Transition
We have a number of items of economic news telling us we in Alberta and Canada more generally are in a state of economic transition.
I suspect we are always in such a state, it’s just that now it seems far more obvious. Telling issues are seen in Alberta’s oil price dilemma and the closure of the General Motors plants in Canada.
Two such examples of economic news are the basis of the two opinion pieces I refer to below.
Susan Wright a la Susan on the Soapbox, analyses the oil situation in her recent opinion piece with the CBC,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-oil-production-cuts-hypocrisy-susan-wright-opinion-1.4916404 .
Industrial Equipment News analyses the General Motors situation,
https://www.ien.com/operations/news/21034769/gm-cuts-are-a-warning-for-all .
It seems to me that in both these instances we need to decide how we should react. Are we in an economic car wreck that can be repaired and we can go back to business as usual, or are these symptoms of a structural change in the economy and business environment to which we must adapt as we transition to the new reality?
I suspect it’s the latter.
So that means we need to transition into the new reality. That means we must access and apply highly qualified personnel and high capacity technology to enable us to make the transition successfully.
If highly qualified personnel and powerful technologies are the two great enablers of economic transition, Alberta and Canada generally, are very well positioned indeed. We have a workforce of highly qualified personnel and access to powerful technologies. Prime examples of both are the gas/oil industry and the automotive industry.
We now have to set about the not small task of engaging these resources in an organized effort to make the transition successfully.
Michael G Klein
Monday, December 10, 2018
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Indigenous Knowledge included in Bill C 69
Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous peoples have built up an understanding of their environment over the generations, over the millennia. I expect most of this is simply passed on as sound advice that must be heeded. What I mean by that is that the detailed explanations as to why this advice is critical to success, to life in the environment, and what experiences generated that knowledge might well be lost. Nonetheless, the advice is taken seriously today by indigenous peoples still living in that same environment.
Newcomers to the environment might think of this advice as legend, myth, fairy tale folklore and discount its relevance and usefulness in the current age. I think it’s quite likely indigenous knowledge is ignored until and perhaps even after some damaging or life-threatening event has taken place, which peril might have been avoided by heeding the advice found in indigenous knowledge.
Further complicating the situation might be the communication of the knowledge in the language of the indigenous peoples holding that knowledge. There is, I suspect, a tendency to use the ten second sound bite or elevator pitch approach we are familiar with. The imagery is probably strong in the culture of the indigenous peoples expressing it. That imagery may be meaningless to the newcomer not having experienced this cultural vernacular, especially not having had to depend on that knowledge as the difference between life and death. We are all familiar with people having trouble communicating even when they grew up in the same community, the same culture with a common language.
In the case of indigenous knowledge, when the newcomer is a colonist with an assumed right of ownership of the indigenous resources lying before him, especially resources not being exploited by the indigenous peoples, there is an even stronger predilection to ignore the communication from the indigenous peoples because the colonist thinks they might be at best naive but most likely simply stupid and uncivilized, therefore with nothing useful to say.
I think the newcomer, even the colonist, would be well advised to first of all think of his own experience within his own social milieu. How often does a professional or any occupation with a special skill set run into situations wherein lay people do not understand what the pro is saying and often simply accepts the pro’s statements as learned? Today we actually are finding the exact opposite to be true where the lay person refuses to believe anything the pro says because of suspicion of manipulation for the pro’s own purposes, possibly nefarious.
All that being said, we do ourselves a dangerous disservice by dismissing indigenous knowledge as non-knowledge.
We might recall the stories of the first colonists arriving on the Atlantic coast and trying to survive the North American winter which was not the same as what they were used to in the British Isles or France and other points in western Europe. Without the advantage of indigenous knowledge, all would surely have perished.
That advantage was used repeatedly as colonists spread across North America, where the winters were surely even more difficult than those of the Atlantic coast.
Yet somehow, the colonists forgot that they brought what should have been their own indigenous knowledge to the new land in the form of deadly diseases. I’m afraid the life-saving education received from the indigenous peoples was not repaid in kind.
