Politics without Politicians

<blockquote>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.</blockquote> Here, here, Michou. Now I'm going to try to answer you, Marcarc, on a few things. This will be a very long post because I want to be clear and thorough and understand what you're saying. Sorry, and please bear with me. A big problem in these arguments is always definitions, and in this case it's no different. When you get formal schooling beyond highschool they make it very clear how important it is to define your terms to put points across clearly and that maybe hasn't happened here yet. I think most people, Marcarc, are going to refer to a democracy as the system of government in a country--and assume it to mean what it generally does, ie (from Wikipedia) <blockquote> "in contemporary usage, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy...Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected representatives that hold the decision power are moderated by a constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the rights of minorities in society, such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, and many more."</blockquote> Michou obviously used this definition, since she mentioned the two-party system, the executive branch of the US govt etc, and its associated problems in the US (and I would highly recommend a book by Lisa Jane Disch called the "Tyranny of the Two-Party System" that explains why the US did not have to end up with it); Michou and myself and others would be thinking about the actual forms and systems of our current democracies when comparing Canada and the US to see which is more democratic and whether Canada should try to be "as democratic" as the US. However, you sound as though you're defining it differently--ie, as grassroots movements and citizen involvement OUTSIDE the US government. In one post you say "the US is far ahead of us democratically, we have to follow them, and learn from them" after listing a few examples of citizen action ("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 "outside government there are huge opportunities for making change. The states have a far more 'individualist' culture than empowers people and groups.") You also say "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." So I think what you are saying is that we should be following and using the tools from grassroots movements in the US, and you are generally keeping your definition of democracy limited to that (although more on the definition you are using in a minute). On that point I'll grant you there are some things we can learn from our US neighbours, especially about how to use the internet to affect change. However, I think you are also ignoring or discounting the many grassroots organizations and movements active here in Canada. You may say that you are only pointing out that there is room for improvement, but statements like "Canada has ALL the same problems as the states, and NONE of the democratic tools to fight it" and "It is virtually impossible to get people (outside of quebec) into a demonstration" seem to completely ignore the amazing variety of grassroots activity, much of it extremely successful, going on in Canada. There were record-breaking demonstrations here about the Iraq war as well, remember, and unlike the same movements in the US, here they WORKED--we didn't send troops there, making it a major win for our movements even if the govt still managed to find ways to support the war economically. And what about our HUGE win on keeping Canada out of missile defence, which came from hundreds of organizations and hundreds of thousands of Canadians writing, emailing, calling, agitating, demonstrating, and advocating in oppostition to joining US-led BMD? I think that would classify as being as big a triumph for the Canadian grassroots as anything that has happened in the US--and perhaps moreso. That must mean we are using democratic tools here in Canada which in some cases match or perhaps are even SUPERIOR to those in the US. Perhaps if you spent LESS time associating with and working through US-based organizations and more time working wtih and keeping an eye on the Canadian ones, that might be more apparent to you. And I think the major reason you have developed this blind spot is that you are looking only at DD organizations and advocacy groups for your examples of grassroots democracy and citizen action, rather than acknowledging the much wider number of groups that campaign on certain issues but use many different democratic tools to do so, even though they're not specifically advocating for democracy itself. To get back to the idea of definitions, I want to point out something else you say after all your arguments about the US having better democracy than Canada because of the grassroots movements there: <blockquote>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.</blockquote> This sounds like a definition of "democracy" and "republic" used sometimes in the US, often by US Conservatives, unfortunately. Are you using or trying to use the old US definitions of democracy? From Wikipedia: <blockquote>There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a "republic". This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. Conservative and Libertarian debate. Modern definitions of the term republic, however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered republics.)</blockquote> However, you say that "the founding fathers enshrined a constitution to make sure people don't get power". I think this is a confused way of thinking, since if you're defining democracy and republic according to the US conservative definitions, and arguing FOR more power for the States and AGAINST more power for the federal govt as you seem to be doing (eg "You also find a greater distinction there between the states and federal government. Here, the federal government 'pretty much' rules supreme." and "Virtually ALL the aggregious policies in the states are due to it's federal government-just like canada."), then you should be saying that the constitution in the US was a GOOD thing. Wikipedia again: <blockquote> In the U.S. context, the classical conservative position has been for there to be strict limits on the expansion of the powers of the federal government at the expense of those of the states. U.S. conservatism is rooted in the idea that the federal government has traditionally been the proponent of rapid change and states have tended to be more conservative, and also and perhaps even more importantly in the idea of "originalism", that is, that the United States Constitution should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of the original intent and meaning of the Framers, which is both inherently conservative in that it looks back to a period over two centuries ago for its authority and that this school of interpretation almost invariably leads to the maximization of state power and strict limits on federal power. This derives from an inherent scepticism of the Framers toward a centralized, unitary state such as the United Kingdom which they had just fought to remove themselves from under.