On Feb. 8, the same day of our Court case concerning the democratic legitimacy of Quebec's electoral system is scheduled to be heard, that is if the crown attorneys don't go on strike before, we can expect to receive yet another speech from the throne.
As a hard core democrat, you can only imagine how I look forward to being reminded once again that I live under a neo-feudal regime.
This time around -- considering the overwhelming belief that corruption and collusion are widespread in Quebec and that the people want to have a public inquiry to bring things to light but are denied because the Premier who has the support of less than one in four electors refuses to hold one -- the distance between those who rule and those who are ruled never seemed to be so great.
From a democratic perspective, we are being ruled by a tyrant.
One of the fundamental principles of democracy is isocratia, the equality of political power, where citizens are willing and able to rule and be ruled. In the present context, we are governed by someone who wants to rule but refuses to be ruled by the demos, the people.
Apparently, in our political system which hasn't evolved qualitatively with respect to the concentration of political power in the hands of an elected monarch since the seventeenth century, we have no recourse other waiting it out for another chance to elect a different monarch.
Essentially, political power is dispersed among the people for about 12 hours during election day once every four years. Thereafter, it is usurped by professional politicians.
This doesn't need to be the case even in a representative democracy. In a proportional system, once a government has lost the the confidence of the people, as is now the case in Quebec, elected representatives from the smaller parties that comprise the ruling coalition can withdraw their support and put into motion a process to oust the ruling executive. This is now happening in Ireland where the Greens and a number of independents have set out to topple the government which they previously supported.
From the citizens' perspective, pressure can be mounted from within the political party by the members that can't be ignored by the elected deputies. Although this situation doesn't represent an equal distribution of political power, the distance between those who rule and those who rule is far less than in our present system.
As for the question of stability, if things are going badly why would a population desire for the state of affairs to continue?
The idea that countries that use a proportional voting system are plagued by political instability is a myth. Research shows that on average the duration of a ruling coalition in a proportional system is only slightly shorter than a majority government in a majoritarian system.
Hopefully, this time around the judges hearing our appeal of the lower court's refusal to grant us a declaratory judgment that seeks to have our present voting system declared unconstitutional will do so by affirming the fundamental principles of democracy.
Once that is done, we can move forward with plans to put our present political system, a vestige of the British empire, behind us and into history's dust bin.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Elizabeth May to Speak at The Democracy On Trial Fundraiser
Leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May, has confirmed that she will speak at the Democracy On Trial Fundraiser. Ms. May joins Wayne Smith, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada, Antony Hodgson, President of Fair Voting BC, and yours truly Brian Gibb, co-founder of the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Rights as the guest speakers.
Recently, Ms. May was granted intervener status and will have her arguments presented by accomplished constitutional lawyer Peter Rosenthal during the appeal of the lower court decision Gibb v. Attorney General of Quebec to be heard at the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal, Feb. 8, 2011.
During the last federal general election, approximately one million electors voted for the Greens, yet the Greens and their supporters were denied any representation in Parliament. Undoubtedly, Ms. May will address this glaring affront to the values of a free and democratic society.
Recently, Ms. May was granted intervener status and will have her arguments presented by accomplished constitutional lawyer Peter Rosenthal during the appeal of the lower court decision Gibb v. Attorney General of Quebec to be heard at the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal, Feb. 8, 2011.
During the last federal general election, approximately one million electors voted for the Greens, yet the Greens and their supporters were denied any representation in Parliament. Undoubtedly, Ms. May will address this glaring affront to the values of a free and democratic society.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Electoral Reform Would Thrust Quebec Into the 21st Century
For the vast majority of Quebecers, the first decade of the 21st century was a lost decade on the political front. It's as if we are still living in the after shock of the 1995 referendum. Politics has taken on the hue of an old black and white film. In the absence of a credible guiding vision, we have regressed to an earlier time where graft, greed, and the lust for power permeate the entire political system from top to bottom, from the municipal to the federal level.