More recently, we had major fires:
the Slave Lake, Alberta fire of 2011
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fire-destroys-40-of-slave-lake-1.981352 ;
the Fort McMurray fire of 2016
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-remains-out-of-control-after-city-evacuated-1.3563977 ;
the British Columbia wildfires of 2018
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/state-emergency-bc-wildfires-1.4803546 .
All this fire devastation within the context of indigenous knowledge not applied over the decades.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fire-fighting-first-nations-firekeepers-annie-kruger-penticton-bc-wildfire-mega-fire-1.4205506 .
Before all that current fire devastation, we had the Frank Slide. https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/alberta/frank-slide/ Interestingly we had indigenous knowledge about Turtle Mountain : “The Indians of the area avoided Turtle Mountain. To them, it was the “Mountain that Walked”. Their legend would soon become all too real.” In the face of our reaction to this knowledge we had the reaction, “Lol”. Whatever. Mountains don’t walk.” and “In a brief 100 ear-shattering, bone-jarring seconds, 76 people lost their lives, 23 were injured and 17 miners were trapped inside a mine shaft behind over 100 feet of rubble and stone .
It seems to me we should know by now that indigenous knowledge cannot be dismissed. I think we need a change of attitude about indigenous knowledge. I think we need to accept that it is real. If we don’t understand it, then we are well advised to learn what it means and what its impact on any given initiative could and in fact almost certainly will be. To achieve this level of understanding, we must engage the indigenous peoples themselves to help us understand what it is and how to interpret it into our current situation.
Michael Klein
Indigenous peoples have built up an understanding of their environment over the generations, over the millennia. I expect most of this is simply passed on as sound advice that must be heeded. What I mean by that is that the detailed explanations as to why this advice is critical to success, to life in the environment, and what experiences generated that knowledge might well be lost. Nonetheless, the advice is taken seriously today by indigenous peoples still living in that same environment.
Newcomers to the environment might think of this advice as legend, myth, fairy tale folklore and discount its relevance and usefulness in the current age. I think it’s quite likely indigenous knowledge is ignored until and perhaps even after some damaging or life-threatening event has taken place, which peril might have been avoided by heeding the advice found in indigenous knowledge.
Further complicating the situation might be the communication of the knowledge in the language of the indigenous peoples holding that knowledge. There is, I suspect, a tendency to use the ten second sound bite or elevator pitch approach we are familiar with. The imagery is probably strong in the culture of the indigenous peoples expressing it. That imagery may be meaningless to the newcomer not having experienced this cultural vernacular, especially not having had to depend on that knowledge as the difference between life and death. We are all familiar with people having trouble communicating even when they grew up in the same community, the same culture with a common language.
In the case of indigenous knowledge, when the newcomer is a colonist with an assumed right of ownership of the indigenous resources lying before him, especially resources not being exploited by the indigenous peoples, there is an even stronger predilection to ignore the communication from the indigenous peoples because the colonist thinks they might be at best naive but most likely simply stupid and uncivilized, therefore with nothing useful to say.
I think the newcomer, even the colonist, would be well advised to first of all think of his own experience within his own social milieu. How often does a professional or any occupation with a special skill set run into situations wherein lay people do not understand what the pro is saying and often simply accepts the pro’s statements as learned? Today we actually are finding the exact opposite to be true where the lay person refuses to believe anything the pro says because of suspicion of manipulation for the pro’s own purposes, possibly nefarious.
All that being said, we do ourselves a dangerous disservice by dismissing indigenous knowledge as non-knowledge.
We might recall the stories of the first colonists arriving on the Atlantic coast and trying to survive the North American winter which was not the same as what they were used to in the British Isles or France and other points in western Europe. Without the advantage of indigenous knowledge, all would surely have perished.
That advantage was used repeatedly as colonists spread across North America, where the winters were surely even more difficult than those of the Atlantic coast.
Yet somehow, the colonists forgot that they brought what should have been their own indigenous knowledge to the new land in the form of deadly diseases. I’m afraid the life-saving education received from the indigenous peoples was not repaid in kind.
