Politics without Politicians

I'm not one of those "anyone else's" and even though I agree with DD principles in full, it's true that I did not find the explanatory pamphlet thought provoking. On the last page of the document, there are a few ideas on how to get DD started on a local basis but very little is said on how such activities can change anything in our current provincial and national political systems. Having a new vision on how things should be and should be done is the easiest part of any process. Having a strategy and a plan of tactical solutions/steps to implement it requires a strong organizational structure. Our political systems are falling apart and moving ever further away from their constituents. That's a given. As proposed in the DD document, there is no advice given on how to reach further than at a local level. This I believe is its greatest mistake. Time is running short and I don't think working it this way will give us the much needed tipping point for change to occur. As Pierre Falardeau's new coin phrase goes in Québec these days ... "Think big 'stie !" Setting up provincials or even a national DD advisory board, council, association, whatever, to help implement and structure DD adherents at the local level would in my view have a better chance of making an impact and much more rapidly also. Going national or provincial would also give the movement the visibility it needs and would incite those who believe in the concept to join at the local level. In short, if we want to make a dent in the actual political system, we need a marketing strategy for DD and it must reach the widest and largest group possible. DD principles is something I already use within my workplace. Yet I have to keep explaining and selling it every time. We need someone or something to do the speaking and selling on our behalf, then we will be able to concentrate on the doing part.

There are a couple of fallicies in the above statement, but I see where those concerns are coming from. First, don't fall into the trap of thinking 'time is short', nothing is further from the truth. That is an 'ideology' that is always sold in politics. Name one time in Canada when we didn't think the country was going to pot? Never. Democracy IS an ideology, and it is growing fast. Perhaps I was never looking before, I don't know, but its everywhere on the web now. The local idea is pushed because quite simply it has never been done politically. Things that have never been done politically tend to worry people. At the municipal level is where democracy is 'closest' to the people. People have more contact with it and parties are not involved, so it provides an example. I agree though, it may not fly in places that have well run municipalities, but one never knows. The other idea is that it involves 'selling'. I agree where you are coming from, more people quite simply 'fear' democracy. And that's a cultural thing. However, in reading about the 'next generation' I am seeing that change. I've been researching university referenda, and there are tons of them. When I was in university, while it was considered more 'progressive', it still didn't have referenda, it just had those flamboyant 'leaders' that riled up a certain percentage. What is needed is to 'rile up' those who feel the same way about democracy. Until people see it done they will be fearful. The municipal level does that. I've made many contacts here at this website, and when the time comes for the next municipal election I plan on putting them to work (yes, you know who you are<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Even if you can't run locally, there are things you can do. The 'leaders' you speak of come from within, and there is no saying who that might be, some ex MP of another party who adopts the ideology, or, well, who knows. This IS an ideology and democracy has never been brought to canadians before, THIS is the new rebellion. Read canadian history, many different 'tactics' have been tried, some have been vaguely successful, none have been 'permanent'. As Rush says, 'you can do a lot in a lifetime..if you don't burn out too fast'. This is a global movement, and it is a PERMANENT movement, so we have to look beyond our immediate situation. That being said, you are right that it 'need not' stay local, that is it's strength, it turns your local representative into YOUR local representative, not a party salesperson. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from running federally or provincially if that is your view. When it comes down to it, thats ALL a national party needs-someone to run in all ridings. If you've been 'constantly' selling it, then you're an ideal candidate. Once I run municipally I hope that will accomplish two things-first, it creates awareness of direct democracy, and essentially it is an educational undertaking since the ideas are so new to most canadians. Second, it provides a party for all those like minded locally. Whoever they are, if they're interest is there then they will volunteer. I'm meeting these types of people all the time, but it's a slow process. At that point, I would either cede my municipal seat, namely by holding a referendum on whether I should, meaning that I would give up my seat if the guy who came second agrees to continue with the direct democracy, and with a volunteer team in place there would be no reason they couldn't. Then I would run provincially or federally. As I said, hopefully by that time there would be others who would pick it up and run federally and someone else provincially. But the general mechanics of 'how to' need to be in place so people don't think they need do it on their own, and so they CAN"T do it on their own (since that's part of the problem). There has never been a party or movement that didn't start somewhere. Direct democracy is wonderful because it can be 'applied' to all levels of government. Ideally and eventually it would grant more powers even more locally, right down to neighbourhoods, where the country could be a 'federation' of communities. At this point I know that selling direct democracy simply means educating people on how government works NOW, since many have no idea. I live in a real convoluted area where not only is there a municipal government, but an even more powerful regional government, which hardly anybody pays attention to (on purpose?) For this I'm working on a flash website and was even thinking of some kind of 'newsletter' to reach others.

