Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends.
Our feelings about the quality or competence of a government are much more complex than we think. It’s important that we unpack these notions if we’re going to understand how to protect and improve democracy.
Canadians want to believe that politicians are essentially trying to do the things they believe are right. This belief is a foundation of our faith in democracy and a basis for our hope that we can make make a better choice in the next election. The mythology of democracy is similar to the game of blackjack. Sometimes we draw bad cards, sometimes we draw good cards, but we feel we always have a chance at winning. Unfortunately, when it comes to democracy, our good natured trust in the process prevents us from seeing how its weakened structure is open to cheating and it keeps us from identifying the simple solutions that would restore good government.
A few years ago I had occasion to dine with someone who traveled in the Bush circles, with the big money that the President called his ‘base’. I commented about the fear mongering, the haphazard dash into the Iraq war and that they surely must understand how damaging it was to the prestige of the country. My host replied that, yes they surely did know and did not care one wit. Sure that they and their families were safe and financially secure, they would use they’re power to remove any obstacles to their goal. In this case Halliburton was the best example of ‘the goal’ and the unprecedented sums of money the corporation could earn with the assistance of the government. The people that put Bush in power didn’t care what anybody thought, there was too much money to be made. The political turmoil that ensued was just the cost of doing “business”.
In a world where governments police us and no one polices government, instances of runaway greed or ideology are invited by weak democratic processes and will continue to thrive in the absence of meaningful consequences or deterrence. We need to plan on the fact that at least some politicians will try to game the system. The Occupy and Quebec Tuition protests are extremely important in signaling our arrival at the limit of public tolerance for the consequences of damaged democracy. They are the canaries in the coal mine. These groups are affected the most and feel they have the least to loose in protesting.
Like them or not, all of us secretly share the protester’s dissatisfaction in some aspect of our lives. Some of us just fear loosing what we have, so we may even support the status quo. I suggest that there is a very Canadian type of solution, that can prevent us from sliding further down the slope and still allow us to protect what we have. A compromise that repairs the weakness of democracy, with minimal effort and disruption. Before we can have that discussion though, we need to put our fear of disaster on one side and take a logical look at some examples.
The problems with government are manifold and complex, but we can begin to see the positive possibilities of Standards of Democracy even if we focus on just a few obvious areas of concern;
Lies – If it can be shown that a politician made statements contrary to facts that they possessed, they should be dismissed. It’s a simple rule with profound effect. Since Guelph MP Marty Burke has stated that he did not tamper with the election using Robo Calls, he would be removed if we can connect him with the offensive actions in his riding. The Defense Minister Peter Mackay would also be in peril for announcing low costs for jet fighters when he possessed reports with higher numbers. We wouldn’t turn every politician into an angel, but the simple rule does draw a strong line when administered from outside the government.
Conflict of Interest – This is so obvious it barely needs mention. You simply can’t be allowed to make law around issues where you have any contact or association with its financial interests or the people that do. Bus loads of business people need to be barred from back room contact with our government. A world with rules that protect people still leaves lots of room for business to be done. A world with rules that are good for business is not good for people.
Abuse of Office – A simple review would show whether the Conservative government has directed the Canada Revenue Agency to single out Environmental Charities for audit. Tax law should not be applied by government fiat and Canadians should not live in fear that any arm of government can be used to punish political opposition or garner political gain.
Basic Accounting – After 2008 much has been made of the accuracy or vulnerabilities of various accounting systems in the business world. In the case of government there is an even greater need for accounting to be simple and understandable to the public. Even if there are some technical costs to a simpler method, it’s far more important that citizens can understand what’s happening with their money. The shell game of public accounting must stop.
As long as we put our faith aside for a minute, we can easily see the places were just these four concepts could be applied in federal, provincial and municipal government and at all levels of the bureaucracy. Academics have been studying many more examples of common sense rules that are politically neutral, simple to define and easy to apply. Imagine a government that actually functioned more like our belief system. We might actually start attracting a better quality of politician in the long run.
