OrilliaMatters welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following letter is in response to a letter regarding electoral reform, published June 9.
*************************
It is interesting to read different points of view about our democracy and yet it does not help to voice praise about what we inherited/adopted from the Westminster system of governance and give the impression that all is roses and wonderful.
Things are obviously not well in Canada when it comes to the electoral selection system.
What I wish for in our democracy is to be heard, that I matter and that I am part of the process in the governance of our democracy. The definition of democracy is “demos” (people living in a particular state) and “kratos” (rule or power).
As far as I can see there are a few very disturbing weaknesses in the current set-up:
- The majority does not win.
- It is not democratic if the popular vote expresses one thing and the winner really is made up by a minority of votes.
- It is not helpful to have an opposition just for the sake of opposing. Alternatives need to be part of the opposing argument.
- Governance by non-elected people is not democratic.
- The final say, even if only emergency powers, do not belong in the hands of any foreigner but rather done by citizens of a democratic state present to act. We explicitly forbid foreign interference in Canadian politics.
- Lastly and most painfully, the head of state of a sovereign democratic nation needs to be a residing citizen elected by the people of such a nation.
Majority:
We have endless examples of where a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote (first past the post) makes up majority governments only to repeatedly discover after that the result is more divisiveness and polarization instead of common deployment of governing brainpower to solve governance problems.
We have witnessed many democracies where proportional representation works as all have to sit at the same table to deal with the same issues and, in the end, reach a consensus on how to resolve issues.
Minority votes:
It triggers apathy and rejection and more division. ‘Why should I vote if some smaller group will run the show anyway?’ That is usually the reaction.
Opposition:
It is there to hold to account, but just to disagree for disagreement’s sake does not help anybody. A minister in the house is not permitted to lie and must answer questions. When this does not happen, tension rises and co-operation fades.
Non-elected:
Whom do the Canadian senators speak for? Their oath in office does not even commit to the people of Canada. Accountability is very questionable and, arguably, certainly not democratic as the appointment is the PM’s prerogative.
Final say:
We have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is not a Canadian citizen and is by invitation head of state. Any monarchy is a non-democratic institution by definition. What makes things very difficult in Canada to accept is that it is a job by “birthright.”
So much for “all are equal and the same” under the charter. Also, a Canadian citizen is essentially barred from aspiring to become head of state of his/her own country. So, where is the sovereignty in such a “democracy?” If a foreigner has the final say as to who sits in Parliament and if Parliament sits at all, we have a problem.
Head of state:
It is all very well to have a dear and beloved British Elizabeth II to “reign over us” (really?) and yet the people of Canada so far seem to have no say on not Elizabeth but “the monarch” as the final word. Fact remains Canadians, like most countries that believe in democracy, want an elected Canadian as head of state.
To add insult to injury, what does the oath of office say for all MPs, judges, etc.? Allegiance to the monarch, not allegiance to the people of Canada, but they elected them to run their country. Go figure.
You see, those monarchies that seem to work in Europe, their head is appointed and they do a job and sometimes even get clipped by the same laws as the people of the country. (See: Spain.) The king of Sweden is the administrator and has to make sure policies from parliament are cost-effectively implemented.
I challenge anybody to justify the relevance of a foreign monarch in Canada other than to awaken discomfort for all those that are not of “British stock,” so to speak. That is not the multiculturalism we claim to cherish.
Roland Orlie
Orillia
*************************