DD roadmap stuff? out of this morning Le Devoir: <a href="http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/04/16/79485.html">Plaidoyer contre la réforme du mode de scrutin - Pour un gouvernement fort mais congédiable</a> Incidentally the "poids lourds" of québécois political thinking do not think much of PR representation but do suggest the need for a referendum to decide on this (similar to the BC one). They are also asking the opinion makers in the media to bring out this debate. I think that although PR represents some progress, it is still a stalling technique to real democratic reforms exemplified by DD.

[QUOTE]it's true that I did not find the explanatory pamphlet thought provoking.[/QUOTE] Well, there's nothing new for those of us who have been discussing DD or have a personal philosophy that isn't authority based. I intended the link mostly for those unfamiliar with DD concepts. [QUOTE]On the last page of the document, there are a few ideas on how to get DD started on a local basis but very little is said on how such activities can change anything in our current provincial and national political systems.[/QUOTE] That's true. This is a subject of much discussion in a DD thread I monitor. Some suggest the DD party working through the current system as being the only method to implement DD, while other DD purists oppose this idea because a party does not in their mind have any place in DD. Being a pragmatist, I tend towards the former view because I've yet to see how the latter could result in change to, in our case, the federal and provincial levels. In terms of the latter view, some communities could begin to elect independent DD candidates provincially and federally however this could backfire if the negligible impact these candidates could be expected to have working within the current system was perceived as a DD failure rather than just the status quo for an independent within the current system. [QUOTE] Having a new vision on how things should be and should be done is the easiest part of any process. Having a strategy and a plan of tactical solutions/steps to implement it requires a strong organizational structure.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In short, if we want to make a dent in the actual political system, we need a marketing strategy for DD and it must reach the widest and largest group possible.[/QUOTE] Yes, you're right re: both above quotes. We need to have some bodies willing to, as Marcarc put it, 'act' with with us rather than just 'agree' with us. Once we have these, we can build the organizartional structure you mention. Marketing is an absolute necessity to get the bodies. In terms of my own experiences to date re: the DDC site, I think a change of direction is required. The 'marketing' of DDC just hasn't attracted much interest. I think the marketing of a larger 'renewed Canada' framework which includes DD as a key component might attract more attention. My thoughts on a 'renewed Canada' have been expressed elsewhere. Based on my experiences to date on other web forums trying to market DD, most people just seem to want to be told how it would work rather than participating in the construction, so perhaps that's the tack that should be taken. [QUOTE]We need someone or something to do the speaking and selling on our behalf, then we will be able to concentrate on the doing part.[/QUOTE] Right again. [QUOTE] Until people see it done they will be fearful.[/QUOTE] I agree. But on this note, whatever happened in Rossland? I've tried on occasion to find information in this regard however, can't find much on the town site or elsewhere that discusses the town's experience with DD. [QUOTE]I'm not one of those "anyone else's" [/QUOTE] In truth, guess I'm not either. Given the opportunity, I would rebuild this nation from the ground up and hopefully end up with something that would satisfy most (well, maybe not the Irvings, etc., however, so be it.).

As far as I'm concerned, the best creative idea I've ever come across to promote popular participation in the political process is Jean David's suggestion for a national brainstorming week in Québec. According to what I've read so far and from what I could gather about popular consultation, if this idea is to grow and succeed in actually DOING IT, it would be a world's first. On April 28th, I intend to be at the first public and organizational meeting in Montreal. If any of my 'bulldozer' and organizational skills are needed, I hope to be of help. I'll keep you posted. <a href="http://www.brainstormingnational.org/">Brainstorming National</a>

Thanks. michou. I'll be very interested in hearing more.

For those who can't read french or are in Ontario there is this: http://massivechange.com/ This has some interesting stuff as well.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] http://massivechange.com/ This has some interesting stuff as well.[/QUOTE] Interesting site. It would make a great partner for Brainstorming National. DD activists, are you opportunists ?

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There are a couple of fallicies in the above statement, but I see where those concerns are coming from. First, don't fall into the trap of thinking 'time is short', nothing is further from the truth. [/QUOTE] I base my 'time is short' from what I've seen happening in the States. They have a two party system where each one now basically mirrors the other. The American medias have become full participants in the promotion of the 'one' party state. The American people have been dumbed down by years of patriotic propaganda, bought by the fear of fear itself and being tagged as a liberal is now worst than being called a communist back in the '50s. Windows of opportunity open and close. Progressist Canadians must not let theirs close in on them.

