Archive for Evolution of Democracy
74 results.
All parties in favour of Site C. Are we the people ready to pay “interests only” for the next 70 years on the $10 billion debt?
Alec Balasescu, speaks about “The Aesthetics of Totalitarian Salvation” at SFU – Vancouver, Canada. Nov.9, 2017
25 minute video
Ion Delsol has talked with politicians and academics for the past 25 years
to explain why do we need a system of direct democracy in BC, Canada.
29 minute video. April – 2017
Professor Oliver Schmidtke speaks about the causes of angry populism. Its negative implications and its inherent perils as a democratic tool.
Martin Monton explains how populist leaders gain political power by creating a common national enemy.
15 minute video – UVic. Canada – March 6, 2017
Nicole Langpre, explores the discontent of the British population which originated Brexit.
15 minute video – at UVic, Canada, March 6, 2017
Jason Colby relates the history of American populism.
15 minute video – UVic, Canada – March 6, 2017
Ingo Schmidt speaks about Neo–Liberalism, and the New Right.
Vancouver, Canada – November 19, 2016
Gary Cristall speaks about Fascism, Populism, and Nationalism.
14 minute video.
Arun Gupta, a journalist from NY, calls for the libido effect to revive socialism.
Roger Annis, “A Socialist in Canada”, questions the need for political parties – 10 minute video
Political Forum on Social Democracy and Neo-Liberalism by Ingo Schmidt.-18 minute Video.
European Social Democrats and its Discontents by Peter Prontzos.-17 minute video
Oraganizational Perspectives for Starting a Political Party.by Sam Gindin.- 20 minute video
Sid Shniad and Arun Gupta present the Sanders Paper –
29 minute video
Yves Engler talks about his new book about “A Propaganda System –
29 minute video.
The Government of Canada has commissioned 12 MPs to hold public hearings about Electoral Reform.This hearings are exclusively about the procedural formats of elections, (PR, STV, MMP, FPTP, etc.) not about the more imminent electoral reform about voting on relevant issues, (FTA, Military Missions, Support for Israel, etc.)
This video also reviews an entrenched, monarchic culture of many Canadians.
29 minute video
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/26/who_should_bernie_voters_support_now
BC Members of the Legislative Assembly discuss regulations of financing elections, during March and April, 2016
59 minute video.
A debate about C-51 Law was discussed on the “reform” side by Colin Bennett, Alan Breakspear, and Reg Whitaker; and on the repeal side by Sofija Vrbaski and many others from the audience.
29 minute video
The struggles between Social Housing and private property; infrastructure for business and private cars, and public transportation.
Yet to be answered questions about representative politics versus direct democracy on the Pasifik Coast of Canada.
29 minute video.
Transition from the Capitalist system to the new Peer to Peer Social sharing of goods and services.
Michel Bauwens, of the P2P Foundation, explains the new system at the SFU in Vancouver, Canada on March 16, 2016
29 minute video.
Professor Andrew Heard, SFU Political Science
Professor Barbara Messamore, the University of Fraser Valley, and
Professor Herman Bakvis, U. of Victoria Public administration
Speak about the possibility, history and legality of a minority government in Canada.
SFU Forum, October 7, 2015
29 minute-video
Candidates from Victoria and Esquimalt talk about Free Trade Agreements.
12 minute video
Bank of Canada
UN Resolution 194
Department of Peace
Direct Democracy
Affiliation with NATO
All candidates from Nanaimo, Courtenay – Alberni of the Pasifik Coast of Canada were invited. The questions were given before the interview. Only two candidates accepted the challenge.
29 minute video.
Green Candidate Paul Manly and NDP candidate Sheila Malcolmson Rally against Bill C-51, national security in exchange for freedom and human rights. Nanaimo, BC, Canada. March 14, 2015
29 minites
Jean Crowder, MP for Nanaimo-Cowichan, speaks about citizens not believing that governments want to improve the needed social services, and governments thinking that citizens don’t want to pay for improving social services. This conservative mind-frame of citizens and governments, creates a vicious circle.
During Elections 2015 in Canada, we might want to think about changing our democratic system rather than just changing representatives of political parties.
29 minutes video.
Democracy in Ukraine: by revolution? By foreign interests? By media propaganda? By referendum? Roger Annis from Vancouver, Canada, explores those questions in 29:30
Peace talks and referendum talks may be used as delay tactics to continue social oppression. However, “Just Peace” and “people’s legislation” are the inevitable outcomes of an evolving civilization.
1 of 4 part video – 15 minute each.
Referendum Talk -Part 2
Referendum Talks – Part 3
Referendum Talks – Part 4
BC Legislators debating the 2014 amendments to the Local Elections Financing Act.
The idea of Perpetual Direct Democracy surged in 1991 and continues to be relevant today in 2014.
Greg Felton, author of “The Host and the Parasite” is now concerned about having the Governor General of Canada fire Stephen Harper.
Part 1 of 2 – 15-minute videos
To Change the Politicians or to Change the Political System – video part 2
Author John Holloway, from Puebla, Mexico, recommends the creation of an alternative political system independent of capitalism, and legislated by all citizens by a mechanism of assemblies discussing public-policy initiatives, and referenda.
Two 15 minute videos.
Shane Simpson, MLA and Carol James, MLA express their concerns about a potential misuse of direct democracy.
Part 3 of 4 – 15 minute video
Dialogue on Democracy with Shane Simpson, MLA and Carol James, MLA – Part 4 of 4 – 15 minute videos.
Dialogue on Democracy with Professor James Lawson – Part 1 of 4 – 15 minute videos.
Dialogue on Democracy with Professor James Lawson – Part 2 of 4 – 15 minute video
Citizen’s Forum 13-July-13 – Jack Etkin interviews Pedro Mora
Five candidates to the BC legislative Assembly give their opinion about the citizens’ readiness and ability to practice direct democracy.
19 minute video
Part 2 – Are candidates ready to give up their policy-decision-making monopoly? 10 minutes video
Part 3 – How can politicians know the will of the majority without counting votes ? 10 minutes video
Four candidates to the BC Legislature express their views about direct democracy
Tow 29 minutes videos
Voting over the Internet in 2014? was one of the question explored at the Union of BC Municipalities – 2012-AGM.
Chief Electoral Officer Keith Archer, and former Chief Electoral Officer Harry Neufeld give their opinion.
Internet Voting – Part 1 – 29:30 video
Voting over the Internet in 2014? was one of the question explored at the Union of BC Municipalities – 2012-AGM.
A few municipalities in Canada, from Markham, Ontario to Nanaimo, BC, are already doing it.
Internet Voting – Part 2 – 29:30 video.
Young people from across Canada recount their empowering stories at a Vancouver gathering.
Victoria City Council is just an example of the flaw in “representative democracy”
A possible gradual turn around to “Perpetual Direct Democracy” is envisioned.
Electoral fraud protest rally in Vancouver on March 12, 2012
Politicians speak outraged, but never advocate for “Recall Legislation”
Mayor Dean Fortin and Councillor Lisa Helps talk about the cost of referendum and participatory budgets.
29 minutes
Professor Warren Magnusson, explores the political background of occupying spaces. 29 minute video – Nov. 17, 2011
Bill Moore-Kilgannon, from Alberta, Canada, describes the steps social activists need to take in order to produce social change.
Prof. Fred Magdoff explains how difficult and necessary it is to persist on the social change we believe in.
The End of Illusions
Nov12
Professor Gary Teeple speaks at the 2011 World Peace Forum, in Vancouver, Canada, about Industrial and Capitalist Utopias, Unlimited Resources and Universal Wealth.
Dr. Chris Dixon speaking at the University of Victoria, Canada about the origins of the latest social protest movements.
29:00 minutes video
Former City Manager of Rossland, BC, and author of: “Citizen’s Hall”, Andre Carrel, in conversation with Pedro Mora, about Direct Democracy, Initiative and Recall.
This DD thesis attempts not just to show the pitfalls of our present political system, but offers a realistic framework of a possible political change starting with a Citizen’s Constitution.
It suggests that statutory changes and constitutional laws need to resonate and harmonize with a Citizen’s needs. It also suggests a shift from a system based on political and economic competition, where money begetting money is the biggest reason of activities, into a system where providing social services becomes the collective responsibility and the main purpose of social activities.
This DD framework is not a monolithic program to be literally followed, but only a set of observations and practical suggestions in the midst of our precarious time.
We are nothing more than transitory observers and participants in the human experiment, and we could improve the human condition by recognizing the evolving empathic consciousness as the guiding spiritual path.
Let’s keep in mind that the human brain fluctuates between emotion and reason. Emotional fear of change from the known to the unknown often eclipses rational possibilities of change to anything new.
Let’s also remember that historically social changes like banning child labour, civil rights to abolish racial segregation and to allow women to vote was, at first ignored, then resisted and ridiculed, for decades, before it was successfully adopted.
6.1 – Media Influencing DD
There is a fear that DD, in the context of mass media being owned and operated by for profit businesses, will be co-opted by those with the financial resources to use it as a tool for their own interests.
Matthew Robinson expands on this issue in his book, “Mobocracy: How the Medias’ Obsession with Polling, Twists the News, Alters Elections, and Undermines Democracy.”
