A Cap on Campaign Contributions?

In a recent post on facebook Integrity BC congratulated the Vancouver city council for passing a motion asking for caps and limits on financial contributions to political organizations and individuals running for office.  There are spending limits and strict rules at the federal level in Canada, and in most provinces.  BC, however, has no such limits.  This allows those with the greatest financial resources the greatest opportunity to concentrate and consolidate the public's attention on one candidate or party versus another.

From a democratic standpoint, why are these limit important?  The answer has to do with why we value democracy as a system of government in the first place.  Aside from being the least oppressive form of government in human history thus far (not to say it's not possible for democratic regimes to be oppressive, just that democracies have had a better track record than the alternatives), one of the main tenets of democracy is the assumption that no one person or group of people should have more rights to make decisions concerning society at large than any other one person or group of people.  In other words, we assume that everyone within a given society should have an equal opportunity to participate in the decision making that affects each other's lives.  This doesn't suggest that everyone has an equal ability to do so, simply that the opportunity to participate should be equally held by all the citizens of a given community.

And so, from this standpoint, allowing those with disproportionate financial resources unlimited access to utilize these resources in the political sphere violates this foundation of basic equality.  To be sure, in a market capitalist economy there will always be economic inequality, and so you might argue that this is unavoidable. But does this mean we should have no limits whatsoever?   Limits on the amount that can be provided from a single source help ensure that political parties and individuals running for office must appeal to more citizens for support.

Should we not make some attempts to broaden the possibilities for political involvement beyond the narrow scope of those with seemingly unlimited financial resources?  A level playing field will never be achieved, but perhaps we can achieve one with less of an incline.

"Democratic Deficits"...

Despite what some are calling a democratic revival (the occupy movement) actual voter turnout in elections around the world continue to show dismal participation numbers.  Citizens are simply not going to the polls, and in a lot of places election participation rates have decreased over the last few elections.

Nowhere is this lack of engagement with the citizenry so apparent as the European Union.  With the financial disasters sweeping through the Euro zone, the legitimacy, function, and role of supra-national institutions such as the Union and the European Central Bank are being called into question.  Of prime concern to myself is how little involvement and consultation there is between European citizens and the decision making that takes place regarding the union as a whole.  But what's happening there is a good example of what may be happening on a smaller scale in other democratic systems, whereby representative democracy is seeing improved and increased efficiency (i.e., faster decision making) but at the expense of having citizens involved and informed as to what's going on in parliaments.

This article from the BBC points out that the increasing power of the European Union has seen a concomitant decline in voter participation in EU elections.  This is of considerable concern as the EU begins to exert more and more influence over the laws that affect all EU nations.  However, with the unelected commission and a very convoluted system for electing European parliamentary members, the connection between voters and their 'representatives' is becoming, in my opinion, more and more tenuous, and further from being legitimate (in that the members can legitimately claim to 'represent' their constituencies).

So allow me to suggest that at all levels, and in all nations, there needs to be renewed awareness surrounding the extent to which government 'representatives' legitimately represent, are held accountable to, and consult with, the citizenry.  Here in BC we continue to see less and less consultation between members of government and their constituents.  We need to remind ourselves, and re-affirm, that members are not elected to do what they think is best, but are elected to represent a given constituency.  This should be the central focus and concern of any kind of democratic renewal, or for any voter or citizen in general!

Stand up and take part

Public Assembly…gotta love it.  This is the essence of democracy - whereby the citizenry of a given area/social network get together to make decisions concerning the group and society as a whole.  We've created institutions that are supposed to provide for this discourse, dialogue, and input on a regular basis but, some would say, these institutions have been either hijacked or are ineffective.

Although recent gatherings in New York and elsewhere are being organized and carried out as a protest against the financial sector, these are types of public assembly that stand in stark contrast to the representative type of democracy that exists in most western nations.  (click here for more info)  During these types of gatherings citizens engage directly in a dialogue about the issues concerning them, rather than deferring to an elected representative to speak on their behalf.  Indicators that representative democracy is not working as well as it should include low voter turnout, mandates that are not achieved through majority support, policy and project approvals that do not meet with public support, and decision making that does not involve consultation with majority stakeholders (i.e., the people/citizens/residents or bona-fide community groups).

Well, recent events have provided motivation for vast numbers of people to say enough is enough.  And although it's a protest, the dialogue sessions and speeches by the citizens and the 99% who are affected by the decisions of the few harken back to the notion that each person can contribute and have their say with respect to the issues of the day.  

Media and Framing Discourse

Ideally, the institutions that are in place in democratic societies serve as the means through which the citizenry can influence and participate in shaping public policy and the decisions that affect the society as a whole.  A key component of this process is the public discourse that takes place; the conversations that take place at all social levels, the key topics and issues of the day, and the coverage and dialogue in the media surrounding common issues.  In every society and community different topics and issues are discussed publicly.  Not only that, but the factors that determine what gets discussed are different in every community.

One key factor in shaping this discourse today is the media.  If certain issues receive more coverage than others then they will be discussed the most, and politicians will need to ensure that they take a position and have a response tailored to these issues.  In politics it almost doesn't matter what issues our representatives are passionate about on a personal level.  What matters more is there positioning and popularity in terms of the primary topics of discussion - or the public discourse.

So it's important to consider the factors that influence this discourse such as the media.  Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent explores the private sector's influence over the media and discourse.  In BC for instance, things like the clean energy act, which is arguably bankrupting BC Hydro, and the enbridge pipeline, have been overshadowed by the HST debate.  It's therefore arguable that there has not been sufficient dialogue surrounding these issues.