I really don't agree with the above post, I know you have to take my word for it, but I do a lot of research and am affiliated with a LOT of organizations in the states. As far as progressivism goes, if you mean progressive in a similar vein as it was original used in the twenties, thirties and forties; the US is on a whole different playing field than Canada. In Canada the only 'real' alternative organizational opportunities is the Green Party and 'perhaps' the NDP, but again, Canada is such a two party system that in a 'first past the post' electoral system people in most areas know that third party votes are wasted. In the states you have to keep many things in mind. First, outside government there are huge opportunities for making change. The states have a far more 'individualist' culture than empowers people and groups. So, for example, you find tons of choices at municipal levels for financing (although I agree no system is perfect and theirs is far from it). At state levels you find half of them with Citizen Initiatives, which means, unlike in Canada, people would be actually organizing behind some particular movement to effect change. You also find a greater distinction there between the states and federal government. Here, the federal government 'pretty much' rules supreme. Again, as an example you will find in recent news that Wisconsin has joined around 25 states which are suing the federal government over its environmental plan. And BOTH the state and federal government are republican. At the national level there are about a hundred organizations which are lobbying/suing/threatening the federal government there to enact national referenda statutes, and the feds there are looking at it. These organizations dwarf the size of any similar movement, where the fact that most polls don't want an election even though their government is tainted with corruption says a lot about our political climate. No doubt many of these things are possible because of the numbers of americans, but per capita it still isn't a contest. In Canada I've been finding more and more direct democracy sites and people, but I still wouldn't put the number at over a hundred. There is also the problem that in Canada there are limited funds, meaning that organizations that don't rely on government for at least SOME of their funds are rare, so they don't like to go up against them (we saw that during the last referendum) As far as media goes, again, I don't see that great a dissimilarity. While TVO and CBC may show stuff that we'd like to crow about that wouldn't get shown in the states, we have to remember that far more americans, or even per capita americans will see them at alternative sources than the popular media. Having learned quite a bit about CBC I know it very much is a 'middle class propaganda machine', you literally can't get decent political documentaries on anything but one or two shows, yet there are so many out there. Finally, I don't agree either that 'time is short'. As the above should at least get you to contemplate, the US is far ahead of us democratically, we have to follow them, and learn from them, yet we live in a country where the mere mention of 'american style politics' is an albatross. That's why I prefer to stick to Switzerland for comparisons. However, it's not as bleak as it sounds. Canada in a way is blessed with a lower population, so when progressivism hits, it hits harder than in the US because the balance of power is more fragile. People in Canada are seriously unhappy with the way they are governed, and in reading some papers I've especially found that young people are really knowledgeable about this stuff. I'm quite excited because I've even found a "Diploma Course in Local Democracy" at a local organization, where even university students take courses. A bunch of people at our local university organized a food pick up when they noticed Tim Horton's throwing out sandwiches. The centre for twenty years has taught what they call "The Waterloo School", which is similar to "The Frankfurt School" (if you know any philosophy) yet goes beyond criticism into practise at a communal level. My criticism of THEM is only that, like the Antigonish Movement, its 'communal' nature makes them "make do with whatever the government hands them" It is easier to get corporate handouts and government support when you don't 'rock the boat'. However, that's the organization, the PEOPLE there may see things differently. To my excited mind, it is literally a quick side step from doing this communally, to doing this POLITICALLY. They actually use the term 'direct democracy' in their literature in describing their function communally. So obviously I need a 'team' to help with a local campaign, and voila! So your point about being an 'opportunist' is well taken. I will suggest that those opportunities will be found more readily in personal contacts in your area-if you live in a populated area. I promise my final point is that your statement about working at the three levels of government is well taken. I will be the first to admit that ironically, most direct democracy candidates, myself included, have their own particular 'system' of implementation. Perhaps its time to get off our high horse and form a party. I really don't know about that though, I don't think the time is right. Opportunities are important, but so is timing, until we actually SEE some direct democracy at work somewhere in Canada people will be petrified of it. There are certain people who see the government as a 'stable' force, they really need to see that a country which has almost fallen apart every ten years of its existence is not really 'stability'. Part of my documentary is a 'satire' if you will, of the "peace, order, and good government" line that gets touted. OK, now I'm done<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Finally, I don't agree either that 'time is short'. As the above should at least get you to contemplate, the US is far ahead of us democratically, we have to follow them, and learn from them, yet we live in a country where the mere mention of 'american style politics' is an albatross. That's why I prefer to stick to Switzerland for comparisons. [/QUOTE] If America is the democratic example you set for yourself and Canada and should you ever succeed in implementing it, this is one michou who will emigrate from the North American continent faster than you can say her name. America's system of checks and balances have failed American citizens. The Supreme court, the congress and the executive branch are all under the thumb of corporate elitists and the MIC. Americans have continuious patriotic propaganda and rampant sexism. They blend religion with politics, suppress labor power, have no accountability rules for corporations, have rampant cronyism and corruption and they are obsessed with security. They have had fraudulent elections, have showed their disdain for international law and basic human rights....but they are democrats. Yeah, sure. Even moveon.org has given up on fighting against the Iraqi occupation. American progressists are presently being forced to go underground from a lack of proper leadership and impact on the system but our Canadian politicians on the other hand are salivating at the prospect of integrating even further with this decaying empire. In no way shape or form do I want Canada to follow in the United States democratic style, especially after it has proven itself to be so easily usurped by a bunch of corporo-fascists thugs.