The Media influence on democracy is obviously an obstacle which need a solution, but not an invincible wall we can not overcome.
We can choose to believe that we are trapped between a conspiring elite, and a brainless mob, where there is no hope for the evolution of democracy, or we can choose to believe in a “concrete utopia”, as Economist Ingo Schmidt explained, where we don’t abandon our visions in desperation, instead, we participate in the planning of possible solutions.
Two recent examples where media propaganda failed to convince the majority of citizens, come to mind.
One is the 2011 BC GST Referendum where the “NO” advocates, with a significantly lower promotional budget, won 55% of the votes.
Second example: The 2015 Vancouver Transit plebiscite, misnomered referendum, where the opponents of the tax levy, with far less advertising budget than the proponents, managed to win 61% of the vote.
6.2- People Don’t know Better.
The most common objection to DD claims that people do not know what is best for them, and therefore, when ignorant people are given the right to decide, they will shoot themselves on the foot.
The most often cited case is the 1978 Proposition 13 of California. Nearly two-thirds voters agreed to reduce their taxes by 57%. which reflected in the government having to cut school services.
However, what is often missed in this debate, is the remedial Proposition 98, when In 1988 California was required a minimum percentage of the State budget to fund K-12 education.
Also not often mentioned is California ballot proposition 227 passed on June 2,1998, and replaced by Proposition 58 on November 8, 2016, requiring the state government to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes.
This examples show that people are conscious and capable of understanding and deciding on their own laws.
6.3 – People Have No Time to Deal with Politics.
Delegating our social responsibility to a few paid political representatives may relieve our busy lives. from civic duties and political decision-making.
However, elected representatives who are supposed to work on our behalf, are busy delegating our international trade authority to transnational business associations, under “Free Trade Agreements”
Professional representatives are also busy delegating our monetary and economic authority to international financial corporations.
This can be clearly demonstrated by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the Bank of Canada and more recently shown by the managers of the “Euro” who are ruled by the IMF and the World Bank.
This dependency on a hierarchical chain of command, where most politicians only play a token role of leadership, is explained by Nick Cowen in his book “Total Recall”. He explains how U.K. politicians have slowly ceded their powers to cabinet ministers, government agencies and the European Union.
6.4 – Who makes those questions ?
Other common concerns about referendums are: the wording of the question, the limited choices, and the context of the question.
When the question is formulated with ambiguous words or convoluted grammar, the result can an unintended one. An example of a convoluted question was the 2011 HST referendum in BC where “Yes” meant to reject HST and “NO” meant to accept HST.
An example of limited choices is the Yes or No question, excluding the possibilities of other alternatives.
Seth Klein, director of the Centre for Canadian Policy Alternatives in BC, explains how important the context of a question is. He noticed that when people are asked: “Do you want to pay more taxes?” people instinctively say “No”, but if the question were to include a context like: “ Do you want to increase your taxes in order to improve your health care services?” most people say yes.
One suggestion about how to articulate the wording and the context of a referendum question, is offered by a pilot project at www.nowpolling.ca, where the formulating of a citizens’ initiatives, are written by the citizens themselves, in their own words, with their own context.
6.5 – Need a term of office to work on projects.
The argument that “Politicians need a term of office to accomplish executive work.” And that, “recall and Referendum” would paralyze government work because politicians would be too busy, always looking over their shoulder, and perpetually campaigning to be re-elected, is a hypothetical argument.
If politicians in government were recalled while controversial projects are being implemented, we should question the government’s decision and the controversial project itself, rather than the citizens right to recall the governors in order to stop the unwanted project.
Entrusting executive administrators with the absolute legal authority to implement any executive decision, regardless of whether the electorate agrees with it or not, during a “term of office,” is in fact, allowing a temporal dictatorship.
The citizen’s right to recall government executives makes politicians accountable to their constituents.
6.6 = Job insecurity for Representatives.
There is a concern that recall and referendum may bring job insecurity to politicians, and consequently we would fail to attract the best educated and capable people to legislate and govern.
This concern assumes the believe that there is a scarcity of intellectual and administrative talent among the population. No logical evidence for this assumption has been proven.
Dismissing public or private employees for their unacceptable performance is a practiced labour standard at all levels. So, recalling politicians should be no different. Politicians deserve equal labour rights treatment available to all public employees.
when we the citizens, become legislators of our own laws, political executives do not need to be extraordinary leaders. Politicians simply need to properly follow the will of the electorate, not as leaders, but as administrators, or executive managers of government.
Ultimately, to make politicians truly accountable to citizens, we must have the right and the ability to recall them.
6.7 –Yes to Forums and Debates, No to Recall.
Many people support the idea of information and debate forums, but are reluctant, or dismiss the people’s right to “recall”; implying that recalling a few politicians will not change the unwanted government’s policies. This is partly true.
Having public forums with factual information and discussion period are an essential first factor of democracy. Also, one of the complementary factor of DD is the voter’s right to recall politicians. One action does not cancel or contradict the other. In fact both are indispensable.
6.8 –Yes to Public Forums, No to Referendum.
Supporting public forums with factual information and discussion period are essential to DD. This fundamental factor does not preclude the voter’s opinion from being counted on a referendum. One action does not cancel or contradict the other. In fact they are complementary and indispensable.
Voting for politicians and voting for policy issues are two sides of the same coin. “Recall” is about the people’s choice of politicians; “Referendum” is the people’s choice of laws, policies, or bylaws; therefore, recalling an elected official and having a referendum on a specific government policy are the same expression of the peoples’ right to choose.
6.9 – Political Parties in Conflict with DD.
Political representatives and political parties are the main obstacles for systemic change. Former politician himself, Gordon Gibson stated in 1996 that DD is detrimental to representatives’ self interests.
Understandably, they want to keep the political power in their own hands, and therefore they are generally not interested in changing the very system which authorizes them to rule on our behalf.
Former Leader of the Liberal Party of BC Gordon Gibson. As he put it, change will not happen easily, because the gate keepers, with the power to make this political change, are the same politicians who would lose their political power if real changes were to be made.
Constitutional changes are necessary for a maturing society to evolve
Ultimately, to legally change our Canadian system of governance, first we need to change the monarchic constitution, where the power comes down from the sovereign Queen to her subjects instead of from the sovereign people for the people.
In order to become sovereign, we need to replace the representative-party-legislators with independent politicians who are willing to enable and implement a system of referendum where people can participate in the making of their own constitution.
However, there are some logistic difficulties which need to be recognized, challenged, and overcome.
First, electing an independent candidate, without a party organization, can be very difficult; however, we must remember that when people are ready, monumental changes, which seemed impossible at one time, have been surprisingly possible at other times, as we have seen in history; for example, the end of slavery, women’s voting rights, the fall of empires, etc.
Second, a lone elected DD politician in the BC Legislature would be outnumbered and ignored by the 86 BC MLAs who are proficiently working for their party’s agenda.
However, electing one independent DD politician anywhere would symbolize the beginning of a change to the representative system. Voters from other ridings would realize that under DD their input is registered, discussed, and counted.
When people realize that potentially they can influence the outcome of our collective political decisions, their interest in political participation will be awakened.
7.1 Where there are difficulties,
there are also alternatives.
“The only way in which radical change can be conceived today is not as the taking of power but as the dissolution of [centralized] power.”
John Holloway
If no independent candidates come forward, or even if they run in elections but do not get elected within the established system, we can be creative and consider playing a cyber political game which might catch the interest of futurists, idealists, and optimists.
When a significant number of us adopt a cyber game of DD as a viable political alternative, we may decide to create a phantom government, parallel and supplementary to the existing one.
The Albert Einstein Institution promotes Dr. Gene Sharp’s Methods of Nonviolent Political Action; one of which is: “Dual sovereignty and parallel government.” (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973)
It must be noted that Dr. Sharp’s Method can be used as a peaceful measuring tool to show public support for change, or it can be used, misused and abused to incite a violent overthrow of a legitimate government. People need to discern how to use any political tool.
If and when people decide to participate in a parallel system of government, considering the new computer technology, Canadians no longer need to elect political leaders, City Councillors, MLAs or MPs.
When every citizens is a legislator, we only need to elect executive administrators for each city department; Executive-Provincial-Ministers; and Executive-Federal-Ministers.
These executive ministers, or Co-Ministers if more than one is needed for a committee, would be perpetually accountable and subordinated to the voter’s right to recall them anytime.
7.2 – We Need to Create Laws with Empathic Intentionality.
Enlightened visionaries like Buddha, Jesus, Tolstoi, Gandhi and others preached a peaceful social revolution based not on violent revolutionary fights, but on the observation and acceptance of fundamental human values.
Understandably, empathy can not be legislated; however, laws and empathy can be viewed as complementary. Law without empathy is like the left side of the reasoning brain without conscience and emotions from the right side of the brain. It is a law without spirit.
Empathy, as the spirit of the law. It is a fundamental element in human relations for survival. A new political system, to exist in just-peace, must be based on a philosophical, humane, ethical, and egalitarian intention.
Michel Nagler in his book, “In search for a Nonviolent Future” says that we need to change ourselves, our thoughts, our words, and our deeds in order to change the world.
Empathic intentionality can not be created and dictated by well meaning leaders or benevolent governments. Laws with empathic intentionality must be individually initiated and collectively consented by the majority of citizens citizens.
Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Josip Broz Tito, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and many other dictators may have had a good paternalistic intention to help their people, and they may have been temporarily successful in implementing a good standard of living for their countries, but because the good intended laws were ruthlessly dictated and enforced from the top of centralized pyramids of power, the masses at the base of the pyramid suffered human rights abuses inherent in all undemocratic, hierarchical systems of governance.
So, the systemic environment of governance must be generated from people’s initiatives and acceptance, not just from idolized politicians and technocrats.
“A world worthy of humanity cannot be created through the state.” John Holloway.
7.3 – A Sense of Equality
Adopting racial, cultural, and economic equal rights will free us from hierarchy, exploitation, and oppression.
A basic requirement to this political transformation is the citizens’ realization of equality and sovereignty, independent from hierarchical political structures.
We need to recognize the innate equality in all human beings by realizing and dispelling the mythological belief in the superiority/inferiority complex which is deeply entrenched in our culture.
Epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson, in his book “The Spirit Level”, shows how detrimental inequality is to all of us, and why equality is better for everyone.
This delusion is apparent in our admiration for monarchs, arts and sports celebrities, religious and political leaders. This emotional propensity to idolize individuals, generates tribal affiliations and loyalties to crowds of followers rather than fosters independent rational thinking.
Christian Andersen illustrated this cultural idolatry of hierarchy and inequality in his 1837 Fairy Tale, “The Emperor Has No Clothes.”
When we rely on benevolent dictators or philanthropic saviours to provide for better social services, without questioning the source of their power or wealth, we underestimate and undermine our own abilities.
In fact, leaders are not any wiser in making political decisions for the collective good. We have seen throughout history highly educated and intelligent individuals execute horrendous crimes to humanity by enabling wars and civil coercion. Yet, people continue to admire, trust, and empower leaders as if they were super humans or deities.
We must prevent our rational thinking from getting overwhelmed by our emotional admiration of charismatic personalities. We need to challenge and overcome this cultural mythology. We need to rethink and rebuild our sense of equality.
7.4 – Justice and Security
According to Professor Wilkinson, the more egalitarian a social system is, the less crime it breathes. So, security is directly proportional to economic justice for all.
There are several aspects of justice and security:
a.- Security and Justice for one is the security and justice for all. Security is having mutual fairness in human relations, rather than relying on the culture of fear, punishment, and retaliation.
b.- Buddhist teachings and aboriginal societies tell us that if we see ourselves as separate from the environment and disconnected with each other, we will eventually destroy the ecosystem and ourselves with it.
c.- Wars violently impose temporary social order, but do not bring durable social justice and peace.
A few countries, have established a Ministry of Peace, with the purpose of developing methods and training student-brigades for nonviolent management of conflicts.
We need to learn to solve our conflicts within ourselves and with other nation in a nonviolent way. We need to reform the military interventions misnomered “tours” or “Humanitarian missions”. We need to transform our current Ministry of Defense into a Ministry of conflict management for world peace.
Mahatma Gandhi said: “ I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.”
7.5 – The Enemy Syndrome and Human Rights
As the Pogo Papers described it in 1953:
“We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.”
Human rights can not be established by the tyranny of the majority nor by the tyranny of a minority. The will of a majority or the will of a minority must respect and accommodate the human rights of all.
We need to overcome the enemy syndrome. That is the perception of a separation between them and us. Whether that means other nations or our own government.
We must stop blaming our elected rulers for our own political acquiescence or apathy. We the people elect the very politician whom we later blame. It is our responsibility to stop following and acquiescing, because we are the makers and consumers of superfluous and toxic goods and services.
Instead of merely protesting the current hierarchical system and their business’s agenda, we must build our own legislative system.
“We participate in the breaking of our own doing, the construction of our own subordination.” John Holloway.
7.6 – Keep The Good and Toss The Bad.
Current laws and government regulations which generate a good standard of living, must be conserved and if needed enhanced. However, laws which prioritize profits for a few businesses, by giving them personhood status, at the detriment of exploited citizens, must be changed.
We must also give credit and remember with empathy that our influential predecessors created the various political systems and laws with the intention of organizing our social system. This was created according to the culture and political understanding of their time.
Times and technology have evolved, so we need to graciously upgrade the traditional, hierarchical political ideology of representative democracy into the new system of DD.
7.7 – Consider Competitiveness and Cooperation.
We need to reconsider the lure to for-profit-market-economy based on competitiveness, as if consumerism and economic competitiveness were the driving forces of human activities.
When we reconsider the competitive agenda, and it’s propagandized culture, we will realize that a fair distribution of human resources through cooperation can become the most civilized motivating force for human activities.
Imagine a futuristic moneyless society, as proposed by the Zeitgeist Movement. It may look like a utopia, but a forward step of gradually depending less on the fee-per-service culture, and more on service according to need and contribution according to abilities ideology, would create the “Common Good” as Karl Marx proposed.
For example, money-less social services as fare-free public-transit; a comprehensive, universal, free of charge health care system, etc.
7. 8 – Overcoming Economic Mythologies
We often hear from politicians and the media that the government can not afford to maintain the social services we need. Their reasons for austerity are usually an economic-crisis, an economic-recession, or just scarcity of money.
Two facts about money of which we must be clear:
First – The economy is not the wealthy provider of social services; the economy is nothing more than an accounting system of transactions. The rules of this accounting system are regulated by tax laws.
Politicians, in principle, have the responsibility to legislate the collection of as much financial resources as required by the government in order to provide the best possible social services. Therefore, if fair and sufficient taxes were collected, no government deficits should ever exist.
However, in practice politicians serving the business agenda, instead of collecting enough taxes to pay for the needed social services, they legislate laws to reduce or exempt taxes from wealthy individuals and from businesses.
When the revenue shortfall occurs, creating budget deficits and consequently requiring the reduction of some services, governments then borrow, at interest, from financial institutions owned by the wealthy elite.
Second – Most politicians agree in principle that we need more social services, “If only we could afford them”.
At the same time however, a few business- consultants and a few politicians often prioritize expensive mega projects, which are profitable to businesses, instead of financing the most needed social services.
Once we realize that poor social services in our society are a matter of poor government’s priorities, not a lack of money, we, the majority of citizens, not a few politicians, need to decide the amount of taxes we pay and the allocation of those tax revenues.
7.9 – Once we realize the imminent need for social change, what can we do?
After a conscious realization of our sovereignty from hierarchical politics, the most fundamental step is to clearly define the people’s agenda and write it down into a citizens constitution.
Now is the time because we still have the ability to find a relatively painless change to avoid the predicted economic and ecological catastrophe because that is where our current political system is headed.
8 – Draft Constitution
Under Construction
With the intention of advancing a peaceful evolution of democracy, we, the concerned citizens, volunteer ourselves to participate in the development of an evolving constitution.
To begin the perpetual process of direct democracy, we present the following initiatives, a set of principles, as a political framework for your consideration, and we invite all interested citizens to participate in the development of a “Citizens’ Constitution”.
You can participate with your own initiatives, amendments, or rejection of any of the following propositions, or you can add your vote of support for some of the initiatives already posted on www.nowpolling.ca
An initiative proposition, after allowing a predetermined and sufficient time for full information and public discussion, shall be submitted to the Provincial Electoral Office as an initiative for a referendum.
If the referendum is approved by a predetermined threshold of a majority, it shall be amended into law.
All statutes in this constitution are mutable. All laws and policies may be amended anytime.
Motion #1: Empathy
– Because an ideal social consciousness evolves from cooperation, fairness, and restorative justice;
– Because an empathic society has the ability and responsibility to share the feelings of others;
– Therefore, all of our Laws must harmonize with the Spirit of Empathy embodied in the Universal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in any other document made with the intention to protect collective or individual human rights. Empathy shall be an overriding principle in this constitution.
Motion #2: Equality and Freedom
– Because equality and freedom are fundamental human values;
– Because hierarchy and competition create social, economic, and political inequality;
– Therefore, we declare to be sovereign from any hierarchical authority and commit ourselves to cooperate within the principle of equality, among ourselves and with other societies.
Motion #3: Justice and Peace
– Because war and aggression has never brought a Just peace,
– Because the security of one is the security of all,
Therefore, we the citizens commit ourselves to research, develop, and practice the theories of restorative justice and nonviolent conflict management, among ourselves and with other nations.
Motion #4: Ecological Conservation.
– Because we live in a world of limited resources,
– Because all life is imperilled by the extraction, manufacturing, and use of toxic elements,
-Therefore, we must consciously regulate the rate of mining toxic elements, the creation of life-threatening products, and the consumption of harmful and scarce resources.
Motion #5. – Territorial Coexistence
– Recognizing that the citizens’ perception of democracy and the citizens’ choice of priorities within a common territory may be diverse and sometimes conflicting,
– Considering that a peaceful and orderly coexistence of inhabitants of territory is an essential factor in a democratic society, and
in view of the emerging DD political system, which is distinct from the current representative system.
– Therefore, we the citizens, constituents of DD, and residents of this territory, now known as (name of the province, or geographical boundaries), agree to negotiate, with the existing political representatives and governments, a mutually acceptable set of regulations and agreements conducive to an orderly and peaceful coexistence.
