That was a rather scary read. Who knows what people like Frum have in mind? They must not like one bit not being able to control things the way they used to, with this minority government and the uncertainties of the next one. I am enjoying this while it lasts.

   

You can read his books and see exactly what he has in mind, that he wrote one of his books with Richard Perle says and awful lot. No doubt he would want what the republicans have in the states, I highly doubt he is looking for the kind of democracy Switzerland has. Now that international trade agreements have solidified trade issues most people spouting for more democracy do so on the basis that it can now be restricted to things like abortion and solidifying corporate rule.<br /> <br /> However, in his description of government he is quite on the nose, and its always an irony when those on the opposing ends of the political spectrum find themselves in agreement on the need for more democracy. <br /> <br /> His descriptions are apt, but his conclusions are not and he wisely stays away from making too many of them. His complaint about abortion is glaring, the total number of abortions in a year would have an almost negligent effect on population growth, and Frum will be the first to decry the fact that many abortions are made under economic duress and so those children would simply be adding to welfare rolls. He doesn't SAY that, but he doesn't have to. <br /> <br /> His remarks on the charter I think are way off as well, government may be able to choose judges but they can't control them. Native rights is a good issue since government policy has been clear for the past century-namely, marginalize the population and maintain access to their lands. Courts have been ruling in favour of natives now for ten years and governments reaction is to stall, stall, stall. Clearly government would be far happier if they could control court rulings. <br /> <br /> Also telling are the remarks about charter rights. He notes that we can't 'express ourselves' freely by paying exorbitant media rates to advertise our views, knowing full well that the only people who can are those with money. Likewise contract and private property rights are those which primarily benefit corporations and the wealthy.<br /> <br /> We can note that he makes no mention of the fact that we have no financial rights, for example those imprisoned because they cannot afford bail are discriminated against just as fully as any gay person who couldn't be married before, and to my mind it is a far more serious discrimination. We can also note that our 'rights' do not include the right to clean air, affordable housing (or any housing) or even the basics of life such as food and clothing. To my mind those are far more fundamental, and Canada has been a leading player in making sure the UN does not grant such basic rights as freedoms.<br /> Americans have a faulty democracy, in that there is a national level with no democratic reforms which can overrule state and local ordinances. Also, at each level of government is a lack of resources to control those who control the power, which is just fine by Frum. However, for those of us looking for democracy we are under no such illusions and starting 'from the ground up' means that totalitarian tendencies can be mitigated.

   

A lot of what he says is harsh, but true. However, that does not mean I totally agree with him. I mean, you can't just spout of Germany or Great Britain as comparisons to Canada without putting them in an historical context. Perhaps it would be a little wiser to look to Australia, a country with a very similar constitutional history, but with a very different system of government (although again it must be recognized that Australia is in a very different position than us; we are far more decentralized, and constitutional reform always comes with a threat to national unity here [not that I advocate that as an excuse, but politicians do use it]).<br /> <br /> Canada does have a lot of problems with our system, but I don't think we should rely exclusively on the examples of other countries; we need a uniquely Canadian solution. Sure we can look at other countries, but when it comes to governance, one size does not fit all.

   

