties would still take shape—it’s also difficult to imagine how so drastic a change would ever come to pass.

A smaller—and thus more plausible—reform might be pursued first. From my February piece about the House of Commons. Continue…

The patient is unresponsive

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM - 1 Comment

Jane Hilderman argues that people won’t vote if they don’t think the system is truly accountable.

As we are learning from our focus groups, more important to Canadians, who are less likely to participate, is a government that listens when a problem arises, works to fix it, and keeps promises it made. On this they were resoundingly clear: improve the legitimacy of our existing institutions (and by extension politicians, too) through better responsiveness and accountability. The rest will take care of itself.

On that note, Mark Dance has some thoughts on opening Parliament up to the digital word here, here and here. The second of those posts proposes what Mark deems a “Digital House.”

Politics these days

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM - 47 Comments

While pollsters try to adjust for the demographics of voting, Ilona Dougherty defends the young non-voter.

You’ve probably heard the rote statistic about how only 37 per cent of Canadians aged 18-24 cast a ballot in the 2008 federal election, compared with 68 per cent of those over 65. But here’s something you may not have heard: during that same election, the majority of youth were not contacted in any way by a candidate or political party. What about the 65-plus crowd? Well, 69 per cent of them were contacted directly, by my calculations, using the Canadian Opinion Research Archive. When young Canadians aren’t being consistently asked to participate, it’s hardly surprising that they don’t turn out for elections.

Robert Asselin frets on a number of fronts. Continue…

‘The most democratic part of the federal political finance system’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM - 55 Comments

With the end of the per-vote subsidy now in plain sight—hailed via a raving action alert—Duff Conacher mounts another defence of the measure in a note to reporters.

The per-vote annual funding for federal political parties is the most democratic part of the federal political finance system because the funding is handed out based on the actual support from voters each party receives in the election.

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Québec all have per-vote funding of political parties for this reason.

Continue…

This is why we can’t have cooperative things

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM - 35 Comments

Chris Selley blames Stephane Dion for the continued toxicity of coalition governance.

Coalition-demonizers like Stephen Harper tend to take more heat in the media than coalition-boosters like Mr. Dion. And the demonizers deserve what they get. It’s appalling that Canadian politicians and their supporters, who know perfectly well how Parliament works and would happily support a coalition if it favoured their side, will go around talking of coups d’état, pretending as if Canadian voters directly elect their governments…

That said, Mr. Dion and his backers did plenty of harm themselves. His coalition was hamstrung by the explicit support of the Bloc Québécois, but its even more fundamental problem was that Mr. Dion had promised not to form a coalition. This isn’t a minor policy flip-flop. We’re talking about someone promising never to become prime minister under certain circumstances, and then reneging. A promise is not nullified because it would have been awkward not to make it.

The Church and the Commons

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM - 20 Comments

Paul Dewar discusses the impact of his faith on his politics.

Dewar’s background is as a teacher, but his call to politics was heavily influenced by the religious beliefs passed on to him by his activist parents, Ken and Marion Dewar, and by the Ottawa church the family attended for decades, St. Basil’s Roman Catholic.

“Faith and politics are congruent and we have no option but to be political if we are going to live the gospel,” Dewar is quoted as saying in the forthcoming book Pulpit and Politics: Competing Religious Ideologies in Canadian Public Life by Ottawa author and former NDP MP Dennis Gruending. “We have to constantly question what the Christian message is and we can never stop trying to change the way things are in society.”

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, October 2, 2011 at 12:52 AM - 0 Comments

An anonymous Conservative endorsed Paul Dewar. Libby Davies endorsed Brian Topp. And Nathan Cullen launched his campaign.

More of Tony Clement’s private emails became public. Peter MacKay stated the case for staying in Libya. Jack Harris made the case for changing course. The House agreed with the Defence Minister. John Baird addressed the UN. Dick Cheney’s feelings were hurt. The Harper government ended debate on its crime bill and opened investigations into the CBC and the NDP. And the Prime Minister made a great show of meeting with the Finance Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, September 25, 2011 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

Libby Davies and Megan Leslie counted themselves out of the NDP leadership race. Paul Dewar thought about getting in. Peter Julian picked up two more endorsements. Thomas Mulcair lamented for his lot. Brian Topp challenged Stephen Harper, considered the Middle East and won two endorsements.

Bob Dechert was mocked. Lisa Raitt threatened back-to-work legislation. The government tabled its omnibus crime legislation, which the Liberals offered to amend. Charlie Angus chided Tony Clement, whose arse was covered by Deepak Obhrai. The Prime Minister rejected the Palestinian gambit and posed with the Benjamin Netanyahu. Peter MacKay exited a fishing trip and travelled to a lobster carnival in style. Planned Parenthood received government funding. David Cameron addressed Parliament. Vic Toews predicted the crime rate’s continued decline. We learned that Abousfian Abdelrazik nearly ended up in Guantanamo. And Don Davies took on Dick Cheney.

Paul Martin mused on fixing the world economy. Brian Brown looked forward to localist government. Chantal Hebert challenged MPs. Munir Sheikh considered the demise of the long-form census. Rob Silver proposed an end to the war on drugs. John Geddes tested the government’s crime legislation against reality. Mike Moffatt weighed the value of a vote. Alex Himelfarb measured our inequality. Scott Clark and Peter DeVries took stock of the tax code. And the Agenda compared political rhetoric and economic reality.

Fear on all sides

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 23, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Bruce Anderson listens to the rhetoric.

