HOW TO STEAL AN ELECTION. LITERALLY

One of the ugliest political deceptions used on Canadian voters apparently happened during the last Federal Election, in May, 2011. It is just coming into significant light now.

Simply put, the action was set up to deliberately mislead voters. Some individuals, claiming to represent Elections Canada, made phone calls directing voters away from established voting places, to addresses where there was no voting poll. (Elections Canada is the government body which runs Federal — meaning national — elections.) The calls apparently were made to people who were somehow identified as supporting parties other than the Conservatives. Calls have been traced to a "voice broadcast" company in Edmonton, Alberta. This is a company which has done work for high-ranking individuals in Canada's Conservative Party, including the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

Plain and simple, someone was disrupting the voting process. The disruption may not have come from the business involved. But it apparently came through that business. For a while, it appeared that the problem occurred in only a few constituencies, where the vote was expected to be tight. Then the number rose to 18. Now, as many as 50 electoral districts may have experienced that disruption. That is over 15 per cent of Canada's total electoral districts.

Yesterday's news is that Elections Canada has received over 31 thousand calls of concern since the story first became public. That's 31,000 calls, by individuals alleging they received misdirecting information.

Clearly, this is not an isolated problem. In fact, it appears to be very well-organized.

The significant thing is that this fits the Conservative's style of  political operation, the end-justifies-the-means, win-at-any-cost approach. Which, I believe, is inconsistent with the Christian values which many Conservatives claim to follow personally.

The Conservatives have set out to fundamentally change Canada, from a country based on citizen equality, to one which has strong class divisions. It follows a pro-business, anti-worker style to governing. And it is scaring a lot of Canadians. 

All this brings us to the work of Lawrence Britt. Britt has made a point of studying Fascist governments in many parts of the world. He has come up with Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. Here is number 14.

Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

This misdirection of voters which occurred last May is entirely consistent with what Britt has identified — "fraudulent elections."

I'm certainly not the first person to raise concerns about the overall extreme right-wing trend developing in Canada, and in the United States. (Some call it Fascism, which it may be.) But I am concerned about the continuing "problems" the Conservative Party is having (causing?) in Canada.

I'm a Canadian who really loves my "home and native land." And I'm getting more and more concerned by my nation — our nation — developing trends which are not helpful to the majority of it's citizens.

Footnote:

I'm going to give Rick Mercer the last word on this. (His numbers are a bit off, but he makes a good point.)

MOSQUE AT "GROUND ZERO," USA.

Well, this is going to be long. Longer than usual. And in several parts.

(BTW, you can blame Da Blog Fodder for this; he put me up to it. Mind you, he's been active in posting, and sharing other information, about this pending development. As have his readers. If you go over to his blog and look about, you'll find lots of things to consider. Much of it centres around his "Of Mosque and Men." OK — credit given where credit it due.)

As there has been a huge amount of mis-information floating around about this proposal of a mosque a few blocks from "Ground Zero" — the site of the old World Trade Center in New York.

I want to start by putting out as much correct data as I can. To that end, I begin with the observations of a blog friend from New York, who has worked on Wall Street.

The proposed mosque would be part of a building housing various areas relating to Islam, and also some recreational areas, including a swimming pool. The location is not at "ground zero," but several blocks away.

There are to be all sorts of commemorative areas at, or closer to, ground zero.

The area of the proposed mosque and cultural center now houses a variety of enterprizes, including bars, discount electronic shops, and shops specializing in pornography.

I used to work in a big office building a short block away from the Twin Towers back in the late 1970's and early '80s. That part of Wall Street has always been a strange architectural mix of very, very old New York buildings, varying eras' attempts to be modern, and many humdrum bits of ugliness.

It houses gleaming offices where capitalism reigns, churches, pizza shops, tourist souvenir stalls and shops, discount clothing stores...even luxurious lofts created out of discarded old buildings. Most of the wealth is well-hidden. On the street level, it's a bit of a honky-tonk place, where everything moves pretty quickly.

News stories that say that the proposed mosque is to be built on the site of the Twin Towers are incorrect.

There are a number of parks in the area, some located on the nearby river side...great places to sit and catch some fresh breezes, and perhaps think peaceful thoughts.