The people of Syria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia understand the need for an impartial process to establish and enforce standards of democracy. Unfortunately they need outside help to get it done. International Standards of Democracy will never be established without the action of the West and it will stand the best possible chance of survival if Canadians lead the way. If we could cast a critical eye on our own problems for a while, our typically Canadian solution would set a new world standard for government operation. The ultra cynical world of politics and the damage it has caused to democracy, masks the opportunity for an optimistic global society of far greater peace and potential.
We may be the just ones to start it.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends. Since 2006 I’ve been talking to people about tightening up the loose ends in democratic processes and their responses range from polite disregard to concern for my social life. In the week of April 14 however, it seems that others are beginning to see the structural problems too. Some smart folks have escalated their feelings about the poor quality our government from disgruntled to concerned. We can all get upset with individual policies from time to time, but these folks are suffering a profound loss of faith about the overall virtue of our government.
I want to thank Prime Minister Stephen Harper for accelerating this process of public dismay, but I also want to remind this noteworthy group that the party in power is not the problem, it’s just the symptom. They’re just the latest government that’s decided to maximize the partisan benefits that weak democratic processes provide. We are now seeing a clear trend of declining ethical concern among politicians. A corresponding trend of increasing abuse of power will therefore ensue. A similar situation occurred under George Bush and with luck and a bit more common sense, I hope that Canadians will resist the temptation to get all Tea Partied up. There is a ‘basic’ solution available, but it exists in the implementation of good management control of government processes, not in drawing simplistic battle lines and getting medieval on each other.
And who are these noteworthy people? Seasoned political journalist Susan Delacourt wrote this week about about the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She wondered, if we didn’t already have one, could we even get a new charter of rights under the current government. Sadly her conclusion was the same as mine…probably not. David Suzuki who’s spent a life time banging against “the system” to improve environmental protection and awareness, stepped down from the board of his own foundation. His comments opposing government policy were bringing ever more strident threats of a tax audit and revocation of it’s charitable status. Then Clayton Ruby went so far as to announce splitting Forest Ethics into two parts. One to continue work on sustainable forest policy and the other to directly fight the government.
I’m sorry too that such prominent people are having such a public loss of faith in government, but we should see this as a call to renovation not confrontation. There isn’t much point in preparing for battle if you’re still trying to play by the same old broken rules. The playing field isn’t fair and you’ll never win a lasting victory. The government hasn’t provided a complete set of rules to play by and is actively discarding even more of them. For instance, the proposed Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Trans Mountain pipelines are being reviewed by an incomplete environmental assessment process, that assures approval in spite of broad public opposition.
So what could we possibly change that would make this better in some lasting way? There’s been a rollback of environmental law, but let’s face it, they weren’t good enough to start with. No person or company should be allowed to even propose damaging the viability of my living space, especially just for short term economic gain. A guarantee of a sustainable environment should be a specific right added to the Charter, it has been 30 years since we looked at it. Then we need a scientifically rigorous set of standards that define what constitutes damage to the environment, these documents have been sitting on the shelf waiting to be used. Environmental assessment applications need to address such standards and the public needs to agree that the project is a benefit to them.
On the other hand we could continue to spend our resources on issue by issue battles. They bring in loads of money for NGO’s, they make great TV and we get to repeat the familiar script. Enter the perpetual antagonist, a secret selection committee, under vague criteria, with a track record of never rejecting an application. Our usual climax occurs when there are serious environmental costs, then citizens with no meaningful input will be forced to pay for the damage. So sad. And for the denouement, those that made the decisions and took the profits, will not face any form of liability or punishment.
This environmental example is currently repeated across all manner of government activity, immigration law, privacy, justice, law enforcement, corrections, elections, health care, military spending, foreign policy and so on. Over the years we’ve allowed the checks and balances to be slowly gutted. If we fought to have EVERY department and committee of government equipped with the same protections in the form of transparency, effective management controls, management responsibility, independent oversight and consequences for abuse, we would have lasting benefits for the trouble of only one political battle.