</blockquote> So beware Marcarc--it seems like your use of terms like "democracy" is actually heavily US-influenced, and you may be advancing ideas that carry with them the stink of US imperialism. And you don't seem to be quite clear even on those ideas! In fact, I think it's very simplistic and misleading to reduce problems in both Canada and the US to the "federal government" as you do without making any distinctions between the republican/Presidential and parliamentary/Prime Ministerial types of government, which have different balances of power etc. (In one post you say that "You also find a greater distinction there between the states and federal government. Here, the federal government 'pretty much' rules supreme." In a subsequent post you say that "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." etc etc) Again, it is strikingly similar to arguments used by US libertarians and conservatives who don't want "big government". And again, since you don't acknowledge the obvious and factual differences in the way the systems currently work, you gloss over the idea that such differences exist at all. Therefore I don't have much confidence that you have a strong grasp of what the differences between our two governments actually ARE, Marcarc, which tends to lend less credibility to your knowledge of democratic systems of any kind, unfortunately--and also tends to worry me about where you are getting your assumptions, since again, you may be arguing for US imperialism unawares. That sends up a lot of red flags for me and tends to make me think YOUR proposals for DD should send Canadians running in the opposite direction. And although yes, there are grassroots groups organizing on massive scales to fight government corruption in the US, we have similar movements here at home, and where and how they are effective will be in part determined by the type of system we already have. For one thing, in Canada we actually have some new campaign finance rules that limit corporate donations; and some provinces are pursuing citizen's intiatives aimed at instituting forms of proportional representation. The NDP even forced a vote on PR more than once in the House. And you mention Quebec and sovereignty--isn't the national referendum we held on that a better example of getting close to DD than anything that has recently happened in the US (have they had a national referendum on anything of note for years, and would they have had one on an issue like this?) In the US meanwhile Bush has concentrated unprecedented power into the executive branch of government, to an extent unseen for years in the US political system, and groups like MoveOn have been limited to simply encouraging Senators to filibuster. So where is real change to the formal, institutional democratic system more likely to happen thanks to grassroots pressure? Back to assumptions and definitions. Knowingly or not, you seem to be subscribing to a couple of OTHER very major and in my opinion erroneous and particularly American assumptions--1, that individualism = democracy, and 2, that the US has a good/better democracy than Canada (and therefore other democratic countries). By no means do I think that Canadian democracy is the best or flawless--hardly. By no means do I think that the Canadian political process is the best or flawless--hardly. By no means do I think that we can't learn a LOT from looking at other democracies around the world, and especially Scandinavian countries, and by exploring options like PR and even DD. But the argument that US-style democracy is BETTER, or the BEST democracy, and a type of democracy we should FOLLOW and LEARN FROM is at best deluded and at worst a buy-in to the imperialist, ethnocentric mythology that allows governments like the Bush administration and its many forebears to run rough-shod over the sovereign laws of countries all over the world, from Iraq to Canada. It is a peculiarly AMERICAN assumption, which gets passed on to our own compradors here in Canada. Remember, although there are millions of Americans who are themselves greatly disillusioned by the democratic process in the US, for any number of reasons including the influence of money in politics, hanging chads, etc, most if not all of these same Americans, whether in MoveOn.org or the Republican party or having recently moved to Canada, will not hesitate to hastily add that "America is still the best democracy in the world". Wes Boyd, founder and head of MoveOn, was adamant that the two-party system was the best in the world and that there was no point in working to improve US democracy when I personally suggested to him that the organization work on actually changing and improving democracy in the US (I used to work in MoveOn, remember, and attended the inner sanctum of planning and strategy meetings for the heads of the organization in San Francisco in 2002). Why? Because it's imperialist propaganda, that's why, and fed to every US citizen from the time they are born. Now true, Marcarc, you didn't say the US was the "best" democracy but in my experience the argument you are advancing is making that assumption--the idea that goes hand in hand with the idea of the US as the best democracy in the world (and even the only one) is always that other countries can "learn" from the US how to be more democratic. So you may be advancing an assumption here you didn't even know you'd bought into, and one which is particularly imperialist and damaging to any unique Canadian democracy of any kind. And it is different for Canadians than for Americans, a fact you don't acknowledge, because we don't hear every day how great Canada's democracy is or that it is the best/only one in the world--because we always have the huge example of the US right next to us and in our faces, while the US hardly remembers to acknowledge that its northerly neighbour is a democracy too, 99% of the time. I also want to note that the idea that the individualistic society in the US ENCOURAGES community and democracy is to me, highly dubious, and another peculiarly American assumption. Remember, you said: <blockquote> The states have a far more 'individualist' culture than empowers people and groups </blockquote> I will quote Robin Mathews from his book "The Treason of Intellectuals" to explain (and note how he carefully defines his terms!): <blockquote> "Individualism" here [in this book] is the claim that the primacy of each person takes precendence over the community. "Individualism" creates a society made up of people who exist, first, as individuals, as separated atoms. A product of the atomization of people in society is their tendency to see themselves nto only as legitimate before the community or larger society, but to believe also that, as atoms (as free individuals), they are normal when they are aggresviely self-seeking. Many of those who believe, to use a single, topical instance, that Canada should end the universality of our health care system argue from "individualism". They assume that each individual aggressively seeks his or her own good as primary. As atoms in the society, each is responsible for storing enough wealth to care for any medical catastrophe that is visited on himself/herself or parents or children. As atoms, then, people haev no right to call upon the community, the larger society of which they are part. They have no right to say "the individual has his or her being inr elation to the community from which he and she come. We contribute to the community as we can, and we may call upon it, expecting equal treatment in medical assistance when we are in need, for difference in fortune and luck does not, in our community, define difference in the fundamental equal humanity of people." The only kinds of equality accepted by the "individualism" referred to here are fictions: we all have an equal start, and we are all equally free to make ourselves what we want... ..."Individualism" as defined here supports and is given power by capitalism which employs the arguments both of "liberalism" and "individualism", arguments which claim the sanctity of the individual, the right to unimpeded free choice in goals, and, in effect, the right to unfettered exercise of greed. Where "individualism" becomes the presiding force in society--it almost goes without saying--certain people quickly gain dominant, increasingly despotic, positions and use the arguments of individualism to hold them. In addition, they soon claim that the humanity of people in the society is of different kinds; if they were not, all would be as successful and powerful as those who have gained dominance. Finally, they erect or support mystifications about human worth which allow them to further atomize society, to eneverate the opposition, to exploit others and to create and maintain what are in effect "thug aristocracies," fiefdoms of various sizes in which they pursue socially immoral goals in the interest of self-aggrandizement."