The Move Away From Democracy, and the Role of the NDP

Written By: Robin Mathews
Date: 2006-03-01 10:45:00
<a href="/article/214554820-the-move-away-from-democracy-and-the-role-of-the-ndp">Article Link</a>

The one thing those people and those parties must agree to in a democratic society is that whoever wins power must maintain a free and open society and must hold fair elections at roughly stated periods. That is the reason reactionary forces backing Rightest parties never state their primary goal – to destroy democracy itself.

One of the signs that democracy is under attack is the way elections are held under difficult and fraudulent conditions in many parts of the world. A significant portion of U.S. people believe George Bush became president through fraudulent election. His election was contested, to no effect. Very recently in Haiti, U.N. observers announced the election there fair and proper. But the incumbent president declared his party would ignite violence in the streets if the election was not called fraudulent. The council in charge declared in his favour. He was named president.

That he was the choice of the U.S. and France may have had some bearing on the outcome. “Free Elections”. What are they?

Take, for instance, David Emerson, former CEO of the “killer” Canfor forestry giant in B.C., then Liberal cabinet minister who campaigned as a Liberal in the last election, warning against the danger of voting for the party of Stephen Harper. The minute the Harper group won the election David Emerson crossed the House and became a Stephen Harper cabinet minister.

More than anyone in recent years in Canada, David Emerson showed how a “free election” could be made into a fraudulent one. He does not represent the voters of the constituency in which he ran. He has treated those voters like cattle to be fed until slaughtered. He wouldn’t have a chance of election if a by-election were held – and so he is a fraudulent MP.

Those are examples that show – on the surface – fundamental troubles with the operation of “democracy”. But the attack upon it is much deeper. In the U.S., for instance, a democratic election is impossible. For the U.S. has shoved out, ruled out, manipulated out, indoctrinated out any possibility of a serious party entering the contest which claims there are better ways of using national wealth and national energy than by the rule of private corporate enterprise.

A U.S. election is always a sham election because it places in contest two parties that have agreed they will serve primarily the interests of private corporate enterprise. As a result the U.S. is not a democracy. It is a society ruled by private corporate enterprise groups who own the press and media, the industrial wealth, the raw materials, and the financial structure of the country.

Canadians must realize, now, that the fight for democracy in Canada is not a fight against Islamic Terrorists, Marxist Communists, Narrow Nationalists, or fuzzy-minded Socialists. The fight for democracy in Canada is a fight against Private Corporate Enterprise, the Expansion of U.S. corporate power (called U.S. imperialism), and unrestrained, unregulated, predator Capitalism.

We must never forget that the rise of Nazi power in Germany was significantly advanced by heavy private corporate backing. Major German private enterprises contracted with the Nazis to work people to death so those corporate enterprises could increase profits.

In Canada, democracy hangs by a thread – hanging on because of the party that is sympathetic to other forms of ownership than private corporate enterprise. The New Democratic Party exists and has the potential to force a strong criticism and an alternative to the rule of private corporate enterprise. Certainly there are very small parties in Canada that stand for government and ownership of the country’s wealth in the hands of the people (variously explained). But, today, the only possible contender for significant influence in Canada is the NDP. It, however, is pressured relentlessly to declare itself a party of private corporate enterprise.

If it does that, Canada will cease (as the U.S. has long ceased) to be a democratic country.

The matter of democracy in our time is very, very simple. In each age people driven by greed and the desire for unimpeded power go to work to wreck whatever government system there is in order to concentrate power in their own hands. That is why George Orwell said man goes from tyranny to tyranny.

In the nineteenth century science and technology exploded, making possible a new paradise on earth or a system of despotisms worse than any seen before. The battle was on. Corporate Capitalism treated human beings like animals in the drive for profit and power. As a result, in 1867, Karl Marx wrote his seminal book, Capital. Capitalism had created its major critic: Marxist thought and marxist parties of various kinds.

Over the nineteenth century – on either side of those two forces, in a way – parliamentary democracy was shaped to become more and more representative of the whole population, until in the 1920s women received the vote and the whole adult population was “represented’ in democratic parliament in Canada (and most other places in the West).

Such a system could exert serious control of private corporate enterprise and could demand significant legislation and policy in the society to care for and to respect the lives of people who do not share in the greed and power-seeking of private corporate enterprises. Those corporations set to work, therefore, to destroy democracy.

The move away from democracy in Canada has been taking place for at least half a century. In the last twenty years the movement has increased speed. It is seen as a move to the Right, and those involved in the Right repeat a mantra to the effect that they seek more democracy not less. That is a lie.