In answer to almost any question about the economy, the Prime Minister and his ministers are at pains to tell Canadians how the perilous state of the global economy keeps them up at night. There’s not a lot of hope in their message: They talk about how employment is up since the onset of the recession, but in reality it’s a “let’s ensure we don’t get hurt too badly” theme. This is an unusual thing for incumbents to do – but for the moment anyway, it’s sensible strategy.

The opposition parties are also focused on fear, not surprisingly. There’s a difference of course: They are focused on how much worse things will get if Ottawa doesn’t do something. This would be a stronger political footing if news from the rest of the world didn’t get it its way. Canadian economic troubles are routinely drowned out by far more shocking situations, in so many other places.

How much is your vote worth?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 5:08 PM - 22 Comments

Mike Moffatt figures some minorities are underrepresented by the current electoral map.

My question to you is: Given the other tensions the electoral system needs to consider, how much under-representation is acceptable? Is it acceptable for the vote from a “West Asian” be worth 95% of an average Canadian? 90%? 80%? 70%?  Where is the cut-off?

Battle of the drones

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 9:42 AM - 0 Comments

Chantal Hebert reads Samara’s latest report and challenges the current roster of MPs.

On Monday, the 2011 class of MPs will settle in the Commons for the first four-year mandate in a decade. It will be their loss if they do not use that time to expend more energy than their predecessors on challenging a system that is turning them into drones.

See previously: The rebel sell

Politics and life

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM - 3 Comments

Matthew Yglesias counsels progressives with advice that could apply to all political persuasions.

If you’re a progressive and you feel that the political system isn’t doing what you want, it’s misguided to look at this as a personal failure of elected officials. It’s, if anything, a personal failure of you and people like you. Justice and equality doesn’t just happen because it’s nice, people need to make it happen. If it’s not happening, then its advocates are failing. And I do think there’s a lot of wisdom to the old Le Tigre song “Get Off The Internet.” Reading and talking to like-minded people about how powerful people are failing can seem like action, but it really isn’t. 

Yglesias suggests two steps: write your elected representatives and talk about politics, annoyingly if necessary, in the course of everyday existence. That last bit should extend to those who aren’t particularly engaged as partisans or progressives or conservatives and it goes to what is possibly the biggest problem facing “Politics” as it presently is: the idea that there is, or is supposed to be, some separation between politics and life.

When states fail

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, September 10, 2011 at 12:53 PM - 10 Comments

Michael Ignatieff reflects on 9/11 and the decade that has followed.

We are in need of good politics, of democratic systems that are more than reality-TV shows driven by attack ads, and of democratic debate that allows the people to talk about what actually matters and then to elect politicians who will do what must be done.

We are not short of good ideas about what to do. We are not short of dedicated public servants. Most people, apart from those in the grip of ideological fantasy, know that we need competent sovereigns. But truth be told, a decade later, sovereigns are failing us still. And until they stop failing us, we will not be safe, and our prosperity will not be secure.

See previously: The apparatus

The new (and old) politics

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, August 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM - 3 Comments

In the wake of last week, Jeff Jedras looks forward.

I think the way forward is multifold. Politicians of all stripes should heed this message, and reconsider their ways. But I think the bigger challenge is for our citizens, and it’s two-fold. First, recognize that there are more Jacks out there, and in every party. Seek them out and support them as they try to work in a system designed to stifle them; too many good people give up on public life, but we need them too much. Help them persevere. Second, be the change you want to see. Get involved, up to and including running yourself, in promoting the ideal of public service you would like to see.

Honouring a parliamentarian

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 24, 2011 at 12:20 PM - 19 Comments

Dan Gardner suggests a fitting tribute to Jack Layton would be the completion of a guiding document for our democracy.

There is a fitting way to honour such a man. Since the beginning of the year, the Public Policy Forum and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto have been bringing constitutional experts together to discuss the production of a sort of pocket guide to Canadian parliamentary governance. That may sound like a trivial thing. It’s not. The Canadian system, inherited from Britain, is largely composed of unwritten rules. This project would put those rules on official paper for the first time.

It is essential that that happen.

‘It always gives you more than one opportunity to prevail’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM - 4 Comments

Stephane Dion accepts the 2011 Couchiching Award for Leadership in Public Policy.

Reading Couchiching President Gwen Burrows’s good-news letter, the first thought that crossed my mind was how fortunate we are, in a democracy such as Canada, to be allowed to fight for our convictions, safe from any political system threat to our freedom and wellbeing.

How fortunate to be free to accept an award from an independent and non-partisan institution, an institution shaped by a diversity of people – Liberals like me, but also others – Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens…!  Men and women who might not have voted for me or supported my policies, but who give me credit for having fought for my ideas, my ideals and my fellow human beings. It is institutions like this that make Canada a better democracy.

Democracy.  That is the theme that underlies my address today.  You have been kind enough to say that I have showed leadership.  What I know for sure is that whatever leadership I might have shown was inspired by the democratic ideal, an ideal that pushed me to fight for a united Canada, a better Canada. 

Power to the people

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM - 2 Comments

In light of events in British Columbia and Wisconsin, Greg Fingas defends direct democracy initiatives.

The leading example is of course California, whose combination of conflicting citizen initiatives and political gridlock has made it virtually impossible to make reasonable budgetary decisions or carry out any long-term planning. And direct democratic processes shouldn’t serve as the only outlet for citizen involvement between elections. Indeed, both of the above examples could have been avoided if the governments involved had consulted with residents to determine whether their policy choices were even faintly defensible.

But there’s always some risk that a government that believes itself to be four years away from any accountability might push far beyond the limits of reasonable political choice. And some mechanism for citizens to take back our representative authority in case of emergency might work wonders to reduce the danger of overreach in the future.