</blockquote> In other words, the idea that people are unequal and belong to no shared community is hardly one that creates a good climate for democracy of any kind. Lastly, it's a bit of a digression but I simply have to argue against one fairly outrageous statement and assumption you made about environmental records/regulations in Canada and the US, Marcarc. <blockquote>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...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. </blockquote> That's the first time I've ever heard that, and it's patently untrue in most cases. Canada has a long history and record of having tighter environmental regulations than the US, and if the US has been applying any pressure to Canada in general it has been to relax our own regulations, roll them back, or harmonize them with US regulations which are much more lax (and the US has used trade rules under NAFTA to do this in infamous cases such as with a toxic gasoline additive originally banned in Canada, see <a href="http://home.ica.net/~fresch/ndp/ethylmmt.htm">info on MMT</a> ). And the Bush administration in particular has been roundly criticized by environmentalists in the US and around the world for its TERRIBLE environmental policies on everything from Kyoto (which the US refused to sign, meaning that almost every other country in the world had to sign to make it have any effect, thanks to the fact that the US is acocuntable for over half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world) to its forest policies (which have included a Bush-OKed campaign to log forests more extensively in order to "prevent forest fires"). See <a href="http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/">www.bushgreenwatch.org</a> , <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/">www.nrdc.org/bushrecord</a>, for evidence and examples. So I would dearly love to hear some concrete examples with backing evidence from you on the idea that the US pressures Canada to have better environmental regulations Marcarc, but they will be supremely hard to find. And whether or not you intend it to your argument also seems to suggest that under deep integration with the US, Canada's environmental standards might actually IMPROVE (if we agree with you that the US pressures Canada to have better environmental standards); but for an excellent and comprehensive agrument as to why this isn't true, see a document by Benevides of the Canadian Environmental Law Association avialable here: <a href="http://www.canadians.org/documents/6_2_Benevides.pdf">CELA document</a> (PDF). So OK, let's debate now but let's make it clear what we're debating. Now I'm off to read the most recent DD link posted by Calumny.

Stephen's site can be a bit difficult to get through. However, I think the content may provide some background re: Marcarc's comments. Marcarc is right re: the 'democracy tools' available in the US being superior to our own. However, having a shed filled with the best tools doesn't help one if someone else has put a lock on the shed and kept the key to themselves. Like it or not, I doubt if the founding principles of the US have (given the times and circumstances of their creation) been bettered by any other nation. For the past many years the US has been in a situation similar to that of a decent person who signed power of attorney over to a less scrupulous individual. The fact that the less scrupulous individual carries out actions that reflect badly on the decent person does not change the person's basic decency, it just changes the way they may be perceived by others. The US is an excellent example of how well meaning principles can be corrupted into something else and turned against those the principles were intended to support. It is also an excellent example, as are we, of why citizens in a democracy need to excercise vigilance to retain their democracy. I'm not glorifying the US here. As a nation, it has made many mistakes and continues to do so. So have we. If you look at the concept of the 'rights of the individual' in terms of the times and circumstances the Framers were dealing with, and the nature of the 'state' and the place of most individuals within that state at that time, the concept makes perfect sense. All have the same rights, none by virtue of birth or position have more. However, I think most of the Framers are rolling in their graves in terms of what the concept has been used to support in the US, and increasingly here, in the intervening years. There has to be a balance between the rights of the individual and the good of society, i.e., all individuals in that society. The Swiss model may reflect this better than than the US. As concerns Canada staying out of Iraq and the BMD, and to play devil's advocate, the argument could be made that both the 'victories' may be little more than smoke and mirrors. Our 'participation' in each wasn't something the US actually needed. What the US does need is easy access to Canadian resources. It could well be that Canadian acceptance of 'smart regulations' will be far more damaging to Canada over the long-term than our participation in either of the above, while also offering greater benefit to US interests. So, it could be that we were given the illusion of winning a couple of battles solely to divert attention from the actions from which the adversary plans to win the overall war. Kind of like the pool hustler that lets you win the first couple of games. Various schools of thought from both the so-called right and left wings support DD, for differing reasons. To my mind, the fact that a particular school of political thought, whether it be anarchist, libertarian, etc., or any of the associated flavours therein which is for all intents and purposes irrelevant in the real world, support a DD form of government makes no statement about DD itself or the value of the same to citizens. God knows, I wouldn't use representative democracy as practiced in the USSR as being an indictment of representative democracy in general (not that I'd need to, the system does a pretty good job on its own). The chief opponents of DD will be those who believe people need to be guided by authority, whether that authority be a 'benevolent' state or 'benevolent' corporations. I tend to believe that most Canadians are, whether they would typify themselves as such or not, of a more 'left' than 'right' bent, so would hope that a DD society in Canada to be much the same, and one where citizens aren't satisfied to leave others to freeze to death on city streets or try to scrape by on $800 per month disability pensions when luck works against them, as opposed to the society we have today and have had for many years. As indicated elsewhere, I believe some changes would be needed in Canada to support the ongoing health of a direct democracy, media concentration being one. Wikipedia definition of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy">Direct Democracy</a>.