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A NATION
Motion #6. – Community Associations
Community associations are groups of a reasonable number of citizens of a neighbourhood who can identify their common interests, discuss their initiatives, and tabulate their support by plebiscites.
The shared consensus of the group should be submitted as intertwined, interactive and interdependent legislation, into Municipal departments, Provincial Ministries, or the Federal Government of Canada.
Motion #7. – Municipal Governments.
M7.1 – City Governments shall be administered by elected City Executive Officers.
M7.2 .- City Executive Officers shall be elected by the constituents of all Community Associations within the city through a perpetual electoral system operated by the city’s Legislative Operations Department.
M7.3 – The duty of each City Executive Officer shall be to implement the citizens’ decisions, and to manage an assigned department of the municipality as mandated.
M7.4 – The number of departments and the number of executive officers elected for each department, shall be decided by its citizens, according to the size of the constituency and the perceived need of each city.
M7.5 – City Executive Officers shall present a yearly financial budget for their department. Budgets need to be approved by referendum by the majority of electorates.
M7.6 – Example List of municipal departments,
a ) – Legislative operations, Elections, Initiative and Referendum.
b ) – Public Information and Communications Systems.
c ) – Public Works: Water, sewer, garbage, recycling.
d ) – City Planning, street works, and Building permits
e ) – Social services, Parks and Recreation.
f ) – Social Housing and Public Transit.
g) – Credit Management Agency:
Tax collection and funding distribution.
h ) – Police; Law enforcement, public security.
i ) – Intergovernmental coordination.
M7.7 – Each department shall operate according to a mandate described under a People’s Municipal Act.
Motion #8. – Provincial Government
P8.1 – The Provincial Government shall be Administered by elected Executive Ministers.
P8.2. – Executive ministers shall be elected “at large” by all citizens across the state by a perpetual electoral system.
P8.3 – The Provincial electoral system shall be managed by the Ministry of Citizens’ Legislation.
P8.4 – Citizens may decide to have more than one executive minister for any ministry, in that case, the top two, or more elected candidates would become a committee of ministers, for a particular ministry.
P8.5. – The Ministers’ duty shall be to introduce and implement legislation as decided by citizens and to administer government’s operations, in accordance with the laws and statutes mandated by the citizens.
P8.6. – Ministers shall present, to the electorate, a yearly financial budget for their assigned ministry. This shall be discussed by the citizens and approved by referendum.
P8.7 – Sample list of Ministries:
a ) – Ministry of the Premier
The Premier’s duty is: to assist other ministers with the Legislation of citizens’ initiatives, to symbolically represent the State (nationally and internationally), to audit the government’s operations and periodically publish a government’s progress report, and to comply with all other statutes in accordance with a State’s Governance Act.
b ) – Ministry of Citizens’ Legislation
The Ministry of Citizens’ Legislation shall develop and operate a computerized, perpetual polling system to facilitate citizens’ initiative, referendum, and the elections of ministers. This Ministry must ensure that the polling system is secure, transparent, verifiable, and accessible to all citizens, every business day. The Minister shall comply with all the statues within a Citizens’ Legislation Act.
c ) – Ministry of Attorney General/Justice.
The Ministry of the Attorney General shall manage the legal procedures of creating new bills for the implementation of peoples’ legislation into law; the Minister shall safe-keep the laws and constitution; the Attorney General is the Chief Executive Officer of the Justice and Courts System; and the Minister shall comply with all the statutes of a Justice Act.
d ) – Ministry of Finance
The Ministry of Finance shall administer the collection of taxes and other revenues from citizens, and businesses; the ministry of Finance shall administer the distribution of financial resources to all ministries according to their budgets, and according to the statutes in a Finance Act.
e ) Ministry of Currency and Credit.
the Ministry shall manage a credit agency to create the capital needed for building infrastructure projects.
f ) Ministry of Health Care.
The Ministry of Health Care shall operate a non-profit, efficient, comprehensive, universal, and sufficiently available to all, health care and health prevention service.
g ) Ministry of Education
The Ministry of Education shall operate an efficient, non-profit, skill trades, academic, kindergarten to university educational services, sufficiently available to all, and fully financed by taxes.
h ) Ministry of Housing.
The Ministry of Housing shall, in coordination with regional, federal, and non-profit social housing agencies, develop, maintain, and manage sufficient housing for all citizens who need it.
i ) Ministry of Transportation.
The Ministry of Transportation, in coordination with municipal transit authorities and federal funding programs, shall develop infrastructure, purchase equipment and operate a not-for-profit transit service, as needed by citizens.
j ) Ministry of Communications & Information.
The Ministry of Communications and Information shall regulate the communications systems; gather and publish, relevant information from all ministries, and keep archival records and vital statistics. Freedom of information and individual privacy rights should be applied accordingly.
k) Ministry of Social Services/Welfare
The Ministry of Social Services and Welfare in conjunction with municipal social services and federal related projects shall develop and operate the necessary public services to aid low income, elders, infirm, drug-addicted, and mentally challenged citizens.
L ) Ministry of the Solicitor General
The Ministry of the Solicitor General, in coordination with the municipal police units, shall provide public security and order; it shall administer detention centres.
Detention centres shall develop and provide restorative justice training, and non-violence conflict management training, in coordination with the education ministry.
m ) Ministry of Forest-Lands-Minerals.
This Ministry shall regulate and manage all public lands prioritizing the optimum ecological sustainability and to the most public benefit possible.
n ) Ministry of Food Security & Agriculture.
This Ministry shall regulate food production, distribution, and safety.
o ) Ministry of Energy
This Ministry shall regulate the production and distribution of energy from all sources: gas, oil, hydro, wind, tidal, solar, etc.
p ) Ministry of Business & Labour.
This Ministry shall regulate all business procedures and obligations, labour rights and safety conditions.
q ) Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs
The purpose of this ministry is to negotiate the economic and social responsibilities with municipalities and regional governments, as well as the political and economic commitments and obligations within Canada and internationally.
Motion #9
Governance of the Federation of Canada
9.1 – The governance of the Federation of Canada needs to be negotiated between provinces which would continue to elect representative legislators to parliament, and sovereign provinces which would choose the system of citizens’ legislation by referendum or DD.
9.2 Sovereign provinces would delegate Executive Ministers to Co-Minister each Federal Ministry.
9.3. – From a list of candidates across the State for each federal ministry, Executive Co-Minister(s) shall be elected for each federal ministry and delegated to Ottawa.
9.4 – Citizens may decide to have more than one federal Co-Minister for any Ministry, in that case, the top two, or more elected candidates would become a committee of ministers, for a particular ministry.
9.5 – The Co-Ministers’ mandate shall last as long as the majority of citizens across the province maintain the public support for them, on the official – computerized – perpetual electoral system.
9.6 – The federal Co-Ministers’ duty shall be first to introduce, in the Canadian Parliament, bills for legislation as decided by their electorates, and second, to ensure that their specific ministries execute operations as legislated by the majority of constituents.
9.7 – Each Federal Co-Minister from each province, shall present a yearly financial budget for their ministry. All federal budgets need to be decided by referendum by the taxpayers of each province.
9.8 – If a super majority of at least 67% of citizens of any State or province object to any decision by the Canadian Parliament, that Province, shall not be obliged to contribute financially nor participate on the Federal Parliament’s decision.
9.9 – An example List of Federal Ministries in which citizens of the province may want to participate, and delegate a Co-Minister(s)
a).-Ministry of Information, Initiative, and Plebiscite.
b).- Ministry of the Prime Minister.
c).- Ministry of Justice, Attorney General
d).- Ministry of Health Care Services
e).- Ministry of Intergovernmental Internal Affairs
f).- Ministry of Foreign Affairs
g).- Ministry of Defense and training for Natural disasters aid and rescue.
h).- Ministry for Environmental protection.
i).- Ministry for Nonviolent conflict resolution training.
j).- Ministry of Finance
k).- Ministry of Food Security and Agriculture.
l).- Ministry of Social Services
m).- Ministry of Communications and Transportation Infrastructure.
n).- Ministry of International Trade.
o).- Ministry of Labour and business regulations
p).- Ministry of Immigration
q).- Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy.
5.1.1 – Switzerland, Presently practices semi-direct democracy in parallel with representative democracy. The Swiss system requires 50.000 petitioners, about 1.2% of the electorate, to initiate a referendum, whereas BC, Canada, requires the signatures of 10% or voters, of each riding, to initiate a referendum.
5.1.2 Icelanders, following the Swiss example, became active politically in 2010 and found DD. More than 60,000 people triggered a referendum on the Icesave bill on 2010 March 6, the first to be held in Iceland since independence in 1944. A total revision of their national constitution, July 2011, includes new instruments of DD.
5.1.3 – Many USA states use DD regularly and extensively during elections. The process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of to place new legislation on a popular ballot, or to place legislation that has recently been passed by a legislature on a ballot for a popular vote.
5.1.4 – In Rossland, BC, referenda was adopted and practiced, between 1991 and 2001, until the local government was made aware, by the BC Minister of Municipal Affairs, of its “ultra virus” illegality.
In Canada, a referendum, meaning a binding vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular law, needs first the adoption of a constitutional amendment.
