- Aug 6, 2012
- 27,951
- 24,759
- 2,405
An interesting and accurate article. Be careful who you do business with America and who you call an "ally". We are not a democracy, we don't believe in rule of law, liberty, due process, accountability, transparency or elected leadership.
Back stabbing by our security apparatus against it's own citizens and allies is rampant. They are insulated and heavily protected by a feckless system. Party means little, our system is not meant to support libertarian values.
Canada is not a great democracy, but do we care?
From a Canadian perspective, the most striking thing about the supposed anti-democratic political reforms approved by Turkish voters last week was their familiarity.
The majority of powers the Turkish president gained ā the freedom to appoint cabinet ministers and senior judges without parliamentary approval, the power to unilaterally dismiss parliament, the power to decree certain sorts of laws without parliament at all ā are all powers the Canadian prime minister already has. Yet no one would claim Canada is less than a full democracy, and itās worth pondering why.
We can certainly question the Turkish governmentās intentions. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has clear authoritarian tendencies and exists in a country with an authoritarian political culture. Turkey experienced multiple military coups throughout the past century ā including an attempted one in July ā and governments have routinely used state power and violence to trample the liberties of their critics.
Yet the Erdogan administrationās official justification for the referendum (and presumably the motive of the 51 percent of Turks who voted for it), that is, the need to make government more efficient and effective, is a common justification for the more authoritarian aspects of the Canadian political system as well. Any Canadian loudly worrying about the replacement of Turkish democracy āwith what amounts to a dictatorshipā ā in the words of the Globe and Mail editorial board ā should take a moment to consider how Canadaās political system would look if a third world tinpot proposed adopting it.
Canadian prime ministers come to power by winning control of the lower house of Parliament, an achievement which almost never requires winning a majority of the popular vote. PMs then appoint members of the upper house directly, which means it can be taken for granted that any legislation they propose will quickly sail into law. The ruling party is run as a rigid hierarchy, and the notion of a āfree voteā in Parliament, where MPs can vote their conscience rather than the prime ministerās, are rare enough to require a distinctive term. Virtually every figure of importance in Ottawa, from cabinet members to judges to senior bureaucrats to committee chairs to military leaders to the head of the state broadcaster, are appointed by the prime minister with no oversight or veto by anyone.
Analysis of Canadian prime ministers revolves mostly around their competence in implementing an agenda, given thereās little question the office has all the power it needs. Right-wing critics of former Tory prime minister Stephen Harper, for instance, almost exclusively criticize the last four years of his administration ā in which he held a solid majority of seats in Parliament ā for its lack of ambition, and such criticisms stick because unlike, say, an American president, there are no formal political checks to blame. Harper faced no legislative chamber controlled by the opposition party, nor a rebellious Freedom Caucus within his own. The Canadian Supreme Court did repeatedly overturn a number of his legislative initiatives, but by the end of his term Harper had appointed seven of the courtās nine justices, so whose fault was that?
The realities of the Canadian system are controversial, but not universally so. Many Canadians occupying elite positions in the media or politics actually spend a fair amount of time defending the status quo or arguing for things to get even more regressive. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for instance, has been a long-time defender of an appointed Senate, and Michael Chong, a would-be leader of the Conservatives, successfully pushed for a new law allowing elected prime ministers to be deposed and replaced mid-term by their parliamentary caucus, similar to what is done in Australia.
Back stabbing by our security apparatus against it's own citizens and allies is rampant. They are insulated and heavily protected by a feckless system. Party means little, our system is not meant to support libertarian values.
Canada is not a great democracy, but do we care?
From a Canadian perspective, the most striking thing about the supposed anti-democratic political reforms approved by Turkish voters last week was their familiarity.
The majority of powers the Turkish president gained ā the freedom to appoint cabinet ministers and senior judges without parliamentary approval, the power to unilaterally dismiss parliament, the power to decree certain sorts of laws without parliament at all ā are all powers the Canadian prime minister already has. Yet no one would claim Canada is less than a full democracy, and itās worth pondering why.
We can certainly question the Turkish governmentās intentions. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has clear authoritarian tendencies and exists in a country with an authoritarian political culture. Turkey experienced multiple military coups throughout the past century ā including an attempted one in July ā and governments have routinely used state power and violence to trample the liberties of their critics.
Yet the Erdogan administrationās official justification for the referendum (and presumably the motive of the 51 percent of Turks who voted for it), that is, the need to make government more efficient and effective, is a common justification for the more authoritarian aspects of the Canadian political system as well. Any Canadian loudly worrying about the replacement of Turkish democracy āwith what amounts to a dictatorshipā ā in the words of the Globe and Mail editorial board ā should take a moment to consider how Canadaās political system would look if a third world tinpot proposed adopting it.
Canadian prime ministers come to power by winning control of the lower house of Parliament, an achievement which almost never requires winning a majority of the popular vote. PMs then appoint members of the upper house directly, which means it can be taken for granted that any legislation they propose will quickly sail into law. The ruling party is run as a rigid hierarchy, and the notion of a āfree voteā in Parliament, where MPs can vote their conscience rather than the prime ministerās, are rare enough to require a distinctive term. Virtually every figure of importance in Ottawa, from cabinet members to judges to senior bureaucrats to committee chairs to military leaders to the head of the state broadcaster, are appointed by the prime minister with no oversight or veto by anyone.
Analysis of Canadian prime ministers revolves mostly around their competence in implementing an agenda, given thereās little question the office has all the power it needs. Right-wing critics of former Tory prime minister Stephen Harper, for instance, almost exclusively criticize the last four years of his administration ā in which he held a solid majority of seats in Parliament ā for its lack of ambition, and such criticisms stick because unlike, say, an American president, there are no formal political checks to blame. Harper faced no legislative chamber controlled by the opposition party, nor a rebellious Freedom Caucus within his own. The Canadian Supreme Court did repeatedly overturn a number of his legislative initiatives, but by the end of his term Harper had appointed seven of the courtās nine justices, so whose fault was that?
The realities of the Canadian system are controversial, but not universally so. Many Canadians occupying elite positions in the media or politics actually spend a fair amount of time defending the status quo or arguing for things to get even more regressive. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for instance, has been a long-time defender of an appointed Senate, and Michael Chong, a would-be leader of the Conservatives, successfully pushed for a new law allowing elected prime ministers to be deposed and replaced mid-term by their parliamentary caucus, similar to what is done in Australia.
