The Colliery Dams Dispute in the Larger Context
After
the First World War the present system of representative democracy
was finalized with women's suffrage, and not much has changed since.
I would suggest that this concept of democracy is that of council
majority and that permanent government that is the city bureaucracy.
This concept of democracy is in direct conflict with a new
conception of democracy.
The
older concept reduces democracy to voting for candidates every number
of years. Once in power these members can do more or less as they see
fit. Should the masses object to the policies imposed upon them, they
are treated as a virtual enemy. Should they persist in their protest,
the state is there to repress them with force and violence. Civil
disobedience arises when democracy is not working properly, where
people have been excluded from the process.
For
a population that was mostly uneducated, inarticulate and insecure,
this system was not too problematic. People grumbled but obeyed. We
saw this with the damming of the Arrow Lakes in the mid-1960s.
Thousands of acres of prime farm land was destroyed and small towns
inundated. There were complaints, but no action was taken. This is an
example of Peter C. Newman's concept of Canadian deference to
authority. However, today, with a population that is well educated,
highly articulate and full of confidence, - such as the people
fighting the destruction of Colliery Dam Park - deference has flown
the coop. For them, the older democracy is not democratic at all but
is more of an elective dictatorship.
It
is no coincidence that at the same time as the Colliery Dam protests
erupted, so too the spectacular revolts in Turkey, Egypt, and Brazil.
A global movement for a new form of democracy has evolved and
encompasses everything from Spain's Neighborhood Assemblies and the
Occupy Movement to the Neighborhood Committees of Venezuela.
With
the new-style democracy, people must have a say over every important
event that impacts upon their lives. Democracy must be 24-7 not every
4 years. People prefer delegated power rather than independent
representatives. All stakeholders must be involved and a rational
compromise sought acceptable to the overwhelming majority. People
with different ideas are not always the enemy, but a source of
valuable input to be included, not excluded. Political power is to be
horizontal, not top-down, webs and networks, not tightly controlled
centralized bodies.
I
wish the city Council majority would consider what they are doing in
this world historical context. I invite them to stick their toes into
the cool waters of the new democracy. They can do so by bringing all
the stakeholders together, and most especially the First Nations, and
find a rational solution to the conflict.
2 Comments:
"I would suggest that this concept of democracy is that of council majority and that permanent government that is the city bureaucracy."
A great analogy!
"This concept of democracy is in direct conflict with a new conception of democracy."
How do we develop the new conception?
An excellent question. I suppose we could start off with any effort to achieve more popular control over government such as easier recall, direct legislation, and referenda, (but without the government being allowed to propagandize on their own behalf.) A continuous pressure to include all stake-holders in any important issue - much in the way Neighborhood Plans are developed. Return of the ward system, which would involve more people in the process and allow each neighborhood representation. A binding contract signed by representatives to act according to the wishes of the people and not special interests... Neighborhood assemblies such as they have in parts of Europe, which while having no legislative power (yet!) can put an immense pressure on the govt. Any other ideas are welcome...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home