A few thoughts on reform. .

I think one of the primary political problems facing our country is fairly straightforward, albeit difficult to solve. It can be expressed this way: we live in a society in which compromise and coalition building is becoming ever more necessary but our political institutions continue to exist in the traditional paradigm of excessive centralization of power which not only doesn’t foster compromise but actually exerts pressure in the other direction. The problems of our society are increasingly complex and require greater input from more people and a greater willingness on the part of our politicians to listen carefully to a multitude of opinions and act with greater concern for the various forces and elements of society. However, the traditional power-centered system of our politics is fostering individuals who have very little interest in compromise and simply crave power.

Given this problem, the first question we need to ask concerning any potential political reform is; to what degree will this change promote the kinds of positive changes which will promote a new politics and undermine the old politics?

It follows therefore that this is the question we need to ask with regard to any potential Senate reform in Canada. I am not particularly in favor of Senate reform at the present time because there is no clear vision of significant reforms that will promote a new compromise politics. On the other hand, I also don’t support the NDP policy of simply eliminating the Senate because such a move will just further the concentration of power in the PMO which is the most pressingl example of the problem with the present political paradigm.

The Conservative party has made a lot of noise about reforming the Senate but since we know, a priori, that they have no interest in creating a new compromise oriented political paradigm, we also know that their reforms would not score high on the above question to which we must subject our potential reforms.

Most models of an elected Senate would do little to change the prevailing political circumstances in the country. Let’s say that we have an equal Senate along the lines of the US Senate. Since we would have to have fewer Senators than MPs (because an upper house of 300 plus Senators would simply be too unwieldy), we could guess that we might have, let’s say, ten Senators from each Province and Territory. That would give us 130 Senators. However, since the electoral boundaries would have to be, in most cases, smaller than those for MPs, third parties would be even less represented than they are in the House of Commons and the vast majority of Senators would be Liberals and Conservatives. If votes in this Senate were whipped, party votes then the situation would be largely the same as it is now. The only cases in which it would be different would be when the majority party in the Senate was different than that in the House. This could happen, and if the elections were staggered it could happen on a regular basis. This is the only case in which this type of Senate might promote more compromise because it would generate a situation in which governments would be faced with getting little or nothing done unless they learned to compromise. But there would certainly be nothing built into this institutional structure that would guarantee that this would happen.

We desperately need political reforms in this country; reforms that decentralize power and promote more varied inputs and greater representation. We should absolutely resist any reforms to the Senate which fail to create institutions which embrace and represent these reforms. So far the reforms that have been talked about would simply further entrench powers in negative ways. And I don’t think eliminating the Senate does us any favors either since at the very minimum it does occasionally undermine the arbitrary power of the executive and it creates a group of representatives who are not subject to the continuous whims of electoral politics. As things stand now Ontario and Quebec are resisting any Conservative reforms to the Senate largely because they stand to lose power in a Senate which has equal representation from all the provinces and territories. And attempt to push through reforms without the consent of the provinces risks a serious constitutional crisis. This is the simple fact that the Conservatives overlooked when they campaigned on reforming the Senate. It was foolhardy of Harper to say he would not appoint Senators and going to reform the Senate when any such reforms would require all provinces consent. It was the same foolhardy and politically meaningless promise that the Mayor of Ottawa made when he said he would ensure a zero tax increase when he knew that such a move would require the majority of the city councilors. But Mayor O’Brian is much like Stephen Harper; they both exist in the traditional paradigm of power centered politics and have a pathological need to wield absolute power.

Any significant reforms to the Senate should include an entire package of reforms that lessons the power of the executive branch of government and which extends the ideal principles of democracy. The Conservative have absolutely no interested in the extension of democratic principles so nothing they say about Senate reform should be of interest to true democrats. I am still waiting for a party to have some actual vision on this issue. 

Prorogation is just a symptom of a larger disease.. . .

I think the most interesting thing about recent political events is the fact that people are waking up to the fact that there is something seriously wrong with out political institutions as they now exist. The fact is that even though convention says that the Prime Minister shouldn't be doing many of the things he has done, the system allows him to do these things. Not only has he ignored the will of the House of Commons, he has denigrated the civil service and undermined the basic accountability of government. And with a prorogation undertaken in Machiavellian self-interest, people are starting to get upset at what Harper is doing. Many people (including myself) have suggested that Harper is undermining democracy, and in a way he is. However, in another way Harper is doing exactly what the institutions of our political system allow him to do. Harper is deeply wrong. But then, by association so is our political system. The lesson here for Canadians should be that our political institutions desperately need reform. Sure recent events might eventually destroy Harper's government and result in the changing of who holds the office of Prime Minister. But unless we change the system the next Prime Minister can do the same kinds of things, only with the experience of Harper on the books which will allow him or her to  even more effectively undermine the will of the house. And even more to the point, if Harper had a majority right now he would be able to be even more abusive than he has been and many of the issues that have come forward would never have seen the light of day. 