OK, this will probably be similarly long. Democracy is simply rule by the people. That's it. From there you get many different varieties of HOW the people may 'rule'. In Athens people ruled directly, as in the Iroquis league and in many worker's councils. In each of those systems ALL decisions were made by casting of ballot on ALL decisions. That is not 'liberal democracy' or 'conservative democracy' and the defining of democracy limited to two variations more clearly shows that you have adopted the american 'elitist' definitions. Outside of that circle, there are of course hundreds of forms of democracy. In Bakunin's form decisions are made by worker council's, Bakunin never set foot on, or studied in the US. We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about democracy, you are talking about democratic forms. Again, I assert something you obviously missed-I never said 'let's be american's', I've never even said 'let's abandon our system of government' (which CAN be done democratically). I'm quite aware of canadian demonstrations, in fact I've been PART of most of them, in Ottawa, in Halifax, in Kitchener. However, we can note that the only 'successful' demonstrations you refer to are ones that dealt with two integration issues, and by no means has it been shown that 'people pressure' caused the result. I've often been the most vocal in getting people active and challenging people to attempt to keep a minority government, since that is when governments at least pretend to pay attention to people. However, we know from Frank McKenna and our involvement in NORAD that we ARE involved in missile defense, and we KNOW that support was given Iraq. There is far more evidence that Chretien's links to France and Power Corporation's oil are responsible for his actions there. If you want to believe it was people power that did it, that's fine, every one needs 'success stories' to keep going. There are also equivalent grassroots movements against our illegal involvement in Haiti, Afghanistan, and formerly in Yugoslavia, but you didn't see the government make any changes there (but again, in a minority government we can't rule things out). There are tons of grassroots movements, but my point was it certainly doesn't compare with the states. There you could say that it's more 'necessary' as they have a federal government intent on overruling all levels of government, but that doesn't change the fact it exists. If you look you'll notice that the maritimes and parts of Ontario don't even have the resources for an Indymedia server, they are all hosted in Buffalo. Not exactly a strong selling point for dissent. Again, don't put assumptions in my mouth, I've never said there was no canadian dissent, I've never even hinted at it. I've said quite the opposite and told people to check out any independant bookstore's magazine rack, there are literally a dozen of activist magazines. Back to democracy-again, it is rule by the people. There is a difference between 'democracy' and 'democratic tools'. Canada is far off the page on that, and that is what my arguments tend toward. I can certainly argue forms of democracy, from Swiss to american, to theory in Hobbes, Hume, Mill, Rousseau and deToqueville-it's what I took my undergrad in. There are also many socialist democracies, worker democracies like in Spain before Franco and anarchist democracy (which I am probably closest to-anarcho syndicalism-so now you have a reason to go running if you need one). Practically every country in the world calls itself a democracy, in fact the People's republic of China considers itself the 'most perfect form of democracy'. If you really want to get into that though, you've got to read a little further than the encyclopedia. Canada sometimes uses some various tools of democracy, but just because a country publishes a book doesn't mean it has a literature. At the federal level Canada has had three referenda. That's great, I'm all for that, in fact I'd love to see MORE. And on things that actually affect our lives, like health care, the environment, etc. Having had three more referenda than the states at the national level is hardly grounds for celebration though. As I've said at numerous times, our problems are not just federal, they are provincial and municipal, and here is where the big difference is. In half the states the people are allowed citizen's initiatives, which has meant hundreds of referenda, in canada it's very very few. New Brunswick just had it's first referenda as part of this country (it's previous one was to reject canadian union). At the county level ballot propositions occur all the time and people vote on them, 'vote 'yes' on proposition 22' you'll hear them advertise. Likewise, they vote for judges, sheriffs, and senators. Now, here is the big point, because many people will say flat out that they don't want democracy. People will say 'those decisions are better made by profession politicians' or some such thing. That's fine, just don't call it a democracy. The big point here is that Canada IS NOT a representative democracy, and never has claimed to be. We are a constitutional monarchy with a system of RESPONSIBLE government, just as when it was enacted in 1845. To give it only the little bit of respect it deserves, it is as Trudeau defined it: "a system of CONSULTATIVE democracy". Meaning that for various issues the government will go to the people to get input and then do whatever the heck it wants-sometimes its what the people want, sometimes not. So there is literally no way you can define canada as a democracy, it has never even tried to do that itself-except in the media and with talking points. Any law that is tried to be passed can quite legally be stopped by the Queen if she so desires. Even at the legislative level any law can be turfed by Senators (who are appointed by the Queen but she simply doesn't care so the PM usually picks them). Canadians NEVER vote in representatives, well, almost never, because 'in theory' one can vote in an independant. Apart from that we vote in a party, not a representative. At the executive level it is even worse, a member of the cabinet cannot even disagree with the plans of government or it brings down the government-or their forced to resign. This is apparant right from the get-go, at provincial and the federal levels the first bill always passed is a 'ceremonial' bill, but it says a lot, it is the "Bill to enact a certain ancient Right". What this bill says is that the government can't be held to anything that it states in it's Speech from the Throne. In other words, the government can not only say whatever it wants during a campaign, but it can lie through its teeth during its inaugeral address. One of the foundations of a democracy, even a lousy one, is that there must be some way to "check" or "balance" a government which outright lies through it's teeth to get elected-and once elected. We have no such thing and can only go with "well, you don't have to vote for them next time". This is why many native groups have such a hard time with the democracy we force on them, they know what we don't-that it makes no sense. Why should I, as an intelligent, reasonable, thinking creature 'vote' for somebody else to do my thinking, reasoning