"Americans have continuious patriotic propaganda and rampant sexism. They blend religion with politics, suppress labor power, have no accountability rules for corporations, have rampant cronyism and corruption and they are obsessed with security." There's two sides to that story, and again, you only see what the corporate media, both here and in Canada WANT you to see. I'm talking about democratic structures and tools for contradicting central power. I certainly never said 'let's be americans', I've said, 'lets get their democratic tools and revolutionary tactics'. You are seriously deluded if you think CANADA doesn't have cronyism, corporate unaccountability, sexism, racism, poverty, labour suppression, or a blend of religion in politics. Quebec sovereignty is practically a religion, and there's a reason why conservatives are so popular when they openly espouse a conservative christian agenda. Let's see YOU or any organization get our military out of the illegal war in Afghanistan or Haiti. The point about globalization and democracy is that you are being 'sold a line' that it HAS a leader or NEEDS one. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada has ALL the same problems as the states, and NONE of the democratic tools to fight it. If you REALLY look at the states you can easily find that american policies are in much the same vein as canadian, namely, you create a pretext for needing a strong federal government. Virtually ALL the aggregious policies in the states are due to it's federal government-just like canada. As I said, this is changing because there are HUGE rebellions against this. Yes, the US is in Iraq and doing horrific things-their federal government ALWAYS has, and americans are getting closer to putting the reins on that. But that takes time, in the meantime the anti-government boycotts, lawsuits, and demonstrations are at a level that dwarf Vietnam. Here in Canada our military engages in all the same wars, the same illegal activities, our corporations are equally evil, just in different industries. Anybody who knows anything about the mining industry knows that the Vancouver and Alberta Stock Exchanges are pretty much fronts of massive corruption. Vancouver is known worldwide, even labelled in Forbes as the "scam capital of the world". When you rank like that higher than exchanges in third world countries, thats quite an accomplishment. And again, for environmentalists the states is decades ahead, yes they are reliant on foreign oil, but you should see the state run deals you can get on environmental power. You never see ANYTHING like that here, you get maybe 10% off of new windows. Likewise, ask the people of India, Guatamala, Columbia, or Indonesia what they think of Canadians-you'll get far different answers from the ones you expect. The states have always been after Canada to 'clean up its act', and when american firms are telling you that, then you know its got to be bad. Likewise, they are always trying to get us to improve our environmental regulations and monitoring systems. Ontario puts out more pollution than its american neighbours. Yet what happens? We even get people on here claiming 'that's american integration'. We want to keep our rotten environmental record lousy because it's canadian? Or is it because we've got ideas of the US and so assume that it's got to be bad? They are propagandized, so are we. Canadians think this is the greatest country in the world, even when they've never set foot outside it. It is virtually impossible to get people (outside of quebec) into a demonstration. This is a very 'anti' government website but even here I doubt most have been to a demonstration and most act like their anti-government rhetoric has never been seen before or held anywhere else (myself included at first). All governments have the power to corrupt, democracy means 'rule by the people'. The US is so much closer to that that we are not even on the playing field. There is corruption in virtually every system, the US included, there is a faction that has taken hold of the US, that is true. But the US is not a democracy, it is a republic. The founding fathers enshrined a constitution to make sure people don't get power. All the democracy they have, from ballot initiatives at municipal levels, to the states with citizen initiatives, to elected senators has been because americans FOUGHT for them, and fought damn hard. That's what I say we need in Canada. You can be delusional and think that the government is just going to decide one day to do wonderful things, that's fine, but if you read canadian history-or know anything about Quebec seperatism, then you know that change comes when people demand it.

Is the grass always greener in the neighbour yard? I have travelled to many countries in many continents and think that Canadians have got it pretty good. That is probably why it is so difficult to bring change in our country.

I would just change that to 'some canadians have got it pretty good'. And of course it depends what you mean by pretty good. They certainly have 'lots of stuff' and 'purchasing power'. I read a study where a psychological went around the world and they measured, not economic progress, but how 'happy' people were. By a huge margin the happiest were in parts of south america and scandinavia. As long as pretty good politically only means that as long as you toe the line the cops won't come and arrest/beat/kill you then I quite agree.

A couple of links: <a href="http://www.ddleague-usa.net">Direct Democracy League</a> Stephen Neitzke's site above has a considerable amount of info re: the U.S. system which ties into Marcarc's points. While not related to the thread, the following site provides info related to Stephen's 'algae-grown biodiesel' comments. <a href="http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/goals_index.html">UNH Biodiesel Group</a> In terms of Canada, there are a few folks who have for some time been working independently towards DD goals. It seems desirable to begin building a more organized network.