All is Not Well in the Belle Province
Aside from arts and culture, things are screwed up big time here in Quebec. If Quebec were a country, we would be among the top five debtor nations in the world. Counting our share of the federal debt, we have an accumulated public debt of approximately 90% of our GDP. Moreover, the Quebec Government recently amended key sections of its zero-deficit legislation so that we could again run substantial deficits without any clear plan on how to eliminate them.
As well, our social service programs are in a shambles despite the large amounts of money we invest in them annually. For example, less than 50% of Quebec high school students will graduate with a diploma within the prescribed five years. In Montreal, only 33% will do so from the Francophone public high schools. Estimates of the levels of illiteracy run as high as 15% of the population and as high as 50% if we include those who are deemed to be functionally illiterate. With regard to health care, good luck trying to find a family physician, and be prepared to wait more than 24 hours to see a doctor in one of our emergency wards, which doesn’t guarantee that you won’t die on a stretcher in a corridor while waiting to be transferred to a bed.
Furthermore, as a result of a highway-overpass that collapsed killing four people, the Quebec Government has gone a multi-billion dollar spending spree to fix our aging infrastructure, but it appears that the tendering system is rife with corruption. So much so, the vast majority of Quebecers cry out to have a public enquiry held to investigate the corruption and collusion within the construction industry, only to be met with the steadfast refusal of the Premier Jean Charest. Apparently, the Charest-led Liberal Party has very close financial ties with the province’s leading engineering and construction firms.
Even our sacrosanct publicly-funded, day care system has come under attack when it was revealed that financial contributors to the Liberal Party had been given preferential treatment in the awarding and exchange of the permits required to open a day care.
Well, you might ask, if things are so bad, why not simply vote the Liberals out of office?
It sounds like a viable option. However, we may have arrived at a point where the Liberals’ capacity to raise funds, voter apathy, disenchantment with the sovereignty option, and an archaic voting system have given them an institutional lock on political power.
Indeed, looking at the key components of the electoral system: the manner in which votes are translated into seats in the legislature, the electoral map, the financing of political parties, and the lack of an effective independent agency to monitor and prescribe electoral practices has led me to believe that Quebec has the worst electoral system in North America.
Looking southward, all 50 states are bound by the US Voting Rights Act of 1965, which reduces the variation of the congressional districts to less than 5% compared to the 25% variation allowed in Canada, and the distorted multi-party representation in Quebec’s National Assembly brought about by a voting system that is designed to accommodate only two political parties gives Quebec the highest levels of disproportionate results as measured by the Gallagher Index.
The Systemic Distortion of the Popular Vote
To begin, Quebec’s outdated first-past-the-post voting system produces large distortions of voting intentions so that majority governments are formed without having the support of the majority of electors. This is done by the system’s tendency to award more seats to the ruling party and less seats to the opposing party than they merit based on their respective share of the popular vote. Moreover, third parties are severely under-represented and representation is most often denied to smaller parties. Occasionally, a party will go on to form a majority government despite not having gained a plurality of the popular vote. This was the case in the 1944, 1966, and 1998 Quebec general elections.
One disturbing feature of the voting system is to repress political diversity and, as a consequence, reduce the level of participation during the electoral process. Since votes cast for third and smaller parties have little or no impact on electoral results, voters are given an institutional incentive not to cast their votes for their authentic choice or not to cast their votes at all. Lately, this institutional bias has led to a significant drop in the participation rate during general elections: from 81% in 1998 to 54% in 2008.
The vagaries of first-past-the-post are well known in Quebec. In fact, on four separate occasions the public has been consulted on how to fix the problem, and in each occasion recommendations were made to replace the existing voting system with a proportional system. Yet, the anachronistic first-past-the-post remains in place because those who benefit the most from the status quo – those who are elected by its use – are the least apt to change it despite the fact that changing the voting system is part of the official party policy for each of the parties that are represented in Quebec’s National Assembly.
The latest farcical attempt at change arose from Premier Charest’s 2003 electoral campaign promise to introduce elements of proportionality into the voting system. Draft legislation was tabled and yet another public commission was struck. Nevertheless, it became readily apparent that the proposed model would do little to correct the chronic problems inherent to the system. The citizens committee, which was part of the special commission, offered specific recommendations to make the system truly proportional, whereas the elected officials committee would only go as far as recommending that the new model not be implemented as it was proposed.
The Minister responsible for the file referred it back to the Director General of Elections (DGE) for further study, and a year later he responded with an exhaustive study of the possible modalities from which changes could be made. Unfortunately, the report was released on the last day before the legislature’s Christmas recess, and it was promptly shelved without a word of protest from the DGE.
Quebec’s Electoral Map: Some Are More Equal Than Others
Having gone through the motions of proposing changes to the voting system, the Quebec government still faced the legal requirement of drawing up a new electoral map after two subsequent general elections. However, this didn’t deter the Liberals from calling a snap, third general election with an out-dated electoral map to take advantage of weak polling numbers of the official opposition, notwithstanding the embarrassing fact that at least 18 of the 125 provincial ridings did not comply with the electoral law’s stipulation that ridings are required to have no more than a 25% deviation from the provincial average for the number of electors per riding.
Afterwards, the DGE wrote up another report and went on another public consultation to explain substantive changes to a new electoral map that would bring the size and number of ridings within the parameters of the electoral law. In short, two ridings would be eliminated from the outlying regions and two additional ridings would be created in more populous regions. Although the new map did not address the problem of how the votes are counted and then translated into seats, it did bring Quebec’s electoral map in line with the federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and existing jurisprudence.
Yet, the Liberal government, having already run roughshod over the DGE, added insult to injury by rejecting his report and tabled legislation in which the Liberal government, not an independent electoral commission, would redraw the electoral map to its own liking. Again, the DGE did not speak out publicly against what was clearly an affront to the independent role a director of elections must play.
Importantly, the new electoral map gives short shrift to the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It allows for ridings in the outlying regions that do not conform to the 25% deviation limit of the existing electoral law. Over and above, the exceptional circumstance ridings (there are two: the Madeline Islands and the North of Quebec) which the electoral law makes provisions, there will be several ridings in the outlying regions with have less than half the electors as the large urban ridings. As we could expect, the Minister responsible for guiding these dubious changes to the existing electoral law through the legislature represents a riding that has less electors than the law prescribes.
Malapportionment on Linguistic Lines
Beyond the failure to respect the notion of one person, one vote, the Liberal map also increases the already existing imbalance of voting power between the majority Francophone and the minority Anglophone and Allophone populations.
Presently, it is well known that the Anglophone/Allophone ridings contain more electors on average than what are traditionally known as the Francophone ridings. Based on the latest data provided by the DGE, the voting power of the ridings where Anglophones and Allophones comprise more that 20% of the electorate is 7% less than the ridings in the rest of the province.
As a result, there exists an interesting phenomenon in Quebec where at the onset of each general election, the media reminds voters that when looking at polling numbers to keep in mind that the Liberals, which carry all of the Anglophone/Allophone ridings, must have a 5 to 7 point lead in the polls to be on equal footing with their rivals the Parti Quebecois (PQ). With regard to the distribution of seats in the legislature, votes cast in these ridings produce fewer representatives in the National Assembly than the same number of votes cast in the Francophone ridings.
What garners no attention in the today's very limited debate is that the proposed changes to the electoral map will exacerbate the malapportionment among the linguistic communities since the ridings that will be allowed to have fewer voters than is prescribed by the law have electorates that are approximately 95% Francophone. As result, the voting power of the Francophone majority increases while that of the linguistic minorities decreases.