More recently, we had major fires:
the Slave Lake, Alberta fire of 2011
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fire-destroys-40-of-slave-lake-1.981352 ;
the Fort McMurray fire of 2016
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-remains-out-of-control-after-city-evacuated-1.3563977 ;
the British Columbia wildfires of 2018
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/state-emergency-bc-wildfires-1.4803546 .
All this fire devastation within the context of indigenous knowledge not applied over the decades.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fire-fighting-first-nations-firekeepers-annie-kruger-penticton-bc-wildfire-mega-fire-1.4205506 .
Before all that current fire devastation, we had the Frank Slide. https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/alberta/frank-slide/ Interestingly we had indigenous knowledge about Turtle Mountain : “The Indians of the area avoided Turtle Mountain. To them, it was the “Mountain that Walked”. Their legend would soon become all too real.” In the face of our reaction to this knowledge we had the reaction, “Lol”. Whatever. Mountains don’t walk.” and “In a brief 100 ear-shattering, bone-jarring seconds, 76 people lost their lives, 23 were injured and 17 miners were trapped inside a mine shaft behind over 100 feet of rubble and stone .
It seems to me we should know by now that indigenous knowledge cannot be dismissed. I think we need a change of attitude about indigenous knowledge. I think we need to accept that it is real. If we don’t understand it, then we are well advised to learn what it means and what its impact on any given initiative could and in fact almost certainly will be. To achieve this level of understanding, we must engage the indigenous peoples themselves to help us understand what it is and how to interpret it into our current situation.
Michael Klein
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Living Democracy - political party support for quality of life
Citizen Engagement – a project to Achieve Constituency Association Effectiveness
This is a proposal to build constituency association capacity as a political organization by serving your Alberta provincial constituency as an effective advocate for its citizens.
The following structure parallels a successful initiative of a notable Alberta health charity.
1. Background
1.1. Philosophical Premise
What is your association trying to do? You are trying to improve your capacity to govern in our democracy. You wish to achieve a democracy where:
all persons are peers and everyone’s personal interest is as important as everyone else’s;
the art of governance is one of collaboration in which each person’s interest is realized without compromising the interest of another;
we improve the quality of life of society by improving the quality of life for each citizen.
1.2. Practical Philosophy
Researchers have evidence to show that this is achievable but only where each person is empowered to achieve the quality of life he or she expects. Governance then means using the collective power of citizens to their respective and mutual self-advantage.
1.3. Appropriate to Political Parties in a Democracy
If you agree that these are noble goals then they should be achieved through the actions of your democratic party. Your party is all about citizens working together to achieve noble goals for each citizen and for society as a whole.
1.4. How to Increase Capacity
You achieve this by ensuring your association is relevant to the citizens of the constituency by effectively enabling the citizens to advocate their own interests and causes and by making the association a vehicle for citizen self-empowerment.
2. Strategy
2.1. Basis of Relevance
Party campaign colleges taught you to build credibility among the electorate to be elected. You can achieve credibility by being an effective advocate for citizens.
2.1.1. Credibility Component One - Candidate
You have nominated a credible candidate. Your candidate is well received and respected among constituents and beyond. That candidate’s credibility is a promising start.
2.1.2. Credibility Component Two – Association
It seems it is difficult for a constituency association to be seen as a credible part of the lives of citizens, whether in government or in opposition; with or without an elected member. Part of the problem is that constituency associations have little to do with people’s lives between elections. Citizens see their access to power to be their incumbent member as distinguished from the constituency association, even though that association may have delivered that member to the legislature.
This perception of constituency incapacity might even carry through election day, thereby allowing your candidate to not be elected.
The key to electoral success seems to be your ability to convince the citizens of your constituency that your association including its candidate is a viable advocate for their interests.
2.2. Situation
Your association has members with great interest, knowledge, insight and judgement in certain issues. You have people with great passion and commitment to certain issues. You have people with organizational ability and drive to effectively campaign for issues.
Unfortunately associations often lack capacity to make their respective members activist leaders. Yet we know leadership is required to successfully champion issues over time, thus the initiative fizzles out from inaction. The association must then build a collaborative leadership.
