Democratic Institutions
We are about to have a federal election over protection of our democratic institutions.
“Democratic institutions! What are you talking about? Who cares! Sounds like some abstract thing eggheads in Ottawa like to blab on about! What's that got to do with me? I didn't ask for this! Let me keep my job so I have some money for friends and stuff I enjoy. That's what's important to me.”, are some of the comments I have heard.
Well, as I see it, our democratic institutions set the rules in the labour market, in the consumer market, how we organize community activities, enable every sort of transaction to take place including simple social exchanges via internet connection. Democratic institutions balance power against the right to expect fairness and equality in society. Democratic institutions are the means by which we make the concept of one-person-one-vote a daily reality.
So in government, we elect people to represent us in setting the rules and framework for how we deal with each other in society. They are responsible representatives in that they don't simply parrot what the majority tell them to do. They are expected to use their knowledge and judgement to examine all sides of the issue, remember the principles on which we base our society, then determine a course of action. We hold them responsible for their decisions and actions by choosing to re-elect them to another term in office or not.
The issue at stake here is one of openness to parliament. That means openness to each and every one of us. We all elect people to office to participate in the affairs of government on our behalf. No one elects someone to sit out in the hall until the next election comes along to see if our representative will be part of the governing group. We expect every member of parliament to exercise our power we have entrusted to them.
However, some members of parliament have been chosen to form the government and take the lead on deciding the direction of society through its government. The rest of the members have a responsibility to introduce alternate ideas to government and to question the government's actions and challenge its judgement. In order for all the members to do their job, they, each one of them, must have access to the information the government has that it used to arrive at its decision. In medical practice, this is called “Informed Consent”, whereby a patient cannot be expected to make a decision about her or his own life without full disclosure from the practitioner as to what the implications of that decision are. Juries and judges, likewise, need to know all the relevant and material facts when they render a decision. That means that no member of parliament can be expected to vote for or against, or propose amendments to, a government proposal without knowing all the facts.
We have long accepted that as a necessity to the exercise of good government. Pretty sound reasoning, it seems to me.
This government has been found guilty of not providing all members of parliament with the facts necessary to enable a knowledgeable decision. That's what is meant by this instance of Contempt of Parliament. That means that this government has contempt for every Canadian because it will not allow every Canadian's elected representative to carry out the obligation we have entrusted her or him to do.
This is the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth that any government has been found guilty of having Contempt for the Parliament it was elected to lead!
Now, does this matter to the objectors I noted at the start of this? Well, perhaps it's important to keep one's job and to have an opportunity to find another one and expect to not lose one's job arbitrarily. Perhaps it's important to continue to afford the social connectivity the Internet provides. Perhaps it's important to have recreational opportunities in parks and facilities. Perhaps it's important to have emergency services to protect us in time of crisis. Perhaps it's important to have developmental opportunities through education, the arts, sports, social interaction, all enabled by society working through its government.
But just in case none of these is important and it's still hard to see in the grand scheme of things why democratic institutions are important, perhaps we should ask some who have not always had these. Ask Bosnians. Ask Croatians. Ask Czechs. Ask Slovaks. Ask Indians. Ask Tunisians. Ask Lybians. Ask Egyptians. Ask Lebanese. Ask Syrians. Ask Pakistanis. Ask Serbs. Ask Jordanians. Ask Tibetans. Ask Chinese. Ask Mayanmarans. Ask Algerians. Ask Nepalese. Ask Albanians. Ask Morroccans. Ask Cypriots. Ask Greeks. Ask Bengalis. Ask the French. Ask Italians. Ask Germans. Ask Koreans. Ask any Canadian family who had a soldier defending democratic institutions in two world wars and nearly innumerable peace-keeping missions around the world.
Amazingly, the current series of crises in the Middle East and North Africa were triggered by one man who was not allowed to pursue his only means of income, selling his fruit and vegetables from his cart on the street in Tunisia. One police officer abused her authority by slapping his face, banning him from the street and tipping his cart with no cause. That seemingly simple and minor injustice by a bully triggered people all through those regions to realize the extreme importance of democratic institutions in their own daily lives. More than two months of revolution has been the result!
This is a just election. There has seldom been a more important reason to go to the polls.
Mike
Posts
All Comments