The last decade was the do nothing of significance decade. It's difficult to recall anything of importance. Bouchard retired and declared his doubts about Quebec sovereignty. We flirted with the ADQ and we endured the Liberals.
Ten years later, the mega hospital in Montreal still hasn't been built. School report cards went from number grades to letter grades and then back to numbers. There was talk of some grand development plans for the North, but nothing has gotten off the ground. Quebec City is still looking to replace it's lost NHL franchise and the Canadians didn't win the cup.
Did I forget anything? There was something about our public pension plan losing 40 billion dollars and what constituted reasonable respect for cultural differences, but we seem to have turned the page and moved on.
Moved on to what, I'm not sure. Politics in Quebec has become like an extended version of the film Ground Hog Day. Each morning we wake up and face the same choice between do we stay or do we go, and by the end of the day we still haven't decided only to wake up to the same choice the next day. Same old same old.
To break the loop, we need to cut our ties to the political system that keeps us there. The Westminster parliamentary system produces a bi-polar disorder. It keeps giving us the same options. Once in a century one of the options will change, but in the meantime politics become excruciatingly dull and predictable. No wonder less and less people bother to vote.
But things could be different. Political diversity could emerge. Everyone's vote could count. How quickly this comes about might depend on a decision to be rendered by Quebec's Court of Appeal shortly.
The last decade was the do nothing of significance decade. It's difficult to recall anything of importance. Bouchard retired and declared his doubts about Quebec sovereignty. We flirted with the ADQ and we endured the Liberals.
Ten years later, the mega hospital in Montreal still hasn't been built. School report cards went from number grades to letter grades and then back to numbers. There was talk of some grand development plans for the North, but nothing has gotten off the ground. Quebec City is still looking to replace it's lost NHL franchise and the Canadians didn't win the cup.
Did I forget anything? There was something about our public pension plan losing 40 billion dollars and what constituted reasonable respect for cultural differences, but we seem to have turned the page and moved on.
Moved on to what, I'm not sure. Politics in Quebec has become like an extended version of the film Ground Hog Day. Each morning we wake up and face the same choice between do we stay or do we go, and by the end of the day we still haven't decided only to wake up to the same choice the next day. Same old same old.
To break the loop, we need to cut our ties to the political system that keeps us there. The Westminster parliamentary system produces a bi-polar disorder. It keeps giving us the same options. Once in a century one of the options will change, but in the meantime politics become excruciatingly dull and predictable. No wonder less and less people bother to vote.
But things could be different. Political diversity could emerge. Everyone's vote could count. How quickly this comes about might depend on a decision to be rendered by Quebec's Court of Appeal shortly.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Crux of the Matter
Is a nation that uses a plurality/winner-take-all electoral system to determine representation in its legislature democratic? This is the crux of the matter before the courts.
At the most fundamental level, democracy is the rule of the majority, and a plurality is not a majority. Duly-elected governments using a plurality voting method may have many virtues, but they rarely produce a government that has the support of the majority of its citizens. Therefore, only in rare instances are they democratic.
In Canada, section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that each citizen has the right to effective representation and to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. These are substantive rights that go beyond the right to place a vote into a ballot box. Moreover, judgements concerning the application of above-mentioned rights must conform to the values of a free and democratic society.
Upon application of the plurality voting method, the candidate who gets the most votes wins, and all other votes beyond what is necessary to establish the plurality are simply discarded. Most often, these ineffective votes comprise the majority of votes cast in the electoral district.
Consequently, the plurality method is not democratically legitimate. It lacks a mechanism that can take the discarded votes and make them effective. Generally speaking, there are two types of mechanisms in use to counter the problem: an aggregation of votes across electoral districts and a redistribution of seats based on the aggregation or a compilation of voting preferences within electoral districts in order to establish which candidate has the support of the majority of electors.