2.2.1. Input Gems
All constituency associations have examples of Input Gems. We have the following examples:
At a nomination meeting, a long serving petroleum engineer made a passionate statement about Alberta’s (former) royalty policy and the negative environmental impact of EUB, energy and environment policies.
At a constituency association’s AGM discussion arose about Alberta’s democratic deficit of the day. At another constituency association AGM, discussion arose about the shortcomings in Alberta’s governance of energy royalties and the taxes and wealth these revenues create especially when compared to Norway.
Probably the most relevant observation of all is that of participation at various political meetings. Someone will almost always speak up about an issue that person is fired up and knowledgeable about. Often the reaction among other members is, “Oh No. There he goes again. This meeting is going to go on forever.” The concept of following up, turning this passion into activism is the last thing on people’s minds, when it should be seen as a golden opportunity.
Constituency association board members often have serious discussions about all sorts of issues, especially the big ones like education, seniors, health, energy and the environment. Any provincial or federal campaign team knows there could be endless discussions about all sorts of significant issues. Maybe that’s why campaign teams seem to find easy success recruiting people to their policy committees. Even non-political settings like the local coffee shop or pub are often hotbeds of heartfelt policy discussion about all sorts of issues.
The point is that people become excited by these discussions and seem to be ready to engage in action to address them. These fired up and passionate people must be engaged as campaign Input Gems rather than single issue bores.
2.3. Importance of Issues
Issues are important to people. That means that policies to address issues are important to people.
2.4. Support Citizens
Constituency associations must lead citizen engagement in support of their passionately held interests and causes.
3. Steps to Engagement
There are two ways to engage citizens.
The first has citizens bring outside issues for which there may already be organized advocacy.
The second has citizens bring issues they themselves have defined.
Constituency associations build advocacy for both types of issues based on association principles and perspective. Each of these ways includes Five Steps.
3.1.a. Step 1 – Outside Issues
Your association will encourage people who are already championing a cause to help prepare a discussion paper for their cause. You can encourage them to catalogue and explain the facets of the cause as they see it.
Note: This must be in their own words.
3.1.b. Step 1 – Constituency Issues
You survey some or all of the constituency population to determine what issues are important in the lives of those citizens. You might simply ask them to identify where their quality of life is or is not measuring up to their expectations.
In Step 1 for both Outside and Constituency Issues you have identified what you need to advocate for. You can use the next four steps to build advocacy for the identified Issues.
3.2. Step 2 – Outside and Constituency
You ask your members to participate in the creation of an explanatory white paper. You then ask other constituency associations to recruit participants.
3.3. Step 3 – Outside and Constituency
You ask your members to encourage any person with interest or knowledge about the issue to engage in further exploration of the issue whether that person is from the constituency or not.
3.4. Step – 4 Outside and Constituency
You then create an issue group that might meet face to face from time to time but would definitely meet via e-communications to develop understanding of and context for the issue.
3.5. Step – 5 Outside and Constituency
You use the issue to engage the general population in the constituency or constituencies. You can then create a white paper that reflects the opinion of the general population in the constituency.
3.6. Conclusion
Your association will have demonstrated willingness and ability to advocate for citizens.
The white paper that is produced through your association enabled citizen committee is clearly labelled as a creation of the citizens of your constituency (and other citizen groups that might be involved) and advocated by your and other constituency associations that might be involved.
The issues and needs for action are then defined by the people themselves and await a policy response from anyone. You have the opportunity to address the issue with a policy that is true to your principles within the context of your other policies.
The citizens can then experience first hand the fairness, adequacy and relevance of your party’s response. The people then have the opportunity to take ownership of the new policy that arises by supporting the party who supported them.
4. Probable Outcomes
4.1. Credibility of the Association
Now your constituency association in government or opposition will have become credible as government or government in waiting. Even if your party constituency association is not represented by an elected government member, your party is still the one who crafted the policy through citizen empowerment.
Your association’s political process is then all about the citizens and not about Party.
That process builds the trust that is the basis of credibility.
4.2. Campaign Between Elections
Almost incidental to this process, your party has given those activists who love to campaign and are always eager to help at election time a meaningful ongoing activity.
