Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Here is a new related insight on the sponsorship scam. Was this not mainly a case where the "cultural bureaucracy" of this country went totally out of control with no accountability, performance metrics, etc... <br /> <br />Would the Libs not have been far better off to kickstart more DD efforts to engage Canadians in better discussing what this country is about and why Québécois would be better off in or out. I think if this had been done the referendum vote would not have been as tight and we would all be further ahead. The referendum results have left in many ways a very deep scar on our country as well as a big black eye to le p'tit gars de Shawinigan and his cronies. <br /> <br />Bureaucracy will eventually kill our country if we do not fix it. Look at its impact on health care, education, trade, etc... It is likely the greatest driver to the ideologies of privatization and deregulation. Bureaucracy is IMHO a far greater menace than the "Americans". Perhaps it is also a far greater menace to Québécois than the ROC. Could that possibly be common ground?

   

I think the sponsorship scandal developed out of greed and opportunity. Panic set in and the Feds started throwing money at a problem as usual instead of dealing with the problem, those who were in the know, knew that nobody cared how much money was spent or where, just as long as it suppressed the masses for a time. <br /> <br />Again, I think education is the key to everything, the more you know the better decisions you can make. Of course, at present the more we learn the more we feel sick to the stomach, that we didn't know it sooner and that we are helpless, or seemingly helpless to change the course of our path! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'>

   

Sorry, gaulois. <br /> <br />I mentioned I'd be back re: the public service. However, we've had compay this week, so my time has been limited (I know, I know.. doesn't align well with some of my previous ramblings re: people finding time to participate in their government). <br /> <br />There are (often unpublized) situations where 'rogue' public servants come up with a scheme to defraud the government, as is true with most organizations. Obviously there are situation where the top executives of private corporations finagle around to enrich themselves by defrauding shareholders. <br /> <br />But, the public service in general will not take any action unless there is some indication that's the 'bosses' approve. <br /> <br />If you reviewed any 'management' focussed public service internal site, I'd be willing to be you'd find a significant amount of resources referring to 'leadership', recognizing that most employees follow thew example of their 'leaders', e.g., if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me. <br /> <br />Insofar as the 'sponsorship' and other scandals, this seems a fact that is glossed over by politicians, perhaps because as the 'leaders' there are just some responsibilities they'd prefer to ignore. <br /> <br />The fact is that no senior public servants are likely to create any cabal to defraud the government unless they'd received a clear indication this was somehow okay. It's just not the public service mentality. I'd bet that most of the public servants involved in this scandal were have been appointed to their positions by the government, rather than going through the public service 'competition' process. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

I sorta skimmed over some of the posts, so I might be repeating this: <br /> <br />If the goal is to form a government that does a better job of representing the people, then perhaps we shouldn't look at what's wrong with our system. Rather, we should look at how we're executing it poorly. <br /> <br />I believe that when a whole bunch of really bright Canadians sat down and wrote our consitution, they put a lot of thought into it. And these people were trying to enact a rugged representative democracy. <br /> <br />Where the plan went awry was a court decision that set a legal precedent for all Canadians. That decision was to make accept lies during campaigns from our electoral candidates. <br /> <br />Suddenly instead of voting for someone who shares your beliefs and values, we are voting for someone who CLAIMS to share our beliefs and values. And legally they have no reason to actually act on them. So you end up with entire parties like the Liberals that campaign from the left and govern from the right. <br /> <br />If we are paying MP's (and MLA's) to represent us in government, then we are the boss and they, in a way, are our employees. And if I hired someone and then found out they had lied on their resume and in their job interview about how they intended to do the job, I would give them the boot. <br /> <br />In fact, our whole society is structured around making promises and actually sticking to them. THat's how we get things done. And in most cases, those agreements are legally binding. But not for MP's. Nope, they can promise tax cuts and social spending, then deliver neither. <br /> <br />Hmmmm...

   

In response to Kory, DD does not take away the role of your MP. DD will most likely have to be facilitated by your MP in its early stages. We hear more and more that we should user our MP should when we have problems using our federal government services. I will soon let you know more about a DD case I have with both the CRTC and Radio-Canada in regards to francophone hors-Quebec services, problems and solutions. My MP has been put in the loop already. Stay tuned.

