Slap-In-The-Face Democracy

 LAST WEEK I WROTE a Huffington Post piece on the new electoral reform legislation rammed through the House of Commons in Ottawa and how it undercut the very kind of democratic reform people say they seek.  Many of those responding stated that this is the kind of political manipulation that turns them off of politics altogether and then closed by saying they wouldn’t be voting in the next election – something which, ironically, Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, noted when he publicly stated that such legislation could result in “persistent and declining voter turnout.”Countering Mayrand’s warning, Minister Pierre Poilievre said he believed that it was political candidates that would drive up voter turnout, not some government department.  The problem with that, naturally, is that most Canadians hardly know about Elections Canada, but they are well aware of how the present listing of politicians carry some of the greatest blame for the decline of democracy in the country.There are some necessary steps within the legislation that carried some merit, but it was the overriding sense of government arrogance in pushing through the undermining reforms with just a few hours of debate that caused the majority of observers to conclude that this law to refine electoral practice was, in fact, killing it.All this is taking place at a time when many municipalities are gearing up for local elections.  Many engaged citizens are desperately seeking political leadership that can turn their cities and regions around.  The trouble is that many are undertaking such needed actions while at the same time ignoring what the federal government is doing in undermining overall democracy itself.  These two jurisdictions are linked and to ignore the national dimension is to undermine local realities.  In a very real way, the fate of cities is dependent on the powers of the more senior political jurisdictions, and any attempt to lower voter turnout out federally will result in even less interest in resourcing local communities.All this is just another way of saying that candidates running locally would do well to speak out on any issue that would undermine Canadian democracy and citizen engagement in any jurisdiction.  Roads, highways, public transportation, waterways, security, research, environmental protection, financial regulations, international impacts – these and many other living realities are often more dependent on the interests and investments of the senior governments than most communities imagine.  Any effort federally, therefore, to distance the democratic experiment even farther from citizens in general could result in further abandonment of those places in which we live.We shouldn’t downplay this reality.  Local economist, Mike Moffatt, of the Ivey Business School, has repeatedly and effectively pointed out that federal investment in the southwestern Ontario region has consistently fallen behind that of other regions – something that leaves cities like London with ever fewer resources with which to innovate itself out of difficult economic times.  There is a great need for municipalities  to gain more independence from senior levels of government specifically because, with 80% of our population living in cities, they deserve more right to self-direction and less political manipulation than they’re getting.There are numerous difficulties with our political realities at the moment, not the least of which is voter apathy.  Advocates want all kinds of reform, but this current legislation isn’t what they were striving for.  Voters have to be motivated to go to the polls.  Why, then, would a federal government introduce a new law that would effectively put an end to Election’s Canada’s participation in outreach programs for the younger generation.  As Mayrand, concerned over this development, put it: “I don’t think it reflects a model democracy that Canadians’ aspire to.”Mayrand believed instead that the bill should have put forward legislation that would supply the chief electoral officer with the authority to compel political parties and their riding associations to provide Elections Canada with financial documentation to support their financial returns, believing it would make it far easier to follow the money in the system.  But then again, Mayrand was never consulted on the bill because it’s chief purpose was not to provide more clarity for the citizen/voter but more smokescreen for political incumbents.  Or, as the Winnipeg Free Press noted, “the new election bill helps the Tories exclusively.”  Even one comment in the Globe and Mail helped to put it in perspective: “What’s the purpose of this new legislation?  To save us from our democracy, of course.”I fall back to a quote from my Huffington Post piece:

The government is, in reality, confronting us as citizens and saying: 'Look we know you believe in the veterans and the practice of proper compensation for their service.  And we're aware that you want some kind of independent arbitrator for elections and democracy.  But we are taking these actions because we believe that, despite all that you say, you don't care enough to take it out on us.  We'll get away with it and you'll just move on.'This is a slap in the face of every citizen in this country, but some people in power are banking on the hunch that we'll just shrug and walk away.  If they turn out to be right, then soldiers and electoral officers alike are going to start wondering what kind of democracy they were protecting anyway”.

This is serious stuff.  If we hope to reform our democratic state in order to make it more responsive to citizens, especially in our local communities, how will that be accomplished when the federal level is removing the course of politics even farther away from us and those places in which we live?Note:  The Parallel Parliament Blog Posts 2013 ebook is now available for the iPad for free download at the iBooks store here.