This movement toward further “linguistic gerrymandering” of the electoral map also underscores the limitations of a voting system that awards representation strictly on the basis of geographically located districts that elect a single representative. To maintain the number of ridings in the outlying regions so that they conform to the 25% deviation limit would require an additional 26 ridings to be dispersed in the more populous regions. Since this reasonable measure does not appear to be a viable option, the Liberals have decided to push the present electoral system beyond its constitutional limits rather than to give voters a better electoral system, which would have occurred if they had made good on their promise to introduce elements of proportionality into the voting system.
The Power of Money
Although the Liberals would be in line with popular opinion if they were to adopt a proportional system, by doing so they would inevitably undermine the power of money to determine electoral results, and this would not sit well with the rank and file supporters of the party.
One of the traditional arguments put forward in maintaining the present system is that it respects the so-called sacred link between the deputy and his or her constituents. Supposedly, the multi-member districts to be found in proportional electoral systems would make it more difficult for citizens to establish contact with their elected representatives. Not only does this insult the intelligence of the electorate, but it also hides the fact the few electors ever try to make contact with their deputy, in fact more than 50% cannot recall his or her name, and those that do often do so for reasons of personal gain.
In summary, the first-past-the post system is above all else an electoral system that turns financial contributions from donors into patronage goods: government contracts, appointments, and favourable political intervention into the marketplace and the society at large.
Indeed, the popular term for our voting system, first-past-the-post, is an appropriate choice. The analogy drawn between an election and a horse race confirms the cherished feature of the system: the odds of the payoff. Of all the voting systems in use the developed world, it is the easiest system from which political donors can back the right horse with little need to hedge one’s bet. First, polling data is quite accurate in predicting overall election outcomes. Second, only the very least in the way of performance is required for the payback: winning the most seats in the legislature rather than gaining a majority of the popular vote. With such institutional practices in place, it takes very little for politicians who offer the likelihood of forming a majority government to convince potential donors who are very eager to participate in a quid pro quo.
The adoption of a proportional system, however, would increase the uncertainty of placing a winning bet on a particular party since it is rare that a proportional voting system produces a majority government. This feature diminishes considerably the capacity of a single political party of reward donors with acts of patronage. Moreover, in multi-member districts in which each political party fields several candidates, it is more difficult to predict which of the favoured party’s candidates will come up on top. This means that, in order to manage the risk, contributions need to be spread out over the entire slate of candidates a party runs in a district.
Other majoritarian systems that use a preferential ballot or use two or more rounds of voting also add uncertainty to the outcome since a favoured candidate might not garner sufficient support on the second round of voting or after the second and subsequent preferences are counted.
Clearly, the element of risk with regard to receiving a return on one’s financial investment after an election is significantly lower within first-past-the-post, which explains why the Liberals, who are favoured by the business and investment class, did not respect their electoral promise to introduce elements of proportionality into the voting system.
Serious Doubts Concerning the Integrity of the Electoral System
One of the most important legacies of the PQ’s relatively short time in power was to prohibit donations from corporations and unions to political parties and to limit donations from individuals to $3000 per annum. This feature of Quebec’s electoral law served as the model for similar legislation at the federal level. Unfortunately, in Quebec the electoral law is easily circumvented, and the Director General of Elections appears to have little interest in enforcing the law.
It is common knowledge that all one needs to do is to have one’s family members make similar maximum $3000 donations or distribute money to one’s employees to do likewise. Over the last year, three current ministers of Premier Charest’s cabinet have stated that it is common for construction companies to donate money to the Liberal Party in spite of Quebec electoral law’s prohibition of this practice.
Upon analysis of the public records concerning donations of more than $200 to political parties, it has been noted that since 2005 more than $300,000 has been donated to the Liberal Party from employees of the major engineering firms that do business with the government. As well, more than 200 Liberal donors exceeded the $3000 annual limit.
In light of these revelations, the only response that came from the DGE’s office was a statement to the effect that the law is difficult to enforce.
Finally, Quebec’s former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Marc Bellemare, has publicly declared that he brought the subject of financial irregularities to the Premier’s attention. In response, Premier Charest denied he was made aware of the problem, which prompted Mr. Bellemare to state that Jean Charest “lies as easily as he breathes.”
Furthermore, the former Attorney General says that he has proof that he made the Premier aware of the problem, stated he was ready to testify before a parliamentary committee, and refused to appear before the DGE, who he claims to have sold out to the Premier. A motion to have Mr. Bellemare testify before a parliamentary committee was introduced by the opposition but was subsequently voted down by the Liberals.
Failure of Quebec’s Democratic Institutions
What makes this turn of events intolerable for those who believe in the principles of democracy is that the political party that exercises the power of the majority and is responsible for these unfortunate turn of events was elected with the support of less than 25% of the electorate. Consequently, Quebec democrats have to confront a reality in which a well-financed minority is circumventing the rules that oversee its election and is in the process of re-writing Quebec’s electoral laws, having usurped the responsibility from what is supposed to be Quebec’s independent Commission on Electoral Representation.
Relief could be expected if the PQ were elected in the next general election. Unfortunately, given that the malapportionment inherent to the electoral system actually favours the PQ, it is unlikely that any significant changes would be made to Quebec’s democratic institutions until after it achieves its goal of independence for Quebec, which means that we could be waiting for a very long, long time.
It would then appear that the only recourse to exit from this political cul-de-sac is to bring the matter before the courts. In 2004, the Association for the Revendication of Democratic Rights (ARDD) filed a motion in Quebec’s Superior Court to have Quebec’s use of first-past-the-post voting system declared unconstitutional. Moving forward ever so slowly, the case will be argued before Quebec’s Appeal Court at the end of 2010 with a great likelihood that the case will be tried before the Supreme Court of Canada sometime before the end of 2012.
A decision in favour of the ARDD would have the effect of forcing Quebecers to decide which voting system they should adopt to replace the anachronistic system we have been using for almost 150 years. Even British Parliamentarians in the House of Commons voted to adopt a law that would have its citizens participate in a nation-wide referendum in which they would have to choose between first-past-the-post and a voting system incorporating a preferential ballot (the alternative vote).
On the positive note, Quebec’s superior Court did rule that the ARDD’s motion was justiciable, which means that an elected government’s choice of a voting system is subject to judicial review. What remains to happen is for the Court to rule that the continued use if the first-past-the-post system infringes on the rights of citizens to have effective representation and to participate meaningfully in the electoral process. In making such a ruling the Court would pave the way for Quebec and subsequently Canada to become a truly democratic state.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Budget 2010-2011: When in Doubt, Sit Tight and Wait it Out
Reaction to the latest federal budget has been muted: boring, same old same old, to be forgotten as quickly as the prorogation of Parliament. Well, given the uncertainty in the global economy, maybe boring is a safe bet while we wait and see what is going to happen in the United States and the European Union.
Looking at the numbers and by making comparisons with previous budgets, the 2010-2011federal budget is pretty much steady as she goes. Spending is up as a result of a deficit-fuelled economic stimulus, but as the saying goes: "we’re all Keynesians now."
In breaking down the numbers, I notice that spending in the key categories of transfers to individuals, social transfers, and program expenditures as a percentage of total expenses is pretty much the same as the Conservatives' first budget in 2006-2007. One exception is the amount to service the debt, which is down from 15.3% of total expenditures in 2006-07 to 11.2% in 2010-11.