The move to the Right is a move away from democracy. The move of the Liberal Party under Paul Martin to the right was, clearly, a move away from democratic society. Martin’s managing group plainly preferred “planted” reactionary candidates devoted to the purposes of Private Corporate Enterprise over those selected democratically in constituencies concerned to further the aspirations and needs of the larger Canadian population.

Sheila Copps – architect of the remarkable UNESCO convention protecting indigenous cultures – was dumped so crudely she filed a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer. Herb Dhaliwall in Vancouver was dumped. Carloyn Parrish, strong public critic of U.S. policy, was ejected from the Liberal Party and frozen out of Parliament.

Parrish has said more than once that Paul Martin is a nice man but had a group of sleazy operators around him. It is perfectly believable that Martin would find himself with a difficult inner group coming from the interests of big private enterprise. But if such a group stayed central in the Martin team, it is because Martin intended to use a majority government to go Right. The bonds of minority government restrained him.

His legacy to the Stephen Harper government is “Martin dream team” cabinet minister, David Emerson. Emerson’s constituency is Private Corporate Enterprise, and he would probably enter any cabinet in any fraudulent way to serve that constituency. Even more devotedly than Martin, the Stephen Harper government wishes to serve private corporate interests in North America. That is why David Emerson joined Stephen Harper.

As a minority government, the Stephen Harper group – with the aid of monopoly press and media – hopes to be able to serve private corporate enterprise in North America more effectively than the Martin government did. If the Stephen Harper group succeeds in erasing securities and opportunities for Canadians because of the general push of all parties to the Right and towards corporate totalitarianism, the NDP has, and will have, a key role to play.

Despite the unrelenting attack upon the NDP by the corporations and the monopoly press and media, a significant percentage of Canadians cling to the NDP, sensing it is the last real link Canadians have with meaningful democracy.

As Rightest MPs become more and more like hockey players – bought and traded to the highest bidders - the big question is whether the members of the NDP and its leaders consciously realize the burden it presently bears. The future is up for grabs, and corporate totalitarianism is grabbing hard for it. The major resistance to that grab in Canada must come from the NDP. If the NDP fails to mount effective resistance, Canadians will watch their democracy disappear before their eyes.

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 1, 2006]

I agree with Robin, but I wish he, and all other critics of the present slide from democracy would point out once and for all that the ideologies and theories guiding and forcing politicians into undemocratic actions, and the world under dictatorship, are taught in our tax founded universities as "good neoclassical market economics"

Why blame the executioners, when it is the judges who send people under their axes? And we're paying the judges to learn more of this fraudulent "science" to send more and more, until all the remainder are willing slaves of this criminal religion.

I fought against the criminal actions of the so called communists for 45 years and intend to fight the reaminder against this even bigger crime wave of market capitalism, where we, the people, are the first ones on the auction and execution blocks.

Come on Robin, fight the priests, not the followers of this infernal religion.

Ed Deak.

I've said it before and I'll KEEP saying it. Democracy is NOT government by representatives. That is REPRESENTATIVE government, which is present in the REPUBLIC of the United States and isn't present AT ALL in Canada. If the argument is about democracy, then talk about democracy. What kind of lunatic would say that Canada is some kind of democracy when nine tenths of the governments which govern here weren't even elected by the majority of the population.

The free trade election of 1988 was the only time in the last half century that more than half of canadians voted for the governing party.

The argument of this piece is essentially that "it's DEMOCRACY so long as the government is supported by ME". Which is crazy. For Emerson, even the idea that he was a 'representative' when 57% of the people of Vancouver Kingsway voted AGAINST him is simply asinine. Again, whether he was head of the KKK or some corporation doesn't have anything to do with democracy, if people agree that one person should make all their decisions (which is NEVER the case in Canada because WE didn't design the system) and 99% of the people vote for Hitler then that's democratic.

Just because government owns all kinds of stuff, like in Iraq, doesn't make it democratic. And just because it is put in the hands of the private sector doesn't make in undemocratic. In the end it simply depends on the will of the people. Clearly under Saddam people had no choice whatsoever. He was a murderous tyrant, yet gas was cheap in Iraq, much cheaper than Canada, yet nobody would say that because it was government owned it was more democratic.

The 'democratic' part comes into it when Iraqi's are allowed to decide for themselves what sort of public/private relationship they want. There's no doubt that the US is an occupying force, much like Saddam, and whether democracy will be established there remains to be seen, we of course know that the US doesn't have a good track record.