and, well, intelligenting, for me? At the municipal level, my city is now enacting legislation that will build a subdivision over top of the last piece of moraine in the region-which is where we get our water from. This is absolutely absurd but there is literally nothing we can do, we can take time out of our lives and 'hope to God' that the politicians listen. In Switzerland, every law that is passed CAN be voted on by the people, they can petition and challenge it. Likewise, in Switzerland they don't make ALL federal decisions but they have tons of mechanisms to control them, there are at least three kinds of referenda that can be used. As I've said, the media has made it bad to use anything american so I usually use the Swiss, which have even more examples than the states, and obviously I use the examples with the most democracy. In Switzerland the tools are available at all levels, whereas in the states it is only available in two (and not all states). The states are easier to study simply because they speak our language, the swiss websites are not in english. In the states though there is the initiative institute in California which as tons of information. Just as another example, in Canada it is next to impossible to even find a professor who specializes on Switzerland, even though it is easily the most democratic country in the world. In fact, in the city where I live there are two world class universities and several other libraries and there isn't even a single book on their political structures. My point was simply that the US is more democratic than Canada. Meaning that it has more democratic tools than canada. That means nothing about being well run or egalitarian, one can live in a full democracy which is ruthless, as Athens was, and one can live under a benign monarchy that creates a wonderful environment for everybody, and of course there are thousands of points in between. As far as the environment goes, that's very true about Bush, but there are several checks and balances in there we don't hear about. Likewise there are several states that have horrible environmental regulations, but I'm referring to federally. The EPA has far more stringent requirements than Canada, I've posted elsewhere the links on the Ontario Great lakes issue, I haven't the time to go find it. Likewise, I've had enough of the 'who's better than who' arguments. Here is a good quote on Canada's finally drafted Endangered Species legislation: "Biologists slam Canada’s new endangered species legislation: More than 1,300 of the world’s top biologists have fiercely condemned Canada’s proposed legislation to protect endangered species as offering less than Third World standards. " And this is the first legislation on the subject that canada has ever had. The states have quite rigourous endangered species regulations, mainly, again because people forced it on the government.

Swiss direct democracy When it comes to direct democracy, Switzerland is usually cited as the country that is the closest to having a directly democratic system of government. Although Switzerland retains features of a representative democracy (e.g. it has an elected Parliament), various forms of direct democracy are used frequently at national, cantonal and local (commune) level. This case study focuses on the mechanisms and use of Switzerland's direct democracy. History and background Direct democracy has a long standing tradition in some of the Swiss cantons, going back as far as the fourteenth century. When Switzerland became a federal state in 1848, direct democracy instruments were introduced at the national level as well. The federal constitution introduced the principle of holding a mandatory referendum in order to change the constitution, as well as the popular initiative for a total revision of the constitution. Further rights of referendums were introduced in 1874, and the popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution in 1891. Between 1848 and February 2004, 517 referendums were held, whilst between1892 and May 2004, 244 initiatives were proposed. Forms of direct democracy - federal level Numerous different direct democracy mechanisms can be used at federal level in Switzerland. The mechanisms fall into two broad categories: referendums and initiatives - there is no provision for use of the recall in Switzerland. Each mechanism can be used to achieve different results, and has different design features. Referendums Unlike in other countries, in Switzerland it is not the government that decides if a referendum is held on an issue; the circumstances under which referendums are used are clearly prescribed within the country's constitution. The first type of direct democracy mechanism is the mandatory referendum, i.e., a referendum that the government must call in relation to certain important political issues. These are: A partial or total revision of the federal constitution; Joining an organisation for collective security or a supranational organisation; Introducing urgent federal legislation whose validity exceeds one year, without the required constitutional basis (such legislation has to be submitted to the vote within one year after its adoption by Parliament); popular initiatives for a total revision of the constitution; popular initiatives for a partial revision of the constitution in the form of a general proposition which were rejected by the Parliament; The question of whether a total revision of the constitution should be carried out if both chambers of Parliament disagree. The first three kinds of mandatory referendums require a double majority to pass; that is, they must achieve a popular majority (a majority of the votes cast at the referendum) whilst at the same time achieving a majority vote in a majority of the cantons. The latter three, which take place as part of the initiative process, only need a popular majority. Optional referendums can be held in relation to new or amended federal acts and/or international treaties. The optional legislative referendum is held in relation to all federal laws and urgent federal laws which are due to be valid for more than a year. The optional referendum on international treaties is held in relation to international treaties that are of unlimited duration and may not be terminated, and international treaties that provide for membership of international organisations or contain legislative provisions that have to be implemented by enacting federal laws Optional referendums are called if 50,000 signatures are collected in support of a referendum within 100 days, or if eight cantons request a referendum, and pass with a popular majority. Until 2004, an optional referendum has never been successfully requested by a group of cantons; the first referendum initiated by the cantons was held on 16 May 2004. Initiatives Initiatives can be used to propose changes to the federal constitution. In addition, in 2003 Switzerland adopted a new form of initiative, to be used in relation to more general statutory provisions. Once an initiative is filed, a specified number of valid signatures (i.e. signatures of registered voters) are required in order to force the Federal Council and Parliament to consider the initiative and to hold a referendum on the initiative proposal. Amendments to the constitution can be proposed using two different initiative mechanisms. The popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution provides voters with the opportunity to propose a draft revision to part of the federal constitution. 