   

Kory has identified some of the fundamental flaws in the current system. <br /> <br />I don't know the court decision to which he refers. I'm guessing (and may be wrong) that the Supreme court decision may have been more along the lines of a candidate/party not being accountable for pledges which it later 'found' it could not meet, rather than it being okay for them to lie. <br /> <br />Regardless, Kory is right in stating that in the real world employees hired to do a job based on their assertions re: skills, abilities, would likely be out the door pretty quickly if the assertions were later discovered to be false. <br /> <br />Our system lacks any citizen initiated mechanism through which governments or representatives who can not live of to promises made or demonstrate a reasonable level of competency, integrity, etc., can be turfed from office before their mandated term. For representative democracy, whether PR enhanced or not, to work, we need this mechanism. Otherwise, you end up with an Ontario situation where a government has reneged on most of the pledges which got it elected and and the leader of the previous government still occupies a seat after revelation of creative accounting by his government that if known before the election probably would have seen him collecting EI, rather than being re-elected. <br /> <br />As I've indicated previously, my view is that direct democracy is democracy as it was intended to be. However, as DD was not in earlier times feasible in anything larger than a small nation state, and even then would have required some sort of 'leader' (decision maker) for the day to day administration processes representational democracy was the 'best available' solution. <br /> <br />I don't think representational democracy was intended to be the sort of 'people have the right to elect a fixed term aristocracy' that it has apparently evolved to be. <br /> <br />As Kory points out, representatives are in fact employees we pay to administer the country on our behalf and in line with the views held by most citizens. This has been forgotten to a large extent, resulting in the leader of a political party becoming the de facto 'leader' of the nation (in their own minds if not in the minds of all) rather the the 'chief administrator' they should be. All political representatives are in fact public servants however, they've created a delinetion between themselves and the larger public service that obscures this fact. <br /> <br />At the heart of the matter is the question of what 'government' does a modern nation require? Do we need people to 'lead' us, or do we need people to administer the nation according to the national will and on behalf of the nation's citizens? I obviously see the latter as the true need. <br /> <br />If we put ourselves back a couple of hundred years, I would guess that selection of a representative primarily consisted of the 'esquires' etc. in a community getting together to decide who could best represent their overall interests in the national process. In this situation, the fact that I personally didn't agree with the choice of representative would not necessarily result in my being unrepresented. <br /> <br />As has been indicated by numerous PR proponents, the current system can result in situations where a majority government does not reflect the views of the majority. Adding to this discrepancy is that many of those who voted for a 'right' or 'left' wing party may agree with some of the party's direction, but not all. So, basically you could end up with a governement that represents the overall views of a very few. Add the element of unfulfilled pledges for which no consequences exists and you may have a government the serves the interests and beliefs of pretty much itself alone, and will be able to do so for a number of years. <br /> <br />What people need to realize is that the business of the nation is managed by the public service, not the kids on Parliament Hill. DD is not a move to a whole new system. It's just a move towards getting the concept back into the 'head administrator's' mind that they are in fact administrators, not governors, dictators or aristocracy. In DD as I see it, the representatives are non-partisan professionals hired by the constituency to perform the tasks required of them, i.e., serve on a public service department board of directors, and subject to immediate dismissal if necessary. At a very high level view, the job of these folks will be to administer, through the public service, the day to day business of the nation, analyse NGO type issues affecting their areas and develop reports/recommendations/alternatives for a citizen referendrum process. These will be employees paid to efficiently conduct the nation's business, rather than a group that believes the nation exists to serve their needs and beliefs. <br /> <br />

   

Having some time on my hands, I thought it might be an idea to try out a 'direct democracy' federal political party. Web page for site is below: <br /> <br />http://cincinnatus.ca <br /> <br />Isn't much there right now but, I'm working on it. <br /> <br />I realize direct democracy may be seen as an unrealistic and/or unattainable (or insane) goal by many. Still, I'd appreciate feedback, suggestions, ideas, etc. from everyone and will update the site accordingly. <br /> <br />If anyone wants to help out with logo design (something that encompasses the totality of Canada), translation, site content, etc., I'll be happy for the assistance. Art/design (obviously) aren't my strongpoints and French, or any other, translation, is beyond my current abilities. <br /> <br />If nothing else, a direct democracy movement could generate discussion, and perhaps put the fear of God into some of our representatives and motivate them towards pushing some productive or innovative change. <br /> <br />Thanks. <br />

   