That, from New York.

The larger issue is the amount of furor this has created in the U.S., and (to some extent) elsewhere. Much of that upset has focused on how westerners understand Islam, and how westerners are being encouraged to see Islam. That is the issue which I find most concerning.

As a bit of historical background, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share a common background, and are collectively known as the "People of the Book." That is an important consideration.

I want to try to put in some information about Islam. And I want to try to look at how Islam is being portrayed  in North America, particularly the US.

I'm not claiming in any of these comments that I perfectly understand all these things. I don't. But I know enough to be able to ask questions, to encourage thought — which is all I'm trying to do.

DEMOCRATIC WELL-BEING

Just as money can’t buy happiness, Gross Domestic Product doesn’t tell us how well we’re doing as a nation. (Gross Domestic Product is the overall measure of our nation’s economic activity; it came to be regarded, erroneously, as the sign of how well a country was doing.)

Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.

But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)

The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.

This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”

Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.

They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)

That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.

How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?

The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.

The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.

The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.
  
Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.

* * * * *

This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√

IN PRAISE OF COALITIONS

What Canada needs is a reasonable and effective coalition government. We need a government where people can work together, to solve the problems and build on the strengths of our nation.

Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.

Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.

There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.

Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.

As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.

On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.

Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.

But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.

We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.

Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.

(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√

ELECTION FEVER

In Saskatchewan, we may be hit by three (count 'em, three) elections in quick succession this fall.

1. In the Saskatoon Riversdale Provincial (as in State or County) Riding, the by-election is set for mid-September.

2. In late-October, we have elections for Saskatoon City Council (like other urban and rural municipalities in the province).

3. Now, there's a chance we may have a Federal (national) election as well -- the key issue being programs of support for workers who lost their jobs in the recession (such as Employment Insurance).

I think elections are a good thing. It is actually a chance for people who want to think, to think about the issues that effect their lives -- political or more-than-political.

But three in a row in a few months? Let's get serious!

Yes, there are significant issues we have to deal with in our community, province, and nation. But to try to tackle all the problems at, effectively, the same time, is to invite being overwhelmed -- politicians and voters alike.
`

A $300 MILLION WASTE

Last month, Canadians came through our 40th General Election. A recent survey I heard about said that roughly three-quarters of Canadians were not happy with the experience. I understand that; I certainly was not happy at all.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, lusting after a majority government, finally thought he saw his chance in September. Conservative popularity reached about 40 per cent -- enough to win a majority. So Harper called the election -- even though he (apparently) broke the law on fixed election dates, which Conservatives had introduced, and which became law this spring. He said he needed the election because Parliament was dysfunctional, hoping people would forget that he was the one largely responsible for the dysfunction.

We had a $300+ million, five-week waste of time, money, and energy. The election brought no significant change in Parliament. The no-longer-progressive Conservatives still form a minority government. The Liberals are still the Official Opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is in third place. The NDP is fourth. The Greens still haven’t elected a member. Some parties gained/lost seats, but not enough to change anything.

And the legality of the election will be argued before the Federal Court of Canada.

The most significant thing about election is the loss of democratic activity. Two voters out of five did not, would not, or could not vote (in some cases because of new election rules). That's even worse than in the Presidential and related elections in the U.S., at the beginning of November. From the numbers, Mr. Harper’s Conservatives enjoy the support of only one voter out of five -- hardly a ringing endorsement, though Harper sees it as such.

What has happened to our political process? I’ve followed politics fairly closely for about 30 years. I’ve seen party policy conventions, election platforms, and politician’s actions. In so many cases, those actions bear little or no resemblance whatsoever to what “grass roots” people deliberated and decided at policy conventions. Is it any wonder that citizens become discouraged by what they see politics over principle or party over principle?

And what happens when the membership of a parliament or provincial assembly bears no resemblance to the number of votes a party gets in an election? Further discouragement. That's what happens in our "first past the post" electoral system, as opposed to a proportional representation system.

It seems that people are losing interest -- and losing confidence -- in our current electoral systems and parties. As decision-making move further and further away from ordinary citizens, those citizens notice the difference, the distancing. And they often conclude that ordinary citizens are irrelevant in the overall scheme of fulfill their roles as citizens?