It is the addition of these mechanisms to the simple procedure of counting the initial votes cast for each candidate in every electoral district that produces a democratically legitimate electoral result. It is the absence of any such mechanism that renders the plurality method democratically illegitimate.
Importantly, the motion before the Courts has as its objective to obtain a judgement that declares the plurality method democratically illegitimate and as a result constitutionally null and void. It does not ask the Court to provide the remedy. There are a number of voting methods available from both the proportional and majoritarian categories that can restore democratic legitimacy to our electoral process. The Court may give guidance with regard to how the right to effective representation and meaningful participation in the electoral process must be respected, but the choice of which voting system will replace the plurality method will rest with the legislature.
We anticipate that the Quebec government will be given one year to comply with the decision, which promises to finally bring about a political debate concerning the voting system that must lead to a substantive result. As well, we anticipate that similar motions would be filed elsewhere in Canada.
At the most fundamental level, democracy is the rule of the majority, and a plurality is not a majority. Duly-elected governments using a plurality voting method may have many virtues, but they rarely produce a government that has the support of the majority of its citizens. Therefore, only in rare instances are they democratic.
In Canada, section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that each citizen has the right to effective representation and to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. These are substantive rights that go beyond the right to place a vote into a ballot box. Moreover, judgements concerning the application of above-mentioned rights must conform to the values of a free and democratic society.
Upon application of the plurality voting method, the candidate who gets the most votes wins, and all other votes beyond what is necessary to establish the plurality are simply discarded. Most often, these ineffective votes comprise the majority of votes cast in the electoral district.
Consequently, the plurality method is not democratically legitimate. It lacks a mechanism that can take the discarded votes and make them effective. Generally speaking, there are two types of mechanisms in use to counter the problem: an aggregation of votes across electoral districts and a redistribution of seats based on the aggregation or a compilation of voting preferences within electoral districts in order to establish which candidate has the support of the majority of electors.
It is the addition of these mechanisms to the simple procedure of counting the initial votes cast for each candidate in every electoral district that produces a democratically legitimate electoral result. It is the absence of any such mechanism that renders the plurality method democratically illegitimate.
Importantly, the motion before the Courts has as its objective to obtain a judgement that declares the plurality method democratically illegitimate and as a result constitutionally null and void. It does not ask the Court to provide the remedy. There are a number of voting methods available from both the proportional and majoritarian categories that can restore democratic legitimacy to our electoral process. The Court may give guidance with regard to how the right to effective representation and meaningful participation in the electoral process must be respected, but the choice of which voting system will replace the plurality method will rest with the legislature.
We anticipate that the Quebec government will be given one year to comply with the decision, which promises to finally bring about a political debate concerning the voting system that must lead to a substantive result. As well, we anticipate that similar motions would be filed elsewhere in Canada.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Contesting the Democratic Legitimacy and the Political Authority of the Quebec and Federal Governments
Two recent events cast serious doubts about the democratic legitimacy of our political institutions and call into question the nature of the political authority they wield.
In Quebec, the Charest government refuses to hold a public inquiry against the wishes of the vast majority of the population into the corruption within the construction industry and its ties to the financing of Quebec's political parties. At the federal level, the unelected Canadian Senate voted down the comprehensive climate change legislation passed by the majority of members of the elected lower house.
Indeed, this turn of events in Quebec demonstrates that the majority of citizens do not hold and exercise political power in Quebec and that the same can be said of the majority of the elected representatives in Parliament.
What does this say about our political institutions?
At a fundamental level, Canada's constitutional monarchy is undemocratic and its political authority is derived from a show of force rather than from the will of the majority of its citizens. Popular elections are held, but they do not yield electoral results that reflect the popular will. On the contrary, the electoral system is designed to usurp the power of the majority and transfer it to a minority. In between elections, there is little that can be done to change this state of affairs.
How does this come about?
In short, our electoral system uses the single member plurality (SMP) voting method that brings about a system of governance in which the most powerful political minority rules as if were a majority.