100,000 voters must sign an initiative in order for a referendum to be held on the proposal. The popular initiative for a total revision of the constitution also requires the support of 100,000 voters in an initiative. In both cases, the signatures must be collected within 18 months of the initiative being filed. From late 2006, the general popular initiative will be available to Swiss voters. This mechanism can be used to force a referendum on the adoption of a general proposal that will be incorporated on a constitutional and/or legislative level, providing that 100,000 signatures are collected in support of the initiative. Until 2006, initiatives in Switzerland can be submitted as a general proposition or in the text that would be adopted if the initiative measure is successful. However, after the implementation of the general popular initiative, the popular initiative for a partial revision of the constitution will only be accepted in the form of a written text proposition (general propositions in relation to the constitution should be made using the general popular initiative). In response to initiatives which meet the required signature threshold, the Swiss Parliament advises the people on whether to adopt or reject the proposal. In addition, the government is also able to formulate a counter-proposal that is included on the ballot. The 'double-yes' vote allows voters to approve both the original initiative and the government's response to it, and indicate which of the two measures they prefer. The measure which receives the most support is passed. Forms of direct democracy - cantonal level Use of direct democracy is even more extensive in Switzerland's 26 cantons (i.e., state authorities). However, use of direct democracy varies between the cantons; between 1970-2003 Zurich held 457, whilst Ticino held just 53 (the canton of Jura held just 45 referendums, but was only formally established (by referendum) in 1979). In addition to the referendum and initiative mechanisms used at federal level, the following mechanisms are also used in some or all of the Swiss cantons. Unlike at federal level, the legislative initiative has for some time provided voters in all cantons with the opportunity to propose additions to laws. In some cantons, the administrative initiative can be used to demand that certain work is undertaken in public administration (e.g., building a new school or a new road). In addition, some cantons provide for the initiative to launch a canton initiative, an initiative to force the canton to table a motion to the Federal Assembly. All the Swiss cantons provide for legislative referendums on legislation passed by the cantonal parliament; however, in different cantons, these may be mandatory or optional. Administrative referendums may be held on major public projects that will incur high levels of public expenditure (and may lead to increases in taxes); these are sometime called fiscal referendums. Lastly, administrative referendums may be held on the non-fiscal issues of public administration listed above. Characteristics of the use of direct democracy in Switzerland Turnout Swiss voters are given the opportunity to vote in federal referendums on average four times a year. Typically, voters will also vote on a number of cantonal and local issues on the day of a federal ballot. Over the second part of the twentieth century, turnout at federal referendums fell from around 50-70% to an average of around 40%; this mirrored a similar decline in turnout at federal elections from 80% to around 45%. One suggestion is that this comparatively low turnout is due to the sheer number of votes that the Swiss are able to vote in; however, it is argued by many that a far higher proportion of the population is politically active than appears so from the figure of 40%, since it is not always the same 40-45% of voters who vote at each opportunity. Issues Given the numerous opportunities for using direct democracy in Switzerland, it is perhaps not surprising that the variety of issues on which referendums are held is extremely wide. Since 1990, referendums have been held on such diverse issues as: Banning the building of nuclear power stations; Building new Alpine railways; A new federal constitution; Controlling immigration; Abolishing the army; Joining the United Nations; Shortening working hours; Opening up electricity markets. Impact of direct democracy Undoubtedly, direct democracy has played a key role in shaping the modern Swiss political system. Yet it is important to question the actual impact of direct democracy on the legislative issues that, in other countries, are the responsibility of elected representatives. On one reading, it could be argued that the impact has been limited: in the first century of using the initiative (1891-2004), just 14 initiatives were passed in Switzerland. Yet to consider this statistic alone ignores the considerable, indirect impact of direct democracy. Although the majority of initiatives fail, the fact that there has been an initiative, and therefore a campaign, increases publicity surrounding the issue in question and public knowledge of it. This may well increase pressure on the government to introduce measures dealing with the issue, even if it is not required to by virtue of a successful referendum. An initiative might therefore be successful in achieving some of its proponents' aims, even if it is not successful in the sense of having passed. This trend explains why many initiatives are filed but subsequently withdrawn; because sometimes a government chooses to act before an initiative reaches the referendum stage. A further impact of the direct democracy mechanisms within Switzerland is that the government is forced to seek a wider consensus about the statutory (and constitutional) measures that it seeks to introduce than is the case in a purely representative system. In a representative system, the party of government may, in the absence of a large majority, have to develop cross-party consensus on an issue in order to ensure that the measure is approved. In the Swiss system, the possibility of an optional referendum forces the government to ensure consensus with groups outside of Parliament so as to prevent the possibility of such groups seeking to overturn the new legislation. Conversely, the significance of direct democracy in the Swiss system is often cited as the reason for the weakness of Swiss political parties and the relatively low significance attached to normal elections. This is because, given the prominence of direct democracy, political parties are not solely responsible for controlling the federal agenda. In addition, direct democracy often raises cross-cutting issues on which members of political parties might not be in agreement. Useful links and sources