Party volunteers and members will be able to keep their campaign skills sharp and their resources at the ready between elections. Leaders will be identified who can help to run campaigns, operate party offices or even be nominated as party candidates in contested nominations.
Each candidate or potential candidate will know the credibility of the your party constituency association is a solid foundation on which to build a campaign.
4.3. Attract People
You will attract new people to the party as they understand that the party is relevant to their lives and to their interests. These new people will include youth and others who feel disenfranchised by enabling them to take ownership of political process.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Citizen Committees
Your party must provide leadership in the creation and operation of “Citizen Committees” to develop relevant, meaningful, appropriate and adequate policies.
5.2. Broad Participation
The membership of these “Citizen Committees” should be multi-constituency to ensure the broadest possible participation. Multi-constituency participation can also serve to build capacity of party associations in other ridings.
5.3. Citizen Self-empowerment
Your party needs to enable citizens to take charge of their own lives by taking ownership of the policy development process. Your party must demonstrate willing ability to enable that self-empowerment.
5.4. Candidate Credibility
Candidates for nomination can be expected to arise from activism in Citizen Committees. These candidates will have clearly demonstrated their willingness and ability to serve the citizens.
6. Conclusion
This is, I believe, one way to create a living democracy as a positive force for every person.
Mike Klein
This is a proposal to build constituency association capacity as a political organization by serving your Alberta provincial constituency as an effective advocate for its citizens.
The following structure parallels a successful initiative of a notable Alberta health charity.
1. Background
1.1. Philosophical Premise
What is your association trying to do? You are trying to improve your capacity to govern in our democracy. You wish to achieve a democracy where:
all persons are peers and everyone’s personal interest is as important as everyone else’s;
the art of governance is one of collaboration in which each person’s interest is realized without compromising the interest of another;
we improve the quality of life of society by improving the quality of life for each citizen.
1.2. Practical Philosophy
Researchers have evidence to show that this is achievable but only where each person is empowered to achieve the quality of life he or she expects. Governance then means using the collective power of citizens to their respective and mutual self-advantage.
1.3. Appropriate to Political Parties in a Democracy
If you agree that these are noble goals then they should be achieved through the actions of your democratic party. Your party is all about citizens working together to achieve noble goals for each citizen and for society as a whole.
1.4. How to Increase Capacity
You achieve this by ensuring your association is relevant to the citizens of the constituency by effectively enabling the citizens to advocate their own interests and causes and by making the association a vehicle for citizen self-empowerment.
2. Strategy
2.1. Basis of Relevance
Party campaign colleges taught you to build credibility among the electorate to be elected. You can achieve credibility by being an effective advocate for citizens.
2.1.1. Credibility Component One - Candidate
You have nominated a credible candidate. Your candidate is well received and respected among constituents and beyond. That candidate’s credibility is a promising start.
2.1.2. Credibility Component Two – Association
It seems it is difficult for a constituency association to be seen as a credible part of the lives of citizens, whether in government or in opposition; with or without an elected member. Part of the problem is that constituency associations have little to do with people’s lives between elections. Citizens see their access to power to be their incumbent member as distinguished from the constituency association, even though that association may have delivered that member to the legislature.
This perception of constituency incapacity might even carry through election day, thereby allowing your candidate to not be elected.
The key to electoral success seems to be your ability to convince the citizens of your constituency that your association including its candidate is a viable advocate for their interests.
2.2. Situation
Your association has members with great interest, knowledge, insight and judgement in certain issues. You have people with great passion and commitment to certain issues. You have people with organizational ability and drive to effectively campaign for issues.
Unfortunately associations often lack capacity to make their respective members activist leaders. Yet we know leadership is required to successfully champion issues over time, thus the initiative fizzles out from inaction. The association must then build a collaborative leadership.
2.2.1. Input Gems
All constituency associations have examples of Input Gems. We have the following examples:
At a nomination meeting, a long serving petroleum engineer made a passionate statement about Alberta’s (former) royalty policy and the negative environmental impact of EUB, energy and environment policies.