As could be expected, this electoral system was conceived during the Middle Ages, an epoch that privileged those who exerted territorial control and little attention was paid to those who lived and toiled upon the land. Essentially, the SMP method reproduces this feudal relationship with regard to political power.
For instance, in the Middle Ages military force established who gained control over disputed territory, and to the winner went the spoils of victory. Similarly, in our electoral system, the spoils of victory, effective representation, go to the winner of the electoral campaign in a winner-take-all manner.
It doesn't matter if the majority of citizens/serfs in the territory/electoral district voted against the the candidate who garnered the most votes. Their voices do not matter and all their votes are discarded as if they were not cast at all. Regardless of the total lack of democratic legitimacy in the process, the newly elected deputy takes his or her place as the territorial representative in Parliament.
The primacy of territorial control is then leveraged to form a ruling government. Again, the formation of the government is not bound by the manner in which the citizens/serfs actually voted. The vast majority of Deputies in the House of Commons do not have the support of the majority of their constituents. All that matters is to identify the political party that acquired the most territory as expressed by the number of electoral districts captured in the electoral campaign. To the winner goes the right to rule the land.
As you could imagine, using an electoral method that actually discards what is most often the majority of votes cast by the citizens/serfs compromises the democratic legitimacy of the government that is duly formed. Beyond the recurrent over and under representation of the different political parties in Parliament, there exists a fundamental flaw: the formation of what is misleadingly referred to as a majority government does not require the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, it is rare that a majority government even has the support of the majority of the citizens that cast their votes, let alone those who are eligible to vote.
Needless to say, this becomes problematic, especially in terms of how political authority is exercised. In a democracy, as a matter of principle the citizenry is bound to accept the will of the majority as long as fundamental human rights are respected. What is the guarantor of respect for political authority if it does not stem from directly from the people but instead is obtained from a democratically flawed process? Tradition? Coercion?
Personally, I find it unacceptable that such a state of affairs is allowed to continue under the guise of democracy. So much so, in collaboration with three of my colleagues, we decided to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the electoral system that brings forward in our eyes a system of government that can only be described as rule of the few over the many.
What allows for this challenge is the adoption in 1982 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, section 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to vote. As defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, this right goes beyond simply the right to place a ballot into a box and includes the right of each citizen to effective representation and the right of each citizen to participate meaningfully in the electoral process and that these rights are not subject to the political preferences of the majority.
Perhaps, the majority of Canadians prefer to maintain the present system, but this preference does not give them the right to deny effective representation to a significant minority of voters. For example, in the last federal election approximately a million people voted for the Green Party, yet these electors have no effective voice in Parliament. How can this be squared with the right of each citizen to have effective representation? It cannot.
Similarly, where is the substantive equality in an electoral process that confers effective representation only on those electors whose votes establish a candidate's plurality at the expense of all other electors? This means that the system gives strong institutional incentives to people to vote for political parties that are in a position to potentially form a government at the expense of those parties that are not. Consequently, many electors who would otherwise vote for a smaller party if there vote would be used to establish representation don't vote at all or choose to vote strategically by substituting their authentic choice for a strategic vote. In either case, this situation systemically reduces the number of votes a candidate from a small party would otherwise receive, a situation already judged to be antithetical by the Supreme Court of Canada to the values informing a free and democratic society.
At the heart of the issue is whether the electoral system that we inherited from our colonial past conforms to the values of a free and democratic society. Even the British have their doubts as demonstrated by the holding of a nation-wide referendum in the UK on the continued use of their archaic first-past-the-post voting method in May, 2011.
At the very least, both at the provincial and federal, electoral systems must incorporate some mechanism that enables each citizen's vote or preferences to be aggregated so each vote is used in the formula that determines representation and no votes are simply discarded. This would restore democratic legitimacy to our system of governance.