Currently, the sovereign authority to consent legislation comes down from the Queen to parliament, it does not come up from the people to parliament. Andre Carrel, a retired city manager, expands on this constitutional issue on his book, “Citizens’ Hall.”
5.1.5 – The Province of British Columbia introduced The Direct Legislation Bill in 1919. J. S. Cowper, MLA defended the proposed law. The Bill was passed, but never received Royal Assent. The government feared that it would be ruled unconstitutional.
Precedents of DD in Canada
5.2 – A non-binding plebiscite on prohibition of alcohol was held in Canada on September 29, 1898
5.3 – A non-binding plebiscite on conscription was held in Canada on April 27, 1942.
5.4 – The National Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord was a package of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It was defeated on October 26, 1992.
5.5 – The Quebec referendum on October 30th. 1995 asked whether Quebec should secede from Canada and become an independent state. The motion was defeated by less than 1% margin.
5.6 – There were two questions on The British Columbia Recall and Initiative Referendum, on October 17, 1991: One on whether elected officials could be recalled during the term of office, and another on whether voters should be given the right to initiate legislation by referendum.
Both questions were clearly approved by the BC electorate with 83% and 85% respectively.
In theory, an “Initiative and Recall” Legislation was introduced by the BC Legislature, and passed as law, in 1996.
In practice however, the 40% signatures required to trigger a Recall by-election are so high that, in the past 20 years, no attempt to recall has been successful.
Also, the requirement to collect 10% signatures to “initiate” a referendum on legislation has been too onerous to make it usable.
5.7 – A referendum on electoral reform was held on May 17, 2005. British Columbian voters were asked to approve a new electoral system based on the Single Transferable Vote, STV-BC.
It failed to meet the required “supermajority” threshold of 60%. A second referendum on the same issue was held on May 12, 2009. The second defeat showed a “supermajority” of 60.92% voting for retaining the current “first past the post” electoral system.
5.8 – Elections BC administered the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) Mail-in Referendum – June 13 – August 5, 2011. 54% of BC voter’s rejected the government’s imposed HST.
The argument here is not to analyze which form of taxation is more fair, the important precedent from this referendum, is that the citizens of BC made a binding decision which, in principle, overruled their government’s decision.
5.9 -The 2015 Vancouver Regional District – Transportation Plebiscite, misnomered referendum, proposed a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund Translink projects. A 62% mixture of anti-tax lobbyists, anti-Translink-Mgmt protesters, and anti-Liberal government voters rejected the tax proposal.
By reviewing plebiscites and referendums in Canada and abroad, we can realize the potential use of D.D. as a tool to prove the disconnect between representative governments and the vision of most citizens.
4.1 – DD is a political system where the rules of governance are decided by the majority of concerned citizens by referendum, with equal power of one person, one vote.
No individual representative or political party can possibly represent all the people on all the issues. Only DD can represent the choices of the majority of voters on any issue.
DD, in principle, is not a new idea. It has been tried as a political system since the Athenian democracy. It was developed around the fifth century BC, exclusively by and for an elite class of citizens: ”White, male, property owners.”
Also, November 19, 1863, USA President Abraham Lincoln, called for a “Government of the People, by the People, and for the People”; again, a system exclusively for the dominant class of citizens of that time: “White, male, property owners.”
What is new in DD today is that it shifts the legislative power from being the exclusive authority of a few elected representatives to being a universal responsibility of all citizens, regardless of gender, race, and economic status.
In DD the majority of citizens chose the legislation by referendum.
4.2 – Components of D.D.
The rising of direct democracy by referendum depends on four factors: Full Information, Debate and clarification, Computer Technology, and the people’s Willingness to Participate.
Full information is Indispensable to DD. Without it, and especially when partial information is misused with an ill intention of confusing the issue, the outcome of a referendum can become skewed.
Debate and Clarification – can generate publicity, can educate others, can clarify the issue, and can encourage a sense of solidarity and personal satisfaction.
Although, protest demonstrations and civil disobedience alone have achieved social change in some cases, just protesting, in most cases, has not necessarily brought social change.
Michael Nagler in his book, “In Search for a Nonviolent Future” says: “The tail of protesting wrongs would never wag the dog of building a society.”
Computer Technology has enabled DD in recent times. It would not have been possible, fifty years ago, to propagate information to millions of people and tabulate the results of referendums instantly, as we are able to do now with computer and internet technology.
Willingness to Participate is the Essence of DD
We can have all the information necessary to form an opinion; we can endlessly debate, protest and clarify the wrongs of our governments; we can have the ultimate computer technology to gather and tabulate our collective choices, but if we don’t participate in a referendum, selecting what we want, social change will not come automatically from above.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
Thomas Jefferson
4.3 – DD puts the responsibility for our actions on ourselves.
Based on the information we consume, we react in protest and debate, often blaming the elected representatives for their wrong policies.
Nevertheless, when we participate in “justified” wars, or we ignore social misery with apathy, instead of blaming the elected representatives, we need to take the responsibility of our own doing.
John Holloway says,
“We participate in the breaking of our own doing, the construction of our own subordination.”
DD proposes to securely register our opinion on a referendum system, so our choices can be counted, so we, not the politicians, can legislate and materialize our vision into social change.
4.4 – DD Prevents the Concentration of Power
Historically, legislative power concentrated in the hands of monarchs, dictators, or a few political representatives has inherently corrupted. Potentially, it will continue to corrupt in the future unless DD decentralizes political power.
In other words, Direct democracy with a diffused political-decision-making power in the hands of all citizens would prevent the few selected politicians from being co-opted or coerced by economic interests.
Baron Acton (1834 – 1902)
“Power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
4.5 – DD Is an Ongoing, Perpetual Activity.
It is relatively easy for many people to be temporarily fooled during a short electoral campaign period. It is also relatively easy for a few self-interested representatives to be conveniently confused for a longer period.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time“.
Abraham Lincoln
1809 – 1865
16th U.S. president
With citizens perpetually debating social policies, it would require the media and influential lobbyists to perpetually having to multiply their propaganda efforts, rather than just to promote the personalities of their individual representatives, every four years. DD would empower all the people, all the time to address all the social issue.
4.6 – DD Measures Human Values of Society.
DD will show whether or not most people are ready for, and want to practice a fair allocation of natural and human resources, as Karl Marx manifested: by contributing according to people’s abilities and distributing according to people’s needs.
Effectively, DD will reflect people’s commitment to the most fundamental human values: empathy, equality, justice, security, and ecological conservation.
DD will measure the depth of people’s moral values in legislation that complies with ethnic, gender and religious rights, granted to all minorities.
4.7 – DD suggests a gradual and peaceful shift away from “parliamentary representation”.
Historically, some political and social changes have been achieved through violent revolutions: USA independence from England, the Bolshevik independence from the Tsar of Russia, and the Maoist Cultural Revolution in China.
DD implies a peaceful political evolution. However, it will not come from political leaders like Gandhi in India, or Martin Luther King in America. DD will come from you and a significant number of people who are ready for it. It must be clearly articulated, discussed by all concerned citizens, and decided by the majority on a referendum.
4.8 – DD Requires a New Constitution.
The constitution, currently ruling the Canadian parliamentary system, is based on a hierarchical power from above, whereas DD requires a system of legislative power originated from the people below. Therefore, the constitution requires structural changes and the rewriting of new laws.
Republics who wanted structural political changes like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Iceland, sought to create a new constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826)
The draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Father of the United States said that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
We can figuratively interpret it as our perpetual responsibility to amend our constitution as often as needed, so each generation should define for itself how it should be governed.
4.9 – We have outlined the context and evolution of democracy; we have offered a simplified view of the political ideologies of Canada; we have listed a few issues where the government’s policies are in conflict with the people’s visions, and we have described what DD means. On the next chapter we want to show some of the chronological, Canadian examples of plebiscites and referendums, and mention other countries where DD is being practised.
Here are some government actions which are different form what most citizens envision.
3.1 – Trade De-Regulations: free from government regulations.
There is a lingering question, in the minds of many Canadians, about The Free Trade Agreement, FTA.
It was the single most prominent and controversial issue in 1988, yet today in 2019, it continues to be unresolved, normalized, and expanded.
The 52.3% of Canadian citizens opposing FTA, in 1988, split the vote between the Liberal and NDP parties. Because of Canada’s representative system, FTA became legally the choice of the 169 Conservative MPs, who did not represent the choice of most Canadian citizens.
Superseding FTA, in January 1, 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA, came into force.
Again, this controversial agreement was mandated without meaningful information, without public debate, and without the approval of the majority of voters by referendum.
The ongoing North American Security and Prosperity Partnership, NASPP; the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, CETA; and the Transpacific Prosperity Partnership, TPP, are negotiations without a meaningful public mandate. Consequently, a handful of Cabinet Representatives trumps the choice of the majority of citizens.
3.2 – Military Interventions
Military Interventions in foreign countries are serious, life and death decisions, yet only a few cabinet ministers, supported by a few members of parliament, are authorized to make decisions for all of us, often in conflict with the will of most of us.
Since 2001, year after year, the polls showed public rejection to the Canadian military intervention in Afghanistan. According to an Angus Reid poll – February 2011, 63% of Canadians opposed Canada’s participation in the war in Afghanistan. Yet, the Canadian government sent the military to that war, for more than ten years.