At a constituency association’s AGM discussion arose about Alberta’s democratic deficit of the day. At another constituency association AGM, discussion arose about the shortcomings in Alberta’s governance of energy royalties and the taxes and wealth these revenues create especially when compared to Norway.
Probably the most relevant observation of all is that of participation at various political meetings. Someone will almost always speak up about an issue that person is fired up and knowledgeable about. Often the reaction among other members is, “Oh No. There he goes again. This meeting is going to go on forever.” The concept of following up, turning this passion into activism is the last thing on people’s minds, when it should be seen as a golden opportunity.
Constituency association board members often have serious discussions about all sorts of issues, especially the big ones like education, seniors, health, energy and the environment. Any provincial or federal campaign team knows there could be endless discussions about all sorts of significant issues. Maybe that’s why campaign teams seem to find easy success recruiting people to their policy committees. Even non-political settings like the local coffee shop or pub are often hotbeds of heartfelt policy discussion about all sorts of issues.
The point is that people become excited by these discussions and seem to be ready to engage in action to address them. These fired up and passionate people must be engaged as campaign Input Gems rather than single issue bores.
2.3. Importance of Issues
Issues are important to people. That means that policies to address issues are important to people.
2.4. Support Citizens
Constituency associations must lead citizen engagement in support of their passionately held interests and causes.
3. Steps to Engagement
There are two ways to engage citizens.
The first has citizens bring outside issues for which there may already be organized advocacy.
The second has citizens bring issues they themselves have defined.
Constituency associations build advocacy for both types of issues based on association principles and perspective. Each of these ways includes Five Steps.
3.1.a. Step 1 – Outside Issues
Your association will encourage people who are already championing a cause to help prepare a discussion paper for their cause. You can encourage them to catalogue and explain the facets of the cause as they see it.
Note: This must be in their own words.
3.1.b. Step 1 – Constituency Issues
You survey some or all of the constituency population to determine what issues are important in the lives of those citizens. You might simply ask them to identify where their quality of life is or is not measuring up to their expectations.
In Step 1 for both Outside and Constituency Issues you have identified what you need to advocate for. You can use the next four steps to build advocacy for the identified Issues.
3.2. Step 2 – Outside and Constituency
You ask your members to participate in the creation of an explanatory white paper. You then ask other constituency associations to recruit participants.
3.3. Step 3 – Outside and Constituency
You ask your members to encourage any person with interest or knowledge about the issue to engage in further exploration of the issue whether that person is from the constituency or not.
3.4. Step – 4 Outside and Constituency
You then create an issue group that might meet face to face from time to time but would definitely meet via e-communications to develop understanding of and context for the issue.
3.5. Step – 5 Outside and Constituency
You use the issue to engage the general population in the constituency or constituencies. You can then create a white paper that reflects the opinion of the general population in the constituency.
3.6. Conclusion
Your association will have demonstrated willingness and ability to advocate for citizens.
The white paper that is produced through your association enabled citizen committee is clearly labelled as a creation of the citizens of your constituency (and other citizen groups that might be involved) and advocated by your and other constituency associations that might be involved.
The issues and needs for action are then defined by the people themselves and await a policy response from anyone. You have the opportunity to address the issue with a policy that is true to your principles within the context of your other policies.
The citizens can then experience first hand the fairness, adequacy and relevance of your party’s response. The people then have the opportunity to take ownership of the new policy that arises by supporting the party who supported them.
4. Probable Outcomes
4.1. Credibility of the Association
Now your constituency association in government or opposition will have become credible as government or government in waiting. Even if your party constituency association is not represented by an elected government member, your party is still the one who crafted the policy through citizen empowerment.
Your association’s political process is then all about the citizens and not about Party.
That process builds the trust that is the basis of credibility.
4.2. Campaign Between Elections
Almost incidental to this process, your party has given those activists who love to campaign and are always eager to help at election time a meaningful ongoing activity.
Party volunteers and members will be able to keep their campaign skills sharp and their resources at the ready between elections. Leaders will be identified who can help to run campaigns, operate party offices or even be nominated as party candidates in contested nominations.
Each candidate or potential candidate will know the credibility of the your party constituency association is a solid foundation on which to build a campaign.