On the revenue side, the most notable change over the last four fiscal years is that personal income tax now represents 50.5% of total revenues, up from 46.7% in 2006-07. At the same time, revenue from corporate income tax is now only 11% of total revenues, down from 16% four years ago. In absolute numbers, individual Canadians now contribute $7 billion more while the corporate sector contributes $12 billion less. In real terms, increased revenue from individual taxpayers is in keeping with inflation; however, for the corporate sector, its contribution is approximately $15 billion less in real dollars. Needless to say, the issue of the corporate sector’s contribution to deficit reduction will be politically contentious.
With regard to the environment and the need to address climate change, well what did you expect? If no one other than B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell noticed that we held the Spring not the Winter Olympics and that it was the warmest winter in the last 100 years in B.C., why would a government for and by the people do any different? Unfortunately, climate change remains an inconvenient truth. It is devoutly to be wished that the economic stimulus would be in reality a deep shade of green, but given the political reality of the alignment of self-interest of the maudits boomers with the investor class, there is little chance that Canada will allocate the necessary financial resources to address the problem in a significant way anytime soon. The only relief is some green schadenfreude from knowing that decreased conventional economic activity corresponds with decreased emissions of green house gases.
That being said is a stay-the-course budget with regard to its global revenues and expenditures an appropriate response to the global political and economic context?
This might appear strange coming from me, but if I put aside my own political and economic preferences and look at the level of uncertainty we now face in attempting to come to terms with the fallout from the financial crash of 2008 and the failure of our economic models to predict its occurrence, it appears that for now what the future holds in store is anybody’s guess. Given such a state of affairs, we need to wait before making the big decisions that we need to make.
First, we have no idea if we are out of recessionary woods. Forget the V-shaped recovery. That’s for sure. Yet, are we in a U-shaped economic period, a double dip W-shaped period, or the dreaded L-shaped period in which economic recovery is at least 10 years away? No one knows.
Second, what can we expect from the US economy? Consumer consumption accounts for 70% of US GDP and the American consumer is all tapped out, and Asia’s entire consumer consumption is only 40% of America’s, so it is not very likely that a global shift of economic activity toward the east will benefit Canada in a significant manner.
Moreover, the US economy has shed jobs for 26 consecutive months, more than 8 million jobs, coupled with 1.5 million people entering its labour market annually who are not finding work. This represents a job deficit of more than 10 million, which means that aggregate demand will not be returning to anything like 2007 levels for years to come. This does not bode well for Canada since most of our exports our destined for the U.S.
Third, what can we expect for the price of oil? Again, no one knows. Presently, it’s around $80 a barrel, but that could change quickly as oil did reach a historic high of $140 barrel not so long ago. The price of oil and the regulatory framework has a huge impact on Canada. Certainly, without changes to the regulatory framework, we would expect the price of conventional oil to continue to rise as world production and export levels off or begins to decline. This has huge consequences for the tar sands and for the value of our currency. Yet, we don’t know whether the US will impose a continent-wide regulatory framework. It will be difficult to get such legislation through the US Senate, but the US Environmental Protection Agency has the legal mandate, backed by a US Supreme Court decision, to regulate the emission of green house gases.
Fourth, where are interest rates going? Today, they are at historic lows, but will it last? In the short-term, Canada can afford to run up some substantial deficits since the cost of servicing the debt is very low, but that could change. A sudden upswing in the price of oil has in the past triggered substantial increases in the rate of inflation and corresponding hikes in interest rates. Modest inflation combined with low interest rates and real economic growth are actually beneficial to debtor nations such as Canada since inflation reduces the real value of the accumulated debt while real economic growth increases our capacity to pay it down. However, high levels of inflation combined with high interest rates and no or little real economic growth can substantially reduce our capacity to service our debt and would impact on our material well-being.
In other words, the economic dust hasn’t settled from the latest financial crash. Economic conditions could be radically different two years from now. As a result, staying the course for the next fiscal year seems to be the prudent thing to do. Yes, our accumulated debt will return to previous levels in absolute terms, but the real value of the debt has decreased while our capacity to service the debt has grown.
However, this state of affairs will not continue indefinitely. For the moment, the global economy is far from equilibrium, but a more stable order could re-emerge. We still will have some tough decisions to make since it seems unlikely that we will simply be able to grow our way economically back to prosperity. And this brings me to my final point.
If a population is faced with difficult decisions, it is my opinion that the only legitimate way of going about making these decisions is through a democratic process. Yet, Canada has not evolved from a constitutional monarchy into a modern democracy. Majority rule does not exist. We have plurality rule which is another way of saying that we are ruled by the most powerful oligarchy. Before making any deep structural changes to our economy, we should reform our political institutions so that any changes to our political economy represent the will of the many and not the desires of the few. If sacrifices are to be made, they will need to be made in a just and equitable manner. Otherwise, the social fabric of this nation will be tested as it has never been tested before.
Looking at the numbers and by making comparisons with previous budgets, the 2010-2011federal budget is pretty much steady as she goes. Spending is up as a result of a deficit-fuelled economic stimulus, but as the saying goes: "we’re all Keynesians now."
In breaking down the numbers, I notice that spending in the key categories of transfers to individuals, social transfers, and program expenditures as a percentage of total expenses is pretty much the same as the Conservatives' first budget in 2006-2007. One exception is the amount to service the debt, which is down from 15.3% of total expenditures in 2006-07 to 11.2% in 2010-11.
On the revenue side, the most notable change over the last four fiscal years is that personal income tax now represents 50.5% of total revenues, up from 46.7% in 2006-07. At the same time, revenue from corporate income tax is now only 11% of total revenues, down from 16% four years ago. In absolute numbers, individual Canadians now contribute $7 billion more while the corporate sector contributes $12 billion less. In real terms, increased revenue from individual taxpayers is in keeping with inflation; however, for the corporate sector, its contribution is approximately $15 billion less in real dollars. Needless to say, the issue of the corporate sector’s contribution to deficit reduction will be politically contentious.
With regard to the environment and the need to address climate change, well what did you expect? If no one other than B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell noticed that we held the Spring not the Winter Olympics and that it was the warmest winter in the last 100 years in B.C., why would a government for and by the people do any different? Unfortunately, climate change remains an inconvenient truth. It is devoutly to be wished that the economic stimulus would be in reality a deep shade of green, but given the political reality of the alignment of self-interest of the maudits boomers with the investor class, there is little chance that Canada will allocate the necessary financial resources to address the problem in a significant way anytime soon. The only relief is some green schadenfreude from knowing that decreased conventional economic activity corresponds with decreased emissions of green house gases.
That being said is a stay-the-course budget with regard to its global revenues and expenditures an appropriate response to the global political and economic context?
This might appear strange coming from me, but if I put aside my own political and economic preferences and look at the level of uncertainty we now face in attempting to come to terms with the fallout from the financial crash of 2008 and the failure of our economic models to predict its occurrence, it appears that for now what the future holds in store is anybody’s guess. Given such a state of affairs, we need to wait before making the big decisions that we need to make.
First, we have no idea if we are out of recessionary woods. Forget the V-shaped recovery. That’s for sure. Yet, are we in a U-shaped economic period, a double dip W-shaped period, or the dreaded L-shaped period in which economic recovery is at least 10 years away? No one knows.
Second, what can we expect from the US economy? Consumer consumption accounts for 70% of US GDP and the American consumer is all tapped out, and Asia’s entire consumer consumption is only 40% of America’s, so it is not very likely that a global shift of economic activity toward the east will benefit Canada in a significant manner.
Moreover, the US economy has shed jobs for 26 consecutive months, more than 8 million jobs, coupled with 1.5 million people entering its labour market annually who are not finding work. This represents a job deficit of more than 10 million, which means that aggregate demand will not be returning to anything like 2007 levels for years to come. This does not bode well for Canada since most of our exports our destined for the U.S.