However, foreign policy is different than what is happening 'at home', which is a huge issue itself. However, to say that 'up to now' Canada had democracy which is being taken away from it is simply not backed up by anything. Trudeau ENFORCING a national energy policy was as dictatorial as Mulroney's dismantling of it. You can pick sides if you want, if you like Trudean or liked the NEP then you can SAY that it was democratic, and if you like Mulroney and hate the NEP then you can say THAT was democratic. Both statements are wrong because canadians had no say in the decision.

In 1988 43% voted for the governing PC Party of Mulroney, while 57% voted against him and the FTA.

Ed Deak,

with the utmost of respect to Robin , ed and Macarc
the missing compomrnt is an informed electorate!

until there is a non parisan scholl for the voters to attend and to issue compentacie (sp?) licences we will keep preforming the same ongoing insanity

The challenge ids foe the electorate to become aware of the roles being played by the BIS and their owners

---
to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-
This is mental illness
Lao-Tzo

Correct me if I`m wrong but I thought I read somewhere that Mulroney did not get a majority of the popular vote, even though he won a majority of seats in 88. Not to mention, Mulroney lied to the people about 'free trade.' So here again, democracy failed to materialize. Now, we surely can`t have a vote on everything, but back in the 70`s- early 80`s, most Canadians were definitely in favour of taking back control over its own oil. ( Alberta excepted.) But yes, I agree with you, that in the truest sense of the word, we are not a democracy, and increasingly, we are less free. I guess the point here is, our government used to weigh public opinion and its mood, and act accordingly, even if it was sometimes a half-effort. Today, they just outright lie, or conceal their real agenda, and continue to chip away at freedom and social and economic justice. A good example is the Romanow Report- 70% of Canadians say no to privatization, and in fact, want the public system expanded! But what Chretien, Martin, and now Harper do is ignore, and allow more privatization against the wishes of the people!

---
Dave Ruston

That is it in a nutshell: "the missing compomrnt is an informed electorate!"

There are so many organizations pretending to be non-partisan but are really promoting a specific agenda that it is difficult for the electorate to become "informed." What is "fact" and what is "spin" or "propaganda"? When does "education" become "indoctrination"? Often what is promoted as "non-partisan" is promoting a partisan viewpoint while not directly associated with a political party.

Sorry, that was the 1984 election where they got more than 50%, but just barely (which still reinforces my point)

That we have an uninformed electorate is completely wrong. Government keeps the books out of reach, yet still with the internet canadians are far more educated than at any time in our history. In the 1800's you literally ONLY had newspapers, and many farmers couldn't even read. Now with the internet canadians can and do learn details of just about all acts of parliament.

That we 'can't vote on issues' is completely wrong. At the local level americans do it all the time. In Switzerland they do it at ALL levels of government all the time. It just depends how you time the votes.

Of course its a catch 22 and I don't agree with the poster above. Canadians are remarkably well informed for a population that is essentially shut out of EVERY decision making activity. Why would I or any reasonable person spend their well deserved spare time learning all about the functions and acts of government when the government is going to do what it wants anyway?

You have to remember just how much propaganda there is out there, you are SUPPOSED to think the 'mob' is incapable, that supports the government. It's especially obvious here, where people always say "the public is dumb". Interestingly enough, most of the people consider themselves to be far smarter. Also, you have to remember, just because a group has an agenda doesn't make it propaganda. Every group sees the world differently, thats why you want a plethora of opinions from ALL groups. Thats what democracy IS.

That's why democracy is the most legitamate form of government. You DON"T need to have a certain level of knowledge, you just need the power. It's elitists who go around saying 'you're too dumb to vote'.

Finally, polls are notoriously inaccurate. We live in a HUGE country, the idea that canadians were served democratically in the past is another common fallacy. If you think Trudeau governed according to the people then you don't know much about minority governments. Same goes for Pearson.

There is a huge difference between saying that the public is "uniformed" than saying they are "dumb." Elitism is reflected in ignorance about the daily lives of most people: they simply do not have the time to do the research necessary to become informed. They are too busy making a living and looking after their families and working in their communities as volunteers. They have real lives.

"You DON"T need to have a certain level of knowledge" -- no you just have to mindlessly follow those well-known, non-partisan educational organizations such as the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, or the Conference Board of Canada. They will tell you exactly how to vote on any issue and you don't even have to bother thinking because those who might provide the other side of the issue do not have the money or media access to put their side forward.

There is no evidence to suggest that your solution is any better than what we have now.