On February 8, 2011, at the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal, arguments will be heard to overturn the decision at the lower court that did not support the motion to have our present voting method rendered null and void. With lawyers of the stature of Julius Grey and Peter Rosenthal, both having successfully obtained seminal decisions on democratic rights issues from the Supreme Court of Canada, this promises to be a historic confrontation between the desire to maintain our colonial past and the desire to evolve into a modern democratic society.
In Quebec, the Charest government refuses to hold a public inquiry against the wishes of the vast majority of the population into the corruption within the construction industry and its ties to the financing of Quebec's political parties. At the federal level, the unelected Canadian Senate voted down the comprehensive climate change legislation passed by the majority of members of the elected lower house.
Indeed, this turn of events in Quebec demonstrates that the majority of citizens do not hold and exercise political power in Quebec and that the same can be said of the majority of the elected representatives in Parliament.
What does this say about our political institutions?
At a fundamental level, Canada's constitutional monarchy is undemocratic and its political authority is derived from a show of force rather than from the will of the majority of its citizens. Popular elections are held, but they do not yield electoral results that reflect the popular will. On the contrary, the electoral system is designed to usurp the power of the majority and transfer it to a minority. In between elections, there is little that can be done to change this state of affairs.
How does this come about?
In short, our electoral system uses the single member plurality (SMP) voting method that brings about a system of governance in which the most powerful political minority rules as if were a majority.
As could be expected, this electoral system was conceived during the Middle Ages, an epoch that privileged those who exerted territorial control and little attention was paid to those who lived and toiled upon the land. Essentially, the SMP method reproduces this feudal relationship with regard to political power.
For instance, in the Middle Ages military force established who gained control over disputed territory, and to the winner went the spoils of victory. Similarly, in our electoral system, the spoils of victory, effective representation, go to the winner of the electoral campaign in a winner-take-all manner.
It doesn't matter if the majority of citizens/serfs in the territory/electoral district voted against the the candidate who garnered the most votes. Their voices do not matter and all their votes are discarded as if they were not cast at all. Regardless of the total lack of democratic legitimacy in the process, the newly elected deputy takes his or her place as the territorial representative in Parliament.
The primacy of territorial control is then leveraged to form a ruling government. Again, the formation of the government is not bound by the manner in which the citizens/serfs actually voted. The vast majority of Deputies in the House of Commons do not have the support of the majority of their constituents. All that matters is to identify the political party that acquired the most territory as expressed by the number of electoral districts captured in the electoral campaign. To the winner goes the right to rule the land.
As you could imagine, using an electoral method that actually discards what is most often the majority of votes cast by the citizens/serfs compromises the democratic legitimacy of the government that is duly formed. Beyond the recurrent over and under representation of the different political parties in Parliament, there exists a fundamental flaw: the formation of what is misleadingly referred to as a majority government does not require the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, it is rare that a majority government even has the support of the majority of the citizens that cast their votes, let alone those who are eligible to vote.
Needless to say, this becomes problematic, especially in terms of how political authority is exercised. In a democracy, as a matter of principle the citizenry is bound to accept the will of the majority as long as fundamental human rights are respected. What is the guarantor of respect for political authority if it does not stem from directly from the people but instead is obtained from a democratically flawed process? Tradition? Coercion?
Personally, I find it unacceptable that such a state of affairs is allowed to continue under the guise of democracy. So much so, in collaboration with three of my colleagues, we decided to challenge the democratic legitimacy of the electoral system that brings forward in our eyes a system of government that can only be described as rule of the few over the many.
What allows for this challenge is the adoption in 1982 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, section 3 of the Charter guarantees the right to vote. As defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, this right goes beyond simply the right to place a ballot into a box and includes the right of each citizen to effective representation and the right of each citizen to participate meaningfully in the electoral process and that these rights are not subject to the political preferences of the majority.