I’m not advocating for a whole new political system. I just want to ensure that a few common sense rules are always in place to allow democracy to operate as we imagine it should. The sorts of changes that counteract the concentration of power, the conflict of interest, political action without mandate, sloppy money management et al. Then all of our needs can flow through that functional, strong and fair system and everyone can go back to making money, taking pictures of whales and walking among the trees.
So Susan, David, Clayton and who ever else understands, why don’t you give me a call and let’s talk about how we can get this done? Let’s restore Canada to a leadership role in good governance and human rights.
While you’re reading, consider leaving your annual $8.00 behind at the donation page. Thanks.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends. The Canadian constitution is 30 years old on Tuesday this week. When Queen Elizabeth signed it into law, I don’t think many Canadians had a grasp of what all the fuss was about. In the next few years there was even some fatigue with the number of “constitutional cases” that were making headlines as they went through the Supreme Court. That process of reorganization has made Canada a preferred new home for hundreds of thousands of people and a constant contender for the highest quality of life in the world.
Our anniversary should give everyone cause to consider the positive long term effects of a well written constitution, but we should also wonder why we leave so much of that writing to chance. A recent study by Professor David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Professor Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia has found that the Canadian constitution is now the most copied template for new constitutions, surpassing the the once vaunted American model. Through a statistical analysis they discovered that at the time it was signed into law the Canadian constitution diverged quickly from those of other countries and in the ensuing years those other constitutions gradually aligned themselves with the new Canadian standard.
The study also states that, “Constitutional drafters rarely invent new forms of political organization or discover new rights from whole cloth, but instead lean heavily upon foreign examples for inspiration”. Although I’m proud of Canada’s most copied status, it highlights a serious void in our global governance. A process of cut and paste should not define the level of care we take in constitution writing. They should be forward looking documents just as ours was in it’s day, but if other countries are copying the Canadian example, they’re starting out by looking backwards thirty years.
Today you can hear Canadians regularly talk about their ‘right to this’ or their ‘right to that’ and sometimes its a perceived right, not a constitutional one. We’ve gone from wondering what all the fuss was about to believing deeply in the umbrella of protection our constitution affords. So deeply do we believe in its protection that we think we have rights that aren’t actually in the document. Some forward thinkers are realizing the need to expand and revise our rights as the world changes. Government involvement in that process is a conflict of interest.
Rights protect individuals and the civilization as a whole. What was forward looking in 1982 has become basic today. As the world has changed, so has the array of protections that deserve constitutional recognition.
- Universal active suffrage is widely touted, but still not actively protected. Votes and voters are regularly denied or disenfranchised all over the world, even in Canada and there are no strong universal penalties for tampering with this important fundamental right of expression.
- The right to an environment suitable for sustainable living would have been laughable thirty years ago, but today its clear there are many people, governments and companies willing to destroy whole territories as an acceptable cost of doing business. There is no morally acceptable excuse for creating a deadly environment.
- Population experts have been telling us for some time that we’re heading toward a wall. In former times of abundance, the right to access the necessities of life was taken for granted. Without constitutional protections a new refugee class will soon be created, those without the power to acquire food and water.
- Knowledge was once only bestowed on the religious or royal elite and actively kept from the population. Now the commodification of knowledge has reserved it only for the rich. There has never been so much knowledge as there is today and we now have the technical means to deliver it to everyone on the planet. Over a life time its important for every person to have access to it as a means of fulfilling their personal potential without barriers. As a civilization we must guard against the potential for restricted access to information to create a knowledge underclass or even worse to cause knowledge to be lost as it was in the dark ages.