Third, what can we expect for the price of oil? Again, no one knows. Presently, it’s around $80 a barrel, but that could change quickly as oil did reach a historic high of $140 barrel not so long ago. The price of oil and the regulatory framework has a huge impact on Canada. Certainly, without changes to the regulatory framework, we would expect the price of conventional oil to continue to rise as world production and export levels off or begins to decline. This has huge consequences for the tar sands and for the value of our currency. Yet, we don’t know whether the US will impose a continent-wide regulatory framework. It will be difficult to get such legislation through the US Senate, but the US Environmental Protection Agency has the legal mandate, backed by a US Supreme Court decision, to regulate the emission of green house gases.
Fourth, where are interest rates going? Today, they are at historic lows, but will it last? In the short-term, Canada can afford to run up some substantial deficits since the cost of servicing the debt is very low, but that could change. A sudden upswing in the price of oil has in the past triggered substantial increases in the rate of inflation and corresponding hikes in interest rates. Modest inflation combined with low interest rates and real economic growth are actually beneficial to debtor nations such as Canada since inflation reduces the real value of the accumulated debt while real economic growth increases our capacity to pay it down. However, high levels of inflation combined with high interest rates and no or little real economic growth can substantially reduce our capacity to service our debt and would impact on our material well-being.
In other words, the economic dust hasn’t settled from the latest financial crash. Economic conditions could be radically different two years from now. As a result, staying the course for the next fiscal year seems to be the prudent thing to do. Yes, our accumulated debt will return to previous levels in absolute terms, but the real value of the debt has decreased while our capacity to service the debt has grown.
However, this state of affairs will not continue indefinitely. For the moment, the global economy is far from equilibrium, but a more stable order could re-emerge. We still will have some tough decisions to make since it seems unlikely that we will simply be able to grow our way economically back to prosperity. And this brings me to my final point.
If a population is faced with difficult decisions, it is my opinion that the only legitimate way of going about making these decisions is through a democratic process. Yet, Canada has not evolved from a constitutional monarchy into a modern democracy. Majority rule does not exist. We have plurality rule which is another way of saying that we are ruled by the most powerful oligarchy. Before making any deep structural changes to our economy, we should reform our political institutions so that any changes to our political economy represent the will of the many and not the desires of the few. If sacrifices are to be made, they will need to be made in a just and equitable manner. Otherwise, the social fabric of this nation will be tested as it has never been tested before.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Les Maudits Boomers
First, I have a confession to make. I’m part of the problem. I am a boomer though I fall into the category called the SOL (shit-out-of-luck) boomers, those who are in the second wave that graduated from university after 1981.
On average, if you graduated during the recession of 1981-1982, upon graduation, you stood to earn $25,000 less than the maudits boomers who graduated before, and twenty years later, you probably had earned at least $200,000 less over the same time frame.
As a result, although I benefited from the social investments that made going to university ridiculously cheap and a growing population that turned residential homes into cash cows, I was never in the game of conspicuous consumption because I never had the income that would allow me to even enter into the game.
Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful for the social fabric that was provided for me that allowed me as a working- class kid to get a quality university education, which enabled me to attain an enviable quality of life on the cheap.
So, what’s my beef?
Well, I have a bone to pick with the maudits boomers, the most spoiled generation that ever graced the planet, who are so immersed in their own narcissistic self image that they have no idea what a pathetic legacy they are leaving for future generations.
From a financial perspective, they are ringing up a huge tab and are intending to stick future generations with an unmanageable debt load, and from an environmental perspective, they are pursuing a scorched-earth policy, hell bent on extracting as much fossil fuels from the earth as they can in order to maintain their unsustainable lifestyle as long as they can.
Now, that the chickens of the financial-speculation led, global recession have come home to roost, we are witnessing an inter-generational class war when it comes to the struggle to balance the books and to decide how to distribute the collective wealth.
This is where the economy becomes extremely political and we must be sensitive to the questions of social justice, in particular the question on inter-generational social justice, that underlie the debate over the numbers.
At the heart of the no-tax-increase position of economic and fiscal policy is the fact that the refusal to increase taxes coupled with a reduction of social program expenditures other than healthcare outlays benefits the maudits boomers and the silent generation at the expense of everyone that follows.
Here, the positioning to be prudent managers of the economy – remember the cant before the onset of the latest recession that the fundamentals of the economy were sound and that we would have no deficit – is a ruse to cover the collective greed of a large segment of the population and its intent to screw the rest.
Let’s face up to the facts. The huge increase in the quality of material life for post-war North Americans was due to a unique configuration of variables that will never be repeated: oil was cheap and abundant and the rest of the world lay in ruins while we switched our economic focus from the production of armaments to the production of consumer goods.
The maudits boomers had the extreme good fortune of being born into a generation that, through no effort of their own, afforded them the scale of economic opportunities that no subsequent generation will ever see.
The second fact to keep in mind is that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that increases to the marginal tax rate will impact negatively on economic growth and, as a result, on government revenues.
The reality is that there is no correlation between tax rates and economic growth among OECD countries. Robust economic growth is possible in high tax rate countries like Sweden and Finland and in low tax rate countries like the US and Japan. In short, tax rates are conditioning not determining factors for economic growth.
So, the refusal to raise taxes and the intent to slash expenditures offset by increases in user fees is tantamount to setting up a social system built by and for the maudits boomers and then slamming the door behind them as they head off into retirement, which for many will be longer than the years they participated in the work force.
What kind of legacy is that?
It seems to me that at the very least boomers should leave behind a state of affairs that is at least as healthy as those that greeted them when they were born and that they enjoyed over the course of their lives.
Measures must be taken, other than offloading our collective problems to future generations, to ensure that we leave our children and our grandchildren a world in which we would want to live in.
Importantly, boomers have the democratic weight at the polls to translate our collective desires into the policy options of our choosing.
Since we are just days away from the tabling of the first post-recession beget, I will put questions concerning environmental stewardship aside and return to them in a later post.
To reduce deficits provincially and federally revenues must increase and expenditures must be controlled in a manner that adheres to the principle of inter-generational social justice.
Looking at the revenue side, the imposition of a financial transaction tax as a means to address structural deficits and accumulated debt holds great promise. Potential revenues are huge and the tax is progressive in nature since those who make the most transactions will pay the most taxes.
Moreover, since it has become readily apparent that risk management towards the economy is more important that fiscal policy focused on growth, the imposition of such a tax benefits everyone because increased economic stability reduces systemic risk.
In absolute terms, the benefits accrue on a progressive gradient: jobs for the working and middle class garner more protection and the rentier class is less apt to experience catastrophic losses when financial markets drop significantly, which now includes those who benefit from pension funds.
Second, relatively painless for those who were fortunate to experience economic conditions that led to unprecedented increases in material wealth, estate taxes should be raised significantly.
Collectively, since it is our generation that has benefited the most from the creation of our generous social programs, we should on our exit pay our fair share to ensure that we do not imperil the capacity of future generations to address their collective challenges.
Think of it as a boomer exit tax. It’s progressive by nature and it can be designed so that it balances our desires to leave a heritage to our individual families with the necessity to protect the common good.
On the expenditure side, let’s not get into the zero-sum game of healthcare versus education. Personally, I find it morally repugnant that we allow healthcare expenditures to take up approximately 50% of provincial budgets (supported by federal transfers), do nothing to bring them under control other than making a lame reference to further privatization, and then demand the younger generation to pay more for their post-secondary education, thereby forcing many of them into becoming wage slaves so they can pay down their individual debt while supporting our generous pensions and healthcare system.