http://www.nancho.net/demorule/fossedal.html Here's another good article on the swiss. That has always been my focus, my points here were directed against the idea that canada was more advanced in dissent and it was up to canadians to 'help out' the americans. So feel free to disregard all my comments about the states if that disturbs you, and check out the stuff on the swiss. Again, no culture is perfect, and globalization effects us all. It's important to keep in mind that no two countries are identical, and no two time periods are identical. My personal form of direct democracy is simply to let people make their own decisions, if that offends or frightens, well, feel free to run away. Fortunately, you are not in my riding district so I don't need your vote anyway<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

I made the rude mistake of not reading that whole 'critique' (it was long), which I wouldn't wish people to do to me, so the golden rule applies. I want to apologize if my post was repetitive of Calumny's-I also didn't read his post since we are usually of like mind and I think I can judge what he says. For the environmental links, check here: <a href="http://http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/may/may01a_03.html">here</a> and here: <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/aug/policy/jp_border.html">here</a>

OK, that didn't work, try cutting and pasting: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/aug/policy/jp_border.html http://www.glu.org/english/projects/clean-production/news-conf-ont-airtoxic03.html and here http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/may/may01a_03.html

You have the 'double' http in your original links. Done this myself on more than a few occasions. Got that 'blueberry ale' yet? (just kidding) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[QUOTE]I also want to note that the idea that the individualistic society in the US ENCOURAGES community and democracy is to me, highly dubious, and another peculiarly American assumption. Remember, you said:[/QUOTE] Since you took the time to be so clinical here, then I should return the favour. Defining 'first principles' is something I always loved to do, so it's nice to have an opportunity. Here, I don't think your author defines his terms well enough, take for example [QUOTE]"Individualism" here [in this book] is the claim that the primacy of each person takes precendence over the community. "Individualism" creates a society made up of people who exist, first, as individuals, as separated atoms. [/QUOTE] This, to me, sounds like gibberish, besides the poor spelling and redundancy; it makes no sense because it doesn't define the community, and it doesn't define 'precedence'. Neither is clear. That type of 'individualism' certainly isn't confined to the states, it's a christian edict as Jesus claims that man is 'above all laws'. The community could be a construct of concrete enforceable laws, or it could be a system of normative behaviours. The whole problem here is that your author is using the term individualism. Look back at the middle ages and before, or at native organizations and in fact there is no sense of the term 'individual' whatsoever. A person did not exist outside their community, this is why in Athens the greatest punishment was not death, but rather banishment from the metropolis. This is a huge problem in Canada, thanks to the 1982 charter of rights which created exactly that problem. Suddenly individuals WERE elevated above their communities as 'atoms'. If you go read the sovereignty thread you'll see that that is many Quebecers chief opposition to it. Likewise, natives were adamantly against it because it did not recognize communal or group rights. Ironically, it took Brian Mulroney to recognize native women's rights following divorce because Trudeau refused to grant what he called 'special compensation'. So this was yet another way in which 'communities' are censured. The other way is that in federal law municipalities have no existence whatsoever, they are creations of the provincial government. So Canada, far from being a bastion of 'community minded' legislators, creates all those individualistic problems in the first place. This is one of the reasons why native claims take so long, there is simply no mechanisms for dealing with 'tribes' or 'bands' or any such structures. There is no problem resolving disputes between individuals, but collective rights are anathema. What is problematic about that in Canada is it's fascist nature. Meaning, that because we are constitutional monarchy you can't 'elevate' individuals to their natural position (being 'higher' than laws) as in the states. So you have these nice fancy words that sound good, yet can be overridden by the federal government on a whim. With the terrorism act it becomes even more blatant and like the states the government can resort to withholding evidence and holding incommunicado. In the states they at least have venues they are using to challenge this, in canada we have no tools to challenge with. If you are conspiratorial minded, then it's easy to see why that is the case. It's quite easy to turn that 'atom' into that 'consumer'. Governments, and industries, WANT people isolated and 'self important'. It's easier to sell them stuff and they are less likely to be a political problem. I do agree that in the states that is similar. However, after the civil war there the 'mythos' of individualism and 'can do' had many people joining the progressive parties which lead to demanding referenda and citizens initiatives. South Dakota was the first place to get that right, and it was from a socialist governor-a hundred years before Tommy Douglas, that instituted the citizens initiative. Most 'communal' (re:socialist) movements in the states predate Canada's, another example of their proactivity. I don't want to sound completely contrarian though, the point about the 'me,me,me' idea is well taken. Too many people have the idea that somehow they succeeded 'on their own'. My best friend is one such. He's always been an 'anti welfare' freak, and claimed that all his success was his own, even though his father gave him a job every summer and the university 'co-op program' trained him for his position. His father was much the same way, ironically until he lost his job and was unemployed for a time. Amazing how that tends to alter one's perceptions. The one real question on my mind is how do you NOW create communities out of a country so regionally and individually divided? To my mind you do it by community, meaning local community. That is why I'm a direct democracy candidate. At the municipal level there is no reason people can't make those decisions. In fact the same is true at the provincial and federal levels. Most votes are done on party lines, the reps don't even READ the bills. Why would we assume we need a specialized class for that? That does mean a radically different federalism, but that doesn't necessarily mean 'less government', it just means 'different government'. Our current federalism has created all the problems you mention regards to individualism, direct democracy seems to me to be the ONLY way to counteract it. Even the most 'people centred' parties like the NDP and Green Party essentially say 'we will make the decisions for you'. You don't expect a child to become an adult until they make their own decisions and live with the consequences, the same is true in society.