We can’t reasonably expect North Korea to award the right to free and fair elections to it’s citizens any more than I can expect the current government of Canada to award me the right to a clean and sustainable environment. Uganda will not be enshrining gay rights any sooner than Somalia will guarantee access to the necessities of life and the United States will not be dismantling the business of higher education by protecting access to knowledge.
Now we live in an odd world where basic human rights are spreading, but corruption and concentration of power are eroding the quality of democracy in the governments bound to protect those rights. We need to define and monitor the protection of human rights and the fairness of democracy from outside the influence of suspect governments.
Currently, the world and the Egyptian people are holding their breath as uncertainty swirls around the drafting of their constitution. Surely their situation alone is reason enough to establish an independent international standard and a new civil institution to administer it. Had such a standard existed, a constitution based on it could have been a demand made right from Tahrir Square. It would have taken all of the uncertainty out of the transition to democracy and guaranteed the fairness, freedom and security that Egyptians fought so hard to win.
On this important anniversary I wish for Canadians to continue to escalate their constitutional leadership in the world and help the GCHRD establish that global standard.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends. We can’t start the new era of democracy if we don’t work to end this one. Once great examples of government are now the very definition of democratic decay.
In Canada someone decided they could influence the outcome of our last federal election by using automated telephone calls to suppress opposing voters. The government arising from that same election also thought they could lie to Canadians and to parliament and say the cost of purchasing new military jets was $10 Billion when they knew for two years it was actually $26 Billion. In Britain the current government would provide any donor direct access to the Prime Minister for £10,000 and tailor government policy to suit large donors for a fee of £200,000. Despite these astounding abuses of democracy, neither country seems to be mounting an effective response to deter these crimes. This shouldn’t be a surprise. We’re asking the criminals to prosecute themselves.
There are long term consequences when politicians don’t respect these boundaries and the public is not making this connection. When I ask people how they feel about these events their answers don’t distinguish these abuses from the usual background of bad politicians behaving badly. They believe that democracy is resilient enough to keep going and that there’s nothing that can be done. When matched with the public apologies of both these governments, it’s clear the politicians are counting on this voter awareness gap to save them. I hope that senior editors and producers in the media will see that the bigger back story here isn’t the trickle of new incriminating information, but the lack of response from the public and the escalating abuse that it invites.
Around the world we’re seeing the rise of a new type of white collar criminal, one willing to hollow out an entire country in pursuit of ever greater sums of money. Bush, Putin, Kim Jong Ill et al. We need to accept that bad people enter politics and then try to game the system, but most of all we need to have a better plan for defining and protecting the operation of democracy. Since 2006 I’ve been advocating for an examination of methods to improve and protect democracy and I think a new global civil institution to oversee international standards for democratic processes is the answer. We already know how to do this. The International Criminal Court was required to deal with thorny international legal issues surrounding crimes against humanity. Standards of democracy present similar issues and would best be handled by an independent supra national civil institution.
Academics and NGOs have been researching Standards of Democracy for years, most of what we need is already sitting on the shelf awaiting the proper vehicle. What the British and Canadian events show is that political audacity is rising in the absence of meaningful consequences. This problem is addressed by ensuring that a few simple rules are always in place at every level of democratic process, then removing oversight and enforcement from government control. The International Criminal Court has shown that a supra national watch dog can be fair and effective. A similar body could also identify the most serious abuses of democracy and refer them to the court for prosecution.
Perhaps you wonder if crimes against democracy are too light weight to be handled by an international prosecutor. Imagine then how many lives would have been saved, without conflict, if the perpetrators in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia were intercepted for crimes crimes against democracy first. Imagine for a moment that the Global Council for Human Rights and Democracy had been operating since the inception of the International Criminal Court. Robust democratic processes protect human rights and deter the concentration of power. How different would the quality of life be today in Russia, Burma, India, China, the Philippines, Iran, the Congo, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt or Syria? It would be a new global era.
Perhaps you can help me close the current era first.
Please help us get to 25 Million followers. Share the Global Council Network with your friends.
|
|
.ORG Home