In my opinion the NDP is not the party to fight corporate power. By giving the large corporate unions one-quarter control over the party one could argue that it has sacrificed its own internal claim to democracy.

At times I wonder what the NDP now stands for. Its hypocrisy in supporting government subsidization of large multi-national corporations to protect unionized jobs at the same time as complaining government for providing "corporate welfare" for smaller companies is hard to comprehend. Personally I found their support for the Conservatives during the election hard to understand and Layton did a great deal to convince Canadians that Harper's neo-liberalism was not to be feared.

It depends what you mean. Perhaps there's no reason for democracy at all. If people are uninformed then how wise is it to let them vote at all?

People don't realize that not everything is 'being informed', it is simply preferences. Should Canada be a neutral country? That doesn't require 'special research'. Do you want a bigger library in your town? Do you want a recreational park? I think it would be far better, it would be cheaper, since we are faced with the constant cost of parties instituting policies and departments which are then dismantled and reconstructed with the next government.

Of course there is little 'evidence' that democracy is better because we've hardly ever exercised it. Personally, I am glad I had an opportunity to vote in the 92 referendum. WOuld it have been 'better' to just let the government decide? It depends who you ask. Or you can simply listen to the people, 80% of British Columbians VOTED for citizen initiatives, yet Harcourt made it almost impossible.

That it is better to listen to what people want seems to me to be basic democracy. If it ISN"T, then of course we have no right to judge political parties who lie to us to get elected, after all, they are simply 'more informed' than we are.

The idea that people are better able to discern what is best for them also seems self evident, but that's just personal opinion. However, I can understand people's reluctance since there IS no democracy it is far easier to simply 'hope for a better party' or 'try to scream loud enough that Ottawa will hear'.

well ain't you just a little ray of sunshine?

Is it so terrably time consuming?
Yeah Probably!
I mean, REALY what is at stake anything inportant?
Nah
just how your being screwed!
Ansadian are well informed
Yeah right!
is that why the blindly vote for the same crookes election after election?

To busy earning a living ?
Have real lives?
yeah you are right ! forgive me for bring it up!

NOT!
nothing to learn here folks, move alon now!

---
to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-
This is mental illness
Lao-Tzo

Virtually all government actions are forms of subsidies, one way, or another, to various special interest groups. Which could be multibillionaires, or social housing for the homeless.

The purpose of economics is the management and distribution of scarce resources, which means automatic subsidies to certain special interests. Democracy should be the great leveler, but it is now being used as the great wealth creator. For a dwindling number.

E.g. The FTA, NAFTA, et al, are government subsidies for multinational corporations, with the deregulation of he banks, which gives them superlegal powers to search, collectivize, steal and destroy with the perceived power of imaginary capital.

The monetary subsidies to various groups are chickenfeed in comparison.

I just saw a so called financial expert, by the name of Levy, on BCTV, who claimed that the Canadian Dollar is rising because foreign investment is pouring into the country.

Buying our house, so we can pay rent on what we own, or owned. Like natural gas and oil. Good economics !!!!!!

Ed Deak.

ps 
 
<a href="http://www.freedomdomain.com/sovereignty/inform07.html">http://www.freedomdomain.com/sovereignty/inform07.html</a> 
 
Let us regroup and find the truth. 
By the Informer 
written at 11 grade level and comprehension level of 36 
--- to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought. 
To regard our ignorance as knowledge- 
This is mental illness 
Lao-Tzo

Retired professor John Ryan has a somewhat different point of view. He in effect is proposing in his article entitled <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/ryan03012006.html">Canada and the American Empire</a>, a coalition and eventually a merger of the NDP and the Liberals: <blockquote>The purpose of this letter is to urge the NDP and the Liberals to begin the process of forming a coalition and, if this turns out favourably, to consider the prospect, under the right conditions, of eventually merging the two parties into a centre-left Liberal Democratic Party.</blockquote> I personally believe that a merger of the two parties would not be good for Canada in the long term. However, a temporary coalition may be strategically sound in the short and medium term. That may give pause to the Conservatives and allow them the time necessary to rid their party of the more extremist elements and the deeply committed integrationists. Indeed, Rabble associate publisher and columnist Duncan Cameron was recently toying with the idea in <a href="http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=47054">this article</a>. That may not be to Robin's liking but it may be the only strategy that would prevent the further erosion of democracy. As John Ryan spells out in his article, there is an urgency now that was not there before and unless something is done, very soon there may be no democracy left for the NDP to protect.