4.3. Attract People
You will attract new people to the party as they understand that the party is relevant to their lives and to their interests. These new people will include youth and others who feel disenfranchised by enabling them to take ownership of political process.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Citizen Committees
Your party must provide leadership in the creation and operation of “Citizen Committees” to develop relevant, meaningful, appropriate and adequate policies.
5.2. Broad Participation
The membership of these “Citizen Committees” should be multi-constituency to ensure the broadest possible participation. Multi-constituency participation can also serve to build capacity of party associations in other ridings.
5.3. Citizen Self-empowerment
Your party needs to enable citizens to take charge of their own lives by taking ownership of the policy development process. Your party must demonstrate willing ability to enable that self-empowerment.
5.4. Candidate Credibility
Candidates for nomination can be expected to arise from activism in Citizen Committees. These candidates will have clearly demonstrated their willingness and ability to serve the citizens.
6. Conclusion
This is, I believe, one way to create a living democracy as a positive force for every person.
Mike Klein
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Political Participation in Alberta
So I have decided to get involved with Alberta politics. In pursuit of this personal initiative, I thought it wise to see who the reportedly major parties are and what they stand for. I think knowing what a party stands for will allow me to see if their actions support their words in making them accountable to their respective founding principles.
I dutifully checked out, in alphabetical order, www.albertaliberal.com, www.albertaparty.ca, www.albertandp.ca and www.unitedconservative.ca .
I was discouraged to find no clear statements labelled as “Principles” with the Alberta New Democratic Party, the Alberta Liberal Party or the United Conservative Party. The United Conservative Party did reference its principles in terms and conditions of eligibility for membership as in “support the principles of the UCP”, but I could not readily find any statement of these principles. This means a wannabe UCP member cannot know what principles that membership might support.
The Alberta Party does have a statement of Principles and Guidelines as well as both Vision and Mission statements. The Alberta Liberal Party does have a statement of Values.
Except for the Alberta Party’s stated wish for non-partisan branding of ideas, The Alberta Liberal Party’s statement of Values and the Alberta Party’s three statements largely coincide. They both talk about what kind of government they would bring when elected to form government. This is useful information. However, neither of them tells us what political philosophy defines their principles of governance. How will they, respectively, guide their internal governance? How do they, respectively, intend to govern themselves between elections?
The Alberta NDP and the UCP do neither of these things, meaning they expose their political philosophy strictly through their policy resolutions and their government/loyal opposition actions.
This lack of positioning makes it very difficult to hold any party accountable except through the electoral exercise.
I believe this is far too little, far too late.
All four parties make being a democratic citizen far too challenging. How can the electorate make an informed decision, especially if the electorate were to contemplate political change? Whom does the electorate go to? Why?
M G Klein
October 17, 2018
I dutifully checked out, in alphabetical order, www.albertaliberal.com, www.albertaparty.ca, www.albertandp.ca and www.unitedconservative.ca .
I was discouraged to find no clear statements labelled as “Principles” with the Alberta New Democratic Party, the Alberta Liberal Party or the United Conservative Party. The United Conservative Party did reference its principles in terms and conditions of eligibility for membership as in “support the principles of the UCP”, but I could not readily find any statement of these principles. This means a wannabe UCP member cannot know what principles that membership might support.
The Alberta Party does have a statement of Principles and Guidelines as well as both Vision and Mission statements. The Alberta Liberal Party does have a statement of Values.
Except for the Alberta Party’s stated wish for non-partisan branding of ideas, The Alberta Liberal Party’s statement of Values and the Alberta Party’s three statements largely coincide. They both talk about what kind of government they would bring when elected to form government. This is useful information. However, neither of them tells us what political philosophy defines their principles of governance. How will they, respectively, guide their internal governance? How do they, respectively, intend to govern themselves between elections?
The Alberta NDP and the UCP do neither of these things, meaning they expose their political philosophy strictly through their policy resolutions and their government/loyal opposition actions.
This lack of positioning makes it very difficult to hold any party accountable except through the electoral exercise.
I believe this is far too little, far too late.