If raising estate taxes is the first sacred cow that needs to be sacrifices, the second is the payment-by-medical act-performed healthcare system.
This system is no longer sustainable and it should be modified so that physicians are salaried employees as they are at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Health Center, two of the leading healthcare institutions in North America.
From a deontological perspective, given the well-documented negative effects of income disparity on public health and the revenues physicians presently enjoy, they would be hard pressed to justify why we should continue to maintain their present levels of remuneration relative to the population at large.
If ever there was a time to think creatively about how we are to deal with our collective challenges, the time is now, especially since we are at the beginning of a demographic transition of which we have no idea of our public institutions capacity to adapt.
What is desperately needed is some exemplary leadership from boomers, so that we can properly assume our roles of stewards for future generations.
On average, if you graduated during the recession of 1981-1982, upon graduation, you stood to earn $25,000 less than the maudits boomers who graduated before, and twenty years later, you probably had earned at least $200,000 less over the same time frame.
As a result, although I benefited from the social investments that made going to university ridiculously cheap and a growing population that turned residential homes into cash cows, I was never in the game of conspicuous consumption because I never had the income that would allow me to even enter into the game.
Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful for the social fabric that was provided for me that allowed me as a working- class kid to get a quality university education, which enabled me to attain an enviable quality of life on the cheap.
So, what’s my beef?
Well, I have a bone to pick with the maudits boomers, the most spoiled generation that ever graced the planet, who are so immersed in their own narcissistic self image that they have no idea what a pathetic legacy they are leaving for future generations.
From a financial perspective, they are ringing up a huge tab and are intending to stick future generations with an unmanageable debt load, and from an environmental perspective, they are pursuing a scorched-earth policy, hell bent on extracting as much fossil fuels from the earth as they can in order to maintain their unsustainable lifestyle as long as they can.
Now, that the chickens of the financial-speculation led, global recession have come home to roost, we are witnessing an inter-generational class war when it comes to the struggle to balance the books and to decide how to distribute the collective wealth.
This is where the economy becomes extremely political and we must be sensitive to the questions of social justice, in particular the question on inter-generational social justice, that underlie the debate over the numbers.
At the heart of the no-tax-increase position of economic and fiscal policy is the fact that the refusal to increase taxes coupled with a reduction of social program expenditures other than healthcare outlays benefits the maudits boomers and the silent generation at the expense of everyone that follows.
Here, the positioning to be prudent managers of the economy – remember the cant before the onset of the latest recession that the fundamentals of the economy were sound and that we would have no deficit – is a ruse to cover the collective greed of a large segment of the population and its intent to screw the rest.
Let’s face up to the facts. The huge increase in the quality of material life for post-war North Americans was due to a unique configuration of variables that will never be repeated: oil was cheap and abundant and the rest of the world lay in ruins while we switched our economic focus from the production of armaments to the production of consumer goods.
The maudits boomers had the extreme good fortune of being born into a generation that, through no effort of their own, afforded them the scale of economic opportunities that no subsequent generation will ever see.
The second fact to keep in mind is that there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that increases to the marginal tax rate will impact negatively on economic growth and, as a result, on government revenues.
The reality is that there is no correlation between tax rates and economic growth among OECD countries. Robust economic growth is possible in high tax rate countries like Sweden and Finland and in low tax rate countries like the US and Japan. In short, tax rates are conditioning not determining factors for economic growth.
So, the refusal to raise taxes and the intent to slash expenditures offset by increases in user fees is tantamount to setting up a social system built by and for the maudits boomers and then slamming the door behind them as they head off into retirement, which for many will be longer than the years they participated in the work force.
What kind of legacy is that?
It seems to me that at the very least boomers should leave behind a state of affairs that is at least as healthy as those that greeted them when they were born and that they enjoyed over the course of their lives.
Measures must be taken, other than offloading our collective problems to future generations, to ensure that we leave our children and our grandchildren a world in which we would want to live in.
Importantly, boomers have the democratic weight at the polls to translate our collective desires into the policy options of our choosing.
Since we are just days away from the tabling of the first post-recession beget, I will put questions concerning environmental stewardship aside and return to them in a later post.
To reduce deficits provincially and federally revenues must increase and expenditures must be controlled in a manner that adheres to the principle of inter-generational social justice.
Looking at the revenue side, the imposition of a financial transaction tax as a means to address structural deficits and accumulated debt holds great promise. Potential revenues are huge and the tax is progressive in nature since those who make the most transactions will pay the most taxes.
Moreover, since it has become readily apparent that risk management towards the economy is more important that fiscal policy focused on growth, the imposition of such a tax benefits everyone because increased economic stability reduces systemic risk.
In absolute terms, the benefits accrue on a progressive gradient: jobs for the working and middle class garner more protection and the rentier class is less apt to experience catastrophic losses when financial markets drop significantly, which now includes those who benefit from pension funds.
Second, relatively painless for those who were fortunate to experience economic conditions that led to unprecedented increases in material wealth, estate taxes should be raised significantly.
Collectively, since it is our generation that has benefited the most from the creation of our generous social programs, we should on our exit pay our fair share to ensure that we do not imperil the capacity of future generations to address their collective challenges.
Think of it as a boomer exit tax. It’s progressive by nature and it can be designed so that it balances our desires to leave a heritage to our individual families with the necessity to protect the common good.
On the expenditure side, let’s not get into the zero-sum game of healthcare versus education. Personally, I find it morally repugnant that we allow healthcare expenditures to take up approximately 50% of provincial budgets (supported by federal transfers), do nothing to bring them under control other than making a lame reference to further privatization, and then demand the younger generation to pay more for their post-secondary education, thereby forcing many of them into becoming wage slaves so they can pay down their individual debt while supporting our generous pensions and healthcare system.
If raising estate taxes is the first sacred cow that needs to be sacrifices, the second is the payment-by-medical act-performed healthcare system.
This system is no longer sustainable and it should be modified so that physicians are salaried employees as they are at the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Health Center, two of the leading healthcare institutions in North America.
From a deontological perspective, given the well-documented negative effects of income disparity on public health and the revenues physicians presently enjoy, they would be hard pressed to justify why we should continue to maintain their present levels of remuneration relative to the population at large.
If ever there was a time to think creatively about how we are to deal with our collective challenges, the time is now, especially since we are at the beginning of a demographic transition of which we have no idea of our public institutions capacity to adapt.
What is desperately needed is some exemplary leadership from boomers, so that we can properly assume our roles of stewards for future generations.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Evidence-based Economics Finally Arrives in Canada
Orthodox economics is based on simplifications that so distort the real world as to make it unrecognisable, yet its basic tenets are credulously repeated on an almost daily basis in national newspapers and on television news. A genuinely evidence-based approach to economic policymaking would not produce a system remotely like the one we have. (Andrew Simms)
Something has changed. No longer are we obliged to follow the dictates of the high and mighty school of orthodox economics. For example, the Canadian Government is actually contemplating changes to the rules governing home loans that would make it more difficult for some prospective home buyers to obtain a mortgage. Instead of putting down 5% of the purchase price, they would be required to put down 10%, and the time period in which the mortgage could be amortized would be shortened.
Two years ago, such talk would have been considered economic heresy. However, since the near collapse of the global financial system and the onset of a global economic recession, regulation is no longer a mortal sin. In fact, it should now be recognized that we have moved out of the economic discourse where the debate concerning less versus more regulation ruled the day, and we have moved into a discourse where the discussion now concerns the effectiveness of the proposed regulation. Pragmatism has triumphed over ideology.