[QUOTE]Our current federalism has created all the problems you mention regards to individualism, direct democracy seems to me to be the ONLY way to counteract it.[/QUOTE] I think this is an important point. It is not Canadians who as a whole have decided the past forty or so years that they wish to become mirror images of the U.S., i.e., the 'rights of the individual' supercede all else, including the individual's responsibilitY in maintaining their society. Our government that has inched us along this road, and detrimentally so. There must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of all other individuals, or society as it were. If the balance swings too far to either side, society will eventually break. This is particularly critical in a situation where corporations are treated as 'individuals'. I believe that in a DD system the balance is more likely to exist than in our current system. Anyone who doesn't believe this is free to explain why.

There is a real problem with corporations as 'individuals', which relates specifically to land, media, and commerce. The good thing about DD is that it mitigates that power-you don't see 'Rogers television' asking to be able to vote in elections. There are some problems, municipally in Ontario as a business owner you can vote both where you live and where your business is, which seems pretty lousy to me. However, as you say, the only thing that I've seen to counteract the 'corporate power' has been 'people power'. Other people are free to wait for a Chavez to take power and responsibility, but I don't feel like waiting. Plus, Chavez succeeded so far ONLY because he had given power to the people, otherwise at the coup we'd have never heard of him again. Even 'alternative' parties seem to gloss over democratic rights, simply claiming 'they will do what canadians want' (or what a certain percentage of canadians want) We've heard such things before, and it virtually guarantees a future life of anonymity-however, personally I ALWAYS vote independant, or Green, whichever is available. Although I did have an NDP sign in my yard.

On April 16th, I wrote : [QUOTE] I'll keep you posted. <a href="http://www.brainstormingnational.org/">Brainstorming National</a>[/QUOTE] Last spring, Brainstorming National's first public meetings were held in Montreal and Québec city. A total of 100 people showed up to meet and discuss with the creators of this popular consultation project. It follows that brainstorming sessions were held during those meetings with the objective of gathering ideas for a start up. Briefly, National Brainstorm is a non-profit organization whose objective is the creation of a public time-space, given to Québec citizens so they can take a step back both individually and collectively, and reflect about their situation, what changes they want to see happen and then decide by what means they intend to use to make it happen. It is an interesting concept, though far different from what Direct Democracy is about. It is still a first step in getting citizens thinking about their role in a democratic society and about their rights and privileges within it. More information about National Brainstorm's project is now available in its english version <a href="http://www.nationalbrainstorm.org/">here</a>. It is too early to tell if the movement will be able to rise and take off. It will need to find ways to generate interest and thus gain some visibility. Obviously, the three administrators are accustomed to such visibility and that will definitely be an asset to the project. I don't expect much to happen over the summer months but come fall, that may change. Yet, there are no short term expectations about its eventual success.

I'm all for new movements, I really don't know what to make of this one. In any other province but Quebec I'd say it was a waste of time, as most changes must have at least some political element. WHen you ask most people how to make life better I can't imagine the answer not being political. With a possible referendum on the horizon you can be assured that if the movement gets the numbers (and more than 100 would have to turn up) then the party in power will at least pay attention. I think there should be more of a political element to it, since if Quebec is creating a new country then I would think that politics would be foremost on people's minds. The website is vague though, and without access to the questionnaire it is hard to know what exactly they mean-is this the "natural law party" kind of stuff where we levitate our problems or what? There is no reason that a more extensive website couldn't accomplish much of what is being talked about and may be more successful than attempting to drag people to meetings. An online setup like Vive's with forums and even a more extensive MSN setup where people can meet 'live' and discuss these issues would be a good idea. Marketing such a movement would be far easier through indymedia and websites like this, these types of movements get a lot of word of mouth on the internet, then maybe it could be done with far less than 3.5 million. Those are criticisms I know, such is my nature. That the group exists is a great thing though, obviously the will to succeed is all that is needed. If Quebecers really want this kind of stuff they'll flock to it, if not, well, it'll stay on the back forum gathering dust.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] With a possible referendum on the horizon you can be assured that if the movement gets the numbers (and more than 100 would have to turn up) then the party in power will at least pay attention. [/QUOTE] Give the movement a chance. One hundred people showed up when no publicity whatsoever had been made about the organization. As far as I'm concerned, if the movement can make enough of a headway to make people and political parties take notice, that will already be a step in the right direction. It is Brainstorming's objective to keep the organization 'political free'. Since we all know that just breathing has become a political statement, of course there will still be political aspects discussed but I agree with the administrators' view that if we are to gather as much support as possible to the idea, a party affiliation of any kind could be detrimental to the success of this popular consultation. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Those are criticisms I know, such is my nature. [/QUOTE] I wouldn't have expected anything less from you Marcarc. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

I think we often get overly concerned with numbers. The greatest work often gets performed by small number of people, called change agents. They kind of act like catalysts and eventually the mainstream catches on. Large number of people cannot enact changes as they tend to fall to anarchy. Perhaps we have been conditionned to think like our politicians where the only thing that matters are the Gallup poll results showing consensus? Consensus does take time to come. BTW, I am glad to be back on Vive after a holiday break in Greece, apparently the birthplace of our democracy. I discovered the democracy of greek tavernas and ouzo/raki. Low tech does have its advantages too. It was funny though to see the kids SMS texting on their mopeds. Not sure about the impact of this on democracy. Plato would scratch its head, Socrate go nuts.