In a recent article in the Tyee, Kai Nagata notes that Quebecor is shaping the public discourse in a significant way, and in particular with respect to an issue that raises conflict of interest concerns.  He notes  specifically that if you:  "...immerse yourself in Quebecor content for too long and you might emerge thinking Québec is a rotting beehive of corruption, teetering on the verge of meltdown. A lonely island surrounded by a hostile anglophone sea, boatloads of would-be suicide bombers washing ashore. A small and homogenous tribe of people, threatened with extinction, their only hope being to pull a blanket of "culture" over their heads." 

So are you discussing the issues that matter most do you?  Do you know of events and issues that should receive more public awareness?  In a democracy, I believe it's our duty to be as informed as possible, and to find out about and engage in the issues that we believe are most important.  However, it's also very important to know the motivations and the factors influencing the topics that receive mainstream focus as well….

Role of Unions in a Democracy

Unions have long played a role in democracy and politics throughout industrialized nations. But to what extent are they still relevant on the political scene, and what role should they play in modern democracies?

This article by Murray Dobbin in the Tyee makes reference to the important role that unions have played in the political landscape in Canada. Lately, with the Canada Post strike and the threat of strike at Air Canada unions are once again in the limelight. The article makes the point that unions play a considerable role in representing the rights and views of the citizenry, and specifically labour, in our political institutions.

The Canada Post example, however, brings to bear two considerations. Firstly, the fact that traditional postage is decreasing significantly and that, nowadays, any business or institution must have the capacity to change and adapt to different circumstances quickly in order to remain relevant will obviously make it difficult to ensure jobs and organization structure remain the same over the long term. The rate of change and technology nowadays are bound to pit adaptability versus long term job security in any organization. Secondly, much of the citizenry is not represented by unions. Union workplaces tend to be drastically different from their non-union counterparts. From personal experience, I certainly don't think unionized working environments are the most efficient or adaptable in terms of remaining competitive and on the cutting edge. From this perspective, to what extend are unions representative of the citizenry or the general public?

Certainly unions are responsible for many institutions and components of society in Canada that benefit the public at large. And to be sure, there are definitely not any comparable sectors or social groups that can match the size of unions, which enables unions to pursue and protect the rights of the average citizen/worker in the face of larger and larger global companies and the faceless nameless corporations that run roughshod over so many political, social, and environmental considerations. But the times, they are a changin'...

Are there other arenas for the rights and interests of the citizenry to be protected and pursued, or does the union remain our best bet for protecting the values of workers?

Focus on the local...

Do you know how much authority rests with your local government?

Did you know that the decision making authority for many municipalities and even provinces is being given up in through national and international trade agreements?

Much has been written, and many have complained about, transnational trade treaties trumping community rights, autonomy and sovereignty. Much of the criticism levelled towards agreements such as NAFTA and, what could have been, the MAI (multilateral agreement on investment) has to do with the economic hardships that communities will face when they go head to head with multinational corporations and how these agreements give corporations, to some extent, more rights than citizens.

Canada is in the midst of negotiating the 'Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement' (CETA) with the European Union. It looks as though part of the negotiations will include rules about how municipalities can go about procuring services such as waste management, etc. Without getting into specifics, these rules would not allow municipalities to give any preference to local firms - they have strict provisions regarding competitiveness and the rights of foreign companies vis a vis local Canadian ones to bid for, and win, municipal contracts. (For some up to date info and a debate on this topic click here)

Never mind the economics, what about democracy? There are very complex and convoluted arguments on both sides of the debate regarding free trade agreements and the benefits or problems they cause communities and nations, but let me put it this way,

Should our elected representatives be protecting and serving:

1) open market competitive free trade or

2) the citizenry that elected them

Now, I hate to oversimplify a slightly complex issue, but that's kinda what I'm going for here. Are we that confident and sure about free market economics that, by default, this ideology becomes the deciding factor in all cases concerning governance and the future of our communities?

Or would we like our elected officials to retain the power and authority to make decisions about what's best for our communities on a case by case basis? If our governments don't have the kind of authority that agreements like CETA endeavour to remove in order to pursue ongoing economic growth, what exactly are we electing them to do?

Big to small…and nothing in between…?

I want to offer a contrast in two events from this last week…

On the one hand a parliamentary page got up in the middle of a federal throne speech with a stop sign saying "Stop Harper" out of protest. She's 21 years old and was nearing the end of her 12 month stint as a page. Most politicians have commented that this was an inappropriate forum in which to make a protest, and the page has since been fired. Public commentary ranges from praise for her bravery to criticism concerning the inappropriateness of her actions. In an interview the 21 year old commented that she made the decision based on a comment from her father concerning her previous protests that she was wasting her time and wouldn't achieve anything by protesting. She thereby opted to take her protests to the next level.

Contrast that, on the other hand, with a blog post from Cariboo North MLA (BC) Bob Simpson outlining his disappointment over what could be his last day in the BC Provincial Legislature where several bills were passed in parliament without, in his opinion, anything approaching genuine debate, discussion, or consensus building. He notes that considerable issues of substance concerning first nation treaties, the budget, and other items were rammed through in a very short time frame.

It would seem that our democracy has devolved into two options, and both of them are extremes. At the smaller, less effective end of the scale, average citizens are relegated to trying to affect change through protest. And at the other end are the mainstream parties whose support is derived from either unions or large corporate blocks pushing through whatever change they want with little to no debate. Where's the middle ground? Where's the reasonable conversation and consultation with the citizens who pay the taxes and live out our lives in communities throughout BC?