Conservative reports of the National Defence Budget, currently being decided by a few politicians, shows an increase from $15 billion in 2006 to $28 billion in 2017. Military expenditure undermines the financing of health care and education services which are being gradually shifted from general tax revenues to individuals, as a fees-per-service system.
3.3 – Foreign Affairs Policies
Canadian diplomatic, trade, and aid policies, with some foreign countries, are in conflict with the will of the majority of Canadians.
For example, religious prejudices, ethnic discrimination, apartheid and even genocide are some of the extensively recognized charges by the United Nations against the State of Israel.
Also, the Canadian government’s unconditional support for the State of Israel is constantly being opposed by International human rights and peace activists, Independent Jewish Voices, and The United Church of Canada. Furthermore, Orthodox Jewish Nations of Israel are opposed to the very existence of the political State of Israel.
The UN has passed hundreds of resolutions condemning Israel’s violations and non-compliance, yet the government of Canada, contrary to the people’s wishes, continues to acquiesce with the State of Israel’s human rights violations.
3.4 – Bank of Canada.
Since 1986, the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, COMER, has been advocating for the Bank of Canada to assume its original mandate of lending money to all levels of government at a nominal fee or at the lowest interest rate possible to cover operating costs.
Instead, the Canadian government accepted the Bank of Canada’s independent policy of not lending money to our governments, to comply with the Bank of International Settlements policies.
Comer.org and Paul Hellyer, former Defence Minister and founder of the Canadian Action Party of Canada, claimed that the $60 billion paid out to National and international financiers in yearly interest, from all levels of government debts combined, could instead finance an optimal health care system, tuition-free public education, social housing for all Canadians who need it, and much more.
Canadians need to wonder, whom our elected politicians are representing.
3.5 – Health Care System.
Most Canadians and the BC Health Coalition believe that Health Care Service is a human right. Everyone must have access to high quality, responsive, and appropriate health care which is publicly funded, publicly accountable and publicly provided.
Statistics and budgets show that federal and provincial governments have been eroding the public health care system, making it vulnerable to privatization. Health spending continues to decline from 7.8% of GDP in 2015/16 to a projected 7.4% by 2019/20, even as the population ages. –
According to a CCPA analysis, “…in terms of health care funding per capita: BC fell from second out of ten provinces in 2001 to eighth out of ten by 2016.”
There is an obvious disconnect between what the for-profit businesses are lobbying the governments to do, and what most people need.
3.6 – Education System.
Many developed countries enjoy tuition-free education from kindergarten to university; whereas in Canada, our governments claim that we can not afford it, while at the same time they lower progressive income taxes which could be paying for education.
The United Public Education, UPE, a non-partisan coalition of student unions, teacher associations and other groups who represent every level of education in BC, Canada, raise awareness about the chronic under-funding of public education.
Budget Reduction of spending per Student from 3.3 to 2.5% of GDP
3.7 – Social Housing.
The federal and provincial governments in Canada developed legislation in the 1970s to provide financing for Social Housing through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CHMC.
However, in the 1990s, contrary to the need of a significant number of citizens, who pay more than 50% of their income for housing, the federal government reduced the funds available for mortgages and eliminated the start-up funding for housing cooperatives.
3.8 – Transportation
Most environmentalists and advocates of the LEAP Manifesto would like to reduce the use of the “single user vehicle” because of its pollution effects; however, all levels of government keep increasing-budgets for highways, roads and bridges rather than for public transit vehicles and light rail infrastructure.
Obviously, increasing public transit would decrease air pollution which is detrimental to public health.
3.9 – Campaign promises often not fulfilled.
During the ’90s, the Reform and Conservative Parties campaigned for D.D. and recall legislation;
however, when a coalition of both Parties resulted in Stephen Harper becoming the prime minister, D.D. and “Recall” legislation were no longer on the agenda.
This short list of government practices in conflict with citizens illustrates and confirms the imminent need to shift from being ruled by a few party representatives, to direct democracy or citizens’ legislation by referendum.
2.1 – The Story of “Mouse-land”
Tommy Douglas in 1944 narrated the story where mice, by switching their vote from a white cat, to a black cat, to a grey cat, did not improve their lot. The trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cats. The trouble was the fact that mice were giving away their power to cats. And cats naturally have a political ideology that looks after their own interests.
Tommy Douglas explained that one day the mice got enlightened and stopped giving away their political power to cats of any colour. Mice started electing themselves, their own fellow mice.
Projecting this 75-year-old anecdote to current politic ideologies in Canada, by switching the vote back and forth between the red party and the blue party, has not empowered Canadian voters, it has only enthroned the supremacy of an elite-party-class.
The trouble is not so evident with the political ideologies of corporate parties, which always sound altruistic, at least, during election campaigns. The trouble is that we the citizens give away our legislative power to charismatic politicians with demagogic platforms which factually represent the interests of the wealthiest corporations.
According to Mike Lofgren’s book “The Deep State”. The fall of the US Constitution and the rise of a plutocratic, shadow government means that all party representatives are subordinated to party hierarchy which must comply with the whims of lobbyists from well-funded marketing institutions.
In Canada, a similar argument was reported in 1993 by Murray Dobbin: “The Little Red Book”, and more recently, in 2017, Kevin Taft, offers a brisk tour of the concepts of the “Oil’s Deep State” to understand how one rich industry can override the public interest.
2.2 – Blue (Conservative) Ideology
One of the main political forces in Canada is the Conservative Ideology, which is not necessarily synonymous with conserving the environment but is primarily focused on conserving the economic status-quo.
The constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada, states that protecting private property is one of their top priorities.
The blue ideology sponsors laws to personify and prioritize the economy. Usually by promoting tax reduction laws for corporations, financial investors and private property owners.
Under this ideology, the relative economic success of the working class becomes dependent on paid employment and on the cyclical market economy.
Blue ideology appears beneficial, not just to the wealthy, but also too ambitious workers who want to climb the economic ladder to become wealthy, and too selfish consumers who don’t want to pay taxes.
Blue ideology believes on the benefits of a “trickle down economy”, based on a cyclical success of exploiting labour and exploiting natural resources from around the world.
2.3 – Yellow (Liberal) Ideology
Seen from the Far-Right, Liberal appears Red, but it is not.
The Yellow ideology tries to balance or fluctuate between universal human rights and individual freedoms; it also intends to manage a mixed economy of free-enterprise and a welfare-state.
Yellow ideology, in principle, is neither monolithic “right” nor revolutionary “left”, but tries to be a pragmatic “centre”.
The liberalization of economic enterprise, religious and cultural freedoms, in perpetual tension between individual freedom and collective good, can indeed be a compelling, rational argument.
However, because free enterprise is based on competition which promises rewarding profits, most people get attracted and addicted to the challenge and the possibility of climbing up the pyramid of economic classes.
Also, because the not-for-profit, co-operative system of the welfare state can be less challenging, and in our culture, communitarian projects become less motivating, consequently, the yellow ideology inherently loses its centre of balance and tilts to the Right.
This off-balance, diverted yellow, generates a spiral effect: businesses sponsor electoral campaigns, lobby legislators, and ultimately dictate policies which are often in conflict with the collective good. Ultimately, Yellow and Blue ideologies become indistinguishable.
2.4 – Green Ideology
The Green Ideology is an environmental movement transformed into a political party.
Green is, literally and metaphorically, a blend of Blue and Yellow on the political spectrum.
Green ideology is mainly concerned with alleviating the ecological symptoms, to prevent the climate change which is eroding the environment.
Conveniently, the Green platform includes social justice concerns, but the economic goal of the Green Party is the Green industry and Green Jobs.
The environment is seen by the Greens as independent from Right and Left ideologies. Communism and Capitalism are seen as arguments of the past and meaningless to Green policies.
2.5 –Orange Ideology.
The Orange ideology is a blend of yellow liberalism and red socialism. Like the Yellow Ideology, It also advocates for a balance of justice between individual property rights and commonwealth.
In other words, a compromise between socialism, as practised in Northern Europe, also known as social democracy, and capitalism with a mixed economy, as generally practised in the Western World including Canada.
Orange ideology, similar to the Yellow ideology, is often defined and practised according to the individual leaning of each politician.
The Orange agenda, originally influenced by labour unions, also represents business interests as providers of jobs and as financial sponsors of the party. So, Orange has shades of Yellow and Red.
2.6 – Red Ideology
Red ideologists claim that environmental degradation and social inequality are a direct result of unfettered Blue capitalism.
Christian communism is a two-thousand-year-old theory based on the teachings of Jesus according to the Book of Acts, Chapter 2 :44 ”And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 2:45 “And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”
Christian and secular communists, Marxist-Leninists, International Socialists, and Trotskyists share the same ideals of common ownership of resources, participation on the means of production according to individual ability, and communal control of the distribution of goods and services according to need.
Although the ultimate goal of all Red ideologists is the same, their different approaches of how to establish a communist society divide their efforts.
2.7- Government by Parliamentary-Monarchy
The Dominion of Canada is governed by a lingering Imperial Monarchy where the Governor General and Prime Minister have supremacy over Members of Parliament. In other words, Canada is governed by an indirect democracy or quasi-democracy.