Two years ago, there was precious little talk in the mainstream media of asset bubbles forming and then bursting. That was before the millions of foreclosures and underwater mortgages in the U.S. As a result, it seems only prudent that the Minister of Finance would muse publicly about the possibility of a similar housing bubble taking shape here in Canada. After all, interest rates are at a historic low, the return on debt securities is meagre, and the equity markets are flat. Given this context, residential real estate looks very good. Where else can we find a 50% return on the initial investment upon a successful flip of a residential property?
Yet, as recent experience in the U.S. has shown, an overheated market not only drives up home prices but brings into the market buyers who do not have the capability of meeting their financial obligations if the market goes flat or begins to decline. In short, the growing influx of the Ponzi investor engenders systemic risk within the housing market and possible severe economic fallout if the housing market experiences a sudden and precipitous drop.
So, if we connect the dots with regard to what the Minister of Finance is thinking, we can see that he is actually placing greater value upon stability within the housing sector than on the quick fix to the economy that a real estate bubble would most likely bring about. In other words, in this instance, sustainability trumps rapid economic growth.
Now if we could only get the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister to think systemically about the stability and resilience of the economy within the context of climate change, maybe, just maybe, Canada could regain its cherished international reputation.
Something has changed. No longer are we obliged to follow the dictates of the high and mighty school of orthodox economics. For example, the Canadian Government is actually contemplating changes to the rules governing home loans that would make it more difficult for some prospective home buyers to obtain a mortgage. Instead of putting down 5% of the purchase price, they would be required to put down 10%, and the time period in which the mortgage could be amortized would be shortened.
Two years ago, such talk would have been considered economic heresy. However, since the near collapse of the global financial system and the onset of a global economic recession, regulation is no longer a mortal sin. In fact, it should now be recognized that we have moved out of the economic discourse where the debate concerning less versus more regulation ruled the day, and we have moved into a discourse where the discussion now concerns the effectiveness of the proposed regulation. Pragmatism has triumphed over ideology.
Two years ago, there was precious little talk in the mainstream media of asset bubbles forming and then bursting. That was before the millions of foreclosures and underwater mortgages in the U.S. As a result, it seems only prudent that the Minister of Finance would muse publicly about the possibility of a similar housing bubble taking shape here in Canada. After all, interest rates are at a historic low, the return on debt securities is meagre, and the equity markets are flat. Given this context, residential real estate looks very good. Where else can we find a 50% return on the initial investment upon a successful flip of a residential property?
Yet, as recent experience in the U.S. has shown, an overheated market not only drives up home prices but brings into the market buyers who do not have the capability of meeting their financial obligations if the market goes flat or begins to decline. In short, the growing influx of the Ponzi investor engenders systemic risk within the housing market and possible severe economic fallout if the housing market experiences a sudden and precipitous drop.
So, if we connect the dots with regard to what the Minister of Finance is thinking, we can see that he is actually placing greater value upon stability within the housing sector than on the quick fix to the economy that a real estate bubble would most likely bring about. In other words, in this instance, sustainability trumps rapid economic growth.
Now if we could only get the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister to think systemically about the stability and resilience of the economy within the context of climate change, maybe, just maybe, Canada could regain its cherished international reputation.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Will Deficit Politics Lead to Greater Economic Inequality?
Although the leaders of the two leading federal political parties would have us believe we can address the deficit and the problem of our accumulated debt by growing the economy, the pesky Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, has said otherwise convincingly.
In reality, our deficits have become structural, and we face the tough choice of either raising taxes or cutting spending. Certainly, bringing home the troops from Afghanistan will reduce expenditures, but not nearly enough to address the approximately $60 billion hole we have dug for ourselves. If we are to cut expenditures, who will be targeted? Let’s hope it’s not going to be the already disadvantaged.
One thing that distinguishes Canada from the U.S. and the U.K. is that we have less economic inequality because we transfer more wealth from the upper to lower classes. As a result, we have a healthier society for as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in a recent article:
Greater equality improves the quality of life for everyone – not just the poor. Whatever your income or education,living in a more equal society means you will be likely to live longer while being less likely to suffer violence or have a problem with obesity. In turn, your children have a better chance of doing well at school and are less likely to use drugs or to become teenage parents. This is about the quality of life for all of us.
Unequal societies, on the other hand, do worst on child wellbeing and badly on teenage births, imprisonment, drug abuse, trust, obesity, social mobility and
mental¬illness, which engender significant social costs for those who live in poverty and financial costs for those who pay for the social and health programs.
Forget trying to raise the GDP by 3% a year because what we have seen over the last thirty years is that increased economic growth has, in fact, reduced the medium income in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., which is hard factual evidence that demonstrates that economic inequality is growing.
This should be cause for concern because if we are to reduce expenditures we will have to inevitably reduce demand on our health and social care systems. Looking at the empirical evidence from other OECD countries, we can reduce the burden on the public purse if we reduce the gap between the rich and the poor since most of the social determinants of health are affected negatively by economic inequality, keeping in mind that health-care expenditures represent the largest portion of provincial budgets.
From a global perspective of promoting public health and not sticking future generations with a tab that they will have great difficulty paying, it makes more sense to reduce economic inequality than taking measures to increase economic production.
We should follow Obama’s lead and increase taxes on the rich. As well, we should pass legislation with the objective of reducing executive compensation. Furthermore, there should be a tax on all financial transactions, which could be used for eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt.
Think about it next time you go to an automatic teller and withdraw cash. You are charged $1.75 to make a withdrawal and another $1.75 from your financial institution to release the funds. Imagine the millions of transaction that are made each day and that rather than making billions in profits exclusively for the shareholders of our five major banks, part of this enormous wealth is transferred into a national account benefiting the general population.
We could do the same for the trading of securities, which would protect our real economy from the ravages of financial speculation, real estate transactions, which would make housing more affordable for everyone, and for the exchange of Canadian dollars, which would give us a more stable currency.
Yes, such measures would reduce the income and wealth of the top one percent of revenue earners, and that’s exactly the desired result if we are to have a healthier society and a population that experiences greater well-being.
In reality, our deficits have become structural, and we face the tough choice of either raising taxes or cutting spending. Certainly, bringing home the troops from Afghanistan will reduce expenditures, but not nearly enough to address the approximately $60 billion hole we have dug for ourselves. If we are to cut expenditures, who will be targeted? Let’s hope it’s not going to be the already disadvantaged.
One thing that distinguishes Canada from the U.S. and the U.K. is that we have less economic inequality because we transfer more wealth from the upper to lower classes. As a result, we have a healthier society for as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett point out in a recent article:
Greater equality improves the quality of life for everyone – not just the poor. Whatever your income or education,living in a more equal society means you will be likely to live longer while being less likely to suffer violence or have a problem with obesity. In turn, your children have a better chance of doing well at school and are less likely to use drugs or to become teenage parents. This is about the quality of life for all of us.
Unequal societies, on the other hand, do worst on child wellbeing and badly on teenage births, imprisonment, drug abuse, trust, obesity, social mobility and
mental¬illness, which engender significant social costs for those who live in poverty and financial costs for those who pay for the social and health programs.
Forget trying to raise the GDP by 3% a year because what we have seen over the last thirty years is that increased economic growth has, in fact, reduced the medium income in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., which is hard factual evidence that demonstrates that economic inequality is growing.