Perhaps, the majority of Canadians prefer to maintain the present system, but this preference does not give them the right to deny effective representation to a significant minority of voters. For example, in the last federal election approximately a million people voted for the Green Party, yet these electors have no effective voice in Parliament. How can this be squared with the right of each citizen to have effective representation? It cannot.
Similarly, where is the substantive equality in an electoral process that confers effective representation only on those electors whose votes establish a candidate's plurality at the expense of all other electors? This means that the system gives strong institutional incentives to people to vote for political parties that are in a position to potentially form a government at the expense of those parties that are not. Consequently, many electors who would otherwise vote for a smaller party if there vote would be used to establish representation don't vote at all or choose to vote strategically by substituting their authentic choice for a strategic vote. In either case, this situation systemically reduces the number of votes a candidate from a small party would otherwise receive, a situation already judged to be antithetical by the Supreme Court of Canada to the values informing a free and democratic society.
At the heart of the issue is whether the electoral system that we inherited from our colonial past conforms to the values of a free and democratic society. Even the British have their doubts as demonstrated by the holding of a nation-wide referendum in the UK on the continued use of their archaic first-past-the-post voting method in May, 2011.
At the very least, both at the provincial and federal, electoral systems must incorporate some mechanism that enables each citizen's vote or preferences to be aggregated so each vote is used in the formula that determines representation and no votes are simply discarded. This would restore democratic legitimacy to our system of governance.
On February 8, 2011, at the Quebec Court of Appeal in Montreal, arguments will be heard to overturn the decision at the lower court that did not support the motion to have our present voting method rendered null and void. With lawyers of the stature of Julius Grey and Peter Rosenthal, both having successfully obtained seminal decisions on democratic rights issues from the Supreme Court of Canada, this promises to be a historic confrontation between the desire to maintain our colonial past and the desire to evolve into a modern democratic society.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Le Québec pourrait devenir le berceau de la démocratie en Amérique du Nord
En Chine, les mots « crise » et « opportunité » s’écrivent de la même manière. Il semble que le fait d’être en période de crise ou en période d’opportunité dépende de l’interprétation des événements.
Chose certaine, nos institutions politiques québécoises sont régulièrement ébranlées par les scandales. Dans un sondage effectué dernièrement par Angus Reid – La Presse, trois Québécois sur quatre croient que les institutions québécoises sont corrompues.
Nous ne sommes pas les seuls à subir de gros problèmes de gouvernance. Aux États-Unis, un échec du système politique a eu pour effet de plonger le monde dans une récession globale due à l’absence de régulation adéquate de leurs marchés financiers. Au Canada, le premier ministre a du demandé au gouverneur général afin de proroger le parlement pour éviter le renversement de son gouvernement. Quant au Royaume-Uni, un scandale concernant l’utilisation frauduleuse des fonds publics par certains membres de la Chambre des Lords a eu pour effet une révision du système électoral. Grosso modo ces pays d’origine britannique sont aussi secoués par des crises de confiance envers leurs institutions politiques.
Dans chaque cas, les désirs de la majorité sont opposés à la volonté d’une minorité forte, fortunée et efficace, ce qui contribue à remettre en question la légitimé du système de gouvernance. Au fond, ces pays bafouent le qualificatif « démocratique » apposé à leur régime politique, c.-à-d. la majorité des citoyens exerce le pouvoir politique par le biais de la représentation élue.
Au contraire, le système électoral britannique ne vise pas à faire respecter la volonté populaire aux élections puisqu’il transfert le pouvoir de la majorité à une oligarchie menée par des politiciens de carrière.
Cette situation autorise implicitement le premier ministre du Québec de refuser carrément de tenir une enquête publique sur les liens du domaine de la construction, le financement des partis politiques et le crime organisé.
La réponse appropriée de la part de la population québécoise est de faire ce que la classe politique a refusé de faire depuis le départ de René Levesque, soit la démocratisation des institutions politiques. En effet, le monde est devenu trop complexe pour qu’une société soit dirigée par seulement « deux mains sur le volant », et comme nous pouvons le constater, le processus qui nous a mené là est truffé de corruption, collusion et copinage.