Reform is essential. A more representative voting system, less power in the hands of the Executive, properly written rules for the functioning of the House, institutionally fixed processes of accountability that will not let the government hide behind the institutions, etc. The Prorogation is just a symptom of a disease, and the disease demands to be treated. 

Comparing the Ages

Following up on the subject of the Romanticism and the French Revolution which I touched upon yesterday - These are subject which are close to my heart and should, I believe, be more widely known and discussed because they are remarkably instructive as well as just plain fascinating. One of the interesting aspects of the events that followed the French Revolution is the strange similarity his has to our own times. The Revolution in France ushered in a terrific sense of optimism throughout Europe in people who  had grown extremely weary of the terrible injustice which so endemic to European society. Writers like Rousseau, Voltaire, and even Joseph Priestly had generated strong feelings toward a ‘natural’ sense of equality and justice which, in large part due to the strong resistance on the part of the ruling-class, eventually erupted into the uncontrollable anger of the events in France. In England the feelings of ‘leveling’ gave weight to a generation of writers and activists like Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Thomas Paine, William Blake, and the members of the London Corresponding Society.  This radicalism was relatively short lived however as the events in France seemed to spin increasingly out of control. Anti-Jacobin groups emerged all over  Britain and the Government passed various laws to make suppression of dissent easier.

These events were very similar to the mood in the West in the decades after the ‘socialist’ revolutions  in the 20^th century. A  genuine space was opened up in which reformers could call for more transparency, more democracy, and more socially responsible policy making. Governments reacted much the way William Pitt’s government had in the 1790s, with paranoia and suppression of dissent. J. Edgar Hoover was the Lord Castlereagh of the 20^th century. With the apparent failure of the socialist projects real economic and social reform seemed impossible in the 1990s in the same way that reform was anathema in the decades after the French Revolution. Reform took ages. Universal Male suffrage which had emerged in 1792 in France took another 60 years to return. And the vote for women was still generations away. But the feelings of reform in Britain might be said to have turned inward into the literary struggles of the Romantics. Coleridge and Wordsworth may have abandoned reform but it was taken up again in the poetry of Shelley and Byron. Romanticism carried the mantle of reform until the Victorian writers began to make reform and the condition of the working-class  a fundamental part of their literary project.

So where are we today? The final failure of the neo-conservative project that began in the Reagan years seems to have once again opened up a space socialist types of reforms. At the very least, faith in the market has been badly shaken. However, we seem to live in a age of cynicism and there is very little of the Romantic idealism around in our time. Perhaps the best we can hope for is a Neo-Victorian sense of practical reform. 

Time for change

Well the Tories economic statement has made it clear that Harper’s government is completely unfit to rule and the opposition parties must, by any means necessary, stop this fiasco. Here are the highlights (or should I say lowlights?) – 1. The elimination of public funding for political parties. This is another in a long line of deeply anti-democratic moves. All major democracies have some form of public support for parties in order to ensure that smaller parties, particularly ones that represent the working-class and minority groups have a voice in the political process. This is just another mean-spirited and partisan effort on the part of the government to undermine opposition in all its forms. 2. The elimination of the right to strike for public sector workers. This is just a typically fascist move that strikes at the very heart of basic human rights. 3. The multi-billion dollar sell off of government assets to avoid a deficit that a. won’t be avoided anyway, and b. would not have been a threat if Harper’s government had not given away the store in tax breaks to the rich. Selling off government assets now while the market is at a low point is a shameless effort of the government to practically give away what belongs to the people and put it in the hands of the rich. And all of this while the government denied during the election that there was any serious economic problem and still seems to be ignoring the depth of the situation.

It is time for real solutions. Serious investment in infrastructure, a huge commitment in alternative energy, a commitment to national childcare, the return of the Kelowna accord, serious electoral reform, a real commitment to transparency and freedom of information.

It is time for the opposition parties to work together in a coalition for the sake of these vital policies and reforms! The NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc should make at least a one year commitment to a government of national unity – treating the situation like a national emergency. After these reforms are set in place it will be clear to Canadians just how incompetent the Harper government is and how bankrupt the conservative ideology has become.