This should be cause for concern because if we are to reduce expenditures we will have to inevitably reduce demand on our health and social care systems. Looking at the empirical evidence from other OECD countries, we can reduce the burden on the public purse if we reduce the gap between the rich and the poor since most of the social determinants of health are affected negatively by economic inequality, keeping in mind that health-care expenditures represent the largest portion of provincial budgets.
From a global perspective of promoting public health and not sticking future generations with a tab that they will have great difficulty paying, it makes more sense to reduce economic inequality than taking measures to increase economic production.
We should follow Obama’s lead and increase taxes on the rich. As well, we should pass legislation with the objective of reducing executive compensation. Furthermore, there should be a tax on all financial transactions, which could be used for eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt.
Think about it next time you go to an automatic teller and withdraw cash. You are charged $1.75 to make a withdrawal and another $1.75 from your financial institution to release the funds. Imagine the millions of transaction that are made each day and that rather than making billions in profits exclusively for the shareholders of our five major banks, part of this enormous wealth is transferred into a national account benefiting the general population.
We could do the same for the trading of securities, which would protect our real economy from the ravages of financial speculation, real estate transactions, which would make housing more affordable for everyone, and for the exchange of Canadian dollars, which would give us a more stable currency.
Yes, such measures would reduce the income and wealth of the top one percent of revenue earners, and that’s exactly the desired result if we are to have a healthier society and a population that experiences greater well-being.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Canada is in Dire Need of a Constitutional Convention
Canada is in dire need of a constitutional convention. Looking southward, so does the United States. In the U.S. and in Canada, the living find themselves shackled to a past that bears little resemblance to the present. So much so, it now appears that many of the fundamental guiding principles informing the respective constitutional documents are seriously out of date such that the interpretation and application of these principles by the highest Courts of the land are leading to bizarre decisions that preserve and promote the capacity of a small elite to thwart democratic rule.
The Supreme Court of Canada in respecting the constitutional division of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch of government rendered a decision in the Omar Khadr case in which a violation of the most central element in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to life, liberty and security of the person as articulated in Section 7 of the Charter is trumped by the feudal right of the Prime Minister’s royal prerogative over foreign affairs, which includes his right to unilaterally declare war.
In other words, although Mr. Khadr’s legal rights have been clearly violated, the Prime Minister is not under legal obligation to provide an effective remedy like repatriation to address this flagrant violation of a Canadian citizen’s rights in which the Canadian Government actively participated. In this instance, there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of our constitutional law.
What makes this result even less palatable is the fact that the Prime Minister has utilized another of his royal prerogatives to prorogue Parliament, effectively suspending democratic debate concerning this repugnant turn of events. As a result, democratic dissent cannot be presently expressed in the institution to which the Prime Minister is accountable. Consequently, Canadians through their elected representatives are unable to demand that the Prime Minister justify his refusal to intercede on behalf of one of their fellow citizens.
With a similar disregard for the principles and modern practice of democracy, the US Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights’ first amendment stipulation that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech to include the right of corporations to spend without limits during electoral campaigns. Given the financial capacity of the corporate sector to influence electoral results, the Court effectively put into place a path in which democratic rule gives way to corporate rule in the United States.
In summary, the Court empowers the corporate sector by use a conception of freedom from an 18th century text to escape from the control of the people and their democratic institutions that grant corporate charters. In exercising this right to freedom of speech, which is fortunately constrained in Canada, corporations, including those offshore, will gain final parasitic control over the American system of governance.
Faced with the reality of having their basic democratic rights superseded as a result of the application of feudal practices, it is time for Canadians to exercise their right to be governed by laws that reflect the reality of their generation and not to be enslaved by the deference to the reality of an out-dated past. We are no longer a British Colony. The ratification of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought about our legal independence. We are free from British rule.
To become a modern democracy, we need a modern constitution, one that recognizes basic democratic principles and puts them into practice in the manner that our elected assemblies function. It is time to convene a constitutional convention in order to rewrite that part of our constitution that is derived from the British North America Act.
As a people, we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to create a system of governance suited to the reality in which we live and to which we give our consent until that time arrives when a rewritten constitution will be again subject to further major change as the society evolves. In this way, Canada’s Constitution will become a living document that reflects the desires of Canadians to live collectively guided by their shared values.
In convening a constitutional convention, Canadians should follow the example of the Scots who, in their desire to be ruled by Scottish law rather than English law, initiated a claim of right, which eventually led to the devolution power from Westminster and the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
The Supreme Court of Canada in respecting the constitutional division of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch of government rendered a decision in the Omar Khadr case in which a violation of the most central element in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to life, liberty and security of the person as articulated in Section 7 of the Charter is trumped by the feudal right of the Prime Minister’s royal prerogative over foreign affairs, which includes his right to unilaterally declare war.
In other words, although Mr. Khadr’s legal rights have been clearly violated, the Prime Minister is not under legal obligation to provide an effective remedy like repatriation to address this flagrant violation of a Canadian citizen’s rights in which the Canadian Government actively participated. In this instance, there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of our constitutional law.
What makes this result even less palatable is the fact that the Prime Minister has utilized another of his royal prerogatives to prorogue Parliament, effectively suspending democratic debate concerning this repugnant turn of events. As a result, democratic dissent cannot be presently expressed in the institution to which the Prime Minister is accountable. Consequently, Canadians through their elected representatives are unable to demand that the Prime Minister justify his refusal to intercede on behalf of one of their fellow citizens.
With a similar disregard for the principles and modern practice of democracy, the US Supreme Court interpreted the Bill of Rights’ first amendment stipulation that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech to include the right of corporations to spend without limits during electoral campaigns. Given the financial capacity of the corporate sector to influence electoral results, the Court effectively put into place a path in which democratic rule gives way to corporate rule in the United States.
In summary, the Court empowers the corporate sector by use a conception of freedom from an 18th century text to escape from the control of the people and their democratic institutions that grant corporate charters. In exercising this right to freedom of speech, which is fortunately constrained in Canada, corporations, including those offshore, will gain final parasitic control over the American system of governance.
Faced with the reality of having their basic democratic rights superseded as a result of the application of feudal practices, it is time for Canadians to exercise their right to be governed by laws that reflect the reality of their generation and not to be enslaved by the deference to the reality of an out-dated past. We are no longer a British Colony. The ratification of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought about our legal independence. We are free from British rule.
To become a modern democracy, we need a modern constitution, one that recognizes basic democratic principles and puts them into practice in the manner that our elected assemblies function. It is time to convene a constitutional convention in order to rewrite that part of our constitution that is derived from the British North America Act.
As a people, we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to create a system of governance suited to the reality in which we live and to which we give our consent until that time arrives when a rewritten constitution will be again subject to further major change as the society evolves. In this way, Canada’s Constitution will become a living document that reflects the desires of Canadians to live collectively guided by their shared values.
In convening a constitutional convention, Canadians should follow the example of the Scots who, in their desire to be ruled by Scottish law rather than English law, initiated a claim of right, which eventually led to the devolution power from Westminster and the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Sovereignty of Privilege versus the Democratic Rights of the People
The evolution of democracy in the Anglo-American realm has not yet reached its end state. Here in Canada, as well in the US and the UK, the rule of the majority has not been attained.
In fact, Canadians elect a government where the leader of the political party that has won the greatest number of electoral fiefdoms assumes the privileges and prerogatives of the sovereign. The prorogation of Parliament is part of the prerogatives bestowed by Canada’s Sovereign Monarch, Queen Elizabeth, to the Prime Minister through the Queen’s representative in Canada, the Governor General. As a result, the Prime Minister can shut down Parliament as he sees fit, and this all well within the rule of law, even if the Prime Minister reigns with only a minority government.