L’opportunité qui se présente aux Québécois découle du fait que notre système électoral est complètement en panne. Insatisfait des efforts de notre Directeur général des élections du Québec (DGÉQ), Marcel Blanchet, de redessiner une carte électorale plausible et juste, le premier ministre Jean Charest a décidé de suspendre les pouvoirs du DGÉQ. Par conséquent, le Québec n’a pas un système électoral en vigueur qui respecte ses lois propres.
Au début de l’année prochaine, les membres de l’Assemblée nationale devront trancher sur une façon de sortir de l’impasse quant à la carte électorale, rendue caduque à cause des changements démographiques. Au lieu de privilégier la continuité avec notre passé, en instaurant un système politique qui est conçu pour contourner la volonté populaire, le temps est arrivé pour le Québec d’être en rupture avec son passé colonial, et ce système qui est un vestige de l’Empire britannique.
Les Québécois doivent exiger que leurs politiciens instaurent un système électoral démocratique. Il faut commencer à la base de notre société et ses institutions politiques pour construire une société où chaque personne est égale devant la loi et ses applications. Après tout, c’est le Québec qui a donné au Canada ses lois au niveau des limites des dons aux partis politiques afin de baisser influence indue de l’argent au processus électoral.
Le temps est propice pour que le Québec fasse quelque chose d’extraordinaire en devenant le premier état en Amérique du Nord à choisir la démocratie réelle et vivante comme principe prépondérant quant à son organisation et fonctionnement.
Chose certaine, nos institutions politiques québécoises sont régulièrement ébranlées par les scandales. Dans un sondage effectué dernièrement par Angus Reid – La Presse, trois Québécois sur quatre croient que les institutions québécoises sont corrompues.
Nous ne sommes pas les seuls à subir de gros problèmes de gouvernance. Aux États-Unis, un échec du système politique a eu pour effet de plonger le monde dans une récession globale due à l’absence de régulation adéquate de leurs marchés financiers. Au Canada, le premier ministre a du demandé au gouverneur général afin de proroger le parlement pour éviter le renversement de son gouvernement. Quant au Royaume-Uni, un scandale concernant l’utilisation frauduleuse des fonds publics par certains membres de la Chambre des Lords a eu pour effet une révision du système électoral. Grosso modo ces pays d’origine britannique sont aussi secoués par des crises de confiance envers leurs institutions politiques.
Dans chaque cas, les désirs de la majorité sont opposés à la volonté d’une minorité forte, fortunée et efficace, ce qui contribue à remettre en question la légitimé du système de gouvernance. Au fond, ces pays bafouent le qualificatif « démocratique » apposé à leur régime politique, c.-à-d. la majorité des citoyens exerce le pouvoir politique par le biais de la représentation élue.
Au contraire, le système électoral britannique ne vise pas à faire respecter la volonté populaire aux élections puisqu’il transfert le pouvoir de la majorité à une oligarchie menée par des politiciens de carrière.
Cette situation autorise implicitement le premier ministre du Québec de refuser carrément de tenir une enquête publique sur les liens du domaine de la construction, le financement des partis politiques et le crime organisé.
La réponse appropriée de la part de la population québécoise est de faire ce que la classe politique a refusé de faire depuis le départ de René Levesque, soit la démocratisation des institutions politiques. En effet, le monde est devenu trop complexe pour qu’une société soit dirigée par seulement « deux mains sur le volant », et comme nous pouvons le constater, le processus qui nous a mené là est truffé de corruption, collusion et copinage.
L’opportunité qui se présente aux Québécois découle du fait que notre système électoral est complètement en panne. Insatisfait des efforts de notre Directeur général des élections du Québec (DGÉQ), Marcel Blanchet, de redessiner une carte électorale plausible et juste, le premier ministre Jean Charest a décidé de suspendre les pouvoirs du DGÉQ. Par conséquent, le Québec n’a pas un système électoral en vigueur qui respecte ses lois propres.
