By "Democracy", I mean rule by the Majority; subject to the Rule of Law for the protection of all.
I pointed out in Part 1, the obvious fact that we no longer have Direct Democracy, it having died out with the last Athenian City State in the pre Christ years. And I hinted at the fact that we no longer even have Representative Democracy (RD) which seems to have come to a premature end in the final few decades of the last Century.
I can name four (4) developments that have contributed to the death of RD. Each, alone, has struck a most serious blow to the RD way of government; combined they have destroyed it.
First off, in the 1970s, Prime Minister Trudeau and his Clerk of the Privy Council conspired to centralize government power in the joint Offices of the Prime Minister and the Clerk. PMs to follow, including the current resident of 24 Sussex, have added to this consolidation to the point now where the ordinary MP, as well as the run of the mill Cabinet Minister, have virtually no say in determining the Government's Policy Agenda. Trudeau famously quipped that MPs were totally unknown 50 feet away from Parliament Hill and that statement now equally pertains to Cabinet.
I can remember those heady days in the 50s and 60s when MPs were elected to speak on behalf of their constituents. Now they simply parrot the lines given them 'from the centre' and dare not stray from that text.
The Second major change working against Representative Democracy is in regard to the Power the Courts and in particular, to their use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make laws. Prior to the Charter, Courts were there only to interpret the Laws made by our Representatives in the House of Commons. Judicial Activism has greatly neutered our once revered House of Commons and on important Societal Matters such as Marriage, Abortion, Drug Use, Immigration and Refugee Status, Language, the Courts rule supreme.
Rather than having 308 Members of Parliament deal with these important societal issues we have a mere handful of judges doing their work for them and when it comes to the cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, just 9 jurists have been given this responsibility - all political appointees and for the most part, all to the left.
The Third Development which has led to the diminished role of Parliamentarians relates to the growth of Commissioners and Quasi-Judicial Bodies. I liked to hear them referred to collectively as 'Tsars'. We have Commissioners for Privacy, Commissioners for Access, Commissioners for Language, Commissions for Human Rights and so on and so on. These chaps are always pronouncing on something or other and too often their pronouncements have the force of law. They are Not Elected are usually left of centre and in no way can it be said to represent the majority of Canadians.
And let's be honest here - Politicians have established these Tsars to avoid making difficult decisions themselves. But dear reader - that is why they were elected - to make decisions of all kinds on our behalf but they have weaseled out. We need to empower MPs by having them take back the making of such decisions - give them the staff and set-up powerful committees and by so doing, have them mirror more closely their counterparts in the States and by so doing change ordinary MPs into extra-ordinary Legislators. And yes dear reader - that includes 'deep sixing' the Senate. We do not need an unelected body nor do we need another layer of decision makers even if elected.
And now for the fourth and final reason our Representative Democracy is in such need of repair - The Bureaucracy. It is Too Large, Too Powerful and needs to be cut down to size. The King Pin is the Deputy Minister - he or she directs the mandarins - he or she hands out the appraisals and bonuses for the Senior Cadre below. The Minister has no such power nor does he or she even have the power to hire or fire Bureaucrats including the top dog Deputy. The Civil Service has grown so big and so powerful it has become virtually impossible for politicians to have much influence on it. They can and do simply wait out a current Minister tenure - Governments come and go - The Bureaucracy is forever there. In the end they tend to get their own way.
Depressing - isn't it.
Here is what we need do:
- Begin by finding a Political Party that will do what it says what it will do - no easy feat in itself;
- Disperse Power from the Centre back to the MPs - empower those MPs by providing them with the resources needed to do the job and establish a Committee Structure that has the power to compete with the PM and Cabinet;
- Rein in the Courts through liberal use of the not withstanding clause to frustrate their growing propensity to make law; (if possible - deep six the Charter)
- Cashier the Commissions and Commissioners - i.e. The Tsars - and return their Roles to a Reformed House of Commons Committee Structure;
- When the Government Changes - replace the Senior Cadre as soon as practicable with individuals in cinc with the Government's Policy Agenda and give the Ministers the Power to Replace Deputy Ministers at will. And just as important - reduce the Bureaucracy's size - It is far to wieldy. Plus much of what the Civil Service does can and should be done by the Private Sector. Even the collection of our income taxes could be done outside of government but I would not advocate something that extreme ....just yet.
And dear reader do not hold your breath awaiting these changes - it will take time but if we are truly to regain our voice in the operation of our affairs by Government - something along these lines will have to be done.
One further area that needs to be addressed and that is with respect to the election of our MPs. Currently we have first past the post where most get elected with a per centage far below half. This is a natural result where there are three or more viable parties vying for your vote. I do not believe in Proportional Representation since all you are doing there is making sure that the end result will be Pizza Parliaments run by Governments of Minority Status. It may work for a while but sooner or later nations need steps taken that can only be done via a Majority.
So here is what I suggest: when we vote - we vote for our first and second choice. If the top Candidate gets more than 50% of the vote on the first count - he or she wins. If the top Candidate gets less than 50% - then our second choices are counted in regard to the two Candidates who finished 1st and 2nd. Whomever receives the greater number of the first and second choices - wins and in so doing - has received more than 50% of the overall vote. I hope that's clear.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