All four parties make being a democratic citizen far too challenging. How can the electorate make an informed decision, especially if the electorate were to contemplate political change? Whom does the electorate go to? Why?
M G Klein
October 17, 2018
Friday, May 4, 2018
Smartest Person
Smartest Person in the Room
A friend and I were discussing a story about someone’s declaration that a particular person was the smartest guy in the room. No we weren’t talking about criticizing someone who thinks he or she is the smartest person in the room. We were talking about someone’s assessment that a particular person was the smartest man in the room. We decided that assessment may well have been correct, after all, the fellow seems to truly be very smart.
I recalled our conversation and thought about it a little.
It occurred to me that same observer stated that a certain woman was the smartest person he had ever known. That too was quite a claim as the observer has associated with many people over a more than seventy year lifetime with a career in public service.
The two “smartest” people then must rate as remarkable people to be sure.
However, I wonder how much that observation matters to the individual observed smart person.
Each individual lives with mental capacity as a part of her or his state of being, probably not exactly part of her or his consciousness. Do these two smart people, while thinking about something - solving a problem, making an observation, recalling a memory - consciously apply the knowledge of her of his own self-measure of smartness in everyday activities?
Maybe.
However, in my own case and admittedly not being one of these two people, I am only aware of my level of smartness when I miss stuff in making an observation or struggle to solve some problem. It seems to me that one’s level of smartness is typically not consciously self-observed, but is simply part of one’s state of being.
I’m guessing it’s the same with these two smart people.
I conclude then that their level of smartness is, perhaps ironically, outside of their self-awareness. They then do not consciously observe or consider their level of smartness in their personal day-to-day experience. I then further conclude that being judged the smartest person in the room has no real everyday significance to each of these people.
That is unless this “smartest” person is attempting to be dismissive of others’ observations and problem-solving in which case being the smartest person in the room carries a significant social disadvantage. This might also not be all that smart as choosing to deliberately ignore others’ wisdom relevant to a given situation is a form of calculated, deliberate ignorance. Might be best, smartest, to self-assess one to be the smartest person in the room when alone in the room.
How valuable is that observation of being the smartest person in the room to each of us making it, or indeed to the “smartest person”? Possibly no value at all.
A friend and I were discussing a story about someone’s declaration that a particular person was the smartest guy in the room. No we weren’t talking about criticizing someone who thinks he or she is the smartest person in the room. We were talking about someone’s assessment that a particular person was the smartest man in the room. We decided that assessment may well have been correct, after all, the fellow seems to truly be very smart.
I recalled our conversation and thought about it a little.
It occurred to me that same observer stated that a certain woman was the smartest person he had ever known. That too was quite a claim as the observer has associated with many people over a more than seventy year lifetime with a career in public service.
The two “smartest” people then must rate as remarkable people to be sure.
However, I wonder how much that observation matters to the individual observed smart person.
Each individual lives with mental capacity as a part of her or his state of being, probably not exactly part of her or his consciousness. Do these two smart people, while thinking about something - solving a problem, making an observation, recalling a memory - consciously apply the knowledge of her of his own self-measure of smartness in everyday activities?
Maybe.
However, in my own case and admittedly not being one of these two people, I am only aware of my level of smartness when I miss stuff in making an observation or struggle to solve some problem. It seems to me that one’s level of smartness is typically not consciously self-observed, but is simply part of one’s state of being.
I’m guessing it’s the same with these two smart people.
I conclude then that their level of smartness is, perhaps ironically, outside of their self-awareness. They then do not consciously observe or consider their level of smartness in their personal day-to-day experience. I then further conclude that being judged the smartest person in the room has no real everyday significance to each of these people.
That is unless this “smartest” person is attempting to be dismissive of others’ observations and problem-solving in which case being the smartest person in the room carries a significant social disadvantage. This might also not be all that smart as choosing to deliberately ignore others’ wisdom relevant to a given situation is a form of calculated, deliberate ignorance. Might be best, smartest, to self-assess one to be the smartest person in the room when alone in the room.
How valuable is that observation of being the smartest person in the room to each of us making it, or indeed to the “smartest person”? Possibly no value at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