According to UVic Professor James Lawson,
the Queen, through her Governor General, continues to exert sovereignty over parliament’s decisions, by “sufferance”,
in other words, the Queen is sovereign, as long as her subjects do not object to it.
While the citizens of Canada elect their representatives of Parliament, citizens do not elect their Prime Minister. The Governor General of Canada has the constitutional power, given by King George VI under the “Letters Patent”, 1847, to accept and to dismiss the Prime Minister of Canada.
Greg Felton, a Vancouver reporter, launched an unsuccessful petition, in November 2013, asking Governor General David Johnston to fire Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was allegedly governing undemocratically or illegally by Proroguing parliament, that is, temporarily closing it down.
2.8 – Logistic procedures about whom to elect distract voters from what policy issues to chose.
Competing representative parties, in order to maximize the number of their elected representatives, debate about the conventions of what constitutes a majority, and the logistics of party proportionality,
Alternatively, the electoral concerns, among supporters of direct democracy, are focused on citizens having the right and the ability to vote on social policies by referendum, rather than having the right to only elect a few representatives to make all policy decisions for all the people.
So far, the public desire to reform the system of government in Canada has been neither to abolish the Monarchy nor to abolish the representative system. Instead, Canadians have been distracted and intensely preoccupied with reforming the operational system of electing party representatives.
All political parties, claiming that one electoral change or another would improve the proportion of their representatives in government, have considered enlarging the areas of political ridings in order to have multiple representatives per riding.
To this effect, STV – BC has been twice put to a referendum, in 2005 and in 2009, and it has been twice rejected by the people.
Also aiming to localize representative governance, some municipal councils, have proposed reducing the “at-large” municipal areas, represented by multiple councillors, into smaller wards, represented by single councillors.
Legislation to this effect was put to a referendum in Vancouver, BC, in 2004, and failed the required support.
Some have considered improving their party representation according to their proportional overall (at large) support.
This electoral system may require appointing, if necessary, a number of some unelected party member to replace a number of elected politicians in some local ridings in order to comply with (at large) party-proportionality.
A Citizen’s initiative for proportional representation in 2001, failed to collect the minimum of 10% signatures of each BC riding, as required by the BC’s electoral system. And on January 30, 2019, when the BC Government mandated and financed an electoral reform referendum, about party proportionality, it was defeated.
One of the promises by Justin Trudeau, during the 2015 elections, was to make electoral changes. Party advocates of proportional representation, PR, were interested in enlarging the number of representatives of their parties, in proportion to the overall number of their party supporters.
After a Standing Committee hearings, that toured across the country, the Liberal government realized that under PR, they would not have gained majority mandate, because the number of sits gained by smaller parties, would be lost by the bigger parties, so the Liberal Party politely but decisively put the rhetoric of electoral reform to sleep.
2.9 – Beyond Parties into a direct democracy.
From the Tommy Douglas’ Mice Story, we can interpret that to transcend above the tradition of changing party colours from Blue to Red and all shades in between, which is what we’ve been doing in Canada for over 150 years, we might consider instead identifying relevant social policies like LNG industry, Site C Dam Project, Medical Service Plan financing, etc. and demanding from candidates of any colour to implement a non-binding plebiscite system where we can register our choices and be counted, rather than continue giving away, unconditionally, our legislative power to a representative of a party of any colour.
The next chapter focuses on some detrimental contradictions between the few representative legislators in government, and the majority of Canadian citizens.
1.1 – What is Democracy
Democracy is a system of governance which floats between the extreme anarchist rejection of all government and the dictatorship of one supreme ruler.
Representative (indirect) Democracy is a system of government in which people elect professional politicians to legislate laws and execute the administration of government.
Participatory (direct) Democracy is a legislative system where everyone is a legislator, and where people elect executive ministers to govern, not to legislate laws.
1.2 – Inclusion
Participatory, Athenian democracy which excluded women, slaves and foreigners, has gradually evolved into a representative democracy.
From 1848 – Universal male suffrage in France,
to 1915 – women’s suffrage in Denmark,
to 1918 – UK & Canadian women’s right to vote,
to 1920 – American women’s right to vote.
However, today’s universal inclusion of all citizens is limited to electing representatives only, not to voters deciding on policies.
1.3 – Origins of Representative Democracy.
The current representative democracy is a concession derived from the monarchies of Great Britain and Sweden in the 18th century. At that time in history, democracy was improved by shifting some ruling power from the monarchs to elected political representatives.
However, this monarchic concession of legislative and executive power, to a few political representatives, also inherited the hierarchical power to influence the selecting of representative and the rules of governance. Political power was kept in the hands of a few well-sponsored representatives.
Noam Chomsky alerted us of a similar political flaw by saying: “The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.”
1.4 – Term of Office
On Election Day, under the system of representative democracy, we the people endorse our policy decision-making authority, to a political representative, for a period of time known as a “term of office.”
Because the “Term of office” restricts citizens from making any political decision other than electing a representative, every three or four years, the term of office, in fact, creates a temporary dictatorship of representatives.
This temporary dictatorship of representatives inherently de-generates into political abuse, which generates public frustration, and ultimately people’s apathy and cynicism.
1.5 – Separation of Powers.
We have inherited from Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic, the system of governance called “trias politica”, identifying the three political powers: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
While the “separation of powers”, for checks and balances, has been the choice of republics like the USA, the “blending of powers”, or bundling the three powers in one, has been the choice of parliamentary-monarchies, like Canada.
This “blending of powers” concentrates almost unaccountable political authority into the hands of the Federal Prime Minister of Canada and on the Provincial Premiers, and their appointed Cabinet Ministers.
Additionally, this small group of cabinet ministers are empowered to appoint court judges to form judicial authority.
Potentially, monarchic parliaments which blend powers, and centralize political power in the hands of a few representatives, become prone to fascism or plutocracy disguised as democracy.
1.6 – Media Influencing Democracy
Information is an indispensable factor in democracy because public opinion and decision-making come from the information available to ordinary people.
Media can be used as an effective tool for factual information, but it can also be abused as a tool for misguided propaganda.
Commercial media, owned and operated by a small but wealthy elite, can advertise and sponsor propaganda supporting their political views.
State-funded media can also be coerced by the sponsoring regime to justify its policies.
Noam Chomsky explains this conundrum on his book, Manufacturing Consent.
1.7 – Money Influencing Democracy
Economic interests, hiring advertising experts to manipulate public opinion, have historically entrenched their narrative as reality. They have created an enemy syndrome, a charade where good people are being victimized by an enemy; therefore, they propagate, it is a democratic responsibility to defend the perceived victims from the perceived aggressors.
For example, the “weapons of mass destruction” propaganda that was used in 2002 by U.S. politicians to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003 which, in the name of democracy, instigated public support to attack and destroy the perceived enemy, Saddam Hoisin.
This phenomenon is best explained by Greg Palast in his book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”.
1.8 – Democracy by Majority Rule.
Majority Rule is constituted by a conventional agreement. Sometimes majority has no predetermined threshold, as in “First Past The Post”, where a candidate, or an issue, with the highest number of votes wins.
At other times, a simple majority of 50% + one carries the motion. But, on issues deemed very important, a “Super-majority Rule” of two-thirds, three-quarters, or more is required to carry the motion.
Complementary to majority rule, political decisions generally consider the legality of the question within the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Liberties for minorities.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
1712 – 1778 advocated the use of supermajority voting on important decisions when he said, “The more the deliberations are important and serious, the more the opinion that carries should approach unanimity.”
1.9 – One final precautionary word about the label democracy, is that, similar to religious labels, the name democracy has been co-opted by dictators to exert repressive authority; it has also been misused as a political excuse to occupy other countries, and to overthrow foreign governments.
Having looked at several global perspectives and component of democracy, let’s review the current Canadian political ideologies and system of governance.
A tool for social change in our life time: “Direct Democracy”
Ion Delsol challenges that ion of the sun in each one of us to step out of the traditional, 150 year-old representative, hierarchical system of governance.
The simple yet profound hypothesis, in these a few pages, suggests a monumental political shift of legislative power from being legislated and executed by a few political leaders to being decided directly by all citizens, by referendum.
It starts by reviewing the global, historical evolution of democracy. On the second part, it briefly looks into political ideologies and the current system of governance in Canada. On the third section, selecting some factual examples, it shows the obvious disconnect between the government’s decisions and most citizens’ vision of social justice.
After defining the context of global democracy and the problems of representative democracy, it finally describes what “Direct Democracy” is and how would it change the social order for the better.
Because DD is all about referendums, it includes a list of relevant referendums that have taken place in Canada. It also explores the concerns of many citizens about changing the established political order.
Finally, it offers a framework of a constitution for a sovereign state or provinces within a New Federation of Canada.
The central message in this paper is that in order to gain sovereignty, we must assume the responsibility of legislating our own constitutional statutes, laws, and regulations.
It says that, the social change, most of us want, may be realized more effectively, by ourselves with a DD system than by empowering political leaders and political parties.
1.1 – Cuanto antes un número significativo de nosotros, los ciudadanos, realizemos nuestro derecho a legislar nuestras propias leyes, y establecerlas en una ” Constitución “, mas pronto conseguiremos una distribución más igualitaria de los bienes y servicios que tenemos, nos aprovecharems de la cocecha mas sostenible de los recursos naturales, y viviremos en un mundo más pacífico.
