|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 14, 2007 23:52:45 GMT -5
They appoint the governor general who does s**t. She/he is a figurehead.
They appoint all the ministers for their cabinet... who have been elected by their local riding. They don't pick someone out of anywhere and give them the job; they're appointing their cabinet ministers out of those who have already been voted into position.
If you believe in democracy as everyone having a say who wants it, then you are closer to anarchism than democracy (and I'd be happy about that, but call a spade a spade, you know?). The democratic system as we know it always exists with 'checks and balances' - this is at the governmental level and at the voting level. You don't vote directly on every policy or bill in question; you vote for someone to represent your community to vote on behalf of you.
As a friend (a strong proponent of the democratic system) stated: The voting system is designed to make sure stupid people don't vote. So there's an election happening in the town an hour away; well we won't all go, we'll stay here, vote for the person who we think will make the best decision on our behalf, and then send him on his way.
The fundamental issue, he says, is that the majority of the people (a) don't care about politics, or (b) don't know what's best. If everyone has an equal vote then everything goes to s**t because stupid people run the show.
Obviously I disagree with him but that's the defense of the current system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 15, 2007 20:59:37 GMT -5
Figureheads still have connotations of power, as if the monarchy cannot quite admit to Canada's independence and Canadians are too complacent about this. And the Governor General still has some power in that the people in general respect its decisions.
As for the ministers, what you say is true... but you are wrong about linking MP status to Minister status. They are two different jobs, and carry different obligations and loyalties. The Ministers serve the Prime Minister, and usually do what he desires, and while the MPs can do an ok job of representing their ridings they too are usually dictated to in their votes by their parties. And with our current system of First-past-the-post, voting for an MP is the same thing as voting for its party.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 16, 2007 15:43:14 GMT -5
There was one case in history that the GG has contradicted the ruling of the house of commons, and that was so controversial that it has never been repeated again. A figurehead is nothing but window dressing, like an actor in a commercial who pretends to be the boss of a company. There's no power there. It's just a symbol that we split from the UK peacefully rather than forcefully.
As for MP votes = party votes, that's true most of the time, but not because MPs are literally bound to the party line; they represent that party because it's the party they agree with, so they're going to vote in line with it. There are plenty of instances of MPs standing up for their own ridings; remember Anne McLellan? She was a Liberal cab-min from Alberta who stood up for her riding against party lines. She made a speech in the house of commons stating that her allegiance was to her community first.
Listen, the whole system is f**ked up for reasons entirely different than the ones you're suggesting. We have 'democracy' in Canada - as close as you can get to democracy without f**king things up even more (e.g. continual referendum, MMP, etc.). This is as good as democracy gets within a governmental framework.
Be thankful we at least have a minority government in place that can't dictate the party line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 18, 2007 18:30:58 GMT -5
It's also a symbol of respect for a tyrannical, immoral governmental system that thankfully does not have any real power at all anymore. But the power of the monarch is not the point. The problem is the show of respect for the monarchy we give when we accept a GG- even if he/she has no real power.
Good for Anne McLellan. I imagine she did not advance very far past MP level, as good as her actions were and as probable as they were to get her re-elected to office. More MPs should do this.
Care to explain how MMP would screw up democracy? Personally, I'm for it.
I am that.
You seem to have more knowledge of recent political history, while my beliefs are mostly formed on theoretical conjecture. So, you probably have a stronger base for your arguments than I.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 18, 2007 18:47:15 GMT -5
You can talk symbolism all you want, it doesn't really matter. Acceptance of a figurehead is not an acceptance of that figurehead's history. That's like saying that accepting the current government is akin to accepting the actions of all of its predecessors - which includes hateful, violent, racist activity.
Hm, actually as I already said she was a cabinet minister, so she did advance past the MP level. And then we don't know what would have happened because the Liberals lost the following election.
More appointed positions, for one. Read into how MMP would deal with a situation where the votes for a given party are different from the number of MPs available to represent that party.
It's also an added level of bureaucracy.
Theory almost never translates into practice, especially when we're talking politics. Look at welfare.
I believe in action over policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 18, 2007 20:55:06 GMT -5
Your analogy does not apply to what I am saying. I am not speaking of acceptance of the monarchy's history,, but acceptance of the idea of monarchy itself. Although this debate really can't advance very far since we're on such different pages about the importance of symbolism.