I'm pleased to announce that Dr. Caleb (or someone purporting to be him) has become the first (and hopefully not last) member of the 'Cincinnatus Party'. Due to a glitch with the email portion of the sign-up process, I had to manually 'activate' the membership however, I've taken steps to ensure other won't have the same problem. <br /> <br />I'm just putting this DD party/movement concept on the table to see whether any interest is generated over the next few months. It should be awhile before any non-Vive types come across it, allowing me time to refine the site and incorporate Vive member feedback, thoughts, ideas, etc.. Please feel free to express any ideas, e.g., different name. <br /> <br />I should note that the 'party'is non-partisan, so those who support a federal 'representative' party can also support the DD concept without compromising their particular political beliefs, e.g., right, left, center, separatist. <br /> <br />Assuming there is sufficient interest to move forward with the concept, at some point someone's name is going to be needed on the site for 'head honcho' type purposes. For reasons related to my current employment, it might not be entirely appropriate for it to be me and, at any rate, I think there'd be plenty of others who'd be better fits for the position. So, at some point it might be an idea to get some volunteers for the position of party facilitator (leader, dictator, scapegoat whatever) that can be tossed into a DD hat for selection by Vive 'citizens'.

   

That was indeed me signing up. Direct democracy is an interesting concept. I don't know that an entire website is needed to explore it, but if so, then I'm in.<p> <br />Ever since you started this thread, I've been thinking over some of the technical details involved. It's entirely do-able on the cheap.<p> <br />

   

Chapeau to Calumny for effort in setting up a DD focused web infrastructure or political party. This can hopefully work in conjunction with Vive. It will certainly get additional visibility onto DD. I do intend to sign in but will first focus my effort on a personal initiative of mine in regards to FHQs, the CRTC and how the service of Radio-Canada hors-Québec could be improved for our needs. It involves dealing with huge bureaucracies, Sacred Cows and Dead Ducks <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> , driving grassroot changes as well as working through my MP and the political parties! The task is literally daunting but think it is representative of a DD effort. <br /> <br />I will soon post more details on what exactly I am doing under the "Actions and Events" forum and will be solliciting advises as well as mental support <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> on how to move initiative forward. I do not wish to "shove down the throat" of Vive participants the topic of FHQ but would propose it as a DD pilot real world effort.

   

Stephen Marshall's (of GNN) July 15, 2004 entry at the link below mirrors thoughts expressed in some recent Vive articles and posts. <br /> <br />http://www.guerrillanews.com/bunker/west/doc4731.html <br /> <br />Stephen's spin is essentially that as the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin, real democracy in the U.S. will only be realized through a multi-party system (similar to our own.). I don't believe this would change anything. <br /> <br />Canada has been, and will continue to be, a two party system masquerading as a multi-party system. Neither of the ruling parties (Liberal/Conservative) has ever, or will ever, represent the interests of most Canadians. Decision making in this country will continue to be made by a small minority in the elected government and ultimately vests in the PM. <br /> <br />People have the right to continue convincing themselves that some 'progressive' white knight will come to the rescue in the nick of time or that increased representation by minority parties or interaction with MPs will somehow save the nation. <br /> <br />As I've pointed out before, the 'nationalist' movement in Canada has worked with the current system for years before many Vive participants were born or out of grade school. Nothing that's being done now hasn't been tried before. And the situation is worse now than when folks like Mel brought it to national attention in the 60s and early 70s. <br /> <br />Representative government has never and will never represent the interests of most citizens. Centralizing decision making power in a small group of people will always result in an environment conducive to corruption, which slowly engulfs even the most well-intentioned and ethical of people and often without their realizing it. Disseminating decision making power across a broad base lessens the possibility of a corrupted process. <br /> <br />There is no guarantee that a direct democracy system will succeed where the representative model has failed. However, it is more or less guaranteed that continuing with the representational model will create a nation that is increasingly less hospitable to most of its citizens and will allow power to remain where it really is, in the hands on non-elected business interests. So, I'd prefer to take my chances with direct democracy and work towards making it succeeed. <br /> <br />For the record, I have no personal agendas in respect of DD nor anything to gain in suggesting it. I raised this issue because my life experience has left me with the belief that there is no hope of reforming the current system to something that will represent the interests of most citizens and I have significant concerns about the world my children will be left if real change doesn't at least start to happen soon. If people continue to live in an illusion of democracy, placing their destiny in the hands of others rather than guiding it themselves, we're all screwed.

   

I agree and I just signed up, lucky number three, thats me.

   

Well, if nothing else, you, Dr. Caleb and I can form a merry trio of raffish adventurers pledged to protect the sovereign(ty). Or, has that already been done?

   

I'm trying to do some updates on the <a href="http://cincinnatus.ca">Cincinnatus Party of Canada </a>page. If anyone has any suggestions or wants to help out, please let me know. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

   

Calumny, I just want to say I admire your efforts. I'm in the midst of a homework assignment right now, but I think I'll take another look at your web page and maybe I can give you some feedback of some sort.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next