1.2 – La herramienta más popular de la democracia hasta ahora ha sido el derecho a protestar por la falta de conexión entre los gobiernos y sus ciudadanos. Los ciudadanos, en todo el mundo, han estado protestando durante mucho tiempo. A pesar que las protestas generan algún grado de publicidad, de solidaridad y de satisfacción personal, las protestas son raramente exitosas. Frustrante, las protestas públicas son a menudo ignorados, escuchadas cortésmente, o violentamente aplastadas por gobiernos represivos. Michael Nagler, en su libro “En busca de un futuro no violento”, dice: “La cola de los males que se protestan nunca moveran al perro de la construcción de una sociedad”.
1.3 – Los factores esenciales por qué DDP es importante ahora, es que ha llegado el momento en que estamos tecnológicamente e intelectualmente preparados para ir más allá de protestar. Estamos listos para dar el siguiente paso hacia el desarrollo de un gobierno democratico, permanente, y participatorio, DDP.
1.4 – Ahora es el momento, ya que la tecnología de Internet sin precedentes que nos permite ser abundantemente informados sobre importantes temas sociales. Ahora sondeo con la última tecnología informática, como nunca antes en la historia, ha hecho que sea fácil para nosotros para participar en plebiscitos instantáneos, tabular la opinión pública, y potencialmente legislar la agenda de la gente dentro de una Constitución Ciudadana », ampliada en el capítulo nueve.
1.5 – Adicional a los avances tecnológicos, hemos aprendido de la historia, y con experiencia en nuestro tiempo de vida como el poder legislativo concentrado en las manos de los monarcas, dictadores, o algunos políticos se ha corrompido inherentemente en el pasado, y posiblemente seguirá a corromperse en la futuro. Además, representantes facultados innecesariamente con ese poder, se hacen cada vez más vulnerables a la cooptación, o coaccionado por intereses económicos. Por esta razón, el poder de tomar decisiones políticas, no se debe concentrar en las manos de unos pocos representantes elegidos, pero debe ser descentralizada y en manos de todos los ciudadanos.
1.6 – La democracia representativa actual, heredada de la tradición jerárquica de las monarquías parlamentarias, ha cumplido su tiempo, pero a pesar de los avances tecnológicos y la madurez política de los ciudadanos, la democracia se ha estancado tecnológicamente y ya no es políticamente correcto. La democracia hoy puede y debe ser ampliado para incluir a todos los ciudadanos que comparten el mismo poder político de una persona, un voto en todas las decisiones políticas.
1.7 – La tradición electoral actual de la concesión de un mandato que es deficiente, principalmente porque es demasiado fácil para muchos de nosotros ser engañados por la propaganda, durante el período relativamente corto de las elecciones, lo cual nos hace sufrir las consecuencias de una, amedudo mala decisión por varios años. La adopción de DDP haría más difícil para todos nosotros ser engañados por algunos con fines de lucro, propagandistas y grupos politicos de presión.
“Se puede engañar a algunas personas todo el tiempo, y a todo el pueblo parte del tiempo, pero no se puede engañar a todo el pueblo todo el tiempo”.
Abraham Lincoln
1809 – 1865
el 16 presidente de los EE.UU.
1.8 Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826) ponente de la Declaración de la Independencia y Padre de la Patria de los Estados Unidos, dijo que la constitución debe ser re-escrita cada 19 años.
No es necesario restringir los cambios constitucionales literalmente al término de 19 años, pero en sentido figurado se puede interpretar como una responsabilidad permanente de enmendar nuestra constitución tan a menudo como sea necesario, para que cada generación deba definir por sí mismo cómo debe ser gobernada.
1.9 – En resumen, si estamos dispuestos a asumir la plena responsabilidad de nuestras decisiones políticas, ahora es el momento. Estamos viviendo en una época en que la mejor tecnología de las comunicaciones nos permiten adoptar DDP. Ahora podemos legislar nuestras propias reglas para una distribución igualitaria de nuestra riqueza comun, podemos legislar y poner en práctica las leyes más sostenibles para el medio ambiente, y podemos transformar nuestra economía de guerra en economía de paz.
Cuando una multitud de nosotros estemos dispuestos y capaces de tomar decisiones políticas a través de un sistema de DDP, esto efectivamente cambiara y optimizara nuestro sistema social. Potencialmente podemos desarrollar el mejor estándar posible de vida para toda la humanidad.
1.1 – La pli frue signifa nombro de ni, la tsivitanoy, realiji nian rayton lejofari niay propray lejoy, kay establi ilin en tsivitanoy konstitutsio, la pli frue pli egaletsa distribuo de varoy kay servoy ni havos, pli daurigebla rikolto de rimedoy ni suktsesas, kay pli patsa mondo ni vivas in.
1.2 – La pley populara ilo de demokratio jis nun estis la rajton protesti la malkonekti inter registaroy kay ties tsivitanoy. Tsivitanoy, la tuta mondo, estis protesti multe tro longa. Kvankam protestoy generi iu grado de publiketso, solidaretso, kay personan kontentigon, protestoy malofte suktsesas. Frustrije, publikay protestoy estas ofte ignorata, jentile auskultis, au en la pley malbona, perforte premplatigita de subpremay registaroy. Michael Nagler en lia libro, “En Serci Neperforta Estontetso” diras: “La vosto de protesti malpravajoy Neniam balantsas la hundo de la konstruado de sotsio.”
1.3 – La esentsa faktoroy de kial PDD aferoy nun estas, ke la tempo venis, kiam ni estas teknologie kay intelekte preta iri preter protesti. Ni estas pretay por fari la sekva paxo al evoluantay daura, partoprenigan estrado, au Porxiama Rekta Demokratio, PDD.
1.4 – Nun estas la tempo, car senpretsedentsa interreto teknologio ebligas al ni esti abunde informis pri gravay sotsiay problemoy. Nun opinisondante kun la lasta komputilo teknologio, kiel neniam antaue en la historio, faris jin fatsila por ni partopreny en momenteto plebistsitoy, tabulate publika opinio, kay potentsiale legisli la popola temaro ene nova Tsivitanoy Konstitutsio,kiel ekspansiijis en capitro 9.
1.5 – Pliay al teknologia antauas, ni lernis el la historio, kay spertis en nia vivo tempo kiel lejdona povo kontsentrita en la manoy de monarkoy, diktatoroy, au malmultay politikistoy estas imanente koruptis en la pasintetso, kay potentsiale daure korupti en la estontetso. Ankau, nenetsese preditay reprezentantoy, ciufoye vundebla al esti co-elektis, au altrudita de ekonomiay interesoy. Por tio, politikay detsidoy-povo ne devas esti kontsentrita en la manoy de malmultay selektitay reprezentantoy, sed devus esti maltsentralizitay kay lasis en la manoy de ciuy tsivitanoy.
1.6 – La nuna reprezentanto Demokratio, heredita de la hierarkia traditsio de parlamentay monarkioy, utilis lia tempo, sed malgrau la teknologia antauas kay politika maturetso de la civitanoy, demokratio stagnis teknologie kay ne plu estas politike korekta. Demokratio hodiau povas kay devus esti elvolvita por inkludi ciuyn tsivitanoyn dividante egala politikan povon de unu persono, unu voco en ciuy politikay detsidoy.
1.7 – La aktuala vocdona traditsio de kontsedi mandato estas misa cefe car ji estas tro fatsila por multay el ni esti trompitay de propagando, dum la relative mallonga periodo de elektoy, lasante al ni suferas la konsekventson de ofte maljusta detsido por pluray yaroy. Adoptante PRD farus jin pli malfatsila por ni ciuy esti trompi, per kelkay for-profita propagandistoy kay lobbyistoy.
“Vi povas trompi kelkayn el la popolo ciuyn de la epoko, kaj ciuy la homoj iom da tempo, sed vi ne povas trompi ciuyn la popolo ciuyn de la epoko”.
Abraham Lincoln -1809 – 1865 – la 16-a usona prezidento
1.8 Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826) desegnisto de la Deklaro de Sendependetso kay Fondinto Patro de Usono, diris, ke la konstitutsio devus esti reskribita ciun 19 yaroyn.
Ni ne bezonas lauvorte restrikti konstituciay xanjojyla terminon de 19 yaroy, sed ni povas figure interprete jin kiel nia eterna respondetson pri amendi nia konstitutsio kiel eble pley ofte bezonatay, do ciu generatsio devas difini por si kiel ji devus esti regita.
1.9 – En resumo: Se ni pretas preny plenan respondetson de nia politikay elektoy, nun estas la tempo. Ni vivas en epoko kiam la pley bonay konektoy teknologio povas ebligi al ni adoptas PDD. Ni povas nun legislar niay propray reguloy por egaletsa distribuo de nia komunumo; ni povas legislar kay praktiki la pley ekologie daurigebla lejoy, kay ni povas transformi nian Milito Ekonomio en Patso Ekonomio.
Kiam multe da ni estas pretay kay kapablay fari politikayn detsidoyn tra PRD sistemo, ni efektive xanji kay optimumigi nian sotsian sistemon. Ni povas potentsiale disvolvi la pley bona ebla vivnivelo por la tuta homaro.
Citizens want to protest, but are not sure if they want to recall.
Politicians just don’t like it.