Really? Oh, so you did... sorry, I never saw that in your post.
I'll have to research MP more, then. Are you talking about the Listed Members?
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 19, 2007 6:20:03 GMT -5
To be entirely honest I don't really see why symbolism matters. The Speaker in the house of commons is symbolic of the order in the house. The fact that MPs only address the Speaker and no one else directly is symbolic of the MPs' respect for each other.
Beyond that, if you're not talking about acceptance of a monarchy's history but of just the idea of monarchy itself, I fail to see how it's any more 'tyrannical' or 'immoral' than any other governmental system. Monarchy has been tainted by its history, not by its systematic underpinnings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 19, 2007 16:38:54 GMT -5
Yet the Speaker can and will give people the boot, although not very often.
The idea of hereditary leadership is repugnant to me, no matter what the monarch does. And that is why I detest monarchies: not because of what they do, but because of what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 19, 2007 17:23:25 GMT -5
Okay, are we talking about symbolism or practice here? You said you don't like the GG because of what she represents, now you're justifying the Speaker based on what he does.
I was under the impression that we were discussing symbolic significance.
'Monarchy' simply means one leader ('mono' + 'archos'). Heredity leadership was adopted by monarchs because they wanted their kids to have the high life like them, but that falls under what monarchy does, not what monarchy is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 19, 2007 20:01:06 GMT -5
Sorry, I got kind of sidetracked.
You're nitpicking over words. The common usage of the word 'monarchy' implies a hereditary, single power of the state, and that is what I am using for this current argument... although I looked it up and you're right- but so am I. A monarch has multiple meanings: yours and mine. Yet regardless of the technical meaning of the term, the concept remains the same: a hereditary single power. And even if it wasn't hereditary, I wouldn't like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 19, 2007 22:01:55 GMT -5
Well, what aspect of it would you dislike if it weren't hereditary?
To me, the entire thing is bulls**t. The whole 'power' thing. Nobody is entitled to forceful power, at all, whether they inherit it or it's give to them by a million people, whether it's one person or a group of people, whether it changes once in a lifetime or once every 4 years. Power intrinsically opposes equality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 20, 2007 11:50:48 GMT -5
Exactly- that's what I dislike about monarchies most, although that's also what I dislike about just about any authoritarian government like a dictatorship, an oligarchy, or a monarchy. The reason I especially dislike the concept of a monarchy (I'm speaking of the hereditary type) is because birth seems to me to be the worst possible way of choosing a leader. Even worse than military power like most dictatorships use.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 20, 2007 19:59:28 GMT -5
But you said that even if power wasn't hereditary, you still wouldn't like monarchy. What aspect of monarchy do you dislike? Obviously you dislike the hereditary aspect but since that's a point of agreement between us we can set that aside for now.
In any case, every government requires being born into a certain demographic in order to achieve governmental power. Ever heard of a poor man becoming an MP? It's actually near impossible, given how much material resource is required for campaigning. And yes, we have women and ethnic minorities in MP positions, but very few. How about a female PM (only one in history, and that wasn't because of election)? Or a non-white PM?
People shirk around this by saying that it's possible for people to elect women, ethnic minorities etc., they just chose not to. To me, that's just as bad. Injustice that is endorsed by popular opinion is still an injustice.
I fail to see the distinction between one form of forceful power and another. My question to you is, how do you distinguish them? Why is it wrong for a monarch to exercise power but not an elected leader?
|
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Oct 20, 2007 20:47:14 GMT -5
A publicly-endorsed injustice is still an injustice, I know. A monarchy is different from a democracy because in one leaders are not chosen by the people and in the other they are. Again, we are approaching from different sides: you from actual occurrences in how elected leaders are elected, and if minorities are elected much, and I from the theoretical side, with the theory of equal chances of leadership for all. yours is more applicable in practice, mine in theory. But we both agree that elected leaders have too much power, I think. Personally, i don't even like leaders much at all, elected or not. The people should be a collective leader instead of merely choosing one. However, again, this works better in theory than in practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Oct 20, 2007 21:02:53 GMT -5
I think it works amazingly well in practice, far more than any government ever could. www.thesimpleway.org/index.htmlI think, culturally/societally, we've bought into the lie that government is a 'necessary evil'. I don't believe evil is necessary. |
|