In a way I agree, but mostly I don't. Democracy is democracy. I'd say, however, that since each country has various mechanisms in place to stop democratic reforms that the available 'tools' in each country are different.<br /> <br /> To emphasize the above point the most illustrative fact from Frum's article is that rather than compare with one country, he compares different facets with different places, since he no doubt knows that EVERY country has a deficient democracy in substancial ways. <br /> <br /> Yet, as stated above, he is 'harsh', but that is as it should be. There is no doubt to my mind that Canada is the most democratically deficient of democracies, that is been maintained by critics all over the spectrum and I've never seen much criticism that would lead me to think otherwise. The facts are there, as it were. <br /> <br /> Take the constitution, for example. First, we know that as far as charter rights go the government can over-ride them at will, so they really aren't 'rights'. Second, constitutional talks on their own do not bring up the 'threat to national unity', that threat is there and is real irregardless since it comes from Quebec and it is their choice, not ours. Even if it were true there is no reason it can't be handled differently. Say one point from the constitution were debated and voted on each year. It's been over a hundred years in the making after all, and there's no hurry. <br /> <br /> Decentralization is also not an excuse for lack of democracy. I would maintain that that decentralization is largely fictional. The federal government controls the tax system and hands out the cheques, so quite obviously has a measure of control that certainly most european countries lack. Even if it were true, it is telling that there are no major democratic reforms going on at ANY level of government in Canada. The possible exception would be Rossland, British Columbia, where for over a decade they have Citizens Initiatives. <br />

   

Well I do agree with you that Canada does have a democratic deficit and that we do need reform, I was just pointing out some of the reasons politicians say we can't. I do think decentralization has a lot to do with it though. If you look at Australia, they only need a majority in Parliament and in a referendum to amend the constitution; in Canada we need a majority in Parliament, a majority in 2/3 of the legislative assemblies of the provinces (in some cases requiring a majority in all the provinces) representing 50% of the population, and theri is precedent for a referendum as well. So whereas in Australia the federal government can make suggestions and then put them to a referendum, in Canada there is a lot of wheeling and dealing with the provinces required - thus we find ourselves with the notwithstanding clause while no other nation does.<br /> <br /> I think you're a little misguided in thinking that all systems that are democratic will work in Canada. I mean, Canada has some special needs that other countries do not, and other countries have special needs we do not. For instance, whereas in Israel, a small country, it is relatively easy to use a system that does not take regional differences into account, in Canada a similar system would be disasterous with the Maritimes and the North effectively shut out of decision making (not that that does not happen in the system we currently have). We also need to ensure the representation of minority groups, linguistic groups, and the first peoples (again, something we might not do under the system we have know) than a country like Japan would. We, on the other hand, would find the British system of regional devolution an obsolete policy to initiate (at least on the fedral level) even though it works out well for them (although it might be too early to tell).<br /> <br /> Within the current situation here, we can make a lot of significant changes without changing the constitution though, for instance:<br /> 1. moving to a more proportional system of election<br /> 2. ending patronage appointments to the Crown corporations (I think people working for the crown corporstions should elect their own heads)<br /> 3. senate reform (depending on the type of reform, this might require an amendment)<br /> 4. supreme court judge appointments should end (I think a meeting of all the judges should elect the justices based on their records)<br /> 5. the PMO should be made more transparent (i.e. reports to Parliament, give Parliament the right to dismiss members of the PMO, et cetera)

   

I see your point, though comparing Israel and Canada gets into trouble. Of course, Israel is no more a democracy than Canada. However, there is a reason democracy, to my mind, is a local affair. To use a local example, if the people who live around a local park vote to put a light in the park that's democracy. When it's left to the city then that's not democracy. Quite obviously the people who are not part of the issue have no right to make their decisions for them. Somebody might say 'well, we pay the taxes that pay for them'. That's fair enough, but look at Surrey, British Columbia (maybe other cities too, many places in the states certainly), where you simply do a petition, then if its supported, they fundraise and pay for the light themselves.<br /> <br /> That example can be used for many examples, although obviously if we are maintaining a country with equalization payments then there would be the 'special considerations' referred to.<br /> <br /> There are literally thousands of things that can make Canada more democratic, but I still think that those changes apply elsewhere-namely giving (or taking) the power to the people. There are many things that can be done, there have been suggestions above, but without democracy, we have no way of implementing them. There are two ways to get the power to implement those suggestions. You can join a lobby group and hope to god that someday it'll get listened to, or you can join the direct democracy party or run as an independant with DD policies and FORCE them to make those changes (it worked for the CCF, the only example I know of in Canada where people actually forced an issue.