Right to Community - Against Our Wishes

The American Revolution didn’t start out as anything of the kind. Its eventual leaders were believers in the principles that existed prior to the radical act of rebellion, and they continued to espouse them once victory was assured. They weren’t brigands, profiteers, or anarchists; neither were they overtly political. Due to their desire to escape the stifling world of British politics, they ensconced themselves in the New World. Yet they attempted to apply the founding principles of the British parliamentary system in the colonies. They were happy to stay part of the Empire, as long as their individual and communities rights were respected.I think that pretty well sums up where Canadian communities are today. It’s hard to find anyone suggesting anything other than democracy as the proper political construct. Citizens would like effective political representation, and to know that they have recourse when things aren’t functioning as they ought. They believe in law and the independence of the courts. They desire enough detachment that they can live their own lives, yet wish for a sense of community that provides purpose and safety for their children.Like those early colonialists, however, there is a growing awareness that, despite our overall belief in the system, we are disconnected from it and that our communities are at risk. Each time the nation endures another recession the pattern is always the same: The feds download the debt and responsibilities to the provinces, who in turn adopt the same pattern with the municipalities and local communities. Cities face the double whammy of taking on what were provincial and federal responsibilities but without the commensurate resources. Left with no options, local leaders opt to get what they can out of homeowners by the raising of property taxes.Some provinces have been more fair than others, but the end result is still the same, and our communities are left with the deeper social and economic divisions that result from income disparity. There was a welcome, though brief, reprieve around the year 2000, when the federal government recognized it had a growing crisis on its hands. A deal was signed to bolster cities financially.  Even a new minister – Infrastructure and Communities – was assigned to be the point person of the commitment. Things cities had been asking for repeatedly were suddenly implemented – national childcare program, gas tax revenue, immigrant resettlement, affordable housing, to name a few.It was not to be. Following the 2006 federal election, Ottawa began to retreat once more from communities. The gas tax was rejigged, the childcare program abruptly halted, and affordable housing was left to languish. Now we have government attempting to adopt the US model of security programs that would permit them to peer more and more into our private lives. And for what? We’re still a peaceable people, but we are increasingly falling victim to governments that have agendas totally removed from our local problems. The old model of government - taking our tax money in order to provide us the services we need for meaningful lives - is broken at so many levels.  As more and more tax benefits are provided to the 1%, we fear our historic compact has been skewed away from the citizen and community towards political and corporate interests. What was once a supposition is being borne out every day in a distant Parliament that is increasingly dysfunctional.The similarities with American revolutionary times are more than coincidence; it’s what happens when governments grow distant from the communities where people live.  Like ourselves, it took years of growing disenchantment with political representation before the necessity of revolution was understood.What were they to do? Endless entreaties were submitted asking for proper attention and representation. Visits were made to London, England in attempts at a fruitful dialogue. Rather than violence, the colonialists resorted to law – existing British law – to press their case. While the French journeyed through their own revolutionary phase, built largely on philosophy and the distant ideal of “the rights of man,” the American colonialists merely wanted practical concessions, like the ability to vote in the British parliament or to see overbearing tariffs reduced on goods going back to Britain which actually helped its economy. This wasn’t heady stuff, merely practical business and entrepreneurial common sense. And yet they weren’t getting it, and over a period of many years a revolutionary act was arrived at only after all efforts at reform failed.That revolution was far more amicable than we might assume. It was a process by which the colonialists slowly separated themselves from the British Empire and forged their own identity. But it was always with a measure of reluctance and with great pain. The colonialists had been left with no other choice and ultimately made their move for self-respect and recognition. What had been a workable relationship broke down because Britain – the monarchy, parliament, and judiciary – refused to obey their own laws and respect the rights of its colonies. But revolution had been the last thing in the colonial mindset only a decade earlier.And it’s the last thing in our way of thinking, too. To be sure, there are frequent cries for electoral reform, effective taxation, and regional recognition, but few are calling for doing away with the Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedom, and democracy as we know it. Yet slowly, inexorably, communities are arriving at the place where they will inevitably strike back for proper recognition in the halls of federalism. It doesn’t have to be, but the bungling of the political order and the sheer rapacious irresponsibility of the corporate elite, have put us on that road, and communities will eventually walk it.