I believe it’s up to the politicians to address that problem, along with Canada’s people. -- and to do that sooner than later.

Will that happen? Don’t bet the farm on it.

(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a different form.)
*

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 1 - Basic Orientation)

I believe that Canada is heading down the road to Fascism, and is making good “progress” in that regard.

For a brief period in Canada’s history, we were afraid of Fascist governments. Between 1939 and 1945, Canada was at war with Fascist governments -- particularly Germany and Italy.

But the rise of Communism, and its rapid expansion in the later 1940s, quickly pre-occupied western nations. Communism was the bogey-man. And people basically forgot about Fascism.

The problem is that, despite their ideologies, Communism and Fascism are almost the same thing, because they act the same ways.

RIGHT vs. LEFT

In common political language, we use terms derived from the French National Assembly, at the time of the French Revolution. (The world has changed so much that it is hard to make legitimate comparisons from then to now.)

Today, politicians of the “right” believe in free-market capitalism and extreme individualism. Politicians of the “left” focus on collective development and co-operative society-building. And there are, of course, various mixtures of those policies. I don’t think either exists in a “pure” form.

LIVING the CIRCLE

The problem, of course, is that the principle defies reality. It assumes a kind of straight line. In fact, political philosophy is built in a circle -- like most other things in our world.

Think of a circle, with the north, south, east and west of a compass imposed on it. That’s how to sort our politics.

On the left side of the circle, you have your “left-wing” parties. On the right side of the circle, you have your “right-wing” groupings. That is pretty clear. What follows is, perhaps, less obvious.

On the top half of the circle, you have “democracies.” On the bottom half of the circle you have “dictatorships.”

So it is possible to have one of four basic models: a left-wing democracy, a right-wing democracy, a left wing dictatorship, and a right wing dictatorship. Left-wing dictatorships are called “Communist.” Right-wing dictatorships are called “Fascist.” Again, I don’t think any of them exists in a pure state.

While the ideology separating Communists and Fascists is radically different, in practical terms they are highly similar. That is why they meet at the bottom of the circle. That is because they are both tightly-controlled dictatorships, that use similar methods to achieve their goals.

I believe that Communism is basically unacceptable to the majority in Canada. I also believe that Fascism IS acceptable to many Canadians. And I believe that we are moving towards a more Fascist form of government, and away from the more balanced social democracy that Canada has been for so many years. The is a move which will fundamentally change our approach to life. Instead of having a kinder, gentler, more equal country, we will end up with one which is more vicious, harsh, and divided. I do not believe those characteristics — vicious, harsh, and divided — are of benefit to any nation.

"POLITICS" MADE SIMPLE

Listening to people talk about "politics" today, I feel very sad about the lack of basic understanding that most people have about "politics." I'm not talking about party positions or philosophical positions. I'm talking about the basics of politics.

To understand politics in our society, we need to reflect on "the cradle of democracy" -- ancient Greece. The Greeks had an wonderful word -- politeia. (That is the word from which we have our English words "politics" and "political.") That Greek word meant citizenship -- particularly "the rights and responsibilities of the citizen" — and citizens collectively.

But over the millennia we have developed "political institutions," of two kinds.

First, there are assemblies, which bring people together: city councils, legislatures, parliaments, congresses, etc. These are now filled with "elected representatives."

Second, there are parties: associations or groups of people who tend to think the same way about most things.

The flaw with these "political institutions" is that they have taken away — usurped — the rights and responsibilities of of citizens. Their actions deprive ordinary citizens of their politeia -- their "politics. "About the only thing left is the "right" and "responsibility" to put an "X" on a particular line of a particular piece of paper at particular times.

The loss of those rights is a historic study in itself.

There was a time when the leaders of the assemblies might have been "the brightest and best" — but more often they were simply the people who had the most power — either economic or military. With today's assemblies, there are lots of bright people on the outside — often brighter that the elected representatives. But because the elected hold the power — power which they are usually reluctant to share — we citizens have lost the core of our citizenship.

The time has come for us to reclaim our politeia -- our citizenship.