Au début de l’année prochaine, les membres de l’Assemblée nationale devront trancher sur une façon de sortir de l’impasse quant à la carte électorale, rendue caduque à cause des changements démographiques. Au lieu de privilégier la continuité avec notre passé, en instaurant un système politique qui est conçu pour contourner la volonté populaire, le temps est arrivé pour le Québec d’être en rupture avec son passé colonial, et ce système qui est un vestige de l’Empire britannique.
Les Québécois doivent exiger que leurs politiciens instaurent un système électoral démocratique. Il faut commencer à la base de notre société et ses institutions politiques pour construire une société où chaque personne est égale devant la loi et ses applications. Après tout, c’est le Québec qui a donné au Canada ses lois au niveau des limites des dons aux partis politiques afin de baisser influence indue de l’argent au processus électoral.
Le temps est propice pour que le Québec fasse quelque chose d’extraordinaire en devenant le premier état en Amérique du Nord à choisir la démocratie réelle et vivante comme principe prépondérant quant à son organisation et fonctionnement.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
That's What You Don't Get Mr. Charest: We Know that We Don't Live in a Democracy
Faced with the unprecedented appearance of an on-line petition that demands his resignation as Premier of Quebec, which has attracted more than 100,000 signatures in less than 48 hours, Jean Charest tried to minimize the turn of events by saying that we live in a democracy and that it is normal for people to disagree.
The guy just doesn't get it. He thinks that because he won an election that uses a medieval electoral system that allows him to form a majority government with the support of less than 25% of the electorate that this gives him the divine right to rule with democratic legitimacy to boot.
In reality, the vast majority of the population wants a public inquiry into the construction industry and its ties to organized crime and the finances of Quebec's political parties. Charest is steadfast in his refusal. He tells us that we should content ourselves with a police investigation, and we've had enough.
The petition puts it on the line. Respect the desire of the majority and give us what we want or find yourself another job.
What is in play is the nature of our political institutions. The question is clear. Do we live in a democracy where the majority hold and exercise political power or are we governed by an oligarchy headed by a professional politician? In this instance, the dispute concerns the basic distribution of power in a society: who governs on whose behalf.
In his efforts to frame this dispute within a democratic framework, Charest engages in the big lie. He tries to pass off the present form of governance as being democratic. In fact, it is the desire of the people for democratic rule that brings them into conflict with the oligarchy. Something will have to give. It will be interesting to see how this fundamental clash of power will be resolved.
In the meantime, I invite you to become acquainted with the thoughts of John Dunn, one of the world's leading democratic theorists.
The guy just doesn't get it. He thinks that because he won an election that uses a medieval electoral system that allows him to form a majority government with the support of less than 25% of the electorate that this gives him the divine right to rule with democratic legitimacy to boot.
In reality, the vast majority of the population wants a public inquiry into the construction industry and its ties to organized crime and the finances of Quebec's political parties. Charest is steadfast in his refusal. He tells us that we should content ourselves with a police investigation, and we've had enough.
The petition puts it on the line. Respect the desire of the majority and give us what we want or find yourself another job.
What is in play is the nature of our political institutions. The question is clear. Do we live in a democracy where the majority hold and exercise political power or are we governed by an oligarchy headed by a professional politician? In this instance, the dispute concerns the basic distribution of power in a society: who governs on whose behalf.
In his efforts to frame this dispute within a democratic framework, Charest engages in the big lie. He tries to pass off the present form of governance as being democratic. In fact, it is the desire of the people for democratic rule that brings them into conflict with the oligarchy. Something will have to give. It will be interesting to see how this fundamental clash of power will be resolved.
In the meantime, I invite you to become acquainted with the thoughts of John Dunn, one of the world's leading democratic theorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)