Sounds like we are still stuck in our feudal past to me.
Historically, the evolution of democracy in the English-speaking world has been a gradual transition from the power of privilege towards the democratic rights of the people, and this has largely played itself out through the evolution of the electoral system.
Essentially, the right to vote was extended to the white, Christian, landowners as a counterbalance to the hereditary privileges of the sovereign monarch, but throughout its evolution the right to vote has been used first as means to protect the privileges of a group of landlords against the powers of royalty and then later against the claims of the masses, the demos.
At the heart of this political struggle is the preservation and slow modification of the dominant social paradigm and the privileges of those who profit the most from the political system. Within the realm of human rights, it is hard to imagine today the legitimacy of a political system that did not grant the franchise to women, men without property, or members of ethnic and religious minorities. However, such were the conditions to be found in Canada at the time of confederation.
Over time, the franchise was extended to include the entire adult population, and this evolution saw with it a greater redistribution of the nation’s wealth in the way of transfers of revenue to fund social programs targeting the less fortunate. Yet, if we look elsewhere in the developed world, one cannot help but notice the those countries that continue to use the electoral systems using the Britannic method of first-past-the-post are those countries (Canada, US, England, Australia) that continue to have greater levels of inequality within their respective societies.
The reason for this glaring anomaly is the territorial bias built into the electoral system that allows a privileged class to usurp political power from the majority in order to maintain the privileged position of not only their financial status but also the manner the political economy is organized.
Since feudal practice has given way to democratic principles in theory, in practice the struggle for power shifted to the control of the rules of the electoral game. Essentially, in the Anglo-American realm, there exists a bias toward the landlord, the lords of the land, which is maintained by not aggregating all of the votes when they are cast regardless of where they are cast and by drawing up the electoral map to maximise the number of favourable fiefdoms that can be extracted from the territory. In other words, representation is skewed towards those who have the greater means to wage an electoral campaign and the values that they hold at the expense of those of more limited means and their corresponding values – private interest trumps the common good.
No where is this more evident than in the inability of either Canada or the United States to adopt effective legislation to combat climate change. In both countries, the majority of citizens desire effective legislation to be enacted. However, the territorial bias of the political systems will not allow the private interest of those who desire to amass as much wealth as they can at the expense of the environment to be overturned.
In Canada, the parliamentary system allows for a minority to usurp the power of the majority by transferring political power to the party that wins the greatest of electoral districts. In practice, neither of the two principal parties can expect to win this contest if it promises action to fight climate change since private interest will devote its considerable resources to counter any serious attempt to enact environmental legislation that would somehow limit economic growth. What makes this situation completely at odds with democratic principles is that the will of the majority can be overturned by even a minority government.
In the US, the will of the majority is thwarted by the disproportional power given to the smaller states, each state has two senators regardless of its population, and the supra majority (60%) required to adopt legislation. For example, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, and 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. In fact, states that together hold about 12 percent of the US population can provide that many Senate votes. So, if you are thinking that we can expect to see effective climate change legislation to be adopted in the US this year, think again.
In summary, the territorial bias that grants representation to those who control a territory at the expense of its inhabitants renders both systems profoundly undemocratic.
Yet, representation should not be qualified by whether one’s vote belongs to the winning side. Each and every vote should be given relative equal weight regardless of where it is cast. However, the first-past-the-post voting method does not allow this to occur. It was conceived to transfer to transfer the sovereignty from the masses to the most powerful. If the demos wants to assert its legitimate claim to political power, it must force the political class to change the electoral laws. Otherwise, a privileged few will continue to rule.
In fact, Canadians elect a government where the leader of the political party that has won the greatest number of electoral fiefdoms assumes the privileges and prerogatives of the sovereign. The prorogation of Parliament is part of the prerogatives bestowed by Canada’s Sovereign Monarch, Queen Elizabeth, to the Prime Minister through the Queen’s representative in Canada, the Governor General. As a result, the Prime Minister can shut down Parliament as he sees fit, and this all well within the rule of law, even if the Prime Minister reigns with only a minority government.
Sounds like we are still stuck in our feudal past to me.
Historically, the evolution of democracy in the English-speaking world has been a gradual transition from the power of privilege towards the democratic rights of the people, and this has largely played itself out through the evolution of the electoral system.
Essentially, the right to vote was extended to the white, Christian, landowners as a counterbalance to the hereditary privileges of the sovereign monarch, but throughout its evolution the right to vote has been used first as means to protect the privileges of a group of landlords against the powers of royalty and then later against the claims of the masses, the demos.
At the heart of this political struggle is the preservation and slow modification of the dominant social paradigm and the privileges of those who profit the most from the political system. Within the realm of human rights, it is hard to imagine today the legitimacy of a political system that did not grant the franchise to women, men without property, or members of ethnic and religious minorities. However, such were the conditions to be found in Canada at the time of confederation.
Over time, the franchise was extended to include the entire adult population, and this evolution saw with it a greater redistribution of the nation’s wealth in the way of transfers of revenue to fund social programs targeting the less fortunate. Yet, if we look elsewhere in the developed world, one cannot help but notice the those countries that continue to use the electoral systems using the Britannic method of first-past-the-post are those countries (Canada, US, England, Australia) that continue to have greater levels of inequality within their respective societies.
The reason for this glaring anomaly is the territorial bias built into the electoral system that allows a privileged class to usurp political power from the majority in order to maintain the privileged position of not only their financial status but also the manner the political economy is organized.
Since feudal practice has given way to democratic principles in theory, in practice the struggle for power shifted to the control of the rules of the electoral game. Essentially, in the Anglo-American realm, there exists a bias toward the landlord, the lords of the land, which is maintained by not aggregating all of the votes when they are cast regardless of where they are cast and by drawing up the electoral map to maximise the number of favourable fiefdoms that can be extracted from the territory. In other words, representation is skewed towards those who have the greater means to wage an electoral campaign and the values that they hold at the expense of those of more limited means and their corresponding values – private interest trumps the common good.
No where is this more evident than in the inability of either Canada or the United States to adopt effective legislation to combat climate change. In both countries, the majority of citizens desire effective legislation to be enacted. However, the territorial bias of the political systems will not allow the private interest of those who desire to amass as much wealth as they can at the expense of the environment to be overturned.
In Canada, the parliamentary system allows for a minority to usurp the power of the majority by transferring political power to the party that wins the greatest of electoral districts. In practice, neither of the two principal parties can expect to win this contest if it promises action to fight climate change since private interest will devote its considerable resources to counter any serious attempt to enact environmental legislation that would somehow limit economic growth. What makes this situation completely at odds with democratic principles is that the will of the majority can be overturned by even a minority government.
In the US, the will of the majority is thwarted by the disproportional power given to the smaller states, each state has two senators regardless of its population, and the supra majority (60%) required to adopt legislation. For example, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, and 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. In fact, states that together hold about 12 percent of the US population can provide that many Senate votes. So, if you are thinking that we can expect to see effective climate change legislation to be adopted in the US this year, think again.
In summary, the territorial bias that grants representation to those who control a territory at the expense of its inhabitants renders both systems profoundly undemocratic.
Yet, representation should not be qualified by whether one’s vote belongs to the winning side. Each and every vote should be given relative equal weight regardless of where it is cast. However, the first-past-the-post voting method does not allow this to occur. It was conceived to transfer to transfer the sovereignty from the masses to the most powerful. If the demos wants to assert its legitimate claim to political power, it must force the political class to change the electoral laws. Otherwise, a privileged few will continue to rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)